ABSTRACT FACTORS INVOLVED IN UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY FROM THE CULTURE OF POVERTY by Lawrence E. Sneden II This thesis sought to test the relationship between various independent variables and the development of atti- tudes toward social ascent. Borrowing heavily from the work of Professor F. B. Waisanen and from the work of Oscar Lewis, cognitive dissonance theory, symbolic inter- actionism, and reference group theory, it was hypothesized that a set of investment and contact factors would be significantly correlated with attitudes toward social ascent. Briefly, mass media use, evaluation of and contact with middle-class referents (in education, work, and generally), spatial mobility, and the desire for contact with middle-class referents were positively correlated with commitment to social ascent. Those highly committed to the culture of poverty—- the older female respondents--were much weaker in their commitment to social ascent. Those who were alienated from the culture of poverty were much more committed to social ascent. Lawrence E. Sneden II Television use was significantly (positively) corre- lated with belief in the value of social ascent, but not with the belief in the possibility of social ascent; non- whites in our research population tend to value social ascent more (the correlation emerged as statistically significant within the R2 Delete Procedure), than whites but whites and non-whites differ little in terms of their beliefs concerning the possibility of upward-social- mobility. Those who had many inter-group contacts outside the culture of poverty were much more committed to atti- tudes conducive to social ascent. Generally, then, most of the null hypotheses were rejected; only the hypotheses testing the relationship between other indicators of middle-class contact (knowl— edgeability; perception of the problems involved in getting ahead; and facilities) seemed to be relatively uncorrelated with attitudes toward-social ascent. One does not, apparently, have to be relatively more knowledgeable or have more facilities to be more mobility- oriented; it is probably more a matter of being somewhat free from the culture of poverty and then maintaining some sustained contact with middle-class referents. Indeed, increases in knowledgeability and the number of facilities one has may well be a consequence, not an antecedent precondition, of social mobility. FACTORS INVOLVED IN UPWARD SOCIAL MOBILITY FROM THE CULTURE OF POVERTY By Lawrence E: Sneden II A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology College of Social Science 1968 Copyright by LAWRENCE E. SNEDEN II 1968 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express a sincere note of thanks to Dr. F. B. Waisanen, my chairman, for the kind assist- ance he provided throughout the development of this thesis. Thanks also to Dr. w. A. Faunce, Dr. John Useem, Dr. Hideya Kumata, Dr. John Gullahorn, and Dr. Alfred Dietze for their suggestions, assistance, and support. A special note of thanks goes to Professor Waisanen, whose theoretical formulations, methodological expertise, and organizational skill have contributed greatly to what- ever merit this dissertation may have. His guidance and suggestions have aided me throughout my academic career. Further thanks go to my parents, Mr. and Mrs. L. E. Sneden, Sr., and friends-~Edward and Dale Taylor, Jr., Patrick Stringer, Barbara Pease, Dean Luehrs, and Louis Patronella—-and my many professors and colleagues who have aided--and chided--me along the thorny path of dis— sertation completion; it has been a long, winding road, and they helped me steer myself back on course many times. My sincere thanks to them; without them, com- pleting the dissertation would have had less meaning. Their continued faith in me was and is invaluable. ii Finally, I would like to thank the Office of Man— power Policy, Evaluation, and Research of the United States Department of Labor for the major financial sup- port that they contributed to this research effort. The School of Labor and Industrial Relations and the Depart- ment of Sociology at Michigan State University also contributed sustaining financial support near the end of the dissertation. Formally acknowledging my involve- ment with the Office of Manpower Policy, Evaluation, and Research, I do affirm the following: The material in this project was prepared under a Grant from the Office of Manpower Policy, Evalu- ation and Research, U. S. Department of Labor, under the authority of Title I of the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1962. Researchers undertaking such projects under Government sponsor- ship are encouraged to express freely their pro- fessional judgment. Therefore, points of view or Opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the Department of Labor. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM. The Problem . Outline of the Dissertation II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK. III. OUTLINE OF THE HYPOTHESES 'IV. RESEARCH DESIGN. The Research Population: General Considerations. . . . The Research Population: Income The Research Population: Age . The Research Population: Sample Site. and Size. . . . V. ANALYSIS OF DATA The Design of Analysis. Results of the Scalogram Analysis Rationale for the Use of Correlational Analyses. . General Description .of the Sample Partial and Multiple Correlation Analyses. . Analysis of the Significance of the Social Structural Factors Within the Culture of Poverty . The Significance of Sex in the Determin- ation of Attitudes Toward Social Ascent . The Influence of Marital Status in the Determination of Attitudes Toward Social Ascent . Analysis of the Cumulative Effect of the Investment Variables . iv Page ii vi xii |._J th'LUI-J 61 69 76 79 Chapter Analysis of the Effect of the Investment Variables Upon Contacts Outside the Culture of Poverty Analysis of the Effects of Inter- Systemic Contacts . The Effect of the Evaluation of and Desire for Contact with Middle- Class Referents . Other Factors Affecting Attitudes Toward Social Mobility. VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . Summary of the Findings Proposals for Further Research. BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Page 83 100 103 105 119 119 129 133 138 Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Age distribution of sample population. Distribution of educational level of the sample population Ethnic composition of the sample population . . . . . Partial and Multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable. Partial and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the closed— form opinion measure of the dependent variable. Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the closed-form opinion measure of the dependent variable Partial and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the value of social ascent). Partial and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the possibility of social ascent). Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the value of social ascent) vi Page 49 50 50 51 52 53 53 SA 55 56 Table Page 11. Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the possibility of social ascent) . . 57 12. Partial correlation of age with upward- mobility-orientation (R2 delete). . . . 58 13. Rank characteristics of variable deletion (age). . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 IA. Association between age and upward-mobility- orientation (attitudes toward social ascent) . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 15. Association between age and upward-mobility- orientation. . . . . . . . . . . 63 16. Association between age and upward—mobility- operation . . . . . . . . . . . 6A 17. Association between age and upward-mobility- orientation. . . . . . . . . . . 65 18. Partial correlation of sex with upward- mobility-orientation (R2 delete). . . . 7O 19. Rank characteristics of variable deletion (sex). . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 20. Association between sex and upward-mobility- orientation. . . . . . . . . . . 73 21. Partial correlation of marital status with upward-mobility-orientation (R2 delete) . 77 22. Rank characteristics of variable deletion (marital status) . . . . . . . . . 78 23. Partial and multiple correlation of invest- ment variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable. . . . . . . . . . . . 80 2A. Partial and multiple correlation of invest- ment variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (marital status deleted) . . . 80 vii Table 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. Partial and multiple correlation of invest— ment variables with the closed—form opinion measure of the dependent variable. Partial and multiple correlation of invest- ment variables with the closed-form opinion measure of the dependent variable (age deleted) Association between age and level. Association between sex and level. Association between marital educational level. Association between age and status Association between sex and status Association between marital educational status Association between age and spatial mobility Association between sex and spatial mobility Association between marital general spatial mobility Association between age and contact Association between sex and contact Association between marital middle-class contact. Association between age and status . . . . Association between age and viii educational educational status and educational educational status and general general status and middle—class middle-class status and yearly work length of work Page 81 81 85 85 86 86 87 87 88 88 89 89 90 9O 91 91 Table Page A1. Association between sex and yearly work status . . 92 A2. Association between sex and length of work . 92 A3. Association between marital status and yearly work status . . . . . . . . 93 AA. Association between marital status and length of work. . . . . . . . . . 93 A5. Association between age and television use . 9A A6. Association between age and mass media use . 9A A7. Association between sex and television use . 95 A8. Association between sex and mass media use . 95 A9. Association between marital status and television use. . . . . . . . . . 96 50. Association between marital status and mass media use . . . . . . . . . . . 96 ix - 5'."~z—‘r.s' g. LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1, Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and television use. 2. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and television use 3. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and middle-class contact. A. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and middle-class contact . . . . . . . . 5. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and general spatial mobility 6. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and general spatial mobility 7. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and spatial mobility-work 8. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and spatial mobility—work 9. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility—orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and mass media use. Page 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 11A 115 Figure 10. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and mass media use 11. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and educational level. 12. Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differential) and educational level. . xi Page 116 117 118 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM The Problem Although sociology has conventionally given relatively little attention to the study Of the poor,1 recent concern over the "war on poverty" and background data and theo- retical formulations from sociology have led the social sciences to greater concern for the area. While much of what is being done springs from established concern with social stratification, new methods and perspectives are increasingly being brought to bear in order to further our understanding of the problems involved in the general area. The study of stratification has become a major con- cern for the discipline of sociology, and the subject matter is a singularly valuable one, for, as Lipset and Bendix point out,2 the data involved cross-cut many other crucial concerns in the social sciences. 1Jack L. Roach, EconOmic Deprivation and Lower-Class Behavior (unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York Uni— versity at Buffalo, New York, 196A), pp. 186-188. 2Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1959), pp. ix-x. Some sociologists have held that social scientists should (for the most fruitful theoretical and research results) consider stratification systems as "givens" or as "assumed" for most sociological analyses.3 They hold that the primary concern of sociology ought to be with the "out- comes" of stratification systems. However, if we are to understand poverty and a stratification system itself, we must attend to the factors involved in its development, and not only to the ways in which the stratification system manifests itself. Certainly the "results" of the stratification system must be of real concern to sociologists and other social scientists, but another' equally valid concern is with the way in which the system maintains itself. That is, it is also important to understand how the system works, in addi- tion to understanding what results come from its continued operation. In fact, a cogent case might be made for the contention that the study of the social psychological dynamics of stratification systems is as theoretically significant as the other concerns previously mentioned. The major concern of this dissertation is, specifi- cally, with the social psychological dynamics of the cul- ture of poverty; that is, with the factors involved in the maintenance or non-maintenance of behavioral patterns 3Lipset and Bendix, 1959. among those of the lowest socioeconomic stratum in our society. An attempt will be made to identify some of the factors involved in the development (or non-development) of an "upward—mobility-orientation" among those who are at the bottom of the socioeconomic structure. Outline of the Dissertation In Chapter II there is a general discussion of the theoretical framework of this study and reference is made to relevant research. In Chapter III there is further discussion of the theoretical framework of this study and an outline and brief discussion of the hypotheses generated from the theo- retical framework. In Chapter IV there is an outline of the research design; there is also a brief summary of the methodological procedures used, the nature of the sample and sampling technique, and the instrument used. In Chapter V there is a presentation of the findings and a preliminary analysis of the results obtained. Chapter VI presents a summary and discussion of the findings and some suggestions for further research. CHAPTER II THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK Many authors have recognized the existence of social systematic organization within social class strata.l As Loomis has observed,2 social systems are constantly involved, if they have systemic integrity and cohesiveness, in the attempt to preclude change (although not all change at all time). Some changes would "destroy" some systems, and many must be seen as threatening to the integrity of other systems. . 3 and Briones and Waisanenu have suggested that Lewis this concern for boundary maintenance may be found even among social (socioeconomic) classes. There may be, for example, a "culture of poverty" to which those lowest in the stratification hierarchy "belong." Membership in this system, then, may function to shelter the members from T Y. fir. lLipset and Bendix, 1953. 2Charles P. Loomis, and Zona K. Loomis, Modern Social Theories (D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., Princeton, N. J., 1951). 3Oscar Lewis, The Children of Sanchez; Autobiography of a Mexican Family (New York: Random House, 1961). ”Guillermo Briones and F. B. Waisanen, "Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration," a paper read at the Annual Meetings of the American Sociological Association (Miami, Florida, 1966). frustrations that they would have if they were subject to the aspirations of those in other social classes. The lower-lower class is almost completely isolated from the activities of the rest of the society, whether these be formal organizations or loosely knit activities.5 Participation is (relative to other social classes) very low in even such basic aspects of community life as church attendance and voting.6 The poor, then, tend to interact with one another, insofar as they do maintain social interaction.7 In fact, the poor tend to experience a kind of extraordinary social isolation, even from those of their own class.8 Our main concern here, though, is that, insofar as they do maintain interaction patterns, it tends to be with those of their own socioeconomic stratum. 5Earl H. Koos, Families in Trouble (New York: Kings Crown Press, 19A6); Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd Mid: dletown (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1929), pp. 29-30, 272- 273, 309; Robert S. Lynd and Helen M. Lynd, Middletown in Transition (New York: Harcourt Brace, 1937), pp. 23A-235, AA2-AA3; Allison Davis, Deep South (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, l9A1), pp. 10, 1A6. 6Roland L. Warren, "Multi-Problem Families" (Paper presented at New York State Welfare Conference, 1960, Annual Meeting, New York, mimeo); August Hollingshead and Frederick Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness (New York: John Wiley, 1958), p. 117; Benjamin Schlesinger, The Multiproblem Family (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1963). 7Lewis, The Children of Sanchez and Roach, 196A. 8Roach, 196A, p. 133. There are several factors that tend to prOpagate similarity in behavior and attitudes on the part of those in the different socioeconomic strata: generally, people who have similar experiences tend to have similar beliefs about the world and behave similarly; fewer people exper- ience upward social mobility than maintain the social 9 class position of their parents, and most of the marriages in the United States are class-endogamous—-at all social levels.10 11 that have tended to There have been some studies show, moreover, that socioeconomic strata tend to cluster together geographically. For example, the early studies by the "Chicago School" showed how central sectors of large urban areas tend to be inhabited by the poor, and less central areas by the more affluent. It is clear that the poor are more likely than those less poor to be unemployed, but this fact represents another factor that tends to isolate the poor in our society. Very often it is only one's work that takes one out of his own neighborhood, and when that is eli— minated, spatial mobility and inter-class contact are r V v V, 9Bernard Berelson and Gary A. Steiner, Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc. ,196A), p. A71. 10 John Sirjamaki, The American Family in‘the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Harvard.University Press, 196A), p. 67. llBriones and Waisanen. reduced further, and the insularity of the social system of the very poor increases. Sub—cultures within the larger society may be seen as social systems, with cohesiveness of their own, much as the larger society may be seen as a social system. These sub-cultural social.systems tend to procreate them- selves: they have institutionalized patterns of acceptable conduct; they socialize and they exercise social control.12 Another factor that allows for the development and maintenance of an insulated way of life for the "culture of poverty" is the existence of a large number of very poor people concentrated in one area. If there are only a few members in a sub-culture or sub-system, they will often be "forced" to have some minimal contact with the other members of the society in order to be able to main— tain themselves in terms of food, shelter, and the like. One of the reasons that Mexican—Americans have become assimilated more slowly into the larger society in the United States than the Japanese-Americans have is that the large number of Mexican-Americans found in our society has allowed for their maintaining Mexican customs through living in relatively large, more or less self-sufficient geographical areas.13 12Leonard Broom and Philip Selznick, Sociology: A Text with Adapted Readings, 3rd ed. (New York: Harper and Row, 1963). 131bid. The social system of the poor may be seen as a social system separate, in some ways at least, from the social system of the larger society. What, then, are some of the characteristics of that system and how do those char- acteristics affect the attitudes and behavior of those within that social system? utlLl that Merton and several others Roach points 0 have tended to see the lower class(es) as "deviant sub- cultures."15 Merton has postulated what has been called the "status-frustration hypothesis," which asserts that status-frustration increases as socioeconomic class decreases; that is, those in the upper—upper class should be most satisfied with their status and those in the lower- lower class should be most dissatisfied with their status. Empirical evidence has not borne this contention out.16 In fact, status-frustration is probably highest among those of the lower-middle and upper-lower classes. Those who have experienced some upward social mobility tend to want more.17 The very poor tend to be isolated from the larger society and, having a way of life associated with being poor, they tend to not believe in the possibility luRoach, 196A, pp. 1u7—182. 15Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure, rev, ed. (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 131-160. 16Richard A. Cloward and.Lloyd E. Ohlin, Delinquency and Opportunity (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), pp. 86L90; Roach, p. 151. l7Berelson and Steiner, p. A65. of or value of upward social mobility. Many members of the lower-lower class tend to be fundamentalists, reli— giously, and devalue, therefore, the rewards of life on earth.18 At the very bottom of the stratification hierarchy in many societies, then, there exists what may be termed a "culture of poverty," a sub-culture that provides a way of life for those within it. It is not only the structural organization of the larger society that allows for the development of the individual's aspirations and achievements, but the stratum within which the individual finds himself. Indeed, commitment to the culture of poverty may well preclude upward social mobility even when opportunities exist for such movement.. Lewis has noted the tendency of those in the lowest stratum to separate themselves social psychologically from the rest of the society; he also points to the cohesiveness of the interaction patterns of those within the culture of poverty; the poor interact, in short, almost exclusively with one another.19 Briones and Waisanen have noted the tightness of the social groupings of the poor geographically. They w 18Ibid., p. 487. 19Lewis, The Children of Sanchez and FiveFamilies. 10 have also shown that residence in an area of economic marginality (in the study of question, the peripheral slums of Santiago, Chile) "is related to cultural margin- ality and attendant lower educational aspirations for children, greater pessimism regarding the possibility of achieving these aspirations, and more materialistic orientation toward the function of education.20 Their findings also supported the assertion made by Hyman and others that different social strata "gen- erate" different orientations toward education.21 The above-mentioned marginality, compounded with these class- related factors, then, serve to limit the attitudinal systems of the individuals involved, and, ultimately, "preclude" the development of behavior that would allow for an increase in the likelihood of upward social mobility. The lower classes are in general more distrustful of authority and more resigned to physical and psycho- logical suffering than the upper classes.22 The modal personality of the lower class is more limited, restricted, 2OBriones and Waisanen. 21Herbert H. Hyman, "The Value Systems of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification," in Bendix and Lipset, eds., Class, Status, and Power: A Reader in Social Stratifica— tion (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953), pp.IA26- HA2. 22Hollingshead and Redlich, 1958, pp. 172-73. 11 and authoritarian than that of the middle or upper class.23 Closely linked with economic underprivilege is psychological underprivilege: habits of submission, lit- tle access to sources of information, lack of verbal facility. These things appear to produce a lack of self- confidence which increases the unwillingness of the low- status person to participate in many phases of our pre- dominantly middle-class culture.2u Those in the lower class are also more likely than those in the middle or upper class to see "bad luck" or chance factors as playing the most important role in the determination of their life style. Lower-class people are more likely than upper-class peOple to attribute emotional disturbance or social maladjustment to "unhap— piness, tough luck, laziness, meanness, or physical ill- ness rather than to factors of psychogenic origin."25 Those in the lower-lower class tend to devalue edu— cation and other goals that require complex behavioral patterns; they tend, instead, to value those goals that are clearly and easily attainable. Personal life is organized around private codes. Behavioral patterns tend i f 23Berelson and Steiner, p. A90. 2uGcnevieve Knupfer, "Portrait of the Underdog," Public Opinion Quarterly, 11 (19A7), pp. 103-11A. 25Hollingshead and Redlich (1958), p. 175. 12 to be closely associated with impulse-release and immediate gratification rather than planning and self-discipline or self-regulation.26 Since the child's peer group generally tends to reinforce the attitudes and tendencies of the parental family, those in the lower—lower class are not likely to experience a change in referents, since most of their peers are usually of their own socioeconomic class. The adolescent clique is a crucial medium for main- taining the stratification system. The cultures of the various types of cliques specifically adapt to the activ- ities of teen-agers the general values of the class level of their parents, and thereby teach those values more effectively than the preachments of the parents.27 All of the previously—mentioned factors tend to isolate the lower—lower class person social psychologically and preclude meaningful contact with other referents that would, in all likelihood, contribute to the disruption of the stability of the way of life among the very poor. Commitment "by default" to "non—mobility—oriented" values could play a part in the development of this pattern. The poor may have learned that success is dif- ficult and they are suspicious of it. They distrust 26Roach (196A), p. 132. 27Joseph A. Kahl, The American Class Structure (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957), p. 135. 13 those who hold power and "disown" the importance of power and success. In order for the members of the culture of poverty to maintain a sufficient level of self-esteem, "success" is eventually devalued; and the "substitute" values become institutionalized and are passed on from one generation to the next. Further, the maintenance of this value system is supported by the social organization of the culture of poverty. Occupants of some positions within the culture of poverty are more "free" to adopt change than others, however. In these cases, contact is more often made with the larger society. This study is concerned with the influence of these factors on social mobility. It appears, then, that in the lowest social classes have a view of the world and a way of life that puts emphasis upon factors different from other social classes, particularly different in regard to factors which are related to social ascent. Occupational mobility and prestige are less important objects in this social world. Members of these lowest strata have lower educational and occupational expectations for their children. They do not emphasize the value of education as do the members 28 of other social classes. _‘ 28 Hyman, in Lipset and Bendix, o . cit. 1A 29 Much has been made of the concept of "life chances" in the analysis of the etiology, maintenance, and implica— tions of poverty conditions. While it is clear that the structuring of opportunities and the limiting of resources and facilities available to the poor is a factor in their inability to achieve mobility, it may not have the impor- tance that some attribute to it. The outcomes of these limiting factors--suspicion concerning authority, lack of belief in the possibility of the attainment of success, distrust of formal authority and other social classes, and the like-—are undoubtedly debilitating, as those advocates of the "life chances" perspective point out. But this perspective does not attend to the possibility that within the culture of poverty may be world views which are "functional" i.e., in fit with a normative struc- ture which is not based upon, or directed toward, social ascent. Assuming that those in the culture of poverty live by its norms and are committed to its goals, how can rele- vant research within this perspective be organized? Roach suggests that the Mertonian."status frustration" hypothesis is probably incorrect, and he reorganizes the conceptual— ization lINX) an end product which tends to show that those in the lower-lower class are less frustrated than Merton 29Hollingshead and Redlich (1958). 15 assumes. According to Roach, the way of life of the lower- lower class individual insulates him well.30 Not all individuals remain in the culture of poverty ” throughout their lives, though; some do achieve upward social mobility. We are concerned, specifically, with the extent of influence that various social structural factors and various contact factors have in the attainment or non-attainment of attitudes that are important to the attainment of upward social mobility by those in the cul- ture of poverty. The analysis of poverty, if it is to go beyond this level of description, must gain some sort of dynamic explanation of the phenomena associated with poverty. Involved in any such understanding must be an analysis of how the self structures of those involved are maintained. If we are to understand why some indi- viduals develop attitudes that allow for social ascent and others do not, we must uncover those antecedent conditions that are requisite to the development of the various attitudinal configurations involved. Certain sorts of beliefs must be maintained by those within the various strata or they will not maintain their positions within those strata. More specifically, those in the lower classes must feel that mobility is possible, if they are ever to be mobile. If alternative life modes are not perceived, or routes of access to perceived 30Roach (196A). 1 16 alternatives are not known, the consequence would have to be apathy and acceptance of one's state. Upward social mobility has at its base and at a social psychological level a set of attitudes that will direct behavior out of one social system and into another. For one in the culture of poverty, this involves change in referents, and the process of changing one's referents does not appear to be unilinearly related to contacts with representatives of higher social strata. For example, Waisanen and Briones have shown that contact with middle- class referents (considering formal education as an indi- cator of contact) has little effect until a certain threshold is reached; then the change is striking.31 The commitment is shifted from one system to another. One can be concerned, then, with the question of how the reference world of the person shifts from one group to another. One may, of course, study the attitudinal conse- quences of social mobility; but perhaps more relevant theoretically is a concern with the way in which attitudes change to allow for that mobility. Much has been done concerning the former; little has been made clear about the latter. Shibutani has noted that the concept of reference group can be of crucial importance. For example, all forms of 31 Briones and Waisanen. 17 social mobility, from sudden conversions to grad— ual assimilation, may be regarded essentially as displacements of reference groups, for they involve a loss of responsiveness to the demands of one social world and the adoption of the perspective of another.32 He notes that this change in referent may come about in stages and for a variety of reasons and that the unravelling of the nature of this general process has special impor- tance in the study of social change. The primary concern of this study is with how this change of referents comes about-—how the previously men- tioned contact factors and other social structural factors allow for the development of or preclude this change of referents. In order for one to change referents, there must exist another referent (or set of referents) to which one might move. If a member of the culture of poverty is to gain an "upward-mobility-orientation," then, a referent other than those in the culture of poverty must exist for him. The new referents (to function as refer- ents) must be perceived as attractive, relevant, and t33 importan in order to produce dissociation from the cul- ture of poverty and to develop aspirations toward membership 32Tomatsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspec- tives," American Journal of Sociology, vol. LX (May, 1955), p- 559- 33Theodore Newcomb, R. R. Turner and P. E. Converse, Social Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 19657. 18 in the social system of the referent. In other words, the attractiveness of the new referents may be related to alienation (or social psychological dissociation) from the social system (or systems) within which mobility— related factors are not salient. Some studies have clearly shown that those who main- tain "culture of poverty" referents are unlikely to be- come oriented toward social ascent. Those who are delin- quent gang members, for example, are more likely to evaluate socially—disreputable social types (i.e., dis- reputable in terms of the larger society) like prosti- tutes and pimps higher than policemen and others of "higher social" positions.3u Those who are upwardly—mobile identify with those 35 of the level to which they are aspiring and reject the referents found in their class or origin. Cohen has pointed out that even coercive controls of behavior sometimes result ultimately in attitude change. Greater activity in behalf of something one dis- likes should create greater dissonance. In effect, the more effort put into taking a dis- crepant position--the more ingenious the argu— ments giving in its favor, the longer one engaged in it--then the greater the dissonance when it is inconsistent with one's attitudes, and conse- queggly the greater attitude change toward favoring it. 3”Robert A. Gordon, James F: Short, Jr., Desmond S Cartwright, "Values and Gang Delinquency. A Study of Street Corner Groups, "~American Journal of Sociology, vol. LXIX (September, 1963), pp. 109 128. . 36 35Berelson and Steiner, p. A87. Cohen, p. 97. 19 That is, even activities that one must engage in and that one may evaluate negatively may effect attitudinal change eventually. Formal education, particularly at elementary school levels, is a classical instance of a coercive base to attitude change. The six-year old does not "volunteer" to begin the process. Children from the culture of poverty who go to school (by whatever coercive factors may be involved) might eventually be affected by the results of forced attendance. Similarly, those who are involved for long periods of time in work situations outside the culture of poverty might be similarly (but perhaps less) affected. These assumptions lead to the following thesis: The more discrepant the value orientations in interactions between members of conflicting social systems and the longer the maintenance of the interaction, the greater the likeli- hood of adoption of a new referent by one or the other in the interaction situation. The more insulated one is, the less likely he is to gain potentially threatening referents (in terms of the culture of poverty value system). The less complete and cohesive a culture of poverty pocket is in terms of being readily able to fulfill all the institutional prerequisites for social organization-—economic, religious, etc.--of its inhabitants, the more likely will be prolonged contact with other potential referents. 20 For example, the less a person's school represents a culture of poverty or "ghetto" school, the greater will be the number of contacts that might eventually serve as referents or might serve in the development of new referents. The greater the number of significant referents main- tained over time in a social system (or systems) that are predominantly other than lower-lower class, the greater the likelihood of a change in referents for the member of the culture of poverty. The less full the boundary main— tenance of the culture of poverty sub-system, the less likely it is that it will maintain its hold on its members, and the more likely that individuals will acquire referents in other social systems. Those whose parents were status discrepant may be more likely to change referents, for example; this would be an example of incomplete boundary maintenance in that these parents would not be completely meshed within the general social system of the culture of poverty. In fact, those who generally experience attitudinal dissonance will be more likely to experience this change. There are social positions within any social system that will tend to allow for more "freedom" from commitment to the values of that system; this holds for the culture of poverty. Those in certain social positions in the cul- ture of poverty are more likely to perceive the possibility of changing their life styles than others, to evaluate 21 these possibilities positively, and to manage consequen- tial social mobility. Males, for example, are more likely to be somewhat less committed to culture of poverty values because theirs is, as is the case in all strata more or less, a position more concerned with action in the market place and with the search for gainful employment and as such is less "bounded" by the system; the male's behavioral horizons 37 are broader. The woman's role, on the other hand, is generally more concerned with the family; she is likely, for example, to marry someone from her own stratum and thus further restrict her symbolic world. Commitment to the culture would likely be fostered through longer par- ticipation within the stratum, so younger individuals are more likely to be open to attitude changes.38 Those who are married are more deeply in intrasystemic processes and are therefore less likely to perceive new behavior patterns as viable.39 Given these structural conditions, then, we would expect young single males to be most likely to attempt to gain (or fortuitously gain) contacts outside the cul- ture of poverty. Similarly, older married women would 37F. B. Waisanen, "Control Variables or Indicators: Some Preliminary Comments," (unpublished working paper, mimeo, Michigan State University, February, 1966). 38Waisanen (1966). 39Waisanen (1966). 22 be most likely to become enmeshed "permanently" within the culture of poverty. They are, in Waisanen's terms, likely to succumb (because of their social positioning) to normative "entrapment.”O The previously mentioned factors, then--age, sex, and marital statuS--are complemented by the "social con— tacts" that the members of the culture of poverty may have with the larger society. Given that some members have somewhat "freer" positions, the more significant sustained social contacts one has, the greater the likeli- hood of the development of "upward-mobility-oriented" attitudes. Such "significant" contacts as school atten- dance, job experience, and contact with mass media will be considered in this study}41 AS has been indicated, one who participates in a Social system that espouses a way of life contrary to that in which he was originally socialized and in which he has continuing contacts which remain important must eventually change himself, the system or his relatedness to one of the systems. He may either leave his home or school, for example, if these two systems are perceived as being at odds with one another. Given that the cul- ture of poverty values may be effective through "default," prolonged contact with the larger society by individuals A0 A1 Waisanen (1966). Waisanen (1966). 23 "relatively free" from a necessarily firm commitment to culture of poverty values will be more likely to develop attitudes requisite for the attainment of upward social mobility. Our summary hypothesis is, then, that those in the culture of poverty who are young single males and who have prolonged Significant contact with agents of the larger system (whose value systems are perceived as being dis— crepant with that of the culture of poverty) are most likely to develop "upward-mobility—oriented" attitudes. CHAPTER III OUTLINE OF THE HYPOTHESES In this chapter, some of the major hypotheses that can be generated from the theoretical framework of this dissertation will be outlined. Preceding these hypotheses will be a summation of the theoretical considerations found in Chapter II and a discussion of the theoretical frame— work that is specific to this dissertation. That is, a summary rationale for asserting the hypotheses will be given. Time and energy input by individuals are central to social system maintenance. The larger the stake in a system, in terms of time and energy, the less likely it is that a person will experience departure from the system. The longer one is in a system and the more effort one puts into maintaining behavioral patterns within the system, the less likely it is that one will want to leave that system. Participation in a social system involves invest- ment of oneself in that system; the greater the partici- pation (in terms of time and energy), other things equal, the greater the investment. The greater the investment on the part of an individual, then, the greater the 2A 25 likelihood of the maintenance of the patterns already established within the system.1 Further, the more one contributes to a social system, other things equal, the less likely it is that that system will reject the individual from the system. In addition, the longer one is active within a social system, the greater is his acquisition of skills required for the maintenance of the system. The older the person, then, the greater his invest- ment (in terms of time and enerEY) into the social con- texts of his life and the less "free" he is to adopt new behavioral patterns. In summary, the person who has invested more in terms of time and Skill-acquisition is less likely to be able to develop an "upward-mobility— orientation" because that orientation runs counter to those patterns he has learned in the process of main- taining himself within the culture of poverty.2 Therefore, Hypothesis I. The younger a respondent is, other things equal, the higher will be the likelihood of his having an "upward-mobility- orientation." Role behavior is differentially limited. The behavioral boundaries are generally broader for males than for females, for example. As was suggested in the last chapter, males generally maintain a position more lWaisanen (1966). 2Waisanen (1966). 26 concerned with action in the market place and with the search for gainful employment. Role circumscription, then, tends to limit the participation of individuals within a society. Men are generally more involved with systemic linkage with social systems other than the family than women are.3 Women, on the other hand, generally see them- selves as "family-anchored" and tend to evaluate them- selves in terms of their competence as wives and mothers. Since most marriages are class-endogamous and the status of one's family of procreation is in large measure a function of the status of the husband—father of that family, women of the lower-lower socioeconomic class generally find themselves tied to their family of orien- tation initially (waiting for marriage) and family of procreation finally (after marriage).)4 This differential structuring of the parameters of socially acceptable con- duct according to sexual roles allows for the following proposition. Hypotheses II. Males will be more likely than females, other things equal, to have an "upward- mobility-orientation." "AS involvement of a person in sub-systems of any larger system increases, the tendency for the person to be social psychologically "locked" in the larger system increases. While marital status is one of the more apparent indicators of this variable, membership in formal and informal 3Waisanen (1966). “Sirjamaki (196A). 27 organization, friendship cliques, size of family and its genealogical extension might be others."5 Habituation to a way of life comes with marriage, and the satisfactions of marriage and family tend, espe- cially in some socioeconomic contexts, to dull the desire to attain success or to mute the pain of not having gained success; furtherfore, the longer one maintains a way of life or a set of behavioral patterns, the more difficult it will be to relinquish them. Becoming married and establishing a family for oneself and one's spouse involves taking on more responsibilities; one is less able to maintain the freedom to try alternative ways of behaving. One also becomes more socially anchored to the circum- stances in which one finds oneself. One has "deeper roots."6 It follows that Hypothesis III. Those that are unmarried will be more likely to have an "upward—mobility- orientation" than those that are mar- ried, other things equal. It is assumed that the independent variables men- tioned in the first three hypotheses will not have merely an additive effect, but that they will "interact" with one another; that is, having one sort of freedom means that, if one has another sort of freedom, that other freedom will be enhanced by having the first, and vice 5Waisanen (1966). 6 James S. Coleman, The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and its Impact on Education (Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1961), pp. 238—239. 28 versa. The assumption here is that none of the factors mentioned represents a sufficient cause for developing a really strong "upward-mobility-orientation," but that each plays a part. Hypothesis IV. There will be a cumulative effect involved in the variables mentioned in the previous three hypotheses: the more "freedom" in the positions in one's life trajectory, the greater the likelihood of developing "an upward—mobility-orientation," other things equal. (E.g., those who are young and single, with sex held constant, are more likely to develop an "upward- mobility-orientation" than those just young or just single). Those who are alienated or dissociated from a social system are more likely to maintain contacts with alternative systems than those who are not alienated. The greater the sub-systemic involvement in a social system, the less the likelihood of the maintenance of contacts with alternative systems. With respect to the specific focus of this dissertation, Hypothesis V. Those within "free" positions will be more likely to maintain "outside" contacts (con- tacts outside the culture of poverty). The greater the number of alternative behavioral prescriptions, the greater the likelihood of changing behavioral patterns, other things equal; that is, those among the culture of poverty who experience the most interaction outside the culture of poverty will be those who will be most likely to have an "upward—mobility- orientation." In order to change one's reference group, 29 one must have a new referent to which one feels one can move with impugnity and gratification. Sub-hypotheses, then, are: Hypothesis Va. The more free the position, the greater the level of education, other things equal. Hypothesis Vb. The more free the position, the greater the spatial mobility, other things equal. Hypothesis Vc. The more free the position, the greater the interpenetration with other social classes, other things equal. Hypothesis Vd. The more free the position, the more extensive will be the work experience, other things equal. Hypothesis Ve. The more free the position, the greater the mass media use, other things equal. All these sub-hypotheses are Specific instances of the general case that is outlined in Hypothesis V. In the case of television usage, in particular, there may be a curvilinear relationship between television usage and the development or non-development of an "upward- mobility-orientation." For example, some research has shown that the child most likely to become a "television addict" is generally the child of lower intelligence, the child with some emotional insecurity, or the child who is socially isolated.7 7Hilde Himmelweit, A. N. Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince, "Television and the Child," in Reader in Public Opinion and Communication, Bernard Berelson and Morris Janowitz, eds. (2nd edition; Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1966), pp. A18—AA5. 30 In general, contact with other systems may take two forms: (1) physical out-movement of an individual from a system (the culture of poverty, for example) to contact with other systems (as in work experience or general spa- tial mobility) or the movement of members of alternative systems into one's own system (middle-class individuals interpenetrating the culture of poverty, for example); (2) "psychic mobility," as in mass media use. One must perceive that there is some group support to be had in the movement to a new referent if one is to move to that referent. Recognition of the existence of that support implies, obviously, contact with the new referent. "Contact with other referents differentiates the class of variables which enable (although not necessarily force) dissociation from one system and identification with another. Two apparent indicators of these variables are education and mobility.9 Education, for example, is an indicator of the con- ceptual and behavioral skills that increase the likelihood of interaction with middle—class referents and will increase the likelihood that these members (and the normative structure of that system) will be perceived as important, attractive, and relevant. Thus education 8Waisanen (1966). 9Waisanen (1966), p. A. 31 may be seen as a "preparation" variable that facilitates the process of mobility.10 Work experience, mass media use, general spatial mobility, and contact with the middle-class also represent factors that will allow for involvement in systems other than the culture of poverty. Given some contact, then, the greater the investment in A-System patterns, the greater the likelihood of developing an "upward-mobility- orientation." Hypothesis VI. The greater the number of inter-systemic contacts sustained, the greater the like- lihood of having an "upward—mobility- orientation." One must perceive a referent as important, attractive, and relevant if one is going to "move toward" that referent. If one evaluates a reference group positively, one is also likely to evaluate the goals of that group highly, and vice versa. One who experiences or anticipates upward social mobility tends to identify with the social class toward which he is moving.ll Hypothesis VII. The higher the evaluation of middle— class referents by a member of that cul- ture of poverty, the greater the likeli- hood of having an "upward-mobility- orientation." Those who experience cross-pressures are more likely, other things equal, to experience attitudinal change than 10Waisanen (1966). llWaisanen (1966). 32 those who do not experience cross—pressures. Cognitive dissonance is disruptive.l2 An individual must have some minimal consistency among his attitudes in order to be able to foster a coherent plan of action. Cross-pressures bring confusion and, normally, lead to efforts to resolve 13 If one has referents that are odds with that confusion. one another, one is likely to attempt some reorganization of one's referents. In the case of those in the culture of poverty, the referents that are likely to begin this cross-pressure pattern are middle-class referents. Con— tact with middle-class referents could be a significant factor, therefore, in the development of an "upward— mobility-orientation." Also, those who have a great deal of contact with middle-class referents are likely to be those who are experiencing some sort of anticipatory socialization preparatory to their actually achieving social ascent.lu Hypothesis VIII. The greater the number of contacts with middle-class referents, the greater the likelihood of having an "upward-mobility— orientation," other things equal. l2Leon Festinger, A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (New York: Harper and Row, 1957). 130. I. Hovland and M. Sherif, Social Judgment (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961). l”Berelson and Steiner (196A), pp. A60-A72. 33 Those who desire more contact with middle—class referents are those who have resolved the cross-pressures and are actually anticipating contact with their "new" referents; movement toward these new referents is likely to be associated with an attitudinal configuration that is positively oriented toward social ascent. Those who experience high levels of contact with both middle-class referents and culture of poverty refer- ents will probably be less likely to develop an "upward- mobility-orientation" than those who experience high con- tact with only the middle-class referents because these individuals will probably still be, at least in part, in the midst of the cross-class pressures. This qualifica— tion will probably hold even more strongly for those who desire high contact with both classes. Hypothesis IX. Those who express a desire for increased contact with middle-class referents are more likely than those who do not express this desire to have an "upward-mobility- orientation," other things equal. Knowledgeability is seen as an empirical indicator of involvement outside the culture of poverty. It presupposes contact and participation and some self-investment within the system. As such, it should be positively associated with an "upward-mobility-orientation." Hypothesis X. The higher a respondent's knowledgeability, other things equal, the higher the likeli- hood of his having an "upward-mobility- orientation." 3A In order to be able to gain new referents, one must have the possibility of having contact with them. The pos- session of an automobile, a telephone, a television set, a radio, and other items allows for some contacts with middle-class referents that would otherwise not be possible, increasing the likelihood of the development of attitudes favorable toward social ascent. Therefore, Hypothesis XI. The greater the number of facilities allow, ing for social contact with referents out— side the culture of poverty, the greater the likelihood of having an "upward- mobility—orientation." Those who do not perceive the possibility of personally achieving much in this life are not likely to be oriented toward social ascent; those who see life as outside their control are not likely to believe that success is possible for them. Those who answer "don's know" are probably those who have forgotten the issue, no longer understand it, or no longer care about it; they too are without the motivation requisite to the attainment of upward social mobility. Hypothesis XII. Those who perceive the difficulties involved in getting ahead in terms of the individual coping with soluble problems will be more likely to have an "upward— mobility-orientation" than those who perceive these difficulties in terms of matters outside their control (luck, regu- lations, "having pull," etc.) and both will be more likely to have "upward- mobility—orientations" than those who Show no evidence of perceptual structuring with respect to coping with problems of getting ahead. CHAPTER IV RESEARCH DESIGN The Research Population: General Considerations One of the first methodological issues any researcher must face is the problem of defining and obtaining a sample representative of the population about which he is attempting to generalize--in the present case, youth from poverty enclaves. tures of in their they are in their One characteristic that members of various cul- poverty clearly have in common is their position respective stratification hierarchies; that is, simply at the bottom of the social class systems respective societies. There are many criteria classically used to deter- mine the socioeconomic class of an individual; among those most commonly used have been OOCDNQU‘IJ‘: LUMP-J }__1 12. authority power (political, economic, military) ownership of property, relation to means of pro- duction, control over land (the feudal estates) income—-amount, type, and source consumption patterns and style of life occupation or skill, and achievement in it education, learning, wisdom divinity, "control" over the supernatural altruism, public service, morality place in "high society," kinship connections, ancestry (i.e., inherited position) associational ties and connections ethnic status, religion, race1 1 Berelson and Steiner, p. A5A. 35 36 One of the most important measures of status or social class in the United States is income.2 It is difficult to determine just one characteristic or set of character- istics that are in fact the determinants of socioeconomic class or status; in fact, there.are no a priori rules for determining social class or status. Indeed, some socio- logists contend that there is no clear logical or empirical means to descern the social class of an individual or set of individuals. For example, Berelson and Steiner assert: With few exceptions, American researchers have been reluctant to accept a priori and have been unable to discover empirically the reality of class in the sense of fully developed, sharply defined strata comprised of individuals who are aware of their positions and are capable of cor- porate action.3 The Research Population: Income One way to discern which individuals should be included among the poor (poor relative to the remainder of the individuals within the social system) is to descern which level of income would include only those who are (relatively) at the bottom of the "income ladder" of the society. 2Lloyd W. Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Status System Of a Modern Community, Yankee City Series, Vol. II (Yale Unifiersity Press, 19A2. 3Leonard Broom, "Social Differentiation and Strati— fication," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., eds. of Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects (New York: Basic Books, 1959), pp. A29-AA1. 37 This can be done, of course, by calling anyone with less than the median or mean income of the society "poor," but poverty usually implies that someone has rather less than the income level that is conventionally considered sufficient to allow one to live above more or less subsis— tence levels. That is, poverty levels are determined not only in terms of who fits where, relatively, but in terms of how much income is needed to live about the minimal subsistence level of a particular society.Ll So any measure of poverty based on these two criteria must have some connection to the cost of living in the so- ciety in question and the number of family members in the family in question. Obviously $5,000.00 per year will not be "poverty" if there are only two family members; it will be, clearly, if there are fifteen family members. Based upon a scale used by the Social Security 5 Administration, the following income levels were accepted as indicative of poverty by this study. “Mollie Orshansky, "Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile," in Poverty In America, ed. by Louis A. Ferman, Joyce L. Kornbluh, and Alan Haber, (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1966), pp. A2-86. 5Orshansky, p. 52. Number of Family Members (DNQU'I kWMH Male $1,970 2,7A0 3,170 A,010 A,680 5,255 6,A05 7,200 $1,820 2.570 3.070 3,920 14.595 5,1uo 6.270 7,000 Head of Household (Non-farm area) Female (Female is head of household only if no adult male is living there). Concerning the day-to-day effects of the financial limits set forth in the table given here, it may be said that, on the average, such income levels are likely to provide less than A0 cents per day per person per meal for food. The Research Population: Age Another factor that must be considered in determining the criteria used in the selection of the sample is the age range. This is not always a crucial issue, perhaps, but it is a significant one for the present study: in dealing with changes in reference groups and factors involved in increasing the likelihood of making this sort of change, one must, to make the matter researchable, have subjects within the age range likely to experience this sort of change. What age fits this criterion? too young and not too old." The answer is "Not The sample must not include 39 those who are really too young to have any coherent set of attitudes toward social ascent, and it should not include an overabundance of those who have already reached the age where their "final" status has been achieved. If we are to study those who may be under—going attitudinal change, we must gain a sample that has an age range in which we can reasonably expect to find such change. Since age is one of our theoretically-relevant variables, and since we are concerned with its effect upon attitudes toward social ascent, a wide enough range to allow measure- ment must be utilized. An age range of 17 to 29 years appeared to fit theoretical and empirical needs and was, therefore, adopted. The Research Population: Sample Site and Size Since we are dealing with a relatively large number of variables and have need to test some hypotheses involving cumulative effects of variables, the relatively complex techniques of multivariate analysis (such as multiple correlation) necessitate a rather large sample. Lansing, Michigan was the site chosen for this project. This area has relatively few non—whites,6 and has had less cyclical fluctuation in employment—under- employment than other Michigan cities of comparable Size. 6Since the theoretical framework of this study may hold for all ethnic groups in a social system if it is open to some degree, all the ethnic groups in the Lansing area were considered "acceptable" respondents in this study. A0 The relatively large number of respondents needed for our analysis, as well as other limitations in terms of time and money, precluded in-depth interviewing. It was felt, in addition, that.the sort of information needed for the study was generally of the sort that might be gained through ordinary interview procedures. Self- administered questionnaires were considered less useful because of the likelihood of introducing bias through "selective response." Further, if the number who did not return questionnaires had been very high, it might have been impossible to gain the number requisite for our analysis. It was hoped at first that some sort of random selection of respondents from two or three census tracts might give us the number of respondents desired. Random selection in one of the poorer census tracts was tried, initially, but not enough respondents meeting our criteria of income and age were gained through this method. It became clear, therefore, that a complete census of several census tracts would be necessary. Eventually, a complete census of the following tracts was made: L-2, L-ll, L-l2, L—15, L—l8, L-l9, and L-20. In addition, portions of the following tracts that were contiguous to the tracts com- pleted done were canvassed: .L-l, L-A, L-5, L-6, L-8, L-10, L—l6, L—2l, L—2A, L—29, and L-30. All in all, initial interviews were done in about 8,000 homes. A1 Although the procedure used to gain respondents was somewhat cumbersome, it had important advantages. An interviewer administered an initial interview schedule (Schedule No. l) which "screened" the household in terms of its fitting or not fitting the two criteria that qualify or disqualify an individual as a potential respondent (age and income). If the family in question was of the wrong income level or had no family members within the acceptable age range, then the.interviewer moved on to another screening interview. .If, however, the total family income was within the poverty range and the family had members within the acceptable age range, then the interviewer attempted to administer at that time (or a later time) the main questionnaire (Schedule No. 2). We considered but rejected alternatives to this procedure. Welfare rolls do not always indicate who the poor are in a community; they (welfare rolls) are selective. Charitable institutions are reluctant to give out information on those to whom they make gifts, and they too are selective-in.their dealing with the poor. The best way.to "get.at" the entire poor stratum of a community, then,.under.many circumstances is to attempt some sort of sampling out of the entire area deemed to predominantly.contain the poor of the community. Those tracts utilized were those which had very low median incomes. The reason that a complete census of so many A2 tracts was necessary was the relative scarcity of those who fit both our criteria. The structuring of the interview schedule itself was begun in the fall of 1966 and finished in February of 1967. Since there were no well-established means of measuring several of the variables with which the study dealt, part of the work of preparing the interview schedule consisted in constructing.preliminary scales. Using a modified semantic differential design, we constructed a series of closedeformzopinion questions:designed to measure belief in the possibility and value of social ascent. Several sub-scales.dealing with educational, occupational, familial,gand.other aspects of these factors were constructed as components of the final scale. In the pre-test stage,.some low socioeconomic areas of East Lansing were used in order to be able to test our various questions, scales, and techniques. Through the use of this pre-test, many.questions were eliminated as ambiguous or otherwise lacking the clarity, specificity, or meaning required. It became apparent during this pre- test stage that many questions with high "face validity" were useless because they were not in fit with vocabularies of the sample and.that the "ladder technique" in using the semantic differential.foremat was superior to other operational possibilities. The author and two other trained interviewers gathered the pre—test data. After the pre-test stage, we put ’43 together a list of prospective interviewers. From this candidate group, interviewers were chosen who fit the following criteria: 1) at least at the junior class level (optimum: seniors or graduate students), 2) those in good academic standing or otherwise clearly intellec- tually competent (those who were "temporarily on academic probation" were automatically eliminated), 3) those who had their own transportation.or definite access to trans- portation on a regular basis, A) had some previous exper- ience in some general social science areas, 5) showed evidence of general responsibility, stability, and con- sistency. The last qualification is one of the most important, but the most difficult to ascertain. While the flagrant misfit is easily enough identified, other problem types become evident only in the field; close field—checking, particularly during the early stages of data collection, is therefore essential. All interviewers went through at least a three day training and orientation period and had to complete at least two practice interviews outside the sample area before beginning work on actual assignments. Interviewing began in early March and was finished in late August. Interviewers were given assignments by the project director, and field-checks of their validity and accuracy were periodically made; assignments were given in terms of streets, street sections, or sets of AA streets. When interviewers finished their assignments, they returned their finished.work and got new assignments. Two "call—backs" were required on those "not at home" or in instances where there were."acceptable" respondents who were not immediately available. Following the completion of the data collection, the data were coded and punched into IBM cards in late August. Statistical analyses were effected through the use of Michigan State University's computer facilities. For a list of all the variables used in the study and a reference to the items used to operationalize the variables, see Appendix I; for an indication of the coding (and recoding) procedures used, see Appendix II. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF DATA The Design of Analysis Our aim in this study is to gain some preliminary indication of the relative and total Significance of various independent variables in the determination of attitudes toward social ascent, the dependent variable. The statistical techniques to be used are chi square (X2) and partial (r) and multiple (R) correlation. Several of the variables of the present study were tapped by more than one item in the questionnaire (see Appendix I), and the final score with respect to any one variable (for any particular respondent) often represents a summation of the scores on several items or sub-scales. Although many sub-scales are analytically separable from one another, they frequently constitute measures of the same variable. So the sub-scales have been combined, but not without first attending to the matter of the correlations of the sub-scales with one another and themselves (correlat— ing the items of the sub-scale with one another). Since the inter—item cOrrelations (both intra-scale and inter- scale) and the correlation of item score with total scale score were generally quite high, it was felt that the use of summated ratings was justifiable (see Appendix III). A5 A6 It was not known, initially, whether or not the scales or sub—scales in question would fit the criteria for Guttman scaling. Since decisions concerning the deter- mination of the presence or absence of this type of scale through the use of the computer requires some knowledge of the character of the scale previous to the computer analysis (or, at least, assumptions as to those character- istics), the use of Guttman scaling procedures was not effected. Results of the Scalogram Analysis One of the ways in which we can get some indication of the validity of a measure is to determine the degree to which items that make up the measure constitute a Guttman scale. Using a notation technique for scalogram analysis,1 it was found that two sets of items used as parts of the meaSures of the dependent variable fit the criteria for a Guttman scale. For a persual of the results of the scalogram analy- is, see Appendix IV. Rationale for the Use of Correlational Analyses We have been concerned in this project with the rela- tive and total effect of the various independent variables 1F. B. Waisanen, "A Notation Technique for Scalogram Analysis," Sociological Quarterly, vol. 1, no. A, pp. 2A5— 252. “7 upon the dependent variable. Partial correlation allows us to look at the effect of one variable, while simultaneously controlling for the effect of all the others; thus, the technique clearly suits one of our aims. Multiple correla- tion allows us to discern the total amount of variation that a number of variables accounts for: thus, we have some indication of the total effect (the total amount of variation on the dependent variable) accounted for by the various independent variables. The use of parametric statistics necessitates the fulfillment of some conditions--among others, that the variables in question be normally distributed and that the relationship between the variables be linear. The graphs at the end of this chapter indicate that the latter condi- tion is satisfied. The use of unequal interval scales such as might be produced by the use of Lickert procedures increases the likelihood, of course, of our not obtaining normal distri- butions for the various variables. Lickert procedures were used in this study in only one instance, the closed- form Opinion measure of the dependent variable. Although some of the independent variables in this work have only two values (sex and work status, for example), this will just tend to limit the extent to which those independent variables might be correlated with the dependent variable. Among those variables with a Signifi- cant range of values, relatively normal distributions A8 were obtained. It should be noted that since the two facets of attitudes toward social ascent (belief in the possibi- lity of social ascent and belief in the value of social ascent) have been Shown to be of importance to the theoretical framework of this study, they have been treated, in the case of the correlational analyses, both together and separately. The presentation of some results of graphic analy- sis will also be given. In order to facilitate easy com- prehension of the analyses, the primary results of the correlation analyses will be given in tptp before dealing with the results germaine to each Specific hypothesis. It is hoped, in addition, that this procedure will enable the reader to get some early indication of the relative significance of the variables involved in this study. The level of significance for both the chi square and the partial correlation analyses will be set at < .05. General Description of the Sample One of the 398 reSpondents gleaned, 1A3 were male and 255 female; 177 were married and the remainder, 221, were unmarried. Of the 221 unmarried, 180 had never been mar- ried, 20 were divorced, 20 separated from their spouses, and l respondent was widowed. At the time of the survey, 125 of the respondents were gainfully employed; another 122 responsdents had had a job within the previous year. A9 Tables 1 and 2 Show the distribution of the sample population in terms of age and educational level, respectively. TABLE 1.—-Age distribution of sample population. Years of Age Number of Respondents 17 63 18 62 19 A1 20 39 21 21 22 2A 23 27 2A 26 25 21 26 18 27 19 28 23 29 1A N = 398 50 TABLE 2.--Distribution of educational level of the sample population. Last Ggggglinegchool Number of ReSpondents O2 1 03 0 0A 1 05 O 06 3 O7 7 08 18 09 Al 10 56 ll 99 12 26 13 (high school diploma) 110 1A (1st year of college) 10 15 8 16 6 17 6 18 (college degree) 6 N = 398 Table 3 deals with the ethnic composition of the sample pOpulation. TABLE 3.—-Ethnic composition of the sample population. Ethnic Group Number of Respondents Non-Ethnic Minority: (Anglo, "white") 269 Ethnic Minority: Negro (Afro—American) 78 Ethnic Minority: Mexican-American A9 Ethnic Minority: Puerto Rican-American 2 N = 398 51 TABLE A.--Partia1 and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable. Partial Correlation Vr*"b , ' ' 111d 10 Coefficient Significance Desire for contact with middle-class referents 0.19350 0.0005 Desire for contact with lower—class secondary referents —0.17569 0.001 General spatial mobility 0.1A1A8 0.007 Sex -0.1A065 0.007 Neighborhood visits -0.l3880 0.008 Evaluation of middle—class referents 0.13A51 0.010 Contact with middle-class referents 0.1jA38 0.010 Age —0.095A6 0.065 Ethnic status of respondent 0.03290 0.073 Average working hours per week 0.08932 0.085 Mass media use 0.0775A 0.136 Television use 0.076A2 0.1Al Distance of non-familial primary referents from respondents within city 0.0605A 0.2A8 Educational level 0.05393 0.396 Location of non-familial primary referents (inside or outside city) 0.05 26 0.312 Yearly work status 0.05282 (.316 Job promotion efforts 0.05278 0.317 Length of work -0 0A968 0.3A7 Travel—work —0.0A902 0.35 Desire for contact with lower—class primary referents 0.0A755 0.369 Evaluation of lower-class primary referents —0.0A616 0.38A Educational status —0.0A2A3 0.A25 Marital status -0.03608 0.500 Evaluation of lower-class secondary referents 0.032W8 0.538 Spatial mobility travelling to work ~0.0275A 0.607 Spatial mobility travelling to school 0.02677 0.617 Contact with lower-class primary referents 0.025’7 0.630 Contact with lower-class secondary referents 0 02A52 0.6A6 Number of friends 0.01833 0.725 Knowledgeability 1.01529 0.76A Work status 0.01AA3 0.775 Travel-shopping 0.0131O 0.790 Travel-school -0.0071A 0.862 Facilities 0.00359 0.902 Perception of problems involved in getting ahead -0.00127 0.930 N = 398 R (Kultiple Correlation) = 0.7135 522 TABLE 5.--Partial and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the closed— form Opinion measure of the dependent variable. Variable fartial Correlation Significance toeifiCJent Evaluation of middle—class referents 0.21316 0.0005 Ethnic status of respondent -0.16689 0.002 Mass media use 0.13013 0.012 Knowledgeability 0.12107 0.020 Length of work . -0. 3683 0.0U0 Sex 0.10057 0.052 Distance of non—familial primary referents from respondents (within city) —0.1(5L3 0.0U3 Location of non—familial primary referents (inside or outside city) 0.03738 0.060 Desire for contact with lower—class secondary referents -0.08675 0.00“ Travel-school -0.09675 0.09“ Educational level —0.08106 0.118 Marital status 0.(6925 0.18M Desire for contact with lowereclass primary referents —0.06705 0.196 Yearly work status 0.06720 0.198 Travel—work -0.06539 0.206 Contact with lower-class secondary referents 0.06A30 0.219 Number of friends 0.06210 0.235 Desire for contact with middle—class referents 0.05903 0.260 Work status —0.05002 0.305 Job promotion efforts 0.05323 0.312 Average working hours per week 0.0A361 0.358 Television use 0.0080? 0.359 General spatial mobility 0.03008 0.U6A Spatial mobility travelling to school 0.03362 0.530 Facilities 0.03132 0.55? Neighborhood visits —0.02321 0.663 Perception of problems involved in getting ahead —0.0102U 0.710 Spatial mobility travelling to work —0.‘l6l9 0.753 Evaluation of lower-class secondary referents —0.01126 0.813 Evaluation of lower—class primary referents —0.00997 0.829 Contact with lower-class primary referents 0.0077“ 0.855 Age 0.00767 0.856 Educational status 0.00MB) 0.899 Travel—shopping -0.00U06 0.897 Contact with middle-class referents —0.00162 0.925 N = 398 R 0.5720 53 TABLE 6.-—Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable. Partial Variable Correlation SiLiificggce Coefficient 3 Desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents —0.23l62 0.0005 Desire for contact with middle-class referents 0.21790 0.0005 Contact with middle-class referents 0.19123 0.0005 Evaluation of middle-class referents 0.18088 0.0005 General spatial mobility 0.17841 0.001 Sex -O.13A88 0.008 Age -O.128u7 0.011 Neighborhood visits -0.128u5 0.011 Mass media use 0.12357 0.010 Average working hours per week 0.12189 0.015 N = 398 R = 0.6933 TABLE 7.--Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the closed—form opinion measure of the dependent variable. Partial Variable Correlation SiLfiificgice Coefficient g Evaluation of middle-class referents 0.379AH 0.0005 Mass media use 0.19169 0.0005 Knowledgeability 0.13396 0.008 Yearly work status 0.13232 0.009 Ethnic status of the respondent -0.11831 0.018 Length of work —0.11643 0.020 Location of non-familial primary referents 0.10818 0.030 N = 398 R = 0.5165 511 TABLE 8.--fartia1 and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief ascent). in the value of social Variable Partial Coo (7 Y orrelation ficient Cignif icarce Desire for contact with middle-clas; referents Desire for contact with secondary referents Evaluation of middle-class Sex Television use Average working hours per week Ethnic status of the respondent Mass media use Neighborhood visits General spatial mobility Educational level Number of friends Facilities Distance of non-familial primary referents from respondents (within city) Contact with lower-class primary referents Knowledgeability Spatial mobility travelling to work Perception of problems involved in getting ahead Contact with lower-class secondary Contact with middle-class referents Length of work Evaluation of lower—class Travel-school Desire for contact referents Distance travelled to Travel-shop Educational status Evaluation of lower-class primary Work status Age Location of non-familial primary referents (inside or outside city) Yearly work status Travel-work Marital status Job promotion efforts lower—class referents referents secondary referent: with lower—class primary school referents 398 R I :1“ (D\ I 3C); DC'"O ‘_,‘ j/ 3 J r. "Y 55909 .05101 0U506 01238 01:10? :4 ooueu 00360 00187 a) O - -J O .3 “.3: H _,I . ‘1 ‘3 a); 2;: .‘S C) 92' 7‘. \f‘v y.“ Mk) m T r: by: “\J “l: r—' k, , . . IX) 1".) Q C) C) O CS 23.” x.‘ L C“ 55 TABLE 9.——Partial and multiple correlation of the independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the possibility of social ascent). Partial Correlation Variable Coefficient Significance Contact with middle—class referents 0.16586 0.002 Educational level 0.16035 0.002 Desire for contact with middle-class referents 0.15089 0.00M General spatial mobility 0.13UUU 0.010 Desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents —0.l2222 0.019 Sex -0.l0U26 0.09“ Neighborhood visits -0 10397 0.0u5 Travel—work —0.10263 0.008 Age -0.09621 0.063 Work status —0.09515 0.066 Evaluation of middle-class referents 0.09297 0.07“ Yearly work status 0.06396 0.221 Length of work -0.06361 0.22M Mass media use 0 6019 0.251 Knowledgeability 0.0532? 0.312 Number of friends 0.00996 0.3““ Average working hours per week 0.00607 0.3 5 Travel—shop 0.00387 0.020 Educational status -0.02857 0.59M Contact with lower-class secondary referents 0.02516 0.638 Desire for contact with lower-class primary referents 0.02337 0.661 Distance travelled to school 0.02311 0.66M Contact with lower—class primary referents 0.02003 0.699 Television use 0.01966 0.708 Job promotion efforts -0.01o70 0.7U6 Spatial mobility travelling to work 0.01496 0.768 Distance of non-familial primary referents from respondents (within city) 0.01050 0.773 Ethnic status of the respondent —0 01399 0.735 Evaluation of lower-class secondary referents 0.01185 0.806 Evaluation of lower—class primary referents —0.00909 0.839 Facilities -0.00878 0.8A3 Perception of the problems involved in getting ahead 0.00669 0.867 Distance travelled to school 0.00560 0.880 Marital status -0.00526 0.880 Location of non—familial primary referents (.0023 0.917 N = 398 a = 6886 56 TABLE 10.--Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the value of social ascent). Partial Level of Variable Correlation Coefficient Significance Desire for contact with middle-class referents 0.30365 0.0005 Desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents -0.2656A 0.0005 Evaluation of middle— class referents 0.23u33 0.0005 Television use 0.1uu52 0.00M General spatial mobility 0.1U39l 0.00M Ethnic status of the respondent 0.1A007 0.006 Average working hours per week 0.13390 0.008 Sex -0.llO8l 0.027 Neighborhood visits —0.10727 0.032 N = 298 R = 0.6548 57 TABLE ll.--Partial and multiple correlation of undeleted independent variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (measure of the belief in the possibility of social ascent). Partial Variable Correlation SiLEZficggce Coefficient g Contact with middle—class referents 0.236A3 0.0005 Educational level 0.23492 0.0005 General spatial mobility 0.21069 0.0005 Desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents -0.196A9 0.0005 Age —o.1676o 0.001 Desire for contact with middle—class referents 0.16013 0.002 Evaluation of middle- class referents 0.13661 0.007 Sex -O.ll859 0.018 Neighborhood visits -0.10558 0.035 N = 398 R = 0.6629 58 Hoo.o mNNwH.OI Hoo.o NHMNHAVI mwo.o HN©®O.OI AmpHHHDHmmomv Heapemsmcefio OHpcmEmm hom.o mmHHO.OI wmw.o mmNHo.OI mmw.o mzmfloévl Amdfim>v Hewpempeeofim ofipcmsmm Hem.o msoo.o mew.o mswoo.o emm.o smsoo.o eczema: coeefieo Emomupmmoao :mo.o mmHH.ou moo.o mmoefi.ou meo.o mammo.o- eczema: Heapsmpmeofim OHmeEmm cowpmfimo cowpefi coapea mocmO um coapma mocMo Imagoo mocmo Imppoo manmfipm> names Hm nonpoo IHMH: Hm Hwfiunmm lamacwfim Hmflppmm pcmccmamo ecu mo mo Hm>mq mo Hm>mq go Hm>mq amaphmm pmmnmfim HmeHQH monummmz pQMHpm> .Ampmamm mmv COHumucmfihOImpHHHnoEIUpmzas Sufi: mmm do coapmamhhoo Hmfippmmll.ma mqm pchConUGH mmnpo map Spas UmmeEoo manmfipm> map mo mommOHmficwHw xsmn m>HpmHmm on» mmmeHUcH ma mHQmB om mm :m Hm ma Aspflafiewmmomv HewpcmseEEHo owpeeEem AmfiHm>v Hewpemsmcoflo sauceswm madmmmz coacflmo Ehomlpmono madmmmz HmfipcmthMHD OHmeEmm Umpmamo ma coapmmsa Ga manmfipw> Cm£3 UmpmHmUQD moanmfipm> Lmnuo no amassz pmmnwam ma QOHpmmSG CH manmfinm> mo coapmamsmoo Hmfiupmm con: Umpmamosb moanmfipm> pmzpo mo hmnEsz mapmfipm> pumpcmomm ego no monummmz pcmfipm> .Ammmv soapmamc manmdnm> mo moanmfismpomnmno xcmmul.ma mqmete pQMOHMHcmHm uoz mHo. v .Q mmwo.ma u mx Bog mocmpmfim a u .o.e “mo. v .o mesm.o u we peeoaeacmam ooz swam : " O'HOU : " O’HOU mmD mac. v .Q mam:.:a n mx mHo. v .Q mamm.ma n mx 30A mflooz mmmz : u .m.e mmo. v .o mmom.HH n ma oceoaeacmam coz Hooeom ca ooz esteem oceoaeacmam ooz oceoaoacwam ooz Hoocom 2H Heeoapeosem a u .e.o Mme. v .o mmom.mH u we oeeoaeacmam poz eoxaoz mam nsoepm : u .m.o a n .c.e xaoz mmo. v .o ”mam.m n we Mao. v .o amas.sfl u we ooxtoz poz new sfitoos peooanaemam ooz peooacacmam ooz emam Ho>oq : u .m.p : n .m.© Hmcoapmozpm ”No. v .o ”mem.mfi n ma mmo. v .o mwms.mfi n ma eon . pceoacaewam ooz oceoaeacwam poz eoaatescs napepm peooacaemam ooz peooacaemam ooz coaches Hecate: oceoaoacmam ooz peeoHeHemam coz masses H n .o.o a u .e.e xom mmo. v .a moam.m u mx mmo. v .a ”mam.OH u we cam: manmfimm> pchGQOQ manmfipm> uncommoom msfim> m m as map go whammoz on» mo chamomz mHQMfinm> Hmmfico> QOHQHQO Emomuoomoao HwfipcmanMHm oapcmsmm Hoppcoo H p o .coauMmeHhOImpHHanoelomngs cam own cmmzumn soapmHOOmm¢ll.mH mqm¢a 6A oceoHochHm ooz oeeoHoHcmHm poz opHezncoz H n .o.e H u .o.e acoeeoonom one mmo. v .a mmom.: u we Mme. v .o maH:.a u we mean: no museum oHccnm H u .o.e oceoHEHcmHm coz Mme. v .o WOHm.m n we cmHm npeoaocom H u .e.e mnoHouoHoeHz ucmOfimacme poz mHo. v .Q momm.m n mx :09 mo soapmsHm>m H u .o.e Mao. v .o mfinm.m u mx meOHMchHm poz swam mucohmmmm zpmefipm H n .n.o enoH01aoon con pcmoamficwam poz mac. v .Q mozm.m n mx 30A pompcoo pom oaamma : u .w.© : u .m.w mucopomom ”Ho. v .o mmmoeH u mx mo. v .o mme:.HH n me eme mmeHouoHoeHz csz pQwOHMchHm poz unmeamficmfim poz sod pompcoo pom opfimoo oeeoHcHeme ooz oceoHoHcmHm ooz cme noeotooom : u .w.o mmeHpm mmmao mo. v .o meso.HH u we oeeoHchmHm ooz on stosoH esz poeocoo oceoHcHemHm ooz neeoaochHm coz emHm : u .o.o scHHHooz mHo. v .o mmHm.mH n we oceoHechHm coz on HoHoeom Hetocoe manmfipm> pso©CmooQ mammaam> pcopcmoom osam> m m an on» mo magmmmz on» mo mhsmmmz manmfihm> HMpHco> coacfiao EpomnpowOHo HmfipcmamMMHm caucmEmm Hompcoo H p o .20Hnomenclmpfiafinoelonmzas UQm mwm cmmzpmn COHpMHoomm¢II.mH mqm¢8 65 : u .m.o : n .m.o mmo. v .o mmem.mH u we mmo. v .o mmmm.m u «x eme monotoeom : u .m U mmmHoanosz neeoHochHm poz mmo. v .a mmmm.0H u we zoo 30H: poepeoo H u .m.n pcmoHMHcmHm poz mHo. v .o mHmm.~ u mx cme mucopommm mmmpcoomm H u .m.p H n .m.o manonpmzoq ssz mmo. v .o mmmm.m u mx mmo. v .o mon.m n mx 30H pompcoo mom opHmoQ oceoHtHemHm coz cceoHchmHm no cmHm npcotooom H u .m.o H n .m.p zhmpsooom mmmHo mmo. v .Q mmso.m u mx mHo. v .Q mmom.m n mx 30H Imozoq mo COHpmsHm>m H u .@.U H n .m.p mmo. v .Q mmmH.m n mx mmo. v .Q mmmm.z n mx smHm mpcmhommm H u .w.© hLMEHLm mmMHo meOHMchHm poz mHo. v .Q mHom.m n mx 30H Ismzoq mo COHpmsz>m H u .m.o H n .m.© mucopommm mmo. v .Q mom>.m n mx Hoo. v .Q ”mom.HH u mx anm mhmocooom mmmHo quOHMchHm poz pamOHchme poz 30H Inozoq anz pompcoo oHpmHLm> pampcmomm memem> pcmozmamo mSHm> o m mm on» mo madmmmz on» mo mLSmmmz mHannm> prHco> COHCHQO EpomuoomOHo HmecmnmmmHo oHpcmEmm Hompcoo H u o .GOHpmeoHLOImpHHHnoEIUmmSQB cam owm Gmmzpon COHumHoommo Hmecomomeo OHpsmEmm mmH. omaao. omo. HH»OH.Q mmo. amooH.o cognac: :oHcHoo EpomnommOHo moo. HoooH.oI mooo. omowH.o| moo. moozH.o| mpzwmmz HmecopmmmHQ OHpcwEom coHpmHmQ COHpmH COHpmH IHWmmme pm COHpmH IHMNmMMm nonpoo IHWmmmNm nonpoo oHowHam> mm Hm>mq nonpoo mo Hm>mq HMprmm mo Ho>mq Hmehmm pcoocmomm on» mo Hmemmm ummanm HmeHcH mmpzmmmz pcmem> .AmpmHoQ mmv COHpmpcmHAOIszHHooEIULmzo: anz xom mo COHpmHmhhoo Hmehmmll.wH mqm¢B 71 MH oopoHoQ mH COHpmoSG 2H mHanpm> con: UopmHoocD moHanmm> pmnuo mo monesz a AspHHHoHnmoao HeHoeoaoenHo oHoeeEom mH HosHm>o HeHoeoaoEEHo oHpeeEom 2m whommoz COHQHQO EpoglommOHo o madmmoz HerconooEHo oHpcasom pmmgmHm mH SOHpmosa :H oHanpm> mo COHpmHmhpoo oHpmem> pcoocooom Hmemmm Con: UopmHoUCD on» go mopdmmms psmem> mmHangm> gonuo mo 669832 .Axmmv COHpoHoo mHanmm> go mOHpmHmouompwno xcmmll.mH mqm¢e 72 direction predicted, the correlation is not significant in two of the partial correlations given. When it does reach a level of statistical significance, it is worth- while to note that it is barely significant, and that, at its deletion, deprived of the interactive relation- ship with the other variables deleted before it, once again, it is not-~as it was not initially--significantly correlated with upward-mobility-orientation. The other measures are all in the predicted direc- tion, and indicate statistically significant correlations in each of the three instances shown. Measures of associ- ation also indicate statistically significant levels of association, both with and without the use of controls. Table 20 indicates the general results of the chi square analysis; since the evidence is so compelling in terms of the rejection of the null hypothesis, it is felt that the presentation of chi squares analyses utilizing controls serves little purpose here. Some effort will be made to present some of these analyses, however. Since the closed-form opinion measure of the de— pendent variable did not prove to be significantly cor- related or associated with sex, there is little point in ascertaining the influence various controls have on the level of association found in the chi square analyses where controls were used but that measure of the de— ‘ pendent variable was used. Our concern here, then, is 73 with the results of controlling measures upon chi square tests utilizing the DVSD measure of the dependent vari- able. TABLE 20.--Association between sex and upward-mobility- orientation. Variant Measures of the Dependent Variable Semantic Differential x2=15.700;p. < .01;d.f.=u. Closed-form Opinion not significant Semantic Differential 2 (Value) x =8.726;p. < .02;d.f.=2. Semantic Differential 2 (Possibility) x =12.025;p. < .01;d.f.=2. N = 398 The association between sex and upward—mobility- orientation did not hold when controls for the following variables were utilized: (1) marital status, (2) general spatial mobility, and (3) lower-class-primary contact. In the case of the second factor, it may be that the potency of this variable nullifies to some extent the significance of sex; in the first and third instances, it may be that other random confounding influences negate the association between sex and the dependent variable. The control for educational level shows a highly significant association between sex and attitudes toward social ascent at higher levels of education (.001), but the association at the lower levels of education is only 7A at the level of .05; in both instances, the level of association is high enough in both cases to warrant some confidence in contending that sex is a significant factor in the determination of attitudes toward social ascent, regardless of educational level. At lower educational levels, males may not be so mobility-oriented because they have lower expectations for themselves. Their failure to attain higher levels of education may affect their mobility-orientation more adversely than such a failure would affect female's orientation toward social ascent and they may consequently downgrade their aspir- ations. Essentially the same association holds when we con— trol for educational status: among those who are in school (.02), and among those who are not in school (.05). Perhaps, again, the higher expectations of males result in their lowering their expectations once they experience some failures. The association was still at a rather high level in both instances, though. Among those with low levels of contact with middle class referents there is a higher association between age and attitudes toward social ascent (p. < .001) than there is among those with high levels of contact (p. < .05). Sex does emerge as statistically significant in both instances, however. 75 The association between sex and upward—mobility- orientation held only among the lower one-half in the case of controlling for each of the following factors: (1) the desire for lower—class-secondary contact, (2) the evaluation of middle-class referents, (3) the evalu- ation of lower-class-secondary referents, and (A) the desire for contact with lower-class-secondary referents. In the case of l, 3, and A, the significance of the dis- sociative factors is once again pointed out, as it was in the analyses of the effects of age upon attitudes toward social ascent. The extraordinary significance of evaluation of middle—class referents is clearly pointed out in the correlational analyses. The significance of this factor apparently outstrips that of sex, especially in the case of those who evaluated middle-class referents highly. Among those who evaluate these referents highly, sexual role definition has probably been changed, and is no longer, therefore, a significant factor. Controlling for ethnicity has shown that the associ- ation clearly holds for whites, but not for non-whites. The association is at the .001 level among non-whites, but perhaps the greater employability of the Negro female and the matricentric character of the Negro family have allowed for a different role definition among Negroes, the largest non-white group in our sample. 76 Although the association is not significant among non-whites, the majority of the males among the non- whites were among those of high mobility-orientation, and a majority of the females were among those of low mobility-orientation. All in all, sex is a significant factor in the determination of attitudes toward social ascent. With a minimal level of dissociation from the culture of poverty, the male is more likely than the female to gain an upward-mobility-orientation. The Influence of Marital Status in the Determination of Attitudes Toward Social Ascent Tables 21 and 22 indicate the paucity of signifi— .cance of the variable, "marital status." In only one instance (of three possible) on one measure (of four possible) was the correlation barely statistically significant, and the direction of the corre- lation was opposite to what was predicted in the case of all three instances on each of three of the four measures of the dependent variable. The chi square measures generally proved to be in a direction opposite to that predicted or not significant, statistically. One might assume that the effect of mari- tal status is clear at an analytical level, but diffi— cult to indicate empirically in a research context. Those who are older tend, other things equal, to be 77 mom. ammoo.o- mom. mmmoo.ou zoo. ommoo.o- AspHHHchnoao HeHaeotocoHo OHmeEom com. ssmoo.ou com. ssmoo.on mom. aomoo.ou HoaHe>o HaHpcotoooHo oHpcmEmm NOH. ammmo.o was. HmOOH.o HoH. mmaoo.o eczema: coaeHoo ShoplpomOHo Hom. mHmmo.o- ems. wmomo.ou com. moomo.on eczema: HeHoeoaoooHo oHpcmEmm coHpoHoo coHoaH coHoaH IHWmmmMm pm COHpmH IHWmmMMm lopmoo IHWmmmmm Iohmoo oHpmHhm> mo Ho>mq Iophoo wo Hm>oq Hmepmm mo Hm>oH Hmeme pampcmaom on» no Hmepmm pmocme HmeHQH monommmz pcmem> .HopoHoo mmo COHpmeonOImpHHHooEIonmzod spHs mopmum HmpHpme mo COHpmHmppoo Hmepmmll.Hm mqmo HereoaoeoHo oHoceEom NH :H madmmmz COHcHoo ShouloomOHo mm mm 9.398: HercoaoooHo oHoeesom ooooHoo unocmHm nH coHonoeo cH wH COHpmoSG :H oHomHLm> mHanpm> mnp no COprHmmpoo oHomem> pcoocooom on» :633 oopoHoUCD Hmehmm con: UopmHmocD on» mo mopzmmmz pcmem> moHQmem> Lonpo no monasz mmemem> pocpo no 909832 .Amdpmpw HmPHcHwEv COHpmHmU GHDGHQMNV .HO mOHUmHeHmnwOweHwflo XQQMII.NN Mdmdflb 79 married, for example, so the effects of marital status in adding system-involvement (with respect to the culture of poverty) may not be observable; it may be only an ancillary factor adding to the effect of such factors as age, sex, and reference group identifications. In any case, the relative significance of marital status that was predicted did not show up even in those chi square tests where sex, age, and the like were controlled for. It is necessary, therefore, to accept the null hy- pothesis in this instance. This acceptance is, perforce, tentative, and perhaps with other better empirical indi- cators of the effects of marital involvement, one might be able in the future to more accurately measure the ef— fects of marital status in terms of its effect upon attitudes toward social ascent. Given the data presently at hand, however, the null hypothesis must be accepted. Indeed, one might speculate (given the direction of these results) that being married tends to give one's life some level of order and may contribute somewhat to one's aspirations with respect to social mobility. Per- haps marriage involves raising one's aspirations to one's responsibilities. Analysis of the Cumulative Effect of the Investment Variables Our fourth hypothesis holds that the total effect of the investment variables mentioned in the first three hypotheses will be greater than any of their separate 80 TABLE 23.--Partial and multiple correlation of investment variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable. Partial Level of Variable Correlation Signifi- Coefficient cance Marital Status 0.09275 0.062 Sex —0.14151 0.005 Age -0.10u54 0.035 N 398 R = 0.2809 TABLE 2U.--Partial and multiple correlation of investment variables with the semantic differential measure of the dependent variable (marital status deleted). Partial LeVel of Variable Correlation Signifi- Coefficient cance Age -0.l9559 0.0005 Sex -0.l68u9 0.001 N 398 R 0.2633 81 TABLE 25.--Partial and multiple correlation of investment variables with the closed-form opinion measure of the dependent variable. Partial Level of Variable Correlation Signifi— Coefficient cance Marital Status 0.09734 0.050 Sex -0.07586 0.128 Age —0.05391 0.285 N = 398 R = 0.1731 TABLE 26.--Partial and multiple correlation of investment variables with the closed-form opinion measure of the dependent variable (age deleted). Partial Level of Variable Correlation Signifi- Coefficient cance Marital Status 0.16004 0.002 Sex 0.08003 0.107 N = 398 R = 0.1647 82 effects; that is, it is predicted that their total effect will be cumulative. If we are to reject the null hy- pothesis in this instance, the multiple correlation of these three variables with the dependent variable should reflect some additive effects. The multiple correlation should be above that of any separate partial correlation and should approach that of the sum of all the partial correlations taken together. It should be noted that since we are using parametric statistics, it is impossible for the multiple correlation to exceed the sum of the separate partial correlations found in any one corre- lational analysis. That is, one cannot measure "inter- action effects" using parametric statistics.“ Using the R2 Delete Procedure with the three in- vestment variables alone, the pattern indicated in Tables 23 through 26 emerged. When sex is deleted, then the partial (and multiple, since it is the only remaining variable) correlation of age with the dependent variable is 0.2092, indicating that the combination of age and sex accounts for more variation than age, the most significant variable, does. As shown in Table 23, age, sex, and marital status account for more variation than just age and sex together. In addi- tion, it might be noted that the partial correlation of “Phillips, pp. 97-99. 83 marital status is, with the other independent variables excluded, not only in the predicted direction, but nearly at the .05 level of significance; this level of correlation was not found, it will be recalled, when all the independent variables were included in the R2 Delete Procedure. Indeed, the correlation was not even in the predicted direction with the use of the semantic differ- ential measure of the dependent variable. As in the case of the other measure of the de- pendent variable, after the next-to-last variable is deleted, the multiple correlation once again descends, in this case to 0.1445. We can be less confident of our hypothesis in this case (the closed-form opinion measure of the dependent variable) for two reasons: the multiple correlation is low throughout and the direction of the correlation of the variable "sex" changes within the delete procedure. Since the cumulation is clear in both instances, and a similar pattern is indicated when the expanded list of independent variables is used, the null hypothesis may be rejected. Analysis of the Effect of the Investment Variables Upon Contacts Outside the Culture of Poverty In this section, we will attempt to analyze the association between "freedom" from culture of poverty restraints and participation in middle-class activities; 84 in so doing, we will examine chi square analyses of the association between the so-called investment variables and the specific contact factors mentioned in the sub— hypotheses of Hypothesis V (see page 29). Tables 27 through 50 indicate the results of these analyses. The general hypothesis is that those who are "freer" are more likely to maintain outside contacts. The data in Table 27 represent a restricted age range, however; if the data were more representative of the larger population, the association might be statistically significant in the predicted direction. Logically, those who are older have had more possibility (in terms of years available for such efforts) of achieving higher educational levels. It may be that those who are young will eventually achieve higher educational levels than those who are older and who, at this point, have relatively higher educational levels than the younger respondents. Indeed, the relative educational level among those under thirty in America is generally higher than that of those over thirty because of the increased opportunity for further education that America has experienced, especially since World War II. The association between sex and educational level is not, as Table 28 indicates, a significant one, but the association between marital status and educational level is statistically significant. The unmarried apparently 85 TABLE 27.——Association between age and educational level. Age Educational Level Low Moderate High Low 37 48 42 Moderate 64 34 27 High 24 70 52 N = 398 x2 = 38.602 p. < .001 TABLE 28.--Association between sex and educational level. Sex Educational Level Male Female Low 40 87 Moderate 46 79 High 57 89 N = 398 2 x = 1.740 (not significant) 86 TABLE 29.-—Association between marital status and educa- tional level. Marital Status Educational Level Married Unmarried Low 85 42 Moderate 53 72 High 80 66 N = 398 x2 = 15.301 p. < .001 TABLE 30.--Association between age and educational status. Age Educational Status Low Moderate High Currently in School 73 23 8 Currently Not in School 52 129 113 N = 398 x2 = 100.843 p. < .001 87 TABLE 3l.—-Association between sex and educational status. Sex Educational Status Male Female Currently in School 51 53 Currently Not in School 92 202 N = 398 x2 = 10.510 p. < .01 TABLE 32.--Association between marital status and educational status. Marital Status Educational Status Married Unmarried Currently in School 13 91 Currently Not in School 205 89 N = 398 x2 = 101.566 p. < .001 88 TABLE 33.—-Association between age and general spatial mobility. - General Spatial Age “Chility Low Moderate High Low 29 45 5“ Moderate 41 47 41 High 55 60 26 N = 398 2 = 19.401 p. < .001 TABLE 34.--Association between sex and general spatial mobility. General Spatial sex Mobility Male Female Low 103 Moderate 92 High 60 N = 398 x2 = 46.254 p. < .001 89 TABLE 35.--Association between marital status and general spatial mobility. General Spatial Marital Status Mobility Married Unmarried Low 89 39 Moderate 73 55 High 56 85 N 398 x = 24.330 p. < .001 TABLE 36.--Association between age and middle-class contact. Middle-Class Contact A89 Low Moderate High LOW 37 66 51 Moderate 39 53 28 High 49 33 42 N 398 x2 = 14.502 p. < .01 90 TABLE 37.--Association between sex and middle-class contact. Sex Middle—Class Contact Male Female Low 56 98 Moderate 46 74 High 41 83 N = 398 x2 = 0.756 (not significant) TABLE 38.--Association between marital status and middle- class contact. Marital Status Middle-Class Contact Married Unmarried Low 96 58 Moderate 62 58 High 60 64 N = 398 x2 = 6.066 p. < .05 91 TABLE 39.--Association between age and yearly work status. Age Yearly Work Status Low Moderate High Had Not Worked in Past Year 40 53 58 Had Worked in Past Year 85 99 53 N = 398 x2 = 7.615 p. < .05 TABLE 40.--Association between age and length of work. Age Length of Work Low Moderate High Low 40 54 58 Moderate 46 46 23 High 39 52 40 N = 398 x2 = 11.630 p. < .05 92 TABLE 4l.--Association between sex and yearly work status. Sex Yearly Work Status Male Female Had Not Worked in Past Year 21 130 Had Worked in Past Year 122 125 N = 398 x2 = 51.260 p. < .001 TABLE 42.--Association between sex and length of work. Sex Length of Work Male Female Low 22 130 Moderate 53 62 High 68 63 N = 398 x 50.080 p. < .001 93 TABLE 43.-—Association between marital status and yearly work status. Yearly Work Status Marital Status Married Unmarried Had Not Worked in Past Year 103 48 Had Worked in Past Year 115 132 N = 398 x2 = 17.737 p. < .001 TABLE 44.--Association between marital status and length of work. Length of Work Marital Status Married Unmarried Low 103 49 Moderate 48 67 High 67 64 N = 398 x2 = 18.937 p. < .001 94 TABLE 45.-—Association between age and television use. Television Use Age Low Moderate High Low 60 54 47 Moderate 23 40 38 High 42 58 36 N = 398 X2 = 8.343 (not significant) TABLE 46.-—Association between age and mass media use. Age Mass Media Use Low Moderate High Low 25 50 48 Moderate 49 54 41 High 51 48 32 N = 398 x2 = 12.503 p. < .02 95 TABLE 47.--Association between sex and television use. Sex Television Use Male Female Low 80 81 Moderate 33 58 High 30 106 N = 398 x2 = 25.073 p. < .001 TABLE 48.—-Association between sex and mass media use. Sex Mass Media Use Male Female Low 53 70 Moderate 44 100 High 46 85 N = 398 x2 = 4.583 (not significant) 96 TABLE 49.--Association between marital status and television use. Marital Status Television Use Married Unmarried Low 72 89 Moderate 61 40 High 85 51 N = 398 x2 = 11.135 p. < .01 TABLE 50.--Association between marital status and mass media use. Marital Status Mass Media Use Married Unmarried Low 81 42 Moderate 76 68 High 61 70 N = 398 x2 = 9.891 p. < .01 97 have more opportunity to gain further education than the married. Perhaps a better measure of contact with outside educational referents is the measure of educational status; it was highly associated with all three invest- ment variables in the predicted direction (see Tables 30-32). Most states have laws that require youngsters to remain in school until a certain age, and Michigan is no exception. Michigan law requires young persons to remain in school until they are sixteen years of age. Since our sample population consists in those between the ages of seventeen to twenty-nine, the association between age and educational status cannot be accounted for just in terms of this legal requirement. The young apparently are freer to invest themselves in capital expenditures such as education; similarly, those who are unmarried are less likely to have the culture of poverty commitments that will demand their removal from the edu- cational process (see Table 32). That only about one-fourth of our sample population is still in school bodes poorly for their mobility po- tential, but the proportion of men in school clearly ex- ceeds that of the women (see Table 31). Those who are freer from the culture of poverty experience more general Spatial mobility; the association between general spatial mobility and the investment 98 variables holds in all three instances (see Tables 33-35). The associations between middle-class contact and two of the investment variables--age and marital status-- are statistically significant, but the other is not: apparently sex is not a significant factor in the deter- mination of contact with referents outside the culture of poverty. One might think that since our sample population is so young that work contacts would not be very signifi- cantly associated with freedom from the culture of poverty. After all, work is generally necessary for subsistence and being in school usually involves considerable in- vestment of self in terms of time and energy. Many of the students in our sample had part-time jobs, however; and some of the non—students experienced periodic or chronic unemployment. The association between age and yearly work status holds, then, as does the association between age and length of work at present job. Similarly, Tables 41-44 indicate very strong associations between the other two investment variables and the two work contact variables. Television use is not significantly associated with age, but it is significantly associated with sex and Inarital status, but not in the predicted direction. Apparently television use affords release from daily Initial-mm 11E 99 boredom and serves as a sort of euphoric. Married women, in particular, seem to be high in television use. As will be pointed out later, television use is significantly correlated with only one facet (value) of upward-mobility- orientation. Since high television use is associated with role-commitment to the culture of poverty, one would ex- pect ti to be negatively correlated with attitudes toward social ascent; both graphic and correlational analyses bear this out. General mass media use is higher among the young, the unmarried, and among males, as Tables 46, 48, and 50 indicate. Age is not clearly associated with educational level in terms of the data collected in the project at hand, but the reasons for the lack of clear association were dis- cussed. Television use, on the other hand, is not associ- ated with greater freedom from the culture of poverty; rather, the association is statistically significant, but in the direction opposite to that predicted. With re— spect to that one facet of one sub-hypothesis, then, we must accept the null hypothesis. This association should be kept in mind when we discuss later associations and correlations of television use with other variables, especially the primary dependent variable in this work, upward-mobility-orientation. 100 Analysis of the Effects of Inter- Systemic Contacts General Spatial mobility is, as indicated in Tables 4—11, significantly correlated with upward-mobility- orientation. First, it is correlated with the dependent variable in the predicted direction in terms of all four measures of the dependent variable. In Tables 4 and 9, it will be noted that the correlation is statistically significant at the onset of the deletion procedure, and in Table 8, the correlation is clearly approaching significance. In Tables 6, 10, and 11, general spatial mobility emerges as clearly significant--at the .001 level or better. The correlations are high enough, then, to warrant rejection of the null sub-hypothesis. Mass media use is initially significantly correlated with only one measure of the dependent variable (see Table 5), but eventually emerges as statistically signifi- cant in three of the four deletion procedures (see Tables 6 and 7; in the semantic differential (possibility) in- stance, mass media use attained a statistically signifi- cant correlation with the dependent variable before it was deleted (level of significance: 0.029) and at de- letion (level of significance: 0.049). Television use is significantly correlated with two measures of the dependent variable, and in all four instances, the correlation is in the predicted direction. 101 The closed-form opinion measure of the dependent vari- able is, as indicated in Appendix I, primarily consti- tuted of items associated with the value of social ascent. Television use was significantly correlated with that measure of the dependent variable and with the semantic differential (value) measure of the dependent variable. Television apparently affects one's goals, but not one's skills. The explosiveness of television in terms of the elevation of one's hopes without aiding one in terms of one's knowledge of appropriate routes to attain those hopes has been pointed out by a number of 'social scientists.5 Graphs 1—4 indicate the relationship of television use to upward-mobility—orientation. Contact with middle-class referents is correlated with the semantic differential measure and the semantic differential (possibility) measure at a statistically significant level, initially, throughout the deletion process, and at deletion (see Tables 4, 6, and 11). The correlations with the other two measures do not prove to be statistically significant; in fact, the closed-form opinion measure is uncorrelated with this variable. Perhaps contact with middle-class referents is initially threatening in terms of being able to consciously accept middle-class goals, but reinforcing in terms of allowing 5Berelson and Steiner, p. 489. 102 the individual to gain access to socially acceptable routes to social mobility. This access, presumably, and the skills that emerge from it would eventually subsume this overt ambivalence about middle-class values (the value of social ascent is clearly a middle-class value). The null hypothesis of hypothesis VIII is, then, re- jected. Tables 6 and 10 indicate the variable of average- working-hours-per-week emerges, through the deletion pro- ‘nlnem-ereeggm, cedure, as significantly correlated with upward-mobility— orientation. In Table 7, it should be noted that length of work is negatively correlated with upward—mobility- orientation; this may be a function of long participation in a job with low wages, prestige, and the like. Appar- ently having the possibility of full-time work increases one's upward-mobility-orientation. Work status is nega- tively correlated with the dependent variable (see Table 9): that is, those who are working are more mobility oriented than those who are not. The correlation becomes statistically significant during the deletion process. Apparently, having a job in which one can work full-time is a strong factor in the development and maintenance of attitudes favorable to social ascent; again, though, the relationship holds only in terms of attitudes associated with the possibility of social ascent. Similarly, educational level is either only slightly or negatively correlated with upward—mobility-orientation 103 in three of the correlational analyses; in the fourth (semantic differential—possibility measure), however, the correlation is strong throughout the deletion pro- cedure and is statistically significant from the be- ginning, eventually emerging as significant at the level of p. < 0.0005. Apparently education does more to teach one how to become a success than the value of gird that success; if, however, as we have assumed, goals E tend to cluster around expectations, then learning the '7“ means to an end may ultimately lead to acceptance of E that end or goal. The null hypothesis for Hypothesis VI must be rejected, but with the proviso that the relationship between this category of variables and the dependent varible seems to be one-sided: that is, they affect the attitudes toward the possibility of social ascent con- siderably more than attitudes toward the value of social ascent. The Effect of the Evaluation of and Desire for Contact with Middle-Class Referents Perhaps none of our hypotheses is as well estab- lished as the relationship between the evaluation of middle-class referents and upward-mobility-orientation; a similarly strong relationship between the desire for contact with middle-class referents and upward-mobility— orientation is also well established. 104 The evaluation of middle-class referents is initially (at the beginning of the deletion procedure, before it has begun) significantly correlated with upward-mobility-orientation in three of the four in- stances, and the relationship is nearly significant in the fourth (see Tables 4, 5, 8, and 9); in every in- stance, the relationship is in the predicted direction, '3' r as. f: . i J and in every instance, the correlation eventually emerges as statistically significant, in three instances at the level of p. < 0.0005. The desire for contact with middle—class referents is similarly strong, being correlated with two measures of the dependent variable at the p. < 0.0005 level of significance initially (see Tables 4 and 8). In every instance the relationship is in the predicted direction, and in only one instance (the closed-form opinion measure) does the relationship fail to emerge as statistically significant. This hypothesis is not a new one; other data have borne it out: people tend to take on the attitudes of the group to which they are aspiring.6 The relationship is probably one of reciprocal causation: having certain attitudes leads one to seek out certain groups and group membership or even identification with a group tends to create a stress in oneself toward adopting the values of 6Siijamaki. 105 that group. Our data bear this out. The null hypotheses of Hypotheses VII and IX are, therefore, rejected. Other Factors Affecting Attitudes Toward Social Mobility The number of facilities one has apparently has little to do with mobility aspirations; apparently one can have material possessions in a relatively greater number and still not be as mobility oriented as one who has fewer possessions; indeed, in our possession-oriented society, if one can gain those possessions without develop- ing a strong orientation toward social ascent, it may be that this will constitute a factor mediating against developing such an orientation. In any case, our data show no clear relationship between the number of material possessions one has and one's attitudes toward social ascent. Two of the measures of the relationship (see Tables 8 and 9) indicate a negative correlation; the other two, a positive corre- lation. None of the correlations proved to be significant at any point in the deletion process, so the null hypothesis must be accepted in the case of Hypothesis XI. An almost identical pattern exists in terms of Hy- pothesis XII: two measures in the predicted direction, two in the opposite direction, and none of the corre- lations prove to be statistically significant; the null hypothesis must, therefore, be accepted. 106 In the case of knowledgability, however, we en- counter another set of relationships; in each instance the correlation is in the predicted direction, but only the correlation between the closed—form measure of the dependent variable and knowledgability proves to be significant (see Tables 5 and 7). The data are cogent enough to warrant the rejection of the null hypothesis. There is not enough reason to believe the hypothesis wrong to accept the null hypothesis. 107 10 TVUSE 7.20 T .hO 3.20 I .00 1 .b0 0.80 I 0.00 If I l l l l L 1 l l I l l l l l l l 0.00 0.80 l.b0 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.80 5.b0 b.h0 7.20 20 DVCFOO Figure l.—-Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility—orientation (closed—form opinion measure) and television use. 108 10 TVUSE 3.20 I 2.00 I 0.80 r Figure 2.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differ— ential) and television use. 0 '0- 109 37 MCCONTCT L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 8.00 1 7.20 .80 .80 .20 .00 .80 .80 .00 0.80 I 0.00 l T 4 l L l I l L I”! L l l l L l l 1 1 HF 0.00 0.80 1.80 2.h0 3.20 0.00 8.80 5.80 8.h0 7 20 DVCFOO Figure 3.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility—orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and middle—class contact. .20 110 37 MCCONTCT .00 [4.80 5.80 8.140 I .20 Figure u.——Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (semantic differ— ential) and middle-class contact. I | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I 8 O O O O O O O 111 23 SPMOBOEN 8 _ I I I I I I I I I l I I I l I I I I .00 20 .00 .80 .80 .00 T 1\ .80 O +__.1 J 1 J8. 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 1 0.00 0.80 1.80 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.80 5.80 8.00 7. 20 DVCFOO Figure 5.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility—orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and general spatial mobility. 2O 8 . C10 23 SPMOBGEN dF 0 Q Q 0 . . . . 8.00 .20 .00 I .00 0.80 5.80 I 2.00 r 0.80 0.00 1 Figure 6.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility-orientation (semantic differ— ential) and general spatial mobility. 113 22 SPMOBwRK .0— y C O 0 O 0 O .00 8 8.80 .20 5 0.50 m I o o o o o 9 o 0 q _ _ N 0 P _ _ 4 8—1y—I o o o o o 9 9 "'I J L L L l l l I l I I l l l l I 1 L l 1 fl I 0.00 0.80 1.80 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.80 5.80 8.00 .20 00 20 DVCFOO 8 Figure 7.—-Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility—orientation (closed-form Opinion measure) and spatial mobility-work. 114 22 SPMOBQRK .CIO I: o 0 o o O o 0 5.20 1 .50 .00 70 Figure 8.——Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility—orientation (semantic differ— ential) and spatial mobility—work. 115 21 MASSMEDA 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I-- v O o O O o 0 O .80 .80 .00 .80 .80 C) _ 1 1 1 1 41 1 1 1 .1. -J J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0.00 0.80 1.80 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.80 5.80 8.00 7 20 DVCFOO Figure 9.—-Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form Opinion measure) and mass media use. 4 .20 116 21 MASSMEDA 8 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 7.20 8.00 T 2.00 I 1 Figure lO.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward—mobility-orientation (semantic differ- ential) and mass media use. 117 5 EDLEVEL 0 LI I I I I | I I I I I I I I I I I I I I OI f O o o o O O 9 I .00 5.20 I I 3.80 fl I I I 2.00 L 8'. .L F P— I.- p— y— >— h I— L— I— h. I— 0.00 0.80 1.80 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.80 5.80 8.00 7.20 8.00 20 DVCFOO Figure ll.--Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility-orientation (closed-form opinion measure) and educational level. 118 5 EDLEVEL 0 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O p O 9 0 10 18. 13.2 10 8.00 I 0.03 0.620 1.80 2.00 3.20 0.00 0.33 5.80 8.00 7.20 Elm 20 DVSD Figure l2.-—Graphic representation of the relationship between upward-mobility—orientation (semantic differ- ential) and educational level. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND PROPOSALS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Summary of the Findings How many of our null hypotheses have been rejected, and how many accepted? The null hypothesis has been re- Jected in nine out of the twelve major hypotheses, but not without some qualification. Although the last two hypotheses were certainly not afterthoughts, they were attempts to test the relationship between various indi- cators of involvement with non-culture-of-poverty referents with upward-mobility-orientation. The variables being tested were, in a sense, at one remove from the process of attitudinal change. There was less clear explication within our theoretical framework Just how these factors would develop or manifest their presence separate from the other factors; that is, I am here suggesting that the number of facilities one has and one's attitudes to- ward social ascent are probably consequences of one's upward-mobility-orientation, and not the other way around. 119 120 Even if this is so, however, shouldn't the relation- ships still hold? The answer would seem to be yes, were it not for one fact: our population, as was indicated very early, is a population in flux--one that is still, presumably, in the process of developing an upward- mobility-orientation. If this attitudinal configuration is not fully developed, then, we surely could not expect the consequences of that develOpment to be in evidence; hence, the paucity of relationship with respect to the last two predicted hypotheses. The investment variables proved to be significantly correlated with the dependent variable in two of three instances, the exception being the variable, "marital status." It has been suggested that this variable's relationship to the dependent variable has been confounded in terms of its relationship to the other independent variables; in any case, its rank order significance and correlational significance has not been adequately shown. Indeed, the correlation was not even in the predicted direction in terms of three of the four measures of the dependent variable, but the correlation in the opposite direction was at a very low level. It may be, however, that assuming the married state may actually raise the level of aspiration of those who are very very low in terms of their aspirations, thus altering the relationship of the variables. 121 The most significant correlations and associations were found between the dependent variable and attitudes toward middle—class referents; this is reassuring, but not particularly enlightening because, as was pointed out in the last chapter, this finding has been reported over and over again in the literature of social psychology. An interesting finding related to this matter did emerge, however, and I must add here that the relation- ship was one that we assumed would develop, but which we did not deem to predict (because of its assumptive quality and because we were not certain as to how well our one measure of the relationship would tap it). I am speaking of the relationship between the dependent variable and the desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents. The relationship is, at the onset, statistically signifi- cant in three of the four cases (see Tables A, 8, and 9) and eventually emerges as highly significant vis-a-vis those three measures of the dependent variable and mini- mally significant with respect to the other measure of the dependent variable within the deletion procedure. The reader will note that the correlations attained are among the highest gleaned in this project. This strong correlation indicates alienation from, or at least re- Jection of, lower-lower class occupations and/or goals; thus, as current social psychological theory would have 122 us believe,1 it is not only the availability of a new referent and the cogency of its proffered program that are involved in the conversion or movement of individuals, but the degree of impetus that they have in terms of feel- ing that they would profit from a move away from their current social anchorage(s). It should be noted, however, that contact with lower—class secondary referents is negatively correlated with the dependent variable in terms of only one measure, indicating that it is not just social contact with lower- lower class referents that is involved in this alienation; indeed, contact with lower—lower class referents generally increases the level of interaction among those of the cul- ture of poverty and since they usually experience a high level of social isolation, this further contact might be the site of their further expansion of social contact (to other reference groups) and the beginning of their alien- ation from lower-lower class referents. The most socially isolated often gave their relatives as their only associ- ates and friends when asked, for example. So increased contact with lower—class secondary referents is probably an intervening variable affecting attitudinal change with respect to social ascent. Alienation from one's primary groups, especially one's family, is not significantly correlated with upward- mobility-orientation, though. Apparently one cannot fully lWaisanen (1966); Cohen (1964); Hovland (1961). 123 reject one's early primary referents and still have sufficient self-esteem to gain stability and order enough within oneself to be able to attain a positive orientation toward social ascent. Basic rejection of one's primary referents (often initiated by their rejection of oneself) is commonly associated with psychosis. Those who reject the goals of their primary referents (e.g., those who experience upward social mobility during their lifetimes) but not the referents themselves tend to experience some emotional disturbance.2 Which other variables, then, emerge as most signifi- cant? As indicated by Tables 6, 7, 10, and 11, besides those already mentioned, general spatial mobility and mass media use are among the most significant; and, as indi- cated before, these variables are in turn affected (in terms of their being available to a respondent or not) by the investment variables. Television use probably affects the evaluation of the goals of the middle-class, but not the beliefs con- cerning the possibility of social ascent. Generally, television use in negatively related to upward-mobility- orientation, as Graphs l and 2 indicate. The various contact factors--educational level, educational status, work status, contact with middle-class 2Berelson and Steiner, p. 489. 12A referents--affect upward-mobility-orientation more in terms of attitudes toward the possibility of social ascent. The investment variables, the evaluation of middle- class referents, mass media use, general spatial mobility, and the desire for contact with both middle-class and lower-class secondary referents emerge as the most significant variables. Apparently these classes of vari- ables affect both facets of upward-mobility-orientation more than the others; contact factors allow for knowledge concerning the availability of various behavioral routes to the attainment of various goals, thus the relationship with the possibility—related measures of the dependent variable. Perhaps psychic mobility lays a foundation for upward social mobility, but that vicarious inter-systemic contact is probably not enough to allow for the develop- ment of the perception of the possibility of upward social mobility. Perception of the possibility of social ascent seems to be related to the adquisition of basic coping skills, and these come from actual, as against psychic, inter-systemic contact. It should be noted that a variety of ancillary measures of the various independent variables yielded very little; the reader will note that they are dealt with very little except in terms of indicating their 125 relative significance at the onset of the deletion pro- cedures. These measures were, as indicated in the appen- dices, merely variant ways of measuring the variables we have been concerned with in this research; it was hoped that they too might yield some significant correlations, but they did not and they have been largely ignored in terms of detailed discussion here because of their paucity of validity in terms of the three conventionally accepted measures of validity--face-validity, criterion- validity, and construct-validity. The variable of "ethnicity," or the "ethnic status of the respondent" did not prove to be significantly cor- related with the dependent variable in any but one in- stance (see Table 10); in that instance, non-whites are associated with higher mobility aspirations than whites. Current civil rights activity may have lifted the aspir- ations of non-whites significantly: the significant cor- relation is found in terms of the value of social ascent, not in terms of its possibility. Generally, however, our basic null hypotheses have been rejected, even with the control for ethnicity. One ancillary measure that did prove to be a signifi— cent one was that of "neighborhood visits." It must be admitted that the correlation is in the opposite direction to that predicted, but inspection of the question and various ecological considerations will lead to a better 126 understanding of the relationship. The question at issue dealt with the number of times the individual went to another part of town (more than ten blocks away); it was our original assumption that such travel would be an indicator of general spatial mobility. Upon recoding the responses, however, it was found that it might be meaning- ful to discern the reasons for the spatial mobility. Variables were constructed indicating whether or not the individual went to visit friends or relatives (one vari- able with two values: yes or no), to work (another vari- able with two values: yes or no), and so on. The only variable of these that were specially con- structed that proved to be significant was that concerned with travel involving "visits." Now, our general hy- pothesis holds that general spatial mobility should be positively correlated with upward-mobility-orientation. I submit that this variable does not really tap just general spatial mobility, but much more, it does tap con- tact with culture of poverty members. That is, these visits constitute an indicator of sub-systemic involve- ment. After all, all of the lower-lower class ghettoes were more than a mile across in at least one direction; logically, then, a ten-block visit could still be within the culture of poverty enclave. A cursory inspection of the responses of Afro-Americans led to the conclusion, for example, that whenever they went more than, say, one 127 mile away from their home they almost invariably went to another black enclave across town. So the strong corre— lation that emerged (see Tables 6, 10, and 11) really indicates a negative correlation between sub-systemic involvement within the culture of poverty and upward- mobility-orientation, consistent with our general theses. The relative increase of the multiple correlation throughout the various analyses as more variables are included in the analyses and the relatively high level of multiple correlation throughout the analyses clearly backs up our contention concerning the cumulative effect of the independent variables in this study. In our determination of which items to include with- in the sets to be used for the determination of summated ratings, it was found that a number of items within the closed-form cpinion measure were poorly correlated with nearly all the other items and among themselves; a number of these items were, therefore, eliminated from the final analysis. Even with this accomplished, the reader has almost certainly noticed that the construct validity of the closed-form measure lags far behind the other mea- sures of the dependent variable: the total multiple correlation is lowest, and considerably fewer variables can be considered significantly correlated with that measure. This finding will perhaps aid those who decide to do similar work in the future. The semantic 128 differential measure, then, appears to be better than alternative methods. Our findings also indicate that there is some utility and meaning to the separation of the two facets of upward-mobility-orientation: that is, certain inde- pendent variables seem to be highly correlated with one but not the other of these two facets, indicating that they have more than just an analytical or conceptual meaningfulness. They do appear to have some empirically validatable existence, even in terms of their specific relationship to various independent variables. In this study, no mention was made of which facet would predomi- nate in the relationships of the various independent variables to the various measures of the dependent vari- able. In future studies, however, now that the relation- ship of the facets to the variables is at least tentatively indicated, perhaps others ought not only to specify the general relationship, but the relationship with respect to the two facets of upward-mobility-orientation. Indeed, more researchers should, to my mind, attend to the issue of which type of attitudinal change is effected by which variables, especially if it can be shown that one facet is of greater significance than the other (generally or within various contexts for whatever reasons). 129 Proposals for Further Research It has been our assumption here that the possibility facet of upward-mobility-orientation is the more important one: logically, one must believe something is possible before he can value it. This hypothesis is testable; I am proposing that it indeed be tested. A researcher might take two research populations, both high in attitudes to— ward social ascent, but varying in commitment to the two facets of upward—mobility-orientation, and then measure actual social mobility. This would necessitate a longi- tudinal or panel study and adequate control for a number of other factors, of course. I am suggesting here that there be some attempt to correlate our findings with actual behavioral outcomes in terms of who does and who does not eventually achieve social mobility. This would be in part, of course, a function of a variety of other factors, and was not our aim in this research effort. We have been primarily concerned with the attitudinal change requisite to the achievement of such social mobility. It is my expectation that beliefs about the possi- bility of upward-mobility—orientation would be more significantly related to actual behavioral mobility than would beliefs concerning the value of social mobility. That is, I contend that expectations are generally better predictors of behavior than goals and that goals tend to cluster around expectations. 130 Since we have indicated that middle-class contact, educational level, educational status, work experience, and the like are significantly correlated with upward- mobility-orientation, further work might be done in this area. What might happen, for example, if decent jobs were readily available for all or if advanced education were free for everyone? It is my expectation that it would tend to elevate the mobility aspirations of many members of the culture of poverty. Would such social structural factors affect the relative significance of so-called investment variables? There is good reason to believe so: among the middle- class, birth control methods have liberated women to some extent, and women have become relatively more field— independent.3 One might speculate upon the effects of free and widely—spread birth control and family planning information. If contact factors are so significant, then eco— logical factors such as the size of the culture of poverty enclave, the quality of municipal transit facilities, the number and type of culture of poverty institutions within the enclave (are they primarily religious, for example?), and the like would undoubtedly affect mobility aspirations. The lack of such factors, given commitment to the goals of 3 Sirjamaki (1964). 131 mobility, has frequently been cited as a source of frus- tration that has been a major factor in the evocation of recent urban riots. Generally, then, although the null hypotheses have generally been rejected within the context of this re- search effort, I propose that further work be done with a clearer specification of hypotheses and the generation of further hypotheses. Specifically, these further hy- potheses should take the independent variables of this research effort as dependent variables (as was partially done in this project: contact factors were dealt with at one point as dependent variables and were associated with the so-called investment variables) and the dependent variable (both its facets) should be taken as one of a series of independent variables affecting actual behavioral changes over time. I would be particularly interested, for example, in uncovering what factors lead to the alienation from or rejection of lower-class secondary referents that became so apparent in this research; and further analysis of its relative import is warranted, to my mind.' I think a worthwhile doctoral dissertation might be done in explication of the interrelationship of a variety of research efforts made in the area of attitude change and mobility aspirations. Certainly someone might try to bridge the theoretical gaps between such research 132 projects and devise some comprehensive theory. One of the striking facts that one cannot help but see in interdisciplinary conferences is the great overlap be- tween disciplines when they are studying the same or similar areas. All I am proposing here is that which may be seen as most valuable be synthesized a larger framework with the best of other similar efforts in the hope that some larger and more comprehensive model might be developed. To do so would increase the theoretical utility of the findings presented here and elsewhere and move us a bit further in our understanding of the dynamics of social psychological change. BIBLIOGRAPHY 133 BIBLIOGRAPHY Barber, Bernard. European Social Class: Stability and Change. New York: MacMillan and Company, 1965. . Social Stratification: A Comparative Analysis of Structure and Process. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1957; Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour (eds). Class, Status and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. New York: The Free Press, 1966. Berelson, Bernard and Steiner, Gary A. Human Behavior: An Inventory of Scientific Findings. New York: 'Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., l96A. Briones, Guillermo and Waisanen, F. B. "Educational Aspirations, Modernization and Urban Integration." A paper read at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association, Miami, Florida, 1966. Bronfenbrenner,U."Socialization and Social Class Through Time and Space," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, et al., Third edition. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1958. Broom, Leonard and Selznick, Philip. Sociology: A Text With Adapted Readings. Third edition. New York: Harper and Row, 1963. Broom, Leonard. "Social Differentiation and Stratification," Sociology Today: Problems and Prospects. Edited by Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. New York: Basic Books, 1959. Centers, Richard. The Psychology of-Social Classes. _New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1961. Cloward, Richard A. and Ohlin, Lloyd E. Delinquency and Opportunity. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960 Cohen, Arthur R. Attitude and Social Influence. New York: Basic Books, 1964. Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact on Education. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1961. 13A 135 Davis, Allison, et a1. Deep South: A Social—Anthropolo- gical Study of Caste and Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. New York: Harper and Row, 1957. Ferman, Louis A.; Kornbluh, Joyce L.; and Haber, Alan. (eds.). Poverty in America. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1965. I Gailbraith, John Kenneth. The New Industrial State. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Company, 1967. Gordon, Robert A.; Short, James F. Jr.; Cartwright, Desmond S.; and Strodtbeck, Fred L. "Values and Gang Delinquency: A Study of Street Corner Groups," . American Journal of Sociology, LXIX (September, 1963), 5 109-12 . ‘ Glass, David M. Social Mobility in Britain. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 195A. Himmelweit, Hilde; Oppenheim, A. N.; and Vince, Pamela.x "Television and the Child,” Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. Edited by Bernard Berelson and Morris Janowitz. Second edition. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1966. Hollingshead, August, and Redlich, Frederick. Social Class and Mental Illness. New York: John Wiley and Sons. 1958. Hovland, C. I., and Sherif, M. Social Judgment. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Hyman, Herbert H. "The Value Systems of Different Classes: A Social Psychological Contribution to the Analysis of Stratification," Class, Status, and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. Edited by Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953. Kahl, Joseph A. "Educational and Occupational Aspirations of 'Common Man' Boys," Harvard Educational Review, 23 (1953), 185-203- . The American Class Structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1957. Knupfer, Genevieve. "Portrait of the Underdog," Public Opinion Quarterly, 11 (19A7), 103-11A. 136 Koos, Earl H. Families in Trouble. New York: Kings Crown Press, 1936. . The Health in Regionville. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Lane, W. Clayton, and Ellis, Robert A. "Social Mobility and Anticipatory Socialization," Pacific Sociological Review, II, no. 1 (Spring, 1968), 5-1 . Lewis, Oscar. Five Families: Mexican Case Studies in the Culture of Poverty. New York: Basic Books, 1959. ‘The Children of Sanchez: Autobiography of A Mexican Family. New York: Random House, 1961. Lipset, Seymour M., and Bendix, Reinhard (eds.). Class, Status, and Power: A Reader in Social Stratification. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953. . Social Mobility_in Industrial Society. Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 1959. Loomis, Charles P., and Loomis, Zona K. Modern Social Theories. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van’Nostrand CO., Inc., 1951. Social Systems: Essays in Their Persistence and Change. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1960. ‘ Lynd, Robert S., and Lynd, Helen M. Middletown. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1929. Middletown in Transition. New York: Harcourt Brace, 1937. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Revised edition. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957- Myrdal, Gunnar. Challenge to Affluence. New York: Vintage Books, 1965. Newcomb, T. M.; Turner, R. H.; and Converse, P. E. Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1965. Orshansky, Mollie. "Counting the Poor: Another Look at the Poverty Profile," Poverty in America. Edited by Louis A. Ferman, Joyce L. Kornbluh and Alan Haber. An26Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 19 . 137 Roach, Jack L. "Economic Deprivation and Lower-Class Behavior." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, New York University at Buffalo, New York, 1964. Rogoff, Natalie. Recent Trends in Occupational Mobility, Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953. Schlesinger, Benjamin. The Multiproblem Family. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press, 1963. Shibutani, Tomatsu. "Reference Groups as Perspectives," American Journal of Sociology, LX (May, 1955) 562-569. Sirjamaki, John. The American Family in the Twentieth Century. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1964. Sjoberg, Gideon (ed.). Ethics, Politics, and Social Research. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Schenkman Publishing Co., Inc., 1967. Waisanen, F. B. "Control Variables or Indicators: Some Preliminary Comments." Unpublished working paper, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, February, 1966. (Mimeograph.) Warner, W. Lloyd, and Lunt, Paul S. The Status System of a Modern Community. Yankee City Series, II. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942. Warren, Roland L. "Multi-Problem Families." Paper presented at New York State Welfare Conference, 1960, Annual Meeting, New York. (Mimeograph.) Watson, Goodwin. Social Psychology: Issues and Insights. New York: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1966. West, James. Plainville, U. S. A. New York: Columbia University Press, 1945. APPENDICES 138 APPENDIX I VARIABLES AND THEIR OPERATIONAL MEASURES 139 140 Variable l.--Upward—Mobility-Orientation (Semantic Differential-Value). Card 2 Col.: Value Now, here is another set of ladders. They work the same way. Please look at the first ladder. At the top of the ladder are those things which are very important to you. At the bottom are those things which are vegy unimportant to you. 1. Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 1 2. Where would you put 'living in a brand new house?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 2 3. Your earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 3 4. Getting a job that most people would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 4 Card 3 Now, turn to card number 2. At the top of this ladder are those things which you consider very desirable. At the bottom are those things which you con- sider very undesirable. 5.. Now, where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 5 6. Living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 6 141 Card 3 Col.: Value 7. Earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 7 8. Getting a job that most people would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 8 Now, turn to card number 3. At the top of this ladder are those things which you consider very appealing. At the bottom are those things which you con- sider very unappealing. 9. Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?’ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 9 10. Living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 10 11. Your earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 11 12. Getting a job that most people would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 12 Now, turn to ladder number 6. At the top are those things which you would consider very good for you. At the bottom are those things which you would consider very bad for you. 13. Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA l3 14. Living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 14 15. l6. Earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 Getting a job that most people 3 2 1 142 0 would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA NA Card 3 Col.: 15 16 Variable 2.--Upward-Mobility-Orientation (Semantic Differential-Possibility). N0w, turn to ladder number 4. 1. Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 876 5 4 3 2 l 0 At the top are those things you think are very possi- ble for you to obtain. those things which are completely impossi- ble for you to obtain. At the bottom are NA Living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 Earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 Getting a job that most peOple 5 5 LI 4 3 3 2 2 l l O 0 would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 Getting an ever better life for your children than you now have? 8 7 6 5 4 3 3 2 2 l l O 0 NA NA NA NA Card 3 Value Value 143 Card 3 Col.: Value Now, turn to card number 5. At the tOp of this ladder are those things which are very easy for you to achieve. At the bottom are those things which are very difficult for you to achieve. 6, Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 6 7. Living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 1 8, Your earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 8 9, Getting a Job that most peOple would not look down on? 876543210NA 9 10. Getting an even better life for your children than you now have? 876543210NA _i_q_________ Now, turn to card number 7. At the top are those things which you think are very likely to happen to you. At the bottom are those things which you think are very un- likely to happen to you. 11. Where on this ladder would you put 'getting more education?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA ll 12. Your living in a brand new house? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA l2 13. Your earning more than $7,000 a year? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 13 14. Getting a Job that most people would not look down on? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 14 144 Card 3 Col.: Value 15. Getting an even better life for my children than I now have? 876543210NA 15 Variable 3.--Upward-Mobility-Orientation (Semantic Differential). . Variables l and 2 combined. Variable 4.--Upward—Mobility—OrientatiOnV(Closed-form Opinion Measure). , Card 3 Col.: Value Now, I'm going to read some statements to you. When I read a statement, would you tell me which answer on this card tells how you feel? Interviewer: Circle response number. Now, here is the first statement. Which answer on the card (Interviewer: give card to respondent) tells best how you feel about this statement? 1. (A-l) It is possible for a man to better himself if he works hard. 1 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know 2. (C-1) America is the land of oppor- tunity, especially to make money. 2 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know 145 (D-l) Better Jobs are available if only men will train (or re- train) themselves to fill them. 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know (C-2) Nobody can make much money in the U. S. today without some kind of "pull." 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know (A-2) A man can still get ahead in the U. S. if he wants to and if he tries hard enough. 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know (A-3) Anyone can become a success if he wants to. 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know (C-4) Anyone in this country can make more money if he works hard enough. 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know (B-l) In this country, how much edu- cation a person gets depends on how hard he is willing to work. 4 Agree Strongly 1 Disagree 3 Agree 0 Disagree Strongly 2 Don't know Cardg3 Col.: Value 10. ll. l2. l3. 14. 146 (D-2) People can find better jobs if they really want to. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly (B-2) I can get more schooling if I really want to. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly (C-S) No matter how poor a man is to start with he can make a lot of money if he really tries. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly (B-3) Almost anyone can go to college if he works hard enough. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know (A-4) People who are not successful are 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly that way because they never really had a chance. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly (B-4) Anybody can get at least a high school education if he wants to. 4 Agree Strongly 3 Agree 2 Don't know 1 Disagree 0 Disagree Strongly Card 3 Col.: 10 Card 4 Col.: ll 12 ELL.— 14 Value 17.61.1113 147 Variable 5.--Age. 1. 1. lo Card 1 Respondent's age at last birthdate: 1 Variable 6.--Sex. Respondent's sex: Male Female (15 (2) 1 Variable 7.--Marital Status. Marital Status: Married Divorced (l) (2) Separated Widowed (3) '(4) Other Single (4) (5) 1 Variable 8.-—Spatia1 Mobility Travelling to School. 1. Are you now in school? Yes No (l) (2) 1 If no, where did you live when you last went to school? Variable 9.--Educational Level. 1. What was the last grade in school that you completed? 1 None Grade school__ K lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Junior high or high school 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th (7) (8) (9) (10) (ll) (12) 148 Did you graduate: yes no (135 College lst year 2nd year 3rd year (14) (15) (16) 4th year (17) Did you graduate: yes no (18Y“" "“" Variable 10.--Work Status. 1. Are you working at present? Yes ‘ No (l) (2) student (3) housewife (4) I'disabled (5) unemployed Interviewer: When interviewing females, state: "This refers to work on a regular pay basis." Interviewer: If no, ask respondent to Specify his or her answer. Then to on to question 7. If yes, go on to question number 8 Variable ll.--Yearly Work Status. 1. Have you worked in the past year? Yes No (1) (2) Interviewer: If yes, when? Card 1 l —_ 1 If no, go on to question 15. 149 Card 1 Col.: Value Variable l2.--Average working house per week. 1. 0n the average, how many hours a week do (did) you work? 1 Variable l3.--Length of work. 1. How long have you worked at the job you have now? (Or, how long did you work at the last Job you had?) Years; Months 1 _____ Variable l4.--Television use. 1. In the average day, how many hours would you say you spend watching TV? hours 1 Variable 15.--Educational status. 1. Are you now in school? Yes No (15 (2) 1 Variable 16.--Neighborhood visits. 1. In the average week, how often do you go to another part of town (Inter- viewer: 'another part of town' means any place more than 10 blocks away)? 1 Variable l7.--Number of friends. 1. How many close friends do you have? 1 Variable 18.--Distance of non-familial primary referents from the respondent. Following the question tapping variable Number 17, the following question was used to tap variable number 18: 1. Where do they live? 1 150 Card 1 Col.: Value Variable 19.--Job promotion efforts. 1. Are you presently doing anything which would increase the possibility of getting ahead in your work (e.g., getting promoted, training for an- other job, etc.?) 1 No Yes. What? Variable 20.--Ethnicity: scored by interviewer and checked by project director. Variable 21.--Travel—shopping. 1. For what reasons do you go to another part of town? 1 Variable 22.--Trave1-work. 1. For what reasons do you go to another part of town? 1 Variable 23.--Travel-school. 1. For what reasons do you go to another part of town? 1 Variable 24.--Mass media use. 1. In the average month, how many times do_you go to the movies?_____ 1 ______ 2. What newspapers do you read? 2 ______ (l) I (2) None 1 (3) l (4) Interviewer: If none, go on to question #4. 151 Card 1 Col.: Value 3. In the average day, how much time do you spend reading the newspaper? hours 3 4. In the average day, how much time to you spend listening to the radio? hours 4 5. What magazines do you read? I 5 (l) I (2) I I (3) I (47’ | (5) None Interviewer, if none, go on to question #6. 6. In the average week, how much time do you spend reading magazines? hours 6 Variable 25.-—Spatia1 mobility travelling to work. 1. Where do (did) you work? l __ 2. Could you tell me what "other jobs" you've had within the past three years? (Most recent "other Job" first; then next most recent; etc.) 2 None Job Where How Long 152 Card 1 Col.: Value Variable 26.--Genera1 spatial mobility. 1. In the average week, how often do you go downtown? 1 2. In the average week, how often do you go to another part of town (Inter— viewer: 'another part of town' means any place more than 10 blocks away)? 2 3. For what reasons do you go to another part of town? 3 4. In the average month, how often do you travel out of Lansing? 4 5. Where do you usually go? 5 6. Where is the farthest city or place you have gone to within the last two years? 6 7. How often did you go to Detroit during the year 1966? 7 Variable 27.--Location of non-familial primary referents (inside or outside city). Same as for Variable No. 16. Variable 28.-—Perception of problems in- volved in getting ahead. 1. What do you think is the biggest pro- blem the average person has in trying to get ahead in the world nowadays? No problems; Don't know or no answer 1 Variable 29.--Contact with lower-class primary referents. Now, turn to card number 4. At the top of the ladder are those with whom you have verquuch contact. At the bottom are those with whom you have n2 contact. 153 Where on this ladder would you place your close friends? 8 7' 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Where would you put your father? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Your mother? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Your brothers and sisters? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Your neighbors? 876543210NA Variable 30.—-Facilities. 1. Do you own a television? Yes No (15 (2) Do you own a radio? Yes No (1) (2) Do you subscribe to a newspaper? Yes No (1) (25 Do you subscribe to any magazines? Yes No * (1) (2) Do you own an automobile? Yes No (1) (2) Do you have a telephone? Yes No 4 4 Card 2 Value 154 Card Col.: Value Variable 31.-~Knowledgeability. Suppose you have to describe to a person from another country what the following people do for a living. What would you tell them? 1. Mickey Mantle Don't know 1 2. Dean Rusk Don't know 2 3. Marilyn Monroe Don't know 3 4. Lyndon Johnson Don't know 4 5. Adam Clayton Powell Don't know 5 6. The Beatles Don't know 6 7. Cassius Clay Don't know 7 8. George Romney Don't know 8 Variable 32.--Desire for contact with middle-class referents. Now, turn to card number 5. At the top of the ladder are those with whom you would like to have very much contact. At the bottom are those with whom you would Card 2 like to have n3 contact at all. Col.: Value 1. School teachers 'in general?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 1 2. Those who are considered wealthy? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 2 Variable 33.-—Desire for contact with 155 Businessmen? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Job supervisors? 876543210NA Those who are well educated? 876543210NA Doctors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Lawyers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA lower-class primary referents. Where on this ladder would you put: 1. Your close friends? 876543210NA Where would you put your father? 876543210NA Your mother? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Your brothers and sisters? 876543210NA Your neighbors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Card 2 Col.: Value 156 Card 2 Col.: Value Variable 34.--Desire for contact with lower-class secondary referents. 1. Assembly line workers? 876543210NA _1____ 2. Truck drivers? 876543210NA _2___ 3. Bartenders? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA ;L_____ 4. Waitresses? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 4 5. Domestic help? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 5 6. Fortune tellers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA _5_____ _«__ Variable 35.--Eva1uation of middle-class referents. Interviewer: Tell respondents: "The following groups are to be considered Card 1 'in general.'" Col.: Value 1. Where on this ladder would you put school teachers 'in general?‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 1 2. Those who are considered wealthy? (Interviewer, if not clear, '$20,000 a year or more'). 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 2 3. Businessmen? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA 3 157 Job supervisors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Those who are well educated? (Interviewer: for example, 'some education beyond high school.') 876543210NA Doctors? 876543210NA Lawyers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Interviewer, Again, the following questions are 'in general.’ 8. 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. Where on this ladder would you put school teachers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Those who are considered wealthy? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Businessmen? 876543210NA Job supervisors? 876543210NA Those who are well-educated? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Doctors? 876543210NA Lawyers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Card 1 Col.: 10 ll 12 13 14 Value 158 Interviewer: Again the following questions are 'in general.’ l5. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20, 21. Variable 36.--Evaluation of lower-class Where on this ladder would you place school teachers? 876543210NA Those who are considered wealthy? 876543210NA Businessmen? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Job supervisors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Those who are well educated? 876543210NA Doctors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Lawyers? 876543210NA primary referents. 1. viewer: Now, where on the ladder (Inter- Move finger up and down) would you put 'close friends?' 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Where on the ladder would you put your father? 876543210NA Where would you put your mother? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Card 2 Col.: 15 16 17 18 19 2O 21 Card 1 Value 1.21129. 10. 11. 12. 13. l4. 15. 159 Where would you put your brothers and sisters? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Where would you put your neighbors? 876543210NA Now, where on this ladder would you place your close friends? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Where would you put your father? 876543210NA Your mother? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Your brothers and sisters? 876543210NA Your neighbors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Where on this ladder would you place your close friends? 876543210NA Where would you put your father? 876543210NA Your mother? 876543210NA Your brothers and sisters? 876543210NA Your neighbors? 876543210NA Card 1 10 11 12 l3 l4 15 Value Variable 37.--Evaluation of lower-class 160 secondary referents. l. 10, 11. 1'2 . Assembly line workers? 876543210NA Truck drivers? 876543210NA Bartenders? 876543210NA Waitresses? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Domestic help: (Interviewer: 'those who are paid for doing housework.') 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Fortune tellers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Assembly line workers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Truck drivers? 876543210NA Bartenders? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Waitresses? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Domestic help? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA Fortune tellers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Card 1 Col.: 10 11 12 12.1112 13. l4. l5. l6. 17. 18. Variable 38.-—Desire for contact with Assembly line workers? 87654321 Truck drivers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l Bartenders? 8 7' 6 5 4 3 2 1 Waitresses? 8 7‘.6 5 4 3 2 1 Domestic help? 87654321 Fortune tellers? 87654321 161 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA lower—class secondary referents. 1. Assembly line workers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Truck drivers? 87654321 Bartenders? 87654321 Waitresses? 87654321 Domestic help? 876514321 Fortune tellers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 l 0 NA NA NA NA NA NA Card 2 Col.: 13 14 l5 l6 17 18 Value 162 Now, turn to card number 4. At the top of the ladder are those with whom you have very much contact. At the bottom are those with whom you have n9 contact. 1. School teachers 'in general.‘ 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 2. Those who are considered wealthy? 876543210NA .3. Businessmen? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 4. Job supervisors? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA 5. Those who are well educated? 876543210NA 6. Doctors? 876543210NA 7. Lawyers? 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 NA Variable 40.--Number of family members(screening Right now we are interested in interviewing peOple between the ages of 17 and 29. Are there any members of your family (both at home and living away from home) in this age group? Interviewer: If no, thank the re- Spondent and take your leave. If yes, ask .the following question. Could you list for me, please, the members of your family? Card 2 Col.: 1211c: variable). 163 Variable 4l.--Income (screening variable). Now I am going to hand you a card with various levels of income on it. Where on this card would you put your total family income for the last year? APPENDIX II CODING AND RECODING PROCEDURES 164 ‘wL- 165 Recording Recording Recoding Recoding , J , Vari ab 16 Coding Procedure Irocedure Procedure Irocedure Number Procedure (Correlation) (8—I‘oil- (3-foil- (2-f‘oil— Chi Square) Chi Square) Chi Square) 1. Summary score of all None None None None items. 2. Same as l. 3. Summary score of all None 248-220 = 8 6-8 = 3 5-8 = 2 items. 219-210 = 7 3-5 = 2 0-4 = 1 209—201 = 6 0—2 = 1 200-191 = 5 190-177 = 4 176-166 = 3 165-144 = 2 143-115 = 1 114-000 = 0 4 . Summary score of all None 57—46 = 8 6—8 a 3 5—8 = 2 items. 45-43 = 7 3—5 = 2 0-4 = 1 42-41 = 6 0-2 = 1 LIO = 5 39 = 4 38-37 = 3 36-35 = 2 34-31 = 1 30—00 = 0 5 ° As on questionnaire None None 24—29 = 3 21-37 = 2 19—23 = 2 20-17 = 1 17-18 = 1 6° As on questionnaire None None None None 7' As on questionnaire 2-8 = 2 None None None 1 = 1 8' As on questionnaire None None None None 9' As on questionnaire lone None 18-13 = 3 18-12 = 2 12—11 = 2 11—00 = 1 10-00 = l 10' As on questionnaire None None None None 11' As on questionnaire None None None None 12‘ As on questionnaire None None 99-40 = 3 99-40 = 2 39-01 = 2 39-00 = 1 00 = 1 l3- . As on questionnaire 10 mo = 9 mo. None 99-05 = 3 99—04 = 2 11 mo. = 1 year . 04-01 = 2 03-00 = 1 00 = 1 14. 0 not at all None None 8-5 = 3 8-5 = 2 l = less than 1 hr. 4—3 = 2 4-0 = l per day 2-0 = l 2 - l 1.9 hrs. per day 3 a 2 2.9 hrs per day 4 ' 3 3.9 hrs. per day 5 t 4 4.9 hrs. per day 6 - 5-5.9 hrs. per day 7 I 6 6.9 hrs. per day 8 . 7 or more hrs. per day 9 I no information 166 Pecoding Receding Receding Procedure Procedure Procedure (8-Foil- (3-foil— (2-foil— Chi Square) Chi Square) Chi Square) Recoding Procedure (Correlation) Variable Coding Numbe 1" Procedure 155. As on questionnaire None None None None not at all None None None None once twice times 4 times times times times times or more no information 16 . ODQ ONU'T IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII \DmflmthMI—‘O CD 17. '40:) = 8 or more None None = no. of friends H I II II II I—me II II P—’ r) cw I Op.) C\ I 153. C II no friends or all None None outside city less than 2 blocks 2-4.9 blocks ' ’.9 blocks .9 blocks .9 blocks miles miles miles FJU'ICD I UUJC‘ A, 00 I OL’T II II M II II II HR)“- .t' I n I I I I H CDNONKDELAIMH IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII WI‘JHWNk LUDJILHCDC‘ \DKQ‘O If; ° no answer or 8-1 don't know 0-1 getting training outside one's job - bargaining on per- sonal basis for better position 3 = getting further edu- cation in college apprenticeship pro- gram Job—hunting finishing high school on-Job training working second job taking training for promotion O II P 1;) (_D I II P C303 I 1»; II II Hm 0w .2... II ,_. I r—u—a "I! H I—J II II II I—J J [‘0 I 1: II \OOJNC\U1 II II II II II 2C) ‘ 2 None None None white 8— Negro Mexican American Puerto Rican American 8 = Illegal codes no information P IX) II II I—J 2 1" None None None does not shop 3—1 does shop 0 goes to doctor or dentist shops and goes to doctor or dentist II II I—J ro MI—IO \OU‘IEWNH II II II I La.) II 222 I‘d does not work None None None goes to work looks for work YUP-JO II II II I OH II II HR) 223- 0 ll does not go to None None None None school 1 = goes to school 167 Recoding Recoding Receding Recoding Variab 1e Coding Procedure Procedure Procedure Procedure Numberr' Procedure (Correlation) (8-foil- (3-foil- (2-foil- Chi Square) Chi Square) Chi Square) 24 . Summary score of None 30-21 = 8 8-6 = 3 8-5 = 2 all items. 20-16 = 7 5-3 = 2 4-0 = 1 15-14 = 6 0—2 = 1 13-11 = 5 10-09 = 4 08—07 = 3 06-05 = 2 04—03 = 1 02-00 = 0 25 - Summary score of None 18-12 = 8 8-6 = 3 8-5 = 2 the following codings: 11 = 7 5-3 = 2 4-0 = l 10 = 6 0-2 a l 0 = not applicable 09 = 5 l a within 5 blocks 08-07 = 4 or less 06-04 = 3 2 - between 6-7 blocks 03-02 = 2 3 - between 8-9 blocks 01 = l 4 = from 10-12 blocks 00 = 0 (to less than a mile) 5 = from l-l.9 miles 6 = from 2-4.9 miles 7" from 5-9.9 miles 8 a 10 miles or more 9 = no information Total no. of Jobs 0 = not applicable 1 = Jobs in other cities 2 = Jobs all in same city disregard 3—8 9 = no information 26' Summary score of None 40-23 = 8 8-6 = 3 8-5 = 2 all items. 22-19 = 7 5-3 = 2 4-0 = 1 18-16 = 6 2-0 = 1 15—14 = 5 13—11 = 4 10-09 = 3 08-07 = 2 06-05 = 1 04-00 = 0 2T’. 0 = not applicable 1 = 2 1 = 2 1 a 2 = 2 1 = yes 0 & 2 = 1 0 & 2 = l 0 & 2 = 1 0 8 2 = l 2 = no 28‘, . 00 = none 3 = personal None None 3 = 2 01 = UK or NA problem . 2—1 = l 02 = stress of trying 2 = social to achieve structural 03 = lack of money; problem cost of living 1 = No answer 04 = getting an edu- or don't cation; getting know_ more education 05 a getting new skills, training 06 = understanding one- self and one's goals . having (or not having) clear goals; having right attitudes; having right relationship to society 168 Variab 1e Nunnoeer Receding Procedure (Correlation) Coding Procedure Receding Procedure (8-foil— Chi Square) Chi Square) Receding Recoding Procedure Procedure (3-foil- (2—foil- Chi Square) 229- 07 = trying hard enough to get ahead 08 = bad luck; no luck 09 = not enough good jobs to go around; limitation of opportunitiev 10 = too much compe- tition; competition in general 11 = getting married too young 12 a finding a good Job; locating availatle Jobs 13 = knowing the right people; having "pull" 14 3 getting enough help from your family 15 = having a bad family life 16 = working hard enough to finish education 17 = taxes; high taxes; government not "taking care of peeple" 18 I lack of experience in work areas 19 = learning English; learning American customs 20 = not working hard enough; laziness 21 = not getting enough education 22 = draft laws 23 = getting started; getting a good start 24 = prejudice; racial discrimination 25 = adjusting to society 26 a too much charity; too much welfare; giving too much money to poor people 27 = drinking 28 = learning from your mistakes 29 2 lack of self-confidence 30 = people too pushy 31 = trying too hard; trying to do too much at once Summary score of all None items. 40-38 37-36 35—34 33-32 31-29 28-25 24-22 21-17 16-0 OI—‘NLAJEUWGNCD 8-6 5-3 2-0 PJCO et'n II II L—JM I-‘Nw 169 Recoding Pecodin Receding Receding Variable Coding Proceduge Procedure Procedure Procedure Nant>eI‘ Procedure (8-foil- (3-foil- (?-foil- (Correlation) Chi Square) Chi Square) Chi Square) All facili- ties lacking one 6- facility lacking two facilities lacking three facilities lacking four facilities lacking five facilities lacking six facilities 3(3 . Summary score of all None 8 = items. ONO) II II II HN'VU C\CX) I I ON II II I—‘N M II 3:17- all lacking one lacking two 6- lacking three lacking four Summary score of None all items. II I—‘M 040) II II II HMUJ 322. 323 - 314 3355. OHNWEUTONNOD lacking lacking lacking lacking Summary score all items. Summary score all items. Summary score all items. Summary score all items. of of of of None None None None J J D II II II II II II II II II UU bx) I .JWI ’~ H CO IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 9...! C\ I I—‘ .1: II II II II Jl II II II II 200-143 142-132 131-125 124-115 114-102 101-092 091-082 081-068 067-000 OI—‘MWJ—Z‘U'IGNCD OI—‘MWCU‘IONNCD OHMWUWONNG) OHMWE’WONKJCD five six seven eight 8-6 5-3 2 O MUICD I me NUWCD I OwON MU‘ICO I me I—‘I'UUJ I—‘Nw I—‘NUU I—‘Nw II II II II I—JM I—‘M 170 I‘9!!0(11nyf I?e<:o'>’,I;s“ = ‘1 oh: w‘ _ L,““I-I ‘J'J _ l I: ._...'. .. I) . tr. r 1 . 11 . ,. -..-. , . 381— Hummary score of Jone 48-1; = 6 8-6 3 w-5 2 ‘.- :'- ,\," . r- ,- '. all l-cm . ¢L-Rg = g 3-3 p 8-9 _ 1 1 1, , .1-.) o 2-0 — l 1C_i': ._. c i- l. , 12.-l1) Iv 14-11 - 3 V J 7r_nR = o .1 .‘1/ L. “7-04 1 (IE—1'40 _ '0 3 " 3 J ° Summary score of ste 34-43 = V 8_{ = ; 9-; = 3 ,. .' q «<7 9| ,. q , - 1, all items. ”1-33 - , 5-; - g 4-. = 1 ' 3 if _ ' ,. r~ 3‘1—3.‘) b J—IJ _ l ") ,_’TI'7 .. C L._, Ly " ’1 —» ’ , I . 26-24 = 4 "u "3 _, ‘1 - -‘_l — _‘j a: 1’.) .. ‘3 .__\.—.‘_‘J — o 1"? h ‘ ;;-1“ l l 1‘60 0 I 40. . . Used for screening only. 141 - “A seed for screening only. APPENDIX III VARIABLE CONSTRUCTION DATA 171 . _-\-u-_\.W . A ; 'I ‘r j' s" «I [fly I”; ‘ 172 Inter-item correlations--desire for contact with lower- class primary referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 1 -— 20 .17 .ll 26 2 -- .47 .36 24 3 -- 41‘ .19 4 -- .47 5 __ Inter-item correlations--desire for contact with lower- class secondary referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 —— 67 33 .46 .40 19 2 -- .46 .49 .40 .17 3 -- 44 .26 .25 4 -- .49 25 5 -- .18 6 __ 173 Inter—item correlations—-desire for contact with middle- class referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 -- 45 .48 49 60 .42 .49 2 -- 70 .48 54 .36 .43 3 -- .59 65 .47 .49 4 -- .59 .39 .41 5 -- .49 .50 6 -- .64- 7 -_ Inter-item correlations—-desire for contact with lower- class primary referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 __ 32 .31 26 .191 -- .62 44 .18 3 —- .61 .18 4 -— .36 U1 174 Inter-item correlations-~desire for contact with lower- class secondary referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 -- 50 39 .40 44 20 2 -- 42 .38 31 25 3 -- 51 .28 23 4 -- .47 .18 5 .25 6 _- Inter-item correlations--desire for contact with middle- class referents. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 —- 46 3O .23 43 11 24 2 -- 59 .39 .40 15 32 -- .40 .50 .32 .35 -- .44 .15 .29 .31 .30 \l 0\ U1 .1: LU I l 175 Mass media use. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 -- .14 .15 .24 .17 .20 2 -- .64 .14 .44 .34 3 -- 20 .40 33 4 -— .19 .23 5 -- .66 6 _- General Spatial Mobility. Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 -- 29 O6 22 24 15 28 2 -- 19 28 .28 21 35 3 -- 13 ll 04 28 4 -- 54 .21 21 5 -- .27 .32_ 6 -- .24 7 __ Spatial mobility-work. Items 1 2 3 l -- 055 “l 2 -- .44 176 _ MD Canasluxis‘n . I.... . II ®H am. II NH om. mm. II wH mm. Hmfmq. I 3 :H. mm. mm. mm. II :H mH. mm. mm. on. on. I: MH mu. Fm. am. mm. mm. mm. II NH mm. om. ma. Fm. Na. Hm. mm. II HH mm. om. mm. m:. Hm. om. mm. mm. II OH mm. mm. on. em. mm. mm. m:. mm. m:..|| m NH. an. :m. mm. om. sw. mH. ms. mm. mm. I: m mH. Hm..om. Hm. mm. mm. wH. am. mm. mm. as. I: s mm. mm. mm. mm. am. mm. :w. mm. um. mm. om. mH. II o om. ms. om. mm. on. om. mm. ms. m2. mm. hm. ma. Hm. I: m mm. om. ms. mm. on. om. mm. Hm. we. on. cm. 5:. mm. mm. II 3 mm. om. 0:. am. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. mm. Hz. am. Hz. om. we. II m NH. ma. mm. :m. ms. mm. mH. sm. m2. mm. mp. mm. Hm. m2. mm. H:. In N mH. on. ma. mm. mm. mm. om. Hz. ms. Hm. mm. mm. mm. as. am. 5m. mm. II H mH NH mH mH :H MH NH HH OH 0 m w m m a m N H mEopH .mpconomon mumocoomm mmmHoIemBOH mo COHumsHm>m 177 II mH 1;. I :H Hm. ms. nu mH Hm. Hm. mm. II mH mm. mm. om. Hm. II HH mm. um. Hm. mH. Hm. II OH 0:. >5. mm. Hm. Hm..mz. I: m :H. mm. em. um. 3H. om. mm. I: w mH. om. pm. mm. mm. NH. :m. cm. II N mm. em. mH. om. ms. am. mm. mH. am. I: m ms. Hm. mH. sH. em. as. mm. NH. mH. mm. I: m mm. ow. mm. mH. mH. mm. H». Hm. 0H. mH. Ha. I: : mH. mm. mm. mm. mo. NH. mm. mm. mm. mH. :H. mm. I: m mH. mH. mm. mm. mm. :H. zH. mm. am. NH. om. mm. mm. II m :m. NH. HH. mH. mm. mm. :H. mo. mH. :m. mm. mm. 0H. mH. II H mH :H mH mH HH 0H m w s m m a m m H mEopH .mpcohomom mpmeHmo mmeolmoSOH mo COHpmSHm>m 178 CH (\IN H5. II mm. 00. II mm. mm. 00. II N0. N0. mm. H5. II Hm. ::. 00. Nm. N5. II mm..0m. om. N0. N0. 0:. II om. mm. 5m. mm. Nm. 5:..Nm. II Hm. :5. 0:. ::. Hm. Nm. N:. 00. II 0m..5m. 05. mm. mm. :m. mm. :0. :m. II 0m. Nm. 5m. Hm. No. 5:. 0:. 5m. 5:. 50. II mm. :m. 5m. 0m. 0m. 0m. Nm. :0. Nm. 50. mm. II m:. mm. 0m. ::. mm. 05. m:. Nm. 0m. :m. m:. 05. II N:. 0m. 0:. mm. 0:. mm. :5. 0m. m:. 0:. m:. Nm. H:. II 00. mm. om. m:. :m. H:. 0:. 05. 50. mm. 5:. :m. N:. 5:. In 0:. mm. mm. mm. 0:. 0m. m:. Hm. m5. ::. 0m. 0:. 0N. 0:. N0. II mm. Hm. 05. om. Hm. 0m. Nm. :m. m:. m5. mm. mm. m:. m:. 0m. 5:. II 5:. 0:. 0:. H5. 5m. 0m. H:. 0:. 0m. mm. 05. mm. 0:. mm. m:. mm. mm. II 5:. 0:. m:. Hm. 5m. 0:. m:. m:. m:. mm. :m. N5. mm. m:. 0:. m:. mm. Nm. II :m. 0N. mm. mm. 0:. 5m. 5N. mm. MN. mm. mm. 0:. 5m. mN. 0m. mN. 5m. H:. 00. II :m. Nm. 5m. wN. 0m. mm. mm. 0m. 0m. mm. 0m. 0m. :m. N5. 0m. 5m. 0m. Nm. 0m. 5N. II Or-INM-ZI'LOKDNCIDON r-It-Ir-Ir-Ir-Ir—II-ir-Ir-It—I r—INMZ'mKOF-wm HN 0N 0H mH 5H 0H mH :H MH NH HH 0H 0 m 5 m m : m N H mEopH .mpcogommg mmmHOIoHeoHe mo QOHomsHm>m 179 0H. .2' H II mH Nm. wH. II NH mN. 0H. 0:. II HH NN. HN. wN. :H. II 0H .0H. 0H. mm. 5m. NN. In 0 NN. :N. 0N. 0N. 0m. Nm. II m 0H. 5H. :m. mm. 0H. mm. Nm. In 5 mN. 0H. 0:..5m. MN. H:. 5m. om. II o NN. MN. 5N. mN. 0N. wN.,5N. Nm. Hm. II m 0H. :m. :H. HH. HH. MH. m0. 0H. 0N. :H. II : 5N. :N. 0N..Nm. :N. NN. 0N. 0N. 0N. mm. 0N. I: m :H. :H. OH. NN. mH. wH. :H. NN. MH. 0H. MN. mm. II N 0H. 0N. 0H. 0N. 0N. mN. 0N. :N. 5N. ::. 5N. mm. mN. II H :H MH NH HH 0H 0 w 5 m m : m N H mEopH .AoASmmoE COHeHoo spoolommOHoV cOHpmucon0|5uHHHnoelegmsob 180 H m ozn .. om oz. mo. I: am oz. om. mo. n- om om. oz. oz. oz. -- om mm. oo. mm. om. om. I- oN om. om. oo. oz. mm. mm. -- om mo. Hm. om. oz. om. mo. om. .. zN mo. oz. No. mm. om. zo. Ho. oz. 1- mo zo. zo. om. oz. om. mm. om. om. Hm. .. . om zm. o5. Ho. oz. zz. mo. om. oH. Hz. oz. u- Hm o . zu. o5. oo. oz. 5m. Hz. oH. Hm. oz. mo. -- oo oo. zo. oz. mo. zm. Hm. om. om. om. oz. om. zo. -- oH om. oz. om. oo. oo. Hm. 5m. Ho. oz. oz. oz. oz. mo. -- oH oo. oz. om. mm. mm. oo. o. oH. mm. oo. 5z. om. mm. om. .. 5H 5m. m5. Hm. om. om. mm. mm. mm. Hz. om. m5. oz. cm. Hz. zz. In oH om. mo. m5. oz. zz. om. oz. oH. zm. om. oz. mo. Hm. Hz. zz. 5o. u: oH om. om. oz. mo. om. mo. om. om. mm. o. om. 5o. oo. oz. om. Hz. zo. .. zH om. oo. oz. om. zo. mm. m. Hm. mo. om. Hz. om. Hm. o5. zz. mo. oz. mz. .. mH NH. mo. om. om. Hz. m5. oz. zz. oz. oH. Ho. mm. mm. mm. 5o. om. om. .o. om. .. oH oH. oz. Hm. oz. om. 5z. m5. mz. mz. oH. zm. oz. om. 5m. mm. mz. mm. m . mm. Ho. nu HH oH. Ho. mm. oz. mm. zz. oz. oo. om. zH. om. oo. oo. mm. oH. mm. om. om. 5m. oo. oo. .. oH 5m. mo. oz. Nz. oo. oo. zz. om. oo. om. mz. om. zm. oz. .m. oz. zz. om. mo. Ho. mo. 5m. 1: o oH. mo. om. oz. Hz. H5. oz. oz. zz. oH. oz. Ho. mm. mm. om. oo. om. om. om. mo. oo. 5o. oo. .. o Hm. mo. Hm. om. mm. zz. m5. mz. mz. 5H. zm. mz. zm. om. om. Hz. cu. Om. mm. mm. Hm. 5m. mm. mo. 1: 5 oH. mm. mm. om. mo. oz. oz. oo. 5o. oH. zm. om. zm. zo. oH. Ho. Hm. om. om. Ho. oo. oo. oo. oo. Ho. -1 o mm. zm. 5z. mz. mm. oz. mz. om. oo. 5H. zz. oz. zm. Hz. mm. mm. mz. mm. zm. Ho. mm. om. zm. Ho. om. 5m. nu m oo. oo. oz. om. oz. ow. 5z. Hz. oz. oH. oz. Ho. Ho. mm. om. zo. oz. om. oz. oo. oo. 5o. zo. oo. mo. oo. zo. .. z oH. Hz. oz. oz. mo. zz. 5o. zz. oz. oH. om. oz. mm. mm. om. om. 5z. om. Ho. 5o. mo. Ho. oo. oo. 5o. mo. zo. mo. .. o oH. zm. om. Hz. Hm. om. oz. mo. om. zH. oH. om. mm. oH. oH. om. m. oMH 5H. Ho. Ho. o5. oz. Ho. mo. Ho. oz. 5o. oo. -u m zm. mm. oz. oz. om. oz. Hz. zo. oo. 5H. om. oz. mm. om. om. oz. oz. oo. oo. oo. oo. zo. mo. 5o. mm. mm. zo. Ho. om. oz. .. H Ho om om om 5m oo oo zm mm mm Hm om oH oH 5H oH oH zH MH NH HH oH o o 5 o o z m o H mampH . AHmHucmhmMuHU caucwfimmv COHpmucmHnouszHHDOEuvpmza: 181 h. ..n_.. .I .7 - 1‘13} om. om. om. oz. 0:. m:. ::. m:. Hm. m:. mm. om. mm. 5:. :H MH NH HH OH m w .AmHSmmmE COHCHQO EhomucmmOHov QOHpmpqupoumpHHHnoslvpmzab mm. Hm. H5. :5. mm. :m. mm. m5. :o. Ho. mm. mm. :5. :o. Ow. mH zH mH NH HH OH 0 m .AmuHHHnHmmoaleHpcmpmMMHo 0Hpcm6mmv cOHpmpcmHHOIzuHHHnoEIOpmzab mN. mm. mm. Hm. Hm. mm. m5. :5. m5. 55. 5m. om. m5. w5. 55. m:. Hm. m5. mo. :5. ON mH mH 5H mH mH zH. oH‘ NH! HH OH m m .AmsHm>nHmecmpmMMHO OHpcmEmmv 20HpausmHHOImpHHHnoEIOmmzao IImSHm> mHmom anB msHm> EmpH mo COHpmHmhpoo APPENDIX IV GUTTMAN SCALOGRAM ANALYSIS RESULTS 182 '5 run! :hm‘an—Wfil P - < ' ' 183 Upward—Mobility-Orientation (Semantic Differential Possibility) 12 10 11 Items 95 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX XXX XXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXX X X X X l23u567890123u567890123u567890123u567890123 111111lll122222222223333333333uuuu u. Id. 56789 uuuuu CR=. O 5 18L! Upward—Mobility—Orientation (Semantic Differential-Possibility) 17 16 13 lb 15 Item 123.”.56789 01 ll XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX 23.”.567890123u567890123u567890123u567890 1111111122222222223333333333uuuuuuuuuu5 185 15 114 |._.a LA) H O\ P—J x3 ><><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><><>< ><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><>< >4><><><><><><_><><><><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< CR .97 "I1111111711111711111113