PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN: COMMUNICATION ASPECTS OF OPINION ~LETTER WRITING Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D.~ MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY John Andrew KIempner 19.66 U IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIII II IIIIIIII IIIIII I/ n ; :1 Ian... 3 1293 103 Michigan btate University \ This is to certify that the thesis entitled PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN: Communication Aspects of Opinion-Letter Writing presented by John Andrew Klempner~ has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Communication degree in JKUthE)03iZfi4u¥4ZW Major professor] Date 52—5197. [9é6 0-169 ABSTRACT PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN: COMMUNICATION ASPECTS OF OPINION-LETTER WRITING by John A. Klempner The phenomenon of opinion-letter writing was studied both in breadth and in depth. First, who writes in, and why; second, the effect of opinion- letters on networks, politicians, and corporations. Finally, a single letter-writing campaign was investigated in depth: When Xerox Corporation announced it was spending $4,000,000 for a series of television programs on the United Nations, anti- UN forces--mostly John Birch Society members--wrote them 60,000 letters. Pro-UN forces countered with 15,000. Letter-writers were interviewed, letters were analyzed, and the entire phenomenon was examined from many points of view. WHO WRITES IN: Studies of writers of fan mail, letters to congressmen, and newspapers, indicate that writers are likely to be older, wealthier, better- educated, and more conservative than the general popu- lation. WHY PEOPLE WRITE IN: Nine reasons were evolved: making receiver see the light, writers' self interest, righting a wrong, enjoy writing, public duty, asked to write, thrill of vicarious association, therapeutic value, and compulsion to write. RECEIVERS: Politicians tend to pay attention to their mail only to reinforce their positions, rarely to amend them. Networks claim to be concerned with mail response; the effect of mail in programming decisions is unpredictable. Four examples of corporations changing policy because of mail were investigated: United Airlines removing UN emblems from planes, Pillsbury changing a product name, and two others. Factors affecting probable response to mail are (a) commitment to ideas in question, (b) scope of ideas, (c) quality of mail, and, least important, (d) quan- tity of mail. THE JOHN BIRCH SOCIETY: The effectiveness of the Society's letter-writing is studied from two aspects: success of Robert Welch in getting members to write (18 receivers of JBS campaigns report that 5% or fewer members usually write); and success of JBS letters in achieving desired goals (in 84 campaigns, the Society failed 94% of the time). THE XEROX CORPORATION: Its UN programs decision is analyzed from viewpoints of Xerox, the general pub- lic, and the John Birch Society. THE LETTER—WRITING CAMPAIGN T0 XEROX: 191 per- sons were interviewed. 70 had written negative let- ters to Xerox, 6A positive, and 57 did not write. In a 45-minute interview, subjects were asked about demographic variables (age, income, religion, etc.), communication behavior (radio, television, books, etc.), affiliations, protest behavior (picketing, boy- cotting, carrying petitions, etc.); in addition, they took tests of dogmatism, authoritarianism, and intelli- gence. Their letters to Xerox were studied for general and specific themes, length, level of abstractness, and other variables. FINDINGS: 86% of the negative writers admitted to membership in the John Birch Society, and 90% of the positive writers were liberals. Thus positive writer versus negative writer differences are, to some extent, the differences of conservatives and liberals. Writers, positive or negative, were older, better- educated, more intelligent, wealthier, and more likely to engage in other forms of protest than non-writers. They spend less time with the mass media. On most other measurements (Rokeach and F-Scale, affiliations, religion, etc.) negative writers appeared as conservatives, positive writers as non-conservatives, and non-writers somewhere between. Negative letters were twice as long as positive, with four times as many negative themes and half as many positive themes. Positive writers wrote ”to write a wrong" or "as a public duty;" negative writers wrote to make Xerox "see the light" or in their own self-interest. Spelling and grammar were good in negative let- ters, better in positive. No difference was found in abstractness of writing. The only real surprise in collection and analysis of data was the greater cooperativeness and interest in the study of negative writers, compared to positive writers. PEOPLE WHO WRITE IN: COMMUNICATION ASPECTS OF OPINION-LETTER WRITING By John Andrew Klempner A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1966 Q Copyright by John Andrew Klempner 1966 To Marina and Mariah and my parents. Special thanks to Jean Kerrick, without whom I never would have begun; Malcolm MacLean, without whom I never would have continued; and Erwin Bet- tinghaus, without whom I never would have finished. Likewise to my guidance committee, the Doctors Erwin Bettinghaus, Randall Harrison, Milton Rokeach, Fred Siebert, and William Stellwagen. Thank you all. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION......... ..... . ............... 1 CHAPTER ONE: WHO WRITES IN ........ . ...... 6 CHAPTER TWO: THE RECEIVERS....... ........ 38 INTRODUCTION TO CHAPTERS THREE-SIX ........ 75 CHAPTER THREE: PRESSURE GROUPS..... ...... 77 CHAPTER FOUR: THE XEROX ANNOUNCEMENT..... 103 CHAPTER FIVE: THE LETTERS. ............... 127 CHAPTER SIX: THE INTERVIEWS.. ............ 146 CHAPTER SEVEN: RESULTS....... ............ 157 CONCLUSION... ...... . ..... ......... ...... .. 231 REFERENCES......... ...... . .......... ...... 235 APPENDICES ................................ 244 iii LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE l. 10. ll. 12. Education of persons writing letters to their congressmen, as reported by three national surveys ..... ...... ..... ll Socio-economic status of letter- writers.... .................. . ......... 11 Occupation of letter—writers ...... ..... ll Membership of letter-writers and non- letter-writers in organizations that take stands................ ............ l2 Characteristics of letter—writers com- pared to the general population, as determined by ten research and inter— view studies........................... 16 Summary of reasons given for writing praise and protest letters...... ....... 26 Summary of factors relevant to nature of response by receivers of opinion letters, and prediction of probable response............. ....... ...... ..... 74 Summary of response to certain John Birch letter-writing campaigns... ...... 93 John Birch Society letter-writing cam- paigns and their results.... ..... . ..... 96 Growth of the Xerox Corporation, 1959- 196LL0000.000000000 ..... 00......00000000103 Stated sources of information in posi- tive and negative letters.............. 130 Number of positive and negative themes in positive and negative letters ...... . 140 iv TABLE 13. 11+. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Distribution Distribution region....... Distribution Distribution status....... Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution Distribution of sample by sex ........ of sample by geographic ......O.‘............O.. of sample by age ..... ... of sample by marital of the sample by income. of sample by education.. of sample by religion... of sample by occupation. of sample by political. affiliation00.00.......O......00...... Ownership of radios and televisions.. Proportion of total radio and tele- vision time spent with news and Opinion programSooooooooooooooooooooo Listening to or watching conserva- tive programSoooo0.000000000000000.o Listening to or watching non-con- servative news and opinion programs Number of magazines read regularly.. Percentage of subjects reading cer- tain magazines either sometimes or Often............0................. Percentage of subjects reading cer- tain columnists either sometimes or Often.....0......0..............0000. Number of books read in last 30 days. Percentage of subjects reading all of certain conservative books...... Political activity of subjects....... V PAGE 163 164 166 168 169 170 173 175 176 178 180 181 182 187 188 190 191 192 195 TABLE PAGE 32. Picketing behavior. ...... . ........ .... 198 33. Boycotting behavior................... 199 34. Petititon-carrying behavior........... 200 35. Letter-to-the-editor-writing behavior. 201 36. Telephone protest behavior............ 202 37. Letter-to—politicians-writing behavior 203 38. Letters to companies.................. 204 39. Rokeach scale data.................... 207 40. F-Scale data.......................... 210 41. Quick test data (IQ scores)........... 211 42. Reasons for writing................... 214 43. Tendency to write positive or nega- tive 1etters.......................... 215 44. Appearance of letter to Xerox......... 217 45. Content formats of positive letters... 218 46. Content formats of negative letters... 219 47. NUmber of positive themes............. 220 48. Number of negative themes............. 221 1‘9. Grammar and SpellingOO00.00.000.000... 222 vi LIST OF APPENDICES APPENDIX PAGE CONTACT LETTER FOR POSITIVE SUBJECTS... 244 CONTACT LETTER FOR NEGATIVE SUBJECTS... 245 INTERVIEW SCHEDULE..................... 246 INTERVIEW DATA CODING SCHEDULE......... 258 tIiUOUICD POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE THEMES IN POSI- TIVE AND NEGATIVE LETTERS.............. 270 "-21 NEWSPAPER & MAGAZINE READERSHIP DATA... 277 NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE COLUMNIST READERSHIPDATA...0........0..00.000..0 281 H: COMPLETE ROKEACH SCALE DATA............ 283 I: COMPLETE F—SCALE DATA.................. 285 vii INTRODUCTION In 1891, the compilers of the Household Encyc- lopaedia of_Business and Social Forms (111) decreed that, when all is said and done, there are only two kinds of letters: those of fact and those of Opinion. And, the Encyclopaedia continued, there are but two kinds of receivers: those known personally to the writer, and those not personally known. In other words, all letters may be classified in one of the four cells of the following chart. The examples are drawn from some of the Encyclopae- dia's sample letters. RECEIVER KNOWN RECEIVER NOT TO WRITER KNOWN T0 WRITER FACT Can you meet me for I am seeking a lunch on the 15th position as an at Delmonicos? assistant clerk. OPINION The antimacassars Your editorial on are just what we the Haymarket Riot needed. Thank you. was deplorable. In the ensuing three-quarters of a century, there have been remarkable changes in methods and media of communication. Here is how the same chart might look in 1966: RECEIVER KNOWN RECEIVER NOT TO WRITER KNOWN TO WRITER FACT Miss Finch, call From the Times: Ted Levin and ask Bright young man him if he can meet seeks position as me for lunch on sales trainee. the 15th at The Write Box --—. Forum. OPINION Hallmark Thank You Your editorial on card: The gift is the Watts Riot lovely and you are was deplorable. too/I hope I'll soon be seeing you. In other words, three of the four kinds of let— ter writing have increased little if at all in their relative importance as a means of communication. The growth of the telephone, newspaper, and greeting card industries has provided easier and more effic- ient channels of communication for many purposes. But if you want to tell someone you don't know personally that you either like or dislike his ideas, his product, his network, his voting record, or his company, there is no better--and no more common--way of doing so than by writing him an opinion letter. A common practice and a potent force even at the turn of the century, the opinion letter has grown remarkably in usage and, to a lesser extent, in in- fluence, to the point where, two—thirds of the way through the twentieth century, it has become a major tool of lobbying, of propaganda, of public opinion, and of pressure for social change. Curiously, although communication studies have been made of virtually every known means of communi- cation, from ESP to network television, and from suicide notes to daily newspapers, studies of opin- ion letter writing have been almost totally neglec— ted. - Five million people write to Washington every year and we don't know who they are. Hundreds of thousands of people write to their daily newspapers every year and we don't know why they write. Mammoth corporations change their policies because of opinion letters, and we don't know why they respond. We spend four times as much money each year buy- ing postage stamps as buying television sets, but we know hardly anything about the phenomenon of opinion letter writing. This study proposes to explore that phenomenon both broadly and deeply. In the first three chapters, virtually every study of letter-writers, letter-writing, and letter- receivers done in the last forty years will be exam- ined in detail, and general principles will be evolved. Chapter One is an investigation of what is known about persons who write opinion letters and why they write them. Chapter Two focuses on the most common receivers of such letters: politicians, the mass media, and corporations. Chapter Three investigates the phenomenon of opinion letters inspired by pressure groups. In the final four chapters, a single letter- writing case history will be examined in great de- tail. In April 1964, the Xerox Corporation announced that it was going to invest four million dollars in a series of television programs about the work of the United Nations. That announcement was the stimulus for an opinion-letter-writing response that totaled more than 75,000 letters. 15,000 anti-UN writers, spurred on by major efforts of the John Birch Society, wrote an average of four letters each, in protest. When news of the protest mail became public, more than 15,000 pro-UN persons wrote one letter each to Xerox, in praise. The Xerox case is particularly interesting in that it is one of the rare instances where a great deal of opinion mail was received on both sides of an issue. Thus there is the opportunity to distinguish not only between letter-writers and non-letter-writ- ers, but between positive writers and negative writ- ers as well. Chapter Four is a history of the Xerox announce- ment: why it was made, and its reception among the press, the general public, and the extreme right wing. Chapter Five is a detailed investigation of some letters written to Xerox. Chapters Six and Sev- en report the methodology, findings, and interpreta- tions of nearly 200 interviews with persons who wrote letters to Xerox, and with a sample of non-letter- writers. CHAPTER ONE WHO WRITES IN Very little is known about people who write opinion letters. We don't know if they are in any way different from the non-writing public, or, if so, if they are differentiable because of the cir- cumstances that actually caused them to write. In the last thirty years or so, there have only been a handful of studies which traced back- wards from already-written letters to see what sort 1 In this sec- of people had written them, and why. tion, we will look first at the who, then at the why. Three large-scale interview studies used as subjects persons known to have written letters; two others used opinion-letter—writing as one of many criteria for which to divide subjects. A few studies attempted, from analysis of letters alone, to develop demographic information about the writers. With so few studies done to date, it is both feasible and useful to look more closely at each one 1 This assertion resulted from a search of libraries at six major universities and the New York Public Library. The Bureau of Applied Social Research made an independent search. (52) The author contacted the authors of many relevant studies to learn if they had done further work in the field, or were aware of any such work. 6 of them. (1) Letters to the Editor-I: Sydney For- sythe (41) sent a short questionnaire to fifty-five persons who had written letters to the editor of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier—Journal. His sam- ple was taken by unspecified means from persons whoI had from one to twenty-three letters published during the previous year. The forty-four persons who returned the ques- tionnaire accounted for nearly one-fifth of all let- ters printed during that year in the Courier-Journal: 385 out of 2007, or about nine letters per person. The median age of writers was 59, and only two were under forty. There were forty—two men and two women; all but two subjects were native white Ameri- cans. They tended to be conservative in their poli- tical, religious, and marital views. (The manner of determining this information was not reported.) The average letter—writer had lived in the Louis- ville area for eighteen years, and was well-educated (one year of college being the norm). Thirty-five of the forty-two men were either business or profession— al men or white collar workers. (2) Letters to the Editor-II: w. D. Tarrant (98) interviewed forty persons who had published letters in the Eugene, Oregon Register-Guard. He discovered that as the frequency of letter—writing increased, so did such factors as conservatism, number of books read, age of writer, number of children, ownership of ones own home, and occasions of seeking public office. Two-thirds of those who wrote to the newspaper had also written on at least one occasion to their congressman. Compared to the general population, Tarrant found letter-writers better-educated, less mobile, more religious, more mature, more individualistic, and older. (3) The politics of letter-writers: P. E. Con— verse and others (27) conducted 1400 interviews during September and November 1964, as part of an intensive study of the 1964 presidential election. Among the questions asked respondents was whether or not they had written a letter to a newspaper edi- tor during the campaign. It turned out that 15% of the sample had reported writing to a public official-- a datum very close to the findings of several nation- al surveys. Three percent of the respondents had written to newspapers. But in terms of the total number of letters written, three percent of the respondents accounted for two—thirds of the letters to public officials and one-half of one percent of the people wrote two- thirds of the letters to editors. 70%2 of the letter—writers were supporters of Barry Goldwater, and 30% were for Lyndon Johnson. The non-letter-writers were divided in about the same ratio as the actual vote: Johnson 60%, Goldwater 40%. On two questions designed to indicate the con- servative feelings of the respondents, the letter- writers appeared significantly more conservative than non-writers. To the question "Is the Federal govern- ment getting too strong," 70% of the letter-writers answered affirmatively, 25% negatively. For the non- writers, it was 30% yes, 35% Do, with the remainder undecided. 40% of the writers believed that the U.S. should negotiate with Communist countries, while 80% of the non-writers agreed with that point of View. And on an eleven-point scale of over-all ideo- logy, the letter-writers were heavily conservative-- the most extreme conservative position being the mode-- The authors offered small non-calibrated bar graphs simply to give the trend of their data. This and other percentages are estimated from those graphs. 10 while the non-writers scored pretty much in a normal distribution. The letter-writers were typified as "pros- perous and well-educated." (27: 335) (4)(5)(6) Public Opinion Polls: Each of three major public opinion polling organizations have inquired briefly into letter-writing behavior. The Gallup Poll (96: 172) asked, "Have you ever written or wired your congressman or senator in Wash- ington?" Elmo Roper (96: 176) and the National Opinion Research Center (96: 176) asked similar questions. Gallup found that 9% of his respondents had so written on their own initiative, and 5% more wrote because they had been asked to. 20% of Elmo ROper's sample and 14% of the NORC sample reported having written their congressman. In the summaries of these investigations, the methods of sampling are not indicated. It is quite possible, thus, that these differences may be due to differences in sampling procedure. The three polling organizations reported the education of letter-writing respondents as follows: 11 Table 1: Education of persons writing letters to their congressman, as reported by three national surveys Finished Finished Finished grade school high school college Gallup 9% 15% 35% Roper 10% 17% 44% NORC 5% 12% 32% The socio-economic status of the letter-writers was reported by two of the polling organizations as follows: Table 2: Socio—economic status of letter writers Poor Middle Class Prosperous Wealthy Roper 9% 20% 34% 46% NORC 7% 13% 26% 40% Roper reported the most complete breakdown by occupation: Table 3: Occupation of letter-writers Professional and executive 20% White collar 14% Small store proprietors 12% Homemakers 12% Farmers 9% Personal service workers 7% Factory laborers 6% Non-factory, non-farm laborers 4% Farm laborers 3% Others, don't know 12% l2 Roper also asked respondents if they belonged to any organizations that "take stands." Table 4: Membership of letter—writers and non- writers in organizations that take stands Writers Non-writers Member of two or more 23% 7% organizations Member of one organi- 30% 22% zation No such groups and 47% 71% don't know (7) Response to a "letters from America" cam- paign: During a bitter national election campaign in Italy in 1948, it was feared that the Communist party might gain control of the country. Italian- Americans in the United States launched a massive letter-writing drive to friends and relations in Italy, to urge them to vote against the Communists. Martinez (69) interviewed one-fifth of the 500 Italian-American families in Elmira, New York, to see whether they had responded to the campaign or not. It was discovered that those persons who did write letters were significantly older and better- educated than those who did not write. 13 The preceding are the only studies that could be found in which specific interview-collected demo- graphic data are offered contrasting letter-writers with non-writers or with the general population. (8) An eighth study, by Herzog and Wyant (110% consisted of interviews with persons who had written to one of two senators during the 1941 draft bill controversy, but since no demographic dtat were offered, discussion of this study will be postponed to the second section of this chapter, Why People Write In. These eight studies are the only discoverable ones in which letter-writers were actually contacted. In the three that follow, some demographic data were inferred from the letters themselves. (9) Fan Mail Analysis—I: Jeanette Sayre (89) studied 26,000 letters written to a popular radio program, Town Meeting of the Air. On the basis of the quality of the paper, the style and construction of the letter, and certain contextual factors, she determined that fan letter writers to this somewhat erudite program were older, better-educated, and of higher socio-economic status than the general popu- lation. 14 (10) Fan Mail Analysis-II: Leo Bogart (15) studied 744 fan letters written to the New York Philharmonic Orchestra radio program during the 1948-1949 concert season. About a third of the let- ters were unsolicited; the remainder came in response to requests from the program's host, Deems Taylor, to comment on certain aspects of the program. Bogart determined that the writers-in were of ‘higher socio-economic status and education than the general public, based on the stylistic qualities of their letters. His methodology was not reported. Of course one might expect this of any cross-section of listeners to such a program, but Bogart seems to feel that the writers were of a somewhat higher cal- ibre than the average listener to this program. He found no differences when comparing those writing with or without printed letterheads, or when com- paring those writing letters and thosewriting post cards. (11) Letters to Congress: L. E. Gleek (46), in analyzing several hundred letters received by two congressmen over repeal of the arms embargo act in 1940, made an attempt to develop some demographic data on the basis of the content of the letters. He 15 tried to divine sex and nationality of the respon- dent from the writer's name, and socio-economic status from the quality of the paper and the location of the writer's home. He reports that writers tend to be of higher socio-economic status than the general public, and that there are no discernible trends with respect to sex and nationality. These eleven studies, then, represent the sum total of discovered investigations into the demo- graphic aspects of letter-writers. But even from so few data, certain definite trends appear. Let us look at these studies set forth in graphic form: Sago mumppma mo mfimzamcm ache mpm©+ new: spec 30H>pmpcfi* 16 I I I I I I swan I I I I I I +£mmaw I I I UmpwoSUmIHHmz Swan I I I I I I +phdwom Umpmo I I I IzwmImmppmn Swan Amado I I I +opzmm umpmo ooze I I I IsnmInoppmn I I I hmcao IHmEMHU on. +chfippwz mwoaaoo spas I I I pmoEIanS swan I I I I I I *omoz owmaaoo spa: I I I pmoEIanQ I I I I I I I I I *QSHwa I I I Swan zsm> swan apo> I I I I I I *Homom o>fipm>hmmcoo ompmo hawCOAQm IdemIHHoS mSOHonOHm I I I I I I *mmam>cov umpmo mwmhm>m o>apd>pomzoo IdcoIamppmn swan swap nmvHo I I I *pcwpmme owmaaoo mo mmmnm>w om hows: &m m>apm>hmmcoo Emma HIQwHS menu Amcwfin mm cmavma mama zapmoe *mnpmmhom zwoaome coapmodom oEOUCH mw< xmm Soapm moHUSpm 36H>hmpca use Sosmomma cop hp confisnmpou mm «soapwfismom prmcmw mnp ow Umammaoo mumpfiszhmppmH mo mofipmahmpomhmno "m manwe 17 On the basis of these few studies, no firm conclusions can be drawn regarding who writes in. But certain hypotheses are suggested: (1) Writers of opinion-letters are older than the average of the general population. (2) Writers of opinion-letters have a higher income than the average of the general population. (3) Writers of opinion-letters are better-edu- cated than the average of the general population. (Hypotheses (2) and (3) are further justified since, in the words of Herta Herzog, the process of writing letters is dependent upon facility with the written word and strength of motivation. An obvious correlation must hold between easy manipulation of pen and paper and educational (and) socio-economic status. Hence a much stronger motive would be necess- ary to produce an epistle from a poor person with slight education than to produce one from a well-to-do person with good education. (110:610)) (4) Writers of opinion-letters are more conser— vative, politically, than the average of the general population. (5) Writers of opinion-letters to one receiver (e.g. corporations) also write opinion-letters to other receivers (e.g. networks, newspapers, politic- ians). It seems reasonable to suspect, although there 18 is no direct evidence for this, that letter-writers are better-informed on the various issues on which they may write than are non—writers. The suspicion is based in part on the probability that letter—wri- ters are better-educated than non-writers, and in part on the logic that in order to write a letter, it is necessary to have at least minimal information about the topic of that letter. On the basis of these suspicions, the following hypotheses have been formulated: (6) Opinion-letter-writers spend more time with radio and television than non-letter—writers. .(7) Of total listening and watching time, opinion-letter—writers spend proportionally more watching and listening to news and opinion programs. (8) Opinion-letter—writers read more books than non-letter-writers. (9) Opinion-letter-writers read more magazines than non-letter-writers. Even if all the hypotheses are correct, little or nothing will be learned about why people write letters. Given a sample of letter-writers, it is simpler by far to determine who they are than to determine why they write in. However,the area of motivation to 19 write has been investigated, albeit in scarcely any greater depth than the demographic. WHY PEOPLE WRITE IN Why do people write in? "It has something to do with getting them involved in our problems or projects," writes advertising man Howard Gossage in his book about an unprecedented mail response to one of his advertisements. (49: 20) Certainly many people who think about writing in never do so. "People who write in never constitute a representative sample," according to Leo Bogart, investigating fan mail to the New York Philharmonic, "if only because they take the subject seriously enough to write..." (14: 431) Gossage believes that about one percent of the people who think about writing in actually do so, only "God knows where we get this figure, since how could anyone possibly tell." (49: 20) No one £2212 possibly tell, and yet Gossage's guess was echoed by several high-level New York advertising men, who use one percent as some "vague sort of rule of thumb," (74) although they can offer no justification for it either. What separates the one percent (or whatever the 20 actual percentage may be) from the ninety-nine per- cent? Some of the investigators who have interviewed letter-writers have attempted to find out why they wrote in: (l) Herta Herzog (llO) interviewed sixty—three persons, chosen from among 800 letter-writers whose letters, in turn, had been chosen from among 30,000 letters received by two senators in regard to the proposed draft law of 1941. The results of interviews with 53 negative let- ter-writers are reported. (The interviewing was stopped "as soon as the analysts felt that further interviews were not likely to reveal new types." (110: 600) Herzog reports two basic types: those who wrote to achieve some end, and those who wrote simply for the sake of writing. The writers with instrumental goals included the following sub-types: (a) those feeling the needs of social responsi- bility; (b) those writing for self-protection (i.e. they were afraid of being drafted); (c) those writing "as an instrument to press group wants." 21 Those writing for consummatory reasons consisted of the following two sub-types: (a) those writing because it gave them a sense of power to have such a vicarious contact with a Senator; and (b) those feeling a need to express and justify their status (as in "I am a leading citizen, and..."). (2) Fairlie (38) analyzed "hate letters" re— ceived by Malcolm Muggeridge, then editor of Pungh, and by Lord Altrincham, a British statesman. After inspecting more than 2000 letters, Fairlie concluded that the primary reason most of the letters were written was the feeling of self-importance that it must have given the writers. The writers were attempting to identify with the subjects of their attack, and "abuse is the simplest way of putting yourself on someones level." (38: 600) Or, as Fairlie sums up his argument, "Scratch an Englishman and you will find a Lord... Scratch a letter and become a Lord." (38: 601) (3) Leo Bogart, in a study described on page 14, isolated three separate and autonomous reasons for writing in: (a) the importance of the act of writing itself-- 22 the need of the writer to express himself; (b) the importance assigned to the subject of the letter—-something really worth writing about; (c) the importance of the content of the letter-- what it attempts to accomplish. Within these three major types, there are six different kinds of letters. Any of the six kinds can be found within each of the three types, althoqh certain kinds and types would more normally appear together. The six kinds are: (a) naive and crackpot letters--those from persons who seem to write indiscriminately "to every- one"; (b) purposeful letters--those asking specific questions or favors; (c) elated and inspired 1etters-—those full of general praise; (d) practical partisan letters-—written by per- sons who seem to feel their letters are votes (e.g. "I just wanted you to know..."); (e) benignly critical letters--those expressing a generally positive attitude, but with specific dislikes (as for the commercials or the choice of cer- tain selections of music); (f) intensely critical letters. 23 (4) Forsythe (41) questioned forty-four persons who, among them, accounted for nearly 20% of all published letters to the editor of the Louisville, Kentucky Courier-Journal. Their purpose in writing, he reported, was not to attempt to change newspaper policy, but rather to "blow off steam." (41: 144) They tended to regard their letter—writing as a "social safety valve." (41: 144) (5) Tarrant (98), interviewing writers of letters to an Oregon newspaper, found three primary reasons for writing: (a) "getting something off my chest"; (b) educating the public, and helping the read- ers see the truth; (c) promoting a certain philosophy or point of view. (6) Martinez (69) investigated a letter-writing drive by Italian-Americans in Elmira, New York, de- scribed on page 12. Of 500 Italian-American families in the city, 100 were sampled. 87 were aware of the campaign and 42 had written letters. A Of those who wrote, approximately half did so because their priest had asked them to; the other half did so because they felt it was their public duty, 24 and/or because of a sincere anti-Communist sentiment. (7) Gordon Allport (4) studied hundreds of investigations involving the use of personal documents in psychological research. The main focus of his research is in non—letter material like autobiograph- ies, diaries, and even questionnaire responses. How- ever,he believes there are certain basic motives, at least some of which underlie the production of any written document, including letters. These are: (a) Special pleading--the writer attempting to demonstrate that he is "more sinned against than sinning"; (b) Exhibitionism--the writer seeking to display himself in "as vivid a light as possible"; (c) Desire for order-—the compulsion, primarily in diary-keepers, to record all experiences in a neat and orderly form; (d) Literary delight, in which "the aesthetic motivation is paramount"; (e) Securing personal perspective, or taking stock "at a crossroads in life"; (f) Relief from tension. "When no other relief is in sight, (a) sufferer expresses himself inZLrush of feeling"; 25 (g) Assignment, in which the subject is either asked or ordered to produce the document; (h) Public service-~documents manifestly writ- ten to achieve a reform; (i) Desire for immortality-—documents produced primarily to assure personal identity after death. By combining the various reasons and motivations for writing stated or indicated in these seven studies, nine distinct reasons emerge for the writing of vir- tually all letters of either protest or praise. These are summarized in the table on the following page, in which a very brief description (for the purpose of future reference) is given, along with a typical state- ment that might be made by the writer of a protest- opinion-letter, and the equivalent statement by a praise—letter-writer. Of the nine areas, six are fairly straightforward: See the light, Self interest, Right a wrong, Enjoy writing, Public duty, and Self esteem. For each of these, the reason for writing seems clear, and it is un- likely that there are deep underlying motives. But for the other three-Asked to write, Had to write, and Therapeutic-~the actual reasons for writing 6 2 .mCOHpm IHOQHOO ems: Op use mHQomQ pcmppomsH Op mpHHS 0p 30: ImEOm «HHHHQH a ma mm>Hw pH .mpHHz ow Hpsu OHHQSH as we: 6H page pHmH H .wsHoo mm: H p633 zocx H oHommn pmoEHm Hmo pH eesmee H--mpHHz oe as: amen H .mHoppmH wchHHz HOHCm HHQEHm H .oHU H 0m «mpHHS on umxmm was H .wCHoo mHm Hosp 9623 CH Emsu HOH mp8 mHmomm pmoE page mNHHon 0p Bone paw: H .pH zocx ow Emma deS H was «ma mommmHm 6H6 Hosp p833 .mUGHS HHmnp mwcmno was mHSmmmHQ Op CH m>Hm p_cov menu madm on on and: H was 6H6 Heap page cH panH ea.seee HopHHz omHmHm ha cm>Hw QOmmmm .mCOHpm IHOQHoo ems: 0p use oHQomm pcmpHOQEH 0p mpan 0p .30: ImEOm «HHHHQH a ma mm>Hw pH .mpHHB ow H956 OHHpsg as we: pH page pHmH H .mnHoc mm: H 9833 Bmcx H mHommn pmoEHw Hmo pH assess HIImpHH3 op ea: pmzn H .mHmppmH mCHpHHz hOnco HHQEHm H .UHU H 0m .mpHHz 0p vmxmm mm: H .6206 comp HemmHHm me: asap wCOHz esp Ho mEOm 06:: OH amp 0» pow o>.H .pH zocx Op Beau 9:83 H see .ms mpESHmHe eHe seep pas: .panH was mom HH.Hm£p «36H> Ho psHom ha mpmHomHmmw use vampmHowc: Hmsp moco xcan H was .wQOHz mH.Hm£H HmpHHz pmeOHm Hp Qm>Hw COmEmm Emmpmm HHmm Hess OHHnsm mpHHz Op 68m mchHHz HOncm mpHHz ou cmxm< wCOHz a pngm smeHchH HHem panH esp mew COHHQHHommU HmHHm mHmppoH GOHCHQO pmmHOHm use mmHmHm mCHpHHz How co>Hw mCOmme Ho thEadm "w mHan 27 .686 esp wcHEoHE Ho mmzmHo wcmemHn cane Hmanmen m.pH .Smmpm HHo pmH 0p mp0H3 HIInmS 0m ms mews UHU coHpHmommo HHmap @833 HmpHHB meme Hp Gm>Hm HQOmmmm .980 one wcHMon Ho mmSmHU mcermHn case HmanHsez m_pH .smmpm mmo pmH Op mpoaz H IIUmE 0m ma mews 6H6 Hana #833 UHHSmmemQB HmpHHs pmmHOHm Hp cm>Hw COmmmm COHHQHHommU HmHHm cmchpcoo am mHnt 28 may be quite complicated. They will be considered in some detail. As far as letter-writing is concerned, "Therapeutic" may be considered a subset of "Had to write"; it will be considered in that section. Had to Write Many psychiatrists believe there is substantial benefit in cathartic release of repressed material. The cathartic technique is used primarily for "the cure of a neurotic disposition," (4:22) and once started, should be encouraged and continuously expand- ed, not unlike the technique of "a fighter with a groggy opponent".(lO4:4l3) Hinsie, in setting forth the determinants of an effective psychotherapy program, says that "undoubtedly many patients derive much help by simply unburdening themselves." (53:220) There are a small number of cases in psychoamflytic literature in which catharsis was achieved by writing-- sometimes even by writing sufficiently vicious opinion letters. This area of psychoanalysis has been called autoanalysis (Allport), (4% graphocatharsis (Milici) (72),Poison Pen Therapy (Watkins) (104), and Semantic Therapy (Shaw) (90). Pompeo Milici reports a case where a schizophren- 29 ic was cured by writing down his personal experiences and thoughts in the form of letters to the analyst. Although Allport doubts the instance of a complete cure, he says "there is almost universal testimony that writing down ones troubles (results in) personal benefit." (4:33) John Watkins (104) discovered by accident a tech- nique he found both interesting and often highly suc- cessful in treating neurotic patients. He would have them write "hate letters"--actual letters to persons or groups or organizations for whom or for which they had evidenced negative feelings. "The general release value," Watkins reported, "appears to be in proportion to the viciousness of the attack and the adequacy with which the patient expresses himself emotionally." (104:416) But despite his early successes, Watkins never re— turned to the methodology, nor, to the best of his knowledge, has anyone else used it either.(105) Finally, (90) Shaw has found that the act of writ- ing an autobiography has cathartic and therapeutic value with juvenile delinquents. 30 Two studies have been done of letters written by disturbed persons, where the letters were written spontaneously and unsolicitedly--i.e. not as part of any treatment or therapy. Duyker (37) analyzed 100 hate letters written by the inmates of an institution. More than 90% of the writers had a strong motivation to satisfy aggressive strivings against the recipient of the letter and/or others. Goldstein and Toch (47) attempted to "psychoanal- lyze" the writers of 72 "crackpot" hate letters written to the United Nations, on the basis of the letters alone. Their data are not conclusive, and the answer to their question "From the standpoint of psychopathology, does the symptomology of the crackpot letter deserve ana- lysis in its own right?" (47:157) would seem to be negative. Although a few of the writers were tentatively identified as "messianic" or "secular paranoic," for the most part little could be said about either the writers or their motivations. These studies have been of extreme cases, involving either institutionalized subjects or patients under 31 psychoanalysis, but the phenomenon of writing letters of protest for cathartic purposes would seem to have relevance for many other situations as well. Forsythe's subjects who had to "blow off steam," and Tarrant's who were "getting something off my chest," as well as the cases in Allport's "Relief from tension" category, all have elements of cathartic release and so, it is strongly suspected, do many other writers of protest and hate letters. Asked to Write Gallup found that five percent of the general population has written opinion letters because they were asked to do so. (25:703) According to Gallup's figures, this represents about 35% of all persons who write opinion letters. No one has ever collected specific data from letter writers which would permit direct distinction between those who wrote because they were asked and those who wrote unsolicitedly. In fact it is prob- ably almost impossible to get a person to admit that he wrote only at someone else's suggestion. Nevertheless, many persons do write opinion letters because they were asked to do so. It seems reasonable to suspect that these persons are likely to be higher in measures of conformity than persons 32 who write on their own initiative. Before developing some hypotheses along these lines, it will be useful to mention certain findings about persons who tend to be high conformers: (a) They have a high need for social approval. Strickland (93) found that individuals with "a high need for social approval will distort their judg- ments of objectively-determinable stimuli in response to perceived group pressure" (93:173) more frequently than persons who are less concerned with social appro- val. And, in a similar vein, Marlowe (68) found sub- jects with a high need for social approval expressed significantly more favorable attitudes toward a dull, boring, repetitive task than did subjects less concerned with approval. (b) They are likely to be less intelligent than low conformers. In Crutchfield's extensive studies of conformity (31, 32, 33) he found "conformists prove to be significantly less intelligent than the independent persons." (32: 34) Other important and relevant Crutchfield findings include the information that high conformists tend to have lower ego strength, more rigid cognitive processes, and are more lacking in self-confidence. 33 (c) They are likely to be more dogmatic and more authoritarian than more independent persons. Besides Crutchfield's evidence, Harvey (5), for in- stance, has shown that in a simple group conformity experiment, persons scoring as more dogmatic on Rokeach's scale are much more likely to conform to group belief whether it is correct or not. And Nadler (75), among others, has demonstrated extrem- ely high correlations between F-scale scores and Asch conformity scores. (d) They are likely to be strongly attracted to the group with which they are conforming. Kino- shita (60) has shown that "the higher the attractions to group membership, the more a group member's pri- vate opinion would alter to the group opinion." (60: 197) (e) The more a person perceives a group as credible for him, the more likely he is to conform to that group. In a group of Army officers, not one officer tested by Crutchfield expressed any doubt that he would make an outstanding leader. But in a mixed group with no other officers present, 37% of these men expressed some doubt as to their leadership potential. (31) Crutchfield has also found that high- level mathematicians agreed to wrong answers to easy 34 problems when those answers ostensibly were given by their peers. (33) (f) The less the person knows about the material or beliefs in question, the more likely he is to conform to group opinion, or to the stated opinion of the group. Hochbaum (54) and Fisher (4), in separ- ate investigations, found highly conclusive evidence of this phenomenon. (g) They are likely to be conservative. Mc- Closkey (7), in his extensive investigation into the conservative personality, found extreme conservatives to be highly conformist in their behavior, "moder- ate conservatives" to be slightly less so. This, then, is the picture of a high conformist, a person likely to go along with what he believes to be group sentiment: he is a conservative with a high need for social approval; he is low in intelli- gence, high in dogmatism and authoritarianism, likely to be strongly attracted to the group to which he be- longs--one that has high reliability for him; and he is likely to be not too knowledgeable on the subject or idea about which he is writing. As indicated, it is impossible to show, from available evidence, that this description fits the 35 person who writes a letter because he is asked. To be sure, such a person seems to be a conformist, but since letter-writers have never been investi- gated in this way, it is premature to say with con- fidence that letter-writers who write because they are asked therefore have the characteristics of low intelligence, high dogmatism, and the other charac- teristics just discussed. Before developing hypotheses based on this evidence, it will be useful to look in some detail at a conservatively-oriented letter-writing campaign in which virtually all the writers wrote because they were asked to. During the first ten years of its existence, UNICEF (the United Nations Childrens Fund) had re- ceived no more than a handful of letters of any sort from the general public. (35 for this entire case history) It was a very active but apparently totally uncontroversial UN organization. Then, in the fall of 1957, a Seattle printer named Lawrence Timbers decided UNICEF was a bad thing. Timbers was then serving as vice-chairman of the Anti-Subversive Committee of the Washington State Department of the American Legion. He began printing anti-Unicef tracts which urged that letters of pro- 36 test be showered on UNICEF and on newspaper editors. The tracts were sent to conservative organizations all over the country—-primarily chapters of the Am- erican Legion and the Daughters of the American Revolution. In the twelve months after Timbers' tracts were circulated, UNICEF received several hundred letters--more mail than in the ten previous years combined. An analysis of the letters showed that 98% reflected not only the gross errors of fact, but also the misspellings of Timbers' tracts. In other words, the several hundred persons who wrote in during that year believed they were going along with group (Legion or DAR) sentiment--groups that had very high credibility for them. It was abundantly clear that the writers knew little or nothing about UNICEF--they had simply been told that all good members should oppose this insidious thing, whatever it might be. And so they wrote. On the basis of what is known about conserva— tives, what is known about high conformists, and what has been shown about writers to UNICEF, the following hypotheses are proposed: (1) Persons who write letters because they are 37 asked to are likely to be less intelligent than persons who write opinion—letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. (2) Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be more dogmatic than persons who write opinion-letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. (3) Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be more authoritarian than persons who write opinion-letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. (4) Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be more conservative than the general population. (5) Persons who write letters because they are asked to have a high feeling of credibility for the group that asked them to write letters. (6) Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be less well-informed about the subject or tOpic of the letter than are persons writing unsolicitedly on the same topic. This completes an investigation of people who write in. The next logical step is to determine what happens to their letters once they reach the hands of the receivers. 38 CHAPTER TWO THE RECEIVERS There are a wide variety of circumstances which motivate an equally wide variety of people to write letters of protest and praise. Millions of such letters are mailed every year. We know more, now, about why they are put 1239 mailboxes. What happens when they are taken out? Three different kinds of receivers account for the majority of opinion letters: politicians, mass media, and large corporations. Each of these will be discussed in turn in an effort to see if there are similarities in the way congressmen, television, networks, and big companies react to the outraged (or approving) voice of the people. Finally, in a summary section, the common threads running through all aspects of receiver behavior will be isolated and tied together. Political Receivers Politicians have been receiving mail designed to influence or affect their decisions and opinions ever since the postal service began. In revolution— ary times, the Committees of Correspondence set a 39 precedent in letter-writing for political purposes. Even George Washington at Mt. Vernon "was troubled and embarrassed by a sudden deluge of letters.. That he was to be the first president was apparently taken for granted." (64: 101) Thomas Jefferson wrote to John Adams that "every mail brings a fresh load...from persons whose names are unknown to me." (87: 848) He received more than a thousand letters in a single year. By Lincoln's time, presidential mail had increased to over 200 letters a day (96), and presidents there- after averaged 400 to 600 a day until Franklin D. Roosevelt. (95: 12) FDR got 450,000 letters during his first week in office, and about 8000 a day there- after. (96: 79) Concomitant with the increase in Presidential mail was an increase in mail to senators and congress- men. Some senators report mail of 5000 letters a day during periods of crisis. (97: 210) What is the effect of the billion-odd letters that are sent each year to elected and appointed government officials? In a nutshell, it is that most congressmen claim on one hand that they are not personally affected or influenced by mail, while on the other hand, many of 4O them use "how my mail is running" as a factor in justifying their opinions or trying to win the support of other congressmen. Most congressmen would seem to agree with John F. Kennedy when he wrote, as a senator, that mail is "only rarely interpreted as accurate barometers of public opinion and used as guideposts on pending decisions." (5: 32) In a comprehensive study of how a large number of congressmen made up their minds on a certain issue-- repeal of the arms embargo prior to World War II-- Gleek (46) concluded that congressmen make up their own minds by personal convictions regardless of how their mail runs. As one congressman, deluged by mail, reported: "If they wanted me to weigh the mail, they should have elected a butcher." (34: 14) On the other hand, the literature of political science is replete with cases where the mail apparently .ggg have a major effect in either passing or defeating legislation. Boris Joffe (57) reports an occasion during the depression when white collar federal relief programs were under fire from Congress. The administration proposed limiting the cost of such programs to $1000 per man per year. One group of workers began a post 41 card writing campaign, which snowballed into tens of thousands of cards from all over the country being sent to a carefully-selected group of congressmen. When the organizers of the campaign went to Washington, they found that each congressman who had received the postcards had piled them up in his office as visible justification for his decision-- and every one of them voted against the bill, which was defeated in a close vote. Senator Jacob Javits of New York has cited several instances where he believes a heavy mail response affected a congressional vote. (56) One such case was President Truman's announced intention to appoint an ambassador to the Vatican. "The (mail) response was staggering... As a result of this, it is a fairly safe guess that such an envoy won't be approved." (He wasn't, and, at this writing, still hasn't been.) Newspapers often pay lip service to the so- called importance of congressional mail by reporting frequently how the mail is running on key issues. For example, when Senator Joseph McCarthy proposed the controversial legislation that the U.S. cut off aid to any country dealing with Communist China, the New York Herald Tribune began keeping a box score of the 42 public response to Congress, urging its readers to "cast their vote" especially if their side was "los- ing." (76) Curiously, both Franklin Roosevelt and Barry Goldwater were apparently guilty of a gross miscalcu- lation of their support because of a non-represen- tative bias in their mail. Roosevelt's error was particularly unusual, since he was known for his adept interpretation and handling of his mail. He knew how to "employ the mass mail... He could appeal to the electorate over the heads of Congress..." (101: 82) But in 1936, when FDR, frustrated by the decis- ions of the conservative Supreme Court he had inheri- ted from twenty years of Republicanism, proposed a measure to increase the court's size, the Gallup Poll reported that most Americans were not in favor. FDR did not believe that sentiment was running against him, and asked his supporters on the issue to write to him. They did, and "he seems to have drawn.. unwarranted confidence from his mail," (95: 12) for he continued to pressure Congress for this bill, whereupon he suffered his first major legislative defeat. According to an intensive analysis of the 1964 43 elections, "there was evidence that poll data perplexed (Goldwater) not simply because they cus- tomarily brought bad news, but also because they failed to square with his intuitive impressions of what the public was thinking." (27: 334) (Most public opinion polls reflected the approximate final vote almost from the start of the campaign--about 61% for Johnson, 39% for Goldwater.) "If we accept letter-writing for the moment as a relevant indicator or public opinion," this study continued, "we see a rather marvelous change in the state of political affairs. Instead of trailing Johnson sadly...Goldwater holds a visible lead." (27: 335) In other words, although deeply in the minor- ity, Goldwater supporters were highly active letter- writers. (This agrees with data presented in Chapter One, indicating that conservatives tend to write many more letters than moderates or liberals.) "It (was) to the world of letter Opinion, or one like it, that the Goldwater campaign was addressed." (27: 335) There is much evidence that, as far as most pol- iticians are concerned, it is the quality of the mail rather than the quantity that is likely to have 44 any effect. Senator Kefauver wrote that "letters that count" come from people who count. "One pen- cilled page from a respected farmer or businessman... will outweigh in influence a hundred form letters inspired by a pressure drive." (58: 72) And perhaps an even more influential kind of letter is the one Kefauver finds hard to define other than to call it a letter of "utter sincerity"-- for example a letter written in a crude hand on brown wrapping paper. Finally, Senator Guy Gilette of Iowa reported that he could not help but be moved by a Christmas card reading My dear Senator: We extend to you the season's greetings. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Hark the herald angels sing; peace on earth, good will to men--and please give your support to the removal of restrictions on the sale of Oleomargarine. (43: 77) Mass Media Letters to newspapers and magazines are both written and received with entirely different expec- tations from letters to radio and television networks. Letters to print media are primarily vehicles for expressing the opinions of the writer. No person who writes to the New York Times saying "your sports coverage stinks" has even the remotest expectation 45 of the newspaper's cancelling its sports section and substituting, perhaps, a gardening section. But when the same writer writes to CBS that "Perry Mason stinks," he has good reason to believe, because of many previous publicized instances, that if enough people object, the program will be cancelled and something else substituted. For the most part, other than minor changes based on mail response (adding a bridge column, can- celling a comic strip, etc.) letters seem to have little or no effect on news media. (One possible exception is the situation reported by William Buck- ley, editor of the National Review, who wrote that he was told "by the editor of a national news maga— zine" that "as few as a dozen letters of protest against editorial stance is enough to convene a plenipotentiary meeting of the board of editors to review policy." (22: 47) However a knowledgeable informant told this author that the magazine Buckley was referring to very likely was his own. (74) On the other hand, it is certain that mail_dge§ have some effect on decisions made by the broadcasting industry, although there is much contradictory evi- dence as to just what that effect may be. To be sure, people within the industry and 46 without have gone on record often to urge the public to write letters-—not just fan letters, but letters designed to change the networks' minds. There are many instances of this; a few examples should suffice. Ed Sullivan, in a speech to a Georgia editors' conference (94: 9) said "To supplement this thing (the rating system), your letters are tremendously important in shaping television. They are important in shaping anything. Any merchant stocks what the people want..." John Cuno (30: 6),in a series on radio and tele- vision, in the Christian Science Monitor, says one of the questions most often asked by the suffering viewing public is, What can we do? He answers, "We can get busy writing letters, organizing groups, and making our vieWpoints felt. Letters to networks are read and often answered. Broadcasters are very sensi- tive to what peOple who watch their programs are thinking." Cuno gives the names and addresses of the. presidents of the three networks and urges his read- ers to voice their protests. In a similar vein, the Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University has made various speeches urging citizens to "applaud what is good and 47 raise the roof about that which is shabby" in tele- vision broadcasting. (13: 23) Several religious sources feel that protest letters are the best ways to bring about action. An editorial in the International Magazine of Relig- ious Radio and Television says The eloquent pen of the righteously indignant availeth much. If you don't believe it, ask any owner of a television or radio station... We have the power of the pen. This little instrument has overthrown governments and uncrowned kings. It can keep the soap, soup and cigaret manufacturers honest as a dollar IF WE USE IT. (92: 1) And finally, John Bachman (10) writing on the role of the church in the world of radio and tele- vision, says "mail is given serious consideration by a station, especially if it consists of individ- ually written comments rather than form letters." (10: 100) Bachman believes that the opinions of letter—writers are sometimes given an importance out of proportion to their actual numbers. It is not unusual for a local station, when considering a revision, to keep a program on the air when as few as 25 persons write in favor of it." (10: 100) Even on network levels, a very few letters may have a significant effect. This is due, Bachman says, to the remarkably small mail received by many major programs. Gunsmoke, for instance, had 47 48 million viewers in 1960, and averaged only 25 letters per week. Douglas Edwards and the News, with six million viewers, received only five letters per week. Do letters actually have an effect on network programming? It may be enlightening to look at a handful of typical cases, and then consider a some- what unusual hypothesis in this regard. There are many instances, often reported by television columnists, in which so many thousand let- ters are reported to have been received, almost al- ways in support of a program whose cancellation is either rumored or already announced. Sometimes the letters are reported to have an effect, sometimes not. ABC reportedly uncancelled and rescheduled the Jimmy Dean Show after "thousands of letters" were received protesting the announced cancellation. (45: 3) Similarly, the Frontiers of Faith religious pro- gram was restored after NBC received "more than 15,000" letters of protest. (26: 440) But on the other hand, "20,000 people" wrote to protest the demise of The Law and Mr. Jones, but to no avail, and at least that many are said to have objected to the cancellation of The Defenders and of Slattery's People. (30: 6) Both were cancelled. And 49 Peggy Wood claims that she received "more than 750,000 letters" when the cancellation of I Remember Mama was announced, but the network stood firm. (2: 20) The National Association for Better Radio and Television (NAFBRAT) believes that protest letters to networks are usually fruitless. "Letters may flood network Offices, but they are ordinarily han— dled with polite 'we're sorry' form letters regret- ting the necessity for the network's decision." (83: 2) NAFBRAT feels the essence of the problem is that there is little opportunity for any organized expression of public attitude. There is no way for one letter-writer to know if his effort is joined by others, and the publicity which is a neces- sary part of any organized effort is controlled or submerged by the network which is itself the target of the campaign. (83: 2) NAFBRAT solved this problem in what was perhaps its greatest triumph: the saving of Captain Kangaroo, which it called "the only truly worthwhile and_very popular children's program." (83:5) NAFBRAT sent out more than 300 press releases discussing the merits of Captain Kangaroo. Recipients included television columnists, PTA's, viewers groups, and parents' leagues. Individuals were urged to write to NAFBRAT in protest. Reprints of the first sixty letters received were circulated to more than 800 50 sources, including the initial group, CBS officials, and the nation's press. This generated still more letters and editorials, which were again reprinted and recirculated. While the third wave of reprinting and recircu- lating was being planned, CBS reversed its decision and announced that Captain Kangaroo would continue. The total number of letters of protest numbered no more than several hundred. One final case deserves consideration before summarizing this area and looking for consistent elements. It is the case of the "Disease that Dr. Kildare Couldn't Cure." (73) NBC announced early in 1965 that a unique television event was in the offing: the continuation of a plot from one popular series to another. In brief, a young high school student was going to con- tract syphillis on the Mr. Novak program Tuesday evening and be treated on the Dr. Kildare program Thursday evening. Because of the controversial nature of the subject, NBC went all out to be sure that no one would be unduly offended. The scripts for the two programs were writ- ten, and gone over with a fine-toothed comb by repre- sentatives of the American Medical Association and the 51 National Educational Association. Both approved. Finally, the NBC Standards and Practices Di- vision, which tries to anticipate all possible objec- tions to all NBC programming, approved. That should have been the last hurdle. When the program was virtually ready for screen- ing, a junior executive of NBC New York called NBC Los Angeles to say that an unsigned memo had in- structed him to cancel the program. Jessica Mitford, probably one of the country's more intrepid reporters (viz her The American Way of .Death) decided to find out what really had happened. After relentlessly pursuing people-~literally and figuratively--around the NBC buildings in New York, she could find no one willing to take respon- sibility for the decision. She finally did learn, however, that the decision to cancel was probably made in a secret meeting of top NBC officials, where the prevailing feeling was that there would be a heavy and unfavorable mail response if the programs were shown. (It is interesting to note that several months after this episode, ABC screened a documentary on venereal disease, and not only was the audience three times larger than had been anticipated, but not a single negative letter was received.) (73: 107) 52 It is clear from a consideration of the effects of mail response that NAFBRAT is right—- letters per sei have little or no predictable effect on programming. But based almost entirely on the de- cision in the Kildare-Novak case, an interesting but wholly untestable hypothesis comes to mind: Whereas negative mail does not significantly affect programm- ing decisions, fear or anticipation of negative mail does. In other words, once a decision is made, it is virtually inflexible. 750,000 letters can't change it. But while the decision is being made, the fear of what the public response, evidence by mail re- ceived, might_be, may have a definite effect in shap- ing that decision. But it is only the fear of a large unorganized or spontaneous protest that may possibly have an effect. Networks fully expect protest from various special interest groups and pressure groups. The chief censor at NBC says that he can almost always preduct just who will be affronted and write in pro- test for any given program: hatmakers when the hero doesn't wear a hat, dentists when people are shown be- ing afraid of the dentist, plumbers when comedians tell plumber jokes, winemakers when winos are men- 53 tioned, and so on. "If we paid attention to all the complaints, our villains would be faceless and form- less, with no background and with no visible means of support," the chief censor said. (67: 70) But of course NBC does anticipate these specific complaints and avoids as many as possible. And, similarly, it is suggested, mass general complaints are anticipated and avoided. But when an unanti- cipated mass complaint arises after a decision has been made, the complaint is ignored. Corporate Receivers It is undoubtedly the case that people who write in have a significant effect on many aspects of large companies' manufacturing, marketing, and adver- tising policies. And it is quite certainly the case that virtu- ally all iniances in which a company actually does yield because of public opinion are kept highly con- fidential. Many inquiries were sent to relevant executives at various large companies. In some cases, specific information was requested (e.g. from Crown-Zellerbach, where an informant had reported that because of a large volume of mail from northern states C-Z had 54 apparently had to change the company hiring and promoting policies with regard to Negroes in its southern plants). In some cases very general information was requested (e.g. from Chevrolet, wondering in general how their reported 100,000 letters a year from cus- tomers and the general public affected any aspects of company policy). With the very few exceptions noted later, the responses were uniformly negative: most companies were cordial, friendly, and uncooperative. In fact, letters to fifty large corporations in the U.S. yielded only one highly COOperative firm: Pills- bury. Most of the others were polite but firm, as typified by the response from UniRoyal, in which the director of public relations wrote after careful thought, we decided the best course to follow was...not to comment (about our mail) and I regret to tell you that we do not wish to supply the information you request. It would seem, then, that the means for deter- mining the effects of public opinion mail to large 1 This and subsequent quotations from personal (not publicly available) correspondence to the author are not listed in the bibliography, and conse- quently will not be footnoted. 55 corporations fall into four categories: (1) a non-embarrassing non-harmful situation, in which a company may even choose to exploit the merits of its decision in regard to protest mail. Xerox is an excellent example. Its publicity de- partment was working full-time to let the press and the public know that Xerox was not going to change its policies or its mind regardless of how much nega- tive mail was received concerning its sponsorship of television programs on the United Nations. (2) an absurd or ludicrous situation, in which both the nature of the letter-writer(s) and of the policy in question are either so humorous or so subject to ridicule as to render the whole matter of less than major importance. A typical example is that of a ladies' underwear manufacturer who, upon receiving a letter from the Daughters of the American Revolution, stopped manu- facture of a panty girdle that was decorated not un- like an American flag. (3) Inside information from a knowledgeable source. This is unusual, inasmuch as there is a very strong code of ethics in business and advertising not to discuss the background or behind-the-scenes facts related to company policy decisions. An 56 executive high enough in company echelons to be privy to such information is all the more likely to stand firmly behind the code. But there are, to be sure, exceptions, and one of these was discovered. (4) a personal vendetta by an influential source. United Air Lines obviously had no desire or intention to comment on the fact that it_did change company policy in response to letters received, but when Norman Cousins began using his Saturday Review as a cudgel, he finally beat a limited amount of informa- tion out of United. (Hand in hand with this method goes one other technique: persistence. The present author barraged United Air Lines with more than a dozen letters, and, after many negative responses and denials that the re- quested information even existed, the desired facts were finally forthcoming.) One example from each of the above four areas will now be discussed in some detail. More cases are not provided for two reasons: (a) They are very hard to find. It took fifty letters to learn about a single case in the first cat- egory, and at least that many discussions with busi- 57 ness and advertising men to find one who could and would provide any relevant information. (b) There are very great similarities in several relevant respects in the four cases to be offered. There is good reason to believe that more such cases would shed little new light. (1) A non-embarrassing and non-harmful change in company policy because of mail received: the case of Pillsbury's Funny Face drink mixes. In 1964, The Pillsbury Company of Minneapolis, Minnesota introduced a line of artificially-sweet- ened fruit—flavored powdered drink mixes. The "Funny Face" line was widely advertised in many media, and featured six flavors: Loud Mouth Lime, Freckle-Faced Strawberry, Rootin' Tootin' Raspberry, Goofy Grape, Chinese Cherry, and Injun Orange. Each drink packet had a humorous cartoon-type caricature of the fruit in question, anthropomor- phized with the characteristics of its name (e.g. a feather, freckles, slanted eyes, etc.). After seven or eight months on the market, two of the flavors were withdrawn and their names were changed: Chinese Cherry to Choo Choo Cherry, and Injun Orange to Jolly Olly Orange. 58 The Pillsbury Company was most reponsive to questions about the reasons for the change. A cor- respondence with the Product Publicity Manager yielded the following information, in answer to these ques- tions: Was there any hesitation in the first place about using the names Chinese Cherry and Injun Orange? Those who designed and approved the original Funny Face labels had given prolonged consid- eration to the use of 'Chinese' and 'Injun.’ Their decision to do so was based on two main points: first, the characters are so ab— stract, so removed from reality, that they would not likely be related to an actual person, and second - - the characters are friendly and likeable, not unpleasant or unkind. Was there a significant mail response to the FUnny Face line? As a company with a long-time commitment to policies of non-discrimination...and as one equally committed to high levels of taste in advertising and promotions, we were seriously troubled by the mail we received on the two labels in question. Did the mail response affect your decision to change the product names? After considerable thought and review, we de- cided to make the label change. I should point out that the quality of the letters was more impressive to us than the quantity. They were highly articulate, literate letters which expressed sincere concern for the damage which could be done by ethnic stereotyping, particu- larly in the minds of children. Was there any evidence at all of an organized 59 or group protest? We never felt that we were being pressured by an organized lobby because each of the letters was different and personal. Many, in fact, were at pains to point out that they were not members of either of the minority groups involved, but felt a citizen's concern for them. The only pattern of any kind which we were able to observe in the letters was directly related to distribution - - as our distribution rolled from west to east, the postmarks on our let- ters reflected the movement. There is further evidence that no group was behind the effort. Perhaps the only very active Chinese image-protecting organization in the United States is the Chinese Chamber of Commerce in San Francisco. This organization has, on various occas- ions, encouraged a letter-writing campaign from the 50,000 Chinese in San Francisco. For instance, when Barry Goldwater, questioned about a local candidate's chances in the 1964 election, replied "He's got no more chance than a one-legged Chinaman," Goldwater's mail from Chinese writers was sufficient to bring about a public apology. But the Chinese Chamber of Commerce had nothing to do with the response to Pillsbury. While several Of the prominent members reported that they were aware of, and not necessarily too happy with, the Chinese Cherry drink, they stated that there definitely was 60 no action taken or encouraged on the part of the Chinese Chamber of Commerce. (2) An absurd or ludicrous situation: the case of the Stars 'n Stripes Panty Girdle. The Treo Company of New York has long been known for its humorous advertising in trade publications for its line of ladies underwear. The focal points of their ads were improbable items of underwear: which the company had no intention of manufacturing, such as three—cup brassieres. One series of such ads, in early 1965, made fun of the trend to pop art by offering, with tongue in ' a series of wildly-decorated cheek, "Pop Pants,’ panty girdles. Treo received so many serious inquires and fav- orable comments that they decided to go into production. Four styles of Pop Pants were decided on: Crying Eyes (a huge eye on each buttock), Hamburger and Soda Pop (in the style of Andy Warhol), the Big Zip (a huge mock zipper down the front), and Stars 'n Stripes (a top of white stars on a blue field, with vertical red and white stripesdown the legs). A major advertising campaign was prepared, with ads to run in Vogue, Seventeen, Madamoiselle, and other 61 key female-oriented media. A representative of Treo said, in private dis- cussion, that the company actually had anticipated some adverse public reaction, probably on the part of what this communicant called the "smut nuts." The Treo executives had decided, before the Pop Pants went into production, that, since the item was not a major part of the Treo line, if there were serious criticisms or the advertising or of the pants themselves, they would be discontinued. But no one had anticipated a patriotic Objec- tion by the DAR. Nevertheless, a single letter, written by the National Chairman of the DAR's Flag of the United States of America Committee, was enough to get 3000 pairs of Stars 'n Stripes panty girdles recalled and the campaign discontinued. "Patriotism should be encouraged by proper re- spect of the Stars and Stripes, the symbol of this ' wrote the DAR committee chairman. great country,‘ The Pop Pants story is a case where the corpor- ate commitment to the marketing of the product was relatively weak. It took only a tiny push in the nega- tive direction to move the company to action. (We'll I probably burn the damn things,’ a Treo spokesman said.) It is strongly suspected that other manufacturers 62 of potentially or conceivably objectional products (whether fashions, books, records, toys, or what- ever) formulate plane in advance for corporate re- sponse in the event of criticism, and that the more uncertain the corporation is about the merit of the product, the more likely those plans will include provision for withdrawal of the product. Unfortunately such a hypothesis cannot be tested, because of the secrecy surrounding nearly all cor- porate decisions which might reflect negatively on the corporate image. It is only when the product in question and, in fact, the whole nature of the protest is as ludicrous as with Pop Pants that the facts become publicly available. (3) Inside information from a knowledgeable source willing to talk: the case of humorous bank advertising. In the early 1950's, all bank advertising was, as it had been for decades, somber and serious. No bank felt it should associate itself with humor- ous or light advertising. This was not, they main- tained, the proper image for a bank. Then the advertising agency representing the world's largest bank, the Bank of America, decided 63 it was time for a change. They prepared a series of humorous ads for the bank, and, with considerable trepidation, submitted the campaign to the bank's advertising committee. There was great indecision. While many influ- ential people thought the advertisements were very good, there was the strong feeling that a bank just shouldn't try to be funny. After many weeks of agonizing discussions, the Bank of America very tenfimively gave a go-ahead to launch the campaign. Shortly after the first ads appeared, a letter was received-~one letter, written by an elderly man,by one Of the bank's stockholders, to an officer of the bank. He put in words everything the indecisive bank officials were afraid the public might think. The letter was passed from hand to hand, and finally it reached the president of the bank. He called in the bank's advertising manager, and shortly thereafter, the advertising manager called up the agency and can- celled the campaign. The account supervisor at the agency found out what the last straw had been. Taking advantage of the indecision he felt must still prevail, he asked two people of some local stature to write apparently un- 64 solicited letters to the bank advertising manager, praising the campaign. To the best of the informant's knowledge, there were no other communications of any sort to the bank. A few days later, the humorous campaign was rein- stated. Ten years later, the Bank of America, and just about every other bank in the country, make frequent use of humor in advertising. Like the case of Pop Pants, although much greater in scope, the bank situation is one in which a single letter which strikes respondant chords can have a very great effect on the behavior of a multi-million dol- lar corporation. And unless someone privy to the behind-the-scenes maneuvering is willing to talk about it, such information rarely if ever comes into the public eye. (4) Personal vendetta and persistence: the case of Norman Cousins (publicly) and the present author (privately) taking on United Air Lines. In 1957, a United Air Lines pilot, Captain Charles Dent, made a difficult and hazardous landing, demon- strating great skill and bravery. United rewarded him with a $5,500 bonus. Captain Dent gave his entire 65 bonus to the United States Committee for the United Nations (now the UN Association of the US). His act attracted widespread attention and inter- est in the company, and Captain Dent, taking advan- tage of this interest, lobbied for a demonstration of United Air Lines' support for the United Nations. United readily agreed to apply the UN emblem to all its planes, with the subscript "We Believe." A major press conference was called to announce this fact. Concomitantly, UN literature was to be made available on board the planes. The news was reported in many newspapers, and, with considerable enthusiasm by various United Na- tions publications. Three months later, in a signed editorial, Nor- man Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review, reported that United Air Lines had quietly removed the UN emblem from its planes and the UN literature from its magazine racks, having made no public announce- ment whatsoever. (28) Cousins said the removal was done because of pro- tests by anti-UN organizations, and was delayed un- til the widespread publicity had died down. Saturday Review announced its personal boycott of United Air Lines, and urged its readers to do the same, writing 66 United president W. A. Patterson telling him about it. Four weeks later, Saturday Reivew devoted two pages to readers' comments on the United situation. Fifteen letters in support and three critical ones were printed. In his editorial comments, Cousins clarified his position, saying that it was not the removal of the emblems, nor even the secrecy of it, that disturbed him, but simply the fact that a huge corporation had yielded to "one or two" critical letters. (29) Apparently thinking that United might then pay attention to mail expressing another viewpoint, Cous- ins wrote "I hope (they) will regard the substantial (positive) mail...as ample encouragement to restore (the emblems)." (29:23) Five weeks later, with no intervening mention of the controversy, Saturday Review printed, without comment, a letter from the president of United Air lines, W. A. Patterson. Mr. Patterson stated that We did not remove the insignia because of the threatened boycott (by anti—UN forces). I had personally never been exposed to Opposition to the United Nations. It became apparent in a very short time...that I was extremely'naive ... It was obvious that we were in the middle of a public controversy. (86: 31) No hint was given Of the extent of the mail that was sufficient to convince Patterson in "a very short 67 time" but he asked himself if he had "the right, legal- 1y or morally, to use the facilities of the stock- holders to engage in such controversy." (86: 31) He decided that he did not, and ordered the UN emblems and literature removed. The Saturday ReView strongly implied that a mere handful of letters forced United to back down. Robert Welch, in his Blue Book of the John Birch Society, had quite an opposite view. A spontaneous letter-writing campaign with the only organization or inspiration of the cam- paign coming without any coordination whatsoever from a few small rightwing groups and individu- als, was able to force United Airlines to back down completely and publicly admit that they had made a mistake. (106: 67) Welch goes on to gloat that the victory was all the more remarkable since three members of the United board of directors--Paul Hoffman, Gardner Cowles, and Eric Johnston-~are very strongly pro-United Nations. "This shows," he concludes, "what letter-writing can do, even against determined and entrenched opposit- ion." (106: 68) Private communications with Saturdaijeview and with the John Birch Society revealed that the former believed the total number of anti-UN letters received to be less than 100, the lamer believing it to be in excess of 50,000. 68 Deeming it valuable to know how many letters actually were received before the emblem-removal de- cision was made, the author wrote to United Air Lines headquarters in Chicago. A reply from an executive assistant reported that "the information you seek is simply not available." A further exchange of letters revealed that he meant the information did not exist, not that it was secret. Three more exchanges of letters brought the matter to the level of a senior vice president, who wrote "If you have read Mr. Patterson's letter to Norman Cousins...you have about all the material there is." Asked in another exchange to clarify his use of "about," this vice president replied, "Some of us did receive calls and some letters came in; however we have no records as to exact numbers, etc." Finally I challenged this vice president to make a wild guess, telling him that one source had given an estimate of 100 letters, another 50,000--sure1y he must have some inkling which was closer. And finally came the answer: "I can assure you that the total was not...50,000...but was much closer to a hundred. It might have run a little higher than 100, but surely was not nearly as high as 1000." 69 Believing that to be the most accurate estimate possible from United, since several persons had indi- cated that precise figures were not kept, the corres- pondence was terminated. The similarities in these four case histories are clear. Pillsbury reportedly changed the names of two major products because of a few dozen letters-- good letters. Treo announced that they withdrew a nationally-distributed product because of one let- ter. The Bank of America apparently cancelled an advertising campaign because of one letter, and re- instated it on receipt of two more. And United Air Lines apparently revoked a major policy commitment because of a hundred or so letters. And yet Xerox stood firm in the wake of tens of thousands of protest letters, and CBS ignores three quarters of a million such letters. Let's look at the findings from these three groups—-politicians, mass media, and corporations-- and see what general rules emerge, and what hypothe- ses Can be developed. Conclusion Analysis of the cases presented here reveals four major variables which seem to interact in determining 70 the eventual action (or lack of action) on the part of the receiver of opinion mail. These variables are, in suspected order of importance, commitment, scope, quality, and quantity. Commitment: The more firmly a company, network, or politician is committed to a course of action, the less likely it (or he) is to be persuaded into wavering from that course. Personal commitment (personal belief, credo, etc.) is probably more un- shakable than impersonal commitment (corporate poli- cy, election mandate, etc.), although the area is virtually impossible to investigate. Very often the two go hand in hand, as in the interaction of Xerox' president's personal United Nations feelings and Xerox' corporate position. (This, of course, is not always the case. The president of United Air Lines also was, according to his letter, strongly pro-UN.) Scope: The bigger the project or idea, the less likely a mass mail campaign is to affect it. The reasons are as much financial, in many cases, as they are ideological. If a great deal of money has been invested in an idea or a project, it is simply bad business to retract it without overpowering reasons. 71 Scope is a flexible concept, varying with indi- vidual cases. For Xerox, for instance, the four mil- lion dollars budgeted for the UN programs represen- ted at least half the entire advertising budget for 1964. But for some corporations, that sum would be only ten percent or less of the advertising budget, and its alteration or revocation would not be so sig- nificant. For a freshman congressman, a bill to build a bridge might be the most important thing he has done; a similar bridge bill might be low on the priority and interest list of an experienced and veteran politician. Quality: Time and again, the quality of the mail is mentioned before the quantity. We have seen that one or two high-quality letters can have greater effect than thousands of low-quality letters. Qual- ity is a difficult concept to define precisely. It is something that anyone who has receivedmuch opinion mail can always identify. Intelligence and sincerity seem to be the two key qualities. Either or both of these in a letter that is clearly not part of a mass letter-writing campaign constitute quality mail. Quantity: A vast amount of mail, by itself, contrary to John Birch Society belief, is very un- likely to have any effect whatsoever. It is only 72 in conjunction with other variables that the size of the response is likely to have any effect. For instance, holding commitment and scope constant, a large quantity of high quality mail is more likely to have effect than a small quantity of high quality mail. But a large quantity of low quality mail is likely to have quite the opposite of the desired effect. Four hypotheses have been proposed in the above discussion: The probability of letters having the desired effect on the receiver of those letters (1) decreases as the commitment of the receiver to the ideas in question increases; (2) decreases as the scope of the idea increases; (3) increases as the quality of the mail in- creases; and (4) increases as the quantity of high-quality mail increases, but decreases as the quantity of low- quality mail increases. These hypotheseswould be virtually impossible to test in any laboratory or field situation, but ex post facto examples can be offered. In the table on the following page, all sixteen possible combinations of 73 the four variables are considered, and, on the basis of the above hypotheses, predictions are made as to the probable effect of each combination, in terms of achieving the desired response in the receiver. The case histories presented in the preceding sections are listed in their proper location. HHoaHH HHoowHHmIHssosoz panoo mEOHQSm use mam Ham: :74 HHoEHHos aHoanHm mooHH nHa oopHop roe stm HHoxHHQS HHo> mEmeOHQIZD xoaox and: NHoxHHcs HHoEOprm 36m 30H me HHOMHH HszwHHmIHmH9562 ooamwcwm :Hmpmmo has: HHoEHHcs aHpanHm sea stm HmeHHCS mpst was: Hmnaosom H Ham: NHOxHHcd Ham> 36m 30H HHmEm mcoapm HHoxHH HHo>IopHfid HHHQIMOHHoH HeHHoo ouH Hoe: HHoaHH ooHso soHnosa Ho roam roe smHm HmeHHCS OHHSG Ham: HmeHHCS HHO> 36m 30H me HHOEHH HHoEOprm Ammpoomxovlwm>ozImeoHHM has: HmeHH HHo> mosh Hccsm HHSQmHHHm 36m Sme HHomHH OHHSQ New: kHHOOHHH HHpstHm zmpcmm mom: OOHB 36m 30H HHwSm £663 pomHHm UOHHmOU UOPHO mHmEexm HpHpcwaa HHHsta omoom puma on>oHnoo Ho HHHHHoooosm -oHssoo mmcommoa OHanOHQ Ho COHHOHUOHQ use «mHOHHOH coHcho Ho mHm>HOOOH HQ omcommmH Ho depnc Op pcm>OHOH mHOpomH Ho HHmEEdm up OHQmB 75 INTRODUCTION TO THE NEXT FOUR CHAPTERS The remainder of this study deals with a spe- cific instance of mass opinion-letter writing: that of the Xerox Corporation and its proposed sponsor- ship of a series of television programs on the work of the United Nations. Several months after Xerox' announcement was made, the John Birch Society launched a major letter-writing campaign against Xerox. More than 60,000 letters were written by 15,000 persons. When news of the John Birch protest was made public, more than 15,000 United Nations proponents wrote opinion letters to Xerox. In Chapter Three, the background of John Birch Society letter—writing is explored by looking first at the uses of opinion mail by various pres- sure groups; then the over—all effectiveness of the John Birch Society as a pressure group; and finally specific instances of letter-writing campaigns by the Society. Chapter Four considers the Xerox announcement of its intent to spend four million dollars on the United Nations from three aspects: that of the cor- 76 poration itself and its reasons for undertaking the project, that of the reception of the announcement in the nation's press, and finally the reaction of the John Birch Society to the announcement. In Chapter Five, we look at a small sample of some of the 75,000 letters received by Xerox, both in terms of their content (themes, knowledge of the situation, etc.) and non—contextual aspects (length, appearance, etc.). Chapter Six discusses the plan for contacting and interviewing persons who had written both favorable and unfavorable letters to Xerox, as well as a sample of non-letter-writers. C HA PTER THREE PRESSURE GROUPS In this chapter, we shall consider first the activities of pressure groups in general, with re- spect to using the mails. Next the effectiveness of the John Birch Society as a pressure group will be discussed, and finally the effectiveness of the John Birch Society in letter-writing campaigns will be investigated. The Use of Mail by PressuregGroups "Landing" a certain number of opinion letters in Washington within seventy—two hours seems to be an important criterion for the mail—lobbying power of a pressure group. An Associated Press dispatch reports that both supporters and opponents of the war in Viet Nam claim they can "land 50,000 letters in the President's lap in seventy-two hours" (8) in support of their cause. The John Birch Society says "the Communists boast that they can now land 50,000 individually- written letters in Washington on either side of any subject within seventy-two hours." (106: 67) 77 78 And according to a Harper's article critical of the traffic in guns in the U.S., spokesmen for the National Rifle Association "claim privately that they can flood Congress with half a million pieces of mail in seventy-two hours." (11: 63) A detailed study (71) of the methods of lob- bying shows that not all organizations or pressure groups endorse pressure by letter-writing, compared with other methods and techniques, such as personal contacts and public relations campaigns. Big business and farm lobbyists rank letter- writing very high as a useful tool, while corporation, educational, and foreign government lobbyists rank it very low. "This suggests," the researcher con- cludes, "that organizations with a mass membership enabling them to turn out thousands of letters are more likely to believe that the tactic is effective." (71: 21) Just how effective is the tactic? Virtually all extant research and opinion on the matter deals with pressure group mail to members of Congress, discussed in Chapter Two. The unanimous conclusion is that to the extent mail is identifiable as pressure group mail, its val- ue is negligible. "If the deluges of 'inspired' mail 79 have any effect on a senator, it is, in the words of one, 'to push me the other way.'" (17: 3) One investigation (34) reported that about 25% of the several thousand letters received each week by the average congressman is pressure group or lobby mail. Gleek's study of how congressmen make up their minds (46) reported 'stimulated' mail totals ranging from 6% to 29%. And in a detailed study of a single important issue before Congress (36), 40% of the mail was determined to have come from just four companies who had much at stake in that issue. But, despite the apparently prevalent feeling in Congress that "Representatives are apt to feel hostility to the prompted letter-writer...even when they do not say so," the lObbyists who "can turn on or off a 'write your Congressman' campaign with a long-distance telephone call or a telegram" will "quite frequently do just that." (102: 15) Apparently the only thing less influential than inspired mail are petitions and resolutions. Accord- ing to Senator Kefauver, "no one reads them... Re- gardless of length or weight, petitions are of little value as a persuasive force" because "legislators know it is possible to get many people to sign a pe- tition for almost any cause, worthy or not." (58: 222) 80 The John Birch Society as a Pressure Group The John Birch Society, like many lobbying or- ganizations, is officially chartered as a non-profit educational association. There is no doubt that the Society considers letter—writing as one of the more powerful lobbying tools at its command. In the Blue Book, the "Bible" of the Society, Robert Welch writes We would institute the organized planning and control to make full and effectively coordi- nated use of the powerful letter-writing weapon that lies so readily to hand... We could make (the Communist's 50,000-letter claim) look like peanuts, with the million truly dedicated and controlled supporters who constitute the hy- pothesis of this discussion. There should be a continuous overwhelming flood of letters, not just to legislators or the executive departments in Washington, but to newspaper editors, television and radio sponsors, educators, lecturers, state legis- lators, and politicians, foundations, and everybody else whose opinions, actions, and decisions count for anything in the ultimate total actions and decisions." (106: 66) The Overstreets (85), writing about the John Birch Society, state that the purpose of the many letter-writing campaigns is simply to occupy the mem- bers' time and minds--to give them busy work, and an "exalted position." It is probable that some or all of this information came from Robert Welch's state- ment that 81 letter-writing campaigns...would give the members of our local chapters and volunteer groups just one more activity, one more thing to do, by which they knew they were accomplish- ing something and being effective for the cause. For this reason, among others, the letter-writ- ing of sub—groups should not be left to the haphazard or half-hearted following by the mem- bers of hopeful pleas or suggestions. It should be definitely planned, directed, and the amount and promptness of participation constantly checked and evaluated by a central headquar— ters or director. (This should be) letter-writing of a different order of planned continuity and volume than anything attempted before...--letter-writing of the kind that builds opinion exactly the way single grains of sand build a whole bar- ricade..." (106: 67) Let us see how effective this "different order" of letter-writing actually is. There are two quite different ways to assess the effectiveness of the kind of campaign described by Welch: how successful is the John Birch Society in getting its own members to write letters, and how successful are those let- ters in bringing about their desired goals. Both these areas will be investigated in some detail. National letter-writing campaigns in the John Birch Society are coordinated through the Bulletin, the Society's monthly mailing-piece to members. More often than not, the Monthly Agenda will include one or more requests to write letters-~sometimes in praise, sometimes in protest. The ratio has been about half 82 and half. In order to test the effectiveness of the John Birch Society in inspiring its members to write let- ters, it was necessary to learn just how many letters had actually be written in various cases. It was suspected--and confirmed--that this information would be extremely hard to come by--in some cases (as with United Air Lines) because it had never been accumulated in one place, and in some cases due to the reluctance of the receiver to say what had happened. From among the hundred—odd letter-writing cam- paigns urged by the Society since its Bulletin began publication in January 1960, eighteen of the more im- portant campaigns were selected for investigation. "More important" means that the Bulletin devoted com- paritively more space and/or more urgency in announcing that particular campaign. The eighteen were divided into the observed 50-50 negative-positive ratio: nine protest campaigns and nine of praise. Letters were written to the same person at the same address to which the Birchers had been asked to write. The letters were nearly the same, except for certain specific references to personalize them, and for the use of one or two adjectives which were utilized to imply to the receiver that the writer agreed with 83 his position. (This agreement was truthful in nine cases, and for the other nine, it was felt that a little hypocrisy in order to increase the probability of response could do no harm.) A typical letter follows: Mr. J. S. McDonnell Chairman of the Board McDonnell Aircraft Corporation St. Louis 66, Missouri Dear Mr. McDonnell I am writing a Ph.D. dissertation dealing with the effects of letter-writing campaigns on certain corporations, with particular reference to the various efforts of the John Birch Society. I would be extremely pleased to learn more about the campaign directed against you and McDonnell by the Birchers in December 1963. As you must know, the JBS members were urged to write in protest because of your admirable plan of declaring United Nations Day a paid company holiday. Might it be possible to learn the extent of the "campaign"--even the roughest estimate of the mail-—whether of the order of tens, hun— dreds, thousands, or whatever--would be most useful to me. Many thanks for whatever information you can provide. I shall be happy to send you a sum- mary of my finished research. Eight of the nine recipients of protest letters responded, six of them giving useful information. One company (CBS) did not keep any record of their mail, and one (UniRoyal again) said the information had been collected, but was not available to the 84 public. All of the nine recipients of John Birch praise responded, and every one provided some useful infor— mation. Let's look at that information, and see what patterns emerge. Protest Mail (l) McDonnell Aircraft of St. Louis, as indicated in the sample letter, declared UN Day a company holi- day. JBS members were urged to send either a sarcas- tic postcard or a serious letter to let Mr. McDonnell know what they thought of that idea. Approximately 1000 letters and postcards were received over a period of three months. McDonnell forwarded one of the typical cards received, and it is the standard pre-printed anti-UN John Birch Society post card, sold to members at 25 for a dollar. (2) Mrs. Norman Chandler, wife of the publisher of the Los Angeles Times, was the prime mover behind the new Los Angeles Music Center. A press release related to the grand Opening reported that the United Nations flag would fly over the new edifice, along with the American flag. JBS members were told to write not only to Mrs. Chandler, but to a dozen other members of the various committees concerned with the Center. 85 Mrs. Chandler's secretary reports that she re- ceived several thousand pieces of mail, mostly "form letters." The persons listed with Mrs. Chandler in the JBS Bulletin received identical, but leeser, amounts of mail. (3) The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, in early 1964, issued a statement of policy change, indicating that the Chamber now looked favorably on certain kinds of trade with Communist countries. According to the Executive Vice President of the Chamber, 1611 cards and letters were received during the period following the ensuing John Birch letter- writing drive. After eliminating favorable responses and letters from other Chambers of Commerce, about 1500 items remained. "Obviously," the executive states, "it is not possible to know what caused (them) to be written, but the phraseology in most of them was quite similar." (4) In October 1963, the Ladies Home Journal pub- lished a short story called"The Children's Story!’ A clearly anti-Communist story, it told of what conceiv- ably could happen in a school room after a Communist takeover in the U.S. The new Communist teacher slyly and charmingly wins the affections and finally the 86 minds of her class. Robert Welch, however, somehow concluded that this was "the most brazen, and also the most infuri- ating piece of propaganda against God and Country that I have ever read," and urged his members and followers to register their protest. A total of 2,378 letters were received by the Journal. Of these, 1,371 quoted all or part of Welch's statement--as the writer's own sentiments. 725 others reflected Welch's remarks, but also gave some indication that the writer had at least read the story. The remaining 282 letters were quite probably non-Birch-inspired, and represent a normal mail re- sponse to a controversial story or article. This total includes 49 favorable letters, and two that pro- tested that the story was too strongly anti-Communist. All letters with return addresses were answered by the Journal, and the 58 responses to these letters were even more hysterical than the first. "It was as if, in explaining that the Journal was not part of a Communist plot, we had robbed them of a bone of hatred they had to gnaw lest they starve and die." (5) When he was chairman of the Federal Communi- cations Commission, Newton N. Minow, in his words, 87 "urged all groups to write in with their reactions to television programs, particularly if they felt that controversial issues had been unfairly presented." Minow was later asked by a newspaperman if there had been a significant response from conservative groups to his invitation. He said there had not. In the next JBS Bulletin, a special section was headlined "Let Minow Know," and encouraged its members to flood Minow with mail protesting the unfair television treatment of right-wingers. Minow was not aware of this drive at all, and, after the drive was over, he still did not "believe there was any unusually high conservatively-oriented response to my invitation to the American people to write to me." Minow's assistant at the FCC reports that the total John Birch response, identifiable because of similar or identical wording, was about 300 letters. (6) TV Guide magazine commented favorably in its editorial columns on the Xerox UN programs, and un- favorably on the John Birch letter-writing campaign. Thus TV Guide itself became a target, when, in January 1965 Birchers were instructed to turn away from Xerox and direct their wrath directly to TV Guide. Approximately 3000 pieces of mail were received 88 that were easily identifiable as being of Birch origin, and, although no breakdowns were made, an executive who handled a lot of it reports that there were many cases of eight or ten letters from a single person or family. Praise Mail (l) The American Broadcasting Company offered to the public a portfolio of reproductions of "free- dom documents"--the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. The John Birch Society was pleased at this dis- play of patriotism by one of its traditional foes, and asked that the membership write to an ABC vice president to thank him. That vice president reports that he received about 200 letters "as a direct result of the item in... the John Birch Society Bulletin." (2) The Board of County Commissioners of Howard County, Maryland,rather vociferously turned down a large offer of Federal Aid for urban renewal, road building, and other projects. They announced that they did not believe in federal aid, and would go it alone. JBS members were asked to applaud this admir- able act by this courageous group. 89 The Secretary of the Board of County Commission- ers reports that during the three months following the JBS request, "over 1800 letters were received and all were opposed to Federal Urban Renewal." (3) The Hyster Company of Portland, Oregon,has long been running advertisements critical of the government's role in regulating private enterprise. Members of the JBS were encouraged to write to the Chairman of the Board of Hyster, apparently a good friend of Robert Welch, to think him for his efforts on behalf of the "Americanist cause." The board chairman says that when he "read of this in the John Birch Society Bulletin I immediately wrote to Bob to, for heaven's sake, save his fire for some worthwhile projects as I did not need encourage- ment." Hyster received approximately 2500 letters and other communications in direct response to the JBS request. (4) In April 1963, Birchers were asked to write to the Chairman of the Southern California Edison Comp- any in support of his Americanist way of life, as evi- denced by his including anti-big-government brochures with the monthly bills to over a million customers. 90 Of approximately 2300 favorable letters received, approximately half, or 1100, were from members of the John Birch Society "as judged by a similarity of com- ments in those particular letters." (5) The Kates Regulator Company of Deerfield, Illinois, has been putting pro-American and anti-Com- munist slogans on the flaps of their packing boxes. For this patriotic gesture, JBS members were encouraged to write letters of praise to the President of the com- pany. The President reports that mail in reponse to the JBS Bulletin totalled around 2000 letters. There were four recipients of JBS praise whose praiseworthy acts were of a very public nature, and as a result, there was much mail from the general pub- lic as well. None of these four had separated the John Birch mail from the rest. (6) Dr. Max Rafferty, State Superintendent Of Pub- lic Instruction for California, reported that when he banned Eric Partridge's Dictionaryfof American Slang from the schools, hbjmail rose from 100 letters a day to 500, resulting in a total of 5,600 addition letters. However, he reports, "I have no knowledge of the source or inspiration behind the many thousands of 91 letters I got during the 'Dirty Dictionary' contro- versy." (7) Dr. Arnold Beckman, Board Chairman of the Beckman Instrument Company, refused to contribute merchandise to the 'ransom' of Cuban Bay of Pigs prisoners. His company received 4000 letters, but Beckman did not know "what percentage of the letters, from all walks of life and sections of the country, were from members of the John Birch Society." (8) The Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company offered American flags at bargain prices. The Birchers were told to write in praise. Goodyear reports that their "Show your Colors" program "produced a considerable volume of laudatory correspondence, but there was no indication, to the best of our knowledge, of any 'organized' effort behind this correspondence." (9) A San Diego assemblyman had led the drive in California's state legislature to restrict obscene matter. He was the object of a JBS praise campaign, but he believes "that the largest portion of my mail was the result of a wide grass-roots interest in my efforts...to correct the California criminal code rela- tive to obscene matter, and not particularly as a 92 result of the campaign you mentioned." In Table 8, the above information is summarized and some new information is added: the amount of space devoted to the letter—writing appeal in the JBS Bulletin is indicated. "Small" means just a few sentences; "medium" means from a few sentences up to half a page; "large" means more than half a page. Since Xerox was the only appeal to be repeated month after month, it alone is rated "extremely large." It was considered whether or not an attempt should be made to analyze the tone or nature of the appeal. This notion was rejected after deciding that all the appeals were virtually identical, with the only differ- ences being in their length. In some cases more back- ground information was necessary, but the relative im- portance or urgency or writing remained virtually con- stant at the level of "All members will want to write to..." or "Let's all show --- that..." In the Xerox case alone were there differences, and these will be discussed in Chapter Four. 93 we; Hmmpm mHn Ho Hmpaoa pan «mamzw 90: was ommmmavom* ESHUoE mob HHeEm mo» HHmEm wok SSHUOE :prnmoc: EsHooE mom owHeHIESHooa mmh ESHUOE *moh memH mo» HHeEw mom omeH mm» EzHuoE mom omHmH zHoSOprO mom 000.m 00H.H 00m.w 00w.H 00m 000.m 00m 000.m 00m.H 000.m 000.H 000.00 mcwwOHm pmHCSEBOOIHpQ< mHOHMoon pcmacno>owIHpc¢ mom pcoscam>owIHpc¢ 0H8 Hwnoemw umwsmmm mp:ofidoon SovooHH 0Hom 000H 2: wonmx UmmHOHm >9 OH mHoppmH 06mmadoocm HHOHm =pchssaooIOHm= mmmb 29H: mUer mchwasoocm onH 20 one wsHHHa HooHHos o sea 20 moHEsz mEmeOHQ 23 Ho mHanOmzomm .o0 mopom .< .3 somHom.HHHo0 .m HammSoo Hmpmhm .oz ..Hoo osssom 0m< ooHso >H .0.0.a HmCHSOh oaom mOHUEH OOHoEEoo Ho Hmnawau HmHucmno .mHE pHdHoHH¢ HHmcqomoz .mHoo NOHox Hmomm< cmemEoo co>Hooom Op oopo>mm Ho Sosa mommm pcmHmHomm maoppmq H0 .02 mmseo HCOHmHoom mcwHwQEmo wchHHBIHoppmH noaHm show chpHOo Op mmcommma Ho hstfidm "w meeH 94 The number of letters received does not necess- arily reflect the number of actual correspondents. Xerox' 60,000 protest letters were found, after care- ful comparison of names and addresses, to have come from only 15,000 writers, writing an average of four letters per person. No other recipient kept this kind of information, but several respondents did report as many as "eight or ten" letters from the same person or family. Thus it would seem reasonable to assume that, since there is a fairly standard response to nearly all campaigns, there is a very small faction of the John Birch Society that does all its letter—writing. If the Xerox data are any indication, the standard response of from 1000 to 3000 letters is probably produced by somewhere between 500 and 1500 corres- pondents, or abaut 1% of the total claimed member- ship Of the John Birch Society. Thus, with 99% of his membership remaining deaf to his urgent appeals to write, it is clear that Welch has failed to convince them of the value of letter-writing in "being effective for the cause." Since we have seen that to the extent a letter- writing campaign is identified as such, its effect- iveness decreases, and since at least eleven of the 95 twelve respondents who reported exact figures were aware of the Birch campaign, it might be suspected that the John Birch Society is not among the more successful lobbying groups. Let us look specifically at the results of various JBS writing campaigns. The campaigns listed in Table 9 represent virtually all that the JBS launched from its beginnings in 1960 through mid- 1965 in which a specific result could be noted. Obviously there is no way to measure the effective- ness of a campaign to send season's greetings to the parents of John Birch, or to "tell James Farley what we think of him." Here, then, are all those letter-writing cam- paigns which had a specific action goal. 96 .prONCO> OCO ooowm pCOCO OCOCO :pmHCCESOo= m.CHopmNpHHm pCOmOHH Op OHCHHOH .OHO HoCB COHH OCp Com OCOCQ COpHHOCOCpOE OCp OH ommH .OHmmCm Csz mOHp .pH OOpOprmH CmpmH HHO mCHCo>Om Cow OCOpm wCOHpm O Oxmp OCCHHOE pCp «00C HOEOCHO Om op EHC mCHmCC q.HmpOBOHOO COpOCOm OB ome .Omwo COmCOhImCOm Onp Opmepmm>CH onsHHsm .p_s0Ho om o0 EH: onmb: .oweoH Hoosmmsosa z: oe ommH .mOCOHm .mOOO CHOCp Co mpCo>m COECm OCHNOwOE onp pan OHCHHOH Co 0H0 OCHHCHO oz Op Eon wCHwOHCOoCm «mOCHHHHO HHO OB ommH .mCHpOOe pHEECm mCHEoonCOH me OCOppO OCCHHOH .pCoz om Op pOC EHC wCHmHC «pCOOHmOHm me 09 ome .COHpoO HCO .wCOmmOHOCQ Com MOOp Ho OOwOOHSOCxoO meOO HpHmHOH OHHCwOH Op Smnp wCHwHC OCCHHOH HpHmCO>HCD HospHmz OHOH 0C8 0HO>HOm mo mpCOOHOOCQ on OH ommH .pCHCQ CH pOOHpOH pOC mmooosm 0H0 an mHOCCO CHOpHOO .HOZ COHHOwHCICOCOHm OCp HOHpHOm OOmOOHzoCxoO xoozmzoz wCHpComOH CH mOHC mpH Com goozmSOz OB ommH .COHpoe .OOOCOEOO COHpOOCpOH MCOHOQ Cm> mOHCOCo OC MOOp nOmCommOC CH HpHHOCOmCOm HOOCOOm NHCO >9 HO COHpOOHH OHCHHOH mCOppOH SHOH pCOm OHHH IHHOHw mpH HOH OCHNOwOS OHHH Op pmopopm ommH pOHOCo> CwHOCEeO mo pHCmOm CwHOmfimo Ho OCCpOz CwHOCSOo HO mpmm mpHCmOH HHon OCO maHOCSOO mCHpHCzIHOppOH hpOHOom COCHm CCOh um OHCOB 7 9 .HpOHOow COCHm CCOH on Ho o>HpCOOxO CO 30C mH 0C MOOHHHO Op OOCCCp OCCHHOH IOH pOC mm: HHOCosz OCCHHOm .p_Cm03 Om OHCHHOH .wmz pH oCsHHaH .p.oeHo Hooooom oCsHHnH .oHo Hose onsHHoH .oHo Hose OCCHHOH .Oxomm Om .OOmOOHO .OHCHHOm ICH mes fiH< CwHOCom OCCHHOH .xoon Oewo OC mpCoz Om .mEOCwOCQ OHOHHoz m.HpHO on OOHHOpHCO HHHOOHmeCO 0C3 «HHmnosz CQOmOh Ho OmHOHC CH ..H.z .oaasozoz Co mHoHoHHHo HpHo oH .HHopOHOOEEH COCHOB HHOm COOOQEH Op «COEmmOHmCOO HCOH OB .OOHHOmeH on pOC zoomoz Op =OCHH pOC: OCp pOCp wCHwH: HOOCCOM pCOOHmOCm OH .HOCOCOO HOCHOpp< mm Cm>oom Hmwom .h pCHommO Co: Hm>OOC3 mep wCHpmmwam nHOOCCOM OCO COXHz OB .prmnCO> OCO ooomm CO SOHmOHQ OCp COmComm Op pOC EOCp wCHmHC AHOCSH OB .prONCO> 0C6 ooomm Co EOCwOHm HOHOOHm e pCOmOHm Op pOC EOCp wCHwCC nomz OH .OOHOCEOh HOCOHpOz me pm AmmCOCCCo Ho HHoCCoo HOCOHpOz on Ho pCOOHmOHm onv Coxeomm Hahn IEoo O Ho OOCOHOOQOO OCp HmoCOO Op Eon wCHwHC «OOHCOE< Ho wpfioOw mom me OB .0H< CwHOHom wCHOCO Com mOHCmOOs pHOQ Imzm Op EHC wCHwC: flCOEmmOHwCOO C505 09 .xomp Osoo p_COO «ow so» HH Homemmme Umpmmwwsm .wCHpOOE pHESCm OCp Op ow Op pOC HozoCComHm pCOOHmOHm ome meH HmmH HmmH ommH ome ommH 000H ommH ommH 98 OCCHHOH mmmoodm HOHHCOA OCCHHOm OCCHHOm mmmoodm mmOoozm mmmoofim HOHoaom OCCHHOH OCCHHOH .OOCCHpCOO CoHpOprmO>CH OCH .OOOOOHO ICH HHprHHm Hho> mos bemoan apom onH .COprH ICmOz CH OOEOOHOB HH IEHOB mOB OCO OEOO Om .OppoE OCp O>OC pOC OO mmmH OCOHOC ompCHCC OHHHC HHO pOCp p50 OOpCHOQ HCCOOOHE OCH .pH wCHHHH OOQQOpm thB .Op pOC OOOCwO HOBOHOm .OWCmE CHOCp OOmCOCO C p H Home poo .osHp esp pO OOOCmO HCOQEOO OCH .OoppHEEOO CH oopsoHoo we: HHHo one .HOOHHOC O OOHOHOOO HHHOCpCO>O mO3 HOG ZD .COHpOpm OHOOH O>O3IpHOCm OCH: prHC m.OCHpCHoz HCOU .>Om wCHpOmemO>CH QOpm Dom OCp pOCp OwCD .mOHpH>Hpo< COOHCOEO CO: .OHOzNOCo> mo pCCOoCOpOm pCOOHOOCm HO pHmH> wCHSOO ICpCOH OCp mepOCC Op pCOOHmOCm OCp OB =.meCB Oz OOO CH= OppoE OCp pConH3 mHHHC HOHHOO Ho COHpOHCOHHO mCHmepOCC .pCOSpCOCOQ HCCOOOCB on OH .HpHOmOHQ HpHO Co OOHH 20 one Co OsHHHH one OcHomopoHo ..OOOE qCOpQEOCCpCoz Ho HpHo OCp OB .mOHCpCCoO. pmHCCEEoo CH OOCCpoOHCCOE mwoow HHOO Op pOC SOCp wCHwHC .mOCOpm HOZOHOm OB =.mEOC COHHOH COCOH O>OHm= HHOO Op pOC EOCp mCHwHC .mpOxCOECOQ ICm Ho CHOCO HCOCEOO OOH Hmzmh OCp OH .2: OCp SOCH .m.D OCp 3OC0CpH3 Op HHHC.m.ppD COEmmOCwCoo Ho pHOCCCm CH «COCOOOCwCOO CCOH OB .OCOpCoz CH HOOHHOC O HOG ZD OCOHOOO Op pOC COHpCOpCH OHC Ho OOHOHQ CH OCOpCoz Ho COCHO>OO OCp OB mme mmmH mme Nme NmmH wme Nme HmmH HmmH 99 OHCHHOH OHCHHOH OCCHHOH mmOoosm OHCHHOH OHCHHOH mmOoodm OOOOOzm HOHpHOm .mH HHHpm pH .OO>HOOOC HOCp OHOp -OOH mme one Ho HOHsO ICH OCp Co OHOHpHO CO ses poo .0.OOHO Hose .OOOOOC pH .OCCpOHOHwOH OEOCOH< OCp HQ OOOOOC mOz pCOEOCOEO OCH .HHOCOHpOHO OCp Com pHOCCCO OOOHQOOOHB wCHpOCOCOw OOHmeoOC CwHOQSOO OCH .CoHpOO OC COOp CpHCON .OOpOOHOO mOz ECUCOHOHOH OCH .HpOHOom COHHm CCOh OCp HOH HCpOQEHm Ho OOCOOOC pOC pCC .OpCO IOOOCC pOC 0H0 m.CHOHM .HOHHOH mHCp pOOHpOH Op EOCp OOH: HHOOHHOC HCOQSOO O HOH ZD OOHOHO IOO wCH>OC pHOCOHHHO OCp meHOwO Opo> Op EHC wCHwCC qCOEmmOHmCOO CCOH OH .COHpCpHmeoo .m.D OCp Op pCOEOCOEO HOOCOm KOH OEooCH OCp wCH IpHOCCCm OEOCOH< HO OoOHHO3 HOCHO>OU OH .OOHCOCC IHH OCO mHOOCom OHCHOHHHOO CH madam HOMHMM8¢.HM memmwmwwm OCOOOCO OCp COC Op CmHOHEOO OHC CH HpHOHHOm sz CHOm .mOOHH one HOHCopOs z: OOH: OOpoEOHQ «OpOwOHOQ OCH «OHO mCHHOOC 3OC O HO HOSOHOCpHZ OOH: Op .QHOU CpHCON OH .ECOCOCOHOH pOOCz =pmHCCEEoo pmHOmOH: m.COEOOCm OHHH>HO meHOwO SOCp wCHCHOz SOCC OOH OHOEHOH HHO Op OpHHB .mpOOnCO pHO CHOH COH>OHmomCH wCHHHOm QOpm Op OOOCHOH OCOpm OCp OOCOOOC OCOpm OCp CH maHm =m_CHOHM pO OOOOU pmHCCEEoo C50» mom. wCHpmom prCOO OCOCEOE mmh wCHpCOOOOHm Com OCOpm pCOspHOCOQ O_CHOHM Op mepOCm mmmH mmmH mme mme mmmH mme mOmH mmmH lOO mmmoofim HOHOCOO mm®005m HOHOCOH OHCHHOH OHCHHOH OHCHHOH OHCHHOH OCCHHOH OHCHHOH OHCHHOH .COHmmOO prC OCp HHpCC OOHQOO as: HHHb one .OOppHsEOO CH C: OOprob mos HHHo one .p_oOHo Hose .0Ho Hone .OoHHHH HHHpm m_OH .p_CmO3 pH .p.ooHo HOnH .OOOOOQ pH .p.oeHo Hone .po< HOHOCOOIHHOH map Ho mI:H CoHpOOm HO HOOQOC meHOwO Opo> Op EHC wCHwHC «HOpOCOm HCOH OH .HHHC COHpOHpmeOC OSHOOHHH .mcuom COpOCOm mepOCQ Op «HOpOCOm HCOH OH .HpOHOom CoHHm CCOh OCp pCOCO mpCOE IEOO Ho CoHpoOHpOH wCHCmO nOOHCO >H OH .OEOHmOHQ ZD HOHOX OCp 30Cm Op pOC EOCp wCHmHC ADHC OH .OOHH 20 one OOHHHH Coon Hosp OCHOCOEOO q.HOpCOu OHOCS .<.H OCp OH .OOHHOoCOO OC pH pOCp wCHOCOSOO .mOHCOm ZD OOOOQOHQ wCHmepOCQ «HOCON OH .OCOHCm CHOpOOm CpH3 OOOHp wCHwO IHCooCO pCOEOpOpm HHOCp poOCpOC Op EOCp mCHwHC .OOCOEEOU Ho COCEOCU .m.D OCp OH .HHHC mprHH HH>HO zOC OCp meHOmO Opo> Op COEOOOHwCOO HCOH OH .HOOHoom sonHm snob Onp Co HCOpCOSCOoO OHCOHO>OHCC HHOCp Com ONHOoHooO HHHOHoHHHo mmo Hosp eoosom mOmH mmmH mmmH mmmH :mmH :mmH :mmH :mmH somH 101 Thus in forty-four separate letter—writing cam— paigns, the John Birch Society has suffered thirty- four total failures, eight partial successes, and two total successes. But of the ten successes, no more than five could possibly have been influenced by the Society: the cases of Safeway Stores, Northhampton, Mass., Jewel Tea Company, Klein's, and the State of Alabama. In the rest, they just happened to be on the winning side. So in 38/44ths of the cases, or 86%, the all-out efforts of the John Birch Society had no effect what- soever. If all instances of attempts to influence legislation are included (more than fifty of these having been omitted from the table), the percentage of failures rises to 94%, and the few successes are on relatively trivial matters. Yet we have seen that letter-writing can be an effective weapon of opinion change and action. Why is the John Birch Society so ineffectual? In terms of the chart on page 74, their whole system is de- signed to produce large quantities of low-quality mail-- and in nearly all circumstances the Society actually produces only small quantities of low-quality mail. And, as has been shown, small amounts of low- quality mail are the least effect possible pressure 102 weapon—-especially when the recipient is aware that the mail is part of an organized campaign. The John Birch Society retains letter-writing as one of its major weapons in part because Robert Welch believes it to be an effective device, and in part because it gives the members something to do. But we have seen that with very few exceptions, the letter-writing campaigns have been total failures, and that in the cases studied a maximum of two percent of the members heeded the pleas of Welch and wrote at all. The one exception is, of course, Xerox, in which 15,000 members wrote an average of four let- ters each. Let us look, in the next chapters, at the Xerox case in considerable detail. CHAPTER FOUR THE XEROX ANNOUNCEMENT The Xerox Corporation is acknowledged to be one of the outstanding corporate successes of the 1960's. The following brief table demonstrates the phenomenal growth of the company: Table 10: Growth of the Xerox Corporation, 1959-1964* Indicator 1959 1964 Increase Gross income 4,757,000 76,000,000 1,600% Net income per $.12 $1.88 1,500% share of stock Number of em- 2068 11,324 560% ployees *data taken from Xerox Annual Report for 1964 Many of Xerox' top officers and directors have scientific and/or academic backgrounds; most are relatively young; nearly all seem to be non-conserva- tive in their political leanings. Thus with an exceedingly favorable profit pic- ture and a strongly pro-United Nations leadership, combined with a tradition of sophisticated, adult television sponsorship, Xerox was one of the few com- panies that could logically sponsor and promote a 103 104 series of high-budget United Nations specials. The idea was conceived by Paul G. Hoffman, Director of the UN Special Fund. The idea was brought by a mutual friend to Frederic Papert, Chairman of the Board of Papert, Koenig, Lois, Inc., Xerox' advertising agency. Papert approached Xerox and Xerox was inter- ested. As Xerox President Joseph Wilson was to state later in announcing the series, Our objectives are to help men better communi- cate with each other. Therefore it is all- important for Xerox to be favorably known throughout the world as an institution which is willing to risk in order to improve under- standing. (109) Business Week interpreted Wilson's statement as being perhaps somewhat less magnanimous than he would have had it appear: The thinking at Xerox goes roughly like this: Many of the dramas will be filmed on location in the emerging nations. The government officials will know what is being gone--this American company named Xerox is spending a lot of money for a television show to tell Ameri- cans what valuable work the United Nations is doing... And of course, if some of the emerging nations wish to make use of film clips of the pro— grams, that probably can be arranged--with Xerox somehow being identified with the arrange- ments for these later viewings. (23: 18) Business Week probably laid excessive stress on Xerox' mercenary reasons for undertaking the project. 105 It seems clear from Wilson's statement that idealism played a significant part in the company's reasoning: We believe deeply in the United Nations, as do these great artists from the world of enter- tainment who are volunteering their talents and time to portray, to project its promise, to say, as they must, that it is human and fallible, but also to cry that its impact will inexorably shape the time to come, shape it in a way that will make man's role nobler. Of course there is idealism here, and we must answer the inevitable question, 'What value for Xerox is there in this $4,000,000 expendi- ture?' As a matter of justice to our stock- holders, no matter what ideals we have, we must be able persuasively to attest there is great value for Xerox in this venture. For me to pretend otherwise would be hypocritical and false. After all, for the corporation to forgo its normally allotted commercial time in a series of this magnitude is, I gather, unprecedented. It is bound to bring criticism at least and possibly to bring much more aggressive attacks than that. Our eyes are wide open about it. It is part of our philOSOphy that the highest interests of the corporation are involved in the health of the earth's society. How ridicu- lous it is to build a showroom in New York without simultaneously trying to help build a peaceful world. (109) The interaction of idealism and practicality, of United Nations support and sound business judg— ment, is perhaps best stated in a further statement by Mr. Wilson, long before the John Birch Society protest had begun: Our decision boils down to a judgment, a judgment concurred in by all our senior people and the advertising agency which has helped 106 lead us to very substantial success, in our opinion. Let me say with emphasis that this was a business judgment. I would be less than can— did if I did not admit that at Xerox there is a climate of approval for the United Nations, but this is no contribution. It is not coming out of our donation budget; it is coming out of our advertising and public relations budget. As a matter of fact, the advertising and public relations budget was increased by just about the necessary $4,000,000 in order to cover the cost of the series. Business Week says that $4,000,000 is "about twice as much as the company has been accus- tomed to spending each year for advertising in all media." (23: 19) Wilson's statement continues: In order to evaluate this decision, you would have to know more about our long-range aspir- ations throughout the world. They are very high indeed. They have to do with certain kinds of products and fields of human endeavor, some of which we are not connected with yet. Shortly after these words were written, Xerox announced its deep plunge into the field of education by acquiring the Wesleyan University Press and Basic Systems, Inc. Wilson's statement continues: It is the opinion of the professionals with whom we consult, as well as our own, that this series of television programs will be some of the most important ever made. We will be associated with 107‘ them in an understated way every time they are presented anywhere in the world... It happens that the kind of people for whom we are develop- ing products and services of the future are the kinds of people who, in our Opinion, will respect this sort of endeavor. They are not necessarily the people who are making decisions about buying copying machines this year... We expect to be bitterly denounced by extremist groups, probably at our shareholders meeting, which might be quite an imbroglio. The shareholders meeting was, according to the reports of several persons who attended, a bit wild for Xerox, but largely due to the brilliant way Wilson fielded questions and handled outraged anti-UN stock- holders, things were not nearly as bad as they might have been. Wilson concludes: "It will always be a difficult thing to demonstrate, now or later, as to whether this was worth it." This, then, is why Xerox decided to spend four million dollars for a series of television programs on the work of the United Nations. 'How the general public, and the John Birch Society reacted to the announcement of the proposed series, will be examined in the next two sections. 108 The Xerox Announcement and the Public Although Xerox announced its intentions to produce the United Nations programs on April 8, 1964, it took the John Birch Society to bring the event to the public eye three months later. Only the business press-~publications like Advertising Age, Business ‘Week, and Forbes--carried the story in April. The first public account of the series (and of the John Birch protest) appeared on July 31, 1964, in a featured page one article in the San Francisco Chronicle, headlined "Letters to Sponsor: Birch Drive to Bar TV Series About the U.N." Although neither of the Chronicle's competitors picked up the story until it went on the wires three weeks later, it was the now-defunct San Francisco News-Call-Bulletin that revealed, in mid-September, how the Chronicle got its story. Apparently a San Francisco girl received a copy of the John Birch Society Bulletin for July 1964 in the mail by mistake. After writing to Xerox and to the U.N. to verify the events, she informed the various San Francisco papers; only the Chronicle followed it up. The Xerox public relations department then began sending xerocopies of the Chronicle story to news- 109 papers all over the country. Thus for the three weeks following the initial story, the Chronicle was listed as the source for all other stories. Many San Francisco area papers picked up the story immediately-—papers in Redwood City, San Mateo, Burlingame, and Palo Alto. A dozen or more accounts in newspapers in St. Louis, Chicago, and other eastern cities included the line "according to II the San Francisco Chronicle... At least one paper reproduced the xerocopy as part of its story. On August 19th, three weeks after the Chronicle story broke, both the Associated Press and United Press International released the news of the John Birch Society protest. In its 375-word release, UPI quoted the relevant passage from the John Birch Society Bulletin, and em- phasized that Xerox was not unduly concerned by the protest. They quoted, as an unnamed source, the statement by former Congressman John Rousselot that "We (the JBS) hate to see a corporation of this country promote the UN when we know that it is an instrument of the Soviet Communist conspiracy." UPI reported that Xerox had-received 9000 letters from 1500 writers. The l50—word AP story also reported that 9000 letters were received, but did not mention that only 110 1500 writers were represented. They also used Rousselot's quote, and quoted a brief statement from a Xerox spokesman that the company would not be dis- suaded from the series. Many papers picked up the story in the next two or three days. A cursory inspection of a library newspaper room found one dispatch or the other in, among others, the Seattle Daily Times, the Columbus, Ohio Evening Dispatch, the Washington Star, the Los Angeles Times, the Denver Rocky Mountain News, the San Francisco Examiner, the Indianapolis_News, and the New York EEEE§° However, the wire service stories seemed to serve primarily as an information source to newspaper edi- tors, who then either had staff members write separ- ate bylined articles about the protest, or took the occasion to write an editorial which first announced the news and then applauded Xerox for its stand. Most of the bylined articles simply rehash the wire service stories, adding neither new facts nor editorial comment. But the editorials, nearly unanimous in support- ing Xerox, appeared in papers as diverse as the Rector, Arkansas Methodist and the London Observer; the Nash- ville Tennesean and the Wichita Eagle. 111 Importantly, many editorials urged that readers who support the United Nations communicate their thanks to Xerox at once. Here is how some of these appeals were made. Why don't you drop a card or letter to the Xerox Corp.... and thank it for sponsoring a series of television programs on the work of the United Nations? On the other side, the mixed nuts are writing like made--or should we say like crazy?... A word of encouragement never hurts--and it may inspire others. So we suggest that everyone in these parts who object to bald repression of their right to be informed; who would like to see this $4 million plus presentation during the coming new television season, take up pen and write also to Xerox at Rochester, N.Y. The message need only be the gracious one of saying 'Thank you 2 for your public service in presenting the UN.‘ We commend the Xerox Corporation for its vision. We urge all citizens to write Joseph C. Wilson, President, lending support to this program. Those who believe so strongly in the UN are suggesting that the same plan of letter-writing be followed in commending this corporation for its undertaking. Such letters should go to Joseph C. Wilson... These letters should be written personally (we understand there has been a certain sameness to the flood of the ot er let- ters) and should be sincere and positive. Similar appeals appeared in dozens of editorials. Nearly all appeared between August 21 and mid-September. 1 Worcester, Mass. Telegram, Aug. 25, 1964 2 Daytona Beach, Fla. Journal, Sept. 2, 1964 3 Bloomington, Ill. Pantagraph, Aug. 21, 1964 4 Rector, Ark. Methodist, Nov. 26, 1964 112 1964. The first two programs in the series, in late December and mid-February, sparked new spurts of editorial comment. 7 Certain themes run through most of the editorials. There is "the broadening sense of responsibility of a new generation of business executives."5 Also, the fact that "Xerox...demonstrated more than normal guts. They refused to be intimidated."6 A frequent theme was "Let's all thank the Birch— ers for giving the excellent Xerox project so much free publicity."7 Besides praising Xerox, many pro-UN editors seized the opportunity to discuss the merits of the United Nations. "We congratulate the Xerox Corporation for its effort to inform Americans about the U.N. which is dedicated to world peace and to the betterment of mankind."8 A final commonly—used theme was that of freedom of speech and its ramifications. What is at issue, really, is more than the UN or a random television series. It is whether a minority can impose its Will to the extent that it can say what sort of progrags the people of this country can or can't watch. 3 Riverside, Calif. Press, Aug. 27, 1964 Pensacola, Fla. News, August 28. 1964 Rochester, N.Y. Democrat, Aug. 29, 1964 9 Houston, Texas CEronicle, Au . 24, 1964 Nashville Tennessean, Nov. 2 , 1964 113 Following the editorials came the letters to the editor. Apparently the Xerox-UN-John Birch issue was only of moderate interest to most readers. Twenty-five newspapers which ran favorable editorials on Xerox were checked for ten successive issues following the editorial. Eighteen of them had one or , more letter on the subject-—an average of about two each. The letters to the editor (as were, ultimately, the letters to Xerox) were almost equally divided between the pro-UN and the anti—UN forces. From the 18 newspapers, there were 16 positive letters and 18 negative ones. Many of the positive writers took the view that "it is important to bring some of the extreme anti- UN views into the open..."10 Nearly all suggested in some way that readers should write to Xerox in support of the project. The appeals were, in general, somewhat less restrained than those of the editorial writers: "I urge that a barrage of letters be sent..."11 "Americans who treasure their freedom and re- ject the tactics and insidious activity of the Birch- ers, should let Xerox know at once that..."12 10Worcester, Mass. Evening Gazette, Aug. 29, 1964 11Redwood City, Calif. Tribune, Aug. 25, 1964 12Houston, Texas Chronicle, Sept. 3, 1964 114 I confidently predict that thousands of free- , thinking Americans, not controlled by anything but their own devotion to a strong democratic society will be writing to Xerox at (add- ress). 3 The negative letters were of two kinds. About half were very much like those written directly to Xerox: long, rambling, filled with unattributed quotes from the JBS Bulletin, urging people to read the Birch-published book The Fearful Master in order to get "the real story." This kind of letter is dise cussed in Chapter Five. The remainder of the negative letters were from persons who claimed to be disillusioned former UN supporters. "Many of us who oppose the UN hailed it hopefully at its inception as a great step forward... Today, however, we find it has not served those pur— poses..."l" This sort of letter did not appear nearly so often in mail sent directly to Xerox, although the exact percentages are not available. Although the sample is far too small to state the following with confidence, it is entirely possi- ble that a good percentage of anti-UN sentiment is that of persons who don't believe, as the Birchers 13San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 5, 1964 1”Grayling, I11. Independent-Register, Jan. 21, 1965 115 do, that the UN has been a tobl of the Communist con- spiracy from its inception, but rather are disillusioned former UN supporters who demand more obvious results than the UN has been able to bring about in its first twenty years. Since one person in nine, according to national surveys (35), is anti-United Nations, but only one person in 2000 belongs to the John Birch Society, it is possible that persons who (a) are not Birchers but (b) don't like the UN, are more likely to respond to the stimulus of an editorial and write to a newspaper than to respond to a news story and write directly to Xerox. This, then,was the demonstrable and recorded public response to the initial announcements in the public press of the Xerox UN project and of the John Birch Society protest. The second wave of public comment and reaction came with the screening of the first two programs on December 28, 1964 and February 19, 1965. Here, public reaction is much harder to evaluate, or even to discuss, because of a curious interaction between the entertainment aspects of the programs and the message, or political aspects. 116 Thirty different critical reviews of the programs in various newspapers and magazines were studied. Twenty-two were definitely favorable and eight def- initely unfavorable. The 22 favorable reviews appeared in 21 news- papers and magazines that have been pro-United Nations in their past editorial stands. The 22nd was the New York News. Of the eight unfavorable reviews, six appeared in anti—UN newspapers or magazines. The other two were both by Jack Gould of the New York Times. Four of the six non-Times reviews quoted Gould in such incorrect implications as "Typical in the reaction of press reviewers was..."15 or "Television critics were virtually unanimous in their thumbs- down verdict... Jack Gould spoke for many of his colleagues..."16 While the reviewers talked mostly of the pro- gram's merits--acting, production, script, etc.-- the letters to editors which resulted from the pro- grams almost totally failed to consider the programs as entertainment. To the anti-UN writers, the first program--an allegory based on Dickens' Christmas l5Atlanta Times, Jan. 8, 1965 16Human Events, Jan. 9, 1965 117 _gappI--was "the most audacious commercialization of Christmas ever conceived by our UN apologists."l7 To the pro-UN writers, it was "the best Christmas present of the year."18 TV Guide received a great deal of mail on the programs, and reported that opinions were running about six to one in favor of them--not too different from the ratio in which the general public supports the United Nations. It is curious, but very probably the case, that few people responded publicly to the programs as entertainment or just "television." They were simply UN propaganda, to be reacted to in accordance with 19 ones views of the UN itself. l 7Tulsa, Oklahoma Tribune, Jan. 5, 1965 18TV Guide, Jan. 4, 1964, p. 4. l . 9The right-wingers' dilemma in assessing movies and books which (a) he enjoys but (b) are produced by or somehow involve persons he believes to be agents of the Communist conspiracy, is a fairly common one. For example, the movies Spartacus and Cleopatra, starring "known Communists, comsymps, or crypto— Communists" Kirk Douglas and Elizabeth Taylor, were enjoyed by the movie reviewer for the John Birch Society magazine, American Opinion. What could he say? "The actual Communist propaganda in Spartacus has been kept low and well camouflaged." (American Opinion, July 1959) "Cleopatra makes some attempt to speak for...one- worldism, but...it fails to teach many lessons." (American Opinion, October 1960) 118 This phenomenon is interesting, and perhaps. worthy of further exploration. To what extent can entertainment be separated from political or philo- sophical belief. The comment of one respondent who used to "love" Efrem Zimbalist, Jr. as an actor, but began disliking his performances after she learned- that he supported Barry Goldwater, may be represen- tative of widespread hard-to—identify instances of confusing political and non-political likes and dis- likes, and being thrown into a dissonant position when they conflict. The Xerox Announcement and the Extreme Right Eighty days after the Xerox UN project was announced to the public, John Birch Society members first learned of it via the Society's monthly Bulle- til. Each Bulletin contains a monthly Agenda--things for all members to do during the coming month. "The United Nations - - Get US out!" is a permanent item on the Agenda, and the Bulletin has had something to say on the subject nearly every month since early 1960. A quick look at the Bulletin's UN comments for the first six months of 1964 will reveal enough of the Society's general attitude toward this "Communist- 119 infiltrated, Marxist-dominated Godless Atheistic gang of criminals and savages" in "the house that Hiss built." January 1964: We are engaged primarily in a preliminary long-range program. We want to make the slogan Get US out; familiar to and its significance understood by, more and more Americans.2 February 1964; THE UNITED NATIONS - - Get US out! March 1964: THE UNITED NATIONS - - Get US outll We expect to add weapons soon. April 1964: We expect to announce in June the next additional step for strengthening and speeding up this drive; but keep right on building as solid a base as you can of under- standing as to what the United Nations really is. May 1964: We are working on our United Nations Packet... In the meantime please do all you can to build up sentiment behind our slogan and our drive... We are delighted to announce that a new book on the United Nations, by Bryton Barron...will make its appearance the first week of May. Its title is Dream Becomes a Nightmare: The UN Today. It has already been quite favorably reviewed in the Chicago Tribune and will of course soon be available from all of our bookstore units. June 1964: Our own new book on the United Nations, by a member of our staff, which has been nearly a year in preparation, will be out in June. Entitled The Fearful Master...the book contains 320 pages, ofIWhich 64 will be pictures. It will be indexed...and will have ample footnotes for documentation. 20More than one John Birch Society chapter has ,stopped using these stickers for fear peOple will think they mean "Get US out of Viet Nam." 120 The Fearful Master will have a brief intro— duction by the Hon. James B. Utt, whom we consider the leading authority on the United Nations in either house of Congress. The book will be attractive, professional, and-- we believe--effective. The July 1964 issue of the Bulletin devotes the first half of its 32 pages to a rambling essay on the Communist conspiracy, by Robert Welch, with special attention to the deceitful methods used by HUntley and Brinkley. The "UNITED NATIONS - - Get US out!" section is expanded to four pages-—the largest ever. The first two are devoted to the publication of The Fearful Master. Each member is asked to read the book, per- suade others to buy it,and to give copies to local libraries. The section continues: As stated before, we were waiting for the appearance of The Fearful Master, more or less as a textbook and reference, before stepping up our drive to Get US out into a real campaign. Let's begin that campaign by a veritable flood of letters to the officers and directors of the Xerox Corporation with regard to their announced plan to spend four million dollarsl of their advertising money, beginning in Janu- ary, to 'sell' the United Nations to the Ameri- can people. These plans call for several nation— al television shows, glorifying the United Nations, to be broadcast over the NBC and ABC networks beginning the first of the year. With the devastating material in Griffin's book to draw on, we ought to be able to convince these directors of what the United Nations really is. If they are of the ideologically unmovable variety, then fifty to a hundred thousand letters 121 of protest ought to convince them, at least, of the unwisdom of their proposed action from a strictly business point of view--just as United Airlines was persuaded a few years ago by a similar avalanche of letters to back down and take the UN insignia off their planes. A list of the names and addresses of the leading offi- cers and directors of Xerox is submitted below. (There followed a list of seven Xerox officers and six directors, with their business addresses.) Do not threaten boycott, nor think of boycott, even if you happen to be in a position to pur— chase, or to influence the purchasing, of the kind of duplicating equipment which Xerox manu- factures. Keep your letters friendly, informative, and persuasive. Remember it is not only possible, but entirely likely, that at least a decided majority of these officers and directors honestly believe that the United Nations is a basically desirable organization. It is our duty, and may well be our opportunity, to convince them otherwise. And if most of our members will each write to several or all of the names listed above, we'll certainly make them pause to take another look before they go ahead. The August 1964 Bulletin again devoted four pages to the United Nations, and made the job of the letter- writers much simpler by reducing the anti-UN philosophy down to five brief statements, the first four of which appeared verbatim in many letters received by Xerox: There are five plain, direct, and devastating facts to be hammered home incessantly about the United Nations. 1. The UN was conceived by Communists. 2. The UN was created by Communists. 3. The UN is controlled by Communists. 4. The UN...has furthered the objectives of Communism. ' 5. We are approaching the point of no return and our time within which to disengage ourselves from the UN is rapidly running out. 122 An entire page is devoted to reprinting the New York News' review of The Fearful Master ("a hard-hitting carefully documented book..."), and another page urges members to buy and read the book. Finally there is a one-paragraph rehash of the Xerox situation, the names and addresses of four more directors, and the following: Please continue your letters of protest to all the officers and directors listed in both the last bulletin and this one. Early replies to such protest, from William H. Fleming, Assistant to the President of Xerox, contain the sentence "It would be premature for anyone to judge the films until they are completed and viewed." Since the announced purpose of the campaign is to tell Americans what valuable work the UN is doing and to create a more favorable public opinion and acceptance of the UN, that comment is an insult to the intelligence of anybody who really understands this temple of inter- national murder and slavery on the East River. But maybe Mr. Fleming doesn't understand it himself. The Bulletin doesgoonto mention the Xerox presi- dent's comments that the company, he believes, will benefit from an associaton with the United Nations. "Maybe," Robert Welch writes, "a continuous stream of tens of thousands of letters, to him and to all of his directors, will convince him—~or them-—otherwise." There is a lengthy discussion of the United Air Lines incident (described in Chapter Two) and the sec- tion concludes "Let's see if a sufficiently large and 123 determined flood of letters can induce the Xerox officials and directors to reverse their decision at an earlier stage." The September 1964 Bulletin starts its UN section thus: The press services report that Xerox has re- ceived 9000 letters, protesting their proposed expenditure of four million dollars in adver- tising to support the United Nations. What happened to our other seventeen members who write letters? Seriously, we have no idea whether the press services hit upon the approximate truth in this report or not. But if so, then our mem- bers are not playing the hand we dealt them. Our members should havejmured at least a hundred thousand letters of protest into the corporate coffers by now... In our letter writing to Xerox,...our design is defensive. It is to try to argue a large beneficiary of the American free enterprise system out of painting in rosy colors a monstrous instrumentality of the very forces which seek to destroy that system. The section goes on for three more pages to lament the pro-UN public service advertising that has been appearing. The October 1964 Bulletin doesn't mention the Xerox project; the UN section briefly implores members to buy and read The Fearful Master. The November 1964 Bulletin devotes its UN space to a large photograph of a helicopter flying over a a football stadium trailing an anti—UN banner. 124 The December 1964 Bulletin, in a brief UN section, provides another short critique which began appearing shortly in letters to Xerox: "The United Nations was originally designed, and is today intended, to be government by the Communists, of the Communists, for the Communists." There is no mention of Xerox. In January 1965, after the screening of the first UN program, the campaign was again stepped up. In a four-page section devoted entirely to Xerox, the complete list of officers and directors is repeated, as are the four short "basic truths" about the UN. Following a page of protest about how reprehensible it is that Xerox is getting away with this "tax gimmick," the members are asked once again...to pour a flood of letters in on the individuals who comprise the Xerox manage— ment, protesting their action. If you know any Xerox salesmen or any Xerox stockholders, send copies to each of them of the letters that you write to the directors—~or even write each one a separate letter of protest. Do not resort to vindictive or abusive language. Keep your letters firm but calm, polite, and per- suasive. Think of and use all other ways and means that you can-—short of boycott-—to give your Biotests more reach and more effective- ness. 21One earnest young man reported, with pleasure, in an interview that since boycott was discouraged, he simply sabotaged the Xerox machine in the office where he was employed, as well as any other Xerox equipment with which he came in contact. 125 Do not threaten, suggest, or even think boycott... Boycott is...an un-American tactic, and a foul means, to which it does not seem to me the John Birch Society should ever stoop. The Bulletin goes on to say that Robert Welch was most disappointed in the response to Xerox. Only once before, in more than two hundred letter- writing campaigns...have we felt that the member- ship let us down on a request for massive con- certed action, as badly as on our request for letters to Xerox. We do not know why there was the lack of enthusi- asm or follow through at the time. But we know now--and are no longer merely guessing--the nature and purpose of these programs... Let's make our protest deep enough, extensive enough, and thoughtful enough so that it cannot be ignored. In February 1965 the effort continues. The main item on the UN agenda is the just-published "UN Packet"--fifteen different anti-UN books and pamphlets for two dollars. Members are again urged to write, to talk to their Xerox salesmen, to write to newspapers, and to protest to the networks that showed the programs. The March 1965 Bulletin again devotes four pages to Xerox and the UN. In addition to writing to Xerox for the same old reasons, members are urged to make TV Guide magazine aware, "by tens of thousands of let- ters from all over the United States," that their arti- cle about the Xerox programs, in which they misquote the Bulletin to imply that the Society was encouraging 126 a boycott, "weakensthe confidence of readers all over the United States in anything TV Guide has to say." The March 1965 JBS Bulletin offers the Society's final words on Xerox for 1965. Its UN agenda after March is limited to protesting the possible use of Alcatraz Island as a UN memorial, and to promoting and distributing its UN Packet and The Fearful Master. The publications of several other extreme right- wing organizations (The Conservative Tide and the Cinema Educational Guild, for instance) followed the lead of the John Birch Society in urging their members to write to Xerox. But since the membership of such organizations is very small compared to the John Birch Society, their role in generating the response is probably negligible. So it was the John Birch Society almost alone that inspired 30,000 peOple to write letters—-l5,000 of its own members and 15,000 who wanted to be sure that Xerox didn't give in to the wishes of the first 15,000. In the next chapter, these letters are examined in detail. CHAPTER FIVE THE LETTERS Xerox received over 75,000 letters from at least 30,000 different sources--the negative writers averaging about four letters per person. I was able to look at 133 letters--63 positive and 70 negative-- supplied by the writers themselves. There is no way of knowing how representative this sample is of the entire universe of letters. Certain aspects of these letters may be considered without regard for their authors, by considering the positive, and then the negative letters as a group. (Those aspects that depend on a knowledge of the author as well as the content of the letter will be incorporated into the chapter on Results.) There are two ways of looking at the letters taken as a whole: in terms of content and in terms of non-contextual aspects. The first includes the writers' apparent sources of information, general and specific themes, misinformation, complimentary clos- ings, and enclosures. The second includes the length, the presence or absence of letterheads, whether the letter was typed, written in pen or in pencil, the degree of abstractness of the letter, and the general 127 128 use of grammar and spelling. These items will be considered in the order just listed. Sources of Information Positive Letters Of the 63 positive letters, 13 (21%) were written in April 1964, the month of the initial announcement by Xerox, and were clearly in direct response to that announcement. Only one of the 13 mentions his source ("I have just read in Business Week..."), two others simply state that they read the information, and the remaining ten give no indication of where they got their knowledge. Five of the letters in the sample (8%) were written in May, all of them, according to specific statements in the letters, because of an article in the monthly bulletin of the United Nations Association chapter for Los Angeles. Eight letters (13%) were written in June, but only two give any clue to the source of information. ' and another One writer- was "informed by a colleague,’ "learned in church this morning." Similarly, the two letters written in July (3%) gave no indication of information source. 129 Thirty-five letters (55%) were written in August after the news of the John Birch Society protest had been announced. Ten of these 35 (29%) implied a source of information ("I have just read that...") but only two (6%) identified that source--the San Fran- cisco Chronicle in both cases. Negative Letters Of the 70 negative letters, 55 (79%) begin with an indication of how the writer got his information. Every one of the 55 is different, but there are many similarities. They fall into three basic categories, with a few sub-categories: (1) Oral Information: "Friends of mine told me the disturbing news that..." "I was told the other day that..." "Upon hearing recently that..." A sub-category includes those persons indicating that they have just learned or been informed or found out--terms implying but not definitely stating that the information was oral. "I learn with shock that..." "I was thoroughly disgusted to find out that..." (2) Written information: "I read with dismay that ..." "I have just read a piece of news saying...‘ I A sub-category includes those persons indicating that the information had come to them, probably al- though not certainly, through the written word. "We 130 " "It has come to my atten- note that you intend to... tion that..." "If the report I have received is cor— rect, then..." (3) Miscellaneous and multiple source information: ' "I am "I have learned from several sources that...’ shocked to have been informed from all the media that..." And a few occurred that were simply non-classifi— able, such as "When I hear that you do what you do, I felt Why?" Because all of these 55 letters were written be- tween August 1 and August 31, 1964, and because of the content, it is strongly believed that all of them are from John Birch Society members. Yet only two of them (4%) indicate in any way that it was the JBS that supplied them with their information. Those two were completely frank: "As you may know, in this month's bulletin of the John Birch Society, it is stated that..." Data on the sources of information are summarized in the following table. Table 11: Stated sources of information in positive and negative letters Specific General No N Nature Of letter source source source Positive 13% 25% 62% 64 Negative 4% 75% 21% 7O 131 General Themes Positive Letters The one theme present in all of the 64 positive letters was, of course, approval of the Xerox project. This was the major theme in each of the 29 letters received before the John Birch publicity and in 13 of the 35 letters (37%) received after the publicity. The major theme in the post—Birch letters was "Don't give in." Twenty-two letters stressed this, or 63% of the post-Birch sample. Some writers were eloquent: "The vociferous reactionary forces simply cannot hope to have influence in their efforts to undermine the great support the UN enjoys among intel- ligent, decent, humane people the world over." Some were humorous: "So the Birchers don't even believe in freedom of speech, one of the bulwarks of that Constitution they claim Earl Warren wants to outlaw..." And many were painfully blunt: "I read that a bunch of nuts are trying to get you to cancel your UN programs. In the hope of countering such sentiment, I urge you..." There were four important sub-themes, each appear- ing in at least ten percent of the sample, with no apparent differences between the pre-Birch and the post— 132 Birch letters: (1) The UN is good: Nine writers (14%) took the occasion of writing to Xerox to sound off on the merits of the United Nations, sometimes at consider- able length: "The United Nations is our only hope in this troubled world..." Several writers took two or more pages to tell Xerox that the UN is, in- deed, worthwhile. (2) Xerox is good in other ideological ways: Seven writers (11%) congratulated Xerox for other of its activities in addition to the UN programs. Some seemed to feel that secondary congratulations were not reason enough for writing, but, as a teacher wrote, "As long as I have your ear, let me say what a good thing it is that Xerox devotes 1% of its profits to higher education." The reasons were varied. A Negro writer was aware that Xerox was one of the first companies to advertise itself as an equal opportunity employer. Several writers simply liked the kinds of programs that Xerox chose to sponsor, and one applauded the merit of a scientific symposium held at the Rochester Xerox plant. (3) Xerox equipment is good. Seven writers (11%) announced that they regularly used Xerox machines, 133 and were very pleased with them. (The only instance of the counterpart of the them in negative letters was a woman who mentioned that the Xerox 914 in her office had caught fire the previous week.) (4) What can we do to help? Six writers (10%) asked how they could help Xerox--possibly, some thought, by publicizing the programs just before they appeared, or by writing letters to the editor. One theme appearing in just three letters (5%) is worthy of mention. It is that of Xerox stock- holders who approve of the United Nations, but dis- approve of the company making so large an expenditure without submitting the plan to the stockholders first. On the other side of the coin, two stockholders wrote that they couldn't be more pleased with this use of their money. Negative Letters The major theme of virtually all the negative letters was, of course, objection to the proposed UN programs. There were, however, a couple of writers who made no mention of the Xerox Corporation or of the UN. These people apparently got their wires crossed and wrote instead protesting fluoridation, the Civil Rights Menace, and the income tax. 134 There were five important sub-themes, each appearing in at least ten percent of the sample: (1) Better things to do with the money: Nine persons (13%) suggested other things that Xerox might do with four million dollars, including "a campaign to support your local police," "a series of programs in praise of great and loyal Americans who are fighting Communism all over the world like J. Edgar HOover," and sponsorship of Rev. Carl McIntire's right wing radio program, the 20th Century Reformation Hour. Others suggested donations to the 4-H Clubs, the Boy Scouts, and the YMCA. (2) Boycott and threat: In spite of Robert Welch's warning that the boycott is un-American, eight persons (11%) either directly stated or strongly implied a boycott of Xerox products. Several others simply announced they had sold their stock in Xerox, and were encouraging their friends to do likewise. "Should your company persist in its weird inten- ' wrote one tion and actually promote these programs,‘ John Birch member in a long rambling letter, "please be informed that I shall do everything in my power to discourage and to dissuade anyone from buying your products." An executive of a small company erte "Please can- 135 cel our order for one No. 914 Xerox Copier Machine. Having read of your nonsensical (plan) we feel we do not want to assist you..." Several writers announced that they had been on the verge of leasing Xerox equipment, but now "we are going to use somebody else's electrostatic c0pier." (3) Xerox must have been duped: Seven writers (10%) seemed actually to believe that, in one way or another, Xerox had been duped into supporting the UN, either "by the Communists," or by "the infamous Paul Hoffman" who is "obviously in full control of the corporation," and who has "led President Wilson (of Xerox) unwittingly into a tragic mistake..." A member of the medical profession wrote that "we feel you have inadvertantly become involved... through perhaps the influence of some external agent... which does not have your best interests at heart." Most of those who believed Xerox had been duped also felt that as soon as they realized it, they would either cancel the programs: "We just know you will admit your mistake and take this action." Or: "Since it is probably too late to rectify your mistake, it is important to you, me, and all Americans that you admit to having been duped. This I am sure you will now do." 136 (4) Certainty that Xerox will see the light: Eighteen writers (26%) seem to believe that Xerox was sponsoring the UN programs simply because they had a false impression of the UN--that for some reason they didn't know how terrible it really was. So, as one woman wrote, "after reading some appropriate literature, I am 100% certain you will agree with me that the UN should not be glorified in any way..." A man lists "ten indisputable facts" about the UN (sample: "The UN killed thousands of innocent people in order to establish a Communist government in the Congo") and concludes, "After examining these facts, I am sure you will come to the same conclusion I did." "We are confident," a California couple writes, "that after you investigate the UN deeply, you will with- draw support." Eleven of these 18 writers suggest a reading of the John Birch book, The Fearful Master as the best means of learning the truth about the UN. In fact 54 of the 70 negative writers mention this book in one context or another. (5) Don't knock the free enterprise system: Seven writers (10%) equated support for the UN with condem- nation of the free enterprise system "under which your 137 corporation has flourished." "Don't you realize," a New York man writes, "that the goal of the United Nations is to create a one-world dictatorial socialist Communist government? Don't you realize Xerox could not continue under such a system?" In a similar vein, a California woman writes, "By what you are doing, you are turning over by de- fault the Free Enterprise System which has Made America and even your company great." By far, the chief justification for opposing the UN is its connection with "that convicted Commie spy"l Alger Hiss. Fifty of the 70 writers make some refer- ence to Hiss, or to the UN itself as "the house that Hiss built." Specific Themes Positive Letters A total of 42 themes were identified in the posi- tive letters: 26 positive and 16 negative. Unlike the negative letters, not a single specific person or country was mentioned in any positive letter. The specific themes can readily be divided into four cate- gories. Examples are given below, and the complete 1 This is incorrect. Hiss was convicted of perjury, not of spying or of having been a Communist. 138 list of themes appears in Appendix E. (1) Groups. The eight positive themes included the Xerox Corporation, the YMCA and the YMHA, and, of course, the United Nations itself, which was mentioned favorably in every one of the 63 positive letters. The seven negative themes included the John Birch So- ciety, the lunatic fringe, and "the Reactionaries." (2) Mass Media. ABC and NBC were mentioned favor- ably and CBS negatively. (CBS declined Xerox! offer to have two of the six UN programs on the CBS net- work, for reasons of policy against special programs originated outside of network supervision.) (3) Things. Positive themes included various specific pieces of Xerox equipment, the International Cooperation Year, and trade with Russia. Negative themes included organized pressure mail, and "most tee-vee commercials." (4) Ideas. The eight positive themes included international peace, free enterprise, thoughtful patriot- ism, and freedom of speech. There were no negative ideological themes. Negative Letters A total of 135 different themes were discovered in the 70 negative letters, 79 of them positive and 139 56 negative. A complete list appears in Appendix E. The themes are logically divisible into six different categories, as follows: (1) Individuals. The 15 positive themes include such persons as Nathan Hale, Patrick Henry, J. Edgar Hoover, Ayn Rand,'and Douglas MacArthur. The 15 nega- tive themes include Alger Hiss, Martin Luther King, Adlai Stevenson, and Nikita Khrushchev. Moise Tshombe was the only person mentioned both positively and negatively. (2) Groups of persons. The 28 positive themes include the DAR, the FBI, the John Birch Society, "your local police," and "white South Africans." The 18 negative themes include Communists, Socialists, Peace Corpsmen, and, of course, the United Nations itself, mentioned negatively in 67 of 70 letters. (3) Books and mass media. The eight positive themes includzAtlas Shrugged, the Dan Smoot Report, and the New York Ngyp. The four negative themes were "the boob tube," "daily newspapers," the New York Times, and the journal Political Affairs. (4) Things. Eight positive things were mentioned, including the American flag, the Declaration of Inde- pendence, and the Revolutionary War. Among the seven negative things were the UN Charter, the Soviet Con- 140 stitution, and the Korean War. (5) Ideas. The 18 positive ideas included "the American Way of Life," the Free Enterprise System, II "Christian principles, and patriotism. The eight " collectivism, negative ideas include "Commie treason, colonialism, and socialism. (6) Countries. Two countries were mentioned fav- orably: Katanga and the United States. Four countries were mentioned negatively: Russia, Cuba, Poland, and the United Arab Republic. The number of themes in each category for the positive and negative letters is summarized in the following table. Table 12: NUmber of positive and negative themes in positive and negative letters POSITIVE LETTERS NEGATIVE LETTERS Category + themes - themes + themes - themes People 0 (0%) O (0%) 15 (19%) 15 (27%) Groups 8 (31%) 7 (44%) 28 (35%) 18 (32%) Media 3 (11%) l (6%) 8 (10%) 4 (7%) Things 7 (27%) 8 (50%) 8(10%) 7 (13%) Ideas 8 (31%) 0 (0%) 18 (23%) 8 (14%) Countries 0 (0%) O (0%) 2 (3%) 4 (7%) 141 Misinformation Positive Letters The only examples of misinformation in positive letters were the cases of two well—intentioned writers who told how much they enjoyed the UN programs-—five months before the first one went on the air. Negative Letters Twenty-three of the negative letters (33%) con- tain definite errors of fact about the United Nations. These include only demonstrably incorrect assertions ("Did you know the United States pays 93% of the Oper- ating costs of UNICEF?") and not the dozens of unprov- able ones ("By secret agreement between Alger Hiss and Molotov, the head of the UN Police Force must always be a Communist") or the statements of dubious opinion ("The UN has not helped one single solitary person in more than twenty years..."). Many of the errors are elaborations on partial truths contained in John Birch literature. For in- stance, the Birch Society maintains that the UN constitution was based more on the Russian than on the American Constitution. This leads a New Jersey woman to write, "I'll bet you didn't even know that the UN Constitution is a word for word translation of the Communist Russian constitution!" 142 There are many non-UN—related errors that are definitely non-typographical. Of the 54 persons who recommend G. Edward Griffin's book, The Fearful Master, ten (18%) get either the author, the title, or the publisher wrong. A few confuse Griffin with John Stormer, author of another John Birch Society best seller, None Dare Call it Treason, and some confuse the title with J. Edgar Hoover's Masters of Deceit, which is also featured at John Birch Society bookstores. Two writers quoted Matthew Henry's "None so blind as those who will not see." One attributed the quo- tation to Shakespeare, the other to Dante. Eight writers (13%) spelled Xerox "Zerox," but this is not uncommon; according to one executive, the company receives several letters each year ad- dressed that way, occasionally inquiring about their anti-freeze. And finally, there were two writers who committed typing errors sufficiently delightful to be worthy of mention. A New York man wrote, "I write to you as an irate Xerox shockholder;" and a California lady wrote "We hate one of your machines in our office, but not for long." 143 Closings Positive Letters Every one of the 64 positive letters had a normal, straightforward closing: Sincerely, Very truly yours, Respectfully, or some variation of these. Negative Letters Forty-four of the 70 negative letters (63%) closed in a straightforward manner. Ten (14%) had no complimentary closing at all, and the remaining 16 (23%) were closed in ways that may be considered perhaps more typical of conservative writers: "For God and Country" (4 instances) "For God and America" (2) "Yours for a better America" (2) "Constitutionally yours" (2) "For God, Country, and Constitution" (1) "Yours for Christ and the U.S.A." (l) "Yours for a free America" (1) "Patriotically" (l) "Yours for Liberty" (1), and "Yours for GOD, COUNTRY, JESUS CHRIST, and THE AMERICAN WAY OF LIFE." (1) 144 Enclosures Positive Letters Seven positive writers (14%) enclosed printed material in addition to their letters. Four sent various United Nations material and leaflets, two enclosed some John Birch Society materials that had somehow come into their possession, two enclosed newspaper clippings about the John Birch protest, and one lady sent some religious material, including a United Nations Prayer for Peace. Negative Letters Sixteen writers (23%) enclosed printed material in addition to their letters. It is impossible to say how closely this corresponds to the entire array of negative writers, since Xerox apparently kept no tabulation of this information. Xerox did, however, reported receive a large amount of printed material, including several dozen copies of The Fearful Master. In the sample of 70, four persons enclosed the John Birch Society's UN Packet. Four persons sent reprints of speeches by Congressman James Utt, who introduces a bill each year calling for the U.S. to withdraw from the United Nations. Two persons enclosed copies of anti-UN editions of the Dan Smoot Report, and two others sent speeches by Major Arch Roberts, 145 an apparently independent anti-UN campaigner. One person each enclosed an anti-UN DAR booklet, a simi- lar booklet by Orval Watts, an anti-UN speech by Brinton Barron, and the transcript of an anti-UN Dean Manion Forum radio-television program. In addition to enclosures, there were frequent uses of rubber stamps and of stickers. Twenty-one letters (30%)made use of this technique. Eighteen different texts were noted, ranging from "Communism Killed Kennedy" and "Get US out" to "Repeal the Income Tax Before It Repeals You" and "Wishing You a Merry Christmas Before Earl Warren Out- laws That Too." The most-often-used device was the JBS-distributed "Get US out" sticker (7 instances), with a close second being a fluorescent orange sticker reading "I AM A RIGHT WING EXTREMIST" (6 instances). As indicated, discussion of the letters in relation to their individual authors--including the non—con- textual aspects of them--will be deferred until Chapter Seven. CHAPTER SIX THE INTERVIEWS Interviews were conducted with 70 persons who wrote negative letters to Xerox, 64 persons who wrote positive letters, and 57 persons who did not write to Xerox at all. Letter—writing subjects were contacted by one of the following four methods. (Those persons con- tacted in this way who did not write to Xerox have not been included in the sample.) (1) Contacting persons who had letters on the Xerox UN series published in newspapers and maga- zines during the time of the publicity surrounding the John Birch Society campaign; (2) Contacting persons recommended by the per- sons in category (1); (3) Contacting known or suspected members of the John Birch Society; (4) Contacting persons recommended by the per- sons in category (3). All four methods proved highly successful, albeit time consuming. The non-writers were chosen randomly from the Manhattan telephone directory; it simply was 146 147 not feasible to choose a random sample from Northern and Southern California as well. The positive writers and non-writers were approached in the same way: a straightforward per- sonal letter asking cooperation in a research project for a Ph.D. thesis, and requesting a maximum of 45 minutes time. A typical letter appears in Appendix A. Two hundred such letters were mailed to potential subjects in three geographical areas, and a return post card was enclosed. Within three weeks after the mailing, there was a 50% response. New York area addressees failing to respond were telephoned, and an additional 10% agreed to be interviewed, for a total acceptance of 60%. Securing interviews with negative letter-writers, of which nearly all were believed to be members or sympathizers of the John Birch Society, was a differ- ent sort of problem. There is much evidence of the difficulty of securing any valuable information from them during an interview. (19) It was decided that for the best chance of success, these persons should be approached in the guise of one of their own kind. To this end, a right-wing-type organization was fabricated and duly registered with the proper authori- ties of New York State: The Real Americans. 148 Letterheads were prepared with a post office box address in Mt.Kisco, New York. The credibility of the spurious organization may have been increased by the remarkable coincidence that the box number had only recently been relinquished by a genuine right— wing organization headquartered in Mt. Kisco. Addressees were invited to stand up and be counted--to speak out for America--to contribute time to the Real Americans Poll--to "take the R.A.P. for liberty." The John Birch viewpoint about the public and mental health menaces was implied, indicating that the'leftist" public opinion polls now operating obviously aren't tapping the beliefs of "real Ameri- cans" or else how could they show such overwhelming support for the United Nations and Medicare? Respondents were promised that the results of the Real American Poll would be made public, to Show how "real Americans really think." A sample letter is in Appendix B. 50% of the potential negative-letter-writers re- turned the pre-stamped post card, and an additional four percent agreed by telephone to "take the RAP," for a total acceptance of 54% of persons contacted. All the interviews were conducted during the months of November and early December 1965, the great 149 majority taking place in the respondents' homes; a few were held in the author's office, and a few in the respondents' offices. The interviews with positive writers and non- writers were conducted in a normal, straightforward manner. There is, however, good evidence (19) that extreme conservatives are wary of being interviewed, largely through fear of loss of anonymity. It was felt that something more than just verbal assurance was needed to convince many of these repondents that, in fact, anonymity was assured. To this end, a large wooden box was prepared to resemble a standard ballot box: hinged at the tOp, with a slot, and a big sturdy lock. A printed Sign on the box read "REAL AMERICAN POLL: Only key to this lock is kept at RAP headquarters." Most of the responses to questions on the interview were Xeroxed onto separate 3x5 cards which were handed to the respondent as questions were asked. The respondent marked the card and inserted it into the box. The deceit of this method is, it is felt, justi- fiable, since the results_gpg in fact anonymous-- a fact which would be difficult to bring home to these respondents except through such slightly histri- onic methodology. 150 The success of the method is demonstrated in that 97% of those respondents who admitted member- ship in the John Birch Society completed all items, compared to about 46% in the only other study that attempted to administer potentially threatening items (Rokeach and F-Scales) to Birchers. (19) The questionnaire, which is reproduced in Appendix C, was divided into five sections: Demographic, Communication Behavior, Affiliations, Protest Activity, and Standard Tests. Since demographic information was deemed the least threatening of all desired information, and since it provided a good introduction to the "ballot box" methodology, these questions were asked first. After the interviewer recorded the sex and race of the respondent, questions were asked yielding, in turn, age, marital status, last grade completed in school, occupation, church affiliation, total family income, and political preference. In order to get at many shadings of political belief, it was deemed necessary to ask more than party preference or recent voting behavior. A question was devised which, it is believed, elicited this informa- tion accurately and in a novel manner: 151 On this card are the names of some famous Americans who either were President or who might have been President of the United States. Will you put an X next to the name of the one man you believe either was or might have been the greatest President OT_the 20th century. The choices that followed, with their eventual coding, were: Douglas MacArthur (extreme conservative) Barry Goldwater (very conservative) Robert Taft (conservative) Dwight Eisenhower (conservative Republican) Richard Nixon (moderate Republican) Nelson Rockefeller (liberal Republican) Harry Truman (moderate Democrat) Lyndon Johnson (slightly liberal Democrat) John Kennedy (liberal Democrat) Franklin D. Roosevelt (liberal Democrat) Adlai Stevenson (very liberal Democrat). A space for write-ins was given, but only one subject wrote in a name: J. Edgar Hoover, one of the few publicly-accepted heroes of the John Birch Society. For communications behavior, questions were asked yielding number of radios and televisions owned, number of hours per day spent attending to each; percent of total listening and watching time accounted for by news and opinion programs; frequency of watch- 152 ing, listening to, and reading a wide array of con- servative, moderate and liberal radio and television programs, newspapers, columnists, and magazines; number of conservative books read; and total number of books read in the past month. Affiliations of the respondent were investigated quite thoroughly. Separate sets of questions deter- mined.whether or not the respondent was affiliated, and if so how actively, with organizations of these six types: (1) Fraternal (Elks, Moose, DAR, etc.) (2) Service (Rotary, Kiwanis, Citizens' Coun- cil, etc.) (3) Military (American Legion, VFW, etc.) (4) Political and Educational (Democratic club, ADA, John Birch Society, etc.) (5) HUman Rights (CORE, ACLU, ADL, NAACP, etc.) (6) Miscellaneous (UN Association, National Rifle Association, etc.). Protest activity was learned by asking the re- spondents if they had indulged in specific kinds of activities in the past year and, if so, how often. I These activities included picketing, boycotting, cir- culating petitions, writing letters to the editor, using the telephone to register protests or promul- 153 gate opinions, writing to the President of the United States or some other politician, and writing to large companies or corporations. If the respondent indicated any letter-writing behavior, either to editors, politicians, or companies, this area was probed. It was here that it was learned whether or not the respondent had written to Xerox, and, if so, the letter was inspected. Respondents who had written to Xerox were given a card listing the various reasons for writing listed on page 26, and were asked to check any that might be relevant to the situation of their writing. Per- sons who wrote letters but not to Xerox were asked whether those letters tended to be more of protest or of praise, and were given the appropriate list of reasons to check. Three different standard tests were administered to respondents at the close of the interview: the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the California F-Scale, and the Quick Test. Rokeach: For several reasons, a ten-item version of the Dogmatism Scale was used instead of the full test. The main consideration was time--not just the time of the interviewer, but the desire not to have the subjects--especially the John Birch members--faced 154 with the prospect of responding to four or five pages of potentially difficult and potentially threatening questions. The findings of the only investigator known to have administered the Rokeach Scale to known Birchers support this decision. (19) Only 21 of Broyles' 45 subjects were willing to complete his questionnaire, comprised almost entirely of Rokeach and F-Scale questions. The decision was in part justified by the find- ings of Troldahl and Powell (100) who reported correl- ations of .88 and .79 between a ten-item and a forty- item Rokeach Scale. They concluded that the lO-item version should probably be used "only if the researcher feels he needs only a gross index of dogmatism or is willing to use one for economic reasons." (100: 13) Whereas it cannot be denied that a more refined index would have been preferable, the economic and other factors decreed that the ten-item version be used. Troldahl and Powell found differing correlations between various individual items and the total 40-item score, depending on whether the scale was self-admin- istered or administered orally by the interviewer, as in the present study. Their suggestion that an inter- viewer who 155 intends to use personal interviewing and plans to use less than the 20 items recommended... may wish to pick items on the basis of the 'interviewing' correlation coefficients in- stead of the 'average' correlations (100: 8) was followed. Ten items were chosen on that basis: Rokeach items number 5, 6, 13, 26, 41, 48, 49, 51, 58, and 63, which may be found in the complete inter- view schedule in Appendix C. F-Scale: Identical arguments justify the use of a short form of the California pre-Fascism, or F-Scale. Brown's l2-item version of the F-Scale has been found to correlate from .74 to .90 with the full scale (18) and so it was utilized. Brown's items are F-Scale items number 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, l2, 13, 23, 27, 35, and 38. Quick Test: The Ammons Quick Test (6) is a brief test designed to provide a quick estimate of general intelligence. Each of the three equivalent forms of the test consists of a single plate contain- ing four line drawings, and a list of 50 words graded from "very easy" through "12th grade plus" to "hard." The test is given by presenting a word to the subject and asking him which of the four pictures is most closely associated with that word. The value of an intelligence score for subjects is obvious. The value of the Quick Test is threefold: 156 (1) It is, indeed, quick. A single form can be administered in less than three minutes. (2) It seems to be reliable and valid. Ogilvie (81) found highly significant correlations between Quick Test score and scores on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. The test manual (6) reports numerous studies correlating the Quick Test with other, more standard measures of intelligence, with reliabili- ties ranging from .66 to .95, and validity estimates of from .77 to .96 in correlations with Stanford- Binet and Wechsler tests. (3) It is not obviously an intelligence test. The authors are quite correct in describing it as "disarming." A single form of the test was used, yielding IQ estimates within the range of 40 to 135+. The final datum was the recording, by the inter- viewer, of his evaluation of the interview, on a five- point scale from "Unfriendly and uncooperative" to "Friendly and cooperative." Thus data were collected in five major areas: demographic, communication behavior, affiliations, protest behavior, and test results. Here are the findings. . . CHAPTER SEVEN RESULTS Rather than report results in separate sections for "Findings" and for "Interpretations," I prefer to integrate the two into a lengthier section of annotated findings, to be followed by a brief section of conclusions. Before looking at individual findings, some discussion of the non-statistical aspects of the data and, especially, their collection are in order. For the most part, and with certain notable exceptions, I thoroughly enjoyed collecting data from the 191 subjects. In general--and this was totally unexpected-—I found the members of the John Birch Society more cooperative, more friendly, more cordial, and, for the most part, more intelligently interested in the project than the positive letter— writers or the non-writers. Essentially, the Birchers were people with whom I could easily have become friendly as long as the discussion was restricted to non-controversial things like sports, weather, or music. Knowing how these people felt--and felt very strongly--about the United 157 158 Nations, civil rights, John F. Kennedy, and many other topics, was not unlike looking at a girl with a lovely face and knowing she had a terribly dis— figured body. The feeling is more of sorry or pity than of anger or disgust. Some of the Birchers were very blatant. One lady had a huge "Impeach Earl Warren/Join the John Birch Society" banner on the side of her house. Another said, as I walked in, "We're all members of the John Birch Society, you know." One man had a large fluorescent bumper sticker on his new Buick reading "I am a secret member of the John Birch So- ciety." Many of the Birchers, however, neither said nor displayed anything to show that they were members, although many of these dutifully indicated their mem- bership on the questionnaire. Some of these had John Birch books in the house, or copies of the Society's magazine in a magazine rack, but a good many gave no indication at all that they belonged. It is strongly believed, although of course it cannot be proven, that with one exception, most John Birch subjects answered most questions truthfully and sincerely. The exception was indeed notable. I was received cordially by a couple who, between 159 them, had written at least fifteen letters to Xerox, every one filled with quotes from John Birch Society literature--especially the not-publicly-available Bulletin. On the door of their house, in a fashion- able suburb, was a small anti—UN Sign which is sold only by the John Birch Society. The couple was friendly, although they had osten- sibly forgotten the appointment made only the day before. There were half a dozen cars outside the house, and a like number of other people inside. During the discussion before the interview, both husband and wife professed to be slightly liberal independents, and they both took every opportunity to criticize the John Birch Society and extremists in general. Both responded quickly and assuredly to all ques- tions, and for a while, they answered the way an inde- pendent might. But when asked to indicate which col- umnists they read, both indicated regular readership of Revilo P. Oliver, the Illinois professor who writes almost exclusively for John Birch publications, and whose vieWpoint is best illustrated by the fact that he believes John F. Kennedy was shot by his fellow Com- munists because he was not advancing the cause of Commu- 160 nism quickly enough in the U.S. (82) Since they had just indicated that they did not read any JBS publications, I made a remark about Oliver, hoping to extract further comment, and it came. The woman asked, with slight distress, which publications Oliver wrote for. I said I thought it was just Amppi- can Opinion. She said, "He must write for some others-—I just kppp I've read him somewhere..." I assured her that he probably did, and the interview proceeded. At one point the bedroom door was opened and then closed quickly, but inside I saw half a dozen people and what I knew to be John Birch Society posters and bumper stickers spread out on the bed, as if for appraisal or discussion. From time to time people came out and listened to the interview, and their unsolicited comments were very typically right wing. For instance, both inter- viewees claimed to watch the Huntley-Brinkley report often; at this time, the man standing by muttered, "Those Commies." At the conclusion of the interview, my subjects demanded to see, and copied down the numbers of, my driver's license and draft card. And, I learned after- wards from my wife, waiting in the car parked up the 161 block, that about five minutes after the husband had excused himself to make a phone call, a car drove up and a young man with a rifle went running into the house. What might have happened had I challenged any of their answers or become hostile in any way, I'd prefer not to think about. A number of positive letter-writers were hostile to me, although it is rather unlikely any of them had armed guards in the next room. The hostility mani- fested itself at the start of the interview in a few cases: "All right, kid, let's hear your questions—— but I can't guarantee I'm going to answer any of them." There were four such cases. Two of the inter- views were completed without incident. One--with a high-ranking member of a peace group--was terminated mid-way through the Rokeach Scale when the subject became verbally hostile. The fourth was terminated by the subject (a person involved in psychological re- search) who, about a third of the way through, folded his arms, leaned back, and said, "I don't think I'm going to answer any more of your questions." And he didn't. At the other end of the friendliness continuum, many of the negative letter-writers offered me hot choco- late or bourbon or lunch or dinner. They seemed to re- 162 gard the interview as more of an informal occasion. Although many of the interviews with positive writers were conducted in the subjects' homes, not once was any traditional gesture of hospitality made. For them, the interview was Clearly a formal occasion. At the conclusion of the negative-writer inter- views, I often had to plead another engagement (usually truthfully) in order to break away. A number of sub— jects suggested that I return to interview a husband or wife or neighbor at another time. Four wrote letters to this effect, too, after the interview. Very few of the positive-writer interviews took longer than forty minutes; most were completed in under half an hour. The negative-writer interviews took an average of from forty-five to fifty minutes. Among both positive and negative writers, interviews tended to be longer with older subjects. The one delightful exception to the above was a two-hour interview with a positive-writing young Rabbi to whom, after a cordial interview and a long conver— sation, the interviewer gave his car (an old, extra, unneded one). But because of, or in spite of, hostility and friendliness, bourbon and branch water and suspicion and, quite literally, snow, rain, heat, and gloom of 163 night, nearly two hundred interviews were completed. Here are the results. Data are available in six major areas, or classifications. They will be discussed separately, and then the various interrelations will be consid- ered. The six areas are: Demographic, Communication Behavior, Affiliations, Protest Behavior, Test Data, and Letter Writing Data. Demographic Sex The sample is almost evenly divided by sex in each of the three major categories (positive letter writer to Xerox, negative writer to Xerox, and non- writer to Xerox; henceforth abbreviated as +writers, -writers, and o-writers). Table 13 shows the distri— bution. Table 13: Distribution of sample by sex Male Female N -writers 52.61 47.3 70 +writers 48.4 51.6 64 o-writers 54.4 45.6 57 N 99 92 191 1 In this and all subsequent tables, the data are ex- pressed in percents unless noted to the contrary. 164 Unfortunately there is no way of knowing how these data, or any of the succeeding data, compare with the total sample of letters received by Xerox. There is nothing in the data either to support of deny a hypothesis that men write more opinion letters than women. Among the o—writers questioned, seven of the 26 females and nine of the 31 men had written at least one opinion letter in the last year. And there is no hint from the +writer or -writer sample whether or not the approximately even division by sex is-indicative of the general letter—writing population. Geographic Region Because of the more—or-less haphazard means of locating and contacting subjects, it was not possible to achieve a balance among the three geographic areas, New York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco. The geo— graphic distributon is as follows: Table 14: Distribution of sample by geographic region New York Los Angeles San Francisco N —writers 27.2 55.7 17.1 70 +writers 43.7 40.6 15.7 64 o-writers 100.0 0.0 0.0 57 N 104 65 22 191 165 As previously indicated, the o-writers sample was taken entirely in New York for reasons of economy. The high percentage of —writers from Los Angeles con- forms to common belief that the area is the site of much right—wing activity. Not a few of the subjects lived in the John Birch 'hotbeds' of Santa Ana, Orange, and surrounding communities. The San Francisco +writer sample was collected almost entirely within the city limits, while the —writer sample was found primarily in the smaller towns of the East Bay, Marin County, and the Peninsula. In regard to the lack of difference among the New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles samples, it may well be the case that a John Bircher is a John Bircher, wherever he may live-—and perhaps a UN advo- cate the same. Maybe Mississippi Birchers are more authoritarian or Missouri Birchers are more dogmatic, but for these three cities, there were no consistent differences among either +writers or -writers on the basis of where they live. Race Every -writer is Caucasian. The +writer sample of 64 includes four Negroes (7.8%) and one Oriental (1.6%). The o-writers included one Negro (1.8%) and 166 four Orientals (7.2%) among 57 subjects. There is no significant difference on the basis of race, be- tween the +writers and the —writers. (X2 = 2.17, df = 3, chi square = 7.82) With only 5% of the sample of a race other than Caucasian, and half of those non-letter-writers, it is not possible to draw any conclusions about the inter-relationship, if any, between race and letter- writing. It is not surprising to find the —writer sample entirely Caucasian. The John Birch Society is purported to have no more than half a dozen Negroes among its membership. Age Both -writers and +writers are somewhat older than the national average, while the O—writers are very close to that average (approximately 25 years old, according to a 1965 estimate by the Bureau of the Census). The age findings follow. Table 15: Distribution of the sample by age Age —writers +writers o-writers N 0—18 1.5 1.6 O 2 18-25 10.0 0 36.8 28 26—35 5.7 18.8 56.2 48 36-45 31.4 26.6 0 39 167 Taple 15, continued Age -writers /writers o-writers N 46-55 20.0 25.0 7.0 34 56-65 15.7 12.5 0 l9 65-over 15.7 15.5 0 21 N 70 64 57 191 /-: x2;5.874, p(.05) 7.82*, dr=3 -o: 12:9.807, p(.05) 7.82, df=3 ,zo: x2-13.1a, p(.05) 7.82, am There is no significant difference between the -writers and the /writers on thebasis of age. There,is, however, a significant difference between the [writers and the o-wri- ters (p .001) and between the -writers and the o-writers (p .01) on the basis of age. The mean age for both the /writers and the -writers falls within the 36-45 group; the / writers are older. Since both [writers and -writers were found to be significantly older than both the O-writers and the aver- age of the general population, Hypothesis 1 on page 17 is confirmed: Writers of opinion letters are older than the average of the general population. About 15% of the /writers and of the -writerszwere over 65 years old. All but one of the elderly -writers are male, and all but one of the elderly /writers (over 65) are female. This datum very possibly reflects the * This and succeeding probability statements must be con- strued only as descriptiVe statistics, because of the nature of the sampling. Thus results reported must be regarded more as hypotheses for further research than as definitive statements of differences between the population of positive and of negative letter writers. 168 membership ratios of the John Birch Society (largely male, many retired) and of the various ancillary UN organizations (many retired volunteer female workers). Marital Status The +writers and the -writers are very similar on the basis of marital status, while a somewhat higher percentage of the o-writers are married. Table 16: Distribution of the sample by marital status Status -writers +writers o-writers N Single 37.1 37.5 19.3 61 Married 54.3 62.5 80.7 124 Divorced l.h 0 O l Widowed 7.2 o o 5 N 70 64 57 191 +-: x2: 5.874, df=3, p .05 > 7.82 i: triage 22?: 5%:82 212:3}. There is no significant difference between the +writers and the -writers on the basis of marital status. The difference between +writers and o-writers is significant at less than the .05 level, and the difference between -writers and o-writers is signifi- cant at less than the .01 level. 169 Income The total family income for the +writers is well above the national average-ewell into the $8000- $l0,000 a year category. The -writer family income is very close to the national average--in the $6000- $8000 range--and the o-writer sample is slightly higher. Table 17: Distribution of the sample by income Income -writers +writers ‘ o-writers N 0-2000 11.4 0 0 8 2—4000 4.3 0 10.5 9 4-6000 11.5 14.1 19.3 28 6-8000 18.6 9.4 10.5 25 8—10,000 15.7 12.5 8.7 24 10—15,000 17.1 18.8 19.3 35 15—20,000 4.3 26.5 21.2 32 over 20,000 15.7 18.8 10.5 29 N 69 64 57 189 +-: X2=23.801, df=7, p .05 :>14.07 ;8: 3:2 53:82 :82; 0n the basis of income, there is a significant difference between +writers and -writers at less than the .01 level. The difference between -writers and o-writers is equally significant. There is no sig- 170 nificant difference between +writers and o-writers. The income level of +writers is well above the national average, but the -writers' level is very close to that average. Thus Hypothesis 2 on page 17 is confirmed for +writers only: Writers of opinion letters haveeihigher income than the average of the general population. The income of the o—writer sample is unusually high, even for Manhattan, with, pur- portedly, the highest wage scale in the world. Education ' 3 A remarkably high percentage of all subjects, particularly +writers, have college degrees. 31% of the -writers, 90% of the +writers, and 66% of the o-writers have at least a bachelor's degree. Par- ticularly remarkable is the fact that 78% of the +writers have an advanced degree: 64% at the masters level, and 14% at the doctoral level. Table 18: Distribution of sample by education Education -writers +writers o-writers N 0-3 grade 0 O 0 0 4—6 grade 2.8 0 0 2 7-9 grade 0 1.6 7.0 5 10-12 grade 32.9 0 3.5 25 1 yr college 7.1 3.1 10.5 13 171 Table 18, continued Education -writers +writers o-writers N 2 yr college 10.0 4.7 8.8 15 3 yr college 15.7 0 3.5 13 college de- gree 18'6 1205 56.1 53 MA degree 8.6 64.1 1.8 48 Ph.D/M.D. 4.3 14.0 8.8 17 +-: Kg: 70.012, df=8, p .05 >15.51 -0: x2: 41.493, df=8, p .05 715.51 +0: X = 61.740, df=7, p .05 :714.07 All the -writer doctoral-level subjects were medical doctors, while most of the +writer doctoral- level subjects held Ph.D.‘s. Although the information was not recorded at the time, it was the case that many of the MA-level subjects held law and architect- ure degrees. It is interesting, if only a bit distressing, to note that each of the two subjects (both -writers) with less than a sixth grade education, each had an income in excess of $20,000 a year. On the basis of education, there is a highly sig— nificant difference (<;.0001) between the +writers and the -writers, and between the o-writers and the -writers. There is also a significant difference (<:.001) be- tween o-writers and +writers. 172 The +writers are better-educated than the o—wri- ters, the o—writers better-educated than the -writers, and all three groups are substantially better-educated than the national adult average (about 10th grade, according to a National Education Association source). Thus Hypothesis 3, page 17 is confirmed: Writers of opinion letters are better—educated than the general population. The unusually high number of +writers with advanced degrees is a difficult finding to explain. If the sample is representative of the entire universe of +writers to Xerox, it may reflect a particular interest on the part of lawyers in the activities of the John Birch Society. If, however, this finding is peculiar to the sample, it may indicate a greater re- ceptivity of highly-educated people to the nature of the request for an interview. Religion About one fourth of the —writers are Catholic, and another fourth are members of more conservative Christian religions (Mormons, Baptists, Missionary Alliances, etc.). Unitarianism-Universalism is the dominant religion among the +writers, accounting for 28% of the sample. Another fifty belong to the less- 173 conservative Christian churches (Methodists, Epis- copals. Presbyterians, etc.). Roughly one third of each group belongs to no church at all. Table 19: Distribution of the sample by religion Affiliation -writers +writers o-writers N Catholic 25.7 3.1 24.6 34 Jewish 7.1 14.1 0 l4 Less-conserv. Christian 11.4 21.8 35.1 42 More-conserv. Christian '22.9 0 0 l6 Unitarian 0 28.1 0 l8 Philosophical 0 3.1 O 2 Non-church- 32.9 29.8 40.3 65 member N 70 64 57 191 2 +-: X2=51.795, df=6, p .05 ;>l2.59 -o: X2=25.580, df=4, p .05 7 9.59 +0: X =39.l66, df=5, p .05 :711.07 Two additional categories listed on the interview questionnaire--"other Christian" and "non-Christian religion"—had no takers. The complete absence of Jews in the o—writer sample is unusual, inasmuch as New York has the largest Jewish population in the world. A number of subjects, however, in this and other cate— gories reported Jewish heritage, but, since they were 174 in no way affiliated with any synagogue or Jewish organization, they were recorded as a non-church member. The 26% of -writers who are Roman Catholic correspond closely to various estimates of the Catho- licity of the John Birch Society. More than three— fourths of those -writers who do attend church prefer conservatism in their religion as well as their poli— tics—-and for the remainder, it i§_possible to find some very conservative Methodist, Presbyterian, and even Jewish congregations. The large number of Unitarians (28%) among the +writers was anticipated. Unitarian-Universalism is perhaps the largest denomination that has appeal al- most exclusively for non-conservatives, and that en- courages its members to become involved with political and philosophical issues. Occupation A small plurality of the -writers and a large majority of the +writers hold professional positions. The second largest group for both-~and the largest for the o-writers--is that of managerial or supervisorial positions. Housewives are represented by roughly one sixth of each of the three groups. 175 Table 20: Distribution of the sample by occupation Category -writers +writers o-writers N Professional 22.9 62.5 1.8 57 Military 2.8 1.6 0 3 Managers 17.1 17.2 31.6 41 Sales 1.4 0 0 l Craftsmen 14.3 0 17.5 20 Service 12.9 0 28.1 25 Laborers 1.4 1.6 0 2 Housewives 12.9 15.5 19.3 30 Voluntarily 14.3 1.6 1.7 unemployed N 70 64 57 191 +-: x§=37.886, df=8, p§.05 715.51 -0: x =26.910, df=8, p .05 715.51 +0: x2=66.653, df=7, p .05 714.07 No subjects are involuntarily unemployed. Several of the voluntarily unemployed subjects are students, but most are retired. The service employees are pri- marily secretaries, with a scattering of policemen, fire- man, and one sheriff. 0n the basis of occupation, there is a significant difference between the +writers and the -writers, be- tween the +writers and the o—writers, and between the -writers and the o-writers, all at less than the .001 176 level. These differences correspond closely to differ— ences in income, and, as indicated, may reflect the non-randomness of the sample. Political Affiliation Two-thirds of the -writers believe that General MacArthur would have been the greatest president of the twentieth century. The remaining ~writers, with only two exceptions, selected either Barry Goldwater or Robert Taft. Every one of the +writers selected a Democrat as the greatest or potentially greatest president. The votes were fairly equally divided among Roosevelt, Kennedy, and Adlai Stevenson. Only one subject chose Lyndon Johnson. Only one write—in vote was case, al- though during the interview a number of -writers asked why Senator Joseph McCarthy was not on the list. Table 21: Distribution of the sample by political affiliation Person -writers +writers o-writers N MacArthur 64.3 0 O 45 Goldwater 20.0 0 10.5 20 Taft 12.9 0 O 9 Nixon 2.9 O O 2 177 Table 21, continued Person -writers +writers o—writers N Johnson 0 1.6 36.8 18 Roosevelt O 30.0 0 9 Kennedy 0 30.9 16.5 15 Stevenson O 37.5 25.6 63 N 70 40 51 161 +-: Xg=110.000, df=5, p§.05 >11.07 -o: X =103.775, df=5, p .05 711.07 +0: x = 26.815, df=2, p .05 7 5.99 On the basis of political choice, there is a highly significant difference (<;.OOOl) between the +writers and the -writers. There is a like differ- ence between the -writers and the o-writers, and a difference significant at less than the .001 level between the +writers and o-writers. The fact that 97% of the -writers believe that either MacArthur, Goldwater, or Taft would have been the greatest president of the 20th century amply demon- strates the political conservatism of the sample. Thus Hypothesis 4 on page 17 is confirmed for the -writers only: Writers of opinion letters are more conservative, politically, than the average of the general population. The +writers tend, if anything, to be politically more liberal than the general popula- 178 tion, with more than two-thirds selecting either Roosevelt or Stevenson. Communication Behavior Radio and Television Ownership Positive writers own more radios and fewer tele- visions than do -writers. The average +writer owns 2.7 radios and 1.1 televisions, compared to 2.3 radios and 1.4 televisions for —writers. Non—writers own slightly fewer radios (2.2) and televisions (1.0) than either class of writer. Table 22: Ownership of radios and televisions -writers +writers o-writers N O radios O O O O 1 radio 22.9 0 28.1 32 2 radios 24.2 29.7 24.6 50 3 or more 52.9 70.3 47.3 109 N 70 64 57 161 is; $18223: 3:3: 5(282) $238 +o x =20.923, df=2, p .05 75.99 0 TV'S 2.9 14.1 10.5 17 1 TV 60.0 57.8 73.7 121 2 TV's .- 27.1 28.1 15.8 46 3 TV's or 10.0 0 0 7 179 Table 22, continued +-; x2=11.553, df=3, p .05 77.82 -0: x =11.360, df=3, p .05 77.82 +0: x2: 3.523, df=2, p -05 75-99 On the basis of radio and television ownership, there are significant differences between +writers and v—writers (<‘.001 for radios, .01 for televisions). The +writers own significantly more radios than the o-writers (<;.Ol); there is no significant difference in regard to television ownership. The -writers own significantly more televisions than the o-writers (<;.05); there is no significant difference in regard to radios. Hours Spent With Radio and Television Both +writers and -writers spend an average of roughly two hours a day listening to radio and watching television. This is significantly less (<:.Ol) than the three hours spend by the o-writers. There is no significant difference in total hours spent by the +writers and by the -writers. Thus Hypothesis 6, on page 18, is rejected: Opinion-letter-writers spend more time with radio and television than non-letter- writers. 180 News and Opinion Programs The amount of total listening and watching time devoted to news and opinion programs is substantially higher in +writers than either in -writers or o-writers. Table 23: Proportion of total radio and television time spent with news and opinion programs Proportion -writers +writers o-writers N none 4.2 O O 3 very small 17.1 0 O 12 small part 22.9 15.6 17.5 36 moderate 27.1 14.1 37.5 44 fairly large 14.2 37.5 38.6 56 very large 14.5 32.8 15.8 40 N 70 64 57 191 +-: x2=29.414, df=5, p .05 7711.07 .22: $38228: 3:155:82 rig; The difference between +writers and -writers is significant at less than the .001 level. The differ- ences between -writers and o-writers, and between +wri- ters and o-writers are each significant at less than the .01 level. Thus Hypothesis 7, page 18, is confirmed for +writers only: Of total listening and watching time, opinion-letter-writers spend proportionally more 181 watching and listening to news and opinion programs. Conservative Programs Nearly four-fifths of +writers never watch or listen to any of the conservatively-oriented news and opinion programs, while a small sub-set watch or listen regularly. A third of the -writers rarely or never watch or listen to those conservative programs listed on the questionnaire, although many of these volunteered names of other, apparently similar, pro- grams which they did watch or listen to regularly. Table 24: Listening to or watching conservative programs How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 20.0 79.9 89.4 116 Rarely 11.4 10.9 8.8 20 Sometimes 17.1 0 O 12 Fairly often 21.4 0 O 15 Often 30.1 9.4 1.8 28 N p 70 64 57 191 +-: X2=56.3O6, df=4, p .05 '7 9.49 -o: x2=66.300, df=4, p§.05 ‘7 9.49 +0: X = 3.512, df=2, P ~05 7'5.99 There are certain geographical differences which reflect only the availability of certain programs in certain areas, and not regional preferences. On the basis of listening to and watching con- 182 servative news and opinion programs, there is a highly significant difference between +writers and -writers, and between o-writers and -writers (both .0001). There is no significant difference between +writers and o-writers. Non-Conservative Programs A non-conservative program is not necessarily the same as a liberal program. There are, in fact, no widely-broadcast liberal equivalents of such conserva- tive opinion programs as Lifeline, the Dan Smoot Re- port, or the Dean Manion Forum. Two—thirds of the-writers rarely or never watch or listen to non-conservative news and opinion programs, while half the +writers watch such programs often. The o-writers fall mid-way between. Table 25: Listening to or watching non-conservative news and opinion programs How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 35.7 7.8 7.0 34 Rarely 28.6 17.2 10.5 37 Sometimes 22.9 28.1 56.1 66 Fairly often 11.4 21.9 17.6 32 Often 1.4 25.0 8.8 22 N 70 64 57 191 183 Table 25, continued -o: X2=29.951, df=4, p .05 +-: X2=30.728, df=4, p .05 +0: x2=11.564, df=4, p .05 Many more -writers watch and listen to non-con- servative programs than +writers watch and listen to conservative programs. However, were these data adjusted by the proportion of time conservative pro- grams are available to each subject, it is predicted that the new finding would be just the opposite. In other words, whereas there is no widely~syndicated liberal news or opinion program, virtually all news and opinion programming is non-conservative. A John Bircher may believe Walter Cronkite to be a Communist, but if he wants the news at 6 o'clock, he has few if any alternatives. Newspaper Readership, The -writers tend to read the more conservative newspapers and the +writers tend to read the less—con- servative newspapers. Complete data on newspaper reader- ship appear in Appendix F. In New York City, 81% of the +writers and 19% of the -writers read the 21222 often. The very conserva- tive News is read often by 21% of -writers but only 184 2% of +writers. In these, as in most cases, the o-wri- ters fall somewhere between. 43% of the +writers read the liberal Post often, while 97% of the -writers never read the Post at all. The slightly-liberal Telegram and the slightly-con— servative Journal-American are read often by almost none of the sample in any category. The Telegram is read sometimes by 80% of +writers, but is never read at all by 92% of the ~writers. The middle-of—the-road Herald Tribune is primarily the paper of the o-writers. 63% of them read it often, compared to 39% of +writers and 19% of -writers. There are significant differences between +wri— ters and —writers on the basis of readership of the Times, the Herald Tribune, the Post, the Telegram, and the N333. All significances are at less than the .001 level. The +writers prefer the first four papers, and the -writers the EEEEJ In Los Angeles, slightly more +writers than -wri- ters prefer the slightly-conservative 23222: although readership is very heavy in both camps. 81.4% of -wri- ters and 95% of +writers read the Times either some- times or often. No o-writers were interviewed in the Los Angeles area. The Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, more conserva- 185 tive than the Times, is read often by 65.7% of the -writers; none of the +writers read it regularly. In San Francisco, nearly everybody reads the Chronicle. Nearly two-thirds of both +writers and -writers read it often. The more-conservative Exgm— ing£_is read often by nearly half the -writers. None of the +writers read the Examiner often, and 92% of them do not read it at all. The most conservative daily in the San Francisco area, the Oakland Tribune, is read often by 44% of —writers and not at all by the remaining 56%. This very likely reflects geographical distinctions more than ideological, since the Tribune is not widely available outside of Oakland and vicinity. Only 8% of the +writers read the Tribune at all. There are significant differences between +writers and -writers on the basis of readership of the Examiner (9.49 -o: x2=11.967, df=3, p .05 77.82 +0: x =44.459, df=4, p .05 79.49 Rep: +-: x2=57.579, df=4, p .05 29.49 -o: x2=46.327, df=4, p .05 >9.49 +0: X = 1.504, df=2, p .05 7'5.99 Cons: +-: x2=14.293, df=3, p .05 >7.82 -o: x§=13.814, df=4, p .05 7 9.42 +0: x = 1.132, df=l, p .05 7 3.8 The differences between +writers and -writers on the basis of political organization membership is significant at less than the .0001 level for Demo- cratic and Republican Clubs, and at less than the .01 level for Conservative clubs. 84.3% of the -writers acknowledged membership in the John Birch Society. One o-writer also claimed to be a member. More than half the JBS members rated themselves as very active in the Society. A fourth were quite active, an eighth slightly active, and an eighth inactive. 196 Rights Organizations No -writer belonged to any human rights organi- zation: SANE, NAACP, ACLU, or any other. 37% of the +writers belonged to the American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League, and other such non—Negro-oriented rights groups. Nearly all such members were inactive. Most of these organizations confer membership on persons making an annual contribution, and that was the case with these subjects. One fourth of the +writers belonged to essentially Negro-oriented rights groups, largely on the same basis. Such groups include the NAACP, CORE, and the Mississippi Freedom Committee. Because of the very high percentages of inactive members, these findings would seem to tend to show more that +writers are likely to make contributions to groups whose aims they approve of, than that they are likely to be active in such groups. Two -writer subjects claimed to be members of the United Nations Association. No other -writer listed any affiliation with any UN-related group. 47% of the +writers were members of the United Na- tions Association of the USA. Of these, half rated themselves very active; less than a quarter are in- 197 active. 19% of the +writers are active with UNESCO and 39% with UNICEF. Neither organization accepts mem- bers in the sense that the UN Association does, but persons may become affiliated in regard to certain projects, such as selling UNICEF greeting cards. No o-writer belonged to any UN organization. National Rifle Association The only organization not fitting into any of the previous six categories, on which data were collected, is the National Rifle Association. Nearly a quarter of the -writers are affiliated with the NRA, although half of these arecinactive. Only one +writer was a member. Only in membership in the John Birch Society, the various UN-affiliated groups, and the human rights groups, were there substantial differences between +writers and —writers. There were also differences in regard to membership in the American Legion and the National Rifle Association. As with other activities, the -writers tend to choose and belong to the more conservatively-oriented organizations and the +writers the less conservative ones 0 198 Protest Behavior Picketing Less than a tenth of the -writers, among all subjects, are very frequent picketers. However, sig- nificantly more +writers than -writers engage in picket- ing, although not as frequently. The term "picketing" includes other similar behaviors such as protest marches and vigils, even though signs might not be carried. Table 32: Picketing behavior How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 78.6 59.4 88.7 139 Rarely 10.0 40.6 8.8 38 Sometimes 2.9 O 1.8 Fairly often 7.1 O 1.7 Often 1.4 O 0 1 N 70 64 59 ’ 191 +-: x§=21.822, df=4, p§.05 79.49 -0: x = 4.807, df=4, p .05 79.49 +0: x =20.652, df=3, p .05 77.82 On the basis of picketing behavior, there is a significant difference between +writers and -writers at less than the .001 level. There is a similar dif- . ference between +writers and o-writers, but no sig— 199 nificant difference between -writers and o-writers. Boycotting Boycotting, or consciously avoiding purchase or use of certain products or services, is the most common form of protest for the sample as a whole. Three-fourths of all subjects had engaged in some form of boycott during the previous year. In determin- ing the frequency of boycotting, repeated instances of a specific boycott were not included. For instance, if a housewife is boycotting Polish hams, that is one instance, even though she conscientiously avoids them on 52 shopping trips a year. The -writers are very much more likely to use the boycott, and use it often, than are the +writers. And the +writers boycott much more often than the o-writers. Table 33: Boycotting behavior How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 15.7 25.0 42.2 51 Rarely 17.1 15.6 26.3 37 Sometimes 24.3 48.5 10.5 54 Fairly often 11.4 3.1 17.5 20 Often 31.5 7.8 3.5 29 N 70 64 57 191 200 Table 33, continued +-: X2219.265, df:4, p .05 779.49 -o: x2=26.256, df=4, p .05 779.49 +0: x2=25.792, df=4, p .05 ;;9. 9 Petitioning The petition is a very common form of protest activity among the right wing. During the course of the interviewing, a dozen or more subjects offered me one or more petitions to Sign, ranging in topic from Impeach Earl Warren to Defluoridate the Water. As might be expected, the -writers carry peti- tions significantly more often than do the +writers, and the +writers significantly more than the o-writers. Table 34: Petition—carrying behavior How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 17.1 34.4 71.9 75 Rarely 34.3 29.7 10.5 49 Sometimes 28.6 14.0 0 29 Fairly often 8.6 21.9 7.0 24 Often 11.8 0 10.6 14 -o: x§=46.510, df=4, p .05 +-: x2=18.664, df=4, p .05 +0: x =32.750, df=4, p .05 > 9.49 79.49 79.49 The relatively large number of petition carriers 201 among the o-writer sample may be part of what seems, to the casual observer, a wave of petitions in Man— hattan. What with newly-fluoridated water, the black- out, the newspaper and transit strikes, the pending revision of the state divorce law, and a new higher sales tax, many persons seem to have been moved to protest by carrying petitions. Letters to the Editor Virtually all of the -writers, three-fourths of the +writers, and a third of the o—writers had written at least one letter to the editor in the past year. Again, the -writers were much more active, with nearly a third writing ten or more letters. The -writers wrote significantly more often than the +writers, and the +writers wrote significantly more often than the o-writers. Table 35: Letter-to—the-editor-writing behavior HCw often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 1.4 25.0 63.1 53 Rarely 18.6 14.0 19.3 33 Sometimes 34.3 18.8 8.8 41 Fairly often 14.3 34.4 0 32 Often 31.4 7.8 8.8 32 N 70 64 57 191 202 Table 35, continued +-: X2=3209643 df=4, P '05 7 9'79 -o: x2=65.785, df=4, p .05 79.49 +0: X2=32.478, df=4, p .05 79.49 Telephone Protests Two-thirds of the +writers and four-fifths oflihe -writers use the telephone to express their opinions and to register protests. There is little use of the telephone for such purposes among the o-writers, with the exception of a fairly large sub—set who are pri— marily involved in election activities. These sub- jects use the telephone to attempt to influence vot- ing behavior. Table 36: Telephone protest behavior How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 21.4 32.8 77.2 80 Rarely 20.0 40.6 7.0 44 Sometimes 31.4 9.4 O 28 Fairly often 14.3 34.4 0 l5 Often 12.9 9.4 15.8 24 N 70 64 57 191 +-: X2=15.772, df=4, p .05 79.49 -0: X§=5l.014, df=4, p§.05 79.49 +0: X =35.586, df=4, p .05 379.49 203 Letters to Politicians All of the ~writers, nearly all the +writers, and two-thirds of the o—writers had written a letter or sent a telegram to a politician during the past year. These seemed pretty well divided between the President and the writers' own representatives. A smattering of letters were sent to senators and congressmen from other states and districts. A great majority of those o-writers who wrote a letter to a politician mentioned that such a let- ter, written because of actions related to the war in Viet Nam, was their first and only such letter. Table 37: Letter—to-politicians-writing behavior How often -writers +writers o-writers N Never 0 7.8 38.6 27 Rarely 7.8 23.4 43.9 46 Sometimes 17.1 34.4 8.8 39 Fairly often 30.0 25.0 0 37 Often 44.3 9.4 8.7 42 N 70 64 57 191 :2: 12:32:25; Si; 5(182 3913 +0: x2=39.726, df=4, p .05 79.49 204 Letters to Companies All but 7% of the -writers and 2% of the +writers wrote to at least one company during the previous year. (Those persons claiming not to have written may well be telling the truth, Since most letters to Xerox were written at least 15 months before the interviewing was done.) The +writers tend to write slightly less often than the -writers, but more of them write. Although specific data were not collected on the point, probing here revealed that whereas most of the +writers' and -writers' letters were on matters of company policy or activity, the o-writers tended either to complain about or praise company products. Thus while a +writer might be protesting General Electric's involvement in price-fixing scandals, the o-writer might be writing because he is displeased with his new electric can- opener. Table 38: Letters to companies How often —writers +writers o-writers N Never 7.1 1.6 35.1 26 Rarely 14.3 42.2 43.8 62 Sometimes 44.3 31.2 19.3 62 Fairly often 22.9 25.0 0 32 Often 11.4 0 1.8 9 205 Table 38, continued +-: Xg=20.623, df=4, p .05 79.49 -0: X =45.543, df=4, p .05 79.49 +0: X2=36.598, df=4, p .05 79.49 For each of the seven modes of protest behavior, the letter—writers differ significantly from the non- writers, and, among the letter-writers, the +writers differ significantly from the -writers. Virtually all of the subjects, + and -, who wrote to Xerox also wrote to at least one politician during the last year, and more than three-fourths wrote letters to the editor as well. Thus Hypothesis 5, page 17 is confirmed: Writers of opinion—letters to one receiver also write opinion- letters to other receivers. The hypothesis might have been expanded to in- clude other forms of protest behavior as well, for a majority of the persons who wrote to Xerox also were involved in at least one instance of boycotting, pe- tition-carrying, and telephone protesting during the previous year. The least popular form or protest, picketing, is the only one practiced by more +writers than -writers. Picketing has fairly strong left-wing connotations nowadays, which may help to explain why nearly 80% 206 of the —writers never picket. In every protest mode except picketing, the -writers perform more often than the +writers. This is very likely attributable to the almost constant barrage of requests to protest received by members of the John Birch Society. In the monthly Bulletin, the monthly magazine, additional mailings, and local chapter activities, the main activity is always to make ones own opinion known and to protest the opin- ions of those who disagree. Test Data Three different more-or-less standard tests were administered to most subjects: the Rokeach Dogmatism Scale, the California F—Scale, and the Quick Test. All subjects completed the F-Scale, all but one the Rokeach Scale, and about 80% the Quick Test. Those 20% who did not take the Quick Test were primarily eliminated for reasons of time and efficiency, as in a group situation, where time or available space did not permit testing of one person to the exclusion of all the rest. 207 Rokeach Scale The -writers were significantly different from the +writers on the basis of each of the ten dogma- tism scale questions. In nine of the ten cases, the -writers were more dogmatic than the +writers. The mean score for -writers for the ten ques- tions is 3.03, for +writers 1.54, and for o-writers 1.86. (O is the least dogmatic, 6 is the most.) In the following table, statements are identified by Rokeach Scale item number only. These numbers are identified in Appendix H, and the full items appear in the interview schedule, Appendix C. Table 39: Rokeach scale data 1151793774) Item -writers +writers o-writers 49 3.21 3.11 2.62 .01 .001 none 48 3.33 1.31 0.77 .001 .0001 .01 63 3.57 1.59 1.48 .001 .001 .02 5 0.80 2.90 3.84 .001 .001 .05 26 2.47 2.19 2.81 .01 .001 .001 51 3.90 1.38 0.88 .001 .001 .01 13 3.19 1.41 1.40 .001 .001 none 41 4.80 0.98 1.67 .0001 .0001 .05 58 1.91 0.75 1.21 .001 .001 .01 6 3.16 0.79 1.88 .001 .001 .001 MEAN 3.03 1.54 1.86 .001 .001 .01 208 It is hardly a surprise to find John Birch Society members more dogmatic than UN supporters. The one Rokeach question which the -writers answered in a strongly non—dogmatic direction is easily accounted for. That statement is "The most perfect form of gov- ernment is a democracy..." The slogan of the John Birch Society is, "This is a republic, not a democracy. Let's keep it that way." So, regardless of the nature of the statement, no self-respecting Bircher could possibly agree with a statement that in any way was favorable to the concept of 'democracy.‘ On pages 36 and 37, a series of hypotheses was developed comparing "persons who write...because they are asked to" and "persons who write...unsolicitedly." One of these comparisons was in regard to dogmatism. It seems justifiable to equate the "asked to write"category with the -writer sample. From analysis of the letters, virtually all such persons wrote because of John Birch Society encouragement. So, despite the fact that only 20% of the —writers acknowledged that they had been asked to write, it seems reasonable to assume that virtually all of them had been. On this basis, Hypothesis 2, page 37 is confirmed: Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be more dogmatic than persons who write opinion- 209 letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. It is suspected that non-letter-writing members of the John Birch Society may be even more dogmatic than those who wrote. It is possible that it requires a certain amount of open—mindedness to develop the assumption that someone is actually going to read and possibly act on ones letter. The 85% of the John Birchers who didn't write to Xerox, despite frequent and urgent pleas to do so, may simply have assumed that there was no possibility that anyone who supported the UN could or would possibly understand the "real truth." F-Scale The -writers are highly significantly different from the +writers on the basis of each of the 12 F- Scale itemS--at less than the .0001 level in nine cases, as well as on the mean score. In the case of each item, the —writers are more authoritarian than the +writers. The +writers are, in general, signifi- cantly less authoritarian than the o-writers, as well. The mean score for -writers for the l2-item scale is 4.09, for the +writers 1.54, and for the o-writers 2.17. (O is the least authoritarian, 6 the most.) Table 40: F—Scale data Item -writers +writers o—writers ignifiggnces+o> 1 4.09 1.45 2.37 .0001 .001 .001 2 4.31 2.19 3.68 .0001 .001 .001 4 5.24 2.53 2.98 .0001 .0001 none 6 4.70 1.81 3.62 .0001 .001 .001 8 3.74 0.80 0.81 .001 .001 none 9 2.26 1.05 1.33 .001 .001 .001 12 4.71 2.47 2.27 .0001 .001 .001 13 5.07 1.30 2.86 ..0001 .001 .001 23 3.54 1.22 2.44 .0001 .001 .001 27 3.91 1.30 2.05 .0001 .001 .001 35 2.54 1.06 2.05 .001 .001 .001 38 5.07 1.06 1.84 .0001 .0001 .001 MEAN 4.09 1.54 2.17 .0001 .0001 .001 The -writers are more authoritarian than they are dogmatic, if such a comparison may be made. On every one of the F—Scale statements, the average -writers took the authoritarian position, and the ex- tent of agreement was, on the average, more than a whole category higher than the agreement with the dogmatic viewpoint. On those four F-Scale questions used in the present study and in the only other known research 211 involving administration of the F—Scale to John Birch Society members (19) there is almost complete agreement. On the basis of the justification presented on page 208, Hypothesis 3 on page 37 is confirmed: Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be more authoritarian than persons who write opinion-letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. Quick Test In its shortest form, which was used exclusively, the Quick Test has an IQ range of zero to 135. The mean IQ for +writers is 119, for —writers 112, and for o-writers 116. On the basis of intelligence, there is a Significant difference ((1.01) between +writers and —writers. The range of IQ's for +writers is 108 to 135, of -writers 88 to 135, and of o-writers 95 to 135. Table 41: Quick Test data (IQ scores) IQ range -writers +writers o-writers N 87 to 93 8.2 O O 94 to 100 13.5 0 5.3 8 101 to 107 10.8 0 14.0 12 212 Table 41, continued IQ range -writers +writers o-writers N 108 to 114 13.5 40.5 35.1 44 115 to 121 37.8 29.8 12.3 35 122 to 128 0 8.4 1.8 5 129 to 135 16.2 21.3 31.5 34 Mean 112.2 118.9 116.2 S.D. 12 9 12 :3: E3831: 3:2: 5%:82 38:28 +0: x2=16.637, df=5, p .05 3711.07 The percents for -writers are adjusted to exclude the 20% of the total -writer sample who did not take the test for reasons previously stated. On the basis of these findings, Hypothesis 1, page 36, is confirmed: Persons who write letters because they are asked to are likely to be less in- telligent than persons who write opinion-letters unsolicitedly, or than the general population. (Norms for the Quick Test are not sufficiently extensive to be able to state with certainty that the norm for the adult population is 100. It is entirely possible that -writer scores are significantly higher than those of the general population, even though they are lower than the scores of the o-writers.) 213 Letter Writing Data Reasons for Writing The +writers and -writers were asked which of nine reasons for writing were relevant to their own particular writings. Each subject was permitted to check as many reasons as he wished; most checked two or three. The most common reasons for both +writers and -writers were "See the light" and "Self interest." (These categories are explained on page 26.) There were highly significant differences between +writers and -writers on the basis of only two reasons: "Right a wrong" and "See the light." Table 1%h Reasons for writing Reason for Relevant Relevant Level of writing for for 2 signifi- letter +writers -writers X cance See the light 61.4 68.8 0.607 - — - Self interest 75.7 79.7 0.304 _ _ _ Right a wrong 62.8 20.3 25.603 .0001 Asked to write 20.0 25.0 0.481 - - - Enjoy writing 4.3 O 2.806 - — - Had to write 14.3 9.4 0.767 _ _ _ Public duty 74.3 28.1 28.553 .0001 Self esteem 2.9 O 1.827 - - - Therapeutic 5.7 4.7 0,071 - - - 2 (for all X : df=l, p(.O5))3.84) 214 The four reasons that are least given are those that might necessarily involve some embarrassment in their confession. Still further, to acknowledge that any of these reasons were relevant ("asked to write" "self esteem" etc.) would be to denegrate the importance of the letter itself. If there were a "Public duty" factor, then "right a wrong" would very likely be in that factor. Since these are the two reasons given frequently by +writers and rarely by -writers, it seems reasonable that this is the factor describing the "Don't give in to the Birchers" attitude prevelant in many letters. Several persons wrote additional reasons they had for writing on the questionnaire, but in all cases they were just specific instances of one of the more general reasons offered. Positive or Negative Letters Persons who wrote positive letters to Xerox and persons who wrote negative letters to Xerox both tend, in general, to write more negative letters than posi- tive. Many, of course, claimed to write positively and negatively in equal amounts. 215 Table 4B: Tendency to write positive or negative letters -writers +writers N Write mostly + 2.3 17.8 17 Write mostly — 30.6 35.0 66 Half +, half - 67.1 47.2 46 N 70 59 129 +-: x2=29.993, df=3: p(o05)77o82 This finding supports Herzog's belief (52) that many more negative opinion letters are written than positive. This makes sense, in that most persons rarely give a second thought to most routine activi- ties until something happens, and that something is very often negative. One might eat and enjoy a thousand cans of Campbell's Tomato Soup without ever considering writing a letter of praise to Campbell's. But one finds a thumbtack in one can of soup, and the typewriter begins humming. This concludes the interview results. The re- maining data are those related to the letters written by the interview subjects. Length of Letter to Xerox The negative letters averaged nearly twice as long as the positive letters. The positive letters 216 range in length from eight words ("You may count us among your friends. Sincerely") to 300 words. The average length is 87 words, with a standard deviation of 63 words. The negative letters range from three words ("Cancel those programs!") to 495 words. The average length is 160 words, with a standard deviation of 109 words. On the basis of length of letter, the difference between +writers and -writers is significant at less than the .001 level. (x2=23.002, df=l, p(.05)73.84.) The message being conveyed by the —writers was, in general, much more complex than that of the +wri- ters. One can say "Don't give in to the Birchers" in a relatively Short space. But when the goal of the letter is to demonstrate that the United Nations is a failure, a menace, and a Communist plot, more words are needed. Robert Welch sets an example of writing long letters. When his "sample" letters are carried in the Society's Bulletin, they often run to three or more printed pages. In fact, Welch's 300-page book The Politician is simply a bound version of a few of his letters to friends and members. 217 Appearance of Letter to Xerox Of the negative letters, 46% were typed on a plain (no letterhead) sheet of paper. 28% of the positive letters were in this form, and another 27% were dictated and typed on a company or organization letterhead. Less than a fourth of the negative letters and more than half the positive letters were handwritten; the remainder were typed. Only a few of the negative letters, and none of the positive letters, were written in pencil. Table 44: Appearance of letter to Xerox Dictated, typed, company let- terhead Typed, company letterhead Written, company letterhead Typed, personal letterhead Written, personal " , pen Written, personal " , pencil Typed, no letterhead Written, no letterhead, pen Written, no letterhead, pencil Unknown, not available N -letters 2.9 8.6 0 7.1 4.3 2.9 LL50? 10.0 8.6 9-9 70 +-: x2=27.042, df=8, p(.05)715.51 +1etters 26.6 10.9 3.1 14.1 4.7 0 28.1 12.5 0 O 64 N 19 l3 14 50 15 134 218 On the basis of appearance, the difference be- tween the positive letters and the negative letters is significant at less than the .001 level. Again, there is no way of knowing how represen- tative of the entire population of letters to Xerox the sample may be. These nine categories cannot, of course, com- pletely describe the appearance of a letter. Some of the letters in the "Typed, company letterhead" category were single.space with practically no margins, much underlining and double-underlining, long passages fully or partly capitalized—-in other words, very messy-looking and difficult to read. And some of the "Written, no letterhead, pen" letters were models of good form and neatness. Content, Positive Letters All the positive letters can be cast into one of seven basic content formats, as indicated in Table 43. Table 45: Content formats of positive letters Content pattern % using As a private citizen, I approve. 39.1 As a private citizen, I approve. Don't give 31.2 in to the Birchers. As a stockholder, I approve. 6.2 219 Table 45, continued Content pattern % using As a stockholder, I approve. Don't give in 1.6 to the Birchers. AS a stockholder, I approve, but resent not 4.8 having been asked in advance. AS a member of (Special Interest Group, e.g. 14.0 UN Association), I approve. As a member of (Special Interest Group), I ap- 3.1 prove. Don't give in to the Birchers. N264 A number of persons wrote on special interest group letterheads, but emphasized that they were writing as private citizens. Content, Negative Letters Many of the negative letters either quoted and or paraphrased the anti-UN anti—Xerox material appearing in various John Birch Society literature. Table 44 lists the various permutations of John Birch writing, John Birch paraphrasing, and the wri- ter's own words. Table 46: Content formats of negative letters Content pattern ‘ % using All JBS wording 4.3 JBS wording + JBS paraphrasing 18.6 JBS wording, JBS paraphrasing, + original 10.0 JBS wording + original wording 8.6 220 Table 46, continued Content pattern % using JBS paraphrasing 8.6 JBS paraphrasing + original wording 15.7 All original wording 10.0 All original wording with JBS disclaimer 4.3 ("I'm not a member, but...") N:70 Number of Positive Themes The positive letters had nearly twice as many positive themes as the negative letters (3.42 to 1.87) Table 47. Number of positive themes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N -letters 12.9 32.9 14.3 14.3 10.0 2.9 1.4 1.4 63 +1etters 1.6 7.8 17.2 39.1 31.1 7.8 7.8 1.6 64 N 10 28 21 35 12 11 6 3 127 +-: x2=33.23o, df=8, p(.05) 15-51 The difference between positive and negative letters on the basis of number of positive themes, significant at the .001 level. Number of Negative Themes is The negative lettershad more than four times as many negative themes as the positive letters (3.38 to 221 0.75). The difference is significant at less than the .001 level. More than half the positive letters had no negative themes at all. Table 48; Number of negative themes 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 N -letters 2.9 8.6 15.7 21.4 18.6 4.3 10.0 4.3 60 +1etters 56.3 20.3 15.6 7.8 0 0 0 0 64 N 38 19 21 20 13 3 7 3 124 +-: X2=63.985, df=7, p(.05) 14.07 The number of themes is, of course, partly related to the length of the letter. The -letters averaged one more theme per letter than the +1etters (5.25 to 4.17), a difference which is significant at the .05 level. The +1etters were primarily positive in nature, with the only negative theme often being the one about the John Birch Society. But the overall feel- ing of the +1etters was a positive one--support for the UN, Xerox, and world peace. The —letters, on the other hand, were very nega- tive in overall feeling. They were almost always against things, and the rare positive theme was, more often than not, praise for someone else who was against things, too. 222 Grammar and Spelling The grammar and spelling in each letter was rated independently by three judges, whose agreement was almost total. The levels were quite high in both +1etters and -letters, with the +1etters being somewhat higher. The mean for +1etters was at the "very good" level, and for the -1etters at the "good" level. Table 49: Grammar and spelling Rating -letters +1etters N Excellent 21.4 45.3 44 Very good 18.6 32.8 34 Good 14.3 11.0 17 Fair 12.8 3.1 11 Poor 11.4 ' 7.8 13 Very poor 11.4 0 8 Unknown 9.9 O 7 N 70 64 134 +-: x2=20.007, df=5, p(.05) 711.07 On the basis of grammar, the difference between +1etters and -letters is significant at less than the .001 level. The same arguments that apply to the appearance of the letter apply here. There is no way of knowing 223 how accurately these findings represent the entire sample of 75,000 letters. Abstractness The Gillie Scale of abstractness-concreteness was found to be difficult and cumbersome to use. Gillie's methodology was simplified, so that a one- digit rather than a three-digit score was obtained. The time needed to process a letter was reduced from more than five minutes to less than two. The -1etters were slightly more abstract than the +1etters, but the difference was likely to have occurred by chance. (X2=7.l62, df=8, p(.05)‘7l5.5l). The mean for both groups was very close to the mid- point of the scale. It certainly appeared to the judges, on the basis of their connotative interpretations of abstractness and concreteness, that the -1etters were more abstract. Thus the absence of a significant difference may be due more to the deficiencies of the Gillie Scale or its abridgement than to the actual lack of such a difference. Other Hypotheses Two of the hypotheses proposed on page 37 were not tested. 224 Hypothesis 5: Persons who write because they are asked...have a high feeling of credibility for the group that asked them to write. There was neither time nor place in the interview format to investigate this possibility formally. It is still strongly sus- pected, however, that allegiance to the John Birch Society by its members is very likely higher than for most other organizations. The suspicion is based in part on observation, in part on the previously-dis- cussed prevalent feeling of "it's us against the rest of the world" among members, and in part on the high degree of dogmatism among members. Hypothesis 6: Persons who write because they are asked are likely to be less-well-informed on the topic of the letter than persons who write un- solicitedly. The possibility of giving a small UN quiz to subjects was considered and rejected. The frequent use of misinformation in —letters is dis- cussed elsewhere. To add to this, there is only the very strong impression of the interviewer that -wri- ters knew a lot of facts about the UN, but only those facts which tended to support their opinions. For instance, during the interviews it was dis- covered that many Birchers know that the presiding official of the UN Security Force has, for the last 225 fifteen years, always come from a Communist country. Some can recite all their names. But few, if any, seem aware that UNESCO has any function other than publishing Russian, Yugoslavian, and Polish text- books and distributing them in the other countries of the world. Inter—Relations of Various Areas With roughly 150 separate measurements for each subject, it is reasonable to suspect that there may be inter-relations among them. It is questionable how valuable, and, in fact, how meaningful some of these might be. If, for instance, it was the case that among +writers, readership of James Reston co-varied with length of letter, any interpretation of what this means would be far-fetched indeed. Readership of Reader's Digest and length of letter might not be so far—fetched. Since it is the basic differences and similari- ties among +writers, -writers, and o-writers that are of primary concern in this work, and since it would tax the budget, time limit, and peace of mind of the author to consider lengthy factor analyses and analy- ses of variance, the investigation of second-order 226 relationships will be rehgated to the category of "suggestions for further research." (To clarify, first-order differences are taken to be those differences between +writers and -writers in regard to some measured variable--length of letter, answer to item 3 on F—Scale, etc. Second-order dif- ferences are those between +writers and -writers on the basis of a difference in significant differences between two gthg; variables. For instance, consider correlations between edu- cational level and length of letter. If a positive correlation were found for +writers and a negative correlation for -writers, then this would be a second- order difference.) As an indication of at least a few of the many kinds of things that might be done with the existing data, a few examples are offered. Education and the Letter It seemed reasonable to expect a positive correla- tion between the educational level of the writer and a measure of competency in handling the language, grammar, and spelling in the letter to Xerox. How- ever, no significant relationship was found. The only significant relationships between educational 227 level and some aspect of the letter itself were the two following: (1) Between educational level and appearance of letter, for —writers only; a positive correlation, significant at the .05 level; and (2) Between educational level and whether or not an enclosure was included with the letter, for + writers only; significant at the .005 level. One might speculate that there is a certain level of educational attainment which is crucial for good letter-writing Skills. Since the general educational level of -writers was Significantly less than +writers, it is possible that more of them were close to this level, wherever it might be, at which letter—writing improves, and so a relationship is seen. And, since most of the +writers have passed that educational level, it doesn't matter whether they completed two years of college or ten, they are able to write correctly. In regard to enclosures, it is necessary to re- call that most of the -writers are members of the John Birch Society. The Society makes available, and encourages the use of, dozens of different enclosures, so it is reasonable that their usage should not be related to educational level. 228 The negative correlation for the +writers may be indicative of a situation where the better—edu- cated one is, the less one needs to bolster ones let- ter with other writers' printed materials. The exis- tence of such a phenomenon would, of course, require further investigation. Rokeach Scale and Protest Behavior Rokeach has not encouraged the use of individual items from his scale as separate factors in the analysis of data. Nevertheless, one such datum is interesting enough to warrant some attention. The +writers and the —writers were considered separately for possible relationships among answers on the Rokeach Scale and protest behavior (picketing, writing letters to the editor, etc.). Out of seventy possible co—relationships (10 R0- keach items, 7 protest behaviors), in only two cases is there a very great difference between the +writers and the -writers. These are in the relationship of the RCkeach statement "Most people don't give a damn H for others, with petition carrying and with telephone protesting. In both cases, there is a significant positive correlation for the -writers and a signific- cant negative correlation for the +writers. 229 Interestingly, telephone protesting and petition- carrying are the only two of the seven protest modes that involve contact with another person. The others (letter-writing, boycotting, etc.) can be done alone. So the -writers who agree that most people don't give a damn nevertheless go out to meet them and try to affect their opinions, while the +writers who feel that way restrict their protest activity to the less gregarious modes. F-Scale and Protest Behavior There were no significant differences between +writers and -writers on the basis of inter-relation- ship of protest behavior and over-all Rokeach score. There is one such difference in regard to F-Scale score and protest behavior. Among +writers, there is significant positive correlation between authoritarianism and picketing activity; among -writers, there is a significant nega~ tive correlation. None of the other Six protest behav- iors have any consistent relationship with authori- tarianism. It is possible, here, that an authoritarian +writer might be likely to picket as a means of ex- pressing his opinion, in that picketing is the only 230 very public protest mode among the seven. This in- volves a connotation of "authoritarian" as being very militant in supporting beliefs. A similar connotation applied to the -writers may account for the negative correlation. "Picketing is, in the mid—1960's, a typically left—wing pro- test behavior. As such, it is an activity that the militant -writers might well choose to avoid. CONCLUSION There are few surprises. Generally the -writers behaved like conservatives in all measurements, the +writers like non-conservatives, and the o-writers often were in the middle. There are two major findings that had not been anticipated. The first deals with the apparent ab- sence of a letter-writing mode of personality; the second with the general reactions and behaviors of + and - subjects. Several hypotheses were formulated with the expectation that there would be certain differences between persons who wrote letters and persons who didn't, regardless of whether the writers write posi- tive or negative letters to Xerox. This may well have been the case, but such find- ings are pretty well obscured by the more powerful differences between John Birch Society members and United Nations sympathizers. The only clear evidence of a writer-non-writer distinction was in regard to other forms of protest activity. Letter—writers, regardless of whether + or -, tended to boycott, to carry petitions, to protest on the telephone, and to picket more than non-writers. 231 232 Too, there were many instances where both +wri- ters and -writers differed Significantly from o-wrie ters (Rokeach scores, F-Scale, IQ, magazines read, etc.), but in all these cases, the +writers differed significantly from the -writers as well. A most revealing piece of further research would be interviews with non-letter-writing members of the John Birch Society and, perhaps, with United Nations supporters as well. Such research would be necessary before being able to say with any assurance how much of any differences are writer—non—writer and how much is conservative-non-conservative. A larger and/or perhaps a more carefully balanced sample of non-writers would have been more useful in the analysis of results. Many of the questions in the interview had never been asked before, and it is unfortunate that the norm, with which +writers and —writers are compared, should contain no Jews, no pro- fessional men, 66% with at least one college degree, and other clearly non-representative-of-the-general- public features. The second unexpected finding is the essentially non-quantitative one that -writers were generally nicer than +writers. From the logistics of making (and keeping) the interview appointment to the interea 233 in learning the results of the study, the -writers were, in general, more cooperative, friendlier, more interesting, and more interested. The +writers were simply helping with an academic research project, while the -writers were interacting with what they believed to be another right-thinker. It would seem that once an outsider has been accepted as a fellow "true believer," most, if not all, xeno- phobic barriers are lowered. (The acceptance process involves almost a ritual exchange of John Birch Society magic words-—anything, for instance, involving apotheosis of Revilo P. Oliver ("Quite possibly the world's greatest living scholar" --Robert Welch), or the denegration of Earl Warren ("The most infamous villain in the history of mankind" -—Revilo P. Oliver).) Most of the findings were not unexpected. We have learned, to some extent, who the letter-writers are. They are older, wealthier, and substantially better- educated than the average citizen. They tend to belong more to political organizations than to social, fraternal, or civic ones. They are exposed to a wide variety of opinion sources, and are likely to get the facts on which they base their Opinions (or the opin— ions on which they base their facts!) from the daily 234 newspaper, magazines, and other people. Books, radio, and television seem to be less likely sources, but further inquiry is needed to be sure. We have learned, also, why they write letters. Virtually all writers, whether writing unsolicitedly or not, believe their letters will have some effect. Many writers write in their own interest-—about issues that affect them personally--and they generally believe that if only the receiver of the letter understands the truth of the Situation, he will come to agree with the writer and do what it is the writer wishes done. And we have learned, finally, about the wide range of possible reactions and responses to these opinion letters: How, with knowledge of the receivers' attitudes toward the scope of the idea being written about, and his commitment to it, along with the Size and quality of the mail, it may be possible to predict accurately just how the receiver will respond. There is, of course, much more to be learned, and suggestions for further research have been made. But, all in all, a substantial amount more is known now than was known before about the communication phenomenon of people who write in. 235 REFERENCES 10. 11. 12. 13. "Bras, girdles get review," Advertising Age, July 25, 1960, 31, 30, lff. "TV viewers wising up," Advertising Age, August 10, 1964, 35, 32, 20. "Real thing," Advertising Age, July 12, 1965, 36, 28, lff. Allport, Gordon W. The use of personal docu- ments in psychological science. Bulletin 49. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1942. "Activators needed," America, September 7, 1963, 109, 228. Ammons, R. B. and Ammons, C. H. "The quick test: a provisional manual," Psychological Reports, 1962, 11, 111—161. Anderson, Dwight. "Write your congressman immediately," Public Opinion Quarterly, 19393 3, 147-154- Associated Press dispatch, August 20, 1965. B., C. "Mightier than the sword," Blackwood's Magazine, April 1958, 283, 295-303. Bachman, John W. The church in the world of radio-tv. New York: Association Press, 1960. Bakal, Carl. "The traffic in guns," Harper's Magazine, November 1964, 62-68. Baldwin, Jack 0. "Attack on the press," in Lowenstein, Ralph L. (ed.), The People's Choice. University of Missouri School of Journalism, Freedom of Information Center Publication #74, March 1962. Barrett, Edward W. Speech printed in New York Times, September 16, 1963, 23. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 236 Binder, Hans. "Bas anonyme briefschreiben" (Anonymous letter-writing), Schweizer Ar- chiven Neurologischer Psychiatrie, 1948, 61, 41—134. Bogart, Leo. "Fan mail for the Philharmonic," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1949, 13, 423—434. Bogdonoff, M. D., Klein, R. F., Estes, E. H. Jr., Shaw, D. M. and Back, K. W. "The modi- fying effect of conforming behavior upon lipid responses accompanying CNS arousal," Clinical Research, 1961, 9, l35ff. Brown, Nona. "Long Distance Lobby: the senatorial mail," New York Times, September 25, 1944, 6, 3. Brown, William M. A Short form of the California F-Scale. New York: Bureau of Applied Social Research of Columbia University, mimeo- graphed, 1962. Broyles, J. Allen. The John Birch Society as a movement of social protest of the radical right. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Boston University, 1963. Broyles, J. Allen. The John Birch Society. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965. Broyles, J. Allen. Personal communications, September and October, 1965. Buckley, William F. "Why don't we complain," Esquire, January 1961, 55, 47-48. "What's good for U.N. is ood for Xerox," Business Week, April 1 , 1964, 80-82. Campbell, A., Converse, P. E., Miller, W. E., and Stokes, D. E. The American Voter. New York: Wiley, 1960. Cantril, Hadley and Strunk, Mildred (eds.). Public Opinion 1935-1946. Princeton: (Princeton University Press, 1951. Christian Century. April 1, 1964, 440. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 237 Converse, P. E., Clausen, A. A. and Miller, W. E. "Electoral myth and reality: the 1964 election," American Political Science Review June 1965, 59, 2, 321-336. Cousins, Norman. Editorial, Saturday Review of Literature, September 27, 1958, 41, 24. Cousins, Norman. Comment on letter to the edi- tor, Saturday Review of Literature, October 25, 1958, 41, 23. Cuno, John M. "What can we do," Christian Sci- ence Monitor, February 6, 1965, 6. Crutchfield, R. S. The measurement of individ- ual conformity to group opinion among officer personnel. Berkeley: Bulletin, Institute for Personality Assessment and Research, 1954. Crutchfield, R. S. Conformity and creative thinking. Paper, Symposium on Creative Think- ing, University of Colorado, 1958. Crutchfield, R. S. The effect on individual conformity of authoritative confirmation or repudiation of group consensus. Paper, Eastern Psychological Association, Atlantic City, N.J., 1959. Davis, Ellen. "Don't write your congressman, unless..." Harper's Magazine, June 1961, l2ff. DeKeyserling, Victor. Interview, New York City, September 22, 1965. Dexter, Lewis A. "What do congressmen hear: the mail," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20, 16—27. Duyker, H. J. C. "De Brief: enkele voorlopige notites" (The Letter: some preliminary re- marks), Nederlanden Tijschreibe Psychologie 1955, 10, 446-471. Farlie, Henry. "An anatomy of hysteria," The Spectator, November 8. 1957, 199, 600-601. 39- 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 238 Festinger, L., Schachter, S. and Back, K. "Social pressure in informal groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1951,746, 9-24. Fisher, 8., Williams, S. L., and Lubin, A. "Personal predictors of susceptibility to social influence," American Psychiatrist, 1957, 12, 360ff. Forsythe, Sydney A. "An exploratory study of letters to the editor and their contributors," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1950, 14, 143-44. Gill, Wayne S. The effect of group influence upon attitude change in normal and schizo- phrenic individuals. *Ph.D. dissertation, University of Texas, 1962. Gillette, Guy. Congressional Record, January 5, 1950, 77. Gillie, Paul J. "A simplified formula for measuring abstraction in writing," Journal of Applied Psychology, 1957, 41, 4, 214-217. Gillock, J. B. Letter to the editor, TV Guide, May 9, 1964, A-3. Gleek, L. E. "Ninety-six congressmen make up their minds," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1940, 4, 3-24. Goldstein, Jacob and Toch, Hans. "An analysis of a sample of eccentric mail to the United Nations,‘ American Imago, 1956, 13, 149—187. Hare, R. D. "Relationship of level of abstrac- tion to intelligence and academic performance,’ Psychological Reports, 1964, 14, 60l-602. Harris, Miller and Gossage, Howard. Dear Miss Afflerbach, or the postman hardly ever rings llé342 times. New York: The Macmillan Co., 19 2. Harvey, J. B. Type of influence, magnitude of discrepancy, and degree of dogmatism as deter- minants of conformity behavior. Ph.D. dis- sertation, University of Texas, 1963. I 51. 52. 53. 54. 55- 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 239 Herzog, Herta. "Listener mail to the Voice of America,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 1953, 16, 607—611. Herzog, Herta. Personal communication, October 8, 1965. Hinsie, L. E. "Determinants of adequate psycho- therapy in a public mental hospital,‘ Psychiatric Quarterly, 1935, 2, 212-231. Hochbaum, G. "The relationship between group members' self confidence and their reactions to group pressures to uniformity," Ameri— can Sociological Review, 1954, 19, 678—87. Hoffer, Eric. The true believer: thoughts on the nature of mass movements. New York: Harper Bros., 1951. Javits, Jacob. "Congress wants to hear from you," American Magazine, June 1952, 102. Joffee, Boris M. "The post card--a tool of propaganda' Public Opinion Quarterly, 1947, 11, 613— 614. Kefauver, Estes and Levin, Jack. A Twentieth- Century Congress. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce, 1951. Kennedy, John F. "Foreign policy is the people' 8 business," New York Times, August8 , 196 6, 32. Kinoshita, T. "The effects of group cohesive- ness and importance of the tasks upon conform- ity behavior," Japanese Journal of Psycho- logy, 1964, 34, 181-198. Krech, D., Crutchfield, R. S., and Ballachey, E. L. Individual in Society. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1962. Leonard, W. E. The Locomotive God. New York: Century, 1927. Let Freedom Ring, Berkeley, August 15, 1965. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 240 Little, Shelby. George Washington. New York: Winton, Balch & Co., 1929. Lowenstein, Ralph L. (ed.). The People's Choice. University of Missouri School of Journalism, Freedom of Information Center Publication #74, March 1962. Lowenstein, Ralph L. (ed.). Assault on the Press. Freedom of Information Center Publi- cation #l45, University of Missouri School of Journalism, 1964. Lowry, Cynthia. "TV censor's job," New York Post, Marlowe, August 22, 1961, 70. D. and Crowne, D. P. "Social desira- bility and response to perceived situational demands, 1961, Martinez, H Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 109-115. C. E. and Suchman E. A. "Letters from America and the 1948 elections in Italy," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1950, 14, 111-125. McCloskey, H. "Conservatism and personality," American Political Science Review, 1958, 42, 27—45. Milbrath, tion process,’ Lester W. "Lobbying as a communica- ' in Lerbinger, Otto and Sulli- van, Albert. Information, Influence, and Communication. New York: Basic Books, 1965. Milici, Pompeo. "Graphocatharsis in schizophrenia,’ Psychiatric Quarterly, 1937, 11, 44-73. Mitford, Jessica. "The disease that Dr. Kildare couldn't cure," McCalls, September 1965, lO2ff. Murphy, William. Personal interview, September 30, 1965. Nadler, E. B. "Yielding, authoritarianism, and authoritarian ideology regarding groups," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959: 58, 408-410. I 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 87. 88. 89. 90. 241 New York Herald Tribune, December 7-10, 1952, l. New York Times, July 6, 1924, 7, 7. New York Times, March 3, 1935, 5, l2. New York Times, April 10, 1948, 3. Nicolaysen, E. A. A new psychological method for resolving mental conflicts. Salt Lake City: Library of the University of Utah (unpublished manuscript), 1941. Ogilvie, Robert D. "Correlations between the quick test and the Wechsler adult intelli- gence scale as used in a clinical setting," Psychological Reports, 1965, 16, 497-498. Oliver, Revilo P. "Marxmanship in Dallas," American Opinion, February 1964, l7ff. Orme, Frank. "The save Captain Kangaroo cam- paign," Better Television and Radio, Spring 1965, lff. Otten, Alan L. ”Letterwriters mostly on right," Wall Street Journal, August 5, 1965, 12. Overstreet, Harry and Overstreet, Bonaro. The strange tactics of extremism. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1964. Patterson, W. A. Letter to the editor, Saturday Review of Literature, December 6, 1958, 41, 31. Randall, Henry. The life of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 3. New York: Derby & Jackson, 1858. Raven, Bertram H. "Social influence on opinion and the communication of related content," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1959, 58, 1, 119—128. Sayre, Jeanette. "Progress in radio fan mail analysis," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1939, 3, 272—278. Shaw, C. R. The jack—roller: a delinquent boy's own story. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 242 Steinitz, Hans. "The underdog versus one- party press?" in Lowenstein, Ralph L. (ed.), Freedom of Information Center Publication #145, University of Missouri School of Journalism, October 1964. Stevens, Paul M. Editorial, The Beam (Inter- national Magazine of Religious Radio and TV), August 1963, lff. Strickland, Bonnie R. and Crowne, Douglas P. "Conformity under conditions of simulated group pressure as a function of the need for social approval," Journal of Social Psych- ology, 1962, 58, 171-181. Sullivan, Ed. Speech to Southern Industrial Editors Institute. Athens, Georgia, privately printed, October 30, 1958. Sussmann, Leila A. "FDR and the White House maié,’ Public Opinion Quarterly, 1956, 20, 5'1 0 Sussmann, Leila A. Voices of the People; a study of political mass mail. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Columbia University, 1957. Sussmann, Leila A. "Mass political letter writing in America: the growth of an insti- tution," Public Opinion Quarterly, 1959, 23, 203—212. Tarrant, W. D. "Who writes letters to the edi- tor,l Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1957, 34, 501—502. Toch, Hans H., Deutsch, Steven E., and Wilkins, Donald M. "The wrath of the bigot " Journa- lism Quarterly, Spring 1960, 173-185. Troldahl, Verling C. and Powell, Fredric A. ‘A short-form dogmatism scale for use in field studies. East Lansing: mimeographed, Depart— ment of Communication, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1965. TullyZL Grace. FDR--My Boss. New York: Scribners, 19 9. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 243 "New-Style lobbying tactics," U.S. News and World Report, August 29, 1947, 23, 15. Wang, Charles K. A. Reactions in Communist China: an analysis of letters to newspaper editors. U. S. Air Force Personnel and Training Research Center Technical Reports, 2955, No. 33, Air Research and Development Command, Lackland Air Force Base, San An- tonio, Texas. Watkins, John G. "Poison pen therapy," American Journal of Psychotherapy, 1949, 3, 410—418. Watkins, John G. Personal communication, September 28, 1965. Welch, Robert. The blue book of the John Birch Society. Belmont, Mass.: The JOhn Birch Society, 1960. Welch, Robert. "If you want it straight," American Opinion, December 1964, 2. Whitman, James R. "Responsiveness to social pressure in schizophrenia," Psychological Reports, 1961, 8, 238ff. Wilson, Joseph. Xerox corporation press re- lease, April 9, 1964. Wyant, Rowena, and Herzog, Herta. "Voting via the senate mailbag," Public Opinion Quart- erly, 1941, 5, 590—624. Young, H. D. The household encyclopaedia of business and social forms. Washington: J. R. Jones, 1891. APPENDIX A: CONTACT LETTER FOR POSITIVE SUBJECTS FROM: John A. Klempner Long Ridge Road Bedford Village, New York 10506 To: Mr. Specimen Signature Street Address City, State, Zip code Re: A request for a few minutes of your time... Immediate permissable response: "If he wants to ask a favor, the least he could do is write a personal letter." Answer to above: The budget for my Ph.D. disserta- tion is very small. Typing 2OO personal letters is expensive. Here, in brief, is the project, why I think it will interest you, and why I am writing to you in par- ticular. I'm afraid the more I tell you about the project in advance, the more it may affect my results. I am measuring some very interesting differences among different kinds of people--differences that have never before been measured. (As soon as the inter- view is over, I will be happy to tell you everything.) I have reason to believe you are different from the general population in at least this certain respect. Like all research done with the approval of Michigan State University (where the Department of Communica- tion is even more respected, in some circles, than the football team), absolute privacy is guaranteed. All findings are reported in group totals, and indi- vidual results are destroyed as soon as the group totals are made. I can't promise remuneration, honor, glory, or green stamps--only, perhaps, a little satisfaction; and, of course, I'll send you a copy of the findings when I'm done. If you'll return the attached postal, I shall call you to arrange an appointment. (I may call anyway, but I'll feel much better about it if you do return the postal...) Many thanks for your attention and, hopefully, your aid. 244 APPENDIX B: CONTACT LETTER FOR NEGATIVE WRITERS REAL AMERICAN POLL/BOX 734/MT. KISCO, N.Y. (printed letterhead) From: John A. Klempner, Director To: Mr. U. S. Freedom Street Address City, State, Zip code Dear Fellow American We at R.A.P.——the Real American Poll--have an inter- esting and important goal--and we need your help. We at R.A.P. simply don't believe that the so-called "public opinion" polls really reflect the way most real Americans are thinking. You can't stop a few dozen people on the street, ask them a few slanted questions, and then make absurd statements like "90% of Americans support the United Nations." The R.A.P. system is to pick our subjects very care- fully, and then spend a good amount of time with them--45 minutes or so. We would like you to "take the RAP" - - to add your opinions to those of other real Americans. We would like to interview you sometime soon, at your convenience, of course. Absolute_privacy is guaranteed. We will pay you $1000 cash if we ever use your name in any way whatsoever. Even if some leftist senator subpoenaed our files, he wouldn't find a thing. We work with totals only; all individual findings are destroyed. Will you do your part in helping us tell the world how real Americans really think? If you'll return the enclosed post card--no stamp needed--we will call you up to arrange an appointment. Thanks very much for your attention and, we hOpe, your help. Yours for a stronger America, 245 'APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW SCHEDULE The actual interview schedule was reproduced by Xerox 2400, and had a column down the extreme right-hand edge of the page to assist with the coding. The cards used during the interview have been reproduced smaller than their actual size (which was 3” by 5”). 1. Introduce self and project. 2. Record locale, and if S. is +, -, or o. 3. Check race of S. ( )Caucasian ( )Negro ( )Oriental ( )Other 4. NOW, ON THIS CARD, WILL YOU PUT AN x NEXT TO THE GROUP IN WHICH YOUR AGE FALLS. THEN PUT THE CARD RIGHT INTO THE BOX. Give card #1 to S.; explain if necessary. 5. MAY I ASK, ARE SINGLE, MARRIED, DIVORCED, OR WIDOWED? ( )single ( )married ( )divorced ( )widowed 6. Record sex of subject: ( )male ( )female 7. ON THIS CARD (hand card #2) WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO THE LAST GRADE IN SCHOOL THAT YOU COMPLETED. 8. WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPATION? 9. ON THIS CARD (hand card #3) WILL YOU CHECK THE TOTAL INCOME, APPROXIMATELY, FOR YOUR ENTIRE FAMILY, FOR THE LAST YEAR. IO. ON THIS CARD ARE THE NAMES OF SOME FAMOUS AMERICANS WHO EITHER WERE PRESIDENT OR WANTED TO BE PRESI- DENT. WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO THE NAME OF THE MAN YOU BELIEVE EITHER WAS OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE GREATEST PRESIDENT OF THE 20TH CENTURY. (Hand card #4) 11. NOW, WE'LL CHANGE THE SUBJECT COMPLETELY. DO YOU HAVE A RADIO IN YOUR HOUSE? HOW MANY? ( )none ( )l ( )2 ( )3 or more 246 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 247 DO YOU OWN A TELEVISION SET? HOW MANY? ( )none ( )1 ( )2 ( )3 or more ABOUT HOW MANY HOURS A DAY WOULD YOU SAY, ON THE AVERAGE, YOU SPEND IN WATCHING TELEVISION AND LISTENING TO THE RADIO—-THE TWO COMBINED? Number of hours: NOW I'M PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN NEWS AND COMMENTARY PROGRAMS--YOU KNOW, LIKE HUNTLEY- BRINKLEY OR DEAN MANION. DO YOU WATCH OR LISTEN TO NEWS AND OPINION PROGRAMS VERY MUCH COMPARED TO YOUR OTHER WATCHING AND LISTENING? Probe to produce one of following responses: g none at all moderate part very small part fairly large part ON THIS CARD (Hand card #5) ARE THE NAMES OF SOME small part large part POPULAR RADIO AND TELEVISION NEWS AND OPINION PROGRAMS. WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO EACH ONE IN THE PROPER COLUMN, TO SHOW WHETHER YOU LISTEN TO OR WATCH THAT PROGRAM OFTEN, SOME- TIMES OR NEVER. ON THIS CARD ARE THE NAMES OF VARIOUS NEWSPAPERS AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA (Hand card #6). WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO EACH ONE, TO INDICATE WHETHER YOU READ THAT NEWSPAPER OFTEN, SOMETIMES, OR NEVER. DURING AN AVERAGE MONTH, ABOUT HOW MANY DIFFERENT TITLES OF MAGAZINE DO YOU READ? none 5 or 6 l or 2 7 or 8 3 or 4 9 or more HERE IS A LIST (Hand card #7) OF 12 POPULAR MAGA- ZINES. NEXT TO EACH ONE, WILL YOU PUT AN X TO INDICATE WHETHER OR NOT YOU READ THAT MAGAZINE OFTEN, SOMETIMES, OR NEVER. HERE ARE THE NAMES OF SOME WELL-KNOWN NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE COLUMNISTS (Hand card #8). WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO EACH ONE TO INDICATE WHETHER YOU READ THAT WRITER'S COLUMNS OFTEN, SOMETIMES, OR NEVER. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 248 NOW, SOME PEOPLE READ NO BOOKS AT ALL; SOME READ A BOOK EVERY DAY. COULD YOU TELL ME IF YOU'VE READ ANY BOOKS IN THE LAST MONTH? HOW MANY? none )7 or 8 l or 2 9 or 10 3 or 4 11 to 15 5 or 6 16 or more ON THIS CARD (Hand card #9) ARE THE NAMES OF SOME WELL-KNOWN BOOKS PUBLISHED IN THE LAST YEAR OR SO. WILL YOU INDICATE, WITH AN X, WHETHER YOU HAVE READ EACH BOOK, READ PART OF IT, OR NOT READ IT AT ALL. DO YOU BELONG TO ANY GROUPS--ANY SORT OF ORGANI- ZATION THAT HOLDS REGULAR MEETINGS? (If yes, ' proceed with 23-29. If no, probe areas covered by 23-28 to be sure.) ON THIS CARD (Hand card #10) ARE THE NAMES OF SOME FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS. WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO THE NAME OF EACH ONE, SOMEWHERE ALONG THE FIVE-POINT SCALE. IF YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER, YOU WOULD PUT THE X OVER HERE (point) IN THE FAR LEFT-HAND COLUMN. IF YOU ARE AN INACTIVE MEMBER, YOU WOULD CHECK HERE IN THE SECOND COLUMN. AND IF YOU'RE SLIGHTLY ACTIVE, QUITE ACTIVE, OR VERY ACTIVE, YOU WOULD PUT YOUR X IN THE 3RD, 4TH OR 5TH COLUMNS. ON THIS CARD ARE THE NAMES OF SOME SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS. WILL YOU PUT AN X NEXT TO EACH ONE, JUST LIKE ON THE LAST CARD, TO SHOW WHETHER YOU ARE NOT A MEMBER, ARE AN INACTIVE, SLIGHTLY ACTIVE, QUITE ACTIVE, OR VERY ACTIVE MEMBER. ON THIS CARD ARE THE NAMES OF SOME MILITARY ORGANIZATIONS. WILL YOU DO EXACTLY THE SAME THING FOR THESE. ON THIS CARD ARE THE NAMES OF SOME POLITICAL AND EDUCATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS. WILL YOU DO THE SAME THING AGAIN. AND AGAIN FOR THESE RIGHTS ORGANIZATIONS. 28. 29. 249 AND, FOR THE LAST TIME, WITH THESE MISCELLANEOUS ORGANIZATIONS. NOW, I'M INTERESTED IN THE VARIOUS WAYS THAT DIFF— ERENT PEOPLE EXPRESS THEIR OPINIONS AND BELIEFS IN A PUBLIC WAY. SOME PEOPLE MARCH ON PICKET LINES, OTHERS WRITE LETTERS TO THE EDITOR — - AND, OF COURSE, SOME DO NOTHING AT ALL. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS OR METHODS THAT SOME PEOPLE USE TO EXPRESS OPINIONS PUBLICLY. FOR EACH OF THEM, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU USE THAT MEANS, AND, IF SO, HOW OFTEN. ON THIS CARD (Hand card #16) ARE FIVE POSSIBLE RESPONSES. PLEASE RESPOND BY GIVING ME THE NUM- BER OF YOUR ANSWER. THUS, IF YOUR ANSWER IS "NEVER" YOU WOULD SAY "ZERO." IF YOUR ANSWER IS "SOMETIMES" YOU WOULD SAY "TWO." ALL RIGHT, FIRST OF ALL IS PICKETING--ANY KIND OF PICKETING AT ALL. NEXT, BOYCOTTING CERTAIN PRODUCTS OR STORES OR COMPANIES - - NOT BUYING THEIR PRODUCTS OR SER- VICES IN ORDER TO SHOW THEM YOU DISAPPROVE OF SOMETHING THEY HAVE SAID OR DONE. NEXT, WRITING LETTERS TO THE EDITOR OF A NEWS- PAPER OR MAGAZINE. NEXT, CIRCULATING PETITIONS OF ANY KIND. NEXT, USING THE TELEPHONE AS A MEANS OF EXPRESS- ING OPINION - — CALLING UP CITY HALL TO PROTEST, OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NEXT, WRITING LETTERS TO THE PRESIDENT OR TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN OR SENATOR OR TO OTHERS IN GOVERN- MENT? AND FINALLY, WRITING LETTERS DIRECTLY TO LARGE COMPANIES OR CORPORATIONS TO EXPRESS DISAPPROVAL OF ANY ASPECT OF COMPANY POLICY? 30. 31. 32. 250 (If S. has indicated any degree of letter-writing behavior) YOU HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU HAVE USED LETTERS AS A MEANS OF EXPRESSING YOUR OPINION OR VIEWPOINT. MAY I ASK, DO YOU ALSO WRITE LETTERS OF SUPPORT OR APPROVAL TO POLITICIANS, TO COMPANIES, OR TO THE EDITOR? (If yes:) WOULD YOU SAY, IN GENERAL, THAT YOU TEND TO WRITE MORE OFTEN IN PROTEST, MORE OFTEN IN PRAISE, OR ABOUT FIFTY—FIFTY? PEOPLE WRITE LETTERS OF PROTEST OR PRAISE FOR MANY REASONS. ON THIS CARD ARE LISTED SOME OF THE REASONS OTHER PEOPLE HAVE GIVEN FOR WHY THEY WRITE SUCH LETTERS. WILL YOU CHECK AS MANY OF THESE REASONS AS MIGHT BE RELEVANT FOR YOU—- ANY REASONS THAT EXPRESS WHY YOU HAVE WRITTEN.(Card 17) NOW I AM GOING TO READ SOME STATEMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE MADE AS THEIR OPINION ON SEVERAL TOPICS. YOU MAY FIND YOURSELF AGREEING STRONGLY WITH SOME OF THE STATEMENTS...DISAGREEING JUST AS STRONGLY WITH OTHERS...AND PERHAPS UNCERTAIN ABOUT OTHERS. WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH ANY STATEMENT, YOU CAN BE SURE THAT MANY OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THE SAME AS YOU DO. (Hand card to S.) WE WANT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION ON EACH STATEMENT. WHEN I READ EACH ONE, FIRST TELL ME WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE...IN GENERAL...THEN TELL ME WITH A NUMBER...ONE, TWO OR THREE...THAT INDI- CATES HOW STRONGLY YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT. (The numbers in parentheses are Rokeach and F- scale item numbers.) (49) MY BLOOD BOILS WHENEVER A PERSON STUBBORNLY REFUSES TO ADMIT HE'S WRONG. (48) THERE ARE TWO KINDS OF PEOPLE IN THIS WORLD: THOSE WHO ARE FOR THE TRUTH AND THOSE WHO ARE AGAINST THE TRUTH. (63) MOST PEOPLE JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOOD FOR THEM. 251 (5) THE HIGHEST FORM OF GOVERNMENT IS A DEMOCRACY AND THE HIGHEST FORM OF DEMOCRACY IS A GOVERN- MENT RUN BY THOSE WHO ARE MOST INTELLIGENT. (26) THE MAIN THING IN LIFE IS FOR A PERSON TO WANT TO DO SOMETHING IMPORTANT. (51) MOST OF THE IDEAS WHICH GET PRINTED NOWA- DAYS AREN'T WORTH THE PAPER THEY'RE PRINTED ON. (13) MOST PEOPLE JUST DON'T GIVE A DAMN FOR OTHERS. (41) TO COMPROMISE WITH OUR POLITICAL OPPONENTS IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE IT USUALLY LEADS TO THE BETRAYAL OF OUR OWN SIDE. (58) THE PRESENT IS ALL TOO OFTEN FULL OF UN- HAPPINESS. IT Is ONLY THE FUTURE THAT COUNTS. (6) EVEN THOUGH FREEDOM OF SPEECH FOR ALL GROUPS IS A WORTHWHILE GOAL, IT IS UNFORTUNATELY NECESSARY TO RESTRICT THE FREEDOM OF CERTAIN POLITICAL GROUPS. (1) OBEDIENCE AND RESPECT FOR AUTHORITY ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT VIRTUES CHILDREN SHOULD LEARN. (2) NO WEAKNESS OR DIFFICULTY CAN HOLD US BACK IF WE HAVE ENOUGH WILLPOWER. (4) SCIENCE HAS ITS PLACE, BUT THERE ARE MANY IMPORTANT THINGS THAT CAN NEVER POSSIBLY BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE HUMAN MIND. (6) HUMAN NATURE BEING WHAT IT IS, THERE WILL ALWAYS BE WAR AND CONFLICT. (8) EVERY PERSON SHOULD HAVE COMPLETE FAITH IN SOME SUPERNATURAL POWER WHOSE DECISIONS HE OBEYS WITHOUT QUESTION. (9) WHEN A PERSON HAS A PROBLEM OR WORRY, IT IS BEST FOR HIM NOT TO THINK ABOUT IT, BUT TO KEEP BUSY WITH MORE CHEERFUL THINGS. (12) A PERSON WHO HAS BAD MANNERS, HABITS, AND BREEDING CAN HARDLY EXPECT TO GET ALONG WITH DE- CENT PEOPLE. 33. 34. 252 (13) WHAT THE YOUTH NEEDS MOST IS STRICT DISCI- PLINE, RUGGED DETERMINATION, AND THE WILL TO WORK AND FIGHT FOR FAMILY AND COUNTRY. (23) WHAT THIS COUNTRY NEEDS MOST, MORE THAN LAWS AND POLITICAL PROGRAMS, IS A FEW COURAGEOUS, TIRELESS DEVOTED LEADERS IN WHOM THE PEOPLE CAN PUT THEIR FAITH. (27) THERE IS HARDLY ANYTHING LOWER THAN A PER- SON WHO DOES NOT FEEL A GREAT LOVE, GRATITUDE AND RESPECT FOR HIS PARENTS. (35) THE WILD SEX LIFE OF THE OLD GREEKS AND ROMANS WAS TAME COMPARED TO SOME OF THE GOINGS ON IN THIS COUNTRY, EVEN IN PLACES WHERE PEOPLE MIGHT LEAST EXPECT IT. (38) MOST PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW MUCH OUR LIVES ARE CONTROLLED BY PLOTS HATCHED IN SECRET PLACES. NOW WE'RE ALMOST DONE. ALL I HAVE LEFT IS A VERY SHORT AND VERY SIMPLE LITTLE PICTURE VOCABULARY- TYPE TEST. IT TAKES ABOUT THREE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT? I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU SOME PICTURES AND SAY SOME WORDS. WHEN I SAY A WORD, YOU TELL ME WHICH PICTURE--ONE, TWO, THREE, OR FOUR-—BEST FITS THAT WORD. FOR INSTANCE, IF I SAID "POLICEMAN" YOU WOULD SAY . . . THAT'S RIGHT, FOUR. SOME WILL BE AS SIMPLE AS THAT...SOME MAY BE VERY HARD. IF YOU DON'T KNOW, JUST SAY SO, AND WE'LL GO ON TO THE NEXT ONE. Interviewer evaluation of interview situation: Friendly and Unfriendly and cooperative : : : : : : uncooperative Card #1 YOUR AGE 18 25 35 45 under 18 to 26 to 36 to Card #2 253 46 to 55 56 to 65 over 65 3 1 LAST GRADE COMPLETED IN SCHOOL lst 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Card #3 7th 8th 9th 10th 11th 12th lst year 2nd year 3rd year 4th year of college of college of college of college college degree post—graduate college work masters or law degree post-masters college work doctors degree TOTAL FAMILY INCOME FOR LAST YEAR 20 2000 to 4000 to 6000 to under $ Card #4 00 8000 to 10 000 4000 10,000 to $15,000 6000 15,000 to 20,000 8000 GREATEST PRESIDENT JOHNSON KENNEDY EISENHOWE TRUMAN ROOSEVELT R 20,000 or more BARRY GOLDWATER RICHARD NIXON ADLAI STEVENSON DOUGLAS MACARTHUR NELSON ROCKEFELLER ROBERT TAFT 254 Card #5 OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER Dean Manion Forum Meet the Press ( ) ( Walter Cronkite News ( E g ) g ) Huntley—Brinkley Report g Dan Smoot Report Lifeline Card #6 OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER Herald Tribune Daily News ( ( ) Journal American The Post World Telegram & Sun New York Times ( Card #7 OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER U.S.News & World Report Readers Digest National Review Life American Opinion Look Commentary Sat. Evening Post Human Events Time Newsweek New Republic 255 Card #8 OFTEN SOMETIMES NEVER Art Buchwald William Buckley Drew Pearson Murray Kempton Revilo P. Oliver Russell Kirk James Reston Westbrook Pegler Card #9 READ READ DID WHOLE PART NOT BOOK BOOK READ Conscience of a Con- ( ) ( ) ( ) servative Nine Men Against America The Fearful Master The Invisible Government A Choice Not an Echo None Dare Call it Treason The Politician The Great Deceit Communist America: Must it be? Card #10 E E «1% E 537 ATE E FRATERNAL ORGANIZATIONS o :55 E-lH >«H B a»- 265 COLUMN ITEM '1'} O S 77 78 79 8O CARD 2 Wk WWI—J Number of posi- tive themes Number of nega- tive themes Grammar and spelling Sex of subject Project number Data deck number l—‘O \0 CD4 Guilt-00m F40 KDGho- [Di-JO \OU‘IJZ‘UHUF-‘O \OCDH0 l—‘O UlCDH James Utt speech Arch Roberts speech DAR material other anti-UN material anti-UN money contri- bution pro-UN enclosure pro—UN money contri- bution unknown, not relevant none 1 8 or more unknown, not relevant none 1 8 or more unknown, not relevant excellent very good good fair poor very poor unknown, not relevant male female unknown 266 iation J COLUMN ITEM ROW 6 Subject number 000 to 191 7 8 9 Card number 2 10 Moose, Elk, Lion ( 11 DAR, SAR, etc. 12 Knights of Columbus 13 Rotary, Kiwanis, etc. 14 Citizens' Council 15 American Legion, VFW, etc. 16 Other military 0 not a member 1 inactive member 17 Democratic club 2 slightly active P member 18 Republican club 3 quite active member 4 very active member 19 Conservative club 5 unknown 20 Liberal club 21 John Birch Society 22 Non-Negro human rights group 23 Negro human rights group 24 United Nations Association 25 UNESCO group 26 UNICEF group 27 National Rifle Assoc- 267 COLUMN ITEM ROW 28 Picketing -\ 29 Boycotting 3O Circulating peti- tions 0 never use this means 31 Writing letters 1 do this 1 or 2 times to the editor a year 2 3 to 5 times a year 32 Telephoning ')3 6 to 9 times a year 4 10 or more times a year 33 Writing letters 5 unknown to politicians 34 Writing letters to companies I) don't write letters tend to write +1etters 35 Positive or nega— O l 2 tend to write -letters 3 4 tive letters about half and half unknown 36 See the light ‘7\ 37 Self interest 38 Right a wrong 39 Asked to write 0 not a relevant reason for writing 40 Enjoy writing ) 1 relevant reason for P writing 41 Had to write 2 unknown 42 Public duty 43 Self esteem 44 Therapeutic "/ 268 COLUMN ITEM ROW Rokeach 45 My blood boils... W 46 There are 2 kinds... 47 Most people just... 48 The highest form... 49 The main thing in... 50 Most of the ideas... 51 Most people don't... 52 To compromise with... 0 disagree very much 53 The present is all... 1 disagree on the whole 2 disagree slightly 54 Even though freedom... 3 uncertain N4 agree slightly F-Scale 5 agree on the whole 6 agree very much 55 Obedience and... 7 unknown 56 No weakness or... 57 Science has its... 58 Human nature being... 59 Every person should... 60 When a person has a... 61 A person who has... 62 What the youth needs... 63 What this country... 64 There is hardly any... 65 The wild sex life... 66 Most people don't... a} 269 COLUMN ITEM ROW 67 68 IQ of subject 080 to 135 69 000 unknown 70 Education, con- 0 lst to 3rd grade densed 1 4th to 6th grade 2 7th to 9th grade 3 10th to 12th grade 4 1 year college 5 2 years college 6 3 years college 7 college degree 8 masters degree 9 doctors degree 71 Evaluation of O uncooperative and interview . unfriendly 4 cooperative and friendly 5 unknown 72 IQ condensed 0 80 to 86 l 87 to 93 2 94 to 100 3 101 to 107 4 108 to 114 5 115 to 121 6 122 to 128 7 129 to 135 8 unknown 73 74 75 76 Not used 77 78 79 80 Nature of letter 0 negative 1 positive 2 non-writer 3 unknown 270 APPENDIX E: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE THEMES IN POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE LETTERS + themes, + letters ABC network Actors in Xerox programs American Indian prophecies Democracy Free Enterprise Human brotherhood Freedom of speech International Co0peration Year International Peace NBC network Public responsibility Public service television San Francisco Chronicle Telsun Foundation Thoughtful patriotism Tolerance and understanding Trade with the U.S.S.R. United Nations United Nations agencies United Nations Association United Nations Day Xerox 813 and 914 machines 271 Xerox advertising Xerox board of directors Xerox Corporation YMHA—YWHA — themes in + letters Big corporations CBS network Certain groups Certain organized minorities John Birch Society Lunatic fringe Networks Nuclear age Organized pressure mail People who censor a program before seeing it People who think the U.N. is communist Reactionaries Stockholder approval of U.N. programs Television commercials War + themes in - letters American flag American integrity and knowhow American Literature bookstores 272 American Opinion Book Stores American Way of Life Americanism Americanist principles Atlas Shrugged Bang-Jensen Lord Beaverbrook Christian Africans Christian principles Constitutional government D.A.R. Dan Smoot Report Declaration of Independence Dr. Carl McIntire Dream Becomes a Nightmare F.B.I. Fearful Master Foreign mission groups 4-H clubs Free Enterprise System the Free World Freedom Future of America God Godly principles 273 Grumman Aircraft Co. Nathan Hale Patrick Henry Historic Principles Herbert Hoover J. Edgar Hoover Hungarian freedom fighters Individualism John Birch Society Katanga Local police Douglas MacArthur Cardinal Mindzenty Missionaries Most Americans (Nationalism New York Daily News None Dare Call It Treason Our American heritage Our value system Patriotism Peace and prosperity Ayn Rand the Red Cross the Revolutionary War Scouting 274 Dan Smoot Robert Taft Thinking citizens Moise Tshbmbe 20th Century Reformation Hour United States Constitution United States of America U. S. News & World Report Congressman James Utt George Washington White South Africans YMCA YWCA Your children - themes in - letters Dean Acheson African Nations Afro—Asians the Boob tube Fidel Castro the Civil Rights menace Collectivism Colonialism Commie treason Communism 275 Communists Council on Foreign Relations Cuba Daily newspapers Fifth column activities Alger Hiss Paul Hoffman Imperialism the Kremlin Khrushchev Martin Luther King Leftists Patrice Lumumba Marxists V. Molotov New York Times One-worlders "Peace" the Peace Corps Poland POlitical Affairs Journal Red Chinese the Reds Franklin D. Roosevelt Anna Rosenberg 276 Socialism Socialists Soviet Charter Soviet Union Soviets Adlai Stevenson U Thant Treason Moise Tshombe United Arab Republic United Nations U. N. Charter UNESCO U. N. General Assembly UNICEF U.N. troops U. N. Security Council Usurpers of our heritage Harry Dexter White APPENDIX F: NEWSPAPER & MAGAZINE READERSHIP DATA The percentages for each newspaper are for subjects in the geographical area in which that newspaper is published. N's are as follows: - + 0 NY 19 28 57 LA 39 26 0 SF 12 10 O Never Sometimes Often New York Times -writers 72.1 9.0 18.9 +writers 8.5 11.2 81.3 o-writers O 38.6 61.4 N.Y. Herald Tribune —writers 61.4 20.0 18.6 +writers 11.9 48.9 39.2 o—writers 8.8 28.1 63.1 New York News -writers 62.9 14.3 21.4 +writers 86.8 0 13.2 o-writers 61.4 36.8 1.8 N.Y. Journal-American -writers 80.0 15.7 4.3 +writers 83.3 16.7 0 o-writers 56.1 43.9 0 New York Post -writers 98.6 1.4 0 +writers 19.5 37.6 42.9 o-writers 42.1 8.8 49.1 New York World Telegram -writers 91.4 8.6 O +writers 33.2 67.8 0 o-writers 17.5 80.7 1.8 Los Angeles Times -writers 18.6 41.4 40.0 +writers 4.5 29.3 66.2 Los Angeles Herald—Examiner —writers 14.3 20.0 65.7 10.4 0 +writers 89.6 277 278 Never Sometimes Often San Francisco Chronicle -writers 33.6 0 66.4 +writers 29.6 12.6 57.8 Oakland Tribune -writers 55.7 0.0 44.3 +writers 92.3 0.0 7.7 U.S.News & World Report -writers 24.3 31.4 44.3 +writers 62.5 26.6 10.9 o-writers 24.6 68.4 7.0 Reader's Digest -writers 28.6 25.7 45.7 +writers 54.6 45.3 0 o-writers 36.8 56.1 7.1 National Review -writers 42.9 25.7 31.4 +writers 78.2 21.8 0 o-writers 91.2 7.0 1.8 Life —writers 55.7 14. 30.0 +writers 12.5 53.1 34.4 o—writers 8.8 45.6 45.6 American Opinion -writers 5.7 24.3 70.0 +writers 87.5 12.5 0 o-writers 96.4 1.8 1.8 Look -writers 95.7 4.3 0 +writers 35.9 37.5 26.6 o-writers 10.5 63.2 26.3 Commentary -writers 98.6 1.4 0 +writers 71.9 21.9 6.2 o-writers 73.7 26.3 0 Saturday Evening Post -writers 70.0 25.7 4.3 +writers 51.6 35.9 12.5 o-writers 28.1 45.6 26.3 Human Events —writers +writers o-writers Time -writers +writers o-writers Newsweek -writers +writers o—writers New Republic —writers +writers o-writers 279 Never Sometimes Often 27.1 28.6 44.3 98.4 1.6 o 98.2 o 1.8 72.9 14.3 12.8 31.2 25.0 43.8 19.3 10.5 70.2 91.4 4.3 4.3 37.5 25.0 37.5 12.3 45.6 42.1 85.7 14.3 o 71.9 23.4 4.7 71.9 26.3 1.8 280 CHI SQUARES, DEGREES OF FREEDOM, AND SIGNIFICANCE LEVELS FOR PRECEDING TABLE x2(+-) X2(-o) X2(+o) N.Y.Times 32.008 90.006 34.414 N.Y.HeraldTribune 33.720 94.066 51.148 N.Y. Daily News 20.594 16.182 28.733 N.Y.Journal-American 5.070 13.804 21.010 N.Y.Post 21.327 51.651 12.762 N.Y.World Telegram 20.354 70.584 21.122 L.A.Times 6.786 16.063 16. 43 L.A.Hera1d-Examiner 15.020 22.604 3. 42 S.F.Chronicle 2.327 6.952 7.629 S.F.Examiner 5.743 6.033 0.898 Oakland Tribune 7.183 8.839 0.898 (df=2, p(.05)75.99) U.S.News 24.861 24.786 21.647 Readers Digest 38.474 24.650 7.267 National Review 27.286 33.001 6.211 Life 33.359 32.930 1.693 American Opinion 97.233 104.148 6.069 Look 54.685 93.549 12.126 Commentary 19.637 17.762 3.824 Post » 5.747 25.141 7.833 Human Events 71.765 65.736 2.014 Time 24.457 45.565 8.901 Newsweek 43.228 79.841 11.337 New Republic 5.592 4.288 0.885 (df=2, p( .05)7 5.99) APPENDIX G: NEWSPAPER AND MAGAZINE COLUMNIST READERSHIP DATA Art Buchwald -writers +writers o-writers William Buckley -writers +writers o—writers Drew Pearson —writers +writers o-writers Murray Kempton -writers +writers o-writers Revilo P. Oliver -writers +writers o-writers Russell Kirk -writers +writers o—writers James Reston —writers +writers o-writers Westbrook Pegler —writers +writers o-writers 281 Never Sometimes Often 70.0 20.0 10.0 26.6 46.8 26.6 12.3 33.3 54.4 17.1 44.3 38.6 65.6 31.3 3.1 64.9 33.3 1.8 65.7 27.1 7.2 23.4 46.8 29.8 42.1 31.6 26.3 88.6 11.4 0 67.2 32.8 0 36.8 35.1 28.1 10.0 30.0 60.0 92.2 7.8 0 82.5 15.8 1.7 40.0 40.0 20.0 89.1 10.9 0 17.5 56.1 26.4 57.1 28.6 14.3 21.9 18.7 59.4 17.5 56.1 26.4 47.1 37.1 15.8 85.9 14.1 0 84.2 15.8 0 282 X2(+- X2(-0) X2(+0) Buchwald 25.282 46.573 10.349 Buckley 40.403 38.859 0.271 Pearson 26.174 10.723 5.160 Kempton 9.015 48.489 23.260 Oliver 92.733 94.091 3.413 Kirk 36.298 24.766 1.813 Reston 30.645 20.655 13.399 Pegler 24.538 20.923 0.071 All data are +2 +3 Minus 3 is the +1 The number of subjects in + 64, - 70, o 57. COMPLETE ROKEACH SCALE DATA -3 +, -, and 0 refer, respectively, to positive, Items are identified by first few words of state- negative, and non—letter writers. least dogmatic answer and +3 the most. expressed in percentages. each group is as follows: APPENDIX H: ment. ITEM 80 # 900 200 1 7:25 absz A2111 526 133 000 000 305 “MR/O. 121 0.34 O.nv.O. 224 018 0.31 .+.o My blood boils (49) 307 101 9r0.0. ACE/nu. 21 608 808 900 200 478 188 11 350 424 111 7207: salao 115¢o _+O two kinds There are (48) Most people - just The high- est form (5) (63) 7.02 545 ll 18,/O. .T(v:l 3 900 250 000 000 4rO.l 118 l 2 311 .4.45 11130 190 750 33 ...TO The main thing in (26) 900 200 160 750 31 O28 O68 nu.O.nv. flv.0.0. 310 430 11.4 12.9 .6 6 46.9 26 38652 + O the ideas Most of (51) 283 + + 0 Most people - don't give (13) To compro- mise with (41) 284 ITEM & #- -3 —2 -1 0 +1 1+2 +3 The present - 34.3 17.1 15.7 5.7 12.9 5.7 7.1 is all too + '65.6 23.4 1.6 0.0 7.8 0.0 0.0 (58) o 31.6 50.9 0.0 0.0 17.5 0.0 0.0 Even though - 31.4 5.7 0.0 0.0 27.1 8.6 25.7 freedom of + 71.8 9.4 0.0 0.0 17.2 0.0 0.0 (6) o 15.8 43.4 8.8 0.0 17.5 10.5 0.0 NB: 1.4% of - subjects not respond to any and 1.6% of + subjects did item. APPENDIX I: COMPLETE F-SCALE DATA Items are identified by first few words of state- ment. +, -, and o refer, respectively, to positive, negative, and non-letter writers. Minus 3 is the least authoritarian answer and +3 the most. All data are expressed in percentages. The number of subjects in each group is as follows: + 64, - 70, o 57. ITEM & # -3 -2 -1 0 +1 +2 +3 Obedience - 8.6 2.9 18.6 0.0 11.4 25.7 31.4 and + 37.5 32.9 10.9 0.0 3.1 15.6 0.0 (l) o 24.6 21.0 19.3 0.0 15.8 1.8 17.5 No weak- - 1.4 2.9 22.9 0.0 12.9 25.7 32.9 ness or + 32.8 18.7 10.9 0.0 10.9 25.0 1.6 (2) o 7.0 1.8 28.0 0.0 8.8 52.6 1.8 Science has - 0.0 4.3 1.4 0.0 5.7 35.7 51.4 its place + 31.2 12.5 9.4 0.0 25.0 9.4 12.5 (4) o 28.1 5.3 10.5 0.0 26.3 12.3 17.5 Human nat- - 7.1 7.1 0.0 0.0 7.1 35.7 41.4 ure being + 32.8 20.3 23.5 0.0 10.9 4.7 7.8 (6) o 0.0 21.0 10.5 0.0 31.6 28.1 8.8 Every per- - 24.3 7.1 4.3 0.0 4.3 15.7 42.9 son should + 73.4 4.7 14.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 7.8 (8) o 71.9 1.7 8.8 0.0 8.8 8.8 0.0 When a per- - 25.7 20.0 18.6 0.0 12.9 14.3 7.1 son has a + 50.0 18.8 20.3 6.2 0.0 1.6 3.1 (9) o 36.8 45.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 17.6 0.0 A person - 0.0 7.1 2.9 0.0 14.3 37.1 37.1 who has + 15.6 21.9 17.2 6.3 23.4 15.6 0.0 (12) o 26.3 31.6 0.0 0.0 24.5 8.8 8.8 285 286 +2 +3 +1 -3 ITEM & # n47.0 .ln40 niRio 74(90 40.0. 10.7.. 000 000 318 4M2 12 343 1E 003 0.92 0 youth needs + What the (13) 408 108 065 050 211 003 and 000 0.0.0. 363 .4.wa hvtow 106 143 .423 122 241 _+-o country What this (23) 400 100 1.40 790 $0.8 50.1 000 000 193 7.0.3 113 409 162 981 285 13 _+0 There is hardly (27) The wild sex life (35) 1.4% of — subjects did not respond to any item. N.B.: