THE IMPACT OF ETHNICITY 0N VALUE STRUCTURES, WORK ORIENTATIONS AND SOCIAL - PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF A MAJOR METROPOLITAN SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT Dissertation for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY FORREST MAYO MOSS 1976 This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE IMPACT OF ETHNICITY 0N VALUE STRUCTURES, WORK ORIENTATIONS AND SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF A MAJOR METROPOLITAN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT presented by Forrest Mayo Moss has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Social Science degree in Vsm Gflmfik 1 Major professor 03“: December I, 1975 0-7639 ABSTRACT THE IMPACT OF ETHNICITY ON VALUE STRUCTURES. WORK ORIENTATIONS AND SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF A MAJOR METROPOLITAN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT by Forrest Mayo Moss The principal purpose of this study was to explore the impact of ethnicity, as an independent variable, on the value structure, work orientation and social-psychological attributes of police officers, and especially the possibility that among white officers, differences based on ethnicity could be predicted and discerned. Underlying this exploration was a questioning of the assimilative assumptions often made relative to ethnic progress in American society as well as the propriety of the various theories purporting to explain, describe or predict police behavior, most of which ignore or dismiss the ethnic factor. For the purposes of this study ethnicity was defined in terms of an involuntary group association with a culture-bearing group,and a culture classification system based on structural similarities was developed as the basis for the specification of nine research hypotheses. The primary contrast in the classifica- tion system was between modernism and traditionalism; an Forrest Mayo Moss examination of the forms of the major institutions in each context resulting in the delineation of value structures, work orientations and social-psychological attributes which might logically be asserted as most functional in each milieu. Due to the unique historical devel0pment and assimilative experiences of Blacks, the Irish and Jews, each of these culture groups was excluded from the primary modern-traditional contrast. The nine research hypotheses were tested by recourse to survey data collected from 192 officers of the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, Detroit, Michigan. Since the basic ability of the measures employed to distinguish between officers based on their ethnic origin was in some doubt, two levels of acceptance of the hypotheses were utilized: (l) categorical acceptance was predicated on achieving the .05 level of statistical significance, and (2) provisional acceptance was predicated on an examination of the overall trend in the data, across controls, as well as the absence of alternative directions in the data indicating the operation of other models of ethnicity. The results of the hypothesis testing are as follows: Hypothesis One--Traditional ethnics were found to rank order the terminal life values social recognition, family security, happiness, comfortable life and friendship higher than modern ethnics, while modern ethnics valued freedom higher than tradi- tional ethnics. Forrest Mayo Moss Hypothesis Two--No differences between modern and tradi- tional ethnics could be discerned in their rank ordering of instru- mental life values, a finding that suggests that Gordon's theory of "acculturation but not assimilation" may be pertinent to the assimilative experience of traditional ethnics in this society. Hypothesis Three--Relative to orientation to work, the data indicated that traditional ethnics perceive of work more as a necessary instrumentality of life than do modern ethnics, but con- currently relate work more to perceptions of community welfare and well-being. Modern ethnics, on the other hand, placed higher importance on the existence of peer competition, personal recogni- tion and the operation of the work ethic than do traditional ethnics. No difference between the two groups in their evaluative placement of the importance of individual opportunity or positive social interactions in the work environment could be detected. Such lack of difference in these two latter orientations may be partially explained by recourse to the low organizational opportunity which characterizes policing in general, as well as aspects of the police ethos. Hypothesis Four--The data indicated that modern ethnics demonstrate a consistently higher faith in people than traditional ethnics, a finding in contradiction to the stated hypothesis. A re-examination of the theoretical premise indicated that faith in people may be less a functional necessity of a people-intensive traditional society than a modern society, and more appropriate to Forrest Mayo Moss the mandates of political, economic and social philosophy operating under the tenets of rationalism. Hypothesis Five--There was no evidence to indicate that traditional and modern officers may be distinguished one from another in terms of dogmatism. Hypothesis Six--Traditional officers were found to exhibit significantly higher levels of intolerance of ambiguity than their modern counterparts, a finding consistent with the life stance assumed to be most functional to a stable traditional culture as well as an expansive modern environment. A substantial increase in intolerance of ambiguity was demonstrated by those traditional officers who also indicated a high level of "ethnic" socialization; i.e., increased contact with ethnic institutions, recency of immi- gration, ethnic self-awareness and other factors. Hypothesis Seven--Modern ethnics scored higher in eight out of twelve control categories on a four-item measure of general authoritarianism, contrary to the prediction that traditional officers would score higher on this measure. This is noteworthy in view of the fact that traditional officers were more intolerant of ambiguity and demonstrated less faith in people, and serves to point up the inherent difficulties in the multi-faceted concept of authoritarianism itself. The data indicated only marginal changes in scores on this measure over time, providing general refutation that policing encourages increased authoritarianism by the conditioning effect of function on personality. Forrest Mayo Moss Hypotheses Eight and Nine-~No differences between tradi- tional and modern ethnics were demonstrated in regard to scores on measures of political futility and political cynicism, although scores on the latter measures were substantially higher than on the former. The evidence that officers perceive themselves to have reasonable political clout but strong dislike of the direction of political decisions suggests a conflict at the level of law enforcement which could have serious repercussions. In toto, the study provides some support for a further questioning of the real nature of ethnic assimilation and cultural uniqueness in American society, as well as a tentative assertion that ethnicity is less an ad hoc reaction to social conditions and more a reflection of generic cultural content maintaining over time. It is especially interesting that ethnicity can be demon- strated within the context of policing, a profession with recog- nized high levels of normative constraints and a distinctive ethos. That a variety of unique perspectives, orientations and value structures exist in policing, traceabTe to ethnicity, suggests that some notice of this variable as a behavioral conditioning agent is in order, even though such notice admittedly raises some serious questions in terms of American social philosophy. THE IMPACT OF ETHNICITY ON VALUE STRUCTUREs, WORK ORIENTATIONS AND SOCIAL-PSYCHOLOGICAL ATTRIBUTES OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OF A MAJOR METROPOLITAN SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT By Forrest Mayo Moss A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Social Science 1976 ©Copyright FORREST MAYO MOSS 1976 The material in this project was prepared under Grant No. 74-N199-1002 from the Office of Education and Manpower Assistance, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice. Researchers under- taking such projects under Government sponsorship are encouraged to express freely their professional judgment. Therefore, points of view or opinions stated in this document do not necessarily represent the official position or policy of the U.S. Department of Justice. ii DEDICATION To a longtime companion and friend of mine, the diminutive and lovely June Ullman. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is a pleasure to acknowledge the individuals without whom this project could not have become a reality. All the members of my committee provided support, interest, constructive advice and critical insights. They are: Dr. Victor Strecher (Chairman), Dr. Baljit-Singh, Dr. Christopher Sower, Dr. Robert Lorinskas and Dr. Robert Trojanowicz. It was a privilege to study under each of them. Dr. Robert Lorinskas provided special help in defining the problem and in the development of the study, as well as helping me to conceptually relocate the criminal justice function in the multi-disciplinary arena where it properly belongs. Dr. Robert Trojanowicz provided a massive amount of creative input to the project, opening innumerable doors along the way and guiding me from the inception of my doctoral studies at Michigan State University. I cannot adequately describe, or repay, his support and friendship. Colonel C. L. Martin, Air Force Office of Special Investigations, encouraged and sponsored my graduate studies. More importantly, he provided a peerless model of professional and personal living. My respect and admiration for him is unconditional. iv Dr. John Troyanovich, Professor of Languages, Illinois Wesleyan University; Dr. Ralph Lewis, Criminal Justice Systems Center, Michigan State University; Asst. Chief of Police, Richard A. Gleason, Lansing Police Department, Lansing, Michigan, and many others assisted me at critical junctures in the formulation and development of this dissertation. I am greatly indebted to the officials and police officers of both the Lansing, Michigan, Police Department and the Wayne County Sheriff's Department, Detroit, Michigan, for so graciously giving of their valuable time in providing the data for this research. Two associates, Stan Vanagunas and Jack Greene, made the trek eminently easier by virtue of the intellectual climate they created, as well as their great good humor. Jo Grandstaff, proprietress of Ann Brown Printing Co., Okemos, Michigan, provided invaluable administrative assistance in the publication of this dissertation, in addition to being a gracious foil during the terminal phases of Ph.D. paranoia. Last, but certainly not least, acknowledgment is due to the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and the Air Force Institute of Technology, organizations whose policies have yielded great personal opportunity for me, opportunity which exemplifies the truly democratic nature of our society. In the end, my greatest source of pride has always been my commission in and association with the United States Air Force. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . Section 1: Organization and Content of the Study Section II: A Research Definition of Ethnicity Section III. Purpose of the Study Section IV: Need for the Study Cultural Values and Behavior . . . Assimilationist Theory and Ethnic Realities . Ethnicity and the Black Movement . The Police Function and Police Ethnicity . II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Section I: Ethnic Politics . Section II: Socio- Psychological and AnthrOpological. Aspects of Ethnicity . Section III: Policing and Ethnicity. Section IV: Summary . . . III. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Section I: Theoretical Issues . Section II: Design Section III: Measures Rokeach Value Survey . Kilpatrick Occupational Value Scale . Troldahl and Powell Short Dogmatism Scale . Martin and Westie Intolerance of Ambiguity Scale Lane Four-Item F Scale . . . . . . . Olsen Political Alienation Scale Rosenberg Faith in People Scale . Section IV: Sample . vi Page ix xii xiii Chapter I Page Section V: A Tentative Ethnic Classification Scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 General Considerations . . . . . . . . . . ll2 Classificatory Possibilities . . . . . . . . 113 Ethnic Classification . . . . . . . . . . 121 Modern Ethnics . . . . . . . . . . . 121 Traditional Ethnics . . . . . . . . . . 124 Special Cases . . . . . . . 131 Section VL Research Hypotheses . . . . . . 134 Section VII: Analytical Techniques . . . . . l39 Section VIII: Summary . . . . . . . . . . l40 IV. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . l42 Section I: General Considerations . . . . . . 143 Section II: Rokeach Value Survey . . . . . . . 147 Hypothesis One . . . . . . . . . . . . 148 Hypothesis l.l . l52 Hypothesis 1.2 . 160 Hypothesis l.3 . l63 Hypothesis 1.4 . l64 Hypothesis 1.5 . 165 Hypothesis l.6 . 166 Hypothesis 1.7 . 167 Hypothesis 1.8 . l68 Hypothesis 1.9 . l69 Hypothesis Two . . . . . . . . . . . . l72 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l77 Section III: Orientation Towards Work . . . . . l77 Hypothesis Three . . . . . . . . . . . . l79 Hypothesis 3.l . . . . . . . . . . . . l79 Hypothesis 3.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 181 Hypothesis 3.3 184 Hypothesis 3.4 186 Hypothesis 3.5 189 Hypothesis 3.6 . . . . . . . . . . . . l90 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 194 Section IV: Social-Psychological and Political Attributes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195 Hypothesis Four . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 Hypothesis Five . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 Hypothesis Six . . . . . . . . . . . . 203 Hypothesis Seven . . . . . . . . . . . 205 Hypotheses Eight and Nine . . . . . . . . . 209 Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 213 vii Chapter V. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Section I: Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypothesis Hypotheses Section II: Section III: Section IV: BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDICES Summary of Research Findings One Two Three . Four Five Six Seven . . . . . . Eight and Nine . . . A Tentative Ethnic Profile : Ethnicity and Policing . Concluding Remarks viii Page 2l4 215 216 216 217 218 219 219 220 221 221 225 233 237 249 Table 1.1 1.2 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 3.1 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 LIST OF TABLES Change in Source of Immigration from Europe, 1860-1930 . . . . Comparison of Membership of Selected Police Societies Two-way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity and Class on Party Identification in New Haven . . . . . Distribution of Interaction Effects (New Haven Data). Coefficients of Multiple Classification Analysis for Political Participation Variables, National Sample. Coefficients of Multiple Classification Analysis for Political Participation Variables, Northeast and North Central Only Comparison of Sample, Department, and a National Police Sample Characteristics Terminal Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Police Officers by Ethnic Category Terminal Value Differences Between Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins Terminal Value Medians of Police Officers from Working Class Families, by Ethnic Origin . Terminal Value Medians of Police Officers from Working Class Families, by Ethnic Origin, with Contrasts of All Possible Pairs . . . Terminal Value Medians of Catholic Police Officers of Modern and Traditional Ethnic Origin Terminal Value Medians of Modern and Traditional Police Officers, Controlling for Two Levels of Socioeconomic Status (Father's Occupation) ix Page 26 39 54 56 64 64 111 149 151 153 154 155 157 Table 4.7 Terminal Value Medians of Modern and Traditional Police Officers, Controlling for Three Levels of Education Terminal Value Medians of Modern and Traditional Police Officers, Controlling for Levels of Ethnic Socialization . . . Terminal Value Medians of Police Officers of Modern and Traditional Origins, Controlling for Years of Police Experience . . . . . Directional Tendencies in Nine Subhypotheses Related to General Hypothesis One, with Associated Probability Levels . Instrumental Value Medians and Composite Rank Orders for Police Officers by Ethnic Category Instrumental Value Differences Between Police Officers by Ethnic Category Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring the Degree to Which Work is Perceived as a Life Instrumentality, by Control Groups . . . . Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring the Degree of Individualism Sought in the Work Environment, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring the Degree to Which Work is Perceived as an Opportunity to Enhance Community Welfare, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring the Relative Importance of Peer Competition and Personal Recognition, by Control Groups Comparison of Modern and Traditional Police Officer Aspiration Levels . Comparison of Aspiration Levels Among Modern, Traditional, Irish and Black Police Officers Page 158 159 161 170 174 175 180 182 185 188 189 189 Table 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 A-1 A-2 A-3 A-4 A-5 Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring the Importance of Positive Social Interactions in the Work Environment, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on Adherence to the Work Ethic, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring Faith in People, by Control Groups . . . . Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring Dogmatism, by Control Groups . . . . . . Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring Intolerance of Ambiguity, by Control Groups . Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring General Authoritarianism, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring Political Incapacity, by Control Groups Mean Scores of Police Officers from Differing Ethnic Origins on an Index Measuring Political Cynicism, by Control Groups . . . . . Terminal Value Means and Composite Rank Orders for Lansing Police Officers, and Ethnic Subgroups Instrumental Value Means and Composite Rank Orders for Lansing Police Officers, and Ethnic Subgroups . One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity on Intolerance of Ambiguity . One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity on Dogmatism . . . . Results of a Factor Analysis of the Kilpatrick Occupational Value Scale . . . . . xi Page 191 193 197 202 204 206 210 211 256 258 260 260 261 Figure 2.1 2.2 3.1 3.2 LIST OF FIGURES Relation between Percentage of Foreign-born Residents in New Haven Wards and Percentage of Two-Party Vote Cast for Democratic Candidates for Mayor, l903-l959 . . . . . Relation between Percentage of Foreign-born Residents in New Haven Wards and Percentage of Two-Party Vote Cast for Democratic Candidates for President, 1904-1956 . Modal Forms of Cultural Development Based on Host Culture Coercion, Cultural and Structural Compatibility . Assimilative Factors, by Ethnic Classification with Modal Form of Cultural Development . xii Page 51 51 . 120 . 135 LIST OF APPENDICES Ap pendix Page A. PILOT STUDY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . 250 B. THE QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . . . . . . . 264 xiii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This study is concerned with exploring and describing the relationship between the values and attitudes of police officers and their ethnic origins, to include considerations of contemporary ethnic association and self-awareness. The primary goal of the study is to determine whether or not it is possible to differen- tiate among white police officers particular value and attitude sets based on considerations of ethnicity. A series of research hypotheses will be developed predicated on theoretical foundations in the social sciences linking cultural and social characteristics to particular values and attitudes. A developmental cultural classification system will be formulated as a basis for predicting value and attitude differences among police officers from distinct ethnic backgrounds. A subsidiary focus of this study will be to describe the values and attitudes of black police officers and to analyze the manner and extent to which a spectrum of their values and attitudes may be considered a unique "ethnic" cultural statement. It will be asserted that the special circumstances of the black social experi- ence in America--primarily the condition of prior servitude and I”'91? racial Visibility--severely constrains enculturation of values and attitudes traceable to antecedent cultures, and promotes behavioral patterns based on the host culture as well as regional considerations. An initial difficulty in specifying the scope of research of this nature is encountered in the use of the terms ethnic and ethnicity, since these terms have been utilized by a variety of social commentators and researchers as a shorthand cultural, racial, minority group, religious or political identifier for almost any group under investigation, without regard to usage beyond a particular situation. Characteristic of these definitions is the assertion that ethnicity is ". . . a kind of distinctiveness defined by race, religion, national origin, and even geographical ."1 Novak uses the term ethnicity to describe isolation . . . immigrants and their descendants from eastern and southern Europe, while still others apply the term to Black Americans, Puerto Ricans and other visible minorities; in short, the "new" ethnics.2 A subsequent section of this chapter will establish in detail the conceptual implication of the term within the context of this 1Harold J. Abramson, "Ethnic Pluralism in the Central City," in Ethnic Groups in the City, ed. Otto Feinstein (Lexington, Mass.: Heath Lexington Bofiks, l97l), p. l7. 2Michael Novak, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971); see also Raymond W. Mack, "Ethnicity in American Life: The Urban Crisis," in Ethnicity in American Life, ed. John Hope Franklin, Thomas F. Pettigrew, Raymond W. Mack (New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1971). Mack maintains the term ethnic is properly applied, in contemporary society, to Puerto Ricans, Blacks and southern white mountaineers, since other cultural groups have been essentially ass1milated. research. At this point, however, it is important to specify that ethnicity, as used herein, will refer by way of labelling to the full complement of groups representing any cultural entity which emigrated from some foreign location to America, and which is still represented here. The label will be applied to descendants of these immigrants, regardless of generation, as well as to members of the host culture and their descendants. This latter use of the term is of recent vintage in the literature and treats Anglo-Saxons as an ethnic category as the basis of predicting specialized political behavior.3 That the host culture, the Anglo-Saxon (or the White Anglo- Saxon Protestant; i.e., WASP, as he is commonly labelled), should only now come under scrutiny as an ethnic reveals another problem, a conceptual blind spot which involves not only American society in general but many social science researchers in particular. This blind spot involves, in the face of an intellectual acceptance or even an assertion of cultural pluralism, an essential ignoring of cultural pluralism as the source of an independent variable con- ditioning attitudes, values and behavior in favor of social class distinction, occupational socialization and other "standard" factors.4 3Robert A. Lorinskas, "The Political Impact of Anglo-Saxon Ethnicity," thnicity 1 (December 1974): 417-421. 4Research, especially relative to policing, has suggested the need for an expanded conceptual framework. Research dealing with the police personality, for example, has yielded highly contradictory results [see Robert W. Balch, "The Police Personality: Fagt or Fiction," Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Selence 63 (l972): 106-119]. The unique ethnic composition of many Not only is the variable usually ignored--a sort of tacit research "gentleman's agreement"--but it is difficult to find even a dis- cussion in most of the literature of the social sciences of the relative merits of ethnicity as such. While this no doubt relates to assumptions about the nature of American culture, assimilation and mobility, all of which will be discussed in succeeding sections, there are at least two other possible reasons for this phenomenon. Foremost, the history of the American reception of immigrants, especially during the period from the late nineteenth century to the rise of fascism in Europe was hardly in consonance with the established political dogma of the State. The nativist movement in America had its origins at least as early as the 1840's, with the formation of the Order of the Star Spangled Banner, a movement John Franklin asserts laid the organizational foundation for the Know-Nothing Party, a blatently racist, anti-Catholic, pro-nordic and pro-nativist political movement.5 Restrictive immigration laws reflecting this bias soon become the norm. Donald Taft, speaking to the popular image of the "new" immigrants in 1936 (immigrants urban police departments, especially in regard to Irish, Italian and Slovak concentrations, however, is well known. Differing styles of police administration, by ethnic origins, is discussed but not fully explored, also, in John A. McNamara, "Uncertainties in Police Work: The Relevance of Police Recruits' Backgrounds and Trainin ," in The Police: Six Sociological Essays, ed. David J. Bordua TNew York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), pp. 189-199. 5John Hope Franklin, "Ethnicity in American Life: The Historical Perspective," in Ethnicity in American Life, ed. John Hope Franklin, Thomas F. Pettigrew, Raymond W. Mack (New York: Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, 1971), p. 12. from southern and eastern Europe, as opposed to the "old" migration from western and northern Europe), advises that image would be as follows: Immigration has brought to the United States millions of inferior beings, who have demoralized politics, endangered religion, complicated education, lowered American wages, made democracy less possible, greatly increased crime, and created a serious problem of non-assimilable elements within our body politic. We have been too good to the immigrant and only recently have we begun to clean house. In short the immigrant is a distinct liability and never an asset. Moreover the whole thing is our problem and is no one else's business.6 Taft continues by noting that although such a view is one-sided, it "no doubt contains some elements of truth." In a 1933 volume entitled Current Social Problems, sociologists Gillette and Reinhardt commented as follows regarding the "new" immigrants and their problems: Yet we have come to realize that the transition does carry a menace to our socio-cultural system. South and East European countries generally have lagged far behind West and North European nations, culturally and socially. Indications of this are seen in lack of public education, high rates of illiteracy, backward industry, low standards of scientific achievement, and a consequent inferior level of health and sanitation. The high mortality rates, especially among infants and young children, are the outcome of backward scientific develop- ments. So too, their political systems and spirit are different from ours and those who come have often been 7 slow to assimilate our outlook, attitudes and standards. 6Donald R. Taft, Human Migration (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1936), pp. 179-180. 7John M. Gillette and James M. Reinhardt, Current Social Problems (New York: The American Book Company, 1933), pp. 506-507. Both of these references were contained in books frankly sympathetic to the plight of the "new" immigrants, and the need for tolerance. It may be assumed that statements from nativist organiza- tions of the day, the D.A.R, The American Legion, The National Security League, The American Defense Society and others were more directly worded.8 Very shortly, however, this trend in public policy and thinking would run up against the fascistic hegemony of Europe, a situation which must have been perceived as creating a dilemma between a desired international posture and internal prac- tice. The practical results of this era in our history may well be a tendency to avoid ethnicity in research (or otherwise), in favor of variables which are perceived as being more "neutral" in an egalitarian sense.9 Secondly, there is the strong possibility that the study of white ethnicity has been avoided by such ethnics themselves, to the extent they have been socialized and encouraged to reject their own 8Taft, Human Migration, p. 269. 9Colin Greer, ed., Divided Society: The Ethnic Experience in America (New York: Basic Books, 1974), pp. 1-38. Greer main— tains that the host society has avoided its failure to realize its own egalitarian principles by maintaining the assimilative model as it relates to white ethnics, while artificially singling out blacks as a unique case. On one hand, the failures of white ethnics may thus be ascribed to class, with onus on the lack of motivation to rise in society. On the other, black failures are attributed to social repression, with little or no personal onus attaching. Class-based analyses of American blacks, moreover, have been severely criticized. See, for example, Edward C. Banfield, The Unheavenly City (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1970), and ng4Unheavenly City Revisited (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., ): ethnicity, perceive themselves to be occupationally mobile, or to focus only on the extrinsic features of their cultural heritage.1 Greeley, a long-time observer of the American ethnic experience, lends support to this view by noting that the process of ethnic assimilation involves a stage in which self-hatred and anti- 11 On the other hand, assimilation has been militancy is the norm. impeded precisely because, among other things, ethnic membership has allowed access to occupations uniquely ethnic in composition. Thus it is possible to be mobile within an ethnic occupational pyramid while concurrently rejecting a sense of one's own ethnicity. As this may relate to research endeavors, Greeley advises: . anyone who argues that ethnic research is important is told that the question is quite irrelevant because of the workings of the assimilationist process, and second 10Milton M. Gordon, Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion and National Origins (Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 74-81. Gordon specifies extrinsic cultural traits as patterns of dress, emotional expression, manners and "minor oddities,“ all of which are clearly subordinate to religious beliefs, ethical values, literature, historical language, musical and recreational tastes. Concerning ethnic occupational mobility, the evidence indicates that the positive perceptions are not always objectively manifested by the facts. See, for example, Peter M. Blau and Otis Dudley Duncan, The American Occupational Structure (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967), as well as Daniel Bell, The Radical Right (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday and Co., 1964), in which BelT treats with the dual phenomena of low actual occupational mobility among white ethnics from eastern and southern Europe, coupled with perceptions of high occupational opportunity. 11Andrew M. Greeley, Why Can't TheyyBe Like Us? (New York: Institute of Human Relations Press,'l969). Greeley advises that it is only after the stages of culture shock, deprivation, ethnic organizing, security and the acquisition of middle-class functional skills that the ethnic recognizes the worth of his culture; i.e., becomes militant. that it is a highly sensitive issue which might offend people if pushed too vigorously. Relative to ethnic unwillingness to research the area, he surmises that the present generation has: . . . repressed the possibility of ethnic research from their consciousness because of their own profound ambivalence about their ethnic backgrounds.1 These comments all serve to set the stage for this research, a stage that may involve past resistance due to political, ideological, intellectual and emotional avoidance of ethnicity as a "proper" independent variable worthy of research consideration. The remainder of this chapter will specify the organization and content of the study, establish a research definition of ethnicity, and delineate the purpose and need for a study of this nature focused at the police level. Section I: Organization and Content of the Study This study is organized into five chapters. Chapter I, Introduction, includes opening comments, a definition of ethnicity, organization of the study, and the purpose of and need for the study. Chapter II, Review of the Literature, contains a review of ethnic studies and interpretive works, with primary emphasis on empirical studies relating to ethnic organization, values and 121bid., p. 70. behavior. A final section of this chapter relates to the known impact of ethnicity on policing. Chapter III, Research Methodology, includes the formulation of an ethnic classification system as well as presentation of the research hypotheses, the study design, sampling considerations and analytical techniques. Chapter IV, Analysis of Data, contains a presentation of the information gathered in the study, as well as commentary regarding its meaning and significance. Chapter V, Summary and Conclusions, contains a synopsis of the major findings of the study, as well as commentary regarding the nature of the conclusions which can be drawn. Section II: A Research Definitibn of Ethnicity The term ethnicity is bandied about in the literature to such an extent and used for such a variety of purposes that it is often difficult to determine just exactly what kind of group or group characteristic is being identified, or how it is being used to explain behavior, social process or social fact of one sort or another. At the marginal end of usage, it is merely a contempuous shorthand for bohunk, Polak, Wop-~some "foreigner"--a1though the implication is usually clear that it is an American "foreigner" being referenced.13 Even in the literature and studies pr0posing 13Barbara MiKulski, "Who Speaks for Ethnic America," DEE. York Times. 28 September 1970, p. 72. 10 to deal seriously with the subject it is not always clear just what is meant by the term. Not only does this increase thedifficulty of constructing a conceptual model taking one from ethnicity to the phenomenon being explained, but it has the effect of turning many such presentations into editorial commentary. Wsevolod Isajiw conducted a survey of 65 sociological and anthropological studies concerned in one manner or another with ethnicity and found that 52 gave no explicit definition at all.14 The purpose of this section is to adopt a definition of ethnicity which contains sufficient elements so that a linkage with more general theory can be established, the primary direction of relationships indicated thus facilitating the formulation of a set of research hypotheses, while encompassing the major meanings of the term as it is currently employed. A survey of the literature provides some insights into the explicit and implicit meanings various authors have ascribed to the term. Many such definitions are purely descriptive; others infer process. Abramson, as previously cited, defines ethnicity as: A kind of distinctiveness defined by race, religion, national origin, and even geographical isolation. Greeley provides this definition: . social diversity that is not related to age, social class, or sex. Hence it includes diversity that arises ‘ '4Wsevo1od w. Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," Ethnicit 1 (July 1974): 111-123. 15Abramson, "Ethnic Pluralism in the Central City," p. 17. 11 because of race, religion, nationality, language and even geography.15 R. A. Schermerhorn provides two somewhat differing interpretations of ethnicity: . a collectivity within a larger society having real or putative common ancestry; memories of a shared histori- cal past, and a cultural focus on one or more symbolic elements defined as the epitome of their peoplehood. Examples of such symbolic elements are kinship patterns, physical contiguity (as in localism or sectionalism), religious affiliation, language or dialect forms, tribal affiliations, nationality, phenotypical features, or any combination of these.1 . a composite of shared beliefs, values, norms, taste, consciousness of kind within the group, shared in-group memories and loyalties, certain structural relationships within the group, and p trend towards continuity by preferential endogamy. 8 Greeley and McCready define ethnicity simply as "collectivities based on presumed common origin."19 Gordon uses the term to mean 20 "any racial, religious or national-origins collectivity," while Hawkins and Lorinskas describe ethnicity in terms of national origin and recentness of immigration, adding that: 16Andrew M. Greeley, "Editorial," Ethnicity 1 (April 1974): 17. 17R. A. Schermerhorn, "Ethnicity in the Perspective of the Sociology of Knowledge," thnicity 1 (April 1974): 1-14. 18R. A. Schermerhorn, Comparative Ethnic Relations: A flgmework for Theory and Research (New York: Random House, 1970), p012. 19Andrew M. Greeley and William C. McCready, "Does Ethnicity Matter?" Ethnicity 1 (April 1974): 91. 20Milton M. Gordon, "Assimilation in America: Theory and Reality," in The Ethnic Factor in American Politics, ed. Brett W. Hawkfins and Robert A. Lorinskas (Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrfill Publishing Co., 1970), p. 25. 12 The ethnic factor can be viewed in cultural and psychological termsf-as a pattern of behavioral "GETS’ values, 1dent1f1cat1on and background exper1ences. From these definitions and from the context of the various articles and studies from which they were taken it is possible to extract the following attributes of ethnicity, such attributes usually being stated or assumed by the authors: 1. Ethnicity is a group phenomenon in which unique cultural characteristics are in contrast with some other socio- cultural group within the same society. 2. Both groups, or as many culture-bearing groups as are identified, exist within the same political or territorial boundaries, in either a coterminous or superordinate/subordinate relationship. 3. The ethnic group maintains some degree of structural integrity which at once reflects cultural values, as well as pro- viding the mechanisms of cultural continuance through the sociali- zation of members born or accepted into that culture. 4. Structural integrity involves the capacity to transmit both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of the culture to members, as well as to maintain a historical continuity within the bounds of cultural diffusion, evolution and situational demands of function. A problem with some of the definitions cited is the implica- tion of sufficiency of causality when referring to factors such as natfional origins, race, language and religion. Race has generally 21Hawkins and Lorinskas, The Ethnic Factor, pp. 1-2, 15. 13 been discarded in the social sciences as not intrinsically causal. National origins may or may not reflect discrete cultural types, the balkanization of eastern Eur0pe presenting a case in point. There is no compelling theoretical reason for the assumption that political boundaries are always coincident with cultural boundaries. Religion and language, on the other hand, are only two structural aspects of a society or group among many, and while they may be conceded to be culture bearing and even necessary causes of cultural transmission, their causal sufficiency is an empirical question. Whether or not a group demonstrates the necessary structural integrity to maintain ethnic saliency through the socialization of its members via primary and secondary group exposure, in the objective sense, may be sought in an examination of structure itself, and contrasted with behavior. In this case the inter- vening socialization dynamic is assumed. Ethnic saliency may also be verified by an examination of intrinsic aspects of the presumed culture, such as the implied value sets defined or determined to be integral to the institutional forms of that culture, as contrasted with the stated or empirically determined values of the ethnic members. In this instance, the Theodorson and Theodorson defini- tion of ethnicity as "a group with a common cultural tradition"22 prdvides a linkage between the two examined value sets by implying an involuntary group association; i.e., being born and socialized “ 22George A. Theodorson and Achilles G. Theodorson, A Modern Dicti nary of Sociology_(New York: Thomas V. Crowell Co., I969), p. t o 135. 14 into the culture, a process which is essential to ethnicity if it is conceptualized as a culture bearing group maintaining an historical continuity. At this point, ethnicity can be partially defined as an involuntary culture bearing group, objectively or putatively unique in relation to one or more other culture bearing groups within the same political society, and maintaining sufficient structural integrity to insure cultural transmission. This is in line with Isajiw's determination that, in a survey of 27 definitions of ethnicity, the two most commonly listed attributes were common ancestors (common national or geographic origins), and "same 23 In this regard, this study will be oriented culture or custom." toward a determination of whether or not the national origins of police officers and the imputed cultural sameness of their particu- lar ethnicity results in unique and distinguishable value orderings, values being assumed to be an intrinsic aspect of culture. Since the emphasis in this model is on value as reflected in and trans- mitted by virtue of the maintenance of structural integrity, a tentative classification system based on a structural analysis of social structures across societies will be employed so that various nationalities may be grouped based on structural similarities. A summary focus of this study of ethnicity conforms to Weber's concept of what constitutes a meaningful social relationship. Weber asserts that a relationship is meaningful only if the content 23Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," p. 17. 15 of the relationShip remains relatively constant over time, and is capable of being expressed in axioms to which the parties involved can be expected to adhere at least approximately by their partners.24 Weber distinguishes four characteristic forms of social conduct: rational (goal oriented); value related; affective; and tradi- tional.25 Within this context, ethnicity will be meaningful to the extent that unique value orderings or preferences can be specified, by group or by a category of groups. Furthermore, uniqueness vis-a- vis the other cultural groups with which interaction occurs must be demonstrated since a lack of value uniqueness makes value-predicated behavior essentially a society-wide reflex action and not relevant to an analysis of inter-ethnic social relations from a structural standpoint. Cultural aspects of ethnicity aside, however, other characterizations of ethnicity are apparent in the literature which give a much more situational and subjective cast to the subject. Many such presentations describe ethnicity not as a group characteristic in the objective sense, but as a past or present reaction to political and social process in which ethnicity is created or "found" for the purpose of maintaining or constructing group solidarity and cohesion. Max Weber places ethnicity in much 24Max Weber, Basic Concepts in Sociology. trans. H. P. Secher (New York: The CitadeTTPress, 1964), pp. 59-63. 25 Ibid. 16 tiwea same category as nationalism, the result of found custom, created mythology and discovered social commonalities.26 Other defi nitions bespeak this same dynamic: Shibutani and Kwan: . temporary alignments of people created by communi- cations channels. . . . ethnic groups disappear when consciousness of kind is altered.27 Warner and Srole: The term 'ethnic' refers to any individual who considers himself, or is considered to be, a member of a group 'with a foreign culture and who participates in the activities of the group. 28 Glazer and Moynihan: Groups may preexist in sociological reality, but they shape themselves by choice; they define their own categories. Ethnics are interest groups, which continue in being because they are most aggropriate to social, economic and political power. '3‘? hally, there is a third view of ethnicity which somewhat overlaps b0‘|:;h the first and second themes; namely, that ethnicity is a g'erieral social phenomenon resulting from a dissatisfaction with the dominant American life style. In this model one can trace the \ C: 26Max Weber, Economy and Society, ed. Guenther Roth and 1 aus Wittich (New York: Bedminster Press, 1968), pp. 385-398. l\. 27Tamotsu Shibutani and Kian M. Kwan, Ethnic Stratification, -L.~J§gmparative Approach (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1965), ~ 16. 28W. Lloyd Warner and Leo Srole, The Social Systems of fiEEEEflgrican Ethnic Groups (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1945), ~ 1&1. F) 29Nathan Glazer and Daniel P. Moynihan, Beyond the Melting. r-£EL§ (Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 1960), Introduction, p. x111. l7 " rediscovered" ethnicity generally to the ethnic culture, but the se'l ection of appropriate tradition and value, or social technique, remains a function of situation. In this mode, Greeley advises: The ethnic group was created only when the peasant commune broke up, and was essentially an attempt to keep some of the values, some of the informality, some of the support, some of the intimacy of the communal life in the midst of an impersonal, formalistic rationalized urban, industrial society . . . .36 Pi<>\riik, concurrently, finds that "almost everywhere," one can see 1ttiee retreat to past cultural tradition as a defense against certain evi 15 of modern life.“ The three major ethnic models indicated in the literature, 1:?153'1, seem to be as follows: 1. Ethnicity as cultural continuity based on structural Ti IrItegrity sufficient to maintain ethnic saliency. 2. Ethnicity as a "created" group characteristic in response to socio-political and possibly even economic decisions which provide the base-line identity of the group itself. 3. Ethnicity as a selective retreat to historical and Q'Ften "rediscovered" ethnic traditions and values in response to the nature of a mature industrial society. The first model allows for the constructing of hypotheses ‘2’Elsed on an examination of structural characteristics of historical group development, while assuming an involuntary exposure to \ 3oereeiey, HHy Can't They Be Like Us? p. 8. 31Michael Novak, "Nervous System of the Planet," EMPAC l (Apri1 1975): 1. ‘— 18 socialization. To some extent, the third model also fosters such hypothesizing based on the same criteria, although a selective " falling back" on tradition invites a much weaker total relation- sh'i p with the historical cultural form. This latter model is much more situational in nature than the first, with the selection of tradition, so to speak, much more a function of placement in the FJCJ'I itical economy of society than the result of a strong linkage ‘vvi'tzh the historical ethnic traditions. Model two has the potential 1Fcrr~ hypothesizing depending on where on the historical continuum the ethnic group falls subsequent to the decisions which provided tltice base-line identity previously discussed. The subjective F>i“£enfise which underlies this model, however, is intuitively more appropriate to national or at least regional identity. Moreover, the model does not contain any guide to prediction and demands a Cv-‘zilse-by-case examination of ethnicity to discover its form and rT'ature. For the purpose of this study, the definition suggested by I Sajiw will be adopted, which includes both objective and subjective possibilities. It will be assumed throughout that ethnicity, as described, will gain social relevance by connoting a relationship I:PEEtween two or more such groups in which cultural differences form 't1l1e primary basis of comparison. Isajiw's definition is as "Ttallows: Ethnicity refers to an involuntary group of people who share the same culture or to descendants of such people who identify themselves and/or are identified by others as belonging to the same involuntary group.32 32Isajiw, "Definitions of Ethnicity," p. 122. 19 Section III: Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to identify significant re'l ationships between the ethnicity of police officers, and their adherence to specifiable and predictable life values as a reflection of the intrinsic nature of their cultural backgrounds, as well as the ‘ir adherence to values and attitudes relating to occupation, the general public and to government. Additionally, significant rela- tionships will be sought in the area of personality orientations Pertinent to analysis of the police function; namely, measures of d(DSJtnatism, intolerance of ambiguity, faith-in-people and general authoritarianism. Stated in another form, the purpose of this StUdy is to determine if ethnicity is a salient variable in pre- d‘i ctihg values, attitudes and psychological orientations vis-a-vis a number of the standard social science variables such as socio- e<-‘-or1omic status (SES), education, job experience, age, and religious and political affiliations. Since this study is essentially exploratory and descriptive ‘i '1 nature, it was felt necessary to gather data relative to such 3 tandard variables so that appropriate controls for them could be i r'Istituted during analysis. Additionally, the selection of C'ependent variables was consciously aimed at a wide array of factors 30 that a realistic appraisal of ethnicity could be made relative to its impact on police administration, organizational change, 8Election and training, job placement and police-citizen interaction. 20 Section IV: Need for the Study Whether or not there is conscious or subconscious resistance to the study of ethnicity in general, or as it relates to policing, there would seem to be four rather substantial justifications in support of this study. Each will be considered below, but briefly stated they are: (1) there already exists a considerable body of theory suggesting a strong relationship between culture, values and behavior, none of which seriously suggests that culture is quite so Superficial as is implied by some assimilationist theory; (2) the di Sarray of assimilationist theory in light of the real social progress and status of many ethnic groups as well as the development of alternative theory suggests that the issue is far from resolved; ( 3 ) the recent revival of interest in ethnicity coupled with or DOSsibly in reaction to the actions of American Blacks within the pa St decade presents a potential conflict situation of the first sQC‘ial magnitude, bearing directly on police functioning; and (q. ) the nature of the police function as well as the unique ethnic 1 r"put into American urban policing. wural Values and Behavior One of the basic areas of general consensus in the social S(:‘iences relates to the strength of the relationship between culture, Va‘lues and behavior. Ruth Benedict views culture as "a blueprint For living" and advises that a determination of what a society Vi ews as the "good life" may be sought by an examination "of combi- nations of customs and institutions which conform to implicit ¥ 21 choices of basic values from the range of human possibilities.“33 Ma'l ‘inowski asserts the proper focus of any culture is its institu- ti ons, its cooperative endeavors, since these institutions reflect "an agreement on a set of traditional values for which human beings 34 come together. Malinowski differentiates between the institu- tional charter which reflects primary collective and individual va1 ues, and organizational by-laws which, though instrumentalities facilitating human and physical process, are also conditioned by Cu'l tural value patterns. Eric Fromm discusses the Freudian process 01’ sublimation of biological drives into culturally valued forms, 131.11 ‘ly conceding the creative attributes of culture in this regard, Wh‘i ‘le social-psychologists Mead and Homans both cite the unique Socio-cultural development of societies as one source of value important in personal interaction.35 Kroeber and Kluckhohn have conducted a survey of several hundred definitions of culture, in an attempt to conclude a con- rSeelnsus definition of that term. They found relative consensus in t he following: \ - 33Ruth Benedict, Patterns of Culture (New York: Houghton M1 ‘Fflin Company, 1934), p. 35. O 34Bronislaw Malinowski, A Scientific Theory of Culture and \pther Essays (Chapel Hill, N.C.: The University of North Carolina r‘ess, 94 9 pp. 39, 52. 35 R ‘ Eric Fromm, Escape From Freedom (New York: Farrar and B) nehart, Inc., 1941), ppfll-lS; George Casper Homans, Social fihawior: Its Elementary Forms (New York: Harcourt, Brace and ( Orld, Inc., 1961), p. 45; George H. Mead, Mind, Self and Society Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1934), p. 262. 22 . . . the essential core of culture consists of tradi- tional (i.e., historically derived and selected) ideas and especially their attached values; culture systems may, on one hand, be considered as products of action, on the other as conditioning influences on further action. (Italics mine.)35 Moreover the literature of socialization proceeds, whether psychological, sociological or social-psychological, within a <:<>r1¢:eptual framework which involves an analysis of the process by wh'i ch preferred action modes, roles and cultural values are 'ir11:le l.l contains the extent and periods of these two major mi gration patterns. .__________‘ E; 42Warner and Srole, Social Systems of American Ethnic r‘<>u 5, pp. 283-296. 43Samuel Eliot Morison and Henry Steele Commager, The Eifiggsgsllhgth of the American Republic, Vol. 2 (New York: Oxford——_ " Versity Press, 1962), pp, 267-268. 26 TABLE l.l.--Change in Source of Immigration from Europe, 1860-1930. Northern and Southern and Peri od AdrTnTEthled Western Europe Eastern Europe No. % No. % l 861 -1870 2,314,824 2,031,624 87.8 33,628 1.4 'l 871 -1880 2,812,191 2,070,373 73.6 201,889 7.2 ‘118323fI-1890 5,246,613 3,778,633 72.0 958,413 18.3 1 891-1900 3,687,564 1,643,492 44.6 1,915,486 51.9 1 901-1910 8,795,386 1,910,035 21.7 6,225,981 70.8 Tl SB'l'l-1920 5,735,811 997,438 17.4 3,379,126 58.9 1 921-1930 4,107,209 1,284,023 31.3 1,193,830 29.0 Source: Morison and Commager, The Growth of the American Republic, p. 262. To the extent that the "new" immigrants have remained in u r‘ban areas, and to the extent that culture maintains naturally or a S a function of necessity, the above suggests a potential for d ‘5 ‘Fferential cultural maintenance in this society. Theoretical D I"‘emises and historical data serve primarily to promote a healthy 8 kepticism concerning the real viability of an oft-presumed as Similat A ion. wflahomst Theory and E\tmif Realities The process by which variant cultures in this society have i . . . h teracted as well as the results of that 1nteract1on remaTn ':.1 \- NJ 1 I 055 1114 Juan- 27 ambiguous and subject to a wide spectrum of interpretation. More- over, the theoretical models presented to explain that process and result may be more the result of ideological goals than an objective statement of the actual social development of this nation. The most corrlnon popular conception probably revolves around the melting-pot theory of cultural assimilation.44 Under the terms of this model a1 1 ethnic groups contribute the best aspects of their cultural heritage, while divesting themselves of ancient animosities and di fferences to form a common American culture. This somewhat naive but highly idealistic statement is best exemplified by the Character David in the drama, The Melting Pot, who utters these 1 ines: Here you stand, good folk, think I, when I see them at Ellis Island, here you stand in your fifty groups, with your fifty languages and histories . . . . But you won't be long like that, brothers, . . . Germans and Frenchmen, Irishmen and Englishmen, Jews and Russians--into ths Crucible with you all! God is making the American. 5 1 his theory assumes a propensity to "melt" by host and immigrant C u] ture alike which ignores the facts of cultural and social development, while specifying an end-product only in the most arrIc>rphous terms. Glazer and Moynihan conclude that one of the SQ rious constraints on dropping ethnic identity lies precisely in La "availability of a simple "American" identity, a problem also \ TTh 44Which takes its name from Israel Zangwill's 1908 drama, \eMelting Pot. 1 9 45Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot (New York: Macmillan, 09), p. 37, quoted by Gordon, “Assimilation in America," p. 33. 28 ci’ ted by John Erskine as early as 1927. In that year Erskine was 'I amenting the perversion of puritan "Americanism" by the impact of 1' ndustrialism and immigration, all of which resulted in a deperson- a'l ized social milieu and the gross sort of individualism which ‘i gnored tradition and substance. A variation on the melting pot theory, possibly in reaction to this difficulty with defining the "new" American, was subsequently developed by Ruby Kennedy, in which she hypothesized three major cultural identities predicated on religious affiliation.47 This model suffers from an emphasis on only one institutional aspect of culture, and essentially ignores ecological realities impacting on ethnic assimilation. Another model of assimilation comes under the rubric of Anglo-Conformity, a concept which draws on the presumed desire of hativists to maintain (or perfect) the positive aspects of English political, economic and social traditions in the context of American development. The strength of this assumed need may be implied from the conments of European political philosophers such as Locke and Vo‘ltaire, who saw special virtue in the early American culture and a Ctively promoted its survival. Bernard Bailyn, in a survey of ea rly American writings, concludes that European illuminati S t Y‘ongly reinforced a view in the colonies that these early settlers \ O 46Glazer and Moynihan, wond the Melting Pot, p. xxxiii; BO hn Erskine, American Character, and Other Essay; (Indianapolis: 0 bbs-Merrin Co.,m927). Book I, pp. 35-37. A 47RUPY JO Reeves Kennedy, "510918 or Triple Melting Pot," we“ Journal of Sociology 49 (April 1944): 331-339. a 29 we re the "special preservers of virtue and liberty."48 Remarks of th ‘is nature are also common in most writings of the founding fathers as well, and support the premise of this model that, at least during the nineteenth century, conformity of immigrants to Anglo culture was clearly the social goal of the host culture. The most recent model of inter-cultural development is that of“ cultural pluralism, a theory Gordon asserts came into being well after the reality of ethnic enclaves was recognized, but only as a result of a growing awareness that the cultural coercion of immi- grants by the host society begat serious social problems.49 Cultural pluralism, a phrase originally coined by Horace Kallen to describe what was actually transpiring in American life, included the promoting of ethnic identification while encouraging a demo— Cratic development.50 Greeley conceives of such pluralism as the process by which all ethnics become American while concurrently t"etaining creative aspects of their cultural heritage, and more I""ecently three distinct variations on this theme have become aIZDDarerit. There is simple cultural pluralism; essentially the process already described. Secondly, there is the model of ethno- Q‘Er‘nesis, in which cultural diffusion and amalgamation occur, con- c u Y‘rent with distinct cultural paths each of which differs in \ R 48Bernard Bailyn, The Ideological Origins of the American eeVolution (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1967), S pecia ly Chapters II and III. 49 Gordon, "Assimilation in America," pp. 35-38. St 50Horace M. Kallen, Culture and Democracy in the United \ates (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1924). 30 re‘l ation to the original form by virtue of factors such as time, social experiences, ecological needs and the like.“ Thirdly, This there is the model of acculturation but not assimilation. model, developed by Gordon, proposes that complete assimilation (a state in which individuals from differing cultural heritages are no longer culturally or institutionally distinctive one from another), involves not only conformity with host cultural patterns ( acculturation), but admittance to primary group relations. Primary group relations, according to Gordon, constitute the key 81 ement of assimilation, and until such interaction occurs mere acculturation will continue to describe much of the ethnic reality.52 This position is anticipated by Taft, who argues that the inter- action of any two cultures within some defined ecological circum- Stance involves the stages of segregation, conflict and assimila- tion, the prior two stages being characterized by symbiotic but Secondary relationships.53 Park finds that many ethnic groups have not currently advanced beyond the first two stages: What one actually finds in cosmopolitan groups, then, is a superficial uniformity, a homogeneity in manners and fashion, associated with relatively profound differences in individual opinions, sentiments and beliefs.54 \ Y 51Andrew M. Greeley, Ethnicity in the United States (New 0 Y‘k: John Wiley, 1974), pp. 303-310. szGordon, Assimilation in American Life, pp. 68-81. 53Taft, Human Migration, pp. 245-246. 54Robert Ezra Park, Race and Culture: Essays in the \C‘iology of Contemporary MaflNew York: The Free Press, 1964), ~ 204- 205. 31 Park has explored the impact of migration, culture conflict and personality in a concept he specifies as "marginal man."55 According to this concept, assimilation, while inevitable, often produces cultural hybrids, individuals whose traditions, ethics and prejudices as well as their life perspectives, reflect the impact of both their original and host cultures. The result is an i ndividual who exists on the margin of either culture in a more or 1 ess permanent state of moral dichotomy and personal conflict. While Park's original concept was cast in a predominantly racial- Cultural context, it may also have relevance where differing cul- tures interact short of considerations of racial difference. Moreover, the concept of marginality may be operative not only ’ during initial stages of assimilation, as implied by Park, but in any generational context in which ethnicity becomes a salient Social force. By almost any criteria, the possibility of a contemporary existence of some distinctive ethnic differences must be conceded; ‘7 1" anything, this position is only strengthened by recent increased a ttention to the subject. Michael Novak entitles his interpretive WC) rk on eastern and southern European immigrants The Rise of the meltable Ethnics, and he also edits a monthly newsletter for EMPAC (Ethnic Millions Political Action Comnittee), which is \ Arr. 55Robert E. Park, "Human Migration and the Marginal Man," \erican Journal of Sociology 33 (May 1928): 881-893. 32 focused on the question and problems of white ethnicity.56 A spate of national television shows deal directly with aspects of cultural p1 uralism, or at least purport to.57 A new academic journal, Ethnicity, has been founded within the last two years. In short, the subject of ethnicity, particularly white ethnicity, is receiving i ncreased attention in our society. A research need is thereby i ndicated to explore the extent and the nature of the asserted d i versity. Ethnicity and the Black Movement There is some evidence in the literature linking an asserted reemergence of ethnicity (an ethnic "regrouping" so to speak), with the social and political movement of Black Americans since the middle 1960's. This position is most precisely set forth by R. A. Schermerhorn, and involves considerations of historic white ethnic Social gains, contemporary emphasis by the larger society on black pmgress, and a general public movement supportive of pluralism in a 1 1 forms.58 Schermerhorn's argument is essentially as follows: ( 1 ) prior to the 1960's the ethnic mind set was focused on notions o ‘F assimilation with the larger culture, and numerous hard-won \ 56Michael Novak, The Rise of the Unmeltable Ethnics (New EOrk: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1971); EMPAC (Box 48, a\3/i/ille, New York). 57For example, see CBS, All in the Family, The Jeffersons, NBC, Chico and The Man. S 58 ° C ioiogy and Schermerhorn, "Ethnicity in the Perspective of the of Knowledge," pp. 1-14. 33 s;(3<:ial gains as well as mobility, however sporatic or slow, provided the legitimation for such perceptions; (2) the 1960's brought about not only a general social tendency opting for pluralism of all types, but a demand by blacks for rapid integration and mobility, a position 'vviiich was seen by many white ethnics to threaten their current and ‘1=Lrture mobility opportunities; and (3) the unfortunate focus of black demands became, in many cases, the drive for integrated housing earn: education in the ethnic enclaves of several major urban concen- 59 trations. Schermerhorn concludes that not only was the "new" ethnicity born in the supercharged atmosphere of the past decade, but that as a reaction it may become a prime causal element in the future of ethnic development in this society.60 Radzialowski, in surveying the situation of Detroit Poles ‘3 n relation to the Black movement, sees the cutting edge of the problem in more economic terms. He advises: Confrontation with the Blacks involves more than just a question of neighborhood, community, and traditional hostility to outsiders. . . . It doesn't take too many visits to workman's bars in the Polish neighborhoods to discover that the whole complex of fears surrounding the Black threat to jobs plays an important role in the general reaction to the Negro--that this fear becomes intensified in times of economic Depression.6 59The school busing situation in South Boston, involving a h ‘3 9h level of conflict between the Irish and Blacks, presents a it?) tuation in which all of Schermerhorn's elements may be salient. e Irish, it should be noted, are a part of the "old" imigration and should, in theory, have been assimilated long ago. Sc - 60Schermerhorn, "Ethnicity in the Perspective of the olology of Knowledge," p. 9. E1; 6IThiddeus Radzialowski, "The View from a Polish Ghetto," \h'figflzyl (July 1974): 134. 34 I n this same general vein, it is appropriate to consider a somewhat prevalent notion, that ethnicity in the limited definitional sense-- the Irish, southern and eastern Europeans--is a surrogate for the working class, and that the working class is racist in orientation as well as decidedly conservative. A NORC study by Nie, Currie and Greeley challenges this assumption.62 In a typology in which western European Protestants, hybrids and self-described "Americans" are considered non-ethnics, and western European Catholics, southern Europeans, eastern Europeans and Jews are designated as ethnics, these researchers found evidence in a national survey conducted in l 967 that: White ethnic Americans reported attitudes no less liberal on the war in Vietnam and sometimes more liberal than other Americans, White ethnic Americans expressed attitudes sometimes more liberal and never less liberal on racial questions, and consistently more liberal on issues of economic and social welfare than other Americans.63 They conclude that assuming a conservative and racist stance among ethnics clouds the real issue: namely, that many ethnics situa- tionally find themselves in what they consider an unfair competition wi th Black Americans. In other words the real source of conflict 1' s ecological (in the Parkian sense) proximity, and not racism or conservatism arising from class placement or ethnic identification. It is believed that rather serious exception can be taken W7 th the typology used in Greeley's study, a subject that will be \ p 6ZNorman H. Nie, Barbara Currie, and Andrew M. Greeley, Di 01 itical Attitudes Among American Ethnics: A Study of Perceptual Stortion," thnicity 1 (December 1974): 317-343. 53Ibid.. pp. 328-331. 35 ea><)'Iice Ethnicity America is a land in which every conceivable cultural type ‘is; represented. Much of the current dialogue in the criminal JUStice system concerns itself with the need for police officers to recognize and be sensitive to these cultural differences. FOsdick, writing in 1920, amply specifies the earlier police Problem in terms of white ethnicity: ‘With rare exceptions the populations of European cities Tare homogeneous. The population of American cities is heterogeneous to an extent almost without parallel. . . . In America--to use only a few illustrations at random-- New York's foreign-born population is 41%, Chicago and Boston 36% each, Cleveland and Providence 34% each, Detroit 33% . . . . This contrast can be emphasized in another way. London has 14,000 Italians among her foreign-born; Paris has 26,000. New York has 340,000; Chicago has 45,000. London has 45,000 foreign-born Russians; Paris 18,000. New York has 485,000; Chicago 121,000. . . . New York's Italian-born population is greater than the combined populations of Bologne and Venice. The consequences of this mixture of race and color are far reaching, particularly in their effect on such functions as policing. Homogeneity simplifies the task of government. Long-established traditions of order and standards of public conduct, well-understood customs and practices which smooth the rough edges of personal contact, a definite racial temperament and a fixed set of group 36 habits by which conflicting interests are more readily comprehended and adjusted-—in short, the social solidarity and cohesiveness which come only from a common language and a common heritage--all these factors, so interwoven in French and English community life . . . are utterly unknown in many of the towns and cities of The United States.6 The current focus of this problem--cultural heterogeneity airid policing--has changed, and recent emphasis has been placed on 1:r1e special cultural needs of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Mexican Americans and other ethnic non-white minorities. This not only aasssumes that assimilation among the various white ethnics is an cesstablished fact but it disregards some rather unique ethnic (:liiaracteristics manifested by American policing, especially in the eastern half of the nation. The Irish influence in the New York Ci ty Police Department is a case in point. A listing of individual members of the force as of May 1, 1885 reveals almost half had su rnames which may be roughly equated with an Irish heritage (De‘laney, Kelly, Kennedy, Murphy, McCarthy, O'Malley, etc.). A 1 i SSting of the major police social and fraternal associations for New York City (March 1965) indicates that the Irish Emerald Society has a membership of 8,500 which would equate to roughly 42 percent McNamara found that the hierarchy of that of force strength.66 \ 64Raymond B. Fosdick, American Police Systems (Montclair, Patterson Smith, 1969), pp. 4-8. 65Augustine E. Costello, Our Police Protectors: Histogy ‘9~:f:~;the New York Police (New York: Police Pension Fund, 1885; reprinted by Patterson- Smith Publishing Corporation, Montclair, N ~o.,1972), pp. 527- 559. N-o 66Arthur Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield: The Police in !=!JEL!§§g_§pgj__y_(New York: Doubleday and Co. , Inc. ., 1967), p. 135 37 department was dominated by men with Irish-Catholic backgrounds.67 Ni lson, in a study of one large city department, found that while I rish represented only 2.6 percent of the city population, that 19.7 percent of the police (during the period 1951-1961) were of Irish heritage; that in the past twenty years the force had not appreciably changed in ethnic composition, and that over one-fifth of all Irish sergeants had three or more relatives involved in policing.68 Comparisons of this nature are equally pertinent to other ethnic groups as well. These data, although limited in scope, suggest that some police departments may provide a mobility structure per- ceived as distinct by some ethnics from the overall society-wide 0CCupational avenues, especially to the extent that the police department is organized and controlled as a reflection of particular Styl es of city government. This is a point suggested in Wilson's study of police styles, organization and city government in eight c0'"rll'nunities.69 Although there is little precise data on the nature of ethnic inputs to policing across the nation, the common reference made by various practitioners in the field to the Irish, the Italians, the Poles, etc., and their alleged influence in Various departments lends support to a view that the police occupa- ti On is not always representative of the ethnic spread in the \ 67McNamara, "Uncertainties in Police Work," p. 199. 68James O. Wilson, "Generational and Ethnic Differences ‘(meng Career Police Officers," American Journal of Sociology 69 arch 1964): 522-528. ( Q 6gJames O. Wilson, Varieties of Police Behavior ambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968). 38 general population. The question that is raised in terms of re presentativeness is whether or not ethnicity is a powerful enough variable to be deemed important in terms of both predicting and p1 anning for police behavior. The purpose of this research is to examine what is perceived to be an a priori assumption that ethnicity, among whites, is not of sufficient power to condition the orientations of police officers, thus need not be included in the full spectrum of police organizational actions. Secondly, within policing there is some indication that ethnic considerations are operant over and above professional norms and associations. Table 1.2 reflects the major police fraternal and social organizations represented in the New York City Police Depa rtment in 1964. Intuitively, one must question the reason for the existence of such fraternities, especially their focus on ethnic mempership (in view of the almost legendary pronouncements concerned With the brotherhood of police, their cohesiveness because of common danQer, and the like), in lieu of a strong unified police profes- S'i Ohal organization. If, however, policing is viewed in terms of an ethnic mobility opportunity, such fraternities gain function by ei ther protecting a perceived advantage, or by means of reacting i“ Sufficient strength to overcome a perceived disadvantage. In th“ s same regard, traditional police Opposition to lateral entry may be viewed less the result of local, state or Operational e ‘ c 0 X1 gencies, and more a means to protect the internal mob111ty pa ttern. 39 TABLE l.2.--Comparison of Membership of Selected Police Societies. Name of Association Bagmgeg‘sjagp“ Naggggrgf Percent Emerald Society Irish 8,500 42 Columbia Association Italian 5,000 25 Shomrim Society Jewish 2,270 ll .2 Steuben Association German l,500 7.4 Guardians Association Negro 1,320 6.5 Pulaski Association Polish l,l00 5.4 St . Paul Society Greek and 300 1.5 Russian H7 Spanic Society Puerto Rican 250 l and Spanish 20,240 l00.0% \ Source: Niederhoffer, Behind the Shield, p. 135. In a study of 293 police officers to explore the possibility of hole strain predicated on two omnipresent life spaces (ethnic membership and police membership), one researcher found evidence that role strain of this nature did exist; further, that it was often resolved in favor of maintaining ethnic in-group/out-group he1 ationships. Specifically, ambiguous interpersonal situations wehe avoided beyond the .001 level of statistical. significance at“Chg Blacks, Irish, Italian, Polish and White Anglo-Saxons.70 \ St 70Frank G. Pogue, "A Study of Ethnic Background and Role [3 1. *‘ain Among Policemen" (Ph.D. dissertation, University of ttsburgh, 1973). 40 Stated another way, officers in this department advised they would 21'1'1ow themselves to become interpersonally close only with officers from the same ethnic background. One of the earliest references to ethnicity within policing 'i s; indicative that ethnic discord has at least been recognized as a ;)c>ssible source of trouble for some time. The General Orders of the Watch, New York City, 1674, contain this warning: whosoever shall presume to make any quarrell upon the Wattch, upon the account of being different nations or any other pretense1whatsoever, hee or they shall pay a whole fine . . It would seem reasonable, based on considerations such as ‘t11£ese, that some extensive exploration of policing would be justi- fhitaci, focusing on ethnicity as a variable conceivably relating to t'IEE problems of policing. This has not been the case. For example, i" E: rather extensive study of police attitudes, utilizing SES as a can sal variable, Watson and Sterling controlled for ethnicity by CH viding respondents into three categories: White, Negro and "all oth ers."72 Other studies focus on the values police bring with tr‘ern to the job, the effect of occupation on attitudes and behavior, c"‘ \Nhether particular individuals self-select themselves into the 7ICostello, Our Police Protectors, p. 23. (:) 72Nelson A. Watson and James W. Sterling, Police and Their 'inions (Washington, D.C.: International Association of Chiefs ‘31: Police, 1969), p. 108. n 41 {3(Jlice occupation. None of these studies or interpretive works sseariously attempt to either differentiate ethnicity in any :s;1:ructured fashion, or consider the subject as meriting comment. .l\_ survey of 153 white male policemen (1968) by Rokeach, and con- , :31 1:r~asted with a matched national sample, revealed that: Police are more concerned than are white and black Americans in the national sample with certain personal values. They care more about a sense of accomplishment and about being capable, intellectual and logical. These findings suggest an image of the policeman as a person who, contrary to popular conception, sees himself as striving to perform his occupational functions in a professionally competent and responsible manner.74 'nfir £111 order to control for education and SES, these officers were matched with 153 white males from the general population. At a '7£2\/eel of significance varying from .01 to .06, these officers riifiiced the values a comfortable life, pleasure, obedience and self- coVthrol higher, and beauty, equality, freedom and independence lower tjjéil"l the national white sample. In a pilot study undertaken in cc’r'Ci unction with this dissertation, however, this same department ““353 found to be decidedly over-represented by officers of German, Scandinavian, English and German-Irish parentage, with less than \ l—‘i 73See, for example, Seymour Martin Lipset, "Why Cops Hate upberalsuand Visa Versa," Atlantic 223 (1969): 76-83; Hans H. Toch, aasychological Consequences of the Police Role," Police 10 (1965): ‘tZES; Milton Rokeach, "The Value Gap Between Police and Policed," iElgliflflal of Social Issues 27 (1971): 155-171. -1-" 74Milton Rokeach, The Nature of Human Values (New York: ‘3 Free Press, 1973), pp. 150-1521 42 10 percent of responding officers of southern or eastern European heritage.75 The failure of Rokeach to take into account such ethnicity may considerably dilute the inferential potential of his data to conclude anything about police values in general. Again, the question is one of assuming base-line cultural sameness with emphasis on psychological predispositions or occupational socializa- tion.w Whether or not this can be done with impunity remains an open question. Police constitute one of the obvious sources of conflict in our society. Bittner has observed that in a society which con— stantly tends toward the elaborate symbolization of power, the localice often present as blatantly coercive by their ability and often their responsibility to imnediately enforce compliance. Bittner further observes that the nature of policing mandates Y‘Ough-hewn decision making, and at any rate many in the general F>lJl>lic will perceive the police as repressive agents of the status quo.76 Major emphasis in recent years has been placed on upgrading DO] ice management, education and professionalization. 0f major ‘i'Tiport to the success of these areas, to say nothing of selection, training, functional placement and promotion, is the basic question \ - 75Ethnic composition was determined by virtue of a survey j rTstrument, as well as extended conversations with top police '1=ficials, and acquaintanceships with approximately 10% of the Aepartment. The results of the pilot study are contained in Dpendix A of this dissertation. 76Egon Bittner, The Functions of the Police in Modern €§§£§5§i§3y_(Rockville, Md.: National Institute of Mental Health, eInter for Studies of Crime and Delinquency, Publication No. 2059, 1 970). pp. 15-21. 43 of what kind of individuals are in policing, and what values, attitudes and psychological orientations they bring with them or develop on the job. Subsumed within this larger question is the \ cultural diversity factor, and whether such cultural diversity 3 manifests itself in terms of those values, attitudes and orienta- ; tions. It has generally been assumed that such is not the case in contemporary society, at least among whites. If, however, as many assert, culture provides the framework within which values, attitudes and orientations are formed and in which they remain furmtional components of behavioral patterning; if either Anglo- conformity or melting pot theories fail to describe reality or if (:Laltural pluralism pretends beyond extrinsic differences, then a C1 oser examination of police ethnicity is clearly in order. ’1 4""- R—fl CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The interpretive literature of ethnicity is as rich and diverse as the subject itself, and it is as difficult to capsulize the large mass of historical and developmental material as it is to adequately describe the total American experience itself. Not only did the motivational bases differ extensively among the inmigrants--the seeking of political and religious freedom of many nativists, the Irish flight from starvation, the economic and social displacement of the mass of peasantry from the interior of the European continent, the opportunity for entrepreneurship or mere aClventureubut each group arrived with differing social, political and economic skills as well as differing customs, norms and forms 01: social organization. Each group interacted with substantially d ‘ifferent ecological stages of the American development. The great 1 and-settling activities of the 01d Inmigration, coupled with their background of skilled tradecraft; the urban industrial experience ()1: the New Imigration; the amalgam of nationalities that settled the West and created new institutions appropriate to that experience; the reception each immigrant group received at the hands of the l"‘Ost culture; all of these factors combined to promote distinctive aClaptive behaviors, involved varying levels of conflict or consensus, 44 45 and perceptions of how best to deal with the human problems that beset all collectivities. The bulk of the literature of ethnicity, especially those works detailing the American experiences of the New Immigration emphasize the processes and realities cited above. Oscar Handlin's The Uprooted, Pisani's The Italian in America, and Thomas and Znaniecki's The Polish Peasant in Europe and America,1 are some of the best efforts in this field. In many ways they are chronologies of pride, of group survival in the face of political, social and economic exploitation, and of adaptive maintenance of group and individual integrity in spite of these problems. Literature of this type, which characterizes the bulk of writing from the turn of the century into the 19505 and beyond, provides valuable insights into the organizing activities of various ethnic groups, their cultural antecedents and adaptive behavior; nonetheless, and in keeping with dominant assimilationist tendencies of the time, they usually assumed those processes were in full or partial operation even though esoteric ethnic customs and traditions were often asserted to maintain over time. In the main, consensus among all cultural groups was assumed in the arena of human values, as well as a similar rank ordering of those values. It was in the area of extrinsic cultural features--wedding customs, festivals, 1Oscar Handlin, The Uprooted (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1951); Lawrence F. Pisani, The Italian in America (New York: The Exposition Press, 1954); and William I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki, The Polish Peasant in Europe and America (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1918). 46 courting and the like-~that ethnic saliency was assumed, an area of culture which poses small threat to host cultures or institutions. By the 19505, and especially in the 19605, when cultural pluralism was becoming a legitimated concept within the framework of American social philosophy, it was already clear that either ethnics (however defined) were failing to assimilate, that assimila- tive progress had halted or even reversed itself, or that assimila- tion itself was a much more extensive process than previously thought. Whether or not this phenomenon was promoted by the civil rights activities of Blacks, student activism, or constituted a more general social reaction to the depersonalized nature of an advanced industrial society is, in this instance, secondary to the formation of the social milieu itself; a milieu in which cultural pluralism and a renewed emphasis on ethnicity emerged. This renewed emphasis on ethnicity, which seems to be gaining strength in the 19705, however, is neither of equal emphasis throughout the social sciences or examined in any consistent manner within single disci- plines as a general rule, a problem which makes inference and generalizing a hazardous undertaking. ‘A review of major discipline journals reveals ethnicity has received intermittent attention in sociology and political science, less in psychology and virtually none, in the context of American ethnicity, in anthropology.2 2The following journals were reviewed for the period 1960- 1975: American Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, American Political Science Review, Western Political Quarterly, Journal of Social Psychology. American Anthropologist, Anthropologi- cal Quarterly, Journal of Psychology, American Journal of Psychology, Psychological Review, Psychology Today. 47 This is not to say, however, that there is any shortage of literature which proposes to examine ethnicity as defined by race. Copious treatises on Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexican-Americans exist, a majority of which present a socio-cultural, pOlitical and economic model of repression and exploitation, and the concurrent need for the establishment or refinding of a salient group identity.3 The problems associated with works of this nature, however, are that they inevitably make assumptions about the commonality of group or individual characteristics of the white aggregate, while asserting unique individual or group characteristics for the minority in question. Interpretive works of this nature have not been included in this study, although Chapter III will include Blacks in a predictive model of ethnicity. To the extent that Blacks are identified as a distinct group in more definitive ethnicity studies, the characteristics of that group will be discussed in this chapter. There is even less empirical material to be found relating to ethnicity in policing, again with the possible exception of the racial minorities in the occupation. Studies of this nature have focused primarily on the inconsistencies and conflict inherent in policing for black officers, namely in relation to the widely divergent publics the black officer is asked to relate to.4 These studies, with few exceptions, consider the white police group as 3This kind of statement is explicit in works such as Eldridge Cleaver, Soul on Ice (New York: Dell Publishing Co., 1968). 4Nickolas Alex, Black in Blue: A Study of the Black Policeman (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969). 48 essentially homogeneous and having predictable group characteristics arising out of peer socialization, commonality of social class, and the like. The focus of this chapter will be a review of the empirical and interpretive works concerned primarily with white ethnicity, regardless of how such ethnicity is defined. Section I will con- sider the political science material, Section II the literature con- cerned with the socio-psychological and anthropological aspects of ethnicity, and Section III, ethnicity and policing. A summary section will attempt to collate the various findings. Section 1: Ethnic Politics There can be little question that ethnicity has had a reasonably important impact on the development of American politics. Ethnic differences and needs were observed by Handlin as a fertile field of political mobilization, and appeals to ethnic constituen- cies remain to this day, especially in major urban concentrations.5 Gans, in describing the political activities of Boston's Italian West Enders, asserts a highly personalized brand of political action in which representation occurs in the form of "ambassadorships" to the outside world, and a strong case can be made that reformism in American city government had as its primary impetus a white, Anglo, 5Handlin, The Oprooted; see also Glazer and Moynihan, Beyond the Melting Pot, for a discussion of New York City ethnic politics. 49 middle-class reaction against ethnic machine politics.6 Wilson and Banfield describe these reformers as the embodiment of "middle- class ethos" (translate as "nativist") in American politics.7 Although there is little disagreement concerning the initial impact and exploitation of ethnicity on the American political scene, primary research questions have revolved around considerations of the form of ethnic politics, models of action and whether or not unique ethnic political activity persists over time. One of the major studies of ethnic voting and party affiliative behavior, Robert Dahl's study of New Haven politics, rests on an assimilationist model of political action.8 Dahl distinguished ethnicity in terms of national origin and religion. He analyzed the voting behavior of New Haven citizens from 1903 to 1959, and formulated a three-stage model of ethnic political development. Stage one is essentially the immigrant entry level, in which ethnic ties are strong and during which time the ethnic group occupies a homogeneous socio-economic position. Dahl advises that at this stage ethnicity and class problems converge thus creating "similar interests and political homogeneity."9 Ethnic political behavior 6Herbert J. Gans, The Urban Villagers (New York: The Free Press, 1962); Richard Hofstadter, The Age of Reform (New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1955); and William F. Whyte, Street Corner Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955). 7James O. Wilson and Edward C. Banfield, City Politics (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1963). 8Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963), pp. 1—60. 9 Ibid., p. 35. 50 becomes more diversified in stage two, at which point differential economic achievements weaken stage one solidarity unless economic issues can be avoided during campaigns in favor of ethnic issues. Stage three occurs when ethnic members have achieved full economic differentiation and class considerations gain hegemony over ethnic membership. Dahl maintains, however, that the early effects of ethnicity remain in terms of ethnic-based party identification, although even this will diminish as a function of time.10 Dahl's model predicts the greatest impact of ethnicity on voting behavior in stage one, when there is the greatest coincidence of ethnicity with class placement. To test this, Dahl correlated the proportion of the New Haven Democratic vote for every mayoral election from 1903 to 1959, and for every presidential election from 1904 to 1956, with results in the direction of his prediction (see Figures 2.1 and 2.2). Wolfinger, using the same New Haven data base, proposes a different theory of ethnic voting behavior and party identifica- 11 Wolfinger questioned why, after fifty years of assimilation, tion. ethnicity continued to be an influence in New Haven politics; specifically, why Italians were overrepresented among Republicans and Irish among Democrats. In answer to this question, he proposed a theory of ethnic mobilization. Pursuant to this model ethnic 1oIbid.. pp. 59-60. 11Raymond E. Wolfinger, "The Development and Persistence of Ethnic Voting," American Political Science Review 59 (December 1965): 896-908. 51 100 Q S .754 .5 .3 .50'~ Q) L g. o 0 .. V V 5 -.25 ‘ '8 8: -.50 -1 I... 8 75¢ «a " 4,0 l l l I 1 l l l l I 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 2.l.--Re1ation between Percentage of Foreign-Born Residents in New Haven Wards and Percentage of Two-party Vote Cast for Democratic Candidates for Mayor, 1903-1959. (Source: Dahl, Who Governs? p. 45, Figure 4.6.) Presidential Elections 04 08 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 £56 L l l 1 I l j I l l l l 1 1.0 1* l ’10 l I l I l l ’1 l I l l g .75 -I .5 ,3 .mi- 8 3 .25 4 U ‘8 o 4..) 5 -n25 - ’8 fig -.50 — 8 o -u75- I I I -1.0 I l I I I 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 Figure 2.2.--Relation between Percentage of Foreign-born Residents in New Haven Wards and Percentage of Two-Party Vote Cast for Democratic Candidates for President, 1904-1956. (Source: Dahl, Who Governs? p. 46, Figure 4.7.) 52 party affiliation is a function of availability (i.e., when the Italians arrived, the Irish already dominated the Democratic Party and positions in city government; ergo, Republicanism became the only feasible route to political power), and in terms of greatest ethnic political strength, that it is only aftgr_substantial ethnic middle-class status is achieved that political strength in voting will be achieved. Wolfinger sums up: The mobilization theory of ethnic voting states that: The strength of ethnic voting depends on both the inten- sity of ethnic identification and the level of ethnic relevance in the election. The most powerful and visible sign of ethnic political relevance is a fellow-ethnic's name at the head of the ticket, evident to everyone who enters the voting booth. Middle-class status is a virtual prerequisite for candidacy for major office; an ethnic group's development of sufficient political skill and influence to secure such a nomination also requires the development of a middle-class. Therefore ethnic voting will be greatest when the ethnic group has produced a middle-class, i.e., in the second and third generations, not in the first. Furthermore, the shifts in party identification resulting from this first major candidacy will persist beyond the election in which they occurred. This is not to say that the growth of a middle class past the point of mobilization will necessarily produce increasing ethnic voting. Nor does the theory state that the resulting alignment is impervious to other political and social developments, or that more than one such shift cannot take place. But it does say that, in a given political arena and for a given nationality group, the development of voting solidarity is a product of leader- ship; that such leadership requires a middle class; and that such alignments are more durable than the political candidacies that produce them.12 The thrust of this model is to change the point of greatest ethnic strength to what essentially is Dahl's second stage. In support of his model, Wolfinger offers the fact that while the 121bid., p. 905. 53 first Irish Alderman was elected in 1857, it was not until 1899 that they dominated New Haven politics, and that by 1930 they accounted for 49 percent of all government jobs; further, at that time the Italians (New Immigration), constituted 27 percent of a sample of 1600 family heads, but occupied no government positions. By the 19505, however, a period of democratic successes, Italian Republicans occupied slightly more than their pro-rata share of municipal elective offices.13 It should be noted that regardless of model both Dahl and Wolfinger argue for the reasonably long-term impact of ethnicity by virtue of the continued unique party affiliation of different ethnic groups, and the potential for ethnicity to resurface as an election issue. Wolfinger also argues that ethnicity may be politically unimportant or important on a regional basis and weaker in the West. He reasons that where immigrants actively participated in creating status structures (the West), they would identify first with the total structure, whereas in the East, ethnics entered into a highly stratified system to begin with, thus promoting ethnic identification as a means of mobilization.14 Miller has criticized Wolfinger's analysis based on the inclusion of only three ethnic groups in that analysis (Irish, Italian, and Yankee), as well as the temporal span of the data 131bid.. pp. 899-900. 141010.. p. 898. 54 (1949-1961), a period of relative political stability.15 Using party identification as the dependent variable, Miller reanalyzed Dahl's original party affiliation data using a two-way analysis of variance in which class (manual and non-manual labor), and ethnicity (Negroes, Italian Catholics, European Catholics, European Jews, Eur0pean Protestants, American Protestants and Irish Catholics), were utilized as independent variables. Results of that analysis (Table 2.1), indicate Dahl's model of ethnic assimilation in which socio-economic concerns replace ethnicity fails at the level of statistical significance; i.e., ethnicity may be on the wane, but SES does not replace it. The percentage TABLE 2.l.--Two-way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity and Class on Party Identification in New Haven. Source Nesting DF SS MS F at .01 Ethnicity 6 33.91 5.65 8.70 sig. Class 1 2.25 2.25 3.46 n.s. Interaction 6 14.16 2.36 3.63 sig. Replication Ethnicity 398 258.35 .649 Class Source: Miller, p. 486, Table 2. 15Abraham H. Miller, "Ethnicity and Political Behavior: A Review of Theories and an Attempt at Reformulation," Western Political Quarter1y_24 (September 1971): 483-500. 55 of variance in party identification was determined to be: (1) ethnicity--10 percent; (2) SES-—1 percent; and (3) interaction-- 4 percent.16 Miller interpreted specific cell interaction effects (Table 2.2), as reflecting three distinct phenomena. The first, specified as mutually reinforcing effects, occurred with non-manual American and European Protestants and manual European Jews in that the first two groups should (and did) tend towards Republican membership; the latter to Democratic membership. The second interaction type, labelled incongruent forces, is exemplified among manual Protestants, where ethnic loyalty is eroded in favor of class considerations. The Irish constitute a third type, since they are consistently of Democratic affiliation, by class, in the right direction. Miller concludes that Dahl's basic model must be modified to provide both the negative and positive interaction effects of ethnicity and class, especially where cross-pressures resulting from ethnicity and class are not mutually reinforcing. Other researchers have inquired into the underlying value systems which prompt ethnic political behavior. Wilson and Banfield have examined aggregate voting records in an attempt to infer values from voting behavior.‘7 Proceeding on the premise that the voter will act in his own self-interest and will vote for those issues 161010., p. 490. 17James O. Wilson and Edward C. Banfield, ”Public- Regardingness as a Value Premise in Voting Behavior," American Political Science Review 58 (December 1964): 876-887. 56 .m ppnap .Nme .a .thPEZ "moasom .cowuumgwu owpmeuoEmo mzp cw cowpomcmucw we cowuumempcw m>wummm25 mm._u m.n:mgw o¢._ om.~ om.m m¢.P om.p _~._ nm.~u .M caspou oo._u .M 30m &o Num.mm emo. on._N xmm.m emu. &N.m M.Ppmu mo pcwuema mm cowpumgmucH o . me.- No.- Fm.- mo.+ No.+ ¢_.+ cowuumgwucH ¢¢.F Fm._ _N.N F_.F mn.~ mo.F eq.~ .M mp mp mm m mm OFF em 2 mm mm —m o_ om Nw— me xw szcmz Fm._n .M 30m xmm.w xm~.m xom.¢ xmm.m &NN.N &_m._ 4&m¢.- m.__mu to , pcmogma mm cowuomgmch m_.- mm.+ Np.+ mo.- mo.- No.+ mv.- cowuumgmucH om.F Fo.N om.m m¢._ mm.~ mm._ 00., .M om em mm mm NF mm m 2 Fe mm mm mm mm mm m xw Fmacmscoz mowpogpmu mucmpmmuogm mucmummpoga mzma mow_o;umu moPFosumo mmogmm :mwga :muwgwe< :mmaogam :mmqogaw cmmgogsw compmua z .Amumo cm>mz zmzv muommem cowuumgmucn mo compsawgumvonu.~.m m4mmo Fmgsapau to Eton Fave: cue: cowumummwmmmpu uwczum an .mgopumu m>wumpwewmmcm> x_;mwc mxuoPm :owpmpeemmmm ncmpweo; op scape; we we: pan .mcowu op :owpm>wuoe co m. -mgappzuo< .mcowp ummmn aucmwmcmgp u” iauwumcw new mmpog mEom muwgwmmu m. _m:u moucmpmwxm m.omm_ ucmsmpupmm “emcee w .00 amen-omw op m.omm_ lama meow "nmxwe mpmemcoe pcmzemcoucw emucwcmweeH zwz= 1. 5:53:38 9022 202233 ucmimcou 5.7: 9.5388 W van cowumpwewmmo op Lowga ucmcmscmn 30F >Lm> ngmw; empcmemwssfi ape: w. . J 36:32 u apmuosv :o_uumgwo mezzmh cowum>wuoz :owugmou mmmcmmopo mmmpu compmpmsmmm< mamevxogna< - acmgmeEH zymwuom “no: Fmgsupso Owccpm 136 between these two groups comprise the extent of prediction in this study. The special characteristics of the Blacks, Jews and Irish impede such prediction. In the course Of analysis, however, each of these special cases will be examined in terms of the measures utilized in contrast with the other classifications toward a determination of the propriety of classifying them as special cultural entities. It should be understood that the null hypothesis is assumed in each case, and as is the standard technique, the null is tested first before examining the specific research hypothesis. The hypotheses examined in this study are: 1. There is a significant difference between police officers representing the ethnic categories of traditionalism and modernism in their rank ordering of terminal life values. 1.1 Modern ethnics will rank order the value freedom higher than traditional ethnics. 1.2 Modern ethnics will rank order the value equality higher than traditional ethnics. 1.3 Modern ethnics will rank order the value accomplishment higher than traditional ethnics. 1.4 Traditional ethnics will rank order the value social recognition higher than modern ethnics. 1.5 Traditional ethnics will rank order the value family security higher than modern ethnics. 1.6 Traditional ethnics will rank order the value national security higher than modern ethnics. 1.7 Traditional ethnics will rank order the value happiness higher than modern ethnics. 1.8 1.9 137 Traditional ethnics will rank order the value comfortable life higher than modern ethnics. Traditional ethnics will rank order the value true friendship higher than modern ethnics. There is a significant difference between police Officers representing the ethnic categories of traditionalism and modernism in their rank ordering of instrumental life values. 2.1 Modern ethnics will rank order the value responsibility higher than traditional ethnics. Modern ethnics will rank order the value ambition higher than traditional ethnics. Modern ethnics will rank order the value independence higher than traditional ethnics. Modern ethnics will rank order the value logic higher than traditional ethnics. Modern ethnics will rank order the value self-control higher than traditional ethnics. Traditional ethnics will rank order the value capable higher than modern ethnics. Traditional ethnics will rank order the value obedience higher than modern ethnics. Traditional ethnics will rank order the value courageousness higher than modern ethnics. Traditional ethnics will rank order the value forgiveness higher than modern ethnics. 138 There is a significant difference between police officers representing the ethnic categories of traditionalism and modernism in their orientation to work. 3.1 Traditional ethnics will differ from modern ethnics in their higher perception of work as merely a life instrumentality. 3.2 Modern ethnics will differ from traditional ethnics in their higher valuation of individual Opportunities in the work environment. 3.3 Traditional ethnics will differ from modern ethnics in their higher perception of work as the opportunity to enhance community welfare. 3.4 Modern ethnics will differ from traditional ethnics in the higher relative importance they accord to peer competition and personal recognition. 3.5 Traditional ethnics will differ from modern ethnics in the higher degree to which they prefer positive social interactions and relationships in the work environment. 3.6 Modern ethnics will differ from traditional ethnics in their greater adherence to the work ethic. Traditional ethnics will differ significantly from modern ethnics in the degree to which they score higher on measures testing faith in people. Traditional ethnics will differ significantly from modern ethnics in the degree to which they score higher on measures of dogmatism. Traditional ethnics will differ significantly from modern ethnics in the degree to which they score higher on measures of intolerance of ambiguity. 139 7. Traditional ethnics will differ significantly from modern ethnics in the degree to which they score higher on measures of authoritarianism. 8. Traditional ethnics will differ significantly from modern ethnics in the degee to which they score higher on measures of political futility. 9. Modern ethnics will differ significantly from traditional ethnics in the degree to which they score higher on measures of political discontent. Section VII: Analytical Technjgues Several modes of analysis are utilized in this study. In regard to the Rokeach Value Survey, the rank ordering of discrete categories is involved. Rokeach has advised that extensive research utilizing the survey has indicated that the individual value dis- tributions are often uniquely skewed, and that parametric assump- tions of normality are strained, further, that the measure of central tendency most appropriate when using this instrument is 5' Analysis of this phase of the study will the median position. be conducted using the median test, a chi-square technique testing the significance of difference between the number of individuals in'two or more subgroups scoring above and below the group median. The remainder of the measures will be analyzed utilizing analysis of variance (ANOVA), a parametric procedure which examines the significance of differences in means. Chi-square will be utilized where the existence of a relationship between two non-metric variables is in question. 5lRokeach, Human Values, pp. 56-57. 140 Section VIII: Summary This chapter has specified the theoretical issues to be approached, the source of data and the measures utilized. It was perceived to be of primary importance to be able to arrive at a tentative conclusion relative to the underlying mechanisms reflected in the ethnic phenomenon, and the model of cultural continuance was asserted to be not only of the greatest value in terms of prediction, but suggested by various aspects of the literature itself. It is the general premise of this research that if ethnicity has value as a variable, over time, that it will be a result of finding manifestations of cultural continuance in the values and attitudes of police Officers. A review of the literature suggested a "natural" contrast could be found, based on institutional comparisons, between modern cultures and traditional cultures. This contrast formed the basis for establishing a tentative ethnic classification scheme which was utilized as the basis for predicting police officer values and attitudes. Hypotheses were set forth relative to the expected contrasts between the categories of modern and traditional ethnics. Blacks, Jews and the Irish were, due to their unique cultural deve10pment, specified as special cultural cases, and no hypotheses were established relative to these groups. Wayne County Sheriff's Department was selected because of its urban characteristics, regional location, and ethnic "mix," as well as for its convergence with the research capabilities of the writer. While the inferential potential of the analysis is 141 thereby constrained, the exploratory nature of this research pro- ceeds on the assumption that it is more important to first arrive at some tentative conclusions about the nature of the ethnic phenomenon itself as a means by which more specific theory can be articulated, prior to considerations of obtaining representative sampling having inferential ability in regard to the American police population. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA The data pertinent to the acceptance or rejection Of the hypotheses enumerated in Chapter III are presented in this chapter, which is organized into four sections as follows: (1) General Considerations, (2) Rokeach Values, (3) Orientation Toward Work, and (4) Social-Psychological Attributes. Section I will be concerned with the unique problems inherent in exploring ethnicity, the question Of instrument sensitivity as well as the criteria which will be utilized in accepting or rejecting the research hypotheses. Section II will present the data pertinent to the Rokeach Value Survey, the research hypotheses and commentary relative to rejection, acceptance and/or alternative formulations based on the findings. Sections III and IV will follow the same format as Section II relating to work orientations and social- psychological attributes, respectively. Sections 11 through IV will each contain a summary. A final summation as well as a discussion of the theoretical construct utilized in this study and its importance in criminal justice will be the subject of Chapter V. 142 143 Section I: General Considerations The study Of ethnicity and in particular the study of ethnicity in policing presents some special problems in the analysis of data. The literature Of ethnicity makes clear the fact that ethnicity is hardly a monolithic concept, nor is it at all clear under just what circumstances ethnicity may be expected to present strongly in behavior or behavioral antecedents, or as a mere historical vestige. This situation has also been compounded by the timing of the various waves of immigration within the con- text of a developing society in such a way that ethnicity has Often been coterminous with social class, particular occupational pursuits and even religion. Although not approached in this limited study, there are certainly important regional considerations relevant to the strength or weakness of the concept. Finally, the problem of having to simultaneously deal with both a definitional model (the generic content of ethnicity), as well as a developmental model (assimilation, ethnogenesis, acculturation, etc.), Offers the possibility of several model sets each of which may demonstrate unique strengths and weaknesses in any spectrum Of measures selected for the analysis. A major obstacle in a study of this nature is the problem of instrument sensitivity, and lacking any indication that the measures available and pertinent to a study of ethnicity in policing were designed or otherwise shown to be sensitive to cultural varia- tion, it is the premise of this presentation that such sensitivity can be assumed to be somewhat lacking, although the extent Of this 144 failure is uncertain. Given the historical covariance of ethnicity and educational, occupational and religious progress and identifi- cation, it can only be assumed that the net effect will be to moderate downward the ability of most measurement instruments to tap this variable. Other special factors may also serve to make difficult the full delineation of ethnicity in the data collected. One such factor is the normative constraints present in any occupational milieu. The police occupation may constitute a rather special case in point, with its emphasis on toughness, order, ability to "handle" tense or dangerous Situations and the like. In short, cultural values and orientations may be consciously or subconsciously repressed in favor of those values and orientations perceived as most acceptable to peers and superiors. Additionally, the selection of responses in this area may also be tainted by percep- tions of just what is expected of police Officers by the general public, an important consideration when respondents are part of an occupation which has come under some rather widespread and serious criticisms in the past fifteen years. Finally, the single-site nature of the sample as well as the relatively small number of respondents in each ethnic category provides for the possibility of some social or ecological factors Operating in that location unbeknownst to the researcher which could moderate results, as well as simple sample error. 145 All of the above considerations impact on the level of statistical significance which will be demanded in relation to the acceptance or rejection of the stated hypotheses. It is recognized that the .05 level is the accepted convention in social science research as the level at which the probability of chance occurrence is usually resolved in favor of accepting the research hypothesis. Concurrently, in an exploratory study of this nature dealing with a subject as illusive as ethnicity Often is, it is as important to avoid and minimize to the extent possible the chance for type II error (retaining the null when the null is false), as it is to minimize the decision to reject the null when it is true. In short, the topic and the nature of the study demand some additional latitude in regard to the .05 acceptance/rejection level of statistical significance. In order to comply with the spirit of convention as well as to maximize the exploratory possibilities of the study, two levels of acceptance of the research hypotheses will be utilized. Categorical acceptance will be based on the data demonstrating differences in ethnic categories Significant at or beyond the .05 level. Provisional acceptance of the research hypotheses will be based on the following four conditions, all Of which must be met in order to justify such provisional acceptance: (1) the stated relationship is consistently demonstrated in the data, by virtue of the appropriate directional differences in mean scores, etc., across control groups, even though high statistical significance is lacking; i.e., there is a clear trend in the data in the direction specified in the research hypothesis, (2) some 146 reasonable level of statistical significance (.1 and .2 levels) is achieved concurrent with the introduction of controls, lending strength to the trend of the data, (3) no results across controls are in a negative direction at or approaching the .05 level, and (4) no tendency is evident in the data indicative of the operation of another or alternative construct not specified in the cultural continuance model which forms the basis of the research hypotheses. The intermix of the ethnic experience with a great many other aspects of American life make the introduction of controls mandatory in the analysis of the data. So that the greatest pragmatic impact of ethnicity in policing could be ascertained, only male respondents are included in the analysis. Additionally, five major controls or partial controls were introduced; partial controls being a function of limited cell size as a result of the sample size and the requirements of the statistical techniques utilized. General maturational changes as well as changes possible through an increase in police experience levels were controlled for by dividing the respondents into three experience level groups: 5 years or less, 6 to 15 years, and over 16 years. Religion was controlled for by comparison of Catholic officers. Socioeconomic status was measured and controlled for by two factors: educational level Of the respondent (three levels--high school or less, 1 to 2 years college, and 3 years college or more), and father's occupa- tion. Father's occupation was condensed into two categories: professional or white collar and working class (blue collar, low level public employees, police Officers, trades). 147 A final factor was introduced, designed to identify the intensity of the respondent's ethnic socialization experience, the premise being that the higher the socialization intensity, the higher the probability of responses in the hypothesized direction. Six questionnaire items (exposure to ethnic institutions during childhood, exposure at present, life-long ethnic self-awareness and any contemporary increase or decrease in that awareness, number of generations in America, and knowledge of a foreign language reflecting ethnic background), were combined into an ethnic socialization scale. All respondents were then categorized into a high or a low socialization group in relation to the total sample scale mean. Section II: Rokeach Value Survgy Rokeach has constructed a behavioral model in which two kinds of values, terminal and instrumental, are subsumed immediately under basic cognitions of self at a level substantially higher than attitudes, opinions and interests, all of which are constantly being modified by situation and need. Terminal values identify preferable end-states Of existence, while instrumental values relate to competency and/or ethics in the means utilized in attain- ing the terminal goals. The relationship between these two types of values is specified by Rokeach: At this stage of theoretical thinking, it is safest to assume that they represent two separate yet functionally interconnected systems, wherein all the values concerning 148 modes of behavior are instrumental to the attainment of all of the values concerning end-states.1 The assertion of such an ends-means relationship justifies the extension of hypotheses based on cultural continuance and terminal values to a set of hypotheses concerned with instrumental values as well. Both types form the subject of separate hypotheses, stated in general terms, under which a series of statistically viable statements are tested. Since hypotheses in this section relate to two basic rank-ordering processes, combined terminal and combined instrumental tables will be utilized from which data pertinent to the testable hypotheses will be extracted. Addition- ally, and to the extent possible, all four ethnic groups will be described in the tables since the propriety of the ethnic categori- zation system will also be approached concurrent with the analysis of specific hypotheses. Hypothesis One Hypothesis One states: There is a significant difference between police Officers representing the ethnic categories of traditionalism and modernism in their rank ordering of terminal life values. An initial comparison of all four ethnic groups is con- tained in Table 4.1. The data clearly indicates a substantial difference between the ethnic groupings in 8 out of the 18 values rank-ordered by the respondents; namely, equality, freedom, l paradigm. Rokeach, Human Values, p. 12. See also pp. 216-235 for 149 .umcwpgmuca men Pm>mp mo. we“ ucoxmn Lo um mmwpw_mnmaoea .memcco xcmg muwmoaeou .mmmmgucmema cw .ucm mmcwxcoc cmeume mew czocm mmcsmwu .emoo eeeeoze .mmmq Ape om.m ARV oo.m Aev oo.m Amy mm.e scene: .Hmmn Aopv mm.m ANPV mm.PP Amy om.m AFPV ae.o_ aeemeeoeee once esp. AFFV em.-_ Aepv me.e~ AN_V eo.F_ Am_v om.m- eoeeeemoooe .eeoom .mmm4 Awe mm.a ANV we.m Amy oo.e Aev am.e eooamae-e,am Ae_v om.mp ANPV me.aF Rape Ne.a_ Ampv ee.mp eoeea>Pem Am_v ae.m_ Ampv Ne.m_ Aaev OK.NP Am_v m~.N_ ocemaape .Hmmn Am_v No.8. Aepv oe.mp Ae_v oo.ap Ae-v om.mp zoeeaoom Paeoeeez .mmmq Am_v om.- Amy mm.m Aoev om.o_ Amy mm.w a>oF scape: Amv mN.w va mm.m Amv oo.o_ Ame om.m xeoecae caeeH .mwmn ARV om.“ Amy co.“ ANV em.e Ame me.e mmaeeaea: .mmmd Ame em.w Amy m~.e Aev oo.m ANV om.m eoeaoce 44.. Amy mm.a Ape me.N Ape mo.~ A-V ae.~ aeeczoom seesae .Hmmd Amy me.e Ampv mm.mp Ampv oo.mF Aapv om.N_ appease“ Ae_v oo.m_. Am_v me.ep Am_v om.a_ Aepv mm.mF eczema ea e_coz < Aa_v om.m_ A__V oo._P Am_v me.FF AN_V me.oe ooaoa ea e_coz < Aev mm.m Aav me.m flee om.e Aev oe.e ceaseme-QEoooa ea omeam e ANFV om.FF Aopv om.o_ A_FV oo.P_ Aopv om.op peep meeoeoxa e< Ace mm.“ “my m~.e Amv{ co.“ ARV oo.w mete opaaecerOo < Aomuzv Ammuzv “amaze Amwuzv ea eoepm geese Paeoeeeeeee eeoeoz e m N p .zgommumo uwcgum An mgwowmmo muwpom Low mgmugo xcmm mnemoasoo can mcmwcmz w:_m> chwsgmhii.F.¢ m4m

mF mo. meg ucoxma to no mmwuwpwomnoca .mcmuco xcmg mummoasoo .mmmmcpcmgmn cw .vcm mmcwxcmg cowoms men czozm mmeamme ummu :mwcmzr _mo. moo. .mmmq A_V om.m ARV 90.8 Aev oo.m Amv mm.e eoemez mam. .mmm4 .mmm4 Aopv mm.m AN_V mm.FF Ame om.o APFV ae.op aeemeeoece page mam. 46.. ONN. mop. A_PV em.__ Aeev we.a- AN-V eo.P_ Am_v om.m~ eo_eeemoooc Papoom e_P. e_P. .mmmn meo. .Hmmn Amy mm.a ANV we.m Amt oo.e Aev am.e eooamae-e_om mmm. mmm. Ae-v om.m- “Nev m~.ee Ae_v 5P.e_ Ampv ae.m- eoeee>_am New. Amev ae.m- Am_v Ne.mp “ape oe.NF Am_v m~.~F eczema-a .Hmmd Pee. .Hmmo Ampv Ne.ep Aapv oe.m_ Aepv oo.e. Ae_v om.mp speesoom _aeoeeez New. moo. .mmmq aam. Ampv om.~_ Ame mm.m Aopv om.o_ Amy m~.m o>op scape: ~_m. mew. Ame m~.m Amv mm.m Amy oo.op Ame om.m xeoecee coeeH “up. owe. mom. ARV om.“ Ame co.“ Amy em.a Amy me.e mmoeeaaez map. ee_. .mflmq .mflmn “av em.m Ame me.a ARV oo.m ANV om.m escapee me_. 880. .mmmn mmm. Amy mm.a A AFV me.~ Ape ma.- APV ae.~ apecsoem s_eeee aoo.. moo. .Hmmn Amy me.e Am_v mm.mp Am-v oo.m_ Aapv om.N- hee_e=eu Aepv oo.mp Am_v me.ap Ampv om.e_ Aepv mm.m_ sesame e6 veto: < Ae_v om.m_ A_Pv oo.__ Ampv mN.-_ AN_V me.o_ aoaoa ea e_eoz < cum. omF. Aev mm.m Ave m~.m Ave om.m Ame on.m ucmsgmwpaeouum mo mmcwm < AN_V om.FP Ao_v o~.op A__V oo._. Ao_v om.o_ aee_ meeeeoxa e< Ame m~.~ Aev me.“ Amv oo.e ARV oo.m aee_ o_aaocoeeoo < Aomuzv Ammnzv Aomnzv Amwuzv e-m a-~ m-~ e-~ m-- N._ xow_m emmcH _aeoeweeece ecwwoz .mcwmwgo uecgum mcwgmewwo soc» mgmuwweo moepoa :mmzpmm mmocmgmmepo mzpm> pacwELmhii.N.¢ m4mPeo Aopo oe.mo Ao_v mo.o_ Aopv No.NP Ao_v NP.- ecomoooe ooo. Aoov oe.op Aopv mo.op Aopo N_.o_ Am_v oo..F ooeeooom _eeoeoez Aopv mo.P_ ANPo oo._F on oo.o on mo.o a>o_ aeooez P. ARV oN.o on oo.o Ampv oe.e_ ARV No.e seoeeee caeeo No. Aoo oo.o on mo.e ANV oo.o on mo.o mmaeeooe: on oo.o on oo.o Aoo om.“ Amy oo.o sooaoce AFV om.o APV oo.m A_v oo.~ A_o Pe.~ moeeooam s_e5ae moo. on om.o Aoov oo.op Ao-v op.o_ A__v oo.oe Aoo_eooo Ao_v oo.o_ Aopo oo.op Ao_o _m.o_ Aopv oo.o_ sesame eo o_co3 < A__V oo.F_ Ame oo.e AN_V oe.__ Ao_v oo.oo aoaoo ea o_eoz o N. on o_.o Amy oo.o on o~.e Aoo oo.o oeoEeme_oeaooe ea aweom < Ao_v mo.op Ao_v oo.op Ao_v oe.o Aopv oo.N_ moo, oeeoeoxo co ow. on oo.o on oo.o on mo.o on oo.o ace, opoaocoeeoo < Aoouzv Aopuzv Aoouzv Amouzv ea xoePo emeco Faeoooeoaee ecoooz o o P .comwto uwcgom an .mwaosom mmopo mcwxgoz soc» osmuwmwo moopoo mo meownmz m:_o> Focoscmpii.m.o mom

Pam Ao-v o~.o_ Aoov mo.m_ Ao_v No.~_ Ao_v NP.~_ oeooao_e moo. moo. Aopv oe.o_ Ao_o mo.o~ Ao-v N_.op Ao_v oo.PP someooom Poeoeoez AN_V mo._o ANPV oo.PF on oo.o on mo.o o>o_ oeoooz mo. ARV o~.o on oo.o Aopv oe.P_ ARV oo.e seoecae coeeo. oo. on oo.o on mo.e Amy mo.o on oo.o mmoeeooa: oo. on oo.o on om.o on oo.~ ANV oo.o sooooce APV oo.m A_v oo.m Ape oo.~ Ape -.~ soocoooo o_o2ae oo. ooo. mo. Ame o~.o AMPV oo.m_ Aopv m-.oo A_Fv oo.o_ xoopaooo Ao-v mo.op Aooo oo.o_ Ao-V _o.o_ Ao-V oo.o_ hooooo eo opcoz < A_PV oo.-_ Amy oo.~ ANPV o~.FP Aopo oo.oo ooaoo op opeoz o Aoo o..o Ame oo.o on mo.“ on oo.o oeoEemopoeoooe to mmcmo < Aopv mo.~F Ao_v o~.op Aopv oe.o Aoov oo.~P oe_. oeoo_oxa e< oo. on oo.o Aoo oo.o Aoo oo.o on oo.o mete o_ooecoeeoo < .. .. .. .. .. .. “was one tome... mo... vim elm mum cup mip Nip p .mcooa opoommoa pp< oo momatoeoo goo: .ooooeo oeeooo so .mo_-o5ee moppo oooxcoz sate meoooeoo ooopoa oo mooeooz oo-ao FaePELoe--.a.o moooe 155 TABLE 4.5.--Terminal Value Medians Modern and Traditional of Catholic Police Officers of Ethnic Origin. Modern Traditional (N=32) (N=39) p* A comfortable life 7.30 (7) 7.60 (5) An exciting life 11.50 (12) 12.25 (10) A sense of accomplishment 7.00 (5) 6.25 (4) A world at peace 9.83 (10) 11.67 (13) A world of beauty 15.75 (18) 14.43 (18) Equa1ity 12.50 (15) 13.33 (15) Family security 2.50 (l) 1.71 (1) Freedom 5.83 (3) 8.20 (7) .06 Happiness 5.50 (2) 4.40 (2) Inner harmony 7.17 (6) 10.00 (9) Mature love 8.00 (8) 10.60 (11) National security 11.50 (11) 14.00 (16) Pleasure 12.50 (14) 11.75 (14) Salvation 15.17 (17) 14.06 (17) Self-respect 6.50 (4) 6.00 (3) Social recognition 12.67 (16) 10.75 (12) .13 True friendship 11.90 (13) 9.67 (8) .003 Wisdom 9.50 (9) 8.00 (6) * Median Test. Figures shown are median rankings and, rank orders. in parentheses, composite 156 indicates a slight alteration of this preference relationship, but still at the .06 level of chance probability. Among officers from working-class and upper-class origins (Table 4.6) the relationship is constant in the .2 range, although among Officers from upper- class origins there is less emphasis generally on this value. Concurrently, there is some indication that the educational level attained impacts on the rank ordering of this value, apart from ethnic impact. Table 4.7, which controls for three levels of education, shows only a slight preference for the value freedom by modern ethnics among Officers with a high school education or less, while in the two higher levels (1 to 2, and 3 or more years college), a sharp contrast in medians and rank orders reasserts itself. Combined with the relatively close rank ordering of this value among working-class origin officers (Table 4.6), the data suggests that lower-class origins in general tend to blunt a natural preference tendency among traditional ethnics to value freedom substantially less than modern ethnics. Some indication of the cultural origins of this value preference may be found in a compari- son of modern and traditional officers evidencing high and low ethnic socialization patterns (Table 4.8), in which only marginal median differences exist among officers scoring low on this factor, but in which the difference in median and rank ordering of this value among high socialization pattern Officers shows substantial differences in the predicted direction. The substantive importance of holding a value in second as opposed to eighth position is apparent. 157 .mcmogo xcog mowmoosou .mmmmzucmeoo cw .oco mmcoxcog comome moo czocm mmgomom oooo eooooze ARV oe.o ARV oo.~ ARV o~.o Amv o_.o eoomez Aoo oe.o Appv mo.o mp. on om.o AN_V NF.FF ooemoeooce cote AoFV oo.mF Ao_o oo.o_ No. A_Fv oo.op Aopo no.o- eoooeeooooe Peeoom Aoo oo.o Aoo oo.o Ame oo.o on No.o eooomoc-e_om Ao_v oo.o_ Ao_v o~.o_ Aepv o~.op ANFV oo.oF eoeoo>_oo Ao_v oo.op Am_v oo.~_ Aopo No.oo Aopv N_.- ocomaoea Ae_v oo.o_ Ao_o op.op Ao_v Np.op Aopv oo.FP zoocooom .aeoeooz Aoo o~.o on oo.o on oo.o on mo.o o>o_ acooaz e_. Amy oe.o ANFV KP.oF mo. Am_o oe.__ ARV No.“ seoELae coeeo mo. Amy om.o Aoo oo.o NF. Amy oo.o on oo.o omoeeooez KN. A_FV oo.oF on oo.o No. on om.“ Amy oo.o sooaoee Ape No._ Ape o_.~ om. AFV oo.~ A_v F~.~ soocooom »_oEae AoPV oe.o, Aopv oo.o_ om. Ao_o mp.op A._v oo.o~ seepaooo Ao_v eo.o_ Ae_v oe.op Ao_v _o.op Ao_o oo.o_ sooeoo eo o_coz o Rope oo.op on oo.o Aopv oK.P_ Ao_v oo.op peace on opcoz o on oe.o Amy oo.o Amy om.“ on oo.o oeoe55o_oe666a ea ameom < A~_v oo.N_ Ao_v oo.o Aoov oe.o Ao_v oo.~F ace, oeeoeoxo e< Amy oo.o ANV oo.o oo. on oo.o on oo.o aee_ o_oaoceroo < AFFuzo Amouzv Aoouzv Aoouzo re _aeoeoooace ecoooz as _eeoooooate ecoooz mmopu smog: moo—u mcwxsoz .Acowuoozuuo m.gw;uouv mauopm upeocoumowuom mo mpw>w4 axe coo oee_oocoooo .mcooeoeo ope—oa Foeoooooace oeo ecoooz to meeeooz o=_a> Poeeecop--.o.o ooo_eo Aopv oo.op Aooo oo.N_ Aopv oo.m_ Am_v oo.FP Ao_v oo.~P Aopo oo.~_ ocomaooe Ao_v o~.o. Aopo oe.o- Aepv oo.o- Ao-o so.op Aopv No.oF Ao_v mo._o aoecooom peooooez Ao_v oo.o- Rev -.o Rev oo.o Aoo oo.o oo. A~_V No._- on oo.o a>o_ aeoooz on oo.o on oo.o Amy oo.e Rev oo.~ A_.V No.,_ on op.o seoELa; coeeo ANV on.” on -.o Ame oo.o Ame oo.o “NV oe.o Awe om.o amoeeooaz Roe oo.o ANV oo.o o_o. Ao_v oo.o ANV oo.o Ame on.“ on oo.o eoooace on oo.o Ape oe.N A_V m~.N Rev PN.~ MP. A_v oo.F A_v o,.o »e_cooom oPPEee Ao-V o~.~P A~_v oo.op N. on oo.o Ao_v oo.o- Ao_v No.op Aopv oo.op soepaooo Aoov oo.o_ Aopv e,.o_ hope -.m_ Ao_v oo.op Ao_v o~.o_ Aopo oe.o_ sesame eo o_eoz o hope oo.pp Aopv oo.o_ Ao_v oo.o~ A__V oo.o_ Am_v o~.~F Aopv oo.o_ ooaoo ea opco: < ARV oo.o Ame o~.o Amy om.o Roy oo.e ANV oo.o ARV om.“ eeoEemoFoeoooo ea omeom < on oe.o APPV oo.o Aoov oo.N_ AN_V oo.PP on oo.e AN_V oo.F_ aeo— oe_oooxo co AFFV oo.op Ao_v oo.o hoe oo.e flow oo.o on eo.o on NP.“ oeo_ o_oaocoeeoo o Aouzo Aopuzv «a Aomuzv Ammuzv so Amouzv Aomuzo Pucowuwumgh cgmuoz pocoouwnoch :cmcoz Pocowuwuogh cgmvoz aammmppou meow» «to: to m mmmopou mgom> Nip mom; to poozum 5mm: .=o_uou:ou we m~o>mo moose goo mcoFPocucou .mgmu_too mow-om Focowowumch coo cgmooz to ocowuwz m:_o> —ocosgmh--.u.c m4meeo Ao-V o_.op Ao-V oN.m- AP_V mo.F- Ao_v oo.N_ ecomeapa Ao-o No.op on oN.N “ope No.o- Ao_v oo.m_ sooeooom _aeoeoaz o_. ANFV oN.PP on oo.o on Np.o on oo.o o>op ocooaz A__v oN.oP on oo.o Aoov oN.o Aoo mo.o oeoEeae cacao N. “No oN.o on oo.o NN. ANV oo.o on oo.o amoeoooaz N_. on oo.o ANV oo.o on oN.o ANV No.o eooooce Ape om.N A_V oN.N NN. A_v mo.F AFV oo.N zoocooom oFoEoo om. Ao_v oN.N_ ANV oo.o Aopv oN.oF Aopv No.N. xoepaooo “Nov .o.op Aopv No.op AN_V oN.oF ANFV oo.mp sooeoo to o_eoz < Aopv oo.op Amy oo.o Aopv NN.N_ AN_V oo.F_ ooaoo ea o_coz o on oo.o Ao_v oo.N- on oN.o Ame oo.o oepEemeFoeoooo to ooeom o ANV oo.o Aopv oo.,_ “Nov mN.NF Aoov No.oo oee_ oeooeoxo e< on oo.N on oo.o on oo.o ANV oN.N oe_P opoaoeoeeoo o so ANanV AoNuzv ea ANNuzv Aoouzv pocoouocogh cgmcoz Focowowvosp cemvoz eoooeNo_ooooo oeeeoo goo: eoeooNepaooom oeeeoo zoo .eoooaNe_eooom ooeeoo to m_.m>mn_ Lon— DCVPPOLwcou .mLmUT—dvc muwpom Pmcowquth flcm CLwUOZ $0 mcmwflmz m:..m> PmcmELwhll.w.¢ m.._m<.r 160 Introducing controls for three levels Of police experience (Table 4.9) does not attenuate the basic relationship between ethnicity and the valuation of freedom with the possible exception of modern Officers with from 6 to 15 years experience, who exhibit an increased preference for this value. Although speculative, it is possible that modern police officers, culturally socialized to place a high premium on freedom and independence of action encounter some conflict in the middle years of organizational life during which time both the constraints of occupational commitment and the full impact of organizational life on behavior (and especially middle management levels) clash with the modern ethnic's preference for independence of action. In toto, the data indicates proper direction in every category of control, and three median differences beyond the .05 level. Hypothesis 1.1 is accepted. Hypothesis l.2.--Hypothesis 1.2 states: Modern ethnics will rank order the value equality higher than traditional ethnics. While the rationale for hypothesizing a preference for freedom is clearly evident in the functionality of this value in a modern society, the rationale for hypothesizing a concurrent preference for equality by modern ethnics over traditional ethnics is somewhat more tenuous. There is a basic conflict between the concepts of freedom and equality; freedom inviting inequality and equality promoting a system of leveling. Nonetheless, the hypothe- sis was stated as above for two reasons: (1) in traditional 161 .mcmuco xcot mpwoooEou .ommmcocmgoo cw .uco mmcwxcoe cowume «to czosm mucomwm oooo eoooozs Ame oo.N Amy oN.o Roy oo.o on oN.N oN. Aoo oN.N on mo.o scone: .o. Aoo oo.o Ao-v No.N_ A~.v N-.oF Loo No.o .. Roy mo.o ANFV oo.o- seemoeaoce coco A__v oo.P_ Aopo oN.N_ .oo. on op.o ANFV oo.o_ Ao_v oo.o- Ao_v oo.mp ooeooeooooc Feooom ANV oN.o Ame oo.N ANV oN.N ANV oN.N on N-.o ANV mN.o oooamoc-epoo Ao_v oN.oF ANFo oo.o- Aoov oo.oF Aopv mm.oo No. Aoov No.op Ao-V oN.o_ ooooe>Pao Aopv oN.NF AN-V oo.N_ AN_V NF.P_ Anew oo.P, Ao_v oo.o_ Aopv oo.mo ocomao_e Ao_v oo.mp A-Fo oN.o_ op. AN-V mo.op Aopv oo.o_ Ao_v mo.o. Ampv N_.N. »o_cooom _aeoooez N. Ao_v oN.p_ on oN.o Aopv oo.o on No.o Aopv oo.o on oo.o o>o_ acooaz ANPV oo.F_ Aoo oN.o Amy oo.o Ao_v oN.o_ on oN.o ANV oN.N xeoecae coeeo Aoo oN.o ANV oN.o Aoo oo.o Amy oo.o .o. ANV oo.o Loo oo.N mooeeooa: on oN.o Roe oN.o op. on oo.N ANV mN.o Amy oo.o Amy oo.o sooooce A_o oN.N Ape mo.N op. APV oN.P APV _N.N A_o mN.P APV oo.m xoecoooo seesae Ao_o oe.F. Ao_v oN.o_ AoPV oo.o, AN_V oo.F_ AN_V oN.mP Rope oo.op oo_Paooo N. ANPV No.op Aoov mo.o_ Ao_v oo.o_ Aopv oN.oo Aopv om.oP ANFV oo.op sooeoo co o_coz o any oo.o Ao_v oo.o _o. Ao_v oN.oP Ao_v oo.,_ A__V oo._F Rope oo.op ooeoo oo o_coz < on oo.N ANV mN.N .. Ame oo.o on oN.N on oN.o Ame om.o oeoEemopoeoooa eo emcee < Ao_o oN.o Ao_v No.o_ “moo NP.NP AFFV oN.o_ “Nov oo.N_ Roy mo.o peep oeooooxo co ANo oo.o on oo.N _. ANV No.m Amy oo.N ANV mN.o Ao_v oo.o- oe_o peacocoeeoo < Ao_uzv Aopuzv AN_nzo Aponzv AaNqu ANmuzv «a pocooupvogh stone: on Focomuoooch :cmooz so Focowuouoeh :Louoz msum> mp go>o mgom> mpio meow» mip .wucmwgmoxm Que—On $0 mme> Low mcmPPOLucou owcwmeO Pacowuw—VQLH Ucm CLwUOZ mo meUTrvO muwnom mo mcawvmz w=_.6> _.fl:_.ELm._.II.m.¢ mange 162 society inequality is generic to the social structure and legitimated, and (2) modernism requires equality in the sense that the rational expression of individualism requires a minimum number of socially contrived inequalities; the work ethic itself makes a general assumption about the inherent social possibilities open to each individual. There are only minimal indications in the data to support this hypothesis. Although the median placement of modern officers _is higher than that of traditional officers in the absence of controls and in eight out of eleven control levels, the best level of significance achieved is .28 (Officers of working-class origins) and among officers with from one to two years college, the median ranking of traditional officers is higher than modern officers on this value at the .2 level. High or low socialization exposure provides for only marginal differentiation. The extremely low rank ordering Of equality by both modern and traditional categories (from eleventh to eighteenth position) is in sharp contrast with the rank order of this value among black officers (ranked fifth), possibly indicating that among white officers equality has come to be perceived as a series of occupational and organizational impedi- ments. In such a case, a consistently low and undifferentiated rank ordering of this value would be expected. Although there is a slight indication in the data that preference for equality may be marginally distinguished by cultural origin, this tendency is extremely faint. Hypothesis 1.2 is rejected. 163 Hypothesis l.3.--Hypothesis 1.3 states: Modern ethnics will rank order the value accomplishment higher than traditional ethnics. The rationale for this hypothesis relates both to the origin of the Protestant Ethic, i.e., the Calvinistic belief in predestination and the Sign of God's favor which would be implicit in accomplishment (or, as alternatively stated on the survey, "lasting contribution"), and, more contemporarily to the American host culture, the early colonial emphasis on the Obligations of calling.3 Conversely, the theoretically greater organic integrity of traditional society with its traditions of noblesse oblige also admits of some striving in this area. Again, accomplishing, in the sense of striving to maximize opportunity and exploit the environment in general is characteristic Of accumulating (modern) societies. The data does not support this contention and Hypothesis 1.3 is rejected. If anything, there would seem to be a Slight tendency among traditional officers to rank order this value higher than modern officers. All officers tend to rate this value in the top half of the 18 Values presented, the only exception being modern officers with a high ethnic socialization index, in which case accomplishment dropped to the fourteenth rank. The lack of difference throughout control categories even approaching con- ventional levels of acceptance indicates that police officers, in the main, all prescribe to a public service ethic which they rank 3See, for example, "William Perkins on Callings (1603)," in Puritan Political Ideas, ed. Edmund S. Morgan (New York: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc., 1965), pp. 35-58. 164 reasonably high in order to legitimate their occupational choice and to compensate for the relatively low level of recompense they receive from society, and that no difference exists between ethnic categories. Hypothesis l.4.--Hypothesis 1.4 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value social recognition higher than modern ethnics. Social recognition (also specified in the survey as admiration and respect) is somewhat difficult to define and pre- dict about in relation to ethnicity, since it could also take the form of economic or political leadership roles, financial competi- tion and remuneration, respect accruing to entrepreneurship, and the like, in which case the value would be highly pertinent toe modern officers and individualism in general. In terms of admira- tion and respect, however, the symbolization which probably occurs is that of occupational and community exchange at the inter- personal level--the respect the policeman receives by virtue of his function; the respect and admiration of peers via competence, "styles," etc. In general, it is probable that traditional ethnics are more interested in such recognition than they are in tangible signs of upward mobility. In theory, the traditional ethnic, less mobile-oriented than his modern counterpart, would be more interested in promoting just such admiration and reSpect. The data indicates this to be the case. In every category except Officers from upper-class origins (in which instance identical rank ordering occurred) the direction of the data is correct, with five control 165 categories yielding probability levels in the immediate vicinity of .1. In two instances--officers from working-class origins, and officers having from 6 to 15 years--the significance level was .07 and .001 respectively. Although this value obviously is not of paramount importance to traditional Officers, their rank ordering of social recognition in the general range of from eighth to thirteenth place is still substantially higher than the fourteenth to seventeenth place positions selected by modern officers. Hypothesis 1.4 is provisionally accepted by virtue of a clear and consistent trend in the data, accompanied by a series of signifi- cance levels which, in toto, reflect operation of the theoretical conStruct. Hypothesis 1.5.--Hypothesis 1.5 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value family security higher than modern ethnics. Officers from all ethnic origins place a premium on family security, and even among black Officers, where the median rank is lower, it is still valued in the tOp 25 percent of the value spectrum. In general, however, traditional ethnics, like Jews, have tended to be less spatially mobile in America, indicating a greater emphasis on maintenance of family structure extending beyond the immediate generation. The data support this contention although the relationship is very slight. In eight test categories traditionals rank order the value slightly higher than modern ethnics, in five of which significance levels from the .l to .3 ranges are achieved. Among officers with l to 2 years of college, 166 officers with over 16 years service and among officers with a high level of ethnic socialization, the difference fades out almost com- pletely; with 3 or more years college, traditional officers indicate a sharp decrease in emphasis on this value. This tendency reflects the survival function the family unit has played for all ethnic groups and especially traditional ethnics, a function which is moderated downward as education increases social competency, when reasonable financial security is achieved through job tenure or when the basic raising of children is essentially completed. Nonetheless, the data reflect a reasonable and consistent ranking of this value higher by traditional Officers, and Hypothesis 1.5 is provisionally accepted. Hypothesis l.6.--Hypothesis l.6 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value national security higher than modern ethnics. The rationale for this hypothesis consisted of several elements. Although it was recognized that nationalism has little meaning in traditional society, and that some indication of private regardingness has been reflected in the policy preferences of traditional ethnics, the strong sense of social boundary and stability reflected in traditional society also dictates a need to socialize members to the maintenance of those boundaries. Daniel Bell has commented on the high intensity nationalism of "new Immi- gration" ethnics. The data reflect just the opposite. In every test category modern officers rank ordered this value higher, indicating that 167 national security probably functions directly in relation to per- ceived vested interest. Examination of the median ranks for all four ethnic groups (refer to Tables 4.3 and 4.4) indicates that the closer one gets to the host culture, in assimilative time regarding white ethnics, or social progress in general, the higher premium is placed on security. Thus modern officers rank order the value highest, followed by the Irish, traditional and black officers. The fact that the value is rank ordered in the bottom third of the value spectrum is probably indicative only of con- temporary world stability vis-a-vis actual national survival, as well as detente. Hypothesis 1.6 is rejected. The propriety of relating culture to national security may be extremely tenuous, thus no reformulation of this hypothesis to reflect the tendency in the data is justified based on institutional uniqueness in mOdernism. Hypothesis l.7.--Hypothesis 1.7 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value happiness higher than modern ethnics. The rationale for this hypothesis is relatively straight- forward, and applies to Hypotheses 1.8 and 1.9 as well. It is, namely, that to the extent a culture values social stability and a rigidly structured social system, it will find functional the socialization of its members to seek happiness, comfort and friend- ship in their given role and status-placement; in short, a maxi- mization of the contemporary reality. Conversely, a culture which values striving, mobility and deferment of gratification will 168 place less emphasis on these values. These premises can be applied generally to traditional and modern cultures, respectively. The data support this hypothesis, and the hypothesis is provisionally accepted. In 11 out of 12 test categories tradi- tional officers valued happiness over modern officers, and in two of these categories the level of significance is beyond the .05 level. It is noteworthy that as educational level increases modern officers tend to value happiness less, while traditional officers maintain the same essential rank order. Among modern officers with over 16 years experience the tendency to downgrade this value is reversed, possibly reflecting a realization among this group that they have not achieved the mobility specified in the cultural ideal, with a concurrent reordering of their value priorities. Hypothesis l.8.--Hypothesis 1.8 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value comfortable life higher than modern ethnics. There is general support for this hypothesis in the data. Although there is no essential difference in the median rank accorded this value among officers with 3 or more years college and with over 16 years experience, the direction Of median scores is consistent with the predicted direction in 9 out of 12 test categories. The only clear reversal in direction occurs among officers from upper-class backgrounds, in which case modern Officers value a comfortable life second while traditional officers place it fifth. This iS'not inconsistent with a possible decrease in striving and an increased emphasis on comfort which might accompany the 169 attainment of high social status and financial remuneration, an orientation which would naturally be reflected in the value structure of the Officers falling in this category. Hypothesis 1.8, though not demonstrated in high statistical levels of signifi- cance in the data, is supported by the median tendencies and by several low levels of significance. This hypothesis is provision- ally accepted. Hypothesis l.9.--Hypothesis 1.9 states: Traditional ethnics will rank order the value true friendship higher than modern ethnics. There is strong support for this hypothesis in the data. A simple contrast with no controls introduced yields a median difference in the proper direction at the .026 level of signifi- cance, a difference which is increased among Catholic officers (.003), officers with high school education or less (.002) or with over 16 years of experience (.01). In only two instances does the direction of median ranks differ from the hypothesized direction: among officers with from 1 to 2 years of college and with over 16 years police experience. In neither case is the difference substantial in terms of relative rank order placement or the significance level achieved in probability testing. Hypothesis 1.9 is accepted. A summary of the data pertinent to the acceptance or rejection of Hypotheses 1.1 through 1.9 is contained in Table 4.10. Two hypotheses were categorically accepted: Hypothesis 1.1, which 171) omomgucmgoa cw memoe=c one .Acw>m co ocwoo a we p. c_;uw3 outcome mocmgmomwo 02 u =.o.z= .momocuoo»; wnu an umuuwomgo coouumcwu ecu so or noon on» go: go cocoon: mmuouwucw i so + .xuopoooooco umuoNUOmmo mzu mo + + AN.V + - A.o.zv o + - + AN_.V + eowwmmwwammmm Aoo.v + + AN.V + - ANN.V + + - + + eo_wwnnwmemmw APo.V + - - Amp.v - A.o.zv o + - - + meoo> wwnnoumoww - :3 .. . - e: . :2: . - .. a: . aazaewuwwmww A~.V + + Apo.v + i + + AP.V + + + moppommmuwwnmmmw . - . - - . . . .. 5259.3 - + + - A.o.zv o Ao_.v + - AN.V - Ao_o.v + oewwwpmmw Awoo.v + + + - Amo.v + + + + + Foocwmoumflm + . Amo.v + - + A.o.zv o 1 - An~.v + moopu Loon: Ao_.v + Aoo.v + ANP.V + - Aom.o + ANo.v + + ANN.V + ANN.V + moopo oeoxeoz Aooo.o + + + - + Amp.o + - + Aoo.v + meooooeo oo_oeoao AoNo.V + + + - Amm.v + A_.V + - + AoFo.o + mcoooooo o_oz o.. a»: o._ a»: N._ as: o.P a»: o._ a»: o.F a»: o.- a»: N.F a»: _._ a»: .ocoeoo .m—o>m4 xuopononogo umuoooomwr new: .mco mommguoa»: pwtmcmo cu umuapmm mmmmcuonx:a:m war: cw mmwucwucmh Focowuumgwoui.o—.v u4moo on oo.o on oo.N ANV op.o on oo.N ,eoeooo ANV oo.o Aoo oo.o Aopv No.o A_-V om._P Feooooepooeo Ao_v oN.o Aoo oo.o on oo.o Aoo No.o oeoooooooeo ooo. AN_V oo.o Ao_o oo.op Ao_v oo.op Ao_v oN.N_ o>ooeeooaeo ANV oo.m Ape oo.F ANV N_.o A_V NN.N omoeoz APFV No.o Ao_o oo.oo ANFV oN.FP Aoov oo.__ Poeo_oz AN_V oN.o_ Aopo oo.o. Aopv mo.NP Aopv oo.NP oeoseocoe on oo.N ANV N_.o Aoo No.o on oo.o mooooaeooo Am_v oN.o AN-V oN.N_ AP_V oo.o_ Ao-v oo.P_ eea_o Aoov oo.o_ Ao_v oo.m_ ANFV oo.m- AN_V o_.mp Poecoaeo Ape oo.m on om.o Amy Fo.o Amy oo.o opaaoao on No.o A._o oo.op Ame oN.N ANV oN.N oooePEoeoco Aoo oo.o Ame oo.o on FN.o on No.o mooooooeo Aomuzv Aoanv Aoouzv ANouzo ea xoe_o emeco Paeoeoooaee ecoooz o N N F .xgommuou Ooczpu on mgmummmo moppoo Low mgmueo xcom mowmooeou new mcmwumz mapo> Poucm535pmcHii.P_.o u4mmp mo. on“ ocoamn .mmmmgucmgoo cw .uco omcwxcog coovos ago czogm mmgomou .omoo eaoooze Aoo oN.o Amy oo.N on om.N Amy oo.N ooppocoeoo-e_oo oNo. moo. ooN. Amy oN.o ANV Np.o Ape _N.N ANV oo.o opa_meoamoo Ao_o oo.PP Ao_o oo.NF ANPV op.Fp AN-V oo.Fp poopoa ma... 3.. 3o. 8: 2.2 3: 8...: 3: 2.2 a: 8.2 2238 ooo. o_N. oNo. ooN. Aopv mo.oF ANFV mo.o_ Aooo oo.o_ Aopo oo.N_ oeosoo Non. Roy oo.o on oo.N ANV o_.o Roe oN.N .aoeooo ANV oo.o on oo.o Aopo mo.o AF_V om.PF Pooooop_ooeo Aopo oN.o Aoo oo.o Aoo oo.o Aoo No.o oeooeooooeo oNN. .mmmq ooN. ooo. ANPV oo.o Aopv oo.op Ao-v oo.o- Aopv oN.NP asooae_oeeo ooo. Foo. oNN. N_o. ANV oo.o Ape oo.F ANV N_.m Ape Nm.N omoeox AFFV mo.o Ao_o oo.o_ Ao_o oN.F_ Aopo oo._p _oeo_o= ooo. Nop. ooo. ANPV oN.o- Ao_v oo.o, Ao-o oo.NF Ao_o oo.N- oeo>oocoa on oo.N ANV N..o Aoo No.o Aoo oo.o mooooaeooo Noe. ooo. Non. Rope oN.o AN_V oN.N_ A,.V oo.op Aopo oo._. eaapo oom. Ao_v oo.op Ao_v oo.o_ AN-o oo.mp AN-o op.op poecooeo oop. moo. moo. Nm_. “Po oo.o on oo.o Amy _o.o any om.o opoaoao moo. moo. ooN. ooN. Ame No.o APPV oo.oF Roe oo.N ANV oN.N ooooPanoeo ooN. oo_. FNo. Aoo oo.o Ame oo.o Aoo _N.o Aoo No.o mooooooeo «mo me mmN um. mm. mm, “Wm-no “mmcuv Poewmmwuweo “mmwup .zgommuoo uocsum An mgmuommo muopom cmmzamm mmucogomooa ospo> Foucme:guocmii.-.e m4m we mwmapmcm .mmmxpmcm m>wmcmuxm cw .pmzp ummw>um mm; :ummxom .mucmwgm> mo mmmzpmcm cm cw .mpm>mp moo. new no. one an pcmowmwcmwm mew: mmmcwaam; ucm Eouomgw mmzpm> mg» co mgmugo xcmm« Amv mm~.m A~_V omk.op Amy _N¢.~ ARV Pom.u scoeLmz caccm Amy “mm.m Amv mmm.~ ARV www.u Amv mew.“ scene: on “mm.m Amv omk.h Amy mmo.m Amv www.m aegmucawce mach Ampv Pum.m_ Amv mum.w Ampv ooo.~. Ampv mam.F~ cowumcmouac Pawuom Amv “mm.m AFV omm.¢ ANV Npm.¢ ANV. ooo.m uuaammc-c_mm AOFV ¢_N.m ARV mfim.m Ampv m~_.m~ A¢_v m¢N.PP cowpa>Pmm Am_v “mm.o_ ANPV mmp.m_ Aepv mm~.N_ Am_v ~m_.N_ wczmmapa Am_v m¢_.op A¢_v oom.__ AN_V mmm.m_ A~_v mmo.m_ spwcaomm Facoepaz Amy owm.m Aqv omh.o Amv Neo.m Amv «Pm.m m>op agape: ANV ooo.e .Amv mkm.m Amy mmm.m Amy mpp.m mmacwaam: *AN_V mme.op AP_V mN_.m Aev emm.m Aev ~_e.~ souamte A_V omN.N APV omN.¢ AFV mmm.m A_v mmz.m sumcaamm »_wsaa Ao_v “mm.m_ Ao_v ooo.mp Aopv ,¢¢.m_ Aopv _me.m_ sowzmacm A~_v “mm.m_ Am_v mmp.m_ Amzv mu_.m_ Am.v amo.m_ apaaam Amy mmm.m Am_v mN_.F_ A_PV www.0F APFV mom.o_ momma Aev _~m.m Amy wok.m Amv mwo.~ Amv mom.“ “casemwpaeouu< Ae_v _~m.__ Aepv oom.__ ANFV mom.__ Amps mmo.PP weep mewpwuxm Ao_v «FN.¢ Amy. mfim.m Ao_v _N¢.m Ao_v «mm.m .mcwp a_nagaocaou Aunzv Amuzv Aemuzv Ameuzv accepm a_=;pm 62:58“ cam: m=_m> Pacomuwumgp cmmca :Lmuoz mPaEmm .maaocmnsm uwccpm ucm .mgmuwwmo muwFoa mcwmcmb com mgmuco xcmm mp_moaeou new mcmmz mapm> chwELohuu.P-< m4m00 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 P000000 A00 000.0 A0_0 000.__ A00 _00.0F A00 000.0, _00000.00000 A00 0_0.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 000000000000 A0_0 000.0. A0_0 0_0.0F A0_0 000.__ A000 000._F 0>000000000 A000 000.0. A0_0 0.0.__ A_Fv 000.0_ A000 000.0. 000000: A0_0 000.0_ A0_0 000.00 A000 000.0_ A0_0 000.0_ 000>00000 A00 0_0.0 A00 00_.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 0000000000 A000 ~00.__ A00 0.0.0 A0PV 000.0_ A000 000._F 000_0 A0_0 000.00 A0_0 000.0_ A0_0 0_0.0_ A000 000.0, _0000000 A_0 000.0 A00 000 0 A00 0_0.0 A00 000.0 0_00000 A00 000.0 A00 0_0.0 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 00000000000 A00 000.0 A00 000.0 A00 000 0 A00 000.0 00000000 ANHZV A0uzv A0muzv A00uzv 0_0000 000000 000000 000: 00_0> Pmcowuwcmg» gmwcm :Lmvoz 00020m ucm .mgmu00mo mUWFom mcwmcmg no; 000000 xcmm .masogmnam omcgum mummoasoo 0:0 0:00: mzpm> Poucmsacumcaun.mn< m00<0 259 as well as considerations of the non-random nature of the sample, the nature of the respondents or merely operation of the null hypothesis. Analysis of variance was utilized to contrast ethnic sub- groups with measures of dogmatism, localism-cosmopolitanism, authoritarianism and intolerance of ambiguity. No controls were instituted for SES due to the small sample size, although it was noted that a clear majority of the respondents emanated from working-class backgrounds in factory or farm, and most had college credit ranging from one to three years. Also, most respondents were from the local area. During this phase of the analysis, Irish and traditional ethnics were collapsed into one category, and con- trasted with the category modern ethnics as well as the non- classifiable category (two respondents who indicated ethnicity as "American"). In this latter regard, the mean response of these two respondents were observed to be very close to that of the modern category. Analysis of variance of the dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity scales yielded results at or beyond the .05 level of significance, with traditional ethnics being more dogmatic and more intolerant of ambiguity than modern ethnics or the non-classifiable group. Tables A-3 and A-4 contain the data regarding these analyses. Analysis of the localism-cosmopolitanism as well as the authoritarianism scales yielded results below the level of significance (.37 and .2 respectively), although both results were in the predicted direction; i.e., modern officers 260 tended to be more cosmopolitan and less authoritarian than the combined category of traditional and Irish officers. TABLE A-3.--0ne-Way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity on Intolerance of Ambiguity. Source of Variation DF SS MS F Between Groups 2 l.9595 .9797 5.9038* Within Groups 48 7.7996 .l659 * Significant at the .005 level. TABLE A-4.--One-Way Analysis of Variance Testing the Effects of Ethnicity on Dogmatism. Source of Variation DF 55 MS F Between Groups 2 2.3088 l.l544 3.0905* Within Groups 48 17.5562 .3735 * Significant at the .05 level. An analysis of mean scores on the Kilpatrick work values, utilizing the subgroups modern, traditional and Irish yielded few results at the level of significance, with traditionalists equating work as service to God more than the other two groups at the .02 level, while valuing opportunity over security more than both 26l modern and Irish officers at the .02 level. The meaning of either of these findings, for reasons previously cited, is tenuous. In an effort to group some of the Kilpatrick items based on conceptual commonality, a factor analysis was conducted, with results indicated in Table A-5. It will be noted that factor one contains a majority of items which could be roughly equated with modernism, while factor two can be roughly equated with traditionalism. TABLE A-5.--Results of a Factor Analysis of the Kilpatrick Occupational Value Scale. Factor Factor Factor Item One Two Three Importance of personal recognition .707 Importance of a top chance .672 Importance of peer competition .955 Importance of seeing results .568 Importance of developing ind. abilities .654 Work is a way of building character .513 Work is a means to an end .779 Concern with forgetting about work at end of day .823 Concern with monetary aspects of work .244 Concern with community status via occupation .657 Extent to which competition is favored over friendship .688 Relative importance of peer competition .291 262 The items identified in the factor analysis were retained in the main survey, as well as those items relating directly to the research hypotheses developed in Chapter III. Eight other items, which either did not discriminate among subgroups in the pilot study or could not be predicted based on the theoretical formulations established were deleted from the survey. A primary concern here, as with other aspects of the survey instrument, was to condense it to the extent possible in order to obviate incomplete returns, as well as to obtain data most pertinent to the subject at hand. The pilot study, in addition to the modification of the survey instrument, served several other purposes. Although the nature of the sample constrains any inference, the results of the analyses lent some support to the theoretical position that ethnics could be differentiated on the basis of modern or traditional attributes, and with some exceptions, the evidence is in the direction of the hypothesized relationships. Again, within the constraints of the sample, the strength of those relationships remains in doubt. Secondly, the pilot study promoted the need to anticipate rather poor returns, since even under the best of conditions, only 51 percent of the surveys were returned. The rate of returns pointed up the need to select as a main survey site a police department of sufficient size and ethnic composition that even in spite of a marginal return rate sufficient subgroup representation might be reasonably achieved. 263 In relation to the reason for anticipated poor survey returns, it may be speculated that police officers, in general, have the perception of threat when confronted with a survey instrument of any sort, eSpecially since the bulk of social science research relative to policing in the past decade has often resulted in findings uncomplementary to police management, policy, or the police personality. It is also possible that poor returns may result from ethnic avoidance itself, a possibility previously suggested by Greeley. As a result of the pilot study, strong combined management and labor endorsement was sought in preparing and distributing the main survey, in hOpes of maximizing returns. Wacqu._ ___. 'Hw +5 ‘l .-~“ ' I APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE 264 _ .' ‘. . .1". [1.0 —,_ «L' I v I 4.. l\ |SHERIFFI July 22, 1975 To All Personnel: Each of you was recently asked to fill out a survey prepared by the School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University. As you know, the MSU Research Team is here at the Sheriff's invitation. We would like you to respond to a second survey, which will allow you to specify the work and social values you feel are most important. We do not cantgmlate asm you to fill out any more surveys in the imnediate firture. This department has a justifiably proud record of public service, a record which more than anything reflects the quality of its officers. The attached survey is an excellent opportunity for you to make your individual views known, since these views no doubt account for the majority of the good you have done. This second survey is being nailed to you and will be directly returned by mail to Forrest Moss, an MSU doctoral candidate directing this phase of the research. Direct mailing will insure your complete anonymity, as before. Even survey is vital. The researchers need to gain information which reflects the views of the entire department. Please fill it out canpletely and mail it as soon as possible. Sincerely , WSW William Lucas, Sheriff W e County Sheriff's Department 0.... 21: 71m- Michigan States University Na ional Union of Police Officerss SEIU, AFL—CIO AFD-CIO 265 This questionnaire has been drawn up to find out how police officers feel about several areas of critical interest in our society. Your opinions and thoughts in these areas are important and valued. There are no wrong or right answers, and this is not a test in any sense of the word. Please gg_ggt_put your name on the questionnaire. Thank you very much for your time and effort. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. Your age 2. Education level (circle last year completed, and include any credit earned through high school equivalency, night classes, etc. l2345678 9l0ll12 13l4l516 l71819 (grade school) (high school) (college) (graduate work) Sex Religious preference (please state fully) Are you single ; married ; divorced ; widowed ? aim-kw Do you attend church (circle one): Regularly Frequently Sometimes Not at all 7. Political party preference (check one): Democrat Republican Independent Other (please specify): 8. In general, do you consider yourself as politically (check one): Very liberal‘ Liberal Moderate Conservative Very conservative Don't know 266 l0. ll. 12. l3. l4. 15. l6. 17. 18. 267 What would you say in regards to your father's political opinions? (check one): Very liberal Liberal Moderate Conservative Very conservative Don't know Present hometown Population Years lived there Where did you grow up? (Be specific: i.e., "on a farm in central Illinois," "in Memphis, Tennessee," etc.) Population Years lived there What is or was your father's occupation? (Please specify even if father is deceased or presently retired): Most Americans can trace their ethnicity back to one or more countries. Please tell us about your ethnic heritage. The ethnic origins of my family are: Father Mother My family came to America (check one): One generation ago (my parents) Two generations ago (grandparents) Three generations ago (great grandparents) More than three generations ago — —-—_— —_ _ 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 268 During your youth, what was your frequency of contact with social, church or work organizations that reflected the ethnic background you have described above: (check one, and consider such organizations as predominantly Irish, German, etc., church, parochial school, social clubs, neighborhood/political/welfare organizations, including exposure to an ethnic newspaper.) Daily association Weekly association Monthly association Very infrequent association No association of this type In terms of the above question, what is your current contact with ethnic organizations? Daily association Weekly association Monthly association Very infrequent association No association of this type Hill In day-to-day life, I (check one): 3 Very often think of myself in terms of my ethnic origins Often think of myself in such terms Sometimes think of myself in such terms Seldom think of myself in such terms Never think of myself in such terms Within the past ten years, I have (check one): Become much more aware of my ethnic heritage Become more aware of my ethnic heritage Experienced no increase or decrease in awareness Become less aware of my ethnic heritage Do you speak or understand any foreign languages reflecting your ethnic background? If so, w ere did you learn them? At home At school (public) At school (parochial) I do not speak any foreign languages Other (please specify): 269 PROFESSIONAL INFORMATION 24. Number of years, to closest year, you have served as a police officer: . 25. Please describe your present assignment (be specific): 26. Present rank (be specific): 27. Generally, I feel I would be most productive and happiest in which of the following police areas (check one): Line operations, production Line operations, command and supervision Staff level, researcher/analyst/policy development Chief of a staff-level division or unit Chief or Assistant Chief of police Other (please specify) * * 'k * 'k * 'k * 'k 'k 'k 'k * 'k * 'k 'k 'k 'k 'k * * 'k 'k 'k In the following series of questions, circle the number from 1 to 9 that best reflects your disagreement or agreement with the statement. The number 1 indicates total disagreement; the number 9 total agreement, etc. 28. To me, work is nothing more than a way of making a living. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree Agree 29. I like the kind of work you can forget about after the work day is over. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 30. To be really successful in life, you have to care about making money. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 31. To me gaining the increased respect of family and friends is one of the important rewards of getting ahead in an occupation. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 270 Getting recognition for my work is important to me. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree Agree To me, a very important part of work is the opportunity to make friends. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Sometimes it may be right for a person to lose friends in order to get ahead in his work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 It is satisfying to direct the work of others. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 It is more important for a job to offer opportunity than security. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To me, it is important in an occupation to have a chance to get to the top. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 It would be hard to live with the feeling that others are passing you up in your occupation. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 It's important to do a better job than the next person. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Success in an occupation is mainly a matter of luck. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Success in an occupation is mainly a matter of knowing the right people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Success in an occupation is mainly a matter of hard work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 5l. 271 The main satisfaction a person can get out of work is helping other people. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Disagree Agree To me, almost the only thing that matters about a job is the 7 chance to do work that is worthwhile to society. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To me, it is important that a person be able to see the results of his own work. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 To me, it's important to have the kind of work that gives me a chance to develop my own special abilities. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Even if you dislike your work, you should do your best. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Work is a good builder of character. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Work is a way of being of service to God. l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 'k 'k * * 'k 'k 'k 'k * 'k * * 'k * * 'k * 'k 'k * 'k * CHECK OR CIRCLE THE APPROPRIATE ANSWER IN THE FOLLOWING: Some people say that most people can be trusted. Others say you can't be too careful in your dealings with people. How do you feel about it? ____ Most people can be trusted. You can't be too careful. Would you say that most people are more inclined to help others, or more inclined to look out for themselves? ____ To help others. ____ To look out for themselves. 52. 53. 54. 272 If you don't watch yourself, people will take advantage of you (circle one): Agree ? Disagree No one is going to care much what happens to you, when you get right down to it. Agree ? Disagree Human nature is fundamentally cooperative. Agree ? Disagree IN THE FOLLOWING SERIES OF QUESTIONS, PLACE THE NUMBER WHICH MOST CLOSELY CORRESPONDS WITH YOUR OPINION OF EACH QUESTION ON THE LINE PRECEEDING THE QUESTION. 1. Agree a little 4. Disagree a little 2. Agree on the whole 5. Disagree on the whole 3. Agree very much 6. Disagree very much 55. In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. 56. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. 57. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. 58. Most people just don't know what's good for them. 59. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably only one that is correct. 60. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are the most intelligent. 61. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. 62. I'd like it if I could find someone who would tell me how to solve my personal problems. 63. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. 273 1. Agree a little 4. Disagree a little 2. Agree on the whole 5. Disagree on the whole 3. Agree very much 6. Disagree very much 64. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. 65. There are two kinds of people in the world: the weak and the strong. 66. A person is either a 100% American or he isn't. 67. A person either knows the answer to a question or he doesn't. 68. There are two kinds of women: the pure and the bad. 69. You can classify almost all people as either honest or crooked. 70. First impressions are very important. 71. It doesn't take very long to find out if you can trust a person. 72. There is only one right way to do anything. 73. What young people need most of all is strict discipline by their parents. 74. Most people who don't get ahead just don't have enough will power. 75. A few strong leaders could make this country better than all the laws and talk. 76. People sometimes say that an insult to your honor should not be forgotten. Do you agree or disagree with that? CIRCLE THE ANSWER IN THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WHICH BEST CORRESPONDS TO YOUR FEELINGS: 77. I believe that public officials don't care much what people like me think. Agree Disagree 78. There is no way other than voting that people like me can influence actions of the government. Agree Disagree 274 79. Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that I can't really understand what's going on. Agree Disagree 80. People like me don't have any say about what the government does. Agree Disagree 81. These days the government is trying to do too many things, including some activities that I don't think it has the right to do. Agree Disagree 82. For the most part, the government serves the interests of a few organized groups, such as business and labor, and isn't very concerned about the needs of people like myself. Agree Disagree 83. It seems to me that the government often fails to take necessary actions on important matters, even when most people favor such actions. Agree Disagree 84. As the government is now organized and operated, I think it is hopelessly incapable of dealing with all the crucial problems facing the country today. Agree Disagree 'k * * 'k * * * * 'k * * 'k 'k * 'k * * * 'k * 'k * 'k * This concludes this survey. I appreciate very much the time and effort you took to complete it. If you have any comments about any of the above areas, I would like to have the benefit of them: PLEASE FOLD QUESTIONNAIRE AND RETURN IN THE ENCLOSED SELF-ADDRESSED ENVELOPE. THANK YOU! FORM 0 VALUE SURVEY BIRTH DATE SEX: MALE—FEMALE CITY and STATE OF BIRTH NAME (FILL IN ONLY IF REQUESTEDI 275 HALGREN TESTS © 1967 av MILTON noxeacw an prasmmorv ave SUNNYVALE,CALIFORNIA 94087 276 IllSllllllilllllS On the next page are 18 values listed in alphabetical order. Your task is to arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life. Each value is printed on a gummed label which can be easily peeled off and pasted in the boxes on the left-hand side of the page. Study the list carefully and pick out the one value which is the most important for you. Peel it off and paste it in Box 1 on the left. Then pick out the value which is second most important for you. Peel it off and paste it in Box 2. Then do the same for each of the remaining values. The value which is least important goes in Box 18. Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to change your answers. The labels peel off easily and can be moved from place to place. The and re- sult should truly show how you really feel. 277 GDVO‘U'IIkle—a oomouswfidoo A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life) AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life) A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution) A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict) A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts) EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all) FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones) l FREEDOM (independence, free choice) HAPPINESS (contentedness) INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict) MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy) NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack) PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life) SALVATION (saved, eternal life) SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem) SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration) TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship) WISDOM (a mature understanding of life) WHEN YOU HAVE FINISHED, GO TO THE NEXT PAGE. Below ls another list of 18 values. Arrange them in order of importance, the same as before. 278 (DVO‘CJ'Ikwk)... ll 12 l3 l4 15 16 17 18 AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring) BROADMINDED (open-minded) CAPABLE (competent, effective) CHEERFUL (lighthearted, ioyful) CLEAN (neat, tidy) COURAGEOUS (standing up for your beliefs) FORGIVING (willing to pardon others) HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others) HONEST (sincere, truthful) IMAGINATIVE (daring, creative) INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient) INTELLECTUAL (intelligent, reflective) LOGICAL (consistent, rational) LOVING (affectionate, tender) OBEDIENT (dutiful, respectful) POLITE (courteous, well-mannered) RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable) SELF-CONTROLLED (restrained, self-disciplined) HICH A I G N STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES WillllllIllllIlllllllllllllllllllll 1 93101965139 32