5min . ”.2" 3. $4., an a “Wm"? Run...“ .1 1- Mr 9.. imn...i._wana= s fiafiiéfiflwr Zré gnaw. '— .1“ a .1}; a . fiamajrzwrtfihfi e. . .r , . , .- Qt ... is. . . .. new. ls... . X 333...... .. .i... . . , av... 11....» Gama.... Emma»? . a a. a. 33...... .. «$.91... :2. i. . oh . S. 1: iii?! 1‘ a...“ 1. in»; ‘Lnnfiuuv! : 3...}: .3. Mariam x 2 . I: .(1 . .1513}: xi. n.1vk .1.) .CI‘ .1... .2...) _ w‘ ‘ L}? acct“... .117... , .fi... . , 1“. FEE: ‘ . (.1 t $7.va . Aé‘.‘ $4.5 .2 13351-5 ALANANMAINTAIN _._. _-___.‘-_—_— This is to certify that the thesis entitled NATUrE AND DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDEs TOWARD EDUCATION AND TONAED PHYSICALL‘I DISABLED PERSONS IN COLOMBIA, PERU, AND THE UNITED STATES presented hg Eugene Wesley Friesen has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for PhD degree in Education (Department of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology) ///wz, %E. 337511} Major professor Date May 20, 1966 i i ROOM USE ONLY - 'm—u-» NATURE AND DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION AND TOWARD PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS IN COLOMBIA, PERU, AND THE UNITED STATES By Eugene Wesley Friesen A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Departxnerrt of Counseling, Personnel Services, and Educational Psychology College of Education 1966 l5 ABSTRACT NATURE AND DETERMINANTS OF ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION AND TOWARD PHYSICALLY DISABLED PERSONS IN COLOMBIA, PERU, AND THE UNITED STATES by Eugene Wesley Friesen The major focus of the study was on the relationship between interpersonal values, personal contact, attitudes, and certain demographic variables. The assumption was made that both value and contact serve as determinants of attitudes. The study was conducted in Lima, Peru, Bogota, Colombia, and 'Wichita, Kansas in 1965.1 A battery of five research instruments consisted of: (a) attitudes-toward education scale, (b) the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values, (c) the personal question- naire, (d) attitudes—toward-handicapped—persons scale, and (c) the personal questionnaire (handicapped persons). Respondents were selected from known occupational groupings in society: (a) spec- ial education and rehabilitation (SER),(b) education (E), (c) low income (L), and managerial and executives (M). The test battery was administered to 134 adults in Peru and 241 adults in Colombia. .Administraticn1 time was approximately two hours. l The Kansas sample was gathered as one of the sub-samples of a broader study by Messieurs Dickie and Weir and their com- plete Studies will appear as doctoral theses under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan at Michigan State University. EUGENE WESLEY FRIESEN The theoretical reference for hypothesis construction was social-psychological, specifically relating to intergroup atti- tude as influenced by interpersonal values and Contact variables such as frequency, enjoyment, and ease of avoidance. As pre- dicted, there was a significant positive relationship between contact frequency and favorable attitude scores toward handicap- ped persons as well as between contact frequency and scores on the progressive educational attitude scale in both Colombia and Peru° However, the hypothesis relating to contact frequency and tra- ditional attitudes toward education was not supported in either Colombia or Peru. It was hypothesized that the SER group would be character- ized by an asset value orientation rather than a comparative value orientation in terms of the way that physical disability was viewedo The Benevolence sub—scale of the Gordon scale of values was used as a measure of asset value orientation while the Leader— ship and Recognition sub—scales were used to measure a compara— tive value orientation. The SER group did tend to score signifi— cantly higher on Benevolence value as well as lower on Leadership and Recognition value than did the other occupational groupsa It was also hypothesized that the SER would have more favor— able scores can the attitude-toward—disability scale than other 0C0umtional groups. The hypothesis was confirmed for Colombia I 3. ‘C "T EUGENE WESLEY FRIESEN §fibut not for Peru. The Kansas sample had more favorable attitude rscores toward handicapped persons than did Colombia. Colombia had more favorable attitude scores toward handicapped persons than did Peru. This finding was in keeping with the theoretical model of the study. However, the SER group did not have significantly higher progressive educational scores than did the other occupational groups of the study. None of the SER comparisons proved signifi- cant on either progressive or traditional attitudes toward educa- tion. A major research task was the development of a rationale and technique for cross—national concept comparability. Dr. John E. JOrdan, the major advisor to this study, carefully went over each item of the instruments with the translators before the instruments were separately translated into Colombia and Peruvian Spanish.. An effort was made to achieve attitude unidimensionality as defined.by Guttman scale item-respondent ordering. It was pre- dicted that attitude items would form Guttman scales and that the relationship between content and intensity components of the atti- tude items would be U or J—shaped in form. These predictions were not supported . EUGENE WESLEY FRIESEN It was assumed that scaling was not successful primarily because of the complexities related to attitude measurement. It was recommended that the problem of cross-cultural comparability be approached via Guttman's facet theory (1959, 1961) in future studies. This theory suggests that the attitude universe repre— sented by the item content can be substructured into components which are systematically related according to the number of iden- tical conceptual elements they hold in common. The substructur- ing of relationships between various components of the attitude universe thus allows for meaningful cross—national comparisons. Statistical techniques included analysis—of—variance, mul- tiple regressions, and the Guttman—Lingoes Multiple Scale Analysis. It was recommended that the Guttman—Lingoes Multiple Scale Analy—' sis - I (1965), which allows for multidimensional analysis of data in addition to multi-unidimensional analysis, be used in future studies. Various value, attitude, and demographic comparisons were nmde between sex and occupational groupings. A finding of general interest was that males were significantly lower than fimmles in Benevolence value scores-—a finding consistent with Felty's (1965) study in Costa Rica and previous findings in other nations. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am indebted to the members of the advisement committee for this dissertation. Dr° Norman Abeles, Dr. Richard Featherstone, and Dr. Gregory Miller have demonstrated their appreciation for the complexities and problems inherent in an exploratory cross cultural study. Their understanding and advise has been appreciated. Dr° John E. Jordan has not only gone beyond the call of duty as a committee chairman; he has been an inspiring teacher and a valued friendo His enthusiasm and devOtion to cross cultural research has not only made this research as tolerable and painless as possible; it has been contagious. Because the research for this dissertation was conducted in Latin America, the assistance of a number of people and organiza— tions were essential, I am grateful to Dr. Garland Wood of the Latin American Studies at Michigan State University for support in obtaining a travel grant, to the International Research Center at Michigan State University for the grant approval, and to the Ford Foundation for supplying the moneye A training grant from the Vocational Rehabilitation Administration was crucial to the study, 112nm indebted to the Computer Center at Michigan State University for the facilities and counsel provided. Without their ii assistance the statistical analyses would have been severely limi— ted. The personnel of the research section of the College of Edu— cation have freely given of their time and counsel. The Inter— national Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled was most helpful in arranging personal introductions in Latin America thereby lending greater credibility to the undertaking. I am grateful to the many individuals and organizations in both Colombia and Peru who made this research possible. In Bogota, Colombia, the following organizations gave their enthusiastic support to the study: SENA, Department of Education, and the Roosevelt School of Bogota. Mr. Hernando Pradilla capably trans— lated the instruments into Colombian Spanish. The assistance of Mrs. Isabela Ospina de Mallarino of the Division of Minors, Depart— ment of Justice, was especially helpful. Mr. Robert Caswell, a graduate from the University of Michigan working for the Division of Minors, served important liason functions. Mr. and Mrs. Enrique Unger of Lima freely gave of their time and energy in the translation of the instruments into Peruvian Spanish without financial reimbursement. Mr. Jack Hopkins, a grmhmte student from the University of Florida working with the ONWH’project, assisted with the administration of the instruments. The Peruvian sample could not have been gathered without the gen— erous assistance and cooperation of the directors and staff of .the following organizations: the Patronota, the Oficina Nacional de Racionalizacion y Capacitacion de la Administracion Publica (ONRAP), the Escuela de Administracion de Negocios Para Graduados (ESAN), and the Teachers College, Colombia University project. The director and staff of the AID mission in Peru also did a great deal to facilitate the study. The Veterans Hospital at Battle Creek, Michigan provided a work experience conductive to research. The encouragement and gentle prodding of Dr. Stuart Armitage, Chief of Psychology Service, facilitated the completion of the study. A special work of thanks to the often ”unsung heroes" of any research project: Miss Katherine Morris did an excellent job with the scoring of the raw data; Mrs. Linda Jordan Hoddy did a skillful and efficient job in typing and editing; and Miss Susan Speer's help in programming at the University Computer Center was invaluable. Their contribution to the study far outweighed their monetary compensation . I owe 53 large debt to my wife, Leta; my daughter, Linda; andHW’sons, gRobert and Edward. They faced many deprivations iv and delays with dignity and poise. Their understanding and encouragement has been inspirational in the completion of a demanding research effort. TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nature of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . Definition of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . Organization of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . II. REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . A Theoretical Framework for Attitudes Toward Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitudes Toward Disability — A Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . O O The Relationship of Values and Personal Contact to Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Some Research Findings . . . . . . . . . The Value Question . . . . . . . . . . . Value Variation Among Groups . . . . . . Value Variations of Rehabilitation Groups Latin America . . . . . . . . . . . . . Attitude Intensity . . . . . . . . . . . Personal Contact . . . . . . . . . . . . Empirical Research on Attitudes Toward th Physically Disabled . . .... . . . . . . . General Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Contact and Information Studies . Cross Cultural Studies . . . . . . . . . vi in Page 'ii xxiii xxiv 10 15 17 17 26/ 29“" 29”' 29 32 33 36 37 39 4O 4O 41 Chapter III. The Rational for Selecting Samples from Colombia Further Cultural Studies . . . . . . . . . Types of Disability - Further Studies . . Measurement of Attitudes . . . . . . . . . General Consideration . . . . . . . . . . Cross-National Research and Scale Analysis Scale Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Scale and Intensity Analysis in Relation to Cross-National Problem of Comparability of Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Peru 0 O O O O O O O O O o o 0 ~ D o o O o 0 General Description of Colombia . . . . . Geography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Politics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Education and Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . General Description of Peru . . . . . . . . . POpulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Special Education and Rehabilitation Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Research Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colombian Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peruvian Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . United States Sample: Kansas . . . . . . selection of Variables . . . . . . . . Attitudes Toward Physical Disability . . .Attitudes Toward Education . . . . . . . . The Intensity Scales . . . . . . . . . . . Interpersonal Values . . . . . . . . . Personal Contact Variables . . . . Contact with Education . . . . . . . . Contact with Physically Disabled . vii n Page 45 46/” 48 48 50 51 55 57 58 58 59 6O 61 61 63 65 66 67 68 68 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 77 78 80 81 81 Chapter Page Preference for Personal Relationships . . . 82 Institutional Satisfaction . . . . . . . . . 83 Change Orientation . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 Religiosity ’. i'. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Demographic Variables . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Collection of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 Statistical Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Descriptive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86 Scale and Intensity Analysis . . . . . . . . 86 Mean Differences Analysis . . . . . . . . . 88 Relational and/or Predictive Analysis . . . 90 Major Research Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Hypothesis Related to Scaling . . . . . . . 92 Hypothesis Related to Contact Frequency, Intensity, and Attitude Scores . . . . . . 94 Hypothesis Related to Attitude and Value Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 Hypothesis Related to Change Orientation and Attitude Scores . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Hypothesis Related to Characteristics of Those Working Directly with Disabled Per— sons (SER) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Limitation of the Study . . . . . . . . . . 102 IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Section 1: Descriptive Data . . . . . . . . . . . 107 Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Between Interest Groups, Male, and Female Respond— 112 ents for Colombia, Peru, and Kansas Summary of Descriptive Data in Tables 3-16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differences, and Correlational Analyses . . . . . 124 Hzl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 H:2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Colombia: H:3a . . . . . . . . . . 126 Colombia: H:3b . . . . . . . . . . 127 Peru: H:3a . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 Peru: H:3b . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 viii Chapter Colombia: H:4a . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:4a . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:4b . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:4b . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:5a . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:5b . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:5a . . . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:5b . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:6a . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:6b . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:6a . . . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:6b . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:7a . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:7b . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:7a . . . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:7b . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:7c . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:7c . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:8a . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:8a . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia: H:8b . . . . . . . . . Peru: H:8b . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Zero—Order Correlations Between Attitudes and Values in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Zero-Order Correlations Between Attitudes and Values in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hypothesis Related to Characteris— tics of Persons Working Directly with Disabled Persons (the SER Group) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia (H-9a) . . . . . . . . Peru (H-9a) . . . . . . . . . . Country Comparisons (H-9b) . . . Colombia (H—lO) . . . . . . . . Peru (H-lO) . . . . . . . . . . Country Comparisons . . . . . Summary of Hypothesis lO Analyses. Colombia (H—lla) . . . . . . . . Columbia (H—llb) . . . . . . . . ix Page 134 134 135 135 138 138 140 141 143 144 146 147 148 149 151 151 153 155 157 157 157 157 160 164 167 167 167 169 171 174 178 181 182 183 Chapter Peru (H-lla) . . . . . . . . . . . Peru (H-llb) . . . . . . . . . . . Country Comparisons (H-lla) . . . Country Comparisons (H-llb) . . . Colombia (H-12) . . . . . . . . . Summary for H-12 in Colombia . . . Peru (H-12) . . . . . . . . . . . Colombia (H-13) . . . . . . . . . Peru (H—l3) . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between the Various Occ— upational Groups on Mean Scores on the Value Sub-Scales . . . . . . . Sex Differences as Indicated by Mean Scores on the Value Sub—Scales . . Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Differences Between Male and Female Scores on Attitude Variables . Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . Peru 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O V. SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS Part I: Part II: Summary of the Theoretical and Methodo— logical Issues . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Theory . . . . . . . . . . Hypotheses Construction . . . . . Technical Problems . . . . . . . . . Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sample . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Statistical Procedures . Discussion of the Hypotheses . . . . Hypothesis Relating to Contact Frequency and Intensity (H:3) . . . . . . . . Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Contact Variables and their Relationship to Favorable Attitudes (H:4) . . . Value Variables in Relation to Attitudes (H:5 - H:7) . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 184 185 186 187 188 189 192 194 195 197 202 202 202 205 205 205 209 209 211 212 216 218 219 220" 222 222 227' 228J 230 Chapter Part III: Concluding References Attitude Scores as Related to Change Variables (HP:8 and H:12) . . . . . . Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Discussion of Group Differences on Value Scores and Attitude Scores in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas (H:9—Hzll). Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross National SER Comparisons . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . Relating to the Instruments . . . . Relating to the Sample . . . . . . . Relating to Analyses Procedures . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 232 233 235 236 238 240 242 242 251 253—1. 2 5 6 Table H LIST OF TABLES Distribution of respondents according to sex and Occupational characteristics from Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . Occupational composition of total sample by sex and interest group for Peru, Colombia, and Kansas Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations .and E statistics in respect to three demographic variables for three occupational categories in Colombia ,. . ....... cocvoloCI-ovooo Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of education scores for three Occupational categor— ies in Colombia . . . o u a o u o n o u o o o o o . Duncan‘s New Multiple Range Test applied to means Of income scores for three occupational groups in Colombia . . . . o o o o g c u o o o o o o . o o . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means 0f age scores for three occupational categories in Colombia . Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and g statistics in respect to three demo— graphic variables in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and E statistics in respect to three demo— graphic variables for four occupational categories in Peru 0 o a or. o o n u o a o o o o n o n n o o . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means 9f Education scores for four occupational categor- ies in Peru . . . . . . . . . . xi Page 108 109 114 115 116 116 117 118 App. A Table 10. ll. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of age scores for four occupational categories in Peru 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Comparison of mean differences, standard deviaa tions, and E statistics in respect to three demo- graphic variables for males and females in Peru . . Comparison of mean differences, standard devia— tions, and g statistics in respect to education and age for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Means Test analysis of educa— tion for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Means Test analysis of age for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard devia- tions, and 3 statistics in respect to three demo- graphic variables for males and females in Kansas . Interpretation of education scores in terms of actual educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale in Colombia . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa- tion with intensity scores on the progressive-atti- tude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa— tion with intensity scores on the traditional—atti— tude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . . . . xii Page App. 119 120 App. App.. App. 122 126 127 128 Table 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. Zero-order correlations between content and inten- sity scores on the attitude scales for the occupa- tional groups in Colombia . ._. .-. ... . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar— ing high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . .- ..... ... . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa- tion with intensity scores on the progressive-atti- tude-toward—education scale for Peru . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low frequency of contact with educa- tion with intensity scores on the traditional-atti- tude-toward-education scale for Peru . . . . . . Zero-order correlations between content and inten— sity scores on the attitude scales for the occupa- tional groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Multiple correlations for combined contact varia— bles with attitudes toward disabled persons and toward education (progressive and traditional) in Colombia and Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial correlations between attitude-toward-handi- capped persons and attitudes toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to contact variables for Colombia and Peru . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and 3 statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes toward disabled persons for Colombia . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and progressive-attitude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . xiii Page 129 131 132 132 133 136 137 138 139 Table 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar— ing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes toward handicapped persons in Peru . . . Means, standard deviations, and F statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and progressive-attitude-toward-education scale in Peru Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Leadership value and traditional-attitude-toward-education scale in Peru Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the attitude-toward-handicapped-persons- scale for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar— ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar— ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the ATDP scale for Peru . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education scale for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv Page 140 141 142 143 144 145 145 146 147 Table 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. Means, standard deviations, and F statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the traditiona1-attitude-toward—education scale for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and g statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the ATDP scale for Colombia . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and 3 statistic compar— ing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education scale in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude-towardéeducation scaleinColombia................. Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Benevolence value on the attitude-toward-handicapped-persons scale in Peru . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic compar— ing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the progressive-attitude-toward—education scale for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and“: statistic compar- ing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic for Benevolence scores, handicapped persons scale scores, and progressive-attitudes-toward-education scores for males and females in Colombia . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic for Benevolence scores, scores on the handicapped-per— sons scale, and progressive-attitudes-toward-educa— tion scores for male and female comparisons in Peru XV Page 148 149 150 150 151 152 153 154 156 Table 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Multiple correlations of change orientation varia- bles with attitude—toward-disabled-persons and toward education (progressive and traditional) in Colombia and Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Partial correlations between attitudes-toward-" handicapped-persons and attitudes toward education (both progressive and traditional) as related to change orientation variables for Colombia and Peru Zero-order correlations between attitude-toward- handicapped persons scale (content) and the Gordon scale of values for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlation between attitude toward education (content) and Gordon scale of values for Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlations between attitude—toward- handicapped—persons scale (content) and the Gordon scale of values for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlations between attitudes toward education tontent) and Gordon scale of values for Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and analysis of vari- ance of attitude-toward-disabled-persons scores for the three occupational categories in Colombia . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of attitude-toward-disabled-persons scores for three occupational categories in Colombia . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and analysis of vari- ance of attitude-toward-disabled—persons scores for the four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of attitude-toward—disabled-persons scores for four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . . . . . . xvi Page 158 159 162 163 165 166 168 App. 170 App. A Table 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. Means, standard deviations, and analysis of vari- ance of attitude-toward-disabled-persons scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . .-. . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range TeSt applied to means of attitude-toward-disabled persons scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and F statistic for Benevolence value scores according to the three occupational categories in Colombia . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Benevolence scores for three occupational cate- gories in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and mean ranking for Recognition value scores according to three occupa- tional categories in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Recognition value for three occupational cate- gories in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and_§ statistic for Leadership value scores according to the three occupational categories in Colombia . . . Means, standard deviations, mean ranking, and E statistic for Benevolence value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Benevolence value scores for the four occupa- tional categories in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and 3 statistic for Recognition value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . xvii Page 171 App. 173 App. 173 App. 174 176 App. 177 Table 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. 76. Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E statistic for Leadership value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . Duncan‘s New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Leadership value scores for the four occupa- tional groups in Peru ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and F statistic of Benevolence value scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Benevolence value scores for respondents in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and 3 statistic for Recognition value scores for respond— ents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Recognition value scores for respondents in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E statistic for Leadership value scores for respond- ents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of Leadership value scores for respondents in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . Analysis—of—variance of progressive—attitude-toward education scores for the three occupational cate- gories in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . Analysis-of-variance of traditional-attitude-toward education scores for the three occupational cate- goriesinColombia xviii Page 178 App. 180 App. 180 App. 181 App. 183 184 Table 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and F. statistic for progressive—attitudes-toward-educa- tidn scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and 3 statistic for traditional-attitude-toward-educa- tion scores according to the four occupational groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and 3 statistic for progressive-attitude-toward-educa- tion scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and §_ statistic for traditional—attitude—toward-education scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic related to four change variables for three occupational groupsinColombia................ Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to child rearing practices for three occupational groups in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to the health practice variable for three occupational groups in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to automa— tion mean scores for three occupational groups in Colombia..................... Means, standard deviations, and 3 statistic related to four change variables on four occupational groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to child rearing scores for four occupational groups in Peru xix Page 185 186 187 188 191 App. App. App. 193 App. Table 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic related to contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons for four occupational groups in Colombia , . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to amount of contact with mentally retarded persons for four occupational groups in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to amount of contact with emotionally disturbed persons for four occupational groups in Colombia . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and E statistic related to contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons for four occupational groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to amount of contact with mentally retarded persons for four occupational groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to amount of contact with emotionally disturbed persons for four occupational groups in Peru . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and 2 statistic in respect to three value variables and three occupational categories in Colombia . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and §_statistic in respect to three value variables and four occupational categories in Peru . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and 3 statistic in respect to three value variables for respondents in the SER group in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of respondents working in SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas for Support value scores . . . . . . . . XX Page 195 App. App. 196 App. App. 199 200 201 App. Table 97. 98. 99. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of respondents working in SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas, for Conformity value scores . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and E statistic in respect to six value variables in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and E statistics in respect to six value variables for males and females in Peru . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and F statistics in respect to three attitude vari— ables for males and females in Colombia . . . . . . Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations and F statistics in respect to three attitude vari— ables for males and females in Peru . . . . . . . . Summary of hypotheses 3 thru 13 indicating confir- mation or non-confirmation . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and number of respond— ents for 68 variables by total, male, and female respondents for the SER occupational group in Colombia . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and number of respond— ents for 68 variables by total, male, and female respondents for the E occupational group in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -Means, standard deviations, and number of male respondents for 68 variables for the L occupational group in Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Means, standard deviations, and number of respond— ents for 68 variables by total, male, and female respondents for the SER occupational group in Peru Page App. 203 204 206 207 223 App. App. App. App. A Table 107. 108. Means, Means, Kansas standard deviations, ents for 68 variables by total, male, standard deviations, ents for 68 variables by total, male, xxii and number of respond— and female respondents for the M occupational group in Peru and number of respond- and female respondents for the SER occupational group in Page App. App. A LIST OF FIGURES Page Basic facets used to determine component structure of attitude universe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243 Extension of facets used in Fig. l to determine component structure of attitude universe . . . . . 244 Levels, component composition, and component labels for a six-component universe of intergroup atti- tudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245 Hypothetical correlation matrix illustrating expected simplex ordering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246 A mapping sentence for the facet analysis of atti- tudes toward education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 A mapping sentence for the facet analysis of atti- tudes toward education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248 xxiii LIST OF APPENDICES A. Statistical Material 1. 2. Duncan's New Multiple Range Test Tables Means, Standard Deviations, and Number of Respondents for 68 Variables for the Total Sample, Males, and Females by Occupational Groups and Countries B. Instrumentation OWUIUPWNH O Attitudes Toward Education Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons Definitions of Physical Handicap Personal Questionnaire: Handicapped Persons C. Variables, Administration Procedures, Code Book, and Data Forms mflmUIbWNl-d Basic Variables of the Study AdministratorS" Procedures Code Book Special Instructions for Colombia Special Instructions for Peru Special Instructions for Kansas Data Transcription Sheet FCC I and II Variable — Computer Print+0ut Code Form for Colombia, Peru, and Kansas (i.e. Friesen) Religiosity xxiv CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Nature of the Problem The accelerated rate of technological change has been Well documented through the media of mass communication. POlitical, economic and psychological implications of these Changes are demanding serious consideration of world leaders from many professions. Familiar landmarks which once served as cultural refer- ehce points are rapidly disappearing. Culturally provided ways of validating personal identities, which were evolved over many Tflmrations and had the aura of the sacred, are being swept awn/in this tidal wave of change. Those who nostalgically remember the ”safe world that uSedto be” will not be given the choice of whether or not Chc‘vlnge should occur. The cho1ce that confronts our generation 18MMether we are willing to direct change in socially respon- sflfle ways or whether this change will be achieved by cataclysm. Berg has noted that obstacles to change, such as illiter— acyy religious convictions, ancient social customs, economic neexis etc., are chiefly attitudinal in nature and, as such, their removal becomes a task for the psychologist. At present, we know something of attitudes and how to measure them. Now we must discover how to change them efficiently. We shall have to gain this knowledge rapidly and we shall have to work against difficulties inherent in our own culture which are raised against such studies. One difficulty, for example, will very likely be sharp criticism of proposals to “waste” good American dollars on research for changing attitudes in foreign lands~eafter all, attitudes are not important. Perhaps it will help to remind such critics that atti— tudes toward meat as food have caused many thousands of people in India to die of starvation rather than eat the Brahma cattle which were grazing in their grain fields. Critics or not, psychologists must accept the challenge of producing attitude change (Berg, 1965, p. 203). The soaring rate of population growth also compounds the Problems that the psychologist must face. Berg states that: John D. Rockefeller, Iii, Chairman of the Board of the Population Council, has noted that to reach a world population of one billion, it took mankind the entire period of recorded history until the early nineteenth century. It took only another 100 years to add the second billion and but 30 more years to add the third billion. Only 15 years will be needed to reach four billion (Berg, l965, p. 203). ... The threat of automation is also being keenly felt in our expanding economy. In the past the chronically unemployed were usually the "socially voiceless ones” who docilely accepted their welfare payments. They, by and large, were not a threat to the orderly functioning of our society. They usually did not verbalize and organize powerful protests to the politically and socially ”significant others”. Presently, the skilled and the semiskilled are finding that their skills, once the back— borm of the occupational world, will soon be obsolete. Berg observes that: Many people will be surplus and, furthermore, they will know it. They will not be the silent, bowed men of toil but rather the trained persons who have up until now been mainstays in our society, who have skills to offer, but skills which society no longer needs. Eventually we shall find a solution, but the period of searching for an answer, the period we are just now entering, will be a time of increasing upheaval and social torment. It seems highly prob- able that we shall be faced with problems of delin- quency and crime beside which our present problems in these areas will be dwarfed almost to invisibil- ity. It also seems highly probable that the fre- quency of disorder such as alcoholism, depressions, neurotic reactions. etc., will vastly increase (Berg, 1965, p. 204). In our culture we have tended to validate our identities Uuough physical work. Here the impact of change will be kemfly'felt. For example, in the generation that preceded mus, a man of the soil validated his ”maleness” by hand pick- irlg'more corn than his neighbors. In a highly mechanized Smfiety this kind of validation is already meaningless. No lomfiu'will hard physical work as such ensure a meaningful identity. Traditionally the disabled or handicapped person had limited opportunities to gain an identity based on vocational skills. In the United States serious efforts have been made to correct this deficiency through federal and state rehabilitation programs. However, it appears to this author that it will be necessary to carefully rewevaluate the rehabilitation programs for'the physically, intellectually, and emotionally handicapped. We now endeavor to promote a positive self image by giving them Skills through which they might become produCtive and selfm sustaining individuals. While the intent of this effort is unquestionable admirable, the disabled, who already carries an extra burden, will increasingly discover that his ”new found“ work skills are not needed. Hess asks the provocative question: What is the future of the disabled individual in an automated economy, He has some grounds for hope when he observes that automation is reducing physi- cal demands and eliminating safety hazards in jobs, thereby making jobs compatible with many more types of handicapping conditions. But. even though the physical and mental requirements of a job may now be within the tolerance of the handicapped individ— ual, he is not necessarily assured of equal consid— eration in the sharp competition at the personnel office. Employers, as they ponder the choice between a large number of available candidates, need to insure against discrimination on the basis of the presence or absence of capacities unrelated to the requirements of the jOb (Hess, 1963, p. 156). Certainly one of the challenges that confronts our gener- ation is that of finding culturally relevant ways of helping the individual validate his identity. If this search is going to be successful, it will be necessary for this validation to be based on a model which emphasizes the intrinsic worth of man rather than on a model that emphasizes production per se. Without question physical disability is a problem of increasing concern. Medical advances, and their dissemination throughout the world via Public Health agencies, have markedly reduced death rates (Davis, 1963). A major consequence is an increase in the number of children with physical disabilities who in previous years would have died in infancy mbyafion, 1963, Pp. 2, 3). In many underdeveloped countries, special education and rehabilitation programs are largely an innovation. Even as aconcept or goal in many Latin American countries, special education and rehabilitation have yet to be adopted into the hmtitutional complex. There are innovators, however, who recognize the current and expanding need for services for the ¢mabled (Jordan, 1963, 1964a) and who welcome support in SOcial change. In addition, there is a great need for broader Cmmmnication about attitudes and programs among workers in Special education and rehabilitation throughout Europe as well aslfltin America (Second International Seminar on Special Edmfition at Nyborg, Denmark, July, 1963). Fundamental to both the program of social development in Latin America, and to the establishment of COOperative exchanges among professionals in the United States, Europe, and Latin Anuuica is the acquisition of normative data about attitudes of various interest groups toward special education and reham bilitation. This was considered the foremost need by the research group of the Second International Seminar on Special Education at Nyborg, Denmark, in July. 1963. Such data is indispensible to a coherent approach to international coopera- tion in a health—related field such as special education and rehabilitation. It involves the knowledge of what is permis— Sible within a culture and of the groups who are most accept- ing and sympathetic toward such program develOpments. In the ifldted States such data is necessary to understand the atti- thes of subecultural groups, such as the ”culturally deprived” mmlcertain ethnic minorities, if adequate educationmvocational EHOgrams are to be devised for them, An important guideline for conducting this kind of research flmuld involve a comprehensive cross-national research study Khmd at uncovering similarities and differences in attitudes Ummrd physical disability as well as attitudes toward the mkmmtional process. The problem of adequate methodology and teduflque must take into account unfamiliar cultures and soc1al systems as well as comparability from one cultural and/or lin- gflliStiC setting to another. Such a study should also have an social milieu. A personalistic diffusion between the social nulieu and occupational milieu is sometimes considered as a distinguishing characteristic of traditional social patterns (e.g., Loomis, 1960). Religiosity.~-A term used to denote orientation to relig- ion. Operationally, it is defined by three items: first, religious preference; second, the importance of religion; third, the extent to which the rules and regulations of the religion are followed. Special Education.~«Following Kirk (1962, p. 29) this term characterized educational practices ”that are unique, uncommon, of unusual quality. and in particular are in addi— tion to the organization and instructional procedures used with the majority of children.“ Jordan (1964b, p. 1) has commented: "the basic aim of special education is to prevent a disability from becoming a handicap “ yglugsmewo value terms are used, but defined operation- ally by the same set of measures. Asset values predispose a person to evaluate others according to their own unique poten— .1 tials and characteristics. Comparative values predispose a 15 person to evaluate others according to external criteria of success and achievement (Wright, 1960, pp. 128—133). Opera— tionally these values are defined by three scales on the Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960). Asset values will be measured by the Benevolence Scale, Comparative Values by the Recognition and Leadership Scales. These three scales were judged by the investigator to have adequate face validity for the measurement of the values proposed by Wright. Additional value orientations measured by the Gordon Survey of Interper- sonal Values are labeled Support, Conformity, and Independence. Organization of the Thesis This thesis is organized according to the following plan: Chapter I serves as an introduction to the nature of the problem involved in this study. Chapter II is a summarization of the theory and research related to this study. The major divisions include: 1. A theoretical framework for attitudes toward education. 2. Attitudes toward disability - a theoretical framework. 3. The relationship of values and personal contact to attitudes — some research findings. 4. Empirical research in attitudes toward the physically disabled. 16 Chapter III is concerned with the procedures and method— ology of the study. A general description is given of the countries of Peru and Colombia as well as the research popula— tion. The instrumentation of the study and the statistical pro- cedures used in the analysis of the data are included in this chapter. Chapter IV presents the research results in tabular and explanatory form. Chapter V presents a summary of the results with conclu- sions and recommendations. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THEORY AND RELATED RESEARCH A Theoretical Framework for Attitudes Toward Education Volumes of current literature have been devoted to explor~ ing the relationship of education to innovation and social change. However, there has been surprisingly little theoreti— cal discussion about the basic dimensions or factors underlying attitudes toward education. Miles makes the following observation: A very wide variety of strategies for creating and controlling educational change is being employed.... The dominant focus in most contemporary change efforts, however, tends to be on the content of the desired change, rather than on the features and con— sequences of change processes.... We need to know, for example, why a particular innovation spreads rap— idly or slowly, what the causes of resistances to change are in educational systems, and why particular strategies of change chosen by innovators succeed or fail (Miles, 1964, p. 2). Kerlinger has develOped a theoretical model built on an education dichotomy which includes progressive and traditional dimensions of attitudes toward education. His approach will be used in this study. 17 18 Educational attitudes can be conceptualized as hinging on two relatively independent underlying factors or ideologies. Traditionalism apparently is not just the opposite of progres- sivism in education. The opposite of progressivism is anti-pro- gressivism. Traditionalism seems to have an existence of its own. Rather than the usual way of conceiving of traditionalism as simply the negation of progressivism, it might better be con- ceived as the affirmation of a stand which emphasizes a conser— vative-traditional approach to educational issues and problems. Progressivism also seems to be a stand in its own right. When we say a man is an "educational progressivist“ we do not simply mean that he is an anti—traditionalist. While this is undoubt— edly true, it is more important to suggest that progressivism is an independent stand in its own right (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 330). Kerlinger defines the restrictive~traditional factor as that which emphasizes subject matter for its own sake. The hierarchical nature of impersonal superior—inferior relation" ships is considered important and there is an emphasizes on external discipline. Social beliefs are preserved through the maintainence of the status quo. In contrast, the permissive-progressive factor emphasizes problemlsolving and de—emphasizes subject matter per se. From this perspective, education is seen as growth and the child's interest and needs are seen as basic to education. Equality and warmth in interpersonal relationships is valued. There is an orientation on internal rather than external discipline. Social beliefs tend to be liberal and emphasize education as an instru~ ment of change (Kerlinger, 1958, p. 112). Kerlinger“s theory can be summarized in the following four propositions: 1. Individuals having the same or similar occupational or professional roles will hold similar attitudes toward a cognitive object which is signifantly related to the occupational or professional role. Individuals having dissimilar roles will hold dis— similar attitudes. 2. There exists a basic dichotomy in the educational values and attitudes of people, corresponding gen- erally to ”restrictive” and “permissive“, or ”tra— ditional" and “progressive” modes of looking at education. 3. Individuals will differ in degree or strength of dichotomization, the degree or strength of dichoto- mization being a function of occupational role, extent of knowledge of the cognitive object (educa- 20 tion), the importance of the cognitive object to the subjects, and their experience with it. 4. The basic dichotomy will pervade all areas of educa» tion, but individuals will tend to attach differenw tial weights to different areas, specifically to the areas of (a) teaching-subject matter-curriculum, (b) interpersonal relations, (c) normative, and (d) authority~discipline (Kerlinger, l956, p. 290). Kerlinger has noted that the value structure of individ~ uals is not well understood. He insists that the problem of the consistency and inconsistency of an individual‘s attitude is still largely unsolved (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296). As a result of the implications of these observations, Kerlinger designed a study which examined the educational atti— tudes of professors and laymen. The sample consisted of 25 subjects chosen on the basis of occupational roles as well as known attitudes toward education. He developed the follOWing categories for the study; ATTITUDES: (l) Restrictive~traditional (dependencewheteronomy) (23 Permissive-progressive {independence—autonomy) AREAS: (a) Teaching-Subject Matter Curriculum (b) Interpersonal Relations 21 (k) Normative—Social (conventionalism-nonconventionalism) (m) Authority-Discipline An example of 1(a) would be: The true View of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. An illustration of 2(a) would be exemplified in the following statement: Knowledge and subject matter themselves are not so important as learning to solve problems. An illustration of l(m) might be: One of the big difficulties with modern schools is that discipline is often sacrificed to the interest of the children. An example of 2(m) might be: True discipline springs from interests, motivation, and involvement in live problems. Kerlinger warns that the restrictive and permissive dimen- sions are rarely opposites nor merely positive and negative assertions of the same thing, Each category is presumably independent (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 296}. The results of the Kerlinger study indicated that occupa4 tional roles and role expectations are potent independent vari- ables influencing attitudes and visa versa. Individuals having similar roles might be expected to have similar attitudes and a similar attitude structure. Kerlinger summarizes the traditionalrprogressive issue as follows: 22 A basic dichotomy seems to exist in educational attitudes corresponding generally to restrictive and permissive, or traditional and progressive ways of regarding education, and some individuals show the dichotomy more sharply than others depend~ ing on their occupational roles, their knowledge of and experiences with education, and the importance of education to them (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). Smith, a student of Kerlinger, designed a study in which she hypothesized that progressivism and traditionalism were basic dimensions of educational attitudes that would emerge and remain faCtorially invariant under different conditions of item sampling and subject sampling. She also hypOthesized a relationship between attitudes toward education and general social attitudes. Thus individ- uals holding progressive educational attitudes would tend to be liberal in their social attitudes and visa versa. Individ\ uals conservative in their social attitudes would be expected to be traditional in their educational attitudes. In two g égfiké consisisting of a total of i40 attitude statements reiating to all aspects of education, she found that .-1—. progressive and traditional factors of the Q §9£E,did indeed remain invariant. Other factors which emerged from one of the sorts were labeled as ”moral values” and “interpersonal relations”. On the third Qmsort, she found that libersaiism and cone servatism did emerge as basic dimensions of social attitudes and inere highly related to educational attitudes in the direction of 23 the hypothesis. Two other factors which emerged from the third Q sort were labeled as ”internationalism” and ”Religious Tenents” (Smith, 1963). Block and Yuker (1965) developed a scale to measure intellectual attitudes: the Intellectualism-Pragmatism (I~PT Scale. While they do not define intellectualism in this artii cle, it is contextually inferred that it is an intellectual orientation resulting from academic exposure. They note that intellectualisn was found to be associated .— with a progressive attitude toward education as measured by the Kerlinger Education Scale. Contrary to expectations, however, IwP scores were not related to Kerlinger's Traditionalism Scale. The Intellectualism scores were also positively correlated with scores on the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale (developed by Yuker,‘gg_al, l960). The students who changed most in their attitudes toward disabled persons, as measured by the Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale. were the ones who scored highest on the intellectualism scale. They concluded that education (at least some types of education) brings about attitude changes in students that are related to a greater intellectual orientation- Kramer used Rokeach's Dogmatism Scale and nerlinger s Education gmggrts in an effort to measure the interrelation of ‘belief systems and educational values of school teaCners. He found that ”Open—minded" teachers as a group were more consistent and held permissivewprogressive attitudeso He also found that the more ”openvminded" a teacher’s belief system was, the greater the likelihood for internal consistency of an educa~ tional attitude structure in a progressive directiono While the “close-minded" teachers were less consistent than the "open-minded” teachersfi they were more consistent than those who had no clear cut belief syStem (Kramerg 1963)o Thoreson concluded that when an individual is faced with conflicting norms held by multiple reference groups? it is the strength of his association with a group that determines whether that group”s norms will be internalized by him (Thorescno l963)9 Lawrence (l963) used the Scale of Beliefs on Social Issues to measure liberal beliefs and consistency of beliefs. This scale appeared to differentiate between liberal and conservative beliefs. Lawrence also used Kerlinger”s Education Scale I: to measure both progressive education attitudes and attitudinal consistencyo She reported that this scale did not seem to dif~ ferentiate progressive and traditional attitudes toward educationfl Taylor (1963) used Kerlinger s Education Scale II to study the relationship between basic education attitudes and participa‘ tion in professional teacher activities“ She was also interested in the relationship of basic educational attitudes to educa- 25 tional background of teachers. She found that teachers with border—line traditional attitudes participated less in activi~ ties related to pupils than did teachers in other categories (such as traditional, progressive border-line, progressive). She also found that 29% of the teachers had attitude scores that almost certainly indicated either traditionalism or pro~ gressivism. Anderson (1964) studied the changes in attitudes of pro~ spective teachers toward education and teaching in secondary schools. She found that student teachers, for the most part, did not change attitudes toward education and teaching. She concluded that the extent and direction of change seems to depend on the degree to which the students perceive existing school and community objectives, policies. and relationships. Several factors responsible for producing attitude change were identified. These included people with whom student teach— ers came in contact, effectiveness of the school program, and attitudes formulated before student teaching experiences (Ander- son, 1964). Hand (1964) studied teacher characteristics associated with changed attitudes and performance in the teaching of read— ing. She found that a tendency toward more progressive beliefs was a factor associated with change in teacher's attitudes. 26 Purcell (1964) found teaching methods, as well as content, are important in trying to change attitudes of perspective teach— ers. Classon, in her study of elementary school teachers atti- tudes toward children and teaching as well as toward supervision, concluded that the success of the program supervisor who attempts to introduce or improve a program will depend, in a large measure, upon the degree of acceptance and co-operation from the staff. The supervisor should carefully study and evaluate teachers attiw tudes toward supervision before attempting to improve and develOp any program (Classon, 1963). Attitudes Toward Disability - A Theoretical Framework Various investigators in the field of special education and rehabilitation have noted the inadequacy of much of the ”practia cal oriented" special education research and have urged that greater efforts be made to design studies with theoretical rele‘ vance and consequently greater generality (Block, 1955; Kvaraceus. 1958; Levine, 1963; and Meyerson, 1955. 1965). Feltyl noted. how— ever, that some research in physical disability has been theoreti~ cally derived, and that other research studies can be shown to have 'theoretical relevance even though an explicit theory is lacking. i —— wmuxiflfi-‘9-fl’J-J lFelty's (1965) pilot study in Costa Rica has provided invaluable insights to the deveIOpment of the present study. 27 He further noted that an analysis of these studies should sug— gest ways in which the outcomes can be related to broader social, social-psychological or psychological theory. This in turn should lead to the formulating of new hypotheses which can be empirically tested (Felty, 1965). The theoretical framework of the present study, which has a social—psychological orientation, is generally consistent with the framework of Wright (1961), and Meyerson (1955, 1963) in the field of physical disability. Concepts central to this orienta- tion are those of self, other, reference groups, role, attitude and value. All are presumed to be related to interpersonal interaction although only the concepts of attitude and value will be explored fully in the present study. Although there are differences between the theoretical orientation of Meyerson (1963) on one hand and the Meadian orientation of Shibutani (1961) on the other, both share the basic interactional propo— sitions. The underlying assumptions, according to Shibutani (1961, p. 22—24) are as follows: (a) behavior is motivated through the give and take of interpersonal adjustment — both the person and society are products of communication, (b) per- sonality is continually reorganized and constructed in the day- by—day interactions with others, (c) culture consists of models of proper conduct hammered out and reinforced by communications 28 and by collective grappling with life conditions. The attitudi- nal impliCations of interpersonal contact, value organization, social norms and role behavior as perceived by people will be considered in the present study. The relationship of this frame of reference to physical disability was proposed by Levine. He suggested that disabil- ity is not a thing in itself but a social value judgment. These values related to society's perception of leadership, contributions toward improving society, being a good citizen, being a family head and other essential aspects for maintaining a society. These values are criteria against which behavior is asses~ sed in terms of deviation. All members of society, whether handicapped or not, are evaluated primarily by these values. Where an individual cannot meet these demands, or where there are questions as to the adequacy of the individual in relation to these demands, there will be some devaluation of him on societies' part (Levine, 1961, p. 84). Expressed in more general terms, Levine has suggested a relationship between social role, role perception, role value, and attitude. "Being a family head” and ”being a good citizen” are two of many roles which are generally felt to be of value in maintaining society. Role fulfillment may be perceived by others as fulfill~ ment of an obligation to society, and peOple are evaluated by the way they are perceived as meeting these role obligations. Levine has further suggested that groups are stereo-typed 29 according to their social contributions (Levine, 1961, p. 84). From this perspective, persons with some defining characteristic such as blindness, crippling condition, color, etc., are cate- gorized according to how others perceive them to maintain cer~ tain valued social roles. The Relationship of Values and Personal Contact to Attitudes - Some Research Findings The Value Question According to Allport (1958), values are important sources of prejudice, or negative stereotypes. "The most important cate~ gories a man has are his own personal set of values. He lives by and for his values...evidence and reason are ordinarily found to conform to them...the very act of affirming our way of life often leads us to the brink of prejudice” (p. 24). "Man has a prOpen- sity to prejudice. This propensity lies in his normal and natu~ oral tendency to form generalizations, concepts, categories, whose content represents an oversimplification of his world of experience" (p. 26). “One type of categorization that predis- poses us to make unwarranted prejudgments is our personal values" (p. 27). Katz speaks of attitudes as having a ”value-expressive function" (Katz, 1960, pc 173). They confirm and clarify to 30 others and to the person himself those things most important and central to his image. Katz discusses the relationship of attitude to value in terms of attitude change. "PeOple are much less likely to find their values uncongenial than they are to find some of their attitudes inapprOpriate to their values” (p. 189). He would expect a great deal of consistency between a basic value, such as equality, and a more specific attitude, such as favorableness toward opportunities for disabled persons. PeOple are generally more inclined to change or give up attiw tudes inconsistent or unrelated to central values. Rosenburg (1960, 1956) has demonstrated an instrumental relationship between attitude and value. Stable positive atti- tudes are perceived as instrumental to positive value attain~ ment and the blocking of negative values, whereas stable nega- tive attitudes were perceived as instrumental to negative value attainment and the blocking of positive values. ”The individual tends to relate positive attitude objects to goal attainment and negative attitude objects to frustration of his goal orientation” (Rosenburg, 1960 p. 321). Moderate attitudes (as compared to intense ones) were related to less important values, or in the case of important values the perceived instrumentality of the attitude to value attainment was unclear to the subject. Rosenberg broadened the concept of attitudes to include both the positive—negative affective and the belief component. 31 Typically, attitudes have been concerned with the former, and beliefs considered separately. Allport (1958, p. 12—13) in considering prejudice, states ”There must be an attitude of favor or disfavor; and it must be related to an overgeneralized (and therefore erroneous) belief.” Osgood (1957, p. 190) has restricted attitude to mean "the evaluative dimension of the total semantic space.” In addition to his own research, Rosenberg‘s position has been strengthened by the findings of Cartwright (1949), Smith (1949) and Woodruff and DiVesta (1948). Guttman (1950) has also preferred a broad concept of attitude, though primarily on logical rather than experiments.considerations. A study by Carlson (1956) involved changes in prejudicial attitudes (affective and belief) toward Negro mobility. Atti- tudes became more favorable toward Negro movement into white neighborhoods as subjects' beliefs were changed from the view that Negroes tend to lower property values. The change was interpreted to be an inconsistency between the cognitive (belief) component and the affective value component. Rosenberg (1960, p. 325—330) also studied hypnosis and post-hypnotic suggestion in respect to changing either belief or affective components. While his conclusions were concerned prinmrily with attitude structure and change, they also support 32 the previously discussed research suggesting that the instrumen— tality of a belief to valued goal is associated with a corres— ponding and direction related affective component. Value Variation Among Groups Values may vary among groups and societies. That is, groups and socieites may vary in type of role behavior perm ceived to be most important. Classical sociological and typo— logical formulations of societies, typically oriented toward social structure, are often stated in terms of value orienta~ tions as well as in terms of structural effects. These are well summarized by Loomis (1960) and Becker (1950). For our purposes three types of societies may be considered: the traditional, the transitional, and the modern. These terms represent points or sections along a continuum of modernization. Thus persons in a modern society are characterized as holding values that are most affectively neutral, achievement oriented, change oriented, more materialistic and instrumental, more universal~ istic, etc., than those in a traditional society. With this scheme in mind, Latin American society can be described typi~ cally as traditional or transitional, and the United States as a modern society (e.g., Williams, 1951; Parsons and White, 1961; Loomis, 1961; and Almond and Coleman, 1960). 33 Previous considerations of disability would lead to the inference that value variations are associated with variations in attitudes toward particular disability groups. It would also seem reasonable to posit that those with a particular value orientation would evaluate disability groups differently depending upon the perception of the relative ability of the disability groups to meet valued role requirements. Edmonson studied the institutional values of the Latin culture. He makes this observation: Traditionalism as a cultural value requires a strong identification with parents and willingness to submit to the dictates of ones “elders and betters". A rad~ ically progressive orientation would then fit with a stormy adolescence and interwgenerational disruption which seem to be outstanding features of American life (Edmonson, 1957, p. 66w67). The following observation by the same author has serious implications for educational attitudes in Latin America. ”In economic affairs, Anglo culture maximized the motivational value of ambition and sets the goal at success; Hispano cul- ture might be said to emphasize the motivations of duty and loyalty and is willing to discount and live with failure” (Edmonson, 1957, p. 60). Value Variations of Rehabilitation Groups in Latin America Jordan (1963, 1964) has suggested that in Latin America, those persons in the area of Special Education and Rehabilita- 34 tion differ in values from the majority. In discussing these differences, he has drawn on the work of Almond and Coleman (1960) in the characterization of various types of groups and associations in society, and also on the work of Rogers (1962) and Katz gt a1. (1963) in the characteristics and process of innovation diffusion. Rogers as well as Almond and Coleman have drawn on the sociological typologies referred to in the previous section. No attempt will be made here to summarize this vast literature. However, Jordan (1963), has hypothesized that Rehabilitation and Special Education Groups in Latin America are characterized by relatively modern, democratic values (p. 22) of "democracy, constitutionalism, humanism, the scientific pro“ cess and universal suffrage” (p. 17) and more generally by ”specificity, univeralism, achievement, and affective neutral— ity" (p. 16). It seems likely that a complex variety and interaction of goals and values are involved when it comes to the characteri— zation of individuals working with Special Education and Reha- bilitation groups. It has been suggeSted that values can be clustered according to whether they are derived from (a) pom— parisons or from (b) intrinsic assets (Dembo, Leviton, Wright, 1956)o 35 If the evaluation is based on comparison with a stan- dard, the person is said to be invoking comparative values.... On the other hand, if evaluation arises from the qualities inherent in the object of judgment itself, the person is said to be invoking asset values. What matters is the object of judgment in a setting that has its own intrinsic purposes and demands. The person's reaction is then based upon how appropriately the situational demanisare fulfilled rather than on comparison with a predetermined standard (Wright, 1960, p. 29). Some situations require comparative evaluations, such as the requirements for a particular type of job. In other situa- tions, however, the asset minded person may be able to evaluate the disabled person for his own unique characteristics as a human being. Wright is aware that this analysis may arouse skepticism. “But incredulity shades into understanding when one considers that walking itself is always a remarkable achievement”(Wright, 1960, p. 29). Apart from the economic argumeryt that in the long run education and training are cheaper than public support, one might argue that the whole concept of special education and rehabilitation is a response to the asset values of a society. The direct antithesis of this position can be exemplied in a society where educational opportunity is based on some compara~ tive standard, either in respect to hereditary standards (com— parison with the past) or to achievement standards (comparison with present norms). A reasonable inference from the asset— 36 comparative value framework is that persons working in the field of special education and rehabilitation would be expected to hold higher asset values than those working in other occupations, regardless of where the social system was located on the modern~ traditional continuum. Attitude Intensity Rosenburg has considered the intensity component of an attitude as an action predictor (1960, p. 336). Carlson (1956, p. 259) found initial intense attitudes much more resistant to change than moderately held attitudes. Guttman and Foa (1951) have shown that intensity is related to amount of social contact with the attitude object. Considerable research has suggested that intensity is an important component of attitude structure in determining the "zero point” of a scale that discriminates the psychologically ”true“ positive from negative attitude direction. This is not the same as the actual scale numbers. The printed zero point on a scale may or may not be the actual point of indifference (Guttman, 1947, 1950, 1954; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman, 1947; Suchman and Guttman, 1947; Suchman, 1950; Foa, 1950; and Edwards, 1957). Considering the question of relationship between attitude and action, Rosenburg states ”what is usually done is to follow 37 a theoretical role of thumb to the effect that the "stronger“ the attitude, the more likely it will be that the subject will take consistent action toward the attitude object.,.the more extreme the attitude, the stronger must be the actionweliciting situation in which those forces are Operative., improvement in the validity of estimates of attitude intensity will increase the likelihood of successful prediction” (’osenburg, 1960, p, 336), In addition to the important funerion of increasing pre~ dictability, attitude intensity locates the true zeroepoint of a scale in Which the area of content has been found to be scai~ able (e.g, Guttman, 1947), Locating a true zero point appears to have the highly desirable characteristic of elimination of question bias (Pea, 1950; Suchman and Guttman, 1947; and Guttman, 1954b}, which often contises cross-lingual studies. The loca- tion of a true zero point on a scale makes it possible to com pare respon‘es between different langiage groups {Cuttman, 1954a}, .Eeaapnatwmad Homans 71950, p. 112) has suggested that frequency of contact between groups or persons and favorabieness of attitude are related. He held the Converse also to be true. Allport (1958, p. 250—268T examines various kinds of interwgroup contact. he concludes that ”equal status contact" 38 creates more favorable attitudes when the contact is in pursuit of common goals (p. 267). Casual contact is unpredictable in effects, but may serve to reinforce adverse stereotypes (p. 252). Status was also found to be significant. In attitude studies toward Negroes, those having contact with high status or high occupational group Negroes held more favorable attitudes than those having contact with lower status Negroes (p. 254, 261—2). Jacobson, et a1. (1960, p. 210—213) considered research related to inter-group contact, particularly between cultures. He suggested that equal status contacts are more likely to develop friction if the basis of the status equality is unsure; i.e., if one group does not fully accept the equality of the others. Zetterberg (1963, p. 13) has reviewed social contact con~ siderations of Malawski in which the effects of frequency of social contact on liking or disliking are dependent on two other variables: ”Cost of avoiding interaction, and availabil~ ity of alternative rewards..,if the costs of avoiding intern action are low, and if there are available alternative sources of reward, the more frequent the interaction, the greater the mutual liking“. Phenomenologically, these observations seem related to the felt freedom of a person to interact with another andlfis choice of this interaction over other activities per— ceived as rewarding, .‘llllll5311111, llllll 39 The foregoing might be summarized Frequent contact with a person or group more favorable attitudes if: in the following manner. is likely to lead to l. the contact is between status equals in pursuit of common goals (Allport, 1958, p, 267); 2. the contact is perceived as instrumental to the realization of a desired goal value (Rosenburg, 1960, p. 521); 3. contact is with members of a higher status group (Allport, 1958, p. 254, 261—262;; 4. the Contact is among status equals and the basis of status is unqueSticned (Jacobson, et a1- 1960, p, 2101213); 5. the contact is volitional fZetterberg. 1963, p, 13}; and 6, the contarfl..fis seletxrxlcdver other If%M5ldS (Zetter berg, 1963, p, 13) .Emeirissl-Es26é39h193“mtgfig,ggfil Esrs3s_it§mkryaggallilysaaaesd_ Apparently there have been no studies that deal directly with the problem of cross-national attitudes in relation to disabled persons, However, a number of studies have considered attitudes toward specific kinds of physical impairment in spel Cific settings in the United States. Ihese have been reviewed 40 by Baker, £5 21, (1953), Wright (1960), Cruickshank (1955, 1963) and others. Some of these studies relevant to the present study will be discussed. General Studies Barker, gt_gl. (1953) attempted an analysis of attitudes expressed in religion, fiction and humor (p. 74m76). Religious and literacy analyses revealed considerable variation in atti~ tude. They also found a strong tendency for jokes about phyw sical disability to be depreciating. They suggested jokes about this group had far more negative effeCt than jokes about other groups such as farmers and salesmen- In another study, Barker and Wright (1955) found that some people mask their unfavorable attitudes toward disability. Jokes might provide a disguised outlet for these unfavorable feelings. S0cial Contact and Information Studies Roeher (1959) found that both social contact and increased factual information lead to increased acceptance and tolerance of disabled persons. Haring, gt 31} (1958) found that workshop attempts to modify teacher attitudes {both verbal and behavioral) toward disabled children were more effective where teachers had regular 41 contacts This suggests a possible interaction between informae tion and contact in relation to attitudes toward a subordinate group, provided the information requires a change in beliefso ”From the reaction of those teachers who had few opportunities for actual experiences with exceptional diildren; it appears that the threat of having to modify behavior is more anxietye producing than the real process of change itself" (Haringp 1958. p0 l30)o "The effort of a formal attempt to modify attitudes” whether through mass media or a workshop. seems only to increase the anxiety and to provide a specific focus for the expression of rejection and the development of organized resistance“ When specific experiences are provided” the actual problems that arise can be dealt with directly” (Haring, l9581 pm i3llfi _Cr0 5 s salts ratstuses Wright {1960, pm z55—45b} sampled material drawn together by Maisel in an extensive survey or anthrOpoicgicai records; These records revealed wide discrepancies in the treatment of disabled persons? although ”there is no doubt that negative attitudes would show a preponderance” (pm 255), The present author spent a number of months among the Tmio and'Wayana Amer~fndians in surinam, South America? he dbmnmed that, by and large; the disabled did not survive for 42 any length of timea One notably exception was a polio victim “Mo was a paraplegic, He become an influential chief. Hanks and Hanks (1958) attempted a more systematic analy— sis in an attempt to determine relationships between structural and functional characteristics of several nonwoccidental socie— tieso They concluded that the physically disabled are better protected and have more participation in societies Where: (a) the level of productivity is higher in proportion tothe populaw tion and its distribution more nearly equal, (b) competitive factors in individual or group achievement are minimized, (c) the criteria of achievement are less formally absolute as in hierarchial social structures and more weighed with "concern for individual capacity, as in democratic social structure'” (Hanks and Hanks, 1958, pl 19v20)n While not specifically related to disability, the Tanaka and Osgood (1965) study is methodically relevant? They studied the cross~culture, crossmconcept, and cross—subject generality of affective meaning systems in groups having a different lin— guistic and cultural base _ Americans. Finns and Japanese. The experimental group was assumed to be representative of each of the three cultures, They found high consistency across the subjects' meaning sYstems although consistency was even higher within each subject~ culture group° ‘ 43 Felty's study (1965) of attitudes toward physical dis“ ability in Costa Rica served as the pilot study for a number of cross cultural investigations currently underway at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr, John E, Jordan, The present study is included in that number" The occupational interest group as well as the hypothesis of both studies are essentially the same. Using the Multiple Scalogram technique developed by Lingoes, Felty found that seven out of the twenty item ”atti« tudes toward disabled persons” minimally met the Guttman scale requirementso He also found that six of the ten ”progressive attitudes toward education" items formed a scale, and that no suitable scales were formed from the ”traditional attitudes toward education" items, When the intensity scores were plotted against content scores for these scales, the predicted V or J shaped curves were obtained, He noted however that not enough content total score categories were obtained around the ”bending points" of the curve to define with precision where the scales should be divided into favorable and unfavorable sections” The hypothesis that ”leadership” value would be negatively related to "Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons" scores was cone sidered confirmedg A significant negative correlation was Lei ,,,,, 44 obtained, It was also predicted that the rehabilitation and special education group would have higher "Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons“ scores than the other occupational groups, This proved to be the case as far as the executive group and the labor group were concerned. The education group, however, scored higher on this scale than did the rehabilitation and special education group“ Felty hypothesized that persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to store low in acceptance of disabled personsm He reported that his study appeared to confirm the negative relationship between compara. tive values and acceptance of the disabled, however the positive relationship between asset values and acceptance of the disabled did not seem to be supported. On the attitude variablesp Felty found significant differ- ences between males and femaleso For example, males tended to be more traditional in their orientation toward education and place more emphasis on basic subject matter and on discipline than did their female counterparts” Converselya females were more inclined to accept progressive, child—centered ideas“ He cautioned that the fact that education as a group were also high in progressivism and low in traditionalism leaves a question as to whether this is primarily an occupational characteristic or a genuine sex difference” 45 He felt that the most significant finding concerning the lower income group (laborers) was the coupling of a predominately low income and low education level with high independence value. He acknowledged that this group consisted largely of a male pOpuw lation which may have baised the results in a Latin country. He noted that while this group was the most divergent group of the sample, it was perhaps the most typical of the Costan Rican pOpu~ lation as a whole. Further Cultural Studies Richardson investigated uniformity and cultural varability of preference ranking of pictures of kinds of physical deviam tion. All samples were from the United States but included disW abled and non-disabled subject as well as various ethnic and social class groupings. They found ”remarkable uniformity in the heirarchy of preferences which the children exhibited for pictures children with and without various visible physical handicaps” (Richardson, et al. (1961. p. 246). Slight sex vari~ ations were found. Girls tended to depreciate children with more ”social" impairments while boys seemed more concerned about "functional” impairments. Goodman hypothesized this value pattern was related to the contact. These patterns were communicated from parents to adults'without explicit rules or awareness variable with the 46 disabled. To test this hypothesis, groups Were studied who were judged to come from subcultures with different value organizations in relation to visible impairments. These groups included children and adults from Jewish and Italian origins. Results showed that (a) adults shOWed the same preference pattern as the dominant children“s pattern, (b) the Jewish children did give higher ranking to both facially disfigured and obese than others, (c) both retarded and disturbed children gave deviant patterns. The evidence suggests that cultural values in respect to disability are related to cultural uni= formity. People who deviate from the cultural norm in terms of value orientation might be expected to deviate also in .appraisal of physically disabled. Types of Disability m Further Studies Studies by Kvaraceus (1956» Force (1956), Dickstein and Dripps (1958), Haring, Egggjfl (1958), and Murphy (1960) con~ sider preferences for different disability groupings in varm ious specific situations. Kvaraceus, Dickstein and Dripps and Murphy, all studied preference for teaching particular groups over others by means of group rankings. In general, the gifted were most preferred while mentally handicapped and ma1~ adjusted children were least preferred. Physically disabled children were in between. 47 The studies of Force and Haring, gt al. both suggested that children were cerebral palsy are considered most difficult to interact with. In Haring, et a1. (1958, p. 38) respondents were considering acceptability of children for regular school programs. Only those children with mild hearing disorder and with leg crippling, if ambulatory by crutch or wheelchair, were considered educationally acceptable (p. 40=4l), although others were functionally capable of the placement. A study of Whiteman and Luckoff (1962) were concerned partially with attitude structure and personal value orientaw tions. Because of the theoretical foundation of the research, it has relevance to the area of attitudes toward physical dis= ability. In respect to structure, which the authors apparently define as a pattern organization of beliefs and evaluations, they found that correlations are higher betweeg disability groups on a given component. The relationship between components, even though within a given disability, is poor. Thus the correlation between items dealing with the evaluau 48 tion of a physical handicap and the evaluation of physically handicapped peOple is .13 while the two items referring to blindness and blind peOple cor— relate .22. However, the relationship within com- ponents is appreciable better even though the responses are to different disabilities. Thus the two items referring to blindness and physical hand~ icap and their effect on most worthwhile experiences correlate .53 while the two items referring to the sorrowful characteristics of blind and physically handicapped people correlate .61. Similar consid- erations obtain when the components deal with pity towards blind peOple, or with readiness for inter~ action with them (Whiteman, gt al, 1962, p. 154-155). The Measurement of Attitudes General Considerations Attitude has been previously defined as a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something” (Guttman, 1950, p. 51). Responses on an attitude scale are one form of delim~ ited behavior, but the attitude universe may consist of many forms of behavior which are more or less intercorrelated and which form separate subuniverses. An adequate attitude abstrac- tion from this universe should include sampling from each of the possible submuniverses, a task of doubtful empirical possibility. A statement of the conceptual problem, however, points up limita- tions in the range of inferences one may make from a limited samp— lingcfi behavior. There will probably be a relationship between '.thesfiatements one makes abOut a person with a disability, and 49 how one behaves overtly toward that person, but the relationship cannot be assumed without empirical support. Green (1954, pp. 335-336) makes three other salient points about attitudes, their underlying characteristics, and their relationship to other variables. First, there must be a con~ sistency of responses in respect to some social object. Second, the attitude itself is an abstraction from a set of consistent, or covarying responses. ”In each measurement method, covaria— tion among responses is related to the variation of an under~ lying variable. The latent attitude is defined by the correlaw tions among responses” (p. 336). Responses themselves are not attitudes; rather, the attitude is defined by the latent variu able. The detection of this latent variable requires certain scale properties. Finally, an attitude differs from other psychological variables (with the exception of value) because it is always in terms of a referent class of social objects. The approach to attitude assessment known as scalogram analysis (Guttman, 1950, Ch. 3) is consistent with the above considers“ tions, and it is this approach which has been used in respect to the attitude variables employed in this study. 50 Cross—National Research and Scale Analysis Various authors have considered the hazards of meaning equivalence in cross~national studies (Jacobson and Schachter, 1954; Jacobson,_§£.gl. 1960; Klineberg, 1950; Suchman, 1958, 1962. 1964; UNESCO, 1955, 1963). A primary problem in studies of this type is how to obtain comparable input stimuli, an aspect which may be sub~divided into problems of translation, and into the availability of equivalent language terms and concepts (Jacobson, gt_glfl 1960, pp. 218~263). In respect to problems of input equivalents, Suchman (1958, p. 197), in reporting methodological findings of the Cornell Cross»Cultural Methodology Project, has distinguished between ”concept" equivaw lence and ”index" equivalence. He reported that it was not pos~ sible to compare specific questions and indices across cultures, because: Technical problems such as language translation along with more subtle factors of the meaning of words, com~ bined to make it extremely difficult to compare responses from different cultures with any degree of confidence that they were indeed equivalent. On the other hand, it was found that while specific indices might not be comparable, broader concepts were. He suggested that scale analysis offered a "particularly promis~ ing method" of determining conggpt equivalence. 51 The problem of input equivalence of concepts in cross— national studies would appear to be an aspect of the general problem of question bias. Suchman (1950, Ch. 8) has explored the use of the measurement of the intensitngf feeling with which peOple hold to their attitudes or Opinions as a way of surmounting differences in attitude or opinion measurement results due mainly to nuances of differences in question word- ing (”bias"). Guttman (1954, p. 396), in referring to the appli- cation of this approach to the problem of bias by the Israel Institute of Applied Research, has commented: "in Israel where we sOmetimes have to do the same study in twelve different lan- guages, it is essential to have a technique which does not depefl.on question wording.” Scale Analysis The following brief summary of scale analysis is not intended to be exhaustive, but merely to present a rationale and an outline of the approach used in the study.v A basic reference to this material is the writing of Guttman (1950). Comprehensive discussions of the technique in respect to other scaling methods are to be found in Green (1954), Edwards (1957), and Goode and Hatt (1952). Riley, et a1, (1954) presents cer- tain information in respect to technique not available elsewhere, 52 and Riley (1963) and Waisanen (1960) presented simplified techniques for introductory work with the method. Scale analysis provides a method for determining whether a set of items can be ordered along a single dimension. xlf a particular attitude universe is really one-dimensional, any sampling of items from it should also be one—dimensional, and should provide an ordering of respondents essentially the same as that provided by any other sampling of items from the uni- verse. If the predicted ordering does not occur, the universe is judged to be multi-dimensional and consequently not scalable. It is possible, of course, that items have been included which do not refer to the universe of content. These non_scale items might be excluded; however, item exclusion must be exercised with caution (Green, 1954, p. 357). If items do suggest an underlying single dimension, it is meaningful to describe a respondent with a higher total score as possessing more of the characteristic being measured than someone with a lower total score. Most important, if scale properties are obtained, this provides evidence for the existence of a defined body of Opinion in the respondent group in respect to the particular area of measurement involved. The fact that item scales are obtained in each of two or more countries being compared is evidence for concept equivalence, regardless of variation in the content of 53 the particular items in the scales from one nationality group to another. In Guttman scaling, the focus is on the ranking of respondents rather than on the ranking of items. "We shall call a set of items of common content a scale if a person with a higher rank than another person is just as high or higher on every item than the other person" (Guttman, 1950, p. 62). The individual item responses of every respondent should be repro- ducible (with about 10% error allowable) from a knowledge of his total score rank. The amount of error which is allowable in reproducing item scores from a knowledge of respondent total scores rank has been somewhat arbitrarily established at 10%, although Guttman has shown that if the errors are random in a given sample of 100 persons and 5 dichotomous items, the popu— lation reproducibility should not vary more than 4 or 5 per cent from the reproducibility coefficient of the sample (1950, p. 77). Guttman has also described the quasi-scale,l which may occur when the reproducibility of a scale is lower than the required 90%, but when the errors occur in a random pattern. Stouffer (1950, p. 5) notes that ”the correlation of the quasi- scale with an outside criterion is the same as the multiple 1The analysis of scales employed in the present study would appear to place them in the category of quasi~scales. 54 correlation between responses to the indivrial items forming that scale and the outside criterion (which) justifies the use of sets of items from an area not scalable in the strictest sense." It should be pointed out that the criterion of 90% reproducibility is no more an absolute standard than is the selection of an alpha of .05 for a test of significance. For some purposes a lower limit may be satisfactory, for others a higher limit may be a necessity. The important criteria in respect to scale error would seem to be the random nature of occurrence of the errors. ”The error pattern of the quasi— scale question is recognizable from the manner in which the fairly large number of errors that occur gradually decrease in number as one moves further and further away from the cut- ting point.2 These errors...do not group together like non— scale errors” (Suchman, 1950. pp. 160w161). This appears to be the error pattern obtained on the scales used in the present study. 2The ”cutting point" refers to the point at which the ”favorable” (or, e.g., ”yes") responses to an item, can be divided with the least amount of error from the ”unfavorable" (or, e.g., "no") responses to an item, when the respondents have been ordered on the basis of total score for all items in the scale. 55 Scale and Intensity Analysis in Relation to Cross—National Problem of Comparability of Responses Once scaling has been established so that there is some indication of unidimensionality, there remains the question of how to divide the respondents on the basis of the favorableness or unfavorableness of response. Foa (1950) and Suchman (1950, pp. 214—215) have shown how question bias can be introduced through slight changes of question wording so that the response patterns of a set of questions may be altered considerably. What is needed is an objective “0" point, independent of the content of the items, which will divide the favorables from the unfavorables. The method proposed is to ascertain for each item how intensely the respondent feels about the item. It has been shown experimentally (Foa, 1950, 1961; Guttman, 1947, 1950; Guttman and Foa, 1951; Guttman and Suchman, 19477 Suchman, 1950; Suchman and Guttman, 1947) that intensity will usually form a quasi—scale which, when plotted against the content dimension, will reveal the point on the content scale of the lowest intensity of response. This point has been empirically established as a point of indifference in respect to the item content. Attitudes become favorable on one side of the point and unfavorable on the other side of the point, It then becomes possible to state in respect 56 to a particular group about what per cent of the respondents are actually favorable, neutral, or unfavorable, as defined by an objective and invariant referent point. This concept is of great potential significance for cross— national research, since it offers an objective technique for comparing persons from one culture to another, regardless of subtle meaning changes resulting from translation problems, pro— viding that the item content is scalable within each of the countries being compared. Both the point of division, and the shape of the intensity curve are of interest. The shape of the curve may indicate whether people are generally apathetic about the issue at hand or are sharply divided into opposing groups. These potential benefits of scale and intensity analysis recom- mended their use for the present study. CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES The purpose of this study was to investigate technical, meth— odological and theoretical considerations relating to the cross— cultural investigation of attitudes toward education and toward physical disability. An attempt was made to employ a set of instruments which elicited attitudes toward education and toward physical disability (Appendix B-1 and B—4) as well as a compari- son of these attitudes on selected groups within Colombia and Peru and a limited comparison between these countries and the United States (Wichita, Kansas) on the special education and rehabilitation group. Rationale for Selecting Samples from Colombia and Peru The selection of Colombia and Peru provided a population vi differing in language, culture, and values from the United States. This provided for a more rigorous test of the assumptions under— lth the instruments. It also met the needs of a larger study1 currently being conducted throughtout Latin America as well as in the United States, EurOpe, Africa, and Asia. 1 The larger study is under the direction of Dr. John E. Jbrdmh College of Education, Michigan state University. 57 significant persons. General Description of Colombia Geography E 191 miles long. This country, which borders Ecuador, peru. er- Brazil, Venezuela, and Panama, is the fourflilargest in South Ami New Mexico, Nevada, and California 1) - (Lindow, 1964' p- 59 The western part of the country is extremely mountainous. Here the Andes are made up of three well defined ranges. The bulk of the country’s peOple live in the valleys and basins between these ranges. More than 60% of the Republic is covered with forest (Social Progress Trust Fund, 1963, p. 189). Population The population of Colombia was estimated at 14.76 million in 1962. Based on the annual growth rate of just under three percent, the population will reach an estimated 19.7 million by 1970 (Lindow, 1964, p. 2). The post-war period has been charac— terized by rapid urbanization and as a result the urban and rural pOpulation are now nearly equal in size. The economically active pOpulation, which numbered five million in 1963 (Lindow, 1963, p. 190), is fairly evenly divided between the rural and urban areas. Fifteen cities have an estimated pOpulation of over 100,000. Geo— graphically the population is very unevenly divided. Only ten percent inhabit 60 percent of the territory while the remaining 90 percent inhabit the remaining 40 percent of the area. The pOpulation is highly concentrated in the western part of the country (Lindow, 1964, p. 4). 60 Economics Colombia not only has better diversification in terms of natural resources than most of her Latin American neighbors but also is in the enviable position of having these resources well distributed throughout the several regions of the country. It has an abundance of arable land and climatic conditions that make it possible to cultivate a great variety of products every month of the year. According to the Overseas Business Report (April 1964, p. 7), Colombia is the largest producer of mild coffees, and exports about 13 percent of the coffee that moves in inter- national trade. Bananas are also the third most important earner of foreign exchange. Wheat, cotton, sugar cane, tobacco, corn, beans, peas, lentrils, chick peas, yucca, potatoes, and rice are also grown in fairly adequate quantities (Lindow, 1964, p. 29). Colombia possesses extensive and varied mineral resources. The development of these resources have been greatly hampered by inadequate transportation facilities. Colombia is the largest pro- ducer of gold in South America and the chief source of emeralds in the world. The salt reserves are said to be practically inexhaus- tibka. If the estimate of 18 billion metric tons of coal reserves is correct. Colombia is the richest country in Latin America as far as coal is concerned. 61 One of the most dynamic factors in the Colombian economy is the manufacturing sector. In terms of output, employment and enterprise, the major industries are in foodstuffs, beverages, and textiles (Lindow, 1964, pp. 6-13). Politics Colombia is a republic which elects a President and a Senate every four years and a House of Representatives every two years. The right of suffrage is constitutionally provided to all citizens over 21 years of age. Under a unique arrangement, the two traditional parties, Conservative and Liberal, share equally in all levels of electoral office until 1974. This includes the presidency which alternates between parties every four years (Lindow, 1964, p. 5). Education In 1962, 37 percent of the population 15 years of age and over was illiterate. At all education levels. there is a considw erable gap between the number of those who should receive school- ing and those who do receive it. There are too few schools and the dropmout rate is high. At the university level, the prevail- ing academic structure does not correspond to the country's needs for economic and social development. It orients far too many of the students toward traditional studies. Recently. however, a 62 start has been made in modifying these characteristics. Many cen— ters of higher learning are carrying out important academic and administrative reforms, and students are showing a great interest in science and technology (Social Progress Fund, 1963, p. 193). Most Colombian universities are organized in faculties which teach all of the courses taken by students in their given field of specialization. This obviously results in duplication of courses. In 1963, thetflfiversity of the Andes in Bogota, the University of Antioquia in Medellin, and Valle University in Cali initiated a process of "inter-faculty departmentalization", which was designed to eliminate this kind of duplication. The University of the Andes, through an agreement with the University of Minnesota, took another step away from the tradit- ional educational program by starting a four-year program designed to train professors in economic theory as well as to stimulate economic research with special emphasis on development (Social Progress Trust Fund, 1963, pp- l93~203). The creation of the National Service of Apprenticeships (SENA) was an important event in the field of industrial training. By the end of 1960, it was supported by 14,858 companies and its annual income was approximately 22 million pesos. SENA, with the assistance of owners and workers, is admin- istering a national apprenticeship system for professional and cultural training of workers in industry, commerce, agriculture, livestock, management and mining (Social Progress Trust Fund, 1961, p. 89). 63 _§pecial Education and Rehabilitation Services Publications of the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled reported in 1963 that "there has been no interest in a governmental level in rehabilitation nor was information obtainable about legislation favoring the handicapped. No sur- veys have been made on the incidence of disabilities either by governmental or voluntary agencies (Hess, 1963, p. 2). However, legislation was enacted in 1940 to establish the Federacion Nacional de Ciegas y Sordomudos iNational Federation for the Blind and Deaf). This organization conducts, plans, and develops services within the country for the blind and deaf (VRA, 1964, po 43). The Franklin D. Roosevelt Institute. a center for crippled children ranging from infants to 15~year old teenagers, was founded in 1947. “It has a capacity for 250 inpatients and its own surgical facilities, braceshop, and education program. By 1955, the Institute had provided rehabilitation services for more than 2,000 children severQW'handicapped by poliomyelitus, cere- bral palsy, congential malformations. and other disabilities. In that same year a severe poliomyelitus epidemic resulted in a waiting list of 5,000 children seeking admission. 64 - The Institute has its own bus to transport the children which facilitates the operation of an outpatient clinic for medi— cal consultation and physical therapy treatment in downtown Bogota. Services are normally provided without charge. Sixty percent of the annual budget is provided by the Colombian government while the balance comes from private contributions (VRA, 1964, p. 43). A new site has been selected and building plans have been devel- Oped. New and more adequate facilities will greatly enhance the services now provided by the Institute. The rehabilitation services of the Military Hospital provide a unified medical, health, and hospital system which receive both military and civilian referrals. It has an excellent physical plant with fine treatment facilities centrally located in Bogota. There are at least 14 schools or organizations serving the blind in Colombia. Five of these institutions are in Bogota. The Instituto Colombiano Para Ciegos y Sordomudos de Bogota offers primary education and provides vocational training for those who do not plan to enter a profession. It is supported by government grants and from funds derived from investments. The Instituto de Ntra. Senora de la Sabiduria para Ninas Ciegas y Sordomudas, a girl‘s school for the blind and deaf, pro— vides secondary education and some vocational training (VRA, 1964, p. 44). 65 Mr. Hernando Pradilla heads the Centra de Rehabilitacion para Adultos Ciegas, a private rehabilitacion center for blind adults. The growth of this young agency reflects a "grass roots" potential which could have national implications given imagination and the right stimulation. General Description of Peru Geography Peru, a country of varied and abundant natural resources with a relatively diversified economy, is divided into three distinct geographical regions: the coast, the mountains, and the jungles. Each area has its own economic and social character. The long coast line has favored trade as well as the fishing industry. Although the narrow strip of land along the coast is an arid desert, there are a number of permanent streams which origi- nate in the Andes and cross the desert. These rivers provide the water necessary to support intensive and highly commercialized agricultural activity. The Andean Highlands include the various ranges of the Andes as well as many intermountain basins and valleys in which the poPulation is concentrated- The extremely rough terrain has impeded development of communication both within the region and 66 between it and other parts of the country. There are few large cities. While the Highlands area comprise only 27 percent of the area of Peru, it accounts for 70 percent of its population. The jungle region, sometimes known as the Selva, includes the lower part of the valleys which emerge from the Andes, the eastern lepes of the Andes, as well as the flat lowlands of the Amazon Basin. This hot, densely forested area is virtually unin~ habited except along the banks of the major streams and in the vicinity of the few roads which have penetrated its western bor- der in the last 20 years (Social Progress Trust Fund, 1963, pp. 344-346). Population Peru's 11 million population in 1963 (11,600,000 in 1963) was made up of 4.6 million (42%} in urban pOpulation and the remaining 58% in rural population. Its growth rate over the last decade is estimated at 2 3%, which if con~ tinued, will produce a 1970 population figure of 14 mi1~ lion persons. At the same time, the urban population is expected to increase more rapidly so that by 1970 the urban and rural populations ShOJld be about equal (Social Progress Trust Fund, 1961. p. 183). The largest single racial group are pure blooded Indians, who comprise about 46 percent of the total Peruvian pOpulation. About 37 percent are from mixed Indian and Caucasion strains, known as mestizos, while roughly 15 percent are of European des- cent. Only two percent are of Negro or oriental origin. 67 Although Spanish is the official national language, it is used by only 46 percent of the people. Thirty-five percent of the pOpulation speak only Quechua or Aymara, the two main Indian lan- guages (Freeburger and Hauch, 1964, p. 1?. Economics Peru occupies about 6.4 percent of the combined area of the 20 Latin American Republics and has just over five percent of the total population. However. it accounts for only 2.5 percent of the regions’ production- During the 50”s its output increased at a rate below the average for Latin America, From 1960 to 1963, however, the gross national product grew at an annual rate of about three percent per capita eSocial Progress Trust Fund, 1963, p. 345). Agriculture, livestock, and fisheries contribute slightly more than 25 percent of the gross national product- While min; eral resources and mining contribute 15.5 percent of the GNP. Peru has not yet begun to realize its mining potential. It is interesting to note that while agricultural activities account for less than one fourth of the GNP. more than 60 percent of the population is engaged in agriculture (Freeburger and Hauch, 1964, p. i). 68 Government The present Constitution formulated in 1933, designated Peru as a democratic republic. Economic, social, and individual rights as well as freedom of the press, religion, and assembly are guaranteed. The government is highly centralized and the principal administrative officials are presidential appointees. The main political subdivisions of the Republic are departments, provinces, and districts. There are 23 departments, 135 provinces and 1,259 districts. The President of the Country is elected by direct vote for six years. The Senators are elected by the departments and the Deputies are selected by the Provinces, each for terms of six years. Education According to the report on the develOpment of education presented by the Peruvian Minister of Public Education at the 1963 Conference of Ministers of Education in Bogota, Peruvian education is primarily suffering from the lack of a well defined education policy directed toward the economic and social development of the nation. The educational problems are further complicated by an underdeveloped economy, inadequate transportation and lack of communication facilities; the high rate of illit- eracy, and the lack of integration of the indigenous pop- ulation into the national life; the shortage of teachers and their inadequate preparation; the excessive centrali~ zation of the administration and direction of education; and the lack of financial resources to implement a pro- gram for the improvement and develOpment of education (Freeburger and Hauch, 1964. p. 41). 69 Preliminary figures from the 1961 census indicate that 53 percent of Peru's populations, 14 years of age and over are illit- erate. However, in the Sierras where the largest concentration of the Indian population are located, this figure increases to approx— imately 73 percent. Among the white and mestizo populations, this figure decreases to as low as 29 percent. The illiteracy problem results not as much from racial as from linguistic factors. Most of the illiterate population are Indians who speak only their own dialect. A number of efforts have been made to deal with the illit- eracy problem. The Military Junta declared 1962 as "The Year of Literacy Training". Under the direction of the Department of Rural Education and Illiteracy. teachers, students, civil guard units and returned military personnel were used to implement the literacy campaign through the use of radio and television broad— casts. Mining, agricultural and industrial enterprises are required by law to conduct education classes for illiterate employees between 16 and 40 years of age. These classes are under the supervision of the Director of Adult Education (Freeburger and Hauch, 1964, pp. 37-40)- Vocational schools do exist but do not seem to be very effective. The Ministry 5 report indicates that vocational schoo s are not providing a basic education for students to con~ tinue studies at institutions of higher learning nor are they U) giving the students adequate training in order to qualify for job in industry (Freeburger nd Hauch, 1964, p. 42). Peruvian educators are also faced with a major school Groge f1 1, out problem. A 1957 inventor” showed that or the total number o students who entered eiementarr schools or-v 15-1 oercent temple- 1 J: J: (t ted grade 4 and 5.6 percent entered the fit h grade. The greatest rate of dropwouts was in the transition between the first and second grades. Secondary education has also been faced with massive plob‘ lems. Excessive memory requirements, lack of libraries. poorly equipped laboratories. and poor eaching methods have contributed to the ineffectiveness which have plagued the secondary schools. Peruvian universities have been faced with suth prtbiems as partetime students, partvtime professors, poor physical recli. ties, political activ1trfi>ot the students and lack of i.nantial resources {Freeburger and hauth. l964. p. 47}, The bes: known univ+rsity in Peru is the National Drivers;:y of San Marcos. Founded .n l55l by a royal order of Charles V ct Spain, it is regarued as the oldest lHSTlZUthH of higher iEaLQ‘ ing in tie Americas. 71 While most universities in Peru are rather traditional, some universities are introducing innovations which will have far reach~ ing effects. The Universidad de San Cristobol de Huamanga, which reopened in 1962, initiated a program based on applied study and research. It prohibits partisan politics, requires fullutime attendance from professors and students, and makes the Quechua language a compulsory academic subject (Freeburger and Hauch, 1964, pa 32): Prior to 1961, the Pontifical Catholic University of Peru was the only private university of higher education in Peruo Since 1961, five new private universities have been establisheda Special Education and Rehabilitation Services In 1962, it was estimated that there were 700,000 physically or mentally handicapped persons in Peruo Of this number 500,000 were deaf, mute, blind, amputees, paraplegics, polio victimso etcnq and about 200,000 were classified under mental retardation and cerebral paralysisc Perhaps the most influential organization providing services to the disabled is the Patronato Peruano de Rehabilitacion y Education Especial, which is affiliated with the International Society for Rehabilitation of the Disabled“ The Patronato, founded in 1959, is supported by the proceeds of a 10 percent tax on lot; 72 tery winnings as well as by voluntary contributions from private sources, Several organizations affiliated with the Patronato provide such services as employment promotion for the handicapped and vocational training for amputeeso A hearing and speech center known as the Centro Peruano de Audicion y Languaje and a special education school known as the Institute San Gabriel Arcangel are also associated with the Patronatoe The Hospital Militar Central has excellent facilities and its own staff of physiotherapistso While it primarily serves veterans, its services are available to civilian children and adults on a limited basis (VRA, 1964, ppo l33~135)o Research Population Colombian Sample The three groups in this sample consisted of 241 adult men and women° The groups were represented as follows: laborers — the L group (both blue and white collar workers) - an N of 46; the SER group (all from Roosevelt School of Bogota) — an N of 677 elementary school teachers - the BE group - an N of 106 and sec- ondary school teachers - the SE group - an N of 220 Plans were made to administer the questionnaires to an executive group in 73 Bogota. These plans, however, did not materialize in time for this study. If they are secured later, they will be utilized by Dr. John E. Jordan in the large on-going international study. Peruvian Sample The research sample consisted of 134 adult men and women who were classified either as (a) manager/executives - the M group or (b) professional personnel who worked with disabled per~ sons in Peru - the SER group. Initially, data was to be gathered from two other groups, (blue and white collar workers and primary/ secondary school teachers), but due to factors beyond the researcher's control, this data was not received.1 Group M, with an N of 96, consisted largely of middle echo-~ lon government officials who will have responsibility for estab— lishing government policy for employment (both in and out of government) of the handicapped and non-handicapped as well as being involved in the actual employment of both groups. In 1965, there were two training institutions for manager/executives in Lima. One of these institutions, known as Oficina Nacional de Radionalizacion y Capacitacion de la Administracion Publica (ONRAP), was assisted by the New York School of Public Adminis- 1 Since this chapter was written the teacher group has been collected. They will be analyzed in the larger study under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan° 74 tration. The other school, Escuela de Administracion de Negocios Para Graduados (ESAN), was assisted by Stanford University. Both of these American universities were under contract with the U.S. government via the Alliance for Progress program. The data from the SER group, with an N of 39, was gathered by Mr. Enrique Unger, who with his wife were also responsible for translating the research instruments into Peruvian Spanish. This N represents a high percent of the research universe in Lima. United States Sample: Kansas This sample included 22 men and 81 women from the SER group working in the vicinity of Wichita, Kansas. The Kansas sample was gathered as one of the sub~samples of a broader study by Messieurs Dickie and Weir and their complete studies will appear as doctoral theses under the direction of Dr John E. Jordan. Selection of Variables The selection of variables {Appendix C—l) was dictated mostly by theoretical considerations already reviewed and partly by well-established sociological tradition in respect to the selection of demographic variables. The theoretically-dictated variables were mainly those sus- pected to be in some particular relationship to the criterion 75 variable of attitudes toward education and toward physical dis- ability. Other variables were included, however, which were intended to provide information in respect to the characteristics of two groups of respondents: (a) education personnel, and (b) those who work with the handicapped. These variables are those of: (a) mobility, (b) personalism, (c) institutional satisfac- tion, (d) religiosity, and (e) change orientation. The fact that some of these variables were found to have a relationship to scores on the criterion measure was largely fortuitous to the design of the research. The major variables used in the study are discussed in the following section. Attitudes Toward Physical Disability The items used in this scale were taken from the Attitudes Toward Disability Scale (Yuker, et al., 1960). Adequate test— retest reliability scores were reported, and various construct validity measures which were all collected from disabled employees of Abilities, Inc. of New York, a light manufacturing company which employs disabled workers. Among these employees the test was found to be negatively related to age and anxiety, and posi- tively related to verbal intelligence and job satisfaction. Although the validating group has questionable generality and the 76 rationale for item selection is not clear, the test represents an attempt to fill a gap in the field and deserves further study. It seems to be the only instrument available. Modifications were made in the provisions for respondent scoring. The Likert-type format was retained, but the response categories for each item were reduced from seven to four. A fur- ther modification was that instead of requiring the respondent to transfer a number from a set of coded categories at the top of the page to indicate his response the item alternatives were stated following each question (Appendix B—4). It was felt that these modifications would simplify the task for the respondent. Since it was intended to submit the items to scale analysis rather than follow the suggested scoring system, there was no need to retain the same numerical scores. Fifteen of the 20 attitude items are statements of differ- ences between disabled persons and those not disabled, and agree- ment with those statements is interpreted as reflecting an unfav- orable attitude. Attitudes Toward Education Modifications similar to those described above were made on the Attitudes Toward Education scale developed by Kerlinger (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959). The scales 77 were included for two reasons: first, because they are short and simple to administer; and second, because there is a rationale in Latin American countries for hypothesizing a relationship between progressive attitudes toward education and positive attitudes toward physical disability. The scales represent a factor analy» sis of a set of 40 items given to 598 subjects of varying back- grounds, but all apparently of above average education. The scales have been found to hold up under cross-validation; however, there is no indication that persons of lower educational attain- ment have been adequately represented in the studies. A surface examination of the items (Appendix B—l) suggests that some of them may be somewhat overly complex and difficult for many peOple. The complete instrument consists of 20 items, of which lO are "pro— gressive", and 10 ”traditional". As employed in this study, the progressive and traditional items were analyzed independently as two separate scales. The Intensity Scales A simple approximation of the intensity function has been successfully attained by asking a question about intensity after each content question. One form used for an intensity question is simply: "How strongly do you feel about this?“ with answer categories of ”Very strongly", "Fairly strongly", and "Not so strongly". Repeating such a question after such content question yields a series of intensity answers. Using the same procedure as ... for content answers, these are scores and each respondent is given an intensity score. The 78 intensity scores are then cross tabulated with the content scores (Suchman, 1950, p. 219). This procedure was the one adopted to measure intensity for both the attitude items relating to handicapped persons and to education. Four response categories were used instead of the three suggested by Suchman. Interpersonal Values In selecting the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Gordon, 1960), two factors were considered: first, an instru~ ment was needed which would yield scores on items that seemed logically related to the values under test in the hypotheses, those of "asset"orientation to others, and "comparative" orienta- tion to others. Of the six subwscales in the instrument, the one for Benevolence is described as follows: "Doing things for other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being genw erous" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Among studies presented in a sub- sequent research brief. Benevolence was found to correlate .49 with the Nurturance score on the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (EPPS) and negatively with Achievement f-.24) and Aggression (— 28) (Gordon, 1963, p. 22). It was decided on the basis of the description, the item content, and the interecorreu lations with the EPPS that the Gordon Benevolence Value would be an adequate Operationalization of the "asset value". 79 The second value to be operationalized was that of a "com- parative" orientation toward others. The Gordon manual offers the following definition for Recognition Value: "Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favor- able notice, achieving recognition" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). The following definition was offered for Conformity Value: ”Doing what is socially correct, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, being a conformist" (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Leadership was defined as "Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leadership or power (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). All three of these values would appear to involve rankings of others on some kind of absolute scale, either of social acceptability (Conformity), achievement (Recognition), or power (Leadership). On the basis of surface consideration of such content the Recognition and Leadership items were judged to be most representative of Com~ parative Values. A second consideration was the validity of the Gordon scale in a different cultural application than the one for which it was designed. The author of the instrument was able to furnish a preliminary mimeographed Spanish translation of the instrument but no reliability or validity data were available. However, translations in French and Japanese (Gordon, l963, pp. l7—21) 80 yielded scores between known groups consiStent with expectations- The forced-choice format of the instrument may also be less sen— sitive to subtle shifts in item meaning resulting from translation than a format in which each item is separately responded to as "agree" or ”disagree", or according to a Likertetype format. It is expected, however, that in the present study some estimate of validity may be obtained through confirmation of predictions about the values of known groups used in the study (predictive validity), and from expected relationships between other scores (Concurrent validity). Personal Contact Variables Two types of variables related to personal contact were represented by 15 items in the questionnaires. Four items were related to educational contact, nine items were related to cone tacts with physically disabled persons, one item to contact With mentally retarded. and one item dealt Wilh contac: with emOtionally disturbed persons. Each item generated a score. Single item scores are notoriously unstable. and no reliability data can be ) offered. There is some -vidence of the predictive validity of some of the items, in respeCt to expeCtancies that known groups should respond in certain ways For example. it was expected that persons working in SER would report a higher frequency of contact 81 with disabled persons than would persons not working in the field of disability. This was indeed the case in Costa Rica (Felty, 1965) and might be considered an item validation. Contact with Education These items (PQl 4m7) requested respondents to indicate: (a) how much they had worked in schools or educational settings« number 4: (b) what percent of income was derived from such work» number 5; (c) how they felt about such workenumber 6; and (d) what other work Opportunities they could have alternatively cho~ sen-number 7. Contact with Physically Disabled These items (PO: HP 1-9) requested respondents to indicate: (a) the kind of physical disability with which they had had the most contact, or knew the most about e numbers 1 and 2; (b) the type of relationship they had had with physically disabled per~ sons~family, friends, working relationships, etc. _ number 3; and (c) the approximate number of encounters they had had with phys- ically disabled persons e number 4. Other questions attempted to explore alternative opportunities ~ number 9, enjoyment of contact with handicapped persons ~ number 8, ease of avoidance of such 1 Throughout the dissertation PQ will refer to Personal Questionnaire: PQ—HP will refer to Personal Questionnaire-Handi- capped Persons. 82 contacts - number 5, gain from contact e number 6, percent income from working with e number 7. Preferences for Personal Relationships This set of three items (PQ 21-23) was devised to help iden~ tify respondents, or groups of respondents, along a traditionale modern dimension. The predominance of affective relationships as opposed to affectively neutral relationships is supposedly one of the distinguishing characteristics of the ”Gemeinshaft", or tra~ ditional, orientation (e.g., Loomis, 1960, p. 6lff). Question 21 asked the respondent to indicate the approximate percent of per- sonal interactions on the job which were with persons who were close personal friends. Question 22 asked how important it was to work with persons who were close friends. Question 23 was intended to measure diffuseness or specificity of personal interw actions under the hypothesis that the traditionally oriented per- son is more likely to have personal interactions which are dif- fused between job and family, or other affective nonejob inter~ actions. "Members of 'he Gemeinshaft like system are likely to know each other well, their relationships are functionally dif- fuse in that most of the facets of human personality are revealed in the prolonged and intimate associations common to such systems” (Loomis, 1960, p. 72). The SER group, then, being commited to 83 "asset" values (by hypothesis), being more concerned with intrin- sic valuation of the person rather than valuing him for his abso- lute achievements, should also express a greater need for personal interactions generally, and a greater diffuseness of interpersonal relationships, Institutional Satisfaction This was a set of nine questions (PQ 31 A—I) adapted from Hyman (1955, p, 400)° The institutions selected (schools, busi— ness, labor, government, health services, churches) were listed and an opportunity offered to indicate whether they were judged excellent, good, fair, or poor in respect to how well they do their particular job in the community, It was postulated that people working in SER would be less satisfied with institutions generally than other groups, Persons with high education in relation to income might also be expected to be less satisfied than others, Again, no reliability estimates are offered, and validity will be a function of concurrent correlation coefficients, Change Orientation This set of six questions (PQ 39-43 and 47) were adapted from Programa Interamericano de Informacion POpular (PIIP) in Costa Rica, The respondents were asked to react to a number of statements which purported to reflect attitudes toward change in 84 such areas as health practices, child rearing practices, birth control, automation, political leadership, and self change, Four response alternatives to indicate the degree of agreement were given: strongly agree, slightly agree, slightly disagree, and strongly disagree, It was postulated that people working in SER would have responses which suggested a greater flexibility and Openness toward change, This favorableness toward change would, of course, challenge many existing cultural norms° On the other hand, the M or L group might be expected to respond in ways which suggested resistance to change, Demographic Variables Respondents were asked in the PQ to indicate their placement on several variables often found to be of significance in socio— logical analysis: these were education (26, 27), occupation (37), rental (30), age (8), sex (face sheet), marital status (12), num— ber of children (13), number of siblings (l6, 17), home ownership (29), mobility (ll, 12, 15), and rural-urban youth (9), In the dissertation analysis, not all of these variables will be used because of time and space limitations, All of these variables will be utilized more fully in the larger study being conducted by Dr. John E, Jordan, Michigan State University, Religiosity see Appendix C—9. 85 Collection of Data All of the data was collected by group administration of the instruments, With two exceptions, either the author or Dr, John E, Jordan of Michigan State University, was present during the administration of the instruments to the various groups, The following procedures (Appendix C-2) and instructions were carefully followed in both countries: (a) a statement of appreciation for the COOperation of the group; (b) a general statement of the reason for the investigation; (c) a statement of the format of the administration; (d) and an oral explanation of the various instruments, The instruments were administered in the following order: Definitions of Disability Attitudes Toward Education The Survey of Interpersonal Values The Personal Questionnaire Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons The Personal Questionnaire (Handicapped Persons) 0 0 0 O ChU'luPWNI" 0 In each case the test administration was done through an interpreter, An undetermined factor in the investigation is the effect that may have been introduced through the instruments being administered by a foreigner through interpreter; however, this effect was constant through the administration, with one exception, Mr, Jack HOpkins, a United States graduate student working in Lima, administered the test using only the Spanish language, 86 Statistical Procedures Descriptive Two frequency Column Count Programs (Clark, 1964) designa- ted as FCC I and FCC II, were used, These programs were used to compile the frequency distributions for every item, This proved to be a very useful step in selecting variables for analysis and in gaining a clinical “feel” for the data, Scale and Intensity Analysis The general procedures are discussed by Suchman (1950, Chps, 4 and 7)° In working with Likert-type items, two problems arise which call for special techniques, The first is that of organiz- ing the respondent-item matrix so that items can be dichotomized with the aid of visual inspection and counting, Once the items are dichotomized into_g,_;_categories the second problem, common to all Guttman~type scale procedure, is that of re~ordering respondents in the order of their new total scores, and then recording the items for inspection of the resulting scale pattern, Various techniques have been proposed such as the use of specially constructed boards which employ shot to indicate item responses (Suchman, 1950, Chp, 4), A technique employing no special equipment except a typewriter was suggested by Waisanen 87 (1960), which is appealing by virtue of its simplicity, While the Waisanen technique was very helpful, the "CUT" Computer pro- gram, deveIOped by Hafterson (1964) at Michigan State University, saved numerous hours of work and avoided errors which have resulted from a longer and more tedious method, The program determined each possible cutting point as well as the number of errors involved in each cut, The dichotomized items were then scaled by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program in use with the CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University (Lingoes, 1963; Hafterson, 1964). All scales, for both content and intensity, were submitted to the same procedure° The procedure for combining the content and intensity scales is described by Suchman (1950, Chp, 7), The basic procedure is to form a matrix of scores such that total intensity scores are entered on the vertical axis and total content scores are entered on the horizontal axis, Respondents are tabulated in the result- ing cells on the basis of the two total scores received for each scale; one in content, one in intensity° For each content rank, a median intensity score is computed, The curve of intensity on content is formed by these median scores, The lowest point of the curve represents the psychological "9f point which divides favor- able from unfavorable opinion or attitude (Suchman, 1950, pp. 220- 223), 88 Mean Differences Analyses For convenience of computer programing, the E statistic was used for all testing of mean differences, even though differences between two means are usually tested by the E statistic° The results are the same (Edwards, 1960, p, 146), If an E between two means is significant, inspection of the size of the two means will indicate which one is higher and thus the main contributor to the differences reflected in the £3 Since a significant E merely shows that the variance pro- jected in the hypothesis is greater than could be expected by chance the specific relationship between the dependent variable and the variable represented by the levels or groups must be investigated, Duncan‘s New Multiple Range Test (Edwards, 1960, pp. l36ff), as extended for unequal replications by Kramer (1960), will be used to investigate the extent to which a particular sub~ group mean contributes to the total variance represented by the E test, This will enable the researcher to order the group means from high to low and then to examine the "difference" between successive pairs—of-means to ascertain which one(s) do in fact statistically depart from chance at a stated level of significance. The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statistics, The pro- 89 gram is designed to handle unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories, In addition to the analysis of variance tables, the frequency, sums, means, standard deviations, sums of squares, and sums of squared deviations of the mean were included for each category, The approximate significance probability of the E statistic is also included, This convenient figure enabled the researcher to know at a glance whether or not the_§ was sig~ nificant without referring to a table, For example, if the number printed out was 005, the level of confidence, with the appropriate degree of freedom, for a given 3 would be ,05, However, i£_199 was printed out, the level of confidence was to be considered to be ,OOS or less, UNEQl also contains provision for designating one or more dependent variables as missing for an observation, but incorporat- ing other dependent variables listed on the Analysis of Variance table as nonemissing, The observation is then ignored for all dependent variables with missing values, but used in the analysis for all dependent variables with nonmmissing values, The number of missing values in each category is printed after the table giving statistics for the categories for each dependent variable, 9O Relational and/or Predictive Analyses Partial correlation is one of the outputs of the general multiple regression model used in the CDC 3600 program at Michi— gan State University (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966), One benefit of the use of partial correlation is that a number of variables which are assumed to have some relationship to a criterion, or dependent variable, can be examined simultaneously, Often, when a series of Pearsonian productwmoment £;§_are computed between a criterion and a set of variables considered to be predictors of the criterion, spurious conclusions may be obtained because the predictor variables are themselves interrelated, rather than directly predictive of the criterion, In a partial correlation solution to the problem these relationships among the predictor variables are taken into account in computing the true correlation of each variable with the criterion, That is, the effects of all but one variable are held constant, The use of multiple regres- sion analysis is recommended by Ward (l962, p, 206) because it ”not only reduces the dangers inherent in piecemeal research but also facilitates the investigation of broad problems never before considered 'researchable‘," In the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) a great deal of data can be gathered from one analysis, Separate 9l analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of specified sub-groups, or partitionings, of the data° For each specified group (eog,, total, maleefemale, etc,) a number of statistics can be requested, Those used for each partitioning in this research project were: means and standard deviations for each variable, the matrix of simple correlations between all vari— ables, the multiple correlations of selected variables on the criterion, the beta weights of all (ice° those used) predictor variables, a test of significance for each beta weight, and the partial correlations between each predictor and the criterion, In actual practice, only the descriptive statistics, the zero- order correlations, the multiple correlations, and the partial correlations have been used in the analysis, Tests of signifi- cance of the correlation coefficients from zero are the usual ones, with tables entered for the appropriate degrees of freedom, Several multiple regression analyses were done, The first set of analyses used as a criterion the total raw scores from the handicapped persons scale, the second set used respectively the total raw scores on the progressive and traditional education scales, and the third set used the scores from change orientation items. Since the computer program for multiple regression did not "handle missing data", all missing data was recoded at the mean of the variable for all multiple regression analyses, 92 Major Research Hypothesis Hypothesis Related to Scaling H~l: Each set of attitude items employed in the study (Appendix B—l, 4) represents an underlying one-dimensional uni- verse of content, so that Guttman scale analysis will yield a scale or quasi-scale of attitude items,1 1, Attitude-towardmdisabledmpersons items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi—scale, 2: Traditional~attitude~toward~education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi-scale, 3, Progressive-attitudewtoward—education items will yield a Guttman scale or quasi~scale, H-l Hypothesis Derivation: The utility of scaling for cross- national research has been discussed in Chapter 3, The basis for the assertion of the hypothesis in respect to each national sample and the attitude-object-group of physical disability, rests on the assumption that disabled persons represent a salient group in the particular nation so that people will hold opinions in respect to them, either on a favorable-unfavorable, or a different-similar continuum, The basis for the assertion of the hypothesis in 1 For this hypothesis, and all following hypothesis in which statistical tests of significance are included, the statement of the hypothesis is in the research form rather than the null form for purposes of clarity, It should be understood that in the staw tistical analysis it is the null form, either one-or-two tailed, which will be tested, 93 respect to the education items, rests on the original factor derivation of the "traditional" and "progressive" items by Kerlinger (1958, 1961), and on pre—test scaling of these items in Lansing, Michigan in March of 1964, in which "traditional" items were found to scale independently of "progressive" items among a sample of 97 students and job re-training workers° H-l Instrumentation: The attitude scales, as modified for the present study, are found in Appendix B~l, 4, H;2; For each attitude scale the plotting of intensity scores against content scores will yield a U-shaped or J-shaped curve, 1, For attitude-towardmdisabled-persons items, the plotting will yield a l! or J-shaped curve° 2, For traditionalmattitude‘toward-education items, the plotting will yield a U or J—shaped curve. 3, For progressiveeattitude-toward~education items, the plotting will yield a U or J-shaped curve, H-2 Hypothesis Derivation: From empirical findings reported by Suchman (1950) and others that such a relationship may be expected and should serve to establish a "Qfl point dividing the favorably- disposed from the unfavorably~disposed respondents (see Chapter 3), H-2 Instrumentation: Following each attitude item, a separate question referring to the intensity with which a respondent held the opinion expressed on the content statement (Appendix B—1, 4), 94 Hypotheses Related to Contact Frequency, Intensity and Attitude Scores H-3a: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the attitude-towardmdisabledwpersons (ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable: H—3a Hypothesis Derivation: From considerations of Rosenberg, Foa, and Guttman and Foa, to the effect that contact frequency is directly related to attitude intensity, regardless of content directions (see Chapter 2), H-3a Instrumentation: Contact frequency, by a direct question, i,e. PQ—HP no, 4 (Appendix B~4): ATDP intensity scores obtained through independent intensity questions following each attitude content statement (Appendix B—4), H:3b: The more frequent the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education scale, regardless of whether attitude is traditional or progressive, H-3b Hypotheses Derivation: Same as H-3a above, H—3b Instrumentation: Contact frequency, by a direct question, i.e. PQ no, 4 (Appendix B-l); education intensipy scores obtained as in H-3 above (Appendix B-l), 95 H—4a: High frequency of contact with disabled persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact, H-4a Hypotheses Derivation: From considerations of Homan's, Zetterberg, and various studies in special education (see Chapter 2). H—4a Instrumentation: Attitudes toward disabled persons, by a 20 statement attitude instrument developed by Yuker, t al, (1960) and modified for the purposes of the present study (Appendix B-4). Contact variable by direct questions in the PQ-HP: frequengy by question no, 4, alternatives by no, 9, enjoyment by no° 8, and _ayoidance by no. 5. H-4b: High frequency of contact with education will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of the con- tact, and (c) ease of aVOidance of contacts, H-4b Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-4a above, H-4b Instrumentation: Attitudes toward education, by a 20 statement attitude instrument developed by Kerlinger (1959) and modified for the purposes of the present study. Contact variable 96 by direct questions in the PQ: frequengy_by question no, 4, alternatives by no, 7,and enjoyment by no, 6, Hypothesis Related to Attitude and Value Scores H-Sa: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score lgw_in acceptance of disabled per~ EEEE% H;§§: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score 19w in progressive attitudes toward education and_high in traditional attitudes toward educa- tion, H-5a,b Hypothesis Derivation: From considerations of Wright in respect to asset vs comparative valuations of others (see Chapter 3), and of Rosenberg to the effect that the more the belief con- tent of an attitude is instrumental to value maintenance, the more favorable will be the evaluation of the object of the atti~ tude, Persons with high power needs are applying a comparative yardstick in evaluations of others and shOuld be expected to devalue persons with disabilities as well as progressive attitudes toward education since the latter usually implies changes in the status quo, Some empirical findings of this appears in findings of Whiteman and Lockoff in respect to blindness (see Chapter 3) and Felty (1964), 97 H-6a,b Instrumentation: Need for power and control measured by the Leadership (L) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B-2); attitudes-towardmdisabledmpersons, as in H:4a, and attitudes toward education as in £342, H262; Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score 133 in acceptance of disabled per- sons, H-6b: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achievement will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes toward education, H-6a,b Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H~5 above, H-6a,b Instrumentation: Need for recognition and achievement measured by the Recognition (R) scale of the Gordon Survey of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B-2), attitudes toward disabled persons as in H:4a, and attitudes toward education as in H:42fi 3:125 Persons who score high in need to help others, to be generous, will tend to score high in acceptance of disabled persons, H-7b: Persons who score high in need to help other, to be generous, will tend to score high in progressive attitudes toward education and lgw in traditional attitudes toward educa- tion; 98 H-7c: Women will score higher than men in (a) the need to help others, (b) positive attitudes toward the disabled, and (c) progressive attitudes toward education, H-7a,b,c Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H—6 above, but stated in terms of an assetmvalue orientation rather than a comparative- value orientation, H-7a,b,c Instrumentation: Need to be helpful and generous measured by the Benevolence (B) scale of the Gordon scale of Interpersonal Values (Appendix B-2), attitudes-toward-disabled- persons as in H-4a and attitudes toward education as in H-4b, Hypothesis Related to Change Orientation and Attitude Scores H-8: Persons who score high on change orientation will score high on positive attitudes toward handicapped persons and progressive education and score low on traditional education, H-8 Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H~5 above and extended to connote that high scores on change orientation represents depar- ture from the status quo and high relationship to new ideas (i,e, progressivism) and care for the handicapped (i,e, concern for individual differences), 99 H-8 Instrumentation: Change orientation measured by questions 39—43, and 47 in the PQ, These questions deal with change in health practices, child rearing, birth control, automation, political leadership, and self change, Attitudes toward the handicapped measured as in H143 and toward education as in_H:flb, _Hypotheses Related to Characteristics of Those Working Directly with Disabled Persons (SER) .H;9g: Persons working directly with disabled persons (SER) will have a lower mean attitudewtowardmdisabledmpersons score than will persons in other occupational categories, filgb: SER respondents from the United States will have a lower (i,e, more positive) mean attitudewtowardwdisabled~persons score than will persons from Colombia and Peru, H-9 Hypothesis Derivation: From considerations of Zetterberg (see Chapter 3), to the effect that high frequency of contact is positively associated with favorableness of attitude if (a) the interaction could be easily avoided, and (b) there are other rewarding activities to engage in, The linkage of (a) and (b) with occupational categories rests on the assumption that a meas- ure of choice and job alternatives was present in the selection of employment; i,e,, that SER employees chose this occupation in preference to others, The assumption is extended to imply that lOO such linkage is greater in the United States and consequently the U,S, respondents should be more positive since they have more "occupational freedom", H-9 Instrumentation: Attitudes toward disabled persons measured as in He4g, H-lO: The SER group will have a higher mean score than will persons in other occupational categories in respect to the value of Benevolence and lower mean scores in respect to the values of Leadership and Recognition, H-lO Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-5 above and applied specifically to the SER group rather than to those who measure high on Benevolence (asset value) and low on Leadership (compara~ tive value), H-lO Instrumentation: Same as H:4 and 6 for Leadership and Benevolence values respectively, §:}la: The SER group will have a higher_mean score in progressivewattitudes~toward~education than will persons in other occupational categories, H-lla,b Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H~5 and_§ and applied specifically to the SER group rather than to those who measure high on progressive attitudes and low on traditionaL-attitudesn toward—education, lOl H-lla,b Instrumentation: Same as $212 above, H:l2:l The SER group will have higher mean scores than will other occupational groups on the following change orientation measures: (a) health practices, (b) child rearing practices, (c) birth control practices, (d) automation, and (e) self change, H—12 Hypothesis Derivation: Same as H-Sa,b,c and extended to imply that persons who score high on progressive attitudes toward education will also score high on change orientation variables since both areas represent dissatisfaction with the status quo and emphasize the individual and empirical solutions to current problems, H-12 Instrumentation: Change orientation measured by a series of questions in PQ on the areas stated in H-l2 (Appendix B—3, see also pp, 83, 84, §:l§: The SER group will have higher mean scores than other groups on the amount of contact with Mentally Retarded or Emotionally Disturbed persons, H-l3 Hypothesis Derivation: The SER group was chosen for known "prolonged contact“ with the physically handicapped, The current hypothesis postulates a generalization effect in that increased contact with one area of disability implies increased contact with other areas of disability or exceptionality, 102 H-l3 Instrumentation: Contact frequency with the physically handicapped measured as in H~3a and contact frequency with the mentally retarded and with the emotionally disturbed measured by questions 10 and ll in the PQ-HP, Limitation of the Study Although careful plans were made to ensure the collection of the intended sample, only three groups from Colombia and two groups from Peru of the planned four groups from each country are represented in the analysis, Because of this difficulty in Colombia and Peru, a sample of the SER group was analyzed from data collected in Wichita, Kansas (see page 74), In Colombia the intended sample was received from all of the groups except the M group, While this omission is unfor- tunate, it must be viewed in light of the many frustrations, such as numerous schedule cancellations, that are somewhat inherent in data collection in Latin America, A problem in collation arose in Colombia which unforunately was not noticed until after the data had been collected, The last page of the education scale {questions 18, l9.and 20) was left off in a number of cases, This reflects, at least in a measure, the fact that clerical help has little or no experience With routine research procedures, Perhaps this omission is not as serious as 103 it first appears. In Felty's pilot study (1965) only item 20 of this triad, which was classified as a progressive item, scaled, Items 18 and 19 were classified as traditional items. While the two groups from Peru (SER and M) represent entirely different segments in the society and allow meaningful and fruitful comparisons, the other groups would have permitted more freedom and certainity in terms of interpretations and generalizations, Questions 43 thru 46 in the Personal Questionnaire proved to be too sensitive, in the opinion of the translator, to give in Peru. These questions relating to political leadership, federal and local aid to education, and educational planning were omitted. It must be remembered that there is not a well established tradition for social science research in Latin America. Many of the respondents have never filled out a questionnaire. While it is difficult to assess how this factor effects the reliability and validity of the results, it would seem likely to have nega- tive implications — particularly in a traditional society where "having the right answer" is very important. While every effort was made to explain the purpose of the research project, it probably had little tangible meaning because it seemed so far removed from the experiences they had had. It 104 is also possible that the prestige factor may have colored the results, There may have been a tendency to identify with the American researcher by responding in ways that they would visuale ize as pleasing to him, Particularly in the M group, the question arises whether or not this group was really representative of the manager/executive in Lima, The selection procedures for enrollment in the school may have been a factor, If the student body represented the "cream of the crOp", response biases might be expected, It will also be remembered that they consisted largely of middle echolon government officials, While it is unquestioned that they will be performing executive functions, the question might be raised as to whether they are really representatives of Peruvian executives. The length of time involved in filling out the questionnaire is most certainly a factor, It required an average of two hours to fill out the six questionnaires, in most cases this was done on the respondent‘s own time, If they were unable to grasp the relationship between filling out questionnaires and research objectives, there was a tendency to resent this effort, If valued activities had to be delayed and plans altered resentment might be expected to result, Felty (1965, disCussed limitations in his study which resulted from a lack of concept equivalence, In other words, how 105 much is lost in the translation of the instruments into a differs ent language and cultural setting? In an effort to solve this problem? Dre John Ea Jordan] the major advisor to this dissertan tion? went over the instruments with the translators from Colombia and Peru before translation in an effort to ensure as much accure acy as possible in concept equivalenceo As a result, the instru» ments were separately translated into both Peruvian and Colombian Spanishol Howeveri time and money limitations did not permit the glV‘ ing of these instruments to a pre-test group before administering them to the main sample“ 1nasmuch as this study can be consid- ered a continuing exploratory study for the larger study currently under the superv‘sion of Dr: john E.~ Jordan, this limitation will not be as imposing as it might first seem. Under limitations of the testing of hypOthesis may be cone sidered such things as the reliability and validity of the measure ing instruments and the adequacy of the sampling: Two approaches to reliability and validity were attempted: the analysis of reliability was restricted to those items appearing in instruments that were analyzed for scale propertiesp REllabliity in this case becomes a function of the reproducibility of th: sealesn Accords 1 Dro Jordan also made a s milar trip to a number of coun» tries in Europe, It was not ne ssary to eliminate any of the questions because of the inability to achieve concept equivalencer 106 ing to Guttman (19509 p" 278) for a reproducibility coefficient to acquire stability it is necessary to retest on a large sample of respondentsy even though the prewtest may show a relatively high reproducibility coefficiento Sampling bias again places limitations on the generality of the results, but has advantages for an exploratory prOJecto Goode and Hatt {l952i pp 92) suggest that the cases in such a study be "chosen as strategically as possibley eogog extreme cases. sets of cases which seem contradictory? “ideal” cases, etCO," in order to determine which variables are of the greatest importance and to develop some concepts of the variance of the populationc They further suggest the use of hypotheses "to see whether they seem to fit the situation" {gp;_gippj p0 92lo The samples in this study were chosen to represent "ideal" groups and the major concern was with obtaining a large enough reprew sentation within each group for statistical analysis, rather than with population representation in a national sense; Although this would impose a severe limitation on a Study purporting to be "nationally representative", it appears fairly adequate for an exploratory study such as the present oneo CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The analysis of the data is organized into two main sec~ tions: section 1, descriptive data on designated characteristics of the sample; section 2, the testing of the hypotheses presented at the end of Chapter III and comparisons of mean differences of various scores when the respondents are divided according to (a) sex, (b) interest group (occupational) categories, (c) contact with criter- ion, and (d) related indicees. Correlational relationships (zero~ order, multiple and partial) will also be presented for selected variables of the studye Section 1: Descriptive Data In this section the descriptive characteristics of the sam~ ple are presentedo The data is derived from a combination of the FCC I and II programs (see p, 86) and the CDC 3600 MDSTAT program which provides a number of statistics (see pp‘ 90, 91) useful for simple demographic description“ Tables 1 and 2 present the two major sub—divisions of the total sample: sex and interest (occupational) groups, Inspection of the tables will reveal two major factors which later lead to difficulties in interpretation of the statistical data: the small number in various sub—samples and the sex-linked character 107 108 of some of the occupational groups. For those variables or hypotheses in which sex differences are obtained, the sex com- position of the interest group would be an important factor in the analysis of the interest group differences. The converse would, of course, also be true since the respondents are the same in each case, but only classified differently° TABLE l.--Distribution of respondents according to sex and inter- est group from Colombia, Peru, and Kansas.1 Interest Group2 Sex SER E L M Total Col Peru Kan Col Peru Col Peru Col Peru Male 20 26 22 28 -- 46 -- -- 85 227 Female 47 12 81 100 -- —- —- —- 10 250 Total 67 38 103 128 -- 46 -- -- 95 477 1 In some instances the N“s do not agree exactly between Tables 1, 2 and the tables containing the statistical material in Appendix A. This is due to problems of missing data and minor differences in classificationso Education Manager/Executive 2 SER = Spec° Educ° Rehab. E L = Labor M 109 H H ammo 6H mum m m Inommp .>HGD mH 1 Ho: OH HH HH m ..OH WHH ICOmumm .Emvd. .VH M mmoH>uom { .ommm mH H . . H muampst NH N HN mH N N N HN mnmnummu .me HH mum H om H me Hm mm H nrummu .smHm OH Hmmm swap “mayo mHOpmoswm .mHIOHC m H H H v m H Hmnpo m m n H m N H m R UmHHHMmcD m H H mH.H H NH 0H m H mH mH Hmoprs mumm s . MHO3 H n o H H H .ooml.%mm w w VH m w m w “H HMUmeZ m mum w H w H m w m m H w Icommp .>HCD v . mon>Hmm MH N H n N H m mH N H .mm Hoonom m em HH ms w HH. m w «m w mumnumms m N m m N H N H v N N m m wcomuwm .Epd H Hmmm .mouHoC cm w .0):m suom o. HOQUnmmHo HmmHOQBHm HousmMDum 00 coHumHuome wpoo Hmpos mHmEmm a, mHmS S H m mmm hupssov r l, L :oHummsmoo UHMHuwmw paw Nmmzouw ucmpcommmm m9 Nosmskum coaummsooo ill! .. .1 1 .1115“! 4; .mmmcmM paw .MHQEOHOU..H3Hum now msoum pmwumucH paw xmm an meEmm Hmpou mo :oHprOQEOU HmcoHuMQDUUOII.N mflmda llO r H r _ A.HHE _ m _ cosy wHoHHmm mo .m r m mumxmfim0£m «w 0% we we moHcmnomS mm A i Hmumxuaz umHHoo wsHm .mmaoov m H . N H HmoHHmHo om Hmumxnoz HmHHoo mHch .mmuomv H H H ammo as m N N . n.0mxm .muz He mHmH 0N n mH wN uonwo t>oo ow ANHHmSvCH paw wmmchsm rmvaowv N N N Hwfipo mm Hmcuo mm H H H Hmfipo mm mum H H H uxHOB HmHoom mm m m m muwgoumomom mm m m m wu¢>3MH Hm mH w sH mH uwmchcm om Ammmm fisoHymHa swap nmgpo muocomoe Una cwoum ~mmsomv cmmwumeo)QmMTHmmHOucmxfihmmHODDummHOQfiummHOUsuomHoocmxfinoNHou conmHHomoQ opoo wmpoe uHmsmm mez 2 H m mmm >HHSDOO coHquSUUO onHowmm Una Nmmsouw pcwpcommmm ma hosmsvwnm coHummsooo .mmmcmx paw .mHQEoHoo .Hsumm How moonm HmewHQH 6cm xwm >9 meEmm Hmuou mo :oHpHmOQEOo HmcoHpmmsooo H.HQOUVIION mHmHuDowxm \memsmz H 2 MCQmH M H QoHumoDUm H m .QM£mm .ospm .oQO H mmm N .coHpomm mHm ImHmcm CMH>DHmm msp CH mHQEmm HmHOQMH opp paw mHQEmm Hmsommp exp new mpcsooom mHLB .MHocmmpmm mnu mm c3ocx QoHpmNHcmmHo COHHmuHHHanmH msu mo mHmQEmE mHoB An I ZV meHOQmH 3mm m .psmfl Hmnpo mflp co .mQHchHH o>HumnpchHE©m poocm>©m How mumsu onB 0£3 mumfiommp mHmB ZHHU Hmo we H383? 3:8 .33 :28 56:08 am no HoncwxfihmmHomcmxsanDOManmHeusummHoadnmm oofmxsummHo COHHQHHome mpou Hmpoe hHHCDOU @Hmfimm mHmE 2 H m mmm coHummsooo UHMHommm paw Nmmsouw uswpcommwm >3 mocmswmum coHummSooo .mmmcwM paw .MHQEOHOU .Hsuwm now QDOHm ummeHQH paw xwm >9 mHmEmm HmHOH mo SOHHHmomEOU HMQOHHMQSUUO A.HQOUVII.N mqmfie 112 Differences in Mean Education, Income, and Age Scores Between Interest Groups, Male, and Female Respondents for Colombia, Peru, and Kansas Tables 3-7 present the data from the Colombian sample for education, income, and age by sex and interest group. Tables 8, 11 present the data for the same variables from Peru and Tables 9, 10 (Appendix A) the Duncan's tables. Table 12 presents the comparative data on these same variables from the SER Group from Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. The Duncan's analyses of Table 12 are in Appendix A; Tables 13 and 14. The Duncan's New Multiple Range Test1 is used to analyze the variance between three or more means in those cases where the E statistic indicated that a sig— nificant difference existed between means. Tables 4—6 present the Duncan's analysis for the data on education, income, and age in Table 3. Throughout the remainder of the dissertation the Duncan's tables will be located in Appen— dix A. Discussion of the Duncan's analyses will be contained in both Chapter IV and V and the reader may refer to Appendix A for the specific data. Since the data for education and income were analyzed in coded form an interpretation of the coding is necessary; see Table 16 for the education code and the Colombian and Peruvian Special Instructions Code Book for income codes for Colombia and 1 See p. 88 for discussion of the Duncan's Multiple Range Test. 113 Peru (Appendix C-4 and 5). The data is presented such that each score represents a range; i.e., grades completed or amount of income. In education the ranges are also uneven, which makes interpretation somewhat more difficult. However, the data is at least ordinal in that a higher score always represents a higher number of grades completed or amount of income earned. 114 TABLE 3.--Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statistics in respect to three demographic var— iables for three occupational categories in Colombia. Variable OccupatiOnl N Mean Standard E Sig. Deviation of 1:: Education SER 67 5.58 1.437 83.7238 0.005+ E 122 4.56 1.136 L 46 2.72 0.655 TOTAL 235 4.49 1.514 Ranking of Means: SER (5.58)) E (4.56)) L (2.72) Income SER 60 21.72 23.755 4.119 0.02 E 122 17.32 7.716 L 34 12.35 17.496 TOTAL 216 17.76 15.635 Ranking of Means: SER (21.72)) E (17.32)) L (12.35) Age SER 65 29.17 7.528 44.901 0.005+ E 120 31.33 9.377 L 42 17.91 1.462 TOTAL 227 28.23 9.337 Ranking of Means: E (31.33)) SER (29.17)) L (17.19) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor 115 TABLE 4.4-Duncan's New Multiple Range Test applied to means of education scores for three occupational categories in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 234 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp)l R'p (RI szp234)2 3.16 3.39 Mean Differences3 ._ 4 ._ XR -' XL (p3) 21.ll* 36R - SEE (p2) 9.37* 1 Taken from Edwards (1960, p. 373). 2 The square root mean square of the analysis of variance of Table 3 s ==Vfif§ZZ’= 1.16 p the range of means (2 and 3) 3 Mean differences of columns 2 and 3 have been trans- formed into the equivalent of E-scores for multiple means. To be significant, the figure must exceed the R' value of the same column. The formula given by Kramer (1956) is: (Xy-Xz) "32XEE_. ) szp, error d.f. of A. of V. my'i' Hz (Z Rup) 4 In all Duncan tables the subscript_E will be used for the SER group due to space limitations. * This level of confidence will be used on all Duncan's Multiple Range Tests. P < .05. 116 TABLE 5.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of income scores for three occupational groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 215 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R'p (RI szp215) 42.69 45.00 Mean Differences 'YR - 21 (p3) 61.75* 2h - XE (p2) 38.85 YE - 71 (p2) 36.69 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. *P< .05. s =‘V237.65 = 15.41 TABLE 6.-—Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of age scores for three occupational categories in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 22€3 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R' (RI 52 226) 20.06 23.24 P P Mean Differences it - 21 (p3) 78.90* XE - KR (p2) 19.38 fig - ii (p2) 85.54* 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. * P < .05. s = ”63.3 = 7.96 TABLE 7.--Comparison of mean differences, and E statistic in respect to three demographic var- iables as they relate 1x) male and female sex in 117 Colombia. standard deviations, Variable N Sex Mean Standard .E Sig. Deviation of E Education 81 Male 3.864 1.641 3.233 0.09 131 Female 4.466 2.718 212 Total 4.236 2.379 d.f. between 1 within 211 total 211 Income 81 Male 16.716 19.907 0 5351 0.47 137 Female 18.314 12.355 218 Total 17.720 15.568 d.f. between 1 within 216 total 217 Age 90 Male 24.256 8.086 31.620 0.005+ 139 Female 30.986 9.303 229 Total 28.341 9.421 d.f. between 1 within 227 total 228 118 TABLE 8.--Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statistics in respect to three demographic var— iables for four occupational categories in Peru. Variable Occupation N Mean Standard E_ Sig. Deviation of E Education SER 31 5.03 1.87 9.99 0.005+ E 17 5.88 1.45 M 63 6.08 1.17 L 9 3.56 1.67 TOTAL 120 5.59 1.61 M (6.08)) E (5.88)) SER (5.03)) L (3.56) Ranking of Means: Income SER 31 9.97 12.18 2.44 0.07 E 17 11.00 8.27 M 57 18.14 21.19 L 9 7.00 7.76 TOTAL 114 13.97 17.15 M (18.14)) E (11.00)) SER (9.97)) L (7.00) Ranking of Means: Age SER 30 26.23 6.98 3.33 0.02 E 14 31.64 9.09 M 59 31.09 7.20 L 8 30.13 4.61 TOTAL 111 29.78 7.49 Ranking of Means: E (31.64)) M (31.09)) L (30.13)) SER (26.23) TABLE 11.-—Comparison of mean differences, 119 standard deviations, and E statistics in respect to three demographic var- iables for males and females in Peru. Variable Sex N Mean Standard ‘E Sig. Deviation of E Education Male 110 5.67 1.61 0.07 0.78 Female 22 5.77 1.41 Total 132 5.69 1.57 d.f. between 1 within 130 total 131 Income Male 106 12.95 17.22 0.13 0.71 Female 20 14.50 18.12 Total 126 13.20 17.30 d.f. between 1 within 124 total 125 Age Male 105 30.08 7.71 3.20 0.10 Female 19 26.79 6.05 Total 124 29.57 7.55 d.f. between 1 within 122 total 123 120 TABLE 12.-~Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statistics in respect to education and age for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Variable Country N Mean Standard §_ Sig. Deviation of E Education Colombia 67 5.58 1.44 32.84 0.005+ Peru 31 5.03 1.87 Kansas 103 6.84 0.92 Total 201 6.14 1.48 Ranking of Means: K (6.84)) C (5.58)) P (5.03) Age Colombia 65 29.17 7.53 18.33 0.005+ Peru 30 26.23 6.98 Kansas 103 36.71 12.02 Total 198 32.65 10.92 Ranking of Means: K (36.71)) C (29.17)) : (26.23) 1 Money systems were not directly comparable between coun— tries due to the coding form used. Thus no comparison were made. 121 TABLE 15.—-Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statistics in respect to three demographic var— iables for males and females in Kansas. Variable Sex N Mean Standard .E Sig. Deviation of 3 Education Male 22 7.36 0.66 10.08 0.005+ Female 81 6.69 0.93 Total ' 103 6.83 0.92 d.f. between 1 within 101 total 102 Income Male 21 9.19 3.14 0.005 0.90 Female 80 9.26 4.19 Total d.f. between 1 within 99 total 100 Age Male 22 30.23 5.90 8.75 0.005+ Female 81 38.47 12.67 Total 101 36.71 12.02 d.f. between 1 within 101 total 102 122 TABLE 16.--Interpretation of education scores in terms of actual "educational attainment. I ‘9’ Score Interpretation Range of Interval 1 Less than 4 years completed 0 - 3 inclusive 2 From 4 to 6 years completed 4 - 6 inclusive 3 From 7 to 9 years completed 7 — 9 inclusive 4 From 10 to 11 years completed 10 - 11 inclusive 5 Some college or university 12 — 15 inclusive 6a College or university degree 16 - 7 Post-degree study — — - 8 Advanced degree - - - Summarv_of Descriptive Data in Tables 3—16 The results of these tables must be interpreted with cau- tion, partly for reasons already considered in respect to samp— ling and test administration, but primarily because of problems encountered in testing interaction between sex and occupation. The occupational categories are unequal, and sex distribution I within categories is unequal. The testing of interaction effects I! / with unequal replications in each cell is not only a questionnable statistical procedure, but in this case would be impossible because of the sex-linked character of some of the occupational categories. This is indicated in Tables 1 and 2. For those variables in which sex differences are obtained, the sex composition of the interest groups would be an important 123 factor in the analysis of group differences. The converse would, of course, also hold, since the respondents are the same in each case, but only classified differently. Thus in a given case where both occupational and sex classifications show significant_E values, it may not be possible to determine whether the differen— ces occur independently, or are obtained for the other classifica— tions because of the interaction involved. It will be noted from the tables that the actual significance levels of the E values are printed out rather than indicating if they are significant at a stated level, i.e., .01 or .05. Since the computer program now provides this information it was decided to present the actual significance values to enable the reader to make his own judgment when the level ”just—makes" or ”just-does-not—make” a previously stated acceptable level of statistical significance. Colombia: Tables 3-7 indicate that the SER group has a higher education than do the other groups in Colombia and is of a slightly higher economic level. The women, which comprise the bulk of the sample (147 women and 94 men) are older than men; have an income that is slightly higher than men; and have a better education. It must be remembered, however, that one half of the male sample comes from the labor group which is low income/low education in a nature. 124 Egggz Tables 8—11 indicate that the M group has a higher educa- tion and have higher incomes than do the respondents from other groups in Peru. The female respondents in Peru apparently do not contribute significantly to the differences of the means. The SER group is significantly younger than the other groups. This may, in part, be accounted for by the fact that the respondents in the SER group are often volunteers serving without financial reimbursement. Country Comparisons: Table 15 indicates that the Kansas sample is primarily composed of female respondents who are older than their male counterparts and have less formal education. Table 12 indicates that the Kansas sample has more formal education, with less variance, than do respondents from Colombia and Peru and are significantly older than are their South American counterparts. Section 2: Hypotheses Testing, Mean Differences, and Correlational Analyses H—l: Each set of attitude items employed in the study (Appendix B—1, 4) represents an underlying unidimensional universe of con— tent, so that Guttman scale analysis will yield a scale or quasi— scale of attitude items. 125 None of the attitude items on education or disability formed a meaningful scale in the Guttman sense. This hypothesis relating to an underlying unidimensional universe of content is not suppor— ted for these items. It is recommended that these items be anal- yzed by Lingoes' (1965) Multidimensional Scalogram Analysis - I in future research efforts. This program, according to Lingoes, not only permits multi-unidimensional analysis but multidimensional analysis as well. Lingoes gives the following description of the program: Although computer techniques have been developed for scalo— gram analysis (Schutz, 1961) and for extending Guttman's (1944) pioneering and popular scaling method to the deter- mination of multiple unidimensional scales (Lingoes, 1960, 1962; 1963a), neither method is adapted for analyzing n- chotomous data nor for directly revealing multidimensional interrelationships. The present program, G—L (MSA - I), is, however, ideally suited for solving the general group— ing problem of systematics, on the other hand, and for revealing the scale properties of items, on the other hand, based on a minimum number of assumptions. This program can handle quantitative and/or qualitative data, monotone and/or polytone items, with up to 20 categories, and per- mits one to test not only unidimensional hypothesis, but multidimensional ones as well (Lingoes, 1965). This program is scheduled to become Operational in the spring of 1966 in the Michigan State University computer center. H-2: For each attitude scale the plotting of intensity scores against content scores will yield a U-shaped or J-shaped curve. The scaling of intensity scores has meaning only if the items have previously scaled for content. Since the content items did not scale, intensity analysis was omitted. 126 H-3a: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the atti- tude-toward-disabled-persons (ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Table 17 reveals that high frequency of contact with dis- abled persons did not produce significantly higher intensity scores on the ATDP scale than did lower frequencies of contact with disabled persons. Approximately 25 percent of the Colombian sample who had the highest intensity scores were compared with approximately 25 percent of the same sample who had the lowest intensity scores on the ATDP scale. H-3a cannot be considered confirmed for Colombia. TABLE 17.--Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with disabled per- sons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale in Colombia. Variable N Mean of ATDP Standard E_ Sig. Intensity Scale Deviation of E High frequency 49 69.45 7.53 .83 .37 of contact Low frequency 53 68.07 7.65 of contact Total 102 68.73 7.59 d.f. between 1 within 100 total 101 127 H—3b: The more frequent the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education Scale, regardless of whether attitude is traditional or progressive. H-3b cannot be considered supported. The E statistic, Table 18 and 19, indicate that the mean differences between per— sons with high and low contact with education, are not signifi- cantly different on either progressive or traditional intensity scores. Contrary to the hypothesis, the mean of the low contact group is actually higher than the high contact group on the pro- gressive-attitude-toward-education measure. TABLE 18.--Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the progressive-attitude—toward- education scale for Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard E_ Sig. Progressive Deviation of Intensity Scale .E High frequency 51 36.92 2.62 .31 .58 of contact Low frequency 47 37.23 2.89 of contact Total 97 37.07 2.74 d.f. between 1 within 95 total 96 128 TABLE l9.--Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the traditional-attitude—toward- education scale for Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard E_ Sig. Traditional Deviation of Intensity Scale .E High frequency 54 35.94 3.56 .84 .36 of contact Low frequency 48 36.60 3.68 of contact Total 102 36.25 3.61 d.f. between 1 within 100 total 101 Table 20 presents the zero-order correlations between con- tact scores and intensity scores on the ATDP scale and the corre- lations between contact scores and intensity scores for EQ£E_pro— gressive-attitude-towardeeducation scores and traditional-attitude- toward-education scores for the occupational groups of the Colom— bian sample. The correlations for males and females within each group are also given. 129 TABLE 20.--Zero-order correlations between content and intensity scores on the attitude scales for the occupational groups in Colombia. Education Scale ATDPl Scale Progressive Traditional r N r N r N SER group Male —.115 20 .483* 18 .272 18 Female .066 41 .509*** 40 —.181 39 Total .007 61 .495*** 58 -.086 57 E rou Male ~.170 23 .165 26 .131 26 Female «.055 87 .383** 89 .196* 90 Total -.076 110 .336** 115 .184* 116 L group Male .373** 41 .091 34 .561** 35 1 Low scores on ATDP indicate positive attitudes * / ’\ (:05 *1: < .01. *** <.005 Table 20 suggests there was no significant correlation between the content and intensity scores of the ATDP scale for the SER group and E group in Colombia. There was a Significant rela- tionship, however, between the content and intensity statement of the ATDP scale for the L group. 130 On the other hand, there were significant relationships in Colombia between the content and intensity statements on the pro- gressive-attitude—toward~education scale for the SER and the E group. The relationship between content and intensity scores were also evident on the traditiona1=attitude-toward-education scale for both the B group and the L group. H-3a: The more frequent the contact with disabled persons, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the atti- tude-toward-disabled-persons (ATDP) scale, regardless of whether attitude content is favorable or unfavorable. Ears Table 21 indicates that high frequency of contact with dis- abled persons did not result in significantly higher intensity scores on the ATDP scale than did lower frequencies of contact with disabled persons. H-3a is not supported for the Peruvian sample. ;-.€_ 131 TABLE 21.-—Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with disabled persons with intensity scores on the ATDP scale in Peru. Variable N Mean of ATDP Standard E. Sig. Intensity Scale Deviation of 1: High frequency 21 59.38 13.31 1.50 .23 of contact Low frequency 28 63.21 8.59 of contact Total 49 61.57 10.91 d.f. between 1 within 47 total 48 H-3b: The more frequent the contact with education, the higher will be the scores on the intensity statements of the Kerlinger Attitudes Toward Education scale, regardless of whether attitude is traditional or progressive. Table 22 and 23 indicate that the intensity scores are not significantly different between persons with high and low con- tact with education on both the progressive and traditional sub- scales of Kerlinger's attitude scale toward education. H-3b is not supported for the Peruvian sample. 132 TABLE 22.--Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the progressive-attitude-toward- education scale for Peru° Variable N Mean of Standard .E Sig. Progressive Deviation of Intensity Scale .3 High frequency 22 32.73 3.22 .05 .80 of contact Low frequency 22 32.95 3.27 of contact Total 44 32.84 3.21 d.f. between 1 within 42 total 43 TABLE 23.--Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low frequency of contact with education with intensity scores on the traditiona1-attitude~toward- education scale for Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard _E Sig. Traditional Deviation of Intensity Scale E_ High frequency 22 31.82 3.27 1.33 .25 of contact Low frequency 22 33.04 3.76 Of Contact Total 44 32.43 3.54 d.f. between within total 42 43 133 TABLE 24.-~Zero-order correlations between content and intensity scores on the attitude scales for the occupational groups in Peru. ATDP Scale Education Scale Progressive Traditional r N r N r N SER groupl Male .328 22 .402* 22 .269 22 Female —.355 7 .077 8 .497 8 Total .198 28 .313* 31 .368* 30 M group2 Male ~.l35 54 .092 54 .256* 54 Female -.183 9 «.336 9 .468 9 Total -.148 63 .014 63 .257* 63 l SER = Spec. Educ. and Rehab. 2 M u Manager/Executive *<.05 Table 24 indicates no significant relationship between con- tent and intensity scores for the ATDP scale on the Peruvian sam- ple. A significant positive relationship. however. was observed on the progressive~attitudestoward~education measure on the SER male and total groups in Peru. Significant positive correlations were also noted for the traditionalwattitude-toward—education scale for both the total SER group and the male and total M group in Peru. 134 H-4a: High frequengy of contact with disabled persons will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequencygis concurrent with (g) alternative rewarding opportunities, (b) enjoyment of the contact, and (c) ease of avoidance of contact. 9.0M As indicated by Table 25, the multiple correlation relating to the combined contact variables and favorableness of attitudes toward handicapped persons is significant at the .01 level of con- . >33 fidence. As seen from Table 26, ease of avoidance when partialled out contributes most toward predicting attitudes toward handicapped persons. H-4a is considered confirmed for Colombia. 13.228 The finding in Peru was essentially the same as the finding in Colombia in terms of the relationship between the combined contact variables and favorable attitudes toward handicapped per- sons. The multiple correlation (Table 25) was significant at the .01 level of confidence. Ease of avoidance when partialled out contributes the most to the multiple correlation. While not sig— nificant, enjoyment of contact and alternative rewarding Oppor- tunities (Table 26) contributed more to the correlation than did amount of contact per se. H-4a is considered confirmed for Peru. 135 H-4b: High frequency of contact with education, both progressive and traditional, will lead to favorable attitudes if high frequency is concurrent with (a) alternative rewarding opportunities, and jb) enjoyment of the contact. Colombia — progressive attitudes toward education: The multiple correlation (Table 25) indicates that the cor- relation between progressive educational attitudes and the combined contact variable is significant at the .01 level. When partialled out, enjoyment of contact contributes more to the multiple corre- lation than does amount of contact per se or alternative reward opportunities (Table 26). H-4b is considered confirmed for Colom— bia as far as progressive educational attitudes are concerned. Colombia - traditional attitudes toward education: Table 25 indicates there was no significant correlation between the combined contact variables and traditional attitudes toward education. H~4b is not supported for the Colombia sample as far as traditional attitudes toward education are concerned. BEER.“ progressive attitudes toward education: Table 25 indicates that the multiple correlation between progressive educational attitudes and the combined content vari— able is statistically significant at the .05 level. Enjoyment of contact, when partialled out, contributed significantly to this correlation {Table 26). H~4b is supported for Peru as far as pro- gressive attitudes toward education are concerned. 136 Eggg ~ traditional attitudes toward education: Table 25 indicates there was no significant multiple corre— lation between the combined contact variable and traditional atti— tudes toward education. H—4b is not supported for Colombia as far as traditional attitudes toward education are concerned. TABLE 25.——Multiple correlations for combined contact variables with attitudes toward disabled persons and toward education (progressive and traditional) in Colombia and Peru. Variable Colombia Peru N = 241 N - 135 H.P. attitude and combined contact .25** .31** variables Traditional Ed. attitude and combined .09 .08 contact variables Progressive Ed. attitude and combined .20** .20* contact variables p<.05 ** p < .01 137 TABLE 26o-—Partia1 correlations between attitude-toward-handicap- ped-persons and attitudes toward education (both pro- gressive and traditional) as related to contact vari— ables, for Colombia and Peru. Handicapped Persons Scale (dependent) Colombia Peru N _ 241 N - 135 Amount of contact n.07 .02 Avoidance of contact mol8* --22* Enjoyment of contact ~508 -nl3 Alternatives to contact -°O6 -.l3 Progressivenattitudes~toward~education (dependent) Amount of contact 005 "05 Enjoyment of contact 014 017* Alternatives to contact °O7 —°O4 Traditionalmattitudes-toward-education (dependent) Amount of contact "03 ~04 Enjoyment of contact ”06 .03 Alternatives to contact ~.O7 —006 * p < "05 138 H-Sa: Persons who score high in need forgpower and control over others will tend to score low in acceptance of disabled personsa we. The results indicated in Table 27 do not support the above hypothesis° There were no significant differences between high and low scores on Leadership value and attitude toward disabled persons in Colombian TABLE 27o--Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes- towardmdisabled persons scores in Colombia. Variable N Mean Standard .5 Sign Deviation of .3 High scores on 54 49°98 7080 002 086 Leadership value Low scores on 55 500l8 7066 Leadership value Total 109 50008 7070 dnfo between 1 within 107 total 108 H-Sb: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward education and high in traditional attitudes toward education° 139 As indicated by Tables 28 and 29, there were no significant differences between persons with high scores on Leadership value and persons with low scores on Leadership value as far as the pro— gressivenattitude~toward~education scores or traditional-attitudes- toward-education scores were concernedo the Colombian sampleo H—Sb is not confirmed for TABLE 28°--Means, standard deviationsp and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and progressive— attitude-towardmeducation scores for Colombiao Variable N Mean of Standard .5 Sign Progressive Deviation of Scale _§ High Leadership 54 30067 4002 .83 037 value scores Low Leadership 50 29096 3°88 value scores Total 104 30033 3095 duf. between 1 within 102 total 103 140 TABLE 29.-—Means, standard deviations, and 3 statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and traditiona1~ attitude-toward—education scores for Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard E Sig. Traditional Deviation ‘ of. Scale E High Leadership 53 28.70 4.25 .13 .72 value scores Low Leadership 52 29.98 3.86 value scores Total 105 28.84 4.05 d.f. between 1 within 103 total 104 H—Sa: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score low in acceptance of disabled persons. Lea Table 30 indicates that differences do exist, although not significant, between means of those who score high and those who score low on Leadership value when compared with scores on the ATDP scale. H—Sa is not considered confirmed for the Peruvian sample. 141 TABLE 30.--Means, standard deviations, and 5 statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and attitudes— toward-handicapped—persons in Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard .E Sig. ATDP Scale Deviation of E High Leadership 24 50.87 6.69 3.23 .09 value scores Low Leadership 23 47.83 4.73 value scores Total 47 49.38 5.95 H-Sb: Persons who score high in need for power and control over others will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward education and high on traditional attitudes toward education. Tables 31 and 32 indicate that in Peru, significant differ- ences do exist between the means of those who scored high and those who scored low on Leadership value on both the progressive- attitude~toward-education scale and the traditional—attitude- toward-education scale. Those who scored high on Leadership value had significantly higher means on both of Kerlinger's sub—scales. H-Sb, then, is supported in as much as those who scored high on Leadership value also scored high on traditional attitudes toward education. However, it is not supported in the sense that those 142 who scored high on Leadership_al§g scored high on the progressive- attitude-toward-education scale. It might be postulated that the Peruvian sample has not clearly articulated the theoretical differences existing between the values represented by progressive and traditional—attitudes- toward-education. TABLE 31.--Means, standard deviations, and §_statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and progres- sive-attitudewtoward-education scores in Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard .3 Sig. Progressive Deviation of Scale .5 High Leadership 24 30.75 3.65 4.83 .04 value scores Low Leadership 23 28.35 3.84 value scores Total 47 29.57 3.90 d.f. between 1 within 45 total 46 143 TABLE 32.-—Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Leadership value and traditional- attitude—toward_education scores in Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard E Sig. Traditional Deviation of Scale E High Leadership 24 31.17 4 26 4.45 .04 value scores Low Leadership 23 28.87 value scores Total 47 30.04 3.07 3.87 between 1 within 45 total 46 H-6a: Persons who score high in need for ment will tend to score low in acceptance gglombia Table 33 indicates that persons who recognition and achievec of disabled persons. scored high on Recognite ion value did indeed score significantly lower in acceptance of disabled persons (as measured by the ATDP scale) than did those Who had lower scores on Recognition value. confirmed. H—6a is considered 144 TABLE 33.-~Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and score on the attitude-toward-handicapped-person-sca1e in Colombia. Variable N Mean Standard .3 Sig. Deviation of 3 High scores on 53 48.91 7.92 8.89 .005 Recognition value Low scores on 55 53.33 7.49 Recognition value Total 108 51.16 7.98 d.f. between 1 within 106 total 107 H-6b: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achieve- ment will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward educa— tion and high in traditional attitudes toward education. As indicated by Tables 34 and 35. there were no significant differences between persons who scored high and those who scored low on Recognition value compared with either progressive atti— tudes or traditional-attitudes-towardmeducation. H—6b is not con- firmed for the Colombian sample. TABLE 34.--Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the progressiveaattitude-toward-education scale for Colombia. Variable N Means Standard .E Sig. Deviation of 3 High scores on 54 31.46 3.91 .99 .32 Recognition value Low scores on 57 30.72 3.95 Recognition value Total 111 31.08 3.93 d.f. between 1 within 109 total 110 TABLE 35.-~Means. standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the traditionaluattitude-toward-education scale for Colombia. Variable N Means Standard 'E Sig. Deviation of g High scores on 58 29.31 3.59 .47 .50 Recognition value Low scores on 56 28.84 3.72 Recognition value Total 114 29.08 3.65 d.f. between 1 within 112 total 113 146 H-6a: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achieve- ment will tend to score low in acceptance of disabled persons. ters The data presented in Table 36 suggests there are no signif- icant mean differences between those who scored high and those who scored low on Recognition value when compared with expressed atti— tudes toward disabled persons. H—6a is not confirmed for the Peruvian sample. TABLE 36.-~Means, standard deviations. anqu statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the ATDP scale for Peru. Variable N Mean Standard E. Sig. Deviation of E High scores on 27 48.33 5.76 .57 .46 Recognition value Low scores on 23 49.48 4.76 Recognition value Total 50 48.86 5.30 d.f. between 1 within 48 total 49 147 H-6b: Persons who score high in need for recognition and achieve— ment will tend to score low in progressive attitudes toward educa— tion and high in traditional attitudes toward education. As indicated by Tables 37 and 38. there were no significant differences between persons who scored high and those who scored low on Recognition value compared with either progressive attitude or traditionaluattitudes~toward~education. H-6b is not supported for the Peruvian sample. TABLE 37.~~Means. standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition Vlaue and scores on progressivemattitude—toward~education scale for Peru. Variable N Mean Standard E. Sig. Deviation of 3 High scores on 27 30.78 3.93 .73 .40 Recognition value Low scores on 22 29.86 3.47 Recognition value Total 49 30.37 3.72 d.f. between 1 within 47 total 48 148 TABLE 38.--Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low scores on Recognition value and scores on the traditional—attitude-toward-education scale for Peru. Variable N Mean Standard .E Sig. Deviation of 3 High scores on 27 30.70 3.12 1.15 .29 Recognition value Low scores on 22 29.50 4.66 Recognition value Total 49 30.16 3.91 d.f. between 1 within 47 total 48 H-7a: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be gener- ous, will tend to score high in acceptance of disabled persons. Eelgrfiie Table 39 reveals there were no significant differences between the means of those who scored high and those Who scored low on Benevolence value when compared with scores on the ATDP scale. This finding. however, has very limited interpretability because of the limited number of respondents who scored high on Benevolence value. Approximately the same number of respondents were originally included in the high and low scoring categories 149 on Benevolence value. However, a number of the high scoring respondents on Benevolence were omitted from the data analysis because of a "missing data" factor in the computer program. This problem also applied to Tables 40 and 41 for H-7b on the Colombian sample. Because of these problems, no interpretation will be attempted for H~7b for either Colombia or Peru. TABLE 39._—Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the ATDP scale for Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard _E Sig. ATDP Scale Deviation of 3 High scores on 7 49.14 4.06 .04 .82 Benevolence value Low scores on 36 49.89 9.25 Benevolence value Total 43 49.77 8.59 d.f. between 1 within 41 total 42 H—7b: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be genera ous, will tend to score high in progressive attitudes toward educa— tion and low in traditional attitudes toward education. See comments under H-7a above. 150 TABLE 40.-~Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the progressive-attitude-toward-education scale in Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard .E Sig. Progressive Deviation of Scale .E High scores on 7 39.86 2.03 2.35 .13 Benevolence value Low scores on 34 32.32 4.12 Benevolence value Total 41 31.90 3.94 d.f. between 1 within 39 total 40 TABLE 41.—-Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale in Colombia. Variable N Mean of Standard .E Sig. Traditional Deviation of Scale .3 High scores on 6 28.50 1.76 .07 .79 Benevolence value Low scores on 36 28.92 3.84 Benevolence value Total 42 28.86 3.61 d.f. between 1 within 40 total 41 151 H-7a: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be gener- ous, will tend to score high in acceptance of disabled persons. Peru As suggested by Table 42, there were no significant differ— ences between those who scored high and those who scored low on the Benevolence value and scores achieved on the ATDP scale. H-7a is not supported for the Peruvian sample. TABLE 42.--Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value on the ATDP scale in Peru. Variable N Means of Standard E_ Sig. ATDP Scale Deviation of E High scores on 24 48.75 7.19 1.09 .30 Benevolence value Low scores on 22 51.00 7.43 Benevolence value Total 46 49.83 4.31 d.f. between 1 within 44 total 45 H—7b: Persons who score high in need to help others, to be gener- ous, will tend to score high in progressive attitudes toward educa- tion and low in traditional attitudes toward education. 152 As indicated by Tables 43 and 44, there were no significant differences between persons who scored high and those who scored low on Benevolence value when compared with either progressive attitudes or traditiona1_attitudes—toward-education. H—7b is not supported for Peru. TABLE 43.——Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the progressive attitude-toward-education scale for Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard .E Sig. Progressive Deviation of Scale .E High scores on 23 30.17 2.82 .05 .80 Benevolence value Low scores on 22 30.41 3.86 Benevolence value Total 45 30.29 3.33 d.f. between 1 within 43 total 44 153 TABLE 44.--Means, standard deviations, and E statistic comparing high and low scores on Benevolence value and scores on the traditional-attitude-toward-education scale for Peru. Variable N Mean of Standard .3 Sig. Traditional Deviation of Scale E_ High scores on 23 29.52 3.62 2.01 .16 Benevolence value Low scores on 22 30.95 3.12 Benevolence value Total 45 30.22 3.42 d.f. between 1 within 43 total 44 H-7c: Women will score higher than men in (a) the need to heEp .QEh§rS, (b) positive attitudes toward the disabled, and (c) pro- .E£§§Sive attitudes toward education. 99.193123 Table 45 indicates that women in Colombia did have signifi- Cantlyhigher benevolence scores than did men as hypothesized. WOIHen also had significantly lower scores on the handicapped per- Sflpmmmc mpmoepcfl monoom mm zmflm H k. mm wmo. mm mmo.n mm mHo. mm asaaw. mm ew©N.I mm 000.1 Hmpoe Honmq Illallu lllllll IIIIII+ lllllll rill-lull llllllllllll T lllllll Illlllllr llllll AT llllllllllllll L llllllll woa hmo. voa vaa. woa NHH.I voa ego. voa oHo. voa mac. Hmuoe mm boo. mm *mmm. mm moa.l mm mmo.l mm Hmo. mm mmo.n mHmem am new. Hm ogm.l Hm ammg. Hm cum. Hm Nmm.n Hm room. mam: elm "II-llIlllllwliullulul.l|'|lflllllu.III I'll'|le.|.llll.lll|lu llllllll t |||||| ...u lllll fil lllllllllllllllll mm «mo mm sea n mm mmo a mm soom. mm moH.n mm wma. Hmuoe mm mmo. mm HmH.a mm mmo.s mm moa. mm mma.a mm wee. mamfimm om boa. om hmH.n om Hmo.l om some. om omo.a om Nmo. mam: z n z u z u z u z. u 2 H mmm ... QflLmHmpme monHO>wcwm mocmpsmmwch coflpflcmoomm mpHEH0mQOU m5am> puommsm msouo . .maQEoHoo Mom mamom msHm> copuow one can Apcwusoov Hmamom mQOmumm pmmmmoflpsmnlpumBOvlmpswflppm cmm3pmfl wcoflpmHmHHoo HmUHOIOHmNII.mw mqmocmm wocmpcmmwch cofluflsmoomm mpflfiu0mcoo puommsm msouw .MHQEOHOU How mamom wSHm> COUHOO mSp paw Aucmpcoov :oflpMUDUwIUHMBOpImmUSuflpwm cmmemQ coflpmHoHHOU HopHOIoulel.om mqmmcmm mocwpcwmmpaH aofipwcmoomm muHEHomcoo “Hommsm msouu u .Dswm How mamom wSHm> cowuow one paw Apcmucoov :oH#mUSGwIUHMBOpImmUDpHpvm ammBqu mQOepmHmHHoo HmUMOIOHmNII.Nm mqm E (51.94)> R (48.07) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor 169 As indicated from Table 55, the E statistic for the A of V was significant at the .01 level, which suggests that the sub~ group means did not come from a common pOpulation. The Duncan's Multiple Means Test (Table 56, Appendix A) between the SER and L group was not quite significant at the .05 level of confidence when testing between the four means. However, this likely due to the small N in the labor group. While significant differences apparently do exist among the occupational groups, these differ- ences are not in the direction specified and hence the hypothesis is not confirmed as far as the Peru sample is concerned. H—lb: SER respondents from the United States will have a lower (i.e., more positive) mean attitude—toward—disabled persons score than will persons from Colombia and Peru. As indicated from Table 57, the E_statistic was significant at the .01 level with the Duncan's Multiple test (Table 58, Appen- dix A) significant at the .05 level of confidence, indicating that significant differences do exist in the predicted direction. H-9b was considered confirmed. 170 TABLE 55.--Means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance of attitude-toward-disabled-persons scores for the four occupational categories in Peru. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard 'E Sig. Score Deviation of E SER 30 51.53 6.91 4.42** 0.01 E 16 51.13 6.33 M 63 47.83 6.15 L 9 54.22 6.18 Total 118 49.70 6.65 d.f. between 3 within 114 total 117 Ranking of Means: L (54.22)> R (51.53)> E (51.13)> M (47.83) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E Education M = Manager/Executive L Labor 171 TABLE 57.--Means, standard deviations, and analysis of variance of attitude-toward~disabled-persons scores for respond» ents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Country N Mean Standard §_ Sig. Deviation of F. Colombia 61 48.07 7.96 16.54 0.005+ Peru 30 51.53 6.91 Kansas 102 44.58 4.59 Total 193 46.76 6.69 d.f. between 2 within 190 total 192 Ranking of Means: P (51.53)> C (48.07)> K (44.58) H-lOa: The SER group will have a higher mean score than will per— sons in other occupational categories in respect to the value of Benevolence, and lower mean scores in respect to the values of Leadership and Recognition. Colombia H-lOa: The hypothesis is considered supported in respect to the value of Benevolence. The E statistic of Table 59 and the Duncan's Multiple Means Test of Table 60 (Appendix A) indicates there are significant differences among the groups in the predicted 172 direction. The Duncan"s test suggests there are significant dif- ferences between the SER and L group and between the SER and E group, with the differences being nonsignificant between the E group and the L group. H-lOa will also be considered partially supported in respect to the value of Recognition. As shown by Table 61, the SER group scores were lower than the E group as well as being below the L group. The mean differences as tested by Duncan's Multiple Means test (Table 62, Appendix A) were not significantly different between the E and the SER groups but indicate that the SER group is significantly lower on Recognition value than the L group. While the SER group did have the lowest mean score for the Leadership value score, as seen in Table 63, which was in the pre- dicted direction, the mean differences were not significantly dif- ferent. The mean score of the E group was higher than the L group. H-lOa cannot be considered confirmed for the Leadership value in the Colombian sample. 173 TABLE 59.--Means, standard deviations, mean rankings. and E sta— tistic for Benevolence value scores according to the three occupational categories in Colombia. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard £3 Sig. Score Deviation of .E‘. ; SER 59 21.81 3.90 5.70** 0.005+ E 117 20.08 4.57 L 41 18.80 5.15 Total 217 20.31 4.61 ‘ d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 Ranking of Means: SER (21.81)> E (20.08)> L (18.80) TABLE 61.--Means, standard deviations, and mean rankings for Recognition value scores according to three occupa— tional categories in Colombia. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard _§ Sig. Score Deviation of .1: SER 59 7.14 3.24 7.744 0.005+ E 117 7.45 3.24 L 41 9.54 3.29 Total 217 7.76 3.25 d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 - Ranking of Means: L (9.54)> E (7.45)> SER (7.14) 1 SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor 174 TABLE 63.—-Means. standard deviations, mean rankings, and E sta- tistic for Leadership value scores according to the three occupational categories in Colombia. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard _§ Sig. Score Deviation of E SER 59 13.46 4.02 0.63 0.54 E 117 14.08 4.13 L 41 14.12 4.27 Total 217 13.97 4.12 d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 Ranking of Means: E (14.18)> L (14.12)> SER (13.46) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor .2252. H-10a - Benevolence. H~10b will be considered supported in respect to the value of Benevolence in Peru. The statistic in Table 64 and Duncan's Multiple Means test (see Table 65, Appendix A) indicates that significant differences do exist among means in the predicted direction. The SER scores are sig- nificantly higher than the L scores. While the SER mean score is higher than E as predicted, this difference cannot be considered significant. It should be noted, however, that the number of 175 respondents in L is very small which of course should indicate caution in terms of interpretation. Recognition. While the SER has the lowest mean score on Recognition values as predicted, the differences cannot be con— sidered significant. As indicated in Table 66, the E scores are higher than the M scores which is not the predicted direction. H—9 is not considered confirmed for the Peruvian sample on the Recognition value. Leadership. H-lOa will not be supported in respect to the value of Leadership in Peru. While significant differences do exist between M and SER means, as indicated by the F test in Table 67 and the Duncan's Multiple Means Test (Table 68 Appendix A), the small L sample (N — 7) has a lower mean score than does the SER group. 176 TABLE 64.-~Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E_sta- tistic for Benevolence value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard §_ Sig. Score Deviation of .11 SER 29 19.52 4.47 4.40** 0.01 E 15 17.73 5.43 M 62 17.18 4.83 L 7 12.57 2.64 Total 113 17.57 4.94 d.f. between 3 within 109 total 112 Ranking of Means: SER (19.52)) E (17.73)> M (17.18)> L (12.57) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E Education M = Manager/Executive L Labor 177 TABLE 66.--Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E sta~ tistic for Recognition value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru. - -..a... ...... —'- -'- ~ ..x - I -~-~~—-‘-—, ~ - ' - -- . - v - --~- . .. ...—...-..” .. .... -......-. .. . ——-—.-—— fi_— _ M A " Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard E: Sig. Score Deviation of .11 SER 29 8.45 4.03 0.39 0.76 E 15 9.00 4.23 M 62 8.48 3 25 L 7 9.86 2.48 Total 113 8.63 3.54 d.f. between 3 within 109 tOtal 112 Ranking of Means: L (9.86)> E (9.00)> M (8.48)> SER (8.45) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E Education M = Manager/Executive L Labor 178 TABLE 67.--Means, standard deviations. mean rankings. and E sta- tistic for Leadership value scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru. Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard E; Sig. Score Deviation of £1. SER 29 12.72 4.65 4.86** 0.005+ E 15 15.27 4.82 M 62 17.52 6.89 L 7 12.57 5.09 Total 113 15.68 6.35 d.f. between 3 within 109 total 112 Ranking of Means: M (17-52)> E (15 27)> SER (12.72)> L (12.57) Education 1 SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E Labor M — Manager/Executive L ’ Colombia-Peru—Kansas H-lOb: The United States SER sample will have a higher mean score than respondents working the same area from Colombia and Peru in respect to the value of Benevolence and a lower mean score in respect to the values of Leadership and Recognition. 179 Benevolence. While significant differences were evident in Table 69, the differences were not in the predicted direction. The Colombian sample, as shown in Table 70, scored higher than did the U.S. sample on Benevolence. H-lOb cannot be considered confirmed as far as the Benevolence value is concerned. Recognition. Table 71 suggests there were significant difw ferences among sample means but again. as shown in Table 72, not in the predicted direction. Instead of having the lowest mean score on the value of Recognition. U.S. respondents had the high— est mean scores on this value. This hypothesis is considered as not confirmed. Leadership. Significant mean differences were found among the SER group from the three countries (see Tables 73 and 74, Appendix A). As predicted. respondents from the 0.8. had lower mean scores for the Leadership value than respondents from Colomm bia or Peru. H-lOb is considered confirmed for the value of Leadership. 180 TABLE 69.-~Means, standard deviations, and E StatiStiC of Benevo- lence value scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru. and Kansas. Country N Means Standard 5 Sig. Deviation of E. Colombia 59 21.81 3.90 3.02 0.05 Peru 29 19.52 4.47 Kansas 100 20.22 5.23 Total 188 20.61 4.79 d.f. between 2 within 185 total 207 Ranking of Means: C (21.81)> K {20.22)> P (19.52) TABLE 71.~-Means, standard deviations. mean rankings, and E staw tistic for Recognition value scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia. Peru. and Kansas. Country N Means Standard 75 Sig Deviation of .5 Colombia 59 7.14 3.24 13 64 0,005+ Peru 29 8.45 4-03 Kansas 100 10.29 3.91 Total 188 9-02 3.98 d.f. between 2 within 185 total 187 Ranking of Means: K (10.29}> P C8.45)> C {7.14) 181 TABLE 73.--Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and_§ Stan tistic for Leadership value scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Country N Means Standard g) Sig. Deviation of .E Colombia 59 13.46 4.02 9.14 0.005+ Peru 29 12.72 4.65 Kansas 100 9.89 6.20 Total 188 ll.45 5.61 Ranking of Means: C (13.46)} P (12.72)> K (9.89) Summary of H-10 analyses Colombia. The hypothesis for the respondent groups in Colombia was supported for the values of Benevolence and Recgg~ nition. While the hypothesis relating to the Leadership value was not confirmed as being significantly different, the SER group did have the lowest mean score in the predicted direction. Peru. The hypothesis relating to the Benevolence values for respondent groups in Peru was significant in the predicted direction. As predicted, the SER group had the lowest mean score on Recognition value, however, differences were not statistically significant. Significant differences did exist for the value of 182 Leadership, but these differences were not in the predicted direction. The hypothesis, then, was supported for the Benevo~ lence value but not for Recognition and Leadeeship values for the Peruvian sample. Comparative Analyses. 1n the threevcountry comparison for respondents working in the area of SER significant mean differen- ces were apparent for the three values considered but not in the predicted direction for Benevolence and Recognition values. The hypothesis, however, was considered confirmed for the value of Leadership. H—1la: The SER group will have higher mean scores on progressive~ attitude—towardueducation than will persons in other occupational categories. 99.92122 Table 75 indicates means, standard deviations. mean rank— ings and E statistic for progressivemattitude~towardneducation scores according to the occupational categories. These findings are similar to the findings of Felty s (1965) Costa Rican stady. The SER group had the lowest mean ranking while the E group had the highest mean ranking for this variable. The nonssignificant differences are also not in the hypothesized direction. H—lla is therefore, not confirmed. 183 TABLE 75.--Analysis~ofuvariance of progressive~attitude~toward~ education scores for the three occupational categor~ ies in Colombian Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard _§ Sigo Deviation of E SER 58 30602 4,69 086 0043 E ll6 30h9O 4606 L 35 30a46 4008 Total 209 30058 4&24 dofa between 2 within 206 total 208 Ranking of Means: E (30090)) L (30046)> SER (30002) l SER = Speco Educn Rehabn E = Education L = Labor H-llb: The SER group will have lower mean scores in traditional“ attitudes-toward-education than will persons in other occupational categoriese Table 76 indicates there are no significant differences between the means of the three occupational groups, However, the SER group did have the lowest mean scores in the predicted direc- tion of the hypothesiso 184 TABLE 76o-eAnalysis~of-variance of traditional~attitudes~toward~ education scores for the three occupational categorw ies in Colombiao Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard F Sig Deviation of E; SER 58 30nOl 4069 086 043 E llG 30090 4006 L 35 30046 4007 Total 209 30n58 4H24 daft between 2 within 206 total 208 Ranking of Means: E (30n90}> L [30046}> SER 330001) 1 SER = Speco Educ” Rehabo E = Education L = Labor H-lla: The SER group will have higher mean sc res ,___‘ in progressive» attitudes-toward-education scores than will persons in other ocgu: pational categoriesu Peru Table 77 suggests that the means of the four groups in Peru are not significantly different on progressive attitudest The E group has a higher mean than does the SER group which is also nOt in the predicted direction“ H-lia for the Peru sample is, there: fore not supportedo l85 TABLE 77,~-Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E_sta- tistic for progressivewattitudes-towardueducation scores according to the four occupational categories in Peru, Occupational Categoryl N Mean Standard _§ Sig, SCOFe Deviation of E, SER 20 3O 27 3,76 1,34 0,27 E l7 31,47 3,74 M 63 29,54 3058 L 9 30,00 2,92 Total 119 30,03 3,62 dnfo between 3 within 115 total 118 Ranking of Means: E 331n47y> SER (30,27}> M (3OHOO)> B 529,541 l SER = Spec, Educ, Rehab, Education [T] H M = Manager/Executive L Labor Table 78 indicates that the mean scores do not significantly differ. H-lib is not supported for Peru, 186 TABLE 78.-=Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E staw tistic for traditionaleattitudes~toward~education scores according to the four occupational groups in Peru, Occupational Category1 N Mean Standard :1 Sig, Deviation of I: SER 30 30,27 3,76 1,33 027 E 17 31 47 3,74 M 63 29,54 3,58 L 9 30,00 2,9l Total ll9 30,03 3,62 def, between 3 within 115 total 112 1 SER = Spec, Educ, Rehab, E = Edication M = Manager/Executive L 2 Labor H-llc: The SER group frgm the Cnipgd States will have higher mean scores on progressivemattitudesmtowardueducation than will persons in the same occupational group from Colombia and Peru, Table 79 indicates that the sample from Kansas did have the highest mean score on the progressive attitude scale, While this finding is in the direction of the hypothesis the level of confi_ dence is not suffiCiently high for confirmation, 187 H—lld: The SER group from the United States will have lower mean scores in traditional-attitudes-toward-education than will persons in the same occupational group from Colombia and Peru, Table 80 indicates that the country samples were not signifm icantly different on traditional attitudesmtoward~educationn H-lld is therefore not supported, TABLE 79,—-Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E stae tistic for progressive~attitude~toward~education scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas, Country N Mean Standard §_ Sign Deviation of E, Colombia 58 30,02 4,69 i,89 OJlS Peru 30 30,27 3J76 Kansas 102 3l,l6 3,14 Total 190 30 67 3:79 dnf, between 2 within l87 tOtal l89 Ranking of Means: K {3lnl6E> P [30,27)> C (30,02" 188 TABLE 80,--Means, standard deviations, mean rankings, and E sta» tistic for traditionalmattitudewtoward~education scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas, Country N Mean Standard E. Sig, DeViation of E Colombia 58 30,02 4,69 1,97 OUl4 Peru 17 31,47 3,74 Kansas 102 3l,l6 3,l4 Total 177 30,81 3,79 d,f, between 2 within 174 total 176 Ranking of Means: P {31,47E> K i3lol6}> C {30,02} —_~-.._ -:-- ..—_——.4—u— __r-—__fl.—_.~;—-< e. l H-12: The SER group will have_higher mean scores than other occupational groups on the following change orientation variables: (a) health practices, lb) child rearing practices; 5c) birth con: 3...; trol practices, and {d} automation, relegate, Table 81 reveals that the SER group had higher mean scores only on the change oriented variable related to child rearing practices, The Duncan s test (Table 82, Appendix A} indicates significant differences do exist between the SER group and the L 189 group as well as between the E group and the L group, However, the SER group and E group means are not statistically different, The SER-E group difference part of H~12 can only be considered supported in the sense of direction but not in terms of signifi~ cance. Table 81 indicates that the E group had the highest mean score on the health practices variables which was significantly higher (see Table 83, Appendix A) than the L group but was not significantly different from the SER group, This difference is not in the direction of the hypothesis, The SER and group B had identical mean scores on the birth control variable, These means were not significantly different from the L group, The E group had the highest mean score on the automation variable which was significantly higher :see Table 84, Appendix A) than the L group but was not significantly different from the SER group° The SER group was also significantly higher than the L group° Summary for H-12 in Co lombia The only variable in which H~l2 can be considered confirmed for the Colombian sample is in the case of child rearing practices, This variable was in the direction of the hypothesis in that the 190 SER group had the highest mean, While the SER group mean was significantly different from the L group it was not significantly different from the E group, The E group mean was significantly higher than the L group on health practices, and automation measures but was not signifi- cantly different from the SER group, There were few differences between the SER group and the E group, Except in the case of the birth control measure, the SER group and the E group had significantly different mean scores from the L group, 191 TABLE 81,—-Means, standard deviations, and E_statistic related to four change variables for three occupational groups in Colombia. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard lg Sig° Deviation of E. Health SER, 66 3,59 °70 13,63 ,005+ practices E 124 3,64 069 L 46 2.98 ,95 TOTAL 236 3,50 ,79 d,f, between 2 within 233 total 235 Ranking of Means: E (3,64)> SER (3 59)> L (2 98) Child SER 67 3.27 079 5.84 ,005+ rearing E 123 3,22 .95 practices L 46 2,74 ,86 TOTAL 236 3,14 .91 d,f, between 2 within 233 total 235 Ranking of Means: SER (3 27)> E (3 22)> L (2 74) ————-——--——-—_-—--—_—-~-_—-—n-—.o—--a—u‘._-z-u.—a_;--u_:.-————.2-1—-_—_.—n-_———-——--—~ Birth SER 68 3,21 72 6,00 005+ control E 120 3,36 83 L 45 2,87 89 TOTAL 233 3,22 083 dof, between 2 within 230 total 232 Ranking of Means: .,E (2 09)> SER (2 09)> L (2.15) AuESEéEiSr-l ———— éizfi """""" 823’ ""'§:’§i“""“7§“"""éf66““3665; E 120 3.36 ,83 L 45 2,87 089 TOTAL 233 3,22 ,83 d.f, between 2 within 230 total 232 Ranking of Means: E (3.36)) SER (3,2l)> L (2,87) 1 SER = Spec, Educ, Rehab, E = Education L = Labor 192 ters As indicated in Table 85, the SER group had the lowest mean score of any group of the sample on the healthgpractice variable which is in the opposite direction hypothesized. On the child rearing item the SER group mean score was lower than the E group or M group although higher than the L group. On the birth con- ;rgl item the SER group was lower than the E group but higher than the M or the L group (see Table 86, Appendix A). The SER score on the automation item was lower than the E group and the M group but higher than the L group. H-12 is therefore not supported for any of the change orientation variables in Peru. 193 TABLE 85.——Means, standard deviations, and E statistic related to four change variables on four occupational groups in Peru. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard ‘ §_ Sig. Deviation of E Health SER 30 2.87 1.00 2.49 .06 practices E 17 3.35 .86 M 62 3.39 .93 L 9 2.89 1.05 TOTAL 118 3.21 .97 d.f. between 3 within 114 total 117 Ranking of Means: M (3.39)) E (3.35)) L (2.89)) SER (2.87) Child SER 30 2.97 .93 3.11 03 rearing E 17 3.18 .88 practices M 63 3.41 .82 L 9 2 67 1.00 TOTAL 119 3.21 .89 d.f. between 3 within 115 total 118 Ranking of Means: M (3.41)) E (3.18)) SER (2.97)) L (2.67) Birth SER 30 2 07 .69 1.92 .13 control E 17 2.36 93 M 63 1.98 .75 L 8 l 63 52 TOTAL 118 2.03 .76 d.f. between 3 within 114 total 117 (2.36)) SER (2.07)) M (1.98)) L (1.63) 194 TABLE 85.--(cont.) ¥ Variable Group1 N Mean Standard F Sig. Deviation of E. Automation SER 30 3.17 .91 2.08 .10 E 17 3.14 .71 M 63 3.27 .88 L 9 2.56 1.01 TOTAL 119 3.21 .89 d.f. between 3 within 115 total 118 Ranking of Means: M (3.27)) SER (3.17)) E (3.14)) L (2.56) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education M = Manager/Executive L = Labor H—13: The SER group will have higher mean scores than other occu- pational groups on amount of contact with Mentally Retarded and Emotionally Disturbed Persons. Colombia As indicated by Table 87 the SER group did have, as pre- dicted, higher mean scores than did the E group or the L group on number of contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons. The Duncan's test (Tables 88 and 89, Appendix A) indi- cates that the SER group differs significantly from the E and L 195 group but that the E and L group do not differ among themselves. H—13 is considered confirmed for Colombia. TABLE 87.-~Means, standard deviations, and E statistic related to contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally dis- turbed persons for four occupational groups in Colombia. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard §_ Sig. Deviation of 3 Contacts with SER 60 2.72 1.45 18.74 .005+ mentally E 108 1.71 1.37 retarded L 43 1.40 .98 persons TOTAL 211 1.93 1.30 d.f. between 2 within 208 total 210 Ranking of Means: SER (2.72)) E (1.71)) L (1.40) Contacts with SER 59 2.36 1.52 12.54 .005+ emotionally E 92 1.59 1.12 disturbed L 39 1.21 .70 persons TOTAL 190 1.75 1.26 d.f. between 2 within 187 total 189 Ranking of Means: SER (2.36)) E (1.59)) L (1.21) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor Peru The SER group did have the highest mean scores on amount of Contact with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons. 196 Tables 91 and 92 (Appendix A) indicate that significant differ— ences existed between the SER and the M group on amount of contact with mentally retarded persons and between the SER—M group and the SER-E group on amount of contact with emotionally disturbed per— sons. The SER group did not differ from the E or the L group nor did they differ between themselves. TABLE 90.--Means, standard deviations, and E statistic related to contacts with mentally retarded and emotionally dis— turbed persons for four occupational groups in Peru. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard E Sig. Deviation of 3 Contacts with SER 28 2.29 1.36 3.96 0.01 mentally E 16 1.88 1.31 retarded M 57 1.78 0.82 L 9 1.42 1.39 TOTAL 110 1.74 1.15 d.f. between 3 within 106 total 109 Ranking of Means: SER (2.29)) E (1.88)) L 1.78)) M (1.42) Contacts with SER 29 2.66 1.57 8.40 .005+ mentally E 15 2.07 1.49 disturbed M 57 1.37 0.65 L 9 1.67 1.41 TOTAL 110 1.83 1.26 Ranking of Means: SER (2.66)) E (2.07)) L (1.67)) M (1.37) l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education M = Manager/Executive L = Labor 197 Differences between the various occupational groups on mean scores on the value sub-scales Colombia. Three of the value sub—scales were considered in the testing of the hypothesis: those of Benevolence, Leadership, and Recognition. Values of Support, Conformity, and Independence have yet to be considered. Table 93 summarizes the latter three differences for the Colombian sample. There were no differences at a statistically acceptable level among the three occupational group mean scores. It is of interest to note, however, the SER group had the lowest mean score on Support value and the highest mean score on Conformity among the groups. These results would not support the general theoretical model of this study. Peru. The results of the Peruvian sample, Table 94, are directionally similar to those of the Colombian sample for the values of Support, Conformity, and Independence. The SER group was lower on mean scores of Support value than was the E group and the L group. The SER group was higher on the Conformity value than the other groups of the sample. Only the E group scored higher on the Independence value. These results are found in Table Comparative Analyses. As indicated in Table 95, the Kansas SER group had significantly higher mean scores on the value of 198 Support (Table 96, Appendix A) and significantly lower mean scores on the value of Conformity (Table 97, Appendix A) than did the SER groups in Colombia and Peru. There were no significant differen- ces on the Independence value among the SER groups of the three samples. 199 TABLE 93.-~Comparison of mean differences. standard deviations, and E statistic in respect to three value variables, and three occupational categories in Colombia. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard E‘ Sig. Deviation of £1 Support value SER 59 9.780 4.030 2.1387 0.12 E 117 10.222 3.817 L 41 11.342 3.183 TOTAL 217 10.313 3.780 d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 Conformity SER 59 22.949 3.803 0.4777 0.63 value E 117 22.470 4.036 L 41 22.171 4.647 TOTAL 217 22.544 4.087 d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 Independence SER 59 14.356 4.884 0.4655 0.63 value E 117 14.658 4.620 L 41 13.829 5.024 TOTAL 217 14.419 4.758 d.f. between 2 within 214 total 216 l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. E = Education L = Labor 200 TABLE 94.-~Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and g statistic in respect to three value variables, and four occupational categories in Peru. Variable Group1 N Mean Standard £2 Sig. Deviation of g Support value SER 29 12.80 3.69 2.03 0.11 E 15 14.00 4.38 M 62 12.05 3.88 L 7 14.86 3.72 TOTAL 113 12.47 3.95 Conformity SER 29 21.07 3.38 2.30 0.08 value E 15 19.80 3.69 M 62 18.48 5.06 L 7 19.00 3.61 TOTAL 113 19.35 4.52 Independence SER 29 16.28 6.69 1.15 0.38 value E 15 14.27 4.76 M 62 16.05 6.27 L 7 19.43 4.32 TOTAL 113 16.08 6.12 l SER = Spec. Educ. Rehab. 2 Education M = Manager/Executive = Labor 201 TABLE 95.-—Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statiStic in respect to three value variables for respondents in the SER group in Colombia, Peru. and Kansas. —_-_- .- Variable Country N Mean Standard ‘5 Sig- DeViation of 13 Support value Colombia 59 9.78 4.07 69.07M .005+ Peru 29 12.00 3-69 Kansas 100 17.65 4.47 TOTAL 188 14.31 5.57 d.f- between 2 within 185 total 187 Ranking of Means: K (17-65)) P (12.00)) C {9.78) Conformity Colombia 59 22 95 3.80 4.57** .005+ value Peru 29 21.07 3-38 Kansas 100 15.30 6.47 TOTAL 188 18.59 6-41 d-f. between 2 within 185 total 187 Ranking of Means: C (22.95)) P (21 97)) K {15,30} Independence Colombia 59 14.36 4.88 1.52 -22 value Peru 29 16-28 6.69 Kansas 100 15-82 6-10 TOTAL 188 15.43 5.86 Ranking of Means: P (16.28)) K (15.82)) C (14.3/} ._.—--.-— —.-~._—_ ...—-.. 4--- .. -..—.....- -h. 202 Sex differences as indicated by mean scores on the value sub-scales Colombia. Table 98 indicates that males of the Colombian sample had significantly lower mean scores on Benevolence value and significantly higher mean scores on Recognition value than did the femalesof the same sample: This finding is consistent with the theoretical model of this study: There were no signlrl- cant differencesg as indicated by Table 97 among the group mean scores of the values of Support, Conformity” independence, and Leadership, Peru. Table 99 indicates that the females of the Peruvian sample scored significantly higher on the Benevolence subwscale than did the males and that males had significantly higher mean scores on the value of Leadership: There were no significantly differences among males and fem-les in Peru on the values of Recognition, Support, Conformity: and independence, 203 TABLE 98.—-Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and g statistic in respect to six value variables for males and females in Colombia. Variable Sex N Mean Standard E sig. Deviation of El Benevolence Male 87 19.345 4.474 6.3067 0.01 value Female 132 20.924 4.606 Total 219 20.297 4.609 Recognition Male 87 8.598 3.571 9.9130 0.005+ value Female 132 7.174 3 063 Total 219 7.740 3.340 Support value Male 87 10.379 3.445 0.0210 0.86 Female 132 10.303 4.023 Total 219 10.333 3.796 Conformity value Male 87 22 575 4.406 0.0176 0.86 Female 132 22.500 3.853 Total 219 22.531 4.072 Independence Male 87 14.448 4.819 0.0068 0.89 value Female 132 14.394 4.726 Total 219 14.416 4.752 Leadership Male 87 14.230 4 142 0.4118 0.53 value Female 132 13 864 4 127 Total 219 14.009 4 128 TABLE 99.--Comparison of mean differences, standard deviations, and E statiStic in respect to six value variables for males and females in Peru. Variable Sex N Mean Standard F, Sig. Deviation of .E. Benevolence Male 106 16.78 5.06 7.11 0.01 value Female 20 20.00 4.29 Total 126 17.29 5.07 Recognition Male 106 8,66 3.75 0.02 0.87 value Female 20 8.55 2.93 Total 126 8.64 3.63 Support value Male 106 12.44 4.30 0.34 0,57 Female 20 11.85 3.56 Total 126 12.35 4.18 Conformity Male 106 19.19 4.44 0.06 0.80 value Female 20 19 45 5.42 Tocal 126 19.23 4.55 Independence Male 106 16.16 6.28 0.28 0,60 value Female 20 16.95 5.20 Total 126 16.29 6.11 Leadership Male 106 16.54 6.31 4,86 0.03 value Female 20 13 20 6.57 Total 126 16 01 6.31 205 Differences between male and female mean scores on attitude variables Colombia. Males, as shown in Table 100, scores significantly higher (i.e., negatively) on attitudes—toward—disabled-persons than did the females from Colombia. There were no significant sex dif— ferences on traditional and progressive attitudes toward education. Peru. As indicated by Table 101, there were no significant differences on the attitude—toward—disabled-persons or toward traditional or progressive attitudes toward education for male and female respondents in Peru. 206 TABLE 100.—-Comparisons of mean differences, standard deviations, and E_statistic in respect to three attitude variables for males and females in Colombia. Variable Sex N Mean Standard .5 Sig. Deviation of E Attitudes Male 84 52.5476 7.5074 5.0201* 0.03 toward Female 130 50.2385 7.2066 disabled Total 214 51.1446 7.4312 persons d.f. between 1 within 212 total 213 Traditional Male 81 29.0247 4.1862 0.1416 0.71 attitudes Female 131 29.2290 3.6131 toward Total 212 29.1509 3.8337 education d.f. between 1 within 210 total 211 Progressive Male 79 30.4937 3.8293 0.0281 0.84 attitudes Female 131 30.5954 4.5009 toward Total 210 30.5571 4.2516 education d.f. between 1 within 208 total 219 207 TABLE 101.—~Comparisons of mean differences, standard deviations, and E_statistic in respect to three attitude variables for males and females in Peru. Variable Sex N Mean Standard “F Sig. Deviation of E. Attitude Male 111 49.24 6.73 0.25 0.62 toward Female 21 50.05 6.70 disabled Total 132 49.37 6.71 persons Traditional Male 110 29.93 3.77 0.03 0.83 attitudes Female 32 30.09 4.05 toward Total 132 29.96 3.80 education Progressive Male 110 29.81 3.53 0.12 0.73 attitudes Female 21 30.10 3.13 toward Total 131 29.86 3.46 education CHAPTER V SUMMARY, DISCUSSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS This chapter will be divided into the three major sections suggested by the chapter title. Part I will be a summary of the theoretical and methodological issues. Under the latter heading there will be a summary of hypothesis construction, technical problems, sample, instruments, and analyses procedures. Part II will be devoted to a discussion of hypotheses testing. The first two hypotheses are concerned with content and intensity scaling. Hypothesis 3-8 compare high and low scores of the major variables of the study on the total pOpulation within Colombia and Peru. Hypothesis 9-13 compare the SER group with other occupational groups on basically the same variables within Colombia and Peru. Comparisons between the SER groups of Colom- bia, Peru, and Kansas will also be made. The final portion of the chapter, Part III, will deal with recommendations concerning the hypotheses, instruments, sample, and analyses procedures. 208 — _- A" I“ '7. "34.":an . . i ' A 209 Part I: Summary of the Theoretical and Methodological Issues In the introductory chapter a statement was made to the effect than the main focus of the study would be on the relation- ship between interpersonal values, personal contact, attitudes and certain demographic variables. The assumption was made that both value and contact serve as determinants of attitudes. Summary of theory Kerlinger's theoretical model was used to study attitudes toward education. He postulates a basic dichotomy which consists of a restrictive-traditional or permissive—progressive dimension of educational attitudes. He further suggests that the sharpness of this dichotomy is dependent upon occupational role, knowledge of and experience with education as well as the perceived import— ance of education (Kerlinger, 1956, p. 312). The present research is based on Kerlinger's assumption that the progressive—traditional dimension of attitudes toward education generalize to attitudes in other areas. The theoretical framework of the present research is gener- ally consistent with the social—psychological orientation of Wright (1961) and Meyerson (1955, 1963) as far as attitudes toward physical disability are concerned. While their interactional 210 propositions included such concepts as self, other, reference groups, and role, the main focus of this study had to do with attitudes and values as they relate to physical disability and to education. Rosenberg (1960), Katz (1960), Guttman and Foa (1951), and others have postulated certain relationships between attitudes and values. Katz points out that people are generally more inclined to change or give up attitudes inconsistent or unrelated to central values. From this orientation, there would be an unexpected consistency between the basic value of equality and the more specific attitude of favorableness toward Opportunities for disabled persons and toward progressive education since the latter stresses individual participation and the inherent assets of the person. With reference to physical disability, Wright, 33 a1. (1960) points out that values can be clustered according to whether they are derived from (a) comparisons or from (b) intrinsic assets. One of the assumptions of the study was that the SER group would view disabled persons from more of an asset value orientation than would other occupational groups. A logical extension of this assumption was that the postulated asset value orientation of the SER group would generalize to favorable progressive—attitudes— toward-education as well as favorable attitudes toward change orientation as measured by the indicees of the study. 211 Guttman and Foa (1951) have shown that attitude intensity is related to the amount of social contact with the attitude object. Zetterberg (1963) observed that attitude intensity on the favorable—unfavorable continumn is related to perceived free— dom or constraint of social interaction and whether this interac- tion is perceived as rewarding. Attempts were made to test inter- action between contact frequency and the related contact indicees of enjoyment of the contact and ease of avoidance of it. Summary of hypotheses construction Several of the hypotheses were originally constructed by Felty and used in his study (1965). Felty's hypotheses were extended in the present study to apply to attitudes toward educa— tion (both progressive and traditional) as well as attitudes toward disabled persons. The change variables (H:8, H:12) were added as a result of Felty's recommendations (1965). H:13 was an extension of the contact variables as applied to frequency of contact with emotionally disturbed and mentally retarded persons. Guttman's scaling approach to cross—cultural analysis pro- vided the rationale for the construction of H-1 and H—2. Scale and intensity analysis attempts to compare data from one linguis— tic group to another with some assurance that similar outcomes actually reflect similar psychological orientation toward the attitude object; i.e., education and/or handicapped persons. 212 Rosenberg, Guttman, Foa, and Zetterberg have suggested that frequency of contact is directly related to attitude intensity regardless of content direction. H—3 and H—4 were aimed at test— ing this assumption. H—5 through H—7 were aimed at testing the assumptions of Wright 2E._l- (1960) which posit there will be a differential evaluation of others between those who hold asset oriented values and those who hold comparative oriented values. The assumptions of H—8 postulate a relationship between pro— gressive educational attitudes and change orientation, as well as an asset orientation toward others. H—9 through H—l3 were derived from the assumptions that per- sons working in the area of special education and rehabilitation would have more progressive attitudes toward education; be more change oriented; and have more expressed asset oriented values than would other occupational groups. It was also assumed that attitudes, whether progressive or traditional, would generalize to other areas. Summary of technical problems Scale and intensity analysis was originally attempted in order to obtain data which could be compared from one linguistic group to another with some assurance that similar outcomes actu— 213 ally reflect similar psychological orientations toward the atti— tude object. To use this particular approach, it is first nec- essary to obtain a Guttman scale of the content component of the attitude and then to plot total content scores against total intensity scores for each respondent. In this particular study there was a departure from stand- ard Guttman procedures by the use of the Lingoes Multiple Scalo— gram Analysis. In the Lingoes procedure, if several attitude dimensions are latent in the data, the procedure is designed to extract these dimensions separately, rather than scale all of the items together. As reported in the previous chapter, none of the attitude instruments formed meaningful unidimensional scales in the Guttman sense. In Felty's study (1965), scale analysis was only margin— ally successful. While the reasons for the failure of the items to scale in the present study are not readily apparent, it seems reasonable to assume that much of the problem is related to the fact that attitudes are complex and seldom unidimensional in nature. A revision of the Lingoes MSA program (i.e., the Guttman— Lingoes Multidimensional Scalogram Analysis — I) allows for multi- dimensional analysis of data as well as multi—unidimensional analysis. 214 It must be remembered that none of the attitude scales were originally designed for scalogram analysis. In the recommendation section of this chapter considerable emphasis will be placed upon the necessity of develOping attitude scales through facet analysis in order to facilitate valid cross—cultural comparability. Felty (1965) discussed limitations in his study which resulted from a lack of concept equivalence. In other words, how much is lost in the translation of the instruments into a differ- ent language and cultural setting? In an effort to solve this problem, Dr. John E. Jordan, the major advisor to this disserta- tion, went over the instruments with the translators from Peru and Colombia before translation in an effort to ensure as much accuracy as possible in both language and concept equivalence. As a result, the instruments were separately translated into both Colombian and Peruvian Spanish. Inasmuch as this study was considered exploratory in nature, no attempt was made to secure a random national sample. The pro- posal recommended a minimum sample of 50 respondents in each of four occupational groups: Special Education and Rehabilitation Workers, Educators, Managers and Executives, as well as a low income Labor group. Adequate samples were gathered from only two of the occupa- tional groups in Peru and from three in Colombia. These omis— 215 sions occurred in spite of careful planning. It must be remem— bered that numerous frustrations, such as schedule cancellations, are somewhat inherent in the developing countries that do not have a research tradition. While every effort was made to explain the purpose of the research project to the respondents, it may have had little tang— ible meaning because it seemed so far removed from their usual experiences. Added to this problem of meaning was the time fac- tor involved in filling out the questionnaire. It required an average of two hours to fill out the six instruments, which for the most part was done on the respondent's own time. If they were unable to grasp the relationship between filling out ques— tionnaires and research objectives, there may have been a tend— ency to resent this effort. The nationals who assisted in the group administration of the instruments were dedicated and enthusiastic. However they did not have the opportunity to become thoroughly "saturated” with the study. In fact, they had had little previous exposure to any kind of research. While their work was commendable, limitations resulted from their limited understanding of the research project. They were not totally prepared to deal with all the questions that arose during the administration of the 216 instruments. While conscientious efforts were made on the part of the researchers to give a thorough orientation to the administra- tive assistants, it must be remembered that these assistants were working upon the handicap of using a second language in an area where they had had little previous training. They were also communicating with respondents who had never filled out a ques— tionnaire and whose cultural milieu stressed the importance of "having the right answer". Ideally, nationals who are involved in future instrument administration should be thorougly exposed for lengthy periods of time to the full implications of the study. This kind of expos— ure, although beyond the limits of item and money available for this study, would add immeasurably to the ideal of concept equiv- alence and general research excellence. Instruments The major variables of the study might be summarized as follows: attitudes toward education and physical disability as they are influenced by values, contact, and related demographic indicees. The Attitudes Toward Education Scale, developed by Kerlinger, (Kerlinger, 1958, 1961; Kerlinger and Kaya, 1959) was used to measure both progressive and traditional attitudes toward educa- 217 tion. A relationship between progressive-attitudes-toward-educa— tion and positive attitudes toward physical disability was hypoth- esized. The hypotheses relating to Attitudes-toward—handicapped— persons was instrumented by the Attitudes Toward Disability Scale developed by Yuker and associates (1960). Both the Kerlinger and Yuker scales were modified with a Likert—type intensity statement. This statement, containing four response alternatives, asked the respondent to indicate how strongly (i.e., sure) he felt about his answer to the content statements of the two scales. Asset and comparative value orientations were measured by three sub—scales of the Gordon Scale of Values. Asset value ori— entation toward others was measured by the sub—scale of Benevo4 lence which Gordon (1963, p. 3) described as ”Doing things for other people, sharing with others, helping the unfortunate, being generous". Comparative value orientation toward others were measured by Recognition value described by Gordon (1963, p. 3) as "Doing what is socially correct, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, being a conformist", and by Leadership value which Gordon (1963, p. 3) defined as "Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leadership or power". 218 The contact frequency variable was modified by: enjoyment of contact, ease of avoidance of contact, and acceptable alterna— tives to contact for both education and physical disability. Change orientation questions and demographic variables were also included in the major questionnaire. The questionnaire items referring to religiosity, preference for personal relationships, and institutional satisfaction were not analyzed. Sample Colombia: The three occupational groups in the Colombian sample consisted of 241 adults including 94 males and 147 females. The groups were represented as follows: the SER group (all from Roosevelt School of Bogota) had an N of 67, the E group consisted of 128 elementary and secondary school teachers, and the L group had an N of 46. Table 1 reveals that the SER group and the E group consisted largely of female respondents. The L group, on the other hand, was entirely a male sample. Peru: This research sample consisted of a total of 134 respondents. Of this number, 112 were male and 22 were female. Group M, with an N of 96, consisted largely of middle echolon government executives. The SER group consisted of 38 respond— ents from schools which were members of a rehabilitation coor— 219 dinating committee known as the Patronota. While some of the members of the Patronota were not professional special education and rehabilitation workers as such, they were none the less vit— ally interested in the SER field. Kansas: The SER group from Kansas consisted of 22 males and 81 females for a total SER sample of 103. A fuller explanation of this sample is given in Chapter III. The interpretative difficulties arising from the differences in the number of male and female respondents as well as the dif- ferences in the number of respondents in the occupational groups are dealt with in following sections of this chapter. Summary of statistical procedures Two frequency programs designated as FCC I and FCC II were used to compile the frequency distributions of each respondent for every item. Scale and intensity analysis was attempted. The items were dichotomized by the "CUT“ Computer program develOped by Hafterson (1964) at Michigan State University. The dichotomized items were then scaled by the Multiple Scalogram Analysis program in use with the CDC 3600 Computer at Michigan State University (Lingoes, 1963; Hafterson, 1964). All scales, for both content and inten- sity, were submitted to the same procedure. 220 The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, Rafter, 1966) was used to calculate the one—way analysis of variance statistics. The pro— gram was designed to handle unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. In addition to the analysis of variance tables, the frequency, sum, mean, standard deviation, sum of squares, and sum of squared deviations of the mean were included for each category. The approximate significance probability of the E_statistic was also automatically pointed out by the computer. Zero—order as well as partial and multiple correlations were also used. These programs have been written to handle missing data in such a way that correlations are based only on respond— ents who answered the indicated item. The Multiple Correlation program yields the following information: means and standard dev— iations for each variable, the matrix of simple correlations between all variables, and multiple correlations of selected variables of the criterion, the beta weights of all predictor variables used, a test of significance for each beta weight, and the partial cor- relations between each predictor and the criterion. Part II: Discussion of the Hypotheses Scale and intensity analysis: (H:l, H:2) Scale and intensity analysis was originally attempted to order to obtain data which could be compared from one linguistic group to another, with some assurance that similar outcomes actu— 221 ally reflect similar psychological orientations toward the atti— tude object. It has been typically found that when intensity and content scores are plotted together so that content is on the abscissa and intensity is on the ordinate, that intensity forms a U-shaped or J-shaped curve in relation to the content dimension. The low point of this curve has been found to be the true point of division between positive and negative responses. This kind of analysis assumes that data is unidimensional before scaling is relevant. It has been recognized for some time, however, that attitudes are complex and seldom unidimensional in nature. The author feels that the complexity of attitude measure— ment accounts for the fact that the first two hypotheses relating to content and intensity were not confirmed. Lingoess (1963) MSA program was used in place of the Guttman scale analysis for essentially two reasons. First, the MSA was designated for computer use which saved endless hours of analysis while greatly reducing the possibility of error. Second, the Lingoes program permitted multi-unidimensional analysis. While this program extended Guttman's poineer scaling method by allow— ing for the development of several unidimensional scales at the same time, it did not provide for revealing multidimensional interrelationships within the data. 222 Lingoes and Guttman extended the MSA program. Known as MSA-I, this computer program is devised to reveal the scale prOperties of items that are multidimensional in nature, and is scheduled to become operational at Michigan State University in the spring of 1966. It is recommended that MSA-I be used in later studies that are a part of the research project currently underway at Michigan State University under the direction of Dr. John E. Jordan. Hypothesis relatingyto contact frequency and intensity (H:3) Colombia: Table 102, a summary chart of the hypothesis, reveals that H—3 was not confirmed for the Colombian sample. The mean intensity scoreson the attitude scales were not significantly different between those who indicated high frequency of contact and those who indicated low frequency of contact with handicapped persons and/or education. Approximately one-fourth of the sample who indicated the most contacts with disabled persons and/or educa—' tion were placed in the high frequency contact group while approxi— mately one—fourth of those who indicated the least amount of con- tacts with these two groups were included in the low frequency contact group. Roughly the middle half of the sample, who indi- cated an average number of contacts with the disabled persons and/ or education, were omitted from this analysis. Table 17 indicates 223 .mmmlmmm momma mom .mmoswnwmmap xmm maflflmmom How pssooom “on mmOU mHQMD mHSB m .wfiwmnwomhfi mnp mo Goflgomuflp wnp Ga UmeQmH mum maum I mum m .Umfinflmcoo mm3 mamm£pomwn $30 pony mwpmoflocfl xOQ co>flm m CH Momflo 4 H .\k \\ smMIDHmmIHOU \\ \3 \\ Dumm \ \, \. \ \. we QEOH oo masonm 000 EODDfi om mo gm mwuoomUMmmHOUmUMmmHOU mwuoommmnoo monoom Hmnpo SDHB .pmfim .DOEMDUMDQO .Umanmmumosm.moom mommq.>mcom mm UmnmmEoo uomvnovfimflm SvflJmmHoommmcmnofimflm Boa swam 30 30A Loam swam Abomw mmm mmaum mmaum maaum moanm Noam \, \. \. \ \. . Dumm \ x \. \ \, . 3953 cu UMIBUMIkmm JflJm UMIBUmImmm UmIBUHIAmm UMIBUHIAWE CWIBQMIm mm UmlB Calm mm J soflpmg Qocmm :oflpflcmoomm QHSmHmpme Usm pomvsou .vmum DUMDCOU 30H tam Loam mum 05m Tm oum mum «um mum mmHmEmm mspcsoo HOm soflpmfiuflchOIsoc Ho coflumfiuflmcoo msflumoflpsfi ma gasp m wommzpomhs mo wumfiasmll.moa mqmdB 224 that the mean differences of the high and low contact frequency groups were not significantly different. Apparently intensity was not differentially a function of the number of contacts with either group as far as the instruments used were concerned. Interpretation at this point becomes extremely difficult and must be considered tentative. A number of indicees reported in the literature have indicated that Colombia is one of the most aggressive countries in terms of economic growth in South America. In keeping with Berg's observation reported earlier (page 3), movement in the direction of progressive change apparently has been painful for Colombia. The aggressiveness which has been an impetus to change and economic growth, has also been expressed in terms of violence which has caused deep national concern. Various agencies concerned with social science research are tackling this problem of violence, which has resulted in a high number of people with permanent disabilities, with a great sense of urgency. It may be that this concern for the disabled has been articulated reasonably well into the national consciosness. If this intui- tive ”hunch" is accurate, it might account in part for the three sub—samples. It must be remembered that the bulk of the sample are from the SER and E groups. It seems probable that these groups would be reasonably well informed on the issues involved. Even the L 225 group, who were probably heavily represented in the low frequency contact group, probably have an awareness of the problem. It must also be remembered that the average age of the L group is slightly less than 18 years as indicated by Table 105 in Appendix A. It is quite probable that a correlation might exist between youth and intensity of feeling for the disabled. Young people, even from the working class, might be expected to be motivated by altrustic causes. 0n the other hand, Table 20 indicates a significant negative relationship between intensity HP content scores for the L group. This finding is somewhat contrary to the interpretation just off- ered in the previous paragraph. However, it might be argued, using the results just cited from Table 20, that young males of the L group would value strength and virileness and tend to reject physical limitations. From this frame of reference, physical disability might be seen as a threat to masculinity. Tables 18 and 19 indicate there was no significant differ- ences on mean intensity scores on both progressive and tradit- ional attitudes toward education when compared with high and low frequency of contact. However, Table 20 indicates there are sig— nificant relationships between content and intensity when viewed correlationally. This is particularly true as far as progressive educational attitudes are concerned. The relationship between l\) l\) 0“ content and intensity is in the predicted direction for both the SER and L group. The intensity scores for the SER group are in a positive direction as far as progressive educational attitudes are concerned. The L group have intensity scores in the negative direction as far as traditional attitudes are concerned while having intensity scores which have a low correlation on progres— sive educational attitudes. The E group, on the other hand, have significant positive intensity scores on both progressive and traditional educational attitudes. This finding may have several possible explanations. For example, this group may verbalize democratic progressive ideals and yet cling to a basic traditional orientation without being aware of any discrepancy. It may also be true that those who hold strong progressive educational attitudes and those who hold strong traditional educational attitudes have a similar representation in the sample. It may also be that the significant correlation between con— tent and intensity on the attitude scales is simply a function of a reasonably large N. Legimate questions can be raised to the appropriateness of the statistic used. Future studies should attempt to explore, for example, whether this kind of relationship is linear or curvilinear and better analyzed by some other sta— tistical method. 227 Peru: Tables 21-23 indicate that mean intensity scores between those who indicated high frequency of contact and those who indicated low frequency of contact with both handicapped per— sons and education were not significantly different. It is inter— esting to note, however, that in each case the direction was in the reverse direction of the hypothesis. Felty reported similar finding with reference to attitudes— toward—handicapped—persons. Perhaps his interpretations have relevence here. One possible interpretation is that within a setting where people are occupationally involved with handicapped per- sons there is tendency for people to become less favorably disposed toward them as they are more frequently involved with them. A possible theoretical support of this point of View is related to Allport's observations regarding the formation of negative attitudes when contact is with per— sons who are perceived as being inferior... Another point of view, however, is that the attitude instru— ment may be measuring only a limited portion of the atti— tude universe related to handicapped persons. A number of ATDP items would appear to reflect somewhat sterotyped statements about handicapped persons, so that an indi- vidual with a direct and prolonged working relationship with handicapped persons might appear less accepting on a ”stereotype“ level and have more difficulty responding than someone whose relationships were less frequent and perhaps more superficial (Felty, 1965, p. 170). The author has experience working in Michigan institutions concerned with mental health. It is his ”intuitive feeling” that much of the apparent cynicism among the professional staff is basically an expression of disappointment that patients, to whom 228 they have a great deal of commitment, but have not benefited more rapidily and effectively from their efforts. Whether these observations can be generalized to the Peru- vian sample in general and to the SER group and the M group in particular is of course an open question. At any rate, it was the author's feeling that the particular SER group, represented by the Peruvian Patronota, had a genuine sense of commitment to the handicapped and operationalized this commitment in stimulat— ing and enthusiastic ways. It is reasonable to conclude that the respondents indicating high frequency of contact with handicapped persons in Table 21 are from the SER group. Granting this assumption, as well as the assumption that the author's description of the Peruvian SER group is reasonably accurate, Felty's second observation would seem to be applicable. Contact variables and their relationship to favorable attitudes (H:4) Table 25 indicates a significant correlational relationship between the combined contact variables and favorable attitudes toward handicapped persons in both Colombia and Peru. It is of interest to note that in both countries ease of avoidance contrib— uted most to the relationship. In other words, contact with handi- 229 capped persons could have been avoided. Perhaps the implications can also be made that a choice to be voluntarily involved with handicapped persons was a factor. Jordan (1963, 1964) has noted that many of the agencies work- ing with the SER group in Latin America are voluntary in nature and are not directly associated with or controlled by their respective governments. He has further noted that their influence within the country is far greater than the number of workers involved in their agencies would suggest. It may well be that the above finding (suggesting a choice to be voluntarily involved with handicapped persons) is a clue to the apparent success that SER groups are having in bringing into focus the potential of disabled persons. Table 25 also indicates that a significant relationship exists between progressive educational attitudes toward educa— tion and the combined contact variables in both Colombia and Peru. A significant relationship does not exist, however, between the combined contact variables and traditional educational attitudes. Enjoyment of contact when partialled out contributed most to the correlation concerning progressive education attitudes in both countries. Perhaps it reflects the author's bias to suggest that those who hold progressive attitudes toward a given cause tend to be active in challenging the status quo with reference to that cause 230 while those holding traditional attitudes toward a given cause emphasize the dangers and risks involved in change as far as the cause or object is concerned. However, it might be argued from this frame of reference that those holding progressive attitudes toward a given cause would tend to derive more satisfaction from issues that they were convinced would bring about social better- ment even at the risk of personal sacrifice. Value variables in relation to atti— tudes (H:5-H:7) As indicated in Chapter 4, no attempt will be made to inter— pret the findings relative to those scoring high and low on Benev~ olence value because of the limited number of respondents in the high scoring category. This limitation applies gnly to the anal- ysis concerned with high and low responses on Benevolence of the total sample in Colombia. As indicated by Table i02, the only hypothesis supported in Colombia comparing high and low scores on Leadership and Recog- nition values and attitude scores was the predicted relationship of low scores on Recognition and attitudes-towardwhandicapped— persons. The only hypotheSiS supported comparing high and low scores on the three value scales and the attitude scales in Peru was the 231 predicted relationship between high scores on Leadership value and traditional~attitudes-toward-education. The issue of concept equivalence has been discussed in the previous chapters. The care taken to achieve concept equivalence in this study was also described. The question, however, arises as to how much concept equivalence can be achieved if the concepts involved are not differentially articulated within a culture. For example, in some traditional cultures Benevolence value is viewed within a comparative orientation rather than within the asset orientation of this study. This problem is further illustrated in Tables 31 and 32. Those in the Peruvian sample who scored high on Leadership value had significantly higher mean scores on both the progressive educational attitude scale and the traditional educational atti~ tude scale. The issue relating to the reliability and validity of the instruments in this specific setting should also be raised. It must be remembered that the majority of the respondents had never filled out a questionnaire prior to doing so for this study. Having the one~right~answer had also been the focus of educational training for most respondents. Recommendations will be made in the next section relative to the revision of the instruments which should make a meaningful contribution to the problem of cross-cultural concept equivalence. 232 Limitations resulting from a failure to obtain the desired number of respondents from each occupational group in Colombia and Peru have already been described. Beyond this, however, cautions in interpretations are necessary because of the uneven number of male and female respondents within the occupational categories. In Colombia the majority of male and female respondents were' female'While the majority of the respondents from Peru were male. As predicted, females had significantly higher mean scores than males on Benevolence value in both Colombia and Peru. Men also had higher (more negative) HP scores in Colombia which was also predicted. Contrary to Felty's (1965) findings, there was very little difference in terms of means scores between men and women on progressive attitudes toward education although the minor differ— ences were in the predicted direction. Attitude scores as related to change variables (H:8 and H:12) Felty (1965) suggested that attitudes toward change might have a salient relationship to attitudes toward education and toward the disabled and recommended change—oriented-items to be included in the study. As seen from Table 47, there was a sig- nificant relationship between HP attitudes and change oriented' 233 items in Peru and progressive-educational-attitudes and change oriented items in Colombia. While not significant, there was a relatively high relationship between progressive-educational- attitudes and change oriented items in Peru. Colombia: Table 48 reveals that the combined change vari— ables had little differential predictive power related to HP atti— tudes or traditional—attitudes—toward-education in Colombia. Change orientation items involving child rearing practices and automation items, however, made a significant positive contribu— tion to the multiple correlation between the combined change orientation items and progressive—educational-attitudes. The political leadership change item, when partialled out, made a significant negative contribution to the correlation with pro— gressive educational attitudes. The political leadership response might be explained in terms of the unique Colombian political system described on page 68. A change from this system might be seen as a return to a traditional and outmoded method which they feel they have essen- tially outgrown. The positive contribution of the automation item can proba— bly be interpretated in terms of what was said earlier about the economic growth of Colombia. Lindow (1964) reports that one of 234 the most dynamic factors in the Colombian economy is the manufac- turing sector. The item refering to child rearing practices made the larg— est differential contribution to the multiple correlation. It must be remembered that the Colombian sample is largely composed of SER workers and teachers. It is this group that probably would have the greatest opportunity to be exposed to a liberal philo— sophy about child rearing practices. Table 8 gives the results of the mean differences between the occupational groups on four of the change variables. There are differences on all four variables significant at the .005 level of confidence. Tables 82-84, however, reveal that the SER group and the E group are not significantly different from each other on any of the four variables but both groups are signifi- cantly different from the L group on all of the four variables. It would, therefore, seem logical to assume that the SER respond— ents and the E respondents make approximately equal contributions to the partial correlation in Table 48. It is somewhat surprising to find so little differential contribution to the multiple correlations on items involving health practices and birth control practices on the attitude scales in Table 48. 235 Peru; Table 85 indicates that the M group had the highest mean scores on three of the change variables, however, none of these differences were considered statistically significant. The SER group had a mean score significantly different from the other groups on the items refering to child rearing practices.1 The finding is particularly difficult to interpret. One might wonder how much the M group, who were in a special training program for executives, were influenced by their superVisors from the United States, or for that matter, how representative this sample of executives are of the Peruvian executive in general. Table 48 indicates that the item refering to child rearing practices made a significant contribution to the relationship with progressive educational attitudes. However, it is also interest— ing to note there was little correlation between HP attitudes and child rearing practices. The contradictory finding between HP scale scores and self change scores and between progressive—atti- tude-toward-education scale scores and self change scores are equally hard to explain. Perhaps Rosenberg's (1960) observation that strength of attitude is related to how clearly a value has been assimilated or articulated may have relevence here. 1 No attempt will be made to interpret the mean differences of the E and L groups with the SER or M groups because of the sampling problems described earlier on page 72. 236 One might speculate that these kinds of discrepancies are a result of conflicting loyalties between the old and the new; the traditional and the progressive. It must be remembered that Peru has been described as a traditional country. Changes are often painful. This was dramatized by the fact that several items relating to change had to be omitted from the questionnaire because they were considered too sensitive to be included. Discussion of group differences on value scores and attitudes scores in Colombia and Peru, and the SER groups in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas (H:9—H:ll) Colombia: Table 102 reveals that the hypotheses concerning the SER group with reference to scores on the HP attitude scale and the value scales were all confirmed with one exception. The SER group had the lowest score on Leadership value but these dif— ferences, while in the direction of the hypotheses, were not sta— tistically significant. On the other hand, the hypothesis concerning scores on the educational scales were not confirmed. However, the SER group did have the highest scores on the progressive educational scale and the lowest score on the traditional educational scale. These differences, while in the predicted direction, were not signifi- cant. 237 The zero-order correlations found in Table 49 and 50 are not clear—cut in terms of the results although they are generally in the hypothesized direction. These results are summarized on pages f 160-161. Tables 54 and 60 indicate that the mean differences between the SER group and the E group are significantly different on HP attitudes scores and Benevolence scores. These findings do not entirely support the observations made earlier that apparently little value differences exist between the SER group and the E group in Colombia. Table 62, however, indicates that while significant mean differences on Recognition scores do exist between the SER and the L groups, as well as between the E group and the L group, the differences between the SER group and the E group are not signifi- cantly different. While these results tend to confirm for Colombia some of the assumptions concerning the value structure of the occupational groups, the results of hypotheses 5—7, which look at the relation- ship between attitude and value, are somewhat harder to interpret. A recommendation concerning facet theory, which appears in the next section, will speak to this problem. 238 _P§£u: Table 55 indicates that significant differences do exist among the occupational groups on HP scale scores. However, since no attempt is made to draw inferences for the L or E group in Peru, these differences must be questioned. Table 56 (Appendix A) indicates that while the mean differences between the SER group are in the predicted direction they are not significantly differ- ent from each other. The SER group, on the other hand, has value scores which are in the predicted direction. All of these differences were signif- icant with the exception of scores relating to Recognition value. The SER group had higher mean scores on both the traditional and progressive educational attitude scale, however, both of these scores were not significantly different from the other groups. The value scale scores were better predicted as hypothesized than were the attitude scale scores for the Peruvian sample as far as the SER group is concerned. As suggested by the theoretical model of the study, cultures that have a history of traditionalism, but are in the process of change, can be expected to express ambivalent attitudes toward progressive attitudes such as asset attitudes toward handicapped persons and progressive educational attitudes. It can be specu— lated that a clear—cut value system that spawns these kinds of attitudes has not yet evolved in Peru. 239 It should be remembered, however, that the Kerlinger educa- tion scales, which were used as a measure for progressive and tra- ditional educational attitudes, were normalized on a U.S. college population. The Yuker ”Attitudes Toward Disabled Persons Scale", used as a measure for attitudes toward handicapped persons, was normalized on a New York light manufacturing company which employs disabled workers. The validity of these instruments as a measure of HP attitudes and educational attitudes in South America is of course Open to question. Colombia, which could be said to be relatively closer than Peru on the progressive—traditional—cultural-continuum to the United States, is faced with the problem of violence described earlier. Hess (1963) reports there has been little action at the government level as far as rehabilitation has been concerned. Nonetheless, it can be hypothesized that the disabilities result- ing from mass violence has caused deep concern and awareness that something must be done. It seems reasonable to predict that a number of private agencies will be created as well as increasing government involvement in this major problem area. The major SER group in Peru, known as the Patronota, is a very young organization with a promising future. While they have done an excellent job, they are just beginning to see the results of their efforts. Time will be needed to translate their concerns into the national consciousness. 240 The issue of cross-cultural comparability needs to be raised as far as both the attitude and value instruments are concerned. Does a score in one culture mean the same thing as a score in another culture? How is the psychological zero point separating favorable and unfavorable responses to a given item determined? The implications of content and intensity scaling, which have been adequately discussed elsewhere (pp. 51—56), are cogent issues here. Interpretations are considerably less potent as a result of lack of scaling as far as the responses of the attitude instruments are concerned. Facet design, which should make a real contribution to cross—cultural analysis, will be discussed in the next major section. Cross National SER Comparisons: The Kansas SER sample was added to the study for primarily two reasons. Samples from two occupational groups in Peru and one occupational group in Colom— bia were not collected as a result of technical problems beyond the researcher's control. Candidly, another comparison was needed to satisfy the requirements of an acceptable doctoral research experience. Beyond this, however, was the unique opportunity to compare three SER occupational groups from countries that are supposedly on different points of the progressive—traditional- cultural—continuum. 241 Table 102 reveals that the hypothesis relating to higher HP mean scores and lower Leadership value mean scores for the Kansas sample was confirmed. The Kansas sample scored lower on Benevo- lence value than did the Colombian SER sample. Both the Colombian and Peruvian SER group had lower mean scores on Recognition value than did the Kansas sample. The last two reported results, of course, are not in the hypothesized direction. The Kansas sample's higher score on the progressive-educa- tional—attitudes was nearly significant, however, there were lit- tle mean differences between the countries on the traditional educational scale scores. The results comparing HP attitudes are particularly inter- esting. The order of mean score differences is in harmony with the hypothesis (Table 58, Appendix A). Perhaps some of the fol— lowing observations have relevence with reference to the higher scores by the Kansas sample. Several U.S. presidents have initiated major legislation that has been concerned with the SER groups within the United States. Economic returns as well as humanitarian ideals were motivating factors in these actions. A great deal of energy has been devoted to articulating this concern through the mass media. Major centers have been established at a number of U.S. universi— ties for the training of SER workers. Labor unions as well as industry are showing increasing concern for and toward the disabled. 242 SER contact with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons (H:13) As indicated by Tables 87-89, the SER group had significantly more contact with the mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons than did either the E or L group in Colombia. The SER group in Peru also had significantly more contact with mentally retarded and emotionally disturbed persons than did the M group (Tables 90-92). The results so clearly support the hypothesis that further interpretation would seem redundant. Part III: Recommendations Recommendations relating to the instruments One of the probable reasons that scaling (see H:l, H:2) was not successful in this study is related to the complexity of atti— tude composition. Attitudes are usually multidimensional rather than unidimensional in nature. Guttman's facet theory (1959, 1961) suggests that the attitude universe represented by the item content can be substructured into components which are systemati- cally related according to the number of identical conceptual elements they hold in common. The substructuring of a universe into components facilitates a sampling of items within each of the derived components, and also enables the prediction of relation— Elements 243 ships between various components of the attitude universe. It should also provide a set of clearly defined component areas for cross—national comparisons. In an analysis of research by Basthide and van den Berghe (1957), Guttman (1959) has proposed that in respect to intergroup behavior there are three necessary facetsl which may be combined according to definite procedures to determine the component structure of the attitude universe: Facets A. Subject's B. Referent C. Referent's Inter— Behavior group Behavior a1 belief bl subject's group Cl comparative a2 overt action b2 subject himself C2 interaction Fig. l.-—Basic facets used to determine component structure of attitude universe. One element from each facet must be represented in any given statement, and these statements can be grouped into components of the attitude universe by a multiplication of the facets A x B x C, yielding“2 x 2.x 2 combination of elements or 8 semantic com- ponents in all; e.g., (1) a1 bl C1, (a) a1 b1 Cl ... (8) a1 b1 Cl. 1 The term facet was proposed by Guttman as a less ambigous substitute for Fisher's ”factor". He has defined it as "a set that is a component of a Cartesian product”. (Proceedings of the 15th International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, 1957). 244 It can be seen that components (1) and (2) have 2 elements in common (a1 bl) and one different (Cl and c2), whereas components (1) and (8) have no elements in common. Contiguity theory pre- dicts that responses to questions in component (1) will be more similar to component (2) than they will be to component (8) because they have more identical elements. This closer simi- larity should be reflected in a higher correlational relation- ship between the components. This predicted relationship has been obtained in various studies of intergroup behavior (Foa, 1958, 1963; Guttman, 1959, 1961). An analysis of intergroup behavior possibilities suggest that the facets proposed by Guttman could be expanded. A more inclusive set of facets and their elements could be stated as follows: A. Subject's B. Psychological C. Concrete- D. Referent Behavior Level ness al belief bl rational cl symbolic dl other a2 overt b2 affective c2 opera— d2 inter- action tional active Referent's Intergroup Behavior Elements [:11 e1 comparative e2 interactive Fig. 2.-—Extension of facets used in Fig. 1 to determine component structure of attitude universe. 245 The multiplication of facets ABCDE yields a possible 32 combinations of elements at six levels of multiple strength.l Six of these components seem particularly fruitful, and represent each of the levels of attitude strength. Figure 3 shows levels of attitude "stpfingth", the element composition of the selected components, and a tentative descriptive term for each component. Each successive level changes elements so that the components have a simplex ordering (Guttman, 1954a). Levels Component Composition Descriptive Term I a1 bl Cl d1 e1 Stereotype. II a1 b1 c1 d1 e2 Normative behavior. III a1 bl cl d2 e2 Moral evaluation ("right" role behavior). IV a1 bl c2 d2 e2 Hypothetical role behavior (social interaction). V a1 b2 c2 d2 e2 Actual feelings. VI a2 b2 c2 d2 e2 Actual behavior (social interaction). Fig. 3.--Levels, component composition, and component lab- els for a sincomponent universe of intergroup attitudes. 1 i.e., the more subscript "2" elements a component con- tains, the greater the "strength" of the attitude. It should also be noted that because of semantic contradictions not all combinations are logical. The selection of a ”best'' set of com— ponents from the 312 possible is still partly a matter of judg- ment. 246 Given the contiguity theory, and the contiguity hypothesis of Foa and Guttman, it is possible to construct a hypothetical correlation matrix to illustrate the anticipated simplex correla— tion structure among these components. It is assumed for conven— ience that a maximum p between two components is in the nature of .60, with four elements in common. As the number of common ele— ments between two components decrease, the correlations between the components also decrease in size. I II III IV V I II .60 III .50 .60 IV .40 .50 .60 V .30 .40 .50 .60 VI .20 .30 .40 .50 .60 Fig. 4.--Hypothetical correlation matrix illustrating expected simplex ordering. coma .m mumsunwh sonmomwm amaoom pmaammc mo ouauwumsH meumH cmEuuso mecca zuwmuo>ficb ouaum cmmfisofiz cuckoo .m mach I'll'l|||'|'l'|lll'lll|Il'lll'|l|ll'| 45 3.33.3 fifl3\o.: 823.8 A X.IMIIIIh.H E O m m D U m < X coaumosow ".5030”. moosuwuumH—lh 3 Q1200 UHM3Ou\AHV mmomgm mom \\Amv szmazoo moxxxov ca nmaaooq\\amv mumbOm wo\\nmc oneommHa venues moxxxoc mews muHm 9H2: mo\\xoc BZmHmHomm nouxxxmv qm>mq mcaaoonum mo \.Awum NA UGOEOUGM>U$ H H MO mmomMDm wnu How BZMBZOO xcmu NBHKOHmm Sufl3 mozm4¢> m uofl>mnon HmflUOm en wanmuo>mwcs x ucwEmon>0U Hmcoflum: mh Hmuusmc Nx T mango: NO .200 wnu pumkou a ucmEmoH0>w© Hmcowumoo> mm wanmuo>mw x ucmEmucm>UMIuH0m an wocwam> m mo Any mo uso can :H mm HmHUOm m: m mo Eooummmao wcu mnemuso m QmBHamucwe co mucwumm mm N m 30: mm museum p pmHQMmflU xaamuflmmcm o Eouw mHoou guano muamozum m0 >3 QMBUMMHQ wvonuwe mcaonme H v Hmcofivfipmuu Hm . mam5©fl>flpcfl U omumSnomHmE >HHMHUOm U mumsummu Hm m mmousom mmNH muflm aficD Moon 0 God owns Amy .u .Q AQV xnuamw3 Nu Amy pwfiwfiowmmc: HU mucmflmflomm muchSum mm m Aoc wumscmumlumom a m moflocwmm Hmcofiumcuwucfi m > amnw>acs v u. . n mmwucwmm mum>fium em you qm>mq oquoomUm sumocoowmuumom mp xumncoomm m4 an xumucmEmHm Ho>mq mafiaoonum Amv uv cofiumofium wqmmom m ucwE:um>om Hmcoflumc mcfi>w£ CNMBOu mmvsufluum m.AXV ucmvcommmm ucmECHm>om HMUOH mucwumm Hwaammsw Aav ZOHBdUDQm QM<3OB meDBHBB< m0 MHmMA4Z€ Hm0ch wuaum cmmHHUHz uumucoo ou mm>HumcnouHm no :0HumucwHuo mmcmno m: cuckoo .m anon .A :oHumosow usona mmcwH3ocx Hm V can uumucoo no ucmeaoflcm No can qumoHoHku N: uumucou wo ucaoad Ho ousuosuum wsHm> H: a muouomw uomucoo mmmHo HoHUOm AwE HOV COHummsuuo mE oHnauo>muca nx 9:005." S: 30H NH N M can m ha wouUHUwum mum mmmmmwmmw.mmmmmw mmmmmwwwm wanna mm .uoomm comm :HLuH3 w H M xcmu NBHmonm nuH3 wuzmq<> Hmuuso: x Hucsoemv :oHumoDUw E LmHz H H anmuo>6w x x3 «2 g oocon> wmm HE HHV Ax. Mow>man HMHUOm vn m wo uso tam CH m unwemon>at HmcoHumc mn cowucw>wum NH HmHUOm m: N mea>m o m um3o o 0 Ho thmuso m mun 0H 3 «Dow . L ucoemon>oo HmGOHum00> mm m 4400 cu o u unw600cm>um HH w mmommbm 20 w Bzmezoo HmsuomHHouCH Hz mo EooummmHo mSu ome©wluHow Hm wmo Ham ucmucoo AHV Amy COHUMUO‘H nwmgu Hoe Any m Uchuw 0 633m 50 m. mumscmumlumom Q popumuwu >HkucmE mo w mucmumm mu huHmuo>Hcs n 39. «u m 3:on me 3336 33323.“ mu m H Eouw mHOOu mchs mucousum m ha omaommHQ mUOLqu mcH>oHQEm H v qu Hm>mH ozHHoomUm >Hmocoommnumoa 9 an coHudoscm Mammbm HmcoHuHuouu w H mHmscH>HUCH U pwumsnpmHmE >HHMH00m 0 > own up muwnomwu o umvco nouusom mmNHIMMNWIMNmm uoom mo H COHuUOHHQ humucmEmHm 2 Amy HOV anuHmm3 «0 Amy m H Hw>mH mcHHoozom thMHom mas o Hmv mucmeHowm Hoe mucousum on .m.D 0% uoHocmmm Hm:0Humcuou:H mm meumH m» V msoum ummuoucH mmHocomm wum>Hum m mH>mHmomsw ¢> ch ou mcHtuouum mx mcH>m£ oum3ou mwcsuHuum ma 0» mad uooum chuuwm mHn cH Badozommmm %psum ou cmcmHmwp mH uomnoum coummmou one ucoecuo>om HanoHum: mm .: .t HmmHv>uucsoo :mHm< «x HmeEHn Hx N quEGHw>om HMOOH m Hmmthuucsoo :wUHuu4 Nx pampcommmm mucwumm Hm HmmHv>uucsoo .umEd cHumq H> HXV uoHHmmsm deumz Adv Hwy ZOHB‘UDQQ QMdSOE meDBHBB< HdfiDBHDU mmOMU ZO BUmbomm mUmH szp. error d ,f. of A. of V. (Z R"p) 4 In all Duncan table“ the subscript R will be used for the SER group due 1 D ~o space lim cations. This level of confidence will be used on all Duncan‘s Multiple Range Teets. P < .05. TABLE 10.—~Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of age scores for four occupational categories in Peru. Range of Mean (pl 2 3 4 d.f. 110 Studentized ranges 2.80 2.95 - 3.05 for 5% test (Zp) R'p (R'=SzpllO) 20.35 21.45 22.17 Mean differences XL -'YR' c 4) 23.64 ”L — EL 35:) 4.82 'RM — XL (p3) 30.67* it - EM' (p2) 2.62 'XM - EL (p2) 3.60 XL - EL (p2) 13.85 s = 52.768 = 7.27 // TABLE 13.-~Duncan”s New Multiple Range Testl analysis of educa- tion for respondents working in the area of SER\in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 200 Studentized ranges 2.72 2.92 for 5% teSt (Zp) R'p (R“=szp200) 3.43 3.67 Mean differences EL “‘YP (p3) l.48* XK ~ XC (p2) '11.35* EC - 3.5}? (p2) 3.67”)" 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s = J1.654 - 1.26 TABLE l4.~eDuncan's New Multiple Range Testl analysis of age for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 197 Studentized ranges 2.72 2.92 for 5% test‘(Zp) R'p (R'=szp197) 27.39 29.40 Mean differences 'xK - 28 (p3) 61.47* kg -'§¢ (p2) 67.1l* KC " sip (p2) 18.85 s = (101.435—= 10.07 TABLE 54.nwDuncan's New Multiple Range Test1 applied to means of attitude-toward-disabledmpersons scores for three occupational categories in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 211 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R"p lR'=szPle) 19.4/ 20.53 Mean differences 2L,- 2. (p3) 43.12% EL - 2L (p2) 34.40% 'xL - 23 (p2) 17.61 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. p < .05 s = «49.394 = 7.03 it TABLE 56.~-Duncan“s New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of attitudevtoward-disabledmpersons scores for four occupational categories in Peru. Range of Mean (9) 2 3 4 d.f. 116 Studentized ranges 2.83 2.98 3.07 for 5% test (Zp) R"p (R’ szpll6) 19.05 20.05 20.66 Mean differences XL - 7M (p4) 20.26 ”L - EL (p3) 6.36 'YR - KM {p31 15.76 2L ~ 2L gp2) 10.14 'xE m XL (p2) 12.51 EL ~ EL (p2) .94 s = /45—.257—.—. 6.73 TABLE 58.~wDuncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of attitude-towardedisabledwpersons scores for respondents working in the area of SER in Colombia. Peru. and Kansas. Range of Mean (pl 2 3 d.f. 192 Studentized ranges 2-77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R’p (R ”=szp192) 17.174 18.004 Mean differences 2. ~ 2k (p3) 41.201* KP u Rb (p2) 21.90% 'XC - xk (p2) 30 503* 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s = /38.5 = 6.2 TABLE 60.~~Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of Benevolence scores for three occupational categories in Colombia. Range of Mean (pl 2 3 d.f. 214 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R p (R =szp214} 12.58 13.26 Mean differences 375.. -= XE (p271 15.45% ...... ..1._- y ‘ XE .. XL (p2) 9098 r______ S = \/20.742 = 4.54 TABLE 62.~wDuncan”s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to means of Recognition scores for three occupational categories in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 214 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R.‘p (R”=szp2l4) 9.058 9.558 Mean differences 2L 4 2L (p3) 23.226* '2L 1 2L (p21 l6.302* if M RR (p2) .234 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s = /10.718 = 3.27 TABLE 65.-~Duncan“s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to means of Benevolence value scores for the four occupational categories in Peru. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 4 d.f. 112 tudentized ranges 2.80 2.95 3.05 for 5% test (Zp) R”p (R’=szip112) 13.23 13.92 14.43 Mean differences 2L - 2L (p4) 23.40* 35R - 35M (p31 14.72'* ‘2E - 2L (p31 l6.94* XE - XM (p2) 2.71 ‘XR m 2% (p2) 7.97 XM.‘ 2L (p2) 16.32* 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation * p < .05 s = /22.357 = 4.73 TABLE 68.—wDuncan°s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to means of iLeadership value scores for the four occupational groups in Peru. Range of Means {p} 2 3 4 d.f. 109 Studentized ranges 2.80 2.95 3.05 for 5% test (Zp) R‘p {szszp109) 16 912 17.918 18.422 Mean differences XL -‘XL (p4) 17.523 ‘XM ~‘iR {p3} 25.152* 2E "ir {p3} 8.343 ‘XM - 2E lpz; 11.08 it M RR :p2} 11.348 'XR - XL ng) .498 s = /36 331 = 6.04 TABLE 70.nwDuncan“s New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of Benevolence value scores for respondents in the area of SER 1n Colombia, Peru. and Kansas. u—-—. ...—r —. r“..— ._ 3:...- v-4”- -— m -m— ... -—-.-—_ ..._ - .... u-n. -_. Range of Mean .pj 2 3 d.f. 187 tudentized ranges 2.7? 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R’p .R =szpl87, 14.62 14.71 Mean differences XC w XL ip31 14.27* ‘ic - 2K (p2; 13 69 ‘ZK - if ”p2; 4.70 1 ea Table 4. p- 115 for full explanation. s i p < .05 s = /22.407 m 4.73 TABLE 72.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Test1 applied to means of Recognition value scores for respondents in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 187 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R' (R'=sz 187) 10.33 10.89 P P Mean differences 36K - 35C (p3) 27.12* s = /13.939 = 3.73 TABLE 74.—-Duncan”s New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of Leadership value scores for respondents in the area of SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 182 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R p (R'=szp182) 14.62 14.71 Mean differences EC - EEK (p3) 30.74* SEC -- E'P (p2) 4.57 EP - 2K (p2) 18.91* 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. *px’. .05 s = /28.899 = 5.28 TABLE 82.-~Duncan°s New Multiple Range Testl applied to child rearing practices for three occupational groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 235 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R' (R'z z 235 2.47 2.60 p ‘ S p ) Mean differences 2k - 2: {p3) 7.59* s = ,/.795 = .89 TABLE 83.-~Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to the the health practice variable for three occupational groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 235 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R' (R”=szp235) 2.08 2.19 P Mean differences it - it (p3) 5.41* 'xR - xi (p2) 3091. 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. P < ~05 S = /.565 = .75 i. TABLE 84.-“Duncan“s New Multiple Range Testl applied to automa- tion mean scores for three occupational groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 232 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R‘p (R“=szp232) 2.24 2.47 Mean differences 23 m EL (p3) 3.96* it - RR (p2) 1.40 SER "7 22,1, (p2) 2350* s = {.661 = .81 TABLE 86.~-Duncan“s New Multiple Range Testl applied to child rearing practices for three occupational groups in Peru. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 4 d.f. 118 Studentized ranges 2.80 2.95 3.05 for 5% test (Zp) R“p (R'=szp118) Mean differences KM - 2L (p4) 2.71 'iM ~ 2. (p3) 2.79 Rt - Xi (p3) 1.75 '“M ~ it {p2) 1.19 '?E -'XR (p2) .99 ‘XR - XL (p2) 1012 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s =/C754 = .87 TABLE 88.~~Duncan’s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to amount of contact with mentally retarded persons for four occupational groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. 210 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) Rap (R'=Szp210) 4.65 4.91 Mean differences KR "' 23E (p2) 7078* it - it (p2) 2.48 S = 1.46 = 1.68 TABLE 89.~~Duncan°s New Multiple Range Testl applied to amount of contact with emotionally disturbed persons for four occupa— tion groups in Colombia. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 d.f. l89 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R"p {R“=szp189) 4.57 4.82 Mean differences 32R 4 2E (p2) 6047*" XE - XL (p2) .28 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s = /1.42 = 1.65 TABLE 91.—~Duncan"s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to amount of contact with mentally retarded persons for four occupational groups in Peru. Range of Mean (p) 2 3 4 d.f. 109 Studentized ranges 2.80 2.95 3.05 for 5% test (Zp) R'p (R =szp109) 4.12 4.34 4.48 Mean differences xfi — 2M (p4) 5.33* X2 ~ X1 (p3) 1.89 fig - EM (p3) 2.29 XR - YE (p2) 1.95 'xE - 21 (p2) .38 ‘xL _ EM (p2) 1.41 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. 7’. p < .05 s = 1.22 = 1.47 TABLE 92."~Duncan”s New Multiple Range Test1 applied to amount of contact with emotionally disturbed persons for occupational groups in Peru. Range of Mean {p} 2 3 4 d.f. 109 Studentized ranges 2.80 2.95 3.05 for 5% test €Zp) Rlp (R”=szp109) 4.40 4.64 4.79 Mean differences XR "” XM (p4) 7 o 99* YR “ Y]; flip} ) 3 o 6 7 3.53 "- 33M “ED-3‘ 3.4]. ‘xE 4'2: {p2} 1.34 xL - xM {p2} 1.21 s = 1.31 = 1.57 TABLE 96.mmDuncan“s New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of respondents working in SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas for Support value scores. v-u--——. Range of Mean 1p) 2 3 d.f. 187 Studentized ranges 4°77 2°92 for 5% tesc (Zp) R“p {R“=szp187) 10.625 12.381 Mean differences ‘xK - 2p (p2) 29.189* KP ~ Yb (p2) 13.83* 1 See Table 4. p. 115 for full explanation. * p < .05 s = /17.962 = 4.24 TABLE 97.--Duncan's New Multiple Range Testl applied to means of respondents working in SER in Colombia, Peru, and Kansas for Con- formity value scores. i Range of Means 2 3 d.f. 187 Studentized ranges 2.77 2.92 for 5% test (Zp) R'p (R'=szp187) 14.606 15.680 Mean differences SEC - EEK (p3) 65.867* EC - ‘56P (p2) 11.526 ‘35P - 2K (p2) 38.717* 1 See Table 4, p. 115 for full explanation. p < .05 s = I/28.647 = 5.37 it) APPENDIX A A-2 Means, Standard Deviations, and Number of Respondents for 68 Variables for the Total Sample, Males, and Females by Occupational Groups and Countries AMQSOEMV ma sm.4 mm.m 4N m¢.4 mm.m mo ms.4 4m.m 8844maomumm .om soflmwawm 64 mm. om.m 4N mo.4 m4.m >6 mm. 4o.m mo moguuuogEH .m4 m4 mm.m ma.m 4N mm.m ma.w mm 46.8 44.8 mmc4444m .m4 mm ma.m4 mm.m4 4m 4s.mm mo.mm om mn.mm «p.44 080024 .n4 ma mo.4 we. 4m mm.4 mm.4 as 44.4 mm. cmun44ro .84 thCSEEOU 84 m4. mm.m 4m we. om.m so am. mm.m mucmw4mmm .m4 mpHQDEEOU me me. so.m 4m mo. sm.m so so. am.m 40:04 .44 as 48.6 m4.sm 4m mm.s mm.mm mm mm.s s4.mm 084 .m4 am m4.4 4m.a s4 44.4 mm.m 4a m4.4 no.4 m>4pmcump4< .m4 mm 4». am.m m4 ma. mo.m ma No. ow.m Ammo pawssoflcm .44 mm mo.4 sm.m m4 mm.4 om.m 44 08.4 mm.m Ammo c480 .04 pumvcou 8N om.4 mm.a om mo.4 oo.m Ra ms.4 mn.a 40 485084 .m #UM#QOU ow mo.a mm.» 4m ma.m no.m so om.m on.s mo sum4um> .8 mm 4m.¢ sm.m4 4m mh.m om.m4 mm No.4 ma.M4 m4nmumamm4 .n mm 50.4 om.mm 4m 4m.m sm.om mm om.m 4m.4m oucm4o>mcmm .6 mm sm.¢ 4s.m4 4m 4w.m mm.m mm mm.a 84.84 mucmacmmmocH .m mm mm.m mm.o 4m ss.m mo.m mm mm.m 44.x 80444cmoomm .4 mm mo.m m4.mm 4m h4.a mm.mm mm ow.m mm.mm sp4suomcoo .m mm mm.a am.04 4m ma.m os.m mm no.4 ms.m puomasm .m as oo. oo.m 4m 00. 00.4 mo 64. 88.4 xmm .4 Z .Q.m cam: 44 .mom Cows. 44 oaom cmmz 048804 n mmm 0488 a mum 484O4 a mum m4nm4um> .M4950400 Q4 QSOHW Hmcowpmasooo mmm 054 How wpcmpcommmn mHMEmm UCm .mHmE .HMpOp ha mmHQm44m> mo 40% mpcmpcommvu mo Hogan: pom msofipm4>0© ommpamum .mcmwznaomoa m4m4 5% 5% 0% 0% >0 hw hv 0% 0w 0% hv 08 4% mV 0% 0% 08 0% 0w 0% 8% 0% 8% >8 5? 0w #8 mw o¢.H ON.m mo.m NO.H HO.H 04.4 No.4 00. mm. mm. mm. mm» mN.H 00. #0. on. 08. 00° #0. N0. 40.4 mmoa NH.H mvoa mH.H bmoa mm. mm. 84.4 HNOH mm. 00. mmoa 00.4 08. mb.m ON.h h0.¢ mo.m 0H.m mm.N Hm.N mm.N Nw.m mm.N m¢.m m¢.m h¢.N mH.m NN.N 8N.m mm.m Hm.v 48.4 88.4 Hmom NN.m mmom N0om mmom Hwom 0mom omom om.m Hw.m m¢.m N0om wmom woow wflom ON Hm 0H ma ma am am am am am am am am am am am ON Hm ON ma Hm Hm ON ON ON ON Hm ON am am am am am am am Ob.H NN.m 0H.N 00. mm. NH.H NO.H 0m. mm. mm. vm. mm. 8N.H mm. 00. no. 00. omoa 0H.H om. 0N.H mvoa MNOH mmoH wm. NH.H NHOH mmoa mmoa mNoH 08. mm. 00.4 Hwoa Hm. 080m N0.m 00.0 N¢.m HN.m mo.m hm.m 00.N h0.m mw.m ¢N.m h¢.m mm.m ¢N.m HmoH mm.m o0.m mm.m OH.N m0.H b0.m HB.N mwom mmom mo.m omom Hm.m oo.m Hmom mm.m mm.m ooow h0.m moom mwom H0 H0 50 00 00 80 m0 m0 00 00 50 m0 m0 00 >0 00 00 m0 m0 m0 00 00 m0 m0 00 00 00 V0 00 00 00 00 80 m0 #0 Om.H 0N.m HHoN 0m. 0m. 04.4 HO.H mm. mm. 80. mm. 08. mm.H mm. on. on. on. fimo 0m. 04. hm.H hmoa 04.4 Avoa hooa wmoa hm. NHOH HN.H mmoa mm. 0b. #084 whoa who 00.m 00.0 50.0 0H.m maom Boom mm.m mm.m om.N mmom hmom 0¢.m wfiom HN.m moom hmom mmom 000m mmoa mn.a Nwom 000m omom o0om mwom 0m.N w0om «mom moom whom mvom Mbom mmom Whom mwom 4084408 484 44 .mm 44oo >40448> 44 .88 4400 mumEHHm mm .mm 84444844 .48 #40184448404404 .4m Emmlfimflamcomumm .om 408 :44 088848 .08 0484 n 088848 .88 088840 4408 .48 88488844 84 .88 84 4840804 .88 84 48004 .88 8804 404 no .88 4880444 so .48 8 44444 no .48 4 84448 no .88 444804 004848 .mm 404 .mm mmcmno 308 .nm mmcmno mmm .0m £40404 mmm .mm 404848 488 .88 8 444804 488 .mm 4>08 482 484 .mm 4>cm 04 48m .4m 40484 488 .88 mummflflmfim #mm 0mm 40>444 488 .84 84 00m 488 .44 84 44 484 .84 80404484 84 .84 448000 4408 84 .84 44880 4404 84 .84 400844440 0404 .mm AQHOQEHV 4404 .4N 4.44008wn.884 44444 08 84.8 44.88 84 48.8 48.88 88 88.8 84.88 08048418044 84 .88 08 88.8 88.88 84 88.8 88.08 88 88.8 80.08 480480018044 84 .48 08 84.8 44.88 84 84.8 88.48 88 48.8 48.88 080484 8844 84 .88 88 88.8 88.88 84 88.8 80.88 48 88.8 88.88 4804800 8844 84 °88 48 88.8 48.48 08 84.4 88.88 48 80.4 48.88 444080484144 .88 48 88.4 48.88 08 08.8 88.48 48 88.4 40.88 48404 4804800144 .88 48 48.4 88.4 84 44.4 88.8 08 88.4 88.8 4484044 40841484 .88 88 88.4 88.8 84 88.4 88.8 08 88.4 84.8 80848404 8021488 .48 88 88.4 48.8 84 48.4 88.8 88 88.4 80.8 0>448840448 1 44 .08 08 88. 84.8 84 44. 88.8 88 08. 88.8 480840480 1 44 .88 48 08.4 88.8 04 88.4 04.8 48 88.4 48.8 080084 1 44 .88 88 48. 80.8 84 88. 88.4 88 88. 00.8 8488 1 44 .48 GUCMUH 014/8.v 88 84.4 80.8 08 88. 08.8 88 04.4 88.8 40 0080 1 44 088 z .8.8 8808 44 .8.8 8808 44 .8.0 8808 048880 I mmm @488 a mmm 48404 I mmm GHQMHHm> 4.4800811.804 44448 88 88. 08.8 48 88. 44.8 484 48. 88.8 4800 408484 84 .88 88 88. 08.8 48 48. 84.8 484 84. 88.8 4800 4408 84 .88 88 84.4 08.8 48 80.4 48.8 884 84.4 88.8 488 4408 84 .88 88 48.4 04.8 88 88.4 88.8 084 88.4 48.8 4448180448800404 .88 88 84. 88.8 48 88. 88.8 884 88. 88.8 484180448800404 .48 88 88.4 88.8 48 88.4 88.8 484 08.4 88.8 488180448800404 .08 88 08. 84.8 48 88. 88.8 884 88. 88.8 404 40 440484 .84 88 88.8 48.8 88 88.8 84.8 884 08.8 88.8 08844848 .84 88 08.8 88.84 88 48.8 88.84 884 84.4 88.44 080084 .44 48 48.8 88.4 88 44.4 88. 884 88.8 08.4 80484480 .84 88 88. 88.8 48 88. 88.8 884 48. 88.8 8800 008084004 .84 88 88. 48.8 48 88. 04.8 884 88. 08.8 444888800 84804 .84 88 88.8 48.88 48 40.8 80.48 084 88.8 88.48 088 .84 84 84.4 84.8 88 88. 80.8 88 144.4 88.8 0>448840448 84 .84 48 88. 84.8 48 88. 88.8 884 88. 04.8 480840480 84 .44 88 88. 88.8 48 48. 88.8 084 88. 88.8 84 8044 8480 .04 48 08.4 80.8 48 48.4 88.8 884 84.4 08.8 4800 84 40 488 .8 48 48.8 88.8 48 80.8 84.8 884 88.8 84.8 40 84 40 440448> .8 88 40.8 88.84 88 88.8 88.84 444 84.8 84.84 4480408804 .4 88 88.8 48.08 88 40.8 08.84 444 48.8 80.08 008040>0808 .8 88 48.8 88.84 88 88.8 88.84 444 88.8 88.84 008088040884 .8 88 84.8 88.4 88 88.8 88.4 444 88.8 88.4 80444880008 .8 88 88.8 88.88 88 88.8 88.88 444 80.8 48.88 4448404800 .8 88 88.8 88.04 88 88.8 84.04 444 48.8 88.04 4404488 .8 88 00. 00.8 48 00. 00.4 884 48. 84.4 800 .4 z .4.8 8802 44 .4.8 8804 8 .4.8 8808 040804 I 440 0485 1 440 48404 440 0498448> . MHQEOHOU CH @5040 480044005000 m 084 404 muc0wcomm04 048804 000 .0408 .48404 44 00440440> 00 404 mpc0wcomm04 00 404850 000 0004484>00 04004880 .m:mmZII.¢O4 m4m¢8 00 00 00 00 v0 00 N0 00 00 b0 00 m0 00 00 00 b0 00 80 80 00 00 50 00 00 00 00 00 40 o0 00 v0 40. 00. 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.4 00. 00.4 44.4 40. 00. 80. 04.4 Mb. 00. 00. mm. 40. mm. mm. 40.4 04.4 00.4 00.4 44.4 00.4 00.4 00. 00.4 04.4 40 00 04 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 00 00 80 80 40 b0 80 00 80 00 00 00 00.4 00. 00.4 00.4 00.0 04.0 04.4 00. 00.4 00.4 00. 00. 00. 00.4 00. 00.4 00.4 00. 00.4 mm. 00.4 04.4 00. 00.4 00.4 84.4 00.4 40.4 00.4 50.4 00.4 40.4 00.4 04.0 00.4 00.0 00.4 00.0 00.0 40.0 04.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 40.0 80.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.4 80.0 08.0 0m.m 00.4 40.4 00.0 08.0 80.0 m0.4 80.0 00.0 00.0 08.0 m0.0 00.0 04 00 45 00 mm mm 004 004 004 004 004 M04 404 044 004 004 004 004 M04 004 004 M04 044 004 004 404 044 044 044 044 044 044 004 00.4 00. 00.4 00.4 00.0 00.0 00.4 00.4 00.4 40.4 8004 00.4 cm. 08. mm. m0.4 mm. 00. 00. 00. 40. 00. 00. 00.4 00.4 00.4 00.4 04.4 00.4 m4.4 00.4 m4.4 00.4 080004 I 40 .00 0480 I 40 .40 0008040>8 40 0080 I 40 .00 4000 40 488 I 40 .mm 4000 40 48> I 40 .80 4000 8440 I 00 .mm 00400844 .00 040I80448000404 .40 884I80448000404 .om 40m 044I000800 .00 0404I0008£U .08 4400I000800 .48 00400840 00 .08 00 4840004 .08 00 48004 .88 0804 40QI0008£U .08 4880408I000800 .08 O Sflhfiflflmmflmfifiu . H0 4 04400I000800 .08 044800I000800 .00 8404000 04400 .00 000800 £00 .80 0008£0I00400m .0m 040004 004000 .00 004000 04480 .00 400 044800 04480 .mm 4>00 482 04480 .0m 4>00 48004 04480 .4m 40484 04480 .om 00004000 04480 .00 044040>40D 04480 .00 00 000000 04480 .40 00 4008040 04480 .00 4.4000vll.004 mgmflfi GHOUM 88 80.8 88.48 88 48.8 88.88 844 88.8 48.48 880484 8048 88 .88 04000 08 88.8 88.08 88 84.8 84.08 844 80.8 08.08 4804000 8048 08 .48 08 48.8 84.88 88 48.8 88.88 844 88.8 44.88 880484 0044 08 .88 @4000 48 88.8 80.88 88 84.8 88.88 444 08.8 88.88 4004800 0844 08 .88 48 88.8 88.88 84 00.4 80.04 044 84.8 88.88 800484 000 88 .88 48 88.8 88.48 88 88.4 88.88 044 88.8 88.48 04008 304 000 88 .88 040 4404044 04 48. 48.4 mm 88.4 v4.8 88 84.4 88.4 4088 40 488 .88 040 048400 88 40.4 88.4 88 88.4 44.8 804 84.4 44.4 4008 40 488 .48 4084000 84 88.4 00.8 84 88.4 08.8 48 84.4 48.8 40 040448 I 88 .08 4084000 40 48 88. 84.8 48 04.4 08.8 84 88. 80.8 480840480 I 88 .88 44 .8.8 8808 44 .8.8 8808 z .8.8 0808 048804 I 888 0488 I 888 40404 I 888 044844m> 4.4800VII.884 84884 80 88. 00.8 8000 400408 08 .88 80 80. 4N.m 0000 440m 08 .08 00 80. 84.8 400000 4408 08 .88 00 08.4 44.8 440I00440000408 .88 N0 00.. 0N.m 084180448000408 .4m 40 48.4 04.0 400I00440000408 .08 80 88. 80.8 84408 40 440804 .84 00 08.8 08.8 08044048 .84 08 08.44 88.84 000004 .44 00 84. 80. 00404400 .04 00 88. 88.8 000000 40004008 .84 00 08. 88.8 844000000 04004 .04 80 00.4 08.44 088 .84 44 40.4 00.8 040 08 04 040448 .84 84 88. 00.8 400080400 08 .44 4084000 84 04.4 84.4 08 0044 0400 .04 48 48.8 88.8 4000 08 40 408 .8 80 00.0 04.0 4000 08 40 40> .8 40 48.0 84.04 8400400004 .4 40 84.8 08.84 000040>0008 .0 40 88.8 88.84 000000080004 .8 40 88.8 08.8 00444080008 .0 40 80.0 44.88 8440404000 .8 40 84.8 08.44 4408808 .8 00 00. 00.4 808 .4 z .8.8 0002 0488 I 0mm 0498448> .84480400 04 @0048 480044800000 A 004 404 804484 I48> 00 404 84000000804 0480 40 404000 008 0004484>00 04800848 .00802II.mOH mflmOfl00umm 000004180 0480:80 04o>8 40 0080:80 4000 mm 40 400 4000 mm 40 48> 4084000 80 E448 .80400848 440108448008400 084:88448008408 40m 044I0m0840 0404I0m0840 44003000840 00400840 0m 0m 4840008 04 48004 0804 4oma0m0840 004083000840 0 444445080800 4 04400u080000 4448005080840 8404000 @4400 0m0840 400 000840 04800 04800 40 048004 404000 8448m 408 044804 8448m 4000 480 8448m 4>om 48004 044mm 40484 0448m 8800400m 8448m 40>40D 8448m 0m 00m 0448m 08 E044 8448m .mm .mm .8m .0m .mm .0m .mm .mm .4m .0m .00 .m0 .80 .00 .m0 .00 .m0 .N0 .40 .00 .mm .mm .8m .0m .mm .0m .mm .mm .4m .0m .mm .mm .hm .mm 4.40084044804 84884 0m 0m.m 40.0m 000404 0040 0m .00 0.4000 mm 40.0 00.0m 4000 004m 00 .40 mm m¢.¢ 40.0m mqmpz4 0044 00 .00 GHOUm 4m vm.m 40.0m 4000 0044 00 .00 40 00.0 40.00 04000 000404 mm .00 40 00.0 mm.¢m 04000 4000 00 .m0 040 4454040 mm 00. 04.4 4000 00 404 .40 040 04840m m0 mm. mm.4 4002 40 40¢ .40 0 00.4 40.4 00>44004044mamm .00 04 .m.0 c002 040E n 000 0448448> 4.4aoovnu.004 mgm440040440 00 .04 0 00. 00.0 0 00. 00.0 04 00. 00.0 400000000 00 .44 0 40.0 00.0 0 00.4 00.0 44 00.4 40.0 00 0040 0400 .04 0 40.4 00.0 0 40. 00.0 04 00.4 00.0 40 00 40 400 .0 0 00. 00.04 00 00.0 00.04 00 00.4 00.44 40 00 00 40> .0 0 00.0 00.04 40 40.0 40.04 00 00.0 00.04 0400400000 .0 0 00.0 00.40 40 00.0 00.04 00 00.0 00.04 000040>0000 .0 0 00.0 40.04 40 00.0 00.04 00 00.0 00.04 000000000004 .0 0 00.4 40.0 40 00.0 00.0 00 00.0 00.0 00444000000 .0 0 00.0 00.40 40 00.0 00.40 00 00.0 00.40 0440400000 .0 0 04.0 00.04 m 00.0 00.04 00 00.0 00.04 4400000 .0 0 00. 00.0 mm 00. 00.4 40 00. 00.4 000 .4 z .0.0 0000 44 .0.0 0000 44 .0.0 0000 040000 - 000 0400 - 000 40404 c 000 0400440> .5400 C4 Q5040 400044005000 mmm 0:4 000 mpcmwcommmn 040004 600 .0408 .40404 ma 00490440> mo MOM 04006009000 00 403E5: U50 mc04um4>mv UMmUCmpm 00:00:90.004 mgmfle (DP 0000000000030000000000000000 K\ E 4N.4 mm. 00. mm. mm. 00.4 4mo4 m4o4 4m.4 mm. mmo4 40. mm. mm. mm. 4mo4 mmo4 on. 4404 mm. bwom mw.m mv.m 0O.w mm.N OO.m nwom m@.m Nw.4 hmo4 whom m0.m N4.m mh.N NO.N OO.m v4.m hmom 4h.m mmom 04 ON 4m 4m NN 4N ON ON mm mm 4m 4m 4m 4m mm mm 4m mm mm mm mm mm mm 4m .V ..V» 4m mm mN.4 mO.4 40.4 mmom m4om 0m.m mm.m OO.N mmoN Ow.m bmom mm.4 4mo4 OO.¢ 40.N whom mN.m voom fi4.m 4h.m boom mm.m ¢O.m 0m mm mm Om Om Om mm 0N Om Om mm mm mm mm Om 4m Om 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m 4m ON mm mm Om m4o4 mO.4 00. 5000 404 ©0444Eo wvnmv 00440400» om. m0. No.4 N404 mO.4 OO.4 mm. 04.4 00.4 mm. wO.4 OO.4 4m. mwo4 mm.4 hm. 40. 00.0 mEooc4lmm mm.N G4mmlmm mocm©4o>m 4m.m 40 0000 mm 00.0 4000 00 00 400 mm.m4 4000 mm 40 40> 4000 mm wumE4Hm mm.m 0400 pshlmc4ccm4m mw.m £40a8044mcomumm Saw-80440000400 000 4w.m 244 44®mnmmcmsu Omom SUM 04SHnmmcmso mmom 44mmlmmc0£o OC4CCM4Q Um c204m Um 4mHmUmm sam4m Om 40004 0004 400-000000 w4.m 504501000030 no.m o £444Qammcmnu 00.0 0 ©4400u000000 boom £44mw£uwmflm30 mm.m 4:00 0504944®m hm.4 wmcmzu QOO mm.4 omcmnuu400©4nmm OO.m £4OQO4n4cm©4nmm O4.m Lowfifiuum4umm bmom 40m L44M®£DMH4MM O4.m 4>Om 402nm440m mmom 490m HMUOHim44mm O4.m Honmqnm4umm ©©.N mnGC4msmum4pmm O®.m 40>4cplm4pmm 40.0 mm 00m-m44mm OHom Um EGHMflmHHmm .mm .0m .mm .mm .wm .mm .Nm .4m .Om .mv .m¢ .00 .00 .md .ww .m¢ .Nv .40 .00 .mm .mm .bm .Om .mm .wm .mm .mm .4m .Om .mm .mm .0N .ON 4.4cou%M-.004 mammm m mm.© NH.mm mm mm.¢ vH.mm Hm mH.m mm.Hm mcmch moum Um .mw mnoum m N¢.m mh.Om mm Vm.m 0H.om Hm mm.v ¢@.Om pcou moum Om .hw m hm.w OO.mm mm mm.¢ m¢.mm Hm mfl.m hm.mm mQOpCH wane Um .Ow mHOom m mN.OH mm.wm mm mm.m Omimm Hm. Hm.m \.\..Hm 3.50 6mm? Um .mO b hO.® mw.mw mm anéé. «$.00 Hm mH.MH 0.3.50 UMOUm acwwcH mm oww h HH.OH an.Hm mm mm.h mw.m¢ Om 0H.m mv.m¢ owoum wcov mm .mw Upo Qubpmam m OO.N OmJV Om Om.H Om.m mm Hth bfl.m uOEm mo HEM/w .NO Upo Unapwm w mm.m wm.m Om hw.a Om.m mm ov.H wm.m paw: mo 95¢ .H@ h om. vH.¢ Hm Ho.H mm.v mm mm. mm.w au>fipacuopflmamm .00 h hm.fl hm.m mm mm. mm.m om wo.H o¢.m oua mo moflcmumm .mm Z .Dom Qmmz Z oDom Emwz Z .Dom £me mamfimm mmm ame a mmm Hmpou mmm waflmflhm> «I Jl'li' |Jhrln .I - in! IIHIH ”H3 I“ A.ycoovaa.ooa mqm¢e a pm. nw.m mm on. mm.m mm m». m¢.m meow m.umnpmmuwm 0 pm. no.m ¢m Ho. wm.m mo mo. mm.m meoo mammuwm m NH.H 00.0 «m mH.H mo.o mo 5H.H mo.o pea “Homnmm m mm.H om.m «m mo.H no.m me mo.H on.m MHwaamHHchmumm m m». em.H «m mo.H om.m mm qo.H mm.m mefluamflfimcomumm m ¢N.H ¢¢.m mm mn.H mH.¢ mo on.H mo.¢ pamaEmHHmcomHmm m NH.H mm.m wm mm. qo.m mo um. mo.m mflfimm we pgomaH m mm.m no.¢ mm mm.m «m.m mm oo.m mo.¢ mmcflanflm n mo.nm oo.nm om mm.om om.oH hm mH.HN ¢H.mH meoocH o oo. 00. mm mm.H mm.H mo mh.a MH.H cmuwafiso a no. mn.m «m mm. wo.m mo qq. oo.m asanu wflmmm o oo. oo.m vm mw. mm.m mo ow. wm.m asaeoo susow m wm.o oo.Hm Hm mm.» oH.Hm mm om.> mo.Hm mm¢ q H¢.H oo.¢ om mN.H nm.¢ wm mm.H mm.¢ :umgam moswm q wN.H mw.m mm mm. Hm.m mm mm. om.m moflcm moswm m oo.m oo.m @m «w.H mn.m mm @o.H h».m mm 50““ cflmw m mm.m om.m mm m¢.H ov.m ow om.H pm.m coo mm mo gem m Hw.m mm.m mm Hm.m mm.m mo Hm.m am.m zoo mm mo Hm> a om.h mm.mfl mm mm.o Hv.mH mm mm.o mm.nfl mfinmgmmmmq m Hm.¢ HH.mH mm om.q mm.oH mo mm.q mH.>H moscao>ocmm m Hm.m oo.mH mm vm.w mw.mfl N0 hm.o mo.©H ougwwcmmwwcH m «h.m ww.m mm hfl.m mm.m mo mm.m mq.m cofipflcmoomm m Hm.o ww.mH mm w>.v mm.vH mm oo.m m¢.mH mpfleh0msoo m vm.m mn.mfi mm ho.v mm.HH mm mm.m mo.m- pgommsm o oo. oo.m wm oo. oo.H mo mm. VH.H xmm z .Q.m cmwz Hm .m.m cmmz hm .Q.m cam: mewfivm mmm mHmE n mmm Hmpow mmm caflnflum> .summ Ca QUOHO Hmcoflummsooo E wLp MOM mucmwcommmh vamfimm Ucm .mHmE .HmpOp ma mmaflmfium> mo MOM mwcmwcommwu mo HmQEflc mam acoflumfl>mw Uumwcmpm .mcmmZ:a.hOH mqmfiB .mN .wm .mN .NN .HN .ON .OH .OH .BH .OH .ma .wa .mH .NH .HH .OH 0000000 HNMQ‘LDKDPQ I‘ll. 'I lljx .l'l."l l‘ “.1 “44 .11! Elk KO Ch @000 GOOOWONGONONGGGONOWOWGOG) 00. OO. HN.H Om.H mH.h m¢.H mm. fin. hm. hm. Hm. mm. NH.H NN.H mO.H mO.H mm. ON.H mm. _mm. 50. mO.H hm. mO.H ON.H hm. mO.H mm.m OO.m OO.m mm.N mm.N mm.m OO.m ¢¢.v ON.H mO.H NN.¢ v¢.¢ ¢¢.m mm.m OB.N 50.m OO.N NN.m NO.m mm.m ¢m wm wm mm Nm mfi vm wm Shmm mm mm mm Nm mm mm Nm vm wm wm wm wm mm mm NO mm mm mO.H m¢.H NO. mO.H m¢.¢H Om.H.- mm. NO.H mO.H Ow. MOM Um##HEO Ovlmv mm. HO.. NO. mm. mm. mO.H Ow. hm.H mm. mm. mm. OO. mm. mO.H #0. mm. OH.H OO.N NO.H mm.m mO.N mN.OH vN.m VO.N OO.m OO.N mm.N H¢.m OO.N m¢.m O¢.m mm.m NB.H mh.H HH.¢ mm.m VO.m mm.m OO.N OO.m vh.N NH.m OH.m HH.m Hw Ow H¢ mO HO mm mO mO Om. mO.H mm. mmHQmHHm> HO NO NO HO NO NO HO mO mO mO mO mO NO NO HO NO NO mm. NO. Om. OO. ON.H mO.H mw. wm.H mO.H Ow. Om. ww. om. mO.H mm. mm. NH.H mm.m OO.N N¢.m mm.m mm.m mh.H mh.H mH.¢ Hm.m OO.m mm.m VO.N OH.m Oh.N OH.m ON.m NN.m wEoocHlmm chmlmm OOQmUHO>m mo mmmwlmm pcou mm mo wad uaou mm MO Hm> pcou mm mumEHum Huo psmumcflccmam spoufimHHchmHmm EwMIEmHHMGOmHOm new Cpu OHOmIOmcmno SOm OHSHImmcmSU MHOmlmmcmnv mchcmHm Om ccmHm Um Hmumwmm ccmHm Om HMOOH OmmH Homlmmcmno EOpDom pszmHOMO u>om HMOOHImemm HOQmHImHflmm mmwchsmlmHumm HO>HCDImHumm Om OOmeH#mm Om EOHMImHumm .mm .mm .Om .mm .wm .mm .Nm .Hm .Om .mv .Ov .hw .Ow .mw .ww .mv .Nv .Hv .Ow .mm .Om .Nm .Om .mm .vm .mm .Nm .Hm .Om .ON .ON .hN .ON H.yaooqun.nOH mummy 0\ mm N OH.¢ mm.v Hm.m mO.v ON.O d0.0 wN.N Hv.H NH.N Om.H NN.Om ¢¢.Hm Om.Hm mh.Om OO.NO HH.O¢ mm.N mm.N Om.N ON.m wm wm wm vm flm wm mw O¢ NH mm NO.¢ VH.¢ h0.0 OO.m NO.HH Om.O mm.H mm. Om.H om. mO.Hm h0.0N Hm.Hm mO.mN ON.bm Nh.hv NO.H O¢.H bO.m OO.m mO mO mO mO mO mO hm hm vH Ow OOJH Om.H Om. m¢.Hm N0.0N mm.Hm mm.mN OO.NO O¢.h¢ vh.H OO.H OO.m OH.m chOCH monm Um OHOOm pcoo moum wm mcwch wane Um muoom “coo wage Om OHOOm mcmuaHzmm Onoom #QOU mm ouo QHSpmHQ poem mo pE< Duo Onmpmm paws mo paw mm>HpmcnmuHMImm Duo mo hoflcmlmm .OO .NO .OO .mO .wO .mO .NO .HO .OO .mm A.pcooOll.noH mqm¢e HO HO.H OO.m mm OO. mm.m mOH OO.H mO.m Oeou m.umngmmucm .mm Hm Om. Hm.m mm mO. ON.O mOH mO. HO.m meow OHmmuOm .ON HO MO. O0.0 mm OO. OO.m mOH NO. mO.O OEO OHmmuOm .mm OO mO.H OO.m Hm Hm.H OO.m HOH mO.H OO.m OHOIEmHHOOOmHmm .Nm Om mu. OO.m Hm Hp. OO.m HOH On. OO.m OaHnEmHHOOOmHmm .Hm OO OO.H H0.0 Hm mO.H H0.0 HOH mO.H OO.O OEOIEmHHmOOOHmm .Om HO Om. mm.m mm mm. OO.m mOH H». OO.m OHHmm mo uuomeH .OH HO OO.m OO.m mm mO.H OO.m mOH OO.m OO.m mOOHHQHO .OH OO OH.O ON.O Hm OH.m OH.m HOH OO.m mm.m meoucH .nH HO mO.H OO.H mm mO.H mO.H mOH HO.H OF.H HOQEOZIOOOOHHOO .OH HO OO. OO.m mm mm. mm.m mOH Om. OO.m Osaaoo mocmOHmmm .OH HO OO. OH.m mm mm. OO.m mOH OO. mm.m OOEEOO :psow .OH HO OO.NH OO.mm mm OO.m Om.Om mOH NO.NH HO.Om mOm .mH On mO.H mm.m mm mO.H OO.m .OOH HO.H mm.m OHOOHO musmm .NH On Om. OO.m mm mw. On.w HOH Om. mm.m moflcm mosom .HH On NH.H OO.O mm mm.H mm.¢ HOH OH.H m0.0 Om Eoum chO .OH On OO.H mm.m mm OO.H Om.w HOH mO.H OO.m pcoo Om mo “am .O HO mn.H O0.0H mm mO.H mm.OH mOH mO.H OO.OH ucoo Om mo Hm> .O On mm.m OO.m mm OO.m FN.OH OOH ON.O OO.m OHOmOwOmmH .5 Oh O0.0 OO.ON mm mm.O OH.mH OOH mm.m mm.Om mucmHo>mamm .O O» ON.O OO.mH mm OO.m OH.>H OOH OH.O mm.mH mocmmcmmmOcH .m On mm.m HH.OH mm nm.¢ HO.OH OOH HO.m ON.OH OoHpHcOoomm .O On OO.m mm.OH mm mm.m mO.HH OOH OO.O Om.mH muHeHomaou .m On Hm.O OO.BH mm N0.0 Om.OH OOH OO.O mO.nH OOOOOOO .m HO OO. OO.m mm ,OO. OO.H mOH HO. mO.H xmm .H .z .O.m 2mm: OH .O.m cmmz z .O.m cam: mHmsmm u mmm mHme u mmm HOOOO mmm mHanHm> .mmmcmm CH . QSOHO HchHpmmsooo mmm mag MOO mpcwwcommmu OHmEmm Cam .OHmE .HMHOH ha mOHQMHHm> OO How mwcmwcommwu mo HOQEDC Ocm mCOHHMH>OU UHmUQmHm .mcmwzll.mOH mqm<fi NO Oh Oh OO OO Oh OO OO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO OO HO HO HO HO OO OO OO OO OO Oh OO HO OO. Oh. mO. wm. NO. HO. OO.H Hm. OO. Oh. Oh. OO. wO. Ow. HO.H mN.H OO. OO.H HO.H mO. NO. vO. HO. mO. OO.m OO.N mO.N Om.¢ O0.0 mn.O HO.m NO.m OO.m OO.N mO.N OO.N mO.H OO.N OH.m OO.N OH.m OO.H OO.N OO.m Om.¢ OO.N mO.H NO.m ON.m OO.m OO.N mO.N NO.m Nv.m OO.m OO.m ¢O.m ON HN HN HN HN HN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN HN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN NN Om.H OO.N mH.N fin. OO. Om. Oh. HO. Ow. hm. OO. Oh. OO.H OO. «O. wO. Oh. HO.H OO.H wfl. m¢.H Om.H OO.H mH.H ON.H OO. mO. fiO.H mH.H mH.H BO OOH OOH HOH HOH OOH NOH NOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH mOH NOH mOH NOH mOH mOH NOH NOH NOH NOH NOH HOH NOH mOH mO. OO. HO. mm. NO. HO. HO.H mm. NO. Oh. Oh. wO. OO. Ow. Om.H ON.H OO° OO.H mO.H OO. HO. OO. OO. mO. OEOOCHImm CHMOImm mocmoHo>m mo mmmmlmm pEIpcOUImm wumEHHmlpcoulmm HHO poIOcHCCMHm SponfimHHchmumm EmmnEmHHchmHmm new CHM OHOOIOOCMSU 36¢ mHsmImOcmno mHmmummcmno OCHCCMHQ Om OOQmOHmIOm Omm OOQmQHmlwm HMOOH Ommq Homlmmcmnu EOOSOIOOQMSU u Ongmummqmno u OHHOouomcmnO :uHmmmumOcmnu EHOchU OHHOm mOcmSU non OOQmsolemOm SHOGOHIOHmOm LOHSSUImemm Hmm apHmmmanpmm p>ow pmzlmemm p>ow HMOOHImemO HOQMHImemm mmOchsmlmHHmm HO>HCDImHHMO Om OOOImHumm Um EOHMImHumm .OO .mm .Om .mm .Om .mm .Nm .Hm .Om .Ow .OO .mw .Ow .mw .ww .mv .Nv .Hv .Ov .Om .Om .mm .Om .mm .vm .mm .Nm .Hm °Om .ON .ON .ON .ON A.HGOOVSI.OOH HHmOB OO OO.N OO.NO mm OO.O OO.NO NOH OH.m OO.NO OOOOOHuOonO Om .OO .GHOUO OO .OO.O mO.Om ..mm OH.m .Om.mm NOH OH.m OH.Hm OOOOIOOHO Om .OO HO OO.m mh.Om mm O0.0 OOHON mOH OO.m HO.OO OOOOOHIOOHO Om .OO ®HOUm HO OO.N OO.ON Om OH.m OO.mm OOH OO.N OO.ON OOOOIOOHB Om .OO OO OO.» NO.mm mm OO.» OO.HO NOH Hn.n OH.OO OHOUO mamchuOm .OO OO mm.q OO.O¢ mm OO.m OH.mO NOH OO.O OO.OO muoom pcouumm .OO OOSOEM Duo up OO.H OO.N mm OO.H OH.m OO OO.H OO.N QHOOOHO poam .NO “QUOEO up OO. OO.O mm OO. OO.O OO OO. ON.O opo OOOOOO paw: .HO Np OO.H OO.m Hm OO.H OO.m OO OO.H OO.m mm>HmeHmpHmuOm .OO O» NO. OO.m Hm OO. Hn.m OO OO. OO.m pcmemoflcmumm .Om Z .m.m COOS. Z .Q.O COOS“ Hg .D.m COOS OHOEOO u OOO OHOE u OOO HOOOO a OOO OHQOHHO> H.pcoovnu.OOH OAOOE APPENDIX B Attitudes Toward Education Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Attitudes Toward Handi- capped Persons Personal Questionnaire: HP APPENDIX B Instrumentation B—l Attitudes Toward Education NO. ‘ Location Male 4 Group Female Date EDUCATION SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about education. We all think differently about schools and education. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front 6f the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. w l. The goals of education should be dictated by children's interests and needs as well as by the larger demands of society. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 2. No subject is more important than the personalities of the pupils. ‘ l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. A. 2 E.D. Schools of today are neglecting reading, writing, and arithmetic; the three R‘s. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The pupil—teacher relationship is the relationship be— tween a child who needs direction, guidance, and control and a teacher who is an expert supplying direction,_guidance, and control. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly Teachers, like university professors, should have academic freedom—-freedom to teach what they think is right and best. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. .Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. The backbone of the school curriculum is subject matter; activities are useful mainly to facilitate the learning of subject matter. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly disagree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Teachers should encourage pupils to study and criticize our own and other economic systems and practices. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The traditional moral standards of our culture should not just be accepted; they should be examined and tested in solving the present problems of students. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 9. 10. ll. Learning is experimental; the child should be taught to test alternatives before accepting any of them. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The curriculum consists of subject matter to be learned and skills to be acquired. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly The true View of education is so arranging learning that the child gradually builds up a storehouse of knowledge that he can use in the future. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. l2. 13. 14. 5 E.D. One of the big difficulties with modern schOols is that disdipliné is often Sacrificed to the interests of children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly The curriculum should be made up of an orderly sequence of subjects that teach to all students the best of our cultural heritage. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Discipline should be governed by long-range interests and well—established standards. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About hos strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not Very strongly A. Very strongly No. 15. l6. l7. 6 E.D. Education and educational institutions must be sources of social ideas; education must be a social program undergoing continual reconstruction. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Right from the very first grade, teachers must teach the child at his own level and not at the level of the grade he is in. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About now strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 30 Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Children should be allowed more freedom than they usually get in the execution of learning activities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 18. 19. 20. Children need and should have more supervision and discipline than they usually get. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Learning is essentially a process of increasing one's store of information about the various fields of knowledge. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly In a democracy, teachers should help students under— stand not only the meaning of democracy but also the meaning of the ideologies of other political systems. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-2 Survey of Interpersonal Values an 7.1 it” vii % PERCENTILE Grade or Occupation 44 i i NORM GROUP I _ Marital Status School or Firm- __ i—_l._i__il Elsi“. "Ia SURVEY OF INTERPERSONAI. VALUES By LEONARD V. GORDON DIRECTIONS In this booklet are statements representing things that people consider to be important to their way of life. These statements are grouped into sets of three. This is what you are asked to do: Examine each set. Within each set, find the one statement of the three which represents what you consider to be most important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed M (for most). Next, examine the remaining two statements in the set. Decide which one of these statements represents what you consider to be least important to you. Blacken the space beside that statement in the column headed L (for least). ‘ For every set you will mark one statement as representing what is most important to you, one statement as representing what is least important to you, and you will leave one state- ment unmarked. Example To have a hot meal at noon ........................ To get a good night’s sleep. ,, ._ To get plenty of fresh air ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, , ......... Suppose that you have examined the three statements in the example, and although all three of the statements may represent things that are important to you, you feel that ”To get plenty of fresh air” is the most important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed M (for most) beside the statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would then examine the remaining two statements to decide which of these represents something that is least important to you. Suppose that ”To have a hot meal at noon” is the least important to you. You would blacken the space in the column headed L (for least) next to this statement. Notice that this has been done in the example. You would leave the remaining statement unmarked. In some cases it may be difficult to decide which statement to mark. Make the best decision that you can. This is not a test; there are no right or wrong answers. Be sure to mark only one M (most) choice and only one L (least) choice in a set. Do not skip any sets. Answer every set. Turn this booklet over and begin, SCIENCE RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. a 259 EAST ERIE STREET, CHICAGO II, ILLINOIS Copyright I960 © Science Research Associates, Inc. All rights reserved. Printed in U.S.A. Reorder No. 7-2760 No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE This questionnaire has two parts to it. The first part has to do with your contacts with schools and education, and what you know about education. You may have had considerable contact with schools and education, or you may know a great deal about education. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with schools or education and may have never thought much about it at all. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all per- sons are important. If you know very little or nothing about schools or education, your answers are important. If you know a great deal about then. your answers are important. The second part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified. It is important to the study to obtain your answer to every question. Mark your answers in column B _? To be a person of ' a ' To be treated with kindness ..................................................... To always maintain the highest moral standards .................... To be praised by other people To be relatively unbound by social conventions ...................... To work for the good of society To have the affection of other people ........ . ........................... To do things 111 the approved manner. To go around doing fav01s for other people ................ To be allowed to do whatever I want to do_______ To be regarded as the leader To do what is socially correct To have others approve of what I do. To make decisions for the group To share my belongings with other people To be free to come and go as I want to To help the poor and needy To show respect to my superiors To be given compliments by other people To be in a very responsible position To do what is considered conventional To be in charge of 21 group of people To make all of my own decisions To receive encouragement from others To be looked up to by other people To be quick in accepting others as friends To direct others in their work To be generous toward other people To be my own boss To have understanding friends To be selected for a leadership position To be treated as a person of some importance To have things pretty much my own way ,,,,, To have oIher people interested in me To have proper and correct social manners To be sympathetic with those who are in trouble To be very popular with other people To be f1ee lrom having to obey 1ules ’I‘ o be 111 a position to tell others what to do ..... To always do what is morallv right [‘0 go out of my way to help others To have people willing to ofle1 me a helping hand T 0 have people admi1e me ________ To always do the c1pp1oved thing 'I o be able to leave things lying a10und if I wish ...... M L M L M L ...... APPENDIX B Instrumentation B—3 Personal Questionnaire No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL‘QpESTIONNAIRE This questioniaire has two parts to it. The first part has to do with your contacts with schools and education, and what you know about educationr You may have had considerable contact with schools and education, or you may know a great deal about education. On the other hand” you may have had little or no contact with schools or education and may have never thought much about it at all“ For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all per— sons are importanto If you know very little or nothing about schools or education; your answers are importanto If you know a great deal about then. your answers are important, The second part of the questionnaire has to do with personal information about you. Since the questionnaire is completely anonymous, you may answer all of the questions freely without any concern about being identified" It is important to the study to obtain your answer_toflevery questionm 165 pgéfiQNALigyESTIONNAlRE Please read each quesrion carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill 3.11 L". the answer as requestedw SECTTOK 1; Experiences with Schools and Education Below are listed several different kinds of schools or edu— cational divisions” In respect to these various kinds or levels of education; which one have you had the most profes» signalhpr wcgkwgfiperlence‘withp or do you have the most knowledgeagpggt2 This does not refer to your own education. Please answer by EEEEEAESMEESMREEEEE of the group you selecta 9111C; .i. .e: mattresses Elementary School (Grade School) engentwonnoon l [\3 A‘ -- - - “V " - V '1 [‘03 ' w ‘ ‘-' ‘2‘ Decorldary bCUUUJ. “[14.ng bCFAOOl) u n n o o o O o o :7 t‘ o o o 0 College or Universit‘ ”oarmnoqpflninoonsao,nn.o 3 Y J Other Types (Please Specify) 4 f-_m"-m a - T have had no such experience 00¢”,ppm.t.ooooc 3 Which other groupsy in addition to the one indicated above, have you also had some professional or work experience with? Please_gircie the number of each additional group with which you have had some experiences Elementary School tGraoe school; “a “one ,ooan l Secondary School (high School; ionoso,nnnmnflcn 2 Collegu or University Motto “mou.snucnso.ano.o 3 Utter Types release Specify; ilusiwmu,“imriwm_,4 I have had no such eXperletce .tnionQQUNWFon‘n S 2 P.Q. The following questions have to do with additional kinds of contracts you have had with schools or education. Please ggrcle the number of each eXperience that applies to you. Be sure and circle the number of every experience that applies to you. I‘know little or nothing about education .............. l I have read or heard a little about schools and education 000.000GO00000.000IOOOOOO..G.O.°OODOOO0.0.00. 2 I have studied about schools and education through reading, movies, lectures, or observations ....... ..... 3 A neighbor of mine works in education ......... ... ..... 4' A friend of mine works in education ..... ....... ....... 5 Some relative works in education ...................... 6 My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband), or child works in education (in any position, pro— fessional or non~professional) ............ ...... . ..... 7 I have worked in education, as a teacher, adminis- trator, counselor, volunteer, etc. ............... ..... 8 Other {Please Specify) 9 If on the preceding three questions you indicated that you have had no personal experience with any kind of education, please skip Questions #4 through #7. If you indicated that you have had experience with one or-more of the levels of education listed, please answer Questions #4 through #7. 165 4.. 6. 165 P.Q° About how much have you worked in schools or educational settings? Less than three months Between three and Between six months and one year Between one and three years Between three and five years Between five and ten Over ten years Over fifteen ye Please circle years six months 0 0 (VOLVOOOWC‘OOOJOO arSflOOOOOOOOO G 00000000 0 If you have ever worked in education, your income was derived from such Less t-hwafi loo/C; onuuooioonoooo Between 10 and Between 25 and Between 50 and Between 75 and If you have ever felt about it? H I have not liked it very much I have liked it I have definitely enjoyed it ('“A 2"” «Onooeoonc 50% .vnuvo‘: ‘ 7 I U1 100% worked in somewhat o O O U 0 1“ O o u p C‘ O O O 0 L‘ L‘ educat definitely have disliked it 00000 O f? abo ‘work? ion, 0 0 a O O O 0 O O 0 how the number of the one best answer. ut what have you per cent 1 of E_ei [\3 No. 4 P.Q. 7. If you have ever worked in education for personl gain, (for example, for money or some other gain), what gpportunitieg did you have (or do you have) to work at something else instead, that is, something else that was (or is) acceptable to you as a job? I do not know what other jobs were available or accept- able OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.000000000000COOOOOOOOOOOC.0 1 No other job was available ............................ 2 Other jobs available were not at all acceptable to me . J Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me .. 4 Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me ...... 5 8. How old are you? (Write age in box) .................... 9. Where were you mainly reared or "brought up” in your youth (that is, up to the age of 15 or 16)? courltry 0 O 0 O l. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 O O C 0 O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O l r‘ t ' T 2 boun ry Own 0 O O U 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O o O o O O O O “"t 3 \le000000000000000000000OOOOOOOOOODOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO City Suburb O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O (1 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O 4 10. Where have you (or the main bread winner in your family) been employed during the past three years? COIJrltry O O O O 0 !‘ O O O O O O O O O O U 0 O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O C O 0 O O 0 C O O C O O l COllntIdy Town 0 \I O D O O O O O O ‘O O O O O O O O C 0 O 0 0 O O O O O C O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 2 I - V . 3 thy 0 0 O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 (‘0'0 fl 0 O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O O 0 City S'Ub‘drb .OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000004 165 No. 5 P.Q° ll. Where you have mainly lived during the past three years? CO‘untrly o 0 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 o o 0 O O O 0 O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O l courltry Town 0 o 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O o O O O O O O O o 2 I ‘ ty 3 L1 O O O O O 0 O O O O o O O O O 0 O O O O O o O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O I, O O O O O O O O O O 0 ' y b b 4 .. Clt Su Or 0 O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 12. What is your marital Status? Marlrled 000JOOOOO0000000000000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 1- ..,.. 2 filllgie (1 I) O 0 0 O O O O a: O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O 0 O w .i- 3 DlVOIk—ca o O O O C‘ 0 O O O O L' O O O f‘ l" O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 O O O o O O O O 0 O O 9 ll — ' d 4 Wldowe O O O O O O O O r‘ O O L‘ C O O O (I o O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O 0 e O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O “ ‘ ‘ t d 5 bepaxa‘ 'e n O O O O O O O O G O O O O O 0 O 0 O ('i O O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 O r! C O O U 0 O O l‘ o D O '3 0 O 13. How many children do you have? (Please write number in box)° 14. Please answer eithggyfiuprmgy which_applies besr to your present situation. Please read bOth choices, than answer only one. A. If you are sglfgsuppogtingfi about what is your total yearly income before taxes (or, if you are married, the total yearly income in the family). Include extra income from any regular sources such as divi- dends. insurance, etc. Please write the total in the box . B. If you are not_selfeggpp2£tipg;(or. if you are married, if your faggéxgis not self—supporting), what is the approximate total yearly income before taxes of the persons who mainly provide your sup- port {that is. parents. relatives or others). Make the best estimate you can. H.- 0‘ U1 No. (3‘! ".mm-...... P 9 Q o 15. According to your answer to Question 14. about how does your income compare with that of most people in the total commun~ ity where you live? MULJCh lower OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO Lower o o o o o o o u- o x- u n o o o o o o u o o o u o o n- o o o o o o o o o o u o o o o o o o o o o o o 2 AbO ‘vlt— tItl E Sdrne o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o o o a a o o o o o o o o o o o o o 3 ~ II I: lgher o o o o m o o o o o o o m o o u w o o ., u a o a o o o o o o o n o o o o o o o o o o a o o o o 4 . .. . . _, t r 7 r _ .. 5 MdC—ll l—Lg ler a o o o o o o o L. .. o o L. . o n n n a n o o o o o o o o o m o o o o o o o J o m o o J 16. How many brothers have you? (l I..- u QI U) (E write number in box). ix. How many sisters have you? (Please write number in box). 18. About how does (or did) your father s income compare with that of most peoPle in the community in which he lives (or lived)? Much lower .......~....... ‘ 1 Lower. u o (v o u a» n n n n n H n o n u o n 4“ n o ‘1 H o n n n () I o u 0 C' O O t" O h ( O O U h h 2 + ~. 1* a “‘ m 3 Abo Li -- 3.- ix.— ba e 11 n F! o I! n U (1 H «.1 u n n n U 0 0 O n O (V t O O P O O U c 0 O 0 O D O O O O O - ' ' r 4 Ii lg fA e -— H O L‘ O O (I F D 0 0 fl (‘ 0 fl 0 u‘ (1 O O 0 D O O 0 O f? D n‘ O 0 O O O 0 fl 0 O O 0 O O G C U 0 O U I 'J -, fl .. w ~ 5 Mdk—h. h .19 it‘1.m n a o u n (5 p a o n n n v‘) n n o o o n n a o n o 1 0 o 0 0| 0 Cl 0 o a o o o a 0 ( 65 F“ 19. What is your religion? Cat.hOlj—C QOOIVI'GL'GOO"O0000OUWOOHUOOGUOUOUUU'UOCUUOUUIOU. 1 r' ...; .. . . PIUtestant u (9 H C! I“ n O '1 fl 0 n l‘ U U 0 I n a I" D '3 r! fl 0 B I? L" I, U I" I" U ”I U U U B U U C a I! U 0 Z ‘ y . . n Jew1 t ‘ u I {:3 l h" n o n (1 n v n D D I I r) o (‘ o r‘ U n n a u I,» a. n n O O n n o H a! u n 0 I) n I! U 0 O l1 I. u 0 'v '1 G ”J ‘ A 4 N O [I e n n n n n n o 6 O o n r- r‘ n n o I? n o n n n y n r n o n a I o F n «I a o c! u n n n G 0 I! 0 O a ‘l E' C Other (Please Specify) V__ 5 o , ent ,, a 5-7)“ “hr-no Va «-d-svmsu smmanm ness.—2‘s 20. About how important is your religion to you in your daily life? I have no religion .................................... l NK-Jt Vrervy in1FIOrILa£ltHunt-ounnueynonr-mnnnrvaut'lononuomnauonuw 2 LA) Fa il‘ l y impo I“ tar] t I" n m (I O U \' U U I) 'i‘ n l7 I! (W I" l' t‘ F I) C I‘ l‘ n l‘ U 'V n I“! I‘ U l‘ D U D D O h \‘I e I‘y j- ”IE; 0 I‘ t a n t u '7 0" V‘ O O H r‘ H O I‘ n U U 0 U U U """"" .‘ (V U C‘ '1 f‘ l‘ (1 O r) (I I‘ '2‘ n U " O l! 4 21. During an"average” work day. you probably have occasion to talk and make contact with other adult persons where you are employed. Estimate about what per cent of these contacts and conversations are with peOplc you feel perspggliymglggg to. whom you consider to be closeufliehdgj or that are relam tives of yours. .- I NL)nE— ”HOD““"00uuvaI‘UfllVflrrvlunflOflGoNHHF‘OOOHUHOUUHnnv'luuaf‘u" «1‘ l dc not usually talk or make contact with other adult persons where i am employed n...,................ [‘J Le“' *Lav 100 3 ~.ah:,\.-n..IL /l v.-nonvononnu“nounano-concvnnnncvrnnnnnucvo E‘etwet;n .{O arl‘ -3()()/C‘.nnaonnnfinnnm"anual,»MRUUU’GUBHWOUUWH!Q4 b”! Bet-we(—v:l 3O dijd [50%) nnnuunvannnrrvnnonclnnvfinurinnnnc- nnnnn In!- Between 50 and /0%;.....HM,..........,...... HH.....-.... o Between 70 and 90% .....o...,U....n.,.........n........ 7 Moxie Char-l goo/C'nnnn‘ol‘nnrfinmnan‘nnKhanvnrnconnnvnumon-nn'rn8 165 NO. 22. 24. 165 How important is it to you to work with people you feel personally close to? Not at all important .................................. Not very important .................................... Fairly important ...................................... Very important ........................................ Now please consider all of the personal contacts you have with people when you are not at work. Would you estimate about what per cent of your contacts apart from working h93£§_are spent with people whom you know because of your M *ob; that is, those who work at the same 'ob, trade. or .lm_ profession, or in the same place that you do. or that you otherwise contact in the pursuit of your job. Nore 4* 00000OOUUOI'O000000000DOOOOOONOUOOOOOOOOOO06000000(- -. .. o’ LeSb tit-earl lO/Ooooomooomooooooooooooaooooooooonononooooo ‘1 .. Betweenloaf-133070O4)OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000 . .— 0’ Between 30 and 50/0“00’JI‘DOO000000000GOOOOOOOOOQOOOOOQO00 . " " ‘ C Betoween 50 “Ila 7O 3 n O f‘ O n 0 0 O '7' 0 O O 0 l- O O O 0 O O O O O (.z 0 O O 0 O O O U 0 O 0 0 Be tweerl 7(1- arld 900/0 9! '1 '1 f.‘ O I) 0 O O 0 O l“ O n O U l.‘ O O 0 O O 0 O O 0 O 0 O O O O 6 U H t M r‘ “bar 90“ 065.; .r /oDOUGHOt(Juanaonl‘ouOOO)OOOOOOOOUOOOOOOOOO'JL What social clas are in? (n C C L< C L U (D ......q f. (D <‘ (D k<1 O S- ' u o. I“. LO WC r O O O O O 13 O O O O O 0 fl '3 O O (V I“ O O L“ O 0 O 0 O O 0 O O O O o O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O U D O .lwv‘. Lower M ud'e .L J. ooooooonooonooooooooooooooooooooooooooouoo . ...l. M“ddl" III- tf000000000JOC‘O'BC‘C‘OOu‘(30019000000000¢)0000“?)000000000 vv. .. “ ‘ - ~e* Ml d e v ‘- noUncooooooooaoaonoo(\oooooooooooouoooooooo V . Lpper UOOOOOOOOOL‘OUOO0000O0.000000000000000000000000.00 v , \-' ‘ bpper Upper ........................................... \J [‘x) (10 U1 NO. 25. 26. 165 uni-4- _‘_=l Which social class do you believe your Lower ................................ Lower Middle ......................... Middle ............................... jijpper Middle 0000odooOfiOOOOf’OOC‘UOOOOOO '! T.‘.f‘. wit/per oooooouooooomoooouoooooooooooooo TJl’ppequpper uononooaoooooooooaoooooooo About how much education do you have {C‘ 3 years Of SCIALOO]. or. less oooooooonooo the: (D 01 U) 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O O 0 0 6 years of school or F4 (D (D _l o o o o o o o o o o o o 9 years of school or 12 years of school or less ........... Some college or university ........... A college or university degree ....... (D Some grad-ate work beyond the first d One or more advanced degrees ......... Other (Please note number of years of Oh: a. .1 I1 8:1 2'" v v m..2-.—.v-r_ a-uix .‘I—u-s-.m:‘va‘.-x-. -. r-mu £24.1- --— — - -- A O O O O O 0 O l: U 01. Ix" 270 280 290 10 About how does your education compare people? Much Less About More less than most "noooo.o.oo.oo. than InOSt oooaooaoooooooomoeao aTJeI‘age OOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOO than mOSt 00000000000000000000 Much more ttan most ooooocoooooooo° About how does (or did? your father's that of Aubo'it More Much What type or living arrangement do yo; Rent Rent Rent Parch Own a Own a Other most people in his time? less trlarl InOSt ooooocooooooooo aV‘er-‘ag'e'ooooooooooooonnooaooo Ltlari ITlOSt ooonoonooomooooooomo more than most rooononwooooooo with that a l“ *e ..Uxb ocoooonoaooonooonnonmocoonoooono fl., .- ”é... drl dpalblllerlt OO'i'000000000"00000000000000 a rocm {meals in a restaurant? ass a room and board (rooming house, I1 apal‘t‘ment 00000000000000OOOOOOOOCOOOOGO¢ 1—OUDeooonooanoooomoooonooooooooooo {Please Specify) nu-.. — M___. etc”: 900 D no \ eton" 0.00!" P.Q. of most compare [\3 [’Q NO. 30. 31. 165 ll P.Q. Please answer either A or B. Please read both before answering. A. If you are renting the house in which you live, about how much money per month do you pay for rent? (Write amount in b0X). 0......0.0.......OOOOOOOO......O...’ 'B. If you own the house in which you live (house, apart- ment, or other), about how much money per month do you believe you could rent the house for? (write amount in bOX). OO....OO....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO........J In every community each group (for example, schools, busi- nessmen, labor, the local government) has a different job to do for the community. In your community, would you say that the schools are doing an excellent, good, fair, or poor job? How about businessmen? Labor? The local government? The doctors and hospitals? The church? (Please circle the appropriate number to indicate how you feel each job is being done). Please answer for each group. A. Elementary Schools Do not know ............ . .......................... 1 Poor ........................... ... ................ 2 Fair .......... .... ............ . ................. . 3 Good .... .......................... . ............... 4 Excellent ......................................... 5 B. Secondary Schools Do not know ....................................... 1 Poor .............................................. 2 Fair .............................................. 3 GOOd .....OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.0.0.0.0.........OOOOOOOOOO4 Excellent ...OI...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00...O 5 r—q Continued from Page ll. page apply to the C. U Universities Do not know POOL. cocono Excellent . Businessmen Do not know Poor ... Excellent . Labor Do not know Poor ..-m.. Fair OOOOI'r‘ Good .. n (1 O 0 Excellent . 0 following sections, 1) O O O U 0 o n U 0 fl 0 O O o n 03 O O O O O O O ‘ O n 0 fl 0 The instructions on the previous C through E. O D o o O G n n o O O O 0 O a I! o O o o o n a o n o 0 n a o h n 3 n O o Pch (A) 31. 13 Continued from Page 12. to the following sections, F , F. CA Local Government Do not know .... Excellent ...... National Government Do not know ..., «‘V health beIVLces Do not know ..-“ Fair -..H.-..,UH CCUd afi“”“”“”wfi Excellent ..-.-p Churches Do not know .-.. Poor ....-...... E\ — . ~. C1 .‘ I n n w n 0 fl “ n n n 3 Excellent ...... The 0 C O l O O a: O O l) O O 0 6‘ R v‘ O (1 : n a 49 O O n n r‘ n c‘ .1 l‘ O n r c n n o n ~ fl 0 " I) n 4) ‘ "‘ 0 (“V 0 4‘ instructions on Page through I. C‘ 0 fl 0 O t O () O O 0 fl 0 ‘ H O 6 f» r» P f‘ ( O O (D C‘ O O ( T ) n (1 a 0 CI l I ('9 . 1‘) n n 0 £’ 1" O l" L. O r‘ PI 0 .3 I3 (1 Q l O 1 j l ("I 11 N 0 (v o o O n C C‘ h h (‘a O 0 O O O F O 0 o n n Q. 0 O G O n (l " O U I) fl 0 Q fi h h P.Q. apply 0 o 0 U? 32. 33, 34. $5 ‘ , l65 Less From From F rom Over ies No Yes NO 0 About during the past 10 years? None .1. ILnle '- n «w o “- o n n [\. Over than 1 year i to 2 year’ 3 to 6 years \J 10 years '"OOOI‘U l' o o n 0 I: oomnfl-r. how many "OOOUOO 3 l;mes (5‘ jimes 10 Times lO Times How long have you lived to lO years times (‘ I have l4 P.Q. in your present community? have you changed your residency armatheif. correct number. during the past two years? {from one 0 ma 1! 1‘ c s A Pofln1 ‘1 rr‘ ‘Iii wnnva/‘r‘v O n O I" O O O O ‘0 fl 6 "I O l O a “I n O O O O O O 6‘ n t“ 2 ’3 3 G 0 fl '3 O (7 fl '3 n f‘ 1 3 A n r) e r~ n I, (5 fl <1 r o 4 O "‘ ‘ 1 f‘ m 0 fl 9 1" f‘ I‘ a 5 community to Please Q££E£E the Ig.pxn'3fl‘0f‘F“GOO.-‘l- f n J n .a (I C " O L" F f 3‘ I) fi‘ 71 '1 0 I3 I.‘ O '6 '2 2 Have you changed your employment during the past two years? Please cirg:e_the correct number. r‘OI'V‘n’If‘anii.‘ .1. .wp.,~n.nnnfinannnomonnwnsmnA you changed residency {communities} Please circle the correct number. No. 15 P.Q. 36. About how many times have you changed jobs during the past 10 years? Please circle the correct number. None 00000000000000.00.00.00"OOOOOODOCNOOCOOOOOOCO 1 Time ................................. 2 _ 3 Times ..................................... 4 - 6 Times ............................ 7 — 10 Times ......o...........o........ OVeI: J—O Times 0 O O n n 0 O O O m 0 f‘ O O O a 0' 0, G .v 37. Please state your occupation. Briefly state the title or name of your job and the nature of your work. 38. In respect to your religion, about to what extent do observe the rules and regulations of your religion? ~giggle the correct number. I have no religion ............... Seldom ooooonx‘ncmoncnmnmneoonoo sometimes ”000000500 (“floll‘toflaf‘fioflfl '1 . ‘Jsually O M O O O n 0 l‘ 0 O '5 O O 6 ‘5 W 0 0 G‘ O O O 7 1" Almost always ................. 165 you Please No. . l6 P.Q. 39. Health experts say adding certain chemicals to drinking water results in less decay in people's teeth. If you could add these chemicals to your water with little cost to you, would you be willing to have the chemicals added? Please Eirglg_the correct number. v Probably not 000000000000000000000009000OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO l l 2 h 0 0 O 0 O O \9 G O O 0 O O O O 0 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O G 9 O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 Ma y b e A O O O O O O O O O 0 l. O O '3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O 0 0 0 O O O O O I) I U 3 Yes 4 O O O o t) O O O O O O O O O O G O O O O O B 0 O O O 0 o O I. Q (I o O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O 0 o 0 o 40. Some peOple feel that in bringing up children, new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying out new methods is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? ”New methods of raising children should be tried out whenever possible.” Str‘orhgly disangee 0 O O 0 O O O G O O I) O O O O O O O O O O (V 0 O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 1 Si ightly disagr‘ee (1 O u 0 n O O O O O D O O 0 v) 0 I) O O 0 l‘.‘ O (I L: O O ‘l‘ O l? 0 O O O O to 2 S 1 igrl 1:; ly ag I e e: 0 O n O U L' 0 t" I) U 0 O l‘ n 0 0 O O n O N O C O ('5 O O C '3 O O O O O O O b 9 O 3 Strongly agree .. ....... ...... a ..... ..........-....... 4 4i. Family planning on birth control has been discussed by many people. What is your feeling about a married couple pracw ticing birth control? Do you think they are doing something good or bad? If you had to decide, would you say they are doing wrong, or rather, that they are doing right? . n I‘ '*~ -- ' ," 'av'~ . . a: a . clt ] ‘L.L. ..LD WYJ I-LJ— noncomnoooooocooocooononoounoooooooo .3" t is Pr‘oba.b 1y a l i I. ig'klt If ('1 O f“ O l.‘ 0 H (I O Q 0 O "W O O h V‘ 0 I‘ O 'D O O O O 0 (' O u 2 .1; t i S L1 SJ a l .iy WI. OI‘Lg 0 0 f‘ O O L' 0 u‘ (I C l.“ O O P O 1“ O O O -_) O C7 C O C‘ 6‘ O 0 I) 0 G F- t" '1 ‘2 3 I L i S a lway S WI’OI-l 9‘ ‘ H t‘ f‘ 0 1) '0 W I" (3 O C' F (‘ ~' f‘ u! 6‘ D t‘ O C n U 'V‘ f, (I C‘ r,‘ O i" C‘ O f‘ h o 4 165 iNo. l7 P.Q. 42. PeOple have different ideas about what should be done con— cerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually it creates new jobs and raises the standard of living." Disagr.ee Str.ong]—y ('0 o O O (I 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 0 O 0 O O l ‘Disagx‘ee slightly. 0 G 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O . ° 0 I! O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 2 AgrE-e Slig‘htl-y O I) O O O O O 6 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 6 O O O O ‘5 Ag'ree Strongly 0 (1‘ O O f) n (9 n O O O O f“ O 6 O O O 0 r) O O O O l) O O O O O O O 0 0 O I) O O 4 43. Running a village. city, town, or any governmental organiza» tion is an important job. What is your feeling on the following statement? ”Political leaders should be changed regularly, even if they are doing a good job.“ Str‘ongly disagIree O O L‘ rJ 1' O 0 0 ID 0 O O 0 O O 0 6" O O ’7 O C' C O O 0 O O O O F) O O O O l sli-g“htly disagl‘ee o (J O O (1 O C n n 0 CI 0 O O 0 f) 0 O O 0. O O 0 t; 0 0 O O 0 O O O O 0 Z Slig-rltly agr'eé O O '7 O 0 O U 0 O O O C) O O O O (V O O O D O f? O O O C' O U Q 0 O 0 O O Q 0 fl 3 S trO fig 1y a9. r‘ eje n l" O I? n U 0 t" ’9 0 O t‘ O f" 0 O ‘T‘ O I” O O O O 0 (“ n r' 41" 0 O O O O O 0 O O h 4 44. Some people believe that more lg§§i_government income should be used for education even if doing so means raising the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feeling on this? str'or‘lgly disagree 0 f‘ n O (V ['1 O O n H O 0 O O f‘ O 0 O O 0 O O O 0 O O O O O 0 0 O 0 0 O O U l Sli-gl’Lt-ly disa;.ree 94‘ h n 0 4‘ O O 0 O O G O L‘! O 00 0 fi 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 f” ‘1‘ O O O O 0 0 O U 0 0 2 I n -| . k . _ - . . 3 J S l 4-9 m t 1y ag L e év' 0 O I) W l.‘ U (I O C‘ n I" O O O O 0 C O O (‘1 O O C”! 0 0 O O O G O " D O O O 0 (V O O O Str.onglly ag'I-ee O 0‘ 0 d" O O 0 L‘ O I‘ I) f“ n O O O O O O O O O (' O I? ‘f‘ O O I‘ O O O O O O 9 O U 0 O 4 165 No. 18 P.Q. 45. Some people believe that more federal government income should be used for education even if doing so means rais- ing the amount you pay in taxes. What are your feelings on this? Strongly disagree ...................................... 1 Slightly disagree ...................................... 2 Slightly agree ......................................... 3 Strongly agree ......................................... 4 46. People have different ideas about planning for education in their nation. Which one of the following do you believe is the best way? Answer only one. Planning for education should be left entirely to the parents ................................................ 1 Educational planning should be primarily directed by the individual city or other local governmental unit ... 2 Education planning should be primarily directed by the national government .................................... 3 47. Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? Please circle the number of your choice. I find it very difficult to change ..................... l I find it slightly difficult to change ................. 2‘ I find it somewhat easy to change my ways .............. 3 I find it very easy to change my ways .................. 4 48. I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on my own. Agree strongly ......................................... 1 Agree slightly ......................................... 2 Disagree slightly ...................................... 3 Disagree strongly ...................................... 4 165 NO. 49. 50. 51. 165 19 P.Q. I like the kind of work that lets me do things about the same way from one week to the next. Circle the number of your choice. Agree strongly ........ ........ ........................ 1 Agree slightly ........ ..... .......... ......... . ....... 2 Disagree slightly .............. ....... .. .............. 3 Disagree strongly ............... ....... . .............. 4 A good son will try to find work that keeps him near his parents even though it means giving up a good job in another part of the country. Agree strongly ......... ............................... 1 Agree slightly ...................... ........ . ......... 2 Disagree slightly ..................................... 3 Disagree strongly ......... . ........................... 4 We should be as helpful to people we do not know as we are to our friends. ’Disagree strongly ......... ....... ..................... l Disagree slightly .................... ....... . ......... 2 Agree slightly ........................................ 3 Agree strongly ... ..... ............... .......... . ...... 4 No. 20 P.Q. 52. Planning only makes a person unhappy because your plans hardly ever work out anyway. Agree strongly ........................................ 1 Agree slightly ........................................ 2 Disagree slightly ....... . ............................. 3 Disagree strongly ..................................... 4 53. Which one of the following requisities do you consider most important to make your life more happy and satisfactory in the future? Circle the single, most important choice. Nothing ............................................... 1 More money .............................. . ............. 2 More friends .......................................... 3 Better job ............................................ 4 Good health ........................................... 5 Other (Please Specify) 6 54. What do you think you can do to make this possible? Please answer one of the two alternatives below. Nothing Please Specify 165 APPENDIX B Instrumentation B—4 Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons No. Location Male Group Female Date HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE Instructions: Given below are 20 statements of opinion about physically handicapped persons. We all think dif— ferently about persons with physical handicaps. Here you may express how you think by choosing one of the four possible answers following each statement. These answers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the state- ment. Please mark your answer by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. You are also asked to indicate for each statement how strongly you feel about your marking of the statement. Please mark this part of your answer in the same way as before, by placing a circle around the number in front of the answer you select. 1. Parents of handicapped children should be less strict than other parents. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly 2. Physically handicapped persons are Just as intelligent as non-handicapped ones, 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 2 ATDP Handicapped peOple are usually easier to get along with than other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Most physically handicapped people feel sorry for themselves. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are the same as anyone else. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. . 3 ATDP There shouldn't be special schools for physically handicapped children. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It would be best for physically handicapped persons to live and work in special communities. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is up to the gorernment to take care of physically handicapped persons. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly No. 10. ll. A ATDP Most physically handicapped people worry a great deal. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped peOple should not be expected to meet the same standards as non-handicapped people. 1. Strongly Disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are as happy as non— handicapped ones. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. 'Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. l4. 5 ATDP Severely physically handicapped people are no harder to get along with than those with minor handicapps. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly It is almost impossible for a handicapped person to lead a normal life. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly 4. Very strongly You should not expect too much from physically handi— capped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree 4. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 15. 16. 17. 6 ATDP Physically handicapped people tend to keep to them- selves much of the time. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are more easily upset than non-handicapped peOple. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped persons cannot have a normal social life. i. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly No. 18. 19. 20. 7 ATDP Most physically handicapped peOple feel that they are not as good as other people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly You have to be careful of what you say when you are with physically handicapped people. 1. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 3. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? l. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly Physically handicapped people are often grouchy. l. Strongly disagree 3. Agree 2. Disagree A. Strongly agree About how strongly do you feel about your answer? 1. Not strongly at all 3. Fairly strongly 2. Not very strongly A. Very strongly APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-S Definitions of Disabling Conditions DEFINITIONS What is meant by "physical handicap." The words "physically handicapped" will be used often in the questions and statements that follow. Where these words are used, they will include persons with any of the following handicaps: l. blind persons—-those who have no useful sight at all. partly blind persons—-those who have some sight but have trouble reading and getting about even with glasses. deaf persons -those who have no useful hearing at all. partly deaf persons——those who have some hearing but have trouble understanding other persons even with a hearing aid. cripples or amputees——those who have arms or legs that have been paralyzed or removed even though they may be of some use with artificial hands or legs. spastic (or cerebral palsy)——those who have poor control and coordination of their leg, arm, and head movements. Movements are often Jerky and speech hard to under— stand. disfigured——those who have been obviously damaged about the face, such as with burns or scars, so that the face has been changed. APPENDIX B Instrumentation B-6 Personal Questionnaire: HP No. Location Male Group Female Date PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP This questionnaire deals with your contacts with physically handi- capped persons, and what you know about them. Perhaps you have had much contact with physically handicapped persons, or you may have studied about them. On the other hand, you may have had little or no contact with physically handicapped persons, and may have never thought much about them at all. For the purposes of this investigation, the answers of all per~ sons are important, so even if you know very little or nothing about physically handicapped persons your answers are important. 165 PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: HP Please read each question carefully and do not omit any questions. Please answer by circling the correct answer (or answers) or fill in the answer as requested. 1. Some physically handicapping conditions are listed below. In respect to these various handicaps, which have you had the most actual experience with. Please answer by circling the pgmber of the group you select. Circle only one. l. blind 6. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face) 2. partially blind 7. spastic {or cerebral 3. deaf (and deafumute) palsy) 4. partially deaf 8. speech disorders 5. crippled or amputated 9. none limbs 2. Which other groups have you also had some experience with? Please circle the number of eagh additional group with which you have had some experience. i. blind b. disfigured (such as severe burns or scars on face? 2. partially blind 7. spastic (or cerebral 3. deaf (and deafvmute) palsy) 4. partially deaf 8. speech disorders 5. crippled or amputated 9. none limbs If on the preceding question you indicated that you have had no personal experience with physically handicapped per~ sons (by circling response No. 9. please skip questions #3 through #9. If you indicated that you have had the exper- ience with one or more of the above handicapping conditions, please answer questions #3 through #9. 165 NO. 165 2 P.Q.“HP The following questions have to do with the kinds of exper— iences you have had with physically handicapped persons. Please circle the number of each experience that applies to .ygg. If more than one experience applies, please circle a number for each experience that applies. I have read or heard a little about physically handicapped persons 000@000OOOOOOOOOGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO l I have studied about physically handicapped persons through reading, movies, lectures, or observations .. 2 A friend is physically h ndicapped ................. Some relative is physically handicapped ............. 4 I have personally worked with physically handicapped persons, as a teacher, counselor, volunteer, child care, etc. OOOOOOOOOOnOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGOOOOOO'?OOOOOO 5 My father, mother, brother, sister, wife (husband) or child is physically handicapped .................. 6 I, myself, have a physical handicap. (Briefly, 7 please indicate the kind of handicap) Considering all of the times you have talked. worked, or in some other way had personal contact with physically handim capped persons, about how many times has it been altogether? .- Please circle the number or the Eingle best answer. Less than l0 occasions ................ Between 10 and 50 occasions ....... Between 50 and 100 occasions .......... Between 100 and 500 occasions ....... More than 500 occasions ...... NO. 5. 6. 165 3 POQ.—HP When you have been in contact with physicially handicapped people, how easy for you, in general, would it have been £9 have avoided being with these handicapped persons? I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only at great cost or difficulty .,.....,.,, ..... .ooo.. l I could generally have avoided these personal contacts only with considerable difficulty .,,....,,.o.,,....,,. 2 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts "but with some inconvenience .ooooo..oo,o.oooo.oo. ...... 3 I could generally have avoided these personal contacts without any difficulty or inconvenience ,,,,,, 0,0,..000 4 During your contact with physically handicapped persons, did you gain materially in any way through these contacts, such as being paid, or gaining academic credit, or some such gain? No, I have never received money, credit, or any other material gain ........................................... 1 Yes, I have been paid for working with handicapped persons 0 o O O O O OOOOOOO 9 0 0 O O O 000000000 O 0 C O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O O 0 o 0 O 0 O O 2 Yes, I have received academic credit or other material I gal-n 00.0000000000000000009 000000 000000000000 00000 Yes, I have both been paid and received academic credit 4 No, 8, 4 P,Q.-HP If you have never been paid for working with handicapped persons, go on to the next question. If you have been paid, about what per cent of your income was derived from contact with physically handicapped persons during the actual period when working with them? Less than 10% 0,0,,,,,,.o,.,,ooooooouo,.,,,.o,..oooooo Between 10 and 25% o0000,00,,0.,,°,,,,,,...,o,.o.o.00. Between 25 and 50% ,0,0,0,,..o,,,,.,.,,.,o,,o.o.no..no Between 50 and 75% ,oo,,,00,,000..,,,n,,,,.o,,.0000,00 More tklan / 590 O O O O 0 C C' (7‘ n O O 9 O O 0 O O O '9 O O O O O n 0 O O O O O O O G O O l‘ 0 0 0 How have you generally felt about your experience with h capped persons? definitely have disliked it . ,,,,,,,,,,g,o.,o.,.,eo H I have not lflfixiit very much ,,,,,,.,,,,,,,..,,,,,,.00 have 1 iked it SOmew‘rla-t— Q 0 O O O w 0 O 0 (D (I '9 0 1‘ O G 0 0 0 0 O O C' O O O 0 O O t“. I ha.ve definitely enjoyed it oocoo'vonmowoooconcern-sorbet, '- l\) ndi— If you have ever worked with the physically handicapped for personal gain (for example, for money, or some other gain}, what Opportunities did you have {or do you have) to work something else instead: that is, something else that was is) acceptable to you as a job? I do nOt know what other JObS were available or a C (Tep t ab 1 e "I D 0 I’.‘ (I A (I O U h' 0 O C 1') C‘ L" O O O F) O I" O 0 O O O U 9 I) O O O O O 0 O O O 0 0 F) O NO OtT-‘e-r' jOb was available (3 F‘ O O f’ f‘ t? O D f‘ 0 I] U 0 O O O C‘ 0 O O O O O U Ill 0 Other jobs available were 39$” 3 all_acceptable to me Other jobs available were not quite acceptable to me . Other jobs available were fully acceptable to me .000, at {or U] 5 PoQo-HP The following questions should be answered by all persons, regardless of whether or not they have had any personal contact with persons who are physically handicapped. Have you had any experience with mentally retarded persons? Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal Contact with mentally retarded persons, about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer° Less than 10 occasions ,0,,,., Between 10 and 50 occasions , , 00000000000000000090000000Z Between 50 and 100 occasions a.. Between 100 and 500 occasions . More than 500 occasions O C O 0 O 0 O O O C 0 O G O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 O O O '3 3 Have you had any experience with emotionally ill persons Considering all of the times you have talked, worked, or in some other way had personal contaCt with_gmg£ignally ill persons, about how many times has it been altogether? Please circle the number of the single best answer, Less than 10 occasions ,,,,,,.w Between 10 and 50 occasions ,,,,,,,. Between 50 and 100 occasions ..,,,,, Between 100 and 500 occasions , More than 500 occasions ,,,,,,o.,,, APPENDIX C C—l Basic Variables of the Study Variables, mummwar-a KO APPENDIX C Administration Procedures, Code Book, and Code Forms Basic Variables of the Study Administration Procedures Code Book Special Instructions for Colombia Special Instructions for Peru Special Instructions for Kansas Data Transcription Sheet FCC I and II Variable-Computer Print-Out Code Form for Colombia, Peru, and Kansas (i.e. Friesen) Religiosity APPENDIX C C-l Basic Variables of the Study 565 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL Attitudes Toward Education 1 Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, 10, ll, 12, l3, 14, 18, 19 - Content Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Traditional attitudes, Items 3, 4, 6, 10, ll, 12, l3, l4, l8, l9 - Intensity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (diChotomized) Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, l6, 17, 20 - Content Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Progressive attitudes, Items 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 15, l6, 17, 20 - Intensity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Contact with Education (Q'aire) 1 Levels of education experienced Q'aire, Item 1 (primary contact) Q'aire, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. kinds of) 2 Varieties of contact with education Q'aire, Item 3 3 Amount of contact (work) with education Q'aire, Item 4 4 Personal gain through working in education Q'aire, Item 5 (% of income) 5 Alternative opportunities available Q'aire, Item 7 (refers to other possible employment) 6 Enjoyment of contact Q'aire, Item 6 Aid to Education - Financial (Q'aire) Item 44 (local) Item 45 (federal or national) G. 565 2 BASIC VARIABLES f INTERNATIONAL Education Planning (Q'aire) Item 46 Interpersonal Values - Gordon Scale scores: Support scores: Conformity scores: Recognition (comparative score) scores: Independence scores: Benevolence (asset score) scores: Leadership (Comparative score) mtn.b<»rora L-‘wHWOm Demographic, S.E.S., Other Control Data (All from Q'aire) 1 Education (self—amount), Item 26 2 Occupation (specific), Item 37 3 Income and rental (S. E. Class) Item 14 (income - yearly, self-family) Item 30 (rental) 4 Age: Item 8 5 Sex: Front sheet of questionnaire 6 Marital status: Item 12 7 Number of children: Item 13 8 Size of family: Item 16 (brothers - do not use) Item 17 (sisters - do not use) Items 16 and 17 (siblings) 9 Housing (type of), Item 29 10 Mobility: Residency, Items 32, 33 and 35 Card 4, Col. 25 Occupational, Items 34 and 36 ll Rural-Urban Status: Items 9, 10 and 11 12 Employment status - current: Item 37 Satisfaction with institutions (Q'aire) l Satisfaction with elementary schools Item 3l—A 2 Satisfaction with secondary schools Item 31—B 3 Satisfaction with universities Item 3l—C 565 3 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL 4 Satisfaction with businessmen Item 3l-D 5 Satisfaction with labor Item 3l-E 6 Satisfaction with local government Item 3l-F 7 Satisfaction with national government Item 31-G 8 Satisfaction with health services Item 3l-H 9 Satisfaction with churches Item 3l-I Self-Statements (Q'aire) Comparative income status — self: Item 15 Comparative income — father: Item 18 Comparative social class - self: Item 24 Comparative social class - father: Item 25 Comparative education — self: Item 27 Comparative education - father: Item 28 (hU‘IrbLUNl—J Religiousityyguestionnaire (Q'aire) 1 Religious affiliation: Item 19 2 Perceived importance: Item 20 3 Perceived norm conformity: Item 38 Personalism Questionnaire (Q'aire) 1 Orientation toward job personalism a Statement of extent of personalism on job: Item 21 b Perceived importance of personal relations: Item 22 2 Diffusion of personal relationships Percent of jobusocial overlap: Item 23 3 Familialism: Item 50, (Son's work) 4 Other orientation: Altruism: Item 51 Attitudes Toward Change (Q'aire) 1 Health practices (water): Item 29 2 Child—rearing practices: Item 40 3 Birth control practices: Item 41 565 4 BASIC VARIABLES - INTERNATIONAL 4 Political leadership change: Item 43 Automation: Item 42 6 Self Conception Item 47 (Perceived self-rigidity) Item 48 (Adherence to rules) Item 49 (Job regularity and rigidity) 7 Future orientation Item 52 (Planning _ personal) Item 53 (Requisites for happiness) Item 54 (Achievement of happiness) U'l Attitudes Toward Handicapped Persons 1 Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1-20 - Content Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) 2 Handicapped Persons Scale, Items 1—20 — Intensity Raw Score total Adjusted total score (dichotomized) Contact with Handicapped Persons 1 Kinds of handicapped persons experienced P.Q.-HP, Item 1 (most contact) P.Q.HHP, Item 2 (additional contacts - no. of) 2 Varieties of relationship with handicapped P.Q.HHP, Item 3 3 Frequency of contact with physically handicapped P.Q H-HP, Item 4 4 Ease of avoidance of contacts with handicapped 0Q. HP, Item 5 ersonal gain through working with handicapped persons .Q- H-HP, Item 6 (experienced gain) Qo t U1 Item 7 (% of income) ernative opportunities available .Q. HP, Item 9 (refers to other possible employment) 7 Enjoyment of contact with physically handicapped P.Q.OHP, Item 8 8 Frequency of contact with mentally retarded persons P.Q.WHP, Item 10 9 Frequency of contact with emotionally disabled persons P.Q.-HP, Item ll A PPEND IX C C-2 Administration Procedures PROCEDURES FOR ADMINISTRATION: CROSSmCULTURAL ATTITUDE STUDY W7 ’ A 1 -‘ 25.} John E. Jordan Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan December, 1964 The specific instructions will vary in detail from nation to nation. However, the following outline is presented on the basis of my experience thus far with the questionnaires and attitude scales. 1. Arrange for a meeting room and/or place. The respond- ents should have a table (or similar surface) on which to write and ample room between respondents (in group administration) to minimize influencing each other. After introducing oneself (or being introduced), state briefly the following kind of rationale for the study: "This is an international study of attitudes toward education; part of it deals with education in gen— eral and part of it deals with the education of handicapped persons. Each part is clearly stated. Remember, in a study like this, there are no right or wrong answers to the attitude questions. We want you to answer how you feel about certain things. Therefore,_we do nct'want your name on the question- naire. Please answer quickly, with your first idea first, and_dg_ng£ spend a lot of time thinking about each item. Remember this is an international study and all the people in the other countries will be answering in the same manner. If there is no answer that exactly fits what you would like to answer, please choose the alternative nearest to your desired answer. Please answer all items, 3. If you have any questions as you proceed, please raise your hand and we will come to you and dis— cuss it individually so as not to disturb the other peOple. When we have all completed the questionnaires, I will be glad to discuss the study in more detail if you desire. Thank you very much for taking time to COOperate in the study." Distribute the page of definitions. "We will now distribute to you a page of definitions of certain handicapping conditions which will be referred to in some of the questionnaires. We will all take a few minutes to read these so we will all have the same idea about the same words. You may refer to these later if you so desire. Also, we want you to put a number in the upper left hand corner of the page like this (show them what you mean). Since we do not want you to put your name on the questionnaire, you will use this num— ber. In this manner no one will know your answers. We must have your number and group (special educa— tion, teacher, business, etc.) on each question— naire so we can put all the answers of one person together at the end." Here the respondents "number off" and see that no two persons have the same number. Remember if two people in a group have the same number, the data cannot be analyzed. Distribute the attitude scales and questionnaires in the following order. In group administration be sure to pass out only one instrument at a time. Order of Administration of Instruments '..—.i Page of definitions Education Scale Survey of Interpersonal Values Personal Questionnaire Handicapped Persons Scale Personal Questionnaire: HP @01st \ Distribute the Education Scale. Have the respondent fill out data on the top of scale: (1) Number, (2) Sex, (3) Location, (4) Group, and (5) Date. Either instruct the respondents to read silently the instructions or the administrator may read them to the group; this is left to each country to do in the manner they consider most appropriate. Our experience shows that if the instruc- tions are well understood on this first instrument, the other instruments are easily understood. When the respondents have completed the Education Scale, collect them and distribute the next one as indicated above in Point Number Four. Proceed in a similar manner until all‘fgiel ' str 1ments ha ve been completed. If situations arise where the 1nstramen s are left with the respondent (i.e., either in an office or to take home), try to impress on them the order in which to take them (e.g., number them 1—2-3—4-5 in the upper right hand corner) and not to look at them ahead of time. Do not leave i1mfir1ments with respondents except when absolutely neces ssa.ry and in sucl: cases mark on them later to indicate they were give n in this manner. Respondent identification. See discussion under Points Numbered 3 and 6 above. Remember we need a minimum of 50 persons per ea ch of the four groups: (l) special educa— tion, (2) teacher p11ma1y and secondary, (3) workers» blue and white collar, and (4) employers~business, comm merce, industry We would prefer to have more so secure as many as ycu can conveniently locate up to 100 per group. C. Each of these respc ordents must ill out all five instru- flit-3&1}; , u s ing t'h e s erg." rgé‘ppidep‘t number a nd q ro u p . I f either the respcndant number or group is omitted or dupli- cated, the data cannot be collated for data analysis! When you have secured enough completed sets of instruments for a "usual size" mailing package in your country, please mail to me rather than waiting to ser d all of them at one time. In tn"s manner I can have the da a scored and tabu— lated for compiter processing in an o1der ly manner. If I receive all *ute data at one time, it will be difficult to hire ass1stants '61: at the university on any regular basis. 9‘...- n- — -.I—J .on-uv letter describing it so I can keep records. Each t1me_you mail a package of _data, you should send me a APPENDIX C Variables, Code Book, and Transcription Sheets C—3 Code Book CODE BOOK CROSS CULTURAL ATTITUDES TOWARD EDUCATION: THEIR NATURE AND DETERMINANTS INTERNATIONAL STUDY* John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University August 25, 1965 INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE USE OF THIS CODE BOOK 1. Code Q_or Qg_will always mean Not Applicable or Nothing, except as noted. 2. Code i for a one column no response, or —9 for a two column no response, or :99 for a three column no response will mean there was No Information or Respondent did not answer. 3. In each case in the following pages the column to the left con— tains the column number of the IBM card; the second column con— tains the question number from the questionnaire; the third column (item detail) contains an abbreviated form of the item; and the fourth column contains the code within each column df the IBM card with an explanation of the code. The fifth colL _umn (recode) is reserved to later indicate recoding after the item count is finished; i.e., after all data is key punched, run the data through the M.S.U. computer (ACT II, FCC, and/or Single—Column Frequency Distributions) to determine the pat— terns of response alternatives to a question. This will indi— cate if regrouping, etc., need to be considered for the item. 4. Coder instructions always follow a line across the page and are clearly indicated. 5. In some cases when ggdg§_g£e egua; to Others already used, they are not repeated each time, but reference is made to a previous code or the immediately previous code with ”same”. 6. Under Code, the first number is the questionnaire question alternative and the second number is the actual code which is entered on the data sheets (i.e., 114; one I is the question— naire question alternative and 4 is the code). * This code book is specifically for the United States sample thru Card 4. Limited modifications and/or additions are made in certain nations and/or states. lgpggial instructions are appended for each study before scoring that sample. 865 CARD 1 Page 1—1 Column—Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 1,2,3 Face Sheet Nation and UNITED STATES Location 001 — Mich., Mt. Pleasant 002 — Mich., Cadillac 003 — Mich., Ann Arbor 004 — Mich., Port Huron 005 1 Mich., Lansing 006 - Mich., Walden Woods 007 - Mich., Flint 008 - Mich., Misc., Kal., Mid. 009 - Kansas, Wichita 010 — Ohio, Tiffin Oll - West Virginia Ol2 - Kentucky 013 — Georgia LATIN AMERICA 101 — Costa Rica 102 - Colombia 103 - Peru 104 1 Argentina 105 - Mexico 106 — Surinam EUROPE 201 1 England 202 — Holland 203 1 Belgium 204 — France 205 — Yugoslavia 206 — Denmark 207 1 Germany Aéifl 301 — Israel 302 — Japan 303 - India 304 - Formosa 401 — Kenya 402 - Rhodesia 403 - South Africa 865 Columnegues. 4,5 Face Sheet 6,7 Face Sheet 8 Face Sheet 9 (Code derived from Col's .22, 23, Card 1) 10 New 11,12 Face Sheet 13,14 Face Sheet Item Detail Group Number (adminis- tration) Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode anterest group) Occupational Redode (Spec. Ed.. Rehab. SER)* Deck or Card Number Project Director, location and con- tent area * If respondent is not an SER ”educational person", he received a i, 865 Page 1—2 Code Recode* Ol - 99 Check Special Instructions 01 99 l Masculine 2 Feminine 1 Code 01 — 09, Rehab., Spec. Ed. 2 Code 10 - 19, Education 3 Code 20 - 45, Profes- sional, Business, Medical 4 Code 50 — 86, White Col- lar, Blue Collar, Laborer 1 Teacher, Educable Retarded, (Type A and Type C) 2 Teacher, Trainable Retarded (Type B) 3 Teacher, Hearing 4 Teacher, Vision 5 Speech Correction 6 Visiting Teacher (Also Social Worker) 7 Diagnostician 8 Other (Professors, Supts., Administrators, etc.) + Non—teacher Ol LATIN AMERICA 01 02 03 Felty: Costa Rica (total — pilot study) Friesen: Peru and Colombia (total) Taylor: Costa Rica (country study) CARD 1 Page 1—3 Columnfigues. Item Detail Code Recode* 13,14 Face Sheet UNITED STATES (continued) 31 Sinha: Ohio (parents— M. R., emot. dist. and normal) 32 Dickie: Kansas (total and blind scale) 33 Weir: Kansas (total and deaf scale) 34 Mader: Michigan (spec- ial educ. - intra) 35 Jordan: Michigan - Mt. Pleasant (Spec. Ed.) ASIA 51 Cessna: Japan (total plus university stu- dents and government employees) EUROPE 7l Boric: Yugoslavia (total) 72 Fabia: France (total) 73 Hansen: Denmark (total) 74 Loring: England (total) 75 Robaye: Belgium (total) 76 Schweizer: Netherlands (total) 77 Kreider: EurOpe (total) 15,16 Face Sheet Day of Admin- 01 to 31 istration (Use the actual day) 17,18 Face Sheet Month of 01 - January Adminis- 02 — February tration 03 — March 865 Column—Ques. 17,18 Face Sheet (continued) i . 19,20 Face Sheet 21 Face Sheet 22,23 37 Q'aire * See page 4-2 865 Item Detail Year of Adminis— tration Type of Adminis— stration Occupation of Respon- dent* (Spe— cific) Page 1-4 Code Recode* lO - October 11 - November 12 - December 64 - 1964 65 — 1965 66 — 1966 70 - 1970 1 - Group 2 - Self—administered 3 — Interview, individual + — No information (01 — O9) Rehab. & Spec. Ed. 01 - All administrative persons, public and private schools or agencies 02 - Teachers, elem. and secondary academic and vocational O3 - School Special Services (Psych., soc. work, Speech, etc.) 04 — University teachers, professors, researchers, specialists, etc. 05 - Medical (Doctors, Den— tists, etc.) 06 - Other professional (Psych., Soc. worker, Speech, etc., not pri- marily in public or private schools) 07 - Para-medical (Nurse, O.T., R.T., P.T., ect.) 08 - Unskilled Help (Hospital aide, janitor, any non- prof., non-tech. role) 09 - Other CARD 1 Page 1-5 Column-Ques._, Item Detail Code Recode* 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (10 - l9) Educationalgpersonnel (continued) of Respon- other than Rehab. and Spec. Ed. dent* (Spe- cific) 10 - Elementary teachers, (include elem. v.p.'s, counselors, etc.) 11 - Secondary teachers 12 - Guidance and personnel workers (psych., social work, counselor if not elementary) 13 - Other special services (Speech, spec. teacher, audiometric, etc.) 14 - Administrative (elem., sec., central office adm., including elem. principal, sec. v.p. and princ., etc., in non-teach.) 15 - University teachers, professors, researchers, specialists, etc. 16 - 19 Open (20 - 29) Medical, other than Rehab. and Spec. Ed. 20 - General practitioners 2l - Surgeons 22 - Psychiatrists or psycho- analysts 23 - Dentists 24 - All other medical spec— ialties 25 — Open 26 — Tech. and Prof.: Nurse, O.T., P.T., R.T., Audio, etc. 27 - Non-tech. and non-prof.: aide, janitor, attendant, etc. *See page 4~2 28 - 29 Open 865 CARD 1 Page l-6 Column:gues. Item Detail Code Recode* 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation (3O - 39) Professional and (continued) of Respon- Technical, not Spec. Ed. and dent* (Spe- Rehab. or Medical or Educ. cific ) 3O - Engineers (degrees): civil, electrical, mechanical, etc. 31 - Lawyers, attorneys, public accountants 32 - Ministers, clergymen 33 - Musicians 34 — Clinical psychologist 35 - Researchers, scientists, not primarily in education 36 - Social workers, etc. 37 - 39 Other (40 - 45) Business and Industry, Managers, officials, prop.'s 4O - Gov't and other bureau- cratic officials: public administrators and offi— cers, union officials, stage inspectors, public utility, telephone offic- ials, etc. 41 - Manufacturing, industrial officials, exec's, etc. 42 — Non—mfg., service, indus- try: bankers, brokers, insurance, real estate 43 - Retail trades: food, clothing, furniture, gaso- line, vehicle sales, etc. 44 - General: i.e., manager executive, etc., no other qualifications 45 - Open (46 - 49) Farm owners, operators and managers of large farms, e.g., heavy eguipment and/or many empl. * See page 4-2 865 Column-Ques. 22,23 37 Q'aire (continued) *See page 4-2 865 Item Detail Occupation 46 of Respon- 47 dent* (Spe— 48 cific) 49 (50 29:32 Page 1-7 Recode* Farm owner Farm operator (renter) Farm manager Open 59) White Collar: office, clerical, etc. 50 51 52 54 (60 men, 60 61 62 63 64 65 Clerical and similar: tellers, bookkeepers, cashiers, secretaries, shipping clerks, attend- ants, telephone operators, library asst's, mail clerks and carriers, file clerks, etc° Sales workers: advertising, sales clerks, all mfg., wholesale, retail and other Small shOpkeeper or dealer 59 Open 69) Blue Collar: crafts- foremen, and kindred work Craftsmen: carpenters, bakers, electricians, plumbers, machinists, tailors, toolmakers, photographers, etc. Foremen: all construc- tion, mfg., transporta- tion and communication, and other industries Servicemen: telegraph, telephone, etc. Mechanics and repairmen Shoemakers, roofers, painters, and plasterers Merchant marine, sailors (non—military) CARD 1 Page 1—8 Columnjgues. Item Detail Code Recode* 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 66 - Bus and cab drivers, (continued) of Respon- motormen, deliverymen, dent* (Spe- chauffeurs, truck and cific) tractor drivers 67 - Operatives of all other mech. equipment (machine, vehicle, misc. mfg.) 68 — 69 Open (70 - 74) Serivce and Private Household workers) 7O - Private household: laun— dress, housekeeper, cook 71 - Firemen and policemen, sheriffs, and baliffs 72 - Attendents, professional and personal (valet, mas- seur, misc. mfg.) 73 - Misc. attendents and services: hospital attendents, bootblacks, cooks 74 - Open _(75 — 79) Militarnyersonnel 75 - Ranking officers, all services (Navy Commander and up, Army and Marines Colonel“and'up) 76 — Junior Officers, Army and Air 77 — Junior Officers, Navy and Marines 78 — Non-commissioned personnel, Army and Air 79 - Non-commissioned personnel, Navy and Marines (80 — 86) Laborers * See page 4-2 865 CARD 1 Page 1-9 Columnegyes. Item Detail Code Recode* 22,23 37 Q'aire Occupation 80 - Small farm owners, renters, (continued) of Respon- and farm laborers (small dent* (Spe- farm has no heavy equipment, cific) provides minimal income and substance, employs 3 or less persons, full or part time, except for migrant help) 81 - Non-mfg., non-industrial: fishermen, hunters, lumber- men, miners, gardeners, teamsters, garage laborers, etc. 82 - Manufacturing of durable goods: wood, clay, stone (stonecutter), metal, glass plastic,. machinery, of all kinds 83 - Mfg. of non-durable goods: food (bakery, beverages, etc.), tobacco, clothing, cloth, paper, printing, chemicals, rubber, leather, etc. 84 - Non-mfg. industries: rail- road, construction, trans— portation, workers, etc. 85 - 86 Open (87) No employment 87 - Persons that haven't worked, such as housewives, students or others who have never had a regular occupation * Instructions for Coder: OCCUPATIONS, COLUMNS 22—23. Coding information is derived from two sources: 1. Occupational description of groups as listed by the administrator. 2. Personal statements by the respondents in Question 37 of the questionnaire. Question 37 is the primary source of information. If vague or incomplete, score entirely from notes of administrator. * See page 4—2 865 CARD 1 Column-Ques. Item Detail 24 37 Q'aire Current Employmentr Status* 25 1 thru All ques- thru 20 H-P tions in 44 Content** handicap— ped per- sons scale are to be scored from Iggy data. See instruc— tions below. co_de rwaH I IbanNI-J I Page 1-10 Recode* Employed or self-employed Retired Temporarily out of work Housewife, but formerly employed Unable:to work (other than retired or housewife) but formerly employed Student or persons trained for employment but not work~ ing for various reasons 1, strongly disagree 2, disagree 3, agree 4 strongly agree ‘ * Instructions for Coder: EMPLOYMENT STATUS, COLUMN 24. Code from questionnaire Question §Z_if person clearly states employ- ment status. If no employment stated, and no indication with certainty from the administrator, score.i. ** Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE SCORING, COLUMNS 25-44. NOTE: CERTAIN STEPS AND PROCEDURES ARE THE SAME FOR THE EDUCATION SCALE AS FOR THE HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE. THESE PROCE- DURES WILL BE WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS. The content part of the question is the first half of the question (i.e., the first score). 1. Reverse the content response numbering for the Handicapped Persons Scale (NOT the intensity response number) for items g, 5, 6, 11, and 12, as follows: The number of response 1 on data sheets.\ .2 .2 .4. 865 is changed to and scored directly £1. 2 Z l CARD 1 Page 1—11 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 2. Special instructions for NO RESPONSE. Count tfie number of NO RESPONSE items, if more than §_occur, do not scOre respondent for this scale. If there are §_9£_less in total, and 3.93 less in sequence, the NO RESPONSE statement is to be scored either 1.or giby the random procedure of coin flipping. If a head is obtained, the sCOre assigned will be I. If a tail is obtained, the score assigned will be 2, 3. TOTAL THE RAW SCORES FOR EACH RESPONDENT AND WRITE THE TOTALS ON THE TRANSCRIPTION DATA SHEET DIRECTLY BELOW THE COLUMN TOTALED.* 4. INTENSITY RAW SCORES FOR EACH STATEMENT ARE TO BE SCORED ON THE DATA SHEET EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR ON THE QUESTIONNAIRE: i.e., IF‘l IS CIRCLED IN THE INTENSITY SECTION OF QUESTION ONE, SCORE IT AS l_ON THE CORRESPONDING SECTION dF THE TRANSCRIPTION SHEET. 5. Dichxomization Procedures (i.e., forJMSA - applied to all scales). a) Using raw data scores (i.e., the actual number circled by the respondent) via the Hafterson CUT Program on the M.S.U. CDC 3600, determine the point §f_least error for each item on the content scales. b) Using this point (i.e., between l_and g, or between g_and §_or between §_and 4) rescore the items, via recode cards, as Q, 1 via the Hafterson MSA Program on the M.S.U. CDC 3600 to determine which items form E_scale. Run at both .01 and .05 level. c) For Handicapped Persons ScaleA items are scored Q_above the column break, 1 below the column break. For education Scale scoring, the reverse is true: items are scored 1 above the column break, Q_below the column break. d) Using the same procedure in point 5-a above, determine the CUT points for the intensity component 9; each item. * By this procedure, the possible range of scores is from Q to 89. Doubling the obtained score will approximate scores obtained by the method of Yuker, gt al., (1960, po 10) 1 HP scale, blind scale, and deaf scale. 865 CARD 1 Page 1—12 Columnjgues. Item Detail Code Recode* 5. 45 thru 64 e) Enter the MSA Program with the CUT points for the intensity component and scale as in Point No. 5-b for content. f) Adjusted total scores for content and intensigy. Sum the dichfiomized content and intensity scores (i.e., Q, 1) obtained by the above procedure for each respondent on these items that scaled for both content and intensity. Maximum score will be l_x the number 9§_the same items that scaled 92 both content and intensity. 9) Zero Point. Using only the items that scaled for both con- tent and intensity, plot and determine the "zero point" for each cultural group (or other desired groupings) via the method detailed on pages 221—234 by Guttman (1950). Dichotomization Procedure (alternative to no. 5 above). Attempt to program the CUT Program into the MSA so that both procedures under 5-a and b are conducted jointly. 1 thru Handicapped l - 1, not strongly at all 20 H;P Persons 2 - 2, not very strongly Intensity* Scale 3 - 3, fairly strongly Intensity 4 — 4, very strongly Except for NO RESPONSE, intensity scores are to be determined as noted in the preceding section regarding Content. Those scales which are rejected because of an excess of NO RESPONSE items in respect to content will of course also be rejected for intensity. Intensity questions which are unscored, but which occur when the content part of the ques— tion is scored, will be scored as follows: If content score is_l orig, score intensity 4. If content score is 2_or 3, score intensity just below the mean intensity score for that item; i.e. mean intensity of the group. * Instructions for Coder: HANDICAPPED PERSONS SCALE, INTENSITY, COLUMNS 45-64. "See instructions 1 and 2 above and 3 on the next page. 865 CARD 1 Page 1-13 Column-gues. Item Detail Code Recode* 3. Intensity questions which are unscored, and which occur when 65 thru 74 the content part of the question is also unscored, will be scored at the highest point below the respondent's own median on the other intensity questions in the questionnaire; i.e., if respondent generally scored intensity questions either 4 or 3, so that the median was in between_3 and 4, score NO RESPONSE 2, and so forth. 3,4,6, Education 1 - 1, strongly disagree 10,11 Scale Tradi-, 2 — 2, disagree 12,13 tional, Con— 3 - 3, agree 14,18 tent Respon— 4 — 4, strongly agree 19* _§§§ ** Items are to be scored on the transcription sheet as circled by the respondent. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on Pages 1-10, 1-11, and 1-12 for the Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as applying to the education traditional scale, content. * The traditional and the progressive scales are both in the Kerlinger education scale but the responses are scored separ- ately on the transcription sheet. ** Instructions for Coder: EDUCATION SCALE, TRADITIONAL, CONTENT, COLUMNS 65-74. See instructions 1 and 2 on page 1-13. 865 Column:Ques. 1,2,3 10 11,12 13,14 15,16 17,18 19,20 21 865 Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet 37 Q'aire 37 Q'aire Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Face Sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest group) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.- Rehab. SER) Deck or Card Number Project Director Day of Adminis- tration Month Of tration Year of Adminis~ tration Type of Admin18m tration £9513 Same 01 - 01 - Same Same 02 Same and 01—31 01-12 as Card 99 99 Card as as Card as Card as Card 1-3 Same as Card 1, Same as Card 1, Page 2-1 Recode* page 1—1 page 1—2 page 1-2 page 1-2 pages 1— page 1-4 page 1-4 2 Column-Ques. 22.23 24 25 thru 34 35 thru 44 Face Sheet Face Sheet 3,4,6,10, 11,12,13, 14,18,19 l,2,5,7, 8,9,15, 16,17,20 * Instructions for coder: Item Detail Occupation of Respond- ent Current Employment Status Education Scale, Egg: ditional, Intensity Responses* Education Scale, Prgfi gressive, 22m Responses** SITY, COLUMNS 24-33. ted in caps on pages 1-11, Handicapped Persons Scale, tions 1 through 5. ** Instructions for Coder: COLUMNS 34-43. 1. 2. 865 Page 2-2 Code Recode* Same as Card 1, pages 1-4 through 1-9 Same as Card 1, page 1-10 not strongly at all not very strongly fairly strongly very strongly ‘ ‘ IPLAJNl-J I waP-J \ 1 — 1, strongly disagree 2 — 2, disagree 3 - 3, agree 4 4 strongly agree § EDUCATIQN.SQ§LE, TRADITIONAL, INTEN— Intensity questions are scored as indica- 1-12 and 1-13 and as noted before, pages 1-10, l-11 and 1-12, instruc— EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, CONTENT, Items are to be scored exactly as circled. Follow the procedures outlined in caps on pages l-ll, 1-12 and 1—13, Handicapped Persons Scale. Be sure to score only those items indicated above as belonging to the education progressive scale content. CARD 2 Page 2-3 Columnjgues. Item Detail Code Recode* 45 1,2,5,7, Education 1 1, not strongly at all thru 8,9,15, Scale, Pro- 2 2, not very strongly 54 16,17,20 gressive 3 3, fairly strongly Intensity 4 4, very strongly Responses* 55-56 Raw s Value scale, score Support 01 32 score** 57-58 Raw Q Value scale, 01 32 score Conformity score** 59-60 Raw 3 Value scale, 01 32 score Recognition score** (comparative) 61-62 Raw I Value scale, 01 32 score Indepen- dence score** 63-64 Raw B_ Value scale, 01 32 score Benevolence score**(asset) 65-66 Raw L Value scale, 01 32 score Leadership score** (comparative) * Instructions for Coder: COLUMNS 44-53. EDUCATION SCALE, PROGRESSIVE, INTENSITY, Pro- Same as instructions for Education Scale, gressive content, ** 865 see page 2-2. Entries for columns 63-74 are obtained through scoring accord- ing to SRA Manual for Survey of Interpersonal Values, Science Research Associates, Inc., 259 East Erie Street, Chicago, Illi- nois, 1960. For scoring, coders should use the special keys adapted from the SRA English edition of the scale. Although the summed scores of the six value scales should total 90, scores between 84 and 95 are "acceptable." Column—Ques. 67-68 Sum of item scores, 1-20, Content 69-70 Sum of item scores, 1-20, Intensity 71—72 Sum of item scores, 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 73-74 Sum of item scores, 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 Item Detail Code Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item :2 to dichotomiza- tion, H.,P° Scale,.ggn- tent* Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item .12 to dichotomiza- tion, H.P. Scale, Inten- sity* Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item _:9 to dichotomiza— tion Educa- tion Tradi— tional Scale, Content*' Adjusted (Check totals based here) on item .12 to dichotomiza- tion Educa— tion Tradi- tional Scale, Intensity*' * See Card 1, page 1~12, adjusted total scores are obtained. 865 instruction no. Page 2—4 Recode* dich. for no. to use Code will be: .00 or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: 99 or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: _00 or obtained score dich. for no. to use Code will be: QQ_or obtained score 5-f, to ascertain how CARD 2 Page 2-5 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 75—76 Sum of Adjusted (Check dich. for no. to use item totals based here) Code will be: .90 or scores, 1, on item .ig to obtained score 2,5,7,8,9, dichotomiza- 15,l6,l7,20 tion Educa- tion Progres- sive Scale, 992322? 77-78 Sum of Adjusted (Check dich. for no. to use item totals based here) Code will be: .90 or scores, 1, on item i2_to obtained score 2,5,7,8,9, dichotomiza— 15,l6,l7,20 tion Educa- tion Progres- sive Scale, Intensity* * See Card 1, page 1-12, instruction No. 5-f, to ascertain how adjusted total scores are obtained. 865 Column-gues. 1,2,3 10 11,12 13,14 15,16 17,18 19,20 21 865 Face Face Face Face Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet 37 Q'aire Face Face Face Face Face Face Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest group) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.— Rehab. SER) Deck or Card Number Project Director Day of Admin- istration Month of Adminis- tration Year of Adminis— tration Type of Adminis— tration Page 3—1 Code Recode* Same as Card 1 page 1-1 \ 01-99 01—99 Same as Card 1 page 1—2 s Same as Card 1 s page 1-2 Same as Card 1 page 1—2 ~ 03 Same as Card 1 and 1—3 pages 1-2 ~ 01—31 01-12 Same as Card 1, page 1—4 Same as Card 1, page 1—4 Column-Ques. 22,23 Face Sheet 24 Face Sheet 25,26 1 Q'aire 27,28 2 Q'aire 29,30 3 Q'aire (l) (2) (3) 865 If any combination of alternatives 1, Item Detail Occupation of Respond— ent Current employment status Contact group (Educ.) Contact group (Educ.) Educational Contact (Varieties) Page 3-2 Code Recode* Same as Card 1, pages 1-4 through 1—9 Same as Card 1, page 1-10 Primary 1 - 01, Elem. School 2 - 02, Sec. School 3 - 03, University 4 - 04, Other as specified 5 - 05, No experience Secondary 1 - 01 2 - 02 3 - 03 SAME 4 - 04 5-- 05 l - 01 Know nothing about Ed 2 - 02 Read little about Ed 3 - 03 Studied about Ed 4 - 04 Neighbor works 5 - 05 Friend works 6 - 06 Relative works 7 - 07 Family works 8 - 08 I work in Ed 9 - 09 Other 2 and 3 are circled, code as 10, Impersonal Contact If any combination of alternatives 4-8 are circled, Personal Contact. code as 11, If alternatives are circled in both division, code as 12, Both Impersonal and Personal Contact. This requires coding alterna- tive OTHER (i.e., alternative 9) as either personal or imper- sonal contact; i.e., according to its content. CARD 3 Page 3-3 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 31 4 Q'aire Amount of l - 1, less than 3 months Contact 2 - 2, 3 months to 6 months (Educ.) 3 - 3, 6 months to 1 year 4 — 4, 1 year to 3 years 5 - 5, 3 years to 5 years 6 — 6, 5 years to 10 years 7 - 7, over 10 years 8 - 8, over 15 years 32 5 Q'aire Percent of l - 1, less than 10% income from 2 — 2, 10 to 25% Education 3 — 3, 25 to 50% 4 - 4, 50 to 75% 5 — 5, 75 to 100% 33 6 Q'aire Enjoyment of l — 2, disliked Educational 2 - 3, not much Work 3 - 4, somewhat 4 - 5, enjoyed 34 7 Q'aire Alternative 1 - 1, no information work (to 2 - 2, unavailable educ.) 3 ~ 3, not acceptable 4 - 4, not quite acceptable 5 - 5, acceptable 35,36 8 Q'aire Age 20 — 20 years 21 - 21 years 40 — 40 37 9 Q'aire Community in - country 1 l which reared. 2 2 country town If more than 3 - 3 city one is 4 4 city suburb checked try to determine in which one the respond- ent spent most of the time. If 865 CARD 3 Page 3-4 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode* 37 9 Q'aire (continued) impossible, try to choose a median (i.e. country, city, score country town) 38 10 Q'aire Employment 1 - 1, country community 2 - 2, country town (recent) 3 - 3, city 4 — 4, city suburb 39 ll Q'aire Recent Resi- l - 1, country dence 2 — 2, country town 3 - 3, city 4 - 4, city suburb 40 12 Q'aire Marital l — l, married Status 2 - 2, single 3 - 3, divorced 4 - 4, widowed 5 - 5, separated 41,42 13 Q'aire Number of 1 - 01 children. 2 — 02 If blank, 3 - 03 check Ques. ° ° 13. If 10 - 10 single, score 00; if married, score -9. 43,44 14 Q'aire Yearly Income UNITED STATES (self-family) 01 - less than $1,000 (for other 02 — $1,000 to $1,999 nations see 03 - $2,000 to $2,999 Special ° Instructions) 10 - $9,000 to $9,999 865 Columnjgues. 45 46.47 48,49 51,51 52 53 865 15 Q'aire 16 Q'aire l7 Q'aire None' 18 Q'aire 19 Q'aire Item Detail Code Comparative l - 1, Income 2 - 2, (self-fam- 3 - 3, ily) 4 - 4, 5 - 5. Brothers. 1 - 01 If the 2 - 02 respondent 3 - 03 answers - ° only one 10 - 10 question (17 or 18) and other is blank, assume it to be zero. Sisters Same as Siblings - l - 01 Obtain by ' - summing 15 - 15 above Ques- tions 16 and 17, Col's 45, 46 and 47, 48 Fathers' 1 Income: 2 Comparative 3 4 5 Religious l Affiliation 2 3 4 5 6 § ‘ ‘ I U'IthJNP-J \ ~ ‘ ‘ I I U'l-D-UJNH I Page 3-5 Recode* much lower lower about the same higher much higher number of brothers much lower lower about the same higher much higher Roman Catholic Protestant Jewish None Other to 9, Other major religions Column-Ques. 54 55 56 57 58 59 865 20 Q'aire 21 Q'aire 22 Q'aire 23 Q'aire 24 Q'aire 25 Q'aire CARD 3 Item Detail Religion (Import— ance) Personaliam (job-amount) Personalism (job—impor- tance of) Personalism (job—diffu- sion) Social Class Position (Self) Social Class Position (Father) @112 \lOWU'IvPLAJNI-J IPUJNH (DVOWUItp-UJMH bWNH l I I l mbwwI—I l Same b m N H ‘ V ‘ ‘ ~ ~ s ~ ~ ~ mummwat—I \ hWNH ““ s \ Q ‘ \lOAU'l-PwNH \ ‘ s ~ ~ s m b m N H ‘ \ as Page 3-6 Ma‘- No religion Not very Fairly Very none no contact less than 10% 10 to 30% 30 to 50% 50 to 70% 70 to 90% over 90% not at all not very fairly very none less than 10% 10 to 30% 30 to 50% 50 to 70% 70 to 90% over 90% lower lower middle middle upper middle upper above Column-Ques. 60 61 62 63 64 865 26 Q'aire 27 Q'aire 28 Q'aire 29 Q'aire 30 Q'aire Item Detail Education (Self- amount). If more than one is circled, choose the highest amount or determine the approp— riate an answer. Education (Self-com- parative) Education (Father - comparative) Housing (type of) Housing (rental— month) (for other nations see Special Instructions) Page 3—7 Code Recode* m'q mtfl.bU)N|—‘ \ ‘ much less less average more much more \ ‘ \ I muhcptord \ ‘ much less less average more much more ‘ \ ‘ rent house rent apartment rent room purchase room and board , own apartment , own house ‘ ~ \ 7 - 7, other UNITED STATES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 - $20 or less - 21 - 40 (dollars) - 41 — 75 - 76 - 125 - 126 - 200 - 201 - 300 - 300 or more Column—Ques. 65 66 67 68 69 7O 71 72 73 865 31-A 31-B 3l-C 31-D 3l-E 31-F 31-G 31-H Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Item Detail Institutional Satisfaction Elementary Schools Institutional Satisfaction Secondary Schools Institutional Satisfaction Universities Institutional Satisfaction Businessmen Institutional Satisfaction Labor Institutional Satisfaction Government (local) Institutional Satisfaction Government (National) Institutional Satisfaction Health Services Institutional Satisfaction Churches Code U'ltbLAJNI-J I Same Same Same Same Same Same Same Same U'l-bNHUJ do not know poor fair good excellent Page 3—8 Recode* CARD 3 Column-Ques. 74 32 Q'aire Residency (current length) 75 33 Q'aire Residency (change— recent) 865 Item Detail 264512 U‘IobbJNH I [—1 l U'IIDWNH ~' ~ ~ NH ~ Page 3—9 Recode* less than a year one to two years three to six years seven to ten years over ten years yes no Column-Ques. 1,2,3 10 11,12 13,14 15,16 17,18 19,20 21 865 Face Face Face Face 37 Q New Face Face Face Face Face Face Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet 'aire Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Sheet Item Detail Nation and Location Group Number Respondent Number Sex of Respondent Occupational Recode (Interest grOUP) Occupational Recode (Spec. Ed.— Rehab. SER) Deck or Card Number Project Director Day of Adminis- tration Month of Adminis- tration Year of Adminis- tration Type of Adminis— tration 9242. Same as Card 01 - 99 01 - 99 Same as Card Same as Card Same as Card 04 Same as Card 1-3 and 1—3 01-31 01-12 Same as Card Same as Card 1, l. Page 4-1 Recode* page 1-1 page page page pages page 1-4 page 1-4 Column—Ques. 22.23 24 25 26 27 28,29 30 31 32 865 Face Sheet Face Sheet 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Q'aire Item Detail Occupation of Respond- ent Current Employment Status Job change (recent) Residency (change fre- quency) (i. e., last ten years) Job (change frequency) (i.e., last ten years) Occupation (Specific) Religiousity (norm con- formity) Change Ori— entation (Health Practices) Change Ori~ entation (Child Rearing) 9.9.93.2 Same l~4 Same [\J I-' i I mmbwwr—a I ONU'IID-OJNI-J I Same 1—4 rbUJNI—d U'lI-DUJNI-d I I vwaI-J I Page 4-2 Recode* as Card 1, pages through l~9 as Card 1, page 1-10 1, yes 2, no 1, none 2, one time 3, two to three times 4, four to six times 5, seven to ten times 6, over ten times none one time two to three times four to six times seven to ten times over ten times § § § ‘ mm-waI—I \ as Card 1, pages through 1-9 no religion seldom sometimes usually almost always \ Q ‘ U'I~I>'(J~.II\JI-'I \ \ no probably not maybe yes .waI—i § § strongly disagree slightly disagree slightly agree strongly agree fiWMI—J Qt CARD 4 Page 4-3 Column-Ques. Item Detail Code Recode*“ 33 41 Q'aire Change Ori- l — 1, always right entation 2 - 2, usually right (Birth cone 3 - 3, probably wrong trol Prac— 4 - 4, always wrong tices) 34 42 Q'aire Change Ori- l — 1, strongly disagree entation 2 — 2, slightly disagree (Automation) 3 — 3, slightly agree 4 — 4, strongly agree 35 43 Q'aire Change Ori— 1 ~ 1, strongly disagree entation 2 - 2, slightly disagree (Political 3 - 3, slightly agree Leaders) 4 - 4, strongly agree 36 44 Q'aire Education 1 — 1, strongly disagree (aid to - 2 - 2, slightly disagree local) 3 — 3, slightly agree 4 - 4, strongly agree 37 45 Q'aire Education 1 — 1, strongly disagree (aid to - 2 — 2, slightly disagree federal) 3 — 3, slightly agree 4 — 4, strongly agree 38 46 Q'aire Education 1 - 1, only parents (planning 2 - 2, only city or local responsi- government bility) 3 - 3, primarily federal government 39 47 Q'aire Change Ori- 1 ~ 1, very difficult entation 2 - 2, somewhat difficult (self) 3 - 3, slightly easy 4 _ 4, very easy 40 48 Q'aire Change Ori- ~ , agree strongly entation - agree slightly (self—role adherence) disagree slightly disagree strongly bIbtora I bcbtora Q 865 Column-Ques. 41 49 Q'aire 42 50 Q'aire 43 51 Q'aire 44 52 Q'aire 45 53 Q'aire 46,47 54 Q'aire 865 Item Detail Change Ori- entation (self- routine job) Personalism (Famialism- Parental ties) Personalism (Other ori- entation) Future Ori- entation (Planning) Future Ori- entation (Happiness) Future Ori— entation (Happiness possibility) Code nwaH I Same MI>OQI\Jl--l I IDLIJNH I OWU'ln-PUONI-J I 06 07 08 09 10 -9 nwaI-l .waI—J Q rwaI—J ‘ ONU'ln-I>L.I~.II\)I--l Page 4-4 Recode* agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly V \ \ V disagree strongly disagree slightly agree slightly agree strongly Q ‘ agree strongly agree slightly disagree slightly disagree strongly \ ‘ nothing money friends job health , other \ § § \ § Nothing Marriage Divorce Friends Religion (Satisfaction with life) Money Job Education Health (Mental) Health (Physical) No response Column—Ques. Item Detail 29.212 Page 4-5 Recode* HANDICAPPED PERSONS QUESTIONNAIRE 48 l-Q-HP HP Contact Group (Pri— mary) 49,50 2—Q-HP HP Contact Group (Sec- ondary) 51,52 3-Q-HP HP Contact (varieties) 53 4-Q-HP HP Contact (amount) * NOTE: tives 3-7 are circled, k003\IO\U'I~I>U)I\)I—' blind partially blind deaf (and mute) partially deaf crippled disfigured spastic speech none \ ~ ‘ ~ ‘ § ‘ OCDQOLHI-PUJNH \ 00 If there was no contact to and questions are not 08 answered score 9, \ImU'l-DWNI-J U'IIP-UONI-J If either or both alternatives 1 and 2 are circled, as 08 - Impersonal contact. The score for this question is the score of the response alternatives circled, i.e., scores can range from Q.to 8, 01, Minimum knowledge 02, Studied about HP 03, Friend HP 04, Relative HP 05, Worked with HP 06, Family HP 07, Self is HP 08) 09)* See note below 10) less than ten ten to fifty fifty to 100 , 100 to 500 , over 500 \ \ UIID-UJNH ‘ code If either or all alterna- code as 92.‘ Personal contact. If alternatives from both preceding divisions are circled, code as lg_- Impersonal and Personal contact. 865 Column-Ques. . Item Detail 54 5-Q-HP HP Contact (ease of avoidance) 55 6-Q-HP HP Contact (gain from) 56 7-Q-HP HP Contact (% income) 57 8-Q—HP HP Contact (enjoyment) 58 9-Q—HP HP Contact (alterna- tives to) 59 lO—Q-HP Contact (amount- M.R.) 60 ll-Q-HP Contact (amount- EDP) 865 ‘ ‘ bcphoka bcbrord ‘ \ prrora ¢.wtora \ Q \ § ‘ ~ ~ ~ U'lI-PLAJNH UIIDUJNH \ ‘ ‘ IbWNI-J QWNH V ‘ \ ‘ mwaI—I mbwwI—I \ Page 4-6 Recode* great difficulty considerable difficulty some inconvenience no inconvenience no rewards paid credit paid and credit less than 10% 10 to 25% 25 to 50% 50 to 75% over 75% disliked, great disliked, little liked, some definitely enjoyed No information on alternatives No other job available Other available job NOT acceptable Other available job acceptable less than 10 10 to 50 50 to 100 100 to 500 over 500 Column:Ques. 61,62 Sum of item scores 1-20 Content 63,64 Sum of item scores 1-20 Intensity 65,66 Sum of item scores 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 67,68 Sum of item scores 3, 4,6,10,11, 12,13,14, 18,19 865 Item Detail Code Handicapped 00-80 Persons Scale Total Content Raw Score, entry on trans- cription sheet Handicapped 00-80 Persons Scale Total Intensity ‘BEE Score, entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00—40 Scale, Tra— ditional Total Raw Content score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00-40 Scale, Tra- ditional Total Raw Intensity, score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Page 4-7 Recode* Columnjgues. 69,70 71,72 865 Sum of item Scores 1, 2,5,7,8, 9,15,16, 17,20 Sum of item scores 1, 2,5,7,8, 9,15,16, 17,20 Item Detail Code Education 00—40 Scale, P39: _qressive Total‘ggw Content score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Education 00-40 Scale, Egg: gressive Total.3§g Intensity score entry on transcrip- tion sheet Page 4-8 Recode* APPENDIX C C-4 Special Instructions for Colombia Code Book Colombia (102) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTION) Card/Coll ues. Item Detail Card 3 3:43-44 14 Q'aire Yearly Income 3:64 30 Q'aire Housing (rental— Month) 1 Code2 01 - under - 1,000 pesos 02 - 1,000 — 1,999 pesos 03 - 2,000 — 2,999 pesos 04 - 3,000 - 3,999 pesos to 20 - 19,000 - 19,999 pesos 0 - under 100 pesos 1 - 100 — 299 pesos 2 — 300 - 499 pesos 3 - 500 — 699 pesos 4 - 700 — 899 pesos 5 — 900 - 1,099 pesos 6 - 1,100 — 1,299 pesos 7 - 1,300 — 1,499 pesos 8 - 1,500 - 1,699 pesos 9 - 1,700 and over The card/col designations refers to the location in the Code All Book: International Study — 865. 2 Designated changes and/or additions to the 865 Code Book. Card designations over 4 will indicate additions. In such cases the full code will be given since it will be new and not contained in the 865 Code Book. 1265 APPENDIX C C-5 Special Instructions for Peru Code Book Peru (103) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) Card/Coll Ques. Item Detail Code2 Card 1 1:9 Occupational 0 - Special Education - Recode Rehabilitation (Interest 2 - Managers/Executives Group) 3 - Labor Card 3 3:43,44 14 Q'aire Yearly Income 00 - below 5,000 soles 01 - 5,000 - 9,999 soles 02 — 10,000 - 14,999 soles 03 - 15,000 - 19,999 soles (in units of 5,000) 10 — 50,000 - 54,999 soles 3:64 30 Q'aire Housing (rental- 0 - below 500 soles Month) 1 - 500 - 799 soles 2 - 800 - 1,099 soles 3 - 1,100 - 1,399 soles (etc.) Card 4 4:49,50 2 Q'aire- Contact Group Coding error — omit from HP (secondary- analysis. HP) l The card/col designations refers to the location in the Code Book: International Stugy - 865. 2 Designates changes and/or additions to the §§§_Code Book. All Card designations over 4 will indicate additions. In such cases the full code will be given since it will be new and not Egg: ained in the §§§_Code Book. 1265 APPENDIX C C-6 Special Instructions for Kansas Code Book Wichita, Kansas (909) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) Card/Coll Ques. Item Detail Card 1 1:4—5 Group Numbers Code2 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 Institute of Logopedics- Dickie, Regular Teachers and 6 Special Ed. Institute of Logopedics- Weir, Special Education Institute of Logopedics- Weir, Special Education Personnel Institute of LogOpedics- Weir, Special Education Personnel Institute of Logopedics- Dickie, Special Educa- tion and Ancillary Emporia State Teachers College-Dickie, Special Ed. of Public School Institute of Logopedics— Dickie, Special Ed., Speech Pathologists Corbin Education Center, Wichita State Univ.- Dickie, Regular Elemen- tary and Secondary Institute of Logopedics- Weir, Regular Elementary and Secondary 1 The card/col designations refers to the location in the Code Book: International Study — 865. 2 Designates changes and/or additions to the 865 Code Book. All Card designations over 4 will indicate additions. In such cases the full code will be given since it will be new and not con- tained in the 865 Code Book. 1265 Code Book Wichita, Kansas (009) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) Card/Coll Ques. Item Detail ggdez 1:4-5 10 Town House Motel, (cont.) WichitawDickie, Labor 11 Ramada Inn, Wichita- Dickie, Labor 12 YMCA, Wichita-Dickie, Labor 13 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Labor 14 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Labor 15 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Labor 16 Institute of Logopedics- Weir, Labor 17 Town House Motel-Dickie, Manager 18 Ramada Inn, Wichita- Dickie, Manager 19 YMCA, Wichita-Dickie, Manager 20 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Manager 21 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Manager 22 Wichita State Univ.- Weir, Manager 23 Home~Weir, Manager 24 Spec. Educ. l The card/col designations refers to the location in the Code Book: International Study _ 865. 2 Designates changes and/or additions to the 865 Code Book. All Card designations over 4 will indicate additions. In such cases the full code will be given since it will be new and not con~ tained in the 865 Code Book. 1265 Code Book Wichita, Kansasj(009) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) CardgCol ues. Item Detail Code Card 5 5:1-24 1 thru 20 All questions in 1-1, strongly disagree §g_Cone ' Blind Persons 2—2, disagree tentI (BP) Scale are 3—3, agree to be scored 4—4, strongly agree fromyraw,data. See instruc- tions below and on pages l-10. 5:45-64 1 thru 20 BP Scale Inten- l-l, not strongly at all §P_Inten- sity. See 2-2, not very strongly sity pages 1—11 for 3—3, fairly strongly instructions 4-4, very strongly for scoring intensity. 5:65-66 sum2 of BP Scale. Total 00-80 item Content raw~ scores, sCOre. 1-20 Content (BP) 5:67—68 Sum2 of BP Scale. Total 00—80 item Intensity raw scores, score. 1-20 Intensity (BP) Instructions to Coder: Blind Persons Scale Scoring, Col's 25-44. 1. Reverse the content response numbers for the Blind Persons Scale (not the intensity response numbers) for items 2, 10, l3, 14, 17, 19. See also p. 1-10 for procedures on HP scale. Special instructions for No Response. Same as number 2, p.1—Hl Same as 3, page 1~10, International Code Book-865. Same as 5, page 1-11, International Code Book-865. A. Code Book Wichita, Kansas (009) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) CardgColl Ques. Item Detail Code2 Card 5 5:69-70 Sum3 of Adjusted totals 00— adjusted based on item (Check dich. for no. to item _ dichotomization use here). See pp. 1-11 scores Content (BP) for instructions. Content (EB) 5:71-72 Sum3 of Adjusted totals 00— adjusted based on item (Check dich. for no. to item dichotomization use here). See pp. 1—11 scores Intensity (BP) for instructions. Intensity (22) Card 6 6:1-24 Same as other face sheets except Column 11—12 (i.e. Deck or Card no._Q§. 6:25-44 1 thru 20 All questions in 1-1, HHP Con- Hearing Handi- 2-2, tentI capped Persons 3-3, Scale (HHP) are 4-4, to be scored from raw data. See instruc- tions below and on p. 1-10. strongly disagree disagree agree strongly agree 1 Reverse the content response number for the Hearing Persons Scale (not the intensity response number) for items 1, 7, 10, 15. See also pages 1-10 of International Code Book- 865 for procedures on HP scale. Special instructions for No Response same as number 2 (International Code Book—865) page 1-10. "Same as 3, page 1-10, International Code Book-865. 3 Same as 5, page 1-11, International Code Book—865. 965 Code Book Wichita, Kansas 1009) (SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS) CardgColl Ques. Item Detail Code2 6:45-64 1 thru 20 .HHP Intensity. 1—1, not strongly at all HHP See pages 2-2, not very strongly Intensity 1-11 for 3-3, fairly strongly instructions 4-4, very strongly for scoring intensity. 6:65-66 Sum2 of HHP Scale. 00-80 item Total Content scores, rgw score. 1-20 9225 tent (HHP) 6:67-68 Sum2 of HHP Scale. oo-ao item Total Inten- scores, sity raw score. 1-20 Intensity (HHP) 6:69-70 Sum3 of Adjusted totals 00— adjusted based on item (Check dich. for no. to item dichotomization use here). See p. 1-11 scores. Content (HHP) for instructions. Content (HHP). 6:71—72 Sum3 of Adjusted totals 00- adjusted based on item (Check dich. for no. to item dichotomization use here). See p. 1-11 scores. Intensity (HHP) for instructions. Intensity (HHP). 1 Reverse the content response number for the Hearing Persons Scale (not the intensity response number) for items 1, 7, 10, 15. See also pages 1-10 of International Code Book-865 for procedures on HP scale. Special instructions for No Response same as number 2 (International Code Book—865) page 1-10. 2 Same as 3, page 1-10, International Code Book-865. 3 Same as 5, page 1~1l, International Code Book—865. 965 APPENDIX 7 C-7 Data Transcription Sheet Attitudes Toward Education: International Study 865 Handicapped Persons Edugation Scale - Education Scale — . raditlonal Progress1ve Scale (Cardl) Card 1 Card 2 Card 1 Card 2 COntent Intensity Content Intensity Content Intensity (Col) (Col) (Col) (Col) (Col) (Col) _________________________________ t-__-_____r___-_______“______-__ 1. (25) (45) 3. (65) ______(25) l. (35) _____(45) 2. (26) (46) 4. (66) ______(26) 2. (36) ______(46) 3. _____ ______ 6. (67) ______(27) 5. (37) ______(47) 4. _____ ______ lO._____(68) (28) 7. (38) ______(48) 5. _____ ______ 11._____(69) ______(29) 8. (39) ______(49) 6. _____ ______ 12._____(70)______(30) 9. (40) _____450) 7. _____ ______ 13._____(71) _____(31)]5. (41) _____451) 8. _____ ______ 14._____(72) ______(32) 16. (42) ______(52) 9. _____ ______ l8.____j73) (33) ll (43) _____153) 10._____(34) ______(54) 19. ____(74) (34) 20. (44) ______(54) 11._____ ______ ___ 12._____ ______ _____ ______ _____ ______ 13 _____ ______ 14._____ ______ 15._____(39) _____(59) 16._____ ______ 17._____ ______ Location 18'————— —————- Group 19._____ ______ 20.____J44) _____fl64) Respondent No. APPENDIX C C-8 FCC 1 and 2 Variable- Computer Print—Out Code Form for: Colombia Peru Kansas (Friesen) Colombia (102) FCC 1 and 2 Variable-Computer Print-Out Code Form John E. Jordan College of Education Michigan State University 1265 FCC 1 Field NO. 6-25 26-45 46-55 Question Face Sheet of Scales Face Sheet of Scales 37 Q'aire Face Sheet of Scales 37 Q'aire H-P Scale H-P Scale Education Scale Colombia (102) Variable Name SEEQLA Nation Sex Interest Group Occupation Type of Administration Current Employment Status H-P Content H—P Intensity Trad. Education-Content Card 2 lst 24 Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 56-65 66-75 76-85 Education Scale Education Scale Education Scale Trad. Education-Intensity Prog. Education-Content Prog. Education—Intensity Card 3 lst 24 Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. 86 87 88 89 90 1265 4 Q'aire 5 Q'aire 6 Q'aire 7 Q'aire 9 Q'aire Deck or Card No.) Contact (amount-education) Contact (gain from education) Contact (enjoyment-education) Contact (alternatives to education) Early Youth Community Col. 24 25-44 45-64 65-74 25-34 35-44 45-54 31 32 33 34 37 FCC 1 (cont.) Colombia (102) Field Question Variable Name Col. No. 91 10 Q'aire Employment Community (recent) 38 92 11 Q'aire Residence Community (recent) 39 93 12 Q'aire Marital Status 40 94 15 Q'aire Income (comparative-self fam.) 45 95 18 Q'aire Income (father's comparative) 52 96 19 Q'aire Religious affiliation 53 97 20 Q'aire Religion (importance) 54 98 21 Q'aire Personalism (job-amount) 55 99 22 Q'aire Personalism (job-importance of) 56 100 23 Q'aire Personalism (job-diffusion) 57 101 24 Q'aire Social class position (self) 58 102 25 Q'aire Social class position (father) 59 103 26 Q'aire Education (self-amount) 60 104 27 Q'aire Education (self-comparative) 61 105 28 Q'aire Education (father-comparative) 62 106 29 Q'aire Housing (type of) 63 107 30 Q'aire Housing (rental-month) 64 108 3l-A Q'aire Institutional satis. (elem. schools) 65 109 31-B Q'aire Institutional satis. (sec. schools) 66 110 31-C Q'aire Institutional satis. (universities) 67 111 31-D Q'aire Institutional satis. (businessmen) 68 112 31-E Q'aire Institutional satis. (labor) 69 113 31-F Q'aire Institutional satis. (local gov't) 70 114 31—G Q'aire Institutional satis. (nat'l. gov't.) 71 115 3l-H Q'aire Institutional satis. (health) 72 116 3l-I Q'aire Institutional satis. (churches) 73 117 32 Q'aire Residing (current length) 74 118 33 Q'aire Residing (change—recent) 75 _Qgrd 4 lst 24 Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 119 34 Q'aire Job (change—recent) 25 120 35 Q'aire Residing (change-frequency) 26 121 36 Q'aire Job (change-frequency) 27 122 38 Q'aire Religiousity (norm-conformity) 30 1265 FCC 1 (cont.) Colombia (102) Field Question Variable Name Col. NO. 123 39 Q'aire Change orientation (health-practice) 31 124 40 Q'aire Change orientation (child rearing) 32 125 41 Q'aire Change orientation (birth control) 33 126 42 Q'aire Change orientation (automation) 34 127 43 Q'aire Change orientation (political leaders) 35 128 44 Q'aire Education (aid to-local) 36 129 45 Q'aire Education (aid to-federal) 37 130 46 Q'aire Education (planning responsibility) 38 131 47 Q'aire Change orientation (self) 39 132 48 Q'aire Change orientation (self-rule 40 adherence) 133 49 Q'aire Change orientation (self-routine job) 41 134 50 Q'aire Personalism (famialism-parental ties) 42 135 51 Q'aire Personalism (other orientation) 43 136 52 Q'aire Future Orientation (planning) 44 137 53 Q'aire Future Orientation (happiness prereq.) 45 138 l—Q-HP Contact group (primary — HP) 48 139 4-Q-HP Contact (amount of HP) 53 140 5-Q-HP Contact (ease of avoidance) 54 141 6—Q—HP Contact (gain from — HP) 55 142 7-Q-HP Contact (% income from HP) 56 143 8-Q-HP Contact (enjoyment - HP) 57 144 9-Q-HP Contact (alternative to HP) 58 145 10-Q-HP Contact (amount - M.R.) 59 146 ll—Q—HP Contact (amount—emotional ill) 60 1265 Colombia 102 FCC 2 Field Question Variable Name No. Card 1 1 Face Sheet Group Number 2 37 Q'aire Specific Occupation Card 2 lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) Value Scale Support Value Value Scale Conformity Value Value Scale Recognition Value (comparative) Value Scale Independent Value Value Scale Benevolence Value (asset) Value Scale Leadership Value (comparative) CD\IO\U'|J>UJ Card 3 lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 9 l Q'aire Contact group (primary education) 10 2 Q'aire Contact group (secondary education) 11 3 Q'aire Contact (varieties of education) 12 8 Q'aire Age 13 13 Q'aire Number of children 14 14 Q'aire Income (yearly—self, family) 15 16 Q'aire Brothers (do not use) 16 17 Q'aire Sisters (do not use) 17 None Siblings Card 4 lst Cols. SAME as Card 1 except for Col. 11 and 12 (i.e. Deck or Card No.) 1265 Col. ,5 N a 55,56 57,58 59,60 61,62 63,64 65,66 25,26 27,28 29,30 35,36 41,42 43,44 46,47 48,49 50,51 FCC 2 (cont.) Field NO. 18 19 20 31 22 23 24 25 26 27 1265 Question 37 Q'aire 54 Q'aire 2-Q-HP 3—Q-HP HP Scale HP Scale Education Scale Education Scale Education Scale Education Scale Colombia (102) Variable Name Occupation (specific) Future Orient. (happiness possib.) Contact group (secondary HP) Contact (varieties of HP) HP Total Content Raw Score HP Total Intensity Raw Score Trad. Educ. Total. Cont. Raw Score Trad. Educ. Total. Int. Raw Score Prog. Educ. Total Cont. Raw Score Prog. Educ. Total Int. Raw Score Col. 28,29 46,47 49,50 51,52 61,62 63,64 65,66 67,68 69,70 71,72 APPENDIX C C—9 Religiosity Religiosity* Three questions (PQ 18, 19 and 38) were oriented toward religion: (a) religious preference; (b) the felt importance of religion to the respondent; and (c) conformity to the rules and regulations of the church. ”Religiosity” also related to the traditional—modern dimension, and higher scores would be expected among the lower income group, and among persons with less educa- tion. * Omitted by error on page 84 of the thesis. (:IIfi ., I: . C .e:...,%. ... ..H.,1..L.....C.<. _, __ .4 .— .. __ I . _ .. . o S . ... . . E . . ~ . I I l _ . . _ R i M . Q i, . .. I R ..... .. . _ B a ,1 TA ,. n L A” . . . _ . w _ _ _ V: , . I 1 . . N .._ . nH . . T . S __ Z . 1 N . . _ _ L AH , _ . . G ... , u I . H .5 .. . I . .. _ H _ . _