~;.v.‘-,‘- ,' ,4”... rangfmuzIW-v' . , SOCIALIZATIO‘N AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE. PERCEPTIONS OF THE BASIS FOR PERSUASION AS RELATED TO LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GILBERT LEE WHITEMAN 1971 ---.... W-..‘ mow-a H. - . a v 9 - LIBRARY“ Michigan State Universitv ' .5 III III III I I IIIIIII I I I II III III I 1293 102 This is to certify that the thesis entitled SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE: PERCEPTIONS OF THE BASIS FOR PERSUASION AS RELATED TO LEI 3TH OF GROUP MEI/ISSRSHIP presented by sills/art Lee Whiteman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Doctor of Philosophy degreein Communication October 2 I)ate 0-7639 WING ‘8; r: 0A8 II SUNS' II ' "IKBINDERYIN? II 'mv BIN”? . “-2; I ABSTRACT SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE: PERCEPTIONS OF THE BASIS FOR PERSUASION AS RELATED TO LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP By Gilbert Lee Whiteman The purpose of this study was to determine if military officers, in the process of becoming socialized, pass through identifiable phases which can be linked with the length of time they have served on active duty and to their sources of commission. A second purpose of the study was to investigate the efficacy with which Herbert C. Kelman's model of the processes of social influence can be used to explain and predict to these stages of military socialization. By surveying 5l3 active duty Air Force officers and applying four case studies for attribution to Kelman's processes of Compliance, Ident- ification, and Internalization, support for two hypotheses was found: First, it was hypothesized that phases are passed through by officers as they are experiencing conditions of socialization into the military environment. As hypothesized, the results show that officers with small amounts of service do attribute decisions primarily to influence attempts whose bases are Compliance-oriented, while officers with lengthy service attribute decisions to influence attempts whose bases are Internalization- oriented. Second, it was hypothesized that officers whose source of commission is ROTC will move at a slower rate from Compliance to Internalization-based attributions than will officers who are products of other commissioning sources. This hypothesis was also supported. Gilbert Lee Whiteman Except for the intermediate process of Identification, the findings indicated that Kelman's model of the processes of social influence can explain and predict socialization in a military setting. Overall, more than twice the percentage of officers in the early (O-A) year group attributed successful influence attempts to Compliance than did members of the same year group who made attributions to Inter- nalization. Moreover, the reverse trend, though generally not as great, was found for officers with longer (Over-l0 years) active service. Re- stated, there was generally less attribution to Compliance and more attribution to lnternalization as bases for successful influence attempts for subjects who had greater lengths of group membership. Results pertaining to the second hypothesis suggest that the time spans for the three phases may be influenced by differences in the prior experiences of new group members. As predicted, the research findings show that ROTC products do indeed maintain a Compliance orientation longer than do their Non-ROTC counterparts. Finally, the study concluded that the amount of information presented to the subjects in the case studies resulted in no statistically signifi- cant differences in choices (two studies were constructed to give a great deal of information upon which attributions could be made; two contained a minimum amount of information). The percentage breakdown for the high and low information case studies was, in most cases for both length of group membership and source of commission, almost identical--with the greatest difference for any category being only five percentage points. SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL INFLUENCE: PERCEPTIONS OF THE BASIS FOR PERSUASION AS RELATED TO LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP By Gilbert Lee Whiteman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication I971 Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Doctor of Philosophy degree. flaw KMZZv Director of Thesis Guidance Committee: WM , Chairman flflw LU WV 49w 6-? R94 6‘ I ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Though these thoughts are found inside the front cover of a doctoral dissertation, I should like to mention support received for more than this singular academic endeavor. The ”road” has been long and I want to record, at least for my own satisfaction, the scholarly friendship which has allowed me to reach the road's end. I must commence by mentioning my very good fortune in having been at Michigan State University while Dr. Gerald R. Miller, a friend and teacher par excellence, was here as Director of Graduate Studies, Professor of Communication, and Chairman of my doctoral committee. He provided the initial suggestion and motivation for the nature of this research and acted as my individual mentor and supporter throughout my program. I benefitted more from his lectures when I was his teaching assistant in Interpersonal Communication than from any other scholarly experience in the Department. Dr. David C. Ralph, Professor of Communication, recognizes and expresses the value of the humanist in an ever-increasing behavior- oriented field. He was helpful at many points during my pragram and provided valuable stylistic suggestions for the report. Dr. Robert w. Schlater, Jr., Chairman of the Television and Radio Department of this university, agreed to join my committee half-way through the program and supervise my studies in his department-~studies which will enhance my professional future. Dr. Clyde D. J. Morris, Assistant Professor of Communication, instilled within me from the time of our first acquaintance, the necessary drive and desire to tackle a social issue with zeal and come- up with something of value to the field of communication and to the Air Force. Dr. Vincent J. Salvo, Assistant Professor of Sociology, has been a scholarly and personal inspiration to me since my first term at this university. He is a gentleman who has always been ”fair but firm” (not to imply that he is an advocate of Theory X). His personal style, methods, phiIOSOphy, and values of classroom teaching are those which I should like to emulate should I assume full-time professorial duties after my retirement from the Air Force. I thank him, too, for sharing with me his own values on some of America's dire social problems and Opening my mind to the plight of the "other side" in this regard. The above-mentioned five faculty members, all of whom constitute my doctoral committee, have given me invaluable assistance throughout my stay here. They have been a‘ngl guidance committee. Many Air Force leaders have placed faith in me during my twenty- three years of active duty, from my initial entry as a pre-high school drapout enlisted man to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Phil050phy as a field grade officer. I can think of no civilian institution or industry which would provide such a scholarship program for its employ- ees. The Air Force leaders who have created and maintained these vast and effective programs are to be lauded. I should like to express appreciation to the following peOple who, over the years, have motivated me toward continuing my formal education: Colonels Vincent J. Donahue, Thomas R. Loosmore, Byron V. Pepitone, Mark Gilman, Gerald R. Jorgensen, and David B. O'Hara; Lieutenant Colonels George P. Freeman, Jr., Melvin L. Reimer, David Lake Stiles, and Leo J. Whited; Professors Warren Y. Gore, Everett M. Rogers, Robert V. Peterson, C. Joe Holland, David P. Bergin, and R. Vincent Farace; and the folks at the Air Force Institute of Technology headquarters and at Air University who supported my re- search endeavors as well as the officers of Wright-Patterson, Selfridge, Kincheloe, Wurtsmith, K. I. Sawyer, Langley, and Offutt Air Force Bases who acted as subjects. Professor Don Cushman has been most helpful to me at many points during the past several years in devel0ping within me a respect for and appreciation of communication theory and concepts. He Spent much of his own valuable time in being with me during some ”rough” spots of my pro- gram, and I want Don to know that I appreciate his SUpport. I am especially indebted to Major General William C. Garland, a military leader whom I shall always respect and admire, for the many hours which he gave me during four years at the Pentagon, urging me to continue my education. The peOpIe at the Institute of Social Research (ISR) at Ann Arbor were very helpful during the many visits which I made as this project was devel0ping. I am appreciative of George Whitmore's attention to my endeavors and aSpirations. His encouragement gave me a sense of having accomplished something which will be remembered as more than just a ”hurdle” which was overcome and which will provide unending hOpe that I might continue the nature of the present endeavor far into the future. Finally, but most profoundly, my wife Betty and my children, Jana, Brian, and Jeffrey have ”put up with" my scholastic endeavors for more years than they probably care to remember. They have been witness to more of my absence from the home front than of my presence. I know that I have denied them the attention upon which a family is supposed to thrive. With compassion and understanding, as well as encouragement for me to continue, Betty and the children have c0ped with the situation. I am truly grateful to them for allowing me--urging me--to reach this goal. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix Chapter Page I INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l Relevant Research. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l The Problem. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Rationale and Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . IO II METHODS AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Overview. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Independent Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . l3 Dependent Variable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Data Gathering Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . lh Procedures for Analysis of Data . . . . . . . . . . l6 III RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Responses . . . . . . . . . . . l7 Hypothesis of Major Interest (HI ) . . . . . . . . . l8 Hypothesis of Secondary Interest (H2) . . . . . . . . 2l Attributions According to Amount of Information Presented. . . . . . . . . . . . 26 IV DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 Implications for Future Research. . . . . . . . . . 38 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 LIST OF REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Al APPENDIX A: Case Study One . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 APPENDIX B: Case Study Two . . . . . . . . . . . . . . #6 APPENDIX C: Case Study Three . . . . . . . . . . . . . #9 APPENDIX D: Case Study Four. . . . . . . . . . . . . . SI vii LIST OF TABLES Table Page I DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SUBJECTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND SOURCE OF COMMISSION. . . . . . . l7 2 PERCENTAGES OF DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SUBJECTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND SOURCE OF COMMISSION. . . . . . l7 3 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY l . . . . . l8 4 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY 2 . . . . . l9 5 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY 3 . . . . . 20 6 PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY h . . . . . 2l 7 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY I . . . . . . . 22 '8 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY 2 . . . . . . . 23 9 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY 3 . . . . . 2A IO PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY h . . . . . . . 25 ll COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES TO CASES WITH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM INFORMATION BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP. . . 27 l2 COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES TO CASES WITH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM INFORMATION BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION. . . . . 28 I3 IDEAL RESPONSES TO EACH CASE TO SUPPORT H] . . . . . . . 35 viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page I KELMAN'S THREE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL INFLUENCE. . . . . . . ll CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Adult socialization results largely from communicative acts in one form or another; one makes his attitudes and values known through com- munication. When one reaches or fails to reach his goals, he is aware of his success or failure through others who tell him, in some way, about his status. Though one's lower-level needs may be fulfilled by acts other than communication, he finds that higher-level needs (those bearing directly on the socialization process) are met through communi- cative acts. Leadership qualities diSplayed by his superiors are, for all practical purposes, brought to his attention through communication. Finally, one trusts and confides in others based upon what has been communicated to him by and about those others. The interest expressed by sociologists and other behavioral sci- entists in the process of adult socialization is not of recent birth. For some time, researchers have been investigating "what happens to people and to organizations when peOpIe unite for the attainment of mutual goals.” Communication is an important factor in the adult socialization process. Relevant Research Manning, in his soon-to-be-published work, Talking and Becoming: Ayyiew,offlOrganizationalgSocjalization, writes: ”A study of organization must begin with a study of its use by actors. Becoming a socially 2 sanctioned member of an organization, by implication, involves displaying, adhering to, and being sanctioned for use of an ordering scheme or sub- schemes” (Manning, l970, p. 8). Parsons is quoted as describing adult socialization as ”the acquisition of the requisite orientations for satisfactory functioning in a role”(Manning, l970, p. 16). Manning, though, warns us that Parsons' definition may be too simple to describe and account for the process. He writes, ”Strangers and new members of an organization are both part and not a part of the organization. They act within the limits of the system, but do not share the common-sense knowledge current among other members” (Manning, l970, pp. l6-l9). When Schien writes that a prime responsibility of management is to control the forces of socialization in the organizational environment so the individual is assured he at least understands what is expected of him (Dunn, I970, p. 2), he is not referring solely to one's initial orienta- tion to his job, but to a continuing process. Dunn emphasizes, though, that the "problem with traditional means of'ZTnitia17 socialization is that they take too long and require a sometimes painful period of adjust- ment." He continues, ”Rapid and validulTnitial7 socialization based upon an adequate understanding of collectivesattitudes toward the organization's value system may produce and stabilize a high state of employee morale" (Dunn, l970, p. 2). Socialization may be further de- fined as the manner by which members cope with the problems which face them continuously in the work environment; as Katz and Kahn (l966, p. 380) state, the involvement of the individual in a system ”so that he regards its goals as his own personal objectives." The roots of one's ability to adapt to his work environment take shape long before the individual becomes a member of the organization. 3 One's status in life powerfully shapes his attitudes which will come with him to his job. The worker's mind is not a clean slate upon which others may freely imprint their long-lasting desires. On the contrary, from birth-~through communication--the various stages of the socializa- tion process keep the individual busy absorbing ideas and acquiring attitudes to which he may cling. Thus, the importance of looking into the problem in the light of one's background becomes central to the study described herein. Attitudes can be reshaped. Attitudes serve an important function for the individual who is continually called-upon to adapt to his work environment. Just what effect one's early-developed attitudes may have on the socialization process is a subject of some controversy in the literature. The process of organizational socialization, when effective, adapts the attitudes, values, and other qualities which one brings to the organization--in order to bring those aspects closer to those required for successful performance of organizational roles (Etzioni, I965, pp. 656-57). Whether the situation is industrial, business, military, or of any other structure, it is unrealistic to think of communication in the process of adult socialization as something that takes place between management and employees alone. An organizational system is a "social machine" designed to organize relationships between ”human parts” in order to efficiently accomplish collective goals. Each person reflects the status of his own devel0ping socialization process, his own per- sonal struggle with the unique situations, through communication. The relationship between this viewpoint and Kelman's three processes of social influence will be established later. I, The survival of any system depends upon a balance between the pro- ductivity of the group and the fulfillment of social needs of the individuals who constitute the group. The chances for organizational survival, thus, are based upon the effectiveness of organizational communication. How one perceives his own working relationship is an important factor in the socialization process. Whether a person is easily socialized or not depends a good deal on his perception of the extent to which his duties and their surrounding elements will satisfy his needs--from this, his attitudes toward the organization will be formed. The ”surrounding elements” are especially germane to the socializa- tion process. Added to these aspects, whether or not one attains the goals which he sets for himself or which the organization sets for him will have a definite influence on the speed and degree to which he be- comes socialized into the work situation. It must be recognized that there is not any given “best way” to approach the problem of studying communication systems which relate to the socialization process. Communication toward adult socialization proves to be effective only when the communicator first establishes exactly what his objectives are and uses all available ethical devices to in- crease the readiness of the individual being socialized to receive the communication (Morton, I970, p. 2). If the communicative act is harmon- ious, the recipient finds himself more favorably disposed toward the sen- der of the message. If conflict deveIOps between perceptions and motives, some degree of dissonance results (Bormann, I969, p. 2A9). Etzioni offers categories by which organizations are controlled-- i.e., through coercive power (application of physical means for control 5 purposes), utilitarian power (use of material means for control pur- poses), and identitive power (using symbols for control purposes--power derived from the ability to make peOple identify)(Etzioni, I965, p. 65l). There is a striking similarity between Etzioni's breakdown and that which this researcher has utilized in pursuing the current research --that of Herbert C. Kelman who stresses three processes of social in- fluence: Compliance (inducing a response through limiting choice be- havior), Identification (inducing a response through delineation of role requirements), and Internalization (reorganization of means-end framework)(Miller, I966, p. 66). The important thing to note in the context of this introductory discussion is that neither author offers a single "apprOpriate” approach to the study of socialization. Kelman's theory will be discussed in much greater detail throughout the follow- ing pages. The Problem It would have been ideal if this researcher could have concluded that there is a definite point at which a person is socialized into his profession--a point at which one might say that he has ''arrived" and may then start to deviate, without punishment, from the group norms. In most cases this does happen, given one's rank, position, and the charac- teristics of his duties. But, we do not know when--the reason being that each situation is different. Each person achieves fulfillment of his hierarchical needs based upon many personal and environmental factors. Thus, it is expected that this study will not reach any conclusions which can apply in every instance, but analysis of the data should lead to some predictive statements. It does indeed appear that the process of socialization is central to certain behaviors which are manifest 6 through certain stages of influence. This study deals with that initial assumption--the relationship of different influences, over time, in a military setting. For the study, the theoretical framework of Herbert C. Kelman's three processes of social influence was considered to be most appropriate and useful. The process which one Undergoes when becoming a member of the military establishment, and throughout his adult socialization, is a process of acquiring new attitudes and modifying existing predisposed orientations. Thus, the specific purposes of this study were: I. To determine if military officers, in the process of becoming socialized, pass through identifiable phases which can be linked to their lengths of active service and sources of commission. 2. To investigate the efficacy with which Kelman's model of the processes of social influence can be used to ex- plain and predict to these stages of socialization of military officers. Specifically, it was assumed that the three processes of social influence differ temporal- ly; i.e., that length of group membership determines which of the three processes is perceived as the most important determinant of social influence. When considering socialization as a communicative process, it seemed appropriate to look at the entire problem by using a model which might predict individual as well as group behavior across a given social setting. Applying the broad problem to a military environment, it was noted that several sociologists have done work in related areas. Jano- witz, for example, has written extensively about the role of the military man moving from civilian to soldier (Janowitz, I960, I96h; Janowitz and Little, I965). Other authors have also treated the broad area of mili- tary socialization with a degree of thoroughness for their stated purposes. None of these works, however, relate Specifically to the intent of the research described herein. 7 Thus, a model was sought which would provide a conceptual framework for predicting group and individual behavior. Kelman's model met both of those requirements: It is a communication-based model and is useful at the individual and group levels. The communication base arises within the point that the concept, Influence, as used here is a variable which elicits change through very specific communicatIOn behavior. Further, use of the model predicts differences between the categories which are applied for the research. Though the study of socialization described herein is limited to the investigation of commissioned Air Force officers who are becoming socialized into their intact military groups, generalizability to other areas would seem appropriate. If the study of military socialization were limited to the initial orientation of a new member's job, we would be concerned only with "first impressions." But, the process of military socialization is an on-going process, the adjustments to which must be made whenever throughout a member's career he finds himself faced with conflicts, real or imagined, between his own attitudes, values, and aSpirations and those of the organization. The process involves his own "sense" of goal achievement, motivational forces, organizational leadership qualities and practices, trust, confidence, and-~affecting all of those variables--communication. Kelman characterizes each of the three processes of social influence by antecedent and consequent conditions. First, the process of Compliance occurs when: llan individual adapts behavior derived from another person or group because he hopes to achieve a favorable reaction from the other." In an influence situation dominated by Compliance, the individual performs the induced behavior ”not because he believes in the content of the behavior, but 8 because he expects to gain specific rewards or approval and avoid punishments or disapproval by conforming” (Miller, l966, pp. 66-67). The antecedent conditions characterized by this process as (a) the baSis for the importance of the induction, (b) the source of the influ- encing agent's power, and (c) the manner of achieving prepotency of the induced response, are seen as (a) the individual's concern with the social effect of the behavior, (b) which is based upon means control of the i nfluencer, through (c) limitation of choice behavior (Kelman, I961, p. 67). The second process of social influence, Identification, can be said to occur when: ”an individual adopts behavior derived from another person or group because this behavior is associated with a satisfying self-defining relationship to this person or group.” Perform- ing the induced reSponse to identify is a way of "establishing or maintaining the desired relationship to the other, and the self-definition which is anchored in this relationship“ (Miller, l966, p. 68). At the Identification level of social influence, the basis for the importance of induction concerns a social anchorage of one's behavior; the source of.power of the influencing agent is attractiveness; the man- ner of achieving prepotency of the induced response is delineation of role when: requirements (Kelman, l96l, p. 67).- The third process of social influence, Internalization, comes about ”an individual adapts behavior derived from another person or group because he finds the content of that behavior sat- isfying.” An individual who internalizes “adapts induced behavior because he believes it to be valid and correct. Thus, Internalization not only produces the most durable effects, it conforms most closely to a rational, ethically desirable concept of persuasion” (Miller, l966, p. 69). 9 The antecedent conditions of Internalization are (a) concern with value congruence of behavior, because the influencing agent is (b) credible, and the induced response has become preponent because there is (c) a reorganization of the means-end framework (Kelman, l96l, p. 67). The three processes are further distinguished by individually characteristic consequent conditions. With Compliance, the induced re- sponse will remain only when surveillance by the influencing agent is at hand; conditions of change and extinction of the induced response occur when the individual perceives changing conditions for social rewards. The type of behavior system in which the induced reSponse of Compliance is embedded is a part of a system of external demands of a specific set- ting; i.e., part of the rules of conduct (Kelman, I96l, pp. 67-70). Identification's consequent conditions are those where (a) condi- tions of continuation of an induced response rely on continued salience of the influencee's relationship to the agent, (b) conditions of change and extinction are contingent upon changed perception of conditions for satisfying self-defining relationships and (c) particular role, thus creating reSponses which are already relatively stable and stereotyped (Kelman, l96l, pp. 67-70). The conditions under which behavior induced by Internalization are abandoned or continued are contingent upon the following: (a) a re5ponse will be continued if it is thought to be value-congruent; (b) a response will be abandoned if it is no longer perceived as the best path toward maximization of the influencee's values; (c) the type of behavior sys- tem in which Internalization is embedded is the influencee's basic framework of values--therefore, the system is relatively idiosyncratic, flexible, complex, and differentiated (Kelman, l96l, pp. 67-7l). From the same source, a graphic presentation of the process is appropriate: lO Antecedents: l. Basis for the importance of the induction: 2. Source of power of the in- fluencing agent: 3. Manner of achieving prepo- tency of the induced response: Consequents: l. Conditions of performance of induced re- Sponse: 2. Conditions of change and extinction of induced response: 3. Type of be- havior system in which induced re- sponse is embedded: FIGURE l. ‘ComplTance Concern with social effect of behavior. Means- control. Limitation of choice be- havior. Surveillance by influencing agent. Changed per- ception of conditions for social rewards. External demands of a Specific setting. Idéhtiffcation Concern with social anchor- age of behavior. Attractiveness. Delineation of role requirements. Salience of relationship to agent. Changed per- ceptions of con- ditions for satisfying self- defining rela- tionships. Expectations defining a specific role. KELMAN'S THREE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL Rationalegagd Hypotheses TnternaTization Concern with value congruence of behavior. Credibility. Reorganization of means-end framework. Relevance of values to issue. Changed percep- tion of condi- tions for value maximization. Person's value system. INFLUENCE Given a definition of stages in the socialization process, it ap- pears that various influence attempts are differentially applicable and effective over time. The hypotheses which will be stipulated shortly posit that length of group membership (active military service) places individuals in different phases of socialization. It is further posited that individuals in different phases will be differentially affected by ll influence attempts based on the three processes. For example, a military officer may be very prone to follow his commander's orders without ques- tion for some time upon being initially commissioned because the officer fears some punishment or lack of reward were he to not comply with the wishes of a superior (Compliance-based influence). At some later point in time, this same officer may make the same decision, but may base it on an assumption that the decision is similar to the behavior which would be displayed by his own peers (Identification-based influence). Finally, in the most advanced stage of socialization, an officer, when making a decision of a similar nature, may be more easily influenced by his own personal values which are congruent with the values expressed by credible members of the organization (Internalization-based influence). Just when those phase points (times) will occur is unknown, and the hypotheses to be presented shortly show some arbitrary points which, at the time of data analysis, were intended to reveal significant re- sults (O-h years of active service being that time when most officers are not yet committed to a career; h-IO years being that period when, although usually having stated a career intent, it is not too late for one to change one's mind; and over-l0 years of service indicating that point in an officer's military career when he has so much invested from productive years of his life that he is not likely to give up the mili- tary as his chosen profession without very good cause). In the current research, the areas in which hypotheses were tested dealt mainly with length of service. Under somewhat more ideal circum- stances, the research would have provided an actual, rather than hypo- thetical situation and would have allowed the subject to make his own decision, rather than presenting the subject with a fictitious situation l2 and asking him to attribute the source of power for that decision to one of the three processes. What one says he will do and what one will actually do under the conditions of means control, attractiveness, and credibility may indeed differ in some instances. Still, for the purposes of this research, it was deemed adequate to use hypothetical case studies as an approach to the problem. Specifically, one major hypothesis and one hypothesis of secondary interest were tested in the present study: H]: There will be a relationship between length of time of group membership and perceptions of the basis for a suc- cessful group influence attempt. Specifically, officers who have belonged to the military group for a short time (O-h years) will more frequently attribute a successful influence attempt to Compliance; moderate length (h-IO years) to Identification; and long-term (Over-IO years) group members to Internalization. Movement from Compliance to Internalization will vary temporally as a function of source of commission. Spe- cifically, ROTC products will move from Compliance to Internalization at a significantly slower rate than officers commissioned through other sources. CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES Overview Though the study of socialization has not heretofore been approached using the Kelman model, it appeared reasonable that differing perceptions of the basis for social influence could be measured by using hypothetical case studies. What follows, therefore, is a discussion of the methodology which was employed to determine the processes of socialization and social influence in the active military setting. Independent Variables As indicated in the major and secondary hypotheses, the independent variables which were used in this research were length of active commis- sioned service and source of Air Force commission. These are two of the ten demOgraphic questions which were asked of the 5l3 research subjects. The choices of answers in the length of service category were ”O-h years,” ”h-IO years," and ”Over-l0 years.” The source of commission variable was categorized as either ”ROTC” or ”Non-ROTC,” to concur with the wording of the secondary hypothesis. Dependent Variable The dependent variable is the process of social influence to which attribution was made in the hypothetical case studies. Four case studies (presented as appendices hereto) related to the social aspects and work orientation (two studies in each category) of the military environment into which the subjects are experiencing continuous socialization. These 13 l4 case studies, two of which provided lengthy and detailed information for social influence attribution and two of which provided a bare mini- mum amount of information for attribution, described situations wherein the manifest behaviors (given decisions of the incumbents) were present. Subjects were asked to attribute the basis for the decisions accord- ing to Kelman's model. For example, one case study concluded by asking the subject why he supposed an incumbent participant behaved a certain way. The choices represented Compliance, Identification, and Internal- ization-based social influence attempts: ”Because he feared some punishment or lack of reward from his superiors. . . .” ”Because he felt he would be more favorably looked-upon by his commissioned colleagues. . . .” "Because he realized that the values inherent in the sug- gestion were in line with his own personal values. . . .” The data were collected in such a way that all four case studies could be analyzed together and so that a distinction could be made, for communication research emphasis, between the two studies offering de- tailed information and the two studies offering minimal information. Data Gathering_Procedures A total of 513 officers of varying sources of commission and lengths of active Air Force commissioned service were surveyed during the summer of l97l. Participation was voluntary and the survey instruments were administered during the subjects' off-duty time. To insure adequate numbers as well as representativeness among the various cells, the researcher sought to include officers whose sources of commission varied from Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), to Officer Training School (OTS), to Officer Candidate School (OCS), to IS Aviation Cadets, to Academy graduates, to direct commissionees from civilian sources without prior military training or experience (such as physicians, lawyers, chaplains, etc.); whose geographical location of pre-commissioning training ranged from the West Coast to New England and all locales between; whose duties ranged from rated pilots with combat experience to non-rated administrators; whose marital status included both married and single; whose military experiences involved those with and those without enlisted status prior to becoming commissioned and those whose did not; whose intentions were to remain in the Air Force for a full career, who were undecided as to career intent, and who planned to separate after minimum contract fulfillment; and finally, whose education levels ranged from high school graduate to doctoral education. An analysis of the demographic re5ponses of the subjects revealed that the participation was indeed representative of all those categories. Unauthorized use of federal employees as subjects would have been prohibited, thus the researcher had the survey instrument approved by Headquarters, United States Air Force and a Survey Control Number (7l-69) was assigned, authorizing Air Force officers to participate. Several Air Force bases were visited personally by the researcher, after preliminary coordination with the various base commanders. Additionally, survey instruments were sent directly to the com- manders of several other bases--commanders who had agreed to obtain voluntary responses from their assigned officers under identical partic- ipatory circumstances. Subjects were advised preliminarily to not identify themselves by name, service number, unit of assignment, etc. This allowed re5ponses to be made without fear of official repercussion. l6 After completion of the survey forms, subjects' re5ponses were categor- ized by the two independent variables in order to test the hypotheses. Prchdures for Analysispowaggg Two methods of testing the hypotheses were employed. sFirst, chi- square tests for significance were applied to each of the four case studies. Then, tables of percentages for each case study were prepared and analyzed. This was deemed appropriate when analyzing all four Kelman-type case studies to determine the dominant perceived attributions, as well as when testing the case studies for the communication influence of greater and lesser amounts of information provided to the subjects. Chapter III will discuss these procedures in greater detail and will present various tables representing the findings. CHAPTER III RESULTS Resgonses A total of 5l3 active duty Air Force officers were administered the four hypothetical case studies and were asked to attribute the decisions rendered to one of Kelman's three processes of social influence. Demo- graphically, the subjects appeared in the categories reflected in Table l. The percentages for the group were as shown in Table 2. TABLE I DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SUBJECTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND SOURCE OF COMMISSION '~u-: w AA— Source of J LehgthgofunActive Commissioned Service Commission ’ O-h Years" “AB-jp_years ‘ OverFlQ;Years;,h;‘Totals; ROTC l02 6I 5h 2I7 Non-ROTC 128 _§2 _22 296 Totals 230 I30 I53 5l3 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGES OF DISTRIBUTION OF ALL SUBJECTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP AND SOURCE OF COMMISSION Source of Length of Active Commissioned Service Commission O-h Years A-IO Years Over-l0 Years Totals ROTC 20% 12% l 1% 18% Non-ROTC 2 °o 132.. 12%; 5720 Totals ’ A59. _ .. 25% w 3.09o _ . 100% I7 l8 The percentages are in approximate proportional agreement with the total active Air Force officer structure;i.e., slightly less than half the total active Air Force officer force are ROTC-trained officers where- as slightly more than half are products of other commissioning programs; and there is a higher continuing attrition rate of ROTC products from the 0-h, through the h-IO, into the Over-l0 year marks than of other types of commissioned officers. Thus, the percentages are representative of the population which they purport to represent. Hypothesis of Major Interest_(Hl) The chi-square analyses for three of the four case studies, when considered in light of percentage breakdowns of the influence attempts chosen by all length-of-membership groups, support the major hypothesis that there will be a relationship between length of time of group member- ship and perceptions of the basis for successful influence attempts. The chi-square results are presented following the apprOpriate table with a discussion of these results presented in the final chapter. TABLE 3 PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS T0 SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY I ._-‘_-A_‘ .. Attributions 0-4 Years TTE-IO Years Over-IO Years Compliance 59% 55% AZ% Identification 25% 28% 27% Internalization l6% ._lZ% l% l00% l00% IOO% N=230 N=l30 N=I53 A4 l9 Table 3 contains a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study l. The chi-square analysis was significant (chi-square - lh.26; chi-square .05 = 9.A9). Although a Compliance orientation seems to persist for all three year groups in Case Study l, the predominant influence at the Over-l0 year level changes in one respect: Compliance remains the most-often attributed choice even in this category, but the percentage of subjects selecting Internalization almost doubles from the O-A year group to the Over-IO year group (from l6% to 3l%w respectively); thus, H is partially I supported by the percentage trends for Case Study I. TABLE I-I PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY 2 Attributions 0-4 Years I h-IOQYears:;"wOver-IQ:Yean§A Compliance 5l% A2% 32% Identification IH% l8% l2% Internalization _35% '_&gz _§é% IOO% IOO% IOO% N=230 N=I30 N-l53 Table 4 contains a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study 2. The chi-square analysis was again significant (chi-square = l8.09; chi-square .05 = 9.49). Table A reveals specific percentage trends in the direction of sup- port for the major hypothesis. Compliance starts out as the most often attributed source of influence for the very junior officers but declines in importance as the years progress; whereas Internalization-based 20 influence attempts are chosen less frequently by junior officers but become the major attribution as the length of group membership increases. In their responses to Case Study 2, it should be noted that Identification was infrequently chosen by all three groups. TABLE 5 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS T0 SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY 3 Attributions O-h Years ARA-l0 Yearsmlj‘ ngf:l0 Years Compliance 50% 43% 3H% Identification 30% 35% 29% Internalization _gg% _32% _}Z% l00% l00% l00% N=230 N=I30 NCISB Table 5 contains a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study 3. The chi-square analysis was again significant (chi-square = 23.93; chi-square .05 = 9.h9). The trend of percentages shown in Table 5 is similar to that shown in the previous two tables relating to the hypothesis of major interest: A definite increase in attribution to Internalization-based influence attempts as the subjects' length of group membership increased, coupled with a decrease in attribution to Compliance-based influence attempts over the same periods of time, thus providing additional support for the major hypothesis. 2] TABLE 6 PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS T0 SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP FOR CASE STUDY 4 AEELJPUtIPOS.L_. _ 0:3 Years AflO Years _Over-IO Years Compliance 53% 51% HI% Identification I2% l2% ll% Internalization _3E% _22% _fl§% l00% l00% IOO% N=230, . N-l30, N=l53 __‘___ w “#4 y Table 6 contains a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study 4. The chi-square analysis for this case study was not significant (chi-square = 6.69; chi-square .05 = 9.h9). Even so, it should be noted that percentage trends in the direction of hypothesis support were evi- dent. In this case, slightly more than half the junior officers attribu- ted the successful influence attempt to Compliance, but only four out of ten of the older officers so attributed that process. Moreover, whereas only 35% of the officers with lesser service attributed the successful influence attempt to Internalization, about half of the subjects with greater amounts of service so attributed the influence for the decision. As was true in Case Study 2, Identification was seldom selected by sub- jects in any of the three groups. Hypothesis of Secondary Interest (H,) Three of the four chi-square tests for significance, when looked-at in the light of percentage breakdowns of the influence attempts selected by both source-of-commission groups, support the hypothesis of secondary 22 interest that movement from Compliance to Internalization will vary temporally as a function of source of commission. As was the case for the hypothesis of primary interest, only Case Study A failed to support H2. An individual presentation of the results of each case study ap- pears below. In addition to the results of the statistical tests, the following tables show trends supporting the secondary hypothesis, even in the one case when chi-square is not significant. TABLE 7 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY l O-h Years A-IO Years Over-l0 Years Attributions ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC Compliance 70% 50% 62%. A8% A8% 38% Identification l8% 30% 23% 32% 30% 25% Internal ization 42% __2_0_°é 42/2 _2_Q% __2_2_°/_o fl l00% IOO% l00% I00% I00% l00% N-l02 N=l28 N=6l N369 NBSH N'99 Table 7 contains a summary of the re5ponses of all subjects to Case Study l. Using a chi-square design of a 2 x 3 table (the two columns representing source of commission and the three rows representing attri- butions to influential bases), a significant chi-square was obtained (chi-square - l3.h8; chi-square .05 - 5.99). The percentage trend in table 7 for Case Study l supports Hypothesis 2. A difference of 20% is noted in Compliance-based orientation for attributions between ROTC and Non-ROTC at the 0-h years level, whereas a profound increase in Internalization-based orientation is seen in the 23 opposite direction at this same level. This finding coincides with the assumption that in early years of service, ROTC products will be more likely to attribute successful influence attempts to Compliance than to Internalization, and to a greater degree than will Non-ROTC products. Table 7 continues to support the secondary hypothesis in that al- though decisions for both categories of subjects (ROTC and Non-ROTC) in the h-lO year group are attributed largely to Compliance-based influence attempts, the Non-ROTC respondents attribute such decisions to Compliance less than the ROTC group and to Internalization more than the ROTC group. In Table 7, members of the Over-l0 year group who are not products of ROTC, shown in Case Study I, tend to attribute decisions almost as frequently to Internalization-based influence attempts as to Compliance- based influence attempts. However, the ROTC group makes its attributions to Compliance more than twice as frequently than this same group attri- These Opposing butes successful influence attempts to Internalization. percentages continue to support Hypothesis 2 for Case Study I. TABLE 8 PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS T0 SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY 2 0-5 Years I EFIO Years‘wi Over-IO Years Attributions ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC Compliance 57%. H6% 54% 32% 4I% 27% Identification lu% I5% E 13% 22% I5% 10% Internal ization _29_% fl I 122 __'-_I§% Alf/3 33% IOO% IOO% ; lOO% lOO% -l00% lOO°/o N=l02 N=l28 N=6l Né69‘ '3N-5h N-99 2A Table 8 is a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study 2. Utilizing the same 2 x 3 design as in Case Study l, the analysis yielded a significant chi-square (chi-square = l2.63; chi-square .05 = 5.99). The percentages outlined in Table 8 for Case Study 2 support the secondary hypothesis in that ROTC products in the 0-4 year category at- tribute successful influence attempts to Compliance more than they do to Internalization. Although the same result is found for the Non-ROTC pro- ducts at the 0-4 year level, it is of a lesser degree (a difference of only 7% as compared with the ROTC difference of 28%); thus, Hypothesis 2 is supported by this portion of the table for Case Study 2. Also noted in Table 8 is the fact that as officers gain more service (moving from the O-h into the h-IO phase), the trend is definite for the Non-ROTC graduates to move to Internalization-based influence attempts, whereas the ROTC graduates continue with an influence attempt base of Compliance-~just as those in the 0-h year group did (almost the same per- centage at the h-IO year level). TABLE 9 PERCENTAGES 0F ATTRIBUTIONS T0 SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY 3 O-h Years AE:IO Years ' Over-l0 Years A“ Attributions ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC*_~ Compliance 62% 47% 39% h8% h9% 29% Identification 28% 3I% 38%. 33% 33% 27% Internal ization 49% 22°C, 13% 2l°o 2’42, fl lOO% l00% l00% l00% l00% l00% N=l02 N=I28 N=6l N=69 N'Sh N'99 25 Table 9 contains a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study 3. The chi-square analysis was significant (chi-square = 8.92; chi-square .05 = 5.99). The percentage trends shown in Table 9 for Case Study 3 continue to support the hypothesis of secondary interest: More ROTC than Non-ROTC commissionees attributed the decisions to Compliance-based influence attempts at the O-A year group mark; more Non-ROTC than ROTC commissionees attributed the decisions to Internalization-based influence attempts at the Over-l0 year mark. TABLE l0 PERCENTAGES OF ATTRIBUTIONS TO SUCCESSFUL INFLUENCE ATTEMPTS BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION FOR CASE STUDY A O-A Years A-lO Years Over-l0 Years Attributions ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC ROTC Non-ROTC Compliance 58% 50% 54% A8% 49% 39% Identification l2% l3% l0% lA% l5% 9% Internalization i033 fl _}_6_f2 _2_§‘_’/2 Al°o _22_°o lOO% IOO% lOO% IOO% IOO% IOO% NIIOZ N-l28 N=6l N=69 N=5A N399 Table ID is a summary of the responses of all subjects to Case Study A. As in Case Study A for the major hypothesis, the chi-square analysis was not significant (chi-square 2.99; chi-square .05 = 5.99). Even though the statistical test for Case Study A fails to support the second- ary hypothesis, percentage trends which move in the proper direction for support are evident--though not quite as marked as in the first three case studies. Compliance is indeed seen as the predominant attribution for ROTC commissionees at all three length-of-service levels, and 26 Internalization, though not following the trend of the two earlier groups (O-A and A-IO years) does become the most frequently chosen basis for influence by the Over-l0 year class for the Non-ROTC products. Attributions Accordinggtp Amount of Information Presented The final portion of this chapter deals with possible differences in attributions based upon the amount of information provided to the subjects. Although it was not hypothesized that there would be significant differences, chi-square tests for significance were applied to determine if such differences did in fact exist. Several methods for ascertaining significant differences were con- sidered: Since Case Studies I and 2 contained maximum information and Case Studies 3 and A contained minimum information, the researcher might have compared, for instance, Case Study l with Case Study 3 and Case Study 2 with Case Study A. The most appropriate method, however, appeared to be the application of chi-square to the two case studies providing maximum information and again to the two case studies providing minimum information, by the two independent variables of length of group member- ship and source of commission. If, then, the chi-square results and the percentage distributions were similar for both types of case studies, it would be assumed that the amount of information presented to the research subjects had no bearing on the results. Table II contains summaries of re5ponses of all subjects to (a) the two case studies involving maximum information and (b) the two case studies involving minimum information; both summaries are depicted in Table II by length of group membership. 27 TABLE II COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES 0F RESPONSES TO CASES WITH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM INFORMATION BY LENGTH OF GROUP MEMBERSHIP 63s; studies I and 2 '4 Case Studie§23 and A (Maximum Information) (Minimum Information) Attributions O-A Yrs pA-lOuYrs l0+ Yrs, O-A Yrs A-IO_Yrs lO+ Yrs Compliance 55% 43% 37% 54% 47% 38% Identification I9% 23% l9% 2l% 2“% 20% Internal ization _2_6f% fl fl 2 °o __2_2% £29 IOO% IOO% lOO% IOO% IOO% IOO% N=A6O N=260 N=306 N=A6O N=260 N=306 The statistical analyses of Table II, when based upon length of group membership, produced a significant chi-square of 22.9A for the Case Studies I and 2 combination (maximum information) and a significant chi-square of 26.97 for the Case Studies 3 and A combination (minimum information); chi-square .05 - 9.A9. Thus, there is no statistical dif- ference for use as a basis for presuming that the amount of information produced differing results in the case of length of group membership. The percentage trends of Table II also support the same conclusion; i.e., in both maximum and minimum information cases, there was a heavy attribution to Compliance at the O-A year level and a major attribution to Internalization at the Over-IO year level. Furthermore, the attribu- tions to Compliance diminished, regardless of the amount of information presented, as the year groups progressed; and the attributions to Internal- ization increased, regardless of the amount of information presented, as the year groups progressed. Thus, when analyzing the effect of amount 28 of information upon which subjects make attributions concerning successful influence attempts, we find that there is no significant difference, re- gardless of the group members' length of group membership. TABLE l2 COMPARISON OF PERCENTAGES OF RESPONSES TO CASES WITH MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM INFORMATION BY SOURCE OF COMMISSION A Case Studies I and 2 Case Studies 3 and A (Maximum Information) (Minimum Infonmation) Attributions w“ROTC wwuNon-ROTC ,, ROTC, Non-ROTC Compliance 57% Al% 52% A3% Identification l8% 22% 22% 2I% Internalization fl fl 26°C) 161,,- IOO% IOO% IOO% IOO% N=ABA N=592 N=ABA N3592 Table l2 contains summaries of the responses of all subjects by source of commission to (a) the two cases involving maximum information and (b) the two cases involving minimum information. The chi-square analysis produced a significant chi-square of 26.27 for the Case Studies I and 2 combination (maximum information) and a significant chi-square of l0.75 for the combination of Case Studies 3 and A (minimum informa- tion); chi-square .05 = 9.A9. Again, there are no statistical grounds for presuming that the amount of information produced differing results based upon varying sources of commission. The extreme similarity of percentages within comparative cells for the two different sides of the table reveals support for the assumption that the amount of information included in the case studies had little 29 to do with the attributions which were made, insofar as the subjects' sources of commission are concerned. The percentage breakdown for the high and low information case studies are, in most cases, almost ident- ical, with the greatest difference for any category only five percentage points. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION The results of this research, presented in Chapter III, confirm the general pr0position that the three bases of social influence proposed by Kelman are chosen with differing frequencies by United States Air Force officers who vary in length of group membership. It is likely that these varying preferences are related to the degree of socialization in the group--or perhaps more accurately, are a measure of degree of socialization. Overall, more than twice the percentage of officers in the early (O-A) year group attributed successful influence attempts to Compliance than did members of the same year group who made attributions to Intern- alization. Moreover, the reverse trend, though generally not as great, was found for officer subjects with longer (Over-l0 years) active military service. Restated, there was generally less attribution to Compliance and more attribution to Internalization as bases for successful influence attempts for the subjects who had greater lengths of group membership. The two hypotheses and the research findings relating to them will be discussed shortly. Before turning to the discussion, however, two specific tasks remain: First, an attempt must be made to discern reasons for the inconsistent results for the process of social influence labeled Identification; then, the findings must be related to the position taken in this study regarding the socialization process. One rather discomforting observation was made throughout the several analyses of the results: Even though both hypotheses were generally supported by statistically reliable results, the trends for attribution 3O 3I of successful influence attempts to the process of Identification were not observed. :In most instances, the patterns of Compliance and Inter- nalization conform with theoretic expectations. By contrast, the findings for Identification lack any consistent pattern. To what might this inconsistency be attributed? Two possible ex- planations will be considered, the first of which is critical of the construction of the survey instrument and the second of which discusses the place of the Identification process within the Kelman paradigm. The major condition of performance (in this case, attribution) of the induced re5ponse for Identification is stated by Kelman to be ”salience of relationship to the influence agent.” In order for an individual to perform an induced response (or to attribute the basis for the response of an incumbent in the hypothetical case studies) through Identification, conditions of salience of the individual's re- lationship to the agent must be evident. ‘In retrospect, such salience may not have occurred for persons responding to the case studies. A major shortcoming of the case study structure, in all cases, may have been that for attribution to Compliance, the researcher made it clear that a commander or superior officer was involved. This provided a definite cue for the subject that a reward or punishment situation may have been at hand. Also, for each case study, there was an implication as to what the incumbent's personal values were concerning the decision to be made. Thus, grounds for attributing the decision to the social process of Internalization were provided. A post-hoc analysis of the four case studies reveals that perhaps sufficient cues relating to the saliency of a relationship to a particular influencing agent were not presented for the subject to consider. There was, perhaps, insufficient 32 narrative to remind the subject of the effects of the incumbent's con- trary decision insofar as self-defining relationships with attractive influence agents were concerned. An examination of the percentage of responses to the Identification dimension for the four case studies reinforces this interpretation. In two of the four case studies, Identification received extremely low frequency of choices--Case Studies two and four. In the other two case studies (one and three), Identification received moderate frequencies. This might be attributed to the nature of the case studies in that Case Studies one and three dealt with issues of a work-oriented problem; Case Studies two and four concerned themselves with social decisions in a military setting. It appears, therefore, that Air Force officers of all year groups place emphasis on Compliance and Internalization when the situation involves matters of a social nature, but go on to give Identification its just due when the decision to be made concerns unit mission and achievement of that mission. A second possible explanation for the inconsistency surrounding the Identification process of social influence is found in Kelman's own studies. Kelman acknowledges a basic weakness in the model in that the process of Identification reaches broadly into Compliance on the one side and Internalization on the other. He writes, when discussing Compliance, ”An individual may make a special effort to express only 'correct' opin- ions in order to gain admission into a particular group or social set . . . " (Kelman, l96l, p. 62). This indication of ”attractiveness” of the influencing agent would most certainly border on, if not embrace, the process of Identification. He continues later in the same article to show the similarity of the two processes: 33 ”Identification is similar to Compliance in that the in- dividual does not adOpt the induced behavior because its content per se is intrinsically satisfying. Identifica- tion differs from Compliance, however, in that the individual actually believes the opinions and actions that he adapts” (Kelman, I96l, p. 6A). In the preceding statement, Identification is tied to Compliance in the first sentence and to Internalization in the second sentence. Another indication of the conceptual ambiguity of Identification in the model is found later in the discussion when Kelman states that with Identification, the individual is not primarily concerned with pleasing the influence agent, or with giving him what he wants-~as he is in Compliance--but is more interested in meeting the influencing agent's expectations of him (Kelman, l96l, p. 65). This statement appears contradictory to the principal antecedent for Identification shown in Kelman's model--that of the individual being concerned with social anchorage of his own behavior. It would outwardly appear that when one is concerned with the social anchorage of his own behavior, one will of necessity want to please the influencing agent. Kelman does stress, however, that the thFee processes are not mutually exclusive. Kelman's I96l writing acknowledged that additional research should be conducted to develop criteria by which Identification- based attitudes and behaviors could be better distinguished from Internalization-based attitudes and behaviors (Kelman, l96l, p. 7A). Until such clear differentiating characteristics are established, it may be difficult to operationally distinguish Identification from the other two social influence processes. In the main, though, the hypotheses were supported and it seems un- necessary to dwell further on the negative results for the Identification 3A process. The intent of the hypothesis of major interest was to ascertain the probability of movement from Compliance to Internalization over time; the Intent of the hypothesis of secondary interest was to test the same movement, adding the dimension of source of commission. The results shown in the preceding chapter support both hypotheses and it is now appropriate to discuss those hypotheses and results in light of the rationale con- cerning socialization adopted in this thesis. Earlier mention was made of Manning's comment that new members of an organization act within the limits of a system, not sharing the common-sense knowledge current among other members. This statement im- plies that the new members are Compliance-oriented and that older members (if ”common-sense knowledge” may be interpreted as actions based upon inner values) are Internalization-oriented. The findings support this claim in every case used in this study. A previously-mentioned viewpoint offered by Katz and Kahn also supports the ”over time” assumptions of the major hypothesis. The final socialization stage of Internalization is implied when the authors state that socialization takes place when the involvement of a person in a system reaches the point where that person regards the system's goals as his own personal objectives. In the current research, the hypothesis was confirmed that the longer a person remains in a system, the more likely he is to attribute successful influence attempts to Internalization-based orientations. With some degree of surety, it seems safe to assume that a new member of a group is not primarily concerned with making a system's goals his own. He is more concerned with his own survival within the system and will perform according to the wishes of those high on the hierarchical ladder within the system. 35 The junior member is starting to become socialized and is now only at the first phase-~Compliance. The older member of the system, having passed through Compliance and Identification, is at that point where the goals of the organization are perhaps his very own goals-~Internalization. The results of the research support this interpretation; i.e., persons with lesser amounts of group membership generally tended to attribute successful influence attempts to Compliance whereas persons with longer amounts of group membership generally tended to attribute successful influence attempts to Internalization. It might be meaningful here to rephrase the trend which was predicted in stating the major hypothesis. The following table of ideal percentages seems to be an effective method for accomplishing that task. Table I3 would have been an ideal response pattern in support of the major hypothe- sis; obviously, the ideal was not, and would not likely have been achieved. However, it is the direction of the percentages that was of interest in this research, rather than an ideal distribution of responses. TABLE I3 IDEAL RESPONSES TO EACH CASE STUDY FOR H] Length of Service Attributions O-A Years A-IO Years Over-IO Years Compliance 60% 30% IO% Identification 30% A0% 30% Internal ization fl fl fl I00% l00% , l00% A_‘ A! 9“. Such a response pattern would have shown a definite decrease over the years for Compliance, a definite increase over the years for Intern- alization, and Identification would still have received the majority of 36 re5ponses for the year group in the middle. In this table of ideal re- 5ponses, the early and late year groups still take their preper places in all respects. The four corner cells (O-A and Over-IO years in both the Compliance and Internalization categories) of this three-by-three design, which depict the process of socialization as a function of length of group membership, did indeed follow the hypothesized trend in the current research--the middle column and middle row generally did not. As expected, the current research did not isolate any definite point at which an individual is socialized--at which he reaches that phase of Internalization where we might say he now bases his behaviors on (or attributes the behaviors of others to) his own perceptions of what he feels is "right,” or with which he is in general agreement. The research did conclude, however, that the process of socialization in the military environment is definitely a function of time; that early in one's group membership one is more likely to behave (or attribute behavior) from a Compliance orientation than from either an Identification or an Internal- ization orientation. Moreover, results pertaining to the second hypothesis suggest that the time spans for the three phases may be influenced by differences in the prior experiences of new group members. We can only presume reasons for support of the hypothesis that one's source of commission is import- ant to his choices of attributions to social influence situations; i.e., that products of ROTC will move more slowly from Compliance orientations to Internalization orientations than will commissionees of other sources. Yet, as predicted, the research findings show that ROTC products do indeed maintain a Compliance orientation longer than do their Non-ROTC counterparts. 37 Two possible explanations for this finding can be advanced. First, it may well be that products of ROTC are basically “different” kinds of people in the first place. They are given an opportunity to stay with the pre-commissioning program or drop out, without adverse effects, after testing it for a period of time. Their motivations for joining ROTC in order to fulfill a military obligation may be vastly different, generally, than the motivations which prompt an enlisted man to apply for OTS (or, in the earlier days, OCS), or from the motivations which cause a youngster to apply for entrance into a Service Academy. Thus, the very early motivation for commissioned status may have a direct bearing on the process of social influence which is attributed by officers of varying sources of commission. Second, the pre-commission training environment may have a great deal to do with attribution of the influential processes. With ROTC, a cadet is exposed to the military on a mere several hours a week basis over a period of years. He is not a full-time officer trainee. He is faced with many other social and professional, as well as academic pres- sures while he is being trained to become an officer. On the other hand, the Academy cadet is, for a full four years, exposed constantly to the values of the system into which he is being socialized. He lives with military doctrine, day and night, all the while he is receiving his pre- commissioning training. He is, therefore, more likely to place emphasis on Internalization at an earlier point in his career than is his Non- ROTC colleague. This same perception might possibly be true for the product of OTS or for those officers who were trained in the now- terminated OCS program. Whereas Officer Training School (OTS) is three months in duration, the fact remains that for those three months the officer trainee is living with military indoctrination twenty-four hours 38 a day. Policies, procedures, traditions, customs, system structures, etc., are leveled at him constantly--as Opposed to the one or two hours per week instruction given to the ROTC cadet. It can only be presumed that these factors are influential in the attributions which one makes to influential socialization processes, but they seem feasible. The major reason for not being able to conclude an analysis of the secondary hypothesis with concrete findings is that the research described herein provided the first known theoretical support for the differences that were hypothesized. Kelman's conceptualizations have not heretofore been tested longitudinally, nor have they been related to the socializa- tion process. Other studies which have used the Kelman model have examined changes caused by such manipulations as removal of necessary antecedent and con- sequent conditions for the induced re5ponse. These referenced studies, however, have little in common with the current research which deals with the process of socialization. Implications for Future Research- First, it is evident that further work is needed on conceptualizing and Operationalizing that process of Kelman's model known as Identifica- tion. Kelman himself acknowledges the fact that this process overlaps into Compliance and Internalization to such a degree that difficulty arises in attempting to isolate the bases and functions of this process. Future researchers should be aware of this deficiency and attempt to create more Specific antecedent and consequent conditions to label be- havior as falling within the middle process of the model. 39 Second, the current research fell somewhat short in attempting to Specify temporal changes at precise points. Though the reason for this deficiency is unknown, it is felt that future studies along these same lines might be more exact in providing year-group choices; i.e., rather than allowing subjects to place their ”years of service" answers in the very broad categories of three year groups, future studies might break these broad year groups down into singular year group choices: l-2 years, 2-3 years, 3-A years, etc., up to Over-20 years. This will allow the findings to point more precisely to transition phases of the socialization process. Third, replication of this study should be conducted on a broad scale. It would prove interesting to determine if the same results are found, for instance, when using Army and Navy officers as subjects; when analyzing similar data applied to other groups whose Structures are along formal lines--where rank and command are important, such as police departments, educational institutions of large faculty, and so forth. Having such a group of studies would perhaps lead to findings which will be of utmost importance to the behavioral approach to the study of organizational communication. Summary This study tested two hypotheses: First, it was hypothesized that phases are passed through by military officers as they are experiencing continuous socialization into the military environment. As hypothesized, the results Show that officers with small amounts of service do attribute decisions primarily to influence attempts whose bases are Compliance- oriented and that officers with lengthy service do attribute decisions primarily to influence attempts whose bases are Internalization-oriented. A0 Second, it was hypothesized that the officers whose source of com- mission is ROTC will move at a slower rate from Compliance to Internali- zation based attributions to successful influence attempts than will officers who are products of sources other than ROTC. This hypothesis was also supported by the findings. A purpose of the research was to ascertain whether or not Kelman's model of the processes of social influence could explain and predict socialization phases in a military setting. Except for the phase of Identification, such prediction and explanation can now be made, using the results of this research as a base. LIST OF REFERENCES Bormann, Ernest, et al., Interpersonal Communication in the Mgdern Organization IEnglewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, Inc., l969). Dunn, Warren J., I'The Role of Attitude Surveying in Organizational Communication” (Unpublished paper presented before the Inter- national Communication Association, I970). Etzioni, Amatai, ”Organizational Control Structure,” in March, James G., ed., Handbook of Organizations (Chicago: Rand-McNally 8 Co., I965). Janowitz, Morris, ed., The New Military (New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, l96A). , The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait INew York: The Free Press of Glencoe, I960). and Little, Roger, Sociology and the Military Establishment New York: The Russell Sage Foundation, I965). Katz, Daniel and Kahn, Robert L., The Social Psychology of Organizations (New York: John Wiley 8 Sons, Inc., I966). Kelman, Herbert C., ”Compliance, Identification and Internalization,” in Journal of Conflict ResolutiOn, vol. 2 (I958). , ”Process of Opinion Change,” in Public Opinion Quarterly, vol. 25 (l96l). and Eagly, Alice H., ”Attitude Toward the Communicator, Per- ception of Communication Content, and Attitude Change," in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. I, (I965). Manning, Peter K., ”Talking and Becoming: A View of Organizational Socialization” (Unpublished paper presented before the American SOciological Association, I970). Miller, Gerald R., Speech Communication: A Behavioralggpproach (Indianapolis: The Boobs-Merrill Co., Inc., I966). Morton, Richard K., ”Psychosocial Obstacles to Interpersonal Communi- cation” (Unpublished paper presented before the International Communication Association, I970). Al APPENDICES APPENDIX A CASE STUDY l Case Study One Captain Harold Schalk is a Flight Facilities Officer assigned to the Radar Approach Control (RAPCON) at Whitmore Air Force Base, Maine. Schalk is from New Haven, Connecticut--he's single and has a close- knit relationship with his folks, his brothers, and his sisters. For some time, now, Schalk has been planning to attend the wedding of his sister, Doris. The wedding is to take place this weekend. Captain Schalk hasn't applied for a leave, since he knows he has no shift on this particular weekend, and New Haven is within driving distance. He can depart the base on Friday evening, get home late Friday night, attend the wedding and the reception on Saturday, and drive back to Whitmore AFB on Sunday, well-rested and in time to go on shift. At the Thursday morning staff meeting, the base commander announces there will be a general base-wide clean-up over the weekend in prep- aration for a visit by some VlP's from major command headquarters on Monday. All officers in the grades of second lieutenant through captain who are not scheduled for official duty on Saturday and Sunday are ex- pected to be present to supervise the clean-up on both days. The squadron commanders are urged to carry this policy out without exception. They are told that it would be unfair to ask only some officers to stay on the base, while excusing others for personal reasons. Schalk's commander, at his own staff meeting later the same morning, announces the base commander's decision. Schalk is present at this meeting as RAPCON Chief. Schalk relates to his commander his plans for the weekend. The com- mander states he can understand Schalk's concern, but he's sure officers in other squadrons on the base have problems which are just as pressing. He tells Schalk that he's not going to officially insist he stay around --the decision is with Schalk. He concludes, however, by saying that if Schalk takes off for the wedding, other officers will obviously be aware of it and it won't look good for the squadron. After mulling it over in his mind Thursday afternoon and evening, Schalk decides to stay on base and help supervise the clean-up detail. He calls his sister, Doris, on the phone and explains the situation to her, telling her he will not be able to make the wedding. (Please turn the page) For Case Study One In your opinion, why did Captain Schalk make the decision to stay on base? (Please rank-order your answers, marking ”I“ for that item you feel was the most important to his decision, ”2“ for that item you feel was second most important to his decision, and ”3” for that item you feel was least important in his decision.) a. Because he felt his own commander expected him to and he didn't want to jeopardize his efficiency report. b. Because other Officers would be staying for the detail and he didn't want to look like a "goof-off'l in their eyes; their opinions were important to him. c. Because he felt that it was important for his unit to pro- ject an inspection-ready status for visitors. He agreed, generally, with the value reflected in the request to stay on base. A5 APPENDIX 8 CASE STUDY 2 Case Study Two Lieutenant Dick Nowicki is assigned to Madison Air Force Base in the Consolidated Base Personnel Office (CBPO). Everyone seems to like the timely manner in which he carries-out his duties and he has a really great personality. Nowicki has been seen recently in the company of a young enlisted WAF, Airman First Class Clara Smith, who is a records clerk in the CBPO where Nowicki works. Clara is a ”knock-out” who enjoys a good reputation among all of the folks in the CBPO. Lieutenant Nowicki and Airman Smith have been water-skiing, boating, and dancing together. It's no “forever- yours” situation, but they do enjoy being together. Lately, Nowicki has been taking Clara to social functions at the Officers' Club as his ”date.” He also invites her to the club occasionally for a few after-work drinks, but she always shows-up wearing civies so that her status-~even though well-known--isn't obvious. Nowicki's squadron commander calls him in and, without getting tough, tells him about the military tradition of fraternization between officers and enlisted peOple being taboo. The commander suggests that Nowicki terminate all social ties with this enlisted WAF. Short of that, the commander orders Nowicki to refrain from bringing Clara to the Officers' Club under any circumstances since she's not a club member and is in the Air Force. He says that the Officers' Club is for officers, that it is embarrassing for him as a commander to be effective on the job when one of his own enlisted WAF has been at the club the night before with one of his officers and all of his social actions are up for her scrutiny, and that the other junior officers have made some comments--though not Official complaints--about Nowicki bringing an enlisted person into the club. The commander goes on to state that other enlisted peOple might wonder why they can't use the Officers' Club if Airman Smith can. After due thought, Nowicki decides to ''chuck” the social situation with Clara. (Please turn the page) A7 For Case Study Two In ypOI;OPih390s.Why djdLLiemtenant'Nowicki make the decisign to step SeeinggAirmap_Smithlggcjally? (Please rank-order your answers, marking ”I" for that item you feel was the most important to his decision, ”2" for that item you feel was second most important to his decision, and "3” for that item you feel was least important in his decision.) a. Because his commander had suggested that he do so and he didn't want to risk punishment, verbal or otherwise. b. Because he had heard that his fellow officers were complain- ing about an enlisted member frequenting their club, and he was concerned about their reactions. c. Because, upon considering everything, he now felt he had no business dating a WAF--especially one who worked for him-- anyway; he accepted the importance of officers maintaining a professional relationship with enlisted personnel. A8 APPENDIX C CASE STUDY THREE Case Study Three During training assistance visits to the subordinate outlying detach- ments, Captain Marty Gehrs has allowed his three NCO team members to call him by his first name during off-duty hours when no other military people are around (i.e., over dinner, a few beers, and so forth). He has also been calling the sergeants by their first names--sort of an accepted policy by all concerned. They are able to make the distinction between formal-on-duty and informal-off-duty respect-~courtesies on the job are not hindered. Gehrs' commander is from "the old school'' and several of his counterparts--chiefs of other assistance teams--are Academy grads. One day Gehrs announces to his team members that they must, from now on, follow military decorum and tradition at all times, even when off-duty. Given only that information, and only the following choices, why do you think Cappain Gehrs made that_decisiop1 (Please rank-order your answers, placing ”l” next to that item you feel was most important in his decision, ”2” next to that item you feel was second most important in his decision, and "3” next to that item you feel was least important in his decision.) a. Because he feared some punishment or lack of reward from his superiors if he allowed the informality to continue. b. Because he felt that he would be more favorably looked-upon by his commissioned colleagues if he practiced non-fraterniza- tion. c. Because he realized that the values inherent in traditional military courtesies were in line with his own personal values. 50 APPENDIX 0 CASE STUDY FOUR Case'StUdy’FOUr Lieutenant Chuck Belanger and spouse plan to go on a camping trip this weekend-~about 200 miles away. At mid-week, Belanger's commander announces that although he's not considering it a mandatory social function, he hopes for a good turn-out at the squadron party this Saturday night. After considerable deliberation, Belanger decides to forego the camping trip and, instead, he and Mrs. Belanger will attend the squadron party. Why do you think Belanger changed his mind? (Please rank-order your replies, placing ”l'I next to that item you feel was most important in the decision, "2'' next to that item you feel was second most important in the decision, and “3” next to that item you feel was least important in the decision.) a. Because he was concerned that the commander might think less of him for not attending the squadron party and that this reduced estimation might reflect in future ratings and duties. b. Because all of his fellow officers and their wives were going to the party and he didn't want to appear "anti-social” or ”prudish” to them, turning down a chance to have a good time with his colleagues and their wives. c. Because he felt a personal obligation to support the squadron in its social functions, thereby promoting a high state of morale and comradeship. 52 MICHIGAN STATE UNIV. LIBRARIES IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 31293102324948