-—-—-_-—-_-—| w——_—— ‘I III-.- CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE 0F NEGROES AND WHITES TOWARD EACH OTHER USING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY RICHARD JOHN HAMERSMA 1969 {hills 96' s. it"u“. “-3 / IIIIIIIIIIIIII/I/ II M University . {j I“ (V‘s-VWHXW— wwv nrw ‘— This is to certify that the thesis entitled CONSTRUOTIOR; 013A}:- ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE ' OE NEGROES AND WHITES TOWARD EACH OTHER USING GUTTMAN ‘ - FAGET DES-ION AND ANALYSIS presented by Richard John Hamersma V“ has been. gccepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for '0 __P_h_9.Q.__ degree in Mg”; Fe 1' s onne 1 Services and Educational Psychology Major rofessor Date Jul)I 16, 1969 0-169 n on--'0q AA‘ \ .- VVIlbooov-r era-‘n e': \ - ,_ v. .I—u. "~-‘-~ ‘ \ ' u~o.\\4 4 a... ”II“; . “ , 5.. “OF a:‘ a, win .~~--"' o :~n«fi51’r ":3 ._ . ‘bv‘VOI ‘~‘s.k s::‘ .le. ”AP:* --.- u..‘v yv..~ - .:, “Ann-19,." A.- ...~ .v..-.“:~ -._ ..J§, - . I 'fln | II1.I“' sva‘e ::= 0“- ~.--~. : tun 2r .._~ ‘.. vl‘ l .A.’lfi.p 4" ‘.§'. ‘:~ .- ’l‘ . “ In \ .tser: V, ‘." , \~/ '0‘: .‘ :v .. I ‘..I~ : “.~. 'i‘u“ .":"I-; s‘ . e.‘ . “A ~‘d'is ":1 ‘w .l .'- h "-" Q 5’ . ‘5 ' UN» 8 w ‘._ :Z‘t". A .“ *“ ‘ Q'V‘5..4~ ‘u i .l - s .:.:_‘n_‘ «5“v— .' “ ' h.- ‘ L- ‘ v I. ‘9 ‘A3 “Av-u v :4. 5: ~.‘:. ‘~' “A“... v “6. 2‘4‘ ':’ ABSTRACT CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE OF NECROES AND WHITES TOWARD EACH OTHER USING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS By Richard John Hamersma The study was concerned with two major purposes: (21) to replicate Jordan's six-level attitude scale con- :struction using Guttman facet design and analysis and to test that construction; (b) to construct, according to ‘the formulations of Guttman and Jordan, a single composite .attitude scale dealing with attitudes of Blacks and Whites ‘toward each other in seven "specific" attitude content tareas. Some ancillary purposes were also included in the study which dealt with: (a) attitude item writing tech- rxiques, (b) the 'favorablenessI or 'unfavorableness' of Blacks' attitudes toward Whites and Whites' attitudes to- ward Blacks using six substantive hypotheses, and (c) to compare the simplex structure (statistical rank order) of racial attitudes with previous work of Jordan which used ‘the mentally retarded as the attitude object. Two populations were involved in the study. The first population included subjects enrolled winter ,. .‘o. d n l‘ V bar ”.1..- III IfiOA A .1 Lao. — (I) Richard John Hamersma quarter, 1969, in Education 429 (Medical Information) at Michigan State University. The second population con— sisted of subjects of a Wayne State University course in social problems, and subjects interested in the Urban Adult Institute in Detroit where the Wayne State Uni- versity course was held and who were for the most part college—educated. Another population of students enrolled in Education 450 (Teacher and Society), winter quarter, 1969, at Michigan State University was included but only partial analysis was conducted with this group. Each pOpulation contained both Black and White subjects. Samples from both populations were selected to complete all seven attitude content scales. Guttman (1950a) operationally defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something," and in later work (1959), proceeded to name the relevant facets and their respective elements that are germane to an attitude paradigm dealing with intergroup situations. He then related these facets and their respective elements to develop four levels or sub—scales: Stereotype, Norm, Hypothetical Interaction, and Personal Interaction. These levels, for Guttman, depicted the totality of behavior represented in a complete attitude paradigm for inter- group situations. Theorizing that additional facets were needed, but accepting the ones that Guttman did identify as appropriate, Jordan (1968) expanded facet analysis for v u q . . - ‘. O I Q 1 r... c 3 q. . A; a. . . . . a D ,3 I .. . a. E a. a. .H _ a. .5 S .2 a ... a. a. .. a. a. a. .2 S .. .7 E S a a r” a C S a .. 3 3 n . r. C 3 4 l a. n. as 1. we” 2. n. or. «c ..a ”4 A. a. .C a. n. z. a. a .5 a“ c. n. c. S n. C C a. .7. a. n. e. a. .4 c. r“ "a n. C. ... t t. C a. .. as a. :v .w a : . .2 a; .7 3.. I I 2. e C» a: .1 c 4 a. . 4; .3 2. Tn :. 3» c . a . a a .. 4‘ .nd a a a. a; . r. .4 .a a o . r. . a r“ .3 I . A: a y o . a ... 2. «C .. ‘ o v .4 a» ow an. fly to. A. 5 . h. a» :~ $. 3‘ 2. in ... . . .4 . . . a :. ... .1 .1 I . z. .r. .. . v e y. n. p: Z. n. n. o . . . r». .: s u s .. o. v“ .. :— ru 0. . . :~ .- .-. v e . In .. 4‘ . 2‘ 4.. ... L . o . t. .. . .. . ... T. 2 3. .. . s . .._ A Richard John Hamersma attitude items dealing with intergroup situations to include five-facets and hence six—levels. Jordan con- structed a scale using the six-level paradigm which dealt with the "mentally retarded" as the attitude object. The present study used this six-level approach to con- struct an instrument dealing with racial attitudes. Seven attitude content areas of crucial importance for interracial interaction were identified: Character- istics (personal), Education, Housing, Job, Law and Order, Political Activism (racial), and War and Military. A separate scale containing the six levels used by Jordan was constructed for each of the seven attitude content areas. Fourteen items were selected for each of the seven attitude content scales. These 1“ items were represented in each of the six levels in the same sequence but modified to meet the specifications of the attitude paradigm. The same scales, with a change only in the referent, were administered to both Blacks and Whites. After the seven scales were administered to both the Black group and the White group, the bulk of the research centered on item analysis procedures. Two items were culled statistically from each of the seven attitude con- tent scales and then put together in one final scale which was entitled the-—Attitude Behavior ScalezBlack White/ White Negro-General (ABS:BW/WN-G)--this scale was the primary objective of the study. -a. ‘ I .-.,.1 a —\ :— _~..-A -0- Q -r~“n A is... J- p‘ru‘l ; _.— ......-.o u ‘l . A . ‘ wn~fi 0-, b n-vfi‘v . v-A ». — “'11:. .n- u a- " “ «.- '- - v f (H t . ( 1' (I) —IJ 'n r V‘ \. Richard John Hamersma Six substantive hypotheses were formulated and tested in the study° H-2, Efficacy-—man's sense of control over his environment and H-5, Automation--seeing change in industry as beneficial, received some support as predictors of favorable or unfavorable attitudes of one race toward the other. Other hypotheses included in the study received "fair" support across the seven scales. I I I . Ln . - s. “A: ‘D ‘0 A *. a. w. a; T. a.» .1 .... A C u. C. a. «C T. 3‘ CONSTRUCTION OF AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE OF NEGROES AND WHITES TOWARD EACH OTHER USING GUTTMAN FACET DESIGN AND ANALYSIS By Richard John Hamersma A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1969 D Copyright by RICHARD JOHN HAMERSMA 1970 Dedicated to my wife Lupe ii -, ‘1‘; \—-_ ‘. ~~ o y‘ 2' ‘5... a. - ..._ ‘ . .,_"- ‘.’A. . i d ‘i’a, ..‘ _ a.‘ .n. u.“ . I a“: "_ .._ v (I) PREFACE This study is one in a series, jointly designed by several investigators, as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of instru- mentation, theoretical material, as well as technical and analyses procedures were both necessary and desirable. The authors, therefore, collaborated in many aspects although the data were different in each study (Erb, 1969; Gottlieb, 1969; Harrelson, 1969; Maierle, 1969; and Morin, 1969) as well as certain design, procedural, and analyses methods. The interpretations of the data in each study are those of the author. iii I I I ,_ l a. A C. V .» . Q. ~_ .1 .r .r.. .2 n. a. a. L» 3. f. 2. Q. C. e a. r” C. 3‘ 3‘ 2. r. .4 ... ”A If. a. e. .3 3 2. r: .1 .. . f: a. . ,c e . :c Q» .. c. {a a D a. . . a. u rd 7. ”4 r“ r“ :. a . L. De L. a. 1. l. v n J. J. H. a . 0.. C. a. . a. e. .3 :9 A4 .1 .3 re . w. s. v... .n.. ru 9. 5.. a: .p.. -.. 7... . s . . 2- u . J. .p.. .r.. . . a v To a: ”u :. w». .s. a. a. c. :1 .. .. ... -n. .I. J. H. t T. .«a .2“ .. .. h A. p.” .2... n. .. A. .. ..:.. .. ... .9... . y. g.‘ ‘5‘ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Because the research for this dissertation involved a two-fold emphasis—-methodological and substantive--I have received valuable assistance from various sources in completing the finished product. I am grateful to several members of the staff of the Urban Adult Education Institute and the Foundation for Racial Equality: In Memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. Dr. Joseph Paige, the director of the institute, was instrumental in making the resources of the institute available to me as well as his time. I am also indebted to Mrs. Ruth Watson, Mr. James Cochran, Mr. Charles Russell, and Mr. Roy Roulhac who are also associated with the Institute and who provided their time and assistance at several stages of the research process. I am also grateful to the members of the advisement committee for this dissertation. Dr. Dale Alam, Dr. Robert Craig, and Dr. Ruth Hill Useem who have demonstrated their appreciation and patience for the complexities involved in a dissertation of this nature. I am especially grateful to Dr. John E. Jordan the committee chairman. Besides being readily available to provide needed assistance, he has provided me with a valued personal friendship. iv Many other individuals at Michigan State University also provided needed assistance. I am grateful for the facilities and counsel provided at the Computer Center for the majority of the statistical analyses, and to the College of Education for research counsel. Miss Marion Fish, working for the College of Education, provided appreciated critical reading assistance in the beginning stages of the construction of the instruments. I am also grateful for the Research Design and Training Fellowship from the United States Office of Education I received while doing my doctoral study at Michigan State University. To my wife, Lupe, I am the most grateful. Her con- stant encouragement and understanding was indeed appreci- ated, especially at times when progress on the dissertation was at a standstill. I also owe a large debt of gratitude to my son, John Covert, who suffered the greatest depri- vation because of the rigors of graduate study and the accomplishment of a doctoral dissertation. .-.-".~"l‘" . u-~.v.'.--4.| . -"‘ IA“ ya... I. - '---.._~ . . .... a VA". “KN-'n‘. I I ..- ‘_ll~~d J. C-- v-~- A“ F.».,_ ‘ -- M _ ~o~¢ V. .““~~ ..~~ 5“ “Vn9.- . .II ~ ~.\-. .4. . ‘_ i.‘ ‘ -" an w..-~" . Y"I'FFA._ - I -.|.“V~ W \‘L 54“ w"y— ‘ I. '0 H"? “'~ ~. ‘ A 2‘ ~_ . P h.‘ v. i ~~. ‘\ y‘. “. ~ A‘ vs au‘tv‘” C ~ 1...,5 '— O s”- ,‘ “‘afi ~-; TABLE OF CONTENTS Page DEDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii PREFACE O O O O O O O O O O I O O 0 iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . 1V LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . X LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . 1 Statement of the Problem . . . . . 2 Need for Racial Attitude Research . 5 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . 7 Hypotheses. . . . . . . . . . 8 Theoretical Facet Design and Guttman Procedures (General case) 0 o o o o o o o 9 Substantive Hypotheses. . . . . 9 Definition of Terms. . . . . . 10 Organization of the Thesis . . . . 10 II. RACIAL ATTITUDES: REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT METHODS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS . . . 13 Scales Used in the Measurement of Racial Attitudes. . . . . . . 13 Social Distance Scale . . . . . IA Thurstone Scales. . . . . . . 15 Likert Scales. . . . . . . . l7 Guttman Scales . . . . . . . 20 vi ”I'Z’EC“ '1“... 4 v. - TU (D -.’ "‘~‘COP ‘ ‘§-. V” H .‘~“tv~ Y I,“ Q..; ‘ I f.'_ .. 4‘ ‘ ~Q" t.‘\ n»-| VJ‘I '2'».- l‘: L Chapter Page Ethnocentrism Scale and the Facism Scale . . . . . . . . . 23 Projective Tests Used in Measuring Racial Attitudes . . . . . 25 Special Made Instruments for Particular Studies. . . . . 29 Equivalence of Scale Forms . 31 Summary of the Scales Used in the Measurement of Racial Attitudes 32 Review of Substantive Findings. . . 3A Contact Factors. . . . . . . 35 Demographic Factors . . . . . 38 Socio-Psychological Factors. . . A2 Knowledge Factors . . . . . . AA Other Factors . . . . “A Summary of Substantive Findings . A5 III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . U8 Guttman Theory and Techniques of Attitude Scaling . . . . . . “8 Scalogram Analysis. . . . “9 Multiple Unidimensional Scaling . 57 Multidimensional Scaling. . . . 58 Instrumentation. . . . . . . . 67 Guttman Four-level Theory . . . 67 Jordan's Six-level Adaptation . . . 76 Seven Attitude Content Areas Used in the Study . . . 84 Specific Attitude Item Content for Each Area and Item Writing Format 0 O O O O O O O O 8 6 Research Population . . . . . . 90 Collection of Data. . . . . 93 Major Variables of the Study . . . 9A Demographic Variables. . . 95 Contact with the Opposite Racial Group . . . . . . . . . 95 vii go psi-"e" 0 inns - 6 "p . cu... L n, _. 1 "'I’Iy- "' I“..I 'V g . A “~ Chapter Change Orientation . . Educational Aid and Planning. Religiosity . . . . Efficacy . . . Prejudice-Amount. . . Major Hypotheses of the Study Theoretical Hypotheses. Substantive Hypotheses. Analyses Procedures. . . Descriptive Statistics. Correlational Statistics Multidimensional/Multivariate Statistics. . . . IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . Inter—Item Analysis. . . Item-to-Total Analysis. . Simplex Analysis. . . . Substantive Hypotheses. . H-2: Efficacy and Favorable Attitudes . . . . O . O O H—3: Importance of Religion and Favorable Attitudes. H-A: Methods of Child Rearing and Favorable Attitudes H—S: Automation and Favorable Attitudes . . H- 6: Age and Favorable Attitudes H-7: Local Government Aid to Education and Favorable Attitudes . . . . Summary of the Substantive Hypotheses. . . . O O O O V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary of the Study . . Conclusions . . . . . Recommendations . . . . viii Page 97 97 97 98 99 99 99 100 101 101 102 102 106 107 108 115 128 129 130 131 131 132 I33 133 136 136 141 1A7 “—nfi'TV/‘rc h... -...4.lv..4v 0 l""‘"'\'n—~h _r~~ .. \ .......|.,-,,_,V . y. Iowa-non- .0 f "I. r‘ I. o.. nuav ”A. ‘H PL n..-~ v c. I ~ I "‘ f“! “9 ‘vvJE wu. ‘ r- “. ‘0‘- V‘ . Nap; ”Vt... H v T; U»..- B Q‘r-O' '0 b A "~ Chapter Page REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165 -Appendix A. The Personal Data Questionnaire and the Seven Attitude Content Scales . . . . 166 B. Code Book for the Research . . . . . 267 C. The Final Composite Scale-~Attitude Behavior Scale: Black White/White Negro- General (ABS: BW/WN-G) . . . . . . 305 D. Statistical Data . . . . . . . . 322 ix LIST OF TABLES Table Page I. A Perfect Guttman Scale . . . . . . . 50 2. Three Facets and Their Corresponding Ele- ments Contained in the Semantic Structure of an Attitude Item . . . . 7O 3. Profile Components, and Descriptive Labels Associated with Four Types of Attitudes Items 0 O O I O O O O O O I 0 70 A. Hypothetical Matrix of Level-by-Level Correlations Illustrating the Simplex Structure. . . . . . . . . . . 73 5. Empirical Correlational Matrix of Bastide and van den Berghe Using Their Data in the Order They Presented it. . . . . 7A 6. Empirical Correlational Matrix of Bastide and van den Berghe Data Put in the Order Implied by Guttman's Facet Design. . . . . . . . . . . . 75 7. Basic Facets Used to Determine Conjoint Struction of an Attitude Universe. . . 77 8. Conjoint Level, Profile Composition and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Struction. . . . . . . . . . . 78 9. Five-Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Profiles, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Permutations. . . . . . . . . . 80 10. Correlation Matrices Illustrating Expected Simplex Ordering of Attitude Items from the ABS-MR Scale. Constructed on Basis of Tables 7-9 . . . . . . . . . 82 Table 11. 12. 13. 1A. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. An Actual Example Taken from the ABS—WN—C Scale Illustrating the Six-Level Structure and the Directions for Each Level . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of Subjects Participating in Each of the Seven Attitude Scale Areas on the ABS: BW/WN . . . . . . . . . ABS-BW/WN Scale. Basic Variables List by IBM Card and Column . . . . . . . A Perfect Scale for Four Dichotomous variables 0 I O I O O O O O O 0 Correlations of Item—to—Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Characteristics Content Area for the Education A29 Group Items for Revised ABS: WN/BW—G. . . . . Summary of Hypotheses 2-7 Indicating N's, Means, and Size of Correlation. . . . Items for Revised ABS: BW/WN by Attitude Scale Areas . . . . . . . . . . Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Characteristics Content Area for the Education A29 Group Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Education Content Area for the Education A29 Group . . . Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Housing Content Area for the Education A29 Group . . . Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Job Content Area for the Education A29 Group. . . . . Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS—BW/WN on the Law and Order Content Area for the Education A29 Group xi Page 88 91 96 10A 112 11A 13A 1A3 323 32A 325 326 327 1.5.ru .1 5.: A. a. n. evao n. n. n. .4 n4 nu av .Ai/ Irv AI. ‘z~ vJ.. .lv ‘1‘ ,1 ,1 .. '1 g . .1 a . u. .. r: . . A: h. ~ ‘ a. r.. . . L. r“ . . L. v... Q. h. A v Q. n; my ‘ ‘ L. :. .ru .6 3.?” .J L..».. r. ccku .v . ‘ ...C .. rod: Q» r. n. ;.0. “Jetnu h. a4n. h....n. »~.01.r. no.04.... h. a... W. h. h. hs ~.. ~.. he rd Pu a4 .u 2 .1 ad flu V flu R4 fixb A .v hi on.” v. .sl .r-I .4“ h.- -.4| .1. v .a. .qv .t. ..v u. Table Page 2A. Correlations of Item—to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Political Activism Content Area for the Education A29 Group . . . . . . . . . . . 328 25. Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the War and Military Content Area for the Education A29 Group. 329 26. Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS—BW/WN on the Characteristics Content Area for the Detroit Group. . . 330 27. Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS—BW/WN on the Education Content Area for the Detroit Group . . . . . 331 28. Correlations of Item—to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Housing Content Area for the Detroit Group . . . . . 332 29. Correlations of Item—to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Job Content Area for the Detroit Group . . . . . . . 333 30. Correlations of Item—to—Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Law and Order Content Area for the Detroit Group. . . 33A 31. Correlations of Item—to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the Political Activism Content Area for the Detroit Group. . . 335 32. Correlations of Item-to-Total Scores for the ABS-BW/WN on the War and Military Content Area for the Detroit Group. . . 336 33. Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Total White Sample on the ABS: WN Content Scale Areas . . . . . 337 34. Sample Size, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Total Black Sample on the ABS: BW Content Scale Areas . . . . . 338 35. Correlation Matrix for the White Group on the Characteristics Scale. . . . . . 339 xii 2' a n»-v ‘1 “Print, ‘0. Vv‘.v d o-‘n v.- Aw Ah “’- . n ’5 I ‘44-. .1 9 Yr we; _. " rm“; '0 44¢... o". Una -,. A ‘U A n; .1! VJ..- . "r 'na . '. vv..- 6-". U.. . "5““; -9 “‘4‘... 5". do. A .’ ”“hn -. Vid“: ‘. u,‘ ~‘ ”Who .0 “v..- ‘. 3.. I VU.. ‘L- U.. - u. .“ r~_““g UV..‘ ‘1‘ v‘. f p ~ "“n- I iv.‘... e." v.. . h A o 4"th v ‘2- 4.. k“ f‘ 5‘ Phh- Vv‘ ‘ t ,- v ‘ (7‘ (I‘ m m (D (7' 7D (D Table 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. A1. A2. A3. AA. A5. A6. A7. A8. Correlation Matrix for the Characteristics Correlation Matrix for the Education Scale Correlation Matrix for the Education Scale Correlation Matrix for the Housing Scale. Correlation Matrix for the Housing Scale. Correlation Matrix for the Job Scale . . Correlation Matrix for the Job Scale . . Correlation Matrix for the Law and Order S Correlation Matrix for the Law and Order S Correlation Matrix for the Political Activ Correlation Matrix for the Political Activ Correlation Matrix for the War and Militar Correlation Matrix for the War and Militar Page the Black Group on Scale . . . . . 391 the White Group on o o o o o 0 Q 3143 the Black Group on I Q 0 O Q 0 O 3145 the White Group on o o o o o o o 3147 the Black Group on O I O O O O O 3149 the White Group on o o o o o o o 351 the Black Group on I O O O O O 9 353 the White Group on cale. . . . . . 355 the Black Group on cale. . . . . . 357 the White Group on ism Scale . . . . 359 the Black Group on ism Scale . . . . 361 the White Group on y Scale. . . . . 363 the Black Group on y Scale. 0 I O O 365 xiii .. r? r; v... ». re. .4 v: 2; ,. 2‘ 2. av . . ~.. .4 .1».. .4 . a w... n. rho Vb. A... A.» “hen. . 5 i “L. Q. Q 5 d FUcO . ~ § ad“ “is V“ n... 01‘ uh» I. \ ‘5‘ A~v I: \ ~54 Cy 0‘ ‘ ‘5‘ w. E 0 Co E C .n i C .n E 3 :5 E .1 E a. P so 5; .n. a; E a. Ca r; 2* w...“ No“ "1.. H... 9» .ru h. h. .6; v.“ .e.. C C 3 3 C. . a an .rr. uh m . .C n c n . n0 Du he ”4 I I O I 0 O I I 0 I u.~.uv . A: «1a 1* _\J {v 7‘ end «a; 7. e LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Example of Intensity Function, U—Shaped Curve, and the Zero Point (x) . . . . 2. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons scale 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 3. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Conjoint and Disjoint Struction of Attitudes Toward Specified Persons . . A. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of a Research Project on Cross Cultural Attitudes Toward Education . . . . . 5. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Conjoint and Disjoint Struction of Blacks' and Whites' Attitudes Toward Each Other . . . . . . . . . . 6. The Five Profiles of Table 1A Represented in a Uni-Dimensional Space . . . . 7. Schematized Two-Space Diagram of Five Dichotomous Variables. . . . . 8. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics--White, Education A50 (N=359). . . . . . 9. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education--White, Education A50 (N=32l). . . . . . . 10. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics-—Total, Education A29 (N=68) . . . . . . xiv Page 55 62 63 6A 83 10A 105 118 118 118 Figure 11. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education—-Total, Education A29 (N=A9) . . . . . . 12. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Housing-—Total, Education “29 (N=38) o q o o o o o o o 9 l3. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Job--Total, Education “29 (Na-’46) o o o o o q 0 1A. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Law and Order—-Total, Education A29 (N=3A) . . . . . . 15. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--POlitical Activism-~Total, Education A29 (N=69) . . . . . . . 16. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--War and Military--Total, Education A29 (N=A2) . . . . . . . l7. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics--White, Education A29 (N=60) . . . . . . . 18. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics--Black, Education A29 (N=l9) . . . . . . . 19. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education-—White, Education A29 (N=AA) . . . . . . . 20. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education--Black, Education A29 (N=1A) . . . . . . . 21. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Housing--White, Education “‘29 (N=32) o o u o o o o o o o 22. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-—Housing—-B1ack, Education A29 (N=6) . . . . . . XV Page 118 118 118 119 119 119 119 119 119 120 120 120 J . ’. nrfiwg (‘0 ‘Job on .r c: U..- Fr 3;; s henna L... Udco an n- \‘W v-.. A- ‘9"‘ “1 ~ "‘ ““Hvxc . v4.--- “o \‘v’ 9-1-. P. _- . “Jul ’ ‘ I ” _ I ““— -v. #4.. v- R: \‘Ilv k-.. 9-. _1~. _“ “'7 a C ”AW“; 5 344..-- a \‘UII V-.. '21. fi.,_ _. I F I “HM- . and. 4.]. '3‘ "I x ”.I V-..” « “ ~ '- «4-: -A 1’ "'““c‘ ‘4. ‘14..-- "I "“h- ~§... —. h‘u. ‘4‘4 .- fl " ‘ ". “ha. 1'. ‘ A i‘. p“ .14. .§ '1 "0 A“? J“. 4'. ._. f“ 4" . " h v ' r \ vvhh Figure Page 23. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Job--White, Education I429 (N=I42) o o o o o o o o o o 120 2A. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~Job-—Black, Education 429 (N=u) o o 0 o o o o o o o 120 25. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~Law and Order—~White, Education A29 (N=28). . . . . . . 120 26. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~Law and Order-—Black, Education “29 (N=6) o o o o o o o 121 27. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Politica1 Activism-— White, Education A29 (N=61) . . . . 121 28. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data——Political Activism-- Black, Education A29 (N=8). . . . . 121 29. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--War and Military-—White, Education A29 (N=36). . . . . . . 121 30. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data——War and Military--Black, Education A29 (N=6) . . . . . . . 121 31. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics-—Tota1, DetrOit (N=22) o o o o I o o o o 121 32. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education-—Total, DGDPOit (N=u2) o o o o o o o p o 122 33. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data—-Housing--Total, Detroit (N=31) O C O O O O O I O O I 122 3A. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data—~Jobs--Tota1, Detroit (N=u0) O O O O O O O O O O O 122 xvi Figure 35. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Law and Order--Total, Detroit (N=23) . . . . . . . . 36. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Political Activism--Total Detroit (N=22) . . . . . . . . 37. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~War and Military—~Total, Detroit (N=2A) . . . . . . . . 38. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Characteristics—-White, Detroit (N=11) . . . . . . . . 39. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data—-Characteristics—-Black, Detroit (N=ll) . . . . . . . . A0. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education--White, Detroit (N=23) . . . . . . . . A1. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Education--Black, Detroit (N=19) . . . . . . . . A2. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data—~Housing—-White, Detroit (N=15) . . . . . . . . A3. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~Housing--Black, Detroit (N=16) . . . . . . . . AA. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-—Job--White, Detroit (N=21). O O O O I O O O O 0 “5. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Job--B1ack, Detroit (N=19). o o o o o o o o 0 A6. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~Law and Order--White, DSDrOit (N=l3) o o o o o o o o xvii Page 122 122 122 123 123 123 123 123 123 12A 12A 12A Figure Page A7. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Law and Order—-Black, Detroit (N=10) . . . . . . . . . 12A A8. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Political Activism--White, Detroit (N=l2) . . . . . . . . . 12A A9. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data--Political Activism—-Black, Detroit (N=11) . . . . . . . . . 12A 50. Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-~War and Military--White, Detroit (N=l3) . . . . . . . . . 125 514 Correlation Matrix for the ABS: BW/WN Simplex Data-—War and Military--Black, DGDPOit (N=ll) I o o o o o o o o 125 xviii CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Attitudinal research at present occupies a central position in social psychology. Practically every text— book on social psychology contains sections on attitudes and their measurement. The reasons for this emphasis stems from the desire to understand, predict, and control behavior. Social psychologists, and others, feel that by knowing the attitudes of peOple it is possible to do some— thing about the prediction and control of their behavior. Or as Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) state, the actions of the individual are governed to a large extent by his attitudes. Numerous investigations during the last two decades which involved the measurement of atti- tudes, and of the related concepts of "Opinion" and "value," attest to the Significance of these concepts for the understanding and prediction of behavior. Social psychology and allied disciplines have employed varied techniques for the measurement of attitudes, but by far the most widely used and most carefully designed and tested technique is the attitude scale. The principal scaling methods used for the measure- ment of attitudes fall into three generic rubrics: differential Scales, summated scales, and cumulative Scales. Closely associated with each scaling method is the name of a particular person who provided the impetus for its development. The differential scale (equal- appearing interval method) is associated with the name of Thurstone, the summated scale is associated with the name of Likert, and the cumulative scale with the name of Guttman, although Bogardus also figured prominently in the development of this particular method. This break- down is not necessarily exhaustive of all the scales available nor would it find unequivocal agreement among everyone. There are deviations from these methods, pri- marily the unfolding technique, latent structure analysis, and the semantic differential, and combinations such as the scale discrimination technique, and quasi-scales. Krech, Crutchfield, and Ballachey (1962) list five prin- cipal methods while others like Torgerson (1958) and Selltiz, Jahoda, Deutsch, and Cook (1966) stick to three generic categories. However classified, the methods mentioned above have been responsible for a variety of instruments used in attitude research. Statement of the Problem Even though a great amount of energy has been spent in research with attitude scales, it is an unfortunate fact, as Shaw and Wright (1967) state, that much of the effort has been wasted because of lack of suitable in- struments for the measurement of attitudes. Consequently, the researcher is often forced to develop a scale of his own which leaves him little time to do the actual re— search. Because of this lack of suitable instruments and the many available methods for attitude scale con- struction, most of the research is not directly com- parable. In many cases, the concept of attitude is defined differently from one study to another and as a result, these varying definitions of attitude(s) are then measured differently; using more or less precise instru— ments or scales. Guttman's most recent contributions to attitude scaling, and the ones this study is concerned with, pro— vide a rigorous paradigm for item construction and analysis that can be applied to any intergroup Situation. Guttman (Stouffer, 1950) is noted primarily for his contri— bution of scalogram analysis as an empirical method for ordering responses. His more recent emphasis, however, deals with various semantic factors, or "facets," and methods of measuring them, i.e., facet design and non- metric analysis (Guttman & Schlesinger, 1966; Guttman & Schlesinger, 1967). Guttman's earlier work is well known (Edwards, 1957; Torgerson, 1958; and Stouffer, 1950) but his present emphasis is still relatively unknown. These latter methods will receive a thorough discussion in the "Instrumentation" section of Chapter III. Guttman (1950a) started by operationally defining attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with re- spect to something." Guttman later (Guttman, 1959) divided this delimited totality of behavior into four levels suggested by another study. Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) proposed four types or levels of inter- action with a cognitive object which Guttman (1959) elaborated into a structural theory of belief and action based on and defined by facets to produce each level. The four levels or sub—universes Guttman used were: (a) Stereotype, (b) Norm, (c) Hypothetical Interaction, and (d) Personal Interaction. Jordan (1968), reviewing current attitude research, found few studies which employed many attitude items other than stereotypic ones although, as indicated above, Guttman proposed that attitudes exist on four levels, from stereo- typic to concrete behavior. If attitudes exist on various levels other than the stereotypic, then most current instruments will fail to elicit an accurate account. Jordan (1968) constructed an attitude scale employing refinements and extensions of Guttman's proposals and found that preliminary administrations of the instrument yielded results consistent with Guttman's theory. Jordan's work was an extension of Guttman's (1959) four-level proposal and dealt with the "mentally retarded" as the attitude object. A parallel instrument dealing with racial attitudes was non-existent. Jordan's review of the literature also revealed that four classes of variables Seem to be important determinants, correlates and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, and income, (b) socio—psychological factors such as one's value orientation, (0) contact factors such as amount, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact, and (d) the knowledge factor, i.e., the amount of infor— mation one has about the attitude object. Jordan found, however, that most of the research studies were inconclusive or contradictory about the predictor variables and suggested that the reason may lie in the fact that the attitude scales were composed of items from different levels or sub-universes of Guttman's paradigm. Lack of control over which atti— tudinal levels are being measured seems likely to con- tinue to produce inconsistent, contradictory, and non- comparable findings in attitude research——a situation that the Guttman paradigm might be able to correct. Need for Racial Attitude Research The importance of racial attitudes was cogently underlined in the Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Commissioned by President Lyndon Johnson in July, l967,to study the recurrent racial outbursts in this nation, the Commission stated the following in its final document: This is our basic conclusion: Our nation iS moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal. . . . This deepening racial division is not inevitable. The movement apart can be re- versed. Choice is still possible. . . . From every American it will require new attitudes, new under- standing, and above all, new will (pp. 1—2). In 1968,CBS News commissioned the Opinion Research Corporation of Princeton, New Jersey,to survey the atti- tudes of both Blacks and Whites. A measurement of race attitudes on the part of both Blacks and Whites was deemed essential for an understanding of the ghetto problems that predominantly affect Blacks but have reprecussions for Whites. Brink and Harris (1967) in two major studies in 1963 and 1966 were concerned with the research of racial attitudes in an effort to understand Black—White relations. Campbell (1968) also stressed the assessment of racial attitudes for an understanding of behavior of the races toward each other. Racial attitudes, whenever they are held, are com- monly referred to as prejudices. Gordon Allport in his book The Nature of Prejudice (195A) defines prejudice as: An avertive or hostile attitude toward a person who belongs to a group, Simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group (p. 7). Allport (1958) elaborates on this definition and states: An adequate definition of prejudice contains two essential ingredients. There must be an attitude of favor or disfavor; and it must be related to an overgeneralized (and therefore erroneous) belief (p. 13). Prejudice is defined in other ways (Lowy, 19A8; Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, Levinson, & Stanford, 1950; Simpson & Yinger, 1958; gt_§1.) but a commonality in all these definitions of prejudice is an attitude in which a person behaves toward an entire group of people or a member of that group in an unrealistic manner when there is little practical evidence for this behavior. Affective behavior is included in the response. Guttman's (1950) definition of attitude as "a delimited totality of be— havior with respect to something" provides a useful tool for examining prejudice through racial attitudes Since his definition includes not only the cognitive aspects of behavior but also the affective aspects. In this study, prejudice is examined via the expression of un- favorable and favorable racial attitudes and the un- favorable and favorable racial attitudes are Operationally defined by scores on seven racial scales (ABS: BW/WN) constructed according to the Guttman paradigm. These scores are the dependent variable used in the study. Purpose The present study has the following purposes: (a) to replicate the six-level attitude scale construction of Jordan using Guttman facet design and analysis and to test that construction; (b) to construct, according to the formulations of Guttman and Jordan, an attitude scale using attitudes of Blacks and Whites toward each other in "specific Situations" as the attitude object. Items selected for inclusion in this scale will be culled from seven attitude scales used in the study by item analyses procedures. Some ancillary purposes will also be included in the study aside from the two major purposes. These are specifically: (a) to ascertain the 'favorableness' or 'unfavorableness' of Whites' attitudes towards Blacks and Blacks' attitudes toward Whites; (b) to examine a particular method of writing the same attitude item across the Six-levels used in Table 11; (c) to con- struct an instrument in such a manner that it can be used to assess the attitudes of Blacks toward Whites or vice—versa of Whites toward Blacks using the Same items but interchanging the words 'Black' and 'White' when they appear in the items and directions; and finally (d) to compare the results of the study with the previous work of Jordan which used the mentally retarded as the atti— tude object. Hypotheses Most studies of an experimental or quasi-experimental nature specifically state both the research or "null" hypotheses in a straight-forward manner and then proceed to test them using the traditional tests of Significance. The present study, however, is best described as a methodological one--specifically of the best construc- tion variety—~and therefore departs somewhat from the experimental paradigm. Hypotheses to be examined will be of both a theoretical nature--examining Guttman's facet design and level approach——and of a substantive nature using traditional statistics and hypotheses formulations. Examples of both types are presented below and are more specifically elaborated in Chapter III. Theoretical Facet Design and Guttman‘ProcedureS‘IGeneral) Case) 1. There will be a positive relationship (cor- relational) between structural (conceptual) theory and the statistical structure (Simplex) i.e., the Size of the correlation coefficient increases with the increase in the number of contiguous facets in the variables. §ubstantive Hypotheses 1. The primary substantive hypothesis was to test relationships between the dependent criterion variables and the four classes of independent- predictor variables. The attitude scores will be the dependent variable and the independent variables will be looked at as correlates, determinants and/or predictors of attitudes of Blacks and Whites toward each other. Two examples of this type are also presented: osdn‘ v 1'4“" "t :" no Aisle tee .9 «L. -10“ ‘0 LV :1 0. chm“! Vb. on; I - .oo emf- "‘Vh0 V Q7! V‘- 'H pa was-” . 4 VA .. a‘VH‘v‘n. “‘s.” 'L‘ A..- 10 a. Persons that score high in efficacy (man's sense of control over his environment) will score high in favorable attitudes toward the opposite race on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. b. Age will be negatively related to favor- able attitudes of races toward each other, i.e., the younger the person the more favorable his attitudes toward the Opposite race. Definition of Terms Because the present study is a methodological one, the Specific technical meaning of the terms used will be operationally defined when they first occur in the study and no attempt will be made here to define them. Most of the technical terms appear in Chapter III which deals with the instrumentation of the study. Chapter III also deals with the substantive hypotheses of the study, and terms found in these hypotheses are operationally defined in terms of items used as explained in that section in Chapter III. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized according to the following arrangement: Chapter I serves as an introduction to the nature of the problem involved and the need and purpose of the study. Chapter II is a summarization of the theory and research related to this study. This chapter has two Dy Aviv C."- wood .- ‘P van- '4 v 1 O 41 11 major divisions: one dealing with the scales used in attitude and racial research, and the other dealing with the substantive findings of research in the area of racial attitudes. Chapter III is concerned with the procedures and methodology of the study. The instrumentation of the study and the statistical procedures used in the analysis of the data are given extended treatment in this chapter. This chapter also includes a historical sketch of the progression of Guttman formulations from scalogram analysis to the present multidimensional analysis and scaling methods. Chapter IV presents the research data and results of analysis of that data in tabular and explanatory form. The emphasis in this chapter is on item analysis and on the selection of items for a Single composite Scale incorporating two items from each of the seven attitude content scales that were used in the study. Chapter V suggests a procedure for making seven in-depth scales from the items used in the study. Most of the analyses procedures in Chapter IV used the CDC MDSTAT program or an adapted variation of it. Chapter V presents a summary of the results with conclusions and recommendations. Various appendices have been added to include material such as: all seven of the attitude content researc? A“ fi‘flo Voav o‘ ov- l2 scales that the White subjects used (which were the Same for the Black subjects except for the appropriate word changes), the Personal Data Questionnaire, the final composite scale (ABS: BW/WN-G), the code book for the research, and various statistical data. ' nv ' .4 “‘,‘.V‘.. I: in n .a. "VA ‘bSuUV o '9 .- L» . * ~ .. at «\w 3 44 e v .. QU a: .5 S .0... a. v a: ‘ s \d v CHAPTER II RACIAL ATTITUDES: REVIEW OF MEASUREMENT METHODS AND RESEARCH FINDINGS Measurement of attitudes toward intergroup relations, especially relations with minority groups, has long been a concern of the social sciences. The Black Man in America today constitutes one of the largest minority groups but is perhaps the least understood. During the last 30 years there has been radical progress with regard to Negro civil rights demands, but there has been little comparable con— temporary research on prejudice and attitude assessment and change accompanying this increased Negro-White interaction. Identifying prejudicial attitudes and understanding inter- group relations is crucial for the success of any efforts to solve problems between different groups of people. Scales Used in the Measurement of Racial-Attitudes Assessment of racial attitudes of Whites toward Blacks1 and Blacks toward Whites has taken various forms 1The words Black and Negro will be interchanged throughout this study to refer to the Same racial group. 13 ‘ . .ru .-n . . r . .. .. . a .3 a C a: “a .r.. .1 : . e +0 CO 3 a a .3 C .fi 9 a r“ a w.” . a ”a t e C 5 V 3 7.- a t . e a a 11 3 5 2a 5 ad n3 5 w.“ 5 ”4 ha 7.— J « a: A: nu. hm h 0. AG no; a» .rb .Iu r1. n. t. a 6.. ha ha a... w“ “M a. o. Cu 9. Av A. ml... he AU AU 0. Pv 35 “H. .ru «5 a: flu n\v a: h. 0:; .nu +4 ad “a g. 2. a. mu m. h. u. 3: :u 6.: 0- Au ..1 H. »v .v. Q» Q» Ca AHV H . W. n/. n—v We A\U “h H: y u \ u... .«n ..I.. . . ac: . 7. .w. T: -. . .«u Ho ..4 ru .3 «J v“ we. .v . . -. o :- Lu on .14 I». A: a.» an. . . He .2- :U P I. e u on. :v H. ”In :U 1A in the social sciences. Several well—known scaling tech— niques have been employed for this purpose as well as lesser known techniques. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be one suitable overall instrument or method available that has been used consistently and which has produced comparable results. Social Distance Scale Bogardus' (1925) "social distance scale" permitted an ordering of respondents in terms of their reaction tenden- cies. He asked subjects to imagine themselves in various types of social contact with foreigners, like the Japanese, and then asked the subjects to indicate whether they would like to have them as very close friends, as neighbors, as colleagues at work, etc. The Negro was often included as a group among the other groups considered. Bogardus found (1925, 19A7, and 1958) that white persons have felt a con- siderable amount of social distance between themselves and Negroes but that some change was taking place. Scales of this nature have been used by Harding and Hogrefe (1952) and Proenza and Strickland (1965). Social distance type scales are rarely used to mea- sure racial attitudes at present because they are not "pure" measures of racial attitudes toward the Negro. Many groups are usually considered in the social distance scale format which introduces a complex pattern that is or' nos- 30 M- “1‘4 ”90:15" d...‘4 U.- no "Pv la. n; A”. iv rAal .... pm. r“ .7. C r. 5 .4 C .o v. .- .3 To C E .. . X a o a. E a .r C c. c.. r.“ rye no Qu .r-u .ru 4‘ ad ad nu h. L 4 be .r. O. u‘ ~ 9,. .. . S to e . o a . .1 a 3% :w 3 w. a o C . a .J.. h i C .3 9 . . A. S n 9 as r. .. n. To C C .. E X .. 1 r ow a tn r“ 74 C .5 n .1 c. v.4 c. ru .3 .1. r. W: .— v .y . r. . C . l e at r. o. 1 . a t .r . w . 0 E : Ow mu no . P. CV 75 at :3 a» .ru as J. PM \ . e e 7:.“ PW t Y .‘ fin‘ Y. C *4 FA 0‘: F. AU ”4 U fi vNO r ND r“ “J. a; 2 m o o u n . n .T #14 .fid . H «O t k D.- .. o .\v n . ~ . e .- M a ‘ g» “I. fi.v I. ¢ «\V n . :3 . a . a .3 a: A: .0 .C ‘ W. I r. a4 r. . 2. v. n. ru .h a. . . m» .n. a; no 5.. .4 3 ram r,“ 3.. hr“ .2;- u‘ A a a: NJ n . u. s ”a Jw 3.1: a: I u »m «5 ~ ‘ Lvo n o 4 :u I. e v :a V9. Cu. .h.. a u C. a) .. s Lu W .13 o 4 :u flu :— n v mu» a: . A v Q. 15 difficult to analyze in relation to a particular group such as the Negro. The Bogardus scale has also been criticized (Lambert & Lambert, 1965) as not providing an index of degree or intensity of reaction tendencies, nor providing information about the thoughts and feel- ings of respondents. Thurstone‘Scales Scales constructed by the Thurstone technique and dealing with racial attitudes are prevalent in the litera— ture. In this technique, judges are required to scale or sort items into piles (usually eleven piles are used) ranging on a continuum from 'favorable' to 'unfavorable' toward the attitude object under consideration. Items are then given weights (median values) according to which pile they are in using all the judges' ratings. Respond- ents taking a Thurstone scale, are asked to check only those items with which they agree or disagree. Thurstone (1931) developed a 2A-item attitude scale toward Negroes and subsequently used it (1932) in his re- search on the effects of movies upon children. The Scale consisted of a Single form and contained stereotypic items almost exclusively. Hinckley (1932) deve10ped one of the earlier and best known racial attitude scales using Thurstone pro- cedures. He developed two forms composed of 16 items each. Items used were mostly stereotypic ones with some f I" U ‘ P L exents C .500 ,- .1 N. '1 I o. *‘r‘ F:r.‘ ‘ p .i‘.e ‘-..ytb‘ ) ,- .E v ‘3 .Jd.‘ .29— "U SE?" .9.- .g...v’" ' q-wr ‘ ‘ -. ,5 , v‘ ,._rn«:i—EJ -\v :w 11" cal ‘Awr ' Ahy v.4... inJ‘:fl‘. A .-"'*:ou. ta A 16 statements of belief included. To some extent, items on both the Hinckley and Thurstone scales are outdated; ex- pressing such extreme attitudes as maSS lynchings and complete servitude. Hinckley's scale has been used by: Hinckley (1932), Droba (1932), Kelley, Hovland, Schwartz, and Abelson (1955), Hinckley (1963), and Lombardi (1963), among others. Rosander (1937) developed a 22-item Negro behavior attitude scale using the Thurstone technique. In this scale, Rosander coupled each item with a prOposition of action to be taken thus deviating somewhat from the cus— tomary Thurstone technique. The Rosander scale has not received extensive use. Thurstone scales in general, and specifically those dealing with racial attitudes, have received widespread criticism. Thurstone stated the requirement that the per- sonal attitudes of the judges used in the initial sorting of the items Should not affect their judgments of the items. However, Hovland and Sherif (1952) used Hinckley's items on the social position of the Negro. Their results Show clearly that items are judged quite differently by persons having different attitudes. Judges with extreme attitudes tended to displace neutral statements toward the end of the scale opposite their own position. The Negro judges were unable to distinguish among different degrees of opinions at the end of the attitude continuum opposite ‘ .ri‘p-vpngt- ‘. loaoa' V. “U “ f’,:n1 9's assgfi‘ uuvo no .FfiOAI‘; A¢apewor “3.33:4 “-Ofi u, . - .Ir. u ‘1‘ cvv AA»- \ non-Ja-QHJ ‘\ ‘jjéj ‘5' D Vyr‘ 1‘ V"r> 54:... 1' 3.,AES A“ ‘IPV‘R rt ‘ " Ar“ VT?“ 'rr“p “ W hAIUJ a ‘Avs ... -. rm“ QII‘QU‘V“' : i u fir.‘,‘ 'va-‘ 7‘0“th ‘Vy; VS u . b.~p‘_ .,‘-‘ n? 1. :th day, Be (1) ' 's (D (I) U) :‘hVQ than V ale :: “We ..d -J“‘. I fit- 0.6. V‘r /‘ V.. -. ‘ \ *3 1‘: ‘s' Fran '- . u-sq..§ arv‘ Q, e.‘ G a \‘A I , n- n. "rtv‘f‘fia‘ H, ‘ “v V! r . *‘1 V ‘I. r .'s‘ .4. '41 A (‘3‘: «‘1‘ 1y ‘V‘JC‘ '3 a , ._‘ . 'C A 7’» Q 1“ $115.92“ “‘¢ A. In F ."Fc.:cz‘h‘ w‘xfih e F " r ,— ’ as” an” ‘ Idj" a h ‘ ‘G \- nah”: ~ u 17 from their own, while the white subjects were able to do this. Negroes were insensitive to different degrees of unfavorableness. A subsequent study by Kelley,e§_a1. (1955) added corroborating evidence to Hovland and Sherif's assertion that Negro and white judges assign marked differences on scale values using Hinckley items. Hinckley (1932) found no different in the assignment of scale values when using Southern prejudiced white stu- dents and unprejudiced Northern students. Another more common criticism lodged against the Thurstone scales iS that they are laborious to construct and score (Jahoda & Warren, 1966). In scoring the Thur- stone scales, the final score that a person receives could represent several attitudinal patterns and thus it might not be a meaningful way of expressing a person's attitude. Merton (19A0) points out methodological contra- dictions and sociological inadequacies of this scale. Specifically he notes: (a) Thurstone's scale—values are not additive, (b) Thurstone's inventories do not consti— tute a linear 'scale,' (c) Thurstone units are not inter- changeable, and (d) scores obtained using Thurstone scales could be hard to interpret. Likert Scales Scales constructed by the Likert technique and dealing with racial attitudes are more popular than O V‘— v- ,- K 2 , ‘ts vv‘r‘ h..- \--v-r . “fins ”V cw H ‘4 «ow u veed-¢“‘““ :LI ‘4‘“. «ar* 4 Y‘ “““U .1. ‘“4 {-V‘ 4.406 f“ ,- p 1 a .ohfi‘ \ -8- \ ‘3'...~\VV‘ on“ U “v 5"!” v in I' '0“ or we‘- -. r"Y‘ .' 18 Thurstone scales owing to their ease of construction and scoring. Judges are not used in Scaling items over a continuum. Items are selected by intuition and only those items which are clearly 'favorable' or 'unfavorable' are used whereas in the Thurstone technique items range on a continuum from 'unfavorable' to 'favorable' includ- ing several intermediate categories. Subjects are asked to respond to each item in terms of several degrees of agreement or disagreement. Usually the response format for each item ranges from strongly approve to strongly disapprove. The number of categories used for each item is normally five, but some investigators have used both a smaller and larger number of categories. In its most stringent applications, Likert items are pre-tested on a population that is representative of the subjects to be actually used. Likert scales are Scored by summing the "number" of the response categories marked by the subject on each item over all the items on the scale. Likert (1932) constructed an Attitude Toward the Negro Scale, using his technique. Fifteen items were included in the Scale. Most of the items were of the stereotype nature but Likert did include some hypotheti- cal items dealing with interaction with Negroes. Since the scale was constructed in 1932, some of the items no longer are apprOpriate for present use. McKeachie (195A) used this scale to measure attitude change after an experimental trc‘ 53318 in his WC: Steckler scale for use W ! ebb}? $4H¢Uuies tC‘fiar‘ I, . [.1 of the its: nature. Malive anti-Elegro bia ever, dded sc :39 Seale . FOrd (l 'J + ‘, ~ 19 experimental treatment. Seeleman (l9A0) also used this scale in his work. Steckler (1957) constructed a 16-item Likert-type scale for use with Negro Samples. This scale is unique in that it is one of the few scales designed to measure attitudes toward the subjects' own reference group. All of the items on the scale are of a stereotypic nature. Maliver (1965) used Steckler's scale to measure anti-Negro bias among Negro college students. He, how- ever, added some new pro-Negro items before he administered the scale. Ford (19A1) constructed a scale entitled Experience with Negroes using a combined Likert-Thurstone technique. The scale is concerned with community and personal experi- ences with Negroes. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958), Greenberg (1961), Fendrich (1967) and Campbell and Schu- man (1968) used Likert techniques in constructing racial attitude scales. Likert scales have been criticized for yielding, at best, only ordinal scale data (Edwards, 1957). Another disadvantage to this technique is that often the total score of an individual has little clear meaning, Since many patterns of response to the various items may pro- duce the same score (Jahoda & Warren, 1966). p- n U 0 .. rU 3 a HR 9‘ m.~ ,, Q a ‘ 45.338. uv"""v 3" 1 a? m-b" J'J" until“ . AA." \ r . di“¥:~- “‘ V fly :u n . _“ “7": u 4.0" do to- ‘IV e :‘rs“ .4 :9... Unev- I g -S 2......ch- van-wivro gnr A war" vs so me»)-..— c f Uavd . pp..- A... 144 h.‘ . ’ ~F~ A to... ~‘q' - a \ ‘$'- ‘ V c. “v... Q'- U‘. 20 Guttman Scales Guttman's scalogram technique, or scalogram analysis, has not received as much attention in measuring racial attitudes as have other techniques. The main purpose of scalogram analysis is to ascertain whether the attitude or universe of content involves a Single dimension. i.e., whether it is unidimensional or not. If a universe of content is unidimensional it will yield a perfect or near perfect scale so that it is possible to arrange all the responses of any number of respondents into a particular pattern depending on their scores. Ideally, if a person answers item A 'favorable' on a scale he Should also answer items 3, 2, and 1 'favorably.’ Guttman provided for a measure of 'scalability' of items which he called the coefficient of reproducibility. A scale had to have a coefficient of .90 or above to be considered a true Guttman scale. Guttman's scaling procedures (Guttman & Suchman, 19A7) also allowed for the establishment of a neutral region of a scale using what they called the in- tenSity function. The neutral region allows another way to distinguish favorable from unfavorable attitudes in addition to the method of scoring the content of the items. Guttman's scale procedures have been used in the construction of scales and additionally to analyze already existing Scales by submitting them to scalogram analysis to see if they meet the requirements of a Guttman scale. ‘I ‘4 I. 5. :Q [I 'a i. F. Id ’5‘ C~ al In nx~ v A o a e a e e R H h a as .... e u 3: 9. pa w. "a . . .3 he 0. ~ . . . o .: Io . . o o . W. .o the ha a. ‘ S a. .. 1 . C. m. .. 1 Z A o C S 1 1 K a .. . ._ o e . a . w“ w. pi ”J “.5 I. p. A. n. my. 4. w... .3 on. C E/ . o 3c C e O . 1 n. a. .1 . a o P W S 3 Ca 5 a a e C . .. .. .3 A a .3 . c .r 2 .u as t a a. . .a ...a .3 7... r.“ I“ E 3 a C C; nu . . :3 E A .n.‘ Pd «4 2M .nu 0v ‘ . a. a: n. ”1 o hd r“ ..J 2. y a. T. n. .. a. r. "J n: z. .1 C r... .1 a: e . a .4 1 p u. ... . . a. n. 2. . . . . a . c. 7: an a. e . "A r4 . a S a . .3 t. c. 2. o c. a . a 4 A a :. 2. ”a . e L. r” 2. a. r“ a: ...J a. . c. .1. ”a 2. . .M a; .u v u. 2' ”h "in a: n o a a . v 4 4 :- 33 u A. and - 21 Bogardus' social distance scales were of a cumulative type like Guttman's, but they were not tested to see if they meet the rigorous requirements of the Guttman procedures. Kogan and Downey (1956) developed an eight-item Guttman-type scale involving discriminatory attitudes toward Negroes. This test is a study of what different peOple do in different situations involving Negroes. Holtzman (1956) and Turman devised a Guttman scale entitled Tolerance of Non-Segregation Scale. This scale was restricted to attitudes toward segregated education. Kelly, Person, and Holtzman (1958) and Larson, Ahrenholtz, and Graziplene (1964) deal with the use of this scale in research. The scale had a reproducibility coefficient of over .90 in all the studies and thus met the requirements of a Guttman scale. Harding and Hogrefe (1952) constructed a scale dealing with the attitudes of white department store employees toward Negro co-workers. The items formed a Guttman scale with reproducibility coefficients of approxi- mately .95. Campbell, A. (1968) used a Guttman scale in a study dealing with civil rights and the vote for president. Campbell was concerned with measuring a single attitude domain toward civil rights. Triandis, Levin, and Loh (1966) also used Guttman's scalogram analysis procedures in dealing with subject responses to civil rights issues. tman'J an" UJu 2v .5... 9v .3 “etc be u m- V olv‘ r~~‘ . ‘t.'y 22 Five types of subjects were established using this pro- cedure. In a different type of study, Campbell, E. (1962) used the intensity function of Guttman's scaling technique to establish a zero point for his data. He then used the zero point to differentiate the changers from the non- changers in a before—after design of high school students' attitudes toward Negroes and desegregation. Guttman's procedures, like other techniques, have qualifications or criticisms that must be taken into account. First, such a scale might not be the appropriate one to be used in measuring complex attitudes since its scope is unidimensional (Jahoda & Warren, 1966). Second, scalogram analysis gives no guidance in selecting items for the scale (Edwards, 1957). Third, a scale may be unidimensional for one group of individuals but not for another (Jahoda & Warren, 1966). Guttman's latest contributions to scale construction and attitude measurement, i.e., facet design and nonmetric analysis, have not—-to the author's knowledge--been used in measuring racial attitudes until the present study. These techniques avoid many of the prior criticisms of Guttman scaling since they are multi-dimensional in nature and also include an a priori method of item selection. Efimocentrism S M the Facism SCc-’ r Adorno, F 153,produced '.~#‘ It» “I n : J‘vnflr 9 .8” A n J Jud-Ad laedresearch, pejudice in pa ferred to as e: :iating the m: feeling of dis; inthe other h; firumi concer: cm! Sp‘Véfically , ‘ Ethnocen‘ rapid in; stereotyT reEardin, and sutx| hierarg aCtion ‘p. ‘1 1* A. “N‘rn . ‘Vuyo s 23 Ethnocentrism Scale and the Facism Scale Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford in 1950, produced the influential volume entitled The Authoritarian Personality, In this book and their re- lated research, the authors were concerned not with prejudice in particular, but with a concept they re- ferred to as ethnocentrism. They were clear in differen- tiating the two: "Prejudice is commonly regarded as a feeling of dislike against a specific group; ethnocentrism, on the other hand, refers to a relatively consistent frame of mind concerning 'alien' generally" (p. 102). More specifically, the authors present the following general statement: Ethnocentrism is based on a pervasive and rapid ingroup—outgroup distinction; it involves stereotyped negative imagery and hostile attitudes regarding outgroups, stereotyped positive imagery and submissive attitudes regarding ingroups, and a hierarchial, authoritarian view of group inter- action in which ingroups are rightly dominant, out- groups subordinate (p. 150). To measure ethnocentrism, the authors constructed several scales including a total scale which they called "Public Opinion Questionnaire E" or the E scale. This scale contained several items dealing with Negroes. The authors also constructed a "Facism" scale or F scale to measure anti-democratic attitudes and authoritarianism. These two scales have been used in numerous research studies dealing with racial attitudes toward Negroes. Himelste scale adapted gevious stUdJ revealed that sates score 1 2'0 Southern 5: afihors, cons: Kelly, F inrelation :2 hand that ‘Jt was only slig? l Heller ( 2n Himelstein and Moore (1963) administered a nine-item scale adapted from The Authoritarian Personality. A previous study (Himelstein & Moore, 1963) with this scale revealed that samples of college students from Northern states score lower (less prejudiced toward Negroes) than do Southern students, thus indicating, according to the authors, construct validity for the attitude scale. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) used the F scale in relation to a measure of intolerance of Negroes. They found that authoritarianism as measured by the F scale was only slightly related to intolerance of Negroes. Weller (l96u) used both the F and E scales to relate prejudice to personality factors and found that both edu- cation and age are significantly associated with the E scale. Reynolds and Toch (1965) used a modified E scale to measure perceptual correlates of prejudice. Vidulich and Krevanick (1966) built their own HO-item attitude scale toward Negroes but used several items from the E and F scale. Greenberg (1961) in constructing his int— gration scale, correlated the final version with the E scale and obtained a high positive correlation. Kinnick and Plattor (1967) used both the E and F scale to measure the effects of a summer training institute to reduce authoritarian and ethnocentric attitudes in relation to more favorable attitudes toward Negroes and school de- segregation. Maliver (1965) used both the E and F irihg raci ariahi no {6 ..e25 as ”L. ‘ FR *qde Eda: re ’_ . a ‘gfn’fi nJU-ov. - J £3 ‘cvy fl ~\i i 4 . b*8d0uS P‘ ‘1‘ .EM “‘niques, if. a 25 scales, among other scales, to assess anti-Negro bias among Negro college students. Bites and Kellogg (196“) pointed out that many studies using the E and F scales have as their purpose to determine whether those more authoritarian in atti- tude were maladjusted to a greater extent than those less authoritarian in attitude. In their research, they used the F scale and social maturity scale in relation to measuring racial attitudes. They concluded that using authoritarianism (F scale) to measure racial attitudes is inadequate and that it is necessary to add racial preju- dice items as they did in their study. The basic objection to the use of either the E scale or the F scale to measure racial prejudice toward Negroes is that, as Hites and Kellogg (196U) stated, these scales are not a "pure" measure of racial prejudice but rather are measuring the concepts of ethnocentrism and fascism respectively and can only indirectly measure racial prejudice; that is, their validity as racial prejudice scales is 10w. Egojective Tests Used in Measuring Racial Attitudes Projective tests and scales have been used in various ways to measure racial attitudes and prejudices. These techniques, like all projective tests, indirectly present an ambiguous stimulus to which the subject is asked to : u + .' non-‘fi’ r ‘3 :,.va‘¢ob VVS" H" mm. {I‘UV‘e' ,. 3.“: . ‘ne-A-& run '- ~ rh" r‘ 1.. 3.30 A‘Va C; .3 ‘ “'AA'H-Agn P noCuJDDuu. h ‘ ‘.I ~ 2"”3" N-ngnquy- "“Vu «I-D-u l a... .‘;=‘. n n. 4,... .szfl: Qi- v '-‘*UUJ /" ‘\ 'J‘h "P V-I-J.. I 7"“ 1 T , "‘4“- JOLQnZaw- - t L, ‘I e (D 5: ’1. ’1J ’__l (T 7| ’1 . 1‘.es ‘! ‘. u 9‘ Q‘ ‘v‘1 F 2 PC‘WL-fi . ' ”N‘ve. "‘ ‘Q .P" i—‘ v. “"Ie I: he'- " Ink, V‘- ”A I - u. ‘._,‘c:"h N§4Pe P V; v” Q ‘U'd arfi I ”:1 ~ .- I‘- 4. (‘5': ‘v' n u‘n‘ +‘r‘. U u“e I. ‘4. 2 V‘.‘ “'5. 26 respond. Unfortunately, this method of measuring and con- structing tests has several serious drawbacks. The validity of such indirect measures are usually lower than the more direct paper-and-pencil tests. Reliability coefficients are also not as high as in the other techniques already discussed. A third area of concern is that this type of test is hard to interpret and score and thus there is the added disadvantage that research using these techniques may not be comparable. Rarely has a study been repli- cated where indirect techniques were employed. Campbell (1950) evolved a paradigm that dichotomized indirect (projective) attitude tests on the basis of whether they were of a disguised non-structured test variety (voluntary) or a disguised structured test variety (non-voluntary). Those of the disguised non—structured nature will be reviewed first. Frenkel-Burnswik, Sanford and Levinson (Campbell, 1950) used specially designed Thematic Apperceptionpic— tures in their study of the personality correlates of prejudice. They wanted to secure a detailed and quali— tative picture of the expression of prejudice rather than a measure of it. However, their results formed a compli- cated and uninterpretable correlation pattern thus ques- tioning the use of these pictures as attitude measuring instruments. Loeblowitz-Lennard and Riesman (19H6) developed an elaborate proposal using a similar instrument row 5" .mcv- — O- Ho. .- 7., v H V 2. Lu Znea fnvbber's tZ-E.-_,, Q ~ FT. '11. h “it u 1 "V‘v’ A ‘ ‘A - Nu 27 with attitudes toward Negroes and Jews but no results were reported. Meier (Campbell, 1950) used doll cut—outs to repre— sent various ethnic groups such as Negroes. He then asked his subjects to respond to what they would do in certain situations depicted by the cut—out figures. Evans and Chein (Campbell, 1950) manipulated Negro and white dolls in what they called a "movie story game." Dubin (1940) also utilized toys, such as dolls, in a fashion similar to play therapy techniques. Sentence completion techniques have been employed by Frenkel-Brunswik and Jones (Campbell, 1950) and Brown (Rotter and Willerman, 1947). Brown used a modification of Rotter's test which had twenty sentence fragments that deal specifically with the Negro problem. In methods of the disguised structured nature, Loeblowitz—Lennard and Riesman (Campbell, 1950) proposed that an information test be used to indirectly measure attitudes toward Negroes. The authors made the assumption that guessing behavior and differential patterns of in- formation may be diagnostic of attitudes for these cases. Kremen (Campbell, 1950) also used an information test situation. She attempted to evaluate the effect of stu— dent role-playing of a discrimination episode upon atti— tudes toward the Negro. The effect was measured by both an.indirect and direct test and her results showed that role-playing 41 28 role-playing lowered the relationship between the direct and indirect test but this phenomenon was not explained by the author. Tests that employed bias in perception and memory were devised and used by Horowitz, E. L. and Horowitz, R. E. (Campbell, 1950). In these tests, pictures were presented showing both Negroes and whites and the sub— jects were asked to give their perception and memory of the picture after they were shown to them. The authors found grave discrepancies in the replies. Other studies that have employed the same technique (Seeleman, l9“O-“l; Cattell, 1950; and Klineberg, 195“) have also obtained discrepancies in memory and perception. Murphy and Likert (1937) used a photograph technique showing Negroes as well as other pictures and asked the subjects to de- scribe the peOple pictured. Their results were contrary to paper-and-pencil type tests. Another approach, like the Murphy and Likert one, was devised by Radke and used and modified by Chein and Schreiber (Rose, l9“8). Their results were also unreliable. Other studies that have employed the disguised— structured test approach for the assessment of attitudes toward Negroes are: Watson (1925), Wolff, Smith, and .Murray (193“), Gordon (19“7), and Amos (1955). There have been other techniques of this nature that have also been developed but no particular technique has produced &v av. y- Cy V. E 3 l #9 .2 f. by a: n6 ‘5‘- :a .44 -~w ‘4.” .1 «\v -1 5"“ H‘.‘. v' 1W1“ 29 a valuable instrument via this particular method of measurement. Generally, these instruments were not as rigorously constructed as the previously mentioned ones and are not scales as the term is applied in the area of measurement. Special Made Instruments for Particular Studies Racial attitude instruments that are specially designed and tailored for a particular study are by far the most numerous ones in the literature. These instru- ments usually do not rely on familiar techniques of scale construction and item selection but are solely designed for the one—shot study contemplated by the author. However, there are occasions when a modification of a particular scaling method is employed or a study is replicated using the special author-made instrument. Generally, these instruments yield data of the frequency count kind. Reliability and validity data are usually lacking on these instruments although sampling procedures are sometimes rigorously adhered too. Special made racial attitude scales, like indirect (projective) techniques, are not accustomed to meeting the stringent measurement requirements of the "scales" previously discussed. Four of the largest nationwide surveys dealing with the attitudes of Negroes and Whites toward each other and race related items (Brink & Harris, 196“; .. 1 w... r. Ly v. A V “a g a . A |.1¢ V. C. V t v a 1 a .31 new. .3 1. E n C T C 11 3 P ..1 ..1 C E .1 .3. :1 . w. , 3 .3 w“ .8 C. C 1. 1. H1 E .1 t ...1 E C o. ..1 11 O ..1 ml no .3 u ,1 a by a J 1 I 1 41 1.... nu AG HQ 11 .n. Q1 5 v 3 .1 .Tv AU $v Qw :1 .. 1 e . a C 71 C. a u 1: 2.1 n. b e 1: 1 u 1.: .13 C e +. . . ...1 . -. r .3 a I. r. . .11 S n1 3 e h. v . Y. o A . A“; Po 5 :1 n 1: .. 1 .n . :1 :1 8 VJ a .31 no 1 c .. u a .1 C . c: 3 3 C e n... 1“ C 1. T l C .2“ n. . r. 1.- ..1 .3 E .. C . “A w 1 a. C 21 C. . 1 1 4 S. a C e . -1 a 1t 21 w.“ h. a. .rA v. . s a u . .. 1 r s. :1 ”1 11 f: .3 :1 1c 1... mu .. 1 .n. r“ 3 .u .4 n. 1. .3 :1 .3 1. ”,1 c. 14 ..1 w.“ e. :1 n.. .4 J. a. :1 “in 13 r.” .. ”a r” 1: . 1. 14 14 .nv .4 14 ..1 41 1... c. m. ~u. a n. .3 r” L. a 1; 2. .ru r“ 21 .. 1 2. 21 2. ru r“ 21 14 11.. L... .. 1. 1: as. .: .\.. :. .1 .»C n .1 .. ..1 v. ...r. 1... ‘4 ... :1 .1. ..v s. .x. 14 1. 1... 1... 3O Brink & Harris, 1967; Campbell & Schuman, 1968; and CBS News Public Opinion Survey, 1968) were specially made instruments dealing with selected topics. These instru— ments can not properly be classified as attitude scales but are rather opinion gathering methods, as the term "survey" connotes. Surveys, such as the major ones mentioned above, have focused considerable attention on the racial problem but they have not given much of an in-depth picture of the nature and determinants of racial attitudes. Items in most of these surveys deal with transitory topics, i.e., riots, etc. and are of a factual nature. Responses to surveys such as these are tabulated using descriptive statistics like percentages. A scaling technique that belongs in a separate category but is included here because of its scant use in the area of racial attitudes is the semantic differ- ential. This technique was devised by Osgood and Tannen- baum and used by them in the measurement of racial atti- tudes (Osgood & Tannenbaum, 1955). To construct a semantic differential scale, a concept is presented and then adjectives representing the polar ends of a con- tinuum are listed below the concept. The subject is required to mark where he thinks the concept belongs in reference to the varying adjectives presented with the Concept. Since this technique is limited to measuring concepts, complex relations, e.g., interaction between races, is extr‘ '. . h {Si 1: “F; 'Tl‘ An- (1% ‘..&.a0‘1 JVV EQTPCSE 3R3 RC "H‘hy\‘ .‘ .:v...£..c.4e . I . 31 races, is extremely difficult or impossible to assess given the limitations of this method. Proenza and Strickland (1965) used a semantic differential for the concepts: Negro, white, integration, and segregation. Williams (1966) employed the semantic differential in connotative meanings of trials of color-linked concepts. Insko and Robinson (1967) used the semantic differential in testing Rokeach's belief theory of prejudice. Instruments constructed for a specific study or purpose and not adhering to any particular scaling technique for their construction (Allport, l9fl6; Merton, West, & Jahoda, 19M9; Deutsch & Collins, 1951; Wilner, Walkley, & Cook, 1952; Carter & Mitchell, 1955-56; Trent, 1957; Krans, 1962; Williams, 1968; and Engel, 1968) have had restricted applicability and rarely have been repli- cated. Generalizing from the results of instruments such as these is precarious. Equivalence of Scale Forms Racial attitude measurement and research has pre- ciominantly and almost exclusively focused on the attitudes 0f Whites toward Negroes. Subsequently, most racial atti- tude scales are designed and constructed to concentrate CH1 items relating to how Whites respond to Negroes. 131a items and situations depicted in these scales would be incongruous if the circumstances were reversed, i.e., how Negroes respond to Whites. yea re qv fi 3338 ,A "-5:‘V ‘IU‘U p Q nrd dtu‘ . g ‘ on: A u.*vfs‘ £th 1.. C. O a .C Q 2... .nl. ~\~ 5. my ab C n . 3C ». n»; ‘d% 32 Some researchers have, however, constructed scales for the measurement of Negroes attitudes toward Whites (Amos, 1955; Carter & Mitchell, 1955-56; Steckler, 1957; and Williams, 1968) while others have made allowances for the use of the scale with either group in measuring attitudes toward the other (Droba, 1932; and Proenza & Strickland, 1965). Scales where provision is made for use with either group and measuring the attitudes of one group toward each other and vice versa are uncommon in the literature. As has been previously mentioned, in the present study comparable scales were made for the Negro respondents and the White respondents. The content of the scales is exactly the same in every respect and the only alteration required in the construction of the two scales was the reversal of the words appearing in each identifying the person or group as Negro or White. Summary of the Scales Used in the Measurement of Racial Attitudes Research on social attitudes has been justly criticized for a lack of common definition of the con- cept, and for a failure to relate definition and measure- ment. A review of the scales used in the measurement of racial attitudes reveals vast differences in methods of construction and item selection with too little attention focused on what is to be measured. Also, there is ..-.4" ,.AV) r a... t. a; G. v. . p;a Cu ,..p. 5 a .3 33 usually little prior consideration given to the complexity of attitudes in connection to intergroup relations and how they can be appropriately analyzed. Digman's (1962) work clearly points out the complexity of the structure of attitudes in general and criticizes the "two-factor" solutions that characterizes many of the studies in this area. It is of special interest to the present study to note that no research has been found that used a facetized design (Guttman, 1959) to measure and analyze racial atti- tudes. Thus it is entirely unclear just what attitudinal levels or sub—universes in the Guttman paradigm were be- ing measured although, from a perusal of these scales, it is apparent that most of them operate purely at the Stereotypic level in Guttman's paradigm (see Tables 2 and 3 in Chapter III). It is also apparent that at least some of these scales were measuring mixtures of Guttman's levels, some were measuring levels not included by Guttman in his paradigm, while still others were not measuring levels of attitudes at all but were rather similar to achievement tests in that they were assessing only factual knowledge. Lack of control over levels being measured as well as inexact definitions of attitude will likely contribute to results which are not comparable, inconsistent, and at times contradictory. 1;. a ~ .3 Y‘ .0 1 '-' lUS‘ v- 'i on" f\ a. duv.‘ c py-JKPfi Li v. te pqrfinlkit VJ‘OUQ -wd Q oav ‘. v Ir. g cha‘nh Hv‘A‘ Jo. .yvb. . p Vo- G. T: 2v :n,‘ UA' ~V‘Q-AL ~. 1'4‘ 4 ‘.‘*V-V ‘I . “w! A P '9... AV "Gr- +- A. «JV b “"O-U h :“‘c V VV‘ 34 Review of Substantive Findings Many researchers often undertake a study or project including as many variables as they feel have some relevance to the problem. They often use a "shotgun" approach in the hope that some of the variables used will be able to "grab off" enough of the variance in the study to be statistically significant. This ap— proach is a valid one when the problem under investi- gation is little understood or is so novel or unique that the researcher feels that is is requisite to include a myriad of variables expecting that some of them will contribute enough variance to be predictive of the re- sults obtained, In the area of attitude research, including racial attitudes, Jordan (1968) in a comprehensive review of the literature indicated that four classes of variables or factors seem to be important determinants, correlates and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, income, geographic location, etc., (b) socio—psychological factors such as one's value orientation, (0) contact factors such as amount, nature, enjoyment of the contact, etc., and (d) the knowledge factor, i.e., the amount of factual information one has about the attitude object. The review of the research results on racial attitudes will be organized around this Classification but will also include other factors that were found. list of varia .m. 4 y; DU ECt o Csntact Fac t 0 white departrr. ca-worker . grzups in ter indicated the. 15* i?- 6qual has: ‘3’ accept m n ‘H L. 35 were found. Table 13 in Chapter III depicts the total list of variables to be used in the present research project. Contact Factors Harding and Hogrefe (1952) conducted a study of white department store employees attitudes toward Negro co-workers. Respondents were classified into three groups in terms of their experience with Negro workers: unequal status contact group, equal status contact group, and the no contact status group. Their overall results indicated that equal status work contact produced a large increase in willingness to work with Negroes on an equal basis, but no significant change in willingness to accept other relationships with them. The no contact group was more favorable than the unequal status group but less favorable than the equal status group. Brophy (196“) found a marked reduction in anti- Negro prejudice among white merchant seamen who had shipped one or more times with Negro sailors. Thirty—three per cent of those who had never shipped with Negroes were rated as unprejudiced on a lO-item Scale: This peré“ centage increased to “6 per cent for those who had shipped once with Negroes, 62 per cent for those who had shipped twice, and 82 per cent for those who had shipped five or more times. The situation which BrOphy studied t W _,.o FY. \ f‘ .A..ou'““' ,h 1 AV" ,. -...-. ‘1 c.”*"‘ chn, A.-- Ob \ v 5p»- ‘AKJ 74 V? ‘V FhV‘ 4 - Q: V9 I q ..4:‘\C' ~U 36 was unusually favorable for the reduction of prejudice because these seamen not only worked together in cire cumstances requiring a high degree of cooperation but also lived together twenty-four hours a day. Most of the seamen were also members of a CIO union with an anti—discrimination policy. Merton, West, and Jahoda (1949) found a moderate increase in favorable attitudes toward interracial housing projects among lower class white tenants of such projects who had previously worked with Negroes as compared with those who had not had this experience. Forty per cent of the former group, but only 24 per cent of the latter answered "Yes" to the question: "Do you think colored and white people should live together in housing projects?" Deutsch and Collins (1951) in a similar study found a slight and statistically unreliable relationship between work experience and attitudes toward Negroes among white housewives in a segregated biracial public housing pro- ject. Thirty—one per cent of their respondents who had worked with Negroes favored interracial housing in principle while 27 per cent of those who had never worked with Negroes favored interracial housing. Wilner, Walk- ley, and Cook (1952) did a study much like Deutsch and Collins using various types of occupancy patterns and their results were in line with the hypothesis that closer and more frequent contact results in a decrease in prejudice. the same , eCC! relaticns bet? \L) \H .‘u1 C 1 c n) ( a \‘f (T (0 Cf 12 (D (1') L3 ( l «v Y \3 (f O L) :. w () (f U & r Carter c 2“:+‘w —: . a ‘vv‘vuues C‘ . .A .-:I‘T'.S of com; "3‘. “.th, Cchf idlents, LOITI :5 White stud " say .5053“ I‘D Ia: 4 p :‘11 ui--l ar “r\ do- “Gr. 37 Allport and Kramer (l9u6) found some empirical justification for their hypothesis that genuine contact between members of groups having the same, or nearly the same, economic and social status improves friendly relations between them, i.e., less prejudice. Cook and Selltiz (1955) were also concerned with the type of con- tact between different ethnic groups and the terms of that contact. Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) in a study of the attitudes of Negro pupils toward Whites found that in terms of contact, those pupils who had 'very often' and 'often' contact with Whites were decidedly more favorable toward Whites than those pupils who had had 'seldom' or 'little' contact with Whites. In another study using students, Lombardi (1963) gave a pre-test and post-test to white students before and after desegregation took place. He found that the mean change from pre-test to post—test was not significant for the whole group but was significant for some students. Holtzman (1956), in still another study with students, found that college students were more positive toward non-segregation than the general population. He also found that those people who had mixed classes with Negroes were more tolerant than those who never attended mixed classes. Droba (1932) in a final study to be reviewed dealing with student contact, found that Negro students taking a A. ya ren cha w years a fl M 1 b-A‘A u:‘ "I—-:" n __ t .i IA c I Ke“. 38 course together with Whites were more favorable towards the Whites than the Whites were toward the Negroes. Konopka (1947) studied the changes in racial atti— tudes of children who had been placed in a therapy group with children from other races. She found that this type of situation was helpful for overcoming racial and cul- tural tensions. Mussen (1963) reports of an experiment using over 100 White subjects between the ages of eight and 14 years of age. The subjects went on a four-week vacation at a camp where Negroes and Whites lived, ate, and played together. After the camp experience, many children changed their attitudes, some becoming more prejudiced, others more tolerant. Yarrow, Campbell, and Yarrow (1958) report a similar study where children from low-income families in Southern states attended an interracial camp where they were assigned to integrated cabins. In general, the children enjoyed the interracial experiences and wished for an extension of the camp period. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) concluded in relation to social contact, that social contact per se is not a determining factor but the quality of the relationship is the most important factor. Demographic Factors One of the most important factors or variables in the present category that has consistently yielded signifi- cant results in relation to prejudice is that of religious preference an church attend extensively r easily unders been at odds fa3tor's. Allport ex;:sure of a £293 nct indu claim that if the person's . 35' tolerance wcrk also shc than Catholic 39 preference and the concomitant factor of frequency of church attendance. Even though these factors have been extensively researched, their exact relationship is not easily understood since research findings have often been at odds with each other when considering these factors. Allport and Kramer (l9u6) assert that the mere exposure of an individual to a religious upbringing does not induce him to be tolerant. However, the authors claim that if the religion has had a positive influence on the person's attitudes, he then does show a higher degree of tolerance toward minority groups. Allport and Kramer's work also showed that Protestants show less prejudice than Catholics toward minority groups. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) results showed that in terms of religion, Baptists were the most Opposed to desegregation followed by other various denominations of Protestants, then Catholics, and finally Jews and those expressing no religion. These results are at variance with those of Allport and Kramer (19“6). The authors posit these results to the fact that in the South, where the study was undertaken, Negroes go to Catholic churches and not Protestant ones. Church attend— ance, in this study, was related to prejudice in a curvi- linear fashion, i.e., those who attended church twice a month are most unfavorable toward desegregation; those A‘p my "1’7 J H 2‘ ,4-" ‘ U '.~.u ’- l‘- v u... .. ng‘ A .1 ”sv .."G W‘ IOIV O-A wav- »' 71“.” vuJ. nu ‘g. ficiHO‘: 1 ‘. vi. n" ”We c ‘50be A u u‘ucv— -. ,Irmfi 9“ t.4~) d4 9 p» :9 thdvv “0 who never attend are most tolerant; and students who go regularly fall in between. Holtzman (1956) found that Jewish students were the most tolerant toward non-segregation, while the Protestants were the least. He also found that the frequency of church attendance was also significantly related to tolerance of non-segregated education--a curvilinear relationship existed between frequency of church attendance and degree of tolerance, the greatest tolerance occurring at both ends of the continuum. Those who attend church only once or twice a month are most likely to favor segregation of Negroes. Larson, Ahrenholz, and Graziplene (196“) found religion to be a significant variable in both Alabama and Texas studies. In Alabama, the Jewish students were more favorable toward integrated facilities than were Catholics; the Catholics were more favorable toward integration than were Protestants. These results were also obtained in Texas studies. Engel (1968) in a different type of study found that white college students more readily accept Negores who are of the same religion than Negroes from other religious groups when considering Negroes for membership in a civil organization, neighborhood housing, and office sharing. In terms of office sharing, Catholics are less rejecting than Jews and 'others,’ while Protestants are less rejecting than 'others.' Liter cates that 3:“ factor a the more ed fcxznd that e “1989 stud fOUn' carter and . “1 Literature on racial attitudes and prejudice indi- cates that education is the most significant variable or factor and is negatively related to prejudice, i.e., the more education the less prejudice. Parents edu- cation is also important. Allport and Kramer (l9u6) and Lombardi (1963) point out that the higher the parent's level of education, especially college edu- cation, the lower the prejudice or more favorable the attitude toward Negroes. Carter and Mitchell (1955—56) found that as Negro pupils ascent in grade levels in school their attitudes toward Whites became more posi- tive. Allport and Kramer (1936), Stephenson (1952), Holtzman (1956), and Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) found that the major field of academic interest of college students was related to their intolerance of Negroes. All the studies yielded similar results which showed that students majoring in fields such as business, pharmacy, and engineering were more intolerant than stu- dents majoring in social sciences and humanities. Sex, income, age, and geographical location are the other demographical factors or variables most pre- valently considered in the literature. Allport and Kramer (l9u6) and Larson, Ahrenholz, and Graziplene (196“) found women to be less prejudiced than men while Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) found the opposite to be the case. Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) and Weller (196”) found no sex differences in their research. H 767*? ..u-L~l‘-“"‘“’ ,- “A ‘ h r o .. . A _’ i .7 -(v. . "C. .‘v I V a q. yq‘n +_ ‘ioi‘va e U “2 Regional or geographical location of the subjects have received extensive attention (Kelly, Ferson & Holtzman, 1958; Weller, 196“; Brink & Harris, 196“; Larson, Ahrenholz & Graziplene, 196“; Brink & Harris, 1967; CBS, 1968; Campbell & Schuman, 1968; and Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968). These studies consistently reveal that the South generally holds a more unfavorable view of the Negro than elsewhere in the United States. Studies that have analyzed the age factor have reported contradictory results. Mussen (1963) and Allport and Kramer (19“6) indicate that prejudice may increase with age while Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) and Holtzman (1956) indicate the opposite as taking place. Other studies (Weller, 196“; Brink & Harris, 196“; Brink & Harris, 1967; Campbell & Schuman, 1968; et_al,) have utilized the age factor and have reported varying results. When income has been used as a variable the results are not entirely consistent (Weller, 196“) but indicate that higher income groups (Harding & Hogrefe, 1952) see a loss of status or are more prejudiced toward Negroes than other groups. Socio-Psychological Factors Carlson (1956) reported a study that involved changes in prejudicial attitudes toward Negro mobility according to perceived instrumentality to a value int'OIVing pr‘ favorable tO‘ as subject '5 Ekgroes tend fhgroes tend xzribed to a Lie?) ccmpcne Iimelst .xhs may pla results indie :c be strong; [cite or Negr that any Of t Trent ( 5’95 and his E‘:"““alc<=eptir. ’ +15‘ . .- ‘tu'vlaes to). “3 involving property valuation. Attitudes become more favorable toward Negro movement into white neighborhoods as subject's beliefs were changed from the view that Negroes tend to lower property values, to the view that Negroes tend to raise prOperty values. The change was ascribed to an inconsistency between the cognitive (be- lief) component and the affective value component. Himelstein and Moore (1963) found that racial atti- tudes may play a minor role in certain situations. Their results indicate that both low and high-prejudice Ss tend to be strongly influenced by the behavior of the 'confeder- ate' and to about the same extent. When the confederate, White or Negro, signed the petition, it was highly unlikely that any of the subjects refused. Trent (1957) studied self-acceptance in Negro chil- dren and his results showed that children who were most self-accepting expressed significantly more positive -attitudes toward both Negroes and Whites than did children who were least self-accepting. He also found that children who were ambivalent in self-acceptance expressed signifi- cantly more positive attitudes toward both Negroes and Whites than children who were least self-accepting. Williams' (1968) work with Negro students stated that these students expressed significantly greater philosophical endorsement of integration than emotional acceptance. Allport and Kramer (19“6), like Williams, I “ -$ ‘ 16 ‘r 'J‘lee tC'J ‘V ,. A‘OAhn 1v ‘7' dc. .1 ‘.. M .m I‘ .n .91 ‘5 O 0.. Cu .M%. or. .d S r: E e W r. C; T... a a 7+ 9 .. n 1 (x e V Q Hi Ru .1. h. Au NJ .714 LL .1 Pb . l a c z x a. v u. : ‘ as Iv .a. h A a g a a .- 2» F M V. a ; v p a. v. x . 1 .. v . .. ““ found a disparity in how students perceive themselves in relation to things around them. They asked students to rate their own prejudice and found that those who are more prejudiced have less ability to discriminate how prejudiced they are. Knowledge Factors A study by Droba (1932) looked at the effect of education on attitudes toward Negroes. The design con- sisted of a test of attitudes which was given to a class at the beginning of the course and also at the end of the course. The difference between the scores obtained on the two occasions was taken as a measure of the effect. She concluded that a course on the Negro given to college students tends to make the white students slightly more favorable toward the Negro and that the same course tends to make the attitudes of white students toward the Negro somewhat more variable. Corroborating evidence for the positive effect of the knowledge factor or variable in research was also found by: Holtzman (1956), Deutsch and Collins (1951), Wilner, Walkley, and Cook (1952), Brophy (196“), and Merton, West, and Jahoda (19“9). Other Factors There are two rather common findings of many racial attitude measurement studies that can be best described as statistical artifacts since they appear after the data “5 is collected and are not looked at directly in the analy- sis of the data. One of these findings is that the Negro is generally more flexible and favorable in his attitudes toward Whites than Whites are toward Negroes (Brink & Harris, 196“; Proenza & Strickland, 1965; Brink & Harris, 1967; CBS News Public Opinion Survey, 1968; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; et_al.). The other rather common finding is the large discrepancies expressed by the groups on certain issues such as the re— cent riots, integration, etc. (Brink & Harris, 196“; Brink & Harris, 1967; CBS News Public Opinion Survey, 1968; National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968; Campbell & Schuman, 1968; et al.). Summary of Substantive Findings Much of what was said in "The Summary of the Scales . . ." can be reiterated in this section. In particular, it is important to note that none of the research used a facetized design (Guttman, 1959). Thus, as previously stated, it is unclear what attitudinal levels or sub- universes in the Guttman paradigm were being measured although it is apparent that a complete treatment using all the Guttman-Jordan levels (Jordan, 1968) have not been included in any single study. Most of the research studies reviewed did not present a theoretical paradigm for relating the factors :1 ....p;?‘\ “' duo-hi‘ .. l r: ‘ v z . my PA T.» :k fi V ~\~ FM,‘ “6 or variables used as determinants, correlates, and/or predicators of racial attitudes. One of the reasons already suggested for this situation is the lack of use of a facetized design such as the method advocated by Guttman (1959). Another reason for the inconsistent results obtained in these studies might be the lack of replication of the studies done in the area of racial attitudes. It is common to find a study done in this area dealing with a delineated topic and using a special scale. These studies are infrequently replicated and thus are not comparable to other studies done in the same area. A criticism of studies with racial attitudes, and other social attitudes, is that the results are not usually consistent with overt behavior. LaPiere (193“), Deutscher (1966), and Fendrich (1967) pointed out that past studies of the association between racial attitudes and overt behavior generally have produced inconsistent results regarding the existence of a causal relationship between these two factors or variables. Most of the studies include items almost entirely of a stereotypic nature and rarely of a nature that indicates the sub— ject's actual behavior in relation to the attitude object. This situation is thus predictive of the in— consistent relation that exists in the literature. tma: ‘- J .1 nu "J -: a», AvfimfiL 5 “a de nan l J 4.. ‘ l 7 J .'.'L‘ nib .efive fac tens to eat stud ‘ .a- a: ~| «bl-A-VU _. p 4. a. 2 .-.I‘ at. \ U rn ~ ..€‘: . “7 Guttman (1950a) has operationally defined attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." Attitude, defined in this manner, allows for items to be written at the actual personal behavior level or actual experience level and thus the results of studies with items of this nature, as well as other types of items, should eliminate the criticism of the lack of relationship between attitudes and overt behavior. The present study utilized Guttman's definition of attitude and his facetized design structure. Table 7 contains the five facets of conjoint struction and Figure 5 speci— fies in facets "F" through "k" the disjoint struction, i.e., the content of the seven scales--facet F. C C 7. t a a .1 a. _ 8 .. i .3 E U 3 C e at u i c a c 3: A. c .r... +b 8 1n“ + V S «a. f .3 r“ C .2 a . u. t to an 9 S e .. . .1 . re A V U e _ «s ”a i "\b #9 C» P“ t..* nu sflm e — u. ‘ $9 5%» ‘3 .3 K A: L, c .1 .3 S .3 .... .1 C. 3 .. 2 .1 a. .1 a. .fn a. .3 C. .n . .r . . . T. c. . Vi ~ g to .1 a: a .u n .4. a .3. .c 2.. d e r . m ”A a... P w .1 p 5.. .nC W3. rm“. “ma. ..Q~. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Since the major emphasis in the present study was methodological, the following sections deal extensively with methodology. Primary consideration is given to Guttman theory and techniques of scaling and instru— mentation utilizing these techniques. Guttman Theory and Techniques of Attitude Scaling Guttman's recent contributions to measurement and attitude scaling, facet design and nonmetric analysis, provide the basis for the construction of the racial scales--Attitude Behavior Scale: Blacks toward Whites and Whites toward Blacks (ABS: BW/WN),l used in the present study. These techniques present a rigorous paradigm for item construction and analysis that can be applied to any intergroup situation as well as being useful for other purposes. Before considering these 1The abbreviation ABS: BW/WN will be used through— out the study to refer to the type of scales used. Specific attitude content areas are indicated by the use of an additional letter to indicate that content area. “8 “9 techniques, however, a résumé of Guttman's earlier techniques will be given illustrating how Guttman has progressed from the unidimensional realm of scaling into the multidimensional realm which facet design and nonmetric methods represent. Fundamentally, there are three rather distinct steps in this progression: uni— dimensional scaling (scalogram analysis), multiple uni- dimensional scaling (Lingoes' multiple scalogram analysis), and multidimensional scaling (facet design and nonmetric analysis). Scalogram Analysisl In scalogram analysis, Guttman is concerned with treating qualitative data as "qualitative data." Prior to this approach, social science, in general, was occupied with applying quantitative methods to quali- tative data. In addition, Guttman also dispensed with the idea of a latent or underlying continuum to which the response to a particular item was to be related-- instead Guttman would insist that the continuum must be empirically obtained in a specific situation. Guttman considered (Stouffer, 1950) an attitude area "scalable" if responses to a set of items in that area arranged themselves in certain specified ways. Ideally and theoretically, the items in a Guttman scale 1The terms scalogram analysis and scale analysis will be used interchangeably and refer to the same thing. 50 are ordered in such a way that all persons who answer a given question favorably have higher ranks than persons who answer the same question unfavorably. It should be possible then, knowing a respondent's rank or scale score, to reproduce that persons responses to each item. For instance, an individual who replies favorably to item 5 also replies favorably to items “, 3, 2, and 1; one who replies favorably to item 3 replies favorably to items 2 and 1, etc. Consequently, all individuals who answer a given item favorably should have higher scores on the total scale than individuals who answer that item un- favorably. Responses to any item then are indicative of the respondent's attitude. Scalogram analysis is thus concerned with ranking respondents and not items. Table 1 presents a perfect Guttman scale illustrating the con- figuration depicted above. TABLE l.—-A perfect Guttman scale. Items Subjects Scores 1 2 3 “ 5 l l l 1 l l 5 2 l l l 1 O “ 3 1 l 1 0 O 3 “ l l O O O 2 5 l O O O O l 6 O 0 O O O 0 Sum 5 “ 3 2 l Note: Items are dichotomous where l is a favorable response and 0 is an unfavorable response. Items r reaC’ 9‘3” a. a v. p .r b «H. N .v II __.V I II z. . i l. V. VI .. i T. 1. 5 a .. i as S E .3 5 . 2.. 0-. e a E «C n v 0 ”an n G.» C. : \o w A. HIM "l. O s h. a h; A s S e S A. o .1 r“ S .. i C .. i e a .3 a r». .3 cc .5 a \.I s s Ti 1. Ad .. l .3 A c e A: u.“ 7.. To .nzy Au .r» 33* CV :L c Qv Au 5. Ce 1 s u up. 3 ye ht nu ed rd hp. ... v! e :i .F. APV v v I. wm 2» AU Pk} ‘ s ”A Q.» ”A 1 ‘ H11 SH Wm f. 9. .JL a 7. 3c 2. ~.. a» a1 Pu . s nu . . 7.. .. . at. s . n. a. t. : a .3 .r... n. h. a a A c 2‘ A: . . s, . 1 . p1 I» u. . .a u .. . L 1 a: u y. 51 Items must be of a cumulative nature to form a Guttman scale, i.e., be scalable. If a scale possesses this cumulative property, it is possible for a person to endorse all items up to his particular position on the area under consideration and to endorse no items after reaching his particular position or 'attitude.‘ Thus, knowing a person's rank or scale score, it be- comes possible to place him on a scale and his position on the scale is then indicative of the respondent's attitude. Guttman (Stouffer, 1950) uses measurement examples in portraying what a perfect scale would look like, however, he indicates that one would not expect to obtain a perfect scale using attitude items. Guttman (1950b) establishes a criteria for acceptable scales that are not perfectly scalable. In determining whether an attitude scale area is scalable, Guttman is really asking if the attitude area is unidimensional, i.e., does it represent only one dimension. To get at the question of whether a scale is unidimensional or scalable, Guttman (1950b) deveIOped the "coefficient of reproducibility." Since perfect scales are not expected in practice, this measurement provided an acceptable deviation criterion to measure if the area under consideration approximated a perfect scale or not. As employed by Guttman, a coefficient of reproducibility of .90 (allows 10 per cent error) or 52 better was used as a measure of efficient approximation to perfect scales. In essence, a coefficient of re- producibility of .90 or better indicates that one can reproduce, 90 per cent or better, the responses of individuals given their scale score or rank on a particular test or scale. Mathematically, the co— efficient of reproducibility (Rep) is represented (Suchman, 1950c, p. 117) by the formula: number of errors Rep = 1 - number of questions X number of respondents If Rep is .90 or better, Guttman interprets this to mean that the area of content represented by the items is scalable and is concerned with only one dimension, i.e., the items are members of a single empirical atti- tude continuum and have a single meaning to the re- spondents. Reproducibility itself, however, is not a sufficient criterion for scalability. Guttman (1950b) lists four other features that also must be taken into account: (a) range of marginal distributions, (b) pattern of error, (0) number of items in the scale, and (d) number of response categories in each item. In addition to "true scales" that have a co- efficient of reproducibility of .90 or above, there are two other types of scales that Guttman and others using his procedures are concerned with. One scale type is known as a "quasi scale" and the other as a "nonscale." 53 Both scale types are distinguishable by their particular patterns of errors of reproducibility. The quasi scales are by far the more important ones. Suchman (1950b) in describing quasi scales states the following: Some areas which are not scalable in terms of reproducibility are called "quasi scales"; their reproducibility may not be high but their errors occur in a sort of gradient. This gradient of errors indicates that, while there is not a single factor operating as in the case of a scale, never- theless there is a single dominant factor and in— definitely many small random factors, so that prediction of any external variable must rest essentially on the dominent factor. The dominant factor is measured by the quasi—scale scores. This means that although quasi scales lack an essential property of a scale-rank order, i.e., they cannot reproduce the respondent's character- istics on the items in the area very well--never- theless, the rank order is perfectly efficient for relating any outside variable to the area. There- fore, if examination of the errors of reproduci- bility shows them to conform to a certain gradient pattern, and not to be grouped together to form nonscales types then we have what may be called a quasi scale (pp. 159-160). Quasi—scales have been found to be extremely useful in prediction problems. Suchman (1950b) and Guttman (1950b) have both pointed out that the score a person gets on a quasi-scale does yield a zero-order correlation with any outside variable which is equivalent to the multiple correlation on all the items in the quasi scale. The other type of scale discussed is the "nonscale." Nonscales represent, as the term implies, areas that are not scalable in the Guttman sense. These areas, or items, have a low coefficient or reproducibility. The errors in reproducibility are grouped together and are . u 61‘ r4? kovV I v‘r‘ ‘7 4..-! C II . :. .. . . . . . . a . J.- r . 2y .r . a _ r“ u +9 :. Lv .1 r» .T. «A +v . . C» :k a. C. r v A v 5m NW. D» Dy 3 3 . .6» ”J .1 h: s V Ru L V w“ .Pu u a“ C .11“ V. C. C u S W a P a . .u ... a .1 Wu . .. l .3 .. l L “H“ «a .fi¢ Wu Nu. o. a W . Ow ofi‘ 0: «NA mg by s u. a» .C x 4 j 3» AF» 3 . «\u .NJ fig 5. «D n. ‘ a» why 21% h s A U U; .1 E Q "A n . r1. VJ a” n-.. r.“ w .. 3 V .n .. ”a... .d n c A: . ml .2 .. _ a. .n“ ., . f. S. a e A: .. . a; a . a s .. i A c . h ‘1‘ a.” r. x.“ .: .. . 1 a A... .3. n f. d .3 r. i . i .. .. i .C :u n.“ n3 w.” .2. or: m. .vA. a: .r. .u r . «(a Q.» . A A: A: Q.— . 1 . 1. ut- o~1¢ «v 5.. ‘od N...“ “4. 5.1. 5“ not of a random nature indicating that several sub- universes are present. Nonscales have no utility of and by themselves. They may be useful, however, in calling attention to several subuniverses they may be scalable. A concomitant technique that Guttman contributed in relation to scalogram analysis is the sophisticated method that he and Suchman (19“7) devised to determine a fixed point of reference, or a zero point, with reference to the dimension under consideration. This technique was labeled the intensity function. Intensity analysis, or the use of the intensity function, is con- cerned with providing an invariant cutting point between unfavorable and favorable responses and doing so in such a manner that the problem of question bias is avoided. Intensity is looked at as another component of an atti- tude, and it is used to measure the strength of an individual's attitude. The other component, the content of the item, involves a measure of the person's agree- ment or disagreement with a series of items. Guttman and Suchman's (19“7) technique uses the Guttman method of scaling items and then ascertains the median intensity with which each item is approved or rejected by the sample of people being measured. The median intensity is then plotted against the scale position of the items (content). When this is done, a U- or J-shaped curve appears where intensity is highest 55 for those whose attitudes are extremely favorable or un- favorable. According to Guttman and Suchman (1950c), the dividing line between those respondents whose atti- tudes are favorable and unfavorable is indicated by the lowest point on the curve (U— or J—shaped) and is referred to as the "zero point." Figure 1 illustrates the inten- sity function and the zero point. 100 q} -L100 (High) 1. -_ 80 .. “'80 m JP -p ti B 60 4- . e-6O Z [1.] O [I -1— d1— [.12] 9-4 m “0 ~- 3b“0 [-4 H CO -- 5 " x B a 20 -- + 20 AIL ‘1- (LOW) I l I L l j 4 1 I O I l I I l I T I I 0 20 “O 60 80 100 (UNFAVORABLE) (FAVORABLE) CONTENT PERCENTILE Figure l.--Example of Intensity Function, U—Shaped Curve, and the Zero Point (x). ,- 4 t. .1. i c . a V L c¢u- AVF’ \ a 3.1 F I. . . . _ . . . I w +4 a s . 1 , , . . l y . . .k . . . r 1 . v , . U ~ A T ”or.” q. . 1 W; e— ‘ A\~ any ‘WJ funk h...” A v ad M. Q». VA. 0.... Q.» A~\ v.1- wg..nu :i 5.. r.“ y» w“ .70 v. r. 2% 4‘ AC. fie A: A: . ‘ 4.‘ FV e w” as .1 A: 3 e n C a c 3 AC 1.. . Q .. S H H. .1. n». v. a» A; h” r.” .L .l T. E .l .5 O 5.... O E t a” c .8 e 9. J E h.. a to e ab. 0: n v S .n v C +c t. C 3 S S e .1 a. e .. a. .. Q o . 1 ., . n . 5 E hi P w i 1 as a r . A .s. .. C. r“ as C. E D. e E w. n n . . s C ..: 2» CO e mu 3 . c E S .1 5. ac . u 3: e T e S .. r a c. E I up. .. ‘ a” r“ wk h... r. n. r. w. a. a: . a : A: .1 .. . «C . . s . .1 2. r... r. . ..h a: a . .74 «1. 56 Suchman (1950c) has suggested that intensity of attitudes may be ascertained by asking a question about intensity immediately following a content question: One form used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?" with answer categories of "Very strongly," "Fairly strongly," and "Not so strongly." Re— peating such a question after each content ques- tion yields a series of intensity answers. Using the same procedure as outlined previously for the content answers, these are scored and each re- spondent is given an intensity score. The inten- sity scores are then cross tabulated with content scores (p. 219). The present study adopted a procedure to measure the intensity of attitudes much like the procedure Suchman suggested although the responses were not analyzed in the present study. On levels 1-5 of the scale used, the three alternatives "not sure," "fairly sure," and "sure" are presented to the question, "How sure are you of this answer?" for each item in the scale. A variation of this procedure was used on level 6 to ascertain whether a reported experience with a member of the opposite race was "unpleasant," "uncertain," or "pleasant." A fourth alternative was also available that allowed the respondent to state that he did not have any experience of the nature depicted in the item. Another method suggested in the literature for ob— taining an intensity measure involves using a single item both for content (direction) and intensity. This method is criticized (Guttman, 19H7; Guttman & Suchman, 19u7; I I. I ._ _ v... . . -. . . . _ . .3; i, l i . . . v .1 E c. _. i C a v .1 w. E ..C a . .I : a vt .3. p; L. J I x r. ~¢ . . .u gv «a L . . i . 3, ... . . Wm . a w .. .v c +. w. 3 m». 3 w . a: n T. 7. .. a E r. 7... a .1 e .Q Q.» T. Q. :. e u WW 2. h .. . .._ a: a. . w; .L. w. no :i A.» ..q Wu ‘4 «my PM a; go .a .3 n» k. ‘0 II\ a .m . . I o It .. . . . T- r. .3 f. m .1 C e g. r : 3. .. . .. i . l C V. a .. i .1 r. a S b. a S x... 1: S. . y . - l s. a . . My. 9.. TC . , o» r... S E nJ to ”c n. b . a c . . r” . st 3 .. S P nflu v... A v o v a,“ n s \ I .. . A :1 ¢ 21./I AV .- s h . ”u «Fm w m C: W. a . .r” .w my WNW u. . mJ T. 3r. . .... 5 a. i C \I U ‘ . l O .M“ -m... 3 . M,” n c a v r. . . a r . . a . ”NW A. o .y... . . ~u y _. . A «r. ..lv «3» 5—» ”A— ;w.» - . x A o o ' WI; Yul nqw. wa 2.. o. s H \w 2. 2 ... .. n. a: . . . u” .. k .1 4; .3 .-. 57 Suchman, 1950; and Guttman & Foa, 1951), however, as not being sensitive enough to distinguish between changes due to intensity and those due to content (direction). Guttman's early work on unidimensional scales (scalogram analysis) and on the intensity function have received a great amount of attention: Guttman (19u7), Guttman (1950b), Stouffer (1950), Edwards (1957), Torgerson (1958), Waisanen (1960), and Jahoda & Warren (1966). Multiple Unidimensional Scaling Multiple unidimensional scaling is a generalization of Guttman's scalogram analysis, and the method as developed by Lingoes (1963), was entitled Multiple Scalogram Analysis (MSA). This method, like scalogram analysis, deals with dichotomous variables. Unlike scalogram analysis, however, MSA is interested in extending Guttman's method to the determination of multiple dimensions instead of the single dimension with which scalogram analysis was concerned. Lingoes (1963) presents a succinct picture of what MSA accomplishes: Multiple Scalogram (MSA) method involves selecting an item from the set to be analyzed, finding that item among the remaining items which is most like it and having the fewest errors, determining the number of errors between the candidate item and all of its predecessors, and, finally, applying a statistical test of significance to adjacent item pairs. If both the error and statistical criteria are satisfied, then the item that last entered the scale is used to find an item most like it, etc. Whenever, either the error or statistical criterion «C No 4w .1!“ I I I y|r|fll i . , . . \. ‘ld Its .( 3 vi. . . S. _ n. . V cm 54 «C b; w“ :7. r: I. .... .. AD av e .5. a M .1“ “pm ”my m“ . x :J 19. we r... A: n w“ .. g .. .. . ~.. A» nu at! ~ ~ a a; PA, . . . . .. O .3. 9" NW 9 C e . X C C a 1 ma 6 a E is S 3 T E . i S .C e S .1 t a C an .r“ S S r“ S ... u .. x} no “a .n... T .p. at .4 E r. a: S l E E n. .. C .i a; -. n. . S t... C 1 .1 r. E E a S w... to T t .. i G .3 e P C. P Q a m... C. C. C .1. k” 1.. e v C. h . n; h. 33 «Q ~.. AG 7... a . 2” .H ”x; on: 39 . s v Cw Ag :1‘ 71¢ f t v. r r .3 f e f . . h a t .1; .. . .2 r“ .. . .. . M... o . .1 it 5 at e an . . 2. .. . .1 4 i 4 . .... . #4. Mn ....N. n...“ .w...‘ W... M J 58 fails, however, the scale is terminated and another scale is started with a new item chosen from among those that remain, until that point is reached where the item set is exhausted (p. 502). MSA thus allows for the existence of multiple unidimen— sional scales and the concept of a "universe of content" is not necessary to MSA, as it is to Guttman's scalogram analysis. Lingoes (1963) also presents a summary of the differences between MSA and scalogram analySis. MSA is different from scalogram analysis in that MSA: a) is empirical rather than rational in determining scale membership; b) has the capacity for yielding multiple scales when the data demand it, rather than rejecting the scale hypothesis for the set when treated as a whole; and c) has a statistical rather than an heuristic decision basis for both grouping items and for testing the scale hypothesis (p. 514). Multidimensional Scaling v’Guttman's entry into multidimensional scaling, via facet design and nonmetric analysis, involved quite a different approach than the empirical method he used in scalogram analysis. In facet design, Guttman is concerned with a semantic a priori method of constructing items that has implications for the ensuing structure of the statis- tical results and their interpretation. The utility of the facet design approach is underlined by Guttman (Guttman & Schlesinger, 1967); The facet approach in test construction makes it possible to arrive at items by a systematic a priori design, instead of by the usual process of designing test items which is largely based on intuition and on subsequently weeding out 59 inappropriate items by means of statistical analysis of test results (p. 3). Foa (1961) also presents a concise account of what facet design accomplishes: Facet design provides a systematic definition of variables in terms of their component facets. Since any investigator has in any case to select his variables, it seems useful to provide him with a formal tool to aid and guide his intuition. Facet design suggests a rationale for accepting or rejecting variables on the basis of theoretical considerations rather than through observation of the findings. Once the variables are defined it may be possible to predict their interrelationship in terms of their facets (p. 3H5). Succinctly stated, what Guttman wants to achieve by facet design and analysis is to be able to construct a scale by a semantic, logical, a priori technique and to be able to predict the statistical order structure which would result from empirical observation. What would happen then would be the reverse of what, in reality, factor analysis accomplishes. Factor analysis tries to make sense out of what already has been observed by a mathe- matical process of forming correlational clusters and then naming them, i.e., calling them factors. These factors are thus inferred a posteriori. As opposed to this approach, facet design, in essence, names the facets before one be- gins. This procedure is thus an a priori one. However, it is possible (see Fig. 2) to also apply facet design a posteriori (Jordan, 1968). Cattell (1966) describes the procedure replacing the word "facet" with "aspect" as follows: T’U e ‘r‘ r y. m . at Q.» J . y .. W pa W ¢ ",2 w m a.» 3. A. e A v n. «.1 3 r” a G,» e O. .14 .2 3.1. run w. u .HV .r. . A .. L . . _ . . . rflq a. ‘ . ¢ ADV 8 HM. .Pu fi\~ azv by“ h. 0" § ,‘ a; A v a e P S t . . t o .. i U a e l to 9 4 u a e S at S C to C L.“ .P n3 ru 0:. Q» h . CC «.u A. v Q. y C “In .1 « t o‘-‘ ~\~ C C -r .. S 1 n T. a u . .l‘ a 3c 9 .1 to C s q s 4 » v .w; 3.. 0... ~ . Q. P. Va a u t n1 .r! a. a. O» ..-u » h. at 3: Au at .1a A: w .u. L a . .. Tu .mu 2» n y a v a: Q» n.-- v. . ‘ i a . . w r. 2» Cu h. 2. "1.. .r.. . .nu r.. a: ~\~ a. n. . 5 a. O . i Z. . Q» FL 2; n9... » y a: Q» s a . . . 1 « h; . u v a; .. ,wmn. 60 Within aspect analysis, the experimenter states clearly the number of aspects which he believes necessary to define the observed fea- tures (or, in quantitative data, including order analysis, the number of dimensions to define the observed variables). Then he indicates what combinations of aspect segments (or dimensional high or low scores) he would expect by hypothesis to occur with particularly high or low frequencies in his population (i.e., what covariation), so that the resultant correlational or associational mosaic is specified. The hypothesis can next be tested empirically by seeing, in fact, whether certain Cartesian products occur with the unusual fre- quency expected, as shown by the relations among the features in the relational mosaic (p. ”41).. A facet is a semantic unit or factor. Guttman (1965) looks at a facet in terms of set theory where a facet is a set containing elements. A Cartesian space can then be made of elements of different facets or sets. Elements are then ordered sub-units of a facet. In diagramming, facets are indicated (Fig. 2) by capital letters, elements by corresponding small letters with numerical subscripts showing the position of the given element in the order of elements. Foa (1958) states that:"The determination of the facets that are relevant to a given class of phenomena involves of necessity a process of selection that is largely intuitive in nature." However, the researcher is of course guided by many principles in selecting the relevant facets. One of these principles, the principle of logical independence of the facets (Foa, 1958), states "that‘the facets should be such that every combination of their elements describes a phenomenological category ¥.f&--‘vn——*F"— ~___._—a—--~ .. __._. that is logically possible." 61 Once the relevant facets for a particular project are selected, they are arranged in what Guttman calls a "facet definition." This definition contains the various facets and their elements in such a way that it reads like a sentence (see Figs. 2—U). Guttman (1965) pro- vides the following faceted definition of intelligence: An act of a subject is intelligent to the (extent) to which it is classified by a (tester) as (demonstrating) a correct perception of an unexhibited logical (aspect) of a (relation) intended by the tester, on the basis of another (exhibited) logical (aspect) of that relation that is correctly perceived by the subject (p. 168). ' Concepts in parentheses above are the relevant facets. A more elaborate and refined procedure for arranging the various facets and their elements is the mapping sen- tence. Figures 2, 3, and H are examples of mapping sentences. Besides the facets and their elements, other im- portant concepts in facet design are: level, level member, and profile. These concepts can best be discussed in relation to a particular study, and will be treated in the section on "Instrumentation" that follows. Facet design permits the principle of contiguity to be invoked, thus providing a method for the inter- pretation of the structural (statistical) patterns ob- tained. Foa states (1958) that conceptual contiguity is a necessary condition for statistical dependence. Facet design aims at providing conceptual contiguity that 62 (A) State (Condition) (8.1 are l I Physically handicapped persons . (a2 should be‘ (B) (C) Treatment Supplier )bl cared for. 'C1 others ‘ by )b2 evaluated) 02 parents as being c3 government, (D) Evaluation ”d1 better (off) than - (12 same as others with respect to d3 worse (off) than (E) Ability )el aCtual ( ability to adjust to life situations concerning )e 2 self perceived) (F) Life Situations el career'Opportunities\ s e2 school 3 z e social relations e“ unspecified Figure 2.--A mapping sentencea for the facet analysis of the Attitudes Toward Disabled Personsb scale. aSee Jordan, 1968. b H. E. Yuker, J. R. Block, and D. A. Campbell, A scale to measure attitudes toward disabled persons, Human Resources Sgggy No. S, Albertson, New York: Human Resources Foundation, May 15, 1967 John E. Jordan Louis Guttman LI.I.|4| ..,. A . _ ._ I. ¢ . . , .4 i . . . . . . . 1;.1 J .L. I...) . fill.“ a a...» \ H ’ a._.,..,.......;.,~ T..l..:..p* T 4 ~ \AAACS—rtfitif 4... 3...“... H. “S... alumiu a Ci; Quilts ... _:.u.. .,H,; .....~..:u... H. a > 32.6?— nl. - L... d D< 1|L»'»l.|_q|«u‘q.lt.lflm .'|~a.~lc 1 Niall)“ >1....~y...¢|~)‘1I.|1.IHH..I_I..\Iu|HNdI~ ,L'v A._y Auhv HR ~ .xs . —..ls.’~.|.|£n.p:[ A. < v 63 .Umanmmflp on» now nmpspfipmozm on mme dsopw oficnuo so Hmcofipm: .osmo: .ofiaozooam .Ucfiao .Ummm mm cosw qsosw Hmfioom so COmpmq zc< no 83 .3 smswaa .3 ES summanms pmmmo m 00 Lou MpwuwpmmHnMwwsmm . mmmv cofipozsum chOnsoo Lou mm cofioosspm pCHOanQ pow oodon>mo coon no» no: mm: Empmmm :mEupso mfizoq weasoupo mcb .cofiuosso c chOnmflQ mo uCpuCOo musofiupm mpocoo =w: cmzoscp zm: mpmommo zpfimsm>fica mpmum :mwfizofiz .Hm>ma so cofipossom ucfiomcoo mpocmp =m= cwsopnp :<: mpmomm cm go o o w .m :cow .Amwma .cmnsowv mwma .5 scam: do monopcmm mafiaqme co nommmm .mcompmd cowfimfiomdm upwzop woodpfipum uo cofipozpom ochmefio new .pcfioncoo do mammfimcm abuse on» Low mocmucmm mcHQQmE mQ®LV ‘ Ampwafinmmfip .w. mu m Aamo. z>cov m _ m .mcomsmd - ’ uwmgp Hanuom w~ wucmfi somcfl cw v muHQmmU mn~. =smfimfioodm= o>fipmmoc mx Admofincwn .m.ov . M>wo;mmcm mu LHmCu mo om uzmomo a: ogmzou mocmflm> Am>fiofinod .xv paws» wmpzna.5 um Hm, >wuwc moo a. ~0u pomdmop spas c, magmas» Ho>¢q passe camp pfimss ammoosm coHpm3Hm>m C: : A: . 2: mcofiummos ddosw msmncooow me n mfl.rmH new you pa cofipma.qmma a Aflmmmv 0p peonmmp a .mcmpam: .cprch ma mafia m . ucv.&>o dam ca damn maamfiomdm sz cofipfipcoo Lop: . 3 H .m. cofiumcgvo we CH mcomnmd saws muomsmuca mo mocmpLOQEH do Hm>mfi gsfismc om mcfl>ao>cfi so- mmsoo “a zomfihfiomdw= v w”: Hm' ccofipwamp macaw :anw.cd pm Acuazv mLmQEoo mpflmsp Hugomsod He mmsmmEoo Ho sofi>mgwm mocmpho EH wcofipm u m baud WSOLMmecH m.LOpo< on Amv . AQV Illfl m _ moon aamu o Ilwm mm tzaamcoHDMLmdo mm. .opo .3ww .oswmz ma J ~ umHnmmHU do mucmpmd scuom cofipow mo .opw .3mm .onwoz pampmump . ucwso . omanmmfionccc on» ppm>o mp L0fi>mcmp nmflnwmap go mucmpma 0» ~ pazos w maocz w mm .dOd can» pcogouop omanwmfiplco: mousnfihppm mHAmofiHonE>m Ho _ msmzpo Ho ucm mafiamn do on» maocz m mm .aoa Axv powwosm mponpo Hm . Loa>mzwm m .uouo< mo chEoo scuo< pofi>mzom ucmpmmmm pcmpommm mmv Any Amv A0 039.90: 0.: g a a I." 00 3,-0.3! A. ~ 8— _ 0 Job: :3. :2..- w :02 ._ fl 5.! r28... 5:. g 33.6.. a~ I . 21.3.. .a as .3 «Iv a .0 ate‘-ca a. c3233.: an «0.8. c a ‘- Qu'B- w . ~ .0 as. I: you in! a _ co Iva-0.0.9 I: . .400‘ 0 fig 03 ‘3 g gal-.13...- . 3.53:3... a . ‘a'c 0 all a a .2 .I. —.~ 0.2.: on '3... r. uni-Vac... no .98... a. 9.3a: 5.0...- coin-3 3.9.3.3.. no on o 3.0-II2I A tic-:8. up 3 a 523 I. to t - to. Al): 81—833 fl 5) g; oil‘s-l . s 3.39.31: .1 30.200... >23qu en a bi! A :ula .2; no _ a uncut-.. A 2: baa—OI. o a! a Goa-.9032: no .2 a .0. 6.: a» .03.- a» .5... woo-Du: loco-north 0» o... 3 [3.0090 - n o.- c. w . “ in. ‘3. 3 lo... 3 ‘23s 5389. ’p 30:33.18 I.“ u 20.... - 30:51.18 .33.: 3 a; .I. 302:: .u! :00.- an a .5 - AAYIV) VV‘ 0 C ~ flannfl r" (xv ~..l--’14 'v-- ~ Gr“ Iva.~ | 0‘“ w \l‘h vb. .- \ ~-v~‘ guy 4... rw. Ian» fly»- ): . fi‘Vp-h‘.‘ v.4...b—1‘ n \‘ Ifa ‘L «H 65 results in statistical dependence. Guttman and Schlesinger (1966) elaborate on the use of the contiguity principle in relation to facet design: In general, the relationship between items within the framework of facet design should be eXpected to have its counterpart in the empirically obtained correlation matrix, where the size of the correlation is related to similarity of facet profiles (p. 6)- Simply stated, the contiguity principle avers that the correlation between two variables is higher the more similar their facet structure. \JGuttman (l95u-55) examines the possible patterns of statistical results in what he terms the radex approach. A radex, according to Guttman, is a set of variables that have a law of formation among their intercorrelations due simultaneously to differences in degree and differences in kind. The radex is a general law depicting that "some" formation should result. There are two specific types of formations with which Guttman is concerned: (a) the circumplex, which is a circular order among variables representing a difference in kind instead of in degree of complexity and (b) the simplex which represents sets of scores that have an implicit order among themselves from "least complex" to "most complex." A simplex is hypothesized to appear in all the racial attitude scales used in the present study. If a simplex is obtained in the empirical results, the researcher can then be assured that his items were 66 operating correctly and that the facets utilized were necessary even if not sufficient. The question of what constitutes a "good simplex" was not, however, entirely answered by Guttman. Guttman (1954) stated that a perfect simplex is not to be expected in actual practice, although he did give some guidelines of what to expect. Kaiser (1962), Mukherjee (1966), and Jordan (1968) pro- vide further assistance in what constitutes a "good simplex." In a more recent article (1966), Guttman elucidates on the values of obtaining the theoretically hypothesized statistical results when using facet design: The virtue of a clear order pattern is twofold. First, it helps answer the problem of sampling of variables. A clear design enables one to infer from the structure of a given sample of variables what the structure of the relationship with new variables of the same design will be. Second, one can learn best to use the given set of variables for relating them to a further set of variables (such as criteria in external prediction problems) by considering simultaneously the design (and patterns) of both sets of variables (pp. nun—445). The main ideas that Guttman employs in facet design are not unique (Stephenson, 1953; Fisher, 1966). However, the statistical techniques of nonmetric analysis developed by Guttman and his cohorts (Guttman, 195“; Guttman, 195u-55; Lingoes, 1963; Lingoes, 1965a; and Lingoes, 19656) to complement facet design are new. 67 Instrumentation Facet design has been employed to construct instru- ments in a variety of circumstances: intelligence tests (Guttman, 1954), social attitudes (Guttman, 1959; Jordan, 1968), dyadic interaction (Foa, 1962), diagnostic analy- tical and mechanical ability test construction (Guttman & Schlesinger, 1966), and analysis of the diagnostic effectiveness of a battery of achievement and analytical ability tests (Guttman & Schlesinger, 1967). The present study deals with social attitudes and specifically with racial attitudes of Whites and Blacks toward each other in certain delineated areas. Therefore, Guttman's four level paradigm for constructing intergroup attitude items and Jordan's six-level expansion of this approach, will be viewed in relation to how they were employed in the present study. Guttman Four-level Theory Guttman (1950a) started by Operationally defining an attitude as ”a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." Guttman, in later work, proceeded to name the particular facets and their respective ele- ments that are relevant in an intergroup situation. In an analysis of an article written by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957), Guttman (1959) distinguished three facets involved in a particular attitude response in . 8‘96 ('7 Us. a .c; . . . . . u . . A A y 1 a _ . . it . . t . y . . \rL Dy Y a 7 v; v ‘ ‘ E C at n“ Go M H n c r. f :i . J .I .q . v c. a. ,1 AG f; A? .o L $ 4 1-‘ L a .I u u. Vt 1.. qr . n1 2 o n ad a x . . . x r. s. S S 2 .nr. 2“ f r A: L. o and .. a a. . mm. +-.. t 01‘ CV RAM Q» W fiv “A ha“ 5, J nv Q» s a 11-‘ fl .. n u A: a“ a. C w... ..u a. n. L . a 2.. .. . a J a o «.M/c -w u. My» .n t m A: a w W.“ n . .C a a. to Cu 3. C. a t n t .5 w m 5.. h . . C 5-4. mu . no. .m u .. MM“ 2.. C A“ a... . . .. ..( ... A . .r. . o a . . a a an” AFN. imam "Nah“ ran .un era .d A; vb; A.» a... flu h. e a .r... «or . 02.: 68 respect to intergroup behavior: the (a) subject's be- havior (al belief or a2 overt action), the (b) referent (b1 the subject's group or b2 the subject himself), and (c) the referent's intergroup behavior (cl comparative or c2 interactive). He labeled the first of the two options, or elements given above in parentheses, of each facet as the "weaker." A particular attitude item, then, was as strong as the number of strong (elements with the number 2 subscript) elements which appeared. According to Guttman's rationale, if an attitude item can be distinguished semantically in terms of these three facets, then an individual item could have none, one, two or three strong facets-—a total of four combinations. Guttman furth , p-.. er indicated a logical reason for only four - A m “n--—--v permutations of weak-strong facets. If the elements are wfiulfin____ _,_... - Ml..- ~~ - correctly ordered within facets and facets are correctly ordered with respect to each other, a semantic analysis of attitude items according to n-dichotomous facets would reveal N + 1 types of attitude items. Guttman called these types "levels."1 The levels have an inherent order (a simplex one) where each level has one more strong facet than the level proceeding, and one less strong facet than the level immediately following. lLevels are also referred to as sub-scales in some places but they both refer to the same thing when used in relation to facet design and analysis. In his earlier work, Guttman (1959) also used the term subuniverses. . fl 4. ‘ ‘ | r..\:.. I "Y‘f‘ lvlaD ’ .Av I Oa-ij‘ n'v .v...u—adL .c-rv A an'fl‘.‘ g..." A '1 “.de V v p. v D J l E f‘, ‘ , I 69 Although only four permutations of weak-strong are possible, given the Guttman rationale for forming per- mutations, there are several ways to arrive at four permutations and thus logic and intuition must be exercised in selecting the appropriate levels. InE forming levels, one element from each and every facet _mu§tmbemrepresentedgin any given statement, and these. statements can be groupedinto profiles (particular ele- ments from each facet) of the attitude universe by a multiplication of the facets AxBxC, yielding a 2x2x2 combination of elements of 8 semantic profiles in all, i.e., the permutations or combinations range from: (1) (8) a (2) a b b a1 1 Cl’ 1 1 2 ’ 2 2 C2' 8 possible profiles or levels, Guttman selected four as r—J b c From these making the best logicalflsense, i.e., some permutations are not logically consistent.l Tables 2 and 3 are illustrative of the points made above. Table 2 contains the three original facets and their elements as identified by Guttman. Table 3 contains the four permutations of weak—strong facets and the de- scriptive names which he attached to each of these per- mutations, or levels. Two continua run throughout the facets: other-self and verbal—action. —_l lMaierle (1969) presents an elaborate analysis of the principles leading to logical permutations. revel Y Ad 70 TABLE 2L—-Three facets and their corresponding elements contained in the semantic structure of an attitude item. (A) (B) (C) Subject's Referent Referent's Behavior Intergroup Behavior al belief bl subject's cl comparative group a2 overt b subject 02 interactive action himself ¥\ TABLE 3.--Profile components, and descriptive labels associated with four types of attitudes items. f A Level Profile Descriptive Label 1 alblc1 Stereotype 2 alblc2 Norm 3 alb2c2 Hypothetical Interaction U a2b202 Personal Interaction 1.. -\ AC 76 J. 1 O 9" -0: F.” van— "EI’S rye fl \ ‘O‘Lv f’Ay Lavdfi‘v lv- “in” 0‘. .1 ‘oav -4 “'1! A. H- Gust 1. ‘3 71 A close examination of Tables 2 and 3 reveals that not all of the possible profiles of facets ABC were used. For instance, a2blcl or alecl could conceivably be used in level 2 instead of the profile a b c Guttman (1959) l l 2' answers this query by stating that, in this case, the prgriie_f9r leis}-? 0? alslcg is ghosen_over the ofiher two possibilities since there would be too much over— lapping if the other profiles were used and that their \ \\ J'— #1 \ inclusion would not alter the structure of the levels. Guttman (1959) also provides definitions of the levels or subuniverses. Since Bastide and van den Berghe's (1957) work dealt with racial attitudes, these definitions are concerned with Whites and Negroes. The following are definitions of the levels that Guttman (1959) provided for the four types: 1. Stereotype: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (excels--does not excel) in comparison with Negroes on (desirable traits). 2. Norm: Belief of (a white subject) that his own group (ought-—ought not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). 3. Hypothetical Interaction: Belief of (a white subject) that he himself (wi11--will not) inter- act with Negroes in (social ways). A. Personal Interaction: Overt action of (a white subject) himself (to--not to) interact with Negroes in (social ways) (p. 319). To illustrate this type of attitude item construction, , a few examples dealing with particular levels are presented. The item: "Would you marry a Negro?" belongs to level 3-- Hypothetical Interaction. Here the behavior of the subject is a belief (a1) about how he (b2) would interact 5. rd AU .1 . t 4... 1i #1; H. A: F. o. A. 2.. is c L... a n . , .._ .. h .6 II. he 6 i 8 CC 8 t We . .u n v 6 n6 hi I. r y C.» to n y .W. his #:v u n ne‘ "U- m an“ r“ 6 fig o‘.. nu. hi +u m. h... h. .rli. ab AV 0: .1 e C S .1 T i e .l t .l V P S e a S C O f w l J J. W V ad 11. S O S .1 AG n . S C .1 .0. Wu a rd V. e 0 6 2. Ti 9 S to S e at .nu Cc MI \I tn 9 a 4 n. n . e .2 1 . 4 . to .m e K S c v .3 c. ru 9. D. at r; : . r: .1 n . C -3 .3 PM 3 at o. . c .2 a . .1 .. ‘ .nn c T. r“ .r“ a. no .4 a: a. r“ :l a a t n c. . .ni. mu» no a: prw a» . . .vfi Y I. n. . . N a: .C e .3 a: 1L {2. . : . n u s 4 r; ~ .m s .. ~. ~ vrh 72 (c2) with a Negro. On the other hand, the statement: "I have dated a Negro" is a level u type item—-Personal Interaction. This depicts an overt action (32) of a white subject himself (b2) to interact (c2) with a Negro in this specific manner. If items are written to correspond to each of the four levels, then levels closest to each other should be more similar and thus should correlate more highly with each other than more distance levels. Guttman (Guttman & Schlesinger, 1966) calls this the "principle of contiguity" and gives the following definition: "Items which are similar to each other in n facets may be expected)to be closer to each other in the two-dimensional space than items similar only in a prOper subset of these facets." In essence, this implies that if the structure of certain items are close semantically then they should also be close statistically. Ip/tfie present case, this means that correlations between levels should decrease in relation to the number of steps the two levels are re- moved from each other. The hypothesized relationship of levels is ascer- tained statistically by what Guttman calls a "simplex." Each successive level changes on only one facet so that the profiles have a simplex ordering. A simplex is defined (Guttman, l95u-55) as "sets of scores that have an implicit order from 'least complex' to 'most j s f‘ ‘ \jn‘. AIU .4 I . I H lex‘ level-‘31 . he!“ L. ' 43L“; ,9 e COX“. 1% U“ fit. o 51V A9343“ is . v5 4'. .3-..“ u '- -18." uq‘ 9‘ vv..v-u4-—V' < '1’:an v \ ,- wo c. (b) C. 9f . L. V‘s». L :13 .. - I" “ 73 complex'" (p. MOO). A simplex is examined by a matrix of level-by-level correlations where the exact magnitudes of the correlations are not predicted but where the order is. Table H contains an example of an hypothetical correlation matrix with a simplex structure. TABLE 4.—-Hypothetical matrix of level-by-level correlations illustrating the simplex structure. Level 1 2 3 U 1 ___ 2 .60 -—- 3 .50 60 -__ u .40 .50 .60 —-— Note: One does not attempt to predict the magni- tudes of each correlation coefficient. The simplex re- quirements do not necessitate either identical mathe- matical differences among various correlations or identical correlations between sets or adjacent levels, so that the bottom row of the matrix reading from left to right could contain such figures as .10, .32, and .U9. A simplex exhibits the characteristics of: (a) ascending correlations starting from the zero point (where the two coordinates meet) to the end points of either axis, and (b) closer correlations between adjacent levels than correlations separated by several levels, i.e., adjacent levels will correlate higher with each other than levels that are more remote from each other. Consequently, level I would correlate higher with level 2 than it acu- E a 2 . rC ab 9. av A: no“ a '- A IA.— Laws: O J an“ 7M would with level 3 or level u, and again level 3 would correlate higher with level 2 than it would with level 1. This type of relationship is represented in the formula: 1 < 2 < 3 < A. Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) were unaware of facet design and nonmetric analysis and thus represented their data in other terms. When their data is analyzed in facet analysis terms, and retaining the order they imposed on it, the levels are in the following order: (1) Stereotype, (2) Norm, (A) Personal Interaction, and (3) Hypothetical Interaction. Their order of: l, 2, 4, and 3 has one level misplaced when put in Guttman terms. The simplex produced by this is shown in Table 5. Table 6 presents a reorganization of the levels dictated from Guttman's facet theory. The order then becomes the cus- tomary numerical order of: l, 2, 3, and A. TABLE 5.--Empirical correlational matrix of Bastide and van den Berghe using their data in the order they pre- sented it. Level I 2 3 4 1 ___ 2 .60 -—— 3 25 .51 A9 la; ‘ v «fly p 6. : .L atist ~\v 75 TABLE 6.-—Empirical correlational matrix of Bastide and van den Berghe data put in the order implied by Guttman's facet design. Level 1 2 3 u 1 ___ 2 .60 --- 3 .37 68 --- u 25 .51 49 ___ Upon examination of the simplex presented in Table 6 it can be seen that only one reversal exists in the pre- dicted structure. But in Table 5, using the Bastide and van den Berghe arbitrary structure, there are numerous reversals. In Table 6 the apparent slight exception is that r (=.u9) does not quite exceed r1v ii (=.51) iv iii even though semantically level 3 lies between level 2 and level A. Guttman (l959) views this slight exception as no contradiction to the contiguity hypothesis since it could have been caused by sampling bias or other idio- syncracies in selection. If facet theory was used to develop an attitude scale or like instrument what would account for massive reversals in the simplex when the predicted order was not even closely approximated? Guttman (I959) postulates two plausible answers for such failures: (a) the statistical structure deduced from the semantic structure . - v - r b. . . t . A E n FL pm a . 2L . . CL . v ed. w . S o t #b 3» 1.1 hi a M CL C A: x in C. r. r . . . mu m l .1 3 E r x .. C 3 T . l .1 n. . . a v 9v 0 ”J v i .\lv «D Av 7 2 r .1. w... 91.. 8 r: I + - . r e a? . A ... . . . . + v ad a» n. ‘ AM we ft 5 . . e ”L. .. . 2 . 4 pr 1.. .9 .f. Ad .. .rlr “A ..u ix a . 2.. .n a a u r u s «D «3 w w. .. l O L z . h . ‘hi n . M: A: . . .. u «G A: a. nix e 4 Ad . «C +b «\v 51v 0. iv v . r . . . . 4 . . , «\v I. ‘ vi «1 C~ .nl. 5.. _ u .«u. v . O. .71 .iw ‘ . .u a s v rd r w i A I .. . u . . a. .. r . .5. 4.. r... . . .rv he . . a v VA A: . ..v m." 5.14 .1 .A .. . 2.. h: 12,. .3 u x 1 . pi w . u.. . no r1 . . . w A. n .u Ev .. u. an... 3.. Oh . Fl... F § ~ A“ 76 was not appropriate, and (b) the semantic structure (structural theory) was faulty or incomplete, i.e., the items were incorrectly or ambiguously assigned to levels. Jordan's Six-level Adaptation Guttman's paradigm, i.e., facet design and analysis, for attitude item construction allows for three facets and hence four levels. Theorizing that additional facets were needed, but accepting the ones that Guttman did identify as appropriate, Jordan (1968) expanded facet analysis for attitude items dealing with intergroup situations to include five-facets and hence six-levels.l Tables 7 and 8 depict this expansion and correspond to Tables 2 and 3 which deal with Guttman's paradigm. An examination of Tables 7 and 8 reveals that a multiplication of facets ABCDE will produce 32 per- mutations or combinations of elements and that only six of these combinations have been selected in forming the six levels. Jordan (1968) states that not all combinations are logical because of semantic consider— ations and the selection of a "best" set of components from the 32 possible is still partly a matter of judg- ment. Maierle (1969) is testing the plausibility of 1In this paradigm, a scale is composed of six levels or sub-scales so when the word scale appears by itself, it should be understood that it contains six levels or sub-scales. 7 7. coma .m hpmznomm copmommm Hmaoom poflado< pom mosuaumcH HompmH cmspusc mason mpfimno>flco mumpm :mwfiQOHz :mpmom .m snow .cofipomlamnmm> new mammlnmnpo "muoomm map cwzopnp can macfipcoo oze .pcoewpsh mo nmppms m maupmd Hafipm mfi mumm no anomw :pmoo: m no coapomaww one .HmonOH mum mcofipmcHoEoo Ham pom awn» pmuoc on omam vasocw pH .mp39prm on» no :cuwcmnpm: map zmpmmpm on» .mcfimpcoo pow m mpcmEon zm: deLomQSm whoa ocE .zamsoocmpazefim mpmomm o>wm Ham mmonom swan 0» 30a Eomm mpmomm o>fim omen» mo wpmm copopso on» mm Umcfimmp maamcoaummmdo ”COHpozpum pcfiowcoon .Am .wfim mmmv Hm0fiucmea mam pouom cam .ucommmms .pomnosm .o “m .: Ho>oq CH mpopom map spa: pom use .pcommmmn mnu spas Havapcmpa ma popmpdm map m Ho>mq cw "Sosa psonm phonon 0p pmxmm ma poanSm on» “HmOHucoofi mum Lopom paw pampmmmm m ocm a Ho>mq CH ..o.fi "om mafihmmmmoo: no: p39 .gpon no nouom no pcommmmp Locpfim spas Hmowpcoofi ma mpHmCQOprosv on» 930 wcHHHHm poonosm map mmefluoEom pogo popos on pasocm pH .mmHm mHmOHmoaafi Boom mzoapmcfioEoo mEom ..o.H =.pcmpmfimcoo: on pmse m pcm m .mommo cosm CH .HmOHpcmpH ohm o pew < xmfifimmwwmom: no: use “zapsmsvmsm .pofi>m£op m.o moamwamzv m om .m0H>mcon m.< moHMflHmsv m mo mo mamm mm ofiaooEzm Ho ComfimeEoo Hp mpmgpo Ho wmflamo an mponpo Hm poa>m£om nofi>mcmm m.p0po¢ msopwpmch Lofi>m£mm mo cflmEoo m.90po< L0po< pcommmmm uconmmom Amv on on Amv . Aas3 mBSpfippm cm mo QQOHpodmpm pQflOncoo mcHELopmp on pom: Mmpmomw afiwmmll.~ mqm¢B I'H"Yf‘ q _‘|" "- -— .u-‘JU V. _ I ‘.ype-Leve r-J U] (in 78 TABLE 8.--Conjointa level, profile compositionb and labels for six typesb of attitude struction. b Descriptive Conjoint Type-Level Struction Profile Term 1 al bl cl dl e1 Societal Stereotype 2 al b1 01 d2 e1 Societal Norm 3 a b c d e Personal Moral 2 l l 2 1 Evaluation 4 a b c d e Personal Hypo- 2 l 2 2 1 thetical Behavior 5 a2 b2 c2 d2 el Personal Feelings 6 a2 b2 02 d2 e2 Actual Personal Action aConjoint order: Level 1 < level 6 and a < a 23 C1 < C25 C11 < d2s el < 92' 1 2; b1 < b bBased on facet order of March 7, 1968, (Table 7). John E. Jordan Michigan State University Louis Guttman Israel Institute for Applied Social Research March 7, 1968 79 other combinations. His analysis thus far indicates that 12 of the 32 combinations are logical. Table 9 indicates these 12, as well as the six that were used in the con- struction of the Attitude Behavior Scale: Mental Re- tardation (ABS: MR) and the ABS: BW/WN Scales. Jordan, like Guttman, defined the characteristics of items written for each level of response. These characteristics are presented in Tables 8 and 9.1 Briefly defined in relation to the present study on racial attitudes, the levels would deal with the follow- ing: (1) Societal Stereotype-—what other Whites believe about Whites as compared to what they believe about Negroes; (2) Societal Norm—-other Whites generally be- lieve the following . . . about interacting with Negroes; (3) Personal Moral Evaluation--in respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong; (A) Personal Hypothetical Behavior--in respect to a Negro person would you yourself; (5) Personal Feelings-— how do you actually feel toward Negroes; and (6) Actual Personal Action--experiences or contacts with Negroes.2 1All four of Guttman's original levels are main- tained but altered somewhat in structure and name. 2The definitions of the levels presented here assume that a White subject is taking the scale and expressing his attitudes toward Negroes. The words White and Negro can be interchanged to make the scale appropriate for a Negro subject. 8() .m ucm w mmHomB mom .mpcoEmpmum ucmpmHmcoo use pcmvc3pmn Ho puma mum mmmozpcosmd CH mppo3 .mmHmOm 23\3mumm< on» cam mEImm¢ mCH CH Umm: COHHMHSEmex* .mpmpEmE Hm>mH msoHLm> Ho wdHcmcoHpmHmL mumOHocH mommcpcmgwd CH moss: mpmcsmpH¢o .m cam H mmemHm o mmmpmomomm coHpo< HmCOmme Hm3poanm ososo Hospoq HHHmcoHumLmoo oomgmch m3 Hpom m3v o H 3 m 3 HmmpmoHpmm LoH>srmm HMoHpozpoom: HQCOmLmasw *meHmoHHonEmm oomsmch H m>mHHmo H m H H n H : HnmcHHomH ososm HmSBUwV szpcotH ososw HHHmoHHonEam Homnmch o3 nuom 03V m H 3 m 3 AwnoHompomoxm anonmv nzmq :mEHmHoosi mHHmoHHonEmn pomsoch H m>mHHmo m3 m H H o 3 Assumpm Hmcompmo mmcwHummanHmCOuLmdv Homecooanmm HHHmoHHonEmm osmdsoo H m>mHHmo H m o H Q H HmmpHoHomm HmosHm> Um>HooLmoV coHpmnHm>m HmLo: HmCOwLma** **mHHmoHHooE>m pompoucH w3 m>mHHmo H n H 3 o H m ospmpm HwQOmnmm pocmHmmwuozoso HHHmoHHermm onwaEOo H m>mHHmn m3 m o H n 3 . HompHoHnHm Eco: HmpmHoomxx *mmHHmoHHonEHm uomgoch m3 m>mHHmo m3 m H 3 o 3 mspmu anon UmcmHmmmlmHHmcowme HHHmoHHonEhm mLmQEoo m3 o>mHHmp H m o 3 n H m HmHmHoHnHm Angumpm asopm pmcmemmuqsopwv mompomnmum HMpmHoom** *gmHHmOHHooEmm mnmqsoo m3 m>oHHoo 03 m o 3 n 3 H mew: o>HpQHLome mucoamumpm HMCOHpHcHHmQ mHHHOLm umomm Hm>oq O Q .mcoHpmu3ELoQ m>Ho3p LOH mpcmEmpwpm HmcoHpHcHHop pcm .mmHHaoso umomm .mHo>mH m o "mcoHpmNHHanm> oUSHprm mo Emumzm Hm>mHIme pmomalw>Hmll.m mqmde 81 Jordan designed an attitude instrument toward the mentally retarded (ABS: MR) that contained the five- facet, six—level structure he hypothesized would appear. Table 10 presents a summary indication of simplex approxi— mations obtained in preliminary work (Jordan, 1968) with the instrument. The present study, as indicated earlier, used the five-facet, six-level adaptation of the original paradigm devised by Guttman. Items for the six-levels were con- structed according to the definitional system portrayed in Table 9 and specific to the mapping sentence illus- trated in Figure 50 Thus far only Guttman's "conjoint struction"l has been considered. Tables 7—9 deal exclusively with this concept. Conjoint struction is that part of the semantic structure that can be determined independently of specific content or response situations. Conjoint struction is operationally defined as: "the ordered sets of the five facets of Table 7 from low to high across all five facets simultaneously" (Jordan, 1968). The counterpart to conjoint struction is labeled "disjoint struction." Disjoint struction deals with the content of the item and is dependent upon a specific situation and attitude object. Both concepts are 1Not to be confused with conjoint measurement (Zinnes, 1969). E32 .AHmmunv QVOH .msmzcmh .Hmmnspco: anpHLmv oNHHom .mpocomou Hoocom asapcmEmHmw .Hmmwuzv mme .mpmscmw .wLOHwE coHpMozpm .wLoEoEHom.H .Aeanxv mme .LonCmpdmn .coHumpHHHnmgoL pcm coHpmozpm HmHoodm CH wucmpsuw mumspmpom .mocH .5 cone: :0 pmnzposnpm m

mcmm wasppr< u mzummao .smchpcmrE no: 233 ugHLcrLo ongun mcu :oHL3 CH nooCMchH mumoHch mcoHpmHmLLoo pocHHLmUCDn .pmupHEo mHmEHoQO III. ll.- II 0H mm mH oH mH II mm 3H mo :0 Ho II Hm mH no mo 00 m :oHpo< HmCOmme .. Hm mH mm HH .. DH .H mm NH .. an mm NH :0 m mwcHHmmm Hegemcma .. :3 am Ha .. mu Hm NH .. m: mH OH : poH>aemm HmOprepoaH: Hmcomsma -. mH HH .. Hm mu .. 3m HH m . coHsmsHm>m Hmcoz Hmcompma In mm In an 1: mm m Ego: HmumHoom II In , II H mdmpoopmpm HmpmHoom o m a m m H m m 3 m m H m m a m m H Ill-: Hm>m4 Esme m>HpQHpommo mpmnowme woNHHmm mucopzpm poem .om .:.m.z mpcmpSHm m.pmpo .D.m.z .mlm moHomu mo demmp co nopoznowcoo o.mHmom mHnmmq on» Eosp mEmuH modqupm Ho mcHmeno omedEHw popcono mchmppmzHHH mooHLumE mCOHpmHmLHooII.OH mqm<9 823 :.m: cwzopcu =<= mpwomH mm>Ho>cH coHposnpm ucHOHCOQ .mopch new .mxomHm Ho coHposnpm oscHonHo new mcomumq mpch no xomHm on30p mocon> prammp LHoLp Ho mmzmomb on poonmH sz3 :.x: £w30ch :m: mpmomH mm>Ho>cH :oHposppm chOHmHoo n .cmpHOh pcm MEmHmEmm an pm>Ho>mm . .chpo comm pamzou mopsquum ucHOHQOo Ho mHmHHmcm pmomH opp HOH mocmpcom wcHade ¢Il.m mpszm mmwoonm coHpmsHm>m Hmv CH v. ,HHOW opan .xomHm x ‘mHoc3 m mm .qoa w mHmcuo.Ho .H0p0< HOV o m wcHdoo HmHoH>mcoo m HmucmESHumcH H m>Hpmwmc m3 pHme Hm5pom mw o>HpomHHm NH H nBH3 H H m>HpHmoa x uHmap empanspsm H o>HpHcmoo H mocme> Hm>mH pHmHB omNB pHmHB Hxv Hmv HHV HHmpHHHE pcm Hmz N.H . smH>HpomuHm0HpHHoa MH m: \ :st mm Hoppo pcm 3mH H ’ m x mnoH NH mc coHpmaHm>m .EsHme w wcH>Ho>cH mchso: H , \ ’ coHumospm NH H: 30H Hm. moHpmHHopompmco HH mocmpsomEH mCOHpmspHm mHHH Hos Hmv AHmoHv 0p pcoammH QHoL mHHmHomam cuH3 mpomsmch mp mcomHmQ . moon zHHmCOHumHon mm ouHL3 AnuH3v mquEoo Ho xomHm monQEoo Hp pcw30\oH303\mHHonHonEmm Hm H0H>mnwm amoanoucH m.Louo< HoH>mcmm m.Houo< Ho chEoo AQV Hmv HHmm mm H0uom . Ho much on» HCOHpom ppm>o mo HoH>mnmn .xomHmleozz pamHoHoH was» H pcmHmHmH m mm .aoa H o» mopanprm ucm. d HmHHmo n on» mmocuo m Axv pomnosm HoH>wzmm pamHmHmm pcmeHom . Hmv Hu’ Anv' -\ I.‘ ' wa-\run-—v 1‘ I o w centai. For :3 i A I u q. '5 Ah'qr “u H'.uc |\ . 86 Specifically then, the study was concerned with two different groups--Blacks and Whites--and how they per- ceive each other in the above seven attitude content areas. The study was also concerned with the determi- nants of these attitudes; therefore, an additional questionnaire was given in addition to the seven scales listed above. This questionnaire was administered to Operationalize several of the variables suggested by the review of the literature to be determinants of attitudes; it contains the independent variables. For each of the seven separate attitude content areas, a six-level scale was constructed in accordance with Jordan's six-level adaptation (Table 8) of Guttman's original four-level paradigm for attitude item con- struction. Each attitude content area scale contained the six levels of: (l) Societal Stereotype, (2) Societal Norm, (3) Personal Moral Evaluation, (A) Personal Hypothetical Behavior, and-(5) Personal Feelings, and (6) Actual Personal Action as shown in Table 8. Specific Attitude Item Content for Each Area and Item Writing Format Specific content for items used in each of the seven attitude content areas was taken from several sources. Previous scales, books on attitudes and racial matters, and personal interviews with staff from F a... fa y‘cn: p w ‘— ‘A‘ :‘h‘~q‘-" A . "‘ ‘v4«v.e F“... a,“ s”; 6“ «C \_.‘ 87 the Urban Adult Education Institute were consulted to provide content for the attitude items. Fourteen itemsl were constructed for each of the seven major content areas and each item was included in the six levels or sub-scales for each of the areas (i.e., each area con— tains 84 items). Prior to this research, attitude scales employing the Guttman paradigm for item construction in— cluded different content items in each of the sub-scales or six levels. In this study, however, each attitude item is repeated across all six levels or sub-scales with the items being altered to fit the structure of the six levels but the content of the items remaining the same. In this manner, the item content or "disjoint struction" (see Fig. 3 facets "F" through "J" and Fig. 5 facets "F" through "K") is held constant so that the atti- tude structure or "conjoint struction" (see Tables 7 and 8) is assessed using the simplex as a measure. Table 11 presents an example of the way items were written across the six levels and the directions for each level. Appen- dix A contains all seven instruments for the White sub- jects plus the additional Personal Data Questionnaire. As has been previously mentioned, the seven scales were constructed for both Black and White respondents in each of the seven attitude content areas. These seven Scales were constructed so that the only alteration 1See Appendix A for the specific items per content area .. 88 TABLE ll.—-An actual example taken from the ABS-WN-C scale illustrating the six-level structure and the directions for each level. Directions: Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: Level Item: Whites can be trusted with money (1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes) Directions: Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Level Negroes: Item: For Whites to trust Negroes with money (1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved) Directions: In respect to Negroes, do you your- self believe that it is usually right Level or wrong: Item: To eXpect Whites to trust Negroes with money is (1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right) Directions: In respect to a Negro person would Level you yourself: Item: Would you trust Negroes with money? (1. no 2. undecided 3. yes) Directions: How do you actually feel toward 9 Level Negroes. Item: When Negroes trust Whites with money I feel (1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good) Level Directions: Experiences or contacts with Negroes: Item: I have trusted Negroes with money (1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain A. yes) T Note: This example is item number 3 on scale 1 (31 on scale 2, 59 on scale 3, 87 on scale A, 115 on scale 5, and 1N3 on scale 6) from the Personal Character- istics (C) scale area and is meant for a White respondent (see Appendix A). required i of the we: or group a found in 2 "Would yo;. same place but alters This is t: and for ei seven arei In a the seven there is f of the int answemn. IhPEe foil sure, Th§ 89 required in the two parallel forms is the substitution of the words appearing in each identifying the person or group as Black or White. For example, the question found in a scale that the White respondent takes: "Would you marry a Negro person?" would be found in the same place in the scale given to the Negro respondent but altered to read: "Would you marry a White person?". This is true for every item in each of the seven areas and for each of the six different levels used in the seven areas. In addition to the 1“ content items asked in the seven attitude areas, and repeated in the six-levels, there is for each item an intensity question. The format of the intensity question is: "How sure are you of this answer?". The subject can respond by using one of the three foils: (a) not sure; (b) fairly sure; and (0) sure. The intensity responses were not analyzed in the present study. All seven of the attitude scales were entitled Attitude Behavior Scale and then labeled specifically. For instance, the scale entitled Attitude Behavior Scale-WN:J indicates that the scale was designed for the Job area and measured Whites attitudes toward Negroes. The titles on each page of the scale included capital Roman numerals to indicate what level the items are Ineasuring and thus ABS-III-WN-J would indicate that this 90 part of the scale was concerned with the third level or sub-scale. With the White respondents, the word Negro was used to refer to that racial group and with the Negro respondents, the word Black was used to refer to their racial group. Research Population Two rather distinct pOpulations were included in the present study. One population consisted of all the students enrolled winter quarter,1969,in Education “29 (Medical Information) at Michigan State University and who had no previous experience with the pre-testing of the attitude instruments. This population consisted of 69 students among which 62 were White and 7 were Negro. The other population (Detroit population) consisted of subjects of a Wayne State University course in social problems and subjects interested in the Urban Adult In- stitute who for the most part were college educated. In these groups, there was a total of 46 subjects of which 25 were White and 21 were Negro. The samples taken from these two pOpulations can be viewed in two ways: (a) the absolute number of sub- jects participating from each population as a total, and (b) the number of subjects participating at each stage of the study, i.e., the number of subjects completing the scales in each attitude content area. Viewed in terms of absolute numbers participating from each sample, 91 there were 69 subjects participating from the Education A29 group and ”6 subjects participating from the Detroit group. Viewed from the standpoint of the number of subjects participating at each stage or on each of the seven atti— tude scale areas, the sample varies on each of the different scale areas and this information is presented in Table 12. TABLE l2.--Number of subjects participating in each of the seven attitude scale areas on the ABS: BW/WN. Education ”29 Detroit Group Attitude Scale Areas Whites Blacks Whites Blacks 1. (c) Characteristicsa 419 19 11 11 2. (E) Educationa 365 14 23 19 3. (H) Housing 32 6 15 16 H. (J) Jobs 42 u 21 19 5. (L) Law and Order 28 6 13 10 6. (P) Political 61 8 12 10 7. (W) War and Military 36 6 13 ll aBoth the Characteristics and Education scale areas include the Black and White subjects from Education H5O in the Education 429 group. The Black subjects, from the Education 450 course, were included in the analysis of the Education A29 group, but the White subjects were analyzed separately. An additional sample of approximately 369 teacher education students enrolled in Education #50, entitled "Teacher and Society," at Michigan State University were 92 included although only partial analysis was done on this sample (see Erb, 1969 for complete data). This sample was chosen from a pOpulation of approximabely 600 stu- dents enrolled in the course at Michigan State University during winter term. This sample was administered only two of the attitude content scales (ABS—Characteristics and ABS-Education Scale) plus the Personal Data Question— naire. The sample consisted almost exclusively of White subjects and of the sample 369 completed the ABS-Character— istics Scale and 321 completed the ABS—Education Scale. All subjects were also required to complete a Personal Data Questionnaire that contained the demographic variables and the independent variables of the study. Samples from the two populations plus the additional sample from the Education “50 course were not selected using random procedures but instead an attempt was made to include as much of the population as possible. Since this is both a methodological and a pilot study, the emphasis is on the measurement and methodological aspects of the scaling procedures used and the responses, rather than on the representativeness of the sample. The selection of the samples in the present study also reflects the difference in rationale between a methodological, and in the present case, a pilot study, and a study designed to make the maximum of generali- zations from the results. Known groups were included in 93 the samples where both Blacks and Whites paralleled each other in most pertinent characteristics. Statis- tical matching however, was not employed in selecting the groups. A large part of both Black and White sub- jects were drawn from university students which repre- sent a more homogeneous group than most other groups and this was probably more so in the present case since the students were either seniors or graduate students. Collection of Data Data were collected by group administration of the instruments in most cases. In some cases, the subjects were instructed to take the instruments home and complete them and then return them as soon as possible. From the two major groups (Education “29 and the Detroit group) the rate of response ranged from 98 per cent on one scale to a low of approximately “8 per cent on another. Over— all, the rate of response was approximately 60 per cent for the seven attitude scale areas. A set of procedures was developed for the adminis- tration of all the inStruments. All interviewers were instructed beforehand with the procedures to be followed. Instructions to the respondents remained constant for each administration. An attempt was made to have White interviewers interview or administer the instruments to Whites and Black interviewers to administer the instru- ments to Blacks to rule out any interviewer bias that 8W (EPVl at? -034 O ‘3. 9“ might develop. This attempt was not completely success- ful since Blacks were present in some cases where§White interviewers were used and Whites were present in some cases where Black interviewers were used. The instruments were administered in the following order: 1. Personal Data Questionnaire-—this questionnaire contained the demographic variables, the in- dependent variables, and the Efficacy scale. 2. ABS: BW/WN-E (Education)1 3. ABS: BW/WN-C (Characteristics) 4. ABS: BW/WN-J (Job) 5. ABS: BW/WN-P (Political Activism) 6. ABS: BW/WN-H (Housing) 7. ABS: BW/WN-W (War and Military) 8. ABS: BS/WN—L (Law and Order) Conditions for each testing were approximately the same for all the seven attitude content scales. Major Variables of the Study Major variables of the study were selected by theoretical considerations already reviewed which rely lThe abbreviation BW/WN indicates the general capacity of the scale to indicate the attitudes that Blacks have toward Whites (BW) or to indicate the atti- tudes that Whites have toward Negroes (WN). The word Negro was used on the version of the scales the Whites filled out since the use of the word Black is recent and confusing to some Whites. The single letter after either BW or WN indicates what attitude content scale was used. ate' v die 3". -u 0 ‘ A» 5771'” r. r V4-‘V:.. «k. V‘ A I MIN "‘ “Eluv ta ‘w' n "'3 fr: ea‘v 95 heavily on socio-psychological research. Jordan (1968) indicated that four classes of variables seem to be important determinants, correlates and/or predictors of attitudes: (a) demographic variables such as age, sex, and religion, (b) socio-psychological variables such as one's value orientation, (c) contact variables such as amount, nature, enjoyment of the contact, etc., and (d) the knowledge variable. Table 13 presents the major variables by IBM card and column number. Demographic Variables The instrument labeled "Personal Data Questionnaire" ABS: BW/WN (Appendix A) was designed to operationalize several variables suggested by the review of the litera- ture to be determinants of racial attitudes. A total of ten demographic items were included in the questionnaire which from a theoretical vieWpoint might correlate with, or predict, the scores on the seven attitude content areas. 'These variables are: age, item 2; sex, item 1; amount of education, item 7; income, item 25; marital status, item 3; religious preference, item N, 5; gain from contact, item 20; political affiliation, item 26; racial prejudice, item 2“; and racial group, item 28. (Sontact with the Opposite Racial Group Items 17 through 23 on the Personal Data Question- lnaire were designed to Operationalize variables involved TABLE 13.--ABS-BW/WN Scale. 96 Basic variables list by IBM card and column. Variablea: Name/No Card Column Page Item Attitude l. Steroetype 1 20,22 alter to A6 1-3 1,3 alter to 27 Content 2. Normative 2 20,22 alter to A6 A-S 29,31 55 3. Moral Eval. 3 20,22 alter to A6 6-7 57,59 83 A. Hypothetical A 20,22 alter to A6 8-9 85,87 111 5. Feeling 5 20,22 alter to A6 10-11 113,115 139 6. Action 6 20,22 alter to A6 12-1A 1A1,1A3 167 7. TotalC 1-6 sum 1-6 above 1-1A sum above Attitude 8. Stereotype 1 21,23 alter to A7 1—3 2,A alter to 28 Intensity 9. Normative 2 21,23 alter to A7 A—S 30,32 56 10. Moral Eval. 3 21,23 alter to A7 6-7 58,60 8A 11. Hypothetical A 21,23 alter to A7 8—9 86,88 112 12. Feeling 5 21,23 alter to “7 10-11 11A,116 140 13. Action 6 21,23 alter to A7 12-1A 1A2,1AA 168 1A. TotalC 1-6 sum 1—6 above 1-1A sum above Value 15. Efficacy-Cont. 7 20,22 alter to 36 9—10 29,31 alter to A5 16. Efficacy-Int. 7 21,23 alter to 37 9—10 30,32 alter to A6 BW/WN 17. Nature of 1-7 6A 5 17 Contact 18. Amount of 1-7 65 5 18 19. Avoidance 1-7 66 5 19 20. Income 1-7 68 6 21 21. Alternatives 1-7 69 7 22 22. Enjoyment 1-7 70 7 23 Demo- 23. Age 1-7 A9 1 2 graphic 2A. Educ. Amount 1-7 5A 2 7 , 25. Income-Amount 1-7 72 7 25 Religio- 26. Rel. impor. l-7 53 2 6 sity 27. Rel. Adher. 1-7 62 A 15 Change 28. Self 1-7 55 3 8 Orien- 29. Child Rearing 1-7 56 3 9 tation 30. Birth Control 1-7 57 3 10 31. Automat. 1-7 58 3 11 32. Rule Adher. 1-7 63 5 16 Education 33. Local Aid 1-7 59 A 12 3A. Fed. Aid 1-7 60 A 13 35. Planning 1-7 61 A 1A Prejudice 36. Prejudice-Am. 1-7 7“ 8 27 Cate orical 37. Sex 1-7 A8 1 . 1 Data 38. Marital 1-7 50 1 3 39. Rel. Affil. 1-7 51,52 2 u,5 A0. BW gain 1—7 67 6 20 A1. Polit. Affil. 1-7 73 8 26 A2. Racial Prej. 1-7 71 7 2A A3. Racial Group 1—7 75 8 28 aVariable numbers correspond to numbers in Tables of Appendix B. bNot used in correlational analysis. cThe total score is obtained by,summing each of the six levels as well as the total of these six levels. The score is simply the sum of the response categories. 97 in personal contact between the respondents and the oppo- site racial group. The items included are conceptually distinct. Item 17 deals with the kinds of experiences the respondent has had; item 18 deals with time spent with the Opposite racial group; item 19 deals with the ease of avoidance of contact; item 20 deals with material gain from the contact; item 21 deals with income from contact; item 22 deals with alternatives to contact; and item 23 deals with enjoyment of the contact. Items 17 and 18 can also be viewed in terms of the knowledge variable. Change Orientation Five items were included in the Personal Data Question— naire that deal with the change proneness of the person. Item 8 deals with self change; item 9 with child rearing methods; item 10 with birth control; item 11 with auto- mation; and item 16 with rule adherence. Educational Aid and Planning Items were included in the Personal Data Question— naire to measure attitudes regarding local aid to edu- cation (item 12), federal aid to education (item 13), as well as to who should have responsibility for edu— cational planning (item 1A). Religiosity Two questions, other than religious preference, were included in the Personal Data Questionnaire. One 98 dealt with conformity to the rules and regulations of the religion (item 15) and the other dealt with the felt importance of religion to the respondent (item 6). Efficacy Items 29, 31, 33, 35, 37, 39, Al, A3, and A5 which appear in the Personal Data Questionnaire under the head- ing entitled "Life Situations" (Appendix A), were adopted from a fully evolved Guttman Scale reported by Wolf (1967). Measures of intensity-—items 30, 32, 3A, 36, 38, A0, A2, AA, and A6-—were added to the original items evolved by Wolf. These measures of intensity contained four cate- gories of response ranging from "not sure at all" to "very sure" to the intensity question of: "How sure do you feel about your answer?". This scale was designed to measure attitudes toward man and his environment and attempts to determine the respondent's view of the relationship between man and his environment. The emphasis of this scale is outlined by Wolf (1967): The continuum underlying this scale ranged from a view that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some measure of adjustment to forces outside of himself, to a view that man could gain complete mastery of his physical and social environment and use it for his own purposes (p. 113). This variable has been termed "Efficacy" since the scale purports to measure attitudes towards man's effectiveness in the face of his natural environment. 99 Prejudice+Amount A single item (27) was included in the Personal Data Questionnaire asking the respondent to compare his racial attitudes to those of the average person. Major Hypotheses of the Study Since the present study is of a methodological nature-—specifically of the test construction nature-— most of the analysis and results will deal with measure- ment properties (special emphasis on item analysis in relation to shortening scales) and the use of facet design and analysis. The hypotheses of the study are of both a theoretical and substantive nature. The theoretical hypotheses deal with Guttman scaling aspects, and the substantive hypotheses deal with the independent variables and their relationship to the attitude scales used and the racial attitudes held by the subjects in the samples selected for the study. Theoretical Hypotheses §:l: There will be a positive relationship (cor— relational) between the conceptual theory (facet design) and the statistical structure (simplex) on all the seven attitude content areas. a. The size of the correlation coefficient will increase with the increase in the number of contiguous facets in the variables. 100 Substantive Hypotheses 51g: Persons who score high on efficacy will score high on favorable attitudes towards the opposite racial group on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales.l 5:2: Persons who score high on stated importance of religion will score ihh on favorable attitudes toward the opposite racial group on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. 5:3: Persons who score high on new methods of child rearing will score high on favorable attitudes to- wards the Opposite racial group on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. h:§: Persons who hghhg that automation should be encouraged will score high on favorable attitudes towards the opposite racial group on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. H-6: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitudes of Blacks and Whites toward each other on the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. hzl: Persons who hghhg that more local government aid is necessary for education will score high on favor- able attitudes toward the opposite racial group on each of the seven ABS: BW/WN scales. V—v—Vf 1For this hypothesis, and all the following hy— potheses in which tests of significance are involved, the statement of the hypothesis is in the research form rather than the null form for purposes of clarity. 101 ’Analyses Procedures The Control Data Corporation Computer (CDC 3600 and CDC 6500) at Michigan State University was used to analyze the data. Descriptive Statistics A frequency column count program (Clark, 196A) designated as FCC I was used to compile the frequency distributions and the adjusted frequency distributions for every item and variable of the study. This program allows the researcher to gain a clinical "feel" for the data. The program also allows the researcher to debug the data and make corrections for invalid punches. The first part of the MDSTAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966) also provides descriptive statistics. This program produced the N's, means, standard deviations, and adjusted means for all the groups of the study. Since the means.and standard deviations of the Blacks and Whites in both the Detroit group and the Education A29 group were approximately the same, all the Blacks were combined and all the Whites were combined and treated in further statistical analyses as one Black group and one White group in testing the substantive hypotheses. They were considered separately in the item analyses procedures. 102 Correlational Statistics The CDC MDSTAT program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966) was also used for the tremendous amount of other information it provides other than that listed above. Most of the item analyses procedures came from this program which runs "item-to—total scores" on each of the separate six levels or sub-scales and "level-to-level—scores" on the whole scale. This program was used to obtain the correlations between the original 1A items in order to select two items that were statistically working and then these items were used to form one composite scale (see Appendix C). The "level-to-level-scores" procedure is the simplex correlation structure which allows a check on whether or not the simplex was approximated. A variation of the CDC MDSTAT program was used to obtain the inter-variable correlation matrixes. The adapted program prints out, immediately adjacent to each other, the correlation, sample size, and significance level (see Tables 35-A8 in Appendix D). Multidimensional/Multivariate StatisticsI' Until recently only one type of profile analysis has been in general use, i e., scalogram analysis 1Since this type of data analysis is central to Guttman's current emphasis on facet theory scale con- struction, it is included here for informational pur- poses even though it was not used herein since the computer program is not yet fully operational at Michigan State University. 103 (Guttman, 1950). Scalogram analysis has frequently been employed to investigate whether the profiles of indi- vidual subjects form a particular kind of unidimensional structure. For data which do not render such a scale, an apprOpriate technique of analysis has been develOped only recently. The program, called the Guttman-Lingoes Multidimensional Scalogram Analysis I(G-L MSA-I), is now operational on the electronic computers of the University of Michigan and the Hebrew University in Israel (Lingoes, 1966). The MSA-I renders a Space in which subjects are represented as points, variables as partitions, and cate— gories of the variables as regions of the partitions. The program calculates coordinates for each point in a space with the smallest possible number of dimensions. Consider the scale of Table 1A. The five subjects may be represented as five points along a straight line, and the four variables may be regarded as four partitions, each of which divides this one dimensional space into two contiguous regions as in Figure 6. When several lines cross each other at the same point in a space diagram, it will generally be the case that the relationship is closer between those variables whose lines are closer to each other. In Figures 6 and 7, for example, Variable I will be closer to II than to III, and closer to III than to IV. 10A TABLE lA.--A perfect scale for four dichotomous variables. Variables Subject I II III IV 1 + + + + 2 + + + - 3 + + - - A + — — — 5 .. _. _ _ IV II + - + - Subjects 1 2 3 A 5 + — + — III I Figure 6.--The five profiles of Table 1A represented in a uni-dimensional space. The MSA-I is a useful tool for describing typologies when there are a great number of variables and profiles; the samples given here are quite simple and can be worked out by hand. In practice, the data will usually reveal some deviation from the hfdimensional representation given by the MSA—I. The degree of deviation is indicated by the Coefficient of Contiguity (Lingoes, 1966), which may vary in principle from 0 (no fit) to 1 (perfect fit). 105 The investigator who is faced with a space diagram (which is printed out by the computer, see Jordan, 1968 for examples) is sometimes left with some freedom in deciding exactly where to draw the boundary lines, especially where there is no dense collection of points in the space. There is always the problem of inter- preting the space and for this an h priori facet theory of content is useful. Even in the absence of a sharp content theory, MSA-I is a powerful tool for testing certain kinds of hypotheses concerning typologies and their relationships to each other. When there is no theory on which such hypotheses can be based before- hand, the MSA is suggestive of new hypotheses and further kinds of analysis. Figure 7.--Schematized two-space diagram of five dichotomous variables. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Most of the data were analyzed using item analysis procedures since the basic intent of the research was of a test construction nature. These procedures were em— ployed mainly to select two items from each of the seven attitude scale areas and then to combine these selected items into one composite scale that could be used in further research. Two groupsl--Detroit and Education A29—-were used in the present study and these groups were divided into three categories in reference to the way they were analyzed. Since each group contained both Black and White subjects, the responses of both the Blacks and the Whites were analyzed separately, thus forming two of the categories for item analysis procedures. The third category used for the item analysis was formed by combining Blacks and Whites in each group, i.e., Detroit and Education A29, 1A third group was used in the study (Education A50) but only partial analyses were conducted with this group and those results will be indicated where applicable. 106 107 together to form what was labeled a "total" category. In summary, there were two main groups—~Detroit and the Edu- cation A29 group-~and three categories or ways the item analysis procedures were applied to these two groups. Interfltem Analysis The MDSTAT computer program (Ruble & Rafter, 1966) of the Michigan State University computer center was used to produce inter-item correlation matrixes for all six levels or sub—scales for each of the seven attitude con- tent scale areas. Inter-item correlation matrixes were obtained for both the Detroit group and the Education A29 group using the three categories of White, Black, and total for each group. Altogether, 252 tables of this type were generated from the data in the present study. Because the tables were so numerous and of secondary importance, they were deposited with NAPS.1 The inter-item correlation matrixes were used to ascertain whether the items in a level or sub—scale were measuring or "tapping" the same thing or whether they were differentially contributing to the total score. Optimally, low inter-item correlations and high item-to— total correlations are desired (Anastasi, 1968; Magnusson, E 1The 252 tables will be sent for deposit with NAPS. Order NAPS Document from ASIS National Auxiliary Publications Service, c7o CCM Information Sciences, Inc., 22 West 3Ath Street, New York, New York 1001; remitting $ for microfile or $ for photocopies. If they are not accepted by NAPS, contact one of the authors for copies. 108 1966). Validity of a test, or level as in the present case, can be enhanced by including items with low inter- item correlations. Magnusson (1966) states that the validity of a test can be increased by making the test more heterogeneous. This is done by replacing items which correlate highly with other items by items with low correlations with each other. These latter items, however, must correlate positively and significantly with the total score to be useful. Items chosen for inclusion in the composite final scale had low inter—item correlations. These items dealt with different concepts or relations even though the dis- joint struction was constant for the individual scale area 0 Item-to-total Analysis Most of the research results were concerned with the item-to—total correlations. This type of analysis pro- vided the basis for item selection for the final composite scale as well as providing indices of reliability and validity. In this procedure, items that correlate highly with the total score are retained while those items that have low or negative correlations with the total score are discarded. Magnusson (1966) avers that this type of analysis relies heavily on the contribution of the items to the reliability of the test. He states: "The greater the correlation between the test measurement and the 109 measurement made with the item, the greater is this contribution" (p. 207). Several attitudinal and other studies have employed this approach in test construction (Likert, 1932; Bray, 1950; Guttman, 1966; and Smith & Inkles, 1966). In the present study, each level or sub-scale was considered as a total score. Items were then correlated with the total score of the particular level in which they were contained. Consequently for each of the seven scales (Characteristics, Education, Housing, Job, Law and Order, Political Activism, and War and Military) there were six totals computed-~one for each of the six levels. As has been previously discussed in Chapter III, each item in every scale area was repeated in all six levels of that scale. These items remained the same in content--i.e., the disjoint struction was held constant-- but were altered on each of the six levels according to the specifications of the attitude structure paradigm—— i.e., conjoint struction--as detailed by Guttman (1959) and refined by Jordan (1968). Each attitude scale as a result contained 1A items that were repeated in each of the six levels in the same order thus yielding a total Of 8A items per scale. The 1A items in each scale appeared in the same Sequence on all six levels. For example, on the 110 ABS: WN/BW Characteristics Scale the first item in level (section) 1 deals with "cleanliness." This item is also the first item to appear in levels 2 through 6 on this scale. The same is true for the rest of the 13 items. On the seven attitude scales content items were numbered consecutively. They were also numbered alternately (odd numbers) since each item had an intensity question that was related to it.1 In Tables 19 to 32 (see Appendix D) the items are listed from 1 to 1A on each of the six levels for all seven attitude scales. In using these tables it is then necessary to make the transition from the original item numbers used in the scales (see Appendix A for the instruments) to the new scale numbers 1-1A used in Tables 19—32. In level 1 on the original scales, the numbers: 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27 are the numbers used for the content items. These numbers are then translated from 1—27 to the new scale numbers of 1—1A since the items are in the same order on each level of the scale. For example, on level 1, item 1 remains item 1, item 3 becomes item 2, item 5 becomes item 3, item 7 becomes item A, item 9 becomes item 5, item 11 becomes item 6, item 13 becomes item 7, item 15 becomes item 8, item 17 becomes item 9, item 19 becomes item 10, ¥ lIn relation to the example given above, the first Content item would be number 1 in level 1, 29 in level 2, E7 in level 3, 85 in level A, 113 in level 5, and 1A1 in evel 6. 111 item 21 becomes item 11, item 23 becomes item 12, item 25 becomes item 13, and finally item 27 becomes item 1A. This is done in the same manner for all the levels of the scale. Table 15 is presented here using the new scale numbers (l-lA) and illustrating the procedures used in item selection. Tables 19-32 (see Appendix D) should be used concomitantly with the seven original scales (see Appendix A) to avoid confusion. Tables 19-32 together indicate that item-to—total analyses were run on all six levels of each of the seven attitude scales for both the Detroit group and the Edu- cation A29 group. In both groups, item-to-total results were computed for the three categories of: Blacks, Whites, and total (both Blacks and Whites together). Altogether 36 separate measures were computed for each item in the item—to-total analyses. To select the items to be included in the final composite scale, the criterion was established that each item had to have a high positive correlation (.50 or above)1 across all six levels for both groups and for the three categories with both groups. This criterion was quite stringent since each item would have to pass through 36 successive "sieves" to be considered for When the criterion of .50 or above was applied to the item-to—total correlations approximately 25 per cent of the items were below the level desired. When the Criterion was lowered to .A5 for the items selected approxi- mately 20 per cent of the items were below this point and when .AO was used approximately 15 per cent of the corre— lations were below this level. 112 .oHaEMm mpficz u 3.H .oHoEmm xomHm mo .mooH33 one mxoon .ooooo om: :oHooooom Hooos so .m Ho>mq so HnH ponssz one mm Ho>oq co mHH nooEzz m: Ho>oq co mm ambasz mm Ho>oq co sm Honesz mm Ho>oq co mm ponezz «H Ho>oq co H.nonE:c ma H EopH .mamom Heaven ms» pom < xHocoQQ« mom mo>onw maHmHmom poamnEBC who msopfi oneo .oamom on» now < xaosoaa< ommn .mHo>oH .,onom on» mo opoom HapOp map was EouH HQSUH>HUCH onp coozuon ohm mCOHpmHmpuoom .mCHmmHE mam sumo umnp poo com uncumcoo mHmmeonnaom ma oHomHHm> map was» mmumoHocH pH moHnmp wcHonHom can no 3cm po.mHnwp mHnu CH HHoo m CH mammoom AIIV ammo oHnsoo m pm>mso£3 "mpoz [A :m H: om om 3m om o: mH mo om mH om oo om mo mo sm H: 3H om s: om om sm mm mm om om Hm om o: N: mm mm oH Hm em mH ms mm as om m: mo om om om mm om om oo os mo m: os so NH H: oHa mm mm mm Hm so on mm Hon mm Hm mm sm om oo: oo Ho HH Hm mo om 3m Hs om so so mo sm Hm mm mm om om Ho so oo oH oo ms Ho so on mo oH ms mm Hs om os mm mm mm so om mo o ss o: :s ms mo mo m: mm m: H: mm H: om Ho sm om oo o: o oo om ss ms os ms s: m: m: mm m: oH oH oo MH om mH mm s ms mo Hs Hm Hm mm sm am so Hm mm on Ho mm oo oo om oo o nu nu :1 ms no mo so mo 3: mm ss om mo: om oH om oo Hm m mo oo mo om .sH oH o: mm H: mm em H: mm Ho H: on Ho Hm : m: I- N: z: om s: :m N: Hm Ho mo oo mm m: sm o: oo: om m ms H: ms mm os mm oo oo oo os mo so me oo o: om mH mm N om om m: mm m: am om mo so we mm sm so so mo om m: sH H 3 m 3 3 m a 3 m a 3 m 3 3 m 3 o3 om o9 o m .3 m .m H oesooH mHo>oq mamom .osopw mm: :oHpmosom on» you some psopcoo nwoapmH lampodhmno map :0 z3\3mlmm¢ $39 you anOOw dampOQIOpIEGUH ho mGOHpmHmhh00ll.mH mqmde 113 inclusion in the final composite scale. For each of the seven attitude scale areas, four items from each group were selected and then matched with the items selected from the other group. From these items, two items per each of the seven attitude scale areas were selected for the final composite scale which then contained these 1A items across the six levels. Tables 19 through 32 con- tain the results of the item-to-total analyses (see Appendix D). Using the criterion of .50 or above and the average item—to-total correlations (Anastasi, 1968), two items were selected from each of the seven attitude scale areas after each item was examined. The items selected for in— clusion in the final composite scale were: items 3 and 23 on the Characteristics Scale, items 1 and 7 on the Education Scale, items 19 and 27 on the Housing Scale, items 7 and 11 on the Job Scale, items 15 and 27 on the Law and Order Scale, items 11 and 15 on the Political Activism Scale, and items 11 and 19 on the War and Mili- tary Scale. The final composite scale containing these 1A items across the six levels is included in Appendix C.1 Table 16 presents the final items selected and their order of appearance in the final scale as well as the new scale numbers. 1The final composite scale is entitled the Attitude Behavior Scale: BW/WN-G. 11A TABLE l6.--Items for revised ABS: WN/Bw—G.a New Area and Sggfe ori§:?alb G83232130707668zl: l C (3) --can be trusted with money 2 C(23) -—families are closely knit 3 E(1) --intellectual ability A E(7) --desire a higher education 5 H(l9) --help their neighbors 6 H(27) --neighborhoods are safe 7 J(7) --obey job rules and regulations 8 J(ll) --enjoy working with . . . 9 L(15) --resist arrest 10 L(27) --are the victims of "police brutality" 11 P(ll) —-misuse trial-by-jury 12 P(15) -—vote for . . . candidates for public office 13 W(ll) --desire draft deferments 1A W(l9) -—are careful with their weapons aSee Appendix C for revised "G" scale. G = a general overall measure composed of two items from each of the seven attitude scale areas. bSee Appendix A for original scale and item numbers. cCOpyrighted by Hamersma and Jordan. 115 SimplexAnalysis Hypothesis 1 deals with the simplex analysis part of the study. The hypothesis states: There will be a positive relationship (correlational) between the con- ceptual theory (facet design) and the statistical struc- ture (simplex) on all seven attitude content areas. A corollary to this hypothesis specifies this statistical structure by stating: The size of the correlation co- efficient will increase with the increase in the number of contiguous facets in the variables. Guttman defines a simplex (l95A-55) as "sets of scores that have an implicit order from 'least complex' to 'most complex'" (p. A00). Guttman's earlier comments on the simplex were concerned with a simplex produced by an additive model. His latter work (1959) and the results of the present study are concerned with simplexes produced by a non-additive Inodel but retaining the same statistical structure because of the use of facet design and the theory behind the atti- tude item construction paradigm as proposed by Guttman (1959) and adapted by Jordan (1968). Interpretation of the simplexes obtained in the pre- sent study (see Figures 8-51) do not lend themselves to direct tests of significance as has been pointed out in Chapter III. Kaiser (1962) has worked out a method whereby the obtained simplex is submitted to a procedure that arranges the correlations in the best possible 116 simplex order and also computes a value for this which he labels Q2. However, the distribution1 of Q2 has not been obtained so that tests of significance or likelihood probabilities are still lacking. Mukherjee (1966), in a later article, deals with the problem of a likelihood- ratio test for Guttman quasi-simplexes and suggests the use of covariance structures to provide an answer to the problem. No computer programs of the type suggested by Mukherjee are yet available to the author's knowledge. In the present study, the AA obtained simplexes are examined in relation to what a "perfect" simplex structure ‘would be like (see Table A). Guttman (195A, 1959) states that a "perfect" simplex is not to be expected in actual research but that one can hope for close approximations. The simplexes in Figures 8-51 are arranged in a 6 x 6 cor— relation matrix representing the six levels of each scale. In these matrixes, there are 15 entries containing one Complete half of the matrix. According to a simplex model, teach entry in these matrixes has a specified order of Eiscending or descending correlations in relation to the Zlevel it represents, i.e., level 1 should correlate higher vvith level 2 than with level 3 (see Table A). The order C>f each correlation is specified by both row and column, chus there is the possibility of 15 errors in each ‘ lSee Maierle (1969) for an example of how Q2 may IDe used to indicate a simplex approximation. 117 simplex of that each of the entries is "out of place." Errors in Figures 8—51 are indicated by being underlined, i.e., the underlined entries show where the simplex struc— ture has not been maintained. In some cases there are neg- ative correlations in the simplexes. Negative correlations are not desired in the simplex structure and may be inter- preted in several ways. Kaiserl (1962) suggests reflecting the correlations and then treating them as positive. He also suggests they may be treated as missing data. Guttman (1959) indicates that slight errors may be accounted for by sampling errors or fluctuations. Negative correlations in the present study are reflected so that a -.05 for example would be interpreted as .05. There are however some large negative correlations that do appear and these cases will receive a more elaborate treatment in Chapter V. Because there is presently no specific statistical pro- cedure for ascertaining the "goodness" of an obtained simplex the practices used by Guttman and Jordan were followed. In Figures 8-51 the simplex is accepted as "approximated" if there are no more than six reversals. Using the six-reversal criteria, 26 of the AA simplexes were accepted as being approximated. It is instructive to note that less reversals were contained in the larger samples. In most cases the Black samples were smaller and contained a larger number of reversals as can be seen in Figures 8-51. 1Personal communication. .UopoHEo was mchoa HmEHomo new oopoonop our mcoHpmHoLLOQ o>Hpmmoz .UoCHchHmE mom was ondEHw on23 CH omocmomcfl monoflocfl occapmHossoo eocHHLooc: ”wee: Hosnzo om: .om Hmmuzo ass a Hoonzo mm: .om Hobosunooo HsoosnuacHosoz Hmoosn-:oHoeosom o a HH ossta , mH HH otomHa O fo :r {V 0 \0 If". L! m (\I H \0 Ln 118 H. w H 3 m ( (\J \O ”K. F KY. :3 w. ’w 0 r—i I r—I {—0 I KL) C17 a N r—4 (\I (‘1 m N r—I on O I \0 so moi mH 3H s f‘ '0 I .1 no: m f) .4 Lf‘ ,—4 H (3 LI H L:\ C) (J 3‘ : I L) r—1 6 I L. a '[' p L» f! m L.'\ :I’ Lfl H H I (I 0 w F— 3 Cl C I I ‘ r4 —4 C7 I V“ _q ‘ o a () LI~\ *7 .‘ < ) C) I I\ o ( .1 f‘I I I (\ _: Tens? :0 ‘O \L) LF\ 0 O I I r—I N C) H m If {aAeq execs r... by (‘_ ~+ CD :I m Axons. mm: .om HHm u o own .33 Hommuzo om: .oa Honoununowonfiamuousonu tHchnncewnmosvm . opHrEIamOHpmflsmpomngo OH osnmflm m ls:m_u n mgstm f H (2 l L” ‘—\ I . r—‘I 1) LA \ - I I (”*4 \D L{\ :Y' m (\I HH mm .. H.u «H1 s om s. 4. ,- -H a o Hm om om sH lo o _ II II. - ., II . . .II II S x d I . I, I . . «I J: n3 o ,r, I L. a l: (I . I n mod Mn MOI MOI m C H r e I I T. I TL s. .1) .u I .l o I r I I o , u oc w. o o .u -7 - _ v mw so NH 3 a w l I I ., i I fill I1 I Is I .I I .(I3. ... 1 I \ J .I. I a «I v . v N .1 _ l. _. QH m r m A f a u a . rt T. T. _n. )1 ,. . o .1. O N 1 11 J- r s _. lLL9 pmuooason mam wcofipwHoLLoo o>wpdmoz Hssuzo om: .om ooHrsuncoHooosom ma madman o m a m m H NH ca mr AH OOI mm oo HH- oH- us mm: m 2”: mm on Hmsnzo ems .om HooosnusaooHHHm oco oo3 oH ohomHa o m a m e H so- mm- m3- .3: mm- on an MWI 00 r'i \L) U ‘1 ['Y‘; ("\J Amauzv am: .om xomHmIImOHpmHLopowsmgo .oochBCHmE uoc mm: onoEHm coflgs CH moocmowcfi oomoHUCH ma opsmfim w r a m m H mm he HH mm so so as .wm .H fl: I ”I Ho 0»: .SJ Hmpobllfiwfl>fiso¢ Hmo p Ham nH ossmHm ~r‘ P 'PI Hpmwo2 Homuzo om: .om ooHr3ausooto ore 3sH mm otomHa y—4 m z m N \O o I Io (“J n. O I m r—I :f O mm mm Ho- so so am Hm Mm- mm- .o I m\ :1 _J :T (\I U“ r~_ I I I I “A (‘I (.7) I- ,W (“‘ r I C) (V) C 11' I‘d r‘I I (“d Ifx 6:) 0‘ \ I‘D L‘V'l ’ ‘ ug ate 013.91 I ) ,\ {1‘ J -.l L.) 1 a1 tan“ .oocHochmE uo: was xm uEHm goHc: Hrlzv mm: .om xomHmIInow 2m msszm m m a m m H mmI mm on he so Hm ms mxI msI so mmI HrI 3 ._I J.. I I? AMI“ NIINJ ( H Hmmniv mwn .om @P w rs..._eIIwm.IHM «WT—Um Hw mserm p m a m w H as as os mHI RI- sm so on moI ,3 Io- ‘\H. mm Mal Hm .zm "mm<.mme mom mmmmbs H mmocmpmcH .‘r‘: H) ' I-I Zqudemmoo .UmppHEo was mucHoo HmaHooo new mCOHomHmLLOo pocHHpooca oomoHocH Amen m zv om: .om ooHr3IIooo mm oaomHm H \O r-I C) .I o m (‘1 H (\. m AoHu xomHmIIco (Y) I O' m H I F— In 01 rH 0\ O m H 7‘,’\ O I mm: Ln \0 2v m : .om H m 056m om osomHm d C \. 1r I in \O :r l 3 I (N ‘1'.) Ln (\1 C“. 00 N \O I m I r-I I(‘I on O \O :1 O I :7 O 3T (\I {\J \l ”I b~ H . In N» a \O L('\ ”mBOZ [aAsq steps OIEOS Ianeq .poooHEo osm mchoa HmEHooU ocm UmpooHsms mam mcoHoxHoshoo o>Hpmmor .pmcwwchnE Bo: mm: onoan some: cw mmocmuncH moonHocH acoHomHmLLoo pmcHHpopca "meoz I .ms .om Homuzo om: .om pH: rcx Lox opHQEIImmeHHHE ocm pm3 Hn mpsaHm , 0m mpsmHm mm mpsmHm mmuzo oHosooo A HpmHmeommeo xomHmIISme 1221 m w m m H m m 2 m m H m m 3 m m H ms am is mxl lmI w H” OH mmI Hgl .ml 3 HOI mo 0H! mHI NHI m ,\ 3,. «III I ,‘2. . I _\I H II )I \ H I _ I - no u... .c or .1 u d. J; .u .3 .l. r. .I. mm. N0 mo 00 m HI. t n e )) I_IHI I r: .IIJ H I s I l 3 Io TL ( t. I I 9 u. . is . H .7. 0L n0 3 8 ll , n II - A - T - _ u I , I - I I s a . . HH 30 m m a. l H H... I 1 mu m t - _ H . H but .wr ..s ..I. u . . I , x I s . s:.1.. rte .-ts .I. .II.-.r...q s..vw.s.r U.03H...I.Il.s..u:.:so 0cm 3mg or c;7..h us «A: H. mm madem h a . I . . t H a o m a m m H II II II II . ll 11 _ I II _.I . I . H I _I, n . H - 1 . Ha .s as sH He o i ll Id . . IA II II . II HI 3 H c“ n I HII_ .. x. _ pp s 1H :H m N - . E \ ”WI 7. I I T. IIII. TL as r.I .-I r M I I a mo mo Hm : a . T HSII n .I .1... Ho Mg- IM H N: Hm. mm m W m A a I. o c .. I is I I c l _ 71 mm W H H H ¢HHumwmz .UmchchmE no: mm: meQEHm :och CH mmocmuwcH mpmoHUcH mcoHumHmHLoo UmcHHLmUc: Ammuzv uHoppmo Ammuzv pHogpma Hmuoe-IEmH>Hpo< HmoHpHHom HmpoeI-Hmuao new 3mH mm mgsmHm mm mpstm w m a m m H w m z m m H mm m; H: mm HH 0 pm am mm- mm mH o0 mm mm wm Hm- m H“ :5 OH mm- mm- Q a) H .I II p II II b o» a. :H HH T 55 man mm- 8 a m “4 mg H m. HHI cm- A A m HH m m . on H -. Hmzuzv pHoppmo Aamnzv pHoLpag .II a ) . probIImuHmzc: Hmuoe COHImcswm mm mgsmHH mm mH:MHm . u I H u H m m H m m H «A HH mm- mmI HH . mm- mm mm mm mm w mu Md HH- HH- m m mm 0H Hm- m:- H II a I- m OH on- HH- H a mm mm- wHI a HH- mm. H m mm- mm- A A 9 8 I mm m I Nb H Humwmz .nmchchme no: mmz meQEHm :Och CH mmocmezH mponUCH mcoHumHmppoo nmcHHLmUCD ”meoz 1223 HoHIzV pHogpmo HmHIzV pHoHpmo HmHuzv pHoppmo xomeIIwchso: , muHLBIIwchdox xomHmIICOHumouvm m: mpstm m: mgzmHm H: mhswfim m H m m H o m a m m H m m a m m H m: om mo mm- mmI m Mm- Hm om MAI Hm 0 mm- H: mm mm OH 0 E 1 mm- HHII m m Hm- fl- 8 W; m mm E NI 3. m my 9 D I I Du Dy mm wa mHI : fl N: moI Rm 2 N 00 omI wml : M Hm- Hz...- H w 3. mm- H m .mlm- HT m m H A H mm m I 3 m m mm m I H H H Ammuzv pHopumo HHHIzV HHoppmo HHHIzv uHoppma muHcg-IcoHpmosum HumHmIImOHpmempompmgo mpngI-mOHpmHHmpompmcu on mpsmHm . mm mpstm mm mhstm m H m m H I m m H m m H m m H m m H mm- om- mm- mo mm 0 mm OH Hw mm- mm- 0 we mm- om on mm m Hm :3 Ho Ho m m mo HH Hm- mo- m m mm mH om mm m m . m a II 2 m: mm mo- 3 a mm mmI mH- H M mo mm mo 2 M mm- 3- m m. w...- mm- H w. HH 2 m m. I m a pm m m. on m I mm m I H H H ¢BHpmmmz .vmcprchE no: mm: meaEHu QOHEB :H mmocwpmcH mpmoHucH wcoHpmHmLLoo nmcHHLmUCD “meoz HHHqu pHoppmo . HmHuzv HHoppma HOHIzv pHopuoa HomHma-EHH>Hpo< HHOHHHHom mpHna-IEmH>HHoH HmoHHHHog HomHmI-pmopo cam 3mg m: mpsmHm mH mpsmHm w: mastm m H m m H w H m m H m m H. m m H mm mm om Om mm H .Mm on mm mm mm H mm mm mH mH- oHI 0 mm IN mw- wHI m 3 mm HH Nu mm m m HH NI mm- HmI m m o I - C E II II II 9 HH Hm HH H a HH Hm mm H m mH mm- mo- H M II III I T. r1 I n1 mm HH- m a Hm OH H H m0- m0- m m m H 3 mm m T :5 m I am m I H H H HHHIHV pHoppmo HmHumv HHogpma . HHmIzv pHoppmo mHHHHI-ngpo new zmH , HomHH-Inon mpHcHInnom w: mpstm m: mpsmHm H: masmHm m m I m m H H m H m m H m m H m m H H7 mH Hm mm mm m m4 Hm mm HI HH m ww- mm mm- Mm wH o flwI wn- moI HOI m wH 00 HH mm- om- m m cm mm- «m mmI. m % II a II II n w mH HH mm H a H" .H HH H a mH mm HH H 9 III I I I I n... om QHI m m H I mo- m m mm Hm m m m a a mm m I Hm m I Hm m I H H H sz mom mmmeBHpmwmz .vmchuche uoc wmz meQEHm gonz CH mmocwpmcH mpmoHccH mCOHpmHmppoo vmcHHLmucz "meoz HHHIzv HHopHmo HmHIzV pHoppmo HomHmI-HHHHHHHE Ham pm: mpchI-HHHHHHHz.wcm Hm; Hm mHHmHm om mpstm o m H m m H o m H m m H mH- NI- wm- mm HH 0 MH- mH mm mm NH H mm mm- Hm- mm- m m om am 00 mm m w . E II 2 m5 mH mm H M moI om mH H a GI H... 00 HH H m omI mH- m m a a Hm m I mm m I H H 0; LOR I ZED.“ fill . :N @43de 143 .oH oaome wow .momozucoLmd cw oomoaocm wLmossc Eopfi HmchHLo new woamom Lou < xfiocodq< mom .ofimOm =o: CH Oman EopHo o .mEmLoEm: 6cm cmoLon mo poucwHLzooom poo: umzmowoL wQSOLm kuHHMpSLL . uponzmflo: cofipmoSUo \cmHHH>Ho Ammo Hmofipwaoq Ammo mowaoo ossmv mcofipoEOLo Asmv odmm ossmv Loo moEoc Asmv msowwwaoh Asmv w 3HHEmu moasn cofimem mcoowms npcmflL m>HLp pLooqsm mamson Iopcfi \Hsomswo osmflv Hasfio owOQOLQ Amfiv Ucm xcHLo mufififioa AmHV zooo Ammo Hoocon Amfiv zHHEmu omoHo osmmv s mama oLsosa wcHLoHoHom muzme woodwom mcflmzo: .oo weapon oxfia “may momL\opo> osmav wLOCH non Amav Loom Aamv CLoocoo AHHV Hmfiomppoucfi Away 0 Lozpmw0p mucoesomop omsmo an LLm 3L0: wLoezmflo: ocoo 3L0: mEoHooLq pmmLp osflav Log Home Amav unfinoL momco osflav dawn osoav Hoogom Amy \cmpmfia Amav m :oflpmosoo » ooflpzwoLo mLsm wmem: moasL oomL ccm Locwsc ommfiLLme amfiowL Asv Ixolamfisu OAHHV moHHo ooh mono ossv ome ouflso v oLHmmU ossv HmfiomLLoucH AHV : :mofi>pom: oomL moflGSnmLQ mCHmzoc 3L0: wLHmmo Amy new moapfiaco on ooHHoo Asv ofiompcmdop Amv wopiwoLm n ssv 0p oLHmoU Amv wcfixooa Uoow Asv m mLmonoo pcoEumeu xLoz mpcmcmp ocHHQ poom Amy oLm mm oomx Amv mosfioo nmv cu mcfiflafiz Amv poem twowwo Amy mpfioms wcfiuwm Amv N cmoao mLm>mso AHV ucofipmppmcoEwp AHV LoULo a 3mH AHV ooh oLHnoo AHV owsoc .G.H onfiv noumzsp\zocoe oAmV H mLmuwafiz oEmH>Huo< . . n a pmz Hmofiuaaog nxmpLo o 3mg nmoom owcfimsom pcofipmospm nmofipmfipmuompmzo mamwm moL< pcopcoo ooamom 3oz .m .mmoLm mamom oozufippm an 23\3m ”mm¢ Ummfi>mg Low mEmqul.mH mdm¢9 144 scales for the two main groups of the study since these scales were constructed solely to be reduced in length to form one composite scale after analysis of the study data. Reliability estimates were done, however, on the Education 450 group on the Characteristics and Education Scales. Hoyt's procedure was used in obtaining these estimates which were .84 for the Characteristics Scale and .88 for the Education Scale. Results obtained using Hoyt's pro- cedure are identical to those obtained using the Kuder- Richardson formula #20 (Thorndike, 1951) and this pro— cedure generally yields a minimal estimate of reliability (Borg, 1963) as compared to other procedures for esti- mating reliability. Erb (1969) reports the same reliability estimates with these two scales. Care was also exercised in the beginning stages of construction to ensure content and construct validity of the items (see Chapters III and IV) although no numerical estimates (coefficients) were computed. Considerations of validity for items included in the final composite scale were: inter-item correlations, content validity (disjoint struction), and construct validity (see Chapters III and IV). Reliability measures of the items in the final composite scale relied almost entirely on the item-to-total analysis procedures used although emphasis was also put on conjoint struction (simplex analysis in Chapter IV). Indices of reliability and validity gathered via these methods evince that the 145 final composite scale is adequate, in these terms, to be used in further research. Analysis of the simplexes (H—l) obtained from the data constituted another aspect of the study. Although interpretation of a simplex, at present, does not lend itself to direct tests of significance, a method of in— spection has been worked out (Jordan, 1968) that indicates whether or not the simplex pattern has been approximated. In respect to the present study, it was asserted that the overall simplex pattern was maintained (see especially Figures 8, 26, 36, 38, and 48) since 26 of 44 simplexes were approximated, and especially so in the large samples. These results also compare favorably with previous work of Guttman and Jordan (1968). There were nevertheless instances where large nega- tive correlations were present and where the pattern was not clear like Jordan's work. Most of these exceptions occurred on levels 1 and 2 of the scales and with the Black samples. Negative correlations can be reflected (Kaiser, 1962) but exceptions of this magnitude indicate an error in structure is present. Levels 1 and 2 repre- sent situations where the subject is required to report on the attitudes of "others." This type of response might have confused some subjected although the instances in which the simplex pattern was not maintained did not always involve these two levels. 146 Another more plausible explanation to account for the discrepancies is that the N used in generating some of the simplexes was extremely small which allows chance fluctuations to have more of an effect than if larger samples were used. Tables like those produced in the book by Walker and Lev (1953) indicate the increase of the stability of the correlations with a concomitant increase in the sample size. Six substantive hypotheses were also analyzed in the present study. From the analyses of these hypotheses, it was concluded that high scores on both the independent variables of efficacy (H-2) and automation (H-5) are "fair" predictors of favorable attitudes of one race toward the other. Other hypotheses received varying levels of support (see Table 17). The total score of the six levels of content (variable 7) of each of the seven scales served as the dependent variable of the study. Other studies utilizing the Guttman attitude para- digm, have used different levels of a scale as dependent variables (Erb, 1969; Gottlieb, 1969; Harrelson, 1969; and Jordan, 1968). Numerous situations are present in these studies where comparisons are significant on one level and not on another or where several of the levels show significant results but the total score of the levels shows no difference. Tables 35-48 allow com- parisons of this nature to be examined in the present 147 study. From a perusal of these tables, it is apparent that differences are found on separate levels dealing with the hypotheses of the study, but that these differ- ences "wash out" when the total content score of all levels is used. Recommendations In pursuit of this study, several limitations and areas of interest were present which may be recommended as worthy of further investigation. Included in these are: 1. Use of the final composite scale (ABS: BW/WN-G) in assessing attitudes of Blacks toward Whites and Whites toward Blacks. No independent esti- mates of reliability and validity were obtained with the final composite scale of the study because the scale was an end-product of the study. Reliability formulas such as: Kuder- Richardson, Spearman-Brown, and Hoyt are recom- mended. Validity techniques such as: the known group method, and the criterion method are also recommended. 2. The eight-item scales reduced from the original seven attitude content scales are recommended for research for specific purposes, e.g., researchers interested only in the area of racial attitudes in Education would use only 148 the eight-item Education Scale. Like the final composite scale, however, reliability and validity procedures were applied in the writing and selection of items but no study or research has submitted these reduced scales to independent measures of reliability and validity. Separate levels of the six-level scale should be used as dependent variables such as the Stereotype level or the Personal Hypothetical Behavior level. Tables 35-48 suggest other variables included in the 36 x 36 correlation matrixes that are worthy of consideration as independent variables. Different sub-groups and analyses procedures are also recommended for further research. Larger sample size and random sampling methods are recommended for use in the further study. Emphasis in the present study reflected the logic of a methodological study in terms of sample selection and procedures. The final recommendation of the study is that the final composite scale that came out of the study be administered and the simplex obtained from these results be compared with previous research and the results of this study. If 149 available, new methods of simplex evaluation, like the method suggested by Mukherjee (1966), should be used in this evaluation as well as the methods employed here. Larger samples should also be employed so that the pattern obtained from these samples will not be affected by chance fluctuations. REFERENCES REFERENCES Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper, 1950. Allport, G. W., & Kramer, B. M. Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 1946, 22, 9-39. Allport, G. W. The nature of prejudice. New York Doubleday and Co., 1954. 1’? Amos, R. T. The dominant attitudes of Negro teachers toward integration in education. Journal of Edu- cational Psychology, 1955, 46, 470-476. AnastasiéBA. Psychological testing. New York: MacMillan, l9 . Barclay, J. E., & Weaver, H. B. Comparative reliabilities and ease of construction of Thurstone and Likert attitude scales. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 58, 109-120. ’ ‘ I Bastide, R., & van de Berghe, P. Steroetypes, norms and interracial behavior in San Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-694. ' Bogardus, E. S. Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 1925, 9, 299-308. Bogardus, E. S. Immigration and race attitudes. New York: Heath, 1928. * Bogardus, E. S. Changes in racial distances. Inter— ' national Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, 19147, 1’ 55-62. Bogardus, E. S. Racial distance changes in the United States during the past thirty years. Sociology and Social Research, 1958, 48, 127-135. Borg, W. R. Educational research an introduction. New York: David McKay, Inc., 1963. 151 152 Bray, D. W. The prediction of behavior from two attitude scales. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1950, 45, 64-84. Brink, W. J., & Harris, L. The Negro revolution in America. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1964. Brink, W. J., & Harris, L. Black and White: A study of U. S. racial attitudes today. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1967. Brophy, I. N. The luxury of anti—Negro prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1964, 9, 456—466. Campbell, A., & Schuman, H. Racial attitudes in fifteen American cities. Supplemental studies for the national advisory commission on civil disorders. Government Printing Office, June 1968. Campbell, A. Civil rights and the vote for president. Psychology Today, 1968, 9, 26-31. Campbell, D. T. The indirect assessment of social atti- tudes. Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, l5-38. Campbell, E. Q. Scale and intensity analysis in the study of attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, Carlson, E. R. Attitude change through modification of attitude structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 2564261. Carter, C. A., & Mitchell, L. E. Attitudes of Negro pupils toward Whites. Journal of Human Relations, 1955-56. 4. 90-98. Cattell, R. B., Heist, A. B., Heist, P. A., & Stewart, R. G. The objective measurement of dynamic traits. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1950, 10, 224-248. Cattell, R. B. (Ed.) Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. CBS News. White and Negro attitudes toward race related issues and activities. New York: CBS, 1968} Clark, J. Manual of computer programs. Research Ser— vices, Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 1964. 153 Clark, K. E., & Kreidt, P. H. An application of Guttman's new scaling techniques to an attitude questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8, 215—223. Churchman, C. W., Ackoff, R. L., & Wax, M. (Eds.) Measurement of consumer interest. Philadelphia: University ofPennsylvania Press, 1947. Cook, S. V., & Selltiz, C. Some factors which influence the attitudinal outcomes of personal contact. International Social Science Journal, 1955, 7, 51-580 6 Deutsch, M., & Collins, M. E. Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951. Deutscher, I. Words and deeds: Social science and social policy. Social Problems, 1966, 13, 235-254. Digman, J. M. The dimensionality of social attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 433-444. Droba, D. D. Education and Negro attitudes. Sociolqu and Social Research, 1932, 17, 137-141. I Dubin, S. S. Verbal attitude scores predicted from re- sponses in a projective technique. Sociometry, 1940, 3, 24-28. ’ Edwards, A. L. Experimental design in_psychologica1 research. New YOrk: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1950. Edwards, A. L. Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. Edwards, A. L. Statistical methods. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. IEifermann, R. R. (Ed.) Scripta Hierosol mitana: Volume 14 studies in psychology. JErusa em: The Hebrew University Press, 1965. IEngel, G. Some college students“ responses concerning Negroes of differing reli ious background. Journal of Social Psychology, 196 , 74, 275-283. 154 Erb, D. L. Racial attitudes and empathy: A Guttman facet theory examination of their relationship and determinants. Unpublished doctoral disser- tation, Michigan State University, 1969. Fendrich, J. M. Perceived reference group support: Racial attitudes and overt behavior. American Sociological Review, 1967, 32, 960-970. Fishbein, M. (Ed. ) Readings in attitude theory & measure- ment. New York: Wiley, 1967. Fisher, R. A. The design of experiments. New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1966. Foa, U. G. Scale and intensity analysis in opinion research. International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, 1950, 4', 192- 208. Foa, U. G. The foreman-worker interaction: A research design. Sociometry, 1955, 18, 226—244. Foa, U. G. The continuity principle in the structure of interpersonal relations. Human Relations, 1958, Foa, U. G. Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. Psychological Review, 1961, 69, 341-353. Foa, U. G. The structure of interpersonal behavior in the dyad. In J. H. Criswell, H. Solomon, & P. Suppes (Eds. ), Mathematical methods in small group processes. Stanford University Press, 1962. Pp. Foa, U. G. A facet approach to the prediction of com- munalities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220-226. IFord, R. N. Scaling experience by a multiple-response technique: A study of white—Negro contacts. American Sociological Review, 1941, 6, 9-23. (Eoodenough, W. H. A technique for scale analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1944, 4,179-190. (Sordon, S. Exploration of social attitudes through humor. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Illinois, 1947. 155 Gottlieb, K. R. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward mental retardation in Columbia: content, structure and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Greenberg, H. M. The development of an integration scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, 54, 103-109. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and inten- sity analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1947, 7, 247-280. (a) Guttman, L., & Suchman, E. A. Intensity and a zero point for attitude analysis. American Sociological Review, 1947, 12, 57-67. (b) Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measure- ment. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and ‘ prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Pp. 46-59. (a) Guttman, L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Pp. 60-90. (h) Guttman,L ., & Foa, U. G. Social contact and an inter— groufi5 attitude. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1951, 3- Guttman, L. A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954: Pp. 258—348. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1954-55, 18, 395—404. Guttman, L. What lies ahead for factor analysis. Edu- cational and Psychological Measurement, 1958, 18, 4973515. Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions. American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 318—328. Guttman, L. A faceted definition of intelligence. In R. R. Eifermann (Ed.), Scripta Hierosolymitana: Volume 14 studies in psychology. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1965. Pp. 166-181. 156 Guttman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrices. In R. B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multiveriate experi— mental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. pol - o a Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I. M. Development of diagnostic analytical and mechanical ability'testS‘through facet designand analysis. Research Project No. 0E-4421-014. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1966. (b) Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I. M. The analysis of diagnostic effectiveness of a facet design‘battery'of'achievement and‘analytical'ability tests. Research Project No. OEG-5—21-006. The Rsrael Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1967. Hafterson, J. M. Multiple scalogram analysis (MSA) on the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Technical Report 6, February 10, 1964. Harding, J., & Hogrefe, R. Attitudes of white department store employees toward Negro co-workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 18-28. Harrelson, L. E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany: Content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Himelstein, P., & Moore, J. C. Racial attitudes and the action of Negro— and White-background figures as factors in petition-signing. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 267-272. Hinckley, E. D. The influence of individual opinion on construction of an attitude scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 1932, 3, 283-296. Ifinckley, E. D. A follow-up study on the influence of individual opinion on the construction of an atti- tude scale. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 67, 290—292. jHites, R. W., & Kellogg, E. P. The F and social maturity scales in relation to racial attitudes in a deep south sample. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 62, 189—195. 157 Holtzman, W. H. Attitudes of college men toward non- segregation in Texas schools. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20, 559-569. ' Hovland, C. 1., & Sherif, M. Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement: Item displacement in Thurstone scales. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 882-823. Insko, C. A., & Robinson, J. E. Belief similarity versus race as determinants of reactions to Negroes by southern white adolescents: A further test of ’ Rokeach's theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7, 216-221. ‘ Jahoda, M., & Warren, N. Attitudes. Baltimore: Penquin Books, 1966. Jordan, J. E.‘ Attitudes toward education and physically ' disabled persons in eIeven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, Michigan State Uni— versity, 1968. Kaiser, H. F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kamenetzky, J., Burgess, G., & Rowan, T. The relative effectiveness of four attitude assessment techniques in predicting a criterion. Educational and Psycho- logical Measurement, 1956, 16, 187-194. Kelley, H. H., Hovland, C. 1., Schwartz, M., & Abelson, R. P. The influence of judge's attitudes in three methods of attitude scaling. Journal of Social Psychology, 1955, 42, 147-158. Kelly, J. G., Ferson, J. E., & Holtzman, W. H. The measure- ment of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 305-317. Kiel, D. F., & Ruble, W. L. Use of core routine to calcu- late multiple regressions’(least'sqpareSETitS'to arbitrary functions) on the CDC 3600. ABS Program Description 4, M. S. U. Computer Laboratory, September, 1963. Kinnick, B. C., & Plattor, S. D. Attitudinal change toward Negroes and school desegregation among participants in a summer training institute. Journal of Social Psychology, 1967, 73, 271-283. 158 Klineberg, 0. Social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston,'1954. Kogan, N., & Downey, J. F. Scaling norm conflicts in the area of prejudice and discrimination. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 292-295. Konopka, G. Group therapy in overcoming racial and cul— tural tensions. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1947, 17, 693-699. Krans, S. Modifying prejudice: Attitude change as a function of the race of the communication. Audio- visual Communication Review, 1962, 10, 14-22.-lg Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., & Ballachey, E. L. Individual in society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. Lambert, W. W., & Lambert, W. E. Social psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1965. LaPiere, R. T. Attitudes vs. actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230—237. Larson, R. F., Ahrenholz, G. L., & Graziplene, L. R. Integration attitudes of college students at the University of Alabama. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 327—332. Lazarsfeld, P. (Ed.) Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954. Likert, R. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 1932, No. 140, 1-55. Lingoes, J. 0. Multiple scalogram analysis: A set- theoretic model for analyzing dichotomous items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1963, 23, 501-524. ILingoes, J. C. An IBM—7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes multidimensional scalo ram analysis-I. The Uni- versity of Michigan, 1 65. (a) iLingoes, J. C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes smallest space analysis-I. Behavioral Science, 1965, 10, 183-184. (b) Ilingoes, J. C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis-I. Behavioral Science, 1966, 11, 76-78. 159 Loeblowitz—Lennard, H., & Riessman, F., Jr. A preliminary report on social perception test--a new approach to attitude research. Social Forces, 1946, 24, 423-427. Lombardi, D. N. Factors affecting changes in attitudes toward Negroes among high school students. Journal of Negro Education, 1963, 32, 129-136. Lowy, S. Co—operation, tolerance, and prejudice. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul Limited, 1948. Maccoby, N., & Funkhouser, G. R. How do you see the city? Psychology Today, 1968, 2, 47-50. Magnusson, D. Test theory. Palo Alto: Addison-Wesley, 1966. Maierle, J. P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Maliver, B. L. Anti—Negro bias among Negro college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2. 770—775. McKeachie, W. J. Individual conformity to attitudes of classroom groups. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1954, 49, 282-289. Mehling, R. A simple test for measuring intensity of atti- tudes. Publicygpinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 576-578. Merton, R. K. Fact and factitiousness in ethnic opinion- naires. American Social Review, 1940, 5, 13-28, Merton, R. K., West, P. S., & Jahoda, M. Social fictions and social facts: The dynamics of race relations in Hilltown. New York: Columbia University of Applied Social Research, 1949. (Mimeographed.) Morin, K. N. Attitudes of Texas Mexican-Americans toward mental retardation: A Guttman facet analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Mukherjee, B. N. Deviation of likelihood-ratio tests for Guttman quasi-simplex covariance structures. Psychometrika, 1966, 31, 97-123. 160 Murphy, G., & Likert, R. Public opinion and the individual. New York: Harpers, 1987. Mussen, P. H. The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice—Hall, 1963. Osgood, C. E., & Tannenbaum, P. H. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 42-55. Proenza, L., & Strickland, B. R. A study of prejudice in Negro and White college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 67, 273-281. Rsport of the national advisory commission on civil dis- orders. New York: Bantom Books, Inc., 1968. Reynolds, D., & Toch, H. Perceptual correlates of preju- dice: A stereoscopic-constancy experiment. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 66, 127-133. Rosander, A. C. An attitude scale based upon behavior situations. Journal of Social Psychology, 1937, 8’ 3-160 Rose, N. Studies in reduction of prejudice. Chicago: American Council on Race Relations, 1948. Rosenberg, M. J. Cognitive structure and attitudinal effect. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Rosenberg, M. J. A structural theory of attitude dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24, 319-340. Rotter, J. B., & Willerman, B. The incomplete sentence test as a method of studying personalit . Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1947, 11, 43- 8. Ruble, W. L., Kiel, D. F., Rafter, M. E. Calculations of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Statistics Series Description No. 7} Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. Ruble, W. L., & Rafter, M. E. Calculation of basic statistics when missing data is involved‘(the MDSTAT Routine. Statistics Series Description No. 6, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. 161 Saffir, M. A. A comparative study of scales constructed by three psychophysical methods. Psychometrika, 1937, 2, 179-198. Seeleman, V. The influence of attitudes upon remembering pictorial material. Archives of Psychology, 1940, 36, No. 258, 69. Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S. W. Attitude scaling. In M. Jahoda & N. Warren (Eds.), Attitudes. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966. Pp. 395-324. Shaw, M. E., & Wright, J. M. Scales for the measurement of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967. Simpson, G. E., & Yinger, J. M. Racial and culturalA minorities. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. Smith, D. H., & Inkles, A. The OM scale: A comparative socio-psychological measure of individual modernity. Sociometry, 1966, 29, 353-377. Steckler, G. Authoritarian ideology in Negro college stu- dents. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 396-399. Stephenson, C. M. The relation between attitudes toward Negroes of white college students and the college or school in which they are registered. Journal of Social Psychology, 1952, 36, 197-204. Stephenson, W. The study of behavior: Q-technique and its methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. Stouffer, S. A. (Ed.) Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Suchman, E. A., & Guttman, L. A solution to the problem of question bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947, 2, uu5-u55. Suchman, E. A. The scalogram board technique for scale analysis. In S. A. Stouffer (ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950.. Pp. 92-121. (a) Suchman, E. A. The utility of scalogram analysis. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Pp. 122—171. (b) 162 Suchman, E. A. The intensity component in attitude and Opinion research. In S. A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Pp. 213-276. (c) Taylor, D. A. The relationship between authoritarianism and ethnocentrism in Negro college students. Journal of Negro Education, 1962, 31, 455-459. Thorndike, R. L. Reliability. In E. F. Lindquist (Ed.), Educational measurement. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Education, 1951. Pp. 560-620. Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of social attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1931, 26, 249-269. Thurstone, L. L. Motion pictures and attitudes of children. Chicago: University ofCChicago Press, 1932. Tittle, C. R., & Hill, R. J. Attitude measurement and prediction of behavior: An evaluation of conditions and measurement techniques. Sociometry, 1967, 30, 199-213. Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958. Trent, R. D. The relation between expressed self- acceptance and expressed attitudes towards Negroes and whites among Negro children. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1957, 91, 25-31. Triandis, H. C., Levin, L. A., & Loh, W. D. Race, status, quality of spoken English, and opinion about civil rights as determinants of interpersonal attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 468-472. Vidulich, R. N., & Krevanick, R. N. Racial attitudes and emotional responses to visual representations of the Negro. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 68. 85-93. Waisanen, F. B. A notation technique for scalogram analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 1960, 1, 245-252. Walker, H. M., & Lev, J. Statistical inference. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1953. 163 Watson, G. B. The measurement of fair-mindedness. Teachers College Constructive Education No. 176. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University, 1925. Webb, S. C. Scaling of attitudes by the method of equal appearing intervals: A review. Journal of Social Psychology, 1955, 42, 215-239. Weller, L. The relationship of personality and non- personality factors to prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 129-137} Williams, J. E. Connotations of racial concepts and color names. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 531-540. Williams, R. L. Cognitive and affective components of southern Negro students' attitude toward academic integration. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 76, 107-111. Wilner, D. M., Walkley, R. P., & Cook, S. W. Residential proximity and intergroup relations in public housing. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 45-70. Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw—Hill, 1962. Wolf, R. M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (Ed.), International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: Wiley, 1967. Pp. 109-222. Wolff, H. A., Smith, C. E., & Murray, H. A. The psychology of humor; A study of race disparagement jokes. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1934, 28, 341-365. Woodmansee, J. J., & Cook, S. W. Dimensions of verbal racial attitudes: Their identification and measure- ment. Journal of Personality and Psychology, 1967, 7, 240-250. Yarrow, M. R., Campbell, J. D., & Yarrow, L. F. Inter- personal dynamics in racial integration. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Newcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in socialypsychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1958i Pp. 623-636. 164 Yuker, H. E., Block, J. R., & Campbell, D. A. A scale to measure attitudes toward disabledypersons. Human Resources Study No. 5. Alberton, New York: Human Resources Foundation, 1960. Zinnes, J. L. Scaling. In P. H. Mussen & M. R. Rosen- zweig (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: Volume 20. Palo Alto, California: Annual Reviews, Inc., T969. Pp. 447-478. APPENDICES APPENDIX A THE PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE SEVEN ATTITUDE CONTENT SCALES I 11,4411 167 PERSONAL DATA QUESTIONNAIRE ANS-U o S o Attitude Behavior Scale—ABS-WN This part of the questionnaire deals with many things. For the purpose of this study, the answers of all persons are important. Part of the questionnaire has to do with personal infor- mation about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous or confidential, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identi- fied. It is important to the study to obtainyyour answer to every question. Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer byxcircling the answer or marking the space on the IBM answer sheet. 1. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 2. Please indicate your age as follows: Under 20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-over hat is your marital status? Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated O) O mrwmI—Iz \J'l-t'me 112268 168 ABS—WN-ANS—US 4. What is your religion? (See also No. 5) . I prefer not to answer Catholic Protestant Jewish Church of England eligion (continued) Anglican Quaker Buddhist Black Muslim Other U‘I U'l-IZ‘UOMI—‘SU UT-C—‘UJNI—J 6. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? 1. I prefer not to answer I have no religion Not very important Fairly important Very important bout how much education do you have? 6 years of school or less Between 7 and 9 years of school Graduated from high school Some college or university A college or university degree N O Ult’UONI—JID Ul-D‘UUN 8. Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? . I find it very difficult to change I find it slightly difficult to change . 'I find it somewhat easy to change . I find it very easy to change .1:me 9. Some people feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried whenever possible." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 112268 169 ABS—WN—ANS-US 10. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many peOple. What is your feeling about a married couple practicing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or that they are doing right? . It is always wrong It is usually wrong It is probably all right . It is always right Jl'UUlUl-J 11. People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since it eventually creates new jobs and raises the standard of living." 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 12. Some peOple believe that more local government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 13. Some people believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? 1. Strongly disagree 2. Slightly disagree 3. Slightly agree 4. Strongly agree 112268 170 ABS-WN-ANS-US l4. PeOple have different ideas about planning for edu- cation in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? 1. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the church 2. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents 3. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local government 4. Educational planning should be primarily directed by the national government 15. In respect to your religion, about what extent do you observe the rules and regulations of your religion? 1. I prefer not to answer ' 2. I have no religion 3. Sometimes 4. Usually 5. Almost always 16. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. 1. Agree strongly 2. Agree slightly 3. Disagree slightly 4. Disagree strongly 17. The following questions have to do with the kinds of experiences you have had with Negroes. If more than one experience applies, please choose the answer with the highest number. 1. I have read or studied about Negroes through read- ing, movies, lecture, or observation. A friend or relative is a Negro person . I have personally worked with Negroes as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. Close friend or relative is married to a Negro . I am married to a Negro U14: DON 112268 171 ABS-WN—ANS-US 18. Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contact with Negroes, about how much has it been altogether? I. Only a few casual contacts 2. Between one and three months 3. Between three and six months 4. Between six months and one year 5. More than one year of contact 19. When you have been in contact with Negroes, how easy for you, in general would you say it would have been to have avoided being with them? 1. I have had no contact 2. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty 3. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty 4. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts but with some inconvenience 5. I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience. 20. During the contact with Negroes, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? 1. No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain 2. Yes, I have been paid for working with Negroes. 3. Yes, I have received academic credit or other )4 material gain . Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit. 21. If you have been paid for working with Negroes, about what per cent of your income was derived from contact with Negroes during the actual period when working with them? . No work experience Less than 25% . Between 26 and 50% . Between 51 and 75% More than 76% \J'I-ll'UOfUl-J 112268 172 ABS-WN—ANS-US 22. If you have ever worked with Negroes for personal gain (for example, for money of some other gain) what opportunities did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead; that is, some- thing else that was (is) acceptable to you as a job? 1. No such experience No other job available Other jobs available not at all acceptable to me . Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me 5. Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me JEFUON 23. How have you generally felt about your experiences with Negroes? No experience definitely dislike it did not like it very much like it somewhat definitely enjoyed it \J'l-II’UUMH HHHH 24. Which if the following do you think would have the effect of reducing racial prejudice in America? Circle only one or mark only one on the IBM answer sheet. . Integration of schools . Publicity campaigns to promote integration Fair employment legislation Open housing legislation Direct, personal contact between members of various racial groups U‘l-II‘UOMH 25. What is your approximate annual income? . Less than $4,000 . $4,001 to $10,000 . $10,001 to $15,000 . $15,001 to $25,000 More than $25,000 hat political affiliation do you hold? . Republican . Democrat . Independent 1 2 3 4 5 26. W 1 2 3 4. Other 112268 27. How 173 ABS-WN-ANS-US would you rate your own racial attitudes as compared to the average person? 28. mcwMI—II—B mthP—I Very much more prejudiced Somewhat more prejudiced About the same Somewhat less prejudiced Very much less prejudiced 0 which racial group do you belong? Prefer not to answer White Negro Oriental Other Life Situations This section of the booklet deals with how people feel about several aspects of life or life situations. Please indicate how you feel about each situation by circling the answer you choose or marking on the IBM answer sheet. 29. It should be possible to eliminate war once and for all 30. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 31. Success depends to a large part on luck and fate JI'UUMH 32. tWNl—‘m 112268 strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 174 ABS-WN-ANS—US 33. Someday most of the mysteries of the world will be revealed by science SWMl-J 34. zwmt—Im strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 35. By improving industrial and agricultural methods, poverty can be eliminated in the world 4‘:me 36. :wmI—ltfl strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 37. With increased medical knowledge, it should be possible to lengthen the average life span to 100 years or more 4‘:me 38. thl—‘III strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not very sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 39. Someday the deserts will be converted into good farming land by the application of engineering and science 1. 2. 3. 4. 112268 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 40. How SWMH 175 ABS-WN-ANS-US sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 41. Education can only help people develop their natural abilities; it cannot change peOple in any fundamental way 1. 2. 3. 4. 42. How 1. 2. 3. 4. 43. W 1. 2. 3. 4. 44. How 1. 2. 3. 4. strongly agree agree disagree strongly disagree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure ith hard work anyone can succeed. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 45. Almost every present human problem will be solved in the future. 4?me 46. .tuuvkdm 112268 strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree sure do you feel about your answer? not sure at all not very sure fairly sure very sure 176 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE-—WN: C Directions This booklet contains statements of how people feel about certain things. In this booklet you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other Whites believe that Whites compare or interact with Negroes. _After each statement you are also askea to indicate how sure you are of your answer to each statement. Here is a sample statement: SAMPLE I l. Chance of being taller <— > 2. How sure are you of this answer? (:) less chance 1. not sure 2. about the same 2. fairly sure 3. more chance (i) sure If other Whites believe that Negroes have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: lo 1 .-- 2 ==== 3 ==== u ==== 5 ==== You are also asked to indicate how sure you felt about this answer. If, like in question 2 of sample 1, you felt sure of this answer you should circle or black in the number 3 as is shown above. Again if you are using an IBM answer sheet, make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number that corresponds to your answer for that question as follows: 2. l ==== 2 ==== 3 -—- u ==== 5 ==== ***DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET*** —r By: John E. Jordan Richard J. Hamersma College of Education Michigan State University 177 ABS-I-WN-C Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indi- cates how otherhites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites keep themselves clean 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 3. Whites can be trusted with 4. How sure are you of this money answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 5. Whites' eating habits 6. How sure are you of this are answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 7. Whites are good looking 8. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more often than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about as often as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less often than Negroes 3. sure 9. Whites are friendly 10. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more often than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about as often as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less often than Negroes 3. sure 178 ABS—I-WN-C Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: 11. 13. 15. l7. 19. 21. Whites believe in interracial marriage 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites are good team participants 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites listen to each other's problems 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites maintain good marriages 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites approve of inter- racial dating 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites use good conduct in public 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 12. 14. 16. 18. 20. 22. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 179 ABS-I-WN—C Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: 23. 25. 27. Whites families are closely knit 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites are lazy 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. more than Negroes Whites are religious l more than Negroes 2. about the same as 3. less than Negroes Negroes Negroes 24. 26. 28. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Directions: ABS—II-WN-C Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about inter- acting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer 0 180 Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. For Whites to keep them- selves as clean as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to trust Negroes with money 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to have the same eating habits as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be better looking than Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to be friendly with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 30. 32. 34. 36. 38. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? l.~ not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1.. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of this this this this this 181 ABS-II—WN-C Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 39. For Whites to believe in 40. interracial marriage 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 41. For Whites to be team 42. participants with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 43. For Whites to listen to the 44. problems that Negroes have 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 45. For Whites to maintain as 46. good marriages as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 47. For Whites to approve of 48, interracial dating 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 49. For Whites to use good con- 50. duct in public with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 182 ABS—II-WN—C Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 51. For White families to be as 52. How sure are you of this closely knit as Negro ones answer? 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 53. For Whites to be lazy when 54. How sure are you of this with Negroes answer? 1. usually approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually not approved 3. sure 55. For Whites to be as religious 56. as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved How sure are you of this answer? . 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 17 411:! , x. I; III Ila-1'11], 1"; fl j 183 ABS-III-WN-C Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57. To expect Whites to keep them- 58. How sure are you of this selves as clean as Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 59. To expect Whites to trust 60. How sure are you of this Negroes with money is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 61. To expect Whites to have the 62. How sure are you of this same eating habits as answer? Negroes is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure 63. To expect Whites to be 64. How sure are you of this better looking than Negroes answer? is 1. usually right 1.- not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually wrong 3. sure 65. (To expect Whites to be 66. How sure are you of this friendly with Negroes is answer? 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure ABS-III-WN—C In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 67. 69. 71. 73. 75. 77. To expect Whites to believe in interracial marriage is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to be team participants with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to listen to the problems that Negroes have is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to maintain as good marriages as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided . usually right To expect Whites to approve} of interracial dating is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to use good conduct in public with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 184 68. 70. 72. 714. 76. 78. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 185 ABS—III—WN-C In respect to Negroes do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 79. To expect White families 80. to be as closely knit as Negroes families is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 81. To expect Whites to be 82. lazy when with Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 83. To expect Whites to be as 84. religious as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Directions: ABS-IV—WN—C Section IV 186 In this section you are asked how you_personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. your answer. In respect to a Negro person wou1d_you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. Would you keep yourself as clean as you think Negroes keep themselves? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you trust Negroes with money? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you eat with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you consider yourself better looking than Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you be friendly with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 86. 88. 90. 92. 94. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure Indicate how sure you feel about of this of this of this of this of this 187 ABS—IV—WN-C In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 95. 97. 99. 101. 103. 105. Would you marry a Negro person? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you participate as a team member with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you listen to pro- blems that Negroes have? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you maintain as good a marriage as most Negroes have? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you approve of inter- racial dating? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you be polite to Negroes in public? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 96. 98. 100. 102. 104. 106. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? l.- not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of of of of of of this this this this this this 188 ABS—IV—WN-C In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 107. Would you want your family 108. How sure are you of this to be as closely knit as answer? you think Negro families are? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. yes 109. Would you be lazy when 110. How sure are you of this with Negroes? answer? 1. yes 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. no 3. sure 111. Would you worship in the 112. How sure are you of this same churches as Negroes? answer? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure Directions: 189 ABS-V-WN-C Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117 0 119. 121. When Negroes keep them— selves as clean as Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes trust Whites with money I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes have the same eating habits as Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes are better looking than Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are friendly with Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 114, 116. 118. 120. 122. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure ABS-V—WN-C How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 123. 125. 127. 129. 131. 133. When Negroes believe in inter- 124. racial marriage I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes participate as team members with Whites I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes listen to the problems that Whites have I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes maintain as good marriages as Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes approve of interracial dating I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy ‘When Negroes are polite to Whites in public I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 126. 128. 130. 132. 134. How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? l.« not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure of this of this of this of this of this of this 191 ABS-V—WN—C How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 135. 137. 139. When White families are as closely knit as I think Negro families are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are lazy when with Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes attend the same churches as Whites I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy 136. 138. 140. How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure How sure are you of this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure 192 ABS-VI—WN-C Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. From my experiences I see that I keep myself as clean as Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 143. I have trusted Negroes with money no experience no uncertain yes .ll'UOMH 145. I have eaten with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 147. I consider myself better looking than Negroes no experience yes uncertain no tWMi—J 142. 144. 146. 148. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant O O O O thUF—J Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 193 ABS-VI-WN-C 149. 151. 153 O 155. 157. I have been friendly with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negroes who believe in interracial marriage 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have participated as a team member with Negroes no experience no uncertain yes .1:me I have listened to the problems of Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Whites maintain as good a marriage as Negroes do 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 150. 152. 154. 156. 158. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? no experience unpleasant uncertain pleasant .1:me Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? . no experience . unpleasant . uncertain . pleasant Experiences or contacts with Negroes: ABS-VI-WN—C 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. I have dated a Negro person 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been polite to Negroes in public 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that White families are as closely knit as Negro ones 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes are lazy when with Whites . no experience . yes . uncertain . no I have gone to church with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 160. 162. 164. 166. 168. Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant Have your experiences been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 4. pleasant 195 ABS—I—WN-E Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites'intellectual ability 2. How sure are you of is this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 3. In school Whites are disciplined foils” = 1. less 2. same 3. more 5, In school Whites desire to work 1. more 2. same 3. less 7. Whites desire a higher education 1. more 2. same 3. less 9. Whites desire to get their school work done 1. more 2. same 3. less 11. Whites' concern for their educational future is 1. more 2. same 3. less 13. White students disrupt the class 1. less 2. same 3. more 15. Whites believe in public school integration 1. more 2. same 3. less 17. White students respect teachers 1. more 2. same 3. less *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 196 Whites desire to be school board members 1. more 2. same 3. less Whites desire to attend good schools 1. more 2. same 3. less Whites deserve government aid for their schooling 1. more 2. same 3. less White teachers expect White students' homework to be 1. better 2. same 3. worse The homes that White students come from favor education 1. more 2. same 3. less Directions: 197 ABS—II-WN-E Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 41. 43. 45. For Whites' intellectual 30. How sure are you of ability to be the same this answer? as Negroes 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure For Whites to be treated and disciplined the same as Negroes foils* 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to desire to work with Negroes in school 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to desire a higher education with Negroes 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to do their school work with Negroes 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to share their concern for their edu— cational future with Negroes 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to disrupt the class with Negroes present 1. usually 2. undecided 3. usually not For Whites to believe in public school integration 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For White students to respect Negro teachers 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. I47. 49. 51. 53. 55. 198 For Whites to be school board members with Negroes 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to have the opportunities to attend good schools with Negroes 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For Whites to deserve government aid for their schooling as much as Negroes do 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually For White teachers to expect White students' home- work to be better than Negro students 1. usually 2. undecided 3. usually not For the homes of White students to favor education as much as Negro homes do 1. usually not 2. undecided 3. usually 199 ABS—III-WN-E Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark 66w sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do ypu yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57. 59. 61. 63. 65. 67. 69. To expect Whites' intel- 58. How sure are you lectual ability to be the of this answer? same as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure To expect Whites' intellectual ability to be the same as Negroes is foi1s* = 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to work the same as Negroes in school is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To eXpect Whites to desire a higher education as much as Negroes do is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to do their school work with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to share their concern for their educational future with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to disrupt the class with Negroes present is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. 200 To expect Whites to believe in public school inte- gration is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually To expect Whites to respect Negro teachers 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right is right To expect Whites to want to be school board members with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually To expect Whites to have the opportunities good schools with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually To expect Whites to deserve government aid schooling as much as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually To expect that White teachers expect White right to attend right for their right students' homework to be better than Negro students is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect that the homes of White students education as much as Negro homes is favor 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 201 ABS-IV—WN—E Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. Would you want the same 86. How sure are you of intellectual ability as this answer? Negroes? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure Would you want to be treated the way Negroes are treated in school? foils* = 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you desire to work in school with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to have the same desire Negroes do for a higher education? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to do your schoolwork as well as Negroes do theirs? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you discuss your concern for your educational future with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you disrupt the class if Negroes were in the room? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want public school integration? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 101. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. 202 Would you respect Negro teachers? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to serve on the same school board as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want the same opportunities that Negroes have to attend good schools? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to receive as much government aid for their schooling as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes If you were a teacher would you want White students' homework to be better than Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want the homes that White students come from to favor education as much as Negroes' homes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 203 ABS-V-WN-E Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White peOple may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. 127. When Whites' intellectual 114. How sure are you ability is the same as of this answer? Negroes I feel: 1. discontent 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. content 3. sure When I am treated and disciplined the same as Negroes in school, I feel: foils* = 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites work as hard as Negroes do in school I feel: 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Whites do their school work with Negroes I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites desire a higher education as much as Negroes do I feel: 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When I have the same concern for my educational future as Negroes have for theirs I feel: 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When White students disrupt the class with Negro students present I feel: 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Whites believe in public school integration I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good * *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 204 When White students respect Negro teachers I feel: 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Whites are school board members with Negroes I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites have the opportunities to attend good schools with Negroes I feel: 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good I feel that Whites deserve academie scholarships more than Negroes: 1. yes 2. don't know 3. no When White teachers want White students' homework to be better than Negro students I feel: 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When the homes that White students come from are homes that favor education as much as Negro homes I feel: 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content 205 ABS-VI—WN—E ‘Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. 143. 145. 147. 149. 151. 153. My intellectual ability 142. Have your experiences is equal to the Negroes been mostly pleasant I know or unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant I have been treated as well as Negroes in school foils* = 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have worked as hard as Negroes I have known in school 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have wanted a higher education as much as the Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes In school I did my homework as well as Negroes did theirs 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that my concern for my educational future is the same as Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have disrupted the class when Negroes were present 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 155. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 206 I believe in public school integration 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have respected Negro teachers 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been a school board member with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have had the opportunities to attend good schools with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes From my experiences Whites deserve government aid for their schooling as much as Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known White teachers who expect White stu- dents' homework to be better than Negro students 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that the homes that White students come from favor education as much as Negro homes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 207 ABS—I-WN-H Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites keep their houses 2. How sure are you clean of this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 3. Whites are good tenants foils* = l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 5. Whites pay for their housing 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than 7. Whites believe in segregated housing 1. less often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. more often 9. Whites maintain their houses 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes ll. Whites believe that the crime rate goes up when Negroes move into a White neighborhood 1. agree 2. stays about the same 3. disagree l3. Whites believe that hotels should be integrated 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 15. 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 208 Whites are noisy neighbors 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Whites are eager to meet Negro neighbors 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites help their neighbors 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Whites support "fair housing laws" 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites obey community housing rules 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites believe in being absentee landlords 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than White neighborhoods are safe 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often 209 ABS—II-WN-H Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. For Whites to clean their 30. How sure are you houses the way Negroes do of this answer? 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 31. For Whites to live next to Negro tenants foi1s* = 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 33. For Whites to pay the same as Negroes for their housing 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 35. For Whites to believe in segregated housing 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 37. For Whites to maintain their homes like Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3, usually approved 39. For Whites to believe that the crime rate goes up when Negroes move into a White neighborhood 1. usually 2. undecided 3. usually not 41. For Whites to believe that hotels should be integrated 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 43. For Whites to interact with noisy Negro neighbors 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 55. For Whites 1. usually approved For Whites 1. usually approved For Whites 1. usually approved For Whites Negroes 1. usually approved For Whites live 1. usually approved For Whites 210 to be eager to meet Negro neighbors not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to help Negro neighbors not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to support "fair housing laws" not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to obey community housing rules with not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to be absentee landlords where Negroes approved 2. undecided 3. usually not to believe that Negro neighborhoods are safe for them 1. usually approved not approved 2. undecided 3. usually Directions: 211 ABS—III-WN-H Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57. 59. 61. 63. 65. 67. 69. To expect Whites their houses the Negroes do is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites foils* = 1. usually wrong To expect Whites their housing is 1. usually wrong To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites is 1. usually wrong To expect Whites to clean 58. How sure are you of way this answer? 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure to live next to Negro tenants is 2. undecided 3. usually right to pay the same as Negroes for 2. undecided 3. usually right to believe in segregated housing is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to maintain their houses like Negroes 2. undecided 3. usually right to believe that the crime rate goes up when Negroes move into a White neighborhood is 1. usually right To expect Whites integrated is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to believe that hotels should be 2. undecided 3. usually right *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. To expect Whites neighbors is 1. To is 1. To 1. To 1. To usually wrong expect Whites usually wrong expect Whites usually wrong eXpect Whites usually wrong expect Whites with Negroes is 1. To usually wrong expect Whites Negroes live is 1. usually right 212 to interact with noisy Negro 2. undecided 3. usually right to be eager to meet Negro neighbors 2. undecided 3. usually right to help Negro neighbors is 2. undecided 3. usually right to support "fair housing laws" is 2. undecided 3. usually right to obey community housing rules 2. undecided 3. usually right to be absentee landlords where 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to believe that Negro neighborhoods are safe for them is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 213 ABS—IV—WN-H Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. 101. Would you keep your house 86. How sure are you of as clean as you think this answer? Negroes keep theirs? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure Would you live next to a Negro tenant? foils* = 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you pay as much as Negroes for housing? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want segregated housing? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you maintain your house like Nogroes maintain theirs: 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you believe that the crime rate goes up when Negroes move into a White neighborhood? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want hotels to be integrated? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you interact with noisy Negro neighbors? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you be eager to meet Negro neighbors? I. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. Would 1. no Would 1. no Would 214 you help Negro neighbors? 2. undecided 3. yes you support "fair housing laws"? 2. undecided 3. yes you obey community housing rules if Negroes were in your community? 1. no Would 1. yes Would 2. undecided 3, yes you be an absentee landlord where Negroes live? 2. undecided 3. no you want White neighborhoods to be as safe as you believe Negro ones are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 215 ABS-V-WN—H Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate ESE. you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. 127. When Negroes clean their 114. How sure are you houses the way Whites do of this answer? I feel 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure When Whites and Negroes are tenants together I feel foils* = 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes pay the same for housing as Whites do I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes believe in segregated housing I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes maintain their houses like Whites do I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied I feel that the crime rate goes up when Negroes move into a White neighborhood 1. agree 2. indifferent 3. disagree When Negroes believe that hotels should be inte- grated I feel 1. sad 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes are noisier neighbors than Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 216 When Negroes are eager to meet White neighbors I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes help White neighbors I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes support "fair housing laws" I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes obey community housing rules when Whites are in the community I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are absentee landlords where Whites live I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Whites are safe in Negro neighborhoods I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 217 ABS—VI-WN-H Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes. 141. 143. 145. 147. 149. 151. 153. 155. I have seen clean Negro 142. Have your experiences houses been mostly pleasant or unpleasant? 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant I have lived next to Negro tenants foils* = 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes pay the same for their housing as Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes prefer segregated housing 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no From my experience, Whites maintain their houses like Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen the crime rate go up when Negroes come into a White neighborhood to live 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have known Negroes who believe hotels should be integrated 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have had noisy Negro neighbors 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 218 I have seen Negroes who are eager to meet White neighbors 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been helped by a Negro neighbor 1. no experience 2. no I have known Negroes who housing laws" 1. no experience 2. no I have seen that Negroes rules when Whites are in 1. no experience 2. no I have known Negroes who where Whites live 1. no experience 2. yes I have felt safe when in 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes have supported "fair 3. uncertain 4. yes obey community housing the community 3. uncertain 4. yes are absentee landlords 3. uncertain 4. no Negro neighborhoods 3. uncertain 4. yes 219 ABS-I-WN-J Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually peOple are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites desire a job 2. How sure are you of this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure 3. Whites are willing to work foils“ = l. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes 5. Whites do steady and dependable work 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often 7. Whites obey job rules and regulations 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 9. Whites believe that all jobs should be integrated l. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes ll. Whites enjoy working with Negroes 1. less than Negroes do 2. about the same 3. more than 13. Whites' ability to do many jobs is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 15. 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 220 Whites believe that employers are their enemies 1. less often 2. about as often 3. more often Whites work hard 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often Whites' ability to support a family is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites hold supervisory positions 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often Whites are on time for their jobs 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often Whites treat their fellow workers fairly l. more often than Negroes do 2. about as often 3. less often Whites get promotions l. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often 221 ABS-II—WN-J ‘Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. For Whites to desire to 30. How sure are you of work with Negroes this answer? 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure 31. For Whites to be willing to work with Negroes foils* = 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 33. For Whites to do steady and dependable work with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 35. For Whites to obey job rules and regulations with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 37. For Whites to believe that all jobs should be inte- grated 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 39. For Whites to enjoy working with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 41. For Whites to believe their ability to do many jobs is less than Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 55. 222 For Whites as much as Negroes to believe that employers are their enemies 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to work hard with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites' ability to support a family to be equal to Negroes' ability 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to hold supervisory positions with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be on time for their jobs more than Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to treat their fellow Negro workers fairly 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to get promotions with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved Directions: 223 ABS-III—WN-J Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think ypu ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe is usually right or usually wrong: that it 57. To to 1. 2. 3. 59. To is l. 61. To expect Whites to desire 58. How sure are you of work with Negroes is this answer? usually wrong undecided usually right expect Whites foils* = usually wrong expect Whites with Negroes is l. 63. To usually wrong expect Whites with Negroes is l. 65. To usually wrong expect Whites integrated is l. 67. To 1. 69. To to 1. 71. To usually wrong expect Whites usually wrong expect Whites 1. not sure 2. fairly sure 3. sure to be willing to work with Negroes 2. undecided 3. usually right to do steady and dependable work 2. undecided 3. usually right to obey job rules and regulations 2. undecided 3. usually right to believe that all jobs should be 2. undecided 3. usually right to enjoy working with Negroes is 2. undecided 3. usually right to have less ability than Negroes do many jobs is usually wrong expect Whites 2. undecided 3. usually right as much as Negroes to believe that employers are their enemies is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. 224 To expect Whites to work hard with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect that Whites' ability to support a family is equal to Negroes‘ ability is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to hold supervisory positions with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to be on time for their jobs more than Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to treat their fellow Negro worker fairly is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to get promotions with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 225 ABS-IV-WN—J Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how ypuxpersonally_would act toward Negroes in certain situatibns. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person wouldyyouyyourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. 101. Would you desire a job 86. How sure are you of with Negroes? this answer? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure Would you be willing to work with Negroes? foils* = 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you do steady and dependable work with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you obey job rules and regulations with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want all jobs to be integrated? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you enjoy working with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to have more ability than Negroes to do many jobs? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you prefer that Negroes see employers as their enemies as much as you do? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you work hard with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. 226 Would you want to have the ability that Negroes do to support a family? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to supervise Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to be on time for their jobs more than Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you treat fellow Negro workers as you treat White ones? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to be able to get promotions as often as Negroes do? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 227 ABS-V—WN-J Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do ypu actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. 127. When-Negroes desire to 114. How sure are you of work with Whites I feel this answer? 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure When Negroes are willing to work with Whites I feel foils* = 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes do steady and dependable work with Whites I feel . l. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes obey job rules and regulations with Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes believe that all jobs should be inte— grated I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes enjoy working with Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes' ability to do many jobs is less than Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes believe that employers are their enemies as much as they are of Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 228 When Negroes work hard on the job with Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes' ability to support a family is equal to Whites' ability I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes supervise Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are on time for their jobs more than Whites are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes treat their fellow White worker as they treat Negroes I feel 1. sad 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes get promotions as often as Whites do I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied 229 ABS—VI—WN-J Directions: Section VI This section concerns actuallexperiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. 143. 145. 147. 149.» 151. 153. 155. I have desired to work 142. Have your experiences with Negroes on the job been mostly pleasant I. no experience or unpleasant? 2. no 1. no experience 3. uncertain 2. unpleasant 4. yes 3. uncertain 4. pleasant I have been willing to work with Negroes foils* = 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have done steady and dependable work with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes obey job rules and regu- lations when working with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negroes who believe that all jobs should be integrated 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have enjoyed working with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Whites' ability to do many jobs is equal to that of Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes From my experiences Negroes believe that employers are their enemies as much as they are of Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 230 I have worked hard with Negroes on the job 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes' ability to support a family is equal to that of Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have held a supervisory position over Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I am on time for my job more than Negroes are for theirs 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have treated my fellow Negro workers as fairly as my fellow White 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been promoted as much as Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 231 ABS—I—WN—L Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. "Other‘Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: 1. 11. 13. Whites believe in law , 2. How sure are you of and order this answer? 1. more than Negroes 1. not sure 2. about the same as Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. less than Negroes 3. sure Whites believe that Negro policemen treat them foils* = l. fairer than they treat Negroes 2. about the same 3. less fair When Whites get into trouble with the law they receive 1. easier sentences 2. about the same 3. worse sen- tences White policemen are prejudiced 1. less than Negro policemen 2. about the same 3. more Whites break the law 1. less often than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more often Whites believe that the police are their enemies 1. less often 2. about as often 3. more often Whites believe that laws are made to protect l. Whites more than Negroes 2. both equally 3. Negroes more *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 15. l7. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 232 Whites resist arrest 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes When Whites get into trouble they have 1. better lawyers than Negroes 2. the same 3. poorer lawyers Whites ignore the rights of others 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Whites respect property rights 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites drink when driving 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Whites carry guns 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Whites are the victims of "police brutality" 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Directions: 233 ABS-II-WN—L Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about‘interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 41. 43. 45. For Whites to believe in 30. How sure are you of law and order with Negroes this answer? 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure For Whites to believe that Negro policemen treat them less fairly than they treat Negroes foils* = 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to believe they receive worse sentences than Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to believe that Negro policemen are prejudiced 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to break the law when with Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to believe that police are their enemies more than they are of Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to believe that laws are made to protect them as much as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to resist arrest from Negro officials 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to have better lawyers than Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 47. 49. 51. 53. 55. For Whites 1. usually For Whites 1. usually For Whites l. usUally For Whites 1. usually For Whites Negroes 1. usually 234 to ignore the rights of Negroes approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved to respect property rights of Negroes not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved to drink when driving with Negroes approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved to carry guns when with Negroes approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved to be the victims of "police brutality" from approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 235 ABS—III-WN-L Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think yeu ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 57. 59. 61. 63. 65. 67. 69. To expect Whites to 58. How sure are you of believe in law and this answer? order with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually right 3. sure To expect Whites to believe that Negro policemen treat them less fairly than they treat Negroes is foils* 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to believe they receive worse sen- tences than Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to believe that Negro policemen are prejudiced is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to break the law when with Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to believe that police are their enemies more than they are of Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to believe that laws are made to pro- tect them as much as Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites Negroes is 1. usually wrong To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites 1. usually right To expect Whites 236 to resist arrest from Negro officials is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to have better lawyers than Negroes is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to ignore the rights of Negroes is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to respect property rights of 2. undecided 3. usually right to drink when driving with Negroes is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to carry guns when with Negroes is 2. undecided 3. usually wrong to be the victims of "police brutality" from Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 237 ABS—IV—WN—L Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. Would you respect law 86. How sure are you and order if maintained of this answer? by Negroes? 1. no 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. yes 3. sure Would you want Negro policemen to treat you the same as they treat Negroes? foils* = 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Negroes to sentence you if you got into trouble? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you feel as safe with a Negro policeman as a White policeman? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you break the law as often as you think Negroes do? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes - Would you believe that the police were your enemies if they were Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you believe that laws were meant to protect you if they were made by Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 99. 101. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. 238 Would you resist arrest if arrested by Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you use a Negro lawyer? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you ignore the rights of Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you respect the property rights of Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you drink when driving with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you carry a gun when with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you expect "police brutality" from Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no 239 ABS-V—WN-L Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. 127. When Negroes believe in 114. How sure are you of law and order with Whites this answer? I feel 1. bad 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. good 3. sure When Negro policemen treat Whites differently than they treat Negroes I feel foils* = 1. satisfied 2. indifferent 3. dissatisfied When Negroes receive easier sentences than Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Whites believe that Negro policemen are pre- judiced I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes break the law less than Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes believe that the police are their enemies less than they are of Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes believe that laws are made to protect them as much as Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes resist arrest less than Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 240 When Negroes have poorer lawyers than Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When the rights of Negroes are ignored by Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes respect property rights with Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes drink when driving with Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes carry a gun when with Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes use "police brutality" with Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry 241 ABS—VI-WN-L Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. 143. 145. 147. 149. 151. 153. I have obeyed laws that 142. Have your experiences were maintained by Negroes: been mostly pleasant 1. no experience or unpleasant? 2. no 1. no experience 3. uncertain 2. unpleasant 4. yes 3. uncertain 4. pleasant I have received unfair treatment from Negro policemen foils* = 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have received harder sentences for the same thing that Negroes did 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Negro policemen are prejudiced 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Whites break the law more than Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes From my experiences I believe that police are my enemies more than they are of Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen the laws protect me the same as they protect Negroes 1. no experience 2. 3. uncertain 4. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 155. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 242 I have resisted arrest by Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have had better lawyers than Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Whites ignore the rights of Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have respect for the property rights of Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been drunk while driving with Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have carried a gun when with Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have been the victim of "police brutality" from Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 243 ABS—I—WN-P Directions: Section I In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites participate in 2. How sure are you of social protest demon- this answer? strations 1. not sure 1. more than Negroes 2. fairly sure 2. about the same as Negroes 3. sure 3. less than Negroes 3. Whites try to keep things as they are foils* = 1. less often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. more often 5. Whites abide by integration laws 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes 7. Whites exercise their voting rights 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often 9. Whites have faith in politics for solving race issues 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes 11. Whites misuse trial-by-jury 1. less often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. more often *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. l3. l5. 17. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 244 Whites will go to jail for a "cause" 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often Whites vote for Negro candidates for public office 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites vote for "fair housing laws" 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often White public officials propose Civil Rights laws 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites believe in equal public transportation 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites form separate political groups to gain equal rights 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites believe in laws against interracial marriage 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Whites have equal respect for White or Negro political candidates 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often 245 ABS-II-WN—P Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. For whites to participate 30. How sure are you in social protest demon— of this answer? strations with Negroes 1. not sure 1. usually not approved 2. fairly sure 2. undecided 3. sure 3. usually approved 31. For Whites to cooperate with Negroes to keep things as they are foils* = 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved 33. For Whites and Negroes to abide equally by integration laws 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 35. For Whites to exercise their voting rights with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 37. For Whites to have as much faith as Negroes that politics can solve race issues 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 39. For Whites to misuse trial-by-jury when they deal with Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 41. 43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 55. For Whites 1. usually approved For Whites for public 1. usually approved For Whites laws" 1. usually approved 246 to go to jail for a "cause" with Negroes not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to vote with Negroes for Negro candidates office not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to vote with Negroes for "fair housing not approved 2. undecided 3. usually For White public officials to propose Civil Rights laws for Whites and Negroes 1. usually approved For Whites not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to share the same public transportation with Negroes 1. usually approved For Whites gain equal 1. usually approved For Whites marriage 1. usually approved For Whites not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to form political groups with Negroes to rights not approved 2. undecided 3. usually to believe in laws against interracial approved 2. undecided 3. usually not to have equal respect for White and Negro political candidates 1. usually approved not approved 2. undecided 3. usually 247 ABS—III—WN—P Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to set when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that 57. 59. 61. 63. 65. 67. 69. it is usually right or usually wrong: To expect Whites to participate 58. How sure are you in social protest demon- of this answer? strations with Negroes is 1. not sure 1. usually wrong 2. fairly sure 2. undecided 3. sure 3. usually right To expect Whites to try to keep things as they are in relation to Negroes is foils* = 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to abide by integration laws with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to exercise their voting rights with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to believe with Negroes that politics can solve race issues is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to misuse trial-by-jury when they deal with Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites will go to jail with Negroes for a "cause" is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 71. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. 248 To expect Whites to vote with Negroes for Negro candidates for public office is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to vote with Negroes for "fair housing laws" is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect White public officials to prOpose Civil Rights laws for Whites and Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to share the same public trans- portation with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to form political groups with Negroes to gain equal rights is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to believe in laws against inter- racial marriage is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to have equal respect for White and Negro political candidates is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 249 ABS-IV-WN-P Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how youypersonally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. 101. Would you participate in 86. How sure are you social protest demon- of this answer? strations with Negroes: 1. not sure 1. no 2. fairly sure 2. undecided 3. sure 3. yes Would you work with Negroes to keep things as they are? foils* = 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you abide by integration laws with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you work with Negroes to encourage people to exercise their voting rights? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes If politics were dominated by Negroes would you have faith in their ability to solve race issues? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you misuse trial-by-jury when dealing with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you go to jail with Negroes for a "cause"? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you vote for a Negro candidate for public office? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you vote for "fair housing laws" that favored Negroes as well as Whites? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. 250 If you were a public official would you propose Civil Rights laws that favored Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you support equal public transportation for all? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you participate with Negro political groups to gain equal rights? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you favor laws against interracial marriage? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you respect Negro political candidates as much as White ones? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 251 ABS—V—WN-P Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White peOple may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. When Negroes participate 114. How sure are you in social protest demon— of this answer? strations with Whites I 1. not sure feel 2. fairly sure 1. bad 3. sure 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes try to keep things as they are I feel foils* = 1. content 2. indifferent 3. discontent When Negroes abide by integration laws I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes exercise their voting rights and encourage Whites to vote I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes have more faith in politics for solving issues than Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes misuse trial-by—jury in relation to Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Negroes will go to jail for a cause that in— volves Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 127. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 252 When Negroes vote for White candidates for public office I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes vote for "fair housing laws" I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negro public officials propose Civil Rights laws I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes are for equal public transportation for all I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes join Whites in forming political groups to gain equal rights I feel 1. angry 2. indifferent 3. happy When Negroes are against interracial marriage I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes respect White political candidates I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 253 ABSvVI—WN—P Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. I have participated in 142. Have your eXperiences social protest demon- been mostly pleasant strations with Negroes or unpleasant? 1. no eXperience 1. no experience 2. no 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. yes 4. pleasant 143. I have known Negroes who try to keep things as they are foils* = 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 145. I have seen Negroes abide by integration laws 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 147. I have seen that Negroes exercise their voting rights more than Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 149. I have known Negroes who have faith in politics for solving race issues 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 151. I have seen Negroes misuse trial-by-jury with Whites 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 153. I have seen Negroes go to jail for a "cause" that involves Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 155. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 254 I have seen that Negroes vote for White candidates for public office 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negroes who voted for "fair housing laws" 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negro public officials who have pro- posed Civil Rights laws 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negroes who believe in equal public transportation 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen Negroes join Whites in forming political groups to gain equal rights 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have known Negroes who believe in laws against interracial marriage 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Negroes respect White or Negro political candidates 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 255 ABS—I—WN—W Directions: Section I In the following statements circle or black in the number that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes and then state how sure you feel about your answer. Usually people are sure of their answers to some questions and not sure about others. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites are brave soldiers 2. How sure are you 1. more often than Negroes of this answer? 2. about as often as Negroes 1. not sure 3. less often than Negroes 2. fairly sure 3. sure 3. Whites are good army officers foils* = l. more often than Negroes 2. about as often 3. less often 5. Whites desire to be drafted l. more often 2. about as often 3. less 7. White officers have racial prejudices 1. less than Negroes do 2. about as often 3. more than 9. Whites favor war 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes ll. Whites desire draft deferments l. more often 2. about as often 3. less 13. Whites like to be soldiers l. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes 15. White officers treat Negroes fairly l. more often 2. about as often 3. less *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. often often often l7. 19. 21. 23. 25. 27. 256 Whites volunteer for front line duty 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites are careful with their weapons 1. more often 2. about as often 3. less often Whites follow orders 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same 3. less than Negroes Whites readjust to civilian life well 1. more often 2. about the same 3. less often Whites like killing 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes Whites are cowards 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same 3. more than Negroes 257 ABS—II—WN—W Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Then indicate how sure you feel about your answer. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 29. 31. 33. 35. 37. 39. 41. For Whites to be brave 30. How sure are you of soldiers with Negroes this answer? 1. usually not approved 1. not sure 2. undecided 2. fairly sure 3. usually approved 3. sure For Whites to make good army officers with Negroes foils* = 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be drafted with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For White officers to have racial prejudices 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to favor war as much as Negroes do 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to like to be soldiers with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 43. 45. 47. 49. 51. 53. 55. 258 For White officers to treat Negroes fairly 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to volunteer for front line duty with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to follow orders from Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to readjust to civilian life better than Negroes do after army life 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to like killing less than Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to be cowards more than Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 259 ABS—III—WN—W Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think yon ought to act when in contact with Negroes. Then mark how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to Negroes, do you yourself believe that it is usually right or‘usually wrong: 57. To expect Whites to be 58. How sure are you brave soldiers with of this answer? Negroes is 1. not sure 1. usually wrong 2. fairly sure 2. undecided 3. sure 3. usually right 59. To expect Whites to be good army officers with Negroes is foils* = 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 61. To expect Whites to be drafted with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 63. To expect White officers to have racial prejudices is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong 65. To expect Whites to favor war as much as Negroes do is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 67. To expect Whites to be given draft deferments with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 69. To expect Whites to like to be soldiers with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 71. To expect Whites to treat Negroes as they do Whites is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 73. 75. 77. 79. 81. 83. 260 To eXpect Whites to volunteer for front line duty with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to follow orders from Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to readjust to civilian life better than Negroes after the army is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to like killing less than Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to be cowards more than Negroes when together is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 261 ABS—IV-WN-W Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. Indicate how sure you feel about your answer. In respect to a Negro person would youxyourself: 85. 87. 89. 91. 93. 95. 97. 99. 101. Would you want White soldiers 86. How sure are you to be braver than Negro of this answer? soldiers? 1. not sure 1. yes 2. fairly sure 2. undecided 3. sure 3. no Would you want to be an army officer with Negroes? foils* = 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to be drafted with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you have racial prejudices if you were an army officer? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you favor war as much as you think Negroes do? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you like to be a soldier with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes If you were an officer would you treat Negroes the same as Whites? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you volunteer for front line duty with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 103. 105. 107. 109. 111. 262 Would you be as careful with weapons as you think Negroes are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you follow orders from Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to readjust to civilian life better than Negroes after the army? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want Whites to like killing less than Negroes do? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you want Whites to be cowards more than Negroes are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 263 ABS—V—WN-W Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White peOple may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate pox you feel about the following statements and then mark how sure you are of your answer. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 113. 115. 117. 119. 121. 123. 125. 127. When Negroes are not as 114. How sure are you of brave as Whites I feel this answer? 1. good 1. not sure 2. indifferent 2. fairly sure 3. bad 3. sure When Negroes are good army officers with Whites I feel foils* = 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are drafted with Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negro officers have racial prejudice I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Negroes favor war as much as Whites do I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes are given draft deferments as much as Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes like to be soldiers as much as Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negro officers treat Whites the same as Negroes I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 129. 131. 133. 135. 137. 139. 264 When Negroes volunteer for front line duty with Whites I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are careful with their weapons as Whites are I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes follow orders with Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes readjust to civilian life worse than Whites after the army I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negores like killing more than Whites I feel 1. good 2. indifferent 3. bad When Negroes are cowards less than Whites are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 265 ABS-VI—WN—W Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences and then indicate if the experience was pleasant or unpleasant. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 141. I have seen that Whites 142. Have your experiences are braver soldiers than been mostly pleasant Negroes or unpleasant 1. no experience 1. no experience 2. yes 2. unpleasant 3. uncertain 3. uncertain 4. no 4. pleasant 143. I have seen that Negroes are good army officers with Whites foils* = 7 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 145. I have seen that Negroes are drafted with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 147. I have known Negro officers who were racially prejudiced 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 151. I have seen that Negroes are given draft deferments as much as Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 153. From my experiences Negroes enjoy being soldiers with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 155. I have seen that Negro officers treat Whites as they treat Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes *Foils indicate "directionality" of items. 157. 159. 161. 163. 165. 167. 266 I have known that Negroes volunteer for front line duty with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have seen that Negroes are as careful with their weapons as Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have followed orders from Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes From my experiences Whites readjust to civilian life better than Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Whites like killing less than Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no I have seen that Whites are cowards more than Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes APPENDIX B CODE BOOK FOR THE RESEARCH 1 of 37 REVISED 1/20/69 W1 Attitudes of Blacks (Negroes) and Whites 2 Toward Each Other: Content , Structure, and Determinants ABS-BWZWN John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University November 22, 1968 INSTRUCTIONS FOR USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code 0 for a one column no response, or 00 for a two column no response, or 000 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information, Respondent did not answer, or not Applicable, unless otherwise specified. 2. In each case in the following pages the column to the left contains the column number of the IBM card; the second column contains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column of the IBM card with an explanation of the code. 3. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly stated. 1This code book contains directions for scoring the U. S. 112268 version of the Attitude Behavior Scale: Black/White (ABS:BW and ABS:WN). It is specifically for the United States samples and limited modifications and/or additions are made in certain nations and/or states. Special Instructions are devised for each study and must be consulted before scoring that sample. 2There is a separate scale for each of the seven content areas with six sub- scales within each scale area as well as a separate questionnaire combining the demographic data and related independent or predictor variables. 112268 Code Book 2 of 37 Code :Bpok - Ass-sum Table of Contents Page A. Scale Construction Rationale...................................... 3 B. Demographic Data, Predictor Variables, and Efficacy Scale......... 3 Co AttitUde scaleSoeeeeeoeesocce-ee00000000000000.000000000000000000. 10 1. (E) Education.0.......C...’.................................. 11 2. (C) Personal CharaCtCIIStiCSooeoeoooeoooeeeeoeoeoeoeeeeeeeeoe 37 3. (H) HOUSingeeeeoesoeeooceases000000000000000000000000000.0000 37 4. (J) JObSoooeeocoocoo...essee0.00000.00.0.000000000000000.0000 37 5. (L) Law and order..0....C....0............................... 37 60 (P) POIICiCal ACtiVismesosees.accesses-easeoeeoeeeeeeeeeeoeeo 37 7. (W) war and Military......................................... 37 1 IBM Card /Columns Cards 1-9 10-18 19‘47 48'75 76-80 1-6 Identity Control Subscale ‘ Predictor Eupty 1-6 Data Card 1-9 10-18 19-37 38-47 48-75 76-80 7 Identity Control Efficacy Empty Predictor Empty Scale Data There are 6 Cards per person per attitude area; 1.2. if one person takes all seven of the above scales and the general questionnaire containing the demographic data and the Efficacy Scale there would be 43 Cards for the person. 112268 Code Book 3 of 37 -3- Rationale of the ABS: BH/WN Each of the seven scale areas may be scored separately for each of the six subscales and by total area. Subscale Content Intensity level score score . 1 14 thru 42 14 thru 42 2 14 " 42 14 thru 42 3 l4 " 42 14 thru 42 4 14 " 42 14 thru 42 5 14 " 42 14 thru 42 6 14 " 56 14 thru 56 Total Scale 84 " 266 84 thru 266 Each attitude item is repeated across all six subscales or Levels. In this manner the item content or Disjoint Struction (See Tables 1 & 2; Figure l ) is held constant and the attitude structure or Conjoint Struction is assessed. The content scores (i.e. even numbered items) of the six subscales as well as the total score for an area (e.g. attitudes toward education are obtained by summing the numbers of the item categories. The range of scores are indicated above. A high score indicates an attitude of "favorableness" or "over favorableness" toward the attitude object (Black or White) on one of the seven attitude areas. The intensity scores (i.e. odd numbered items) are obtained in the same manner as the content scores and indicate "certainty or intensity" of feeling about the content of the attitude item. The "goodness of fit" of the empirically obtained simplex is currently being derived by inspection (see examples in Table 4-). New procedures are being investigated and may be obtained from the author. 112268 '4' Code Book 4 of 37 Table 1 Basic Facets1 Used to Determine Conjoint Struction2 of an Attitude Universe (A) a (B) (C) (D) (E) Referent Referent Actor Actor's Domain of Behavior Intergroup Actor's Behavior Behavior a b C d e 1 others 1 belief 1 others 1 comparison 1 symbolic a b C d e 2 self 2 overt action 2 self 2 interaction 2 operational 1A5 B qualifies A's behavior, so E qualifies C's behavior. Frequently, but not necessarily, A and C are identical. In such cases, B aha E must be "consistent," i.e., some conbinations seem illogical; l 2. It should be noted that sometimes the subject filling out the questionnaire is identical with either referent or actor or both, but not necessarily so; i.e., in Level 1 and 2 referent and actor are identical, the subject is asked to report about them; in Level 3 the subject is identical with the referent, but not with the actor; in Level 4, 5, 6, subject, referent, and actor are identical (see Table 2). 2Conjoint Struction: Operationally defined as the ordered sets of these five facets from low to high across all five facets simultaneously. The more subscript "2" elements a set contains, the greater the "strength" of the attitude. It should also be noted that not all combinations are logical. The selection of a "best" group of sets is still partly a matter of judgment. Two continua run through the facets: other-self and verbal-action. John E. Jordan Michigan State university Louis Guttman Israel Institute of Applied Social Research . March 7, 1968 -5- Code Book 5 of 37 Table 2 Conjoint1 Level, Profile Composition2 and Labels for Six Types2 of Attitude Struction Type-Level Struction Profile2 Descriptive Conjoint Term 1 a1 bl c1 b1 el Societal Stereotype 2 81 b1 c1 b1 62 Societal Nbrm 3 81 b1 c1 b2 e2 Personal Moral Evaluation 4 81 b1 c2 b2 e2 Personal Hypothetical Behavior 5 81 b2 c2 b2 e2 Personal Feelings 6 82 b2 c2 b2 e2 Personal Action 1Conjoint order: Level l<: level 6 and a1Ho>c« noduozuum usaOncoo .pmnuo some cumsou woodpfipum n mcomnoa opanx Lo xomam unmsop oucoam> o>uufimon ax mocoaa> axe opaqwoc m: sauna no omsmoon me o» pooammp cud: an mmmoonm soapmsam>m Amy . mnemaon Ca moan: no xomHm . mam» mo _v . ‘ pouom . «use: .xoaflm . an» \oaocz m as .aoa W was» mnocuo Ho new nouo< on undoncoo no mamzamcd poowm on» non o>aummoc m: coaumsam>m :.x= cmaoac» em: mucosa mo>ao>cfi noduospum usanmwao n _mmpfinz new .m .mxomam do same» spa: Hm>oq name» eupandappa an .cmnnon cam wamnome an vm>ao>ma :Ofiposppm ucHOnmao oocmpcom meadows «II.¢IH mm: «m meanoo amuod>mnop m Hmucmeapumca « Hmzuom mw o>uvoouum ma o>auacwoo Ha names owns adage Adv _ “Hy cmficm w~ ;, snaoos mm mcH , \ mmmmmmmmmm Ace Aaoouv ou vcoamop nae: zaHMHUon nus: msomrmpca me Acudzv mumano mommaeoo Hut ‘ uofi>mcmm myopmpmucH m.a0uo< on aawuaaas use as: ~u . amasdpoauaaoauaaoa me nacho can 3nd u anon ma >Ho>cH madmsoz mu coauaosuo u nouunauouomamso Ha mcoaumsudm mafia Amv mooc.aandcoapmpomo mo unw30\oaso3\haadoaaonezn Ho pofi>mcmm m.uouo< mo nausea Amy Mama mm m mo suds: vacauom pao>o n LoH>mnon .xomdmuoaonz unonouoa H “ ucmnouma m an .noa H ou mopsnauuua d modaon n we» muonuo m “xv pounnsm Lod>mnom peopouom . Ame pcououom AmH msOHuu> mo umHnmdoHuaHou oumoHvdH mononuomumm sH moans oumauuuH< .muuoaouwuu udouuHudoo nan ucmvasvmu «0 when one mononudouua GH mono n .uoouu a dHnuHa mumHuoansn ecu mo wchmma you H uHama mom .muauaon wdouum oumoHvdH :m.N: uaHuonsu mo uoasszH soHuo< Hudouuom shHHmaOHumuono uomuouuH H Haas HV m N N N Nan o .mwdHHoom Husomuum ahHHuOHHonahm uowuouaH H Auom Hv a H N N Nan m uoH>msmn macaw Hanuo< >HHmdoHunuono uusuoucH o3 Auow mzv m N N H N H uoasuemm Hauauueuoaau_Hmeomumm saHHmuHHonamm assessed H m>oHHmn H n H N N H N a HsHHoou macaw Hmsuouv quucovH anouu zHHmuHHonaxm uomuoudH 03 Auom 03v N H N H N H .Am:0Humuomaxo asoumv msmH vosHmHooum AHHonHonaxm uumumuaH H m>mHHmn 03 N H N N H H Amsumum Hmcomuma vocmemm anHchmumav uawucoouuHom >HHmUHHonsmm mamasoo H o>mHHmn H N H H N H N AmoaHm> vm>Hoomuav coHumsHm>m Hmuoz Hchmumm smHHmoHHonEAm uomumucH o3 m>mHHmn H N H N H H N m usumum Hmaomuma vmcmemm-Qsouu hHHmoHHonahm mamasoo H o>mHHmn o3 H H H N H H suoz HmumHoom rmHHmoHHonahm uomumucH ma o>oHHwn w: H H N H H H msumum asouw vwcmHmmm-%HHm:0wumm mHHmoHHonaxm mummaou o3 w>mHHmn H H H H H H N N Am:UMum azouw vmdemmm nasoumv waauompmum HmumHoom saHHmoHHonE>m mumaaou m3 m>oHHon o: o H H H H H H nmamz m>HumwmomwQ Naudmemumum HmcoHUHcmeo mucmEmHmeaouum [mHmHMwoum umowm Ho>mm, mcoHumuseumm HmUHwoq m>Hm39 now mucmEmumum HmdoHuHchmo can .mmHHHoum umumm .mHm>wH "mcoHumNHHmaum> mv:UHuu< mo Eoumxm Hm>oanHm umomhsm>Hm \I J4)!‘ Code Book £3.36 82 £533 43.833 £325 3:3 .3283 H .3846 82 5.3.5. .323 :3 48-5 32 £333.33 63:33.33 e8 833:3 382: 3 a 9 of 37 83 .5 count no venous—flue .oHuom ~0H>osom «vauuuud.llmz1m H82 68.88 833.333— H38: .codwuusHma you was wsHuovuo onnaHo on» snga dH moosuundH ounoHv:H nsoHuuH ooaou huuuaaaath uoosvo ouoaoamomw unuvsuu sunseuuu in use ouuoo vodHHuovdbn vouuwso aHusHoonM i'x. 2 Na 3 S 2 -- NN S no 8 8 .. HN 2 mm 8 8 c 82% N325 Hum. S Mm D .. an S N. NH -- «N .3. .9: 3 n awflHoom H88: -- on 8 NN -- mm NN NH. -- 3 NH 3 s “3228 13352:: H38: .. NN HH. .. Hm .md .. 3 NH N 83.3ng H28: H38: 3: NN an «a nu on N auoz HouoHon us :n nu H omhuoououm HmuoHon m s n N H c n s m N H o m a m N H H33 Ewaflozufiuua mumnumms NoNHHom muaovsum oOON .am .:.m.zv mucousum n.vmuo .qu12 N w H mmHnma mo cmHmmm co wouosuumcoo ”monom MZImm< one Scum wEouH ovsuHuu< mo mcHumvuo NmemaHm wouuomxm wcHumuumsHHH mmOHuumz HGOHumHouuoo c mHnma -10- Code Book 10 of 37 @S-El-BWNNZ: Card 1 Col. Scale Item Item Content Code IDENTITY DATA 1 - 3 Face Sheet Nation/State 001 - 050 United StgtesICanada 001 - Michigan 002 - Ohio 003 - Georgia 004 - Maryland 005 - West Virginia 006 - Texas 007 - Colorado 008 - California 009 - Kentucky 010 - Canada 051 - 059 Western Europe 051 - England 052 - France 060 - 069 Eastern Eurgpe 060 - Yugoslavia 061 - Poland 062 - Czechoslavakia 070 - 079 Middle East 070 - Israel 071 - Iran 072 - Turkey 080 - 089 Far East 080 - India 081 - Japan 090 - 120 ‘Latin America 090 - Belize (British Honduras 091 - Colombia 092 - Brazil 093 - Venezuela 094 - Costa Rica 095 - Argentina 096 - Uruguay 121 - 150 Africa 121 - Kenya IEducation; i.e. attitudes toward education scale. 2There are two versions of the scale: BW denotes attitudes of Blacks toward Whites .and.vn§ denotes attitudes of Whites toward Negroes; i.e. concerning one of the seven areas. The scale item is the same in both versions of the scale, only the attitude object labels of Whites and Blacks/Negroes are interchanged. See the 0.8. 112268 ‘ version of the scales for examples. 112268 -ll- Code Book ll of 37 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Col. Scale/Item Item Content Code 4, 5 Face Sheet Interest Group1 01 - Elem. Teachers 02 - Sec. Teachers 03 - University Students 04 - Managers, Executives 05 - Law Officers 06 - Political Leaders (Congressmen, etc.) 6-8 Face Sheet 1 Subject No. 001 Assign at to time of 999 Administration 9 Face Sheet Card No. 1 - Scale 1 plus constants2 ‘ 2 - Scale 2 plus constants 3 - Scale 3 plus constants 4 - Scale 4 plus constants 5 - Scale 5 plus constants 6 - Scale 6 plus constants 7 - Efficacy Scale plus constants CONTROL DATA 10, 11 Face Sheet Administration Group3 01 - Assign to as 99 - needed 12, 13 Face Sheet Administrator 01 - Jordan 02 - Jordan and Hamersma 03 - Hamersma O4 - Himmelwait 05 - Taylor 06 - Roulhac 07 - Cochran 14 Face Sheet Race of Administrator 1 - White 2 - Negro 3 - Oriental 1This group number is intended to be a more general one than the one in columns 11); I]; i.e. column 4, 5 might be university students and columns 10, 11 be the type of class or subject like history or math. 2Constants refer to first 18 columns for all seven cards per person per attitude scale area. See Card 1 for nature of the first 18 columns. 3Might: be class sections or type of class (history, math) in a university, a Lions Club, a labor union meeting, or type of occupation like bus driver, clerks, etc. Col. 15 16 17 l8 19 20 21 22 -12- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Scalejltem Item Content CONTROL DATA (Con't) Face Sheet Type of Administration Face Sheet Attitude Area (content) Face Sheet Attitude Area (administration order) Face Sheet Attitude Subscale (administration order) ATTITUDE DATA Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZ ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q3 Intellectual ability - C2 Intellectual ability - I School discipline - C Code Book 12 of 37 Code - Group - Individual (supervised) Take Home - Interview $‘h’hlh‘ I - Characteristics - Personal - Education ' - Housing Jobs - Law and Order - Political Activism - war and Military - Efficacy scale and demographic mNO‘UlbUNv-A I 0 - Not applicable 1 - Assign no, in order to scales are administrated. 8 - Code same as above 0 - Not applicable 1 - Assign no. in order to the six subtcales 6 - are taken. machine processing purposes. 1 - More than 2 - Same 3 - Less than - Not sure Fairly sure - Sure UNF‘ I - Less Same - More UNH I 1For example, if subscale or Level VI were given first it would be coded as _1_. This allows for random order of administration of subscale levels if desired or needed by research design. 2The letters "C" and "I" refer to content and intensity respectively, or differentiate the two answers to each question. Col. 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 £33 34, 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q4 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q6 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q7 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QB ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale I-Q9 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-lO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Qll ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QlZ ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q13 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql4 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QIS -13- ABS-E-BWjWN: Card 1 Item Content School discipline - I School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Higher Education - C (desire) Higher Education - I (desire) School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Education Future - C Education Future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C (belief) Code Book 13 of 37 Code UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNF‘ UMP“ UNH UNH UNH UNH l 2- 3 - Sure Not sure Fairly sure More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Less More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Sure More often Same Less often Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Sure Less Same More Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Col. 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44. 4:5 (#6 1 12268 Scalejltem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql6 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Ql7 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QIB ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale I-Ql9 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q21 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q22 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q23 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale 1-024 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-Q26 ABS-EPBW/WN Subscale I-QZ7 -14- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 tem Content _; School integration - I (belief) Reapect teacher - C Respect teachers - I School board - C members (desire) School board - I members (desire) Attend good schools - C (desire) Attend good schools - I (desire) Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect homework - C Teachers expect homework - I Homes favor education - C Code Book 14 of 37 Code 1 2 3 UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH WNW “NH Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less - Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Not sure Fairly sure Sure Better Same Worse Not sure Fairly sure Sure More Same Less Col. Scalethem 47 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale I-QZB 1 48 ABS-BW/WN Q 1 49 ABS-BW/WN Q 2 50 ABS-BW/WN Q 3 51 ABS-BW/WN Q 4 52 ABS-BW/WN Q 5 53 ABS-BW/WN Q 6 54 ABS-BW/WN Q 7 1 -15- ABS-E-BWFWN: Card 1 Item Content Homes favor education - I PREDICTOR VARIABLES Sex Age Marital status Religion (affiliation) Religion (affiliation) Religion (importance) Education (amount) depending on the race of the respondent. 112268 Code Book 15 of 37 Code UNH NH u:$~u:h:h- UIC‘UDNDF‘ uwc~uahah- U1$~uihahn im-Ptnlvrd mbuNt-d Not sure Same Less Female Male - Under 20 - 21-30 31-40 41-50 Sl-over Married Single Divorced Widowed Separated Refuse Catholic Protestant Jewish Church of England Anglican Quaker Buddist Black Muslim Other Refuse None Not very Fairly Very 6 years/less 7-9 years high school Some University - Degree 'The question number 1 will be either the BW or the WN demographic questionnaire 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 112268 Scale/Item ABS-BW/WN Q 8 ABS-BW/WN Q 9 ABS-BW/WN Q 10 ABS-BW/WN Q 11 ABS-BW/WN Q 12 ABS-BW/WN Q 13 ABS-BW/WN Q 14 ABS-BW/WN Q 15 ABS-BW/WN Q 16 ABS-E-BW/WN: Item Content Self Change Child rearing Practices Birth Control Automation Aid Education (local) Aid Education (national) Education Plan Religion (adherence) Rules (follow) Card 1 Code Book 16 of 37 O O O. to Very difficult - Slightly difficult Easy - Very easy ‘J-‘th-I I - Strongly disagree - Slightly disagree Slightly agree - Strongly agree bump- I $‘h’h’h‘ C‘hihihl ¢~uah3ha J-‘ri-o Always wrong Usually‘wrong Probably right Always right - Strand? disagree Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly Strongly Slightly Slightly Strongly disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree disagree disagree agree agree - Church - Parents Local - National bums—- I - Refuse - None - Sometimes - Usually - Almost always UII-‘UJNH - Strongly agree - Slightly agree Slightly disagree - Strongly disagree wat-d I 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 112268 Scale/Item ABS-BW/WN Q 17 ABS-BW/WN Q 18 ABS-BW/WN Q 19 ABS-BW/WN Q 20 ABS-BW/WN Q 21 ABS-BW/WN Q 22 ABS-BW/WN Q 23 ABS-BW/WN Q 24 -17- ABS- E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content Negro/White Contact (nature of) Negro/White Contact (amount) Negro/White Contact (avoid) Negro/White Contact (gain) Negro/White Contact (% income) Negro/White Contact (alternatives) Negro/White Contact (enjoy) Racial Prejudice (reduce) Code Book 17 of 37 §. UIJ-‘wNv-I mwan-fi Lnwav-o buster-s uwt‘ri-I mwar-I UtJ-‘ri-o ubuNH Studied Relative Worked with Relative married to Self married to Casual 1 to 3 months 3 to 6 months 6 to 12 months Year plus No contact Very difficult Considerably difficult Inconvenient Could avoid No Paid Credit Paid and credit No work Less 25% 26 - 50% 51 - 751 76% - over No experience None available Not acceptable Not quite acceptable Acceptable No experience Disliked Not liked much Liked some Enjoyed School integration Publicity campaigns - Job legislation Housing legislation Personal contact Col. 72 73 74 75 Scale/Item ABS-BW/WN Q 25 ABS-BW/WN Q 26 ABS-BW/WN Q 27 ABS-BW/WN Q 28 -13- ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 1 Item Content Income (annual) Political Affiliation Racial Attitude (self comparative) Racial Group Code Book 18 of 37 Code UI§UNH prH MbUNt-I IIII I U1¢~uahars I Less $4,000 4 $4,001 - $10,000 $10,001 - $15,000 $15,001 - $25,000 $25,001 - plus Republican Democrat Independent Other Very prejudiced Some prejudice - About same - Less prejudice Much less prejudiced Refuse White Negro - Oriental - Other Col. First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 112268 Scalejltem -19- ABS-E-BWZWN: Card 2 Item Content Code Book 19 of 37 Cod e Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QZ9 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q30 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IIfQ31 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q32 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QBB ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q34 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q35 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q36 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q37 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q38 ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I Discipline 1 C Discipline - I School work - C (desire) School work - I (desire) Higher education - C (desire) Higher education - I (desire) School work - C (with) School work - I (with) “NH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH - Usually not approved undecided Approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure - Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure .Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided - Usually approved Not sure - Fairly sure - Sure C01. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q39 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q40 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q41 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q42 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q43 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q44 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q45 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q46 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q47 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q48 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q49 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSO -20- ABS-E-BW[WN: Card 2 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C (belief) School integration - I (belief) Reapect teachers - C ReSpect teachers - I School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 20 of 37 Code 1 - Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 Usually approved 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Usually approved 2 Undecided 3 Usually not approved 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure I Usually not approved 2 Undecided . 3 Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 Sure I - Usually not approved 2 Undecided 3 Usually approved 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Usually not approved 2 Undecided 3 Usually approved 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 Usually not approved 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually approved 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 - Sure 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSl ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSZ ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-Q53 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QS4 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QSS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale II-QS6 -21.. ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 2 Item Content Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect - C Teachers expect - I Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES Code Book 21 of 37 UNr-I ri-I UNH wNH UNH Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually approved Undecided Usually not approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually not approved Undecided Usually approved Not sure Fairly sure Sure Col. First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 112268 Scale/Item Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-057 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-058 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q59 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q60 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q61 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q62 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q63 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q64 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q65 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q66 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 3 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I Discipline - 0 Discipline - I School work - C School work - I Higher education - C Higher education - I School work - C School work - I Code Book 22 of 37 Code UNI-I UNI-I UNH UNH UNI-l UNH UNI-l UNH UNH UNH Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure C01. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q67 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q68 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q69 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q70 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q71 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q72 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q73 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q74 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q75 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q76 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q77 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q78 -23.. ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 3 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C School integration - I Reapect teacher - C Re3pect teacher - I School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 23 of 37 ture.- UNI—I wNo-I UNI-I UNI-l wNH UNI-II wNv-a LoNr-a wNo-I I I I I I I I I UNI-I Usually wrong - Undecided - Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually right Undecided Usually wrong - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right Not sure Fairly sure Sure Usually‘wrong Undecided Usually right - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure Usually wrong Undecided Usually right - Not sure - Fairly sure Sure 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 Scale/Item Ass-E-Bw/WN Subscale III-Q79 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q80 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q81 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q82 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale III-Q83 ABS-E-Bw/WN Subscale III-Q84 -24- ABS-E-Bw/WN: Card 3 Item Content Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect - C Teachers expect - I Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 24 of 37 Code 1 - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 — Sure I - Usually right 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually wrong 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure I - Usually wrong 2 - Undecided 3 - Usually right 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure Col. First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 20 21 22 112268 Scale/Item Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q8S ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q86 ABS-E-Bw/WN Subscale IV-Q87 ABS-E-Bw/WN Subscale IV-Q88 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q89 ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale IV-Q9O ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q9l ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale IV-Q92 ABS-E-Bw/WN Subscale IV-Q93 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q94 -25- ABS-E-BWIWN: Card 4 Item Content ATTITUDE DATA Intellectual ability - C Intellectual ability - I School discipline - C School discipline - I School work - C School work - 1 Higher education - C (desire) Higher education - I (desire) School work - C School work - I Code Book 25 of 37 Code UNI-l UNI-l UNI-i UNH NI—l UNI-I ”NI-0 UNI-I UNH UNH No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Yes No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure Col. 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4C) 41. 112268 Scale/Item ABS- E- BW/WN Subscale IV-Q95 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q96 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q97 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q98 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q99 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QlOO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QlOl ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q102 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q103 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV1Q164 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QlOS ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q106 -26- ABS-E-BWZWN: Item Content Education future Education future Disrupt class - Disrupt class - School integrati School integrati Respect teachers ReSpect teachers School board - C School board - I Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Card 4 - C - I C I on I H on - C - I I 0 Code Book 26 of 37 Co UNH UNH UNH UNH UNH (AMI-fl UNH UNH UNI‘ UNI“ ‘a’f‘il-I UNH de No Undecided Yes - Not sure Fairly sure Sure Yes Undecided No Not sure Fairly sure Sure - No Undecided Yes - Not sure Fairly sure Sure NO‘ Undecided° Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure No Undecided Yes Not sure Fairly sure Sure Col: 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 ScaleZItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q107 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q108 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q109 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-QllO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Qlll ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale IV-Q112 -27- ABS-E-BULHN: Card 4 Item Content Deserve gov. aid - C Deserve gov. aid - I Teachers expect - C Teachers expect - I Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES Code Book 27 of 37 Code 1 No 2 Undecided 3 Yes 1 - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 Sure I Yes 2 Undecided 3 No 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure 1 No 2 Undecided 3 Yes 1 Not sure 2 Fairly sure 3 Sure -28- Code Book 28 of 37 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 5 Col. Scale/Item Item Content Code First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No; 19 Constant No. (i.e. No. 1) required here re machine processing purposes. ATTITUDE DATA 20 ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual ability - C 1 - Discontent Subscale V-Qll3 2 - Indifferent 3 - Content 21 ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual ability - I 1 - Not sure Subscale V-Q114 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 22 ABS-E-BW/WN Discipline - C l - Bad Subscale V-Q115 2 - Indifferent 3 - Good 23 ABS-E-BW/WN Discipline - I l - Not sure Subscale V-Q116 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 24 ABS-E-BW/WN School work - C l - Discontent Subscale V-Q117 (work hard) 2 - Indifferent 3 - Content 25 ABS-E-BW/WN School work - I l - Not sure Subscale V3Q118 (work hard) 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 26 ABS-E-BW/WN . 1 School work - C l - Bad Subscale VéQlI9 (with opposite) 2 - Indifferent 3 - Good 27 ABS-E~BW/WN 1 School work - I l - Not sure Subscale V%Q120 (with Opposite) 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure 28 ABS-E-BW/WN Higher education - C 1 - Discontent Subscale V-Q121 (desire) 2 - Indifferent 3 - Content 29 ABS-E-BW/WN Higher education - I l - Not sure Subscale V-Q122 (desire) 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure In other scales this question comes after the next one on higher education. 112268 Col. 30 31 32 33 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 112268 ScaIngtem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q123 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q124 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q125 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q126 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q127 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q128 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q129 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q13O ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale V-Q13l ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-132 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q133 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q134 -29- ABS-E-BWJWN: Card 5 4 Item Content Education future - C Education future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I School integration - C (belief) School integration - I (belief) ReSpect teachers a C Respect teachers - I School board - C members School board - 1 members Attend good school - C Attend good school - I Code Book 29 of 37 Code 1 - Angry - Indifferent - Happy UN - Not sure Fairly sure - Sure wNI-I I 1 - Happy 2 - Indifferent 3 - Angry l - Not sure 2 - Fairly sure 3 - Sure - Bad Indifferent - Good UNI-I I - Not sure Fairly sure 3 - Sure NH I - Angry Indifferent - Happy UNI-I I - Not sure Fairly sure - Sure UNI-i I - Bad Indifferent - Good UNH I - Not sure Fairly sure 3 - Sure Niki u - Bad - Indifferent - Good UNI-I l - Not sure 2 - Indifferent 3 - Good ColI 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 Sca1e[Item ABS-E-Bw/WN Subscale V-Q135 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q136 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Ql37 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q138 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Ql39 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale V-Q140 -30- ABS-E-BW/WN: Item Content Card 5 Deserve academic - C scholarships Deserve academic - I scholorship Teachers expect - C homework Teachers expect - I homework Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 30 of 37 die UNH MINI-fl UNI—I UNI-i UNI-I UNH Yes Don't know No Not sure Fairly sure Sure Good Indifferent Bad Not sure Fairly sure Good Discontent Indifferent Content Not sure Indifferent Content ~3l- Code Book 31 of 37 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 6 Col, Scalethem Item Content Code First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 19 Constant No. (i.e. No.1 ) required here re machine processing purposes. ATTITUDE DATA 20 ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual ability - C l - No experience Subscale VI-Q141 2 - No - 3 - Uncertain 4 - Yes 21 ABS-E-BW/WN Intellectual - I 1 - No experience Subscale VI-Ql42 2 - Unpleasant 3 - Uncertain 4 - Pleasant 22 ABS-E-BW/WN Discipline - C 1 - No experience Subscale VI-Ql43 2 - No 3 - Uncertain 4 - Yes 23 ABS-E-BW/WN Discipline - I l - No experience Subscale VI-Ql44 2 - Unpleasant 3 - Uncertain 4 - Pleasant 24 ABS-E-BW/WN School work - C l - No experience Subscale VI-Ql45 (work hard) 2 - No 3 - Uncertain 4 - Yes 25 ABS-E-BW/WN School work - I 1 - No experience Subscale VI-Q146 (work hard) 2 - Unpleasant 3 - Uncertain 4 - Pleasant 26 ABS-E-BW/WN Higher Education - C 1 - No experience Subscale VI-Ql47 (desire) 2 - No 3 - Uncertain 4-- Yes 27 ABS-E-BW/WN Higher education - I 1 - No experience Subscale VI—Q148 (desire) 2 - Unpleasant 3 - Uncertain 4 - Pleasant 112268 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 112268 ScalelItem ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql49 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-QlSO ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-QlSl ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q152 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q153 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q154 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q155 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q156 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q157 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q158 -32- ABS-E-BWIWN: Card 6 Item Content School work - C School work - I future - C Educ. Educ. future - I Disrupt class - C Disrupt class - I I 0 School integration I H School integration Respect teachers - C Respect teachers - I Code Book 32 of 37 Code 1 2 3 4 $00M!" bUNH PwNI-I ©UNH L‘UNH «PU-3MP bWNI—d J-‘UNI-i wat-I No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant - No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience Yes Uncertain No No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48-75 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E—BW/WN Subscale VI-Q159 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql60 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql61 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q162 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q163 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q164 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q165 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q166 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Q167 ABS-E-BW/WN Subscale VI-Ql68 -33- ABS-E-BW/WN: Item Content School board - C members School board - I members Attend good school Attend good scho Deserve gov. aid Deserve gov. aid Teachers expect homework Teachers expect homework Homes favor education - C Homes favor education - I Card 6 I H 01 I H - C - I - C - I SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 33 of 37 1 2 3 4 beaver- wav-t bqu— waH Dunn-I «F‘UNH bearer- bestow Photon- Code No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes - No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience Yes Uncertain No No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant No experience No Uncertain Yes No experience Unpleasant Uncertain Pleasant -34- Code Book 34 of 37 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 7 Col. Scalejltem Igem Content Code First 18 Columns Same as Card 1 except for Col. 9, Card No. 1 Life Situations Scale 19 Constant No. (i.e., No.1.) required here re machine processing purposes. ATTITUDE DATA 20 ABS-EF-BW/WN Eliminate War - C 1 - Strongly disagree Life - Q29 2 - Disagree 3 - Agree 4 - Strongly agree 21 ABS-EF-BW/WN Eliminate War- I 1 - Not sure Life - Q30 2 - Not very sure 3 - Fairly sure 4 - Very sure 22 ABS-EF-BW/WN Luck/Fate - C l - Strongly agree Life - Q31 2 - Agree 3 - Disagree 4 - Strongly disagree 23 ABS-EF-BW/WN Luck/Fate - I - Not sure Life - Q32 - Not very sure Fairly sure - Very sure bUNH I 1See Page 9-10 of the U.S. 112268 version of the general Questionnaire. This scale is intended to measure Efficacy of man's sense of control over his environment. See Husen, J. (Ed.) International Study of Achievement in Mathmatics, Vol. 1, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1967. 112268 Col‘ 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 112268 Scale/Item ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q33 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q34 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q35 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q36 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q37 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q38 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q39 ABS-E-BW/WN Life Q40 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q41 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q42 ABS-E-BW/WN: Card 7 Item Content Mysteries/Science - C Mysteries/Science - I Poverty eliminated - C Poverty eliminated - I Life - Length - C Life - Length - I Deserts - Farming - C Deserts - Farming - I Education and Fundamental change - C Education and Fundamental change - I Code Book 35 of 37 Code 1 2 3 4 c‘uahahd C‘UIBJP‘ $~u3h3h‘ $‘hihlh‘ $~uah3hi ¢~uahahd $~uahoh- $‘h’hlh‘ $~hah3hi Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree - Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure ColI 34 35 36 37 38-47 48-75 112268 ScalelItem ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q43 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q44 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q45 ABS-EF-BW/WN Life Q46 -35- ABS— E-BWjflN: Card 7_ Item_Content Hard work - Suceed - C Hard work - Suceed - I Problems Solved - C Problems Solved - I LEAVE THESE COLUMNS BLANK. SAME AS CARD 1 - PREDICTOR VARIABLES. Code Book 36 of 37 $‘h’h3h‘ ¢~Cahah1 $~Cahoed (3 D‘hlhihi Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure Strongly disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree Not sure Not very sure Fairly sure Very sure -37- Code Book 37 of 37 ABS-Bfl/WN: Cards 1 - 7 The preceding pages have given detailed instructions for scoring each item of the Education (E) scale of the ABS-BW/WN. The other six attitude areas (i.e., Personal Characteristics (C), Housing (H), Jobs (J), Law and Order (L), Political Activism (P), and war and Military (W) are scored similarly. The specific item content of the other six scale areas is easily ascertained from examination of the items in the respective attitude scales. All seven attitude scales1 are constructed via the rationale in.‘Tables 1 - 4 and Figure l. 1 In the total battery there are seven attitude scales with six subscales within each, as well as, a seperate questionnaire combining the demographic data and related independent or predictor variables. 112268 APPENDIX C THE FINAL COMPOSITE SCALE-~ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: BLACK WHITE/WHITE NEGRO-GENERAL (ABS: BW/WN—G) 306 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE-—WN:G Directions This booklet contains statements of how peOple feel about certain things. In this booklet you are asked to indicate for each of these statements hos most other Whites believe that Whites compare or interact with Negroes. Here is a sample statement: SAMPLE l. Chance of being taller less chance 2. about the same 3. more chance If other Whites believe that Negroes have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above or if you are using an IBM answer sheet make a heavy dark line on the answer sheet between the two lines after the number as follows: l _. 2 ==== 3 ===== )4 ===== 5 ===== ***DO NOT PUT YOUR NAME ON THE BOOKLET*** by: Richard J. Hamersma John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University 307 ABS-I-WNl—G Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle the number or fill in the space that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites can be trusted with money 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 2. White families are closely knit l. more often than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 3. Whites'intellectual ability is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 4. Whites desire a higher education 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes 5. Whites help their neighbors I. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 6. White neighborhoods are safe 1. more often than Negro ones 2. about as often as Negro ones 3. less often than Negro ones lBy substituting the word Blacks for Whites, throughout the scale, the scale becomes one for Blacks, i.e., ABS-I-Bw-G. 308 ABS-I-WN-G Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: 7. 10. ll. l2. 13. 14. Whites obey job rules and regulations 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites enjoy working with Negroes 1. less than Negroes do 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes do Whites resist arrest 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes Whites are victims of "police brutality" 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes Whites misuse trial—by-jury 1. less often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. more often than Negroes Whites vote for Negro candidates for public office 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes Whites desire draft deferments l. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites are careful with their weapons 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes 309 ABS-II-WN-G Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Other Whites generally believe the following about inter- acting with Negroes 15. For DUMP-J 16. For LUMP 17. ’13 or UONI-J 18. For WNH coo 19. For 10 2. 3. 20. For for l\) Whites to trust Negroes with money usually not approved undecided usually approved White families to be as closely knit as Negro ones usually not approved undecided usually approved Whites' intellectual ability to be the same as Negroes usually not approved undecided usually approved Whites to desire a higher education with Negroes usually not approved undecided usually approved Whites to help Negro neighbors usually not approved undecided usually approved Whites to believe that Negro neighborhoods are safe them usually not approved undecided usually approved 310 ABS—II-WN-G Other Whites generally believe the following about inter- acting with Negroes: 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. For Whites to obey Job rules and regulations with Negroes usually not approved undecided usually approved DUMP For Whites to enjoy working with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to resist arrest from Negro officials usually approved undecided usually not approved LAJI'UH o o o For Whites to be the victims of "police brutality" from Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to misuse trial-by—Jury when they deal with Negroes l. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to vote with Negroes for Negro candidates for public office 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 311 ABS-III-WN—G Directions: Section III This section is concerned with the "right" or "moral" way of acting. Indicate how you personally think you ought to act when in contact with Negroes. II In respect to Negroes, do yougyourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 29. To expect Whites to trust Negroes with money is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 30. To expect White families to be as closely knit as Negro ones is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 31. To expect Whites' intellectual ability to be the same as Negroes is . usually wrong . undecided . usually right 32. o expect Whites to desire a higher education as much as e groes do is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 33. To expect Whites to help Negro neighbors is . usually wrong . undecided . usually right 34. To expect Whites to believe that Negro neighborhoods are safe for them is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 312 ABS-III—WN—G In respect to Negroes do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. To expect Whites to obey job rules and regulations with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to enjoy working with Negroes is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right To expect Whites to resist arrest from Negro officials is . usually right . undecided . usually wrong WNH To expect Whites to be the victims of "police brutality" from Negroes is 1. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to misuse trial-by—jury when they deal with Negroes is I. usually right 2. undecided 3. usually wrong To expect Whites to vote with Negroes for Negro candi- dates for public office is . usually wrong . undecided . usually right l 2 3 To eXpect Whites to be given draft deferments with Negroes is 1 usually wrong 2 3 . undecided . usually right 313 ABS—III—WN-G In respect to Negroes do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: If 42. To expect Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are is 1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right 314 ABS-IV-WN—G Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personalIy would act toward Negroes in certain situations. ' In respect to a Negro person would yougyourself: 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Would you trust Negroes with money? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want your family to be as closely knit as you think Negro families are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want the same intellectual ability as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to have the same desire Negroes do for a higher education? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you help Negro neighbors? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want White neighborhoods to be as safe as you believe Negro ones are? 1. no 2. undecided 3 yes 315 ABS-IV-WN-G In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Would you obey job rules and regulations with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you enjoy working with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you resist arrest if arrested by Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you expect "police brutality" from Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you misuse trial-by-jury when dealing with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no Would you vote for a Negro candidate for public office? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you be as careful with weapons as you think Negroes are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 316 ABS-V-WN-G Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. When Negroes trust Whites with money I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When White families are as closely knit as I think Negro families are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites' intellectual ability is the same as Negroes I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Whites desire a higher education as much as Negroes do, I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes help White neighbors I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Whites are safe in Negro neighborhoods I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 317 ABS-V-WN—G How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 63. 64. 650 66. 67. 68. 69. When Negroes obey job rules and regulations with Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied When Negroes enjoy working with Whites, I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes resist arrest less than Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content When Negroes use "police brutality" with Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Negroes misuse trial-by-jury in relation to Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Negroes vote for White candidates for public office I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes are given draft deferments as much as Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content 11.1.2- I All 318 ABS-V—WN—G How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 70. When Negroes are careful with their weapons as Whites are I feel dissatisfied indifferent l 2 3 satisfied I‘ll-l . 319 ABS—VI—WN—G Directions: Section VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 71. I have trusted Negroes with money 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 72. I have seen that White families are as closely knit as Negro ones no experience no uncertain yes .1:me 73. 3 t< intellectual ability is equal to the Negroes I know no experience no uncertain yes .1?me 74. I have wanted a higher education as much as the Negroes I have known I. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 75. I have been helped by a Negro neighbor no experience no uncertain yes .1:me 320 ABS-VI—WN-G Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 76. I have felt safe when in Negro neighborhoods no experience no . uncertain . yes .II‘UOMH 77. I have seen that Negroes obey job rules and regu- lations when working with Whites no experience no uncertain . yes 4':me 78. I have enjoyed working with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 79. I have resisted arrest by Negroes no experience yes uncertain no 1 2 3 u 80. I have been the victim of "police brutality" from Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 81. I have seen Negroes misuse trial-by-jury with Whites no experience yes uncertain no .1:me 321 ABS-VI-WN—G Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 82. I have seen that Negroes vote for White candidates for public office I. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 83. I have seen that Negroes are given draft deferments as much as Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 84. I have seen that Negroes are as careful with their weapons as Whites no experience no uncertain yes .1?me APPENDIX D STATISTICAL DATA .oHQEMm ooch u 3.H .oHdEmm xomHm mo .moanz pom mxomHm .osopu mm: COHpmoscm Hmuoe an .m Ho>oq co and noossz pom mm Ho>mq co mHH nooEsz m: Hm>oq :0 mm amassz mm Ho>oq so sm smoesz mm Ho>mq co mm nonesz MH Hm>oq so H.9moss: mH H EmpH .onom Hooves mop now a chcoad< mom mo>oom mHHmHnmm commoESG ohm msouH oneo .onom on» now < xHUQoQa< some .mHo>oH mHmom on» no mnoom Hmqu mop pom EmoH HmsvH>HUcH on» coospoo mam mQOHumHonmoom .wchmHe mam mono pmnp poo pom pompmcoo mHomeonnQQm mH oHanHm> on» umnp womeHUCH pH moHomu wcHZOHHom map mo mom Ho.mHomu man CH HHoo m 2H mpmoonm Allv ammo cannon m Ho>oso£3 "opoz 323 Hm H: mm mm :m :m m: MH m: mm mH mm mm mm mm m: sm H: . HH mm s: mm mm sm mm mm mm mm Hm mm m: m: mm mm mH Hm :m mH ms mm as om m: m: mm mm :m mm mm mm we as mm m: as s: NH H: mHu mm mm mm Hm mo m: mm Hon mm Hm mm sm om mo: mo Ho HH Hm mm mm Hm Hs mm so so me sm Hm mm mm mm mm Hm Hm om OH om ms Hm so m: we wH ms mm Hs mm ms mm mm mm so am mo m ss m: as ms mm mm m: mm m: H: mm H: mm Hm sm mm mm o: m cm mm ss ms os ms s: m: ms mm ms mH mH mo mH mm mH mm s ms mm Hs Hm Hm mm sm Hm sm Hm mm me He mm om mm mm mm m I: I: :1 ms so mm s: m: H: mm ss we mo: om OH Hm mo Hm m mo mo mo om sH mH 0: mm H: mm :m H: mm Hm H: as He Hm H m: I: N: H: mm s: Hm m: Hm Ho mm om mm m: sm ms mo: mm m ms H: ms mm as mm mm om we os mm as ms mm as mm mH mm m om om m: mm m: am mm me am we mm sm so so mo om m: sH H 3 m a 3 m s 3 m a 3 m a 3 m 9 c3 mm es 0 m H m . m H swampH mHm>oq mHmom .QSOHw mm: COHpmosom esp pom monm pcmpcoo omOHpmH Inooomsmgo new no 23\3mumm< on» How wonoom mHmpouIOHIEmpH no mCOHpmHonmooll.mH mqm¢e .mHoEmm ooan n 3% .oHnEmm xomHm m .mopHsz com mxomHm .Qsomw mm: coopmosom Hmpoe B .mH oHomB memo .onom on» now m xHocoao< mom m U o .mHo>oH onom on» mo whoom Hmpop on» cam EopH HmSUH>HoQH map coospoo ohm mCOHumHohHoom 324 mm mo mm mm mm oo mm no sm so om oo Hm Ho Ho Hm m: :H Hm m: mm mm Hm mm mm mm Hm mo ,Hm mo Hm mo mm sm mm MH s: mm mm m: :m mm sm mm m: m: o: oo no mo mo oH mm NH mm om mm mm :m om ma mm :0 ms mm mo sou mo mm so s: HH 00 OH mm mm mm ma Fm ma mm mm m: mm mm mm mm :m :m CH o: om mm ms mm om mm mm om mm oou oH so sm os mm o mo so mo mm Ho om mm so os oo os Hs oo os Hm om mm o so as om oH mm mm om sm mm mm om sH Ho mH sm ss mm s. oo oo os oo oo mo mm mm N: on om oo o: oo Ho o: ms o mo os om oo oo os mo oo so Hm .Hs oH om: so Hm o: om o mo mo oo so om ss ms os oo ms oo oo ms mo so on om a mo ms ss ms ms mm mo oo o: mo :3 oo oo- so om om m: m mo mo Hm ms om as oo m: N: mo om Ho os mo mm so Hm m ss oo oo ms mo mm mm no es oo os mm mm mm Hm os mm H m a 3 m a 3 m a 3 m a 3 . m a o3 mm o3 o m . s . ,. .. m m H mamoH mHm>oq onom .dsonw mm: COHpmosom on» non mono onopcoo ocOHooosom who so z3\3mumm< or» too mmcoom «Hoooouoo-3moH oo chHoonnnoouu.om momos 325 .mHQEmm ooHo3 u 3.H .oHQEmm HomHm u mo .moan3 com mxomHm .Qsonm mm: GOHomoSUm Hmpoe u so .mH oHomB ommo .onow on» non < xHocoQQ« memo .mHm3oH onom on» no onoom Hmpou woo woo EooH HoopH>HUQH cmosooo ohm mCOHomHmnpoom oo oo oo mm In om mm so Hm oo om om mm Hm om mo ms oo oH om mo: mm mo mo mo mo om Ho mo mo: mo om: Hm OH ool mm Ho mH ms mo ms sm In om so oHn oo mH mo om mo ms mo Ho Ho mm NH mo om mo oo In om mo an mo ms om so sm so Hm mo oo om HH oo mo mo mo mo om mo 1| mo oH mo mm mm Hs mo oo mm mo OH ss Hm as so In oo ms mm mo Ho mm oo mm om mm Hm mo om o Hs oo ms mm oo sm om oo oo mo mo so mo ms mo so Hs oo o mo Hm: mm mm oo Hm oo oon oo mo mo mm oo oo om oo oo oH s Hs mm mo mo mo mm mo om: so mo so (mo Hm mo mo mo ms Ho o mo om: oo oo Hm mo oo so mo oo oo oo mo oo oH om om om o oo om mm oo oo mm oo mm: mm oH In oH mo Hm mo os om Hs o os mH Hs oo mo oo oo om: Hm mm I: oo oH ms- mo: om om: om m Hs :1 ms mo Hm om os In Hs ss mo ms oo oo mo oo so mm m mo II mo mm Hm sm so so oo oo Ho mm Ho ms mH mHI ms om H 3 m B 3 m a 3 m a 3 m B 3 m B m3 om we 0 m o m m H mEopH mHo>oH mHmom .Qdonw mm: COHpmosom on» now mono pompcoo owchsom on» so z3\3mlmm< on» How monoow mHmHOHIOpIEopH so mQOHpmHoosooll.Hm mamas .oHQEmm opHn3 u 3 .oHoEmm somHm o .mmoHs3 one moomHm .omo eoHomooom Hmooe .oH «Home ammo m B U .onom on» now < xHonmoo< mom m 326 mHo>oH onom o .mHo>mH onom on» so mHOOm HmpOp woo woo EmpH HmsoH>HUQH moo comzpmo mam mQOHpmHonnoom ms nu os oo nu oo oo nu oo oo oo mo oo nu oo oo om oo oH oo uu Ho so oo oo oH uu oH os oo os om nu oo mm oo so MH os mHn os Ho oo om om oo Ho mo om oo oo mo so so oo oo NH so mmu oo mo nu mo so nu mo oo oo oo mo nu oo omu oo oHu HH oo oou oo om uu sm oo nu oo so os oo mo sHu mo so uu Ho oH oo uu oo oo un mo oH un sH os om os mm os Ho om nu son o mo mm oo oo oo oo om mo mo oo omu om oo nu Ho oo oo oo o oo uu oo oo son Hm oo smu oo NH oou so Ho nu ms om oo oo s oo mm mm Ho un oo mo un oo oo om so oo so Ho oo oo mo o oo mo oo so nu oo .mo nu oo oo oo oo mo Ho oo om nu so o mo mo Ho oo oo oo oo sm MH oo nu mo oo mo oo mo oo oo o oo nu mo mo oo mo oH nu sH Ho oo oo om sH mo Ho uu oo m oo nu oo om uu om nu un nu oo oo oo oo so oo oo nn oo m os oo os os oH os oo sm oo os own so oH oo Ho mH un oo H 3 m e 3 m a 3 m e 3 m 3 3 m a o3 mm o9 o o o m m H msmoH Q .osonw mmo COHpmosom on» son mono ucoocoo ooo was so z3\3mnmm< moo poo mmsoom mHmooonoonEmoH oo m:OHomHmstoonu.mm mHmos .oHQEmm mpHc3 u 39 .mHQEmm momHm H mm .mmoHo3 oem moomHo .oNo eOHomooom Hmooo u so .oH oHomB memo .onom map now < xHUGoQo< oomo mHo>oH onow on» mo whoow Hmqu on» now EmpH HmSUH>HUcH mop ommZpoo mom mQOHomHonnoom 327 oo oo oo mo om Ns oo oo oo sN Ho Ho oo oo mo os so oH so No oo mo oo HN oo oo No Hs oo oo oo om om os oo mH so oo Ns oo ss oN oo om oo Hs os os so os oo oo oo NH No oo Hs un oo nu ms Ho oo Ho mo om sou sN oo oo Ho HH mo Hm Hs oo ss nu oo os so Ho Ho mo oo oo oo oo om oH oo oo os oo os os oo oo oo oo oo oN Non oo mH No om o oo oo os NH Ho oH os oo oo oo os os oo oo ms oo oo o so Ho oo oou om No oo Ho so ss os oo oHu No HHu os oou s Ho om so mo oo om oo oo so oH oHu os oo os so mH No o os mo No oo so oo mo No No Ho oo om oo mo mo oou so o oo Hs so Ho oo No om oo oo oo oo mo oo mo oo mH os o ms mo Nm oo Ho os oo Hs an oou oNu oo nu oo mm nn oo o oou oo Ho mo oo so oHu so mo om oo os so oo oo oo oo N nu. No so mo oo om os oo oo oN oo so sou oN oo mon oo H o a 3 o o 3 o a 3 o e 3 o e o3 mo oo o o o m N H cosmoH mHo>mH onom .osoow mm: COHomozom on» pop moon ucmpnoo onoopo pom 3mg mop no z3\3mlmm< opp pom monoom mHmpooIOpqupH mo mcoHpmHonnoouu.mm mqmoH onom on» mo whoom Hmpou on» com EopH HmSUH>HUQH on» coozpoo mom mQOHpmHoHnoom 328 oN oo Ho nn No oo oou oo oo HN oo Ho os oo oo oo oo oH mo oo oo mm so oo nu mo oo HN mo OHu oNu HHu mN oou mN mH om oo oo os oo Ns uu oo mo oHu oo os oo oo oo os oo NH uu oo oo uu oo uu uu uu uu uu un oN oo oo oo os oo HH nu Hs oo oo oo so os oo No un oo oo Ho oo oo oo oo oH os No oo nn oo oo nu No oo HN oo oo oou oo NN an so o oo oo Ho uu oo sN uu oN No mo om No oo oo oo No mo o uu oo oo nu oo No om mo mo oo oo oo so oo sN sHu oH s oo mo mN mm sN oo uu oo mm mm mo oo oo mo oo Ho so o No os om oo Hm No so oo 0N oo oN om oo om mN sm mm o mo so No uu No NN oo HN mH oo om Hs mm os oo so oo o nu No oo so oo No sm oo oN oo om oo os so om oo oo m mo mo so nu oo No MNu om mo os so mo so oo mH ms oN N oo oo oo oo oo Hs oo so os oo oo oN os so oo oHu oo H o e 3 o e 3 o o 3 o a 3 o a o3 mo o9 o o o o N H msooH me>oH onom .Qsonw mN: COHomosom mop pom mono ucoocoo oEmH>Hpo¢ HoOHoHHoa moo :0 z3\3onmoo moo poo motoom oHoooonoonEooH no chHooHootoouu.oN moooo 329 mHm>oH onom .mHoEwm opH£3 u 3.H .oHoEmm xomHm H mm .moUHQ3 com mxomHm .mNo COHumosom Hmpoe u Bo .oH mHomB ommo .mHmom on» now < xHooon¢ ommo .mHo>mH onom on» no whoom HMHOp on» can EopH stoH>HooH may coospoo mom mQOHpmHonmoom ss ms os so oou oo oo os oH oo oo oo so om No so oo oo oH oo mm oo oo Nou om ss oHu ms mo NNu oN mo oou sm NHu mNu oHu MH oo oou oo oo sNu No Hs ms os oo omn HN oo Ho os os mo os NH oo om Ho Ns mN mo so so mo oo oo oo os OHI oo me as Ho HH oo os mo Hs mN Ho so mo mo oN oo mo No om oo No No No 0H oo Ho oo os Hm os ms oo Ns oo oo os mo Ho oH so oNu HH m mo No mo oo so oo mo uu oo oN oo so ss oo ss Ho mo oo o so Ns oo ms om os No ss mo oo oo os No OHu om sN oou oN s No oN oo oo oo so so nu oN oN un 0H os oo os ss om ss o oo oN No so sou oo oo oo so oo No oo so oou NN HN oN NN o oo oo oo so ss oo os oou oo oo om mo so oo oo Hs so oo o oo oou No No Ho No oo Non No oo oo ss No oH oo so oou oo o oo os as oo sNu No oo oo oo oN oo mo mo oo oo oN sou HN N Ns om Ns oo so oo oo os Ns oo om ss Ho Nsn sH mo osu mo H 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B m3 om o9 o o o m N H mEopH .Qsopm mNo COHpmosom on» now mono poopcoo oonmoHHoz ooo oo3 ago so z3x3onmoo was soo mosoom oHoooonoonEmoH oo moOHooHossooun.oN moooo 330 .oHQEmm opH£3 u 3.H .mHQEmm xomHm H mm .mmpHoz new mxomHm .mosonw pHonumo proe u so .oH oHomB ammo .onOm map pom < xHOQooa< moon .mHo3mH onom on» mo onoom Hop0p on» now EopH HwSOH>HOQH amazomo ohm mQOHpmHoohoom un un nu oo oo oo un Ho oo oo oo oo oo oo Hs Ho so oo oH mo so No oN so oo Hs ms oo uu ms Ns HH ms oO No oH Nm MH mo uu Hm No mo mo oo mo os mm oo Ho No Ho ss oO Hs Ho NH uu HHu NHu oH mo mo uu Ns Ho uu oo No oO Hm om sou No oHu HH oo No oo oo so oN os so oN ss oN sH ss Ho os so Ho oo OH oo oH HH oo so oo oo Ns os os Ho oo oN mo No oou oo sH m Ho nu oo oo Hs Ns nn Ho oo un Ho oo ss oo oo so Hs oo o mo Hmu NN os mo Hs uu Ho oo uu oo mo Om omu sN OHn oH ON s mO No mo No oH HH mo NH oN oo oH oO No Oo Ns Oo Ho oo o un uu un oH os oo uu Ho oo oo oo oo oou Ho NNn Ho oo oo o Ho Ho oN os oNn Ho Hs om No os oN oo os om os so No oo o oH om oo so oo oo nn Ho oo oo Ho mo oN oH oo oo so oo o os mo Hs os os os NH oo No oo oo oo oo oo os oo Ho oo N oN mm oo os oo oo NN Ho No uu ms Ns mo sH OH om so oH H 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B , 3 m B .o3,.om.AUB o o o m N H omEmpH mHo>oH mHmom .Qsonm pHoHpom mop pom mono poopsoo omoHpmH unopomnmoo moo :0 z3\3mummo mop Loo monoom mHopooququpH mo mQOHpmHonooOun.oN mqmoo .oHQEmm opH£3 u 39 .oHoEmw xomHm m .mmpHo3 new mxomHm .osonw pHompmo Hmpoe B .oH oHome oomo .onom map pom o xHocoooo mom .mHm3mH oHoom oou mo whoom HmpOp on» new EoOH H$3OH>HOGH coozooo who mQOHpmHonmoo (0.013(1) 331 Ho oo oo oo oo oo oo oo Ho oH oo oo oo oo oo os NN oo oH oo sN oo un sN No HH oo oo oo NH No oo oHu oo oH so oo oH oo os oo oo HN oo oH Ho oH oN so oo oo os os oo oo oo NH oo No oo oo oo Ho No oo oo oo Ho Ns so NN oo so oo os HH No oo oo oo oo oo nu oo oo oo os oo Ho oo oo oo No oo oH No oo oo oo oo Ho nu oo oo nu oo oo oN oo oou oH oo ss o sou sN oo oo so oo No oo os sH os os Hs oo oo oN oH oo o os oo Ho oo oo oo Ho oN oo oo oo oo oN oN oN oo oo os s oo oo oo oo Ho oo oo No No oo oo Ns oo oo Ho so so oo o os os os Ns No oo oo oo os oo No oo oo oN oo oo Ho oo o oo oo oo oo Ho os oo oo Ns oo oo oo oo oo oo Ho oo so o No so oo Ns oo os oo oo ss nu oo oo oH oHu oN oou oo No o oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo so oN oo oo oo oN oo N oo Ho oo oo oo oo so oo os oo oo oo Ho os Ho No so oo H 3 m a 3 o a 3 o a 3 o a 3 o o o3 mo oo o o o m N H mEopH mHo>mH onom .osonw pHonqu man now mono poopcoo 9:0Hooooom moo :0 z3s3ouooo moo goo monoom oHoooouoouEmoH oo moOHooHosnoonu.sN moooe .oHoEmm opHn3 u 3o .mHoEMm xomHm m .moanz Ocm mooMHm .Qsopw pHonooo Hmpoe B .oH oHowB oomo .onOm mop mom 3 xHOCoQQ¢ mom .mHm>oH onom on» no onoom Hopoo opp Ono EooH HmSOH>HOCH soozpoo ohm mcoHpmHophoo (0.0130) 332 so oo oo Ho oo oo Ns oo oo No sN oo os os os oo os os oo oo oo oo oo oN os oo No oo so No oN oo oN oo No oou so os ss os oo oo nn os os un oo Ho os oo so oN os oo so oo oo oo os Ns oo oo os oH oo so oN oo oN oou oo oo oo so oo Ns os os so ss os nu No oo oo Ns oo oo Ns os No so oo oN oo oo oo so Ho oo oo No oHu oou HHu Ho oo oo ss oN No Ho oo oo oo oNu oH oo oo Ho os oo oo os oo oo oo os so oo oo oo so oo so oN so oo oo Ho No oN oo oou Ho oo oo Ho so oo oo os oo oN oo oo oo oo os oo oo so oo HH oo oo oo Ho Ho oo oo oH oo No oN oo NN oN oo oo os oo so so oo oo oo oo oo os Ns oo oo so oo oo os os os os os oo oo oo Ho oo oo Ho oo oo os oo oo Ho oH oo os oo oo oo os oo oo as so oH oo No oo Ho oo sH oo oo oo Ho Ho oo oo oo oo oo Ns oo oo No oo oo oo oo oo oo can—401m:- n—iu-ln—{n—Iu—l u—INM-Z'LRKONGDQ 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B 3 m B m3 m U o o o o N H mEouH mHm>oH oHoom .Qsonm oHonpoQ on» now mono ocopcoo oochooo moo co z3\3ouooo was too mmooom oHoooonoousooH oo chHoonHsoouu.oN mHooo 333 .mamewm mpa£3 u 3.H .maaswm xomam H mm .mmpan3 cam mxomam .Qsopo paoppma ampoe u BU .ma manme mmmo “mamom map mom < xaccmmmo mmon .mam>ma mamom map mo whoom ampOp map cam Empa amsva>a©co cmmzumn mum mcoaumamppoom oo oo oo oo so oo oo oo om oo oo ao oo oo os oo oo mo oa om mm so oo mo .oo II o: mm aa mo om oa oa ms mm mm ao ma so :0 as oo ao om mo oa am om ao oa so mo os oo oo oo ma oo mm om mo so oo oo so mm II so as mm mm so: man aaI ao aa mo om oo as as os so os oo oo oo om mo ao oo ms mo os oa so ms mo as oo ms nu os ss om oo oo man om so so om man m as ma ao om mo om om om mo om oo sol mm as mm ss oo oo o mo om oo om so so :3 mo mm mm om om om: oa os oou ao mm s so oo ao oo mo mo ao oo oo om oo mo mm os ao os os ms o os mm ms ms ms os oa oo os oa os os mm mo oo om om mo o so so ao mo os oo ma os oo :1 mo so oo oo mo oo oo ao o mo mo so mo os ao In os ms nu ms os mm mm mm mo oo oo o as oo ms oo mo oo II os as aa mo os mo ms oo so om om m so oo ss oo om am oo ao os mo ao mo mo: smu oo mm mo: mo a 3 m a 3 m E 3 m e 3 m B 3 m B 93 mm we o m o m m a mEmpH mam>ma mamom .QSOhw paoppmm ms» pom mmnm psmpcoo nnoo mg» :0 23\3ouomo mop poo mmnoom mampOpIOpuEmpo oo mcoopmamppoonu.om mqmoe .maaemm mpa£3 u 3.H .maasmm xomam .mmpon3 Ugo mxowam .onpw pooppmo adpoe m B .ma manme mmmo .madom man how < xoccmaa< mmm .mam>ma maMom map mo mpoom ampOp map cam Empo amsca>a65a cmmzpmn mam macaQMammhoo (13.-0'60) 334 oo ss ao uu os os os oo ms nu oo so oo oo oo oa oo so oa as oo oo uu os os uu oo oo uu ao so oo oo os aou oou oo oa as so oo oo oo oo oa oo oo nu ao oo os oo oo oo oo ao oa oo so oo uu os os nu oo oo nu oo oo oo oo so oo oo oo aa aa ao oo uu ss os un os so un oa oo os so os oo oo so oa oa so oo nu oo as mo oo ao oo oo os oo so oo oo oa os o oo oo oo oo oa oo ao oo es un oo oo oo oo oo ao oo oo o oo so ao nu oo as oo so oo un ao so so oou oo oo oou oau s oo oo oo oo oau oo oo oo so oo oou oou oo oo ss oo oo ao o oo oo oo oo oo so os sou oo oo so oo oo 00 so oo os ao o oo as ss uu oo ao oo oou oo as oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo o so so ao so .nu oo oo oo oo oo oou oou ao oou os oan nn so o oo oo os uu oou oa oo ao oo oo so as oo oo oo oo oo oo o so as so nu os os uu oo oo uu so mo so oo oo oo so oo a 3 m e 3 o a 3 m a 3 m a 2 m 9 oz mm we o o o o o a mampa mam>ma madom .mzopw paoppmm map gem mmmm pcmucoo ppmooo cam zma map :0 zz\3ouooo moo poo mmooom mamQOpuoouEmpa oo msoapmamoooonu.oo moooe 335 .maQEmm mpan3 u 3.H .magemm xomam H mm .mmpoa3 cam mxomam .asopw poopumo aspoe u BU .oa magma mmoo .mamom map you < xawcmmm< mmmn .mam>ma mamom map no whoom ampOp map cam Empa amsva>ovcfi cmmzpmn who mcoopmammpoom os os as ma os oo oo oo oo II oo oo am os ao ao os oo oa oo oo oo oo ao ao mo oo oo oo oo oo os ao mo so so oo oa os oo as oo oo ao as oo oo oo am oo mm as ma oo mo so oa oo om on so os mo II II II II oo ao ao mmI so ao os mo aa mo ms mo oo ao mo aoI om om ao a: o: oo os a: os oo mo oa ao oo as o: om oo II II II mm so on mm mm mo mo aoI oaI .m oo oo oo so os ss oo oo oo oo os oo oo mo oo os om ss o os mo mo oo oo mo os so os os oo ao mo II oo moI oa oaI s oo oo mo os oo oo oo oau oo oo om oo oo os oo ms os as o os mo os ao oo so oo oo mo oo oo oo mo am oo ma oo oo o so oo oo II os ao oo oo oo ao II oou oo oo oo oo oo ao o mo os os oo as os os oo so oo II oo ma In oo oan oo oo o os om oo oo oo os oo mo mo om mo so oo oo mo ooI o: am m oo so ao ao oo os oo oo oo os oo ao oa II oo oo oo oo a 3 m B 3 m 9 3 m B 3 m B 3 m 9 m3 mm we o o a m m a mEmpH mam>ma mamoo .Qsopw vacuums map pom mmpm ucmpcoo pEmH>Hpo¢ amofiuaaom map :0 z3\3mImm< mnp pom mmpoow mampOpIOpIEmpa mo mcoopmamphooII.am mamma mawom map ho whoom ampOp map new Emuo amzoo>ficco cmmzumn mam msoaumamhpoo CUQ'UG) 336 oo ao oo oo aou oo ao uu oo oau ao oa aa as oo ao oo os oa oo so as In oo oo as oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oou oo oou oa uu so ao uu oo oo oo oo ao os oan oa oo oo oo os oo ms oa os oo as so os _oo uu oo so uu oou oo oo oo oo oan oo oo aa oo as os oo os ao oo oo so uu oou oo oa os so oo oo os oa oo as os oo ao oo oo ao oo uu so os oo oau mo In so ao o oo oo oo oou oo oo uu nu nu nu oo os oa so oo oo oo so o ao oo os so oo oo os oo oo ao mo so oo oo oo oo man oou s ao oo os oo ss oo oo oo oo nu so oo os oo ao oo oo oo o oo oo oo ao oo ao oo oo oo oo oo oo oo oo ao oo oa oou o oo oo oo oa oo ao oo ao oo so oo oo am oo am oo os oo o oo ao ao oo oo os oo os oo uu ao ss oo oou oo oo oo oo o oo oo oo oo ao oo os oo oo nu so oo mo am oo oo oo ao o oo so os oa oo oo oo ma oo oa oo oo oo oo oa oo oo ao a 3 o a 3 m e 3 o a 3 m a 3 o a o3 mm we o o o o o a mampa mam>ma mamom .Qsomw uooppmo ms» pom mmpm pcmpcoo DohMpHaaz wcm pm3 map so z3\3mImm< map Loo mmpoom mampOpIOpIEmpa mo mcoapmamphooII.mm mamoe 337 oo.o mo ss. co.o os I . mo. a o . mo.o mo mo. oo.o so oo. oo.o so as. oo.o as .oEo .ooaooo .oo oa.o oo so. oa.o os mm. oo.m a" ow. sa.o oo as. oa.o so oo. ao.m so oo. oa.o as oCacao: .oo mo.~ mo oo.a as.o os oo.a os.o ao oo.a ss.o oo oo.a mo.o so mo.a ao.o so oo.a as.o as oao .omm .oo mono mo . oo.a oo.o os so. oo.o ao oo. oo.o oo oo. os.o so so. mo.o No oo.a ao.o as oao amooa .mo oo o mo os. oo.o os as. oo.o ao ao. oo.o mo ao. oo.o so mo. os.o so os. oo.o as .meoo ma:o .oo oo.o .ooo os. ao.o ms oo. oo.o ao oo. mo.o mo ao. om.o so oo. oa.o so oo. oo.o as .omEOooo .ao oo.o mo oo. oo.o os os. ao.o ao mo. oo.o oo as. oo.o so no. oo.o s oo. so.o as Hooocoo cooao . o ms.o mo I os. oo.o os ms. os.o ao oo. oo.o oo as. os.o so oo. oo.o so os. ao.o as usaommo naaco .oo os.o mo ss. mo.o os os. oo.o ao ms. oo.o mo ss. os.o so os. oo.o so os. oo.o as saoo .oo oo.o mo oo.a sm.o . os oa.a oo.o ao oa.a no.o oo oo.a so.o so oa.a om.o so ao.a om.o as .poooo .aoo .so oono mo oo.a oa.o os «aa.a oo.o ao mo.a so.o mo aa.a oo.o so oo.a oo.o so oo.a oa.o as .ooosa .aoo .oo oo.o oo oo. oo.o os ao.a oo.o ao so. oo.o oo oo.a oo.o so so. oo.o so oo.a oo.o as .oeoum500ca .oo as.o oo oo. os.o os oo. oo.o ao ao. oo.o oo oo. os.o so ao. mo.o so oo. os.o as ocooeo .oomo .oo am.~ mo oo.a oo.o os oo.a oo.o ao om. oo.o oo oo.a oo.o so so. oo.o so ao. so.o as muo .oo oo.o mo om. ao.: os os. oo.o ao ao. oo.o oo oo. oo.o so mo. . oo.o so om. oo.o as osmEoOoco .oo os.~ so mo.a os.o oo am.a oo.o mo oo.a os.o oo ao.a ss.o oo oo.a oo.o oo oo.a ss.o oo oo>apocnmoao .ao oa.o oo oo.a oo.o os ao.a oo.o oo oo.a mo.o ao oo.a sa.o oo oo.a mo.o oo oo.a aa.o oo 0585 .oo so.o . oo sa.a oo.o os oa.a oo.o ao oo.a oo.o oo sa.a mo.m oo oo.a oo.o oo oa.a oo.o os oocmnao>o .oa oo.o oo oo.a oo.o os so.a ao.o ao oo.a oo.o oo oa.a oo.o so oo.a oa.o so ao.a oo.o as u ocooEo .oa os.~ mo mo. oo.o os ao. os.o ao os. so. I oo oo. os.o so os. moo so mo. ooo as 93%: .sa ao.oo mo oo.o os.oo os so.o ao.oo ao oo.o oo.oo oo ao.o ao.oo s so.o oo.oo so oo.o ss.oo os .ocauoomoaoo .oa as.oo mo oo.o oo.oo os oo.o oo.oo ao oa.o mo.oo mo oo.o oo.oo o sa.o oo.mo so so.o oo.oo . os .ocoouoomUaooo .oa o~.ooa oo .oo.oo am.ooo os oo.oo os.aoo .ao oo.oo oo.oao mo oo.oo oo.ooa so os.oo oa.oao so oo.ao oa.aoo as aoooe .oa om.oo mo os.oa oo.oo os mo.o os.oo ao ao.oa oo.oo oo os.aa oa.oo so ao.ea oo.ao so oo.s oo.oo as ceaooo .oa oo.so mo so.o oo.oo os oo.o oo.oo ao oo.o oo.om mo oo.o oo.oo so mo.o ao.om so ao.o os.om as moaamoo .oa oo.so ao oo.o oo.oo os oa.o oo.so ao oo.o oo.so mo aa.o so.oo so oo.o om.so so mo.o os.oo as aooaoooooaoo Haa os.so mo as.o oa.so os so.o om.oa ao om.o oo.so mo oo.o oo.oo so oo.o m .oo oo mo.o oo.sm as aooo aoooz .oa os mo mo oo.o oo.oo os oo.o oo.0o ao oo.s ss.oa oo o .s oo.oo so oo.s ao.oo so oo.o os.ao as woaooeooz o oa.oo mo oo.o ao.oo os oo.o so.mo ao oo.o os.oo oo oo.o oo.oo oo oo.o oo.oo \o os.o as.oo as oaooompooo .o ao.ooa ao oa.o~ os.soo os ao.oa os.ooa ao oo.oa oa.ooo mo aa.oo oo.oma so oo.sa os.oao so oo.oa oo.oao as amuse .s oo.oo mo oo.aa so.oo os oo.o oo.so ao oo.oa oo.ao oo aa.oa oo.oo so o .o oo.oo so oo.s oa.oo as scapu< .o Mao.so ao ao.: mo.oo os oo.o oo.so ao os.o oo.so mo oo.o ao.so so os.o oo.oo so so.o oo.so as oCaaoom .o oo.so mo ss.o ma.so os oo.o oo.oo ao oo.o oo.oo oo sa.o os.oo so os.m ao.oo so oa.o oo.so as amoaoocooaoo .o oo.oo mo oo.o aa.oo os ao.o so.so ao oo.o os.oo oo mo.o ao.so so os.o oo.om so so.o os.so as .am>o aopo: .o oouoo mo oo.o oo.ao os os.o oo.oo ao oa.o oo.oo oo oo.o os.oo so oo.o oo.oo so oo.o os.oo as o>aom5poz .o on oo oo so.o ao.ao os oo.o oo.oo ao oo.o oa.ao oo oo.o oo.oo so ao.o so.ao so oo.o oo.oo as oaopoopwom .a I 3 on x 2 am 2 2 mm s 2 am 2 z oo 2 2 am 2 z magmapm> I a 3 . m o a a h z m o .mmmum oamom pcmucoo 23 "mm< on» :0 maaemm opanz amuou 0:» Lou macapma>mo uumocmum 0cm .mcmwe .onan oaqemmII.mm mao<9 content scale areas. BW mple on the "I .. S for the s; deviation d s “tanda" ‘ u ze, means, and 1e 7‘. P E 3h.—-Sam ‘4 v AB 'T‘ ¢ .'¢ —A-< L) SD H l M SD SD n “Y ‘1 .d M N Variable NM‘ONONO‘CD—‘TNHHWQNGQMCDOCDM GDNSOQHWHKOOKH H I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mmzmmmsxoxommmscom: HHHHH Hf‘: . I": H N (fir-4mm:HNmMHJNmOmmOHONmHmmONMO COJ’r-ia‘T Nm\O\DI\OO\Nm\Of\r\\OMN;(X)-N;:f.fl; .0; I . . . . . . . . . . . ' . . mmmmmqommmmmmr—Imm m :mamzmmmmmmmmm: N N LhkOHmMDr—lmkocnds(\mNOQNONO\O\OHNM\OOHU\MGDNMLDNO mmoxnowomxomu—Iunsmxon mommsomr—«no\.o~nmr~s~o (7.(')OO\\Ou—1 Namzmmzxozsmxomoo\N—7 Hr—CHHH r—I r4r—{ I-Ir—d .—I r-IN r-IN MOO.)H‘ONHNMMNNr—HONr—dmLflmONLflKOLflU‘U‘r—OOFDOCONMNWCD :2 or—Imommxozzar—IcomxocoOxsr—nmmmmmmmmmv—Imr—Ir—Izmmr—I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I l I I I I I I I I I NOHNNHO‘JNInmNor—Infismz mmmqmzmdmmmmmmmmma mmmmmmc’) hmmmmmomm r—4 0.] WWW ’\£‘\D\O\O\O\K)\L‘\O\O \A')\L)\O\D\O\O\O\O\D\D\£)\O\O HHH HI—‘l—il—‘Hf‘i r-4 Hc—{HHHHr—{r—‘lr—ir-ir-{H 16 \OCO (n _r—{OLnf\\L)\£)C) m sown—I(uxnmzr r—Ir—I'rxj I‘fir‘er—«Irr G'MOVUCX) 1 OLOO\O\ :r mommkoscnrr-rnxorxnm ONO'X)G);?CD\0\DO\OOxrfirranWCHOOOOrifllnm I I I I I I I I n I I I a I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I M\O\Ou\m~1 [\Lhr—\0mm:7\om:t Hr—iH r—I HH HHH N W KO [\ m: H rs\0 OH“ W‘:O;\Q\o rs. In (firs (“ (‘4 Km.) \D\D m0 :7 a.) I-I‘D (I) b— N 0 r\— m :7 (D N C) N :r (“\r‘) ::r r—I Ft.) (‘4 (\J tsxu to -11 DUI) ;I\ L.‘\ Ln"- 1*: ‘U N‘. r'" In“ -’\I 1;“ r—4 x: r—4 O In r—I U\ Q I o I I I I I I n I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I co :—I (ha: NOV) Iflu‘u m Inn'xzrfn ~1I \o m (.‘u‘ul‘d .7 MW“. (Vs: m :I (\I 3 m m m mmm 01mm : (\J (r, .51 rv‘ mg (_‘I eh m (“I W‘ *1 if (u‘ I’N‘ 7&1 Fa m mmmmmm {W(VN (Y’If‘u run (V1 (a; rv“, (v7 rv'fi 1*; mw‘yd "7‘. v‘ 'v" 'vfi 'v. u r I] ‘1 vv‘ w “1‘ 'u‘ .r v (‘J I"; (\l (\J (\J r\J (‘4 (u (VJ (“\J (‘J;«.'k~1l‘\1 -"-. :\) I-I (’1: -"J (”31“) IX. u’ .f'J (‘1 r"1 K’_ ": F) .’ 16.4 '4 x I '~J I ~J I“; (\l H \o MID O‘I-I (")‘D I(‘»(‘J .-I c) m ID Wu) J Inn) In In “I (M Ina) rx‘) \L' I‘ I M \u C) \o r—I r-I r» In N C'\ I»- (‘3 H a: I'D r— "N 0"» (\I ,4 \Q ,1 O (‘4 (D ()3 man \U -7n 1'“ r—A (x) r I rn Is'x rum) ~J\ (3 r“ C) ‘0 r-1 I I I O I I I I o I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I mm—JWKOCODJ\O h-oKOLflu‘I'JWDM—‘I r—Ir—Ir—I r-I r-lr—d {*4r—4H r". (\J (‘1 \0 O (,3 u"’I) t—AI HP» 2* (\.71"‘ILI\(‘AY“ on I ~L;\r4 r— 'l) a“ ""n’li‘ I .I .‘o I: y I‘ . \ a) I . ‘ ‘ {A O’NC‘OOHOMNWp In‘Nr‘on—I 3 I;'u:~-."nl;‘.r‘\. 0 u‘n‘un‘u : ' I‘J~J\'Jr-"" ' I ' :4‘l‘o .o‘L.‘ Cy .................................... \.) Fa '7‘.) DJ “1 (”WP V‘n‘fln k;\u1)!~-- (11(7“'\-.‘lj(‘1‘1 Wathn‘V" ,: ‘31,: ("I 3 VI u v. - .‘wxv'uL; v m v (\J [vx Mmm gm (‘9‘ {1“ “VI (Va Diff!“ "n4 7‘. "I H (\1 (\I N N (\J (‘1 (\J (‘1 (“I (-J (\I I“: (“J (\1 (X; {‘3 ("J “J "\I (J r I o; r‘J I I ("u "U r'u /“I (‘I :‘I (“J “I i J r'\I (‘o' (1 rd (‘J (\l ("J (“u ”\I (“J (‘1 ("d I'X. (*1 ("J (“J (\J I“) m} VJ Tl 'f'xu "‘1 1' _' 1.u -‘J 1'1 I J1 I (d "I (‘1 V‘u‘ "‘4 (‘1 (\1 “J (‘J (‘U on Is rs r—I Our) m (Two any; I‘m-n) rm '1 to (‘I mm ID ‘1') sn (\J In \ (=1 ',_7\ rs .--I .N‘I In L1\‘.L) In Mn «N (\I m it \o m H u\ “'1 ( ”n \L) m 31:) rru Orr J In»; 0\ .-I ’V‘Iii‘] \u )‘n I) an If“ (‘J rrI r» -'l) r~-_ (Yn In ( > (1) Win r—I .................................... Ln rs LflKD Ins uni) Ig'nxL‘I 1 In rs r--. (VIM r—d r—I_r—I r—I .a ,. H H .—4 ("u m LIN C) (h «T3 it 0 or; T». r13 I'-.‘ F“ r—IUJ m In"- U :1; :VIU? ‘0 x iv“ 73 I." o '1) C; (K: C) ‘. r» u, H U H r-~ ('0 O 41' O m D ID O I» If: U m v-4 "1: (I O \L‘ Ln [\- .-I :‘1 r—4 \L' :3 u‘» (1* I". (W "an 7‘, I" v m I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I I I I I I I 0 I I I O I I I w) .a on q'\ :r In u\ 3 .’""n\£1._l’;ng . I r u "‘I Um m it (h 'n ~“ '3 r\: 'r r; r-'\. 1" rd (n :"-(‘u 1"} Ru "4‘. «"‘n m (‘J (W r“ (VI "I“: O m *0 n“: v‘ rm -r . I m r» (\1 (‘J N‘ (Y‘ n" '7‘ "N “" "3 rn "7 '5" r" ”W “"‘W u""- (‘4' (‘1 F1 :7.- (‘J r4 r"J (‘1 Wu n‘- ‘u 2‘. 'V~ tr: «1 «n W ; A“ tn (W I‘“ I“) H (n ('3 on (H aw ("W :0 WI 5". rd In 0". I'r» ("I -n H" rru 1“ r-"n rm I'm (m «w rm n“ M 'h "’1 rm (V: «5 Wu -:~ r'rx In m O\ \0 IT) rs (\J (D Lr\f'X,‘- (7. (u ,WW (7\ I‘Y'u 1'11 :r. ('21 mg) '7‘ r~— (f) _u '1') r1 r'1 (‘1 rI , fin ('1 ‘4'.) 'r" :0 if f._ LI'\ \0 J) LR WW I I it u“ (M (Mu) I7) I"-I In L") 1!: N31) 2'.) 0.) fin. *» Cu to L7\ ‘ r I m. In 41, I" <7" '1' F) L‘i) \I; C) I I I O I I I I I 0 I I I O I l I I I I I I I I I I I I O I I I r"! In :1 a: a: \o Gui) \o \L) ('1U\r‘— In rm 41' v-1 r-4 .—4 r1 r—4 an .-I n-4 H H (\j (“I C) N O (L) s- to O (‘1 IT) (Q {“n I» 7.- H‘ML) |;\(\j(1') CI s. ,an 1". rs m n". (j. uj Isa ( 3 Minurs so l:\ (0 O (O Chu) (U r— lf‘n r»- fa- r- ("I F) H J (J to \L) Lu”u 17 (h I". f-J i‘W v—q pa Ch .—-I In 4‘». or (‘3 "up :1". nv’ (Q ........................... ........ U\ r-4 .3 U'\~'3 ‘4) t3 4! Pd _1 ('1) :3 LI\ “d (”RX") (\1 a! (V? -’\l {J —.' {\J 71 . 4 WW >0 Pu I‘J (V'u F'". (‘J C‘J (\J 7‘“ —1" (‘\.' ("N uY‘u r". uh :2 (D mu «*1 (n m NW .27 m (“I I‘KI ‘4 O O C) C) O C) O O C) CD (3 x”). O (J I} U. 7‘». rm 6‘. m «7. u": C‘ .—', ."s u“. u’) :5; (3 CI C) (__o , n ,n .7. h, m m ”‘ m 7‘“ (r. "“ 2"“ ("I I“ m M ”I I' '~ N 61 m «“4 :‘-I A; r J {\I rr- w, 'V'I 1v» -v-» mu m, 'V‘: rvn m, r»: -“‘~I I ‘3 - Mgr-4 H H C u m p I: i) - '05 -m CC {U C - - o «L. u '1) H U Q) r—I r) U H > '3 n L L. I) Comm-H HON-r4 I (1‘ HI) OED '1) a": 3‘» > > In) 1‘»; D L) {J .5 :5 ’) P C F, "2 (1.; in a“) pammm pHMQJhfl nu ma) (II E" m! 0 u ,C C O u I: C C. m (5 5D I») 63 I1) '3 {E 41) H 4: <1) (Ur-4 u ~1~3r¢®z0 r-4 u *4 0'4 U U L. 1: "‘ F L 3"} ‘ E:- V’ 'C inFENOHHRJS‘E(fiCJH-dfl-H-HSCS-Hn)(12C) Ln(>~o'H:Iu m L. :4 guns: r‘ L L L.u1iwp'~a’un Q 0 {Jo—Hod: :5 Ooh-4H ‘a L) C) 0 2‘, Q) T) 17);.) O 0 1*. Q) 0 U ’wI “'u 11. E .5' if H ‘.‘. 1'1 fl (1) ‘11 41) LI VI 03:2:EmhuzfnmLiz-imIL-rthmmzz«xctH-zujuzmHac (Timon) I I O I I I I o I I I I I I I I a I I I o I I a I I I o I O I I I I I r—I (\I m: [ORG b-d) an O r—I (‘xl Ms: !’\\0 Z‘~~’,I’J to O r—4. m n"- : Lira r~~ "1:. w r v o4 w 'v“ 2: true H H H H '--1 r—4 H 7—4 .-4 r4 I"! (‘J I“: (\J l“; "I; "‘J (VJ TX) (\I "“r “'u (7" 3‘ “'1 WW 1"" 339 1 7777701172 I loam-1n .177 . 5 mm... TABLE 35 .-—Correlat ion matrix 71 7 g .... (ED 7 '5 1770111271011 «177 .217 .177 71 7 E w I 1 rum-c ~07: .277 .777 .777 71 l 7 7 .001 7 701m -.171 .71! .777 .772 .7" 1 71 7 71 .122 .717 7 mm. .177 .727 .772 .771 .727 .777 71 7 7 .117 .770 . o . mm -.1‘I '..‘I 79'. -..1 -°., '..‘I '..8. 71 71 71 71 71 7 71 .217 .771 .777 717 .777 .777 .777 7 mnn -.277 .277 .177 .772 .177 .177 177 .777 71 7 71 71 71 71 11 -o77 .172 .777 .211 .727 .127 my 10 177711 "nun... -.171 .177 .772 777 .277 .179 771 .777 .797 71 71 7 7 7 r- .... <51?) m» db db 5 11 E mmm .771 .117 .7171 .777 .101 .777 .777 .212 .727 .771 71 7 7 " 737 B 12 F3 7:21.117: '10-” 71 g .777 17 Acne- ' I" 71 .O'IV 17 717111. - 1" 71 .117 11 mean . can, -.uo7 .717 .271 .777 .777 .777 .277 .7177 .772 .277 .277 .277 .127 .777 7c 7 7- 7a 7 77 77 7 7o - 77 g .117 .777 db 727 db .772 .777 .771 m; .717 17 5 man - In. - 0’77 n7" .772 .190 .297 -.777 777 .271 .177 .177 .291 .271 .777 .277 .277 77 I7 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 .777 .712 .772 .177 1 777 .711 .01 .171 .277 .17 v v v 17 111mm -.717 .717 .777 .777 .177 .77: .771 -.717 -.777 .727 .777 .777 .777 .727 -.777 -.777 71 71 71 71 71 7 7 71 71 71 7 7 7 7.- .771 .727 .777 .721 .772 GE .717 .777 .121 .771 .777 .717 .71. 1. I: moo ~.172 -.777 .772 .777 -.777 .127 .177 -.771 -.111 -.771 -.127 -.177 .777 .777 -.117 .7» < 71 I1 71 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 7| 7: g .277 .>-1 .777 .777 .117 ($9 .777 .777 .771 .777 .777 .277 .772 .722 .777 10 11mm -.727 .122 0.707 .171 .077 .171 .170 .717 .127 .717 .179 .77! .177 .127 -.172 «757 7c 77 77 77 77 77 77 7 77 717 77 17 77 77 70 77 , .717 .7u7 .777 .171 .771 .177 .277 .777 .277 .717 .177 .771 .222 .222 .137 .777 20 1 1701717 I noes -.117 .212 .177 .777 .771 .271 -.177 -.271 .177 .777 .777 .777 .777 .717 7.772 77 7 77 77 77 - 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 17 777 .777 . 77 . 77 .77 .27 . 77 .7 7 .727 .7 . .751 n m “m a 1 o 7 ® 1 1 mp 17 777 .177 .171 .177 -.727 .217 .177 .277 -.777 -.279 -.777 -.177 -.172 .172 -.772 .797 '4'! 77 7 7 7 o 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 77 75 .777 .711 .171 .777 .777 .177 .777 .772 .772 .271 .777 .117 .777 .732 402 11 mm ~47; .771 .171 .277 .172 .771 .727 -.777 -.177 .777 -.717 -.757 .772 .111 -.772 "I" 71 71 71 7 71 7 71 71 7 7 71 7 71 77 It .1c7 .127 .177 . 7 .777 .777 .771 .711 .777 7 .75: 17 71;! .172 -.777 -.157 -.117 -.o77 .771 -.777 -.272 -.177 -.177 -.717 -.277 .777 -.177 «797 -7'7 71 11 71 71 ’1 1 1 7 71 71 71 7 71 7 77 711 u .777 .771 .177 .777 .777 .777 .777 .77! .21! .777 .707 .177 .727 .7” 27 an.“ S .777 .777 .127 -.777 no" .717 .717 -.777 .771 .177 .177 .177 -.722 .717 -.711 "0" 71 7 71 1 71 71 71 71 71 1 71 71 71 7 70 g .77! .1772 .277 .717 .717 .772 .772 .717 .717 .277 .177 .177 .777 .777 .777 .7717 21 a 1711711777017" .777 -.777 .777 .740 .797 .111 .707 -.277 -.717 .171 .277 .777 .127 .777 .277 .211 71 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 7 .177 .771 .707 .777 .72) .111 .712 77 72117107111707. -.777 ~.717 .777 .127 .777 -.777 .727 .177 .177 .277 .217 .271 -.717 .177 ~.771 .772 3 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 71 77 71 71 71 71 72 77 77 .- .7:.1 .777 .777 .177 .777 .777 .777 .277 .177 .777 .777 .771 .772 .117 .777 .777 17 " 771.1611: Mill. 3 .717 -.771 -.727 -.779 .701 -.107 -.|77 .1“ .297 .2’1 .1“ 7.7” M721 .7” 7.10! 47? 71 71 71 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 7 71 71 7| 77 .717 .777 .721 .171 .771 -111 -172 .171 .177 .177 .771 .717 .177 .777 2! 171.7 -.121 -.177 -.777 .771 -.127 .717 -.777 .777 .177 .777 .117 .277 .777 .177 -.707 .777 71 71 71 71 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 7 71 71 77 71 .777 .772 .777 .777 .771 .712 .717 .727 .277 .777 .727 .777 .121 .777 .777 27 0111171712171; -.217 -.171 .127 .177 .777 .771 .772 .727 .177 .277 .777 .277 .177 .277 .777 .777 I 71 71 71 71 71 71 I1 71 71 7 71 7 77 7': C .777 .271 .277 .177 .727 .777 .777 a .177 .772 .777 .217 .717 so i 71mm 4” 7.0“ ND! HI" 7.7” -.717 at“ J” a". “7", a!” -.1II .77! n”: .197 .707 a 71 7 71 71 1 71 1 71 71 71 71 71 77 7: .777 .777 .1" .717 .797 .777 .777 .727 .112 .717 .772 .777 .777 .707 .277 .777 71 1177171111117 no” -.777 .777 .772 -.177 .177 .772 -.177 -.717 .177 .777 -.777 .777 .727 .171 .111 71 71 71 71 71 71 7 7 7 71 71 71 71 7 77 77 .777 .717 .777 .777 .772 .177 .777 .177 .777 .177 .777 .777 .712 .727 .107 .777 17 7171717727. 7.1” 'J" —-701 .102 '41! .209 .77! ."l '7”! .277 .202 .747 .227 .190 .27. .177 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 7 71 77 477 .767 .097 .1” .771 .177 .777 .711 .771 .777 .777 #717 7 1) mm! .197 .177 -.701 .172 .777 .177 .277 -.717 -.711 .777 .277 .702 .227 .127 -.777 -777 1 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 77 71 71 71 71 77 .171 .772 .711 .771 .772 .177 .777 .777 .727 .727 ~77 .777 .771 .222 .727 .117 3‘ 3 71277711117 1: .777 -.177 -.157 .777 .771 c.727 -.777 -.7” -.771 7.72! .777 .727 .771 -.717 c.727 -.117 71 I1 71 71 7 71 72 71 71 71 71 H ’7 It 70 7" .771 .271 .177 .777 .777 .171 .772 .777 .777 .711 .777 .727 .777 .717 .797 .777 ’5 711-1.: .717 all! .727 .172 .772 .717 .771 -.177 -.271 c.172 -.777 -.177 .772 -.172 c.727 no“ 71 71 71 7: 71 71 71 71 7 71 71 71 71 71 77 7- . 7 Y _ numctuulr . n!" ".2" .2" .3” .7” .2” .177 'J" '4" an! 7.737 .277 .11. -.712 .192 ‘J‘l g 71 I1 7 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 71 77 7:. . 71 .7 7 . 7 . . 717117177- 717mm 117111172”!!! 771.- ¥ All: U-C -T'[wlnlul "1» 13'76 3140 for the White group on the Characteristics Scale. mu: 'su «mu Lin ’0! comm Inn. ”mmmmrun-M. ‘mnnrunon: mumr XCI PU SIZE WWW! mu. 0", I an .0" n n .«c .09 0": 0‘.‘ 'ul" on 67 a .m .12: .221 -.m .0“ e 66 69 .010 .373 .‘3. .0“ .321 01.. 037. I 7 n ' am 0 120. an a‘.‘ 0.20 '1... '1‘}. 'u.., .~.', )1 7 7' M I. 71 .12, .01. .us .20: .430 .ua .12. -.:u .on 0..“ .on -.ux -.z:; I: 71 7! u u 71 71 .212 .3“ .0» 1.0" .u: .392 .no .1“ an -.|« .on .014 .0" .5" .327 u n n u u u n . .u; .119 -?.’° .92 -.uu -.x« .19: -.uo -.us -.uo .2» .00: an n n u o n I u n .946 .325 .46. .45! .07. .273 .I.:. ‘0‘52 c!“ 'u”. .030. '0‘., .1’. .u.,. C." V.,, n n n 1: n I: 7 .10. I 7 0". 3": 0.7. '0‘“. .021, 'u.” ’.." .l“’ 'o..‘ ‘1'. all, n n u u u n n u 1 7 J» .au .91) an .316 .09. .903 .220 .H. ® ® nuo -.u2 -.m -.021 -.1.I an. -.uo as" -.ou non nun an n a u u 71 u x n u n .m .72.: an .120 .9" .u: .39. an .032 .5“ no“ -.109 -.127 .u! .uo -.:as -.l” .100 .10 an? -.:O: -.31I .0” n n n u u 7 n u n n n u n 0].. :37, '3'. I"’ 03” 0.2. 38.. I12. 013‘ 01., 0". O... .u: .u: -.:u .na .0" -.uz .320 .u; .3“ .1» .099 .on .no .u; u n I u u n u u n n u n .1“ .970 .1" .920 .0" .39: .13: .30; .42! .071 .1” .0“ .m .2“ .u. .113 .129 .107 -.110 .0" an: -.m at" .1" an .0“ .oa: n u u 1 n n n n n n n u ’1 .0“ .115 -.m .120 .u; -.ua .1“ an -.us .142 .ou ~41. «on .010 d” J“ u 71 n u u 7: n n n u u n I: n ’1 11 .au .33: .u: an .au .1“ .uo .3" .030 .232 .uu .3" .0“ .030 d" J“ .0" .x19 .00 .2“ mm .0“ .0» -.uo -.uz .091 an .19 .u: an "0" J" "1’ n n n o u n 1 7: n n I: n n u ’i " ’ .0: .au .au .0" 1.". .97: .9” .uo .u: .no .no .881 .0“ .08: ~“‘ -°" .au .on 4.: .:u .111 .21. ~.uo .0“ .007 v.10: n19. -.1u -.uo .0” '4" d" 4’45 4” n n n u u n n n u n n n u n '1 ’1 7 7‘ -.1« .04: -.uo .19: .10: .13. -.ua .05: as" -.:u an: .23: non ~43. ~00 J" 42’ '-'“ 4" u n n u u 7 I n u u u I n n ’1 n 7‘ " 7‘ . c .11: -m .2“ -m 4“ .2” -19; 4.1 (fl 2“ _jIA__ .190 .0. 4L .7” 457 1 .Mm We uncro- alumna- vlulvrvhlu ”lulu “1., "I"! ”1,4,. WY!“ )3 l 3. l I! A13: W-C 3141 1 Hum"! ’ “m“ “d9 TABLE 6 C l 3 . —- orre ation matrix ) ‘- muL humano- -U-0 .12: E J4 .IL p. '5 .)Da .J:v ‘ g “Penman. .111 .39) .en t: ‘ 5' I: s ‘ run-c . s Lalo: I mun. I , l numnvl .uu v.15; -.A)( - 15i- ’..'J¢ - (v- - )5 5' A H 5 1' " ' .51.) .(13 ”A, 7:: Q: 0 9 mwnvr. 451 an: «an. an: mo -1. -.(_ ,ue 5’ 1‘ J" 3') 3‘ w 5‘ 5 .01- .a d H‘J 1") a 4 we (:3 . . 1° mun “Alumna 4H! 215* .Lra - 119 ..r(’ . T-‘- ~ :3: an.‘ an i 5‘ " 5 3‘ 5' " “ ; .~' E: p 1.5 n. In: I 4 U: W. (.1) O u E uvmunlul. ,5?) »,OL. -.r4/ < L55 ,.-‘ » _ 5 - H4 3?; .vw AW- 5 5' \ :4 5. J ~ a 5' 5: m .11, x » v .54/ no '5 A1. C3) ll k VIZUI; .xto nut: -./ov —,1i1 .439 .v - H. 0*: .325 J35 04, g: Jr {n ‘_ ’ l ‘ ‘ < ,. a A ., Q a). be 1) Anna! .110 .3” 4‘} «an inn rs aw - in ..2. .g‘a .xu .1“ .- .5' st * ~ ' a a: la .5” . o (n) ® c” 9 Q (:9 u; it. .779 ‘7‘ 415 u “run, .141 mafia 2171 mu've .L.:: ;‘1 .1‘2' JV .1413. 4914 H: ./5a .u) u n u L s H 3‘ ‘ r“ i f: . )6 O7: . z 411 1' 5'6 , ¢ 1 a < .D d I] 06: 15 [than - am. .01] .1?! .113 .09 .m; .." 1:1 ,.~.: .9" .Ma .0: .Do .1“ .tfl‘u (a ¢' 4'4 (~ A iv (v ‘v (0 ' (0 (0 1° 2', us vv an or— u '45 '5 5) th ‘ .39. u .a '1 4 , ( o o x I. > 717100 _ nrr .9»: .911 ,5.“ ‘,°02 .ms - 2w - .H I o ..\-u .Ua .1n .1'! ‘.211 .011 -.IM 1'- 14 ('4 1‘! ; ‘ '- A"; 49 1 9 2 0‘! no .n:( '3' .3 [7 awn" .032 .1!» an; .1" (G .v (a (v 0*“ .uv .(‘va 2” In 5 m0! 1:. .ah um. ~ on ‘3 ('3 (v 1" 11 é 4): .2", IGJ (In 1, AVOIDAE! ,019 '.4n -./(1 Hi}! -. ' M . u n .91» (as 34/ 3° f; ”on: a. .13) u:. 115 wt '3 a; z~ (u 3: .IAI .c I. .7“ "J n Aumnvu NJ «.1; ‘0‘ H' (v (u (v 3' (M r .I11 1:1 11 mm .J-‘u mi.» .~'v.‘ .111 .1 25 .v [a 2v . > 1! .u. h ,_ 2. (‘j g_ o w) ,u. .15} 4“ .au .42) .051 .07: J71 11 If v u; or“ '.u-fl nun -.'..o In H; ~_1 4 -.M. 'Jid mil-3 -.uu .20; -.15Q J" at” u . In J. 3v ' \ .\ J: 5: Jo so :0 .so 20 1‘ U .5“. r5] an no ).1 -u -(0 ('1 .35: .143 .100 Jan .255 .nv .5“ .JJ 21. E mun. mom 3 ul( UuL -.‘w ~.121 '.l/U c: "11' .mL ‘95/ 23‘s .3” 210.. -.0M .0“ '.III Ml" a n w .w H .1- .H w: J" 5: 5 Jo Jo JO so 20 l‘ 2 .9“: .tr'v .11) .56! .drd iv’do .5'9.‘ .050 .15! .192 .940 .38. .951 .v09 .99! -,‘l 25 a llama noun .101 at; .00; .4'9 Axe) a" u; -..vo at): ‘.u>U .no .0“ .471 .00» J32 «on n u v o 29 w (v n (v 19 n n 49 29 H J”: ( 1) -H2 ‘1 JM 446 (. ‘1 0‘7 .351 .6‘ .424 .612 .H0 .150 .51) .1“ to annual Ill-0|. ' v v .1” .u. ~..M an!) .no » u; .;4. 43¢ «M; an. axle ‘.(l4‘ HUI -.nv ~.ul all! ,I :r Ju u )0 J: 34 a: an 5: so an Jo so u 20 N S .Jll .13) .xu .060 all! .17; ,Nv .064 .36; .1“ .na .I'SJ .123 .42. ,5.) 41¢ V n L nucmu man. :1 .142 .1” an: -.0M .9“ «4“ «.JH .234 .110 my“ .111 .10v .033 .11! .24.! at” " u a; so 3:: 2 5 JC 41 5: 3c 10 so u- u 20 u .wo .~5a .511 .0“ .0” .565 .n: in A3» .ou .u. .300 .00: .NJ .1" «1‘0 n 5111 (el on.- .no .359 -.;12 .132 ‘uv "n .4” .Ho .36! .xN .2" ”I?! .«9 .4” u :0 so 3; M M Br J: J: - u u .s I II .Lnu .O’J .513 a .9” .0. .2“ .No .15! o .tu .121 ® ® .0" 29 mu: mun; 1’9 ow no 031 .1H .5 .439 .049 .220 .121 .015 .123 .‘M .200 .34! no“ 3 u :u u u ... 5' a: )0 50 J0 so 3 u 10 1‘ E .u, .uv 0 .2” .u: .22. .an .on .an .ua .101 J” In r um W a .409 .0” .100 .no .1” «we .1” .11: .491 .u: .625 -.uu .054 .29. .170 J“ z u an .3: 30 5c 5: 3: J6 - v JO so M n 2' ‘ 0 4°.) .ou .392 .40.) .316 ,u: .41: .34. my ® .90; .990 .In .1“ .1“ n 3 “manual 3 .16; .Mc .30) .us .34. .222 .u; .019 .009 .131 .009 nul- .15. .ux .01 .5" J0 5' J3 J‘ A M :0 JD :0 Jo M u u l' .uv @ .99» .au .ux GD .91. .0» .u. .959 .-u .1" .us an )3 MIAMI. .un .n. .11) ‘12! .u’¢ nah .12.) .25. no?) nu” 467 .(M -.950 .1" .1" “I" n M J0 so 3:. :1 JC 3 5a so u so 40 u 20 1‘ .91:- .‘~‘ .331 .21; .ew .52. .saa my: .90» .917 .3“ .151 .on .au .10! «W [out Am .J>9 '.l.'v -.Hh n9" ml“ .0?! 21": .316 .15} .101 ELMO noes .00! .1") .0‘1 HI" so .n so .w J: 5: so .In so JD 30 so u u 29 1‘ .Isu .uy an .900 .375 477 .461 .0“ .004 .570 L30» .v73 .09 .930 .u) .1" a 3 rut-AL up r.‘ 400 nth -.000 .170 '-U‘1 ‘19! .an all” .10. .12! '.°°2 -.OIJ .277 .110 .07. “I” u .w u Ju ~.' 3: Jo ac- JO :0 Jo JO :3 u 9 l‘ .5»: .31: .999 .59; .02 .Mr .oad an .39: .‘99 .90; .va. .3}: .n. .0) -U' in rum-c .1»? .au an: .9" node -,a'c .111 ,1” .20: .071 .10: -.oh .0“ .171 .2" .0" 29 v 19 z '9 29 n n 0 19 29 u at 10 2| 1' .go.» (‘3 .n; .n) .93; .1“! .7“ .409 .15: .ua due .no .ou .JSI .18! 4" ___..._—— 36 _ nunmcnmm _ , _ ‘ .n, .0,¢ .102 .Mo .10: .c's .256 .009 .160 .151 .99! .1“ .115 .11: .m J»? a g :0 4" 2° 2° 29 26 19 n 20 29 20 n 29 a! I! n .2“ .1“ .na 4:» .15. .90. .;0a J20 .n/ .00 .00: .121 .10: as; .1” J" u. Amnm cur-rm VALIAIL Amm mm um All: u-c I I 2 I 31 5131761? 0 I o m "I ulu In 1! fl 342 for the Black group on the Characteristics Scale. .til 19 .21) -.JC1 -.Ovo 49 49 .190 .v73 .0): .200 -.>12 9 29 V .51! -.009 -.270 .9dl 29 49 20 . .090 .902 .100 ® .11. .99! .110 .1-9 .512 (V 29 2V 2‘- 20 .an m .921 4:2 :90 .29v .292 -.369 .000 .319 .050 1'" (9 20 )9 .1111 .111 .591 .2” .1el .910 .010 .100 .241 .117 .020 1° 9 29 (9' )9 )9 JD .199 (:13; .92> .290 .191 .512 .923 .39: .105 -.352 .210 .191 ,ozn .212 -.1:9 to 29 20 20 29 (a 29 29 .002 .212 .0’1 .249 .999 .v10 .210 .>5u .119 .151 -.079 0.000 -.2~o -.019 .029 .115 .051 (v 29 29 2s 29 29 c J0 29 .904 .910 .075 {-010 .200 .05) .075 .93» .059 .201 .209 -.090 .092 -.09- .991 .19: -.1sr .20: .93. 29 29 29 29 >9 :9 33 10 29 11 .xau .200 .729 .701 .010 .019 .190 .055 .270 -u 1 .090 .110 .190 -.199 .099 .191 0.000 .020 .10) -.Jo¢ - 02. 49 29 29 29 29 (9 00 50 29 so 10 .000 .527 .110 .0¢> .990 .102 1.000 .000 .179 (:22) .912 -.11o .525 .139 .209 -.o:) .992 .J-> -.035 .200 -.101 ..3- .250 ‘9 9 29 29 29 :9 1' 10 29 so an 10 .912 .450 .2eI .901 (3:2) (:33) .009 .11! .501 .952 .150 ._.,, .99: -.120 .029 -.195 .237 .06! .109 .215 -.0Ov .10. .919 .209 29 9 2' 26 29 29 1: so 29 so JO :0 .9). .991 .075 .900 .117 .I10 .>7. .240 .901 .>50 .109 .120 .902 -.050 .1J7 .0!) .319 .205 .109 .241 .030 .101 .500 .503 .070 (9 ' 29 2s 29 - 1o 10 29 :0 an :0 JD .152 .1» .-e1 .95. o .119 .2» .191 .19; .u1 Q29 69 .070 .01: .170 -.070 .1-2 .000 -.510 .200 .020 .059 .119 .100 .15: .007 -.0i1 26 2 29 2s 20 29 31 30 29 10 so Jo so 10 12 .Iul .922 .091 .0Ia .04, .907 .001 .259 .172 .r00 .1). .079 .495 .QJC .7c1 .160 .091 .009 -.122 -.091 .029 .152 -.012 -.135 .097 .230 .135 .029 0.000 -.090 -.1!: ‘9 29 29 21 29 29 0n J0 29 50 An so .0 10 so )0 .10, .207 .002 .910 .91. .079 .905 .909 .909 .590 .199 .062 .095 1.000 .029 .090 .19: .111 -.122 .030 .994 .129 .199 .02! .053 .111 .224 .291 .10! .119 -.040 -.110 .012 2' 2' 2‘ 29 (9 JO JO (9 SO )0 $0 00 )0 J“ 0» JD (:ff2) .591 .110 .011 .010 .190 .09. .09. .ao1 .412 .210 .100 .991 .917 ..7¢ .,.. (:EEI’ .099 .0/9 ~.002 -.012 .093 .191 .109 .211 .641 -.099 .914 .401 .079 .427 ~29! .111 .Jvo .197 n 20 2! an 20 29 29 9 20 29 (v 9 9 @ (H?) .0» .0” .er .112 .4119 .25- ($3.1 (12)» 6'7!) 025 .172 .1:1 .u. (577) (ii?) .090 .29: .099 -.u10 .292 .999 -.110 -.009 .121 .002 .579 .322 an 20 (2 2a 29 29 29 29 (3“. 29 .0: .111 .51. .9.o .A10 (.00? .999 .970 .91! .991 .430 .377 Il/UI couzacr DIIDCIAPIIC IILJCXOI ClAlnl OIJIIIATICI I‘laajoi "I“IUJNIHIH ”Jul” 2611? 1014110111111 ”I”T” 343 1 mum-110 1 3.1.1110 .013 0 @ TABLE 37.-—Correlation matrix 1 5 1010.1. nmznxc- .101 .001 0 1 8 -w we . 5 Mia). .11: .01. .001 1: 0 E 0 1mm 0 ACTION 1 mm. a -.141 mu. -.101 -.000 .001 .000 -.00. snmnu .1 .1 01 01 1 01 w .00. .10. .000 .001 .010 .001 -.110 .100 -.010 .000 .110 .101 .101 .003 ’ mun .1 01 .1 .1 01 .1 07 .101 .103 .001 ..10 .000 .000 .11. ‘ 10 t m 111.111.1100: .111, .11, .110 .131 .330, .1107 .3007 .13: .030, .7, .3... ® b ..11 It . .003 .101 .110 ..31 ..01 .11. .11. ..00 ...1 ..1. u 2 111011121qu .1 01 0 ‘ ® .1 1 01 ‘ .1 . .110 .00. .201 . .3 = . _5 an 1 a 09 g ..0. .111 .310 ..10 .003 ..3. ..11 100 .301 .010 .11. l? 1: "1U" .1 .1 1 .1 .1 ' .1 .1 1 1 ‘ .040 ® .1.0 .000 éfl ® -.113 - 010 .137 .011 .001 ..10 .103 .103 .101 .100 .13. U . “m0" .1 01 .1 .1 1 .1 0 0 01 .313 .001 .103 w‘ 1. mm - 111 .101 .100 .1 .1 .1 .102 .110 .101 15 mac: - can. -.131 .010 .10. .101 .11. .100 .011 .000 ..00 .100 .113 .111 .100 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 .1 g .110 .11. .100 .301 .100 .031 .031 .001 .100 .100 .310 .100 1. > anon - 1101. -.00. -..31 -.010 .0.1 .110 .103 ..01 .101 .101 .100 .131 .101 .111 .300 .110 1 01 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 . 0 . ..10 .003 ..0. .13. .310 .110 ..10 - 11 or -.11. -.110 -.u1. -.0.0 -.000 .31. .011 -..01 .103 .100 .001 .011 .331 .11. ~10: -.;1. n 01 07 01 07 01 .1 01 07 01 .1 01 07 .1 ., .311 .101 .000 ..01 ..00 m, .000 .00. .113 .011 .000 .01. m~ .00. .110 4.. 1, [3 1101101101 -.0u .010 -.011 -.0.1 -.11. .310 .100 -.007 .000 -.101 -.000 -.000 .00. .000 -.111 -.0.. ‘ .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 01 g .003 1.000 .003 ..1. .010 w .301 ..10 .010 .101 .100 .01. m, ..00 .00: .003 10 .vuxmuu .010 .121 -.113 -.011 -.n’0 .111 .000 .001 .010 -.030 -.070 -.000 .001 .011 -.11. __“9 0. .0 00 .0 .0 .9 00 0. 0. .0 .0 00 .0 0 00 u 5 .000 .100 .310 .001 .511 .311 ..01 .001 .00. .100 .000 .000 .010 .001 ..10 4,. 10 . 1mm 3 .011 -.110 -.011 -.010 .010 .101 ..0. -,001 .011 -.0.. .000 .00. .101 ..01 -.... __l”. d 0‘ 6. O. O. .C O. O. 0‘ 0‘ 0‘ .‘ O. I‘ .0 .. ..10 .11. .0.0 .010 .000 ..10 .100 .001 .000 .100 .00. .031 .103 .000 . 10. 000 21 111101.111” ' .001 .091 .110 -.010 .010 .10. .100 -.000 .000 .001 .031 .130 .111 .011 .00; -4” .1 01 .1 .1 01 .1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 .3 01 .1... .000 .300 .010 ..10 .100 .101 .003 .001 .001 .000 .11. .300 .001 .00. 01> 11 mm . -.130 ~.00. .010 -.013 .000 .101 .100 o.003 .000 -.010 -.10. -.001 .11. .000 -.020 -~x‘-1 01 0 07 07 01 1 01 .1 .1 01 01 01 .1 .100 .0" .001 .0.0 .00. .;1 ..10 .00. .011 ..30 .400 .010 .01 ...1 ..3‘ U. U 05! v .32.. .003 -.0.0 -.131 -.131 -.0.0 -.11. -.13. -.101 -.003 -.131 -.113 -.000 -.31. -.100 o..1. , fi .1 01 .1 .1 01 1 01 .1 . ., ' {:1 .000 .113 .110 .11. (2) ..00 .10. .100 ..10 fi 1.) .9‘ a 1. E 11111:. noun ‘3’ a . "" -| ‘ .110 .000 -.00. .110 -.m .300 .100 .100 .110 .110 .300 .131 .140 .303 ....3 - , - .1 .I .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 1 .1 1 . "’° ‘ i -101 .003 ..0. .101 .101 .000 .130 .011 .310 .100 _ ,2. 0’ 1s a 1mm your: "" -.111 .011 -.0.. -.0.0 .070 -.110 -.000 1.011 ..10. -.000 .000 .03. -.100 -.001 .‘,‘ 01 01 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 .1 01 01 01 ., 4" .31! .003 .000 .000 .030 .100 ..10 .000 .101 .u. .01.] .119 an .01; ’ 7 10 “new! m. . ‘ " -.o.1 -.1.0 -.100 -.130 .000 -.100 -.10. .131 .113 .000 -.030 -.003 ~.1.0 .003 -.‘.‘ 3 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 0 01 .1 .1 .1 01 01 01 .113 g .1... .300 .100 .100 .031 .001 .003 .110 .001 .0.0 .001 .010 .130 .00; ‘7 0? 11 3 nuclei m. _ ~2I1 4., d -.000 .011 ..101 -.011 .0" -.131 -.100 .071 .1” -.000 n0" n1" -.1.0 .011 - ‘. " 0 01 .1 01 .1 .1 01 .1 ' ‘ 41“ ..01 .0_1_3 .1.. .003 .001 .00 .100 .010 .00 ‘7 07 10 $11: 0 -.1.0 n!!! «.1.0 .000 .000 -.1.0 -.101 .101 .033 .033 -.010 .003 -.101 -.009 - 0 07 .7 .1 .1 1 01 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 ., -I‘3 .121 .133 .00. .111 .0.1 ..0. .10. .001 .u. .101 .100 .013 .111 .101 .9.‘ 0’ 10 mm mum: .11. 3., --101 -.110 .070 .100 .111 -.13. ._... .000 -.000 -.0.. .000 .001 -.003 .00; g .1 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 , 15¢, ..01 ,1 .110 ..0. .0.0 .110 .331 .113 .011 .11. .001 .100 ..0. .011 .010 .9,‘ .1 so ‘ 013111 outrun. (lb ""' E .10. -.0:. -.001 -.010 -.100 .11: .010 -.001 -.010 .130 -.011 -.001 .00. H.,“ g 01 01 .1 .1 .1 1 1 01 .1 o 01 01 , .051 .111 o .00. .01. ..10 .00. .100 .31. ..11 .000 m .100 .000 .00. .000 '5‘. 01 .1 01 " 11110101100 10" 3‘1 g .021 ..1/ -.a30 .101 .110 .010 .001 -.110 -.100 .111 .130 .001 .111 .110‘ .1 01 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 01 01 01 .1 , -110 .14. ...o .00.. .101 .100 .310 .011 .001 .301 .300 .310 .100 .100 .310 , ,5. 07 0’ )2 1111.1 ADIII. .3.” .11. -.111 -.100 -.103 -.110 -.101 .101 -.1.1 .001 .00. .011 .001 .001 .111 43‘ .1 01 .1 .1 01 01 0 01 01 0 0 ~30. .103 . 4.11 . .11 . 11 mm. 3111 ' .111 .000 ..010 -.0.1 -.001 .131 .110 -.173 -.00. .000 .001 .000 .110 J" ‘ 1 .1 1 01 .1 .1 .1 01 .1 .1 .1 . - .19; .000 l .01.: ..10 .010 .100 .u. .101 .310 .100 ..00 .011 .110 .110 .0.. z: .1 .1 3. ° “ .000 5 man. .131 -.000 -.310 -.u. -.o0. .000 -.131 -.100 -.1.1 .00. 01 1 0 01 .1 .1 -. -..10 g .000 .310 .001 .711 .170 .201 ..:y .1 . 10 ” m” ~01: .013 -..11 -..31 -.10. .100 .000 .011 .001 a .1 01 .1 0’ 01 07 07 -. -. J0 .003 .010 -00. .100 .011 . 1 ..:, ' , " .- . 1ww1c1m1 ..10 -.100 .100 ..10 .131 .111 .111 .001 a; .1 .1 .1 .1 1 1 01 ._ .110 .101 .03 .000 . 1” .010 f vuumn‘ 0mm: carry-r .00: 110-1 1 l 1 l 3 I 0 l 0 I . I 1 . O n 5 & 31414 .oeI .99. 06 .0 .519 C35 .15. .313 -.1o. - .d .3 db in «J .37: .265 -.190 ..20 6 .‘ .1 -’ db 4“ «9 9:1 .4.. .306 .191 .z’c 0’ .7 6 0d a an an an . an - v v ' ..1/ -.uao -.oo. -.121 -.xtx .01: .I .7 .o o: 97 .7 ..0. .937 .ooz .53. .352 .72. .aao .039 -.029 .005 .11: -.1.a -.aJ. .7 66 04 .7 0’ .90, ..u ..cs .35.! .291 Q -. :I -.e‘z -.oon -.222 -.x57 -.eoo .GOI -.1l: .7 o7 .e .I .7 .7 o7 .19; .727 .970 .075 .2na .937 .00: .2‘. V -..tv -.109 .2.. -.x19 -.aso -.o.o .1!) -..99 .9.) .7 .7 ‘ 04 v .7 .7 .7 ..n .47: w .s-x a ..z. ..a. .997 -.o’. -.104 .27. -.262 -.2.7 -...7 .309 -.02: .327 .079 .7 .7 .4 . .99. .59. .059 .011 .111 .090 - ass .97: .119 -.1|, .1?) .123 .209 .7 .7 0. on .2 .7 .7 .7 .7 . ..u .92. .30. ..u .n. .9“ .us .119 .291 a]. -.131 -.1‘9 -.100 ..OOI - 09! -.IO, -.07I 7.:60 .12! -.100 -.ll2 or . .4 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .702 .735 .12) .947 .40 .06! .932 .10. .29: .37: -.1¢x -.124 -.997 .017 .17. -.210 -.I51 -.020 .10. -.253 -.22. 07 .7 .o .4 .2 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .24; .3” ..47 .n. ,9: ..n ..7. .u. .179 ® .oa ~.OS; --095 -.l¢2 °.022 - 02: ;.I90 ‘ltb .05. .J19 .050 .000 .1 .7 .0 6a .2 .7 07 e7 67 .07! .4), .2‘0 .092 .074 .46. .04! -029 .001 .35. .2I9 -.097 .119 .237 .all -.101 .IIO -.xo. -.0I7 -.191 or .7 .0 0‘ .2 0 .7 .7 .7 .7 . - m. lug .nn .u: .7)! .102 .020 .039 .0.) 0.000 .100 .11) -.110 .tZO .000 .I .7 .0 .4 .2 O7 07 O7 .7 .7 .7 .xdl .40. .082 .77. .7): .4‘l .1); .15. .401 .200 .518 .07! .DIO .09! .l‘l -.11. .00. .0), -.109 7.1‘3 7.02! .00) .7 .7 .0 .. .7 .7 7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .927 .510 .69. -2‘9 .392 .700 .09: .x00 .210 ..11 .060 .22. .1?! -.0I2 .001 .19. .230 -..II .Il7 -.II0 -.30. -.10. or .7 .6 .0 .2 7 .7 .7 .7 -ML 1“ Q n. -.73. )1) ..s7 .01. -.117 .207 .2£. .229 .000 .000 -.I§J .I’J -.I00 07 o) .0 64 07 O7 .7 67 .7 .020 .910 .342 5 9. IIII .31: III! . av Inns alnAcr outnIAnuc IILNHOI for the White group on the Education Scale. .277 éb ~.O7J .10] O7 .7 .53‘ 0"! .10. .309 .110 .7 07 67 .III a... .807 .312 .0’9 .002 -.0,I -.009 .307 -I’I .074 07 O? .7 .7 .I .030 .000 .10! .1l. .9): 02.. 0". I... .'°.z “. "97 .7 .7 07 .7 .7 .121 ..0. ..c1 .107 .11. I.“ I... .“’ .O.‘. ‘2‘. -°.. 0,. 0 .121 -.l|0 ..99 -~019 .035 -.11. -..s. .g.. .7 07 .7 07 .7 .7 .I M7 ‘ORJ 0|!) ~5X1 .0‘. .7‘0 CIAICI OIIDHATYOI IbouIOI ..{..1.. alimlu AIS: 9P0! 345 1 m0 1 mun 470 n .... TABL 8 ' . 5 mum... E 3 .--Correlat10n matrix 0: .u g .UOJ .079 . 5 mm. 0-9 .00. ..00 u u n E ..u .07. ® ‘ . 7 7mm .00; .800 ..0. .007 0 . MING 7 “HAL . m .2‘. M". n!" _-561 '.090 v.02. ..302 0: u u 01 .uv .00. .302 .001 0 mun .079 ..77 .2“ an -.00. ..u. .190 .100 u u u u u x n ..7- ..0. .u. .900 .972 .70. 10 MAI. "Almflm 192 .317 .01. I" .800 .310 .30. .‘l. .7.. t a: :3 :3 u u 9 9 . (2 .50. .051 ; Q9 é db n B mm. .175 .070 u. .07. .100 .u. .040 .001 .000 .0“ F .u .u u 0: u u 2 .013 .00: ® ..30 .u. a 9 I: r1 null: .100 0“ 100 .04.! .000 .077 .110 .012 .020 .000 ..51 E u n J: .u u u u u 77 s ‘ .00 .al. .209 ..0. .73. .110 .2“ Q} m, Q9 13 Acne- .01: -.MJ .400 .39. .000 .011 .002 .090 .02. .090 .000 .022 u 3 a 3 u n .uo .u- .007 m. .971 m; .0“ u m“ .19. -..u .772 .xn 'J‘I .97‘ .010 .007 ..00 .071 ..u .709 ..09 n n n u .7 .17. .090 m, .40: .01. .070 H mm _ a... ~42. .279 .u. .u. ..00 u. .070 .0" .100 .uz ..0. .200 .040 .100 u n n 3 1 3 02 02 n n n 07 u g ..u .19. .007 ..a0 ..7. .09. .007. ..70 ..00 .0x0 .000 I. 3 mm- 1... -.u0 -.m .oa: -.u0 -.04. .101 -..u .00: .307 .uo ..0. .107 .0“ .000 -.’l, n .12 n u 37 07 77 02 .97 .9 a u 0 __-1L0 .091 .m .770 .017 .1“ .7.) .101 .00. .m ..n .411; us An; 17 Humor .20. nu. an. an. no" -.190 -.x77 .00: .71: .1“ .119 .070 .00. ..00 ~40. a" :7 u n 07 u 07 07 02 u .77 n 07 0 u 3g 5 .2“ .u. .17: ..u ..0.: .107 ..u ..u .uv .9" an ..00 .97. .400 ..0. , ,7“ 10 [3 mm .177 -.010 .190 .001 .102 .070 .001 .071 .000 .907 .000 .180 .00! .001 .0). .‘3. n a u 3 n 02 u n ,‘ ..1. .9” .5“ .40; .009 .710 .204 up an ..3, 3’ n ”a“, -.19fi ..007 '.J‘l -.000 -.000 -.090 ~40! .070 .000 .014 .120 .070 .070 .000 “.7. ‘5. u :2 a n 37 7 n u s u n ‘ ' l .270 ..n <9 .0" .7“ .900 .90. ..00 .000 ..., 3‘ '° 2 "a” .72. .0" .on .17. .2.7 ..na .10. -.zn -.0.0 -..29 .an .190 .070 -.l§’ ..3, _ u u u u n a: '7: u x u n .u n 1 ,. “‘” .0“ ..27 .907 .07. .170 ..n .700 .000 .u. .070 ..z. .00. .077 .7.. ., N n nmnm ‘ ‘ "” .201 ‘.I7' ~.059 '.C‘O -.031 -.u‘) 0.09) -,I00 '.I.. ‘.O” 110 .07! 'u.£i '...‘ -~‘,. 02 a: 72 n u n u a J .72 u s ""' .0“ .011 .770 .70. .0cz ..09 .7.0 .720 .007 ..0. ..0. ..90 .700 .71. ‘ ‘1 u moo-m .01. ..u -.207 -.m .312 .29. ..0. ..n .079 .uo .050 ..nz .009 0.0.! .770 .000 - .1 , .17 u :2 0 u n n 02 n n u .77 u .02 ' ' 4" .101 .001 mu 001 ..n. m ..u .u) -1... .nu .nn 0;. 10: .10; It, .01 If m ..07 -..n -.0u .307 .101 .00: ..9: -.u: -.u7 .u. ..0. .100 -..19 .05. u as u u n n u u u u u 3 ~07: J71 u .770 .027 ..00 ..0.! .777 .270 .050 .70. .u. .091 .70. .91. , ,.. n u a m. m ..0. J” -.u.| .007 -..77 ..07. -.H0 .107 -.on .100 .7” .200 .07 .m .110 J.,, u u u 0 u 7 a 7 .u u s 3’ ‘4... .0" .00. .070 ..0. ..0. 4.0 .040 ..0. ..0. ..0. ..0. .707 ..0. ..,, 0 u :5 mm d" J“ ..u .110 -.xu .00: .020 -.0Ia .079 nut .012 -.017 .u: ..10 ~10: -,.,, u n u u :7 n n n n u u u n "360 MN I! l K Immo- met. .17. -.u0 -.u7 .000 .010 -.us .007 -.1.0 nan -.0.: -..77 -.u0 -.u0 -.‘.. B 0: u n 00 3 00 u 00 :0 00 u 0 5007 -.1u 5 ..w .712 ..01 .307 ..u .0" .u: .«0 ..00 .070 .230 u... 33 31 7 u .. unau- m. 'a“ .900 40' a .20. 7.101 ~42. .790 .U. -..s. ..07 .110 .110 .00: .117 .m .031. ‘. u u n a: u n u u 0 a n n u ‘ 7 .107 mu .1}. no. ..72 .u. .111 170 .270 .n. .11. .170 ..n .n. 7.. J u 07 I m .100 .n. .077 .071 .u) .27. .700 -.u0 .u. .010 .471 .20. .0.3 n u u u u u u ' "Ni ..7. ..m .099 .02. ..07 .20. .700 .u. .020 ..u ..00 ,3 n n can 00ml; ...0 J“ -..~0 ..u .u. ..u .10! ~07. .200 .0“ .0» ..0. .uz .u. ..., 3 u u u u u s u u u u u ,3 - I). H... ..n 3: .007 .oa. .07. .702 .177 .000 .000 .000 .000 .00! _p.. 00 u 0 )0 i Inna-mt. -17. ...‘ ..u .u; .070 .197 7.000 .120 .0“ ..00 .100 .00. .on .070 .m ..g, g 03 u s u u u n J: 7: _‘3 - 0!. ._.“ .312 11 ~ ‘ not .000 .040 .007 .010 .000 .001 .000 .000 .07. a) .000 .‘., 3. 01 n 5 "M .u7 .on .10: .07. .279 .300 .040 n." -.070 .00: .xn -.o« .15; d“. .700 "H u u a: 0 30 u u u u u u .3 . us. 100 .m .001 .900 .u7 409 .000 .19! .09. .000 .000 .000 .700 n’.‘ 00 ‘ 00 07 fl mull. .‘ -..n .00: ~..z0 -..70 -.77. -.:s. -.070 .007 .0“ -.0:0 .uo .000 .43. .7.. .00. 0- n u 7 u u n u 0 . . .7 0 . .00 7 I! ' 00 ' ,,3 It. 4.; .u-I ! I . 0 J) u ‘ :0) mm ..00 -.070 -.00. n)” -.060 «09: .097 .., .77 n u a u u u n n u 0 " a“ no ..u. 8 ..s: .00. .170 .u. .010 .77: .009 .297 .000 .00. .709 .90. i: u ' 0! 5, 7. ‘ ’ 0: mm ..u -.au -..07 -.0u ..00 -..n -.0u .u! .76: .340 .10. «u. . "u "“ "n u u n u u u n u u u 00 ' " .1” 0: .4" ..0. .u. .00: .00. .0.. .0.9 .000 .007 .100 .000 .700 .u. :3 00 "I - 0 ’3 m .197 .000 -.0.77 .000 ..10 -.000 . J2 u n u n u . .a ..22 ..10 .u. .070 .0.0 " 2' “mam man. an. .ua .009 .00. .00. i 5 u u n u 7 ..0. .401 . 0 ..0 ..0 'm 01-71mm All U-l 3146 for the Black group on the Education Scale. 01.. 42 .’7J '.I31 33 ..0. .81} I! .359 .111 I? .II, ..0. J! .111 I? s’JI .83! I? .221 .800 -.IQO I? .700 D... '.005 J? .71. .C’. 31 05.5 n... 31 .09, .991 .82? 3 .068 .309 <73» .22. J .30. 32 .00! .RI‘ -.l?! 31 .I.’ -.127 I! E! .170 -.ICI II .170 .893 ll .10. '.'C’ 3‘ ' 0". ’3 .33, ' 0"‘ .900 .07. 3! .070 01 ..00 ..1. .0..‘ J! 0... .17. .11! l? .82. I! .o.l l.‘e 00 .17! .017 .0... 32 .90. ..‘., ul'l 02 .‘O. .397 3. .30, .0... 38 .803 .2‘. .09! '..7’ I) .007 .47. .t'7 .390 .t'. 0... 33 J! .071 .0"’ .834 I! .09. .t’l I! 32 II I! I? I! I) II )0 II .087 .I02 .11. .118 ..0. .172 ..3. 0... .8‘7 ‘-.3’ .004 02 32 I! 3! I? I. C. I. II )3 OJ ..30 ..‘9 .’IO .09. .977 .1.‘ -.3. a... ..0. .87) .71! -1" -101 -$!I 0.068 '-.’l .30. ..‘O n.07 0.0.0 --II‘ '0... .209 I? 82 33 I! I? 3' l. 52 J! 33 3| 0... .3‘. .’3. .73. .097 .70. ufi.‘ to... .2‘. 03.. .l" 0". 0.7, ‘0.‘. 0". ..‘. 0... .... 0". 0". '0“‘ 0.8‘ I... n”. 02 31 II I! I! 81 63 I! 33 63 I! ..0. .11. .017 -OI7 .910 .137 -007 08‘. .‘OI 09" ..0. .I‘. ..l‘ .002 ..I'. utCI .07. ..‘7 ..0. n... 0". .309 .10. 0... 0". .80. J? I. II I! ll 3 II 38 83 .9» ..u ..1. ..9. . .7: .00. .000 .392 .009 .000 a 0... ‘0‘,‘ I... 'I." 0... .n‘,‘ '.." 0”. l‘.‘ .I“’ .uI’1 0." 0“. 0“. ’0‘.’ I? 32 33 I! 3! I! 33 3. SI ll 8' 33 .3 3 .JCI .I‘l .t.‘ -..70 .{80 .IOO ..0. -.‘1 0... 'u.’7 .007 ..‘C c... 0". ~037 .351 O? )2 I! I! I! I! 73 33 3’ II 5' .3 3’ SI OJ -"0 ~01, -"3 a..l -’1’ .799 .73. ..0. .’7I .7C’ ..10 ..IS .999 .07. .3‘0 .010 .000 .000 .008 .000 .000 .007 .00. .00. .117 .201 .0.. .200 .0.0 .00. .000 ..0: I! )3 SI ll II I I, ll I! I) 33 33 0'.‘ IC’, 0", 9”; .7.’ 0". 0": 0". 0": sill 0... "" "” ..0. .813 '03.. .199 .tO? .33, .13! 0... .190 .017 .01. .30. .110 .306 ~3’C .0‘3 .50. .’90 i! I! I. J! 33 II II 3% 3. 32 J? .I“ .I.‘ a... .17. ..0. .C97 ol.‘ 00" v I .I7I .93. c... .‘23 .873 -391 ..I57 .OCI .077 .59‘ ..I00 ..0.! '.004 .I‘J .333 .00. .30. ..10 .-..' -$3. -... ~3" -3.. 00 :0 00 2. :0 01 01 0: 01 I. 00 01 01 .1 J: 00 . 9 -.$7 . O 0 U - I IIW'I OUIIICI IIIIIIIIIC IIIICIUI CIIIUI OIIIIIATIOI ..l. 1» I» In In .14., «Tn 0.1”!”1“ [a 1111.11. All: IL! 3147 1 M \ 7 mun u. , a mum“ 1‘ TABLE 39.--Correlation matrix .7 g .159 .002 . N 0720171111121. “1" J" 77’! E .7 .7 E ...9 .297 5 ‘ mm -.099 ‘u"' .030 ..I. I7 ‘7 .117 .7.. db ‘ A6110. '4’. .0], 7‘1. .91. .115 .7 0i .7 .u. .71. ® .090 7 mm .107 ..91 .70. .770 .001 .70. .7 m .90 am an an) an. ‘ a my. ad” '-916 NIH. 9.050 .X” 9.0071 .292 07 ‘7 .7 07 w .7» .0.. .279 .107 .0.. -.01. ~47. .021 -.009 .1’9 .009 -.000 ."0 ’ mun .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 ® ® ..0. ...0 .217 ...0 ..u ‘° '0'“- "‘mm' -.17. -.2cv .022 .00. .20.. ..0. .079 ...0 .907 ‘7 ‘7 I7 1' 3 "warn-77c... -.192 n71. .2.7 .0.. .190 .971 ...1 .990 .917 .901 E .7 07 07 7 07 II 1, 3 711mm ..97; -.2.7 27. ...2 .u. .1.7 .01. .9.0 .92. ..79 .7.7 E 0 .I .7 .7 7 0 0 7 ‘ ..17 .027 .12. ...0 QB‘ @ ® (1:. 10 “no. ~.701 -..29 «2 .71. .190 ..7. .7.9 -.097 ...0 .... .9.7 ..02 07 .7 .7 .7 .7 1 07 .7 . .197 .0.. ® .1.. (é ...0 ..07 I. m -.l’9 '.ICO .09.! .39} .2.7 ..II .009 .0.. 07 .7 07 (‘59.) m .01 (.013 .0. .r. 1. 1, mm _ can. .060 .17. .22. .21. .20. -.107 ..9. .0.. -..1. -..2. -...7 ...9 -.11. -..9. .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 7 .7 07 .7 0) 07 _ ..7. .077 .122 .19. .191 .1.. .922 .799 .09. ..71 .991 .972 ..00 .700 D 1. 3 man . m. .110 -.0.0 .077 .02. .271 -.... ..0. ..0. .00 .22. .222 .092 -.10. .070 .09. .7 . .7 .7 .7 17 .7 . .7 . . .7 .7 ...0 .971. .QDJ .09. -0u .911 .002 1 -.1.. .0.. .09. .11. -.021 .097 .2.. -.17. -..9. .101 .17. .77.: .0.. .102 ..20. n0: ;" M1170! w .7 . .7 .7 07 n .7 .7 . . .7 07 7 ' .7“ .0.. .71. .0.9 ..7. .0.. .22. ..0. .0.. .22. ..72 .200 I 7‘ -.u.1 ~.0!0 no). -.000 -.100 ...2. .100 -.100 .00. -.00. .09. -.070 .207 .001 -.”7 -.079 1' 1' mot .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 27 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 0 " 1 a ...1 .77. .719 .091 .21. ® .1.2 .2.. ..0. ...1 .70. ..19 .9.2 .079 ~90. 1, ‘nm -.0'29 .0:7 -.0'. .0.. -.199 .1». .101 -.01. .1.1 .10. .199 .0.. .192 .199 -.01. -.127 u 9. .. .. .2 1. .0 .0 .0 . . o. 0 .0 U I ...9 ..0. ..07 .15. .2... 1H ..0. ..12 .21. ..01 .207 .900 .002 .20. J" 20 mom a -.21. -.2.. .01 ...1 -..0. .171 .71 .11. .171 .110 .1“ .0.. .0.. .201 -.1.9 "I" ll ‘6 I O. ‘t 00 '00 ‘0 I. ‘0 ‘6 . . “ i. II .171 .17. .71. .7.7 .97.. CD ..22 ..22 ..01. .0.. .29. ..99 .119 .200 ..m H “mm". -.11. -...1 .0.. -..o2 -.020 .22- .7.7 -.1.. -.107 ...0 .09. -.o.. .2.7 .090 -.10. “I” .9 .9 .9 .9 a. .9 .9 .9 .9 . .9 .9 .9 .9 I ‘2 .0.7 .059 .972 ...0 .017 .107 .9.. .0.. .0.. .77.. .7.1 .7.. .07. .7.0 ..70 4" 21 17170171201 --29. -.11. .070 .1.9 ..01 .209 .197 -.101 7.021 ..97 .102 -.01. .2.0 .111 -.199 “3‘" .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .i " 470 .954 ..01 .071 ..01 .1. .01. ..90 ...0 .17. .007 .72.. .... «NAIL—i"— ” as. ..w .19. -.211 ~.10. -.120 -.11. ...7 -.0o. -.0.. -..u. -.29. -.21. -.179 -.0.0 -.177 "i” . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 7 .7 " u w .1” ..0. ...0 ..19 .0.. 49 up ..0. .109 ..7. .007 -"‘ “ 5 mm .000 .0.. -.01. -...1 .0... ...7 .07. -..2. .127 .102 .107 .1... ..90 .101 ...91 ‘4‘” 3 .7 . .7 .7 .7 . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 7 .7 .7 .7 " § .0.. ...2 ..19 ...2 .920 ..u .9.. .091 .0.. .1.7 .0.7 .2.. .72. .099 J" J" 1’ ° ‘mm .17. .272 ...1. -.11. -.Oll -.2.. -..1. -.109 -..9. 7.09. ..91 ..u -.202 -.109 .1“ .m . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 97 ‘ ' . . .09. ..10 ..91 .9.. .10. ...2 L.7. 4.9 .719 .72. .79. .1.0 .1" 12. .4!— " ““5”“ m- .0.. .031 no“ .0.. .102 -.01- ...1 .009 .17. 0.... .02. .0.. -.079 ..02 -.110 '3" .7 .7 7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 "‘ g .9.) ..1. .71. .7.2 .029 ..0. .7.1 .9.. ...2 ..92 ..71 ...0 ...0 .077 ..0. ~17 ’7 i m“‘“‘"‘- .00. -.011 -.191 -..97 -..07 -.1.. -.1.. .109 .190 -..72 -.07. .0.. -.211 -...7 ..101 ""7 .7 7 .7 . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 1 .7 .7 .7 . ‘7. .7.. ...1. .00. .721 ..u .207 ..10. ..7. .20. ..21 ..1. .0.. .109 .7.7 J“ 4L— ” 5"" .12. ..71 .o.. .17. -.2e. .71. .1.2 .020 ..10 .29. .2“ .11. .11. .17. -.112 J“, .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 :u ...2 ..27 .7.. .201 .1.0 .117 .211 ..7. .02. ..7. ...9 ..9. .2.1 .220 J" ' ” mum ‘4" J" .017 .029 .054 n00. .1.. .099 ..10 .... o...1 -.1.1 -...0 -..0. .02. 4"; 8 . 9i .7 .7 .7 .1 .7 .7 .7 07 07 0" : .... ...0 ® .01. .... ..7. .70. ...9 .007 .7.0 ..0. .900 .700 ' Q ’° 5 “mm .177 .0.. -..99 -..01 -.170 .10. .09. -.129 -.21. ..10 .100 -..1. .110 -.01. .390 "‘3 a .7 . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . 9' .90 ~22! .9.) .919 .901 .221 .:.2 .792 .002 .1.7 .000 ..02 .017 ..90 .9" d" ' I .1 “m“a' .017 .29. «m ..0. ..0. .121 .177 -.197 -..u -..2. ..0. -..1. .... -...1 J” '"i .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 0 1“ .97. ..7. ...9 .00. .77. ...7 .220 .290 ...1 ..7. ...1 .17.. .... ..00 .990 ’ ’3 mm. -.12. ..7. -...1 ...0 ..10. .21. ...1 -.1.7 -..0. ..7. .077 -..7. .1" ...0 .120 4'5, .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . .7 4’ ....7 ..09 ..0. ...1 .117 .10. .92. .291 .70. .111 ...7 -107 1.1 n. '" A )0 [1121.013 .100 .090 -.010 .0.. .030 4.; .307 .J" ._.;. ..3‘ .07! .110 ..0. J.. ..0.. .103, .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 0’ _0. ..7. 0' ...0 .19. .700 ...9 a, .002 .0.. .021 .0.. ..27 .1.. .919 J“ U .. 11 1. p 70000.7. .1. -.172 v.00. ...1 .217 -.200 .27». .111 -.090 -.... ...0 -..2. -.0.7 .20. .... -.170 7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 0’ .109 ..7. .99. ..7. .10. .1.7 ..0. ..7. ..u .9.. ...7 ...2 .79. .0.. ...1 J“ .,. 09 run: no. .19. -..2. .1.2 .100 .172 .10. -.117 -.119 ..90 .0... .011 .109 .010 '4" ° 1, .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 7 7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 0 " ..7. J" ~0.7 .211 490 ..10 ...0 .92. ..19 .000 11.1! ...0 ..90 “I .71 1. :- 710.711.171.121... -.11. -.1.7 .1... .2.7 .20. .201 .1.. -..01 ..90 ...7 .10. ..7. .21. .100 J" 2., is .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 9’ ‘; . «9: ~90. .091 .097 .109 .107 .202 .0 . 9 .. 9 M 71.17.01.01- 11-7171070 can... Arm-w. mm .1110! I 1 1 0 . 9 . 7 . l’ " mull-l I 0 10 11 12 u l 3148 for the White group on the Housing Scale. .330 -3OI 3:. .31! .200 9.135 09 .I07 .001 .100 -.81. .90. .9 .. .200 .002 .900 .900 ..17 .170 .209 .0 .9 ..’. 91‘. ‘o“. ’9‘,’ ..‘91 ..‘J .7 .7 .0 .0 .0 .7 .7.. .0.. .000 .200 .100 .002 .19. -.2.7 .11. ..1. .12. -.1.1 -.0.0 07 07 00 00 .9 07 ...1 .19. .... .9.. .1.. ...9 '.000 .001 '.O70 9.870 -.100 -.002 .900 0.008 .7 .7 .0 .9 .7 .7 .o‘.’ “.13. 0": .I"z ‘9’., ...‘a ..,z .0." 0‘.‘ ., 0’ 0. 07 0, .7 ..1‘ .i.‘ .‘07 .373 ..’. .7‘. ..7. -.179 -.100 .1.. -.u. o.... -.I9. ..0. -.90. .100 .070 . .7 .. . .7 .7 .7 ..I39 .130 -.I.’ ..Il’ -.1’! .010 07 07 00 00 05 07 07 0 .000 .350 .070 .070 .28. .00, .l'. .130 .’.I .0.. .130 '«313 .0.. .10; .30. Q 7 07 7 ‘3“, 9... ‘o.‘. '0’, ...,. ’..:. ..‘.J .01.: g... ..‘.‘ .92., oil: 00 0 07 07 07 07 07 (3:!) ..10 .109 ..10 .71. ..9. .2.. .1.. .7.0 .1.9 (:33!) .... '..‘. .0.., ’9". 9..t ~39. ’-:.° ..0.. 0... .". '03., '023’ '0‘.‘ 0“. 07 07 00 0‘ I! 07 07 07 07 0 07 07 0’ .000 .900 .809 .979 .900 .220 .095 .930 .100 .100 .009 .090 -.000 .001 -.ROI -.0$. -.l7. -.307 .179 .200 .800 .018 .070 .20! .080 .001 0 0. 7 0 7 .7 e 9 . 7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . .710 .7.7 .07] .71. .01! .192 .190 .00! ..00 .01! .208 .008 .90! .37, .292 .IQO .058 .009 .10! 0.1.3 .038 ..131 -.101 -.200 .378 ..0. ...7 ul°1 0 07 00 0 0’ 01 07 07 7 07 07 0 07 07 07 .700 .200 °-090 .007 .001 -.010 .017 .111 .001 .127 .092 .020 -.00! .09] -200 .170 . .7 .0 .e . .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 .7 . .7 07 07 .100 .501 .990 .900 .900 .009 .099 .300 .733 .00! .00! .98; ~00. .100 .209 .103 .097 .171 -.19. ..01 .100 -.179 -.227 -..9| .... .30. ..0. ...g. -.09. .201 .109 07 .7 .0 00 .9 .7 07 .7 .7 .7 .7 07 07 .7 07 .7 .7 .290 .100 .000 .205 ..7' .090 .000 .220 .117 .000 .791 .100 .007 .7]; ..90 -10’ ~10! .01. ..0. ..0. .00. .201 .300 -.IIX .000 ..070 -.500 “.072 .018 ..I80 .13. ‘-"3 .801 ~3't -03’ 07 0 0O 09 01 07 0 07 07 0 '.I39 .000 0? 0 .119 .120 ...2 .190 .019 .119 -.0.2 ..7. -.112 .10. -..09 -.020 -.00. .09. --079 .339 .027 .7 .7 .7 .7 9 07 07 07 07 07 0’ .’ 7 __‘n1 .1.) . 9”. .330 9". 9"; I'll. 00'1003 llllflMIIlC IILIGXOI Clllfll OIIIITATIOI "Mul- lulu »1~1» «T» 4.4.1.1» 37"»1» .. .9 .9 ’1’ 3149 1 m 1 00.011100 420 22 .99! u 0 . mmmml TABLE O.--Correlation mat I‘lX 22 .001 0 E Imxm. .002 .11: .000 22 E 2» a. ‘ 1 "01.110; .001 .012 .101 .200 22 2 0 0mm .00. .000 .200 .200 .211 u 2 @ .000 .110 100 (n) ' MA: .010 .201 .I70 .000 .000 .017 22 22 ...2 m (33 (H?) M U m .0!’ ‘.87I ‘0‘09 Mdll -.‘Jl at!) “..71 22 é?) éb 0 mun .001 -.0u -.190 -.000 -.100 -.17c . ’70 .000 22 22 22 22 22 db .00: (D .001 .171 .022 Q1 10 10001 "11.11.1211: .100 .2” -.2J1 --200 -.220 -.101 - 232 .030 .0’0 22 22 22 22 22 22 l: .000 .00: .220 .170 .20) .150 .270 a; U a “WHICH. A!” ‘-2‘l -."6 '.JI’ all, -.1la - C01 .97, ..9) .0}. ‘2 22 22 ' 22 g: 2 E E E " .22! .130 .072 .000 3 11 1: mun: .220 -.100 -.100 -.000 -.209 ~41! ..111 .010 .020 E 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 0 .201 .000 .000 .101 .100 .110 a» (a; 1! mm -.IG, .IEV '.0V7 .01.! .J?‘ .93, .313 '.3‘2 ..210 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 ® .010 .051 .051 .120 é?) .071 250 .100 lb m .226 '.ti. -.lDe -.CQ2 -.290 -.fl03 -.287 .031 0.3. 22 02 2 22 22 22 .200 .>)0 . .150 .90! .1}. .DC . D. v v v 11 mum - can, .110 .100 .005 .201 .135 .100 .102 -.000 .000 .100 117 .100 .010 .000 22 22 2 22 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 22 22 g .500 .000 .100 .120 .000 .002 In .002 .000 .907 .0" .000 .003 10 3 unmet.m_ .211 1.020 -.121 -.101 1.072 ;.102 :4"?— .321 .0“ .27; .112 .200 -.l" .10) ..g. 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2a 33 .210 .02: .501 .000 .700 .510 .000 200 .231: .1“ .012 .2)! .2” .211 .91; 17 uwuw ‘00), '.Uil HRXS -.047 will .559 -.309 .19. .15. .0.) 0‘6 .159 .197 00‘], -.J‘l ..“‘ 2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 33 22 .20; .001 .110 .020 .950 .200 .021 35.1 .002 .020 .220 .050 .131 .‘;. 300 10 (7 0001.100 -.UJ| ~.11.1 -.on -.100 -.200 «10: -.100 .191 .100 299 0.10 .032 -.109 .27! ,.., J" 3 22 u 22 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 21 a 22 g .000 .000 .022 .000 .020 .001 .001 .172 .011 220 .000 .10; _.,‘ .170 10 01mm: .011 -.111 ..01; ~.010 -.010 .200 -.100 .029 .505 "2 200 J“ J93 .001 --13a .100 22 $ é? £9 22 22 @ 22 22, 22 ‘ u 2 .010 .110 a .010 .100 .101 .10 .000 20 .5 1mm mi .9229 .101 E -.'(JI .27! .500 .090 .069 .GQ? .005 -.J.H “.30, -.l‘9 '01., '00.! -.160 '03:. '3‘. .1”! 21 21 21 2 21 21 21 21 21 a; 21 ‘ n .271 .201 ® (ID é}; .n0 Qt) .121 .100 .102 .102 .110 .0 0 .11 21 0110011171015 3 .aa‘ .010 ~.1v1 .001 .000 .110 .120 .200 .100 -.11: -.111 -.170 0.197 -.100 .200 -..00. -.37. J“ 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 :3 2 u 22 .011 .07! .500 .121 .200 .000 .071 ‘w .000 .150 .000 . 5 ..7. 22 want-'1' .97. J” .200 .102 .101 .200 .200 -.102 .211 .111 .022 .115 .207 .112 -.110 .02. ... 100 22 2‘ 22 22 2: 22 22 2 22 22 22 22 22 a: ‘ ' 22 .221 ..10: .100 .110 .210 .100 .102 .010 .010 .071 .112 .001 .01; _, . I: 022 21 02:! . -.000 -.000 .102 .130 .292 .291 .227 0.191 ..10, -.110 -.11) -.112 .159 -.5.5 - ‘t _ 00 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 a, 2 3 4 u .02.: .100 .100 .107 .100 .200 .001 .001 .110 .90. .111 .020 . 1,. 12 31 20 " an.” 2’” ' g -.100 .021 .092 -.121 .012 .011 -.005 ..000 -.100 .010 .100 .000 .000 .... _ ‘ 00 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 t ‘ .0 "‘ § .110 .000 .020 .001 .011 .010 .000 .020 .011 .020 .200 .000 _9,. :3, 25 a mm a) ' -.201 .000 -.021 .002 -.111 .152 .090 -.107 -.220 -.210 .200 .011 .110 ..‘9 ’ 2 2‘ 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 - 120 J | .100 .090 .010 .001 .101 .102 .700 .117 .201 .111 .171 .000 .112 , n "v ,. mm w .200 .002 .000 .202 .000 -.191 .102 .001 -.012 .000 -.100 -.105 -.010 ‘02:; 91 8 22 22 ' 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 ~15. ‘1' .10: .020 .711 .000 .000 .000 .090 .070 .011 .000 .0 20 2? 11 5 man ' t. J“ ‘m 5 ' .100 -.2:0 .000 .110 -.0>s -.101 -.000 .1" .050 .110 .100 .002 -.200 ,‘3, . 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 2 22 22 22 22 ”'70 "H .000 .240 .10: .091 .000 .101 .100 .010 .202 .500 .102 .1 .. 22 I? E— 9 y .001 -.0u .010 .000 .000 -.200 .001 -.000 -.010 v.020 .010 .201 .121 .007 ...‘ 22 2 2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 a a .010 J“ .070 .012 .710 .010 .200 .000 .010 .701 .000 .007 .210 .021 .079 . ’,, 2;, 20 mum ' .101 .190 .100 .170 .220 .110 .190 .017 .012 .202 .107 .102 .010 .21. 8 22 2' 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 a: .1” J29 p .010 .000 .007 .000 .202 .130 .000 .010 .050 .200 .002 .100 .203 _ 3.. 20 2’, )0 i Imam-001. _ .000 .70 -.100 -.102 -.212 -.200 -.100 -.09: -.297 .000 .030 .100 .115 .212 v.001 ..., :2 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 2 22 22 22 22 a: a: -~uo A" o .100 .000 .100 .210 .100 .010 .220 .000 .000 .100 .000 .201 ..7; ..,. u 2; 11 111-11010qu _ 40! -”° -.021 .212 .100 .201 .102 .011 .202 ..001 ~.000 .107 .110 .000 ~00: ...‘ 22 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 22 2 a: 22 0800 .1” .020 .020 .017 .292 .21! .200 .007 .000 .010 .530 .070 .90; ,. 2t 22 11 mm ' ' .100 410 .020 .210 -.217 -.101 -.2I.I .002 -.100 .129 .00! .101 .222 .190 .10. ‘3‘. 22 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 22 2 a: a; '40 -.100 .011 .010 .100 .000 .197 .002 .0“ .500 .000 .011 .20! .170 .000 n B. 11 W 0 - -.101 -.000 -.000 1.200 -.110 -.000 -.020 -.000 -.220 -.200 .211 -.09.1 .000 ‘-t:1 22 2 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 21 a a 2431 --1-" 8 .110 TB“ .000 .120 .111 .001 (n .010 .200 .100 .117 .000 .012 .:, 20 ' .0 " 1: 0010000101» .110 -.012 -.010 .011 -.202 -.020 -.111 -.020 -.102 -.207 .210 .010 -.001 -_.,. 2 2 2 22 22 22 22 22 2 z -.002 --I” .001 .001 .000 .102 .110 .010 .010 .000 .200 .011 _ .3. u m 4'0 1 ” m .221 -.101 .100 .100 -.100 ..01. -.121 -.000 -.102 -.007 .201 .200 -.000 ‘00:: 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 .100 .291 .200 .002 .001 . 0 n 22 3‘ :' . “WWW .000 .102 .107 .211 .010 -.100 .001 .112 .010 .101 .100 .100 «150 ... 2g 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 3 0.1, 15.. 0 . 0 C ‘: 'M Ann-00100011111 01111011011011.0111 100: 010-0 1 I 1 I 1 1 0 I s I 0 I 1 350 for the Black group on the Housing Scale. .20: 22 .210 o.0:o .200 22 22 .001 .500 .100 .170 -.007 21 21 .000 .037 .000 .100 -.230 .001 22 22 22 .000 .370 .202 .170 .707 ..102 .220 .200 22 22 21 22 .000 7 .200 .102 .001 .002 .000 .000 22 22 22 21 22 .027 .070 .000 .000 .000 .000 .002 .100 .000 .070 .100 .270 22 2 21 22 22 .107 é» .002 .710 .010 .100 .200 .000 -.020 .000 .10; .010 .212 .077 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 .027 . 00 0 0 .00 -.022 .220 -.100 .109 -.221 .205 .092 .072 -.202 22 72 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 .000 .200 .000 .010 .022 .002 .000 .700 .010 .121 .000 -.070 .120 -.000 .207 .010 -.100 -.000 .020 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 .001 .007 .710 .071 .10 0 .00 0 0 -.170 .102 .100 -.120 -.100 .200 -.200 -.100 .000 -.101 .020 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 .000 .300 .020 .000 .070 .211 .107 .020 .700 .001 .007 .011 .007 .100 -.000 .072 .000 .100 .010 .100 -.021 -.027 .200 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 22 22 .000 .000 .070 .001 .730 .001 .032 .000 .000 .001 .070 .030 .072 .200 -.007 .107 .272 .002 .370 .207 .002 .220 -.007 -.022 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 .072 .170 .001 .302 .100 .773 .070 .170 .701 .200 .002 .01! .120 .007 -.117 .020 .20: .000 .120 .101 .170 .101 .100 .102 .000 .107 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 00 .027 .000 a) .077 .011 .010 .000 .000 .007 .007 .200 .200 .207 -.010 .130 .000 -.220 .000 .000 -.112 -.100 .000 .201 .200 .000 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 10 . 27 2 . 0 .000 .120 .002 -.100 .10) -.010 .092 .12! .119 .032 .002 -.002 .002 .007 '-2‘1 -.000 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 .000 .000 .000 .000 .302 .000 .007 .000 .070 .701 .700 .000 .700 .207 .002 .202 .020 -.000 .200 -.051 .000 .120 ..101 -.002 .002 .200 .017 -.201 -.200 -.122 -.000 .000 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 2 22 ' .102 .020 .000 .000 .01; .070 .000 .200 .700 .102 .102 .020 .100 .200 .071 -.0:0 .010 -.100 .072 -.21: .020 -.000 .017 .210 .000 .001 .200 .000 .020 .221 0.000 .110 .001 22 22 2! 22 22 22 22 ' 22 22 22 2 22 22 .102 .070 -.000 -.000 -.00~ .000 -.100 -.001 -.000 .00: .270 .200 .200 .170 .100 .100 -.000 .170 .000 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 22 (ii?) 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 .070 .070 .000 .700 .711 . .007 .071 .702 . .072 .270 .20; .3}! .010 .00: .001 .020 1]]; — v an. and We munc- m mammal mu" "Julululnlu ”lulu 20l27 ulnlnlnln ”III” AIS .- N- I 351 1 mm: 2 mun .55. mm mm- .. ., TABLE ’41 C 1 ti tr 3 g N 1 25‘ a: .-- OPPe a on ma X t "‘ 51mm .3“ .973 .35; E OS 0.! ‘ E .49: .553 0 C 5 ram: v.22) '.004 .05) .u’ .3 .5 0.! .un .52. .o-o 5 mo- .au .00 .13; .005 .01. H u u u 5! .00) .lll .17. .Ili .IC, 1 mm. .07 .5:3 .550 .330 .190 .7e2 o‘ - o: n can (no at; an ail-3 I m"! ~.zar u!“ -.uo .IN .253 .xcz 'J'U - u 53 u a .032 .uo .sn 5 MN" .131 -.ou -.205 -.025 .231 075 - an J2- u 6.! OJ 0‘ a! 6.! .4s/ .50. .ua 553 .552 w 10 mu]. [VALUATHI .24! '.02-1 153 ..uo .355 an 1“ .332 .5!) n M o) ' as u o L‘ .525 .u/ .225 an zu 19, IA 11 E mnxm .035 -.o:3 ~ on 05! .JJ’ :25 :u .391 .502 .507 S n 93 e3 3 a] u o z .77. .011 an .025 .577 u 5 1mm; .un .311. mu. .2“ .3" .059 153 .200 .on .5" .705 o! 53 o! 6.1 53 H 6 6 0 E .172 ..90 .3“ GD ® .03 .223 ® ® ® ® 13 Acne-I we -.nae no .03: an ”a .730 .150 .327 .072 .370 .on n u u 3 u a 53 03 u u u u .3" .ue .342 .1" .033 ® .122 .313 .5“ .5“ .«o u row. on -.uo -.ou no .2" 1 .au .5" .72: .5" ..0. .55: .ul 0‘ u .3 03 e3 6 u . .2. .3w .519 .111 ...2 m c a“: an 111) (ID :5 ulna-can. '.J5. aw -.ce- .x39 .19: -.39: a?” .10 .215 .2“ .907 -.ou 0.36, oJSQ 03 u .3 u 03 .3 o 03 u .3 53 a o: 5 ..n .«1 .979 .270 .32. ® .250 .505 .1" .403 .0” .073 16 ; mud-m. -.an. an. -.25o .05. -.1u -.L7’ -.2n .3“ .2” .2" .1" .115 n“! .192 .... .3 DJ .3 ‘3 s) 03 .3 0’ 0) .3 OJ .3 .VQJ ./6> .cli .66. ..10 .199 , 9 .129 ~lfi1 .00, n lama ~44) -.ou .0“ -.on .055 .039 J” .059 .39. .00) .0." .13: J90 .l‘, -_a.. __l" n u .3 .3 .3 o u 3 u u 03 .‘ .3 .2” .uo .129 .53.: .uo .039 .00 .025 .no .275 .1" _H, n 6 WW -.u.aa .on -.c63 -.xu -.xvo 5a. 3.5 .on .29. non -.na -.u5 .591 .8.9 -.3;. .,.,. .3 OJ 3 OJ 0.‘ . OJ 0 .3 OJ .3 .1 .n/ .Ho .922 .u: .129 53a .nov .55. .51: .17! J5, " “mm -.1"1 .9“ -.2u -.nr -.xoi .au -.nu -.ou -.ou -.o5z .033 .535 .55! -...5 -.zs. ..u n at u u o: n n n n 02 n n n .2 ' or .2:5 .515 .cu .100 .Jsz .9“ .5” .05 .25» .5“ .015 .9“ .091 g. . :0 I noon . : J" 3 .530 'JO! .uo .xn .012 My .115 m! .31! .3" .1" .050 ..lst .... - ..’ “a“ M u as u M 01 n u on u 0 ' .‘ H -I]‘ .‘10 ~2‘i .13.! .00) i0. .JS> .JOQ .1.) .077 ® ’1 nmttvu - .35 - '5' .100 .6”! .337 .051 new 31! .300 .000 -.ou .110 -.m no” .8” .1,2 - .‘. --u\vl on o .- on n on 0 00 u H u H . ‘ .' .1 . v .IV .0" .31: .553 .7 o . 1 . :5 .15. n IIJ u I I .l I 3 .23. ..u .04 ...u now -.00l -.os5 .ou 451 .25) .332 .uu .u5 new .521 .0" .179 u 3 e) u u 03 u u .3 03 ‘4” ”1” .ISO .56; .9” .9" .025 u u m .05. .051 .0‘0 .001 .007 -.1?) -.0‘0 '.l‘. '.37’ -.2SJ -.1.1 -.0,, '.137 ‘..“ u u a o 3 .3 u u u a u .3 ‘4" “0” u .391 ..u .752 .on 5“ 313 .715 .2-0 .15. .202 .ux .3" 0 cl 0’ N E "I.“ - 6o ,3” .HI : .ovo .oc- .955 .9“ -.cu 159 no .2“ .215 .135 .255 .101 .u. ’3'. .3 u .3 u o: 93 03 03 n 03 .3 ~.ou '-"° § .092 .354 .00. .au .13: .215 .20 .001 .351 .202 .353 u 03 :5 a mum J'I 7" .205 .2” .2” .017 .3.” -.2n -.025 -.°‘. non -.oO5 -.olo no“ -.128 - to n u 53 u 03 53 03 u n u 03 ' 2 J" -°’1 .uo .uav .aH .712 .IH .NO .101 .5531 .537 .N2 .950 .02. ‘ u t! “ uucmu m. ‘ . i J” .uo -.9$2 -.2n -.¢01 .an -. -.2a5 .005 .0" no." .905 .053 malt - . 8 u 3 . u .3 u . 03 n 03 53 03 .3 ‘ ‘1 -.m J" G ..13 .«a w .2" .522 .Mo m) J” .u- .IN A“ .07! .;.. 6! fl ' :1 .. mum. ~¢Ii .au 0’ 5 .u35 -.535 «23. ~45» .050 -.235 222‘ .01. .au -.nu -.cu .005 ..z.‘ _ 53 u 3 u o: o: o u u o 5 “.§ -.ll’ 4'1 .no .on .gbo .Ho .Ho 0 .3 u 1: W «m -.xn —.13.3 .3" now .0“ -.ou 5.300 an. an. .203 .u) ..9. . u .3 u u .3 .3 53 u .3 u u ., ~‘lo nun J“ .5» .312 .291 .2-1 .533 .513 .oox .u5 .n: .520 .1" .2“ ,... c: . ‘ 29 mm -l3, .1“ «:95 an. -.190 .1“ .0“ -.122 -.).u .205 .0“ .030 .152 -.ua -.;;. 8 n 52 2 .2 oz 32 or 02 52 u 02 .2 .1 ~09! .300 p .32‘ .00; .21) .“1 .710 33. 136 .100 .401 JOI .332 .9I7 .... .2 n ‘ um ma. .Iaa 5 .300 .310 .000 -.152 -.200 -.o?c -.no -.ou n2" -.n5 '4‘. -.m -.“‘ : .3 n .3 u 03 .3 53 53 u u u .3 ‘ - to. .3“ J“ o .234 .352 .599 .12. .111 .552 .0“ .50 m) .9“ .23! .55: "‘7‘ .; J a: n unuunc- .353 .l" d” .217 .xco .no .2“ -.uu ~.105 .0" an: -.252 .05 .x00 .6“ -.‘.. 53 5.5 u .3 n 93 u 0) o u u 03 .3 ‘ - I... .0" no .0“ .MN .030 .I.‘ .0}. l). .097 .10. .‘SI .3.) .I‘. - .. .3 ’ .3 52 mm. 3 .3” ..n a“. nu: -.uo -.on -.I" -.2H .35: -.M3 .m .539 .071 .530 42’ .‘g, 03 u u u o; u 53 u u u o! 8 . -815 .3). .1" 41V 422 409 .01 - .131 .111 .IN .795 4541 an Ann 0) fl 03 3! menu: V '5 .on .505 -.u5 .317 non on .011 -.IN man .3" .us .209 .... 53 u .3 u u 93 u 03 u o u u . .0“ .4“ .11. 8 .533 .001 .302 .353 ..01 .7“ .5" .on .uo .053 .31. .05. .i‘ u .1 v ' .1. .357 " r: ""w-m ..uz ..uo -.125 .500 .2» .m .5" ..075 -.uu ..305 .02. .3" ..3. "” ‘ 3 u 3 3 53 u 53 o 03 03 ~.... ..ou -.ur .1" .302 an .525 .3! .MI .55: .553 an .022 .00. 3:. . u u . ..m ” m ~43. .au .ou -.us -.2u .1" .1" -.uc an. -.ua an: ..no _‘, '“° "“ .3 n .3 u 53 u 03 03 o u 03 u ‘ -..g. -.uo ..m .35; .-u ..u .503 .103 .120 A" .on J“ ~11! .nov 4“ .3 .3 a |~‘ . n x E. ”“91““ -.au -.2ao .oa: .1" .129 .u: .352 .ul .In .152 .309 .5" _‘Q is u u 3 u a u 03 u 53 u u ‘ an n. J., .52v .309 .92- .300 do. .0" .0" 4n LL“ . I . o '-‘ VW Afilm oou-run- .D-J ll: I’L‘I’Ig’ 352 for the White group on the Job Scale. 6? .’2I .XIO .331 .500 ..XSO O. .53 3;. .908 .099 .829 .ICO .3’! 0! ~03. .011 ‘.04’ ‘ol?’ ..til ..0., OJ O3 O2 O! O. 03 .915 .QJJ .72! ~82. JO! ..0. 5“! 502’ -..2. 5", 5‘2? .o". ’.337 O OJ O! O: OO OJ O3 .031 .049 at. J45 .34. -IO' '-11J n0” nu, H21! nu. -.I:O .OO’ 513! OJ O8 O2 O1 50 O3 O3 .575 A .557 .555 .223 .375 .555 . .253 '5‘!’ ‘59,, 5’3, '5“. '51,, '5... .37‘ .5.'. 5.3. OJ O3 O! 0! O8 O8 O3 .375 .555 .555 .555 ® .525 .775 .775 -.UO -.I.1 .32. a!” --207 -.I99 JO. 0.... .10! .0.. OJ OJ O; OJ O O8 O3 .011 .9" .10, .0" 'c.,, J!) ..7. ‘J08 .I‘i .3I7 .1). OJ OJ O! O! O0 03 I) O: .3 .IO’ -,7I .CII -070 .07! 5". .900 .358 .70. 'J’I “1’3 'JTO M... n!!! '..’. H.,? '5152 .05. H3“ ..39! .207 O2 O3 O1 O0 59 O2 .2 O2 O2 O3 .2 .lIO .2’3 .107 ..‘9 .3O. .79. ..0. .231 .OC7 “It. .JUI ‘0‘.’ .510, ...2. 5". n‘.’ .51“ ...J. ...33 5“. .52., '51.. .t." 5... OJ .3 .3 .1 GI .3 C, .3 .3 .' .’ .1 ..0. u... ..0’ u... .10. 50.3 .I.. 5.0! 5": 50., ."3 5"‘ ’:°'. ~o101 '0‘.‘ '0’.. - n.0, "5‘11 . 51!, ‘ 5..) J". 5.2, 5.3. 5". 5". 5". .3 O3 .3 .1 09 .3 6’ 0' .3 .3 O. .8 5.9] 5": 5", 5.“ 50" 5", ® 5"; ® D... 57., 5’3. 52:. 5’.' .225 .525 .555 .255 .152 .255 -.155 .595 -.571 -.5IO -.IOO .JCJ .55! -.557 -:II 5! .8 O O! O! 55 OJ OJ OJ O! O! O! -11. 511 ill 21! All 11‘ 1|) 5. 9 522' 5"! .5... 5", 50" -5..2 52" 5", '5',‘ 5". 5", 5", '5.‘2 5". "‘° 51‘. 53 53 52 5x 55 5: 53 55 53 55 5: OJ 5 58 03 p.69 -51’ 3.... .776 .679 .621 .003 .OII .00, .105 .0.. .05! 5.2, o... '4‘. . 2. .112 .11, .110 -.1OO ..O1 ..01 ..1I7 ..130 ..Ill .02. .30. .87. .IO, '~O.1 .110 .260 53 55 52 55 55 55 55 5: 53 5: 53 52 58 53 55 53 .505 J" .390 J" .290 .73: .520 .13: .503 .02.) .027 a. .1" JOO .551 .5” d" .525 .55. .535 «.515 .25: .552 .535 5: 52 55 5 .250 .09J ..9. 4!! .30. '..91 .09? ‘5... -.270 -..43 .003 O! OO O) O3 O3 8 OJ 5., 53 53 55 .51} -52J .12, .109 .006 -.11? .271 .217 .IJO .007 .027 no)! .000 -.OI7 .091 0.03. .0.. uO-SO .1!’ -.10. -.12l .0‘. OJ O! O? E: O! t OJ OJ OJ OJ OJ O) O2 O8 03 ' 03 O3 O! I J 5 , .F .22: ..i‘ III, III. III! I ’ l“. Iiil 57" ”M comm- mumc metal cuss manna T!“ ”lulul» Flu ”lulu «J» ulnlnlnT» uh!» AIS: IIhJ 353 «1:1. [’1‘ I 1 $.17]qu a mun an I TABLE 14 2 .. --Correlat i on mat P1X 3 5 now. manual .ur .06: 6 5 Mia]. ...H .MJ .0" E tn) 5 ‘ "gum .199 .912 .ou .n! a! 1 .19; O ACHII .OXJ ..‘J .2I1 .917 .209 22 n n a) u: .33! 1 row. .au .0» .2» .9" .In .5” . .w .000 u!) an {in . “my! --0)fl '.l.l '.O35 -.IO, '.JJI ..OSJ ‘ 3.9 n u n a: u u an .«1 ® .m 4” n; .0" , “an" -.nJ —.ou -.au -.2u -.zn -.au - nr .070 u u u z: 22 2: .cu .m a .1" .152 su .ux m) 10 m1, nwflq HM]. ‘JH '.l/J ml)? '.50, 0‘) ' 232 .0'1 -Ill 4: u 23 u a: a: n C .no .ou .191 .115 .xu .0“ .171 {m n E mmw .oso -.oiz '.157 ..01: no” -.no -.xc9 .11. .722 .0" t; as u u u a: 22 2: b N .311 .u/ .63 .630 In .9" .ah 1 - _ 13’ GD 1: E ruul: .51“ an; a») an, -.u1 - 12o -.2u .sn ..0. .u; .117 E l (J 23 23 a: n 13 J . ...v ..un .09; .u. .m .559 .2“ m) w n man ms": .0“ -.m «an ~.noo .u: M61.) .199 .m .12; .u. .uu n a. 22 u a: u n 12 n 2: n n ..10 .059 .O?! .S‘V '7. .101 .95. .1.) .1). ..IIO .030 .J.. I‘ m -.90, ‘.UI/ -.au «347 -.II. NJ 2:50 I” .OH .nn .0" .71] .023 n u z: a: as ' an M“ 3’ .2“ J“ .977 J" 00 um (I! an (ID 1: m1“; - m. .Joa ac: .oso .9” .nc .362 .an -.ou ~.m .01, .na .1“ .u: -.:u z! ‘ “ n as n a: n u 22 u .14. - .oa: .Iua .uo .vu .on .oa: .m .0." 3 av ‘3’ 1. 3 mm - m. -.on nu: -.m -.no -.2ox ~40! -.uv .ua .uo .uo .229 .15: -.u: .215 -.|’O 21 u a; u a: n 23 z 2 u a: a: n u a . . - - e .15. .Au .2“ . 1.1.1 4113 .uu . .m .29; .m n. 17 um a, -.t() -.1H -.9n -.ns -.JIJ .zu -.ua .011 .102 .on «on .no .500 .all -.-u nos. 22 22 4 n a: u u n u n n n n n 2 .5" .u. .0" .xn .23, .au .sn .1" .IM .7" ..su .19: .10. .97! u m o. .oa .42‘ u; .uo .uv .zn .ur -,¢u -.2u -.n. -.;u am .no -.1u .In new 5 u n u 23 u 23 a n u 1 4.- 5 .32; .32; w .349 .20: .3“ .oh .0! .J” J” .MO .1“. ., .mm. .350 -..nv -..w. -.JlO -.su ..593 -.299 .171 .2" .uo .19. .un -.ua .JOO -.l’1 .u. a: u as 2.5 a: z: a: u 23 u 23 a: 28 u z! 5 .on .110 .110 .xu .102 a, .19.. .au .1" .n. .3” ® .w .1" ."0 .3“ ’° 3 “cm: -.zu -.zn .HI -.m .1“ ..m -.ou -.uo an: .9" .oo: '.13J -.uo -.ur .0“ .0" 22 ¢ 22 22 22 21 22 22 22 n n 22 n I; .154 .29» .493 .usn .5“ .m .0" can .12: .on .O‘H .5“ .JJ. .2” .60. 4:; n u" “as man -.321 -.uo '.295 .020 -.Jn 'JOI a". nu. '.OOS -.J'2 -.OOO -al" a“! --l’| ~le 2: 23 as a: a; a: ' a a .9» .51: .154 .m .129 .nM at cm) .Mr .000 -1‘8 u m I I .10. .1” .101 .3“ .5“ .2” .3“ an. nu, -.JOO -.J’O nut -.IOI 0.3M ..I" 0.01! z: u 23 u 2: 22 23 n 23 23 ‘ n u a: .14: .9“ .us .Mr .oea .2” .va .on J» 4cm 0 .oa 1) m: -.u9 v.12. .xed .09. .2" an .m ~..u -.)OO -.sn '.O71 ~.1OJ .uo ~.uo -.au any as u u 23 as a: 23 a: a: a t ' u n 9 .29.. .au .ou .no .1” ..9. .m ® .uz .091 Ma an 55 ”our " . w' -.2a> -.x:o up. -.no -.uo -.uu -.049 -.xla -.ZOZ -.m «u; '.J3O -.ua -.IN -.«0 nun 3 u u 2: z: z: n 25 u u 2: 2: a: n u 2: 2 .23« an .23. .502 .2” .mo .3): . u .2“ .au .90: .au .1" .us an ’5 a "m" "m" .oa: -.no .0“ .uz -.m .12: .u- .on -.ur -.ou .05: .977 .In .1» -.uo .In a: u 5 a: n 2: as a 2 2: u a u u 2: .1" .Nr .on .06: .oa .m an ..n .u: an 412 .11; m .4:- an " mmu- mm. an .3" .ou .su .2” .u; .4" ..u! -.295 -.uo °.29) v.23. -.|n -.2’J .uo nus B u : u n n a: as u u a u u a: r Q9 mu m; (fl) .1“ .on .30: .au .«9 .u: .1» .72: .m .0“ as: ) '7 é "um. ”m' an .1“ was .32: .4" .m .391 .1» .102 .11. .212 ..su .ul .uo .m --m ‘ 43 J J a: n z: n n n n n n z: u u 1 .aou .33. .31: .pc .11; .an .221 an ..nx .111 .111 .1“ .11: «U: _ V a ’5’ -.oor -.sau ~.2n -.;27 '.LOO -.219 an? .250 .23: .1" .us .401 -.uo .191 -.|.. .111. n u u a: a? as a: z: z! 23 a: a a) a u .97. w .151 .uo .au .314 .11. .220 .201 .5” .1“ .1“ .no .1» .0. .sn ” am» m .nlo .m .on .20 .15: .290 .22: -.au -.m -.ou .0" .102 .130 .009 .80: no» a n u 22 z: a: n 22 22 22 n n u u u t ’ : .Iu .u/ ..u .2“ .015 .100 .19: .207 .030 .ru .9“ .ul .On .OO. .10! -IOI ‘ ’° 5 "'3' “'1'“- -..m -.uz .on an .m -.zu .131 .1" .117 .au .30: -.ou ..n .3“ -.3n men a 23 a: 2: u u 27 z: u u u as 2: n u u a) O .130 .95. .935 .on was .20. .531 A” .5" .JOO .xu .ru .0» .1" .00! .0” " “mm“ .1“ .12: .Ioa .24: .au .152 .20; -.1u nus no» nus -.zu .110 -.I« an --I’, 23 4 n a: n a) a: 2: u a.) u u a) 13 an an .2“ an .fll .32. .37: .001 .7“ ..0. an .1“ .310 .020 .1" ’3 W “'1' -.uo .an -.on .on -.ur .III .1“ .107 .zu .xn .uv -.on .1” .199 -.ug .4» l u u 3 J n n n u a: u u u u l a: .034 .1" .732 .ua .9" .99: .av Jon ..m .on ..n .m .«0 .xu ..m ” W‘- ‘9 -.2n .0" -.2Ja -.zn an -.19; -.ou 0.17. '4" -.m ~42: .03. .2” -.m ...n -..3$ z: u as u 2 n u u a! u z: t a: a! u .294 .n: .2“ .3.) .0“ .4" ..01 .us .510 .uo .3» .an .20; ..u ..9. an 8 I ‘3 mm -.1“ -.aea nu; nu. -.m .M’ 0.321 .In .002 «on --m .11: .0“ at“ can nan n u a u u n u n u u as u 3 u a: ..0.! .an .an .cu an .91. .110 .330 .7" .071. .ru .99: .17. .on .m .0" 33 "film .sn ..0. .n. .0): .5” .491 .911 .3" «no -.ua -.u| an. .an -.»x .20. --tOI n n u a 3 u I! a: . or .u .uo . .00. .no .uz .u- .9“ .7" . o 3‘ g "mm“ m .n; .110 .2” .an .110 .u: .m -.u7 .no -.uo ans .0“ nun -.ou -..IO .0" n n n u u u n n a u .no .291 .1" .no .u1 .;:o .u; .m .on .9» .vu .IIL .n! I .2 a ‘W Arm-wk calm-r mm mm In: A”! ”A! "In 19 In 3514 for the Black group on the Job Scale. 0.000 (I 1.000 °.020 72 .000 ~.001 (1 .vv: .1!) 47 .:20 '.031 'I20, 13 .20] ..II. 22 .000 -.303 23 .095 .390 ‘.JO! -.;03 23 .09, -.080 .007 db .007 .000 I? 23 03 73 .000 9 o P) .109 .152 -.;17 .200 .030 22 23 20 22 ..01 .400 .07. .170 ® .100 -.100 .000 -.0)2 .01. 12 23 00 23 .J70 .070 .000 .001 .210 .001 .010 .000 .109 20 a! 20 22 73 0 -.:ax .910 -.000 -.090 -.J10 I? 00 22 a! .07.) 4m) .000 .010 .cu -.010 .030 -.:00 .000 ..43. 22 23 33 2: J .044 .170 ,009 .001 . -.000 -.001 .240 -.006 -.017 12 2: 20 22 21 .007 .00) .000 .000 .037 00" .0... ..9. ’u". 'u.“ I? 27 02 21 22 .000 1.000 .017 .7:0 .030 -.17x -.II: .300 -.109 .100 2? 2J IJ 22 73 .010 .010 .910 .002 .400 -.0¢I .000 -.100 .JJS .102 12 20 23 a! .20: (III) .190 .110 .300 -.00’ -.209 .011 n00! .001 22 21 a: 23 .003 -.020 -.007 -.109 .173 I? as 20 22 70 .103 .302 .050 .500 .107 .100 '.170 0.310 .100 .000 12 J as 32 03 .401 .301 .120 .304 .000 -.3¢2 .200 -.007 -.OOO -.J$r .107 2! .002 '.200 30 .RJJ .109 2) .077 .IJO 23 00 .100 2J .000 .1.2 22 .J70 .IIJ 2J .051 .300 23 .070 ..000 23 -.8'J 23 .J00 .0’0 23 .710 .000 .010 13 ~010 0", 33 .370 I) .000 -.000 23 .900 -.300 I) .027 .000 2? .200 ‘.013 23 -'52 .0.. 23 .070 .I‘.. 23 .300 ZJ .130 .000 23 .050 °.000 13 .079 23 '0... 03 .070 '.010 'U072 23 .701 ..0’0 32 .72) .349 33 .230 'I303 33 .300 .07. .007 33 .008 “.009 30 .001 .01.. 35 'u.’. 30 .000 .00. 33 a . 02.7 3’ .80. 0‘10 2? .0.. .00, 13 «$3. .19. 23 .J05 .030 23 '0'.) 20 900‘ .0..? 13 ..01 .103 1' .00; 'ul!’ 2’ .051 '.110 I? .500 ‘-0’0 33 -015 .330 13 .20, °-1‘0 23 'n110 23 .07) .220 28 .200 .000 .000 20 .003 0.102 22 .J00 -.000 l! .920 .197 23 .000 .0"’ 33 '0": (3 -701 .205 I) .032 .000 .000 02 .007 .000 I! .000 ‘10,, 00 ..I0 0.000 03 '01,, 00 .000 .108 3 .000 .000 33 ‘00.. I? .000 .17. 02 .000 .100 22 .000. 2! .000 ‘.3" 03 '1‘. '00.. 20 . 0", 00 .003 0”. .'0’. I! . 0! o...) -.302 .190 g) 33 (J .000 nl“ .000 ....3 -.1I‘ ..300 .000 a! a: z: ..9. .010 .100 ..0g .10: 0.000 .000 .000 I ' ’ 0‘). .0090 -o.17 '00., -.23r .‘1. .c", .03.. 0.3; 0... .J23 0". 0". 0“. .I‘.’ .I... 'uU’O 01., 0", 32 27 23 21 )7 3? 02 20 2? 20 00 00 17 I? 22 I! ‘ 0 . 01 0 ‘EEEI '00: .010 -‘10 .000 .710 -011 W II/ll OUIIICT VI‘III’IIC 0111610. CIAIB! OIIIIIATIGI IDVC‘TTOI "II-[ulnluln ”lulu «In .. In!» 1.1» ”1&1” A00: IUBJ 355 mum: “an“ .172 41 .271 I E mmnmuwnm «14:, .423 TABLE 43 .--COI’I’elatlon matrix 5 .474 S mmcu .300 .130 .009 g: 0 01 E ® .09., ‘ 7237.114: -.144 .479 .512 .144 41 41 41 .424 .414 .307 4mm .an .114 men .233 -.434 01 0| 0] l 01 .054 .030 .70.! .103 .010 ram. .141 4 . 34 mmmn .147 ~.2a4 4.444 .244 -.424 .144 .443 01 01 ll 01 0 01 ‘1 .244 .144 .441 .444 .441 .144 .454 mun .244 .114 no“ .244 .424 .134 .244 .734 0] ‘1 01 01 0] 01 01 '1 .944 .542 .47, 04> 044 100 .1“ .0441 41741114110- .-.44 .114 .214 .434 -.o4o .141 .213 .442 .414 0 01 01 ' 01 0x 01 0 t; .742 .444 157 ® .744 .544 .144 3 major, .26.] .0!) .13) .500 -.004 590 .207 E 41 41 41 41 41 41 a an .724 .124 ‘ .444 4-4 .454 2 mun: -1!1 .o:/ .417 .444 .117 .224 3:7 ~ 41 41 u 41 41 41 E .4r2 414 .111 .454 1,54 11.1104 .14: .12: ~43; .234 .444 .47. 444 41 41 41 41 41 4 4 .774 .12. .144 .120 .70. @ MA]. .211 .090 .1224 .007 .010 0." .009 ‘1 ‘1 41 4 01 41 4 w w ab -m cm (Pb gnaw . 004m ‘1’4 '.H13 .14: .050 -.:20 -.230 -.000 -.02.I '.02‘ -.050 '.001 -.00‘ ~-220 'J.‘ 01 ‘1 01 0| 0] 01 01 01 01 0‘ 0| 0! 01 _ .14. ..4: .441 ® .444 .122 .444 .444 .474 .724 .444 .444 .144 .400 3 mlan-nn. .140 .012 ‘.1150 .234 -.214 «on -.471 .241 .310 .173 .444 .444 -.400 .174 .244 01 ‘1 01 01 0] 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 01 «:1 AH .712 .134 .24: .124 .144 .111 m .247 .114 .441 4.11 .214 .144 ”mu, ..111 .217 .142 -.114 .493 .21 .279 -.147 ~.4zo .141 .144 .413 .244 .114 -.132 -.4., u ‘1 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 41 01 01 41 ..:. .141 .111 .452 .54: an .471 .2-1 .444 .244 .11. .932 ® .444 .144 ..se E mmor «1:4 .242 -.c.\7 -.o41 2090 .312 .235 .421 .1” ‘JJ! -.152 -.107 .420 .104 —.194 .1Lv ‘ 41 41 41 41 41 1 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 4~ g .74. .1104 .411 .741 .712 a .144 .441 .244 .421 .112 .449 .414 .334 .44- AWIM‘C! 2:2 .41. _.n1 -.102 -.244 .141 .025 .204 .134 .c‘: .454 .1”: .444 .110 -.120 .147 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 .1 g 1 414 .90. .10: .913 .044 .142 .472 .141 .344 .774 .742 .444 .474 .474 .414 .42.. 1 «so. -.040 .217 -.on .114 .14.» .144 .114 .413 -.432 -.124 .041 .344 .137 -.147 -.1~2 0" ‘0 4a 00 0f 4 . Ac ‘0 ‘0 00 00 ‘0 0 00 00 0'- ..u .141 .457 .331 .2c0 .452 .434 .442 .424 .544 .300 .300 .22.. 4111471471443 nus -.o:2 .141 .444 .444 .114 .141 -.111 4.444 .421 -.112 .024 .274 .447 -.112 halo 1 14 50 .40 14 30 30 .10 30 30 00 40 30 c .2r2 .442 .114 .444 .341 69 .244 .444 1.04. .491 .444 .443 .417 .171 .407 600““! -.144 .474 .049 .473 -.nzr .244 .145 -.172 -.o14 -.a44 -.n4z -.o74 .147 -.444 .144 ...2. 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 ‘1 41 C: u .17.: .443 .474 .444 .444 .114 .314 .442 .934 .471 .492 .404 .104 ”LL .100. ‘4). -.214 .332 '.IiD9 -.257 .304 -.153 -.204 ~..MI -.o74 -.004 -.1‘1 -.1‘0 -.150 -.010 -.137 --ur1 41 I 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 41 ‘1 ‘1 41 01 47 g .141 ® .47! .444 ® .142 .442 63 .427 .144 .347 .344 .324 .144 .404 .0.. E mammal-r : .214 -.034 -.u’0 .144 -.114 .24: .177 -.na4 .100 .204 .341 .241 .201 .004 -.477 no.7 41 41 41 41 01 41 41 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 ‘1 41 01 U i .1“ .421 .434 .141 .174 .122 .144 .474 ..4, db .114 .194 .444 .424 ..u a macaw-n -.m .144 -.o44 -.477 ~.aI7 -.2ss -.o44 -.144 .411 .114 .127 .444 -.130 -.447 .114 .1” 01 I 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 ‘1 ll 01 01 01 0‘ .444 (.411) .440 .422 .421 .-44 .544 .444 .442 .450 .414 .4" 1171 .040 .30.! .3... mm“. noon. .244 .111 .124 .444 .244 -.1:e .141 .132 .170 .434 .141 .491 -.142 .440 -.142 .321 8 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 1 4 5 421 .411 .454 .744 .147 .444 .424 .390 .254 .422 .144 .744 .200 .472 .404 -- Imam-m. g .m .144 .443 -.424 .247 -.244 .424 .404 .444 .454 -.444 -.000 “247 -.444 -.134 .244 41 41 41 41 41 .1 41 41 4 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 .414 .344 .744 .075 .143 .174 .471 .000 .473 .791 .40.: .023 .000 .070 .00] .1“ in: .114 .424 .24, .131 .434 -.144 -.012 -.414 -.o42 .011 .144 -.10u -.131 -.404 -.477 .441 41 41 .1 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 .444 .474 .114 .441 .417 .244 .444 .494 .744 .444 .442 .443 .444 .722 .401 mwunnr: .144 -.2:4 .117 .144 -.424 -.244 -.1so .224 .444 .410 .144 .111 ..240 .402 .244 no“ 3 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 E .42.. .147 .454 ® .445 ® .134 .144 .747 .444 .174 .474 .174 .744 .141 .454 E ulna-1401 nus .414 -.142 -.114 -.144 .15~ .442 -.124 -.o44 .024 .444 .444 .247 .104 '4', a 01 0) 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0X 01 01 0| 0 0] I .441 .447 .144 .404 .394 .334 .001 .411 .771 .047 .454 .720 .104 .111 .432 wmunul g “421 .274 ..14 .211 .274 -.11* .144 no” .174 .244 .311 .147 .414 .111 .2x4 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 41 41 41 1 41 .444 .444 .144 .174 .472 .442 .204 .414 .24: .144 @- .244 .420 .441 .14. mm. -.427 .154 an no" -.143 -.214 -.101 -.124 -.a74 -.149 .444 c.212 -.102 .104 4., 1 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 4 41 J“. .432 .434 .530 .247 .147 .334 .434 .424 .514 .001 .173 .111 .32! .2“ -¢‘v mmnn .434 .442 .3» -.414 .247 .014 .247 .114 .345 .312 .294 .214 .430 .041 -.012 a...“ 41 4 41 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 41 41 41 8 .444 ® GE .414 .442 .443 .114 .411 db ® (E .144 .444 .444 .171 .w. 3: rot-41m ~45, -.141 .124 -.421 .2” -.144 —.445 .442 -.414 .417 -.414 -.101 ..100 -.401 ..144 «114 0) .1 01 01 01 01 l 0 01 01 01 0 0| 0 4‘ g .724 .444 .441 .444 .447 .724 .444 .444 .414 .041 .221 .400 .401 .000 ~44: "an" -.114 -.442 .414 -.444 -.4n .244 .447 -.477 -.477 -.433 .444 -.444 .144 .444 -.241 ..244 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 1 41 41 41 41 4 41 41 4; .442 .494 .444 .542 .414 .444 .474 .421 .424 .431 .44: .774 .13; .441 .104 .11.. "”mc'mum ..474 -.4u -.274 -.447 .424 .244 .442 -.427 -.141 -.272 -.214 -.477 .244 -.144 .134 an ' 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 41 4: .454 .454 .974 .444 .474 .174 .791 . 4 .344 .470 .147 .420 .n! .202 .170 an vumus' 4mm: oou-rm 4111mm mmm 441m 112] 3 L 41 5] 417 4] ILIOI 111 12[11114 11 I14 E“ ‘_‘ d .oeo .zas O) 41 .193 .l!’ .21; .20. -.102 ll 6. ‘9 .000 -I.. .30, .JG. .13. ‘.1.I '0‘, 3. :0 cm) .m .2“ m) .30; .01. .234 .l’) .x99 0 a: no so . a7 -.oiv .01. -.:oo -.13: -.zsa -.::x ‘1 ‘3 41 4' J. 01 .392 .947 .109 .141 .10: .aoo .1il -.2or .137 -.uas .xxa -.310 .1 41 .1 ‘0 3. ‘1 .aa; .104 .:ou .131 .409 ...2 -.120 .nxo -.ooo -.aIJ -.zaq -.;ox a: o: 01 on 30 4x ~Jll, 41914 .oiz .070 .xzc 4444 -.asa -.200 .203 -.330 -..11 ..10: a .1 a: t a: @J .10: .us up .242 -.37o -.ara .10. -.902 -.)01 -.163 0: db .191 '0‘.. 41 '0... . db ..:. .020 a ..I,’ 356 .876 .1 .3’. .82. OI .Ill 01 .907 .091 .III 0: Cl .18. ..II 'o.‘. 'c... 01‘, “ .‘ .‘ .‘ an m ’u“. 0‘.‘ .v.,: ‘I... 'u"‘ -u.” u". '0’,’ a... I". 02,. a: a1 01 08 30 a: a1 41 ‘1 ..90 .910 .0" .9" .2» .no .0» .70: db .ni’ -.310 .000 -.:o: .005 -.104 .oa. -.aaa -.1:o -.o:o -.360 -.311 .000 a a: u u 30 n ‘1 n a: u ‘1 .90: .au .770 .3“ ..7. .m .uo .on .102 .Mo -.01, .010 -.109 .107 :75 ..110 -.o70 .Idl .391 -.122 -.:0! -.ISI 01 5; .1 0c )0 01 01 0t 41 C! 01 Cl .921 .091 .21. .560 .372 .16. .01, .703 .II’ .15] .ZI’ .8.’ -.u:o .aic -.2¢o -.;9: -.21s -.1Io __ .119 .19: .031 .:Uo .171 .09. 01 d! 01 4. )9 ‘1 Gt .1 l1 I ..0. ..2. .31, .232 .17: .201 .33: .g.) .11. .950 '3‘. u’?’ .‘1. n... '-.°. '1‘. '.:.l u.“ 'ot‘: 't“1 '0". u‘!’ a a; ll 30 a: I! .8 G! ‘1 (lb .279 .004 .on .3" .44 .04: .m .02 C.:. ‘2‘, '0‘0. v..3 ’0... 'n.’. .t‘. .1.2 'I.‘z l‘.‘ .0.) 0", O 1 ‘1 CI )0 d: ‘1 I: O 41 d} Ct . “a .9” an .on .ua an .au . 7n .3“ . m .9” .1). .zaa .02! .x70 -.on. .32. .000 -.x9s -.z¢a -.022 -,|)) .133 I1 41 41 0° 19 ‘1 I) l1 .1 d; it I! 0‘.‘ nt). 0": '25, .7’, 0". I”. 0”. 0“, O... u.‘. n..’ .Jex .03: .04. .aoz .249 .30: -.303 .07. -.aJo -.z7| -.xlc -.1:0 4 )0 a Q I: d! 0: for the White group on the Law and Order Scale. .O". -I.‘. 0". .11, G: .1 G; .038 .037 .80, I". 'o‘.‘ '-... n‘.’ 0| 0‘ 0! Qt 0". 0", .754 .35. -.009 ..s. .00: .all .1 Ct ‘ .J’l Cb .I’J -1¢’ ~°5l ‘.|0‘ .I.‘ .07. .t’l '.III .0.. ..19’ °.033 ..215 '.lll ..10! .13. -.;JJ .1‘3 '-114 ..170 .0.. ‘1 6! 01 C0 39 ll .1 C: 01 d1 0! 4t ‘1 4; Q1 ‘1 .1 .1 O! .104 -l‘¢ .97. . . ) ..9. I‘:: .727 INEATTOI III“. CDITACI DIIDCIAIIIC IILIGIOI CIAIBI OIIIITATIOI .. In]” In In ”lulu All:lld‘0 357 2 mun .22; l! LI 14 . a mum... .... TABLE . --Correlation matrix .. 30 0 5 .992 0 E 0120270313003. -.200 .379 .00; t. 16 16 E .323 .070 G 9 "17.330: .900 .300 .001 .703 30 30 .000 .003 0 Acnou .109 on 16 16 .330 .109 7 m1. .230 .03/ 30 30 .300 .303 0 31mm" n00: -.0u .030 .200 -.327 -.290 -.200 16 16 I. I. l. 10 1. .119 .077 .000 .000 .309 .200 .033 , mun ..323 2:0 .107 .232 -.232 -.300 -.300 .010 10 u 30 39 00 10 30 .303 .003 .070 .390 .390 .237 .900 :0 m "AMINO -.(CI 011. 0013 .l.‘ '.22‘ '-Jl! ‘.1’. .915 ..55 u 30 10 10 u 10 x . i: .202 .00u .000 .000 .372 .200 .077 \fl 11 E wmrurnm -.392 -.0-7 -.330 -.902 -.303 -.0u -.399 .702 .911 .030 E 10 30 10 30 ‘0 x0 - : .304 .052 997 099 .303 .990 .399 $9 12 5 7001.170: ~02 .070 .002 .322 -.079 -.070 .000 .790 .700 .107 .070 E 10 10 30 39 1 x0 x0 . . .313 .Hu .000 .393 .030 .797 .000 33 mo. -.an .090 .901 .590 .007 .77; .701 -.300 v.232 ~40; «30; .000 30 30 . 0 0 0 x0 10 30 10 .730 .030 ® ® .099 .390 .000 .091 .903 30 m3 -.313 .300 207 .000 .00: -.022 .003 .007 .000 .000 .000 .999 .217 u u :0 30 u 10 30 3 3 .120 .00/ .099 .093 .997 .992 .700 . 39 ammo: _ can. .037 -.2u -.300 .200 .200 .300 .277 .300 .000 .399 .020 .330 .200 .230 u :0 n 30 u 0 10 30 30 x0 30 00 30 30 g .070 .003 .079 220 .320 .103 .200 .900 .000 .939 .912 .392 .999 .397 10 3 uncut - m, -.200 .309 -.2:0 .300 .030 -.29;- -.130 .239 .330 .307 .390 .203 -.209 .091 -.g9. 10 n 10 10 30 10 x0 30 u 30 30 30 0 30 ‘0 .203 .313 .302 .977 .042 .310 .500 .303 .17; .097 .993 .330 .320 .930 .,;‘ 1] “mm -.213 .3¢¢ .51. .377 .199 .1’0 .352 .20‘ .2.‘ .21. .590 .20. .04. .00} -“’X _.‘.. 30 30 30 30 10 10 30 39 x9 x0 39 39 g . .307 .300 .223 .020 .070 .370 .021 .23: .300 .303 .230 .000 .030 ,,,,- 19 B map -.207 .323 233 .039 .101 .020 .109 .192 .901 .397 .390 .03! -.999 .909 .160 .200 30 30 :0 n u 10 :0 30 30 x0 30 0 10 1. 1, S .200 .001 300 000 .923 .0n0 .903 .297 éb .309 .232 .079 .009 .009 .59. J., I9 "om-:0 -.xu0 0.000 -.‘00v -.200 -.uv -.300 -.300 .910 .900 .022 .990 .010 -.209 .999 .0‘. .5" 10 39 19 19 39 19 19 I. ‘. U 20 ! .00u 3.000 320 290 .200 .303 .132 {E b C!!!) (ED (B) .329 ~6‘3. an i .200 .3:0 000 .93: .903 .970 .000 ~.0z: -.3:3 -.002 ~.303 -.oh .330 -.222 ..., -.0., 14 36 16 I. ' 10 30 O 1 1. I. O t. t. 19 21 u. “m .202 .237 .000 Q39 (B .002 .290 .000 .330 .700 .370 .375 J,“ J“ «>2 .329 .302 .327 .900 .910 .929 um -.9u -.997 -.30; '.‘l' .932 -.337 - . _ :0 10 :0 10 0 0 :9 30 39 ; “:. ”Hi. 22 m .030 .043 .309 .300 .301 .000 .37; _... .1“ - 039 .303 .200 .979 .300 .092 .201 .239 .020 .330 .313 .202 .090 .390 ._.‘3 _“9 u u 10 10 10 :0 3 0 30 x0 10 30 10. . u ..m .210 200 . .217 .717 .339 .303 .070 .303 .200 .330 993 .01. ‘ ' 1! If v ‘M .309 .313 .010 .000 .270 .300 .203 -.000 -.330 ..300 -.200 -.033 .000 -.37; -012 _ 200 30 30 30 00 30 a 19 : 39 30 19 :0 g. 1. ‘ 3- U . 0 . . 0 . 0 0 - ' . . ' 00 m. :00 0,7 003 700 3:0 2:2 .230 3 I 232 202 "I 30 .270 J., ..9. - ll! 1". .30. .1.) .O‘. .1‘) .‘90 ..1‘ .07. '.003 “.111 .05. 0..) ..‘. - ‘, OJ :0 0 - 30 39 3 39 9 0 39 10 39 39 ‘. ' ‘ '4 § .270 .000 .003 .003 .07; .030 .099 .79, .732 .001 .009 .007 .9,. 1‘ l9 1, 5 mm .090 .910 .039 . 202 -.207 .290 .039 .200 .100 .093 -.399 -.392 .020 .932 .929 ...2 ‘2' 30 30 30 :0 30 10 10 30 30 30 30 30 30 to ‘ ‘ "" J" 0 10 20 unmo- m. ..uu .320 .200 .300 .000 -.1u .032 .309 .000 .020 .230 .002 -.390 .3", - 3 :0 30 u :0 30 10 x0 20 0 30 30 30 ‘. “’0 J” B .000 .010 .200 .079 .071 .922 .002 .330 .092 .302 .099 .310 ...‘ 10 I 27 ~ mum- Anm. J“ J" S .090 -.9u -.o30 .337 .007 -.000 .030 .973 .009 .700 .920 .909 -.379 .399 10 30 30 :0 u a 10 30 "u '4" .700 .003 .002 .203 .070 .720 .090 . .00 0 I H 20 :03: — v ' '4 -.;20 -.903 -.207 -.339 -.339 -.u0 -.370 -.023 -.000 .002 .209 .000 .039 ...‘ 30 10 30 30 30 10 0 x0 30 30 30 . ~3‘9 “'15 .007 .232 .379 .099 .000 .122 .939 .070 .903 .292 .999 .999 . 3.. 09 1° 29 can 33023: ~33! 4" -.u. -.009 .009 .022 .393 .000 .307 .030 .090 .00; -.099 .377 .030 ...s 8 10 00 x0 30 30 0 30 30 0 30 30 30 ‘. -010 ~15: E .902 .230 .070 .003 .307 {hp .390 .090 .031 .730 .003 .323 .072 .1. 0 10 n 5 03m can“ . J“ 4!“ -.303 .000 -.002 .220 -.339 -.u0 -.000 .303 .377 .237 .020 .009 -.307 .“. g 30 :0 10 :0 10 10 30 3 30 30 0 0 30 9.099 433 _ .990 .900 .332 .899 .993 .997 .099 .22; .123 .30; ..3) ,7" 4‘. .: 2 1‘ :1 00720374310. ' ’ 3.090 .399 5 .000 .002 .300 .020 .722 .003 .099 -.999 .077 .900 -.900 .337 .009 ~90: 30 30 :0 0 0 0 x9 30 .309 .377 .000 .000 .237 ® .730 .702 .070 .097 .003 x. 3 30 92 mm. 4"” .2" .003 -.I,,I .330 .202 .070 -.990 .320 .329 .290 .070 .009 .090 .300 .203 ..' 30 00 30 00 :0 0 30 0 30 30 10 x. ' .200 .009 .900 .900 .300 .790 .099 .039 .023 .000 .070 .707 .004 .999 .230 * 3 30 33 mm -.393 -.237 -.220 -.290 -.339 -.307 -.309 -.319 -.090 ..920 .397 -.990 -.20s - 10 30 x0 30 30 :0 30 0 0 x 2 0. d»!- -.202 -.220 8 .903 .300 .300 .330 .373 .199 .309 .033 .939 .029 .070 .793 .33. :. ‘ 09 ' ' . . " r: "70003030 .400 -.000 -.033 -.307 -.330 -.200 ..207 .007 .000 .030 .29; .4" 2-009 ”‘ “‘ g 30 30 u 30 0 u 30 u u 20 3 30 ;. ~09) '01?! ~.090 .000 .003 .090 .900 .290 .209 .200 .992 .902 .997 .333 .000 5.. g 30 0 7 ” m” -.090 -.2x0 -.300 .m -.200 -.m -.270 .m .002 .m J" .390 --200 ' .390 00 30 30 30 u u 00 30 30 30 1‘ -l!3 -.097 4,, . 309 an .009 410 .209 .201 .123 400 .HL .302 .993 1. 29 30 30 " - 700.700an -.902 .320 .000 .307 .300 -.277 -.070 .330 .09; .030 .007 .200 .07. ‘ 5' a; 30 00 30 10 3 30 x0 30 30 30 .00. . 330 4., .. .020 .070 .130 .970 .170 .703 .300 .000 .079 .003 .2" 30 0. ' n mm“. 03131000 comm Amnm 3mm ““1 030: um» I Wl‘l' 'I' 10 I u 12 358 for the Black group on the Law and Order Scale. .299 16 03.0 '.100 .219 I. 16 .932 .5‘0 .399 .21} '.’OO 19 :9 .103 .991 .390 .219 '.963 .70. .::. 1:. £9 .29? .019 ..9. .131 «3‘. 3. ‘0 t. 10 --Lla1—-‘zgiI3--“‘.--—“a‘—_-fi‘:zu .320 9". '9',‘ 0’1: 0"0 0", 3. I. 10 10 .307 .000 .193 db @ .900 .207 .931 «.070 .210 .200 .223 .099 10 0 10 1e 10 10 10 .000 (33;) .790 .300 .239 .079 .030 .173 .072 -.202 .030 .021 0.000 -.110 -.101 to 19 19 39 19 19 19 19 99 .193 .31) .059 ..0.. -.105 .190 -.l7l 022’ '03’0 10 10 x. 10 I. 10 80 I. l. .39. .20. ..10 10... .513 .13. .001 .37) .111 .316 .019 .19, '..13 -.286 .325 .85. ..01! ..01. .505 I. 36 10‘ '0'). 02,. 03.. ‘9... 90.0‘ '2‘, '0.7' .0... 91,, .0.., '00,. I. I. 1. I. 16 1. 1. 1‘ I. 1. ‘O 0’.‘ 03.1 01.7 01.7 ‘0... .333 0],. 30.00 02.. 03': 0", 0.1. 0": 0". 0‘17 .... ..’. gt,’ 9.2. 03" .0“. 01.1 0". 0. I. C I O i 3. 1. I. I. I I. 1. I. .Ol4 .0I1 2”. 0“} .TD. 0... .513 «.3. 03.2 .505 0,77 ..7’ '0‘). 0": 9“. '0.’. .0..° 0", '..., 91., 0". 0". 03.. '9... 0". I. O I. I. 16 :6 I. I. 1. t. 3. 1. .000 (:QEI) .030 .927 1.000 .700 .097 .300 .100 .137 1.009 .702 nil, 0,” .0... 0". 0"! 0". .... 9". 933’ 0“. 0“. 9". 9"! a... 10 1. » I. I. I. I. t. I. t. .392 fig .792 ® db .102 .039 .303 .970 .201 .700 .291 0“, 02,. 0‘7. ‘0’], '-$" 0.11 '0... 0”. 0... ‘0.’: ‘0." 02s: 0... 9... 9..‘ I. I. 10 30 19 O .80. .113 '01‘1 '.I51 .052 .157 .002 .0." '.052 .137 .239 .3:8 .100 .01: --310 ‘.III 0 l 10 10 1| 1. $0 10 10 £0 1. I 1‘ 16 0412 .395 .922 00.0 .887 .90. ..9. .063 0.37 .90. .83. .30. 09.! .34. 03D‘ 00‘. .900 -.039 -.307 .073 .193 .033 .207 .931 -.037 .290 .297 0.099 -.999 9.990 2-297 '-3¢I .002 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 .001 .199 .772 .909 .097 .290 .093 .093 .230 .322 1.999 .339 1.999 -905 .090 .170 .002 .109 -.399 -.000 .972 -.109 .290 .313 .073 .022 .300 .199 .790 -390 .297 .010 .300 10 10 20 10 10 a: 1. 16 16 16 1’9 ..7. .037 .i -‘.1 ~57. .301 '-l" .101 .519 ‘.19. .06! .010 .39] .91. .09. .119 .QII «1‘9 .630 .332 .53. .6|J :0 19 19 10 39 10 10 10 10 19 19 19 10 10 19 19 .099 .020 .090 .290 01 .030 .792 .900 . 91 .090 .919 .009 .127 .990 .101 .170 .171 . lurul cultacr DIHDCIAPIIC 9113010! CIAICI 09120701300 lflllflicl nlulwlwlnlu ”14» .1. .I.1.L.1. n14» AbltlfldJO 359 1 mm: \ = mm- TABLF 14 C 1 ti 1: 1 .. .-- orre a on ma I’ X 3 mwmna .107 3,, 7 7 E .000 ‘ g "mm!”m -.0i° .100 .720 n 73 73 E .000 .203 w < 5 7311.170: ..U‘S .110 .037 .000 13 I} ‘ .000 .177 a.) w . CI! .075 .07Q .119 .037 .500 I! I} 7 7 .373 .320 7 A m " .130 .371 .700 .720 .092 .031 73 7 7 7 .331 .30 o o n I nnwmz .007 -.101 .100 .110 .323 .200 .200 7 73 73 73 1 .001 .129 .300 .101 m) 0 mun -.110 .0“ .310 .250 .021 .207 .330 .707 73 73 7 7 7 7 .322 .901 11], @ {II-I 10 mm. sum-nun .120 .011 .501 . 02 .513 .330 .317 .000 .017 [I 73 7‘ 7 7 7 7 t 4" -m @5 mo d9 65 (lb 5 ll 5 WHIQL .013 '.0CV .030 .321 .40. J57 .511. JO) .560 .700 P; " ” ” " ’ £9 ' @333 die 3 .53. .001 ED d; m» up 11 r.‘ rum-1; .100 .001 .020 .031 .131 .375 .317 .027 .010 .770 .703 E 7‘ 7.3 7 7 7‘ 7 7 I 7 7 13 urno- .14a .1“ .003 .070 .027 .003 .031 .200 .320 .003 .007 .307 I, 1.5 7 Id 7 1 1 7 7 7 I -w .... <33: 69 ® av «337 10 m3. .070 .010 .500 .000 .301 .002 .000 .710 .795 .792 .022 .000 .70: 73 I3 7 73 7 7 1 7 7 7 I 7 69‘ -"° 6%? ° ' £19 an ' I3 mxun - our. -.212 .202 .310 .202 .010 .071 .207 .103 .297 .200 .225 .27. .190 .203 7; 7 7 72 7 72 72 7 7 g .17.. ® ® ® 4'89 .021 .110 at, ® .101 0-1 10 ; mun-m. .071 -.0u .107 .000 .000 .001 .170 .310 .390 .310 .202 .300 .130 .3” .310 2 72 72 72 7 77 72 7 7 7 7 7 72 7 .007 .010 .110 .7074qu .092 .127 "0 «M 1m 1m up 1170 11; n 1111170307 .100 -.ou .125 :100 .077 .327 .201 .070 .010 .133 .220 .003 .200 .100 -.000 "a, . I3 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 7 73 7 n 7; .070 .003 .200 .100 .513 GE m0 .317 .070 .257 .717 .000 .000 .019 10 B mot -.022 an“ .0011 an -.au .305 .230 .003 .090 .000 .093 no“ .392 .1" all) J.- 73 7 73 73 73 7 73 71 73 73 73 73 n g .033 .000 .012 .703 .020 .500 .023 .023 .020 .000 .000 .30: .900 19 03mm .073 .0“ no” .323 2.115 .10; 309 -.031 .001 .000 .300 .0" .031 .0“ n". ~13: 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 71 7 7 71 .132 .101 071 .000 .320 231 .550 .702 .091 .070 .500 .079 .00. .90: .fl. .271 to 0‘ 1m: 3 .159 ..9.. .220 .212 150 300 .320 .90: -.053 .253 .200 .103 .000 .200 -.007 no.0 70 lo 7 70 M 7 7 H} N l 70 H I 7 0 .6 .103 .0171 .070 103 Q5 .730 .000 d9 @ .123 .013 .020 21 0111011011175 -.110 .123 .1190 ~0110 1.73 on 070 -.033 -.000 .053 am -.310 .037 -.012 .011 note 0.- 0a 00 04! u 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 1 0) .300 .312 .027 .001 .370 .707 .10: .707 .000 .003 .030 .000 .700 .920 .030 as. 11 mum .7711 .010 .230 .190 .000 .310 .270 .071 .112 .173 .200 .000 .002 .021 .010 ‘-O-9b 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 73 I3 7 7 7! 7, .027 .075 .97; .302 .001 M .>0s .339 .132 .077 .000 . 7 .700 13 01:0 -.143 .017 -.2o3 -.n70 -.m -.o:1 -.oso ~.z14 -.100 -.220 -.200 0.200 -.030 -.m -.007 455 73 I3 :3 73 73 73 73 I3 73 7 7 73 73 73 I: B .773 .020 .000 .300 .077 .000 .031 .000 .111 .070 .000 .000 .042 10 I 11112.net“ 3 .192 .000 .303 .333 -.301 «.1320 .310 .332 -.a13 .101 .100 .131 -.007 .000 -.000 --0>2 7 7 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 70 I 7: g .032 .70: .007 .790 .977 .011 .000 .700 .010 .107 .100 .1” .007 .5” .«0 .00- 13 a mm .000 .153 -.o30 -.100 .313 -.000 -.o17 5073 .010 -.031 -.000 .00! ~.0!! -.053 .120 -200 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 70 72 was a" .7‘1 .60 J12 .191 .003 .322 .200 A3 .001 .v . 3v :0 aucmlnoou. --u¢1 .030 -.aa3 .100 .100 .030 .071 .231 .105 .100 .120 .103 .033 .171 -.000 at, 3 73 71 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 73 70 73 72 72 a .720 .000 .710 .101 .212 .701 .592 .112 .200 .203 .301 .701 .103 .017 .003 27 mac-0m. a -.100 -.300 ans -.000 -.033 -.123 c.100 .170 .207 -.097 -.0’5 ..000 nu. .010 «II: J" 3 I3 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 3 n .100 .070 .100 7000 .775 .201 .170 .131 02 .020 .320 .000 420 .000 . 0 .0... 10 001.7 --110 .101 “.075 091 .073 107 .110 .217 .107 .071 .300 .220 .100 .002 -.033 Jr! 73 73 n 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 7 73 n .325 .033 .920 .037 .373 .230 .300 .002 .091 .300 .103 .770 ~)E¢ 29 mutual: -.110 -.019 .072 .173 .100 .170 .133 .2" .200 .070 .202 .100 .200 .200 .213 4‘0 8 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 73 7 73 72 :2 .322 .000 .530 .130 .170 .120 .100 .170 .000 .003 .122 .00: ’° 5 m "m .130 no» .039 -.ou -.on -.on -.012 -.o02 mm .127 .000 .130 .010 -.002 .130 .110 a 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 73 7 73 7a 72 .- .23: .017 .013 .001 .370 .000 .910 .710 .001 .015 .700 .023 .000 .000 .m .320 31 5 “mm"- ~-120 .137 non .312 .101 .071 .003 .037 .310 .330 .030 .000 .000 .001 .100 4.00 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 n 3; .203 .270 .003 .010 .100 .303 .077 .027 .002 .737 .030 .003 .033 .370 .001 .107 11 mun-n. «031 -.0:v .200 .200 .103 .203 .211 .221 .301 .000 .302 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 -902 .ll) . 3’ mm -.100 .000 .112 .100 .000 .301 .100 -.010 -.003 .0-0 .101 .103 .070 .000 -.000 ..sy 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 7 73 73 7 I3 73 73 7a 72 8 .100 .011 .030 .330 .070 .000 .002 .070 .713 .730 .300 .301 .020 .003 .703 433 “ 7: 1117000101» 7.119 -.150 nus .003 .001 .102 .000 -.010 .010 .073 .007 .120 .101 .110 ~.031 0.;03 3 73 73 73 73 73 73 I3 73 73 73 I3 73 73 7t 72 .300 .100 .700 .077 .030 .305 .010 .7713 .0" .331 .000 .200 .320 .030 .0’0 .227 ” "m” -.000 -.100 .023 .000 -.u0 .131 .000 -.190 -.211 -.170 .013 -.000 .110 -.001 ..000 an; 73 I3 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 7 73 73 70 7! 72 .001 .031 .030 .707 .771 .200 .003 ..uL .300 .130 4000 .433 .300 .000 J -.0.. 30 nu moon . _- . W1C! ..,‘ .Ill '1’, .a,‘ '01,. _°|7 ‘1'. -.17. '.1°, 00.2 0‘2. .0.. ..7. 0", 0". "... 2 g 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 73 1 n .001 .300 .137 0 7 0171sz VW‘ All!” I —l I I J I Q T 3 l 6 l 1 u - “.fl“ A1-—-..— .539 ’5 «n» .I“ .090 )2 7? -709 .075 ”II, .32: '.190 1'70 69 @D .m .5“ .3‘0 '.09. .039 O ' .7 QED «u .0 .037 .311 0 2,: .2” (I _dh_dh fivcfi>éb 360 for the White group on the Political Activism Scale. 0‘1‘ 0", -..7. '0‘?! '-‘°. '-o.‘ n n n we .a 7: I". 3". .55. 0", .371 .70. .0“ -.:u .022 .047 .M: nun -.270 u 73 72 n u n 7 an .27. .us ..90 .au .55; .0“ .05. -.ux -.on -.ou -.u2 .ou noes u n 12 n u u z n .972 .15 . u .au All, .7“ .oa .57; ‘-I" -.1s| .12. noon -.22- -.ou .255 an: .no I: 7: n as n 7 u .13. 490 a, .5" .093 .501 a, .10: .522 -.m nus .321 -.su -.au -.us .26: no" .u: .035 n n 72 7 . u 7 .29, .1,“ .202 .01 .tti’ 0". n'zJ '0‘.‘ ‘022: '.0‘0 ‘.007 '7‘77 «9.1 .209 I3“ 73 z: n n u u u r: n 1 7 .an .510 .0“ .5" .nn .13.: .99: .125 .an ax" -.u1 °.303 no” -.no -.1oa -.m -.ou -.a1o now ..069 .213 u u 72 7e 90 u I: u 73 u as 73 .au .72. .uz .050 ..-12 .39. .2" .0: on .999 .399 .on .0” --952 -.uo .120 .15; -.2.u -.ooo .123 .m ..10. -.zu9 -.2no .m u n n In MI 7 I: u :5 ,3 I: n 71 .70! .05. .199 .206 .216 .962 .2n .aao .on .on on .5“ .no .oa. -.109 .001 2419- -.us .337 .349 .30! .10 .Ho .u: .xu .0” I: u 72 7 on n 13 Is 73 n u I! 73 78 an ..9. .no .99. .on .329 QB) .20.: @D .2“ .23: .J« .579 .«u ..m .23.: .024 .192 .9" .210 man .122 «no .3“ ..19l .330 .0“ .001 .u. I u n n u 7; I3 u u )3 I: n n 73 79 .1“ .NL 411 mu ' I .09! .133 -.ou .m .1" -.ou .091 .077 new .107 .050 nu? «on .03; d” 431 u 73 72 In on u I: n 73 I: I: 7: 78 73 H .oa: .2" .701 .9. .152 .Ma .02 .51; .90: .3” .o« .«o .113 .7" 47’ .u: .03: .131 .9» .2“ .903 -.m -.m -.:24 nut .00: -.MI .u: .0” .039 "090 .au .37. u n 72 - u 7 n n u 73 I: n n n 7! '3 .0." .2“ .4» m) ..0. .90 .us .2" .21: .9» .0“ .59) .0” .70. ~03. J" .1.2 .0” .040 .9” .19. .105 new .0” -.nsz nt’t -.1so -.on -.uz .oa -.ou .19: .220 .92 I: n 72 n- .a u n I: I: 73 u I: II n 73 ’5 H II]! -All 111 -115 I,‘ -nfil A 3 o .3 ~43! ..0. .021 .100 .159 .us -.u: .001 -.on an: at” .199 new .0" "811 J“ ~00 'Ju J" n 73 72 76 u 73 73 73 u 73 I: n 73 y N U 73 n n .111 An Aux Lu! A “n! .ur in 499 ..m -nz in. 4n .3“ .71; ..o I'M calm: nnocnmc uucxou cum mammal lacuna u lnTnI u ,,[..1,, "1,, .. l» ann In ”In!” A351 VI-P 361 mum" Ila-«nu no?) t. “‘ TABLE 46 Co 1 t1 -— 1 mm“, . r-re a on matrix 10 1| 5 -m CEO 3 1199011122qu mm .001 .no 1: 1| . E J” u» < 71111:: -.207 .071 .010 .120 1| 10 .212 a; GP .190 00111 -.u0| .100 .0|1 .010 .1” 10 10 1| 11 .000 .1» .070 .010 MAI- .101 .702 .097 .700 .007 .707 1- 10 0 .700 (“D 639 one (g3 :01 mum" 2:1 -.0)1 -.210 -.000 -.127 .101 -.111 10 10 10 10 10 10 1| .201 .In .120 .0|0 .101 .011 .010 mun .101 .1" -.c01 -.|?| at” .120 .092 .003 10 10 10 1| 19 1- 1| 1 000 .201 .791 .010 ..110 .090 .751 a) ml. 2001110111) .151 .232 .200 .103 -.010 .050 .2" .010 .577 _ 10 10 10 10 10 . 10 _ c .107 .120 .117 .10; .091 Cb .091 ® 5 E W101. -..u .010 .2117 .200 ..100 .510 .010 .110 .012 .700 10 10 1| 1: «I . 0 .. 10:1 .102 .201 .09, ® 6%!) é} a}! 5 7mm: .17: .221 .100 .1" '.039 .267 .301 J” .07! an .7" E 10 1| 1| 10 19 10 10 . 10 1 .910 .411 .022 .000 .010 .200 .197 @0 ® Anna .1110 .051 .020 .001 .010 .755 .702 -_100 n1” ."l J" .20) 10 1 - 1e 10 1| 1| 1| 10 .000 m, fig .170 ® GB" .919 .02: .000 .190 .200 NHL .2170 .100 .2211 .211 -.o0a .010 .012 .707 .70o .910 .|01 .007 .100 11- 1| 1| 1| 10 I ~ | 1 .10! .117 .151 .171 411 (3’1") .2 117710161 - can, no.1 .1&| .100 -.12.1 .1’| .013 .20) .001 .000 .011 .36.! .20.] .00. ...' 1| 1| 1| 1| 1! 1| 1| 0 | 10 1| 1| ‘. g .000 .200 .100 .001 .051 .109 .201 .710 .7|0 .1|0 .115 .220 .‘;. —l : mun - 1191. no" _ ~_.172 -.105 -..170 -.1_70 -,_0n _ -.02_0 _ .017 ..ua .010 -.1|0 .971 -.02| ,... _ "1 1- 1| 10 10 1 1 1o 10 1| 1| 1| 1 ' n .771 .009 .110 .102 .701 (~17) 1:01 .607 .9" .020 MN 1!" ., . 1001177110! .1101 '.O‘° -.1:0 -.217 ..092 -.291 -.100 .120 .117 -.101 .259 .100 -.010 ., _ 1- 10 10 1| 1| :0 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| . ' t. "n. "‘1, .7» .007 .502 .107 .711 .200 .001 .001 .100 .000 .271 .000 .000 _.‘, j” ...1 0001.107 -.1uz -.u.0 .1110 -.07) '.lO) .00) nan .201 .007 .0" .0" .0“ -.|IO _ , E 10 1o 10 1| 10 10 10 10 1| 1| 1| 1 t ": J”. '01, 5 .19: .07| .000 .7” .007 .150 .000 .710 .|00 .1" .100 .101 .50. ‘:. :11 1" Q 5 ‘ "Dim -.1v’2 -.1W -.'JVJ .190 -.9H .93: -.107 .922 .3” .1" .2" .100 -..Ia 1. 10 10 10 10 10 . 10 1| 1| 1 ’3‘: "fl'. '"t. .090 .001 .210 .91- .012 .109 ‘0]; .001 .001 .101 .2” .p : 1m 3‘ .100 .8" 4" -.1u -.210 .120 2190 .152 '.162 -.211 ..070 -.0:0 -.0o1 -.100 -.200 ..l" . 1- 1| 10 10 10 11 10 0 1| 1| 1. ""‘ -"h "“1. .100 .100 .500 .010 .5-1 . u .190 ® .0" .101 .20.) urmrxm ‘ 2 ' “’ .’.. .0" nun nun .220 .100 .002 -.2H .011 -.‘2|| -.001 -.000 hit) -..102 -.‘.. - 1- 10 10 10 19 10 1| 1| 0 3| 1| 1| ‘. -”O .|0|. ""L .030 .030 .501 .032 .100 .210 .091 .100 .000 I mom-m ® "°. .IOI 41° -.10u -.111 .110 .000 .150 -.290 -.000 -.150 ~.107 .002 .|0| .120 "1.. 1- 1. 10 10 10 «,0 10 10 1| 10 10 1| ‘. ‘~“1 -.200 -"' #3; .002 .121 .1“ .202 4170 .711 .070 .002 .700 .n: .01: .“ 1| 1| 1' K: .I’. . .. - ‘8 -..1n -.01| -.2'u -.0n -.1o0 ~.637 -.020 -.272 an, -.222 -.210 -.1|| ._“, 1e 1 10 0 10 10 10 10 1| 1| ‘-IH .220. '40:. u .122 ‘43» .130 ® .012 .177 .102 .207 ..10| .109 .00. 1 E m.“ "’3 an .100 an 1 -.11.| .000 .JM .130 .1" .109 .300 .100 .2|2 .0" .001 .0” .... 10 10 10 10 10 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| ‘. .800 .101 d" i .030 .117 .100 .007 .0" .132 J13 .211 .3" .IO. . 1. 10 I! a 1mm ' “ .0" .0" J" -.o01 .101 .131 .00) -.109 .220 .1!) -.|00 «101 -.200 .120 -.190 -_.,, 10 10 1| 1| 1 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| -.10: .1|0 -.207 .100 .009 .002 .00. .01. .119 .500 .201 .191 .100 .111 .11. * 0 | 1- 9.911511111111902. .112 -.200 .000 -.917 -.az0 -.on1 -.o.05 .100 .229 .010 .100 .211 -~... 8 10 10 10 1| 19 10 10 10 1| 1| 1| 1| .207 -.1|| --"' .. .0" .111 .792 .010 .910 .901 .0” .012 .112 .|0| .000 .10. ‘O 1| 1 1e 3 mm: m. ' ‘3‘ .200 an .IM 5 .1’0 -.2to -.on -.212 -.215 .19: -.o|1 .001 .009 .007 .077 .101 -‘ 1e 10 10 10 u u 10 10 10 " .000 .000 ..111 .510 .209 .900 .000 .0“ .170 .7)! .070 .1“ 1| 1| an .100 -.1:1 221; .010 new .121 .090 .102 .100 .||7 .070 -.027 _ . 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 19 10 1 ‘ " .101 .1" .0" .7111 .1" .300 .||1 .700 .1" .|21 .120 .022 .0|0 .202 ..1‘ to 1| 10 10 amp mum . CC; .10. .000 .00: 1.2:: -.202 .1I0 .000 -.110 .100 .070 -.210 -.100 .002 .000 .105 B 19 10 10 1| 10 10 10 10 1| 1| 1| 1. -'lt -.000 .071 -.100 I r: .292 .000 .007 .711 .012 .137 .700 .003 .1" .9" .7” .... x. 1 10 E 11m (xx-not. - is; .000 .730 .110 mail -.117 -.191 no" -.200 -.150 -.210 .191 .170 .010 .271 .uu _ g 10, 10 10 10 10 1 10 1 10 1| 1| 1. -3u 4.. ..11’ .110 .910 .032 .421 .709 .200 .100 .100 .021 .700 .100 .200 ,‘.‘ ‘. . 1| Amncl I. “0 .100 S ”14. ‘03171 '.171 ..15. .1‘. ..1), ._[J. ._g:) 0.1.1 .0). ...‘ .‘.. ' ' 0". ' 1| 1| 1| 10 10 0| 1| 1| | 1| 1| 1 . ‘ - a3. -.0'| ,1“ .110 .000 .0" .071 .270 .010 .110 .112 .I77 .072 .||1 .711 .5.. ‘. 1| 1' 10 W mun. - {'1 ,7” ..M J" .201 .012 .200 .01| -.272 .220 .2" -.|0| .100 .1» .||0 ..9. 1 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| ‘. .‘g, J“ -.|« ..10. .110 .000 .202 .007 .207 .111 .120 .071 1011 M7! N to 10 1| 1| Locum! —' g .001 -.009 -.101 -.a17 -.220 .001 -.|00 .011 .1» .0" .130 .‘g‘ 1| 1 1| 1 1| 1| 1| 1| ~.‘ .103 8 .0|0 .279 .7“ .2" .072 .000 .200 J|0 .;:‘ .:. '"L "":. ‘ :1 9121900111» ..101 -.010 -.207 -.209 -.22| -.|00 -.191 .219 .107 .|J| .1|2 .... -O’| .100 .00! .991 0 10 1| 1| | 1 10 1 1| 1| - . .000 g .100 .100 .200 .211 .011 .1" .010 ..10: .002 .070 .000 .::‘ -!o:. .||9 J" 10 "All“? .100 -.1u -.121 -.1|0 -.102 .007 ..000 .000 .102 .071 .010 .33. °”’ J“ .001 .m 12 10 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| |0| -||| .070 .010 .00| .02| .001 .77| .71| .002 .212 - 10 ' 1| "HUNG ”W" .012 -.110 -.109 .171 -.212 nu; -.171 .070 .037 .000 ~30 ‘ 10 1| 1| 10 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 0 ’ ._,3. an -.m .011 .002 .00. .70. .107 . n .007 .719 .070 .177 . 20 0| ‘ 40:. " 10 10 I) u ' vumus‘ ' II. {I 362 for the Black group on the Political Activism Scale. .27| 1| .349 -.11| .191 1| 1| .021 .020 .227 .190 -.390 1| 1| 1| .371 -123 .||| .10| .19| -.1|2 .9|| 1| 1| 1| .0|| .901 .097 .||| .||| |.||| .||| .||2 10 ti II ‘0 ii .10) U - ‘ 110 .020 -.1|9 .079 .220 .192 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .7|| .||1 .02. .11| .010 .172 .9|0 .210 .17a .191 .212 -.290 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .702 .||| .790 .0|7 .121 .272 .111 .201 -.|12 .0|| .201 |.||| .197 .072 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .111 4 9 .171 .177 .2 70 .112 .010 .107 .199 -.209 .221 -.11| .192 -.1|| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .97| .077 .||| .|1| .2|| .100 .||| .921 .012 .117 .017 .177 .||| -.227 .291 .271 -.|07 -.099 .901 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .199 . .700 .|71 .117 .279 .200 .||| .310 |.||| .||| .2|0 -.111 .112 .1|1 -.1|0 .210 |.||| -.|21 -.17| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1.||| .|17 .217 .199 .0|| .|72 .||| .117 1.011 .1|0 .0|| .170 .901 .111 .|07 .||| .101 .|12 .109 .||| .||1 .127 |.||| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .701 .||| .170 .||| .001 .119 .72/ .900 1.||| ..110 .9|1 .||| .||| -.||| .2|1 .100 .427 .11| .||| .||| |.||| -.|11 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1 1| .|11 .710 .|71 .979 .2|1 .777 .||1 .011 .||| .201 1.||| .0|| .201 .0|| -.1o1 .927 .|70 .100 .1|1 .0|2 .071 .||| .19| .11| .2|| .||| 1| . 1| 1| 1| | 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .210 an: .|00 .111 .||| .7|1 .7|7 .||| .|1| .||| .1|| .21| .292 .||| -.1|0 .0|| .11| -.||| .||7 .151 -.||| -.122 .172 .||| .||| 00!? 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| ' .171 4.;|| .213 .217 .721 .10 .21- .||| -.|07 -.|92 -.202 .||| .151 -.11| |.||| .119 .109 .||| -.||| .11| --I‘7 '-t‘0 1| 1| 1| 1| ,0 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 10 1| .||| .||| .0|| .127 .110 .||| .9|2 .172 1.|9| .029 .110 .||| .||| .||| ~23! ~‘30 .120 .|27 ~.207 -.109 -.1o0 .122 .||| -.091 .202 .||| .||| .|71 -.||| .||| --11’ "844 -"0 1| 1| 1! 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 10 I' {if}; .||| .200 .0|| .0|| .017 .|02 .170 .2|1 .199 .7|9 .777 .||| -’8’ 1". 1111* .217 .||9 |.||| -.11| -.1|0 .||| .010 .111 .227 .921 .022 .1|0 .11| .7|7 -I" -|" -5‘3 -320 1| 18 1| 1| 1| 1| ' .||| 1.111 .||| .00 ..90 .000 .11| ..171 .290 .010 -.107 .111 -.|09 .2|0 .190 |.||| .||| .270 -0“ ~6" -3'0 -‘¢0 0‘33 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| 1| .071 .||| .799 .291 .337 .5|1 .7|| .222 .120 . 77 | -|5‘ .1|| .2|2 lflrll COIIACI DEIDCIAFIIC 1111510: c.1131 c.121111103 "Flu I 4.7.11. 1» ..1.1. 1.1.. .T": 1 .. “I: H-P 363 l rrnlo'n'n 1 mun .1” @ TABLE ’4 ——C 1 t i t i , mm, 7 . orre a on ma 1" x H .9 d9. .07! ‘ g “"0"“qu .1” .uv .01» fi 00 19 19 E .27: .au ’ ‘ "mm -.un -.un .213 .355 ‘6 0V 1' ‘9 .05: .vu by, ‘ m“ -.m -.z>n -.uc .ou -.ur av . u u u .110 .320 .52! JD) ’ “7’“- .391 .320 .QB. .00) .ua .501 ‘9 av 49 0' IS I m m an» am an a» a nanny: .uu -.:u .elc .oa: -.ou .0" .en .9 n I0 I. QG a. l9 .sn .1” .520 .030 .056 ..01 .Ha , manna .911 .exo .241. .9” .11. .313 .114 .711 u n no u u u u u on .vu .evu .77: .Ho .0?) .cu ® m muL “nun“. '.ui41 -. :3 .07 .297 .21. .on .19. .37. J" U. .9 c9 40 u 49 O C ‘9 t .99: .llv ® ® .MI .7." .u: u Enmmm ..u .nu .;v2 .47: .u, .114 .ch .64: .000 .uo ; u u n w u u «a u u 4 -‘ .3!) .05/ .1). .1‘9 .IPI _ Q9 <39 GED G) u 2 "mm no»; .uH .‘Js .159 .m .qu .210 .32. .Ho .ru .m E av. I? I? d I ‘9 00 Q ‘9 ‘ .0“ .we .oa: .w a) .93.: .u: n Acne- ..pa an” -.uu .120 -.109 .973 .sn .0“ '40] .u; .090 .010 .0 «v .9 a M 09 I? l 00 09 I. 09 .2" QED .cu .oa: .u. QED .tu .9" .no .001 .na u M“ -.«u '.l‘J .112 .2” .HI “I .uo ,0" .no .iu .01.! .7” .0. .9 av a9 00 4c 09 4 d .0 d a. I. O .uu ..n/ .2" .cu .sn ‘, mun _ can. .914 .0“ .(H .ua .12.) ..Ju - an .M0 .IN .0" .0" .on n!" -.nl u u ‘ .0 u .9 a9 09 n u u C. u _3 ..n .960 .20: .119 a .591 .4" .ul .0" .7» .0" .0“ u 3 mum . "m .ulo new m ..w- ‘ on .xu .m .2“ .150 .no .2“ .on .2” .1" ' u. M: u «9 ‘9 ‘9 I ‘9 u 4 CO .0 .0“ .He .:' .259 (5:1) In .179 .15.: .. > .20: .2" J" cl" 1, “m or -..-.o ‘.1‘. '.1h" 2:52 .aao .14 ,9" -.cIJ -.un .us .039 .07! .1" .1“ -.130 -.zt: a; 41 a9 a9 46 .9 .9 u u u u u 0 u l. a .r; ..10; .23a .11. ..u .112 .eJJ .oou .M; .370 .u- an .10! .0” .09. QED u mo! -.na -.HI 2ng -.ou -.1co .1” .na -.1u an“ .51: all. nu. .177 an. -.au '.II, E u u c u .9 u u n u u n o u u 0‘ g .an .4“ .ud .7” .403 .15: .9“ Jan .020 .021 .570 .3“ .11! .I“ .3" .07.) 19 AVOIM: aw! 'J-Q min -.111 a“! .359 .330 .1“ .910 “.05. a”. -.151 .320 .1" ~.II7 “162 u u as u u no u u u I u u 0 CF ..ro .Jvu .an .4‘4 C9 ..or .399 .No .0” Jul .2" ..u .0»; no 5 "can 2 -.15‘ -..sn -.uu -.D‘0 -.1u7 In .xoa .ou -.ou .120 .111 .000 .0“ .3“ '4“ “ltd n u. .4 u u- ' u u u u u 0 ll 0 on 17: .376 ya; u. _an .30; .0“ .30.) .au .0" .1" .1“ -ZC) :1 Autumn": nun -.u.-- .092 -.004 -.040 .12: -.au .95: .u/ .au .0“ .2» .ur ...u “10’ u U 47 .7 U U «7 ) c7 .7 £ ‘7 7 .7 Q1 .31. .axv ..7c .3“ on .40). .50.! .u: .4“ .7» .on .110 .ua .5“ .190 n woman .4»; -.au -..u -.aao -.1u .1‘4 -.11: -.au -.n-o .an nu: and .no N.,. -.uo «no u u a u s .0 co to ‘0 a u .9 I! 00 n! a. .ue .3.” ..71 ,5JI .‘to ..H .402 a“ .7); ..u .0) .3” J" .03. JO} .091 n AC! .14; .xu nu” nos.) .12: -.arv -.on -,:‘n '40, -.l.9 -..lu -.uz -.IO’ all! -.IIO «8*! u u u n u u u :9 u ‘9 u u a 40 as u ..uu .n/ .5” .7” .4” ,1“ .n: ® .n- .no .1“ db .3» at! u " magnum g -.1:.\ new .912 an?! at“ .2” .075 .1” .10. .Ha .su .202 .109 .3“ -.ou .000 u w w u a a u av u u ‘0 n u G a. I! g .3” .1w .950 .051 um .mo .na .na .10.: ® .002 .10 .0“ .07. H a 1mm .1” .219 -.u15 203.! .9/7 a“? no“ -.l>' 'J'I “.0" MM? .03.! Hit. ..2‘0 .10, -3" IO lvl .0 ‘9 ‘9 d ‘9 ‘9 0. Q. I. C. 0. I. C. .2“ .1“ .91: .on .991 (in) .599 .nor .uv ,"1 .u. .ug .u; .901 .30! n mum- m. .an -.12' .0“ .n2 .1)! .01; .uu .136 .01. -.au an” .011 .0“ .090 -.uo JJO B u u u v n n u u u u u n u u «a _ .v: .ux .5“ .17. .211 .319 .930 ..In .oov .0" .711 .930 J!) .0” .11; ...Q 17 3 melon mm. 5 .NO .03: .Ho .1” .1” .00 .150 .MI .077 n“. no” -.ON .0" .0" a“. -1$? u u no u u u u <0 49 u a. 4 c I. .9 a. n1 .au .nu .oa: .2“ .Hz .27: .Ho .HJ .Ho .5“ .000 .0" ."__1 .384 .1): SI) nu: -.1$| .902 .u. .3“ .1" .1" a“. '.l‘. .050 .105 .02! J70 .029 nil: .205 ¢ u w u n u u u u u u 00 a. O .40; .u/ ..u b .3” .390 .522 .1" .HI .0! .«5 .III .119 .0“ .3” at. 29 mum ~41" not: .UH .097 -.990 -..IU 23" .170 .392 .101 .1’. .0‘1 all] n.” .30. -IOI 3 u u n v u u u u n u u u 9 as s: .19: .>>> .50: .u- .5” GD .1“ .ru .05 .2“ .no .on .u; an )o ‘ urn-m S .auo .m .on -.an .903 .au .102 .012 mu. .0” .us .12, .uI .09: .10: an a u no no u #6 u u 49 n u u u u 0 a. 1' ° .34! .u/ .90: .191 .n, .9” .01 .03. .300 .1" J“ .1" ."O .7“ .III ..1- n " mm- g .005 .u- .au .0” .uo -.zu .uo -.n‘ .In .1" .17! .1” -.2« no" .10: 4‘! u w 1 9 as u 4' 0 u u a a. 0 a u .vn .au @ .ux .m an an .uz .au .270 .0" .000 .1.” an 31 mum. -.JII ~.1H .309 .ns .03: ..99 -.uo| an: an! .uo no). no). .0" all! .an -t I 4 u u as a u u u to o o o at (My .15: .ul .9" An, .nl A“ .06) AM A.” .104 .In J“ an . ¢ 3 ’ wax. non .uo .nv .175 .u: -.u. .uo .0» .na .10; .19. .30. ~49. .170 --X.‘ an no u u u u u u u u ¢ u u a. a .0" .161 .21. .HI .1“ JO. .1). .H! 4.! JD. cit. .0.. ...0 I r: mum ~.|Q7 - n1 - an .1" .9" .10. .000 an! n": .u: .07, .00; .nx ..n -.nI Mn. 9 . u u u u u .9 I 9 v to O u C. Q. .3” .11v .009 .3." .Ho .3" ...11 .427 .n. .00! ."e .071 .l" .08: .1” .ng 33 "Am-5 -.1°2 -.Iil um ~.ur -.m .ua -.020 at" um -.m at" no" .1“ n." -.no '.SO| u u no u u .0 u u u u u C o u .. .Uo .I‘l .291 .111 .121 u; I!) A!!! .111 411 An on .53. .m .,,. 3‘ :‘. numclum -.m -.zu .xu ~45. .xoo -.ou -.on .on .au .0.. .019 .oa: -.no .0" all an g u u u u n to u u u u u u 00 «9 an .L0 .4“ .ou .9” ."1 .“l .29: .m .141 .101 .111 -m an -m an Ammo! mm Arum! mus“! vanuus‘ ‘ u , l I I Si ‘1 SJ I I 1 I l 0 10 ll m. lulu: I u u u u u .— ._._ ___ ___—__‘_ -——..— 3614 for the White group on the War and Military Scale. .1" .519 O A ‘ I -m ca 0". 02" 'ut‘. .3. .u: an -.$11 .no u u v .273 .3.» {b an .5» .3" .xu .an - a! n can (it) dab an 41L .IlJ .000 '.lli “100 -.1‘0 'Jll do n u u n u .021 .540 .202 JR .530 J" .12. -.2OO .097 ..0. .10. ..000 -.’.5 Q9 49 0. Q! ‘7 CO I. .u: .151 .509 .09. .au .9" Q9 um .04: -.m an: -.on -.ux .90 0.2“ O. 09 4. CO 07 £0 0 09 .5» .._2o .299 .00 .su .770 M 'o“. .I..1 0". 'u’.’ 'o", '..8‘ .‘J, .n". 0". I C. I. Q. Q. Q. I I7 " .202 .933 ..7! .45. .HI3 .91. u...’ '37, ‘0‘.‘ .I:.. n.‘, .1.2‘ 'u". .0.., ."' .O.“ 0“. |.’. O. O. I. I O. Q I. 47 .1“ .u: .1“ db . Inga—.1). '..‘$ 0... -.I‘! JO! -.177 -.IOO -.IOI 530. J., ..1’ .3” t C. u u u o n a u 49 .uo .uo . no .515 .219 .on .u; . m ® -.uo ou -.nu .uv ..10. -.ou -.m ..17. .uo nt‘l -.2u .ul 4 O 09 4 09 CI 4. l7 9 O l. .9 69 O. .798 .111 .043 .19.! .918 .067 .210 .0" .87. all? ..0. '.ICO 0.0,. '.880 .0.. .13! ..231 n.“ ..78 .33, '.10‘ 'J77 hilt ...7 09 09 0| ‘0 07 ‘9 40 CO CO C. 0. O. O. ..4‘ .019 .303 o”! -39’ .t't o70l c... .007 ot’. 031’ .337 07.. 'n.’. .3... '0... ..I!’ .'-..‘ :5..! - o”‘ ‘lll, 0". D.,x 1". l‘.’ 3". .3... O. O. ‘. l7 0. C .9 C. ‘ . I. C .9" .954 & .us .00: .u: Ju 45: d9 ..10 .727 .07! an .000 02” o’.’ o..’ u“. .". g... 'ota. I... .0.., .n‘.: .o‘.' u... 0". .9... 0“. co a r a. u u u a. o. .4" .2» -.m .00: .m ..I00 .110 an -.m an .130 .on -.on .0" an .377 C I. CO 07 CO ‘9 Q. l. 09 O. 0. O. 4. O0 ‘9 @ db .9“ .507 .an .9" .:u .2“ .93: .39; .«3 .ul .un .58: .us .31: .u: .un .00 .m -.141 -.uz .m 0.3” -.uo .n: ..01 .u: .u: -.m an. an .au 0 0' Cl 09 09 O. u 0' 0. O O. 00 I7 60 09 .300 an .990 as. .n’ .5" .on an .1» .9" .919 .0” .no .0“ 49' d“ v!" .39. .02. .0.. .I23 .157 .277 -.8'i o... ‘-l" '.J.J o..I I. l I! ‘7 4’ 0' O. O. n”. ..10, ..0. “I“ .1” .1.“ ~44. ‘0 CO ‘0 ‘0 09 u:' I..’ ...3’ 02.7 .‘S. .t“ ...’ 3", .I... 0", .ot'. 'n..‘ -l..‘ 0". 7... 't" .I“: .i". O." I. C. ‘I ‘9 07 O. C. .9 0. C. .Q Q. ‘. C. .. .' .. ‘. 4. l I u q W "I. m MC MI" ”I WHO mun nluJuJ-olnin ..l..1., «In adds-in!» ”In!“ “MU-“l 365 1 m 2 00.001105 .502 1 101011. 1001.110010- .005 .007 TABLE LI 8 C l t 1 t i a u ,, . -— orre a on ma r x g .005 .000 ‘ '5 mm .010 -.051 .002 g 17 7 E .000 .712 S ‘ 7mm .050 .250 -.211 -.072 17 I 17 17 .13. .200 .20: .771 ‘ “7"“ .211 -.000 .105 -.100 5.202 17 17 17 17 17 .100 .000 .000 .550 .110 7 m1. .570 .070 .002 .020 .020 .500 17 17 .01 . 02 (m .170 .905 m) o m -.050 ..ZEI ~.Il? .071 5.122 -.III -.176 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 .000 .200 .001 .102 .002 .072 , mun -.010 -.200 an: .120 -.111 «215 -.201 .000 17 ll 17 17 17 0 7 .000 .405 .501 .170 .052 .075 .270 a) :0 row. 1“an .070 .020 .121 .501 -.000 -.111 .205 .077 .070 17 1! 1 1 17 17 t; .770 .010 .100 .715 .051 .001 (n, 11 " nmmcu. .507 -.100 .000 .510 -.200 .151 -.000 .700 .000 .720 E 1 17 17 7 17 17 17 7 ~ .772 .040 .722 ® .115 .100 .000 w») I 12 § 75511:: -.250 -.000 -..102 .001 -.171 -.100 -.000 .755 .072 .010 .000 E 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 7 17 . .205 .001 .107 .100 .000 .200 $3 .150 m- 15 mo. -1‘2 -.110 .000 an: -.101 .075 .571 -,1.50 -.210 -.02.1 -.105 5.2.17 17 1/ 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 17 17 .50.. .050 .705 .000 .055 .571 .170 .020 .500 .020 10 m1. -.000 -.m -.000 .055 v.25: .000 -.007 .017 .011 .750 .000 .720 .100 17 u 17 17 n 17 7 17 7 7 7 17 .000 .190 .000 . 50 .200 .725 .070 900 15 gum - can. .200 -.220 .202 -.000 -.107 .010 .000 .215 .101 .115 .127 .100 .010 .202 17 1! 17 17 17 17 7 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 g .211 .005 .000 .005 .000 .010 .070 .077 .505 .010 .000 .000 .005 .000 u E man-m. -.005 .050 -.0w .290 -.000 -.000 -.;10 .055 .015 .075 .570 .000 -.000 .107 .105 17 17 17 7 17 7 17 7 17 17 17 17 .955 .5?) .991 .215 .779 . .19! . 17 um --J)J -.200 .101 .170 .120 .155 .121 .201 .025 .000 .021 .105 J20 .5" ~25: 5.052 1 17 17 17 1 n 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 17 - .110 .271 .000 .110 .000 .510 .021 .000 .020 .100 .100 .000 .102 .105 .007 .01.: 10 I: may .000 .100 -.041 .211 .012 -.107 -.007 .000 .011 .002 .000 .010 -.200 .000 .150 .205 17 17 17 u 17 ‘7 7 17 17 7 7 7 7 U 17 E .015 .501 .001 .100 .500 .200 .700 .000 .001 (n) .070 .220 .572 .020 10 11mm .000 .100 ~40. .131 an: -.1e0 -.117 .00- .170 .000 .000 .052 -.170 .075 -.000 .257 17 17 7 17 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 17 .071 .051 .100 .100 .070 .500 .010 .000 .110 .072 .101 ® .070 .110 .000 .520 :o 5 1m: 3 .052 .020 '.ll.) an.) .027 -.1.15 ~.120 -.070 ..112 -.10.1 -.100 -.257 5.12. -.l'| .0“ -.000 17 17 17 17 17 .7 -17 17 17 17 17 17 17 1 07 .002 .055 .017 .127 .172 .502 .011 .115 .007 .500 .550 .205 .020 .210 .717 .570 21 umuvn -.¢u .131 -.170 -.z72 .002 -.015 -.050 -.507 -.017 -.170 -.255 -..071 -.007 -.000 -.200 -.020 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 u 15 .00. .022 .005 .200 .105 .052 .011 «ID .001 .000 .220 .110 .070 .211 -070 11 mom -.150 .037 -.705 .011 .502 -.JJ.I -.070 .210 .110 .520 .101 .211 ..205 .277 -.115 .107 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 .537 .150 .217 .000 . . .100 .700 .070 .107 #120 4400 .272 .251 .L0. .577 100 «5:10 -.110 -.255 -.150 .000 -.010 -.200 -.I‘Z -.200 -.250 -.010 -.002 .011 -.202 -.200 --017 U 17 17 U 17 1.7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 17 u .002 .201 .520 .121 .000 .302 .152 .100 .200 .105 .717 .505 .225 .000 .075 u m. m ' -.027 -.0:1 .252 .100 -.255 .112 .100 ..10: -.171 .220 .212 -.152 .100 -.011 5.105 -.20.0 17 17 17 u 17 1 7 7 17 :7 17 17 17 1 7 17 .010 .000 .200 .500 .205 .500 .557 .500 .000 .050 .100 .550 .005 .005 .505 .050 25 1mm .20.: . :0 .215 .175 .200 .100 .001 -.001 -.101 .110 .022 -.200 .270 .000 .172 --070 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 u 17 .050 .102 .170 .070 .510 .000 .00 . .0 0 26 an on noon. at .302 .215 .001 .500 .097 -.000 .000 .200 .257 .500 .220 .020 -.121 .2” -.175 -000 17 17 17 7 17 . 17 17 17 1 1 17 1 17 g .000 .070 .120 .000 .000 .000 .022 .207 .052 .020 .020 .205 .070 .070 07 101.1 an i am- ‘ -.000 -.000 .200 .000 .105 ..200 .010 .557 .025 .572 .020 .015 -.171 .070 .1” -.125 ' 17 17 17 7 17 17 1 17 7 1 17 17 7 7 17 .000 .000 .200 .070 .011 .052 . 75 .175 .002 .000 .170 .010 25 m7 -.050 -.111 -.2/2 .020 -.101 .100 -.000 .001 .172 .000 .000 .100 .015 .500 .100 -0I7 17 17 17 17 17 17 1 07 7 17 1 17 17 7 10 .011 .105 .250 .050 .207 .705 .005 .120 .117 .201 .120 .100 .077 .15; .750 05 cum I" I” --000 .000 -.000 -.252 .571 .007 .112 -.071 -.005 .000 .001 .100 .171 .000 .107 5.100 3 1 U 17 07 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 11 t: .072 .101 .200 .000 .005 .700 .000 .700 .000 .512 .055 .750 .0" .505 10 01mm i -.000 .120 .057 .005 -.012 -.200 .102 .200 .220 .000 .205 .100 -.200 .201 -.100 .100 a 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 1 .715 .000 .115 .000 .121 .010 .110 .000 .001 .220 .050 .275 .000 .022 .057 1 fl ‘ ”mm“ -.200 -.1-0 -.007 .100 .101 -.001 -.201 .117 .100 .000 .210 .207 -.100 .110 .00. .50; 17 17 17 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 .005 .505 .700 .500 .057 .050 .200 .051 .021 .100 .02.! .000 .120 .027 427- 72 mum. .207 .530 .270 .250 no" .270 .571 -.100 -.021 .100 .000 ~.u0 .520 .010 -.070 ..10. 17 1 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 7.7 1.7 17 17 17 -270 .202 .102 .005 .050 .010 .100 .033 .700 .505 .170 .055 .755 .5712 ” mm -.512 -.507 .000 .050 -.070 .00; .071 .510 .050 .000 .150 .110 .007 .005 -.u0 ..000 1 7 17 1 17 17 17 17 1 17 17 1 1.7 .750 .100 .750 .007 .770 .100 .021 .150 .510 .575 .000 .100 .33. 10 g mum an: -.000 .020 .000 -.210 .275 .010 .120 .100 .000 .100 .105 .150 .000 ..100 -.070 10 10 10 1 0 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1 10 .029 .020 .010 .100 .171 .000 .100 .000 .111 .001 .512 .107 .070 .505 .75. 15 210-1.: .051 .001 an .020 ‘01?! ~00: .211 .050 .520 .002 .720 .100 -.001 .720 .015 405 17 17 17 7 17 7 17 7 7 7 17 17 17 15 .015 .000 .250 .005 .705 .255 ~- .125 .0" . 0 .130 16 _ _ “mum -.005 .110 .100 .000 .1170 -.200 .115 .325 .111 .015 .511 .370 -.108 .552 °.|I| .550 g 17 17 17 17 07 17 17 07 7 7 17 17 1 10 i .050 .015 .050 . 2 7 ' 110 5 0 1 7 .30. '2“ 111mm mm Afifi'flbl mum 001.172 770me 010.5151»: 1 I 2 L 1 I 0 I 5 I 0 I 7 0 I 0 1 10 I 11 I u I u I 10 “___—___ 366 for the Black group on the War and Military Scale. .200 17 .020 -.150 .221 17 17 .510 .000 .12. .239 '-597 l7 17 .05! .29} .10. .215 -.C29 .003 17 17 17 7 .001 .170 .007 ® .103 .75) .07. .001 .402 1’ (1%!) 17 17 17 .507 .0 .751 . 11 .300 .00. .1I1 -.210 .90. .007 .120 1 7 17 17 7 17 .005 .070 GD @ .000 .227 .005 .000 .000 .207- .000 .200 17 1 17 .000 .000 .000 .075 .220 .701 .020 .250 .102 -.107 .075 .210 .150 .070 -.000 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 _132L .070 .000 .701 ”“0 .517 .150 .7]; .050 .105 .077 -.000 -.170 .200 c.000 .100 -.270 ll 17 37 £7 31 17 I7 X7 $7 0.1. 02.. .79. 0"! ..7. 02" 00., 70,9 02.3 .303 .‘05 .310 2.030 -.2?0 .299 .1’. '.Il’ .017 .990 17 7 7 0'3. 03‘} .80. '01.. '.O7f .192 '.3‘. '0'}. .I33 "73‘. '.039 7 1 1 7 0.1. 7)}, .2’5 :331 .17, .,3‘ 7432 0"? 0.7, 037. 0... 0.52 I..‘ 02., 017’ 0", 0... .... .0... 0“: .0..: 0". 0": 7 17 17 1 17 1 17 17 17 17 17 .000 (D .000 .255 .250 .205 .705 .152 .700 .500 .020 .102 .0!) .102 -.173 .105 .305 .12) .033 .200 .390 .356 ..131 -.000 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 .077 .000 .001 . 500 .100 .010 . 000 .200 .005 .150 .021 .050 .001 .505 -.121 .010 .205 .001 .200 .001 .000 .002 .200 .200 .270 .100 17 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 . 700 ® .022 .070 .502 .100 .000 . 702 .000 . 710 .202 .000 .700 .000 .110 .252 .052 -.000 .005 .100 -.102 .020 .521 -.000 -.020 .100 .000 .007 -.107 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 I7 .001 .200 .100 g . 00 .001 .050 -.150 -.110 .070 .022 .000 .100 -.107 .100 .201 .200 -.110 .110 -.007 -.000 * 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 0... 0’3. 0“! 0’7. 0‘2, 030’ 0”. 0,77 0“, 02“ 01.: 0". 0“, 0'2. 0.,1 .071 0.000 -.000 .100 -.005 0.000 0.000 -.107 -.100 .200 .100 .110 -.200 -.251 -.120 -.077 .000 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 1.000 .090 .725 .001 1.000 1.000 .080 .000 .350 .050 .0)! .830 .52! -025 .221 (ii!) .055 .052 .055 -.150 -.117 .002 -.257 .220 .177 .510 .000 .011 .000 .500 .002 .210 .002 .001 17 7 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 10 .100 (.17) .022 .500 .510 .105 .000 .127 .000 .127 .1“ .070 .502 .210 -.120 .100 .000 -.007 -.000 .109 .050 .002 .007 .252 .005 .000 .010 .010 .100 .002 10 17 17 17 17 7 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 . .177 4%} .0“ .10. In. an .00 .002 .057 .100 .000 .050 .200 .127 .050 .107 .107 101 db IU/HI CUITACT DICEIAPIIC IILIGIOI CEAIC! OIIIITATIGI nlululdnlu ulul» .1. 7.1.1.1.1. »I»1 ,, AIS: Ii-lflt