CDNSEQUENCES, RACiAL DiSCRikfiiNMEGN AM
THE FRENCIPLE 0F BEUEF CONQRUENCE

Thesés for the Degree of P223.
MECHiGAN STATE UfiWERSiTY
BERNIE i. SELVERMAN
1971

\
|

NW |\ W \\\\\|\\\\\\\\\\\\\\l\\\\\\\\\l us 2 A R y '

3 1293 10448 4633 Michigan State
University

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Consequences, Racial Diecriminat ion
and the Principle of Belief Congrnence

presented by

Bernie I. Silverman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

.2h.n__degree in Eeychology

DateJLL H, 671 I

0-7639

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DEC 9 3 23:2
4', C," 1;, ,.-:.

1..

. 3..

 

 

ABSTRACT

CONSEQUENCES, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF BELIEF CONGRUENCE

By Bernie I. Silverman

The aim of this study was to determine whether the principle of
belief congruence accurately described consequential as well as
inconsequential behavior. Subjects were chosen from a list of Caucasian
male high school seniors who had been accepted for admission to Adrian
College in the fall of 1970. The 150 persons selected from this list
were equally divided by means of systematic sampling procedures between
the experimental and control groups. Early in 1970 experimental group
subjects were informed by the Dean of Men at Adrian College that they
would be allowed to choose their roommate for their first year at college.
Also they were sent and asked to fill out questionnaires that measured
their attitudes and values. Simultaneously control group subjects received
the same questionnaires from the psychology department at Michigan State
and were told that they had been chosen to participate in a study of
student attitudes before they reached college. About 57% of the subjects
in each group returned these questionnaires.

Two months later those that returned their questionnaires received
thorough descriptions of eight male teenagers that varied on three
dimensions--racia1 similarity, attitude similarity, and value similarity.
Experimental group subjects were led to believe that the persons described

were to attend Adrian in the fall and that they were to select a roommate

from among them. Control group subjects were led to believe that the
persons described were planning to attend Michigan State in the fall and
were asked to respond §§_;£_they were selecting a roommate. To determine
whether the consequences variable was adequately manipulated all subjects
next received a questionnaire from Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity which asked
if they knew who they would be living with at Adrian. Experimental group
subjects responded that they did, indicating that they perceived their
evaluations of the eight hypothetical persons as consequential while those
in the control group responded that they did not, indicating that they
viewed their roommate selections as inconsequential.

Three weeks after rating the eight hypothetical persons all subjects
received a questionnaire either from the experimenter or the Dean of Men
which asked for their perceptions of their parents and friends reactions
should they share a room with a Negro. Experimental group subjects then
received a complete account of the study while all subjects were given an
opportunity to meet with the experimenter mid-way through their first term
at Adrian College.

Control group subjects, who saw their responses as inconsequential,
did not discriminate against Negroes when evaluating the hypothetical
persons as roommates. Experimental group subjects, who saw their responses
as determining their roommate, discriminated significantly against Negroes.
Therefore it may be concluded that investing subjects' responses with
consequences causes racial discrimination. However, in both the experimental
and control groups, subjects discriminated significantly more on belief
similarity than race similarity. Therefore the principle of belief
congruence provides accurate descriptions of subjects' behavior whether or

not responses are perceived to be consequential. A correlation of .77 was

found between experimental group subjects' racial discrimination and their
perception of their parents and friends reactions should they share a

room with a Negro. The same correlation in the control group was .30.
These correlations may be interpreted as indicating that only when subjects
view their responses as consequential is there a strong relationship
between perceived social pressure for racial discrimination and racial
discrimination itself. Finally it was found, contrary to what was expected
on the basis of theory and previous research, that attitude similarity
proved to be a significantly more important determinant of subjects'
evaluations of the hypothetical persons than value similarity.

Two explanations were advanced for both the greater racial discrimination
of those in the experimental group and the difference in the strength of
the correlations between perceived social pressure and racial
discrimination. The first held that when subjects perceived their
responses to be consequential they were compelled to take account of the
possible loss of rewards from significant others should they fail to
discriminate against Negroes. According to this explanation, the locus of
racial discrimination is in society. The second explanation held that
when responses were seen as consequential, subjects were forced to take
account of the reward value of the hypothetical persons. Experimental
group subjects who held negative attitudes towards Negroes, but not their
control group counterparts, would have to discriminate against Negroes if
they intended to receive maximum rewards from their roommate. According
to this explanation, the locus of racial discrimination is in the individual.
It was pointed out that the two explanations are not mutually exclusive
and therefore that consequences may act in both ways to increase racial

discrimination.

APPROVED: M fl, [UM
DATE: 91M“. QL/ ‘7 7/

U

Thesis Committee:

Dr. Frederic Wickert, Chairman
Dr. Raymond Cochrane
Dr. Lawrence Messe

Dr. Milton Rokeach

CONSEQUENCES, RACIAL DISCRIMINATION AND
THE PRINCIPLE OF BELIEF CONGRUENCE

By

. J.

I“
‘ L >- .
Bernie IA Silverman

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Psychology

1971

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Thanks are first due Dean Charles Marvin of Adrian College. With-
out his c00peration this study would have remained just an idea.
Gratitude is also felt towards Dr. Raymond Cochrane, who helped clarify
and consolidate many of the arguments made on the following pages.

I appreciate the relatively "free reign" and friendly guidance of
Dr. Frederic Wickert, who allowed me to work at my own speed in my own
way. Thanks are also due Dr. Larry Messe and Dr. Frank Schmidt for
statistical advice. Dr. Milton Rokeach through his own work provided
the concepts and controversy on which the present study was based.

Finally I would like to thank the Silverman Foundation, my parents,
for their support, both emotional and otherwise, over the past four

years. It made everything much easier.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
List Of Tables 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O 0 iv

List Of Appendices O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O I I O O 0 v

In traduction O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1
Me thOd O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O I O O O O I O O O O O O O O 13
Results 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O 21

Discussj-on O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 33

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

iii

LIST OF TABLES

The Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Knowledge of Roommate Scores for Experimental
and Control Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Analysis of Variance of Subjects' Ratings
of Hypothetical Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mean Evaluations of the Hypothetical Persons . . .

A Comparison of Belief and Racial Discrimination
for the Experimental and Control Groups . . . . .

Belief Congruence Scores in the Experimental
and Control Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Correlations Between Racial Discrimination and
Overall Perceived Social Pressure to Discriminate
for the Experimental and Control Groups . . . . .

Perceived Social Pressure for Racial Discrimination
in the Experimental and Control Groups . . . . .

Discrimination Due to Attitude Similarity and
Value Similarity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iv

Page

20

22

23

25

27

28

29

30

31

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix
A. Introductory Letter from Dean at Adrian . . . . .
B. Student Attitude Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C. Rokeach Value Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
D. Introductory Letter from Psychology Department .
E. Second Letter from Dean at Adrian . . . . . . .
F. Descriptions of the Hypothetical Persons . . . .
G. Second Letter from Psychology Department . .
H. Letter from Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity . . . . .
I. Fraternity Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . .
J. Third Letters from Dean at Adrian and Psychology
Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
K. Significant Others Questionnaire . . . . . . . .
L. Letter of Explanation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
M. Computational Procedures for Analysis of Variance
N. Correlation Matrices of "Items" . . . . . . . . .

Page
66
68
69
71
72
73
77
78

79

81
83
86
88

91

INTRODUCTION

 

It may be inferred from the principle of belief congruence (Rokeach
and Rothman, 1965) that individuals tend to like others whom they per-
ceive as having beliefs similar to their own, and tend to dislike those
whom they perceive as holding beliefs and attitudes different from their
own. The same inference can be drawn from the balance theories of
Heider (1946) and Newcomb (1963). However, one unique implication of
the principle of belief congruence is that belief similarity or dissimi-
larity is a more potent determinant of interpersonal attraction than is
racial similarity.l/

Evidence for the principle of belief congruence was first supplied
by Rokeach, Smith, and Evans (1960). They found that college students
discriminated more on belief similarity than racial similarity when

evaluating hypothetical persons as friends. Each hypothetical person

 

l] The principle of belief congruence has had two distinct meanings or
referents in psychological literature. The term was first used to des-
cribe people§ propensity for discriminating more on belief similarity
than racial similarity in interracial situations (Rokeach, 1961). Later
the same term*was applied to a model of impression formation devised by
Rokeach and Rothman (1965). According to this model, the evaluation of
3 characterized subject (A Negro who believes in God) is influenced
more by the characterization (believes in God) than the subject (A Negro).
When the race variable occupies the position of subject and the belief
variable serves as a characterization, beliefs should prove to be a more
important contributor to impression formation than race. Thus the orig-
inal principle of belief congruence can be inferred from the later
formulation of the same principle. When the principle of belief congru-
ence is discussed in this paper, the original referent is intended.

was described as either a Negro or a Caucasian who held a single attitude
either similar or dissimilar to the subject's own. Triandis (1961) con-
fronted his subjects, who were college students, with hypothetical

persons that varied on four attributes: race, status, philosophy of

life, and religion. Subjects were required to rate the hypothetical per-
sons on a social distance scale which placed the hypothetical persons in
roles such as friend, neighbor and marriage partner. The results revealed
that while all the variables significantly affected social distance
scores, racial similarity accounted for approximately four times as much
of the variance as any of the others.

Rokeach (1961) attempted to explain the disparity between his own
and Triandis' results by claiming that the belief component of Triandis'
hypothetical persons (philosophy of life) was relatively weak compared
to the belief component of the hypothetical persons used in his own
study. Triandis felt the inconsistency in results was due to a different
factor. He wrote, "Had Rokeach considered something more than friendship,
he would not have obtained his results (Triandis, 1961, p. 186)." In
othertxxds the social context in which the hypothetical persons were
imagined influenced subjects' manifestations of racial discrimination.

Subsequent investigations explored this proposition. Anderson and
Cote (1966) and Smith, Williams and Willis (1967) found that subjects
discriminated more on belief similarity than ethnic or racial similarity
when evaluating hypothetical persons as friends. Byrne and Wong (1962)
and Byrne and McGrew (1964) obtained similar results when college
students rated both the likeableness and desirability as a work partner
of the hypothetical persons. The latter consisted of attitudinal

checklists purportedly filled out by the subjects' peers. Rokeach and

Mezei (1966), after observing subjects' responses to actual persons,

concluded that college students discriminated more on attitude similarity
than racial similarity when choosing someone to have coffee with. They
also found that adults, applying for jobs at state mental institutions,
acted in a similar manner when selecting other job applicants as possible
work partners.

But when subjects were asked to evaluate hypothetical persons in
roles other than friend or work partner, a large racial discrimination
effect occurred. Triandis and Davis (1965) found that college students
discriminated more on race than belief when rating hypothetical persons
as marriage partners and neighbors. Insko and Robinson (1967) showed
that southern high school students also discriminated mainly on race
when the hypothetical persons were placed in the same situations. Stein
(1966), whose subjects were northern high school students, found that
the race effect was greatest for "have a close relative marry," "invite
home to dinner," and "neighbor on the street," but only in the first
instance was it stronger than the effect of belief similarity. Although
responding in accord with the principle of belief congruence, Caucasian
homeowners were found to manifest appreciable racial discrimination
when evaluating hypothetical persons as home purchasers and sons-in-law
(Silvernan and Cochrane, 1972).

These paper and pencil manifestations of racial discrimination, as
well as overt racial discrimination in housing (Grodeins, 1957; Farley
and Taeuber, 1968) and other areas, appear to challenge the validity of
the principle of belief congruence. Rather than discard the principle
as inaccurate, Rokeach and Mezei (1966, p. 171) asked for a dispensation.
They wrote "the focus of racial and ethnic discrimination is to be sought

in society, not in the individual's psyche. If a society's constraints

were altogether removed, men would not discriminate in terms of race or
ethnic grouping...but in terms of the principle of belief congruence."
This suggests racial discrimination is a function of perceived social
pressure. The full implications of this statement will be explored
later. At this point it suffices to note that Rokeach has qualified the
principle of belief congruence so that it applies only in situations in
which social sanctions supporting racial discrimination are absent or
innocuous. With this qualification, the principle describes the find-

ings of the previously reviewed studies reasonably well.

Consequences, Social Desirability and Belief Congruence

There are several reasons why the findings of the studies reviewed
cannot be accepted at face value. First it is clear that the sampling
procedures were inadequate. Although the principle of belief congruence
is spoken of as though it pertains to everyone, it has been tested almost
exclusively on students. As a result, the generality of the principle
to non-student populations is open to question. As inferential statis-
tics are based on the assumption of probability sampling, investigators
may not even be justified in generalizing their findings to the student
population, for in all the studies reviewed non-probability samples were
employed (Hays, 1966, p. 217).

Yet there remains a more serious methodological problem that may
invalidate most of the findings upon which the principle of belief
congruence rests. In all the studies but one (Rokeach and Mezei, 1966)
subjects were required to imagine themselves in situations other than
the one they were actually in, and to respond as if they were in the
imagined situations. Data obtained in this fashion typically are

interpreted as though they genuinely reflect the subjects' actual

behavior. Freedman (1969), however, points out that this interpretation

is based on the untenable assumption that there is a close correspondence
between subjects' opinions as to what they would do in a particular situ-
ation and their subsequent behavior in that situation. Though some have
found a significant relationship between subjects' verbal expressions of
behavioral intention and actual behavior (Silverman and Cochrane, 1971),
for the most part there seems to be little relationship between what
subjects say they will do in an imagined situation, and what they in

fact do (LaPiere, 1934; Kutner, Wilkins, and Yarrow, 1952; Linn, 1964;
McGrew, 1967). Consideration of these results may have prompted Bem
(1968, p. 273) to write, "No 'as if' methodology...is an adequate sub-
stitute for intensive study of the actual situation being modeled."

One reason for the discrepancy between verbal expressions of behav-
ioral intentions and actual behavior may be that the former are inordin-
ately influenced by the tendency of subjects to make themselves look
good in the eyes of the experimenter (Edwards, 1957; Crowne and Marlowe,
1964; Rosenberg, 1965). Subjects can ignore their true feelings toward
the hypothetical persons encountered in the situations conjured up by
the experimenter because it is apparent their responses have no real-life
consequences other than to influence the experimenter's opinion of them.
In contrast, subjects who believe they are actually in a situation may
have their desire to respond in a socially desirable manner tempered by
the knowledge that their responses may effect their future relationship
with whatever stimuli are encountered. Cook and Selltiz (1964, p. 46)
emphasize this point as they write, "when responses are expected to have
real-life consequences, the anticipation of such consequences may
counter-balance the wish to make a good impression."

Unfortunately most studies in which the principle of belief congru-

ence was tested elicited inconsequential responses. 3/ Therefore these

responses may reflect not only subjects' feelings towards the hypotheti-
cal persons but their conception of what is socially desirable as well.

And in academic settings socially desirable responses are clearly those

that portray the subject as "...unprejudiced, rational, open-minded, and
democratic (Cook and Selltiz, 1964, p. 39)." By inhibiting racial dis-

crimination the experimental situation provides built—in support for the
principle of belief congruence. Viewed in this light, evidence for the

principle is far less impressive than it might have first appeared.

The present study focused on the relationship between consequences
and racial discrimination as manifested in verbal expressions of behav-
ioral intention. One group of subjects was led to believe that their
evaluations of prospective roommates would actually determine who they
would be living with for the next academic year. Presumably this group
of subjects viewed their responses as consequential. A second group of
subjects performed the identical task but presumably realized their res-
ponses were inconsequential as they were aware that they were partici-

pating in a psychological experiment. The first hypothesis tested was

 

3/ The single exception is the study by Rokeach and Mezei (1966). They
emphasize that in contrast to previous studies in which subjects gave
"paper-and-pencil" responses to "paper-and-pencil" stimuli, their subjects
discriminated on race and beliefs in real-life situations. Simply because
a behavior is emitted in a real-life situation does not guarantee that it
is consequential. For example, job applicants told to choose a work
partner were in a real-life situation but were assured that their selec-
tions had nothing to do with their employment interview. Considering

that these men were uncertain of subsequent employment, it is difficult

to imagine that they viewed their responses as consequential in the sense
that they might determine with whom they might be working. In contrast,
Rokeach and Mezei's student subjects no doubt believed their choices
would determine wtom they later joined for coffee and thus it may be
assumed that they saw their responses as having consequences. Therefore,
in at least one of their tests of the principle of belief congruence,
Rokeach and Mezei used consequential behavior.

that consequences and racial discrimination are positively related. In

othervnuds, as responses are invested with consequences, discrimination
against Negroes increases. Since previous research indicates the prin-
ciple of belief congruence describes inconsequential behavior well, the
second hypothesis tested was that subjects would discriminate signifi-
cantly more on belief similarity than racial similarity when they
perceive their responses to be of no consequence. Because it was expected
that investing responses with consequences would enhance racial discrim-
ination while not influencing belief discrimination, the third hypothesis
tested was that belief discrimination would be no greater than racial
discrimination when subjects believe they are actually choosing a

roommate .

Perceived Social Pressure and Belief Congruence

Up to now the methodological shortcomingsof previous studies have
been emphasized. But there is a logical problem as well. In qualifying
the principle of belief congruence Rokeach explained that belief similar-
ity would be less important than racial similarity in determining inter-
personal attraction only when social sanctions compelled individuals to
discriminate on race. Other investigators (Triandis and Davis, 1965;
Stein, Hardyk, and Smith, 1965; Insko and Robinson, 1967) have generally
accepted Rokeach's qualification. However, in doing so, they have
rendered the principle of belief congruence immune from falsification
and therefore meaningless. In studies in which a large race effect was
obtained it was attributed to social pressure towards racial discrimina-
tion. Yet the presence of these sanctions was inferred from subjects'
discrimination on race. The reasoning is circular. Whenever results

were in accord with it, social sanctions were not thought to be operating

and the principle was supported. But when much of the variance in sub-
jects' responses was due to the race of the hypothetical persons, social
sanctions were invoked and the principle remained unscathed. If the
principle of belief congruence is to be returned to the ranks of meaning-
ful propositions, an independent measure of perceived social pressure to
act in a racially discriminatory manner is required. For this would make
it possible to obtain a situation in which there was racial discrimina-
tion but no detectable perceived social pressure.

Recent studies have employed such a measure making it possible to
determine whether perceived social pressure for racial discrimination
is related to racial discrimination and, thus, to the failure of the
principle of belief congruence to accurately describe subjects' responses.
Silverman and Cochrane (1972) found a positive relationship between a
group's tendency to discriminate on race and its perceived social pressure
to do so. As Rokeach suggested, the principle of belief congruence des-
cribed the group's responses best when there was little perceived social
pressure to discriminate on race. Robinson (1950) has warned however
that correlations between variables based on group data invariably give
inflated estimates of the strength of the relationship between the vari-
ables in individuals. 2/ ‘A more convincing demonstration of the relation-
ship between perceived social pressure for racial discrimination and
discrimination itself would involve correlating indices of the two vari-
ables taken from individuals. One component of a study by Mezei (1970)

involved the calculation of such correlations.

 

.2/ An example may clarify this point. Robinson shows that the correla-
tion between percent Negro and percent illiterate in nine geographical
divisions of the United States is .94. The correlation between the same
percentages is reduced to .76 when forty-eight states become the unit of
analysis. When the unit of analysis is the individual, the correlation
between illiteracy and race shrinks to .20.

Mezei (1970) had subjects judge how much they would like to be with
hypothetical persons in ten situations and indicate to what extent their
friends and parents would approve of these imaginary interactions. In
the few situations where racial discrimination exceeded belief discrim-
ination, significant positive correlations were obtained between racial
discrimination and corresponding perceived social pressure. By means of
regression analysis the effects of perceived social pressure to discrim-
inate on both beliefs and race were removed from their respective dis-
crimination scores. A comparison of residual discrimination scores,
independent of perceived social pressure, showed that belief similarity
influenced subjects more than racial similarity in all but one of the
imagined interactions. These findings make more tenable Rokeach's
assertion that belief congruence fails to describe interpersonal attrac-
tion only when societal sanctions compel persons to discriminate on race.

While acknowledging Mezei's sophisticated use of statistics to
explore a difficult problem, it might prove worthwhile to examine the
study's weaknesses as well. Because of the strong positive correlations
between the original racial discrimination scores and the index of per-
ceived social pressure to discriminate on race, the residual belief
discrimination scores were greater than the residual racial discrimination
scores. Campbell and Fiske (1959) have shown, however, that the correla-
tion between variables might be due not only to their content but to
similarities in the way the variables were measured. And Mezei
(1970, p. 24 ) notes "The rejection scale and the perceived social
pressure scale were constructed in a similar way in order to make it
easy for subjects to express their rejection judgments and perceptions
of social pressure by using only one frame of reference." Thus it is

possible that a similarity in questionnaires contributed common methods

10

variance to the measures of racial discrimination and perceived social
pressure for racial discrimination that accounted in part for their high
positive correlations. The interpretation of these correlations is
further complicated by the fact that measures of perceived social
pressure were obtained directly after subjects made the ratings from
which their own racial discrimination was inferred. This close temporal
relationship increases the probability that variance due to demand charac-
teristics (Orne, 1962) was common to both scales and thus contributed to
the resulting correlations. Also filling the forms out so close together
heightens "...the possibility that the social pressure judgments may have
been contaminated by rationalization of the rejection score judgments."
This too would result in artificially high correlations between the
indices of racial discrimination and perceived social pressure.

Ignoring for a moment the several extraneous sources of common vari-
ance in the two indices, another problem remains, making interpretation
of the correlations difficult. Clearly the relationship described is
between racial discrimination inferred from inconsequential expressions
of preference and perceived social pressure for racial discrimination.
For reasons given earlier, it is probable that the former does not
correspond to discrimination outside the laboratory, and to the extent
that it fails to, relationships based upon it cannot be spoken of as
though they describe real-life, consequential behavior.

A measure of perceived social pressure was employed in the present
study for two reasons. First so that a fair test of the principle of
belief congruence might be conducted and second so that the relationship
between societal sanctions and racial discrimination tested by Mezei

might be further explored. Subjects were asked to indicate how they

11

thought their friends, parents and future college classmates would react
to them if they shared a room with a Negro during their first year at
college. To reduce extraneous sources of common variance in the measures
of racial discrimination and corresponding social pressure, the question-
naires tapping these variables were designed with different formats and
were administered a month apart. With some of the extraneous sources of
common variance attenuated, it was hypothesized that there would be no
significant relationship between racial discrimination, as inferred from
inconsequential choices of roommates, and perceived social pressure for
racial discrimination. Given that actual behavior is usually infused
with consequences, a more realistic test of the relationship between
discrimination and social pressure would involve correlations between
racial discrimination inferred from consequential roommate selections

and the measure of perceived social pressure for racial discrimination.
And assuming that manifestations of racial discrimination vary depending
on whether they are inferred from consequential or inconsequential be-
havior, it follows that relationships based on these manifestations may

also differ. fl,

Therefore the fifth hypothesis tested was that relation-
ships between perceived social pressure to discriminate on race and
racial discrimination would significantly differ when racial discrimin-

ation was inferred from consequential as compared to inconsequential

roommate choices.

 

i/ Though unlikely, it is possible for racial discrimination scores
based on consequential behavior to differ significantly from their incon-
sequential counterparts without a concomitant change in the relationships
between these measures and the measure of perceived social pressure for
racial discrimination. If the effect of consequences on racial discrim-
ination scores can be described by a linear transformation, relation-
ships based on such scores and measured by a Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficient will not be affected.

12

Values Compared to Attitudes as Determinants of Attraction

 

The remainder of this study dealt with the relative importance of
value similarity as compared to attitude similarity in determining inter-
personal attraction. Several characteristics distinguish values from
attitudes (Rokeach, 1968). Theoretically a value consists of a single,
deep seated belief whereas the several beliefs making up an attitude are
thought to be less central to a belief system. Because of this differ-
ence in centrality, values are thought to determine attitudes although
the reverse is not true. Finally, the influence of a value on behavior
transcends specific situations while the influence of an attitude is
confined to a particular situation or object.

Those seen as having a belief system most similar to ones own
should be most favorably evaluated if belief congruence contributes to
interpersonal attraction. From the distinctions just drawn, it would
seem that knowing something about an individual's values provides more
insight into his belief system than knowing something about his attitudes.
The perception of similar values in an individual should therefore result
in the assumption of a more similar belief system than the perception of
similar attitudes. Consequently value similarity should prove to be a
more important determinant of attraction than attitude similarity.

Nelson (1965) in fact found that this was the case. Value similarity
accounted for 54% of the variance while attitude similarity accounted
for 39% of the variance in subjects' choices of friends. Accordingly
the sixth and final hypothesis tested was that value similarity would
account for more of the variance than attitude similarity in subjects'

roommate selections.

METHOD

Fifteen universities and colleges were sent letters asking for
their participation in the present study. Of these schools only Adrian
College agreed to provide complete cooperation and thus it became the
sole source of subjects. The college, with an enrollment of about 2,000,
is located in southeastern Michigan and is affiliated with the Methodist
Church. Its students are drawn mainly from small towns in the mid-west.

The sampling frame consisted of all males who were accepted for
admission to Adrian College as of April 10, 1970, for the academic year
beginning September, 1970. A systematic sample (Yamane, 1967) of 150
persons was chosen from this sampling frame, using a % sampling fraction.
The same procedure was repeated with these persons, thereby selecting
75 persons to make up the experimental or consequences group while
leaving an equal number to form the control or nonconsequences group.

Those assigned to the experimental group first received a letter
from the Dean of Men at Adrian College (Appendix A) in which it was
explained that the college was initiating a program designed to give
new students a greater voice in selecting their roommates. It was made
clear that the students would receive descriptions of eight other new
students from which they might choose their roommate for their first
year at college. The Rokeach value Survey (Penner, Homant, and Rokeach,
1968; Rokeach, 1969; Rokeach, 1970; Cochrane and Rokeach, 1970) and the
Student Attitude Survey (Appendix B) were also included in the first
mailing. The Value Survey (Appendix C) required students to rank in

order of importance, as guiding principles in their lives, two sets of

13

14

eighteen values while the Attitude Survey gave students an opportunity
to express their views toward five controversial issues. Those in the
experimental group were led to believe that the eight personality des-
criptions, from which they would choose a roommate, would be based on

the responses of others to these same questionnaires.

Those assigned to the control group first received a letter from the
experimenter who identified himself as a member of the psychology depart-
ment at Michigan State University (Appendix D). It was explained that
the psychology department was conducting a survey designed to measure
the attitudes and values of high school students before they enter college.
This provided the rationale for returning the Rokeach value Survey and
the Student Attitude Survey which were enclosed along with the first
letter. Further, those in the control group were informed that they
would receive two more sets of questionnaires in the months to come so
that more information about their attitudes might be gathered.

Of the 75 students in the experimental group 43 (57%) filled out
and returned the Rokeach Value Survey and the Student Attitude Survey.
The corresponding figure for the 75 students in the control group was
44 (59%). Having determined the attitudes and values of the subjects,
the next task was to construct hypothetical persons for them to evaluate.

Each of eight hypothetical persons was designed to vary on three
variables.2/ The first variable was racial similarity. As all of the

subjects were Caucasians, those hypothetical persons described as

 

5/

‘- The eight hypothetical persons with which each subject was confronted
were: Negro-Similar Attitudes-Similar Values, Negro-Similar Attitudes-
Dissimilar Values, Negro-Dissimilar Attitudes-Similar Values, Negro-
Dissimilar Attitudes-Dissimilar Values, Caucasian-Similar Attitudes-
Similar Values, Caucasian-Similar Attitudes-Dissimilar Values, Caucasian-
Dissimilar Attitudes-Similar Values, and Caucasian-Dissimilar Attitudes-
Dissimilar Values.

15

Caucasians manifested racial similarity while those described as Negroes
manifested racial dissimilarity. The second variable manipulated was
that of attitude similarity. Each hypothetical person held attitudes
towards four issues. These were (a) special college admissions programs
for blacks, (b) student protest demonstrations, (c) determination of
course content by students, and (d) abolishing the draft. Hypothetical
persons that held four similar attitudes to those of the subject mani-
fested attitude similarity while those that held four dissimilar
attitudes manifested attitude dissimilarity. The third variable manip-
ulated was value similarity. Those hypothetical persons to whom similar
values were attributed were described as considering important in their
lives the three terminal values the subjects themselves ranked first,
second, and third, plus one other value that the subjects ranked no
lower than eighth. Hypothetical persons to whom dissimilar values were
attributed were described as considering important in their lives the
three terminal values the subjects ranked sixteenth, seventeenth, and
eighteenth, plus one other value the subjects ranked no higher than
eleventh. This procedure insured that each hypothetical person had one
unique value. In addition, the order in which the values were listed
for each hypothetical person was varied so as to reduce the probability
that subjects would notice that two sets of four hypothetical persons
each manifested almost identical values. Each hypothetical person,
then, was described to the subject in a six sentence paragraph. The
first sentence contained the hypothetical person's name, race, and home
town, the next four his attitudes towards the issue discussed earlier,
and the final sentence conveyed his values.

About two months after returning the Rokeach Value Survey and the

16

Student Attitude Survey subjects in both the experimental and control
groups received eight descriptions of individuals to be evaluated. A
cover letter (Appendix E), from the Dean of Men at Adrian College,
explained to those in the experimental group that the persons described
in the accompanying booklet (Appendix F) were, like themselves, high
school students who planned to attend Adrian College in the fall. They
were instructed to indicate how much they would like each person des-
cribed as a roommate by circling a number from one to nine on a scale
that appeared directly below each description. By circling one,
subjects could indicate extreme preference for the person as a roommate.
By circling nine, the opposite feeling could be expressed. It was
explicitly spelled out to these subjects that their ratings would de-
termine roommate assignments for the fall semester.

A cover letter from the psychology department at Michigan State
(Appendix G) explained to those in the control group that the persons
described in the accompanying booklet were high school students who
planned to attend Michigan State University in the fall. The control
group subjects were instructed to imagine that they were being given an
opportunity to select their roommates for their first year at college.
They were then asked to respond to the persons described as if they were
actually choosing a roommate. As in the experimental group, the subjects
could indicate their preferences on a one to nine scale that appeared
below each description. Every attempt was made to make it clear to the
control group subjects that their ratings would have no bearing on whom
they would be living with at college.

Of the 43 subjects in the experimental group, 39 (90%) returned

their evaluations of the hypothetical persons as roommates. The

17

corresponding figure for the 44 subjects in the control group was 42
(95%).

Although it seems that those in the experimental group should view
their responses as consequential while those in the control group should
not, it is desirable to objectively determine that this crucial inde-
pendent variable was in fact successfully manipulated. Perhaps those in
the experimental group somehow guessed that they too were in a psychology
experiment and realized roommate assignments would not be contingent
upon their reaponses. If the variable of consequences was not satis-
factorily manipulated, testing hypotheses concerning its effects on
racial discrimination and the principle of belief congruence would be
illusory. To determine if the manipulation was successful, an attempt
was made to find out if subjects had some idea as to whom they would be
living with at Adrian College. Those who saw their roommate choices as
consequential should have some idea as to whom they might be living with
whereas those who viewed their choices as inconsequential should not.

About two weeks after rating the hypotheticalpersons as roommates,
all subjects received a cover letter (Appendix H) and questionnaire from
Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity at Adrian College. The letter explained that
the fraternity was interested in discovering the aims and goals of the
imminent freshmen so that it might make its programs more appealing. To
facilitate achieving this end, the subject was asked to complete and
return the accompanying questionnaire. The questionnaire (Appendix I)
had but one question of relevance. It asked subjects to indicate on a
one to nine scale if they had any idea who their roommate would be at
college. One signified subjects knew precisely who they would be living

with while nine indicated no knowledge of future roommates at all.

18

0f the 43 subjects in the experimental group 22 (51%) returned the
fraternity questionnaire. The corresponding figure for the 44 subjects
in the control group was 24 (55%).

Twelve weeks after expressing their own attitudes and values, four
weeks after rating the hypothetical persons as roommates, and one week
after receiving the fraternity survey, subjects received the final
mailing which again consisted of a letter and a questionnaire. Those in
the experimental group received their materials from the Dean of Men at
Adrian while those in the control group received theirs from the psychol-
ogy department at Michigan State. Both letters (Appendix J) described
the purpose of the questionnaire as being to find out something about
the subjects' perceptions of friends' and parents' reactions to behaviors
the subject might engage in. The Significant Others Questionnaire itself
(Appendix K) contained three relevant items. These items required sub-
jects to indicate what they thought their best friends, parents, and the
students at Adrian would think of them if they shared a room with a
Negro at college. Responses were given on a one to nine scale with one
representing extreme approval and nine representing extreme disapproval
on the part of the significant others. These responses, then, served to
provide a measure of perceived social pressure for racial discrimination.

Of the 43 subjects in the experimental group, 36 (84%) returned the
Significant Other Questionnaire. The corresponding figure for the 44
subjects in the control group was 42 (95%). An overview of the experi-
mental design is shown in Table 1.

About September 1 subjects in the experimental group, who had been
deceived throughout the study, received a letter (Appendix L) from the

experimenter. In the letter the deception was fully explained and

apologies were offered. The purpose of the study was made clear and a

l9

preliminary report of the findings was made. Further, subjects were

invited to meet with the experimenter later in the fall at Adrian so

that their questions might be more completely answered. On October 15

the experimenter met with subjects in both the experimental and control

groups and reviewed the purpose, procedure, and results of the study.

TABLE 1

THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

 

 

 

 

Weeks from Response Response
Beginning Experimental Grgup Rate Control Groupi Rate
0 Letter from Adrian Letter from Michigan State
0 Rokeach Value Survey 43/75 Rokeach Value Survey 44/75
0 Student Attitude Survey 43/75 Student Attitude Survey 44/75
8 Letter from Adrian Letter from.MHchigan State
Rating of Hypothetical Rating of Hypothetical
Persons 39/43 Persons 42/44
10 Letter from Alpha Tau Letter from Alpha Tau
Omega Omega
Fraternity Survey 22/43 Fraternity Survey 22/44
12 Letter from Adrian Letter from Michigan State
Significant Others Significant Others
Questionnaire 36/43 Questionnaire 42/44
16 Letter of explanation
from Michigan State
22 Personal meeting with Personal meeting with

 

subjects

 

 

subjects

 

 

20

 

RESULTS

To test the first hypothesis, that discrimination against Negroes
increases as responses are invested with consequences, it was first
necessary to ascertain whether those in the experimental group actually
saw their responses as more consequential than those in the control
group. Presumably subjects who believed their ratings of the hypotheti-
cal persons determined roommate assignments should have some idea as to
whom their roommate at Adrian might be. On the other hand, subjects
should have no knowledge of a possible roommate if they viewed their
ratings as inconsequential. Table 2 shows mean knowledge of roommate
scores for those in the experimental and control groups. Subjects in
the experimental group indicated, on the average, that they had some
idea of their roommate at Adrian (E?5.22) whereas their control group
counterparts indicated no knowledge about roommates (Né8.95). A t-test
for independent samples revealed that the difference between the mean
knowledge of roommate scores was significant (t=ll.80, df=44, p<.001),
leading to the conclusion that experimental group subjects perceived
their choices as consequential while those in the control group did not.

Given that the consequences variable was adequately manipulated,
its effects on racial discrimination may be examined. An analysis of

variance of subjects' ratings of the hypothetical persons is shown in

21

22
Table 3. 9/ The finding of particular interest is the significant conse-
quences x race interaction (Figure l), for it reveals that the manipulation
of consequences made a significant difference in subjects' reactions to
the hypothetical persons' race. Table 4 shows the mean ratings assigned
to the various attributes of the hypothetical persons by subjects in
both the experimental and control groups. Within the consequences con-
dition, Caucasians were evaluated significantly more favorably than
Negroes (F=40.81, df=1/76, p<,01) but there was no difference in subjects'
evaluation of Negroes and Caucasians when responses were perceived to be

of no consequence (F=.55, df=l/76, N.S.).

LAM

Knowledge of Roommate Scores For
Experimental and Control Groups

 

 

 

'R N S2 t df Siggificance
Experimental 5.22 22 2.07
11.80 44 p<.001
Control 8.95 24 0.04

 

t-test for independent measures
Note: Smaller scores imply greater knowledge of roommate

 

9/ A 2x2x2x2 analysis of variance with repeated measures on three
factors was employed. This design is a generalization of those des-
cribed in chapter 7 of Winer (1962). Appendix M presents the computa-
tional procedures for the specific design. Three subjects were
randomly chosen for removal from the control group. This resulted in
39 subjects in both the experimental and control groups and served to
facilitate the analysis.

 

TABLE 3

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF SUBJECTS'
HYPOTHETICAL PERSONS

RATINGS OF

 

 

% Variance

 

 

Source of Variance SS ‘_d£_ .E Accounted for
Consequences (A) 64.75 1 14.91* 1.4
Subjects within groups 330.51 76

Race (B) 139.47 1 25.82* 3.0
A x B 84.03 1 15.56* 1.8
B x Subjects within groups 410.65 76

Attitude (C) 1644.40 1 127.07* 36.0
A x C 3.57 1 0.27 -
C x Subjects within groups 983.61 76

Values (D) 93.08 1 22.00* 2.0
A x D .46 1 0.10 -
D x Subjects within groups 321.61 76

B x C 11.08 l 7.19* -
A x B x C 3.22 l 2.09 -
BC x Subjects within groups 117.31 76

B x D .85 1 0.47 -
A x B x D 5.59 1 3.12 -
BD x Subjects within groups 136.67 76

C x D 8.57 1 7.51* -
A x C x D .17 1 0.14 -
CD x Subjects within groups 86.88 76

B x C x D 1.50 1 1.04 -
A x B x C x D .48 l 0.33 -
BCD x Subjects within groups 109.65 76

TOTAL 4558.11 623

* = p<0.01

23

 

Favorable

 

‘
~~~
“
-
s

Caucasians

Negroes

 

Unfavorable

Figure 1.

No
Consequences

Consequences

The Consequences x Race Interaction

24

TABLE 4

MEAN EVALUATIONS OF HYPOTHETICAL PERSONS

 

 

 

 

 

EFFECT LEVELS MEAN EFFECT LEVELS MEAN
Consequences Consequence (Al) 5.02 Al-Bl-Dl 5.44
(A) No Conseq. (A2) 4.38 Al-Bl-D2 6.28
A1-B2-Dl 3.88
Race (B) Negro (Bl) 5.17 AxBxD Al-BZ-DZ 4.48
Caucasian (BZ) 4.23 A2-B1-D1 4.20
A2-B1-D2 4.76
Attitudes (C) Similar (Cl) 3.08 AZ-BZ-Dl 3.73
Dissimilar (CZ) 6.32 A2-BZ-D2 4.82
Values (D) Similar (D1) 4.31 Al-Cl-Dl 2.83
Dissimilar (D2) 5.08 Al-Cl-DZ 3.82
Al-CZ-Dl 6.50
AxB Al-Bl 5.86 AxCxD Al-CZ-D2 6.94
A1-B2 4.18 A2-Cl-Dl 2.32
A2-Bl 4.48 A2-C1-D2 3.34
AZ—BZ 4.27 A2-C2-D1 5.61
A2-C2-D2 6.24
AxC Al-Cl 3.32
Al-C2 6.72 Bl-Cl-Dl 3.26
A2-C1 2.83 B1-Cl-D2 4.10
A2-CZ 5.92 Bl-CZ-Dl 6.38
BxCxD Bl-C2-D2 6.94
AXD Al-Dl 4.66 BZ-Cl-Dl 1.88
Al-DZ 5.33 B2-Cl-D2 3.06
A2-D1 3.96 'BZ-CZ-Dl 5.73
A2-D2 4.79 BZ-CZ-DZ 6.24
BxC Bl-Cl 3.68 Al-Bl-Cl-Dl 3.89
Bl-CZ 6.66 A1-B1-Cl-D2 4.84
BZ-Cl 2.47 Al-Bl-CZ-Dl 7.00
B2-C2 5.98 Al-Bl-CZ-DZ 7.71
Al-BZ-Cl-Dl 1.76
BxD Bl-Dl 4 82 Al-BZ-Cl-DZ 2.79
Bl-DZ 5.52 A1-B2-CZ-Dl 6.00
BZ-Dl 3.80 AxBxCxD Al-BZ-CZ-DZ 6.17
B2-D2 4 65 AZ-Bl-Cl-Dl 2.64
A2-Bl-Cl-D2 3.35
CxD Cl-Dl 2.57 A2-Bl-C2-Dl 5.76
Cl-D2 3.58 A2-Bl-C2-D2 6.17
C2-Dl 6.05 AZ-BZ-Cl-Dl 2.00
C2-D2 6.59 A2-BZ-Cl-D2 3.33
A2-B2-C2-D1 5.46
AxBxC Al-Bl-Cl 4.37 A2-B2-C2-D2 6.30
Al-Bl-CZ 7.35
A1-B2-Cl 2.28
Al-BZ-CZ 6.08
A2-Bl-Cl 3.00
A2-Bl-C2 5.97
A2-BZ-Cl 2.66
A2-BZ-C2 5.88

 

 

 

 

25

 

26

This occurred because subjects' evaluations of Caucasians remained con-
stant across levels of consequences (F=.14, df=1/152, N.S) while subjects'
evaluation of Negroes grew significantly less favorable as responses came
to be seen as consequential (F=30.39, df=1/152, p<,01). These findings
strongly support the hypothesis that discrimination against Negroes in-
creases as responses are invested with consequences.

The second hypothesis holds that subjects who perceive their res-
ponses to lack consequences discriminate significantly more on belief
similarity than racial similarity. To test this hypothesis Westie's
(1953) Summated Differences Technique was used to calculate racial and
belief discrimination scores for each control group subject;1/ The
bottom two rows of Table 5 reveal that control group subjects discrimin-
ated significantly more on belief similarity than racial similarity

(t=5.02, df=38, p<.01). Therefore the second hypothesis is confirmed.

 

7/

-' Racial discrimination scores were calculated by substracting the
ratings given the four Caucasian hypothetical persons from the sum of
the ratings given the four Negro hypothetical persons. Belief discrim-
ination scores were defined as the sum of attitude plus value discrim-
ination scores. Attitude discrimination scores were calculated by
subtracting the sum of the ratings given hypothetical persons expressing
similar attitudes from the sum of the ratings given hypothetical persons
expressing dissimilar attitudes. Value discrimination scores were cal-
culated by subtracting the sum of the ratings given those expressing
similar values from the sum of the ratings given those expressing dis-
similar values.

To remove negative values, a constant of 26 was added to both race
and belief discrimination scores. Thus a racial discrimination score
of less than 26 indicated that subjects discriminated against Caucasians
while a score greater than 26 indicated discrimination against Negroes.
A belief discrimination score less then 26 meant subjects discriminated
against those expressing similar attitudes and values while a score
greater than 26 meant subjects discriminated against those holding
dissimilar attitudes and values.

27

TABLE 5

A Comparison of Belief and Racial Discrimination For
The Experimental and Control Groups

 

— 2
Groups X S df t P
Belief Discrimination 41.83 99.53
Experimental 38 4.14 p<.01
Racial Discrimination 32.71 60.99

Belief Discrimination 39.94 198.41
Control 38 5.02 p<,01
Racial Discrimination 26.84 25.44

 

t-test for dependent measures

The third hypothesis tested was that subjects who perceive their
responses to be consequential discriminate equally on race and belief
similarity. As in the control group, both belief and race discrimination
scores were calculated for each subject in the experimental group. The
top two rows of Table 5 reveal that experimental group subjects discrim-
inated significantly more on belief similarity than racial similarity
when evaluating the hypothetical persons as roommates. Therefore the
third hypothesis is not confirmed.

Although the principle of belief congruence accurately describes
subjects' roommate selections in both the control and experimental
groups, increased racial discrimination in the latter might result in
the principle providing a significantly less accurate description of be-
havior. To see if this was the case, a score which reflected the degree
to which belief similarity was more important than race similarity, was
calculated for each subject by subtracting racial discrimination scores
from belief discrimination scores. The larger the resulting belief

congruence score, the better the principle described the subjects'

28

evaluation of the hypothetical persons as roommates. It can be seen in
Table 6 that there was no difference between belief congruence scores in

the experimental and control groups (t=1.l8, df=76, N.S.).

TABLE 6

Belief Congruence Scores in The Experimental
and Control Groups

 

2

 

IR S t df Significance
Experimental 9.12 175.80
1.18 76 N.S.
Control 13.10 258.50

 

t-test for independent measures

The fourth hypothesis tested was that perceived social pressure for
racial discrimination is not related to discrimination itself when sub-
jects see their roommate selections as being of no consequence. Perceived
social pressure scores from three sources were generated by each subject.
These were added together so that a single number indicated the subject's
overall perceived social pressure for racial discrimination. Correlating
this measure with racial discrimination scores provided an index of the
strength of the relationship between perceived social pressure and racial
discrimination. As a significant correlation was not obtained (rxy=.30,
df=38, N.S.) it must be concluded that control group subjects' discrimin-
ation against Negroes is not related to perceived social pressure. Thus
the data confirm the fourth hypothesis.

The fifth hypothesis tested was that the strength of the relation-
ship between perceived social pressure and racial discrimination differs

depending on whether racial discrimination is inferred from consequential

29

or inconsequential responses. Among experimental group subjects, the
relationship between racial discrimination and perceived social pressure
to behave in such a manner was strong and significant (rxy=.77, df=38,
p<.01). To directly test the fifth hypothesis, a t-test between
corresponding correlations from the experimental and control groups was
conducted (Guilford, 1965). Table 7 shows that the correlation between
perceived social pressure and racial discrimination was significantly
stronger in the experimental than the control group (t=3.04, df=71,

p<.01). Therefore the fifth hypothesis is supported.

TABLE 7

Correlations Between Racial Discrimination
and Overall Perceived Social Pressure to Discriminate
For The Experimental and Control Groups

 

 

rxy N df t Significance
Experimental .77 36
71 3.04 p<.01
Control .30 41

 

Note: Only subjects who returned both their ratings of the hypothetical
persons and their significant others questionnaire were included
in this analysis.

Although a stronger relationship was obtained between perceived
social pressure and discrimination when the latter was derived from con-
sequential as compared to nonconsequential responses, the manipulation
of consequences did not effect average perceived social pressure. Per-
ceived social pressure scores could range from 3 to 27 with scores
greater than nine reflecting varying degrees of perceived social pressure

for racial discrimination. Table 8 shows that the experimental and con-

trol groups perceived equally slight social pressure to discriminate

30

against Negroes as roommates (t=.80, df=75, N.S.).

TABLE 8

Perceived Social Pressure For Racial Discrimination in
The Experimental and Control Groups

 

 

 

2

 

1R S df t Significance
Experimental 11.25 31.74
75 .80 N.S.
Control 12.24 27.13

 

t-test for independent measures

Note: Only subjects who returned both their ratings of the hypothetical
persons and their significant others questionnaire were included
in this analysis.

According to the sixth hypothesis, value similarity is a signifi-
cantly stronger determinant of subjects' evaluations of the hypothetical
persons than attitude similarity. It can be seen by looking at Table 3
that while value similarity accounts for 2% of the variance in subjects'
responses, 36% of the variance is accounted for by attitude similarity.
Although both variables significantly affected subjects' evaluation of
the hypothetical persons, attitude similarity appears to be the more
important of the two. To determine if discrimination due to attitude
similarity was significantly greater than discrimination due to value
similarity, attitude and value discrimination scores were calculated and
compared by means of a t-test for dependent measures. Table 9 shows that
subjects discriminated significantly more on attitude similarity than
value similarity (t=7.22, df=77, p<.01). The sixth hypothesis, then,

was not supported.

31

TABLE 9

Discrimination Due to Attitude Similarity
and Value Similarity

 

 

3': 3 df t Significance

Attitude Similarity 12.43 115.43
- 77 7.22 p<.01
Value Similarity 2.55 33.27

 

t-test for dependent measures

Specific hypotheses were not formulated about several significant
findings that up to now were not completely described. The reasons no
specific hypotheses were formulated were that these findings were so com-
pletely expected that they were taken for granted or, on the other hand,
they were not anticipated and thus came as a surprise. Falling in the
former category are the main effects due to the race, attitudes and
values of the hypothetical persons. Inspection of Tables 3 and 4 shows
that those described as Caucasians, those with similar attitudes and
those with similar values were evaluated significantly more favorably
than those described as holding dissimilar attitudes and values and as
being of a different race. The significant main effect of consequences,
however, was unexpected as were the significant race x attitude and
attitude x value interactions. Subjects gave significantly less favor-
able evaluations to the hypothetical persons when they thought their
evaluations were consequential. Note that the consequences main effect
was "pulled through" to significance by the consequences x race inter-
action (Figure l) as Negroes alone were evaluated less favorably when
responses were perceived to have consequences. Although Negro hypothet-

ical persons were evaluated significantly less favorably than their

32

Caucasian counterparts when expressing similar (F=17.20, df=1/152, p<.01)
as well as dissimilar attitudes (F=5.43, df=l/152, p<.05), the signifi-
cant race x attitude interaction reveals that the difference in ratings
between Negroes and Caucasians was significantly greater when hypotheti-
cal persons manifested similar attitudes than when they manifested
dissimilar attitudes. Finally, hypothetical persons who expressed sim-
ilar values were evaluated significantly more favorably than those who
expressed dissimilar values regardless of whether they held similar
(F=29.58, df=l/152, p<.01) or dissimilar attitudes (F=8.23, df=1/152,
p<.01). However, the significant attitude x value interaction reveals
that the difference in evaluations given those holding similar as com-
pared to dissimilar values was significantly greater when the hypothet-

ical persons expressed similar rather than dissimilar attitudes.

DISCUSSION

"We don't hate niggers. We just don't want them near us. That's
why we moved from Chicago" (Harris, 1963). In light of the prejudice
expressed in this statement and the racial strife frequently reported by
the communications media, the principle of belief congruence literally
appears incredible. Incredulity inspired by the principle has no doubt
led investigators to posit that belief congruence is nothing more than
an artifact of the experimental situation. Hendrick, Bixenstine, and
Hawkins (1971) felt that belief similarity proved more important than
race similarity because the latter was not made sufficiently salient.

To rectify this, subjects were asked to express their feelings towards
blacks and whites presented on videotape. This procedure did not weaken
the evidence for belief similarity being a stronger determinant of

liking than race similarity. Silverman and Cochrane (1972) suggested
that exclusive use of student samples in academic settings served to bias
results in favor of the principle of belief congruence. They found,
however, that middle-aged homeowners in an all white neighborhood discrim-
inated more on beliefs than race when choosing friends and neighbors.

The present study, like those just described, was designed to test the
hypothesis that the validity of the principle of belief congruence re-
sulted as much from the methodology employed as from the subjects'
underlying attitudes. Specifically, the use of inconsequential behavior
in previous studies was thought to have inhibited subjects' expressions

of racial discrimination and in this way artificially created support for

33

34

belief congruence. But as in previous studies the principle of belief
congruence provided an adequate description of subjects' responses.
The remainder of this discussion will endeavor to provide a tenable

explanation as to why the results turned out as they did.

Similar Attitudes as Reinforcers

 

It seems reasonable to propose that persons emit responses that
they believe will be reinforced or rewarded. A reward or reinforcer
might be any stimulus that enhances the pleasures, satisfactions and
gratifications a person enjoys. The reduction of a drive or the ful-
fillment of a need thus constitutes a reward (Thibaut and Kelley, 1959).
Unfortunately pleasures, satisfactions and gratifications are difficult
to observe and measure. Thus the reinforcement value of a reward must
be inferred from its effects on the responses it serves to reinforce.
These effects may be defined in terms of such indicators as response
rate, resistance to extinction and discrimination learning.

The responses of others often provide reinforcement for responses
emitted by individuals. Perhaps the best example of this is provided in
a study by Adams and Hoffman (1960). They found that murmuring in agree-
ment whenever subjects made statements about themselves resulted in
increasing the rate at which self-references were emitted. Other invest-
igators have confirmed that the content of subjects' speech is easily
influenced by subtle expressions of agreement on the part of the experi-
menter (Greenspoon, 1955; Centers, 1963). As these expressions of
agreement affect the response rate of particular classes of verbal
behavior they can be considered reinforcers and it may be hypothesized

that they provide satisfaction to the subjects.

35

Not all stimuli serve equally well as reinforcers. Presumably the
attitudes, values, and needs of an individual largely determine the
reward value of a stimulus. Generally attitudes similar to those of the
individual have proven to be effective reinforcers. Golightly and Byrne
(1964) taught subjects, choosing among pairs of cards, to discriminate on
the size dimension by following correct choices with statements express-
ing similar attitudes and following incorrect choices with statements
expressing dissimilar attitudes. They went on to suggest that similar
attitudes were rewarding because they satisfied subjects' learned drive
to correctly interpret their social environment. While Golightly and
Byrne's results present adequate evidence for similar attitudes acting
as positive reinforcers, there is some difference of opinion as to their
interpretation.

McWhirter and Jecker (1967) showed that the proportion of similar
attitudes attributed to an individual was strongly related to how much
a subject thought the individual would like him. Therefore McWhirter
and Jecker posited that subjects' perception of attitude similarity in
another individual is rewarding not so much because it satisfies sub-
jects' drive for correctly interpreting their social environment, but
because it increases the probability that the individual will approve
of them. Lamberth and Craig (1970) repeated Golightly and Byrne's
experiment but used favorable personal evaluations in place of state-
ments expressing similar attitudes. Their subjects more quickly learned
to discriminate on the size dimension when correct choices were followed
by favorable personal evaluations than when correct choices were followed
by neutral statements. Thus favorable personal evaluations served as

positive reinforcers just as statements expressing similar attitudes.

36

Byrne and Griffitt (1966) sought to determine whether attitude sim-
ilarity served mainly the need to be correct about ones social environment
or the need for approval. If similar attitudes acquire their reinforcing
properties because they satisfy subjects' needs to correctly interpret
their social environment, the mere perception of similar attitudes, devoid
of the implication of possible approval on the part of another, should
prove attractive. In contrast, if the reinforcing properties of similar
attitudes are due mainly to their satisfying the subject's need for
approval, direct satisfaction of this need, conveyed through another's
expression of liking for the subject, should prove a more important de-
terminant of attraction than perceived attitude similarity itself. Byrne
and Griffitt found that subjects' beliefs about what others thought of
them was a stronger determinant of attraction than their perception of
whether others held similar or dissimilar attitudes. Therefore they
concluded that the perception of similar attitudes in another serves as
a cue to the subject that the other can potentially satisfy the subject's
need for approval. This conclusion received support in a replication
and extension by Ettinger, Nowiki, and Nelson (1970) who found that
subjects high on need for approval were more attracted to hypothetical
persons manifesting similar attitudes than were subjects who were less

approval oriented.

Sources of Reinforcement in the Belief Congguence Experiment

 

In light of the previous discussion it is not surprising that atti-
tude similarity accounted for much of the variance in subjects' roommate
choices. Presumably the principle of belief congruence provides accurate

descriptions of behavior because similar attitudes serve as cues indicating

37

that persons expressing them can potentially reward subjects by satisfy-
ing their need for approval.

Racial discrimination is no doubt one of the most frequently studied
phenomena in social psychology. Two divergent viewpoints have often
been espoused to explain this phenomenon. As Pettigrew (1958, p. 29)
puts it, "one strongly emphasizes the personality of the bigot and neg-
lects his cultural milieu; the other views intolerance as a mere reflec-
tion of cultural norms and neglects individual differences." Both
perspectives have been employed in conjunction with the principle of
belief congruence to explain discrimination. When the tendency to dis-
criminate on race is viewed as a property of individuals, racial
similarity is posited to act as a cue indicative of attitude similarity
which in turn is indicative of potential satisfaction of subjects' need
for approval. Thus, in this context the race variable is conceived to
be a tertiary reinforcer. The results of a study by Stein, Hardyk, and
Smith (1965) support the conclusion that "whentvhite subjects are given
no information at all about a Negro they apparently assume he is
different from them in values, and react towards him accordingly." Just
as with more conventional indicators of prejudice, individuals can
differ on the degree to which they attribute different beliefs to Negroes,
and thus can differ in their tendency to discriminate against Negroes.
Seen from this perspective, racial discrimination acquires a tinge of
rationality as it may not be completely unrealistic to suppose that

8/

Caucasians and Negroes have somewhat divergent belief systems;-

 

.§/ Rokeach and Parker (1970) found significant differences between the
values of Caucasians and Negroes while numerous attitudinal differences
are catalogued by Dreger and Miller (1968). The fact that differences
in values and attitudes might be due to underlying socioeconomic differ-
ences is not especially important in this discussion as the question is
not whether racial differences inevitably lead to cognitive differences
but simply, are the two variables correlated?

38

It is likely that after a period of time racial attitudes acquire
functional autonomy (whether they resulted from the conditioning process
just described or from parental instruction, psychodynamic processes,
etc.) and serve to influence responses even when the race variable no
longer functions as a reliable cue to potential rewards."

The tendency to discriminate on race may also be explained by the
social pressures a person is subjected to in his cultural milieu.
Individuals' rewards from choosing to interact with another are contin-
gent upon more than just the potential of the other to supply approval.
In response to an individual initiating a relationship, significant
others may bestow or withdraw approval. Thus, in trying to determine
the total potential reinforcement value of a relationship, the probable
reactions of significant others must be taken into account. And if
significant others withdraw approval for establishing an interracial
but not an intraracial relationship, an incentive is clearly provided
for racial discrimination.

Two more sources of reinforcement need to be consfiiered before
focusing on the specific results of this study. The first is the exper-
imenter, who, in a psychological study, acquires the status of a signi-
ficant other. It is the experimenter who evaluates subjects' responses
and who draws inferences about the subjects from them. Favorable

evaluation from a psychologist may well bolster subjects' self-esteem

 

2] In contrast to the position that racial discrimination is perpetrated
in the service of need for approval, Tajfel (1970) posits a basic dis-
position within individuals to discriminate against members of groups
other than their own. He writes that racial discrimination should
occur'h..even if there is no reason for it in terms of the individual's
own interests -- in terms of what he can gain as a result of discrimin-
ation against the cutgroup."

39

while a poor evaluation can do nothing but hurt it. The experimenter
then is more than a minor contributor to the rewards a subject can obtain
in the typical psychological experiment.

The second source of approval, yet to be dealt with, is the subject
himself. Most persons are brought up believing that it is good and
proper to behave in an honest fashion. This emphasis is reflected in
the fact that the value of HONEST is ranked above all others on the
Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1972). Those who respond dishonestly may
suffer the unpleasant sensation of guilt, perhaps generated by their
superegos (Cameron, 1963). Now the avoidance of an aversive stimulus
is considered rewarding (Marx, 1969). Thus by responding in an honest
manner, congruent with their beliefs, individuals may be reinforced by

avoidance of potential guilt and anxiety.

An Explanation of the Present Findings

 

Perhaps the most interesting as well as the easiest finding to
explain is the significant difference in correlations between perceived
social pressure for racial discrimination and racial discrimination in
the experimental and control groups (Table 7). Subjects' perceived
social pressure scores can be thought of as indicators of expected rein-
forcement or its withdrawal given their choosing a Negro as a roommate.
It will be recalled that subjects in both groups perceived equal social
pressure against choosing a Negro roommate (Table 8). Thus some subjects
in both groups saw themselves as standing to lose rewards if they should
choose to live with a Negro at college. But only experimental group
subjects were choosing a roommate. Therefore only these subjects had to

be concerned with or take into account the possible loss of rewards that

40

would result from choosing a Negro roommate. And this concern may have
been reflected in the significant correlation between perceived social
pressure and racial discrimination found in the experimental group.

Control group subjects no doubt realized that while their friends
and parents might object to their living with a Negro, they would object
much less, if at all, to their saying they would live with a Negro. For
control group subjects then, the probability that parents and friends
would withdraw rewards was equivalent to the probability that their
choices would determine their roommate -- about zero. Thus there was
little reason for control group subjects to believe that their responses
would lead to a gain or loss of reinforcement from parents and friends,
and it is not surprising to find that their responses were not correlated
with an indicator of such reinforcement.

Implicit in this discussion is the proposition that perceived social
pressure by itself does not influence behavior. Only when such social
pressure has a non-zero probability of being applied does it become
effective in influencing subjects' responses. Thus effective perceived
social pressure for racial discrimination is a function of perceived
social pressure for racial discrimination multiplied by the probability
that such social pressure will actually lead to the withdrawalof rewards
for a specific response.

One very plausible explanation of the greater racial discrimination
shown by experimental group subjects follows directly from the previous
discussion (Figure 1). Experimental group subjects, but not their
control group counterparts, expected significant others to withhold
rewards if they chose roommates in a non-discriminating manner. To

avoid this loss of reinforcement subjects in the experimental group may

41

have been compelled to discriminate against Negroes. If this is in fact
what occurred, it constitutes a prime example of effective perceived
social pressure causing racial discrimination and may be taken as evi-
dence for Rokeach's assertion, cited earlier, that were it not for
perceived social pressure, there would be no racial discrimination.

The argument that (effective) perceived social pressure is respons-
ible for subjects' racial discrimination rests mainly on a comparison of
the significant and strong correlation describing the relationship in
the experimental group to the nonsignificant correlation describing the
same relationship in the control group. Campbell and Stanley (1963)
point out that “correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, but
a causal law...does imply correlation." Thus the significant and strong
correlation between perceived social pressure and racial discrimination
observed in the experimental group is a necessary but not a sufficient
condition for claiming that the former causes the latter. It is not
difficult to conceive of parents who, for whatever reason, expect few
rewards from Negroes, and inculcate the same expectancy in their
children. The idea that children adopt the racial attitudes of their
parents has received ample support in the literature (Horowitz, 1936;
Mosher and Scodel, 1960; Epstein and Komorita, 1966) and the principle
of belief congruence itself implies that persons will choose as friends
those that espouse similar attitudes. In general then, subjects who
have negative attitudes towards Negroes should have parents and friends
who share these feelings while subjects who have positive attitudes
towards Negroes should have parents and friends who have similar feelings.
These relationships, rather than the causal relationship suggested earlier,
might be what is reflected in the significant correlation between per-

ceived social pressure and racial discrimination. If so, another explan-

42

ation for the difference in racial discrimination between the experi-
mental and control groups needs to be found.

If subjects believe that interacting with Negroes will not be
rewarding they might reasonably be expected to discriminate against
Negroes. It seems safe to assume that some subjects held this belief
and that these subjects were equally distributed between the experimental
and the control groups. Accepting these assumptions changes the emphasis
from trying to determine why experimental group subjects discriminated
against Negroes to trying to determine why control group subjects did not.

Given the liberal stereotype of academic personnel, subjects in
both the experimental and control groups no doubt realized that they would
receive a more positive evaluation from the dean of men and the experi-
menter respectively if they refrained from racial discrimination. Look-
ing only at this source of reinforcement, no racial discrimination would
be expected in either group. But experimental group subjects had to
weigh the reinforcement value of a positive evaluation from the dean of
men against potential reinforcements from their choice of roommate. And
if some subjects expected few rewards from Negroes, the potentially
greater reinforcements from a roommate of the same race might overcome
the reinforcement value of a positive evaluation from the dean, and
significant racial discrimination might result.

Control group subjects could gain little by discriminating against
Negroes even if they believed Negroes were less likely than Caucasians
to provide them with reinforcement. Their only source of reinforcement
for racial discrimination would lie in the avoidance of guilt that might
result from responding in a manner not in accord with their underlying

attitudes. And it is possible that the avoidance of guilt failed to

43

constitute a large enough reward to balance the experimenter's approval
that would accrue to subjects if they refrained from racial discrimina-
tion. The lack of racial discrimination among control group subjects
can be understood in light of these reinforcement contingencies.

The significantly lower correlation between perceived social
pressure and racial discrimination in the control group than in the
experimental group can be explained in terms of these same contingencies.
One interpretation of the strong correlation obtained in the experimental
group is that subjects, whose parents and friends held negative attitudes
towards Negroes, and who therefore may have felt similarly themselves,
accurately reflected their own feelings when rating the hypothetical
persons by discriminating against Negroes (Figure 2). A significantly
lower correlation was obtained in the control group because subjects,
while not reluctant to attribute negative attitudes to parents and
friends, were hesitant because of the reinforcement contingencies de-
tailed previously, to exhibit the same feelings in themselves (Figure 3).
This explanation applies particularly well to subjects indicated by X's
rather than 0's in Figures 2 and 3.

Up to now two distinct explanations have been advanced for both
the greater racial discrimination and the stronger correlation between
such discrimination and perceived social pressure found in the experi-
mental as compared to the control group. The first explanation emphasized
the effect of consequences on the probability that significant others
would withdraw rewards from subjects if they refused to discriminate
against Negroes while the second emphasized the effect of consequences
on increasing the saliency of the hypothetical persons' reward potential

and thereby reducing the relative importance of the experimenter (dean

52

39

26

13

 

x!

 

.0 G
o O
O O
o 0
O O
a 00 O
O 8 .
8 O
C
x = subjects for which explanation
applies (see text)
0 = other subjects
9 27'

Significant Others Attitudes

Figure 2. Correlation between racial Discrimination ‘Y-axis)
and percieved social pressure for rac a1 discrim-

ination (X-axis)_in the experimental group.

44

52

 

 

i
»O
39.
0 O O x
c 8 * x
O
x
26 ° ° °. 8 is
J o x XX
. o o 8 xx x
c o
O 8 o
x
13‘
x
x = subjects for which explanation applies
(see text)
0 = other subjects
1..-..- 1
3 9

27
Significant Others Attitudes

Figure 3. Correlation between racial discrimination (Y-axis)

and perceived social pressure for racial discrim-
inationij-axisljin the control ggoup.

45

46

of men) as a source of reward. According to the first explanation, some
subjects discriminated against Negroes not because they were prejudiced
but because society's reward structure was such that racial discrimination
was profitable. According to the second explanation, some subjects held
negative attitudes towards Negroes and chose and would choose again, in
the absence of pressure from significant others, Caucasians in preference
to Negroes. Although the explanations were presented separately, they
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. It is not at all difficult to
imagine subjects' own racial attitudes combining with perceived social
pressure from significant others to determine racial discrimination in
roommate choices.

Perhaps this study's most important finding was that the principle
of belief congruence accurately described the responses of subjects in
both the experimental and control groups. That belief similarity was
a stronger determinant of attraction than race similarity among control
group subjects was not surprising for it corresponds to the findings of
previous studies in which inconsequential responses were employed. All
that remains to be explained for this group of subjects is why they
bothered to discriminate on belief similarity at all, supposing they were
so inclined, given that they realized the hypothetical persons were not
a source of potential rewards. Quite possibly subjects gave honest res—
ponses to the extent such responses did not seem to lead to the loss of
reinforcement. Responding otherwise might result in guilt. While it
may be assumed control group subjects thought they would lose the exper-
imenter's approval for racial discrimination, it may also be assumed
that a similar thought did not exist regarding belief discrimination.

And since their task was to respond as if they were choosing a roommate,

47

they did so faithfully except when doing so might result in their re-
ceiving a poor evaluation from the experimenter.

A more basic question raised by the principle's accurate descrip-
tion of roommate choices in both groups is simply why does belief
congruence provide accurate descriptions of the data or, in other words,
why does belief similarity constitute a stronger determinant of attrac-
tion than racial similarity? A possible answer to this question follows
from the theory described earlier in the discussion. Belief similarity,
it will be recalled, acquired its reinforcing properties from acting as
a direct indicator of approval from others. Racial similarity was
thought to acquire its reinforcing properties from acting as an indicator
of belief similarity. Therefore, belief similarity might be thought of
as a secondary reinforcer whereas racial similarity might be thought of
as a tertiary reinforcer. Belief similarity then, should serve as a
better cue for potential approval and should account for more of the
variance in subjects' roommate choices.

The fact that attitude similarity accounted for so much more of the
variance than value similarity (Table 3) in subjects' roommate selections
is perhaps the most difficult finding to explain as both theory and the
results of previous studies pointed toward the opposite outcome. Rokeach
(1972) has maintained that values are more central in persons' belief
systems than attitudes. Therefore values are thought to be determinants
of attitudes but attitudes are not thought to be determinants of values.
Evidence for these contentions is found in several studies in which
changes in subjects' attitudes, inferred from overt behavior as well as
paper-and-pencil scales, resulted from an experimental manipulation of

subjects' values (Rokeach, 1968, 1971). Because of their greater

48

centrality values were expected to convey more about the hypothetical
persons' belief systems to subjects than attitudes, and thus they were
expected to be better indicators of potential reward. But clearly this
expectation was not realized. One reason for this might be that values
are no more central than attitudes in persons' belief systems, and
therefore no more revealing of cognitive structure. Showing that value
change leads to attitude change is but one step toward proving that the
latter is determined by the former. It remains to be shown that attitude
change does not result in value change. When this is demonstrated the
assertion that values are more central than attitudes will appear more
tenable. The present data support the conclusion that the reverse is
true, that is, that attitudes may be more central than values.

The pre-eminence of the attitude similarity variable in determining
subjects' responses may be explained in another way. Nelson (1965), in
the only previous study that pitted attitude similarity against value
similarity, found that value similarity was a more important determinant
of friendship choices. However, Nelson manipulated but a single attitude
as compared to several values. Thus her manipulation of value similarity
may have been much stronger than her manipulation of attitude similarity.
In the present study the number of attitudes manipulated equalled the
number of values. However, a greater proportion of the hypothetical
persons' descriptions pertained to attitudes than values. Thus the way
in which the attitude and value variables waxroperationalized, rather
than their position in subjects' belief systems, may have contributed to
attitude similarity being a significantly stronger determinant of sub-
jects' roommate selections than value similarity.

There were several significant relationships about which no hypotheses

49

were formulated. One of these was the significant race x attitude inter-
action that resulted from a significantly greater difference in ratings
assigned Negroes and Caucasians when both expressed similar attitudes
than when both expressed dissimilar attitudes. An explanation becomes
apparent if it is assumed that subjects expect Negroes to have dissimilar
belief systems to their own, but do not expect Caucasians to necessarily
have similar belief systems. It is unlikely that simply attributing

four similar attitudes to Negroes will completely dispel subjects' ex-
pectations that in general Negroes' belief systems are dissimilar to
their own. To the extent this expectation remains, hypothetical persons
described as Negroes and as having four similar attitudes should be

rated less favorably than Caucasian hypothetical persons espousing an
equal number of similar attitudes. If there is no predisposition to
view Caucasians as having similar belief systems, subjects might imagine
completely dissimilar belief systems in Caucasian hypothetical persons
described as holding four dissimilar attitudes, and thus evaluate them
about as unfavorably as their Negro counterparts.

No hypothesis was posited regarding the significant main effect of
consequences which resulted from hypothetical persons receiving more
favorable ratings in the non-consequences than in the consequences
condition (Tables 3 and 4). Care must be taken in generalizing this
finding for it applies only to Negro hypothetical persons. Caucasians
were evaluated equally favorably whether subjects perceived their res-
ponses to be consequential or not. Thus the consequences main effect
must be considered in terms of the consequences x race interaction, and
the two explanations offered for that interaction may apply equally well

here.

50

By now explanations for most of the significant findings have been
discussed. The remainder of the discussion will focus on methodological
and conceptual issues called to mind by the procedures and results of

this investigation.

Advantages of the Summated Differences Technique

Paper-and-pencil measures of personality have often been criticized
for reflecting subjects' tendencies to agree with any statement put be-
fore them rather than the variables they are purported to measure (Bass,
1955; Jackson and Messick, 1961). It has been recognized that one
advantage of Westies' (1953) summated differences technique is that it
reduces the probability of such response set variance being interpreted
as variance due to the variable of interest, such as subjects' racial
attitudes. To the degree that the acquiescence response set influences
subjects' responses, it should affect ratings given Negroes and Caucasians
equally and thus differences between ratings given these groups would
necessarily be due to some other variable. A second often overlooked
advantage of the summated differences technique is that it generates
scores that may be more reliable (internally consistent) than the ratings
from which they were derived.

As the name implies, the technique involves first adding subjects'
ratings together, and then calculating differences between the resulting
sums. Three measurements or variables used in the present study were
acquired in this manner. These were racial discrimination scores, belief
discriminations scores, and the difference between these difference
scores, belief congruence scores. These variables can be more reliable

than subjects' ratings of the hypothetical persons if two conditions

51

obtain. First the ratings that make up the various sums or composites
should be positively intercorrelated. Second the sums from which the
difference scores are calculated should be negatively correlated.

A standard definition of reliability is rtt=(dt2' 0&2) otz where

2 represents the

ot2 represents the total variance of a variable and Ge
variable's error variance (Guilford, 1954). The less the proportion of

error variance in a variable or measurement, the greater its reliability.
When two variables are added together, the variance of their sum is given

by cx+y2 = 0x2‘+ o 2 + 2r Thus the total variance of a sum equals

y xyaxoy'
more than the sum of the components' variances to the extent that the

components are positively intercorrelated. Error variance by definition

is uncorrelated or random, and thus the error variance of a sum equals

.}

e(xty) = ng‘+ 32y (Magnussen, 1966). Therefore the total variance of

a sum will increase at a greater rate than corresponding error variance
as long as the correlation between the components is positive. It can
be seen from the first formula given that this will lead to higher
reliability.

It is likely that common factors influenced subjects' ratings of
the hypothetical persons from which the sums were calculated. This is
because each rating that went into a sum was elicited by a hypothetical
person that represented a single level (either similar or dissimilar)
of some variable (race, attitudes, or values) that was shown to signi-
ficantly influence subjects' responses. If a common factor, such as
attitude toward Negroes, underlies a set of ratings, they should correlate
positively with each other. On purely rational grounds then, it seems
reasonable that the components used to compute the sums in the present

study were positively correlated. Tables 10 and 11 in Appendix N

52

contain evidence which shows, with some exceptions, that this was the
case. It seems safe to conclude that the sums derived from subjects'
initial ratings of the hypothetical persons are slightly more reliable
than the ratings themselves.
When variables are subtracted from each other, the variance of the
2

difference is given by czx_y = ck + 0&2 - 2rxyokoy.

Error variance
combines in the same way as when variables are added. Therefore the
total variance of difference scores will increase at a greater rate

than corresponding error variance as long as the correlation between the
component scores is negative.

It will be remembered that racial discrimination scores were calcu-
lated by subtracting the sum of ratings given Caucasians from the sum
of ratings given Negroes. The correlation between these sums was
-.52 (p<.01) in the experimental group and .27 (N.S.) in the control
group. This indicates that when subjects perceive their responses as
consequential, racial discrimination scores are likely to be more reliable
than the summated ratings from which they were computed. Although in the
control group racial discrimination scores were less reliable than the
scores from which they were computed, it is unlikely that this would be
the case in general.

The correlation between the sum of ratings given those holding
similar beliefs and the sum of ratings given those holding dissimilar
beliefs was -.59 (p<.01) for subjects who perceived their responses to be
consequential and -.45 (p<.01) for subjects who perceived their responses
to be inconsequential. This indicates that belief discrimination scores

are more reliable than the sum of the ratings from which they were cal-

culated. The correlations between racial discrimination scores and

53

belief discrimination scores were -.19 (N.S.) and -.28 (N.S.) in the
experimental and control groups respectively, indicating that in general
belief congruence scores are no more or less reliable than their con-
stituent scores.

In general, the correlations between the ratings themselves and the
correlations between the sums from which the difference scores were cal-
culated are in the direction that leads to enhanced reliability. Un-
fortunately the reliabilities of the ratings themselves are not available,
so that it becomes impossible to determine over what value reliability
would be enhanced. Still the variables derived from the summated
differences technique should be more reliable than conventional ratings
and free of variance due to subjects' acquiescence response set, and for
these reasons, the use of the technique is to be recommended in future

investigations of this type.

Consequential Responses as Indicators of Attitudes

Rokeach (1968) writes "...an attitude is a relatively enduring
organization of beliefs around an object or situation predisposing one
to respond in some preferential manner." More out of expediency than
anything else, written responses to questionnaires have come to be the
most frequently used indicators of attitudes. Although frequently used,
the validity of questionnaire responses as indicators of attitudes and
attitude change has been questioned (Festinger, 1964). Rokeach (1966)
has suggested that overt behavior, either by itself or in conjunction
with "paper-and-pencil" responses might prove a more valid indicator
of subjects' attitudes towards an object or situation. In adopting this
outlook social psychologists have become proponents of the maxim, actions

speak louder than words.

54

Any behavior, overt or verbal, is a good indicator of an attitude
to the degreethat it is not confounded with extraneous sources of vari-
ance. Extraneous sources of variance refer to any factors that influence
subjects' behavior other than the particular attitude under study. Pre-
sumably most social psychologists suspect overt behavior is less con-
founded than questionnaire responses. However, some overt behaviors,
such as petition signing, may have only a small portion of their variance
accounted for by the attitude they purportedly measure (Blake, Mbuton,
and Hain, 1956; Helson, Blake, and Mouton, 1958). It may be that in
judging the quality of a behavior as an indicator of an attitude, the
crucial factor is not whether a behavior is overt or verbal, but whether
it is consequential.

Consequential responses are those that are perceived by the subject
as affecting his relationship with the attitude object.19/ As a more or
less intimate relationship may result from their behavior, subjects
emitting consequential responses must take into account the reward value
of the attitude object. The reward value of any attitude object is con-
tingent in part upon subjects' attitudes. Therefore subjects must
consider their attitudes toward the attitude object when emitting con-
sequential responses. In contrast, subjects emitting inconsequential
responses toward an attitude object can ignore the attitude object's

potential reward value, and thus need not seriously consider their own

 

19/ It is worth pointing out that all behaviors emitted in a psychologi-
cal experiment are consequential in the sense that they are perceived as
eliciting an evaluation from the experimenter. This is not the connota-
tion of "consequential" as employed herein. Behaviors consequential only
in this sense are probably very poor indicators of subjects' attitudes
because they are likely to reflect what the subject believes the experi-
menter will evaluate most favorably rather than the attitude ostensibly
being measured.

55

attitude toward the attitude object. For this reason consequential

responses should be better indicators of subjects' attitudes than their
inconsequential counterparts.

This is not to say that consequential responses are necessarily
pure indicators of subjects' attitudes toward some attitude object en-
countered in a specific situation. Making responses consequential may
compel subjects to consider factors other than their own attitudes, such
as the feelings of parents and friends, before issuing a response. If
this happens, the response in question becomes less valuable as an atti-
tudinal indicator. Yet it may be assumed that one factor considered
before a response is emitted will be subjects' attitudes toward the
attitude object if the response is consequential. The same assumption
cannot be made if it is known simply that a behavior was overt or verbal.
Therefore it is suggested that whether or not a behavior is consequential
is a more useful distinction than whether a behavior is verbal or overt
when it comes to assessing the value of a behavior as an indicator of an

attitude toward an object or situation.

Strengths and Shortcomingg -- Future Research

 

The present investigation combined the techniques of the laboratory
experiment with those of the mail survey. The random assignment of
subjects to the experimental and control groups, coupled with the manip-
ulation of the consequences variable, allowed for a causal interpretation
to be made of the relationship between consequences and racial discrimin-
ation. The use of the mail survey allowed a sample to be drawn from a
broader population than is usually the case in this sort of study. It
also reduced the likelihood of experimenter expectancy effects biasing

subjects' responses (Rosenthal, 1966).

56

The failure to obtain a measure of subjects' perceptions of the
experimenter's racial attitudes is perhaps the major shortcoming of this
study. Time after time it was simply assumed that subjects saw the
experimenter as frowning upon racial discrimination. Subsequent studies
would profit from employing such a measure. If the assumptions made in
this study were correct subjects' own racial discrimination should be
significantly and negatively correlated with the attribution of nondis-
criminatory racial attitudes to the experimenter. As it was suggested
that consequences attenuated subjects' tendencies to respond in a
socially desirable manner, it would further be expected that this correl-
ation would be significantly larger in the non-consequences than in the
consequences group. Specific answers to these speculations can only be
provided by further research.

It should be recognized that the results obtained in this study
cannot be safely generalized beyond the social context of choosing a
roommate. Studies reviewed earlier showed that subjects' expressions
of racial discrimination vary across situations, and was greatest in
those situations in which there was considerable perceived social pressure
for racial discrimination. If consequences leads to racial discrimina-
tion by rendering perceived social pressure effective, the discrepancy
between consequences and non-consequences groups' expressions of racial
discrimination should become greater as perceived social pressure for
racial discrimination increases across situations. Figure 4 depicts
the relationship between consequences, perceived social pressure, and

11
racial discrimination if this is true.-/ Studies yet to be done will

 

ll/ The relationship between perceived social pressure and racial dis-
crimination for those emitting inconsequential responses, shown in (cont'd.)

57

determine if this relationship provides an accurate description of
reality.

Other assumptions made in the course of this study are sufficiently
interesting to warrant further investigation. First, the assumption
that values are more central than attitudes seems less certain in light
of the present findings. Greater centrality implies a greater number of
relationships with other cognitive elements and thus the manipulation of
a value, more than an attitude, should have repercussions throughout
subjects' belief systems. It has already been shown that manipulating
values affects attitudes, for when the importance of EQUALITY is
increased, attitudes toward such issues as civil rights and the Vietnam
War were also modified. But suppose that subjects' attitudes toward
civil rights were modified by a persuasive communication that made no
mention of the value EQUALITY and it was later observed that EQUALITY
became more important to subjects. This finding, combined with the
results of the present study, would suggest that while the value EQUALITY
and several attitudes are related, one is no more central than the other
in subjects' belief systems.

Another assumption worth testing is that racial similarity acts as
a reinforcer. Several studies were reported in which subjects learned
the correct response more quickly if it was followed by attitudinal

statements in accord with their own. It would not be difficult to

 

Ill cont'd.

Figure 4, implies Caucasians will discriminate against Caucasians when
there is an absence of social pressure from significant others (parents
and friends) to discriminate against Negroes. This is congruent with
the findings of Dienstbier (1970) and Silverman and Cochrane (1972) and
might be seen as subjects' adjustments to their perception of a change
in the liberal ethic (and therefore the experimenter's ethic) from no
discrimination on race to discrimination in favor of Negroes.

 

 

. ,aConsequences
Discrimination ’,v

Against ’,v’

Negroes .”’

I”’
l”’
,.” ",-—4—No Consequences
0 ' e” ....... "“

Discrimination

Against

Caucasians

Situation with Situation with
none much

Perceived Social Pressure for Racial Discrimination
Against Negroes from Parents and Friends

Figure 4. Racial discrimination as a function of_perceived
socialgpressure and_perceived consgquences of
subjects' responses (hypothetical relationship).

 

 

 

58

59

substitute photographs of Caucasians and Negroes for similar and dis-
similar attitude statements in order to see if following correct responses
with a photo of a person of the same race facilitates learning. Were this
not the case, the explanation of the results would become somewhat less
tenable.

This research was begun with the idea that the principle of belief
congruence was not true. By the time the research was finished the
opposite conclusion had been reached. The results clearly imply that
belief similarity is a more important determinant of interpersonal
attraction than is racial similarity. The task of designing a better
test of the principle of belief congruence now falls to those who still

doubt its validity.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES

 

Adams, J. S. and Hoffman, D. The frequency of self-reference state-
ments as a function of generalized reinforcement. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1960, 60, 384-389.

 

Anderson, C. C. and Cote, A. D. Belief dissonance as a source of dis-
affection between ethnic groups. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1966, 4, 447-453.

 

Bass, B. Authoritarianism or acquiescence. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 1955, 51, 616-623.

 

Bem, D. The epistemological status of interpersonal simulations.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. 1968, 4, 270-274.

Blake, R. R., Mouton, J. and Hain, J. D. Social forces in petition
signing. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly. 1956, 36,
385-390.

 

Byrne, D. and Griffitt, W. Similarity versus liking: a clarification.
Psychonomic Science. 1966, 6, 295-296.

 

Byrne, D. and McGrew, C. Interpersonal attraction towards Negroes.
Human Relations. 1964, 17, 201-213.

 

Byrne, D. and Wong, T. Racial prejudice, interpersonal attraction,
and assumed dissimilarity of attitudes. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psycholggy, 1962, 65, 246-253.

 

 

Cameron, N. Personality Development and Psychopatholggy--A Dynamic
Approach. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin Co., 1963.

 

Campbell, D. T. and Fiske, D. W. Convergent and discriminant validation
by the multitraitdmultimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin.

 

Campbell, D. and Stanley, J. Experimental and Quasi-Experimental
Designs for Research. Chicago: Rand McNally and Co., 1963.

 

 

Centers, R. A laboratory adaptation of the controversial procedure
for the conditioning of verbal operants. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 1963, 67, 334-339.

 

 

60

61

Cochrane, R. and Rokeach, M. Rokeach's value survey: a methodological
note. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality. 1970, 4,
159-161.

Cook, S. W. and Selltiz, C. A. Multiple indicator approach to attitude
measurement. Psychological Bulletin. 1964, 62, 36-55.

Crowne, D. P. and Marlowe, D. The Approval Motive. New York: Wiley,
1964.

 

Dienstbier, R. A. Positive and negative prejudice: interactions of
prejudice with race and social desirability. Journal of
Personality. 1970, 38, 190-215.

 

 

Dreger, R. M. and Miller, K. S. Comparative psychological studies of
Negroes and whites in the United States: 1959-1965. Psychological

 

Bulletin Monograph Supplement. 1968, 70.

Edwards, A. L. The Social Desirability Variable in Personality Assess-
ment and Research. New York: Dryden Press, 1957.

 

 

Epstein, R. and Komorita, S. S. Childhood prejudice as function of
parental ethnocentrism and punitiveness. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 259-264.

 

 

Ettinger, R. R., Nowicki, S., and Nelson, D. Interpersonal attraction
and the approval motive. Journal of Experimental Research in
Personality. 1970, 4, 95-99.

 

 

Farley, R. and Taeuber, K. Population trends and residential segrega-
tion since 1960. Science. 1968, 159, 953-956.

Festinger, L. Behavioral support for cpinion change. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 1964, 28, 404-417.

 

Freedman, J. Role playing: psychology by consensus. Journal of
Personalityyand Social Psychology. 1969, 13, 107-114.

 

 

Golightly, C. and Byrne, D. Attitude statements as positive and
negative reinforcements. Science. 1964, 146, 798-799.

Greenspoon, T. The reinforcing effect of two spoken sounds on the
frequency of two responses. American Journal of Psychology. 1955,
68, 409-416.

 

Grodzins, M. Metropolitan segregation. Scientific American. 1957,
197, 33-41.

 

Guilford, J. P. Psychometric Methods. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co.,
1954.

 

62

Harris, L. How whites feel about Negroes: a painful American dilemma.
Newsweek. 1963, 62, 44-50.

Hays, W. Statistics for Psychologists. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston. 1966.

 

Heiden, R. Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology.
1946, 21, 107-112.

 

Helson, H., Blake, R., and Mouton, J. Petition signing as adjustment
to situational and personal factors. The Journal of Social
Psychology. 1958, 48, 3-10.

 

Hendrick, C., Bixsenstine, V. E., and Hawkins, G. Race versus belief
similarity as determinants of attraction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 1971, 17, 250-258.

 

Horowitz, E. L. The development of attitudes toward the Negro.
Archives of Psychology. 1936, No. 194.

 

Insko, C. and Robinson, J. Belief similarity versus race as deter-
minants of reactions to Negroes by southern white adolescents:
a fuller test of Rokeach's theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1967, 7, 216-221.

 

 

Jackson, D. and Messick, S. J. Acquiescence and desirability as re-
sponse determinants on the M.M.P.I. Educational and Psychological
Measurement. 1961, 21, 771-792. ’

 

 

Kutner, B., Wilkens, C. and Yarrow, P. R. Verbal attitudes and overt
behavior involving racial prejudice. Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology. 1952, 47, 649-652.

 

 

Lamberth, J. and Craig, L. Differential magnitude of reward and magni-
tude shifts using attitudinal stimuli. Journal of Experimental
Research in Personali_y. 1970, 4, 281-285.

 

 

LaPiere, R. T. Attitudes versus actions. Social Forces. 1934, 13,
230-237.

 

Linn, L. S. Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: a study of racial
discrimination. Social Forces. 1964, 43, 353-364.

 

Magnusson, D. Test Theory. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., 1966.

 

Marx, M. H. Learning Processes. London: The Macmillan Company, 1969.

 

McGrew, John M. How "open" are multiple-dwelling units. The Journal
of Social Psychology. 1967, 72, 223—226.

 

 

63

McWhirter, R. M. and Jecker, J. D. Attitude similarity and inferred
attraction. Psychonomic Science. 1967, 7, 225-226.

 

Mezei, L. L. Race, belief, and perceived social pressure as deter-
minants of interpersonal behavioral intentions. Unpublished Ph.D.
thesisA Michigan State University, 1970.

 

Mosher, D. L. and Scodel, A. Relationships between ethnocentrism in
children and the ethnocentrism and authoritarian rearing practices
of their mothers. Child Development. 1960, 31, 369-376.

 

Nelson, A. M. The relative importance of race, belief and values as
determinants of discrimination. Unpublished M.A. thesis, Michigan
State University, 1965.

 

 

Newcomb, T. Persistance and regression of changed attitudes: long
range studies. Journalof Social Issues. 1963, 19, 3-14.

 

Orne, M. T. On the social psychology of the psychological experiment.
American Psychologist. 1962, 17, 776-783.

 

Penner, L., Homant, R., and Rokeach, M. Comparison of rank-order and
paired-comparison methods for measuring value systems. Perceptual
and Motor Skills. 1968, 27, 417-418.

 

Pettigrew, T. F. Personality and sociocultural factors in intergroup
attitudes: a cross-national comparison. Journal of Conflict
Research. 1958, 2, 29-42.

 

Robinson, W. S. Ecological correlations and the behavior of individuals.
American Sociological Review. 1950, 15, 351-357.

 

Rokeach, M., Smith, P., and Evans, R. Two kinds of prejudice or one?
In M. Rokeach (ed.), The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic
Books, 1960, 132-168.

 

Rokeach, M. Belief versus race as determinants of social distance:
comments on Triandis' paper. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology. 1961, 62, 187-188.

 

 

Rokeach, M. and Rothman, G. The principle of belief congruence and the
congruity principle as models of cognitive interaction. Psycho-
logical Reviews. 1965, 72, 128-172.

 

Rokeach, M. Attitude change and behavioral change. Public Opinion
Quarterly. 1966, 30, 529-550.

 

Rokeach, M. and Mezei, L. Race and shared belief as factors in social
choice. Science. 1966, 151, 167-172.

64

Rokeach, M. The nature of attitudes. The International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences. The Mcmillan Company and the Free Press.
1968, 449-457.

 

Rokeach, M. Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass, Inc., 1968.

 

Rokeach, M. The role of values in public cpinion research. Public
Opinion Quarterly. 1969, 32, 547-559.

Rokeach, M. and Parker, S. Values as social indicators of poverty and
race relations in America. The Annals of the American Acadepy of
Political and Social Science. 1970, 338, 97-111.

 

 

Rokeach, M. Long-range experimental manipulation of values, attitudes,
and behavior. American Psychologist. 1971, 26.

 

Rokeach, M. The Nature of Human Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc., 1972.

 

Rosenberg, M. When dissonance fails: on eliminating evaluation appre-
hension from attitude measurement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1965, 1, 28-42.

 

Rosenthal, R. Experimenter Effects in Behavioral Research. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966.

Silverman, B. I. and Cochrane, R. The relationship between verbal
expressions of behavioral intention and overt behavior. The
Journal of Social Psychology. 1971, 84, 51-56.

Silverman, B. I. and Cochrane, R. The effect of the social context on
the principle of belief congruence. Journal of Personality_and
Social Psychology. 1972.

 

 

Smith, C. R., Williams, L., and Willis, R. H. Race, sex, and belief as
determdnants of friendship acceptance. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. 1967, 5, 127-137.

 

 

Stein, D. The influence of belief systems on interpersonal preference.
Psycholpgical Monographs. 1966, 80, No. 616.

 

Stein, D., Hardyk, J. and Smith, M. Race and belief, an open and shut
case. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 1965, 1,
281-289.

 

Tajfel, Henri. Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific
American. 1970, 223, 96-102.

 

Thibaut, J. W. and Kelley, H. The Social Psychology of GrOups.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1959.

 

65

Triandis, H. A note on Rokeach's theory of prejudice. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology. 1961, 62, 184-186.

 

 

Triandis, H. and Davis, E. Race and belief as determinants of be-
havioral intentions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
1965, 2, 715-725.

 

Westie, R. R. A technique for the measurement of race attitudes.
American Sociological Review. 1953, 18, 73-78.

 

Winer, B. J. Statistical Principles in Experimental Design. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1962, pp. 319-330.

Yamane, T. Elementary Sampling Theopy. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1967.

 

APPENDIX A

ADRIAN COLLEGE
ADRIAN MICHIGAN

_‘3.K
.

i l\.-'/

'\- "\ p
o \l»: 1 ‘N‘"’ "
\ .‘5 \
7‘4-//

April 16, 1970

Dear Incoming Freshman:

Congratulations on your admission to Adrian College.
we hape your stay here will prove both enjoyable and enlightening.
My office is at your disposal when and if you ever need assistance.
YOu will find that my relationship to the male student body is
one of assistance and help. My primary concern is keeping you at
Adrian College. ~

This year we are initiating a new program designed to
facilitate your adjustment to college life. In the past we have
assigned new students to dormitory rooms solely on the basis of
their responses to the questionnaire headed "Application for Room
Vin a Residence Hall." We believe that this procedure can be
improved upon by allowing new students a greater voice in selecting
their roommates for the upcoming academict?EaF. Since it is
impossible for you to meet the other members of the freshman class
before coming to Adrian, we will provide you with detailed des-
criptions of eight other incoming freshmen from which you may select
your roommate. These descriptions will be constructed from
other incoming freshmen' 5 responses to the three enclosed ques-
tionnaires.Vl Copies of the questionnaires for you to fill out and
return are enclosed along with a self-addressed, stamped return.

- envelope. we will do our best to provide you with individuals

. having a wide range of views and interests from which you may
choose your roommate. In order to expedite the compilation of
the descriptions we would very much appreciate your returning the
enclosed questionnaires within 2 weeks.

 

 

You will find that college presents many new and wonderful
experiences that can be most reqarding and fulfilling if you
will only let yourself become involved in the total college
environment. YOu will also find that you may have some traumatic
experiences and the true test of one's abilities comes, when
faced with adversity, if he can remain cool and calm and emerge
a more mature individual for having experienced this trauma. You
will find that your freshman year is a year of adjustment--
adjustment to a newly found freedom--and if you can discipline
yourself both academically and socially you will not have one
bit of trouble with Adrian College. The outcome of your actions
will reflect what values you place on college and college life.

64

Page ~2-

April 16, 1970

For your information the college furnishes twin-size
beds, one chest of drawers, chairs, drapes, one waste basket,
mattress cover, and dresser desks in your room. For those who
‘ wish to do their own laundry, the dorm has both washers and
dryers. The fee for the use of the washer is 25¢ per load,
with a 10¢ fee for 10 minutes of drying time. You are asked to
bring your bedding including blanket, pillow, bed spread, towels
and wash cloths, study lamp, small rug, iron and radio. For
those of you who would like to sign up for linen service you
will be contacted during the first week of August by the
Quality Linen Company of Detroit who would be most happy to ‘
supply you with clean linens each week. The charge for this,
per semester, is around $20. This service provides you with
three clean towels, two sheets, and a pillow case.

Your room assignment and the name of your roommate will
be mailed to you sometime during the first part of August.
In the meantime if I can be of any assistance to you please do
not hesitate to call on me at anytime. LOoking forward to making
your acquaintance and hoping your stay at Adrian will be a most
fruitful and prosperous one, I remain.

Sincerely,

Charles Marvin
Dean of Men

CM/bd

APPENDIX B

<68

STUDENT ATTITUDE SURVEY

Please express your feelings towards the following issues in no more

than four sentences. In the first sentence state your position as clearly
as possible while in the following sentence(s) explain why you feel the way
you do. ’

1)

2)

3)

4)

5)

What is your position on --

Our government's past actions and present policy in Vietnam?

A college admissions policy that gives preferential treatment to Negroes?

Administrators' vs. teachers' vs. students' desires in determination of

'course content -- who should determine what is taught in a course?

Student protest demonstrations?

Abolishing the draft -- an all volunteer army?

 

Sex

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

Race

Religion

Name

APPENDIX C

 

I’.l Iti' I"

 

ilil All I: 1.310 I‘ll-ii l I.
I I l

69
FORM E

VALUE SURVEY

Name Sex: Male Female

Birthdate City and State of Birth

 

Below is a list of 18 values arranged in alphabetical order. Your task is to

arrange them in order of their importance to YOU, as guiding principles in
YOUR life.

Study the list carefully. Then place a l_next to the value which is most
important for you, place a.; next to the value which is second most important

to you, etc. The value which is least important, relative to the others,
should be ranked 18.

Work slowly and think carefully. If you change your mind, feel free to
change your answers. The end result should truly show how you really feel.

____;A COMFORTABLE LIFE (a prosperous life)

‘____;AN EXCITING LIFE (a stimulating, active life)
____sA SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT (lasting contribution)
_____A WORLD AT PEACE (free of war and conflict)
_____A WORLD OF BEAUTY (beauty of nature and the arts)
_____EQUALITY (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)
_____FAMILY SECURITY (taking care of loved ones)
_____FREEDOM (independence, free choice)
_____HAPPINESS (ccntentedness)

_____INNER HARMONY (freedom from inner conflict)
_____MATURE LOVE (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
_____NATIONAL SECURITY (protection from attack)
._____PLEASURE (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
_____SALVATION (saved, eternal life)
_____SELF-RESPECT (self-esteem)

______SOCIAL RECOGNITION (respect, admiration)
_____TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close companionship)

WISDOM (a mature understanding of life)
(c) 1967 by Milton Rokeach

Below is a list of another 18 values. Rank these in order of importance
in the same way you ranked the first list on the preceding page.
_____AMBITIOUS (hard-working, aspiring)

_____BROADMINDED (open-minded)

_____CAPABLE (competent, effective)

_____CHEERFUL (lighthearted, joyful)

‘_____CLEAN (neat, tidy)

_____COURAGEOUS (standing up for your beliefs)

._____FORGIVING (willing to pardon others)

_____HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others)

_____HONEST (sincere, truthful)

_____IMAGINATIVE (daring, creative)

_____INDEPENDENT (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
‘_____INTELLECTUAL (intelligent, reflective)

_____LOGICAL (consistent, rational)

_____LOVING (affectionate, tender)

_____OBEDIENT (dutiful, respectful)

_____POLITE (courteous, well-mannered)

______RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable)

SELF-CONTROLLED (restrained, self-disciplined)

APPENDIX D

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY am mama - marrow 48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY 0 01.133 HALL

May 3, 1970

Dear Incoming Freshman,

As an entering freshman at Adrian College, you have been selected to
participate in a psychological investigation. The attitudes and opinions
of college students are currently a topic of much public interest. Several
surveys have been conducted using as subjects students already attending
collegesand universities. The purpose of this survey, conducted by the
Psychology Department of Michigan State University, is to determine the
attitudes and values of students before they enter such institutions. Your
cooperation is necessary if we are to obtain a valid picture of the thoughts
and feelings of incoming college students.

The study will consist of three sets of questionnaires mailed to you
at approximately five week intervals. The first set is enclosed. Please
fill out the Student Attitude Survey and the Value Survey and return both
in the envelope provided within one week. You will receive a copy of our
findings as soon as the data is analysed. Although your name is required
on each questionnaire, (so that your responses to all questions may be
compared) your responses are confidential. Only data concerning incoming
freshmen as a group will be published.

Thank you very much for taking part in this study. Your assistance
is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,

“Ciao/«awe

Dr. Raymond Cochrane

Wages, W64

Dr. Milton Rokeach

Pam/CZ...

Mr. Bernard Silverman

71

APPENDIX E

ADRIAN COLLEGE
ADRIANPMJCHIGAN

CHARLES E. MARVIN
DEAN OF MEN

Dear

You will remember that a month ago, along with other incoming
freshmen males, you completed several questionnaires in which you
described your attitudes and values. On the following pages are

the descriptions of eight young men, who like yourself, are incoming
freshmen males at Adrian College. You may select your roommate from
among these individuals. We have made every attempt to provide

you with a diverse group of persons from which to choose.

After each description are the numbers 1 to 9. Let #1 stand for

”I would like to share a room with this person very much." Let #9
stand for "I would not like to share a room with this person at all."
You may use the numbers between #1 and #9 to express varying

degrees of preference for the individuals as roommates. Circle one
number after each individual described. Thus, the smaller the

number you circle after any individual, the greater the chances that
you will be sharing a room with him next fall at Adrian College.

We will do our best to assign you to a room with that individual you
rate most favorably. If that should prove to be impossible, we

will assign you to a room with that individual you indicate by your
rating to be your second choice. It is unlikely that we will have
to go beyond your second or third choice in assigning roommates.

So that we may begin the task of assigning roommates as soon as
possible, we would appreciate your returning your selections in
the envelope provided within one week. Before being notified of
your exact roommate assignment, about August 15, you will be asked
to fill out a general information survey which you will receive
about the first of August. Until then, I remain,

Sincerely,
W flit/L.

Charles E. Marvin
DEAN OF MEN

CEMzsmk

72

APPENDIX 1"

73

John W. Phillips is a Negro, 18 years old, and lives in Battle Creek, Michigan.
He does not think Negroes should be given preferential treatment for admission
to college as he writes, "80 that blacks may acquire the pride we need we
should be given equal treatment in every way, but not preferential treatment,
for this would be unfair." Further, he writes, "Although I'm against any sort
of violence in protest demonstrations, I believe all people in this country,
including students, have the right to make their views known through peaceful
protest, so I support student protest demonstrations." Concerning the deter-
mination of course content he writes, "Since the student comes to college to
learn, not to make policy, the administrators and teachers should decide course
content." On the issue of abolishing the draft and replacing it with an all
volunteer army he commented, "An all volunteer army in place of the draft is
fine in theory, but it's unlikely many men would choose the army as a career."
The values John considers to be most important as guiding principles in his
life are SALVATION, NATIONAL SECURITY, AN EXCITING LIFE, and PLEASURE, which
be ranked first to fourth respectively.

Clifford Carlsmith is a Caucasian, 18 years old, and lives in Lincoln,
Nebraska. He writes, "Where education is concerned I do not believe anyone
should receive preferential treatment, Negro or otherwise. Those who are
qualified should be admitted while those who fail to meet the requirements
should not." Clifford's position on student protest demonstrations is
"peaceful protest demonstrations have my full support, but when violence,
vandalism and injury results, protest demonstrations should be stopped."

On determination of course content he says, "Although suggestions from

students may be allowed, course content should be jointly determined by
teachers and administrators." Regarding the issue of a volunteer army to
replace the draft he writes, "I like the idea of abolishing the draft and a
volunteer army, but with our foreign troop commitments I just don't think

it's possible." The values Clifford considers to be most important as guiding
principles in his life are A WORLD AT PEACE, FREEDOM, A SENSE OF ACCOMPLISHMENT,
and EQUALITY, which be ranked first to fourth respectively.

Otis Simmons is a Negro, 17 years old, and lives in Benton Harbor, Michigan.
Otis writes, "Until the primary and secondary school educational opportunities
of blacks are equal to those of whites, I think we should be given preferential
treatment for admissions to college." With regard to the issue of student
protest demonstrations he remarks, ”I think student protests are very wrong.
Students should look up the rules of the college they plan to attend, and if
they don't like them, they should go somewhere else." Regarding the issue

of determination of course content, Otis writes, "Because we students have

to take the course, we should be allowed to control what it is we have to
learn." About the draft he remarked, "I support abolishing the draft in favor
of an all volunteer army as this would insure that nobody would be forced to
fight who didn't want to." The values Otis considers to be most important as

guiding principles in his life are PLEASURE, NATIONAL SECURITY, TRUE FRIENDSHIP,
and SALVATION, which he ranked first to fourth respectively.

Michael Barnat is a Caucasian, 18 years old, and lives in Marquette, Michigan.
In response to the question, should Negroes be given preferential treatment
when applying for admission to college, he replied, "Because Negroes generally
have been deprived of adequate educational facilities I think preferential
treatment should be given them when they apply to college." Michael's answer
to the question on student protest demonstrations was, "I do not like and do
not support student protests. A well constructed letter to a university or

‘ government official will probably have more effect anyway than a bunch of
marching, chanting students." "I think the student should have the greatest
say as to what is taught in a course because he is the one who will have to
face the world with what he learned in the classroom." "I favor an all volun-
teer army and abolishing the present draft system because this would mean the
anxiety and uncertainty draft-age men go through would be gone." The values
Michael considers to be most important as guiding principles in his life are

EQUALITY, FREEDOM, WISDOM, and A.WORLD AT PEACE, which he ranked first to
fourth respectively.

 

Peter Hampton is a Caucasian, 18 years old, and lives in Des Moines, Iowa.
Peter opposes a college admissions policy that gives preferential treatment
to Negroes as he writes, "I am against such a policy because I've always
.thought that admissions to college should be based on merit rather than
skin color." Concerning the issue of student protest demonstrations he
writes, "I support non-violent and orderly student protest demonstrations
as I think they show that students have an interest in their country." In
response to the question, who should determine course content he answered,
"Because they have the experience, administrators and.teachers should make
the final decisions about course content." Concerning abolishing the draft
and substituting an all volunteer army he writes, "It would be nice, but
it's unrealistic. The government couldn't raise enough men." The values
Peter considers to be most important as guiding principles of his life are
SALVATION, PLEASURE, SOCIAL RECOGNITION, and NATIONAL SECURITY, which he
ranked first to fourth respectively.

Raymond Dorsey is a Negro, 18 years old, and lives in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
In response to the question, should Negroes be given preferential treatment
when applying for admission to college, Raymond answered, "By giving blacks
special consideration when they apply to college more blacks will get into
the mainstream of society, thus giving the black community a greater stake

in America, so I'm all for it." Concerning the issue of student protest
demonstrations he writes, "I oppose all of those demonstrations as they

only serve to take time away from studies and other important academic
activities." As far as determination of course content goes, students know
what they want to learn so they should be allowed to determine course content."
Abolishing the draft and having a volunteer army is a great idea and can be
done if army wages and prestige are both increased." The values Raymond con-
siders to be most important as guiding principles in his life are A WORLD AT
PEACE, EQUALITY, SELF RESPECT, and FREEDOM, which he ranked first to fourth
respectively.

William Jackson is a Negro, 18 years old, and lives in Rockford, Illinois.
William writes, "I am for the same admissions standards for everyone regard-
-less of race. If we want to be treated as equals, we will have to meet the
same standards as everyone else." Regarding the issue of student protests
he answered, "I am all for protest demonstrations as long as the demands

are justified, the demonstrations are non-violent, and there is no infringe-
ment on the rights of others." "Either administrators or teachers should
decide course content, not the student as he has no qualifications." About
the draft he writes, "Using a volunteer army instead of the draft is a

good idea but I doubt if a big enough army could be raised." The values
William considers to be most important as guiding principles in his life

are FREEDOM, A WORLD AT PEACE, HAPPINESS, and EQUALITY, which he ranked
first to fourth respectively.

Dan Albert is a Caucasian, 17 years old, and lives in Lansing, Michigan.

Dan feels that Negroes should be given preferential treatment when applying
for admission to college as he writes, "Since Negroes have been discriminated
against throughout history they should now be given more than an equal chance
to get into college." With regard to student protest demonstrations he
comments, "I am going-to college with the purpose of learning, not marching
around, and therefore I generally dislike and do not approve of student
protests." "As the student has to listen in class and learn the material he
should be able to have the main voice in determining course content." Con-
cerning abolishing the draft he responded, "You can't really call this a free
country with the draft the way it is, so I'm all for abolishing it." The
values Dan considers to be most important as guiding principles in his life
are NATIONAL SECURITY, SALVATION, A WORLD OF BEAUTY, and PLEASURE, which he
ranked first to fourth respectively.

APPENDIX C

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY elm mmo-mcmem 43823

 

DEPARTMENT OP PSYCHOLOGY ' OLDS HALL

July 3, 1970

George F. Sweeny
3807 Heatherdowns Boulevard
Toledo, Ohio

Dear George:

First of all, thank you very much for filling out and returning
our first questionnaire. This is the second questionnaire in our study
of the attitudes and values of students before they enter college. In
this questionnaire you will be asked to respond to descriptions of
individuals as though you were evaluating them as potential roommates.

Let us posit a hypothetical situation to which we would like to
know your reaction. Suppose you were given the opportunity to select
your roommate for your first year at college. On the following pages
are the descriptions of eight individuals who like yourself plan to
begin college in the fall (at Michigan State rather than at Adrian).
Read each description carefully and indicate to what extent you would
prefer the person described as a roommate.

After each description are the numbers 1 to 9. Let #1 stand for
"I would like to share a room with this person very much." Let #9
stand for "I would not like to share a room with this person at all."
You may use the numbers between #1 and #9 to express varying degrees
of preference for the individuals as roommates. Circle one number
after each person described.

As before we have enclosed a stamped return envelope in which you
may return this questionnaire. We would appreciate your doing so
within one week. In approximately 5 weeks we will send you a third
questionnaire designed to reflect your perceptions of your present
environment and your expectations about college.

Thanks again,

Dr. Milton Rokeach

Mr. Bernard Silverman

77

APPENDIX H

ALPHA TAU OMEGA FBATEBNITY

MICHIGAN ALPHA MU. ADRIAN COLLEGE

Cornelius House
210 5. Madison
Adrian. Michigan

 

 

July 23, 1970

Dear Freshman,

The men of Alpha Tau Omega at Adrian College are
conducting this survey in order to discover the
preferences and desires of those males who plan to
begin their advanced education at Adrian College
in the fall of 1970. This is not a solicitation for
membership, but rather an attempt to find out in
what directions our fraternity as well as our college
might be heading in the years to come. Please return
the enclosed questionnaire as soon as you can. We
wish you success in your college endeavor and hope
you'll feel free to stop in and see us at the ATO
house when you arrive on campus this fall.

Look forward to seeing you,

Kid-moi, d. We

Richard C. Sweebe
President, Alpha Tau Omega

78

APPENDIX I

79

Fraternity Survey

First we would like to know what you expect from a fraternity
you might consider joining. Please indicate how important
each of the following fraternity functions is to you.

a)

b)

C)

d)

e)

Fielding atheletic teams in intramural competitions...
(check v’one)

 

 

 

Very Important Important Somewhat Unimportant
Important

Providing academic help (tutoring) to fraternity brothers...
(check V’one)

 

 

 

Very Important Important Somewhat Unimportant
Important

Providing a group of close friends... (check v/one)

 

 

Very Important Important Somewhat Unimportant
Important

Providing an opportunity to meet members of the opposite
sex... (check v’one)

 

 

 

Very Important Important Somewhat Unimportant
Important

Conducting charitable and philanthropic functions...
(check V one)

 

 

 

Very Important Important Somewhat Unimportant
Important

Next we would like to know how likely you would be to

take part in each of the following activities. (Check
one number on each scale)

a) Atheletics

 

 

I T 3 2r '5“ e -5 £3 3
I would I definitely
definitely would not

take part take part

YoUK

b) Tutoring "frat" brothers

 

1 2 3 4 E E i s 9‘
I would I definitely
definitely would not
take part take part

c) Planing parties and arranging social functions

 

 

’1 :'2 3 21 '5 ' 5 s '9
I would I definitely
definitely would not
take part take part
d) Conducting charitable activities
k . 3 1 A n . a .‘
1 :‘z 3 4 5 6 i s 9
I would I definitely
definitely would not
take part take part

Finally, we would like to find out what preparations you have
already made (or have been made for you) for living accomoda—
tions for the upcoming academic year at college.

Where do you plan to live during your first year at college?

 

 

At home Off campus On campus in
in town a dormitory

Do you have any idea who your roomate will be at college?

A A J ' a I

 

i é 3 4 E3 6 7 8 3
I know It may be one I have no
exactly who of several idea at all
it will be persons that who it will be
I am aware of.
Name

 

Address

 

APPENDIX J

ADRIAN COLLEGE
ADRIANPMJCHIGAN

CHARLES E. MARVIN
DEAN OF STUDENTS

July 28, 1970

Dear

Thank you for promptly returning your roommate selections
last month. It is quite likely that your room assignment has
already been made and later in the month you will receive.
eXplicit information about it. From the questionnaires you
previously completed, we have learned much about the attitudes
and values of our incoming freshmen class. Now we would like

to gain some idea about your perceptions of those important

in your life. In the encl se questionnaire we weuld like

you to describe the reactions of your friends and parents to
. specific behaviors you might engage in.

As before we have enclosed a stamped envelOpe in which
you may return the questionnaire. we would appreciate your
doing so within one week._ . .

.Looking forward to seeing you in the Fall, I remain,

SinCerely,

Charles E. Marvin
Dean of Students

smk.

8]

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST unsmo . MICHIGAN 48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ° OLDS HALL

- *~ July 30, 1970

Dear

Thank you for filling out and returning the first
two sets of questionnaires. This is the third and final
questionnaire in our study of the attitudes and values
of students before they enter college. However, in the
enclosed questionnaire, rather than describing your own
attitudes, we would like you to describe the reactions
of your friends and parents to particular behaviors you
might engage in.

As before we have enclosed a stamped self-addressed
envelope in which you may return the Questionnaire. We would
appreciate your doing so within one week as that
would facilitate data analysis, As soon as the data is
analysed you will be sent a report of our findings. If
the report is not completed by the end ofIAugust we will
mail it to you at school rather than at home. Once again,
thank you very much for helping us out in this study of
student attitudes and values.

Sincerely

Dr. Milton Rokeach

flw/d‘ea

Mr. Bernard Silverman

82

APPENDIX K

83

Significant Others Questionnaire

This questionnaire is designed to let you describe not your own attitudes
but rather how you think your friends, parents, and students at college

would react toward you if you engaged in the following behaviors.

First concentrate on the ideas and attitudes of your best fgiengg.

 

Circle

that one response to each question that best reflects what you think your
friends would think of you if...

1) You decided not to attend college in the fall.

2)

3)

4)

5)

l 2
They would
approve of
my behavior

You decided to

l 2
They would
approve of
my behavior

You decided to

l 2
They would
approve of
my behavior

You decided to

l 2
They would
approve of
my behavior

You decided to

l 2
They would
approve of
my behavior

3 4 5 6 7 8
They wouldn't They would They would
care one way disapprove disapprove
or the other slightly '

date a girl of a different religion.

3 4 5 6 7 8
They wouldn't They would They would
care one way disapprove disapprove
or the other slightly

share a room with a Negro at college.

3 4 S 6 7 8
They wouldn't They would They would
care one way disapprove disapprove
or the other slightly

9
They would
strongly
disapprove

9
They would
strongly
disapprove

9
They would
strongly
disapprove

refuse induction into the military when drafted.

3 4 5 6 7 8
They wouldn't They would They would
care one way disapprove disapprove
or the other slightly

go on to graduate or professional school after

3 4 5 6 7 8
They wouldn't They would They would
care one way disapprove disapprove
or the other slightly

9
They would
strongly
disapprove

your B.A.

9
They would
strongly
disapprove

APPENDIX L

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EAST LANSING - MICHIGAN 48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY ' OLDS HALL

Dear

my name is Bernard Silverman and I'm a graduate student at Muchigan State
University in psychology. Although you were not aware of it, you participated
in an investigation of interpersonal attraction, during the past summer when
you believed you were choosing a roommate for the upcoming academic year. I
apologize for the deception, but I hope you will see that it was necessary
in order for the study to be properly carried out. Let me tell you a bit
about the purpose and design of the investigation.

A professor at Michigan State has an interesting theory that people
discriminate more on attitude and value similarity than racial similarity
when selecting individuals to interact with in various situations. He claims
that individuals discriminate on race mainly because they attribute different
beliefs and attitudes to those of a different race. To support this propo-
sition, which has been called the Theory of Belief Congruence, he has presented
college students in psychology courses with descriptions of hypothetical
persons, and asked them to indicate to what extent they would like to interact
with the hypothetical persons in various situations. These hypothetical
persons were described as either Negro or Caucasian and as having either
similar or dissimilar attitudes to the students. The results of these
studies confirm belief congruence. Students discriminated very little on
race, but very much on attitude similarity, choosing hypothetical persons
espousing similar attitudes ahead of those holding dissimilar attitudes.

These findings, however, could be due in part to the fact that the
students knew they were participating in a psychological experiment conducted
by a liberal professor in a liberal university setting. In such surroundings
it is considered socially unacceptable to discriminate on race, and since the
subjects knew their choices were of no consequence they might well act in
the socially desirable fashion and rate Negroes as favorably as Caucasians,
regardless of their actual feelings.

I felt that to get some idea of a person's "true" attitudes it was
necessary to make his selections appear to be of some consequence. If one be~
lieved he were actually choosing a roommate he would be more likely to
act in accord with his actual feelings toward living with a Negro than if he
were only behaving "gg_though" he were selecting a roommate. Two groups,
of about 40 each, were randomly selected from the incoming freshman class
at Adrian. One group, called the control group, was told that they were in
a psychological study. Like you, they received and filled out the value and
attitude surveys, evaluated the eight hypothetical students as potential
roommates, and filled out the third and final "significant others question-
naire." They differed from your group, the experimental group, only in that
they knew the responses they made to the eight hypothetical persons had no

86

bearing on their actual roommate assignment for the upcoming academic year.

From examining their responses one would conclude that race is an
irrelevant factor in roommate selection as these individuals, on the average,
did not discriminate at all against Negroes. The group of which you were
a part, who actually believed they were choosing their roommates, discriminated
significantly against Negroes. As it can be safely assumed the underlying
attitudes of the two groups towards Negroes was equivalent, it can be con-
cluded that those in the control group were responding in a socially desirable
manner rather than in a manner congruent with their own feelings. If this
occurred in the present study it is quite likely that it occurred in past
studies in which the principle of belief congruence was tested.

As the data analysis has not yet been completed I do not know whether
belief similarity proved to be a more important determinant of roommate
choices than racial similarity for those in the experimental group. So
that I may more fully describe the findings to you and answer other questions
you may have, I plan to spend an evening at Adrian College early this fall.
Dean Marvin will notify you of the time and place if you should care to get
together and discuss this investigation.

Sincerely,

ZZZW/cfiz Z ,2

Bernard Silverman
Graduate Student, Dept. of Psychology
Michigan State University

APPENDIX M

£38

THE EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

A four way analysis of variance, with repeated measures on three
factors was employed in the present study. The between subjects
factor, or that factor on which there was no repeated measurement was
consequences (A). The two levels of consequences are represented by p1,
consequences, and p2, no consequences. In the following formula p stands
for the number of levels of A. The three within subjects factors or
factors on which there were repeated measures, were race (B), attitude .
similarity (C), and value similarity (D). The letters q, r, and 3 stand
for the number of levels of the race, attitude, and value similarity
variables respectively. Below is a diagram which depicts the experimental
design. On the following pages are the computational formulas required
for calculating the sums of squares and degrees of freedom for the main

effects, interaction effects, and error terms in the analysis of variance.

 

 

Negro Caucasian
Similar Dissimilar Similar Dissimilar
Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes Attitudes
Sim. Dissim. Sim. Dissim. Sim. Dissim. Sim. Dissim.
Val. ‘Val. val. val. ' Val. Val. Val. Val.

 

Conseq.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No Conseq.

 

 

In the following formulas G2 represents all scores summed, then
squared. The sum of X2 represents all scores squared, then summed.
P represents subjects. For numbers 3 to 24 a different table of cell
totals must be constructed. In the following fomulas n represents the
number of observations within each level of A. See Winer, pages 324-329
for an auxiliary description. The values corresponding to these numbers
(1 to 24) may be "plugged in" to the formulas on the next page which

yield SS and df.

 

 

Code ‘ Code -

Number Partition of Scores Number Partition of Scores
l 62] n x p x q x r x s 13 (D)2/ n x p x q x r
2 X2 14 (AD)2/ n x q x r
3 (A2)/ n x q x r x s 15 (BD)2/ n x p x r
4 (Bz)/ n x p x r x s 16 (ABD)2/ n x r
5 , (02)] n x p x q x s 17 ' (CD)2/ n x p x q

‘6 (AB)2/ n x r x s 18 (ACD)2/ n x q
7 (AC)2/ n x q x s 19 (BCD)2/ n x p
s (sc>2/ n x p x s 20 (ABCD)2/ n
9 (ABC)2/ n x s 21 (DP)2/ q x r

10 (P)2/ q x r x s 22 (BCP)2/ s

11 (BP)2/ r x s 23 (sop)2/ r

12 (cr)2/ q x s 24 , (CDP)2/ q

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following table provides the formulas necessary for calculating

sums of squares and degrees of freedom for the various sources of vari-

ance .

By dividing the sum of squares by their degrees of freedom mean

squares can be calculated, leading to computation of F ratios.

 

Source of Variance

Computational Formula

Degrees of Freedom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CDPx Subjects
(error CD,ACD)

 

Between Subjects 10-1 (n p) - 1
A 3-1 p - l
S. with groups
Sub. within groups 10-3 p x (n-l)
(error Al,
Within Subjects 2-10 n x p 37(q'r°§) -17
B 4-1 _g - 1
AB _i§+L) - (3+él (Hal) K (9:1)
BxSubj. within groups (11+3 - (6+10) p(n-1) (q-l)
(error B,AB)
C 5-1 r-l
AC ,(1+1) - (3+5), (p-l) x_(r-l)
CxSubj. within groups = _ _ _
(error C,AC) (12 3) (7+10) p(n 1) x (r 1)
D 13-1 s-l
AD Zil4+1) - (Qilé) (Pal) x (s-ll
DxSubj. within groups _ ' _ _
igrrot,91ADl, (21+3) (10+14) p(n 1) x (s 1)
BC (§+1) - (9+5) (q:1) x (:21)
ABC (213+4+5) - (6+7+8+1) (p-l) x (q-l) x (r-l)
BCPxSubjects - _ _ _
(BC,ABC error) (22+6+7+10) (3+9+11+12) p(n l) x (q l) x (r 1)
BD 115:1) - (4+13) (Q:1) Kris-1)
ABD QM+13+16) - (1+6+14+1S) (p-l) x (31) x (s-l)
BDPxSubjects _ '_ - _
(error BD,ABD) (23+l4+6+10) (16+21+11+3) p(n 1) x (q 1) x (s 1)
CD ((17+1) - (5+1§)A (r-l) x (s-l)
ACD (18+3+5+13) - (7+14+7+1) (p-l) x (r-l) x (s-l)

 

(24+14+7+10) - (18+12+21+3)

p(n-1) x (r-l) x (s-l)

 

BCD-
ABCD

BCDxSubjects
D (error son,Ancn)

 

 

1L9+4+5+13) - (8+15+17+Q

(er) x iy-l) x (§:1)

 

 

(20+6+7+14+8+15+17+1 - (p-l) x (q-l) x (r-l) x
_59+16+19+18+3+4+5+13) (s-l)
(2+21+12+ll+18+l6+9+3) - p(n-1) x (q-l) x (r-l) x

(20+24+23+22+6+7+14+10)

 

(s-l)

 

 

APPENDIX N

91

TABLE 10

CORRELATIONS RELEVANT TO THE RELIABILITY OF
RACIAL DISCRIMINATION SCORES

 

Correlations Between Ratings Correlations Between Ratings
Assigned Negro Hypothetical Persons Assigned Caucasian Hypothetical Persons
x1 x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 x8
X1 .62* .20 .07 X5 .19 .08 -.31*
X2 .02 .23 x6 ' —.60* -.23
X3 .43* x7 .43*

 

 

92

TABLE 11

CORRELATIONS RELEVANT TO THE RELIABILITY OF
BELIEF DISCRIMINATION SCORES

 

Correlations Between Ratings , ‘ Correlations Between Ratings

Assigned Hypothetical Persons Assigned Hypothetical Persons
with Similar Attitudes with Dissimilar Attitudes
x1 x2 x5 X6 x3 x4 x7 x8
X1 .62* .01 .08 X3 .43* .31* .11
x2 -'. 10 . 30* x4 . 01 .12
X5 .19 X7 .43*
x6 x3
Correlations Between Ratings Correlations Between Ratings
Assigned Hypothetical Persons Assigned Hypothetical Persons
with Similar values with Dissimilar values
x1 X3 x5 x7 x2 ' x4 X6 X8
x1 ‘ .20 .01 -.31* x2 .23 -.1o -.18
X3 -.30* .31* Kg -.12 .12
X5 .08 ' ' ' X6 -.23
x7 x8

 

HICHIan STaTE UNIV. LIBRARIES
\ll\lWImWIW"WII'll“WMIIMIWII
31293104484533