A LABORATORY MODEL OF STUDENT Mnmimsmmk
CONFLICT

Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D:
MICHEGAN STATE UNWERSITY
FRANK JAMES SMITH
19}?

u 1| mu; lawn EN 13 1| l Izw "ll 1!; [LII

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

A LABORATORY MODEL
OF STUDENT/ADM l N I STRATOR CONFLICT

presented by
Frank James Smith

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

Ph .1). degree inimhflm

u (1

Major professor

 

    

NEW !
’1: i a -

0-7639

fi.s Stuc‘l
"5 C 33730355-
533915 0.‘ 5:.

.Ic: :ne_es

I...
5‘

truC:
' = " I
385 icon-
V_ _
-;- -
.c.. . I
Elva" "F
3:..Ce‘ I
.I A Q I
y “/GCIC
‘Gi c"
I_e.s r
\a
f.-
g r‘. .‘ I
5-.
s a~

 

ABSTRACT

A LABORATORY MODEL
OF STUDENT/ADMINISTRATOR CONFLICT

By

Frank James Smith

This study examined a set of factors that are basic to the
dynamic processes of student/administration conflict. From historical
accounts of student movements and youth rebellions, several reoccurring
conflict themes were delineated. The type of conflict that is based
on issues of students' civil rights was selected for eXperimental
investigation. An early consideration in this project was then to
establish ties between the dynamics manifest in historical literature
and established traditions in social science theory. Exchange theory
and organization theory were judged to be particularly applicable to
the present research objectives. Major tenets from these theories were
abstracted as hypotheses for experimental evaluation.

doth historical analyses and theory pointed to the importance of
administrative exchanges (c00perative/confiictive), and administrative
decision structure (participative/authoritative) in determining student
exchanges (cooperative/conflictive). Peer exchanges (cooperative/
conflictive) were judged to be a critical mediating influence in the
strictly dyadic student/administration conflict. The critical eXperi-
mental dimensions detailed above were defined in accordance with previous
work in this area. The scales were then validated on a large set of
events data relating to the Berkeley Free Speech Conflict (l964-l965).

Both scales proved to be predictive of students' perceptions of

‘::'s::ion e.-e‘::

§

sum“, com 1.—
2., sales e..

we time'fic’
‘2 .’ :ai araltgc

”~‘~"SZ Deer.
-; ,.

R CDC: “1 :‘1
'5! «:;

v :1"
‘ " 3? ON
' P‘o
." Ce
:zle".
I
ki“9
s
:4." o

. .
V T s'
“as 0'1
I I. 0‘,
":76

9:.
3e tare 4
u' p.

 

 

Frank James Smith
interaction events. These scales then served as the eXperimental
control for simulation of student/administration Conflict. In this
research, both independent and dependent measures were Operationalized
through scaled events.

The eXperimental design was a 5-way analysis of variance design.
Empirical analyses described the communications from subjects toward
their administrator counterparts, their moderate peer, and their
extremist peer. Analyses were both evaluative and eXplorative.
hypotheses of theoretical foundation were evaluated by apprOpriate
main effects. EXplorative analyses of high order interactions between
eXperimental factors were discriminated by apprOpriate simple effects.

Results strongly refuted the widely held contention that authori-
tative and punitive administrative actions deter conflict generated by
students. To the contrary, a consistent reactjon_effectmwas,foundwwhich
impl iedmanu were? iv..e__r?<_>rrt'1 of. 599*?! i 9-t__£ssi_9r°ci tv- The effects °i

ePéffiiClpafilygfldegisiqn_making were complex but generally contingent
upon the c00perative/conflictive character of the administration. If
students had a vested interest and an eXpectation that their interest
would be well served by student participation in decision making, then
an invitation by administrators for student participation had a
generally moderating influence on student generated conflict. The
general effect of the peer models was to set a standard for social
exchange toward which a subject would conform. However, when peer
models were divided on the position of c00peration/conflict, then the
behavioral result was toward resolution of intrateam differences rather

than influence interteam conflict. The study was successful in

 

 

(5:55.03 f;
s:.:e':./a:.'lnistr;
"351203 in ne'

...,... ,‘
I" w):eh l“. ...e

b p..‘
-' . cf? COM, ’91

 

Frank James Smith
demonstrating a new eXperimental simulation technique.

Discussion focused on policy implications for management of
student/administration conflict. More generally discussion reviewed
innovations in methodology and evaluations of theory that were
addressed in the research project. Experimental results were fortified
by their convergence and thus their partial replication of student

behaviors manifest at Berkeley.

A LABORATORY MODEL
OF STUDENT/ADMINISTRATOR CONFLICT

By

Frank James Smith

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

l972

’6!!!
w

/-\/

(r t)

. 'vs‘
"' 3

To:

MY PARENTS

nf‘
1. .lu-e::

. of {sis <

 

it as ‘r’-‘-;»‘:'
i «as: to cr
“553' am 7%”.‘3
31”,. O.‘ my "a
'3'“: ‘t Researc
i sent [0 L"
. \-

.:'e;' ‘.
'k In Th
e e C
i «an: .
LO {'-
.5.'al 5“
‘QQI I."
\3
13:”
‘0” cf .
t7
2" ‘
\a Pl
3" ea 50
'all’fi
UH K
Mes I
u';re'_ ‘
qut r].
' S
‘
TESL.
. \fif'r-

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

William D. Crano served as chairman of my dissertation committee.
His eXpertise and enthusiasm for this research project gave me an
extra incentive to produce high quality and useful work. I give him
highest aclaim for his supervision of my graduate program.

I am indebted to Jean and John Gullahorn for their major financial
SUpport of this study. Also, I appreciate their general counsel and
service as members of my dissertation committee.

I want to credit James L. Phillips who served as my academic
advisor and member of my dissertation committee. He SUpported a large
portion of my graduate research as an integral part of the C00peration/
Conflict Research GrOUp.

I want to thank Larry Messe and Tom Carroll who served diligently
on my dissertation committee and Charles F. Wrigley who took an active
interest in the deveIOpment of my graduate career.

I want to thank my ten undergraduate experimenter assistants and
a special thanks to Kevin Shaney who worked closely with me in the
formulation of this research project.

Siegfried Streufert introduced me to the rudiments of eXperimental
simulation when I visited his research installation at Purdue University.
I appreciate his contribution.

The research was made possible with the c00peration of Becky Briggs,
Director of the Michigan State University Language Laboratory. My wife

typed this whole damn thing four or five times, I thank her.

U
vii»: |"

' 'uvp.

’.. 1|--...-
a... .. L||Luw

.’ ~ .
k “itiCIS
~J3.19 0‘
3351er O;
s ’h,-
Pdf“;
LC33w
la leafs”
”Wang
5":Erl‘_g‘
.\EF
3. N‘
Hae'bks
inf
UneUure
I.
LACErr
f
Urcer I
'1
., .‘
‘)\ra,.r
\lvr
3'. .
i.,h‘...
6‘12!" ,-
.. \
lfizgr

an...

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ................................................
SELECTED LITERATURE AND THEORY ..............................
Theory .................................................
Exchange Theory ...................................
Organization Theory ...............................

METHOD ......................................................
Definitions ............................................
Coding of Interaction Events ...........................
Scaling of Interaction Events ..........................
Participative/Authoritative Scale .................
Cooperative/Conflictive Scale .....................
Validation of Scales ...................................
Apparatus ..............................................
Experimenters ..........................................
Subjects ...............................................
Procedure ..............................................

Experimental Simulation

Message Frequency and Variation Within Treatments .

Order within Treatments

Illustration of Controlled Events Simulation ...........

Simulation Output ...........

Interaction Events Data

Page Number

1
l2
.18
I9
23
28
30
3]
3A
3A
36
37
Al
Al
44
‘IS
48
55
56
58
60
60

k-aiysis C

Corn

C017.

CUT.

Susportiw
:5:;33ICN

::‘~:.JSICNS . ..

Polity in-

t

Ftture Res

-__P.E::‘ICES ' '
FEIISIX A . '
mam 8 .~
=Eaixt
39333;” D - -
r-E‘NCIX E ..

439‘.” F . . .
'I‘in‘llix G . . .
5:53;“ H ...
ixi‘IJIX l ..

":EWLLX J . . .
T'EHLIX K ..

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page Number

Attitudinal Data ................................. 65

Summary of EXperimental Design ........................ 65
Hypotheses ............................................ 67
RESULTS .................................................... 72
Analysis of Variance on Interaction Data .............. 72
Communications toward Administrators ............. 78
Communications toward Moderate Peer .............. 93
Communications toward ExtremistPeer ............. 95
SUpportive Analyses ................................... 98
DISCUSSION ................................................. IIO
CONCLUSIONS .... ............................................ 125
Policy Implications ................................... 125
Future Research and Evaluation ........................ 128
REFERENCES ........ .......... . ..... ............. ............ 130
APPENDIX A ................................................. 137
APPENDIX B ................................................. 138
APPENDIX C ................................................. 141
APPENDIX D ................................................. 144
APPENDIX E .. ............................................... 146
APPENDIX F ................................................. 182
APPENDIX G ................................................. 189
APPENDIX H . ........ . ..... . .......... . ...................... 196
APPENDIX 1 ............................. '......... ........... 21!
APPENDIX J ................................................. 213
APPENDIX K ............ ............. . ....................... 215

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.) Page Number
APPENDIX L ................................................. 228

APPENDIX M .... ............................................. 23]

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page Number

Table 1. Message Schedule: The Case of a C00perative (A1)
- Authoritative (52) Administration and Mixed Peer
Influences (C2) .................. ........................ 50

Table 2. Operational Definitions: EXperimental Treatments
and Dependent Measure .................................... 53

Table 3. Standard Form for Recording Interaction Events
Data ... .......................... . ....................... 61

Table 4. Confidence Intervals for Fourth Order Simple
Effects .................................................. 76

Table 5. Level of Conflict: Summary of Overall Analysis of
Variance ..... ................ ............. ............... 79 - 80

Table 6. Level of Conflict: Summary of Simple Effects
Analysis of Variance for Targets (E) ............ . ........ 81

Table 7. Level of Conflict: Summary of Simple Effects
Analysis of Variance for Administration Target (El) over
Levels of Time (D) ....................................... 82

Table 8. (Level of Conflict: Summary of Simple Effects
Analysis of Variance for Administration Target (El) over
Levels of Peer Influence (C) X Time (D) .... .............. 83

Table 9. Level of Conflict: Summary of Simple Effects
Analysis of Variance for Extremist Peer Target (E3) over
Levels of Time (D) ....................................... 84

Table 10. Level of Conflict: Summary of Simple Effects
Analysis of Variance for Extremist Peer Target (E3) over
Levels of Peer Influence (C) X Time (D) ........... ....... 85

Table 11. Level of Conflict over Time as a Function of
Administration COOperation (A1)/Conflict (A2): The Case of
Administration Target (El) and C00perative Peer Influence

(c1) ..................................................... 86

vii

u , .A ‘q
3:: I5]. 58‘:
n ‘t‘,.
-' .ISO‘TTII.L

. I
I . 9 _.
.':-:'I.a\I"t

rx:\t.)
1

Or

9.
5.

~:.:2I":a: ‘.e
1‘
I

I’ bofi‘l :1
".,":r t : t’é
5.9.3: \tl, av
.r _ 'l I
o~ : .0. eye
. 1. c ‘-
I/IIUD "k:
”"Vriiative
3;:1- '
V»

""E‘tai '
06:1). Le‘Iel

 

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.) Page

Table 12. Level of Conflict: Administration C00peration
(Al)/Conf1ict (A2) X Administration Participative (81)/
Authoritative (82) Interaction Means given Administration
Target (E1) and C00perative Peer Influence (C1) ... ....... 87

Table 13. Level of Conflict: Administration C00peration
(A1)/Conf1ict (A2) X Administration Participative (81)/
Authoritative (82) Interaction Means given Administration
Target (E1) and Mixed Peer Influences (C2) ............... 89

Table 14. Level of Conflict over Time as a Function of
Administration C00peration (Al)/Conf1ict (A2): The Case
of Administration Target (E1) and Conflictive Peer
Influences (C3) .......................................... 91

Table 15. Level of Conflict: Administration COOperation
(A1)/Conf1ict (A2) X Administration Participative (Bl)/
Authoritative (82) Interaction Means given Administration
Target (El) and Conflictive Peer Influences (C3) ......... 93

Table 16. Level of Conflict: Administration Cooperation
(A1)/Conf1ict (A2) X Administration Participative (Bl)/
Authoritative (82) Interaction Means given Extremist
Peer Target (E3) and C00perative Peer Influence (C1) ..... 97

Table 17. ,Level of Conflict: Administration Cooperation
(A1)/Conf1ict (A2) X Administration Participative (Bl)/
Authoritative (82) Interaction Means given Extremist
Peer Target (E3) and Conflictive Peer Influence (C3) ..... 98

Table 18. Assignment of EXperimenter Teams to
Experimental Conditions .......... ........................ 100

Table 19. Level of Conflict: Summary of Analysis of Var-
iance for EXperimenter Differences (X) and EXperimental
Conditions (v) . ........... . ......... ..... ...... ..... ..... 101

Table 20. Correlations between EXperimental Control of
Actor Characteristics and Subject Perceptions of the
Same Actor Characteristics .. ............................. 10%

Table 21. Correlations between EXperimenter Characteristics
and Subject Perceptions of Actor Characteristics ......... 105

Table 22. Perceived Importance of Factors in Experimental
Simulation ................... .... ........................ 106

Table 23. General Satisfaction with the EXperimental
simulation ............................................... 108

viii

Number

- 107

LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)

Table 24. Interaction Events by Student Subjects within
Levels of Time, Peer Position, Target: Summary of
Significant Findings ..................................... 112

Table 25. Matrix Reliability and Validity Coefficients
for 8 EXperimenters and 2 Experts for C00peration/

Conflict Scale ........................................... 195
Table 26. Matrix Reliability and Validity Coefficients

for 4 EXperimenters and 2 EXperts for Participative/

Authoritative Scale ...................................... 196
Table 27. Treatments of A1, 81, and C1 .................... 216
Table 28. Treatments of A1, 81, and c2 .................... 217
Table 29. Treatments of A1, 81, and C3 .................... 218
Table 30. .Treatments of Al, 82, and C1 .................... 219
Table 31. Treatments of Al, 82, and C2 .................... 220
Table 32. Treatments of Al, 82, and C3 .................... 221
Table 33. Treatments of A2, 81, and C1 .................... 222
Table 34. Treatments of A2, 81, and C2 .................... 223
Table 35.1 Treatments of A2, 81, and C3 .................... 224
Table 36. Treatments of A2, 82, and Cl .................... 225
Table 37. Treatments of A2, 82, and C2 .................... 226
Table 38. Treatments of A2, 82, and C3 ............ . ....... 227
Table 39. (Contingency Distribution over Academic Major and

Class Standing ........................................... 232
Table 40. Initial Subject Attitudes toward the Various

Actors ................................................... 234

ix

Page Number

- 116

 

— — P m e
. , _ f t .
—.u I N r V A.
C II x c A . I
P v a I. pub 03‘
.Va .0
’ Pb
. .3 u n . I.
II . a 4/5 Q) a
r. u
.—v . u 35 is .-
r . w v — _
v .- u u . v
. n . L 4 . a -. b
I l

LIST OF FIGURES

Page Number

Figure 1. Coding Events: Disaggregation of Primary and
Secondary (Implied) Event Targets ........................ 33

Figure 2. Communication Control System .................... 42

Figure 3. EXperimenter Control Station and Subject
Communication Booth ............................ I .......... 43

INTRODUCTION

The best generalization that can be made at the outset of this
project is that the data concerning student rebellion are both volumi-
nous and feeble. That is while much has been written and said about
student revolt, the majority of accounts reflect more the passion of
involved groups than the rigor of the scientific method. IObviously, the
occurrence of student rebellion can embroil an entire University in
conflict and the consequences of this involvement can have great person-
al impact. As personal involvement increases, the capacity for scienj
tific rigor may be correSpondingly decreased and, therefore, rebellion
within the university may incapacitate those who would otherwise be
best prepared to study and explain the phenomenon. The present research
attempts to circumvent this passionate interpretation of processes mani-
fest in student rebellion by strict adherence to empirical facts from
experimentation and to logical deductions of experimental simulation.

(\This study examines the behavioral dynamics of student rebellion.
The introductory section will review the comparative/historical and
p0pu1ar literature relevant to the t0pic of student rebellion. This
literature provides an appreciation for the complexity of social pro-
-cesses that constitute student rebellion. The introduction also
demonstrates the potentially great social and psychological impact of
a student rebellion. The next section of selected literature and
theory provides a more rigorous review. There the purpose will be to

-seek established traditions from social science theory that can_be

l

O
O

'53.: account
-::::L13r Ii te'
:‘ec’, a'd Olga“?
3:5. cgez‘her.
:TT':egration C
3‘il’etlcal posit
:‘I'IITd SCC'.
;:71'€Sttiy c,‘
lézy-IIIODS for i.
33:1, Next,
24:. I5 devised
(fisdata, g3;

:“ I‘.t
a ‘Iasion of t».

a; Can
"‘1
w‘eIII h
0n
u Th
'e

 

made to account for the dynamics manifest in the comparative/historical
and p0pu1ar literature. In this effort, major tenets from exchange
theory and organization theory are eXpected to be particularly applic-
able. Together, sections 1 and 2 are intended to provide a syntheses
and integration of current writings and thereby offer an improved
theoretical position for empirical study of student rebellion.)

A third section sets forth a rather complex methodology apprOpriate
for the study of student rebellion. The section presents the Operational
definitions for the test and measurement of student/administration
conflict. Next, a system for the content analysis of social interac-
tion is devised and validated on two substantive dimensions of real-
world data. Apparatus and softeware are then deveIOped for laboratory
simulation of these real world processes. The guiding principle of
laboratory design is to create an atmosphere in which students involve
themselves in extemporaneous interaction with other students and admin-
istrators and at the same time to control unobtrusively social interac-
tion messages in accordance with experimental design.

The fourth section presents the experimental results and the fifth
section discusses the meaning of these results with regard to the
theoretical framework built in sections 1 and 2.

Finally, section 6 presents some suggestions for future research.
Included in this section are some models that are amenable to empirical
test given the data generated by the present study. Concluding remarks
concentrate on the value of this research method and policy implications
that can be made at this preliminary stage of research on student
rebellion. The remainder of this section will introduce the disserta-

tion by considering the general dimensions of student rebellion.

"a social 5‘;
z I'... LI I
Luv. n1.-aC. 1
{3i U371) hate

‘s::":al camera"

"exist from the
:E'esiutionary
232216 Russian .I
“T 5:.dents. S
'Eficut the Con'
'esestudeht p.
2‘55W‘I35t..-de'1t c
enniChInese re

?: :O‘. .
11OWInQ ”Or

:: GwnfaII O;

‘r.
:1 ?!
§

.9, fulcrs Of

:::Ivi e'

“'65 may i-
v:

E';e
Ofstudent T

"he .
countrieS

”a" in 19:6

I
31. Po P,”
- c.-

‘i‘: f .
0r tHe II‘

"My, tCQ’ U" I

 

The social significance of student rebellion can be great. The
works of Altbach (1967), Fuer (1969), Heirich 8 Kaplan (1965), and
Lipset (1971) have shown from a comparative/historical viewpoint the
historical panorama of student rebellion.

During the latter half of the nineteenth century in Russia,
university students were the principle agents to engage in demonstra-
tions demanding freedom and economic reform. Student disorders were
frequent from the late 1880's and of increasing intensity leading into
the revolutionary period beginning in 1905. Berdyaev (1962) reports
that the Russian workers learned the value of street demonstrations
from students. Similarily, in China students helped greatly in bring-
ing about the downfall of the Manchu Dynasty at the turn of the century.
Chinese student politics reached a second climax in May 1919 when
massive student demonstrations beginning in Peking brought about the
second Chinese revolution. In the 1930's, student movements, demonstra-
tions, and strikes played a major role in undermining Chiang Kaishek;
and following World War 11, student riots contributed greatly to the
final downfall of the Nationalist regime. Perhaps contemporary efforts
by the rulers of Communist countries to repress student political
activities may be explained in part by their awareness of the import-
ance of student movements in undermining the precommunist regimes of
these countries. This applies especially to the cases of Poland and
Hungary in 1956. In Poland, the chief organ of criticism was a student
journal, Po Prustu (Plain Talk), which served as the main rallying
point for the liberal elements as long as it was permitted to exist. In
Hungary, too, university students were a major force among the groups

taking part in the unsuccessful revolt. The Syngman Rhee regime in

s—f-;;55‘ were at.

E'EE‘Y by StuSe

2.37 threat to

.Jeimite‘ly.
Student can

31' 1.1961“ .
“‘é'tY an:

. -. Siernable pa

.
i I
I. [1

:Ta .-‘
3.3.1 Of the

I'c" ‘ .

E:

 

ErIs .
On the 5.

 

Korea was finally overthrown in 1960 as a result of student demonstra-
tions, and similar actions have been directed against its successor,
military regime during 1964. Mass demonstrations in Japan, manned
almost entirely by students and directed against the passage of the
Japanese/American Security treaty, prevented President Eisenhower from
visiting that country in 1960. Simiarily, recently proposed visits by
Nelson Rockefeller and his entourage, the Nixon Task Force on the
Americas‘were aborted due to the threat of violent outbreaks planned
largely by student activists. The list of countries in Asia, Africa,
and Latin America in which student political activity has formed a
major threat to the stability of the polity could be extended almost
indefinitely.

Student conflict in the United States has only recently shown
an intensity and scope that would resemble those events by students
in certain developing nations as noted above. Nevertheless, there is
a discernable pattern of student conflict activities dating back to
the early 1930's. Heirich and Kaplan (1965) have documented what they
believe to be four relatively distinct periods of student conflict over
the span of the last forty years in the United States. Heirich and
Kaplan illustrate the historical periods of student conflict with the
events on the Berkeley campus. In the early thirties, the tenor of
social life changed on the Berkeley campus. Prior to this time, foot-
ball games and social events were the focus of collective energies.
With the advent of the thirties, however, students became more concerned
with the socio-political issues. It is perhaps surprising that with
the trauma of the economic depression students did not engage themselves

with the issues of New Deal economic management. Instead, students

.33: a p'OtTaC

n the lat:

.."I>~

.. ..,
3»: activities
:‘eir SerIdS e
:.5't post-ear
Z‘e ‘rivolity 5
es :ne tine w.
i-‘ETes, it has
'6‘: here is {fr
ins activitie
3'5115, the ES

'3 ‘v'e they-581W

Y
1We end 0;

; ,
JER

EIey in 19:

:31: '.
ml ‘1') . Tr

' r
, «7 l
‘ —_ — —

 

 

waged a protracted demonstration against the breakdown of international
disarmament and the domestic approach to war. The period of 1941
through the late forties was marked by the absence of collective stu-
dent activities of any kind. Campuses, it seemed, were drained of
their surplus energies in order to meet the war effort and the subse-
quent post-war adjustments. The fifties was a period of resurgence of
the frivolity and social hell-raising common to the thirties. This
was the time when panty raids were an activity of national vogue. The
fifties, it has been said, marked a ”silent generation” but the argu-
_ment here is that these years were only silent in the sense that rebel-
lious activities were not directed toward the socio-political system,
that is, the establishment. Apparently, students felt no need to in-
volve themselves with substantive issues of social-political signifi-
cance.

The end of the frivolous student events was clearly signaled at
Berkeley in 1957 with the formation of TASC (Toward an Active Student
Community). The reemergence of student interest in political action
inevitably led to situations of student/administration conflict. The
period beginning in 1957 was characterized by a highly politicized
student subpopulation.

Very recently (1971-1972), there has been widespread doubt as to
the possibility of future rebellious behavior by students; all this in
response to the unpredicted lull of political activity in the 1970-
1971 year. The implicit question is whether we were entering into a
new and qualitatively different period of student consciousness.
Newsweek (1971) called 1971 an “enigmatic” year noting that the

frequency and intensity of campus distrubances had ineXplicably

3:77.». 197‘ 3'"
‘zstefed earl ie

r;.55 ever-
;;:r~“0niation S'»
:" st.dent acti~
'wease the b0“
e, we tram?!
:‘S'seraZIY “9
t is esta:
great soci:
:articular'
s-"iten. A care:
~2fal may be
Estrained as
S1--3"34“t/acIT'IiniSt
3713A Dy the be’
3: Win descri;
115 37G“ broth;~
Tees: one of 1
L132.

Jpx' I
15R~VI

'5'” to tI’TI I

..e~ H y C,
“..e't 0f We
4' With I
, adv
Tar "'1
’ the": ' P
"-E A IS

 

declined. Careful reading of various polls and surveys (Playboy, 1971;
Gallup, 1971 and 1972), however, indicates that the conditions that had
fostered earlier disturbances persist and that latent conflict is as
high as ever. ,Perhaps the lull reflects an alternative to the simple
confrontation strategy being sought.1 However, with the recent upswing
of student activism that coincided with President Nixon's decision to
increase thebombing and mining of Haiphong harbor, the argument for a
new more tranquil period of student/administration interaction is
considerably weakened.

It is established above that student/administration conflict can
have great social significance. It is also true that this conflict can
have particularly harsh consequences for individuals within the social
system. A career may be threatened; personal resources of time and
capital may be lost; and ties with family, friends, and colleagues may
be strained as a consequence of the divisive issues central to the
student/adminiStration conflict. A particularly dramatic example is
given by the personal effect felt by Vladimir Lenin. Character studies
of Lenin describe the psychological trauma he suffered as a result of
his older brother's death in a student clash with the Czar's army. At
least one of these studies (Fuer, 1969) attributes Lenin's later

activism to this major event in his deve10pmental history. It is clear

‘fi fi—r

IFuer has noted that the student movements of the past have relied
almost solely on the confrontation strategy. Polarization, being an
element of the confrontation strategy, prevented participative associa-
tion with administrators. Within student syndicalism movements, how-
ever, there is the distinct tendency for students to become knowledge-
able about the workings of the system that most intimately affect stu-
dent affairs. Traditionally, this has been manifest in active partici-
pation in the internal governing bodies of the university.

"_ .... 0'!
f: ..GL 6-8

”I

u“)
(v
m

is?

c)

5.:
r ' .
This stec.

{zfin a close:

:ezis a studs

tire Dléy . T”e

 

then that the study of student rebellion can have both social and
psychological importance.

This study will focus upon rebellious activities which are observed
within a closed system of dyadic interaction where the one party of the
dyad is a student body and the other party of the dyad is an administra*
tive body. The primary interest will be the intensity of c00peration/
conflict manifest in the course of dyadic interaction. However, before
one can fully appreciate the dynamics of dyadic interaction, it is
necessary to elaborate the social issues that underlie the interaction.
The following paragraphs categorize three prototypic issues of student/
administration conflict.

Historically, one can distinguish three basic issues of student/
administrator conflict. The issues relate to student syndicalism,
socib-political association, and student liberties. The first issue is

that of student self-interest or student syndicalism (Fuer, 1969).

 

”Student syndicalism embraces the variety of student
activities and organizations which are primarily devoted
to promotion of student well-being, such as mutual aid,
transportation, examination schedules, housing, and
tuition. Student syndicalism may even emerge in
demonstrations against the government, especially

when the universities are state institutions. A
student syndicate is, however, an example of studentism
pure and simple; it is preoccupied with the normal
interests of the student elite, and is devoid of the
back-to-the-people motif. As such, it lacks essential
psychological characteristics of student movements-”

Unlike a student syndicalist movement, a student movement is

 

characterized as follows (Fuer, 1969):

”A body of students inspired by aims which they

try to explicate in a political ideology, and moved
by an emotional rebellion in which there is always
present a disillusionment with and rejection of

the values of the older generation. The members

of a student movement have the conviction that their

generation has a special historical mission to
fulfill where the older generation, other elites,
and other classes have failed. The inner dynamic
of student movements leads them to lpoliticalize'
all the university's activities. To politicalize
the university means more than having all students
take intelligent, informed stands on political
issues. What is sought, rather, is that every
activity in the university be linked with, infused
by, and subordinated to the alienated ideology of
the student movement. The students' work, friend-
ships, readings, play, pleasures, the theater, and
concerts he attends must all be imbued somehow with
the ethos of the student movement.” ‘

A student movement, then can take on issues that transcend strictly
student self-interests. In particular, a closed System of dyadic con-
flict has the potentiality of incorporating external conflicts.

A second issue of conflict arises from socio-political associa-
tions of this type. Consider the illustrative case where students
charge adminiStrators with complicity with forces of war, 2:33, the
military-industrial complex. Students then demonstrate their opposition
by carrying the flag of the National Liberation Front and thereby are
displaying a spiritual association with revolutionary movements. By
implication, the students cast university administrators as the ”Yankee

lmperialists.” As a result, an external conflict, .33, the Viet Nam

i
War, has been brought within the closed dyadic system of student/
administration conflict. Specifically, the status of ROTC, military
research, and job recruiting have been imbued with a multiplicity of
meanings and have, by association, become issues of administration/
student conflict. Similarily, Berdyaev (1962) has noted that:

"The Russian studentry at the turn of the century

was imbued with this 'revolutionary asceticism.‘

In the United States, students in a p0pulist

enthusiasm would fancy themselves white Negroes,
cultivate a speech and gait modeled on the Negro, walk

isen:
men's
of tr
prieé
fasni
laws”
fasn‘

A‘:C
UI'-U

Because a

...1
:I

a'ger sec'
'5’S7ty ttat I.
I'm-Inca a'e °

.. _
\ a.
-\115 ‘ . AS ‘

s. ‘
- h
.1. .9

einvolve:

U
(
C
B
-a
r L
‘ 0. IT :r- . -

—4
” If
m
_,

C)
'fi
.9.
.—

TC
'1)
..‘
-

 

on picket lines clapping their hands and prancing

in a way which seemed to them to fulfill this
identification. In Russia, they would don working-
men's and peasants' clothes as part of an eXperience
of transfiguration akin to that of the wearer of
priestly vestments. Under ordinary circumstances,
fashions diffuse downward from the upper to the
lower classes -- in these circumstances, however,
fashions were borrowed from the lower classes and
diffuse to the upper.‘I

Because a university is no longer to be regarded as removed from
the larger society, it is natural that questions arise within the uni-
versity that have implications beyond that immediate setting. Especial-
1y common are the issues relating to the constitutional liberties of
students. (As was the case at Berkeley and Columbia, students may want
to be involved in collective secular activities. For a variety of
reasons, administrators may choose to restrict this type of student
activity. These opposing tactical positions have been a reoccurring
source of contention between administration and students. For example,
Fuer (1969) offers the following scenerio:

“A compelling and discernible pattern runs through the
repeated events of student protest. A typical student
action might begin with a small political group advocating
some particular political or social reform. At first,

the majority of the students would be quite indifferent.
Then, some episode of repression would take place; the
authorities and police would deny the students the right
of free association or use sheer physical violence against
them. Thereupon, indignation against the elders would
sweep the studentry. The minority political movement
would become transformed into a majority generational
uprising. Generational solidarity of the most primitive
kind would then manifest itself; demands for students'
rights and manifestoes of generational independence would
come to the fore.“

This passage describes a pattern of active conflict during the Russian
Student Movement of 1905. The description, however, is hauntingly

apprOpriate to more contemporary student activism, 2:23, Berkeley

3:22 536631 Mow
SexeTey ca'ws
:ace and define
as t: fol Ton
"e thrust
szc'al psycnolo

:v'nc: v.2:

d A _e
:5,“
s l
«‘0
dldklon 5
- s

:\
war
W I t i .
C “t
,.
LI

10

Free Speech Movement. Furthermore, the 1964-65 disturbances on the
Berkeley campus of the University of California seemed to have set the
pace and defined the general style of the many such campus actions that
were to follow throughout the country.

The thrust of this research project will be to investigate certain
social psych0109ica1 factors which underlie the behavior of students
in conflict with administrators. The presumption is that those
psychological factors operate in a predictable fashion and are of poten-
tial significance across a range of conflict situations. Crano (1971)
has made the argument as follows:

“Many social scientists have contended that large-scale
social movements are basically ahistorical, and thus the
study of any specific confrontation can offer little
insight into any that might follow. In a certain
limited sense, this assessment is correct, since the
specific conditions, demands, and personalities
that exist at one place and at one time will almost
certainly not be repeated at other places or at other
times. The psychological dynamics that seem characteristic
of almost all confrontations in which the threat of
violence exists, however, are quite consistent. This
consistency, in turn, lends a certain lsamenessl to the
general form of many demonstrations.”

Because the Berkeley Free Speech Movement so clearly exemplifies
in broad, general design the forces Operating in a great proportion of
campus confrontations, it will serve as a prototype for experimental
simulation. Discussion of results will compare behaviors of student
subjects in the laboratory and the actual behaviors of students at
Berkeley.

The social ferment catalyzed by the Russian studentry culminated
in a thorough-going national revolution, though the students were of

lesser political significance in the later stages than the former stages

of the revolutionary period. The final impact of the student activism

1- :‘e unite:

This in!

l‘:erazere 0"

11

in the United States remains uncertain.

This introduction has been based on the history and p0pu1ar
literature of student rebellion. This literature is often rich in
content but unfortunately it is mostly void of theoretical underpinnings.
The next chapter will evaluate the applicability of social science

theory as a hueristic for the study of student/administration conflict.

SELECTED LITERATURE AND THEORY

The question of why students rebel would appear to have many
partial answers. This chapter will begin by considering a selective
review of these partial explanations. Later, these partial answers will
be interrelated and subsumed by a body of theory. To Goodman (1965) the
reason for student rebellion was simple and obvious:

”At present in the United States, students-

middle class youth - are the major exploited class.

The labor of intelligent youth is needed, and they

are accordingly subjected to tight scheduling,

speed-up, and other factory exploitative methods.

Then it is not surprising if they organize their

CIO. If is frivolous to tell them to go elsewhere

if they don't like the rules, for they have no

choice but to go to college, and one factory

is like another.”
Others have suggested that youth is simply predisposed to rebellion,
i.e., that is is simply a consequence of incomplete socialization.
Allport (1961) in analyzing the changes in personality that accompany
“maturing,“ suggested that‘youth are inherently less able to handle
ambiguity, to accept their weaknesses as well as strengths, tend to
overreact to stimuli, and lack a high capacity for tolerance. Simi-
larly, Weber (1946) suggested students hang on to idealistic beliefs
longer than others. They tend to develop an ethic of ”absolute ends“
rather than of "responsibility.'| In addition, students find themselves
in a marginal status role. Although physiologically mature, and often

above the age legally defined as adult, students have been expected to re-

frain from full involvement in the adult world. Hence, the student who

12

 

fizzares: u.”

z??? to sue"

as,

F c-

. L—_

O .

I fi“'
is I

(«f'uso
~O.

I. .

“-u all! ' 0.
here I: a SIM:
"‘eq

'==- 57Ce aec .

:H‘e .Sr-S On ‘

l I ‘

 

C uEavth-C
verCeIVe
..35 k
.. ie ,
S.“
": “er-
uJE-acl’l a“
-=;,;. at
/ 8?:
hr.
15:. ..
5 11‘
LEf ,
3
'e can
1 Q

13

leaves home to attend a university finds that he has actually entered
a highly controlled situation, while many aspects of the society urgeI
him to becbme independent (Lipset, 1971).

Apparent universality of differences between the old and the young
common to student movements has been abstracted by Fuer (1969) as his
central theoretic principle.

“A generation in the sociological sense consists

of persons in a common age group who in their

formative years have known the same historical

experiences, shared the same hOpes and disappoint-

ments, and experienced a common disillusionment

with respect to the elder age groups, toward whom *‘

their sense of opposition is defined.“
Adopting a similar definition, Birnbaum (1969) notes that generational
dissonance and revolt are not a perpetual social problem but assume
acute forms only under conditions of rapid rates of social change that
cause extreme differences in generational experiences. Uneven develop-
ment is also a major factor in the deveIOpment of dissonance where ad-
vanced ideas are combined with material backwardness or where egali-
tarian principles are disregarded in the operational pragmatism of
bureaucratic functioning. When these conditions prevail, forces will
lead to deauthorization of the status quo. In the terminology of Fuer,
youth perceive the government of the old (gerontocracy) to be a failure.
Through the student movement, youth seek to remove the illegitimate
gerontocracy and replace it by a government of the young (juvenocracy).
Legitimacy and authority are concepts which have been basic to the neo-
Marxian theories (Weber, 1946; Dahrendorf, 1959). Brief elaboration of
the literature relating to these concepts is included in Appendix D.

One can use an economic model (Hirschman, 1970) to exlain why

StLJdents are prone to active conflict rather than passive disassociation

vvv‘ '

‘I:

.2

an’

en,

I
Inp‘. H
.r. m lei.

DO.

‘3', a-‘CU

ha
i
lb

8.

.
3.

:‘y‘S

...
INU
\-u

3»

s .s
an»

1'
as y

‘1'

14

with the university system. In his work, Hirschman has provided an
elaboration of constructs that are applicable not only to the economic
sector, but to noneconomic systems as well. Hirschman observes that
any economic, social, or political system is subject to lapses from
efficient, rational, law-abiding, virtuous, or otherwise functional
behavior. A university is no exception. Persons learn to live with a
certain amount of this disfunctional behavior and to manage its effect
lest the misbehavior feed on itself and lead to general deterioration
of the system. ‘

Hirschman notes as a basic premise that deterioration in organiza-
tional performance may result from either or both of two conditions, as
follows: a) from an adverse shift in supply and demand conditions while
the willingness and ability of the firm to maximize profits are unim-
paired; or b) from loss of maximizing aptitude or energy with supply and
demand factors being unchanged. The argument advanced is that economists
traditionally have attended only to the first condition, and the revers-
ibility of changes in objective supply and demand conditions is held
doubtful. The idea of a random and more or less easily “repairable
lapse” linked with the second condition has been alien to economic rea-
soning.

Consider the case where a university is subject to deterioration

for random causes which are neither so compelling nor so durable as to

prevent a return to previous performance levels, provided administrators

make appropriate adjustments. The deterioration will be reflected in an
absolute or relative decline in the quality of services provided by the
university; that is, larger classes, higher tuition, inadequate facili-

ties, etc. The model assumes that the deterioration will activate a

23:23:». lac-p «-
5, a 3:.ie-t ce
::'.’:‘-1; or b)

:"s is tee .__

n- : ..." -
:25 eeuzayx

" ‘5! '“CCT‘I'.

v ‘-..
'..M a
T” s) Verh‘ .
Ud.
\ ‘.

-. '1 and ens.
Me ] EtET"
33.5 358.1 - .
I'filb
”3"”: «ar‘
Ia».}
~31 ,
'I
. Snot S'J
‘ r“.-
r5‘a‘le I
s ~g

: -‘
Jié'lwe
1"
'Ita!
Se

 

15

feedback loop which can operate in either of two modes, as follows:

a) a student can withdraw from the university (this is the exit_
option); or b) a student can protest from within the university

(this is the xglgg_0ption). While the exit Option might be effective

as a feedback mechanism, there are external circumstances that mitigate
against its use by students. For example, there is no sharp alternative
to one university as all universities are relatively similar in struc-
ture and function. Further, there may be encumbrances that impede
transfer from one university to another, for example, transfer of
credits, inconvenience of moving, etc. At the same time, a university
education is generally revered as the best means of personal advance-
ment. Exit then is not a likely response to dissatisfaction with the
university system. Since the exit option may be effectively fore-
closed due to external cOnstraints, students are likely to channel their
responses through the second mode, the voice Option. In this mode,
students verbalize and act out their dissatisfaction within the univer-
sity system. This type of behavior will constitute the basis for obser-
vation and empirical analyses to be done in a later section.

The literature shows the empirical analyses of student rebellion
have been limited to correlational methods. Correlations between demo-
graphic variables (community and individual attributes) and participa-
tion in student disturbances have been explored by numerous researchers.
It is not surprising really that this is so. Correlational studies are
relatively easily done, but experimental study of complex social pro-
cesses like student rebellion is an arduous task. The view here is that
experimental studies are needed; nevertheless, it is worthwhile first to

consider briefly the type of findings acquired through the correlational

‘-’R‘.

c. -L- Later

'EI-IIV Ir. the

o

e :are‘t"eor(

...
I.
I II ‘A a

" ~J‘r‘E'CIB

_-—_

 

16

method. Later sections will focus on an eXperimental approach for
research.

Keniston (1968) and Flacks (1967) have produced results showingx
that leftist students are largely the children of leftist or liberal
parents. In the U.S., the bulk of the activism emerges from within the
well-educated, affluent populations and particularly those engaged in
intellectual and welfare occupations, and those having affiliation in
. progressive religious groups. There are also clear cut correlations
between academic disciplines and political orientations. Students and
faculty in the social sciences and humanities, and to a lesser extent
the pure-theoretical fields, are more likely to be leftists than the
more commercial, applied, and professional fields. When movements grow,
however, they attract the support of p0pulation groups who are quite
different from the early members (Lipset, 1971). This is reflected in
decreased discriminability in correlations across demographic categories.

The Carnegie study found that the more selective the student body
and the larger the institution, the more likely it was to have signifi-
cant protest activity. The U.S. President's Commission (1970) report
replicates this finding. Keniston and Lerner (1971) have theorized
that size is a critical variable. As a consequence of sampling, greater
size insures that more like-minded persons will be assembled. The
grouping of these persons tends to create a mutually supportive social
environment for what the majority of students might censure as deviant
acts. This concept is analogous to the ”critical mass” concept of
nuclear physics. Also it has a certain face validity and does account
for the correlation between size and the likelihood of protest activi-

ties. For a more complete review of correlational studies, see the

17

primary sources already cited, for example, Flacks (1967), Keniston
and Lerner (1971), and Lipset (1971).

McPhail (1971) has presented a critical review of the correlational
literature including both student protest and civil disorder participa-
tion. McPhail finds that many of these studies have adopted some varia-
tion of the deprivation-frustration-aggression mode1.4

McPhail shows that studies of this type are vulnerable to multiple
confounds and have been criticized on those bases. The moderate and
high association typically found between age, sex, ethnicity, education-
al level, and riot participation must be treated with caution. As
McPhail (1971) has pointed out:

IIThere is no compelling reason to accept the

inference that persons are more impetuous because

of their youth, more disenchanted because of

their race, more daring because of their gender,

or less rational because of their educational

level. An equally plausible interpretation of

these data is that such persons are simply more

available for participation by virtue of the

large amount of unscheduled or uncommitted time

which results from being young, black, male,

and without educational credentials.”
Correlational studies have also tended to rely on insensitive and unre-
liable measures more out of expediency than design. Especially insensi-
tive is the measure of participation. McPhail notes that aperson is
intermittently a participant and nonparticipant. Static indices that
characterize a person as either a participant or a nonparticipant, how-
ever, cannot account for these dynamics of participation in a meaningful
way. For dynamic investigation, one must devise a method of investiga-
tion in which time is a variable.

Whatever the factors that make students prone to rebellion, it is

fairly certain that different administrative activities and different

I

I " .
,5. ‘a'. II De ‘3

‘5'251 Simulat:

:::::e'atiorI/cor
z“ rk~
"‘ ~ \v':qracter

Eye: to WHIC’

::~.;:=e.'ation/cc-

 

Ch C
01 [nteF’z
VICQF I
.5 a S

 

activities by peers within the social field evoke different intensities
of student rebellion. The remainder of this chapter will focus upon
substantive dimensions of this type. The guiding principle of the re-
view will be to develop a theoretical base for the subsequent experi-
mental simulation of student/administrator conflict. This study will
investigate the multiple contingencies of social interaction as a func-
tion of five independent variables. Two of the independent factors
simulate dimensions of university management strategy in a field of
conflict. The first is the participative/authoritative dimension of
decision structure set forth by administrative activities. The second
dimension simulates the degree to which administration displays
COOperation/COnflict with students. A third factor specifies an impor-
tant characteristic of the social field. Specifically, it simulates the
degree to which a students' peers are volital and politicized and display
cooperation/conflict with administrators. A fourth factor is time which
is implicit in all dynamic simulation processes. The fifth factor
represents the target categories that are associated with the units of
interaction. These factors will constitute the ingredients of the sub-
sequent research experimental design. The next section will examine the
theoretical bases of these social dimensions.
Theory

Two theories are judged to be particularly useful in an investiga-
tion of interactive cooperation/conflict. First, exchange theory pro-
vides a structure for social interaction. It assumes that interactive
behavior is a function of social reward. An important dimension of

social reward is given by the implicit cooperation/conflict of

19

interaction events. Second, organization theory emphasizes certain
characteristics of social structure within a task group. Organizational
characteristics define a social structure and task orientation for
interactive behaviors. An important set of organizational characteris-
tics is given by the dimension Of participative/authoritative decision
structure. The dimensions of COOperation/conflict and participative/
authoritative interaction are conceptually independent. The former de-
rives from exchange theory and accounts for a critical facet of social
interaction. The latter derives from organizational theory and accounts
for the mediating effects of social structure on social exchange.

Exchange Theory, The theory of social exchange assumes that men
enter into associations with the eXpectation that the association will
prove to be rewarding. The reward may be either intrinsic or extrinsic
to the association itself. Similarly, the reward may be valued along
various dimensions. As noted by Blau (1964), a paradox Of social ex-
change is that it serves not only to establish sentiment bonds between
peers but also to create status differences between men. One might
assume that the exchange function Operates with equal strength in the
maintenance of an old relationship as in the build up of a new relation-
ship. Given prior relational bonds between administrators and students,
the interest here is focused primarily on such maintenance functions.
Equity in Social exchange requires that rewards bestowed upon one party
by another party be reciprocated (Gouldner, 1963).

Social exchange between collectives as well as persons can be
examined. The present research, for example, studies the interactions

between a student coalition and an administrative coalition in a situa-

{Q'aTEFe {H55

'3:~, Seggests
:'.es 'Ise t3 ’
ages are tr;

TE'CE’SDTBI I

'a'r QE'CISE ;

3331 social 5

‘AA
: . 3'1.-

3°nlzat.‘

'l :15 Other.

’ cna"-36: I
4‘55-
. "on the
so y’OCIty WP

\

 

20

tion where these coalitions have incompatible goal orientations. Blau
(1964) suggests that differentiation of power in a system of collectives
gives rise to higher order exchange functions. These higher order ex-
changes are understood to superimpose upon the lower order exchanges of
interpersonal relations.

1 In a university the institutionalized hierarchy of authority is
such that an administration unit has greater authority than a student
unit. Given this prior condition exchange theory predicts that the
fair exercise of power by a ruling coalition (administration) will
elicit social approval by the subordinated coalition (students),
whereas unfair exercise of power will evoke social disapproval. The
social forces set into motion by this exchange lead to legitimatlon
and organization on the one hand and to opposition and student rebellion
on the other.

Exchange theory is not delimited by its principal advocates, but
one can conceive of situations where it is likely that the predictions
based upon the simple exchange function of reciprocity would be refuted.
In the case of gross exploitation of a subordinant coalition, a norm of
reciprocity would predict active resistance, rebellion or retaliation.
While a subordinated collective may be predisposed to behave In a rebel-
lious manner, the superior power of the ruling coalition may be suf-
ficient to deter the occurrence of those activities. Deterrence theory
may then better account for the patterns of social Interaction given a
gross imbalance In power distributions.

Deterrence theory ls usually applied In the context of Interna-
tional decision making, given the ominous presence of nuclear weapons

technology. Nevertheless, It is conceivable that university

z-eftistrat:
' I? .—
:e':ain 10.:

wave explore

tie 1e:erre_—

, . _ ,
we:acx or

 

W’ICu'l Elef‘er

377073 aCCe:

Came-(ted .

a-

hu-
at

5VEd in Q

3ite'rence 5

a
Q

°‘ 1‘8 um:
exfian {Ea—“I
Argyle

We] to 36
:‘TDOSlve Se
asst-me them
SidieS then

:EhaVEOFal

1&5 Pro '
Vide:

uncle” Caq
~CIDrOclt
’ e

1'6“

....S to ac‘
a I" ‘

huh. 0
~‘3fie

 

21

administrators have access to forces that would dissuade students from
certain forms of social interaction. Brody (1960) is one of many who
have explored deterrence theory in detail. From his and other empiri-
cal studies on foreign policy, doubt has arisen about the validity of
the deterrence model (Snyder 8 Paige, 1958; Holsti, I962). Despite

the lack of social scientific confirmation of the major premise on
which elemental deterrence theory is based, there is widespread a
priori acceptance of its truth. Many university administrators, as
documented by the President's Commission Report on Campus Unrest, have
behaved in such a way that one would presume they believed in the
deterrence strategy. Subsequent research will offer further indication
of the utility of the deterrence explanation versus the social exchange
explanation.

Argyle (l969) and others, Gestaltists, have judged the exchange
model to be Inadequate because, ”it fails to take account of the
purposive sequences of social interaction.ll If, however, one can
assume theoretic linkages between cognitive states and behavioral
states then cognitive theory will augment the otherwise purely
behavioral theory of social exchange. To this point, Collins (I969)
has provided a set of assumptions that in large part bridge the cogni-
tive and behavioral domains. He notes that in the cognitive domain, the
simplest case of social psychological equilibrium is represented by
reciprocity of sentiment relationships between person, P, and other
person, 0. Collins argues that positive sentiment by P towards 0
leads to activities by P that are perceived to be rewarding to 0. As
a result, 0 will have reinforced positive evaluation of P which will

become internalized in the form of positive sentiment toward P.

l ‘ .
..-—n V ‘-
vv" J:e‘l‘:

3~3in 56'

ai-cogni ti v

"9\
0

ms"? icatic
:agnitive e
relationsni
:r COgnitio
The to
:win of e.
JILSJendEx
:3. t0 the
Sky perSORr
'a'I
i ! Y) exChe
a?” elicit
“:Ew'igrs are

‘I\
,n
5

3f QeCiSion

 

 

22

Completing the cycle, positive sentiment for P by 0 will be actualized
by 0 in behavior rewarding to P. Iteration of the cognitive-behavior-
al-cognitive cycle leads to both cognitive restructuring afld_behavior
modification. Through iterated interactions, interdependencies between
cognitive elements and behavioral elements settle into a structural
relationship of least dissonance. The question of primacy of behaviors
or Cognitions is thus superceded by structural interdependencies.2

The concept of legitimacy serves as a common link between the

 

domain of exchange theory and the domain of organization theory
(Appendix D). Gurr (I970) states a regime (administration) is legiti-
mate_to the extent that citizens, students, faculty, and other univer-
sity personnel regard it as prOper and deserving of support. Simi-
larly, exchange theory postulates that behaviors by a ruling coalition
will elicit social approval In a subordinant coalition if thoSe bec
haviors are perceived to be legitimate. There is evidence to suggest
that perceptions of legitimacy are affected significantly by a factor
of decision structure irrespective of equity by which the ruling
coalition Operates. Pastore (1952) found that when subjects thought
that a frustration was reasonable or justifiable, they gave fewer
aggressive responses to it than when they perceived it as arbitrary.
Cohen (l955) has shown that arbitrary decisions are seen to be less

legitimate and elicit less obedience than do nonarbitrary decisions.

 

Ikeciprocity represents a special case of balance for a system of
two units. Balance for a system of N units is represented by confor-
mance to a product-rule interaction matrix structure. The extent of
imbalance can be measured by the Abelson-Rosenberg index (l958).

:‘e filght In:

53.26915 3T8

 

5;:ear arbit'
afail the Er
3.9: in the :

:ecision mi”

‘4
v

EQ-ity are h'

'“r b

v' .nis SOT“.

Us :61): rail.
iga‘izatio¢.

bey wort'fiwy

 

Na
‘¥eth'
ua] I
Y
E'e 4
MRS '
y .gn ‘
d
Hsfckso] h .
21: Ca
836V
Izatlor

23

One might then surmise that in an authoritative system where workers or
students are removed from the decision process, the final decision may
appear arbitrary for the simple reason that one would not be cognizant
of all the input and optimizing criteria employed in decision making.
Even in the case of a perfectly rational and equitable decision, the
decision might provoke rebellion if the underlying rationality and
equity are hidden within a closed decision structure. Indirect support
for this sort of participative/authoritative effect was found by Raven
and French (I958). They found that support for leaders is directly
related to feelings of legitimacy and the intervening process variable
of democratic/participative ascendency to leadership. The idea that
organizational decision structure itself is a critical factor is, there-
fore, worthy of study. We proceed with full exposition of the relation-
ship between management decision structures and associated tendencies
of organization conflict.

Organization Theory. Administrators of a university function as
managers of a large nonprofit organization. Therefore, it will be
userl to consider another body of literature that falls under the
ruberic, organization theory. Organization theory is a term broad
enough to encompass the scientific contributions of social psycholo-
gists, as well as the research efforts of those within the domain of
business administration. The substance of organization theory may be
conceptually subdivided into its two major areas of interest. They
are design and administrative functions and behavioral, social
psychological functions. Design and administrative interests of the
organization theorists relate to the structural qualities of the

business firm. For example, line and staff relationships, distribution

‘ e

b O F .

:: 5.5.10. luv
-I-

,
0. fl. '
:.rubsura' "'

2'6 COCCE rr 5

\
....fESente‘

flrK and PM
3193515. :

 

322'. I
Red ex
Tr
Ie C:
('idence

24

of authority and responsibility, the flow of communications, etc., are
structural characteristics. These characteristics have largely been
the concerns of the classical organization theorists. Behavioral
social psychological interests of organization theorists relate to the
human factors that impinge upon an individual in a work environment.
Clearly, this facet of organization theory is augmented by social
psychological research. The human relations orientation is distin-
guished by its primary emphasis on such factors as leadership, movi-
vation, social interaction, and development of social standards
(norms). These are all social psychological factors which have obvious
application in the field of organization management. Consideration of
several different micro-theories of management will serve to explicate
the role of administrative authority relationships with students.

The classical theory_of management (sometimes called Theory X) is

 

represented by the works of Taylor (l9ll) and Fayol (I949). In a
university setting, the theory assumes students dislike scholastic
work and must be coerced, controlled, and directed toward organization-
al goals. Furthermore, students are assumed to prefer to be treated
this was so they can avoid responsibility. In accordance with this
theoretical position, administrators should provide a set of formal
rules, procedures, and control systems so specific and so comprehen-
sive that role ambiguity is entirely eliminated. This theory empha-
sizes the need for well-established lines of authority and clearly
defined expectations.

The classical theory of management has relatively neglected the
influence of man, his personality, and his interaction with others in

the work setting. Recognition of this neglected aspect of theory has

yysted the cc
“epflncipal a
tefiman fact:
?eor;anizatic
f"alorganiza
'e‘e"e:l to as
esssctions the
5'632 greatly
he‘xan rela:
stinterest ir
'55.3*0-'isible, an
J‘Jer this set
:g-eal rules, 4
:ZIEfition here
i-IeractiOn an:
fWWW st
ude
q the °V°IUtic
éiIEfiat to trite
I”: human "Slat

The 5Y5

 

 

tar

25

prompted the consideration of alternative theoretical explanations.
The principal alternative hypothesis to be presented has focused upon
the human factors that might Intervene in the structural system of
the organization and thereby mitigate against the viability of the
formal organizational structure. This alternative theory will be

referred to as the human relations theory_(or Theory Y).. The

 

assumptions that underlie human relations theory as might be expected
diverge greatly from those advanced for classical organization theory.
The human relations approach assumes that most students have an intrin-
sic Interest In their work, desire to be self-directing, desire to be
responsible, and want to be creative (Roethlisberger 5 Dickson, l939).
Under this set of assumptions, administrators are advised to minimize
formal rules, and maintain a loose and flexible Operating system.
Attention here is placed on the |'lnformal organization” of social
Interaction and motivation. This theory stresses the desirability of
involving students in organizational decision making. The next step
In the evolution of organization theory Is distinguished by its
attempt to Integrate factors intrinsic to the classical theory and
the human relations theory.

The systems approach has given direction to research and deveIOp-
ment in the field of organization theory and is now a dominant academic
force. Specifically, emphasis is now being directed toward the expli-
cation of organizational subsystems and the investigation of the
manner In which subsystems Interact with one another. This effort is
elaborated In the next section.

Morse and Lorsch (l970) reviewed the literature on Theory X and

Theory Y and provided empirical evaluations of the two opposing

aSSu'iations
"33".tlfigenC3
Z'e appropr'

:‘e worn to

Tie consign

 

26

theories.l This contribution signaled a new purpose for organization
theorists, namely to study the ”fit” between task structure and pe0ple.
In sum, the works of these researchers and others (Lawrence 8 Lorsch,
1965; Woodward, l965; and Perrow, 1970) suggest a new set of basic
assUmptions which they claim move beyond Theory Y to what they term
“contingency theory.” These theoretical assumptions emphasize that

the appropriate pattern of organization is contingent on the nature of

 

the work to be done and on the particular needs of the people involved.
The consistent findings of contingent theory studies show the following:
a) Highly routinized and predictable tasks are optimized under mange-
ment of highly structured and formal practices because in these situa-
tions behavior must be ridgidly defined and controlled around the
automated production line; b) In an unpredictable, dynamic environment
demanding adjustment and flexibility, task productivity is optimized

by unstructured procedures. In summary, contingency theory argues
against the idea of a universal set of principles for organization
management. It represents a further achievement in the development of
a viable theory of organization.

Systems theo:y_(March and Simon, I958) has been pr0posed as a

 

means by which the entire organization might be described, including
both the classical and human systems. Drawing Upon various academic
disciplines, the systems theorists have sought to describe authority
systems, communications systems, and energy systems as structural
environments within which informal human social interaction systems
and motivation systems operate. The primary contribution of systems
theory hasbeen to demonstrate the complexity of an organizational

system, and that the organizational system is itself the product of

'a‘y hire;

7

Illcs:

 

«as of Li-
Tezeraction
tuivation.
'esearch pr:

Ezai‘l'

M
“7:31:51 ex‘

.
by

all Si ven o '

iifleye a S
”5'!" :0 0:95-
DEfSpective!‘
a set of 5;:

SWHSes to A

 

 

v, .
“y‘FEOFY c”
fleorlsts w
e p orSa-l_
-l ‘
Vi P’OSe E
:Cc,
dl'a\e 5t,
i ln Sqf‘f
"rovldes I
553
ior ex;

27

many interacting subsystems.

Illustrative of the work of the systems theorists are the seminal
works of Likert (l96l, I967), who was principally concerned with the
interaction of the subsystem of administrative decision making and
motivation. This interaction is also a critical factor in the current
research project.

Equifinality theory (Katz and Kahn, I966) is in certain respects a
logical extention of contingency theory. Equifinality implies that for
any given organization in any given organizational environment, there
may be (and probably are) a number of equally apprOpriate ways to
achieve a given end. Equifinality suggest that there may be no one best
way to organize even for a particular set of contingencies. From this
perspective, contingency theory is only of use in that it identifies
a set of appropriate but not necessarily optimal organizational re-
sponses to a particular set of situational contingencies. Equifinali-
ty theory Contrasts more sharply with the classical and human relations
theorists who have sought universal principles or rules which would
help organizations arrive at the one best way to organize for any
purpose. Equifinality theory is insightful and probably the most
accurate statement of organization processes yet made.

(:ln summary, the union of exchange theory and organization theory
provides a basis both for tests of specific tenets of social theory
and for exploration of social relations manifested as organizational
conflict. Neither theory is reductionistic, but to the contrary, each
provides for and in fact encourage investigation of the complexities

and multiple contingencies of dynamic social interaction. )

The re.
5*: organize
{national

v
A-,

.c 8 are, ’

 

METHOD

The review above has shown that current social exchange theory
and organization theory call for consideration of multiple social and
situational contingencies in the analysis of behavioral interactions.
There are, however, great difficulties in formulation of a research
design that satisfies this objective. One is confronted with a
basic problem of research, namely, how to study the behavior of a
complex social system in a way that provides for internal validity
of causal inferences and at the same time maximize external validity
for real world environments. Reductionistic experimentation insures
internal validity by experimenter control but is inadequate for the
study of multiple contingencies as the set of social_and situational
factors is severely restricted. Survey investigation does tap real
world eventsbut not in a way that permits experimental control over
situational contingencies. The method of computer simulation can
deal with the complexities that might arise in the study of a complex
social system; computer models, however, do not lend themselves well
to external validation. These comments are not intended to devalue
these various methodologies, but rather to call attention to their
inherent limitations. I endorse the concept of multioperationalism
(Campbell, I969; Crano 8 Brewer, in press), 133, the idea of conver-
gent investigations employing various independent methodologies. This
research, however, will present a relatively new experimental simulation

method, which is particularly appropriate to the study of multiple
28

CCfitI‘QEfiClE.
:‘ririzes PC
emerinentai
Zion nethod
:srtrol and

Exaeri~
3eu’8l00ed b
fiver, K57]
EC create a-
CE'taEn C07:
5 paranetri C

 

.—

29

contingencies of complex social systems. This method circumvents or
minimizes most of the methodological problems associated with pure
experimental, field, and simulation methods. The experimental simula-
tion method brings together the positive qualities of experimenter
control and multivariate design.

’ Experimental simulation is a method that has recently been
developed by social psychologists at Princeton (Streufert, Clardy,
Driver, Karlins, Schroder, and Suedfeld, l965). The intent has been
to create an elaborate laboratory task situation that approximates
certain complexities of a real world environment and to superimpose
a parametric experimental treatment and control with enough finesse so
as not to disturb the phenomenon under investigation. Those many
which contribute to laboratory reality but not the explicit focus of
experimental investigation are held constant. The ultimate advantage
of the experimental simulation method is that eXperimental results
should have greater applicability in complex real world environments.
Before presentation of the procedure for experimental simulation, it is
necessary to operationalize some terms.

( To be useful in social science, theories require a scheme by which
major theoretical tenets may be operationalized. For the cases of
exchange theory and organization theory, what is needed is a method
for quantifying social Interaction. Bales (I950) has contributed to
this need through the development of a scheme by which types of social
exchanges may be classified. The Bales coding scheme permits the
testing of many social psychological hypotheses relating to forms of
interaction and how they are bound to repetitive cycles of action and

reaction. The Bales sytem, however, is relatively content free and as

5.: cannot
afinteract?
:.alities C°
fsaggregat'
5'5: to seal:
horks :
'czels for 1
I‘ve task of

I310 01 Scre ~

 

30

such cannot capture many substantive factors that may effect the nature
of interaction within the social system. To describe the substantive
qualities of interaction, it is necessary to develop rules for the
disaggregation of interaction discourse into single interaction events
and to scale the interaction events as independent conceptual units.

Works by Azar (I970) and McClelland (I967) serve as preliminary
models for this type of coding of social interactions. Operationally,
the task of coding involves the transformation of interaction discourse
into discrete units of activity in a form amenable to empirical mea-
surement and analyses. We will define the specific unit of interac-
tion that will be employed as a part of the current research; it is
the interaction event.
Definitions

The University community (organization) can be formally described
as an interacting system. Within the university system, there is an
institutionalized hierarchy of authority such that an administration
unit has greater authority than a student unit. An event is a behavior
within the system that describes an activity by an 32£2£_directed

toward a target that is qualified with respect to issue-area and date

 

(Azar, l970). Useful notation for this system is given by Phillips
and Connor, (I970). If S designates a set of social units capable of
interaction, then S is called the actor set. Similarily, T desig-
nates the target set, the set of social units toward whom the activity
Can be directed; and A designates the set of actions that can be
initiated by a member of-S toward a member of T. The event set (E)

is defined by the cartesian product (S X A X T). If the source and

target sets are restricted to the same two members, 9,9,,

.. ,.
scnnistra.

 

elects is cc,
Rebell?

assuming c;

55 a DEWaVi-C:

 

Orr
squate‘ ‘
l
:3 1»
I'"
\I.s rec
Sui“.—

3i

administrative actors and student actors, then a subset of dyadic

events is defined as a system of dyadic interaction.

 

Rebellion will be viewed as a specific behavioral form of the
subsuming concept of conflict (See Appendix A). Rebellion is further
delineated by its conceptual intersection with the concept, political
violence (See Appendix C). In this work, rebellion will be defined
as a behavioral process within a system characterized by interaction
activities of implicit conflict directed by an actor of lesser
authority toward a target of greater authority.

Coding of Interaction Events

McClelland (l967) first proposed to l'monitor" the exchange and
flow of official acts between all governments in the international
system. As conceived by McClelland, the task of monitoring involved
the colleCting, coding, and computer-banking of events as reported in
selected popular media. Azar (I970) adopted the basic ingredients
of events monitoring as set forth by McClelland but has concentrated
his effort within an international subsystem, the Middle East. Within
the Middle Eastern international subsystem, Azar has coded news of
directed behavior for both domestic and international events. While
the present task of coding definitely has been in the tradition of
Azar (I970) and McClelland (l967), the situation which is strictly
domestic-organizational has demanded an independent effort that has
resulted in some revision of the coding procedure.

Collecting data from primary sources is an arduous task.
Fortunately, however, there are agencies that devote time and expertise
to this task. Hopefully, a social scientist can rely on secondary

sources for data and thereby the task of monitoring interactions

reztes to C

:ezan with &

 

'31 Tlees I
I
An ear?

ézeuate $0.1
tests that
i’l‘fg the :
"2 Staff 0.

:03 safiple

I

I‘;"‘-] o
' \I

\Yis

““Versity

hon 0f hos

 

°ijec t
:”*9€fidi i
Pot-e
l53~0r~ u
95“:
E’“5+
\‘ “
as the

32

reduces to coding and computer-banking. For example, Azar (1970)
began with a set of 13 secondary data sources, (abstracts, journals,
and indices). Through empirical techniques, Azar, concluded that

a subset of two sources provided nearly the same coverage as the total
set of 13. The two superior sources in the reduced set were the New_

York Times Index and the Middle East Journal.

 

, An early consideration in the present research was to locate an
adequate source on student/administration interaction. Interaction
events that sociometrically describe activities on the Berkeley campus
during the Free Speech Movement (FSM) of 196% have been collected.

The staff of the California Monthly compiled news briefs that appeared

 

in a sample of primary sources throughout the Bay Area. The California

 

Monthly is actually-a secondary source. From this secondary source,
interaction events have been systematically extracted. These data
give comprehensive coverage of interactions between actors within the
University system for a four month period of escalation and deescala-
tion of hostilities (Sept. 10, 196% - Jan. 10, 1965).

The content of the news briefs were systematically recorded in
interaction event format. In the case of a simple news report in
active tense, coding corresponds to simple grammatical structure. The

subject corresponds to the actor category, verb to the activity, direct

 

object to the target, and residual components to the issue-area,
(Appendix E).
More typically, however, news briefs do not appear to be so

isomorphiCally related to our operational definitions of an interaction

 

event.' Numerous problems arise in the process of forcing free text

to the constraints of the operational definition above. The

 

Jaerriding c
atzivity as
Statements :
e::ivity are
‘alfeaing r:
363m 3 pic-

iisiensi on :

 

:uo types 0'
336$ separ.
Vi 8:5 pic,

‘5 liplied;

 

leasers T

 

lg.
I9:

()

33

overriding consideration is to capture the essence of the reported
activity as close as possible to the original semantics. Journalistic
statements that in complex form embody more than a single directed
activity are disaggregated into discrete events. Consider the
following report: "The Students for a Democratic Society (505) have
begun a picket of the administration building to protest administration
suspension of student Free Speech leaders.” This news report includes
two types of activities and must, therefore, be disaggregated and

coded separately for each one. The primary activity is the one of

the SDS picketing against the administration. A secondary activity

is implied; it is the SDS picketing in support of the Free Speech

leaders. The set of interaction events can be represented in a

     
  
 

(licket against) \
_ /

(picket in support)

Figure I

Coding Events: Disaggregation of Primary and Secondary (Implied) Event
Targets

 

cirected d1:
:ecessitate
textual data
a'e presen-u.
as a part c
£32119 IS a
the stated

“‘8 result

 

34

directed diagram (Figure I). These and related considerations
necessitate elaborate rules that describe the exact process by which
textual data are transformed for experimental purposes. Such rules
are presented in the coding and scaling manual that has been developed
as a part of the current research project (See Appendix E). Though
coding is a complex task, trained coders Operating in accordance with
the stated rules demonstrate a high degree Of intercoder reliability.
The result Of these coding efforts is the creation of a set Of 754
interaction events including an actor set = 97.
Scaling of Interaction Events

Once in coded form, the implicit meanings Of an interaction event
can be measured. Scaling is the means by which data are measured along
some dimension or set of dimensions. In the present context, scaling
procedures will be employed that measure coded interaction events on
a dimension of decision structure (participative/authoritative) and a
dimension Of social exchange (cooperation/conflict). First we will
consider literature and theory relevant to each Of these two dimen-
sions Of interaction. A synthesis Of this literature and theory will
culminate in the substantive description Of each scale. Later each
scale will be subject to independent validation procedures.

Participative/Authoritative Scale. Likert was principally
concerned with the interaction Of the subsystem Of administrative
decision making and motivation. This interaction is also a critical
factor in the current research project. Likert has substantively
distinguished four kinds Of systems Of administration. An authori-
tarian organization, whether exploitative or benevolent, is one in

which both broad policy and Specific decisions are made almost

exclusiv If.
amoritari

welfare of

 

 

 

'ie acmmg

tamer wits

 

al‘inisue;
"tarian 0V6.”
for GECISIC
the Organ;;
:‘Hg gn'Oup

Bit-50%,, w

tagging 91"

3S

exclusively at the upper administrative levels. In an eXplOitative-
authoritarian system, the administration is solely concerned with the
welfare of the organization. In a benevolent-authoritarian system,
the administration gratuitously concerns itself in a paternalistic
manner with the welfare Of its members. Two other systems are the
consultative system and the participative system. In the consulting
system, the ideas Of those individuals who will be affected by an
imminent policy decision are ascertained prior tO the setting of that
policy. However, the final decision is ultimately made in upper
administrative levels. In this regard, a consultive system has authori-
tarian overtones. In the participative system, the guiding principle
for decision making is that decisions be made by those individuals in
the organization who are directly affected by them. In a participa-
ting group, decision making is widely done throughout the organization,
although well integrated through linking processes provided by over-
lapping groups. Decentralization with integration is the key tO a
participating grOUp organization. Although Likert(1967) intended
these four systems to be qualitatively different, it would appear that
these systems might be ordered along a single dimension. The four
systems described by Likert imply an order along a dimension of
participative/authoritative decision structure. The participative/
authoritative scale underlying Likert's four organizational systems
does not include a mid-point or zero point. It is fairly clear,
however, that the exploitative and benevolent authoritarian systems
tend to designate degrees Of one polar condition (authoritative) and
the consultative and participative systems designate degrees of the

other polar condition (participative). A null level for this dimension

car, he lose
svrnetrical
I::e:err.2na*
set of 1h}:
scale vai..e
1e“: author
zatlve; sca
I

Coos-er

‘

cc~rlict ha

3‘5 543Stan

 

36

can be inserted inbetween these levels; it in essence marks a
symmetrical bisection Of the dimension. Events that are ambiguous or
indeterminant on this dimension can be given a zero weight by assign-
ment Of this null level. Specific scale descriptors are as follows:
scale value I = eXploitative authoritarian; scale value 2 = benevo-

lent authoritarian; scale value 3 = neither authoritarian or partici-V
pative; scale value 4 = consultative; and scale value 5 = participative.

Cooperative/Conflictive Scale. The dimension of cooperation/

 

conflict has been given some treatment in the literature in which vari-
Ous substantive discriminations of levels along this dimension have
been made. Virtually all scaling models have distinguished between
verbal and physical activities showing COOperation/conflict. Verbal
categories are considered to be Of lesser intensity than physical
categories. Within this dichotomy, finer discriminations can be made.
McClelland discriminates a total Of 22 levels and Azar finds 13 levels
of COOperation/conflict. The present research discriminates 7 levels
of conflict. While the scale is perhaps very insensitive to gradations
of conflict, it is at the same time highly reliable. Within the range
Of verbal activities, we suggest two levels. A null level of
COOperation/conflict is represented by relatively Objective statements.
A low intensity level is given to events clearly loading on the
COOperation/conflict dimension. Within the physical range of activi-
ties a discrimincation is made between legal and illegal forms Of
cOOperation/conflict. It would seem that students are particularly
adept at drawing the line between legal and illegal strategies of
confrontation.

From this synthesis of prior literature, one can explicate a

symmetric?
satirica’
cooperatior
3‘ coopera:
! e

o= acti vc

'3: tonal e:

Ila :3: 13"
The s:

h 58"."
Sc“Die (N
syaftlc d

 

37

symmetrical scale of COOperation/conflict. Scale descriptors on a
symmetrical 7-point scale are as follows: I = extra-legal support and
ICOOperation; 2 = physical action Of cooperation; 3 = verbal statement
of cOOperation; 4 = neutral cooperation/conflict; 5 = verbal conflict;
6 = active conflict; and 7 = extra-legal conflict. (See Appendix E
for complete exposition of the scaling procedures.)

Validation Of Scales

 

The scales develOped above have face validity, that is, they
appear reasonable given the knowledge we have about the dimensions.

It is necessary, nevertheless, to validate these dimensions on an
independent sample of naive scalers. If the theoretic scales prove to
account satisfactorily for the perceptions of naive subjects, they can
be used as independent measures in experimental simulation.

A sample of students (N = 89) was asked to give meaning to a
sample (N = 79) of the real Berkeley interaction events through the
semantic differential scaling procedure (Osgood, 1958). The sample
of events was selected so as to give uniform representation to all
levels and interactions between levels on each of the theoretically
derived scales (Appendix F). The whole sample of events was composed
of two subsamples distinguished by actor designations. Subsample A
defined all events directed by an administrative actor toward a student
target, and subsample B defined those events directed by students
toward administrators. The events of subsample A were scaled indepen-
dently on each of the two eXperimental dimensions that apply to
administrative activities. The events of subsample B in the same way
were scaled along the dimension that applies to student activities.

The structural sampling procedure provided for maximum

v

P

Loo
me e

:9
.3"
.1015
C'

and
WW
I C‘

 

38

orthogonality between the participative/authoritative and COOperative/
conflictive scales. Each event was viewed in its entirety as a con-
cept. Subjects are given only polar descriptors and asked to impart
meaning to levels within the polar extremes. The interest here is to
test the degree of correspondence between the meaning given to the
scale levels by naive subjects and the meaning prescribed in theory.
Data derived from the independent scaling efforts of naive subjects
and trained experimenters were subject to correlational analyses. Data
from the events of subsample A provided a measure of students' per-
ceptions of events which are directed by administration toward students
and which were implicitly COOperative/conflictive and participative/
authoritative. Correlations between scale values given by naive
subjects and those given by trained experimenters were calculated
across all events of subsample A. This is actually a Q correlational
analysis, 1,3,, correlations represent covariances between subjects
rather than between events. The correlation between each naive subject_
and the trained experimenter provided a measure for the extent to which
that naive subject's perceptions could be explained in terms Of the
theoretically derived scales. The results of analysis show a mean

correlation coefficient of .820 across all subjects on the scale of

2
event cOOperation/conflict. The result signifies that (.820) or

about 65% of the variance in subjects' judgments Of cooperation/conflict
can be predicted from the simple independent measure Of COOperatlon/
conflict. Furthermore, the scale is consistently predictive for
individuals within the sample of naive scalers as the standard deviation

of the correlation mean was only .054. Apparently the predictions

5.2mm tat '

average cc:

.
‘K. ‘h

. »-.is co:

'7}

‘Q- .

A . .

u-gJL I: \
~

.:";\’\r' _
GJ..|L,, |tat

i'3596fider'

dently pr!
(Jiifer us.
Error Var]
astfie €x;.

It ,:
. Quite L.

 

 

39

based on the scale Of COOperation/conflict cut through major individ-
ual differences that might be eXpected to mitigate against statistical
prediction.

Explanation of subjects' perceptions on the scale Of participative/
authoritative decision structure was somewhat less successful. The
average correlation across subjects was .620 and the standard deviation

2
Of this correlation mean was .109. This result means that (.620) or

about 37% Of subject variance in perception of the participative/
authoritative qualities Of events are predictable from the single
independent measure. While this dimension is less predictable here
than was the dimension of cOOperation/conflict, it is still suffi-
ciently predictable and of such theoretical interest to warrant its
further use in experimental research. Further, it is possible that
error variance derives not from the inadequacies of the scale so much
as the experimental situation that asks subjects to do something that

is quite unnatural, .e,, to scale interaction events along a single

j_
dimension rather than what is more natural to form a judgment based
upon multidimensional considerations. Indication of this effect is
found in a slight but consistent association between the two scales of
events analysis. While the events sample had been constructed so as to
represent equally all scale levels Of one scale within all scale levels
Of the other scale and thereby maximize scale orthogonality, an

average correlation of -.l62 was found between scales across all sub-
jects and the standard deviation around the mean was .109.

The above results give confidence that we can account for student

subjects’ perceptions of events directed by administrators toward

-
7

er:

._
L

A
r

,.s a‘
'xe,au
“ 6x

.‘0‘
\I

.5 1,.
...»

...

gun

\
.-

 

AU

.3

.\u

4.1:.“
93 to

S

1e 1a
5139 w

.;3672
{H ‘r-
g.
.RE‘
5“ " ‘
he'SIOFI I

40

students along the two dimensions of cooperation/conflict and partici-
pative/authoritative decision structures. Being able to account for
perceptions will make it possible for us in a later section to
manipulate experimentally perceptions along these dimensions. It is
Of experimental importance and theoretical interest to establish
empirically that the same scale of COOperation/conflict which is
predictive of administrative activities toward students (subsample A)
is also predictive of events representing activities directed by
students toward administrators (subsample B). Results of analysis
confirm that the same theoretically derived scale Of cooperation/
conflict is predictive of events in both subsample A and subsample B.
In the latter case, a mean correlation was ,812_and a standard deviation
.087 for naive subjects with trained experimenters. This finding

will allow for the eXplanation and control of interaction events orig-
inating with students and directed toward administrators along the
dimension of cooperation/conflict. This result will have important
experimental consequences not only for independent manipulation Of
perceptions of events associated with student peers but also for
quantifying the major dependent variable Of subject (student) coopera-
tion/conflict with various targets. In conclusion, both scales are
judged to account satisfactorily for perceptions of a subject pOpulation
as a whole and beyond that to account satisfactorily for the vast
majority Of individuals that compose the population. With this degree
of control over how events will be perceived, one can proceed with an
eXperimental simulation study Of social interaction in which indepen-
dent and dependent measures are Operationalized by scaled events data.

Given the small between subject variation in the perception Of events,

 

The l'
cation CC'

sinuiatioJ

"1121155; a-
used to t
11035, be?
3355598 tc
OE'JOTIentS

3.3951 to

 

” the 1a.
DICtUreS

tific

I ~FIFR=HJ
\

41

it may be that experimentation need not require large numbers of sub-
jects to achieve a stable configuration of within-cell responses.
Apparatus

The standard language laboratory is well suited for the communi-
cation control system that will be required for this experimental
simulation, and thus for our purposes became the behavioral laboratory
(See Figure 2). The laboratory booths are equipped with both trans-
mitting and receiving devices which, in the experimental task, are
used to transmit interaction events (messages, announcements, ques-
tions, behavioral intentions). A subject is free to initiate a
message toward either one or both of his teammates or his collective
Opponents. Subjects understand that all messages are to be trans-
mitted to and then relayed by switchboard Operators (experimenters)
in the language laboratory control station. (See Figure 3 for
pictures of the laboratory booths and control station.)

Experimenters

 

The subsequent experimental simulation requires a team of five
trained experimenters. This includes two switchboard Operators
(senders), two switchboard assistants (coders), and one courier. The
eXperimenters will play a critical role. They must generate all mes-
sages sent to subjects and they must record all messages sent from
subjects.

Experimenters were recruited from a senior level social psychology
course. They were promised that if selected they would gain valuable
experience in professional research and at the same time earn three
credits in an undergraduate research course (Psy 490). From 28

volunteers, ten were selected. The criterion for selection were grade

42

Team I

 

 

 

Team 2

Figure 2

Communication Control System

43

Experimenter Control Station

 

Subject Communication Booth

 

Figure 3

   
  
  
 
 

3.3%.: average.
5.:jective ju;
ah; ability tc
assewbled twi:
Extensiv
“791 level of
T'structior. ,
I'miprocedur
Qiavitated 1.-
:‘ae coding/g
cation 5y“,
fi the e195
Um SWItCh:
Tege few,

.:
VI

coders

3' the DH

5.15 '
H

‘~S

41+

point average, oral skills exhibited in the interview, availability and
subjective judgments pertaining to interviewee's interest, maturity,
and ability to do the job. The ten, six males and four females, were
assembled twice for a two hour block Of training.

Extensive instruction for eXperimenters was given to insure a
high level of precision and uniformity in experimenter control. Beyond
instruction, experimenters were given a practicum in laboratory simula-
tion procedures. In the course of the training, several experimenters
gravitated to a position of relative SUperiority in mastery of both
the coding/scaling procedures and the logistic demands of the communi-
cation system. All eXperimenters performed well, but four males out
of the eight eXperimenters excelled. Given the experimental demand on
the switchboard Operators, it was important to recognize the talents of
these few, and channel them into the more demanding role. Other
experimenters were assigned to the important but less demanding roles
of coders and couriers. Appendix G presents a more detailed description
of the procedures for training and empirically evaluating experimenters.
Subjects

Subjects (N = 72) were recruited by telephone and by sign-up
sheets for the experimental simulation. No special requirements for
participation were needed except that the subjects be male and unexperi-
enced with experimental paradigms of cooperation/conflict. The experi-
mentwas advertised as a ”Simulation of Student/Administration Coopera-
tion/Conflict.” This title was intended to attract persons who were
interested and perhaps eXperienced in student/administration confronta-
tion. If the title has this effect, then the sample will more closely

approximate that subset Of the total university population that is

    
   
    

inclined to P9
53,319, The "
381109 for mo
for psych0109~
mirical 8X3“
rotivations ha
experiment we.
«as underway .
:emgraphic c
itsendix 1“.
aed sampling
testy and no
as having pa
tom‘lict.

P'acedure

45

inclined to participate in confrontation activities than would a random
sample. The motivations for volunteering were mixed with some particle
pating for money at the rate of $2.00 per hour, and others participating
for psychology credits at the rate of 2 credits per hour. Upon
empirical examination, however, there were indications that whatever
motivations had governed a subject's decision to volunteer for the
experiment were overrided by intrinsic motivations once the simulation
was underway. This result, as well as others descriptive of the
demographic constitution of the experimental sample, are presented in
Appendix M. In general, these results show the success of recruitment
and sampling procedures. The experimental population was of a constit-
uency and motivational set similar to student pOpulations documented
as having participated in real instances Of student/administration
conflict.
Procedure

Six subjects were schedule to meet outside the laboratory. Upon
arrival, the subjects were randomly assigned to one of two 3-person
teams. Cohscious of their team assignments (Team I or Team 2), individ-
.ual subjects were ushered to separate laboratory booths. Figure 2 shows
that the members Of one team were all seated in the same general sec-
tion of the laboratory and members of the Opposing team were seated in
the comparable positions on the other side of the communication control
station.

Once isolated in the laboratory booths, all subjects were given a
normative form of the Edwards Personality Preference Schedule (EPPS).
The EPPS is a self-administered measure of personality characteristics.

The standard EPPS is a valuable instrument but it is flawed by the

  
  

weasxerrent at
basic items 0‘
a: rather tha
‘crced choice

The EPPS
”8 Purpose 0
ngn-ificance
Interaction t
thesis and w

Having
E7481 ent‘v
Elven aDDro

p

mients c:

46

measurement artifact of ipsativity. The normative EPPS maintains the
basic items of the EPPS but responses are given in a Likert scale for-
mat rather than a forced choice format. The problems associated with
forced choice (ipsativity) are therefore circumvented.

The EPPS was included as a part Of the experimental procedure for
the purpose Of collecting data that could be used to explore the
significance of covariation between personality scales and manifest
interaction behaviors. These analyses, however, are peripheral to this
thesis and will not be discussed as part of the research.

Having completed the EPPS, subjects were provided with a simulation

manual entitled, The University_Game (Appendix H). Subjects were

 

given approximately 15 minutes to study this simulation manual. The
contents of the manual were designed to do two things: a) to familiar-
ize the Subjects with the roles and rudiments of the experimental
simulation; and b) to stimulate the interest and involvement Of the
subjects in the situation at hand. The simulation manual was prepared
so that actors and issues wOuld roughly parallel those at Berkeley.
If the manual was successful, then one would expect subjects to display
passions similar to those seen at Berkeley. Consequently, subjects
should be relatively hostile toward administration actors and relatively
supportive of student actors.

After the subjects had finished reading the simulation manual,
a presimulation questionnaire was administered. The questionnaire
included items about personnel, groups, and issues at Franklin State
University and thereby provided data on the initial state of subjects
having received the same instructions and the same preliminary simula-

tion material. Assessment of these initial state attitudes will serve

as a control
fetipulatlons
this analysis

relation bets

 

 

initial stage
lasoratory ar
50:5 (Append.
lmediat
the experimen
(Rapendix a),
an: DOlntS p
IiStructlons
RING how 171655
~1hStructiOn:

OH ‘
“at he was

47

as a control state against which the effects of subsequent experimental
manipulations can be evaluated. Appendix M presents the results of
this analysis in detail. Because these results suggest an isomorphic
relation between the initial stage of the Berkeley conflict and the
‘nitial stage of laboratory simulation, the subsequent events from the
laboratory and from the Berkeley campus are amenable to direct compari-
sons (Appendix I).

Immediately after completion of the presimulation questionnaire,
the experimenters presented a standard set of oral instructions
(Appendix J). Oral instructions reemphasized some of the most import-
ant points presented in the simulation manual. In addition, the oral
instructions detailed the use of the laboratory communication equipment
and how messages would be delivered and received. Both the oral
instructions and the simulation manual led each subject to believe
that he was to function as one of a team of 3 student leaders Of the
Student Coalition at Franklin State University. Conversely, each group
was lead to believe that the persons comprising the other team would
function as administrative Officials Of President Raswell's Task Force
on Student Unrest. All subjects were lead to believe they were peer
C and had teammates who were peer A and peer B. The problem as it
was presented to the experimental groups wasthat a conflict Of interests
had develOped-over the rights of students with regard to use of
University facilities tO promote political and social ideologies. Stu-
dents were invited to engage in extemporaneous interaction with their
team members and Opposition and thereby exhibit their own personal

behavioral tendencies.

ngpleted, a S
Itself reQUlr-
exaerlmenters‘
3‘ stimuli Wld
sental stimul
and :ne deper
iron the subji

Experirie

 

weiiation of .
'equired that
Desing as swi
i:entified as
and directed
Pental schec‘
Intensity on
contingent L

tion. In ti

48

Experimental Simulation. After all the above preparations were
completed, a subject was ready to begin the simulation. The simulation
itself required that an elaborate deception scheme be maintained by the
experimenters. The deception provided for complete experimental control
of stimuli without affecting the subjects response set. The experi-
mental stimulus was the interaction event message sent to the subject
and the dependent reSponse was the interaction event message received
from the subject.

EXperimental manipulation and control was gained by experimenter
mediation Of all social communications. The communication apparatus
required that all messages be relayed through trained experimenters
posing as switchboard operators. Messages sent to subjects were
identified as to their ostensible source but in fact they were generated
and directed by the switchboard experimenters according to an experi-
mental schedule. The stimulus messages were of preprogrammed scaled
intensity on the particular experimental dimensions but were made
contingent upon previous substantive discourse of simulation interac-
tion. In this manner, independent measures Of social exchange and
decision structure were superimposed on the flow of messages in a way
that provided experimental control along these dimensions of experi-
mental interest and also preserved the credulity Of response contingen-
cies. Now one can appreciate the richness of meaning of the word

simulation.3

 

3The word simulation or experimental simulation is used frequently
throughout this volumn. The word carries two different meanings
depending upon the perspective with which one views It. To the
experimental subjects (students) the ”simulation” is appropriate because
they view themselves in a situation that models (simulates) the

Consicer
dearer unOeFS
a areniograme
constrained tc
savorid that ar

Prelimina
.3:5 with st
Frost; literatu
rranklin Sta:
:er 15 minute
Last Sufficie
tssage to ea
essence, the
10the Struci
each subjec:
C'lly Once pe
“it and sen
1966; and st

This infOrma

k
deSCriD
.cped that
we I

49

Consideration of the specific communication schedules will give a
clearer understanding of the simulation process. The schedules present
a preprogrammed array of stimulus messages which are substantively
constrained to specified levels on two substantive dimensions, but
beyond that are free with respect to activities and issue-area.

Preliminary work must be done to establish a range for the rapidity

with which stimulus messages are presented, .e,, information load.

1_
From literature on other man-simulations and from pretests Of this
Franklin State University game it was decided to deliver 10 messages
per 15 minute period evenly dispersed in time. At this rate, there was
just sufficient time (1.5 minutes) for an experimenter to deliver a
message to each subject and receive a message from each subject. In
essence, the procedure generates an interaction function that conforms
to the structure of a Poisson process with parameter equal 1.5, 1,5,,
each subject can respond or not respond but at most each can respond
only once per 1.5 minute interval. According to the literature (Streu-
fert and Schroder, 1965; Castore 5 Streufert, 1966; Streufert 8 Driver,

1966; and Streufert, Suedfeld 8 Driver, 1965), one would expect that

this information load would be at the upper bound for Optimal

 

interactions of real administrators with students in a real world
(situation. The word simulation, therefore, does not evoke a special
suspicion or fear - it makes sense.

To the experimenters, the word simulation is appropriate for
another reason. They realize that the subjects (students) in the
laboratory aren‘t really interacting with anyone, and that the illusion
Of interaction is created (simulated) by elaborate experimental proce-
dures. From this perspective, the word simulation is also appropriate
for description of the actual process within the laboratory. It is

hoped that the context will make it clear how the term simulation is to
be interpreted.

50

information processing. However, subjects in this situation indicated
that they would have preferred more messages. These results will be

discussed in a later section but It Is important here to note informa-
tion load is an important parameter In simulation. Where messages are

limited to disaggregated interaction events rather than more complex

 

information packages perhaps messages can be processed easier.

Table 1

Message Schedule: The Case of a Cooperative (Al) -
Authoritative (82) Administration and Mixed Peer Influences (C2)

 

 

 

Raws Cofimns
l . 2 3 4 .5
1 5/4 4/5 7/5 N - sin
2 3A 63 4A 78 N +
3 4/5 5/5 6/4 7/4 N -
A 63 4A 3A ' N + 78
5 7/4 N - 5/5 6/4 4/5
6 4A N + 78 68 3A
7 N + 6/4 4/4 5/5 7/5
8 78 3A N + 4A 63
9 ‘ 6/5 7/4 N c 4/5 5/4
10 ' . N - 78' 68 3A 4A
03 Q Q Q Q

 

aQ - Questionnaire

Table 1 gives a schematic description of the message schedule.

Experimenters were to generate and deliver messages to subjects of the

51

type dictated by the message schedule. The schedule includes a total

of 50 messages which were presented over the course of the experimental

session. The eXperImental session Itself was divided into five segments

including a 15 minute block of simulated interaction followed by a 5

minuteperiod in which subjects completed a questionnaire. Within

each simulation block, 10 messages were presented. FOur messages

were ostensibly from administrative sourCes, another four messages were

attributed to student peer sources (2 from A and 2 from B). This

arrangement gives equal weight to interteam and intrateam communications.

Two additional messages were attributed to sources external to the

dyadic system of student/administration interaction. The external

sources were identified as independent news sources.“
The message schedule is in the form Of a matrix. Each.matrix

column contains a vector of scale values which specify dimensional

characteristics of an event to be delivered. The five columns

 

l'The news flash is a remnant of an earlier version of this unl-
versity simulation. It was invented to allow for controlled interven-
tion in the chain of interaction events to reinforce a line of behavior
supporting simulation Objectives and to extinguish behaviors not
appropriate to the simulated social structure.

While controlled intervention of this type is superior to an uncon-
trolled meddling with the process, the news flashes still creat some
unparslmonious situations for analyses. Eventually, it is hoped that
the simulation might be refined to function smoothly without the aid Of
. experimenter intervention via news flashes.

. In this research, the use of the news flashes was limited to the
following functions: a) to Introduce a new.issue or tOpic for.subse-
quent interaction; and b) to clarify a procedure or rule Of the simue.
lation game. The reinforcing and extinguishing aspects Of news flashes
arose only to the extent that some news flashes were interpreted by
subjects as good news androthers as bad. This limited use of news
flashes should not have altered subjects' behaviors with respect to the
principle dependent measure (cooperation/conflict). News flashes added
to the flexibility, control, and viability of the interaction process
and were retained for that reason.

52

correspond to the five 15 minute blocks. The schedule matrix has 10
rows. The odd numbered rows contain entries that specify scale quali-
ties of messages attributed to administrative sources. The even
numbered rows contain values that specify scale qualities of messages
attributed to student peer sources. An exception is the case where
one news flash substitutes for a peer source during each simulation
block. News flashes are designated by the letter ”N” and a sign
(+ or -) indicating if the news is positive or negative for the
student team (SC).

The schedule matrix provides a constant framework within which an
experimenter interacts with subjects. The numerical entries in the
message schedule matrix signify scaled levels within the dimensions
of experimental interest. Messages attributed to student peers were
systematically programmed along a single dimension (COOperation/
conflict). The intensity of messages thus were constrained along that
singular dimension. Messages attributed to administrative sources
were systematically programmed along two dimensions.' The one dimension
was given by the scale of cooperation/conflict and the other dimension
given by the scale of partivipative/authoritative organization. The
set of numerical entries within the message schedule matrix constitutes
an experimental treatment or condition. Matrices with different numeri-
cal entries were tested for possible differences they produced in the
subject interaction. In this study, the experimental treatments were
distinguished by the scale levels on the dimension of decision structure
(participative/authoritative) and social exchange (COOperation/conflict).
EXposition Of the experimental treatments is most easily presented in

tabular form (Table 2).

Factor A:

A1 Ra
A2 R

Factor B:

Bl R
82 R

C1 Peer A R
C2 . Peer A R
C3 Peer A R

Factor 0:

53
Table 2
Operational Definitions: Experimental Treatments

and Dependent Measure

Experimental Treatments

 

Administrators' Exchange Function (Cooperation/Conflict)

a 1-4
... 4-7

>q>g_

2.5
5.5

Administrators‘ Organizational Structure (Participative/
Authoritative)

-4—5 gates
-12 x

83-4 Z=3.5; PeerB R=l-2 Z=l.5
= 3—4 _x_= 3.5; Peer B R = 6-7 35- 6.5
= 4-5 X = 4.5; Peer B R a 6’7 X = 6.5

Time

01 Period 1
D2 Period 2
03 Period 3
D4 Period 4
D5 Period 5

Factor E: Target of Interaction

El Administration
E2 Peer A
E3 Peer B

Measure X:

Dependent Measure

Subject's Exchange Function (Cooperation/Conflict)

aR a Range of Scale Values within the Treatment

b-

X a Mean Scale Value Of the Treatment

S4

The primary factors in this research are factors A, B, and C. Each
Of these factors was Operationalized through scaled interaction events.
The Operational form for factor B will be illustrated and it is to be
understood that factors A and C are derived through analagous proce-
dures.

Factor B represented the dimension of organization decision struc-
ture (participative/authoritative). For the purposes of experimentation,
one can independently simulate student interaction with a participative
administration and with an authoritative administration. These two
independent simulations were run and thus represented two experimental
treatments within B (BI and BZ).

Level Bl included interaction events attributed to administrative
sources that were Of a relatively participative type. The scale values
In Bl ranged from 4 (consultative) to 5 (participative) with a mean
scale value of 4.5. 82 included only interaction events attributed to
administrative sources that were of a relatively authoritative type.
Scale values in 82 represented the symmetrical compliments to the
scale values in Bl. In 82, they ranged from 2 (benevolent-authorita-
tive) to l (exploitative-authoritative) with a mean scale value of
1.5. Events that tended to load on the neutral value of this dimension
were excluded.

By the procedures above, BI is understood to simulate a participa-
tive administration and 82 to simulate an authoritative administration.
These experimental procedures allowed tests of eXperimental hypotheses,
g,g,, with regard to factor B that student cooperation/conflict toward
administration Is a function of administrative decision structure

(participative/authoritative). Statistical inferences were made based

55

on the subject Interaction data that were derived from the two indepen-
dent simulations. Inferences were evaluated relative to the hypothesized
effects of factOr B.

The procedures for Operationalizing the factors A and C were
analogous to those for factor B. Factor A had two levels, Al and A2
that bisected the dimension of COOperation/conflict into its COOperative
range and conflictive range respectively. Factor C had three levels
that were derived from the dimension of cOOperation/conflict. Level Cl
represented a condition where both peers (A and B) interacted with the
administration within a cOOperative range; C2 represented a situation
where A was relatively cooperative and peer B was relatively unCOOpera-
tive toward the administration; and C3 specified a condition where both
A and B were in conflict with the administration. In a later section,
the eXperimental procedure presented above will be formalized in an
analysis of variance experimental design. It is clear that the fre-
quency of messages was fixed. Also, the scale values varied within a
certain range and were ordered in a consistent manner. It remains,
however, to specify the frequency and order of scaled events messages
within experimental treatments.

Message Freguengy and Variation Within Treatments. For the treat-
'ments within factor B, four messages releVant tO B in each simulation
period contained 2 messages of moderate intensity and 2 messages of
high intensity. For example, Bl had two messages of a consultative
type and two messages Of a democratic-participative type in each simula-
tlon block. Likewise, 82 had two messages of a benevolent authoritative
type and two messages of an exploitative authoritative type.

For treatments within factor A, each simulation block contained

56

four messages relevant tO A, one message each at a null intensity, low
intensity, moderate Intensity, and high intensity. Specifically, Al
Included a Single message of null COOperation, verbal cOOperation,
physical COOperation, and extra-legal cOOperation. A2 was represented
by the symmetrical compliment in the conflict range,j,gb, null conflict,
verbal conflict, physical conflict, and extra-legal conflict.

Within factor C, each simulation block contained 4 messages rele-
vant to C. Two of these messages were attributed to each teammate
(A and B). Of the 2 messages attributed to A, one was at the null
level and the other at the low level of cooperation/conflict. Similari-
ly, of the 2 messages attributed to B, one was at the medium level and
one at the high level of COOperation/conflict. Peer A was made to
appear moderate in his views and actions while peer B was rather
extreme. By these procedures, the variation of scale values within
experimental treatments was defined. It remains, however, to describe
briefly the ordering of scale values within the matrix.

Order Within Treatments. Considering only the Odd numbered rows,

 

there were 5 numerical entries per column for each of the 5 columns.
These values together constituted a 5 X 5 submatrix that specified the
dimensional constraints on all interteam communications. These
interteam messages were programmed along the two dimensions represented
by factors A and B.

A treatment of A is composed of a Specified set of scale values.
The set Includes 4 values of cooperation/conflict and a news flash. The
news flash, for the purpose Of ordering the components of the columns,
can be thought of as the fifth value Of cooperation/conflict having

null intensity. Each of these 5 components of the submatrix column were

57

randomly assigned a unique alpha-numeric code (A, B, C, D, E). These
code letters were arranged into a 5 X 5 latin square design. By
replacing the letter codes with their associated column components,
an ordering was achieved for all treatments of A. In this research,
the basic ordering of column components for A was first Obtained for
treatment Al. The orderings for treatment A2 were Obtained by simple
reflection of scale values on the symmetrical scale of COOperation/
conflict.

The ordering Of column components of the treatments of B was
conducted by the same procedures but independently of those of A. By
random replacement of rows and columns, the 5 X 5 latin square design
employed for ordering Of the column components of A was transformed into
a new and independent 5 X 5 latin square design for ordering of the
column components of B. The independent orderings of the column
components of the treatments of A and B constrained stimulus messages
simultaneously along two dimensions. Together, the orderings consti-
tute a 5 X 5 Greco-Latin square design for interteam stimulus messages.

The submatrix composed of only the event numbered rows of the
total schedule matrix specifies the preprogrammed characteristics of
all intrateam communications. Orderings of column components for
treatments of C followed the same procedures as those already illus-
trated above. One 5 X 5 latin square design was derived for ordering
of scale values. An independent 5 X 5 latin square design was genera-

ted for ordering the source qualifiers, .e,, whether the message was

i.
attributed to A or B. Merging of these two orderings constituted a
5 X 5 Greco-Latin square design for intrateam messages.

The effects Of order will not be examined as an independent factor.

58

Any variance attributable to order effects will add to total error
variance which will In turn mitigate against significant results on
other independent measures. The purpose of these elaborate counter-
balancing procedures has been to minimize the possibility that eXperi-
mental results will be mediated by order effects. Appendix K presents
the schedule matrices for all treatment combinations of factors
A, B, and C.
Illustration of Controlled Events Simulation

It is beneficial now to elaborate on the experimental procedure for
the delivery of stimulus messages. This will be accomplished by
illustrations that relate to the original message schedule matrix given
in Table l . Let the element of the matrix at the intersection Of row

I and column J be designated E . Now consider the element E
i,j 1,1

This element contains a dimensional characteristic which will be
imposed on the first event message delivered in simulation block I.
Since this is an odd numbered row, the message is to be attributed to
an administrative source. All messages from administrative sources
are proganed along two dimensions. For the schedule given in Table l

, E is 5/4. The number to the left of the slash mark (in this
1,1

case it is 5) gives the value of the message on the scale of COOperation/
conflict. The number to the right of the slash mark (in this case
it is 4) giVes the value of the message on the scale of participative/

authoritative organization. E then calls for the delivery of a
1,1

stimulus message that simultaneously indicates verbal disagreement

or conflict and shows a willingness or intent to engage in

59

consultative decision making. According to the message schedule

matrix in Table I an appropriate message for E would then be one
1,1

like the following: “The administration condemns the position taken
recently by students in using university facilities for secular-
political purposes but before formalization Of policy on these matters
is willing to listen to student views and arguments.” The next message
due for serial presentation must conform to the scaler characteristics

given by matrix element E . This element lies in an even numbered
2,1

row and therefore it is understood that the event is to be generated
so as to simulate an actvity from one of the subject's teammates. In

the schedule presented in Table I, E is 3A. This element calls for
2,1

the delivery Of an interaction message attributed to A that scales at
a level equal to 3 on a dimension of COOperation/conflict toward
administration. This event then must include a statement by peer A Of
agreement or COOperation with the administration. The actual event
should be tailored to fit the context of the proceeding interactions.
For example, a subject may or may not have reacted to the previous
administrative message. In either case, the salient issue is that of
administrative policy on use of university facilities by students.

An apprOpriate event for E would be the following: “Teammate A
2,1

applauds the administration for a willingness to consult students
before a policy is finalized.” Simulated interaction continues through-
out the period using these same mechanisms to generate interaction

stimulus messages.

60

Element E calls for the delivery Of a negative news flash.
10,1

An experimenter can take advantage of this opportunity to present a
new issue or if things are proceeding well he can give some innocuous
news report. An example of the former type might be the following:
”A local newspaper has released an editorial statement calling for
suspensions of students who engage in unauthorized distribution of
political literature on campus." In this case, the news flash adds a
degree of tangiblllty to the interaction process and thereby constri-
butes to the simulation's viability. An example Of the latter type.
might be as follows: "A news report indicates that the situation is
stable at Franklin State.‘I In each case, the news flash should be
relevant to the interaction that proceeded it. It is necessary now to

present the procedures relating to the dependent measures of subject

interaction.
Simulation Output

Interaction Events Data. Messages that originated with the sub-
jects and sent through the switchboard operator were intercepted, coded,
and scaled. It has already been noted that following each stimulus
message the communication channels were made available for a period of
approximately 1.5 minutes. This was sufficient time to monitor privately
a single response from each subject. Messages from subjects were
lntercepted by the switchboard Operators and disaggregated into dis-
crete Interaction events. Each intefection event was then scaled on'a
dimension of cooperation/conflict and the scale values recorded directly

into the apprOpriate location on a standardized data sheet. (Table

3).

61

Table 3

Standard Form for Recording Interaction Events Data

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,§5 55 §s
l 2 3
Columns Columns Columns
Rows Targets l 2 3 4 5 l 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
AQM? 6
1 AU3 ’4
BC
—ADM
2 A
B
ADM
3 A
B
ADM
4 A
B
ADM
5 ;A‘
8
ADMF
6 LA
Bi
ADM?
7 A?
B'
—ADM
8 7F
87
7flfll
9 7i
8'
_ADMF
10 I?

 

aADM = Administration
bA = Peer A

cB - Peer B

62

If resources Of manpower, time, and equipment had permitted, then a
superior method of data collection would have been to tape record all
simulated interaction. Scaling of interaction events on the dependent
measure then could have been done from tape and appropriate precautions
against experimenter bias could have been taken by ”blind” scaling
techniques. Additional benefits Of this procedure would be the
possibilities for secondary analyses of the raw data stored on tape.
The more economical procedure used in this research relied on the
following: a) the high degree of discriminability between levels on the
dependent measure; b) the provisions for experimenters to ask for
clarification of messages and thereby reduce response ambiguity; c)
the minimum Of experimenter prerogatives in coding and scaling as
specified by a standard coding and scaling manual; and d) the naivety
of experimenters with respect to the social theory or experimental
hypotheses under investigation.

The rows and columns on the standardized data sheet correspond
to the rows and columns on the schedule matrix. Any subject may or
may not respond to a message. Any response by a subject was limited
to one or several of the three targets: the administration, peer A,
and/or peer B. Although subjects were limited to one message per 1.5
minute interval, messages in many cases were complex and, therefore,
included multiple interaction events. Subject responses were recorded
in the apprOpriate cells of the standard coding form which simultan-
eous accounts for row, column, and subject. An example may help to
clarify the procedure for systematic monitoring and recording of events
data.

A message that represents element E in a schedule matrix may
1,1

63

elicit a response like the following: “Tell the administration and my
teammates that I GEZ) will physically resist any action by administra-
tion to restrict my constitutional rights and I'd like to know what

my teammate A thinks about the situation.” This is a complex message.
It contains two interaction events each directed by the actor (52).
The one event represents an intent to resist physically the target
(administration) and consequently it would scale at a level 6 on the
dimension of cooperation/conflict. The other event simply asks peer
A to express his views. The latter event implies neither cooperation
nor conflict toward A and, therefore, would scale at a level 4.

By reference to Table 3, one can see how the scaled events were
prOperly entered into the cells Of the standardized data sheet. A
"six“ Is entered In row 1, column I, for subject Es 2, and target
ADM; a "four“ is entered In row 1, column 1, for subject Sc 2 and
target A; and finally, row 1, column I for subject Es 2 and target B
is left blank as no response was made toward B. All data monitoring,
scaling, and recording procedures were of the form which has been
illustrated above. If a coder was in doubt about which scale value to
assign to a subject's response, the switchboard Operator was to ask for
clarification of the message. The point of clarification was then
addressed in such a way as to resolve the ambiguity of the level of
cOOperation/conflict. This mechanism was especially helpful for
discriminating between verbal and physical levels of cOOperation/
conflict. In the real world, the scale values apply directly. In the
laboratory, however, all physical activities were simulated and reported

through the verbal mode. Additional clarifications Of the type noted

64

above helped to resolve the confusion between the mode of event
reporting and the nature of the event itself.

The raw data recorded onthe standardized data sheets could have
been analyzed directly. For a variety of reasons, however, these data
have been aggregated in the current research and the aggregate measures
have been treated as the basic units of analysis. The aggregate
measures were derived for each subject by collapsing the reSponses
during a single interaction period into three summary statistics. The
summary statistics were nonbiased estimates (means) of the cooperation/
conflict directed by the subject toward each of three targets (Peer A,
Peer B, and Administrators) for the 15 minute time period or simula-
tion block. This technique for construction of the dependent measure
is desirable because it minimizes the problems that arise in conjunc-
tion with analysis of variance when the number of subject responses is
not standardized as was the case In this simulation. The disadvan-
tage Of the technique for the current research Is minimal as the
dynamic interaction within each simulation block was not of as much
interest as the dynamic Interaction across all 5 of the simulation
periods. In other words, the larger time perpsective was of greater
Interest than the molecular examination of behavior within a short
period of time.

This research employed an analysis Of variance model. Justifi-
cation for the aggregating or pooling of responses then depends upon
the assumption of the homogeneity of variance of the response distribu-
tions. The degree to which this assumption is met is testable but
would require many operations across all conditions of pooling. Instead,

throughout this research, conservative tests of significance have been

65

applied. Findings, therefore, should be robust enough to render
unconsequentiai any deviations from perfect homogeneity (Winer, I962).

Attitudinal Data. A questionnaire was administered after each
simulation period. The questionnaire included items relevant both to
the attitudes toward other actors in the simulated system and to the
viability of the simulation itself. For example, some questions asked
subjects to evaluate the administration and student positions on a
prescribed set of dimensions. Other questions measured the extent to
which subjects perceived that the course of the simulated interaction
was contingent upon their own behaviors. In actuality, of course,
their behaviors did not in any way affect the level of COOperation/
conflict manifest by others in the system. Certain data gained from
the questionnaire pertained to information load and information
relevance of eXperimenter generated messages. This questionnaire
required a maximum of 5 minutes for completion. This short interrup-
tion in the chain of interaction messages did not seem to distract
subjects. They readily resumed the interaction in the next simulation
block from where they had left off in the previous block.5

Summary of EXperimental Design

 

The eXperimental design for this study included five factors.

Specifically, the design was a 5-way analysis of variance with between

 

5The simulation procedure presented here represents the culmina-
tion of recursive pretesting and refining. In an earlier l'simulation
run," a rather protracted questionnaire was used after each simulation
block. It became clear, however, that a lengthy questionnaire inter-
fered with the continuance of the simulated interaction. Based on
the eXperiences of pretesting, a judgment was made to abbreviate
greatly the questionnaire keeping only the items of greatest eXperi-
mental interest.

66

measures on A, B, and C and repeated measures on D and E. Factor A
had two levels and simulated at one level (A1) an administration which
was cooperative in interactions with students and which at the other
level (A2) was conflictive in interactions with students. Level Al

was given by events with administration actor, subject target, and
COOperation/conflict scale values ranging from I to 4 in a latin

square presentation schedule. Similarily, A2 was given by events from
administration with scale values 4 to 7. Factor B simulated the degree
to which administration engaged in participative/authoritative decision
making with students. Level 81 was defined as a condition of adminis-
trative activities ranging on the participative/authoritative scale
from 4 to 5. BZ was given by participative/authoritative scale values
-2. Factor C simulated the COOperation/conflict of subjects' peers
toward administration targets. In condition Cl, a subject viewed his
peers A and B to be engaged in COOperative activities with administra-
tors (COOperation/conflict scale values = l to 4). In condition C3,
both peer A and B were perceived to be in conflict with administrators
(cooperation/conflict scale values = 4 to 7). In condition C2, peer

A was in cooperation with the administration and peer B was in conflict
with the administration. In summary, factors A, B, and C are each
represented as ”between” measures. Together they constitute the major
experimental focus of this research.

Perhaps an additional comment relating particularly to peer
influence (factor C) is warranted. Some readers may have noted that
the eXperimental design is somewhat asymmetrical. This asymmetry is
attributable to the fact that the eXperimental design included the

case Of a moderately COOperative and extremely conflictive division of

67

peers but not the reflected case of a moderately conflictive and
extremely COOperative division of peers. Ideally, the missing condi-
tion of peer influence should be run and the data assimilated in an
eXpanded factorial design. For the present, however, the asymmetry is
a minor concern. The case of a moderately COOperative and extremely
conflictive division of peer influence (C2) is a particularly frequent
occurrence in real campus conflict situations. It is reasonable,
therefore, that if one case of divided peer influences is to represent
the set of all possible cases of heterogeneous peer influences that

C2 be the best representative of that set. The inclusion of only

one, however, permits a clearer understanding of the full range of
peer effects. Extrapolations for the missing condition can be made
though with caution.

The fourth and fifth factors Of the eXperimental design were
repeated measures. Each Specified a characteristic of the form of
social interaction. The fourth factor accounted for the dimension of
time. Because social interaction is a dynamic process, a time factor
is implicit in social interaction. EXperimentally, the time factor
was Operationalized by associating a simulation period with a level
of the time factor, L£E°e 01, 02, D3, D4, 05. The fifth factor
specified the target toward whom the subject addressed an event,_L£p.,
E1 = administration, 52 = peer A, and E3 = peer B.

Hypotheses

 

The review of literature in a previous section has suggested
two simple hypotheses. One of those hypotheses is that in a dyadic
situation, COOperative/conflictive activities by the one party will

be reciprocated by the other party. This hypothesis is fundamental

68

to exchange theory. An alternative hypothesis is advanced by the
deterrence theorists. They claim that high conflictive activities by
one party will suppress the intensity of hostile responses by the
other party. Subsequent research will evaluate these hypotheses and
the merits of the theories from which they are derived.

Various organizational theories prescribe different predictions of
c00peration/conflict within a dyadic system as a function of the
decision structure of that system. The most recent work in organiza-
tional theory would suggest that the situational and environmental
contingencies of the social system mediate the effect of decision
structure relative to c00peration/conflict within the organizational
system. In subsequent research, the situational characteristics and
social environment were held constant. By controlling for situational
contingencies, administrative strategies can be evaluated within a.
prototypic situation of student/administration conflict. To the extent
that the prototypic paradigm of student/administration conflict evokes
behaviors that correspond to incidents of real conflict, then a frame-
work clearly exists for inferences about subjects perceptions of the
social system itself. The following discussion will help to clarify
this point.

While the experimental roles and communication procedures clearly
defined thestructure of the simulated system, the procedures were
purposefully nondescript in terms of evaluation of the actors or
issues. Subjects generalized from their own experiences as students
and read into the experimental system whatever characteristics they
might be predisposed to associate with university systems in general.

If students for the most part view the university as a place where they

69

are to be innoculated with knowledge through an assembly line process,
then organization theory would predict that students would tend to
prefer an authoritative organization system. In this case, adminis-
trators would probably enjoy a position of perceived legitimate au-
thority attributable to their superior age, wisdom, eXpertise, and
eXperience. Cooperation would be promoted in the system by authori-
tative administration initiatives that minimize role conflicts. 0n
the other hand, if students view the university to be a place where
they are actively in pursuit of a creative, interesting, and personal
education’where they are free to study and involve themselves in both
academic and extracurricular activities, then theory would predict
student preferences for a participative organization. In this latter
case, the authoritative system would be perceived as an abridgment of
an essential purpose of the university and thus would be more likely
to evoke conflict within the dyadic system. In summary, the behavior
of subjects can be evaluated in accordance with organization theory
and the results should provide new information on subjects' perceptions
of university roles and issues.

Finally, there are hypotheses that pertain to the influences of
a subject's peer group. The literature on the psychological impact of
conformity, compliance, and obediance is voluminous. This literature
has been reviewed by others (Campbell, I961; Crano, l967; Cohen, I964)
and therefore an independent review here would not have contributed
in pr0portion to the effort required to produce it. A reader, however,
may find particularly relevant here the study by Milgram (l965) on the
effects of peer influence on defiance/obediance of an authority figure.

Drawing Upon this previous research, one can eXpect that a subject

70

will monitor and be influenced by the type of interactions between his
peers and the administration. If both peers A and B are cooperative
with administration, then the subject will be influenced so as to
engage in more c00perative interactions with the administration.
Conversely, if both peers A and B are in conflict with the administra-
tion, then the subject will be influenced to engage in more belliger-
ent activities directed toward the administration. Of particular
interest is the case of heterogeneous peer influences, j;§,, where peer
A appears to be predominantly cooperative and peer B predominantly
conflictive with the administration. Relevant to this case are the
research findings of Schacter (l95l) on social deviance. Schacter
finds that if one person among a grOUp of persons is perceived to be
deviant, a subject during early eXperimental trials or early in the
eXperimental session will attempt to bring the deviant one into a

more congruent position with the others. If over time the deviant
person is unmoved, the subject will tend to disregard the presence

and activities of the deviant one. In the case of divided peer posi-
tions, the predisposition of the subject himself will determine which
is the majority and which is the deviant position. Which peer is
regarded as the deviate will probably be predictable based on the norm
of reciprocity. Specifically, if the administration is cooperative
and the peers are divided, then the conflictive peer is hypothesized
to be viewed as the deviate. In the same way, if the administration
is conflictive and the peers are divided, then the c00perative peer

is hypothesized to be viewed as the deviate. Derogatory labels have
been pOpularly attached to the various forms of deviance. In the

former case, the deviant is the “rabble rouser” and in the latter case

7]

the deviant is the ”administration lackey.” As the roles of a subject's
peers will be controlled and fixed throughout the eXperimental session,
the deviate peer will appear intransigent to initiatives by a subject

to alter his position. One might therefore predict a decrease in
c00peration between a subject and his deviate peer as a function of
time.

The above section has hypothesized upon the effect of certain
eXperimental factors. Many of these hypotheses are testable as simple
main effects in an analysis of variance design. These tests are
largely evaluative as they relate directly to established theoretical
traditions within the field of social psychology. Because this re-
search is also innovative in subject and in method, much of the
empirical analyses will be eXplorative. These explorative analyses
pertain mostly to the high order interactions between eXperimental
factors. There is no theoretical structure from which to hypothesize
the form of these high order interactions though they probably will
be at least as interesting as the simple effects. These interactions
are manifested in an intricate eXperimental simulation and are test-
able by a multifactor analysis of variance design. The results will

require replication but meanwhile they are interesting and suggestive.

RESULTS

This section will present the major eXperimental results. These
results describe the interaction patterns between (student) subjects
and their administrator counterparts, their moderate peer, and their
extremist peer. Before considering these results, however, some
readers may wish to have an empirical presentation of the eXperimental
situation within which the major results arise. In particular, the
characteristics of the eXperimental sample and subject perceptions
of the prototypic issues and actors at Franklin State University
warrant elaboration. These results, however, are not central to the
theoretical purposes of this research and therefore are relegated to
Appendix M.

Analysis of Variance on Interaction Data

 

IA S-way analysis of variance with repeated measures on two factors
was performed on the quantified interaction data gathered in the
eXperimental simulation. The eXperimental design for this analysis
has been fully described in Section 3. Results of this analysis are
now presented in Table 5.

Inspection of the results show numerous significant high order
interactions including a 5-way interaction significant at the .002
level. Clearly, then, these results cannot be used immediately to
evaluate the hypotheses formulated from elemental principles of ex-
change theory and organization theory. Such hypotheses are for the

most part testable by simple main effect and lower order interaction

72

73

effects. Because main effects and lower order interaction effects
may be masked or Spuriously distorted by higher order interactions,
evaluation of these hypotheses must await apprOpriate analyses for
sorting out these simple effects. In general, a significant higher
order interaction will mean that in one condition a lower interaction
is strong and in another condition the lower interaction is weak, L£:.,
there is a contingent relationship between the effect and the
condition in which the effect applies. Before proceeding with a
complete presentation of the analyses and discussion of eXperimental
simple effects it will be useful to comment about the overall pattern
of these results.

; Both exchange theory and organization theory suggest that social
behaviors are determined by many interacting factors. In the case of
dynamic interaction both between and within social collectives, one
might eXpect that multiple contingencies would be particularly preva-
lent. Therefore, the fact that higher order interactions were found
to be Operative in the present eXperimental simulation is viewed as a
very positive result. To not have found higher order interactions
would have been disappointing and would have raised questions as to
the validity of the simulation. The general pattern of results SUQgest
that independent measures were introduced in such a way as to stimulate
decision processing by subjects commensurate with the complexity of
the actors, issues, and structure of the dyadic system. The complexity
or multidimensionality of subject information processing was manifest
in the significant higher order interactions.

A more thorough analysis of eXperimental results now follows

including all apprOpriate tests of simple effects. As noted above,

7A

the significant high order interaction effects of the S-way analysis
of variance take precedence over the lower order effects. To sort
out the true meaning of the results will require a systematic approach
for the analyses of these simple effects. The complete set of results
would be unmanageable and their meaning would be lost without a scheme
that would place each result in its prOper perSpective relative to every
other result. Recognizing this point, all significant results will be
presented in sets of telesc0ping tables. Each succeeding table will
represent a more molecular division of simple effects until all
significant interaction effects are eXplained. The various results
will be presented and later discussed with reference to the eXperiment-
al conditions within which the results arise. First order simple ef-
fects analyses differentiate eXperimental effects over levels of
communication targets. Second order simple effects analyses further
differentiate eXperimental effects over levels of target X time.
Third order simple effects analyses still furtherdifferentiate
eXperimental effects over levels of target X time X peer influence.
These hierarchical simple effects analyses of variance partition
the total variance in the social interaction data so that now only
the A X B interactions might remain to be eXplained. A signlficant
interaction effect of A and B manifested by third order simple effects
analysis fortells an interesting result. However, before one can
fully assess the character of that result, one must isolate the
sources of variance which are involved in the interaction. The isolated
factors then must be evaluated for significant differences they cause
in the dependent measure over the other eXperimental conditions.

Specifically, one will want to determine the separate effects of

75

factor A relative to the dependent measure over conditions BI and 82.
Equally informative would be the individual effects of factor B over
conditions AI and A2. These comparisons constitute a fourth order
(simple effects analysis. However, because of the Special charact-
eristics of the factorial design, these evaluations on factors A and
B can be easily computed with a desk calculator.

Because factor A and factor B each has only two levels and
because tests of significance for the fourth order simple effects over
factor A and factor B would employ the same ”mean square error,” a
standard confidence interval can be computed that will serve as a
criterion against which all isolated effects of A and B may be
evaluated. The derivation of the confidence interval is given next.
The F statistic is given by the following:

2

2
II MN

(X J)
F = i l i
l
MS error

 

EXpanding the summation in the numerator gives:

2 2
(X-Y) + (X-Yl
l 2
After substitution for X' = X + X and arithmetic simplification,
l 2 ‘
2
the quantity becomes:
2
= 1/2 (x-x)
I 2
Thus
2
F = N ' I/Z (X - X )
l 2

 

MS error

76

Solving for the confidence level produces the eXpression

 

X-X =I/2'F'MSerror
l 2 N

For I and l0 degrees of freedom, the tabled F statistics for
significance at the .10, .05, and .0l levels were found.
Substitution of the previous established value for MS error (.2765)

and apprOpriate tabled values of F statistics produces confidence

intervals for fourth order simple effects (Table 4 ).

Table 4

Confidence Intervals for Fourth Order Simple Effects

 

 

 

X ' X3
l 2 Level of Significance
= i .Sli98 < .10
= :_ .6762 < .05
= i. .9601 < .01
aX - X = Confidence lhterval for Interaction Means

77

The rational for this order of hierarchical simple effects
analyses will be better appreciated when presented in connection with
the Specific results. Once a high order interaction is broken down
to the point where the result is interpretable in terms of a simple
main effect, the hierarchical analysis given above is terminated.

The direction of the result is then determined by reference to the
interaction means of the main effect. Presentation of results,
therefore, will include auxilliary tables of interaction means.

In addition to presentation of the Simple effects analyses,
discussion of A X B interactions will be aided by a molar definition
of two interaction configuration types. Let the interaction means
be arranged in matrix form where levels of B are represented by
matrix rows and levels of factor A are represented by matrix columns.

Also, let 6 designate the matrix element at row i and column j.
i.)

In the present system, i and j take on values of l and 2 thereby
formally define the 2 X 2 table of interaction means for eXperimental
factors A and B. If the pattern of interaction means is such that

e > e and e < c then the interaction means form a
l,l 2,l l,2 2,2

”type one configuration”. If the pattern of interaction means is

reversed such that e < e, and c > c then the interaction
l,l 2,1 1,2 2,2

means form a “type two configuration“. These two configuration types

are formally defined as they represent cases of particular

78

theoretical interest. Substantively, it will be shown that a type
one configuration implies a ”benevolent authoritarian effect” and a
type two configuration implies a ”frustrated participation effect".

Communications toward Administrators. The first set of results
pertain to communications by students directed toward administrative
targets, j;53, within eXperimental condition El. These results will
perhaps be of greatest interest as they will relate directly to the
issues of peace and war between students and administrators. Making
reference to Table 6 , it is clear that high order actions persist.
A significant ABCD interaction (F = h.6200, p < .01) requires further
discriminations within eXperimental effects. Theory suggests the
possibility of differential eXperimental effects as a function of
time. Such a relation would be manifested by differential effects of
factors A, B, and C over levels of time (0). Second order effects (Tab-
le 7) of this type yielded significant high order interactions in
every case. (Third order simple effects over levels of peer influence
produced either solely main effects which were immediately interpret-
able or interaction effects of A X B which were interpretable after
some hand calculation (Table 8). 6

The major finding when students interacted with administrative
targets and peer influences Operated in SUpport of administrative

targets, is that greater administration to student conflict caused

 

6All tests of simple effects were made with the appropriate pooled
error terms of the S-way ANOVA design (Winer, l962, p. 323). Also, the
Significance level of all reported F-statistics are based on conserva-
tive tests of experimental differences. These results are therefore
robust to possible deviations from the assumptions of the analysis of
variance model. In particular, the effects of a heterogeneous variance-
covariance matrix are offset by conservative tests of significance
(Winer, I962, p. 3B0).

79

 

3&6. , and. N u x <
«eco.~m on.am N Amy uuuCNF
. mm. 55.:
2... 3w 8 x n x £me x .—
«ea—.m 9%.: a a K 9 N a x 1
n5. mm... a a x u n .—
«*ON.M —@.O G a N U I ‘
am... 3... we axnx<
«.m.~ «e.o a a x u
*2...” 86 e a x .—
m2" 3.: a a x <
$6 2... e E on:
«w. 55.:
mm... 3 u x a x firm.
38.2 26 u u x a x <
.m.~ 8... ~ g x a
««:m.m— mm.: N u x <
ma; 2... _ a x <
mo.o mo.o ~ Ago cocoa—cc. too;
$3.8 8.2 . 3 52).}. .3
3.3.“: 3.: _ 3 c8288 :3
mm.coozuon
u_um_umum m , ocmamw emu: ectoouu oucm_cm> mo occaow

mo muucmoa

oucm_cm> mo m.m>_mc< __MLo>o mo >caeezm "uu__mc00 mo —u>ua

m 2.3

80

_o. v ««

 

 

mo. v a
mac. s<coc
m~.o om: Au x m x <\mmv x u x o
««_:.N mm.o o. u x a x u x m x <
o... m~.o m. m x a x u x <
m... NN.o m. m x a x u x <
sm.o m_.o m m x a x m x <
m:.. mm.o a. m x o x u
.m._ sm.o m m x o x m
«mm.~ am.o m m x a x <
m~._ m~.o m m x a
mm a_cu_2
.o.o ON. Au x m x «\miv x m
05.0 ms.o : m x u x m x <
rm_.~ ~m._ s m x u x m
«.39: :m.~ : m x u x <
m~._ mu.o N u x m x <
««_~.~_ _:.N a m x a
«m~.s om.~ N u x a
U—um—umum u— OLmsfl cmmz EOVOGLu— QUCM—Lm> u—O UULSOm

mo moocmoo

.u.ucou m a_nm»

8l

 

 

 

.o. v «« .oam I.HW .mm_~. mm: mc0m_cmqsou umocu Lem LoLLo um_ooa mzn

mo. v « .om u.Hm .onom. mm: mc0m_cmaeou umucu Lo» LoLLo uo_ooa mzm
ammNIN ««oo~¢.: m a x u x m x <
m o x u x m
NN¢m.N m o x u x <
. . a a x m x <
w o x o
«maom.: : o x m
a a x <
a any oe_h

nu Lu>o mm c_:u_3
«kNomo.m N u x m x <
. N o x m
N u x <
_ m x <
««_mmo.m_ N Auv mucus—ma. Loom
«kamom.m _ Amy :u:<\ucmm Ev<
_ A<V ccouxaoou sa<

mm Lo>o mm cooZuum

sovoocu oocm_cm> mo oucaom

mu_um_umum a

mo moocmoa

Amy muomcmh Lo» oucm_cm> mo m.m>_mc< muuommm a_ae_m mo >cmessm

m o.nmc

"uu__wcou wo _o>04

82

mo. v x
0—. v

.oo u.Hm .mmNN. mm: mc0m_cmaeou omega to» Locco uo_ooa mzm

 

 

 

«mm.m ««N:.m «emm.m «__.4 N o x m x <

N u x m

«.m.a N u x <

_ m x <

N Amy cocoa—cc. Loom

«em—.o_ _ Amv :u:<\ucmm Eu<

_ A<V ccou\aoou su<
a Lo>o .u co»
m mm c003uom

mo_m :o_u ma_m No_m _o_w
mu_um_umum m socoucu moan—Lm> mo ouL30m
, mo moocmoo

 

Any 02—h mo m_o>04 co>o a_uv uumcmh co_umcum_c_sv< to»
oucm_cm> mo m_m>_mc< muuommm a_ae_m mo >Lm553m "uu__m20u mo _o>oo

a 2...:

E33

0—. v

.oN I.um .monu. no: n:0n.coosoo onogu Lac coLco vo_ooe m:-

 

23... $3.... :33: 8... in; .34 . a x <
acaN._N mN.n no.n ca...m «u.~.o eoc.c eNo.N — any gua<xucoe Eo<
«acm.ou ecoa.a e«:N.N: «anm.h. «cc—.0. eeno.nc ca.u.s. «eou.u_ eacc._N oo.n «eon.o_ _ A<v uc0u\eoou Eu<

on x u no.6 J

so; am eooxuon

 

Nona—m «uwa—u .uwn_mllwuca_u «gen—u _uca—u Hung—u «gnu—u .uwo_u noun—u NuNa—u —uNn.w nu—a_m Nu_o_u .u-a-u
nu.un_u-um a sovooLu coca.c~> mo oucaom
uo
moccuoo

any 02.» x Au. cocoa—me. coo; uo n_0>04 Lo>o A_uv acne-h co_u-cuu_e_lc< cow
coco—Lo> co u.n>_oe< auuocmu 0.3!.m e0 >c-sssm "uu__ueoo uo _o>oa

m ......»

84

0—. v

.ow n.Hm .moNN. mm: mc0m_cmaeou omosu Lo» LoLLo vo_ooq m:
m

 

 

 

«a_m.n «mm.: N u x m x <

«am—.m N u x m

««0N.w «km:.m N u x <

_ m x <

N Auv mucus—me. Loom

km.m ««SN.O_ _ Amy £u=<\utma Ea<

«mo.o _ A<V ccoU\aoou Eu<
o Lo>o mm co»
m mm cmozuom

momm comm menu Namm .omm

mu_um_umum u Eonoocm oucm_cm> wo ouczom

mo moocmoo

 

any os_h mo m_u>04 Lo>o Ammv uomcmh Loom um_EoLuXm ecu

oocm_cm> mo m_m>_mc< muuummw o.a2_m mo >Lm553m "yo—.chQ mo _o>og

m a_nm»

.3 add .33. no) «cant-5.8 .35 ..o‘ 3:... v0.08 m:-

 

3... as.“ «:6 _ a x <
no.n ..o..o. an.n .._~.o _ An. eus<xutoe uv<
2.” .86 .58.. .a.n 8.. .26 _ 3 “.8388 .3

a » u.ua>o nu

I 50$ um :02.-

 

85

Juana «enema Juan“ No.94» «ocean .ucanu «enema «enema imam. Normal «gnaw («can fawn {any {am

 

33.33“ 5 I309; 35...: No 353
we
«cocoon

A3 I...» x 3. 35:5 500‘ no 3254 ..25 Ann. ance-... ...... ail-.55 he
Que-...o> No 2.3!! 30.3w a...“ no to!» 30.3.39 so 7)...

ca .3:

greater subject to administration conflict.

86

Subjects were reactive to

administration interaction of a conflictive type and roughly reflected

the intensity Of conflict in their interactions with administration.

comparable reflection of cOOperative initiatives was not found. A

sub'ect's t ical res onse to a coo erative administration was one of
J YP P P

neither c00peration nor conflict.

norm of relative reciprocity rather than a norm of strict reciprocity

in cooperation/conflict interactions.

This effect is consistently

significant at the .01 level over all levels of time (D).

Table ll

Level of Conflict over Time as a Function of
The Case of

Administration Target (El) and C00perative Peer Influence (Cl)

Administration Cooperation (Al)/Conflict (A2):

h.5

Level of Conflict

A.G

 

Al

 

l 2 3 A
Time

 

U‘I-L‘WN-d

51

3.994
h.037
b.058
h.040

3.516

(Table ll).

A2

h.87l
5.03l
“.961
4.95h
h.9|l

In the first and third time periods factor A and factor B manifest a

significant interaction. Table 12 presents the interaction means for

these two A X B interactions.

A

This pattern of results argues for a

87

Table 12

Level of Conflict: Administration Coo eration (AI)/Conf1ict (A2)
X Administration Participative (Bl)/Authoritative (82)
Interaction Means given Administration Target (El) and
C00perative Peer Influence (C1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Al A2 Al A2
Bl 4.l39 4.642 Bl 3.744 5.081
32 3.8h9 5.100 32 h.37l 4.8hq
(a) (b)

From Table 12 , Partia'it is quite clear that the significance of
the A X B interaction is attributable to differences in factor A over
conditions BI and 82. Confidence intervals based on adjacent cell
comparisons produced only one significant result. Given an authorita-B
tive administration and a c00perative peer influence, c00perative
administrative activities elicited significantly less conflict than did
conflictive administrative activities (C.I. - 1.251, p <.01). The
result demonstrated the importance of administrative democracy in
moderating the influence of c00perative and conflictive administrative
initiatives.. Conversely, administrative autocracy had a polarizing
influence on subject reactivity to c00perative and conflictive adminis-
tration activities. A possible interpretation of the interaction
configuration holds that the simulation manual created an initial
eXpectation that influenced interaction behaviors. An uneXpectedly
c00perative administration cOUpIed with an authoritative system evoked
the least conflict of all conditions. The paradoxical effect in this
”type one configuration” was based upon the Special favor accorded to
this ”benevolent authoritarian role”.

The A X 8 interaction given in Table 12, Part‘buconstitutes a

88

”type two configuration”. Examination of all fourth order simple
effects clarified the nature of this interaction. Under condition BI,
the effects of A were highly significant (C.I. - l.337; < .01) but
under condition 32 the effects of A were insignificant. Substantively,
this means that when administrators were c00perative toward students
and when historic portrayl of student/administration conflict was not
salient, participative administration elicited less subject conflict
(Al/Bl a 3.74h) and authoritative administration elicited more subject
conflict (Al/82 = h.371). A marginally significant effect for factor
B was also found under condition Al (C.I. = .627; < .10) but not A2.
In sum, this interaction implies some different social psychological
relatiOnship. The conclusion here is that by the third period the
initial eXpectationS were no longer maintained and new eXpectations
had become salient. Accordingly, subjects expect that over time their
own involvement in a participative decision structure will have a
positive impact on the bases of conflict between students and adminis-
trators. By eXperimental design, however, the level of conflict in
events attributable to administration sources remains constant. There-
fore, contrary to subjects' eXpectations, the intensity of student/
administration conflict is not reduced. This type two configuration
result reflects subjects' frustrations in unproductive participation.
There was no consistent result over time for communications toward
the administrative target under the condition of divided peer
influences. Several isolated results, however, do achieve significance.
Within 01 there was a significant AB interaction (F - “.51, < .05)
and within 05 there was another significant AB interaction (F - 11.16,

< .01). Examination of the interaction means for each of these results

89

showed the interaction within 01 to be a ”type two configuration” and the
interaction within 05 to be a "type one configuration” (Table 13). More
precisely, fourth order simple effects of the first time period indicat-
ed a marginally significant effect for B within Al but not A2 (C.I. =
.725; < .05). In the fifth time period two highly significant effects
were found; 'significant differences in factor A under condition 82
(C.I. = 1.395; < .01) and significant differences for B under condition
A2 (C.I. = 1.057; < .01). This pattern of results over levels of time
is substantively different for divided peer influences than was pre-
viously observed for unanimous c00perative peer influence. Somehow the
difference must be attributable to differences between the peer models

but the dynamics of this effect demand further clarification.

Table 13

Level of Conflict: Administration COOperation (A1)/Conflict (A2)
X Administration Participative (Bl)/Authoritative (BZ)
Interaction Means given Administration Target (E1) and
Mixed Peer Influences (C2)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1 A2 A1 ‘ A2
81 4.299 4.688 B1 4.742 4.703
32 i 5.024 4.500 32 4.365 5.760
(a) (b)

Two simple main effects also were found for communications toward
administrative targets (E1) in an environment of mixed peer influence
(C2). In the second time period there was a significant simple main
effect for administration participation/authoritative activities
(F - 4.40, < .05). In particular, participative administration evoked

less conflict than did an authoritative administration (Bl = 4.515;

90

32 a 4.965). In the fifth time period, there was a significant
simple main effect for administration c00peration/conflict (F = 9.98,
< .01) with constituient interaction means of A1 a 4.553 and A2 -
5.231. This latter result demonstrated a simple Operative norm of
relative reciprocity of COOperation/conflict. The rather isolated
occurrence of these two results, however, requires replication before
they be accorded theoretical importance.

In view of the high significance achieved for many sources of
variation throughout the complete eXperimental design, a major finding
is the cOnspicuouS absence Of significant communication differences
as a function of administration COOperation/conflict and administration
participative/authoritative activities for administration target when
peer influences were mixed. This result implies the action of some
”suppressor variable”. Theory and research on deviance (Schacter,
1957) provide a clue to what might have happened here. Subjects may
have given primary attention to the divisions within their peer group
with an aim of achieving some team solidarity and cohesion. Interac-
tions with administrators were only a secondary concern, and therefore
sources of variation based on interactions with administrators were
less reflective of the dynamics within the social system.

Highly significant simple effects were found for communications
with administration in the presence of unanimous conflictive peer
influences across all time periods. These simple main effects for
factor A gave strong empirical support to the relative reciprocity
norm. Similarly, the simple main effect for factor B suggested that
a participative decision structure provides an organizational mechan-

ism through which student/administration conflict can be managed within

91

more temperate levels. The strength of these results are reflected
in both the level of significance and the consistency of the results
over time (Table 14). The unanimity of subjects' peers in conflict
with administrators had apparently provided a social reference group
that was of considerable influence on a subject. In this situation,
subjects were cued for conflict and, therefore, were especially
attentive to qualities of administrative activities. To the extent
that administrators engaged in conflict with a subject and were
authoritative in governing a subject, then that subject tended to
have no basis for taking a position deviant from that of his referent
group. The subject, therefore, engaged in a high intensity of conflict
with administrators. In the case where administrators appeared
c00perative and participative towards a subject, there existed infor-
mation that contradicted and partially superceded the influence of
the referent grOUp. In this latter case, results show less subject

conflict toward administrators.

Table 14

Level of Conflict over Time as a Function of Administration
C00peration (Al)/Conf1ict (A2): The Case of Administration
Target (E1) and Conflictive Peer Influences (C3)

 

Level of Conflict

5.51
A2
Time Al_ A2-

.0
S I 4.367 4.786
2 4.516 5.265
1., ' - 3 4.218 5.635
S * A' 4 4.4110 5.309
5 4.517 5.624

4.0

 

 

Time

(a)

92

Table 14 (Cont'd.)

Level Of Conflict over Time as a Function of Participative
(BI)/Authoritative (82) Administration: The Case of Administration
Target (El) and Conflictive Peer Influences (C3)

 

 

5.51
32
E
z; 5.0
§ __n E}. 2.2.
“5 1 4.279 11.870
_. 2 4.573 5.207
g “-5 3 4.603 5.251
.1 Bi 4 4.701 5.088
5 4.569 5.571
0.0
i 2 3 4 5

Time (b)

In the latter periods of simulation (03, 04) a significant
A X B interaction effect emerged. In each case, the pattern of the
means constituted a ”type one configuration”. Upon closer examination,
the source of the interaction was the differential effect of factor A
over conditions 81 and 82. In periods three and four, when administra-
tion c00peration/conflict was coupled with authoritative administration
characteristics, significant differences were found (CI - 2.235; < .01:
CI = 1.726; < .01). No comparable differences for administration
COOperation/conflict were found in the case of a participative adminis-
tration. This pattern of subject behavior had previoulsy been
observed in the case Of cOOperative peer influences and now it is seen
to underlie subject behaviors for the case of conflictive peer

influences as well. The effects of administration cooperation/conflict

93

were moderated by participative administration communications.
Conversely, subject reactivity to administration COOperation/conflict
was accentuated by authoritative administration communications (Table 15).
Also in periods three and four, there were strong differences
due to administration participative/authoritative activities under
conflictive but not under cOOperative administration positions (CI =
1.465; < .01: CI = 1.204; < .01). This result suggests some avoid-
ance of participative association with administrators when there is no
conflict issue that would be served by such participation. However,
when administrators were in conflict with a subject, participative
decision making was seen to be useful and it was sought. If
participation was then denied, it further enflamed the subject's

reaction (Table 15).

Table 15

Level of Conflict: Administration C00peration (Al)/Conflict (A2)
X Administration Participative (Bl)/Authoritative (BZ)
Interaction Means given Administration Target (El) and

Conflictive Peer Influences (C3)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1 A2 A1 A2
81 4.302 4.903 31 4.654 4.747
32 4.133 . 6.368 32 4.225 5.951
(a) (b)

Communications toward Moderate Peer. In the simulated system,
the moderate peer is represented by peer “A”. Sources of variance on
COOperation/conflict generated by a subject toward peer A showed few
significant differences. This general result might have been

anticipated as peer A always took a relatively moderate position of

94

COOperation/conflict. The moderate position did not evoke complex
differences in subject interaction with peer A across experimental
conditions. High order interactions did not achieve Significance

and thus analyses of simple effects were not required. However, two
main effects were found. Subjects were significantly more COOperative
with peer A when administrators were participative than when administra-
tors were authoritative (F = 8.3654, < .01). This result is reasonable
in that activities that scale at a moderate level of COOperation/
conflict are those that would be most apprOpriate within a participa-
tive system. Activities that scale at the more extreme levels are
those that are employed as an integral part of confrontation tactics
when participative channels within the university organization are
foreclosed. Subjects were also reSponsive to differences in the
positions of both the moderate (A) and extremist (B) peers as manifested
in interactions made towards the moderate peer (F = 15.6681, < .01).
When both peers took a COOperative stance toward administrators, peer
A was addressed with a zero-order intensity of COOperation/conflict.
When peer A was moderately COOperative as before and peer 8 took on an
appearance of extreme conflict towards administrators, peer A was
generally the target of more conflict. Finally, when both peers were
in conflict with the administration, peer A was the target of generally
cOOperative initiatives by subjects. These interpretations were based
on the interaction means across the respective levels of eXperimental
factor C (C1 = 4.098; C2 = 4.159, and C3 = 3.786). The results Of
interactions towards peer A give a general description for subject

interaction with a moderate peer influence (Table 6).

95

Communications toward Extremist Peer. The extremist peer is
Simulated by peer “B”. Subjects' communications toward the extremist
peer are represented within the factorial, eXperimental design as
target E3. The first order simple effects within E3 resulted in
high order interactions which obscured the results for lower order
interactions and main effects. As was done for higher interactions
within El, high order interactions within E3 were first broken down
over time (D). A second order simple main effect for factor B was
found in the second time period (F = 10.74, < .01). (Subjects were
more COOperative toward the extremist peer when administration was
participative (Bl = 3.729; B2 = 4.135). A similar result was found
for factor A in the fourth time period. Subjects were more COOpera-
tive toward the extremist peer when administration was cooperative
[F = 8.20, < .01 (A1 = 3.771; A2 = 4.076)]. The results indicated
some adversion to the extremist position. The extremist position
was seen to be unrepresentative of the student coalition and in some
instances was perceived to be unwarranted and unreSponsible. There-
fore, it gave some justification for administration's continuance of
an authoritative posture. Subjects, therefore, showed less COOpera-
tion in messages toward the extremist peer when it was apparent that
the extremist peer was undermining the participative strategy Of the
student coalition. The extremist peer was also the target of less
COOperative communication when subjects saw hostile administration
activities to have been precipitated by this extreme position within
the student ranks. In summary, the subjects showed sensitivity to
maintenance of solidarity and integrity of the student coalition.

Other results pertaining to communications toward the extremist

96

peer demanded more discriminating analyses over conditions of peer
influence. In periods three and five, third order simple effects
for administration COOperation/conflict were Significant (F = 6.90,
< .05; F = 3.10, < .10). This result was for the case of unanimous
peer c00peration. Based on the interaction means, the direction of
this result was determined. The extremist peer was the target of
greater conflict when extreme c00peration appeared unjustified as in
the case of a hostile and authoritative administration (A1 = 3.857
and 5.914; A2 = 4.421 and 4.292).

In time period one for the condition of mixed moderately COOpera-
tive and extremely conflictive influences, the extreme peer was the
target of less COOperation when administration was hostile [F = 6.17

< .05 (A1 = 3.424, A2 = 3.957)]. This is the same type of result
that was found to apply across all conditions of peer influence in
period four. Subjects' behavior represented a reaction against the
counter-productive activities of the extremist peer.

Where both peer models are in conflict with administration, the
effects of administration COOperation/conflict and administration
participative/authoritative showed some reversal of the pattern
found for mixed peer models. In the second period, subjects were more
COOperative in messages toward peer B when administration was hostile
[F = 8.90, < .01 (A1 = 4.237; A2 = 3.596)]. In the fifth period,
subjects were more SUpportive of the extremist peer when administration
was authoritative (F = 3.03, < .10). When in these cases the extreme
voice for conflict is supported by a moderate voice for conflict, then
the conflictive and authoritative initiatives by administrators toward

subjects serve to rally support and increase COOperation for the

97

extreme conflict position advocated by peer B.

For unanimous COOperative peer influences, analyses showed a
Significant A X B interaction within the third and fifth time periods.
In each case, the interaction was of a “Type two configuration”

(Table 16). In both the third and fifth time periods, the sources of
these interactions were identical. Administration COOperation/confiict
produced significant differences under condiiton B1 but not 82. Also,
administration participative/authoritative activities gave significant

differences under Al but not A2. Confidence intervals for differences

Table 16

Level of Conflict: Administration C00peration (All/COHfliCt (A2)
X Administration Participative (Bl)/Authoritative (BZ)
Interaction Means given Extremist Peer Target (E3) and

Cooperative Peer Influence (C1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A1 A2 A1 A2
1
Bl 3.469 4.567 B1 3.494 4.389
82 4.247 4.275 82 4.333 4.194
(a) (b)

due to factor A are CI = .778 (p < .05) and CI = .839 (p < .05).
Confidence intervals for differences due tO factor B are CI = 1.098

(p < .01) and CI = .895 (p < .05). These results suggest that
subjects in the later periods of simulation come to view an extremely
COOperative peer as an ”administration lackey”. It is not surprising
then that initiatives toward the extremely COOperative peer are of the
same general type that characterized subject initiatives toward
administrators under the same circumstances.

For the condition of unanimous peer conflict, analysis produced

98

a significant A X 8 interaction having “type one configuration”.

This interaction in the fifth time period was attributable to the same
factors and conditions as those discussed above. For the case of
unanimous conflictive peer influences, however, the direction of the
eXperimental effects was reversed. This symmetry in results enhances

the validity and theoretical importance of the simulation. The confi-

Table 17

Level of Conflict: Administration C00peration (Al)/Conf1ict (A2)
X Administration Participative (Bl)/Authoritative (82)
Interaction Means given Extremist Peer Target (E3) and

Conflictive Peer Influence (C3)

A1 A2

 

81 4.456 3.611

 

82 3.458 3.861

 

 

 

 

interval for differences due to factor A under condition 81 was CI =
.845 (p ‘<.01). The confidence interval for factor B under condition
Al was CI = .998 (p <:.01).

This concludes the formal presentation of results based upon
analysis of variance of the interaction data. It is clear that the
simulation procedure was a viable one and that experimental manipula-
tions produced many significant differences in subjects' interaction
behavior. The credibility of the results is enhanced by the
conservative criteria applied in judging the significance of all
results. The next section will present some supportive analyses.

Supportive Analyses

 

Any eXperimental study is subject to alternative interpretations

of empirical findings. It is, therefore, incumbent upon the researcher

99

to provide evidence that alternative interpretations are not viable.
In the current research, there are several possible alternative
hypotheses. Most important, perhaps pertains to the possible
significance attributable to eXperimenter differences beyond those
differences specifically programmed into the experimental schedule.
Substantial effort was made in training eXperimenters so that
idiosyncratic differences across eXperimental conditions would be
minimized. Data have already been presented that Show a high degree
of correspondence across eXperimenters in performance of the coding
and scaling tasks which constitute the basis of eXperimenter control.
Nevertheless, it is now necessary to devote some effort to a direct
test of differences in subject interaction associated with eXperi-
menters. Hopefully, these tests will produce negative results.

The assignment of eXperimenter teams (1 sender and l coder) to
eXperimental conditions was planned so as to counterbalance roughly
teams within conditions. Two teams were assigned to each eXperimental
condition.' The design for allocation of eXperimenter teams is given
in Table 18. EXperimenter teams are referenced by code letters 1,

2, 3, and 4. Each team controlled the simultaneous actions of three
subjects. With this design, one can partition the total variance of
subjects' reSponses into two factors. Let factor X designate the
experimenter team. Factor X then will have two levels such that X1
represents the involvement of teams 1 and 2 and X2 represents the
involvement of teams 3 and 4. Let factor Y designate the conditions
which the various eXperimenter teams Operate. Factor Y then will have
Six levels which represent the six conditions within each level of

factor X. This design is not a perfect ”between” design because the

100

Table 18
Assignment of EXperimenter Teams to EXperimental Conditions

A1 A2

 

 

B1 02 Bi 32
C1 1 / 2 3 / 4 3 / 4 l / 2
c2 3/11 1/2 1/2 3/4
03 1/2 3/11 3/4 1/2

 

conditions represented by levels of Y are not the same but are only
counterbalanced across levels of X. Nevertheless, one can analyze
these data as if they were a perfect “between” design. The results
of this analysis are presented in Table 19. There are highly
significant differences between conditions but little of that
Significance can be attributable to experimenter effects. Neither
the main effect for eXperimenter differences nor the experimenter by
conditions interaction achieved significant prOportions. The lack
of any significant eXperimenter effect is even more dramatic when one
considers the prOportion of the total variance attributable to
eXperimenter differences. The eXperimenter main effect accounted for
only .2 percent (Eta2 = .002) of the total variance in subjects'
responses. The experimenter X conditions interaction explained only
5.8 percent (Eta2 = .058) of the total variance. In total, these
results showed that experimenter effects had neither Significance
nor importance for subjects.

Other alternative hypotheses pertain to the structural characteris-
tics of the eXperimental simulation. It is, of course, not possible

to rule out every conceivable alternative hypothesis of this type.

101

\
'1:

_o. v a a

 

 

sm~_. _om~.o JN Lotto
ommo. oms~.~ swom.o m A>v aco_s_ncoo .mucma_tmaxm x
Axv moocoLomw_o LOu:OE_Loax~
~m_m. «« smmfi._m msqm.m m A>v aco_u_ncoo .mscae_tmaxu
ONOO. moan. NNmo. _ “xv mmucmtocc_o Loscoe_tmax~
mum o_um_umum m Ocmnwm cmoz EOoomLm oocmmcm> mo OOLDOm

N No mooLmoo

 

A>V mco_u_ocou _mucoE_LOQXu new

Axv moocoLowm_a LOucoE_LOQXm Lo; oocm_cm> co m_m>_mc< mo >LmEEJm ”oo__mcou mo _o>oo

m. m_nmh

102

There was, however, data available from the repeated questionnaires
administered subsequent to each simulation block which provided a base
for evaluation of several of the more likely alternative hypotheses.
The validity of the eXperimental results as presented earlier
depends on the success of the deception employed in the simulation.
If subjects were conscious of the contrived nature of their eXperi-
mental situation, they may have taken on some type of inapprOpriate
response set. A classical confound is the case where subjects “see
through'l the eXperiment but continue to respond in a manner judged to
be socially desirable or preferred by the eXperimenter. If, however,
the eXperimental simulation stimulates great subject interest, if it
is sufficiently real that subjects actively involve themselves, and
if subjects generally enjoy the simulation, then eXperimenter demand
characteristics should be minimized. The effects of fatigue, boredom,
and lack of conscientiousness should also be minimized through such
a viable simulation. The results presented in Table 22 related to
this point. Results Showed subjects perceived that the activities of
their own team, activities of their Opposing team, and public Opinion
factors were the principle determinants of the course of simulated
interaction. Only a modest influence was given to various chance
factors, environmental factors, and the activities of the switchboard
Operators (experimenters). Of course, in actuality, the totality of
determination was vested in the activities of the switchboard Opera-
tors. These results were relatively constant Over the five simula-
tion blocks. It was important that the deception basic to the
eXperimental Simulation did not deteriorate as subjects engaged in

protracted simulation mediated by the switchboard Operators. Results

103

derived from all Simulation blocks then should be equally free of
artifacts of eXperimental mechanics.

Correlational results provide further confidence in the scale
through which eXperimental factors were operationalized. Subjects were
asked to rate various actors within the simulated organizational system
on a number of dimensions. Of particular importance here were the
correlations between the level of the eXperimental control Of a
characteristic dimension and subjects' perceptions of the same actor
characteristics. Table 20 presents these correlational results. The
pattern of results showed an increase in correlations over time. The
scales then were sensitive to effects of social learning. As a
subject became more familiar with an actor in the simulated system,
his perception of that actor corresponded more closely to its
eXperimentally controlled level.

Table 21 is of the same form as Table 20 but presents the
correlations between eXperimenter codes and perceptions of actor
characteristics. The correlational results are all of zero order and
thus give further evidence for the absence of intrusions of eXperiment-
er bias.

Finally, Table 23 offers results that summarize subjects'
general satisfaction with the experimental Simulation. Each result
is based on a 7-point Likert type scale. Subjects reported
communications to be quite relevant and more so in the later simulation
periods than in the earlier periods. Subjects were generally eager
for more information. EXperimenters were pressed to keep the
schedule at one message per 1.5 minute interval. Subjects were

generally unreserved in their eXpression of enjoyment in the

104

comm.

MNNm.

m_¢N.

mosm.

Auo__mcoU\co_umLoaoon

moNN. menu. oomm. make. a Loom
Auo__mcou\co_umcoaoon

memo. o:_m. mmmo. mo_o. < Loom
Ao>_umu_co;u3<\o>_umq_o_yummy

None. 0qu. mm_m. mMMN. co_umcum_c_5n<
Aou__wcoo\co_umcoa00uv

Nmmw. Nwom. onN. quo. co_umcum_c_En<

: m N _ mco_um_oLLoU
OE_h

mu_um_L0uommeu ecuo< 05mm ocu mo mco_uaooLom
Hummnzm vcm mo_om_LOuommeu LOuu< NO .OcucoQ .mucoe_coaxm coozuon mco_um_oLLou

0N O_nmh

105

NNmo.i

Nmoo.i

mmmo.n

_omo.

m

ammo.u

momo.n

momo.i

mmqo.
:

mmmo. memo.»

om__.n oooo.o

.m:_.n mOJO.

Nm__. :mm..
m N

Os_h

Auo__mcou\co_umcoq00uv
mmoo.u m Loom

Auo__mcoU\co_umLOQOOUV
mNmo. < Loom

Ao>_umu_co:u:<\o>_uma_u_ucmmv
mom—.1 co_umcum_:_su<

Auo__$coU\co_umLoaoon
wmm_. co_umLum_c_En<

_ mco_um_oLL0u

mu_um_LOHumLmzu LOuo< mo mco_uaoocom nommnam
new mo_um_LOuomcmzu Leucos_LOQXm coozuon mco_um_oLL0u

_N o_nmh

106

m_m.m_
No_.:_

N_:.o_
omN.m

mow.m
omm.o_

mm:.m_
m_m._m

mmm.m_
Nmm.Nm

oom.o~
.mo.m_

mmm.o
:mm.m

Nmm.o_
_mm.__

o__.m_
OmN.om

Nwm.w_
omm._m

mNm.MN
mm:.m_

m:m.o_
oom.m

mm:.__
Nso.m_

mom.o~
mmm.Nm

mNm.m_
:oN.mN

m

OE_H

:Nm.0N
wMN.m_

mm:.w
om:.o

mmm.o_
___.o_

.Nm.m_
Nao.mm

a_m.o_
mmw.mN

co_um_:s_m .mucoe_LOQXm

o~m.¢_
:mm.m_

Nmo.o_
mm_.N

N_:.__
mm:.N_

Nmm.m_
mN_.mm

Nm_.:_
_w_.oN

NN a_nmh

co_om_>oa tempcmum
cmoz

mLOumLoao ucmoQ£o~_3m mo mo_u_>_uo<

:o_um_>oo ucmpcmum
coo:

meOuomw mocmzo m:o_cm>

co_um_>oc pcmpcmum
cmoz

mcouomw co_c_ao o__n:m

co_um_>oo ncmucmum
coo:

ammo mc_moaao ecu >3 mo_u_>_oo<

co_um_>oo pcmvcmum
cmoz

Emma Lao> mo mo_u_>_uo<

mLOHOmu

c. mcouumm mo oucmuLOQE_ vo>_ooLoa

107

2:
mm:

mom.m _o©.m _Mm.m wmo.—_ c0_um_>mo ULmUCMum
oom.: mmm.m _m:.m amo.o cmoz

mLOuomw .mucoEcoL_>cm
: m N _ mLOuomm
2.:
co_um_:E_m .mucOE_LOQXm :_ mLOuomm mo mocmuLoQE_ Uo>_ooLom

A.n.ucouV NN a_nmh

108

moo.—
Jam.—

mum.
.mo._

m_m._
mmw.N

wmo._
mwo.~

a_m.
Now.—

wNm._
wmm.N

sa~._ mam._ _~m._
omN.N :_m.N mmm.N

mom. wmo. N_m.
oom._ _m:._ _om._

mmN._ moN._ .04..
mmo.m mmm.m mmm.m

m N _

OE.»

co_um_>oo ucmpcmum
cmoz
e - _
A__m um uo:\co:E >Lo>v
co_um_:e_m mo ucoe>0wcm

co_um_>oo ucmvcmum
coo:
N I _
Ammo_ cu:E\oLOE coasv
mummavoc :o_umEL0mc_

co_um_>mo nuancmum
cmoz
A - _
Aucm>o_oLL_ >Lo> \ucm>o_oL >Lo>v
co_umu_c:EEoU

meOuomu

co_um_:E_m .mucoe_cmaxm ocu cu_3 co_uommm_umm .mcmcou

MN o_nmh

109

simulation. Again, this finding held across time and, therefore,
argues against fatigue and related artifacts. In summary, these data
give strong support for the viability of the Simulation and at the
same time render unlikely alternative interpretations of results due
to structural flaws in the simulation itself.

This concludes the section of formal presentation of experimental
results. The following chapter will elaborate Upon the meaning Of
empirical findings and discuss their theoretical and social psycholo-

gical importance.

DISCUSSION

The results section has presented the experimental results and
given brief interpretation to isolated findings. The purpose of this
section will be to discuss the overall pattern of the experimental
results. Consideration will not focus on the individual findings so
much as it will on the regularities among the findings. Through syn-
thesis of the experimental findings, the major relationships that
govern the course of student interaction with peers and with adminis-
tration will be identified. At the same time, these major relation-
ships will serve as an empirical base for the reevaluation of the
utility of exchange theory and organization theory in the case of
student/administration conflict.

Sufficient evidence has already been presented to demonstrate that
the experimental simulation was viable. Subjects demonstrated great
enthusiasm within the experimental paradigm. Their interactions events
were generated in a serious conscientious manner. Analyses of results
manifested student interaction patterns that were nonrandom and pre-
dictable.l Responses to items of the repeated questionnaire indicated
that experimenter-produced interaction messages were highly relevant.
Subjects indicated little or no suspicion that the simulation was
experimentally contrived. In post-experiment interviews subjects re-
lated their enjoyment in participation and their willingneSs to "do it
again for fun.‘| Apparently then subjects were motivated by factors

intrinsic to the experimental Situation.

110

111

These Observations are of major importance. They have been
emphasized again lest they be lost in preoccupation with the effects
attributable to experimental manipulation. It is clear that dynamic
student/administration conflict is a function of many social psycho-
logical factors. Therefore it is a major accomplishment to have cap-
tured the essential characteristics and realism Of dynamic student/
administration conflict with a parsimonious sample of experimental
dimensions.

Analyses of experimental effects have been presented. Judging
from the high order interactions among experimental factors, each di-
mension accounted for a rather unique portion of the variance in sub-
ject interaction behavior. In other words, each dimension represented
an important and relatively orthogonal determinant of subject behavior.
This finding is congruent with the thrust of current organization theory
and exchange theory. Each of those theories emphasizes the multiple
contingencies of the actors and the social field that contributes to
the complexity of behavior.

A summary of significant experimental findings is presented in
Table 24. The verbal interpretations of results in Table 24 augment
and clarify the strictly numerical evaluation of the same results in
Tables 5 - 10. Each page of Table 24 represents the experimental effects
that arise within a Single period of simulation. Descriptions of sub-
jects' behavior are tabulated according to gross discriminations in
circumstances in which they arise. Discriminations on time,target
categories, and peer position categories define a cell in the table.
The behaviors that arise as a function of the controlled dimensions of

administration interaction are recorded within the appropriate cells.

112

 

o>_umconoou

mm: co_umcum_c_5um

cos: o>_umconoou mmO. «
muuco:_mc_

coma uo_ooa >3
oeumcocom co_umcoaoou «
o>_uma_u_ucma mm:
co_umcum_c_Eum cog:
o>_umcoaoou OLOE «

comuma_u_ucma

>n vmumcovos uu__mcou «
uo__mcou

mo co_umuoLa_uoL *

o>_umu_co;u:m

mm: co_umcun_c-Eve

c053 co_umcoaoou OLOE «
o>_umcoaoou

mm: co_umcum_:_stm

can: o>_umcoqoou OLOE «
mouco:_wc_

Loon vo_ooa >a
ovumcocum uu__mcou «
o>_ume_u.uemq mm:
co_umcum_:_5nm con:
o>_umcoaoou egos «
Aco_umcsmmmcou

oz“ oa>uv yummy» co_u
-ma_u_ucme puumcumacm «

acetzum um_EoLuxo

pcmzoh
nausea—me. Loom.uo_oomi III.
>n neumcocom uo__wcoo
\co_umcoaoou _mLu:oc «
o>_uma_u_ucmn mm:
co_umcum_c_Evm cos:
o>_umconoou OLOE «
Aco_umhmm_wcou Oco
ma>uv uu0mmo cm_cmu
1_Locu:m u:o_o>ucon «

«covaum Oumcovoe
ucmzoh

uo__mcou\co_umcoaooo
.mo co_umuoLa_uoL «

co_umcum_c_spm
ucmzok

 

cowumcum_c_snm no.3
uo_wmcou Loon macs—:mc:

co_umcu
um.c.Evm ;u_3 uo__»cou

NCO—uncoaoou Loon wov_>_c

_ 08—h

co_umcum_c_Evm :u_3 .
co_umcoaoou Loon m:OE_:mc:

mac—pc_u ucmu_m_cm_m no >LmEESm
"uomcmk .co_u_mom Loom .oe_h mo m_o>04 a_nu_3 mqumnsm acousum xn muco>m co_uumL0uc_

:N a_nmh

113

 

O>_umu_co;u:m

mm: co_umcum_c_som

c053 co_umcoaoou OLOE «
o>_umcoaooo

mm: co_umcum_c_Eom

cog: o>mumcmaooo mmo_ «
muuco:_mc_

Lowe uo_ooa >a
oeumcocom co_umcoaoou «
o>_uma_u_ucma mm:
co_umcum_:_Evm cos:
m>_umcoaooo OLOE «

co_umo_u_ucma

>n naumcouoe uu__wcou «
uo__mcoo

mo :o_umooLa_ooL «

o>_umu_co;u:m

mm: co_umcum_c_spm

cos: co_umcoaoou OLOE «
o>_umcoaoou

mm: :o_umcum_c_5om

cos: o>_umcoaoou OLOE «
mooco:_wc_

coma uo_ooa >n
amumco:om uu__wcou «
o>_uma_u_ucmn mm:
co_umcum_c_Epm cos:
o>_umcoaooo OLOE e

co_uma_u_ucma
>3 taumcouos uo__mcou «

mooco:_mc_ cocaine—com
>3 ovumcocom uu__m:ou
\co_umcoaoou _mcu:oc «
o>_uma_u_ucma mm:
co_umcum_c_Epm cog:
o>_umcoaoou OLOE «

uu__mcou\co_umcoaoou
mo co_umuoLa_ooL «

ucmpaum um_EOLuxo
uLmZOH

ucovaum OumLocoe
ncmzoh

co_umcum_c_Epm
uLmZOP

 

co_umcum_c_5um ;u_3
uo__wcoo Loon mzoe_cm::

co_umcu

im_c_Evm ;u_3 uo__m:ou

\co_umcooooo Loon pup_>_o
N 06—h

co_umcum_c_Epm cu_3
:o_umcoooou Loon m:OE_cm:=

.u.u=oo SN 0.3m»

114

 

Aco_umcam_mcou

OZu oa>uv yummwo coma
uma_u_ucma usumcumscm «
ucmcom___on m_
co_umcumwc_8pm cos:
uo__mcoo emumoLm «

acovzum um_EOLuxo
vcmzoh

 

mooco:_wc_

Loon uo_ooa >n
neumcucom co_umcoaooo «
m>_umq_u_ucma mm:
co_umcummc_Epm cos:
o>_umcoaooo OLOE «
Aco_umcnm_mcou Oco
uq>uv Hoommo cm_Lmu
u_co:u:m uco_o>ucon «
co_umq_u_ucma

>3 ovumcouoe uu__mcoo «
uu__mcoo

mo co_umooLa_uoL «

moocos—mc_
Loon uo_ooq >n
uOumLocom uu__mcou «
O>_uma_o_ucma mm:
co_umcum_c_2nm cos:
o>_umcoaooo OLOE «

mooco:_uc_ Loom vo_ooa
>2 emumcmcom uu__wcou
\co_umcoqoou .mcuaoc «
o>muma_o_ucma mm:
co_umcum_c_Evm c053
o>_umcoaooO OLOE «
Aco_umcam_mcoo

ozu oa>uv yummwo :o_u
uma_u_ucma ocumcumacm «

uu__mcou\co_umcoaooo
co co_umooLamooL «

“cepzum mumcmpOE
anZOP

co_umcum_c_Eum
acm30h

 

co_umcum_c_svm zu_3

co_umcu
um_c_Eum ;u_3 oo__m:ou
.\c0_umcoaooo Loom ponm>_o

co_umcum_c_Epm :u_3
comumcmaoou Loon maoe_cm::

 

uu__u:ou coon m:OE_:m::
! a.

m oe_h

.u.ucoo :N a_smc

IIS

 

o>_umu_3033:m mm:
co_umgum_c_svm cmcz
co_3mgmaoou 0305 «
3:033m___m3 mm;
co_umgum_c_Enm c033
co_umgoaoou gmumugm *
mmucm:_mc_

LmMQ nv_ooa >3
3mummemm co_um30300u «
m>_uma_u_33ma mm:
co_umLum_c_Enm cmcz
o>_umgmaoou mgoe «
Aco_um33m_mcou uco
wa>uv woowmo cm_3mu
-_303u:m uco_o>mco3 «
co_uma_u_u3ma

>3 303mgonoe uu__m:ou «
uu__wcou

,mo co_umooLa_ooL «

m>_umu_303u:m mm:
co_umgum_c_Evm c033
co_umgmaoou egos «
geogom~__m3 mm:
co_3m33m_c_Ecm ems:
co_um3m300u 303mm3m «
moocm:_mc_

Luca 30—003 >3
umumgmcmm uu__mcou «
o>_uma_u_33ma mm:
co_umgum_c_53m cmzz
o>_um3mqooo 0308 «

mmuco:_mc_ Luau 30—00a
>3 uuumgocom uu__mcou
\co_3m3maoou .mgusoc «
o>_uma_u_33ma mm:
co_um33m_c_svm c033
0>_umLmaoou 030$ «

co_uma_u_ugma

>3 noumLuvoE uu__wcoo «
uu__mc00\:o_um3o3000

mo 30.3m003a_003 «

“emuaum um_EmLuxo
33m30h

ucmvaum oumgmcoe
ngmzoh

co_umgum_c_53m
cgmzoh

 

co_um33m_c_53m 33_3
3u__mcou 30mm maoe_:mc:

co_um33

um_c_Evm 33_3 uo_—mcou

\co_um30aoou Leon 3mn_>_o
a 05—h

.328 i

co_3mgum_c_53m 33_3
:o_um30aoou mea maoe_:m:=

038.

116

 

Aco_umgzm_wcou mco
oa>uv uumwmo cm_3mu
n_303u:m ucm_o>mcm3 «

mmucmz—m:_

Leon 30—003 >3
3mumgocmm co_umgoaoou *
m>_uma_u_ugma mm:
co_umgum_c_53m c033
m>_umgoaoou egos «

co_umamu_ugma

>3 nmumgmnoe uu__mcou «
uo__mcoo

mo comumuoLabooL «

moucu=_mc_

Lama um_ooa >3
cmumLocom uu__mcou «
u>_uma_u_ugma mm:
co_umgum_c_sum :03:
0>_umgoaoou 0305 «
%co_um3=m_mcou «co

m >uv uuowwo cm_3mu
a_gocusm ucm_o>ucm3 «

uu__chU\co_umquoou
mo :o_umuogamuo3 «

Aco_3m3:m_mcou

aka ma>uv 300mm» co_u
nma_o_33ma umHmLungm «
ucugom___o3 m_
comumgum_c_23m c033
3u__wcou goumogm «
moucm:_wc_ mem‘uo_oom‘
>3 3Mumgocmm uu__wcou
\co_3mgmaoou .mguaoc «
o>_uma_u_33ma mm:
.co_3m33m_c_53m c033
m>_umgmq00u 0305 «

uu__wc00\co_um3maoou
mo co_umu03a_uoL «

ucmusum ummsmguxu
ugmzoh

ucvuaum oumgmvoe
33m30h

:o_um33m_c_svm
33m30h

 

co_umgum_c_sum 33_3
uu__mcou 300a m:OE_cmc:

co_umLu
um_:_Evm 33_3 uu__mcou
\co_umgoaoou Lmoa vm3_>_a

:o_um33m_c_Eum 3u_3
co_3m3maoou 3mma maoe_cmc:

 

m ”a_h

.o.ucou cu a_nmh

ll7

Table 2A summarizes the patterns of subject behavior that were
observed during eXperimental simulations. The results present strong
support for many of the hypotheses stated in an earlier section. The
expectation was not that any one hypothesized relationship would appear
across all eXperimental conditions. Rather, the intent was to
identify the set of conditions in which the effect of an experimental
factor was particularly acute. The subsequent discussion will make
reference to Table 24. The discussion is aimed toward substantive,
theoretical, and policy issues. In order to most clearly demonstrate
the relevance of the eXperimental results to theoretical and practical
policy issues, discussion will examine the homologies between the
empirical analyses of simulation data and historical analyses of the
Berkeley Free Speech Movement. Complete historical analyses of the
Berkeley Free Speech Controversy are provided elsewhere (Lipset and
Holin, I965; Crano l97l). The purpose here is not to repeat those
efforts but rather to point to the convergence of the present eXperi-
mental findings and documented historical behaviors. The experimental
results include more information than do the historical accounts but
the convergence of findings in those cases amenable to comparison will
enhance the credibility of the simulation as a whole.

The eXperimental data reflect behavioral diSpositions that arise
under a controlled set of circumstances. These data are rich in the
sense that they permit examination of both main effects and interaction
effects across controlled eXperimental factors. By eXperimental
procedures, determinants of behavior can be discovered and internal
validity is maximized. 0n the other hand, data from field locations

mirror the heterogeneity of influences that Operate in the real world.

118

Field data do not permit analyses of cause and effect but they do allow
associational analyses under conditions where external validity is
assured. If by chance or design field conditions and experimental
conditions were to coincide on a set of dimensions for a period of
time, then there is a basis for comparison of the behavioral outcomes
of each. Convergent findings of field and eXperimental simulation
methods would provide greater assurance of the research validity.

When a subject's peer influences were unanimous in their support
or unanimous in their animosity toward administration, there was a
clear and significant tendency for a subject to reciprocate the inten-
sity of c00peration/conflict emitted by administrative actors. This
behavior norm was not one of strict reciprocity but rather one of
relative reciprocity. Subjects were reactive to belligerent adminis-
trative initiatives but neutral to cooperative initiatives. This
result implied a defensive posture by student subjects. A subject's
preference for an authoritative system so long as it appeared to be
a benevolent system, provided for a second dimension of evaluation.
In other words, participative decision structures were sought not for
their intrinsic worth but only when a vested interest might be
promoted. Based on these empirical observations, one can predict that
in times of student/administration normalcy, students will manifest
a passive, defensive role in behavioral relations to administrative
functions. Specifically, this behavior will be exhibited in a
willingness to submit to the procedures and practices of the university
as they currently exist. This behavioral form is based on the judg-
ment that the authority of administration is Operating within a

legitimate domain. Students, therefore, respect the traditional

119

academic roles and perpetuate a passive “innoculation type'| system.

At Berkeley, prior to 1964, there had been a generally positive
feeling about administration conduct. The Berkeley university adminis-
tration was reputed to be among the most liberal and progressive in the
United States. The Open forum for expression and exchange of ideas
which characterizeithe atmOSphere of the total campus was epitomized
in the “Bancroft Strip” area. This small brick courtyard near the
main pedestrian entrance to the campus, was traditionally a place where
all shades of opinion could be aired. Very often, tables would be
set up on the strip, and various organizations (CORE, 505, Young
Republicans, Young Democrats, Inter-Faith Council, etc.) would solicit
funds, dkseminate literature, and attempt to attract followers. From
a psychological viewpoint, this arrangement seems ideal. Students
could, in a constructive way, air their views, vent frustrations,
attract supporters and Opponents, and participate in extracurricular
activities of social significance (Crano, 1971). While these
Opportunities existed for all students, a minority of students were
regularly involved. Furthermore, the involvement was seen to augment
the program of the university and not to question the legitimacy of
administratiVe authority or academic roles. The student activities in
the strip were, therefore, not of a revolutionary type. Normalcy
existed in student/administration interactions and the authoritative
characteristics of university administration were not widely challenged.

Based on empirical findings, one can also predict that in times
of student/administration conflict students will actively defend their
position. In part this defense will rely on representative participa—

tion in university administration. When a participative mechanism for

120

grievances is available it has an initial effect of moderating the
intensity of conflict initiatives by students toward administrators.

In protracted situations, the effect of participation may be reversed.
If participation creates some eXpectation about succesful resolution of
the conflict and these eXpectations are not realized, a frustration
effect will be evident. Under these circumstances, the strategy of
participative conflict resolution will be extinguished and confrontation
strategies will be more prevalent.

In the fall of 1964, students returned to campus with an aroused
social consciousness. Many students had spent the summer months in
various civil rights campaigns and in election year political activit-
ies. With this new student mood and the political sensitivity
surrounding the Johnson-Goldwater campaign, outside pressures mounted
on the administration. Eventually, an administrative pronouncement
was made limiting Speech and solicitation in the Bancroft Strip. This
action was clearly not in the tradition of freedom and benevolence that
had characterized earlier student/administration interactions. The
ruling, though in accordance with long standing University law, was
viewed by students as an arbitrary and cowardly capitulation by their
administrators to conservative business interests in the Bay Area.

The students' abilities to promote their various social and political
views were threatened by the administration ruling and students reacted
in the predicted way. Students began to challenge both the ruling and
the legitimacy of the administration authority to rule against freedom
of Speech and organization. Within a week of the administration's
pronouncement, twenty campus organizations of diverse political and

social persuasion had banned together to resist the administration

121

order. In the face of such a broad base of student Opposition, the
administration attempted to soften the language of the new ruling.
”The administration's ruse was unsuccessful and student/administration
conflict ensued. Eight students were indefinitely suspended for
manning tables in the Strip in defiance of the order and 400 others
demanded the same treatment since they shared the guilt Of the eight
(Crano, 1971).” Large protests, demonstrations were called by student
spokesmen and the result was an uneasy stalemate of 3000 students and
500 Oakland policemen. Now the gravity of the situation was clear and
moderate students, faculty, and administration worked to find at least
a temporary solution. The eight suspended students' cases were to

be arbitrated by a joint coalition committee of students, faculty, and
administrators. The coalition committee was deadlocked from the start
and initiatives toward a solution by the Academic Senate were rejected
by the administration. Nevertheless, due to a participative mechan-
ism for conflict management, the confrontation was beginning to
decelerate.

Experimental data showed that no single event or class of events
was likely to provoke high levels of conflict. Instead, conflict was
found to be contingent upon a number of factors such that highest
intensities of conflict depended on the compounding of administration
hostility, administration authoritativeness, and peer influences in
support of conflict. From this empirical evidence, one might surmise
that the single event by administration which attempted to restrict
activities in the Bancroft Strip would not have been sufficient to have
rallied so many students against the administration. Historical analyses

cooberate this experimental conclusion. The student movement gained

122

in momentum and cohesiveness as a consequence of administrative
blunders (Crano, 1971). Probably the most damning administrative event
was their misreading of the tranquility on campus brOUth about by
participative arbitration. Rather than let the cooling-off trend
continue, the administration suspended four leaders Of the Free Speech
Movement for actions in a campus demonstration held two months
previously.

To appreciate the ramifications of this ill-conceived administra-
tive action, it is necessary to briefly review the progress toward a
solution that had been made up to that point in time (0Ctober 2, 196A).
Concessions were provisionally agreed to by administrative representa-
tives which would have guaranteed a much wider range of political
advocacy and organization. This progress along with the faculty reso-
lution calling for reinstatement of all suspended students could have
been the basis for a permanent settlement between the vast majority
of students and their administrators. Only the most radical students,
who also wanted a guaranteed sanctuary for planning illegal activities,
would have been left unsatisfied. The moderate students would have
disassociated themselves from the radical position and thus would have
removed the power of the masses from the radical leadership. The
administrative move to suspend the four leaders Of the Free Speech
Movement had a totally devastating and counterproductive effect.
Glazer (1965) noted that as a result of this blunder, an issue that
was capable of arousing students (the suspension of their leaders) was
fortuitously tied to one that could not (immunity for advocacy or
organization of illegal action). The action served only to fuse moder-

ate and radical students together. In a short time, the student/

123
administration conflict escalated at a rate that was beyond control
and virtually all scholarly activity of the university was immobilized.

Obviously, the comparisons of eXperimental analyses and historical
analyses here have been limited to those few cases where a modicum of
situational equivalency can be established. Even then, comparisons
have been imprecise. To the extent, however, that gross features
of simulations and field situations coincide then by convergent valida-
tion, the results of analyses have been fortified. At the same time,
the theoretical and policy implications of the research deserve greater
attention. In this sense, the aim of this research is not total conflict
resolution but rather conflict management. The aim of this research
was to investigate the mechanisms of cooperation/conflict within the
university So that the form and intensity of conflict and confrontation
are managed within acceptable limits. In this reSpect, the purpose is
in accordance with the comments of Crano (1971).

”If a major function of a college education is to
prepare the student to think in an analytic, critical
manner, confrontation is almost inevitable. The
contradictions between societal ideals and practices
will see to this. This observation, like most
other facts of life, should be cause for neither
praise nor blame. It is a fact, plain and simple.
Those unaware of it, unfortunately, must invent
various bogiemen to eXplain the incessant turmoil.
Conflict resolution is not sought nor would it be
desirable.” ‘

A final point of discussion now warrants attention. In the
laboratory environment, the possibilities of overt, physical confron-
tation between students and administrators were excluded. It might
be argued then that the threat of actual confrontation was not salient
in the experimental simulation. To the extent that this argument is

valid, the eXperimental evidence against deterrence theory is jeOpor-

dized. However, the preponderance of eXperimental results relevant

124

to this point render the above argument improbable. Subjects reported
that the simulation was realistic, enjoyable, and credible. Subjects
then must have presumed deterrence Options in simulated form that
Operated with the approximate effect as those in the real world. Other-
wise, the simulation would not have been judged realistic. Furthermore,
if the threat of administration sanctions were perceived to be impotent
within the eXperimental situation, one would eXpect a rapid escalation
in the intensity of student confrontation. TO the contrary, results
showed a reluctance on the part of subjects to employ the more extreme
forms of protest except under conditions of extreme and persistent
administration provocation and peers' encouragement. Despite all this
evidence, it is still true that the eXperimental results pertain more
to attitudinal positions and behavioral predispositions in subjects

then about behavior. Extrapolations of these eXperimental findings

into a strictly behavioral domain are possible but should be treated

with apprOpriate scepticism.

CONCLUSIONS

The preceding sections have formally presented a study of student/
administration conflict. The research has intrinsic scientific value
as it examined the dynamic course of student/administration interaction
as a function of five dimensions of theoretical importance. Results
and discussion, which address the strictly social theoretic aspects
of the research, have already been presented. It is now apprOpriate
to discuss the more pragmatic aspects of the research. This discussion
begins with a consideration of the policy implications of the current
research. Later sections will prOpose additional analyses of the data
and a general evaluation of the laboratory model.

Policy_lmplications

Pilisuk and Hayden (1965) caution that a research finding is al-
ways double edged in what it portends for application. A project which
tells the surest steps to peace and cooperation tells with equal
certainty the steps which must be by-passed if peace and cooperation
are shunned. It is hoped that the following policy implications are
adopted by decision makers who are committed to the reduction of social
conflict.

Results tend to refute the basic tenets of deterrence theory. A
high profile of administration conflict toward students does not deter
initiatives of conflict by students. To the contrary, administrative
conflict toward students provokes further student conflict toward

administration. This finding tends to support the norm of reciprocity
125

126

only operates when administration are acting contrary to students'
interests. COOperative initiatives by administration evoke at best
only a state of moderate (verbal) student support. Given the negative
image that students demonstrated in the initial state, it would be
unreasonable for administrators to expect immediate reciprocation of
active COOperation.

When students present a united Opposition to administrative
policy, the potential for conflict is greatest. When the student body
has basic clevages of Opinion, there is little possibility Of them
mobilizing for active conflict. In this case, subjects are giving pri-
mary concern to divisions within their peer grOUps with an aim Of
achieving team solidarity. It is possible, then, that one could
manipulate perceptions of team solidarity by accentuating differences
of opinion or by diminishing differences and thereby effect the
intensity of student conflict. The unanimity of student peers is
necessary to evoke extreme subject reactions. Apparently, a clear
mandate is required before subjects feel unleased to Open rebellion.

Students may initially welcome a change of decision structure that
invites greater student participation in the government of the univer-
sity. This new participation will create an expectation on the part of
the students for more responsive university administration. When this
expectation is not realized, higher levels of student conflict result.
A particularly interesting effect arises in the later simulation periods.
This pattern reflects a subject preference for authoritative adminis-
tration so long as it is cOOperative. This result suggests some avoid-
ance of participative association with administrators when there is no

conflict issue that would be served by such participation. However,

127

when administrators and students are engaged in conflict, administrators
can moderate the intensity of student conflict through overtones of
participation.

There were few significant effects reflected in the interaction
events directed toward the moderate student. Students were generally
most COOperative with the moderate student when administrators were
participative. This result implies that moderate voices may play a
significant role in management of conflict when there are participative
mechanisms for channeling and arbitrating differences between students
and administrators.

The extremist student is a frequent target of subjects' interac-
tion events. The degree of student cOOperation/conflict with the
extremist student depends on the character of the university adminis-
tration and the influence of the moderate student. Given the general
distrust and alienation that students feel toward administrators,
advocation of extreme cooperation is viewed with suSpicion. Extreme
COOperation appears as unjustified capitulation to the administration
position. Extreme conflict is inapprOpriate when there are means
other than confrontation by which students can achieve restitution.
However, when an extreme voice of conflict is supported by moderate
voices of conflict and when administration is beligerent and authori-
tative, administration is the target of high intensity conflict and
the extreme student is the target of high intensity COOperation. in
summary, these findings support and extend the model of Crano (1971)
which suggests that massive student rebellion requires the coumpounding

or provocative administration activities and environmental support.

128

Future Research and Evaluation

 

In this research, the traditional methodologies of reductionistic
eXperlmentation, field observation, and computer simulation were
rejected as not well suited for the needs of a study of multifactoral
examination of student/administration conflict in a quasi-real setting.
The experimental simulation method was adOpted and on the basis Of
this research it has demonstrated a great potential for social research.
The method generated a great deal of data. There are two primary data
sets, 1:33, interaction events data and questionnaire data. Peripheral
data also were gathered on subject personality characteristics, value
structures, and social attitudes. Here analyses were confined to the
interaction events data. The total variance of subject responses was
partitioned into five factors of primary eXperimental interest. These
data are also amenable to a great variety of other models of analysis.
For example, stochastic processes can account for serial choice of
interaction events by subjects. In this context, it has already been
noted that the experimental procedure produces data that conform to
the basic characteristics Of the Poisson distribution. This charac-
teristic of the data is now being analyzed in more detail for response
sampling regularities (Smith and Hartman, in preparation). These
data are also useful for empirical comparisons with field data and
computer simulation output. Future research is now being planned
that will exploit these data for precisely these purposes (Smith
and Crano, in preparation).

<:— The present study has demonstrated a very difficult and essential
link in the chain of advancements in methodological rigor, namely,

replication of the field behaviors manifest at Berkeley within the

129

constraints of a laboratory environment. This work has implications
not only for improving the theoretical understanding Of organizational
conflict, but also for markedly advancing the analysis of behavioral
interactions between actors through the introduction of the methodolog-
ical innovation of events data. If the American university is a
microcosm of American society, as some have claimed (Lipset, 1971),
then this study of student rebellion should have generality for the

rebellious tendencies which arise in other organizations of American

society.:>

REFERENCES

Abelson, R. P. and Rosenberg, M. J. Symbolic psycho-logic: A model
of attitudinal cognition. Behavioral Science, 1958, 3, l- -13.

«\Aélport G. W. Pattern and_growth in personality, New York. Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1961, 283- 30%.

::\)Véltbach, P. G. A selected bibliography on students, politics, and

higher education. Cambridge: Center for International Affairs,
Harvard University, 1967.

Argyle, M. Social interaction. New York: Atherton Press, 1969.

Asch, S. E. Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of

one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs:
General and Applied, 1956, 293 9-h16.

Azar, E. Analysis of international events. Peace Research Reviews,

1970.

Bales, R. F. Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of
small groups. Reading: Addison-Wesley, 1950.
nix/B

L//
<; Birnbaum, N. The crisis of industrial society. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1969, 1h8.

erdyaev, N. Dream and reality: An essay in autobiography, K.
Lampert (Tr.), New York: Oxford University Press, 1962, 116.

Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. J. and Hain, J. D. Social forces in petition-
signing. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 1956, 363 385-

£3 9/ 390.

Blau, P. M. Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley,
l96h.

(2 L/grody, R. A. Deterrence strategies: An annotated bibliography.
Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1960, fl, h43-h57.

Campbell, 0. T. Conformity in psychology's theories of acquired

 

behavioral dispositions. in I. A. Berg and B. M. Bass (Eds.),
Conformity and deviation. New York: Harper and Row, 1961,
101- 158.

Campbell, 0. T. Definitional versus multiple operationism. et a1,

1969, _2_, 14-17.
130

131

Cartwright, D. and Harary, F. Structural balance: A generalization
of Heider's theory. Psychological Review, 1956, 623 277-293.

Castore, C. H. and Streufert, S. The perception of experimentally
induced failure. Psychonomic Science, 1966, in 137-138.

g? ohen, A. R. Social norms, arbitrariness of frustration, and status
of the agent of frustration in the frustration-aggression
hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955, 51,
222-226.

43 \\éollins, B. E. Behavior theory. In R. P. Abelson, §t_al. (Eds.),

Theories of cognitive consistency: A sourcebook. -Chicago: Rand
McNally and Company, 1968, 2h0-2A5.

Coser, L. The functions of social conflict. New York: The Free Press,

1956, 8}

\
[ O \/é1ano, W. D.

How to do a university. New York: Wiley, 1971.

Campus demonstrations. In A. M. Barclay, t l. (Eds.),

Crano, W. D. The informational foundations of conformant dispositions.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northwestern University, 1967-

Crano, W. D. and Brewer, M. B. Principles of research in social
pgychology. New York: McGraw Hill, (in press).

(( Dahrendorf, R. Class and class conflict in industrial society,
Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1959.

Davis, J. A. Structural balance, mechanical solidarity, and inter-
personal relations. American Journal of Sociology, 1963, 683

kHz-A62.

Eckstein, H. On the etiology of internal wars. History and Theory,

19659 £1 133-163.

 

Emerson, R. M. Power-dependence relations. American Sociological
Review, 1962, 223 31-41.

 

/ p L/Fayol, H. General and industrial management. C. Storrs (Tr.),
London: Pitman Press, 19A9.

Festinger, L. A theory of cognitive dissonance. Evanston, Illinois:
Row and Peterson Press, 1957.

Fisher, L. The life Of Lenin. New York: Oxford University Press,

196“.

Flacks, R. The liberated generation: An eXploration of the roots of
student protest. Journal of Social Issues, 1967, 223 52-75.

Freed, A. M. Stimulus and background factors in sign violation.
Journal of Personality, 1955, 223 499.

132

Freud, S. Collected papers. London:

Institute for Psychoanalysis
and Hogart Press, 1925.

Freud, S. Totem and taboo. New York: Norton Press, 1952.

[g UFuer, L. F. The conflict of generations.

 

New York: Basic Books,
1969.
Galtung, J. Institutionalized conflict resolution: A theoretical
paradigm. Journal of Peace Research, 1965, 3, 3A8.

 

(J Goodman, P. Thoughts on Berkeley. In S. M. Lipset and S. S. Wolin

(Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt: Facts and interpretations.
Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1965, 316.

. \//
/,é Gouldner, A. W. The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement.
In E. P. Hollander and R. G. Hunt (Eds.), Current perspectives in

 

 

 

social_psychology, New York: Oxford University Press, 1963,
. 4363h47.
I) \Gdéi, T. R. Why men rebel. Princeton: Princeton University Press,
/ I970.
Heider, F.

Attitudes and cognitive organizations. Journal of

Psychology, 1946, 21, 107-112.

[73 L/Heirich, M. and Kaplan, S. Yesterday's discord. In S. M. Lysset and
S. S. Wolin (Eds.), The Berkeley student revolt:

Facts and
interpretations. Garden City, New York:

Doubleday, 1965.

[’4;\u/Hirschman, A. 0. Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in

firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1970.

Hoffmann, S. and Deutsch, K. W. The relevance of international law:

Essays in honor of Leo Gross. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 1968.

43\/Holsti, O. R. The belief system and national images: A case study.
fV Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1962, 6, ZOO-252.

Newcomb, T. M. Varieties of interpersonal attraction.
and A. Zander (Eds.), Group_dynamics:
New York: Harper and Row, 1960.

In D. Cartwright
Research and theoty.

Nunnally, J. C. Psychometric theoty, New York: McGraw Hill, 1967.

1211/

Katz, 0. and Kahn, R. L. The social psychology of organizations.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1966.

'37”\//Keniston, K. Young radicals: Notes on committed youth. New York:
Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968.

133

fi;%,\o/Keniston, K. and Lerner, M. Campus characteristics and campus unrest.
American Academy of Political and Social Science (Annals).

I971. _3_9_§_. 39-53.

Laswell, H. and Kaplan, A. Power and society: A framework for
political inquiry. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950,

261-268.

 

”Lg. Lawrence, P. R. and Lorsch, J. W. Organization and environment: Theor
and practice. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 1965.

 

Lewin, K. Field theory in social science. New York: Harper Press,

1951.

Lewin, K., Lippitt, R. and White, R. K. Patterns of aggressive
behavior in experimentally created social climates. Journal of
Social Psychology, 1939, 271-299.

C. .
’%')/Likert, R. New_patterns of management. New York: McGraw Hill, 1961.

.7gSL/Likert, R. The human organization: Its management and value. New
‘ York: McGraw Hill, 1967.

f7\//Lipset, S. M. andechaflander,‘G. M. Passion and politics: Student
(v activism in America. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1971.

Lipset, S. M. and Wolin, S. S. Berkeley student revolt. New York:
Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1965, 99-199.

Lysset, S. M. The activists: A profile. Public Interest, 1968,
39'61.

Maddi, S. R. Personality_theories: A comparative analysis.
Homewood, Illinois: Dorsey Press, 1968.

/
7ޤ(///March, J. G. and Simon, H. A. Otganizations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

Martov, J. The Russian intelligentsia of the 1890's. A. K.
Wildman (Tr.), American Slavic and East European Review,

I960, I_9, I60.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. The German ideology. (Tr.), New York:
International, 1937.

Masotti, L. H. and Bowen, 0. R. (Eds.), Riots and rebellion: Civil
violence in the urban community, Beverly Hills: Sage Press,

(5) 1968 .

McClelland, C. ”The world event/interaction survey: A research
project on theory and measurement of international interaction
and transaction.” University of Southern California, 1967,

(mimeo) . ‘

13h

McClelland, C. Theory and the international system. New York:
Macmillan, 1966.

9?’\/HePhai1, C. Civil disorder participation: A critical examination
of recent research. American Sociological Review, 1971, 36,

1058-1073.

Miller, N. E. Experimental studies of conflict. In J. M. Hunt (Ed.),

Personality and the behavior disorders. New York: Ronald Press,
l9hh,ih3l:h65.

o ,
37i‘//I/Iorse, J. J. and Lorsch, J. W. Beyond theory Y. Harvard Business
Review, May-June, 1970, 61-68. \

 

Morgenthau, H. J. Politics among nations: The struggle for power and
peace. (4th ed.), New York: Knopf, 1967.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The measurement of
3i ’ meaning. Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957.
L/’

Pastore, N. The role Of arbitrariness in the frustration-aggression
hypothesis. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, £2,
‘E-Yb/ 728-731.
Perrow, C. Organizational analysis: A sociological view. Belmont,
California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1970.

Phillips, J. L. and Conner, T. A multidisciplinary study of conflict.
Unpublished manuscript, Michigan State University, Computer
Institute for Social Science Research, 1970.

Pilisuk, M. and Hayden, T. Is there a military industrial complex
which prevents peace? Consensus and countervailing power In
pluralistic systems. Journal of Social Issues, 1965, 21, 67-117.

Polansky, N., Lippett, R. and Redl, F. An investigation of behavioral
contagion in groups. Human Relations, 1950, 3, 319-3h8.

L7 Proudhon, P. J. General idea of the revolutipn lngthe nineteenth
7 century. J. Robinson Tr.), London: Freedom Press, 1923.

The quiet campus? Newsweek. June 21, 1971, h5-46.

ixfip/Raven, B. and French, J. R. P., Jr. Legitimate power, coercive power,
and observability in social influence. Sociometry, 1958, 21,
f . 83‘97.
-h \//
Results of a new Gallup survey of college students. Gallup Opinion
Index, 1970, 55, 16.

 

Riker, W. H. The theory Ofgpolitlcal coalitions. New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1962.

135

Roethlisberger, F. J. and Dickson, W. J. Management and the worker.
Cambridge: President and FellOws of Harvard College, 1939, 1967.

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes, and values: A theory of organization
and change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968.

 

‘Ek t/Rothaus, P. and Worchel, P. The inhibition of aggression under
nonarbitrary frustration. Journal of Personality, 1960, 28,
108-117.

Rude, G. The crowd in history: A study_of_popuiar disturbances in
france and England,41730-1858. New York: Wiley, 1968;

Rummel, R. A field theory of social action with application to con-
flict within nations. Yearbook of the Society for General
Systems Research, 1965,7183-20587_‘

 

Schacter, S. Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal Of
Abnormal Social Psychology, 1951, £6, 190-207.

 

Sherif, M. A study Of some social factors in perception. Archives
pf Psychology, 1935, 22, 187.

Smith, F. J. and Crano, W. D. A Monte Carlo model Of student
administration interaction. (in preparation).

Smith, F. J. and Hartman, E. A. A reSponse sampling model of dyadic
7 interaction. (in preparation).
'3. ,
L/Snyder, R. C. and Paige, G. D. The United States decision to resist
aggression in Korea: The application Of an analytical scheme.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 1958, 2, 3A1-378.

Streufert, S., Clardy, M., Driver, M., Karlins, M., Schroder, H. 5
Suedfeld, P. A tactical game for the analysis of complex decision
making in individuals and groups. Psychological Reports, 1965,
_‘ls 723-729 0

 

Streufert, S. and Driver, M. J. Conceptual structure, information load
and perceptual complexity. Psyphonomic Science, 1966, 2, 2h9-250.

 

Streufert, S. and Schroder, H. M. Conceptual structure, environmental
complexity, and task performance. Journal of EXperimental Research
and Personality, 1965, 1, 132-137.

 

Streufert, S., Suedfeld, P. and Driver, M. J. Conceptual structure,
information search, and information utilization. Journal of
Personality and Social Psyehology, 1965, 3, 736-756.

 

7‘8 Student Survey. Playboy. September 1970, 182-186.

kJ/ Student Survey. Playboy. September 1971, 118.

136
17 Taylor, F. W. The principles of scientific management. Scientific
Management, New York: Harper and Row, 1911.

 

U.S. President's Commission on Campus Unrest, Washington: U.S.

Government Printing Office, 1970.
Q?;9\\6:ber, M. From Max Weber: Essays in sociology. In H, H, Gerth and

C. W. Mills (Eds.), New York: Oxford'UnTversity Press, l9h6,
120-128.

Weber, M. The theory of social and economic organization. A. M.

Henderson and T.7Parsons (Tr.),TNew York: OxfOrd’University
Press, 1947, 124-132.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York:
McGraw Hill, 1962.

\

v-Wbodward, J. Industriel organization: Theory and practice. New York:
U/ Oxford University Press, 1965.

APPENDIX A

Philosophy of Conflict

As noted by Dahrendorf (1959), Western political thought is
marked by the coexistence of two conflicting views Of society. Both
of these views are intended to explain the puzzling problem of social
phiIOSOphy: What gives order and stability to social life? One large
school of thought holds that social order results from general agree-
ment (COOperation) on core values which outweighs all possible or
actual differences of peripheral opinions and Interest. Another
equally distinguished school of thought claims that social coherence
and order derive from force (conflict), 1,2,, from the domination by
some and subjection of others. The former Utopian position does not
exclude conflict nor does the latter Rationalistic poSitlon preclude
cooperation, but each advances claims of supremacy for their respective
viewpoints. This philosophical difference is clearly evident among
classical works of Aristotle and Plato, Hobbes and Rousseau, and Kant
and Hegel; and it is, therefore, not surprising to find this philo-
sophical dispute reflected in current theory.

The paragraph above suggests that the two major philosophical views
of social organization are delineated by the dimension of cooperation/
conflict. In accordance with this unidimensional classification scheme,
the concept development and the review of literature that follow will

rely primarily upon the Rationalistic view.

137

APPENDIX 8

Theory of Conflict

 

Conflict has been the basis for much of the theory in the various
disciplines of social science. The cause and effect are uncertain, but
with this widespread theoretic application of the concept, conflict has
assumed multiple definitions. Definitions of conflict have sometimes
focused on terminal values and sometimes on instrumental values
(Rokeach, 1968). In addition, conflict has been applied by scientists
at various levels of social organization ranging from the intrapersonal
domain by psychologists to the international domain by political
scientists. Conflict will be a fundamental concept here in the investi-
gation of student rebellion so we will now illustrate the various
definitional positions as they appear in a selected sample of seminal
scientific works.

Galtung (1965) defined conflict in terms of terminal values, as
follows: ”A system is said to be in conflict if the system has two or
more incompatible goal states.” Galtung applies this definition in
the realm of international relations. Riker (1962) and Morgenthau
(1967) utilize this definition provided by their colleague, Galtung,
in their studies of international coalition formation as a function of
pay-off divisability and goal states of power, and national interest.
Miller (1944) has demonstrated allegiance to a similar definition of
conflict based on terminal values but in a very different context.

Miller has been influential in the develOpment of conflict choice

138

139

theory based upon laboratory eXperimentation with infra-human species,
e,g,, approach-avoidance conflict in mice. This work is an integral

part of the S-R psychological tradition and along with a large number

of related studies is the subject of an excellent review by Miller (19hh).

Coser (1956) defines conflict in terms of instrument values, j,e,,
“a struggle over values and claims to scarce status, power, and re-
sources where the aim is to neutralize, injure, or eliminate Opponents.”
The reliance on these instrumental values in conflict is illustrated in .
the formulation of the theory of class conflict (Marx and Engels, 1937).
Marx and Engels postulated that a stratified socio-economic order leads
inevitably to an affinity within a conflict of interest between the
differentiated classes. Class theory as revised by the Neo-Marxians
for application in industrial society provides a base for the study of
a variety of contemporary situations characterized by collective
behavior of individuals acting to forward some goal (Dahrendorf, 1959).
Working within a similar definitional framework, Hirschman (1970) pre-
sents an innovative analysis of behavioral Options of exit and voice in
the context of sociOpolitical conflict. The Hirschman approach is
based on an extrapolation of the Kensian economic model of competitive
choice. Likert (1961, 1967) has shown that in the industrial organi-
zation these conflict processes mitigate against the realization of
Optimal production and general job satisfaction.

The instrumental definition also has viability in the intrapersonal
domain. According to Freud (1925, 1952), rational (secondary) psycho-
logical processing was seen to be a consequence of dynamic conflict

management between two basic psychological forces, .e,, the tendency

to maximize instinctual gratification emanating from the id and

IAO

simultaneously minimize guilt and punishment emanating from-the
superego. [See Maddi (1968) for thorough development of conflict
theories in personality psychology].

Finally, at least one tradition has incorporated both a definition
focusing on terminal values and one focusing on instrumental values.
Lewin's (1951) theoretical formulation of conflict in the social field
has been fundamental in the theoretic work of scientists of the
Gestaltist tradition, e,g,, Heider (l9h6), Newcomb (1960), Festinger
(1957), and Cartwright and Harary (1956). Lewin theorized that objects
are multidimensionally evaluated in terms of positive and negative
valences (terminal values). In addition, he postulated a transitory
variable, potency. Together, valences and potency determine a state of
conflict. Extension of this tradition has examined the dynamics of
psychological conflict reduction and as a consequence, the instrumental
values of conflict reduction have gained greater attention (Davis, 1963).
In effect then, the Gestaltist tradition has variously embraced both
the notion of conflict of terminal values and conflict in instrumental
values. The literature on conflict is extensive and the work cited here
is illustrative of the diversity of application and general utility of

the concept of conflict.

APPENDIX C

Political Violence

Political violence is the basic concept used by Gurr (1970) in
his analysis of the question: Why men rebel? Political violence as
described by Gurr subsumes revolution, guerilla wars, coups d'etat,
rebellions, and riots. Political violence is in turn subsumed under
”force“ used by actors within a system to attain ends within or Out-
side the political order. Rummel (1965) lends some empirical justifi-
cation for selecting political violence as a concept for macro-analysis
by showing that countries experiencing extensive political violence of
one kind, e,g,, riots, terrorism, coups d'etat, or rebellions, are
prone to experience other kinds of political violence. This finding,
however, does not preclude micro-analysis of one particular form within
this universe.

It is clear that political violence implies a greater breadth of
substance and a greater intensity of conflict than need or desired for
study of student rebellion. Nevertheless, the concept might be ex-
pected to Offer more specificity than did the concept, conflict. Ex-
perience with the literature indicates that what research exists is
weighted heavily toward historical scholarship of a macro-quality.
[See Rude (1964) for an excellent historical survey of urban and rural
turmoil in eighteenth and nineteenth century Europe; and Masotti and
Bowen (1968) for a representative survey of urban violence in modern

societies.] Experimental studies dealing with socio-psychological

141

I42

mechanisms of collective violence are few. Illustrative experimental
works are an early study (Lewin, Lippitt, and White, 1939) on patterns
of aggressive behavior in experimentally created social climates, and
a later study (Polansky, Lippitt, and Redl, 1950) on behavioral
contagion in groups. The relative lack of studies of this type is
unfortunate as empirical foundation for further study is unsure.

It is instructive to look at taxonomic representation relating to
political violence. Laswell and Kaplan (1950) provided a simple
typology for revolutions which distinguishes between a palace revolu-
tion, a political revolution, and a social revolution. Eckstein (1965)
proposed a typology including categories for spontaneous conflicts
(riots), intraelite conflicts (coups), two forms of revolution, and
wars of independence. Rummel (1965) provided probably the best empiri-
cally based taxonomy. He collated data by country and time period as
to the incidence and characteristics of various types of political con-
flict. Data were collected on the number of riots, assassinations,
coups, mutinies, guerilla wars, and so on, in a given time period and
country. Correlation between these data classifications over countries
and subsequent factor analysis of correlation matrix yielded consistent
results irrespective of time period or set of countries. Rummel re-
ported three clusters (turmoil, conspiracy, and internal war) which can
be distinguished by two dimensions: degree of organization, and degree
of popular participation. Turmoil was distinguished by relatively
spontaneous, unorganized political violence with substantial popular
participation including violent political strikes, riots, political

clashes, and localized rebellions. Conspiracy was seen as highly or-

 

ganized political violence with limited participation, including

143

organized political assassinations, small-scale terrorisms, and
mutinies. Internal war was distinguished by highly organized political
violence widespread popular participation. Of the three clusters

identified, the turmoil cluster appears most directly related to the

topic of student rebellion.

APPENDIX D

Legitimacy. The present study of student rebellion represents
a major departure from the studies of political violence . Previous
work in this area has been almost exclusively concerned with political
rebellion within the international political system. It is generally
recognized, however, that the international system is rather loosely
governed. [See the work of the social philSOpher, Proudhon (1923)
for a discussion of international political anarchy and the book by
Hoffmann and Deutsch (1969) on the relevance of international law.]
When the system has little cohesion, actors in conflict need not be so
greatly influenced by a hierarchical structure of authority or legiti-
macy. Clearly, the exigencies Upon actors in international dISputes
have often lead to transgressions of the international authority. The
perceived costs associated with the illegal activity are not great
enough to deter its occurrence. In the context Of university conflict,
however, civil law is well institutionalized and intranational institu-
tions are vested with greater legitimate authority. Legitimacy might
then be expected to be of greater importance with respect to the various
actors within the local system.

This research has adOpted the definitional position of Gurr (1970)

that a regime (administration) is legitimate to the extent that citizens

 

(students) regard it as prOper and deserving of support. A behavioral
manifestation of legitimacy is the compliance of students with direct-

ives of the regime that flow from a generalized sense of identification

I44

145

with regime values. Behavioral compliance, however, is a Spurious
indicator of legitimacy when real or perceived coercive forces are
Operative. Under coercive pressures, rebellion may be SUppressed out
of fear thatsanctions for noncompliance may be imposed. In summary,
rebellion can have both latent and active forms. The present research
has attempted to account for the active forms of rebellion which are
manifested inspite of the countervailing of coercion. The rebellion
thus measured Should provide a conservative estimate of the total

disposition toward rebellion.

APPENDIX E

INTERACTION EVENTS: A CODING AND SCALING MANUAL

146

INTRODUCTION

This manual will define procedures for systematical coding and
scaling of interactions between social units. These procedures are
designed to apply equally well to both written and Spoken communica-
tions.

Part I: CODING

229122.15 a process for reduction and standardization of raw data.
Coding is an essential stage in the refinement and quantification of
data. Ideally, a unit of data conveys a single bit of information. The
content of verbal exchange between social units, however, is usually
complex and in the form of an information package. 'The package is made
up Of several bits of information. For the purposes Of data handling
and empirical analysis, it is necessary to disaggregate the information
package into its essential units of information. The interaction event
will constitute the basic unit of information, and all raw communica-
tions data will be transformed into this basic unit.

The interaction event is a behavior within the system that de-
scribes an activity by an ester directed toward a terget_that is
qualified with respect to issue-area and 9332 (Azar, 1970). Most social
exchanges can be made to correspond to this definition and format of an
interaction event. The function of coding rules is to explicityly de-
fine the process by which verbal communications are transformed into

discrete interaction events. If prOperly designed, massive archives of

147

148

events can be easily managed by computer programs. To facilitate
computer handling of events data, a standardized format for an interac-
tion event has been decided upon. In practice, verbal communications
can be coded in standardized form on computer coding sheets. Each row
on these sheets contains 80 Spaces that correSpond to the 80 columns of
a computer card. The elements that constitute a single interaction
event are entered on a single row of the coding form In the following
manner:

Columns

month; 01-Jan., 02=Feb., ... 12-Dec.

day; Ol-lst, ... 31-315t. .

hours; 01-1 a.m., 12-12 noon, 13-1 p.m., 24-
12 midnight..

actor code (See Appendix B)

target code (See Appendix B)

source code

activity; an alphabetic description of the
verbal or physical action of the actor.

U'IW‘
I

O
I
N—a—a
\DJ-‘NKD O‘J-‘N

30 size scale value

32 authoritative/participative scale value

34 . cooperation/conflict Scale value

35 - 80 issue-area; an alphabetic description or
elaboration of the other elements of the
event.

Coded events can then be directly transferred to the Standard computer
input medium, the 80 column computer card.

The next section illustrates the five elements that together
constitute an interaction event. We include both events that are
easily transformed Into interaction event form and those that are more
problematic. Special rules have been developed to deal with the
Special problems that arise In the coding process. As a result, the

coding process minimizes error that would otherwise be troublesome for

data users.

DATE.

Date is coded as the calendar day on which the event is reported
in the source document. Month, day, and hoUr are coded as consecutive A
2 digit numbers. According tO this coding scheme, April 12, 3 p.m.,
would be coded as 041215. Note that the time of day is recorded to
correspond to a 24 hour clock. Missing information is represented by
zero entries.

A Special problem of multiple dates is illustrated by the follow-
ing news release.

Jan. 3 - A student group claims it was responsible for the
picketing Of the administration building on Jan. 2.

This event includes two dates; the date of the reporting (Jan. 3) and
the date of the picketing (Jan. 2). The coding rule for date requires
that the reported date be used as the date for the event. The event is
recorded in coded format as follows:

01030010020001CLA1M PICKETTED

I49

ACTOR

The actor is a person, group, organization, or other entity which
initiates an activity. Consider the following illustrative examplezl

Oct. 1 - Chancellor Strong refuses student demands.
The activity in this case is refuse and the actor or initiator of that
refusal is Chancellor Strong. Chancellor Strong is by definition the
actor in this event. In coding events, it is convenient to assign a
discrete numeric code to each actor within the social system. For this
example, the prOper numeric code for the actor (Chancellor Strong) is
203.

100100293J0001REFUSE STUDENT DEMANDS

The problem of an event initiated by more than one actor is common.

Nov. 4 - Professor Martin and several students denounce the
admIniStration'S attitude toward student rights.

With events having multiple actors, the event is disaggregated and

coded for each actor, j,e,, once for Professor Martin and once for

Students.
11040032520001DENOUNCE ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENT RIGHTS
11040010020001DENOUNCE ATTITUDE TOWARD STUDENT RIGHTS

Actors and targets may seem to be reversed for the coding of events

reported in the passive tense.

Nov. 14 - President Kerr received a list of demands from a
student organization.

In this case, President Kerr is the target and the student organization

150

151

is the actor. Remember that the actor initiates the activity and the
activity is expressed as a present tense, action verb. In this example,
“demand” is the activity word.

111400199204ODEMAND LIST OF DEMANDS

Events by or directed to organizational spokesmen are problematic.
The critical judgment that mUst be made is whether the statement
reflects a persOnal view or the view of the organization.

Dec. 19 - FSM steering committee member Steve Weisman accused the
police of excessive violence.

In this case, Steve Weisman is judged to be speaking for the actor,
FSM, and Should be coded accordingly. The name of the individual can
be included in the issue-area. If, however, it is clear that an
individual is not speaking for an organization, then the individual
would be the actor. For example, consider the following report:

Feb. 18 - Dean Towle said that the Students were impudent at
today's meeting.

This event serves to illustrate another rule relating to actor Identi-
fication. It may appear as though the event embodies 2 activities;
Dean Towle’s Statement, and student impudence.’ For reported events of
this kind, only the statement is coded. The event is not the students
being impudent, but rather Dean Towle's accusation. In this event, the
activity is ”charge” or ”accuse” and the actor is Dean Towle (201)..

02180020110001CHARGE IMPUDENT AT MEETING

TARGET

The target is a person, group, organization, or other entity toward
which an activity is directed. The target is usually the direct Object
Of the principle verb, j,e,, the social unit toward whom something is
said or done.

Sept. 30 - Student charges administrators are a bunch of bastards.
The activity in this case iS pherge, Since the pherge_is directed toward
administrators, the administration as a collective unit is the target of
this event. The general administration code is 200.

09300010029901CHARGE BUNCH OF BASTARDS

Remember that the target is that entity toward which an activity is
directed. Consider the following:

Feb. 3 - The Regents asked the administration to suSpend
demonstrating students.

This event has two targets. The administration is the principle target
and students are an indirect target.( The Regents esk the administration.
The administration is the direct Object of the activity, hence, the
direct target. However, the action isan indirect way of getting at the
Students. The Regents want the administration to suspend the demonstrat-
lng students. This event Should be disaggregated and coded for both the
direct and indirect targets. The first event represents the activity of
the Regents asking the administration; the second event represents the

activity of the Regents Opposing the students. Further elaboration of

events can be made in the issue-area.

152

153

02030000220001ASK SUSPEND DEMONSTRATING STUDENTS

0203000021000lOPPOSE ASK ADMINISTRATION TO SUSPEND
DEMONSTRATING STUDENTS

The identification and coding of indirect targets is sometimes diffi-
cult. To aid in coding of indirect targets, the following rule has been
adopted: An indirect target may be considered present in events when a
social entity other than the direct target(s) is mentioned and is judged
to be affected by the action.

Some events will describe an activity by a group directed toward
itself. In these situations, the target is coded self (004).

Nov. 15 - Students for Goldwater meet to discuss Strategy.

11150011399£OIMEET DISCUSS STRATEGY
The group, Students for Goldwater (actor), is directing the activity

(meet) toward itself (004).

ACTIVITY

The activity is defined as those actions, reactions, or interac-
tions which are precipitated by clearly defined actor(s) and directed
toward clearly identified target(s). The activity is the “happening”
on which the event is based. Usually, the activity is best represented
by the principle verb in a statement Of the event.

Oct. 1 - Chancellor Strong meets with students to discuss demands.
The “happening” is the meeting of Chancellor Strong and the Students.
The activity, then, is meet. For coding purposes, the activity is
represented by the best present tense, action verb that describes the
essence of the event.

10010020310001MEEL’ DISCUSS DEMANDS

Some events in a source contain two or more distinct activities.

Oct. 20 - Students occupy administration Offices to protest
suspension of demonstrating students.

This event has two activities, occupy and protest. It is called a
multiple activity event and should be disaggregated and coded as two

events. In coded form, these events are represented as the following:

1020001OOZOOOIOCCUPY OFFICES TO PROTEST SUSPENSION
102000IOOOO4OISUPPORT SUSPENDED STUDENTS 5 OCCUPY
OFFICES

Another example of this type follows:

Oct. 18 - The administration sus ends three students and threatens
to suspend all other demonstrators.

154

155

In coded form, these events appear as the following:
lOlBOOZOOlOOOlSUSPENDS 3 FOR DEMONSTRATING
lOlBOOZOOlOOOlTHREATENS TO SUSPEND IF DEMONSTRATING

Some multiple action events have activities which are SO similar that

they Should not be disaggregated but coded as one event.

Dec. 14 - FSM protested the administration action, accusing
them of blatant disregard for student civil rights,
and threatening to take violent measures.

This is a mu1tiple verbal action with Several verbal actions from one

actor directed toward one target. In this case, the most hostile verbal

action ls identified and coded. This differs from multiple physical
actions and multiple mixed (physical and verbal) actions in that only
one activity (event) is presumed to have occurred. This event would be
coded as follows:

12140011030001THREATENS VIOLENT MEASURES

In coding the activity, it is suggested that the coder use the same
verb used by the source. It Should be put in the present and active
tense. Retaining the verb used by the source helps to remove the bias
that might be Imposed by coder interpretation. There are, however,

Special cases where this rule does not apply.

Special 22292.

1. When the event is the signing of an agreement, conclusion

of an agreement or pact, etc., the verb ”agree” is used.

Oct. 1 - Student leaders and President Kerr Sign an agreement
on where political materials may be distributed.

In this case, ”agree” not ”Sign” should be coded as the activity. The
above example also illustrates another type of problem. It is not clear

who initiated the action. Student leaders and President Kerr were

156

Simultaneous actors and targets of the same activity, therefore, the
event Should be coded twice, once with student leaders as the actor
and once with President Kerr as the actor.

10010019929401AGREE MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED

10010020410001AGREE MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED

2. If the sentence structure of a reported event is complex, then
the verb may not be the best nonbiased description of the activity.
Avoid using nondescript activity verbs like begin, continue, and say.
Try to give a word giving the type of activity and emotion associated
with the activity.

Oct. 20 - President Kerr begins enforcement of nonstudent
loitering ordinance.

In this example,‘beglps is the action verb but does not reveal the
nature of the social interaction. A better choice is the word, enforce,
which is extracted from the predicate.

10200020410001ENFORCE LOITERING ORDINANCE
Another example follows:

Oct. 25 - Mario Savio calls President Kerr a ”fat cat”.
In this case, the active verb gells_does not present the animosity
implicit in the event. Another word, condemn, better represents the
event. I

10250010920401CONDEMN FAT CAT

SOURCE

The source of an event is the document, newspaper, journal, or
index from which an event is taken. For laboratory and field Observa-
tion Of interaction events, the source is ceded-as the experimenter.

The university events upon which this research project is based
are of two sources. All field events are derived from a Single source,

The California Monthly journal. The research staff of the California

 

 

Monthly has compiled a chronology Of activities at Berkeley for a
period that encompasses the escalation and deescalation of the Free
Speech Controversy. This material gives comprehensive and relatively
objective coverage to social interactions with the University of
California, Berkeley, campus for the time span; September 10, 1964 to
January 10, 1965. In essence, this source is an index of events which
were reported by many diverse sources and related to the free speech
issue and the Berkeley Student revolt.

All events evoked in the laboratory investigations were coded by
trained experimenters. The experimenters themselves are the source of

the events which they coded.

157

ISSUE-AREA

The issue-area is a complimentary category which identifies impor-
tant components Of an event other than actor, target, activity, or
time. It provides elaboration of the event. In the issue-area, one can
account for the setting within which the event took place, individual
spokesmen, quantities involved in interaction, and other facts that add
to the understanding of the event. The major constraint for coding of
the issue-area is that it be condensed into 46 characters. This Space
limitation has warranted a list of standard abbreviations. By use of
these standard abbreviations, the issue-area can carry more information.
(See List of Abbreviations at back Of this Appendix).
Consider the following example:

Oct. 15 - Academic Senate agrees with administration to appoint

an ad hoc committee to hear the cases of suspended

students.

10150030420001AGREES APPOINT AD HOC FOR SUSPENDED
STU CASES

In this case, the issue-area provides necessary elaboration upon the
bases of agreement between actor and target. Student is a frequently

used word that is always abbreviated STU.

158

Part 2: SCALING

Scaling is the means by which data are measured along some dimen-
sion or set of dimensions. In the present context, scaling procedures
will be employed that measure coded interaction events on a dimension
of decision structure (participative/authoritative) and a dimension
of social exchange (cooperation/conflict). From scaled interaction
events, we can then proceed with various statistical analyses to make
inferences about the nature Of social interaction.

The coding scheme as described in earlier sections has been de-
signed to have great versatility. Coded events data are amenable to
various scaling models. All numeric codes can be translated into their
literal equivalent by a Simple computer program. For example, events
can be generated on computer cards for convenient Q sort scaling. By
another scaling procedure, a coded event in its entirety defines a
concept that can be rated on a semantic differential questionnaire.
This latter prOcedure has been employed throughout the course of this
research project. The culmination of these scaling efforts has pro-
duced reliable scales for both the dimensions of decision structure
and social exchange. 'These scales have apparent validity as they Show

convergence to social science theory and previous empirical research.

159

SCALE OF COOPERATION/CONFLICT

McClelland (1970) has distinguished 20 levels of conflict between
nation states. Azar (1970) has reported the development of a 13-point
interval scale of cOOperation/conflict which describes interaction
events both within and between nation States. The present research
project on campus rebellion has required an independent scaling effort.
Results of the recent scale development, however, demonstrate certain
features common to the l3-and 20-point scales (Azar, 1970; and Mc-
Clelland, 1970). Null intensity levels are represented by activities
void of actor cOOperation/conflict. Low intensity levels are represent-

ed by verbal activities of cooperation/conflict. Medium intensity

 

levels are represented by physical demonstration Of cooperation/
conflict. High intensity levels Of cooperation/conflict are represent-
ed by transgressions of social-civil norms of legitimacy. These
empirical categories fall naturally into a 7-point scale of cooperation/
conflict. Interaction events are readily discriminable with reSpect
to the 7-point scale as evidenced by an intra-scale reliability of R =
.82. In addition, the scale represents a symmetry and clarity lacking
in the works of McClelland (1970) and Azar (1970).

Scale values are assigned by evaluation of event content. Brief

description of Scale values and their distinguishing content are given

below.

160

161

 

Scale Value Content
1. - Extra-legal cOOperation; participation or support for a

 

target that transcends social or
legal norms of prOpriety.

 

2. 3 Physical cooperation or getting out and physically working
support; for someone or something, acting
, in a manner which indicates COOp-
eration.
3. - Verbal copperation; support, agreement, or requests

 

for support implying a favorable
attitude toward target; laudatory
statements and pronouncements of
good will toward the target.

4. - Neutral point; actions tending neither toward
conflict nor cOOperation; state-
ments of fact, not evaluative
beliefs or attitudes; announce-
ments Of a factual nature.

5. = Verbal confliCt; charges, accusations, warnings,
demands all of which imply a
hostile, unfavorable, or threaten-
ing attitude toward the target;
pronouncements of ill will.

6. - Physical conflict; marches, rallys and the like which
' go beyond the mere verbal pro-
nouncements of cognitive disposi-
tions; overt physical behavior.
7. - Extra-legel conflict; conflict behavior that transcends
legal or civil norms Of propriety.
The next section illustrates these scale values with events from

actual scaling experience. Through consideration of these events, the

content of scale values are further clarified.

ILLUSTRATION OF SCALE VALUES

Scale Value = 1

Mar. 12 - Faculty members join student protesters in destroying
records in Dean's office.

03120030010001JOIN lPROTESTERS IN DESTROYING RECORDS
In this event, faculty members have joined protesting students in an
action which is clearly illegal. By their actions, faculty have
physically demonstrated support of Students by means that transcend
social norms. This event implies extreme cOOperation on the part of
faculty toward students. Some other examples of events at scale
value - l are the following:

Mar. 21 - Attorney Gildenstern joins a students‘ illegal sit-in
today.

03210005010001JO|N leLEGAL SIT-IN

Apr. 1 - Joan Baez helps student demonstrators blockaid the Dean
of Women's Office.

040100018IOOOIBLOCKAID lDEAN OF WOMEN

May 4 - Dean Jones aids Officer Doe in shaving the heads of
students.

05040034000301AIDS lSHAVING HEADS OF STUDENTS

Scale Value = 2

 

Nov. 1 - Administration officials permit student use of university
mimeographic equipment to print leaflets.

llOlOOZOOlOOOlPERMIT 2USE OF UNIVERSITY MIMEOGRAPH
In this event, administration Officials have physically COOperated

with students by permitting them to use the university facilities. Note

162

163

that this event has physical, not just verbal implications. Some other
examples of scale value I 2 are the following:
May 8 - The ACLU intervenes on behalf of suspended students.
050800008100011NTERVENES ZBEHALF OF SUSPENDED STUDENTS

Apr. 1 - The American Legion donates money to pay off-duty police-
men for extra law enforcement.

0401005100301DONATE EMONEY FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT
Jan. 3 - Association of Conservative students joins the Young
Marxists in a coalition to present their demands to the
administration.
01140015015101JOINS ECOALITION
Scale Value - 3
Jan. 4 - Bertrand Russell commends student actions.
OlO400030lOOOlCOMMENDS 3§TUDENT ACTIONS
This is an event Showing verbal support by Bertrand Russell for the
students. It implies a favorable attitude toward the students (100).

Some other examples of events at scale value - 3 are the following:

Nov. 12 - The administration applauds police handling of

, demonstrators.

111200200003OIAPPLAUDS QHANDLING 0F DEMONSTRATORS

Dec. 22 - Students and administrators agree to cease activities of
confrontation.

IZZZOOIOOZOOOIAGREE ngASE CONFRONTATION

Jan. 15 - The administration supports Regent rulings on suspended
students.

OIlSOOZOOOOZOISUPPORTS 3§TUDENT SUSPENSION RULINGS

Scale Value - 4

Jan. 134- Top administrators meet to discuss the student current
Issues.

01130020000401MEET flplSCUSS ISSUES

I64

Scale Value = 6

Jan. 17 - Students picket Dean Towle's office in protest of
student arrests.

01170010020101PICKET éOFFICE IN PROTEST OF ARRESTS
This is an event involving physical conflict within the limits of civil
and criminal law. Picketing is an overt physical behavior expressing
conflict toward the administration. Some other examples of scale
value = 6 are the following:

Feb. 1 - A number of student groups rally outside the administra-
tion building.

OZOIOOlOOZOOOlRALLY éADMINISTRATION BUILDING

Nov. 15 - The administration SUSpends 7 demonstrating Students.

lllSOOZOOlOOOlSUSPENDS é] DEMONSTRATORS

Oct. 17 - The administration dissolves the faculty-student commit-
tee on university unrest because of its deviation from
chartered functions.

1017002003000IDISSOLVES §COMMITTEE ON CAMPUS UNREST

Scale Value - 7

Jan. 3 - A group of students broke into the Dean of Men's office
and burned his files.

OIOBOOIOOZOSOIBURN ZOFFICE FILES
This event manifests extreme physical conflict. It is an act that
. transcends legal provisions for civil dissent or application of civil
sanctions. Some other examples of events at scale value a 7 are the

following.

Dec. 9 - Campus police arrest 15 students and 4 nonstudents for
- passing out leaflets on campus.

12090000310001ARRE$T Zj9 FOR PASSING OUT LEAFLETS

Nov. 5 - A group from Student Lib block the doors to the Dean's
Office all afternoon.

165

This event is of a neutral character in that it does not clearly imply
either conflict or cOOperation. It is a statement of a factual nature;
it does not represent an evaluative position or attitude. Some other
examples of events at scale value 8 4 are the following:
Oct. 47- FSM announces a meeting at 4 p.m. today.
10040011099901ANNOUNCES flMEETING AT 4 P.M.
Jan. 6 - The administration asks students for more time.
01060020010001ASK EFOR MORE TIME

Oct. 14 - The administration appoints three faculty members
to look into Student demands.

10140020030001APP01NTS ELOOK,AT STUDENT DEMANDS

Scale Value = 5

 

Feb. 1 - Student leaders demand the right to pass out literature
on campus.

OZOlOOlOOZOOOlDEMAND §RIGHT TO DISTRIBUTE LITERATURE
This is an event involving verbal conflict. It implies a hostile, un-
favorable or threatening attitude toward the target. The Students are
demanding a right from the university. The use of the word “demand”
is thought to engender conflict because unlike ”ask” or even "urge”,
it implies a threat of retaliation if the demand is rejected. Some
other examples of events at scale value = 5 are the following;

Oct. 15 - The administration threatens to suspend all students
participating in a Strike.

IOISOOZOOIOOOlTHREATENS ESUSPEND THOSE WHO STRIKE

Nov. 6 - Students Against Facisim accuses police of using Gestapo-
like tactics.

11060015200301ACCUSES EGESTAPO-LIKE TACTICS

Mar. 7 - The local Rotary Club denounces demonstrating students
as stooges for the world-wide communist movement.

O30700060lOOOlDENOUNCES 'EDEMONSTRATORS AS COMMUNIST STOOGES

166

110500161201018LOCK ZOFFICE DOORS

Jan. 7 - An irate citizen's group raids and destroys the students'
recently founded Freedom City.

01070099910001RAIDS ZFREEDOM CITY

SCALE OF ORGANIZATIONAL DECISION STRUCTURE

Likert (1961, 1967) has substantively distinguished four kinds of
administration. An authoritarian organization, whether exploitative or
benevolent, is one in which both broad policy and Specific decisions
are made almost exclusively at the upper administrative levels. In an
exploitative authoritarian orgenization, the administration is solely
concerned with the welfare of the organization. In a benevolent

authoritarian organization, the administration gratuitously concerns

 

itself in a paternalistic manner with the welfare of its members. Two
other types of organizations are the consultative and the participative.

In the consultative organization, the ideas of those individuals who

 

will be affected by an imminent policy decision are ascertained prior
to the setting of that policy. However, the final decision is ultimate-
ly made in Upper administrative levels. In this regard, a consultative
organization has authoritarian overtones. In the participative 95222.
organization, the guiding principle for decision making is that they
are made by those individuals in the organization who are directly
affected by them. In a participating group, “decision making is widely
done throughout the organization, although well integrated through
lirtking processes provided by overlapping groups. Decentralization
Wl‘tIi integration is the key to a participating group organization.”
Upon inspection, these four organization types constitute a di-

mension of authoritative/participative decision Structure. This dimen-

167

168

sion is relevant only to interaction events emminating from an actor
of greater authority toward a target of lesser authority. In the
context of the university system, the superior/subordinant roles are
quite clearly defined. Administration members are capable of making
overtures toward participative decision making. Students, on the
other hand, have no administrative power to Share.

Events from administration sources can be assigned a discrete
scale value on this dimension of decision Structure. The scale value
will identify the content of the event on the dimension. The content
associated with scale values on a dimension of decision structure are

given below.

 

Scale Value Content
1. I High authoritative dictatorial; a declaration with

 

no pretences as to having been

made indeference to the target.
Decision making in the classical
model of management; unilateral.

2. I Benevolent authoritative a decision made solely on the
authority of the maker, but
seemingly made with the interests
Of well-being of those affected
at heart; an authoritative deci-
sion coupled with a gesture of
good will toward the target.

3. I Neutral point events that do not indicate a
means of decision making.

4. I Consultative the decision-maker consults those
affected by the decision but re-
tains full power to make the final
decision.

U1
I

Participative democratic; parties involved have
the power to determine the outcome
or to make the dec.ision.

Again it is inciteful to consider some illustrative cases from

scaling experiences. Scale values on this dimension are coded in

169

column number 32.

ILLUSTRATION OF SCALE VALUES

Scale Value = l

 

Sept. 16 - Dean Towle prohibits student distribution of
political literature at the Bancroft entrance.

09160020110001PROHIBITS 1_6DISTRIBUTION POLITICAL_
LITERATURE

This activity implies an extremely authoritative position by the
university administration. The administration has made a decision
without apparent regard for, or consultation with, those who will be
affected by the decision. The idea of prohibition serves the interest
of the administration and is exploitatively forced upon students.
Other examples of events at scale value I 1 are the following:
Sept. 23 - President Kerr issues a statement to students
saying that the University is not to be used for
political causes.

0923002‘O4IOOOISTATE l. 4UNIVERSITY NOT POLITICAL

Sept. 30 - Chancellor Strong suspends eight Students for
political activities.

O9300020310001$USPENDS 1_68 STUDENTS
Oct. 1 - Administration refuses student demands.
10010020010001REFUSES l_6STUDENT DEMANDS

Scale Value = 2

 

Oct. 2 - President Kerr States that new University regulations
for Students are more liberal.

100200204IOOOISTATES Z 4REGULATIONS MORE LIBERAL

This event shows some tendency on the part of the administration to

170

171

give consideration to the student position.- It is clear that the
administration maintains full authority to make and enforce regulations.
At this level, however, they temper this authoritative position with
benevolent gestures and tokens of good will. Other examples of events
at scale value = 2 are the following:
Oct. 24 - Administration states to Students that it will
continue to act in the best interests of the majority
of students.

1024OOZOOIOOOISTATES 2_4ACTS FOR MAJORITY INTERESTS

Sept. 28 - Chancellor Strong concedes to students the freedom
to distribute campaign literature at Bancroft entrance.

O928OOZO3IOOOICONCEDES 2_2FREEDOM TO DISTRIBUTE LITERA-
TURE

Oct. 12 - Chancellor Strong appoints three students to a
special committee on Campus Political Activity (SCPA),

10120020310001APPOINTS 2_43 STUDENTS TO SCPA

Scale Value = 3

 

Oct. 2 - President Kerr agrees to meet with student demonstration
Spokesmen.

100220410001MEET 3_4STUDENT SPOKESMEN
This event is relatively neutral with respect to authoritative/partici-
pative dimension of the decision process. The willingness of Kerr to
meet could mean a serious effort at consultation with students or it
could mean a superficial display of benevolence. The report of the
outcome of the meeting will probably give more information and be
represented by another interaction event. This event is neutral, it
simply reports an agreement to meet. Other examples of events at
scale value = 3 are the following:

Oct. 23 - Administration and student representatives agree to
cease confrontation tactics for 3 days.

1023OOZOOIOOOIAGREE 3_3CEASE CONFRONTATION FOR 3 DAYS

172

Oct. 25 - Chancellor Strong appeals for Student reasonableness.
10250020310001APPEALS 3_5$TUDENT REASONABLENESS

Scale Value I 4

 

Oct. 17 - Dean Towle seeks the consultation and advice of
student leaders.

10170020110001CONSULT fl_4STUDENT LEADERS

In this example, students are being consulted. Information that is
gained from this consultation will be subsequently evaluated for its
implications on a pending decision. The administration retains full
control over the final decision. The distinguishing characteristic

of events at this level is the deference to the student position prior
to administration committment to a decision. Other examples of events
at scale value = 4 are the following:

Oct. 2 - Administration personnel mingle with student demonstrators
to establish rapport and meaningful dialogue.

IOOZOOZOOIOOOIMINGLE 4_4RAPPORT

Oct. 4 - Administration research staff conducts a survey of
student Opinions on University policy.

1004OOZOOIOOOISURVEY fl_4STUDENT OPINIONS ON POLICIES

Oct. 23 - After discussion with Student leaders, the administration
decides to drOp all charges against students.

10203OOZOOIOOOIDROPS fl_2CHARGES

Scale Value = 5

 

Oct. 16 - Chancellor Strong requests that basic issues of conflict
be arbitrated by elected representatives from the two
sides.

10160020310001REQUESTS §_4DEMOCRATIC ARBITRATION

Events at this level demonstrate a very democratic decision making

structure. Role expectations mitigate against absolution of all

authoritative relationships between administrators and Students, but

173

certain events can reflect this extreme deference to democratic parti-
cipation in decision making. Other examples of events at scale value I
5 are the following:

Nov. 12 - Administration will defer its authority on student
suspensions to a university referendum vote.

IIIZOOZOOIOOOIDEFER 2_4REFERENDUM ON STUDENT SUSPEN-
SIONS

Jan. 14 - Administration makes provisions for full student
participation in the scheduling of University entertain-
ment.

OIl40020010001PROVIDE §_2PARTICIPATION IN ENTERTAINMENT
. SCHEDULING

ACAS

ACCP

ACED

ACLU

ADM

AFT

AIC

AR

AS

ASCS

ASUC

AYR

BAFT

BAUP

BHSA

BT

CAF

CDC

CI

CORE

CSG

CUW

ABBREVIATION LIST

 

Academic Council of the Academic Senate
Association of California State College Professors
Ad Hoc Committee to End Discrimination

American Civil Liberties Union

Administration

American Federation of Teachers

Academic Information Committee

Alumni Rep - HOOper

Academic Senate

Ad Hoc Academic Committee on Student Suspensions
Associated Students of the University of California
Advocate Young Republicans

Berkeley American Federation of Teachers

Berkeley Chapter of the American Association of University
Professors

Boalt Hall Student Association
Bancroft Telegraph,

Committee on Academic Freedom
Council of Department Chairmen
Commuter - Independent

Campus Congress of Racial Equality
California Students for Goldwater

Committee on University Welfare

I74

DC

DCDC

EEC

FAC

- FCSC

FSM

GCC

IFC

IFSS

MRH

PB

REP

SCAP

SCAS

SCPA

SNCC

STU

TA

UA

UBOR

UEGS

USI

USLO

YR

I75

Daily Californian

State Board of Directors California Democratic Council
Emergency Executive Committee

Faculty

Faculty Committee on Student Conduct

Free Speech Movement

Graduate Coordinating Committee

Inter-Faith Council

Inter-Faith Staff WOrkers and Student Leaders
Mens Residence Halls

North

Particle Berkeley

Representative

SCPA

Student Conduct Committee of Academic Senate
Study Committee on Campus Political Activity
Student Non-Violent Coordinating Committee
Students

Teaching Assistant

Undergraduate Association

University Board of Regents

University Employed Graduate Students
University Society of Individualists
University Students for Low and Order

Young Republicans

ACTOR/TARGET LIST

 

100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119

120

Student

General
ACED
Slate
ASUC
MRH

AR
Goldberg, A.
SNCC

CORE

Savio

FSM
Weinberg
USI

DC

CSG

Wilson ASUC
AYR

PB

Powell
Stapelton

GCC

176

121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128

129

177

BHSA

Aptheker

YR and C011. Fed. YR
Weismann FSM

USLO

UEGS

Martin Roysher

UA

Robert Dussault

ACTOR/TARGET LIST

 

Administration

 

200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215

General
Toule

Dr. POpe
Strong
Kerr
Williams
Sherriffs
Searcy
SCAP
Boulton
Cunningham
Brode
Kidner
Elberg
VanHouten

Martin Meyerson

I78

ACTOR/TARGET LIST

 

Faculty
300 General
301 Leggett
302 Sellers
303 FCSC
304 AS
305 Ross
306 Cheit
307 Kadish
308 Heyman Committee
309 Lipset
310 Searle
311 SCPA Reps.
312 ASCS
313 CDC
314 Scalapino
315 Feuer
316 BAUP
317 AIC
318 Jacobus Ten Broek

ACTOR/TARGET LIST

 

001
002
003
0011
005
006
007
008
009
DID
011
012
013
014
DIS
016
017
018
019
020

021

Other

Oak. Trib.

Regents

Police

Selt

Gov. Brown

Father Fisher

Gov. Reps.

ACLU

ACCP

IFSS

YR

San Diego Chamber of Commerce
ACLU

Town and Gown Club
Daily Californian
Burnstein

DCDC

Joan Baez

Robert Truhaft
Judge Crittenden

Dr. Terry James

180

022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
O31
032
033
034
035

181

Labor Unions
Cal. Alumni Committee)
Dist. Attor. Coakley
BAFT

Hospital

Student Attorneys
Newsmen

Attorney Hoffman
Bertrand Russell
Benny Butano

James Baldwin

James Farmer

Senator Hugh Burns

ACAS

APPENDIX F

Directions

. PeOple differ in the ways they understand social events. These

differences in understanding may be very important in the relationships

between people.

On the pages that follow are sentences that state Single events in

history.

Each event describes a behavioral relationship between two

persons or groups. For each event you are asked to rate the level of

cooperation or conflict between the two persons or groups that are

underlined. Consider each item separately.

Rate each event according to the following 7-point scale:

I a:

2:

7:

High Cooperation

Medium Cooperation

Low Cooperation

Neither Cooperation nor Conflict
Low Conflict

Medium Conflict

High Conflict

Enter your ratings on the answer Sheet provided. The format in

which you enter your answers will be explained by your experimenter.

182

2. ***Sept.
3. ***Sept.
4. Sept.
5. Sept.
6. ***Sept.
7. ***Sept.
8. Sept.
9. Sept.
10. Sept.
11. ***Sept.
12. ***Sept.
13. Sept.
14. Sept.
15. ***Sept.
16. ***Sept.
17. ***Sept.
18. ***Sept.

Sept.

183

10.- Student editorial calls for rebellion open and fierce
against the University administration.

16 - Dean of Students (Toule) prohibits Student tables at
Bancroft entrance and off campus political activity.

17 - Dean of Students (Toule) seeks the consultation and
advice of student leaders.

l7 - Student leaders meet with Dean of Students (Toule) to
discuss new policy governing the Bancroft strip.

 

17 - Students ask Dean Toule for permission to distribute
any type of political literature.

 

=l7 - Dean Toule answers the students stating the policy is
clear and must be enforced.

 

l7 - Dean Toule charges that students at the meeting were
impudent.

18 - Students petition Dean Toule for use of the Bancroft
Strip under certain conditions.

 

18 - Students agree among themselves to picket, rally, and
use civil disobedience if ban of activities at the Bancroft
strip remains firm.

 

21 - Students hold protest vigil against administration on
the Steps of Administration Hall.

 

23 - Chancellor Stropg issues statement to students saying

that the University is not to be used for political causes.

28 - Chancellor Strong_concedes to students the freedom to
distribute campaign literature at the Bancroft entrance.

28 - Student government denounces general student heckling
and disruption at this stage.

29 - Students defy administration by illegally erecting
tables at the Bancroft strip.

 

29 - Administration with police inform students tables are
illegal and ask identification of students manning tables.

 

3O - Administration requests those Students identified as
manning tables to appear for discipline.

30 - Chancellor Strong warns students that administration
will not allow violation of law on campus.

 

3O - Chancellor Strong_indefinlte1y suspends eight students
for political advocacy in violation of University policy.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.
26.

27.

28.

29.
30.

32.

33.

34.
35.

36.

37.

38.

Sept.
Sept.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

***Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

”**Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

184

30 - Student (Savio) charges administrators are a bunch
of bastards.

30 - Students create a student Free Speech Movement (FSM).

 

I - Students announce rally against administration to be
held on the steps of Administration Hall at noon.

1 - Students call for the support of the whole student
body for suspended students.

1 - Students defy administration and erect tables for
political purposes.

 

1 - Administration has police arrest student (Weinberg) for
trespassing.

1 - Students chant to police to release him (Weinberg).

l - Students surround police car containing student
(Weinberg) and arresting authorities.

1 - From the top of a police car, student (Savio) urges all

students to join in protest.

1 - Chancellor Strong meets with students (Savio and Powell)
to discuss demands.

 

1 - Chancellor Strong refuses student demands.

1 - Students conduct a ”sit-in” at the Dean of Students
office to show support for suspended students.

1 - Students demand administration release Weinberg and end
suspension of students.

 

l - Twenty police take stations opposing students at the
foot of the Administration Hall main stairway.

 

1 - Inside students agree with students gathered outside to
form a united front outside.

I - Student demonstrators clash with anti-demonstrators.

 

1 - Student Government appeals to students to stop demon-
strations and not Oppose administration.

 

1 - Student University Society of Individualists support the
purpose of Student ”sit-ins”.

 

2 - Students conduct all-night vigil in protest of adminis-

tration policies.

2 - Administration personnel mingle with student demonstrators
to establish rapport and meaningful dialogue.

 

39.

40.

41.
42.

43.

111.

4S.

46.

47.
48.

49.
50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

55.

56.

57.

I I '0
..bl.‘
lel\l\

Ct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

***Oct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

:'::'::':Oct .

Oct.

***0Ct.

***0Ct.

***0Ct.

185

2 - Administrators and police plan to arrest all students
refusing to disperse.

2 - Police march against students to positions at
Administration Hall entrances.

2 - Students ask to meet with President Kerr.

 

2 - President Kerr agrees to meet with student demonstration
Spokesmen.

2 - President Kerr states that new University regulations
for students are more liberal.

2 - Student (Savio) reads to students (7000 total) protest
agreement reached with administration.

3 - Administration proposes financial aid be given to

students for their legal defenses in civil courts.

4 - Administration research staff conducts a survey of
general Student opinions on University policy.

 

5 - Students rally to claim victory over administration.

5 - Student (Savio) states to administration whole war is
far from over.

 

5 - Students collect funds to pay for damaged police car.

‘8 - Student young republicans charge Free Speech group is

 

not representative of student groups.

8 - Student liberals and student conservatives fight over
tactics to be employed.

 

9 - Student Free Speech group excludes conservative student
groups from its plenary sessions.

10 - Chancellor Strong appoints three students to a Special
Study Committee on Campus Political Activity (SCAP).

 

12 - Student members of Free Speech group maintain SCAP
appointments need student approval.

15 - Study Committee on Campus Political Activity (SCAP)
agrees with Free Speech group to participative, democratic
modifications of SCAP.

I6 - Chancellor Strong_suggests the basic issues Of conflict
with students be resolved by a University referendum.

l8 - Administration denies Constitutional (First Amendment)
Rights to students.

 

58.

59.

60.
61.

62.

63.

64.

65.

66.

67.

68.

69.

70.

71.

72.
73.

74.

75.

a\ as as C .

Oct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

Oct.

***0Ct.

***0Ct.

***0Ct.

***Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

Oct.

186

18 - Administration with police attack students engaged in
a legal picket.

19 - Students debate among themselves whether they should
“sit-in” at Administration Hall.

 

19 - Free Speech group asks for Student petition of support.

20 - Administration grants the Free Speech students access
to University mimeograph facilities.

20 - Student teaching assistants strike to Show solidarity
with the Free Speech Movement Students.

20 - Students strike against administration free Speech
regulations.

 

21 - Students for Conservative Action disassociate them-
selves from current disruptive tactics of Free Speech

 

students.

21 - Anti-strike students demonstrate against pro-Strike

 

students saying that their education is being disrupted.

21 - Anti-strike students and pro-Strike students break
into general brawl.

 

22 - Administration announces that striking students will
receive full academic credit for courses in which they are
enrolled.

 

22 - Students cheer administration announcement on full
academic credit.

23 - Administration and student representatives agree to
cease confrontation tactics for three days.

 

23 - Upon consultation with student leaders administration
decides to drop all legal charges against students.

 

23 - Chancellor Strong moves to suspend normal punitive
actions against student demonstrators.

23 - Chancellor Strong appeals for student reasonableness.

23 - Students instruct their attorneys (ACLU) to drop civil
cases against the administration.

 

23 - Regents condemn administration guarantee of academic
credit to strikers.

 

24 - Students aid administration by cleaning up the debris
after the rally.

 

187

76. Oct. 24 - Students rally in defiance of university curfew to
Show student solidarity.

77. ***0ct. 24 - Administration states to students that it will continue
to act in the best interests of the majority of students.

78. ***Oct. 25 - Chancellor Strong intervenes to dismiss civil prosecu-
tion of student protestors.

 

79. Oct. 27 - Students ”Sit-in” during regents meeting to demonstrate
support for University administration on academic credit
issue.

80. Oct. 27 - Students attack regents with placards because of their

reprimand of University administration.

 

188
STOP AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS FROM YOUR EXPERIMENTER.
PART 2
You will notice that some items are marked with a triple star or
asterick. Events marked in this way are those events by an adminis-

tration official. You are asked to rate these marked events again.

This time rate the relationship between the underlined persons or

 

groups with respect to the level of participative or authoritative
decision making.
Rate each marked event according to the following 5-point scale:

I High Authoritative

2 = More Authoritative than Participative

3 = About Even Authoritative and Participative
4 = More Participative than Authoritative

5 = High Participative

Enter your ratings on the answer sheet provided. The format in

which you enter your answers will be explained by your experimenter.

APPENDIX G

Training Experimenters

During the first session, everyone was introduced to the study in
which they were to participate. The description given to the experi-
menters was slanted from a functional perspective. In other words,
experimenters were informed of the mechanics of the simulated inter-
action process in the laboratory but not given any appreciation of the
underlying social psychological bases of the interaction. To the
question of what hypotheses I was testing, experimenters were told that
this research project is in its early stages and that the experiments
they would be involved with are strictly explorative In nature, 1,2,,
no specific hypothesis is being tested. In a sense then experimenters
were blind to the various hypotheses that flow from exchange theory and
organization theory. Following this introductory material, experiment-
ers were trained to know the operational forms of sOclal interaction.
Specifically, eXperimenters were trained in the arts of coding and
scaling interaction events. The remainder of the first training ses-
sion was used to explain coding procedures and explain the two scales
to be employed in this research. The coding and scaling manual was
developed as a training aid and proved to be a very beneficial guide
for experimenters (Appendix E).

EXperimenters were given a copy of the manual to study over the
weekend and were scheduled to meet again for the second training session

the following Monday evening. For training session #2, experimenters
189

190

were to meet at the language laboratory facility. Training session #2
began by reviewing briefly the material of training session #1 and
answering questions over that material.

The experimenters were then asked to scale the same structural
sample of interaction events which had been previously used to validate
the independent experimental scales (Appendix F). In the previous con-
text, scalers were naive and were guided only by the polar descriptors
to a scale. In this case, however, trained experimenters were asked to
demonstrate their command to the two experimental scales, by scaling
events in strict accordance with the substantially defined levels of
those two scales. Analyses of the performance of the experimenters
were then made. A Q-correlational analysis was done including all
trained experimenters and two eXperts.7 In other words, a matrix of
correlations between all experimenters and experts and across all events
of the structural sample was computed. On the scale of cooperation/
conflict, the average correlation between an experimenter and an expert
over all such pairs was .823. The Standard deviation about the mean
was .077. This result offers support for the clarity and consistency
achieved by the coding and scaling procedures. The correlation mean in
this case may be viewed as a validity coefficient of experimenters'
scaling performance. Because between experimenter differences in
scaling performances will contribute to error variance in the subse-

quent experimental design, the average interexperimenter correlation

 

‘Ahe two experts were the author and the author's undergraduate
assistant who together worked for several months to devise and refine
a system for coding and scaling of university interaction events data.
The same experts were also well eXperienced in the implementation of
these procedures having coded and scaled nearly 800 events that relate
to the Berkeley Free Speech conflict at the Berkeley campus of the
University of California in 1964-1965.

.1 (192
was also computed. The result was a correlation coefficient of .832
with a standard deviation of .073. In a latter section the various ex-
perimenters will be assumed to be replications of one another, j,e,,
that between experimenter variation be equated to within experimenter
reliability. This latter coefficient may therefore be viewed as an in-
dex of experimenter reliability.

The same Statistics that were calculated for the scale of
cooperation/conflict above were also calculated for the scale of
participative/authoritative organizational Structure. The average cor-
relation between an experimenter and an expert on the latter scale was
.640 with a standard deviation of .100. The average between experi-
menters' correlation was .695 with a standard deviation of .089. In
summary, the results on experimenter performance to expert criterion
and experimenter reliability were very satisfactory.

The remainder of the second training session was used to acquaint
the experimenters with the communication equipment in the laboratory.
Special considerations were given to maintaining the privacy of all com-
munications between experimenter and subjects. Experimenters alternate-
ly played the roles of switchboard operator and subjects to get the feel
of the experimental situation. These factors proved to be essential for
smooth function of the simulation. The Q-correlation matrices for the
cooperation/conflict scale and the participative/authoritative scale are
given in Table l. Experimenters 1-4 were assigned to the more demanding
switchboard operator role. These experimenters must have command of
both scales. Experimenters 5-8 were assigned to the important coder
role. In the coder role the experimenter need only concern himself

with recording the level of cooperation/conflict emitted by an

I93

experimental subject. Table I therefore only includes results on
those individuals for which knowledge of a particular scale is neces-

sary. The results for the two assigned to the courier role are ex-

cluded altogether.

194

Nomm.

_oom. omwm. ow_w. omom. Numm. cmom. mama. :mNm. N

a_Nm. amok. Nmom. Joe“. week. _amm. ONNN. MNNw. . _ matoexm
_ekw. mean. mmom. seem. mN_m. seem. SSNm. m
“mom. a_ak. seam. _omm. meme. meme. N
Neom. meek. okmu. emeu. mmmm. e
momm . TEN . 2i . 93mm . m
mfim. momw. mmwm. a
aim. 23. m
comm. N
_ memocoe_eoaxm

w m o m a m N _

a.mom oo__ecoQ\co_umcoo00u co»
mocOQXm N 3cm meducoe_coexm m co» moco_o_meooQ >3_o__m> ucm >3___3m__ox x_cumz

mm o_3mh

195

mawm. _mmm. _mmo. wmmo. mmam. N

week. mN_e. mace. meme. _ nutmexm
~_:N. seem. mmmm. :
mmmm. mmmc. m
memo. N
_ memocoe_coexm
_ a m N _

O>_om3_c033:<\o>_oma_o_3cme Lo;
mucoaxm N ocm memocos_coaxN : co» moco_o_eeOOQ >3_o__m> 3cm >3___3m__om x_com:

3N o_3mh

APPENDIX H

Player's Manual

 

The University Game

Please read the information in this booklet with great care. You
are about to fill a position of great responsibility. A wide knowledge
of all aspects of the game will greatly increase your capacity to

effectively deal with the problems you might encounter.

Do not write or make marks of any kind on any pege of this manual.

196

INTRODUCTION

You are about to participate in a game concerned with the situa-
tions and events arising on a contemporary university campus. The
Object of the game is for you to promote the goals of the student

coalition (SC). You will be opposed by the administration coalition

 

(AC).

In reading the recent history Of student-administration conflict,
you will learn that a reOcCUrring issue of conflict has been the extent
of ”student rights” of political expression and activity.

The students' general goal Is to promote student civil liberties
of advocacy and action. For example, Students demand the right to speak
out and advocate positions on issues of any kind (personal, social,
political, and spiritual). Further, students demand the right to orga-
nize and act collectively with regard to these same issues.

The administrators general goal is to promote the autonomy and
social order of the university system. For example, administrators
demand that students abstain from speech and action that would involve
the University in secular (community) affairs. Further, administrators
demand the right to discipline students whose actions are judged to be
harmful to the university. 1

The current campus conflict derives from the fact that the goals of
each group are incompatible with the goals of the other group. At this
time, the University is deadlocked in conflict over these largely in-

compatible goals.

197

19:8

You and your teammates have arisen to prominance as leaders of the
student constituency. The student constituency is represented by an in-
formal organizational Structure, the Student coalition (SC). The SC is
not a chartered student organization and your position of leadership
is not a result of an electoral process, rather, your position of
leadership is based on general student recognition of your abilities
to lead the student coalition movement. Your constituency is hetero-
geneous. Many diverse student elements which have suffered under the
restrictions on student Speech and action have united in the SC to pro-
mote the stated student goals. As a consensus leader of the student
movement, you are not bounded in your activities by any formal charter.
However, you are expected to be a spokesman and coordinator of student
activities acting as best you can to promote student goals. Your
teammates join you in this obligation.

The administration constituency is represented by an Ad Hoc Com-
mittee, the President's Task Force on Student Unrest (PTF). The PTF is 1
composed of Officials from the administration, law enforcement, and
legalsectors of the university. The internal processes of the PTF will
be generally made available to the SC -- they can only be inferred from
their joint behaviors (messages).

You will be isolated in a communication booth. From this isolated
position, you must carry out your role as student spokesman and activi-
ties coordinator. You will make statements and report your intended
behaviors by messages to your teammates and opponents. You are free to
say anything to anybody as long as it is prOperly channeled through the
central control station. You may assume that your message is relayed in

substantially the same form as it was made by you. Some delay in

199

response to your message, however, may be expected given the informa-
tion load on student leaders and administrators during a situation of
high conflict. During the game, of course, you will be receiving all
those messages directed toward you from the other persons interacting
through the control station. You are free to evaluate these messages
and make any appropriate response.

On the basis of computer based information about events on many
other campuses, together with the events currently taking place at
Franklin State, the most probable outcomes of the interaction of deci-
sions of all groups will be determined. In other words, you are free
to act independently without regard to either your teammates or oppo-
sition, but your team's effectiveness will be evaluated as a whole
relative to the effectiveness of your collective Opponents. You will
be continually advised on the occurrences on campus as soon as possi-
ble after they take place in Flash News releases. These news messages
will be delivered to you through your headset as any other relayed

message.

DESCRIPTION OF THE UNIVERSITY

Franklin State University is one of a number of land-grant insti-.
tutions established in the late 1800's. From its modest beginnings in
1874, with 8 instructors and 48 students, the university has expanded
to accommodate an undergraduate enrollment of 21,535 in the current
academic year, with approximately 2.1% of these being black Students
and 4% foreign students. All 50 states in the United States are repre-
sented amongthe undergraduates, although 60% of the students come from
the state in which the university is located and another 32% from sur-
rounding States. The graduate school enrollment is 5,377 at the pre-
sent time. The faculty consists of 843 full-time members at the as-
sistant, associate, and full professor levels.

The university has schools of humanities, science, education,
social sciences, engineering, and agriculture. In addition, there are
a law schoOl and medical school. Undergraduates are approximately
evenly distributed among the various schools. The university has ex-
perienced rapid growth over the last fiteen years, nearly doubling in
size. The largest growth has been in the School of Humanities and the
School of Social Sciences.

Through the joint efforts of the state and the university, Franklin,
a community which today has 23,000 residents, was chosen as the Site of
the campus. Eight hundred and forty acres of land were purchased for
the university to allow for eXpanSion. The campus is within 11 miles

of the city of Reddington, a major metropolitan center with a population
200

201

of 450,000. This proximity afford the Students the Opportunity to
take advantage Of the cultural and social facilities of an Urban area,
while at the same time allowing them to live and attend classes in the
atmosphere of a small town campus.

The central buildings of the campus were constructed in a fairly
compact area. Additional buildings have been constructued around this
core which consists of the auditorium, library, student union, admin-
istration, and classroom buildings._

In keeping with its traditional role of leadership and service,
the university hosts many services and industrial conferences. In
addition, the university itself sponsers numerous conferences and pre-
sentations on subjects of concern to the citizens of the state and local
communities. Franklin State also offers extension classes in several
subject areas to the residents of the state.

(Accreditation

 

Franklin State University is fully accredited by national, regional,
and professional agencies. It is a member of the Association of Colleges
and Secondary Schools and has also been chosen as one of the member
institutions in the Association of American Universities.

Living_AccommOdations and Student Life

 

Living accommodations for undergraduate Students include 12 resi-
dence halls, fraternity and soroity houses, cooperatives, and apartments
in the surrounding community. Graduate housing is available for quali-
fied students in either single or double rooms with private study and
reading areas. Residence halls are located within walking distance of
most classrooms and laboratories. Married Student housing consists of

one and two bedroom apartments located close to both the university and

202

to local elementary and junior high schools.

Each student has the Opportunity to participate in a variety of
social and service activities such as the student newSpaper (Spirit),
the yearbook (Web), student government, the campus radio station (WHSU),
intra- and inter-mural athletics, and social-educational activities.
Located on campus are nationally recognized chapters of 37 fraterni-
ties, 23 soroities, and 35 honor organizations.

Each academic year, the university Sponsers a music series, a
lecture series, and a film series for which students are given priority
and discounts on tickets. In addition, seVeral campus organizations
Sponser Special presentations such as plays and art exhibits.

Purpose

Franklin State University fulfills the provisions and purposes of
the Morrill Land Grant Act of 1862, which states as its goal, to promote
I'liberal and practical education ... in the permanent pursuits and
professions of life”. 5

In 1954, the faculty members stated their goals in this way:

1) To help the students to develOp skills, to think critically,

to be increasingly informed, not only in the subject matter
of the particular major, but in human culture, events in the
world, and issues of the day.

2) To help the student to prepare for a vocation or graduate work.

3) To awaken an interest in and appreciation of environment and

culture of the society.

4) To assist the individual toward self-discovery, to cultivate

and appreciate creativity.

5) Public service to the state and union.

203

6) Basic and applied research.

The Administration

President: Dr. Walter R. Raswell, 48. Ph.D. in Classics. Became

Vice

president of Franklin State University after serving as president
for 12 years of a small Eastern college. He is committed to the
ideals of the university as a ”community of scholars”.

President, Student Life: Dr. Mason Reed, 49. Ph.D. in Political
Science. Was Dean of the School of Social Sciences before be-
coming Vice President. He has great respect for youth, but is
somewhat reluctant to see the university making drastic, rapid

changes.

Financial Vice President: Dr. John C. Stevens, 50. Ph.D. in Business

Dean

Dean

Dean

Administration. Became Vice President after retiring as Colonel
in the United States Marine Corps. He strongly believes in the
need for some degree of military influence on civilian life.

of Graduate School (holds rank of Vice President): Dr. Marvin
Kline, 58. Ph.D. in Economics. Formerly Full Professor in the
Department of Economics. He holds Strong convictions about the
ideals and goals of graduate education.

of Law School (holds rank of Vice President): Dr. Edward Rossi,
62. Ph.D. in Law. Formerly Dean of the Law School at a Midwest-
ern university. He has eXpressed great faity in the American legal
system.

of Medical School (holds rank of Vice President): Dr. Bradley
Schroder, 46. M.D. and Ph.D. in Medicine. Formerly a Full
Professor in the Medical School. He feels that medical education

must become more relevant to contemporary problems.

204

These six men represent the upper echelon of the university
Administration. As a group, their point of view is moderately conser-
vative. However, Dr. Raswell and Dr. Stevens are known to be particu-
‘larly conservative, while Dr. Schroder is the most liberal of the group.
'Franklin Conservative Youth Movement

FCY is one of the Oldest organizations on campus, having been
founded during the Administration of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

It presently has 375 members who are often viewed by the majority of
students as being allied with the Administration. In fact, on Several
issues the FCY position is even more conservative than that of the
Administration. There appears to be no central core of leadership in
the group, with all members sharing official FCY policy about equally.
Coalition-Left

CL was organized in 1968 by combining a number of leftist-oriented
splinter groups on the campus including the $05. The present member-
ship numbers at about 400. Since the degree of radicalness of the
original groups forming the coalition differed somewhat, the members are
now clustered around a central cadre of 25 hard-core revolutionaries.
The other members have vieWpolnts ranging from very liberal to radical

to moderately revolutionary.

HISTORY OF COOPERATION/CONFLICT

The "Carpenter Case”

During the spring semester of 1967, an issue arose which captured
the interests and awoke a desire for involvement in many students at
Franklin State. The events which took place that Spring, which have

come to be known as the “Carpenter case," are described below.

Jonathon M. Carpenter was a junior in the spring of 1967. His
grade point average was a 8+. He was taking 12 hours of credit that
semester and he held two jobs. The first job was as an unpaid program
director of the campus FM radio station, WHSU; and the second as an
office employee (10 hours per week) for one of the local political
candidates. The FM programming was well-liked by many on campus. It
featured mostly rock and folk music, with the exception of a two-hour
jazz program on Wednesday nights. In addition, the station periodically
presented news and commentary.

During one of his commentary broadcasts, Carpenter presented a
Strong case for the political candidate by whom he was employed in the
other job. The next day, Carpenter was called into the president's
office and told to present no further commentaries on the radio station.
The administration explained that the university had to remain neutral,
and that a broadcast on the official university owned and Operated
station in favor of any political candidate was "irresponsible”.

Carpenter met with the WHSU staff that afternoon, and by majority
205

206

vote, the staff agreed that ”it is the reSponsibility of all segments

of the population including the students at Franklin State UniverSity,
to inform the public about each candidate on the ballot in the upcoming
elections". Following that policy, Carpenter went on the air that
evening with a statement attacking the university administration for
”political cowardice" and later in the evening presented a commentary

on his employer's political opponent, a statement that was later called
”slander of the worst kind" by the local press. The next morning,
Carpenter was fired from his job at the radio Station by the station
manager, on orders of the university president. He was then called into
the Dean of Men's office and told that ”several charges had been brought”
against him, and a detailed statement of charges would be presented to
him later in the day.

That afternOon, he was handed an envelope by an Assistant Dean of

Men containing three charges against him:

1) Violation of Section L of the |'Rules Of Student Conduct”:
Specifically, defaming the name of the University in the eyes
of the community by Speaking slanderously in the name of the
University.

2) Violation of Section J of the “Rules of Student Conduct”:
Specifically, refusing to comply with and blatantly ignoring
the order of the University President to cease presentation of
commentary on the University radio station, WHSU.

3) Violation of Section M of the ”Rules of Student Conduct”:
Specifically, endangering community relations with Franklin
State University by, in effect, presenting a free advertisement

for a political candidate. Other radio stations in the

207

community sell their time for this purpose, and may resent
the donation of free air time as unfair competition.
In addition to the list of charges, the envelope handed to Carpenter
contained a Statement appointing a time for him to appear before the
Dean of Men to discuss the charges and a list of the ”Rules of Student
Conduct”.

Upon his request, Carpenter's case was brought before a Hearing
Commission which found him guilty of all three charges. A penalty of
suspension from Franklin State University for two semesters was imposed.
Carpenter then applied to the Campus Appeals Board, which affirmed the
findings and the penalties imposed by the Hearing Commission.

The entire case was given wide publicity at the university, first
in the campus newspaper, and then by the left-wing students. The
majority of students were aware of the issue, and many were outraged.
The leftists realized that this was an issue which had captured wide
student interest and which they could utilize to their advantage. They
organized a rally in support oprarpenter on the day of the Appeals
Board meeting, calling for and getting a large turn-out. Speakers at the
rally proclaimed that Carpenter was being treated unfairly and unjustly
and that this case was just part of a larger program of ”persecution of
students” adopted by the administration. They asked students to consid-
er “the wider and long-term implications of such persecution” and
accused the campus radio station of being ”administration dupes”. After
the findings of the Appeals Board were known, students organized mass
picketing of the Administration Building and tha radio station. There
was some talk on campus about ”liberating” the radio station, but no

aggressive action against the station was ever taken.

208

Jonathon Carpenter decided and made known that he intended to
”throw their penalties in the faces” of the administration by with-
drawing entirely from Franklin State. He announced that he could not
remain in such a "suppressive and totalitarian atmosphere“.

The Current Situation

 

The Situation which exists at Franklin State University at the
present time is marked by Open conflict between students and adminis-
trators. The strains produced by the incompatible goals of students
and administrators had been building throughout the fall term. In
many respects, the current Situation reflects the unresolved issues
of the Carpenter Case of 1967.

During the fall term, students showed a resurgence of interest in
political involvement. The motivations of students were not generally
articulated but the renewed political interest coincided with a number
of national and local legal reforms. The United States Congress en-
acted a statute reducing the age requirement for voting in federal
elections to 18 years. The State extended the voting privelege by
enacting the 18 year old Age of Majority Bill. These legal measures
had especial significance when the State Supreme Court ruled that a
student in residence in the University Community for more than 6 months
may legitimately claim residency in that community and vote in that
community's local elections. Also, political interests may be running
especially high this year in the advent of the upcoming Presidential
elections. Already political candidates are debating issues that have
appeal to student constituencies.

Together these factors resulted in vigorous student political

activity during the fall. In front of the concrete posts that mark the

209

main pedestrian entrance to the campus on an ordinary school day one
would find students handing out leaflets, advertising many different
kinds of political meetings and actions to be held on the campus it-
self and off it as well.

However, at the beginning of the winter term, the university
administration decided to enforce the University regulations pertaining
to Student political advocacy and action. The administration announce-
ment declared that students had been abusing their priveleged access
to university facilities by prOmOtion of political objectives. The
announcement Stated that the University charter required the adminis-
tration to maintain an environment for scholarship, research, and
service. In the judgment of the administration, student involvement
in political (secular) matters detracts from the stated objectives of
the University charter.

Students interpreted the announcement as a direct threat to their
political and social objectives. They speculated that there were other
reasons for this inopportune decision to enforce the archaic provi-
sions of the University charter. Perhaps the University administrators
themselves were bowing to outside political pressures that called for
a Silencing of students. Students were generally outraged by this
infringement of there activities and prepared to act against the admin-
istration.

The conflict will be difficult to resolve because each group
is committed to absolute, nonnegotiable positions and each represents
powerful forces. From participation in the civil rights movement,
many students have become well schooled in confrontation politics.

Students are now considering how to respond to recent administration

210

actions. Their eventual response may involve general petitions,
pickets, demonstrations, rallies, meetings, arguments. The adminis-

tration can draw upon its coercive power, law enforcement, and legal

force.

APPENDIX I

Questionnaire

Name: Year in School:

 

 

Major: Sex:

 

 

The following questions will require you to give your first
impressions of groups and issues at Franklin State University. Please
record your answers on scales of the following form:

Good / / / / / / / Bad
High Medium Low Neither Low Medium High
Good Good Good Bad Bad Bad

For example: If you perceived the administration to be moderately
bad, you would record your answer with a check mark as follows:

 

Good / / / / / X / / Bad

1. From what you have read in the game manual, you should be able to
give a tentative evaluation of the President's Task Force on
Student Unrest (PTF). Please rate on the following scales.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Strong / / / /‘ / / / Weak
Good / / / / / , / / Bad
Active __ / / / / / / / Passive
2. Similarly, please give your evaluation of the Student Coalition
(SC) 0
Strong / / / / / / / Weak
Good / / / / / / / Bad
Active / / / / / / / Passive
3. To what extent do you agree with the student/administration posi-
tions?
Agree / / / /_ / / / Agree
With Students With Administration

211

212

4. To what extent would you actively support the student/administra-
tion positions?

DO / / / / / / / Do a
Nothing Great
Deal

 

APPENDIX J

Oral Instructions

Hello! We are about to begin a simulation of interaction between
a team of students and a team of administrators. From reading your
simulation manual, you know that your team (Team 1 or 2) will be
functioning as the Student Coalition (SC). The other team (Team 1 or
2) is now located in the laboratory quarters on the opposite Side of
the control Station. They will function in the role of an administra-
tion team, President Raswell's Task Force (PTF).

The manual has set forth some historical antecedents of the inter-
action patterns between the SC and the PTF at Franklin State University.
However, the SC and the PTF now include new personnel so there is the
possibility that the traditional patterns of interaction will be altered
as a reflection of the new attitudes and organizational strategies
played by these new personnel. The nature of future COOperation or
conflict between the SC and PTF will depend largely upon the actions and
reactions initiated by the personnel of these two teams.

You are invited to join in spontaneous/extemporaneous interaction
with your teammates individually and your opposition collectively. You
may say or propose any action you want as long as it can be delivered
in the form of a concise message. The activities you initiate will be
relayed in the form of a message. The messages will be received only
by those persons to whom the messages are addressed. This arrangement

allows for confidential communication between persons within the system.

213

214

Messages directed toward the administration will be received by
each of the constituent members of the administration team. Communica-
tion with an individual of the administration team is usually not an
option for students and therefore is not provided for in this simula-
tion. Messages within your own team can be addressed to either one or
both of your peers by using an assigned code identification. All
messages should be brief to prevent tying up the lines of communication.
The switchboard operator can only send or receive one message at a
time. When you have a message to send, push the ”call button” on your
control panel. This will light a bulb on our switchboard that signifies
you are ready with a message. As soon as possible, the switchboard
Operator will get to you and relay your message. Due to the heavy com-
munication load passing through the central Operators, you may expect
some delay in responses to specific messages.

Finally, it is important that you represent the kind of activity
in concrete terms. All activities will be conveyed through the verbal
mode but one may impart some variation intensity within that mode. For
example, is the activity simply a Statement of fact or opinion or does
it reflect a disposition or intention tOward engagement in physical
action. Similarly, distinguish between a threat and an intention to
action. (Then privately to eepp_subject the following was said.) Your
code will be the letter “C”. One of your teammates is ”A” and the

other is “8”. Are there any questions? We will begin in a moment.

APPENDIX K

Table 27

Treatments of Al, 81, and Cl

Rows Columns
I 2 3 4 5
1 3/4 4/5 1/5 N - ‘ 2/4
2 3A 28 4A 18 N +
3 4/5 3/5 2/4 1/4 N -
4 28 4A 3A N + 18
S 1/4 N - 3/5 2/4 4/5
6 4A N + 18 28 3A
7 N + 2/4 4/4 3/5 1/5 9
8 18 3A N + 4A 2B
9 2/5 1/4 N - 4/5 3/4
10 N - 18 28 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q = Questionnaire

Z
11

News Flash

215

216

Table 28

Treatments of Al, 81, and C2

Rows Columns
1 2 3 4 5
1 3/4 4/5 1/5 N - 2/4
2 3A 63 4A 73 N +
3 4/5 3/5 2/4 1/4 N -
4 63 4A 3A N + 73
5 1/4 N - 3/5 2/4 4/5
6 4A N + 73 63 ‘ 3A
7 N + 2/4 4/4 3/5 1/5
8 73 3A N + 4A 63
9 2/5 1/4 N - 4/5 3/4
10 N - 73 63 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

217

Table 29

Treatments of Al, 81, and C3

Rows Columns
1 2 3 ' 4 5
1 3/4 4/5 1/5 N - 2/4
2 5A 63 4A 7B N +
3 4/5 3/5 2/4 l/4 N -
6B 4A SA N + 7B
5 1/4 N - 3/5 2/4 4/5
6 4A N + 78 68 5A
7 N + 2/4 4/4 3/5 1/5
78 5A N + 4A 6B
9 2/5 1/4 N - 4/5 3/4
10 N - 7B 6B 5A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

Rows
1

1 5/4
2 3A
3 4/5
4 23
5 7/4
6 4A
7 N +
8 IB
9 6/5
10 N -

Q = Questionnaire

N I News Flash

‘2 219
\

Table 30

Treatments of Al, 82, and Cl

Columns

2 3 4 5
4/5 7/5 N - 6/4
28 4A 18 N +
5/5 6/4 7/4 N -
4A 3A N + 18
N - 5/5 6/4 4/5
N + 18 28 3A
6/4 4/4 5/5 7/5
3A N + 4A 28
7/4 N - 4/5 5/4
1B 2B 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q

220

Table 31

Treatments of Al, 82, and C2

Rows Columns
1 2 3 4 5
1 5/4 4/5 7/5 N - 6/4
2 3A 68 4A 78 N +
3 4/5 5/5 6/4 7/4 N -
68 4A 3A N + 7B
5 7/4 N - 5/5 6/4 4/5
6 4A N + 78 68 3A
7 N + 6/4 4/4 5/5 7/5
78 3A N + 4A 6B
9 6/5 7/4 N - 4/5 5/4
10 N - 7B 68 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

221

Table 32

Treatments of Al, 82, and C3

Rows Columns
1 2 3 4 5
1 5/4 4/5 7/5 N - 6/4
2 5A 68 4A 78 N +
3 4/5 5/5 ‘ 6/4 7/4 N -
68 4A 5A N + 78
5 7/4 N - 5/5 6/4 4/5
6 4A N + 78 68 5A
7 N + 6/4 4/4 5/5 7/5
8 78 5A N + 4A 6B
9 6/5 7/4 N - 4/5 5/4
10 N - 7B 68 5A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

222

Table 33

Treatments of A2, 81, and Cl

Rows Columns
1 2 3 4 5
1 3/2 4/1 III N - 2/2
2 3A 28 4A 18 N +
3 4/1' 3/1 2/1 1/2 N -
28 4A 3A N + 18
5 1/2 N - 3/1 2/2 4/1
6 4A N + 18 28 3A
N + 2/2 4/2 3/1 1/1
18 3A N + 4A 28
9 2/1 1/2 N - 4/1 3/2
10 N - 18 28 3A , 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

223

Table 34

Treatments of A2, 81, and C2

Rows Columns

. 1 2 3 4 S

1 3/2 4/1 1/1 N - 2/2
2 3A 68 4A 78 N +
3 4/1 3/1 2/2 1/2 N -
68 4A 3A N + 78

5 1/2 N - 3/1 2/2 4/1
6 4A N + 78 68 3A
7 N + 2/2 4/2 3/1 1/1
8 78 3A N + 4A. 68
9 2/1 1/2 N - 4/1 3/2
10 N - 7B 68 3A 4A

Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

224

Table 35

Treatments of A2, 81, and C3

Rows Columns
1 2 3 4 ‘ 5
1 3/2 4/1 1/1 N - 2/2
2 5A 63 4A 73 N +
3 4/1 3/1 2/2 1/2 N -
4 68 4A 5A N + 78
S 1/2 N - 3/1 2/2 4/1
6 4A N + 73 63 5A
7 N + 2/2 4/2 3/1 1/1
8 73 5A N + 4A ‘ 63
9 2/1 1/2 N - 4/1 3/2
10 N - 73 63 5A 4A
Q Q Q Q Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

Rows
l
1 5/2
2 3A
3 4/1
4 28
5 7/2
6 4A
7 N +
8 18
9 6/1
10 N -
Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

225

Table 36

Treatments of A2, 82, and Cl

Columns

2 3 4 5
4/1 7/1 N - 6/2
28 4A 18 N +
5/1 6/2 7/2. N -
4A 3A N + 18
N - 5/1 6/2 4/1
N + 18 28 3A
6/2 4/2 5/1 7/1
3A N + 4A 28
7/2 . N - 4/1 5/2
18 28 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q

Rows
l
1 5/2
2 3A
3 4/1
4 68
5 7/2
6 4A
7 N +
8 7B
9 6/1
10 N -
Q

Q I Questionnaire

N I News Flash

226

Table 37

Treatments of A2, 82, and C2

Columns

2 3 4 5
4/1 7/1 N - 6/2
68 4A 78 N +
5/1 6/2 7/2 N -
4A 3A N + 73
N - 5/1 6/2 4/1
N + 78 68 3A
6/2 4/2 5/1 7/i
3A N + 4A 68
7/2 N - 4/1 5/2
78 68 3A 4A
Q Q Q Q

Rows

5/2
5A
4/1
68
7/2
4A

78
6/1

Questionnaire

News Flash

227

Table 38

Treatments of A2, 82, and C3

Columns
2 3 4 5
4/1 7/1 N - 6/2
68 4A 78 N +
5/1 6/2 7/2 N -
4A 5A N + 78
N - 5/1 6/2 4/1
N + 78 68 SA
6/2 4/2 5/1 7/1
5A N + 4A 68
7/2 N - 4/1 5/2
78 68 5A 4A
Q Q Q Q

APPENDIX L

Report Form

From: Team:

W

A, B, or C SC or PTF

Part of the task of the SC leaders and PTF officials is to pro-
vide their central organizations with adequate information about their
reactions to situations which they have encountered and their expecta-
tions about future developments. In order to simplify this reporting
task, you are given this standard report form.

Please, take time to give adequate consideration to each of the

questions on the following pages. Answer all questions as best you can.

228

229

In the following sections, you will be required to give your first
impression of groups and issues at Franklin State University. Please
record your answers on scales of the following form:

Good / / / / / / /Bad
High Mid Low Nei- Low Mid High
Good Good Good ther Bad Bad Bad

For example: If you perceived the administration to be moderately bad,
you would record your answer with a check mark as follows:

 

Good / / / / / X / /Bad

 

1. How do you perceive your teammates with respect to their interaction
with you? Example: If you are team member 8 and you perceive your
team member A to be high friendly and your team
member C to be low hostile toward you, then
your response will look like the following:

Friendly A / / /- / C / / /Hostile

Mark the following scales in a Similar manner.

COOpe rat 1 ve _____/___/___/____/______/______/__/Uncooperat i ve
Active ____/___/____/__/___/___/____/Passive
Incompetent ____/__/___/____/___/____/-____/ Competent
Friendly / / / / / / /Hostile

2. How do you perceive your teammates with respect to their interac-
tion with your Opposition? Describe each of your teammates pn
each of the following scales (as in the above example).

_/ /
/ /
/

Authoritative / /Nonauthoritative

Cooperative “/Uncooperative

 

Active

_/ /
/_ /
“I /
/ / / /
_/ / /
/ /

 

/Competent

Liberal _/

/Conservative

/
_l
/ /Passive
/
/
/

/
/
Incompetent ____/___
/
/

/ /

Strong /Weak

3.

Authoritative / / / /

4.

Incompetent /

230

How do you perceive your Opposition with respect to their interac-
tion with you? Indicate your choice with a check mark in the scales

 

below.

/Nonauthoritative

 

/Conservative

/

/ /Competent
Liberal __«___/ / / / /
/

\
\
\
\

Strong /Weak

 

 

Information is important if it has implications for your current or
future initiatives. However, information is relevant ONLY if you
can meaningfully respond to that information in terms of your task.
If information is irrelevant, meaningful responding is not possi-
ble. In these terms, how specifically relevant to your decisions
and plans was the information you received in the last period?

Very Very
Relevant / / / / / / /Irrelevant

 

 

In your evaluation, what factors were most important in determining
the course of events occurring on the Franklin State University
campus during the last period? Please estimate the degree of im-
portance (in percentage) for each of the following: (Estimates
should total 1002). ,

(a) Activities of your team .................. .....
(b) Activities by the Opposing team ................
(c) Public Opinion factors .........................
(d) Various chance factors .........................
(e) Activities of switchboard operators ............
(f) Environmental factors ..........................

 

 

 

 

I
NNNNNN

 

The information you receive is edited and relayed to you by a staff
of switchboard operators. You may wish to modify the number of
reports which you are receiving. Please check your preference for
the coming period.

Much More Little Same Little Much
Information More Amount Less Less

How much have you enjoyed the game up to this point?

Very Much / / / / / / /Not at All

APPENDIX M

The eXperimental sample was constituted of persons who in total
fit the distribution profile of real student protestors (Flacks, 1967).
As was reviewed in an earlier section, Flacks found students from
social sciences and the humanities to have a greater disposition toward
student protest than have their peers in the commercial, professional,
and physical science fields. Flacks, however, found no significant
differential rate of participation in Student protests as a function
of class standing. Apparently the conditions that motivate participa-
tion are sufficiently broad to apply evenly across all classes. In
the present research, demographic data on subjects were collected
including variables on academic major and class standing. A contingency
distribution over the categories of academic major and class standing
is presented in Table . The contingency distribution shows that
students enrolled in the social sciences and in the lower class
standings were represented by a disprOportionately large number of
eXperimental subjects. This result Shows convergence to the distribu-
tion profile established for real protestors in real episodes of con-
flict. Based on these data alone, however, one cannot infer any
particular social psychological process operating. One interpretation
of the results is that student interest in campus conflict mediated
sample procurement. The disprOportionate number of students in the
social sciences reflected the greater interest in this tOpic and thus

the greater likelihood to volunteer for experimental involvement.

231

232

Table 39

ContingenCy Distribution over Academic
Major and Class Standing

Year in School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Major High School Fresh SOph Jr Sr Grad Total
Social Science 5 3 6 l 15
No preference I 1 11 8 _ 20
Ph sical Science 3 l 2 W 6
business 3 3 3 l 10
Natural Science 2 l 2 r 5
Medicine 1 w 1
Law 4 1 I .- 6
Liberal Arts 3 f 3
Education 1 2 2 r 5
Total I 31 20 ll 9 O . 72

233

An alternative interpretation is that social science and l'no prefer-
enceII were most prevalent in the sample simply because recruitment
for eXperimental subjects was undertaken principally in the large
undergraduate sections of psychology. The same artifact of the
recruitment process can eXplain the preponderance of freshmen and
SOphmore subjects. Either or both interpretations of the contingency
distribution are possible. While the motives of the student partici-
pants are in doubt, it is clear that the constituency of the experi-
mental sample is very similar to the constituencies that were witnessed
at the sites of conflict eg,, Berkeley, Columbia, and elsewhere.

A closely related tOpic is the evaluation of subjects' initial
perceptions of issues and actors at Franklin State University. It
is desirable that the eXperimental procedure include this analysis of
initial state characteristics of the social system for two reasons.
First, the initial state serves as a control state against which one
may evaluate attitudinal and behavioral changes. Secondly, the initial
state survey provides the basis for a multidimensional analyses of
the conflict situation. The prototypic conflict situation as formu-
lated here is thereby ammenable to quantitative description. The
results on the attitude items are presented in Table . In each
case, the questionnaire item is in the form of a 7 point semantic
differential scale (Osgood, I956). Tabular entries present the means
and standard deviations for each scale.

A comparison of the positions of the President's Task Force (PTF)
and the Student Coalition (SC) shows the student position is evaluated
more positively. The students are also perceived to be more active

than administrators but have less strength than do the administrators.

 

Pre

 

St

 

 

 

234

Table 40
Initial Subject Attitudes toward the Various Actors

Actors Scale Mean Standard Deviation of
Scale Mean

President's Task Force (PTF)
Polar Adjectives

 

Strong/Weak 2.583 1.489

Good/Bad 5.167 1.267

Active/Passive 3.111 1.410
Student Coalition (SC)

Polar Adjectives

Strong/Weak 3.458 1.404

Good/Bad 2.306 1.002

Active/Passive 2.278 .982

 

On two additional scales, subjects rated their relative agreement with
the student/administration positions as presented in the Franklin
State University simulation manual. Subjects showed more agreement
with the student position as indicated by a mean student (1)/adminis-
tration (7) scale position of 1.833 with standard deviation .934.

Subjects also reported their willingness to do a great deal in SUpport

 

of their preferred position, i.e., the SC. On a scale of do nothing
(l)/do aggreat deal (7) a mean scale position of 5.472 with standard
deviation 1.150 was obtained over all subjects. On the basis of these
results, there is every indication that the instructional and informa-
tional material included in the simulation manual produced the desired
effect. Specifically, subjects were oriented to issues not unlike
those at Berkeley in 1964-65, and subjects were aroused for active

participation in the subsequent experimental simulation.

 

"11111111111111“