t»: _—= -‘~-‘.T ‘ IU'. :--»-1".." r.-- Q I". E :., c. a. a h‘.. y..‘lrc:fi. a. svd§.v b 0“ cc s 1 ‘2‘ A‘~ ‘ \‘ ~‘vc‘er COF‘QQ‘ .313. 27634 cc “He¢.. 1%. J '= .. N .‘d‘fi‘ ‘ uu‘ueragl s:. \ ~é a.- sss a‘.d tL ‘0 3;. . “E a.“ ~- ~,\ ~~‘q l att' . .‘ ‘3‘: ~-..' " :EG-s‘.‘ "“"3r3 3:: 'c_ Of t ~45, ~« , « attit.‘ \ 1:“ QQ .\ A...“ H.‘.rc‘h w ABSTRACT RACIAL ATTITUDES OF BLACK AND WHITE MINISTERS: A GUTTMAN FACET THEORY ANALYSIS BY G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Ministers have long been considered to be spokesmen for the Church, and, as such, they have been influential in the formation of racial attitudes both in the Church and in the broader community (Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswick, & Sanford, 1950a; Hadden, 1969; Rokeach, 1960a). Furthermore, there is considerable criticism regarding the negative impact of ministers and the Church in the development of racial bigotry (Rokeach, 1970). Purpose The purpose of this study was to better understand the actual attitudes of both black and white ministers to- ‘ward members of the opposite race, the religious foundations for their attitudes, and the impact of their attitudes upon their church members. . ‘ ‘n ’ "HI-.0 CPA "'V‘I'N. vnu U.’ .o.5-uu.-.\j I \ :4-¢::.~.f\p :A' A‘ a ~'~¢I‘U.VM .vL c.G. .o ..:..., “”3; v- .o-u...e ... “ 8-3: (’ Ma‘v b I l n" ‘-‘O a A. ‘ l s a“ ,‘y ,I""~".Lv.. .. v _ ":.'Aln . . I _...:...e: ra:1a1 at: . ' u ‘00....” ~. A I “u. D" Huya.,‘~ "“‘~ .4 I UM. «a. ~. ~ . -..'. ~ . . "“-..: ..'.Q‘ I h-‘CI.: 56:3 :a -' ).4 -~' ‘4. a: A u uuSJClat—e: ":5 {”5 v L . bbya‘cdl. F6. ‘ 132. a 1’ e~ Qu‘ “HE‘a I‘e deci". o e ‘lltthr “‘-= u‘: 3“. "4.": es " «Ere.» . H, 1t é':- ‘ . ‘ ‘ x \‘E .. a ‘- ‘.‘ h s °~€t tL 3. age". --\,' - - Co' y‘.1~ ‘» G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Methodology Racial Attitudes of American Ministers was a research project including: (a) a review of the Biblical—theological foundation for racial attitudes Which tend to highly in- fluence ministers; (b) a brief review of selected historical proclamations and actions of the Christian Church which have influenced racial attitudes; and (c) a survey of the racial attitudes of approximately fifty black and fifty white ordained ministers randomly selected from five major denom- inations in the United States. A Guttman facet theory paradigm, as modified by Jordan and associates, was used in the design and analysis of the researdh. Following Guttman's definition of attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to some- thing" (1950b), Jordan (1968) employed a five facet struc- ture, with eadh facet containing one strong and one weak element, to construct a scale measuring six levels of atti— tude behaviors toward other persons. The six levels were called (a) Societal Stereotype, (b) Societal Interactive Norm, (c) Personal Moral Evaluation, (d) Personal Hypothet- ical Behavior, (e) Personal Feelings, and (f) Actual Per— sonal Action. By employing Guttman-type semantic mapping sentence definitions each of the six levels contained one more strong element than its predecessor on an abstract-im— personal to concrete-behavior continuum of racial attitudes. Thus, the facet theory enabled a prediction to be made of a statistical simplex of the levels by direction, pattern, and 2:a:=i:y of attitude A small 'cli: “:1: 5:3: three church £511.13. This was l A ‘0 1' ‘OR‘ . I 3:.» ml the ram; L51" 131'? 3; (b) t: In“ JG..:' ’9." "AA ' . rnv ¢ settOI SC“ “4' .‘I ill—En; ad to) to 5,: .:’: 1 a. :4 "“' ”w be accepts .2 a; . , “v,“ ‘9‘\;‘ "~‘L‘Ie sp‘ha"i0‘ -g. l 23'- :‘9 Enltidw ‘5 1L6 V: A as nationSLra‘ fir” \. {3" I: ' “Lita ' N no ‘ . Slgnlcfi ‘- q is» i :. fl ‘- LI‘ . ‘e SOCloL . ‘ 0 ‘- 5G. 33:,- G. Scott Irvine, Jr. intensity of attitude. A small "clinical" sample was taken of fifteen lay- men from three churches where the ministers were involved in the study. This was done for the following purposes: (a) to see how well the ministers communicated their attitudes to their laymen; (b) to see how well the actual attitude be- haviors reported by the ministers would be verified by their laymen; and (c) to see how well the attitudes of the minis- ters would be accepted by their laymen. Results A total of tWenty-five hypotheses were measured by the Attitude Behavior Scale: Black White/White Negro (ABS: BW/WN). The Simplex pattern as predicted by facet theory analysis was significant for each group of ministers: blacks, whites, and total. The multidimensionality of the Attitude Behavior Scale was demonstrated repeatedly. On very few indepen— dent variables was a group attitude consistent on all six levels of the scale. Broad GeneralReligious Groups in- dicated no significant differences between groups ex- cept at the Societal Stereotype level, with Catholics scoring highest at the societal stereotype, Pentecostals next, and Protestants lowest. 'Educational Level resulted in significant correlations in opposite directions for blacks and whites at the Actual Personal Action level. The more . highly educated blacks "acted" unfavorably toward whites,and 2:33:33! for 1 1:: c. ‘ a, 0-“: fl H‘..cr:‘t §:.oo~ Va u..“’ w. h. ‘ 2“ I.- ”V ‘ j H v 9--3 e c. '13:" ad rcc: , v on Q‘ ~ ‘ ‘ x 1-1:. "Nv e... .z;?‘3theses 3:: ‘ Q —: 1L. '3. mg ’ _ we Stucv 1:: ‘ ‘DL ' ‘ . \- 'Urreiatlr‘ :3 'fi‘; ‘ :‘n. ‘0 ‘1 «L n :39 g k 0‘ tie attitfié “ J ‘5‘ I <4 111 ‘7'. iii! .' ‘5 C 'F he to ac+ '35“ a: ma? 92‘s of 71... t .H G. Scott Irvine, Jr. the more highly educated whites "acted" favorably toward blacks. Theological Position yielded significant scores primarily for liberal whites. A number of Contact Variables_ yielded similar pat- terns on different variables. Integrated School EXperience and Integrated Church Experience resulted in favorable attitudes on certain levels of the scale. Extrinsic/Intrin- sic Religion appeared to be a highly significant variable for all groups on all levels of the scale. OpenZQlosed Mindedness and Efficacy were also significant at all levels. Other hypotheses appeared to demonstrate less significant results. The study involving the laymen yielded 248 signifi- cant correlations with their ministers' attitudes. Gener- ally it appeared that ministers were followers of or reflec- tive of the attitudes of at least a small group of key lay- men in their churches in addition to being leaders of their congregations and in the community. Ministers were gener- ally encouraged by their laymen to verbally and hypotheti- cally express favorable attitudes toward the opposite race. When it came to actual personal action of a favorable nature toward members of the opposite race, however, laymen were very rejecting toward their ministers. Therefore, it appear- ed that many ministers, both black and white, tend to find themselves in a double bind with their church members re- garding their racial attitudes. That is, their religion, their peers, and their church members ask them to verbalize, 3311293126: ari feel I 3:: :3381th actual \ ' ‘ an? ‘5.“"Q‘ dr 9 :vvou'fll: Char 8“ ‘ n u q b'oqfl‘7fl“ knock-bi. % ...lS St"3'v' :::"‘F “P 0”. Va H. 3::3: on r3 . n: 3: Jr: Jenn £0 . \. :2::'..1'.erslt Eat , ~ 1 . G. Scott Irvine. Jr. hypothesize, and feel favorably toward members of the oppo- site race, but actual personalaction involving favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race is severely criticized. This study is part of a larger cross-cultural re- search program on racial-ethnic attitudes under the direc- tion of Dr. John E. Jordan, College of Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, 48824. “‘3’! *T”"‘ AntldL O A A o v . A GUT’I' RACIAL ATTITUDES OF BLACK AND WHITE MINISTERS A GUTTMAN FACET THEORY ANALYSIS BY 0% G. Scott Irvine, Jr. A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Counseling, Personnel Services and Educational Psychology College of Education 1974 Copyright by G. Scott Irvine, Jr. 1974 In” Dedicated to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. A Baptist Minister ii This s "-4" i V ‘M‘ {:“3 '1‘, :nvv ‘4" O-nv‘ "‘-.i‘ guVeSMA-‘da by- '0'. m 94 . H m ’_‘ U) 0 J H tidal I. ‘L ' ' r' :: " +39 v5; ,. 1 ._ cu. . “‘VID‘B'l'a‘ . 6:... .' ‘ ‘ " "V'ze:a& and ana‘ ' _ “L1"; ."". o . Ed desirahl m H .h id... . ' n ~~ ' Enema: :1 Q a .h. - a 0.. “v“ PREFACE This study is one of a series jointly designed by several investigators (Erb, 1969; Gottlieb, 1973; Hamersma, 1969; Harr‘elson, 1970; Irvine, 1974; Maierle, 1969; ‘Movrin, 1969; Whitman, 1970; Williams, 1969) as an example of the "project" approach to graduate research. A common use of theoretical material and instrumentation, as well as technical and analysis procedures, was therefore both nec- essary and desirable. The authors collaborated in many aspects in terms Of the design, procedural, and analysis methods employed; al though specific analysis methods and data were different in each study. The conclusions and interpretations drawn in each study are those of each individual author. iii The cozgletiu ::o n. A; H" QA ‘ 1 """ V‘ m) dctord'. .3. “ea“. It rle'i'e: ~v; . .- ' ‘tho ‘. “3 i the I 1x :32" to '1 Inc \A i... y .1- 9 an eSCECi allu‘; 1“ gratefu; 12:35 La ; . ' “Me. 11:; “33 a bus)’ Par ~PA.I‘ :5... t: ' "iii. 115: :::O iragEIT!‘ “t a, \.:“‘. 1' “Ha . ' . Hvbltlcn OF A .;\ :"J (I) afi- ‘*lEra- . MAD r .‘A ' \‘ ’ 3'14 xv . ‘S. a. “be c y 0‘ k? 1 :‘K. at“ ‘ ‘~:: K” ”a ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The completion of this thesis represents the termin- ation of my doctoral program and the fulfillment of a long- term dream. It never would have been possible to actualize my dream without the encouragement and help of many people . . .too many to include here. There are some, however, to whom I am especially grateful. I am grateful to the members of the First Baptist Church, Lansing, Michigan, who encouraged me to take some time from a busy parish schedule for personal study and growth while I was their Pastor. I am also grateful for the encouragement and time allowed for research and study from my position on the faculty of The American Baptist Seminary of the West. Furthermore, I am indebted to my se<=J:‘etaries, Betty Saran and Mary Jackson, for their careful and efficient work on the manuscript. It would have been virtually impossible to complete the research without the financial assistance from three very good friends, Gladys Olds Anderson, Dr. Anna Barbara Grey ' and Mrs. Donald Grey. I am appreciative of the interest, patience, and guidance of my advisory comittee at Michigan State Univer- Slty - Drs. Carl Gross, Thomas Gunnings, and Bill Hinds. iv 1... ' 1‘ k ‘T " 113- :: aoo' AAC'Ever' no. a.; ' \ , MN» 1* n “z- .:. 1... endin‘éu an. . q u -_ ..-.:...OI-3.1.’1, '01.”.0 ' :‘Q.’ - .....:31 program a" h“! 0" .L‘ w. . "J“ 5V “:8 “at“, r31“ ‘ ' In a 5“; ~ ‘ a n... “as been 11!‘va1 ‘ 6.. a. . v ~... 5:: Most of all, however, I am, grateful for the personal inter- est and sustained assistance of my committee chairman, Dr. John E. Jordan, who has patiently seen me through my entire doctoral program and who seems more like my friend now than my professor. Last, but not least, I want to express my apprecia- tion to the many ministers whose participation in this study has been invaluable. I was tremendously impressed by their efforts to communicate their concerns along with their attitudes by their marginal comments included with the que stionnaire . DEDICATION PREFACE TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . LIST OF FIGURES . . . . (Hiaqpter I. II. INTRODUCTION . Statement of the problem CONTENTS RACIAL ATTITUDES AND THE CHURCH . . . . The Dream of Freedom The Place of the Church in the Race Issue The Place of the Clergy in Religion and Race The Bible and General Clergy Attitudes . Biblical-Theological Foundations for Racial Attitudes The Use and Mis-Use of the Bible . The Schizmatic Attitude Toward the Bible and Race Old Testament Passages to Support Racism . Genesis 1:26 Genesis 7:13 Genesis 9:18-29 Genesis 11:1-9 Leviticus 25:44 vi -46 Often Used Page ii iii iv xiv 13 l7 19 19 20 21 21 22 22 26 29 uuuuuuu '2‘: B 9:} t Ma: y. . ( 0) Historic: Relic Contenpa and e Inter Statu SChiz Re SOcia Re Chapter New Testament Passages Often Used to Support Racism . . . . . . Mark 7:24—30 . . . . . . . . . Matthew 10:5-6 . . . . . . . . Historical Perspective of Religion and Race . . . . . . . . Contemporary Issues in Religion and Race . . . . . . . . . . . . Internal Conflict . .'. . . . . . Status-Quoism versus Reformation schizoid Nature of Religion and Race . . . . . . Social Psychology and Religious Attitudes . . . ... III. REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH . . . . . . Related Issues in Attitude Research The Meaning of Attitude . . . . . Classes of variables . . . . . . . . Definitions for this Research . . . Religion, Attitudes, and Values . . An Old Time Story . . . . . . . . And A New One . . . . . . . . . . The Place of Theory . . . . . . . . The Guttman—Jordan Attitude Facet Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS . . . Guttman's Facet Design Procedures . Contiguity Hypothesis . . . . . . Jordan's Six Level Adaptation of Guttman's Facet Theory . . . . . Attitude Content Areas of the Study Predictor Variables for Attitude Research . . . . . . . . Demographic variables . . . . . . Socio-Psychological variables . . vii Page 30 31 34 37 46 47 49 56 57 63 63 64 68 69 69 71 72 8O 82 85 85 90 92 104 112 113 119 I . . I ..|E. a e. \. e . | -u “H. .5; Fa .w¢ t. | A» 6. a .u. C I, i. r a. .. an” r. fi; 1. r» .W .a n. vi 1.. MW. mu. 4n.“ Y; .9» ~.. C he. n 8 Vs; CL 0 t.» 20-1.“... eccno ssrare .. S rueoo ea 3 S n. C e E a. C n. c. r n. 8. 0 C E u... E D _ .1 1. ,1 O G D S C m... P 1. l . . n1 o. n 1.. my. D. O Q a. a..fiuSCr-. wingprmCe .Iu .\ V .. .. J Hu 3‘ 5 C v. 0 -. . 1 . . . . n1 . a C Vm up. :1. D .14 d Fe ‘m a a \. Maul . o l. . A u. in. n c S 1 ex. nun Aw I uh. M Tu S o u ab 5 v... . aJ ye ab S G 0 I “PM ‘99 I I my.» a. x...» wow I». a; x; ....\ 1.x...u. I'D-1' NOV-v. n Chapter Contact Variables . . . . . . Knowledge Variables . . . . . Sample of American Clergymen Independent Variables . Demographic . . . . Socio-Psychological . Contact . . . . . . Knowledge . . . . . . Major Research Hypotheses . . . The Simplex . . . . . . . . Demographic Variables . . . Socio-Psychological Variables Contact Variables . . . . . . Knowledge Variables . . . . . Analysis Procedures . . . . . . Descriptive Statistics . . . Correlational Statistics . . O O O O O 0 Analysis of Variance Statistics Simplex Approximation Test . Level of Statistical Significance "Clinical" Sample of Laymen . . ’V. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . Major Research Hypotheses . . . Guttman-Jordan Simplex Analysis Demographic Variables . . . . Socio-Psychological Variables Contact Variables . . . . . Laymen's Perceptions of Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes . "VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 0 o o O o Ministers and Racial Attitudes . REFERENCES . . . APPENDICES A4 GLOSSARYOFTERMS . . . . . . . . 13"‘1 . RACIAL ATTITUDES OF BLACK AND WHITE MINISTERS AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE: PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE . . . . . viii Page 122 130 131 134 134 135 136 136 137 137 137 138 139 140 140 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 146 146 150 172 181 192 204 207 214 245 246 248 {II-‘— . at“ 5:14."..5 FQ "‘ oav‘T ‘.‘ 37' Rfiblnu n..- "'90!“ ,, M .4““ ..“I ‘N Manv-Ivfi,‘ 5» . ..“V-—a. A1 [9‘ 7“.“ Y _ I . I “ u C. 'o‘h\¢l~w~“ ~‘l By! a. ‘ P”: “en". T“.\.n‘.' ' v v- _ “fin-.4 _ :.2, VAJABLE L .133 32.; VTVT CMF. h ..-.I‘~ . ._. r. :‘v ‘ 30 v0?“ «~A If: FACIAL Per‘vD, b‘W'u‘ ‘ p‘fiTr-q..-‘ 0 ‘.*A-U APPENDICES Page B-Z. RACIAL ATTITUDES OF BLACK AND WHITE MINISTERS AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE (ABS: BW/WN-G) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259 B-3. LAYMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PASTOR'S RACIAL ATTITUDES . . . . . . . . 276 C. CODE BOOK VARIABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . 288 C-1. VARIABLE LIST BY IBM CARD AND COLUMN ABS BLACK/WHITE MINISTERS' STUDY LAYMEN' S FORM 0 C C C C C O O O O O O O O 289 C-2. VARIABLE LIST BY IBM CARD AND COLUMN ABS BLACK/WHITE MINISTERS'S STUDY MINISTERS' FORM . . . . . . . . . . . . . 291 D. CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PASTORS' REPORTED RACIAL ATTITUDES AND LAYMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR RACIAL ATTITUDES o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 29 3 ix . . ’a- ’ .n-c ‘ Clem SHOT-912' Principle 01 0‘.- . .Vcst Clergy Fee Inadequate 1 ‘. 7:..logica1 Cor, Poverty Str; Their Own P- a. Cazser'mtive '1": Associated 'rl to Free Bate '. Guttman's Face‘ Structure Of . Guttman Facet . Suburfiwerse' Eggctheticalr r CorrelatiO‘ Ctr‘lact‘er e 3" Amide and ' Mat: u LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Clergy Strongly Support the General Principle of Civil Rights . . . . . . . . 48 2. Most Clergy Feel That ChurChes Have Been Inadequate in Facing Civil Rights . . . . 49 3. Theological Conservatives Tend to Believe Poverty Stricken Are Responsible For Their Own Plight . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 ‘4. Conservative Theological Beliefs Are Associated With Unfaltering Commitment to Free Enterprise . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 £5- Guttman's Facets Used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Universe . . . . 86 6 - Guttman Facet Profiles of Attitude Subuniverses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 7 - Hypothetical Matrix of Level by Level Correlations Illustrating the Simplex Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9O 53- Bastide and ven den Berghe's Original matr ix I C O O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O 91 iBastide and ven den Berghe's Empirical Matrix as Revised According to the Order of Facet Design . . . . . . . . . . 92 1 C)‘ (Jordan's Facets Used to Determine Joint Struction of an Attitude Universe . . . . 93 11 . ’ (Jordan's Joint Level, Profile Composition, and Labels for Six Types of Attitude Instruction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 12._ Iiypothetical Correlation Matrix Illustrating Expected Simplex Ordering of Items . . . . 96 13 SSpontaneous Expressions of Anti-Negro Sentiment Among Respondents in the Five Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 , . \Lp . Percentage of Reasons fO rem 'Ifieir 563918 of Cle Racial Att Sitplex Struc Eeasured c Simlex Stru: Measured r: 531916: Stru: Measured 3 Correlations BGtVEQn ‘qu leans of Mari I£VEIS Relationshi Racial 3‘.th Marital GIO‘J: Significa} COE‘PEI'ISQH 0 Means of Gee ComparisOn O scare a Table Page 14. Percentage of Respondents Giving Indicated Reasons for Wanting to Exclude Negroes from Their Neighborhood . . . . . . . . 127 15. Sample of Clergymen Participating in Racial Attitude Study . . . . . . . . . 133 16. Simplex Structure for Black Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WN;G . . . . . 147 17. Simplex Structure for White Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WNAG . . . . . 148 18. Simplex Structure for Total Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WN-G . . . . . 149 1E9. Correlations and Significance Levels Between Age and the ABS Levels . . . . 150 .2C). Means of Marital Groups and Attitude levels 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 152 21 - Relationship Between Marital Groups and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 153 22 - Marital Group Comparisons by F Score and Significance Levels . . . . . . . . . . 154 2:3 - Comparison of Marital Groups Including F Score and Significance Level . . . . . 155 12‘1-.. Means of General Religious Groups and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . 156 255 - Comparison of General Religious Groups by F Score and Significance Levels . . . . 157 ‘2€S" Comparison of General Religious Groups by Group Mneans O O O O I O O O O O O O 157 2:7 . . " Means of Denominational Groups at the Attitude Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 159 2&3 . ‘ Comparison of Denominational Groups and Attitude Levels . . . . . . . . . . 159 2S3 , , ‘ Comparison of Denominational Groups by F Scores and Significance Levels . . . . 160 30 ‘ Comparison of Denominational Groups by Attitude Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 xi 11! v4. 7! '4 .0:- fix.) w~ ('3- ' Socioeconoric 1 A I‘w' I“ I '- ‘. I1" ‘ - J'U‘AaU-a‘b 1". - Lev.ls Pm... - vvmrarati 0..- v’_ x h. DNA .3....:nt Of 1 ana Re 5‘ 5“ Hey - bet {X‘s-J“ . “uslc/IM $4. ' ..L A.th Ef‘“ ~ ~a: . Y ac gpli. Table 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 4443‘ 4 1.- 412.. 4:3 - 4441‘. 455.. 4(5‘. 477 463 453 5C) 51 Level of Education and Attitude Levels . . . Total Family Income and Racial Attitudes . Socioeconomic Level and Racial Attitudes . . Means of Geographic Areas . . . . . . . . . Geographic Area F Scores and Significance Levels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geographic Areas Compared by Group Means . . Means of Political Parties . . . . . . . . . F Score and Significance Levels of Comparative Political Parties . . . . . . Comparison of Positive Racial Attitude by Political Party . . . . . . . Theological Position and Racial Attitudes . Statement of Theological Position and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . Change Orientation and Racial Attitudes . . Extrinsic/Intrinsic Religion and Racial Attitudes O C O O O O C O I O O O I O O O Open/Closed Mindedness and Racial Attitudes Efficacy and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . Religious Values and Racial Attitudes . . . Integrated School Experience and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Church Experience and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . Integrated Residental Experience and RACial Attitudes O O O C C O O O O O 0 Personal Experience and Racial Attitudes O I O O O O O O I O O O O O C 0 Peer Relationships and Racial Attitudes . . xii Page 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 176 177 178 179 180 181 183 184 185 186 '1 iv! 1 33. cu. v'. V 4- 4 1'4 .ntegra. .. n3 ‘ Seeio-Econcr; Attitudes Table 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. Page Integrated Work Experience and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Level of Income and Racial Attitudes . . . 188 Socio—Economic Level and Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Significance Levels for Laymen's Perceptions of Pastor’s Racial Attitudes O I O O O O O O I O O O O O O 193 Laymen's Responses to Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes . . . . . . . . . . . . 200 xiii .. .‘g ' .Q‘FA~ I r‘ .. amumatlc of n) . U 7,‘ ,1- S; ._ wruaf‘. J.)s o .. 4 LOLCEI'. 50.“. b F -V ' ' . t0....'}l.".3T.‘.OT.S C Basis of E1 ‘. .' n Mazpmg Sen: afid White S. Five-Facet Si; Verbalizat; and Definif Combinatic: ale Illuf LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Schematic of Guttman Four-Level and Jordan Six-Level Semantic Analyses: Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 2. Combinations of Five Two-Element Facets and Basis of Elimination . . . . . . . . . . 100 3. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Attitudes Toward Specified Persons . . . 101 4. A Mapping Sentence for the Facet Analysis of Joint and Lateral Struction of Blacks' and Whites' Attitudes Toward Each Other. 102 55. Five-Facet Six-Level System of Attitude Verbalizations: Levels, Facet Profiles, and Definitional Statements for Twelve Combinations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103 6 - An Actual Example Taken from the ABS-WN-C Scale Illustrating the Six-Level Structure and the Directions for Each Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 '7'- Items for Revised ABS: WN/BW-G . . . . . . 110 xiv This is our be tward two 33.; and Lemal . m erstoodub; . “.at whi te so: Kite instit‘u \ maintain it S.ates Cor-mg. In Oti" er WOrd I esp-:Ci allkyt 1'1. ‘ Eagle C1: CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION This is our basic conclusion: Our nation is moving toward two societies, one black, one white--separate and unequal . . . . What white Americans have never understood--but what the Negro can never forget--is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions maintain it, and white society condones it (United States Commission on Civil Disorders, 1968, p. 1-2). In other words, virtually all white institutions-- especially the Christian Church-- are racist to their roots and historically have been destructive to black people. Christianity, for example, is burdened with two-part color divisions of black and white that pre- disposed white Christians to debase and denigrate African peOple. Christ, spirituality, goodness, and virginity were symbolized as white, while Satan, carnality, evil, and sin were symbolized as black. Even the Semitic Jesus was progressively "whitened" with blond hair and blue eyes, so as to remove his as far as possible from anything resembling black (Henry, 1970, p. 27). The two views expressed in the quotations above pro- vide some of the concern which motivates this study. Our nation is torn by many divisions, and one of the deepest and most crucial is our perjorative racial attitudes: whites toward blacks and blacks toward whites. We face a problem which is profoundly obvious, yet it is often illusory, poorly defined, and at times invisible. Destructive racial attitudes are all around us, between us, and inside us as well. We can see man's inhumanity to man in others who de- grade and restrain the fullness of life, but we often do .1. nu 2 not see our own involvement and contribution to the problem. Like so many other problems, we are prone to delegate the matter to a special commission for study and corrective action, while we tend to sit by doing nothing about it. Furthermore, even though we hear more and more about the problem every day, we still understand very little about the specific values and attitudes which are foundational to such powerful and well established customs within our society. There is little doubt that the Christian religion has ‘had.a significant role in the development and maintenance of destructive racial attitudes, yet several questions must be aSked about religion and racial attitudes. For example, what iii the basis for such religious attitudes? How has religion Ctontributed to prejudice? What does the Bible actually say, axni'how do people use the Bible to support or refute racial Prejudices? Apparently the Christian religion both supports and refutes prejudicial attitudes, but how is such a paradox Possible? How have the leaders of the Church contributed to this problem? There appear to be many Opinions about the (march, its ministry, and how they have contributed to the snoblem of racism as well as its solution. Nevertheless, very little is actually known about the racial attitudes of ministers, and even less is known about their attitudes at the personal action or behavior level. Statement of the Problem As an attempt to better understand racial attitudes in America and the contribution of the Christian religion and :elizisus leasers ‘ . .. : , 22230059 0. tr. 2: 2.535 and wait 0 2:51:35 were dra .I. ”Iv: ‘ . fl‘h\‘ .3: Ulo-‘ :lan \Ib.‘ I '3“: L - .1..:os.a1 (:3;— u.‘ 1 .'V‘ . 213':- .. . Nata ”ere re."le'h" L... -"\v ‘, . fin". ‘_ («bbablcn SO Agl $334.33 I 159d k" The data ‘ 1:".9 $332: a. . “A. la reca‘ The data ‘ 5:1: ,, Wmllsisns r I. thc 51 at . 5‘94. t- 3 religious leaders may have made to such attitudes, it was the purpose of this study to examine the racial attitudes of black and white American Clergymen. The subjects of the research were drawn from the three major grouings within the Christian Church: Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Pentecostal (for specific details see Chapter III, pp. 131- 133). A brief section of the research deals with some of the Biblical passages which are often quoted by ministers (and laymen) as foundational for their attitudes. These texts were reviewed with Opposing racist and humanitarian interpretations of the passages considered. Sections on the review of the literature and method- ology describe the issues, theory, and ‘methodology of at- titude research, the research design, and the theoretical issues raised by the study. The data were analyzed with particular reference to the major research hypotheses. A descriptive observation of issues relative to the Church and its ministers will be offered, but no attempt will be made at an evaluation of judgement in regard to any particular church. The data were analyzed with the objective that some conclusions might be drawn regarding the present state of the racial attitudes of ministers, the methodology of the study, and any implications for further research, training of ministers, or emphases for the Church vnv‘ f “Mir” . v a :0 ‘Ffl~wfir\ ' DC even L..Uu~: .1 ‘ 'A-Avrav o b ~ 1 ‘ qu-ub.v. I 55“. AI: :av' ‘L; F Q V005 In: Mao‘s A. a. F. \A s .. 2513... wilj freasm and j" ' 52:: little I'LL; not be 4.0:. :39 CAN-ext anb of ‘ «an: if Americ' mt come true- (A ‘. L ‘ .. .e. freeacm Ax; “4 v " ‘ - .1. AC“ :iIFS-‘er T.>..'.:a1:‘.s of tie “‘UV‘n. r. ‘ “Tc:.o»€otlng A‘1 "u :‘u‘:. B‘st net ....e Mountain e':Pv " '1 my ml and as .apzens, w 3.5: 5a' ~ .. 1 men 5: Lil: “ :3«'-.w"den' Jews .fi-Mlcg wil‘ .r-e .. ‘ ‘ ‘ . ms of t" P .ree at la“ 1. ~, V Tam: God 2. «tie 1“ ‘ CMI‘CH ‘:' .‘¢'\ "' 0f ‘1 Our SQCi: \e :Ela‘ Q ‘5‘ to R; rah “is CHAPTER II .RACIAL ATTITUDES AND THE CHURCH The Dream of Freedom So even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow I still have a dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed . . . that all men are created equal. I have a dream that one day even the State of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of Oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that one day my four little children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today --and if America is to become a great nation, this must come true. So let freedom ring. From the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire, let freedom ring. From the mighty mountains of New York, let freedom ring. From the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania let freedom ring. But not only that: Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia. Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi. And when this happens, when we let it ring, we will speed that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro Spiritual: Free at last, free at last, Thank God Almighty, we're free at last. Martin Luther King, Jr. Christian Minister (Heyer, 1969, p. 19) The Church is deeply involved in the attitudes and values of our society, particularly those attitudes which are related to race. In the investigation of racial atti- tudes in the Church it is immediately evident that the race 4 3592 is one of ti“. 35215. There are .t: are strongly ; Laiers and clerg“ 0 A '-:. ‘fl ; v ~ ‘ .1_at,llne WCS. $2360 with sore . . p...“ -~~=~. azcut '“ ‘=:~ n Uvdhe (ECc‘ ie li“ L . .‘.eu Danvh‘ ‘ ”*3: N... “a b “Hi-«3:3 (UOQ‘ :57 . ‘ '1 cfact . ~97; ‘u m ‘ "’9er 1.. b.50 5 issue is one of the great dividing issues within the Church itself. There are many church leaders, including Clergymen, who are strongly pro-racist; there are also many church leaders and Clergymen who are anti-racist or pro-humanitarian. Even so, like most Americans many Clergymen are confused, involved with some degree of personal prejudice, and not very certain about how they can best cope with the racial tensions within and around themselves. The Place of the Church in the Race Issue People seem to have the ingenious ability to use religion to justify almost any issue they want to support. They can quote passages from the Bible to support war: "For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven: a time to be born and a time to die . . . a time to love, and a time to hate, a time for war and a time for peace" (Ecclesiastes 3:1-8), or " . . . and men shall beat their plowshares into swords and their pruning hooks into spears (Joel 3:10). From the same sources, however, they can quote passages which support peace: "Men shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks" (Isaiah 2:4 and Micah 4:3), "And on earth, peace good ‘will toward men" (Luke 2:14), "A new commandment I give unto you, that you love one another even as I have loved you" (John 13:34). Shortly after the momentous Supreme Court decision condemning segregation in the public schools a well-known southern minister in an article in a daily paper said: .u .u an AU Au— .4.. ~. Y“ AU . . .né. .au .nu 2.“ 3 a. v. ”I e a a a. u e a. ”h x; +» C. 0-. .C u" .. c e V. .q.‘* _ .- ‘-¢‘d' u p ‘— t §;q;—- - a“ '5». . -V“ A . .nu 1“ w“ a a: 1:. A: 3. .G \ I u. "4 .. r r .2 2n ~a...~ we .3 .. . .t F . o z. E. C. .-: a.» r.“ .3 .‘ .vJ. .. .. t a: n u I” cw at: Q on“ up Id ' n x m \Q e C .l 4‘ rs .. .. «L a . rm Q. suk .R—H‘s Ah. b elk C E L... r .97. I S a a. s. .r s .1.‘ 1 4‘ 5V5 2 1 _. N I .. .9. .3. 6 We should not have been surprised by this ruling . . . . Our democratic philosophy . . . and our Christian teachings have always required the interpretation the Supreme Court has now handed down. We have all known it. We have all anticipated it. We . . . all . . . knew our way was contrary to everything God has taught us! (Article in The Nashville Banner, June 5, 1954). Yet only two years later, in equally unequivocal language, a local lawyer writing in another newspaper took exception to the above interpretation of that decision when he said: Segregation predates the known history of the world. God was the original segregationist . . . the (Supreme Court) decision was absolutely wrong. (Article in The Nashville Tennessean, March 11, 1956). Even as it is possible to find "proof texts" to support war or peace, it is also possible to find proof texts in an effort to support either racism or humanism. Some of these texts will be offered in detail in the section entitled Old Testament . . . and New Testament Passages Often Used to Support Racism. Many factors apparently contribute to the depth of involvement which religion has in the racial issue. A person's religion is significantly related to his fundamental philosophy of life, his world view, his basic values, atti- tudes, and emotional responses. Furthermore, religious values are inextricably intertwined with ethnic and cultural values. Thus, the religious factor has a significant role in the social psychological influences within every culture. In particular reference to the racial issue in America, this research will demonstrate much of the responsibility religion '— .- 40-1 .— vmv“ uiw~~h - o "'-AI-~~ra ~ —~~ v.~n-y. .. u . ‘ F . 5“ "‘FV \o. .."l u...“ ~ ~ . . -.-:-~;-s * "OV‘OA ‘. gi--.,':-" Av- H.-"'.‘V.Ols . :‘o.-h_- , ‘5. ~. 5 u..- uk.-.l° .‘-.A . ‘ Q.v.:‘ 1.1 r O ., ‘v.-. I“:.' r~:~;:a ‘ \A C4 *1. ”5 date ~ ‘0‘ t‘;rn :C;'-. 0-; Q sg‘ar It ‘ Q N“ r.°r:ea: F . .f‘e 1:] t t1“. C1 n. K \h::.n M as d h 5‘ : 3: \~) a § h rs. ‘v h_ '5 T A $~‘ sq‘l"h *q‘g t. 4. . C. ‘- "It A“ “9,qu H r. 7 has for our racial problems and perhaps offer some hope for the solving of those problems. Recent research tends to confirm more and more that church members tend to be more bigoted and prejudiced than non-church members. For example, in the spring of 1966 Glock and Stark published a study which reported that many Americans remain hostile toward Jews because of religious motivations. In their study the authors estimated that the anti-Semitism of as many as 17.5 million adult Americans was rooted in the religious convictions that the Jews crucified Christ, remain outside of God's redeeming Grace, and continue to be the objects of divine wrath and retribution (p. 1). Glock summarized his results as follows: The basic prOposition tested in the earlier study is a simple one, namely, that ideas have consequences. Certain interpretations of Christian faith, it was postulated, are conducive to producing specifically religious hostility toward Jews, and religious hostility, in turn, has the prOpensity to lead to secular anti- Semitism (1966, p. 5). It appears, then, that religion not only played a crucial role in the rise of anti-Semitism but even today con- tinues to reinforce and foster hatred of the Jews--so much so, the authors judged, that at least one fourth of America's anti-Semites have a religious basis for their prejudice, while nearly another fifth of them have this religious basis in considerable part. Indeed, only five per cent of Americans with anti- Semetic views lack all rudiments of a religious basis for their pre- judice (1966, p. 10). Glock and Stark place whatever hOpe they have in the Church as a "sleeping giant" in the new breed of the younger ministers. Yet the new breed of liberal ministers and laymen are leaving the churches in vast numbers. Their conclusions do not hold much hOpe for the Church as a potent force in 1 .. brisa u:..e=s -v- ' n'u '4 Shin cad yen. '0‘, i . ‘ ‘ ' ..:‘.:. ;-ay}ss I :‘tuldb s w-u ’— :...‘:' CC..ue... ..... -‘-' ~ ."“‘":v~4,&- '~.:b‘u.“. . I 9' ", “ an'le." 1“ ‘ .-“ '...‘,‘A -45 .“‘\-CS "‘ 45:1 tu~ W “5“ ‘0‘" . ‘ . Raw?" bu‘cyn ls a l317-3 On 3": 9r Rana p A. 5 .“n “A", U‘ 5“. “9:1“. ‘ :51 v‘;. “‘He nei~~h. A._ ' "'~€0me :w mends th; 6'. . . ‘ ““95 the Ir [1: ‘Ca. Nd . \ ‘In 'w‘neve ‘ Q Niches do rain" to u‘ ? \J ..“~“:slng ] N 452‘", , i. :“~'-. I‘I ~‘ 323.,“ O . I\_ . .K ‘1‘ 8 America unless there is a radical transformation in the Church, and soon. Furthermore, with specific reference to prejudice against blacks, Hayward Henry, Jr., writing in The Black Scholar, condemns the white church, not only for the racism in its theology and thought, but for its personal and eco- nomic involvements in institutions, businesses, and govern- ments which tend to hold down blacks. He wrote: Christianity provided the theological rationale for slavery in America and to this day there are few signs that whites have moved from their historic incapacity to deal humanely with blacks. The $100 billion white church is as deeply entrenched in the Oppression of blacks as it was during slavery. Many of the laymen sitting on the governing boards of white congregations own or manage the corporate and political structures which keep black peOple deprived and powerless. Many of the members of fine suburban congregations are homeowners who vigorously oppose blacks moving into white neighborhoods. Black theologian Gayraud Wilmore contends that almost all of the great white denominations, through their investments, support the Union of South Africa. Furthermore, they own thousands of acres in the South where black sharecroppers are being forced off the land and into already crowded urban ghettos. White churches do business with discriminatory firms while refusing to join Project Equality which uses church purchasing power to force an end to job discrimination (Henry, 1970, p. 27). In addition to all of the subtle influences such as symbolism, values, and unconscious factors, religion has contributed to a conscious, systematic rationale which has sometimes implicitly and sometimes explicitly contributed to a pro-racist attitude and society. These rationalisms have become part of what Rokeach calls a person's "belief- disbelief system" (Rokeach, 1960), and thus paradoxically incompatible concepts and behavior occur simultaneously with- in the church. v 4 ‘n ‘l d ". an a. C S .2 ... .b a. .- 5 a. a. . .. y 6-: . afl‘ H“ m. c” .- 3. .fi we. .. ‘ .s. .. v I. u n a.“ o. - g .h v“ .u‘ “a. a «J 3. .. ¢ . . I. .u. ~ . . .. :- v u... u... r h... I C. ..J.1 11.5.. 5.1.; E E t .3 S .2 C .L t p... E t :5 3 r 11 .7 we r .a I .2 ... .L T. 2...; a... C C .. 3 3 ... C I C E . _ L. b s... 2. CC 4. t .2 C C S T. :x ~t a. 9 Within the Christian belief system some persons have used Biblical materials which they consider sufficient foundation for their racist position. At least they use the argument that their racist interpretation of the Christian faith justifies their racial attitude. Persons of the humanist position generally claim that such (racist) inter- pretations of the Bible and Christian faith are erroneous distortions of the Bible and theology. Nevertheless, many people within the Church today still hold on to the racist position with a dogmatic determination. waldo Beach, writing in the Union Seminaryguarterly Review claimed that there is no single or solid opinion among ministers and church. Beach classifies ministers into three major groups in regard to racial attitudes: Plainly, the terms "Southern Protestantism" or "the Southern Church" are misleading to start with. There is no "solid South," but a patch-work quilt of atti- tudes and re3ponses. There is no "the mind of the South," but many minds. But there is (italics in original) a certain one within the many. Liberal and conservative churches, pro-integrationist and pro- segregationist, share the moral phenomenon of a guilty conscience, the awareness, however subliminal and disguised, of the moral discrepancy between the Christian faith and racial practice. It is this troubled conscience which lies at the heart of the churches'reaction to the racial crisis. On this premise, one might range the churches along a Spectrum, according to their various ways of dealing with the troubled conscience within. Three main modal groupings appear along this spectrum. At one extreme are the churches of belligerent resistance, a highly vocal minority, who handle the problem of guilt by an inner suppression of the conscience. Here are found the deep-South rural churches of the red-necked, Bible- thumping, fire-eating racists. Militant and passionate, the pastors of these churches, "Bible College" graduates if that, make a simple identification of segregation with the will of God, and pound it home with the Bible. - . . 4.. c. I E 5 1 1L 3 .l .... .h... a aL LC cu. v. -\ . - o~ :u th I <.‘ a . RV VFM a» a: «an ’1‘ .1 gas .h... r e r e t a r r t u‘l‘ V“ T‘ c.‘ .f a S 8 e l t r. r ... a e i e .3 .5 E S C t S C I a e i E C I“ U. i t 1... .3 .2 I S S a S 2 .1 t l t nn 1 2. e .4 .l I. 3.1 f e l P S a 3 «v 9. a. a» 4. I. .. #L a. ..u 1. 1; .p. .71 AU 2“ 4‘ Q» a» :L {L r «xv :6 S a. r. e a. .n u. 9 . . e 4. .1 .3 ,.. .3 .I 3. C. .... +. A... a... s 5 Us V 5 xx 3 I r r. .2 .u 1 .4 .4 C 7...» .: z r i w. a.. i .J. .3 ..:. . . . a... .2 m. u... m... .4 w... mm m... r i. .3 .3 .. 9. s... ._ .. .. L. 3. . v. .3. “a. .u 1. use .. «5 .~. M. \k . , s v» 51 NH. 4...: ~.. a. .. us .. a.» a he kw .. W..- b:-- new PM QC“. .u-H MN m u . \. \.\ nu. t s 10 But the guilt is present in the very self-defensive arrogance which closes off all debate and lurks behind the "scape-goat" charges against the Supreme Court or the deluded Yankees. At the opposite extreme, and also a very small minority, are the churches of liberal persuasion, who have taken the lead in urging public compliance with the Supreme Court, and in integrating their own house- hOldS O O O C By far the largest number, however, are the churches in the silent middle, neither fiercely segregationist nor radically integrationist, but of mixed mind on the matter. In the squeeze between the moral norms and the actual practice of the Christian faith, these churches of middle Protestantism attempt to solve the problem of guilt by avoiding it . . . . (Beach, 1959), p. 20). Whereas Henry, in his accusation quoted earlier, accused the Church of providing a systematic rationale for racism, Beach, on the other hand, illustrated that there is no single racial attitude within the Church. Still a differ- ent emphasis has been pointed out by Hadden when he said that sympathy of re3ponse for the civil rights movement is re- lated to the factor of theological liberalism or conserva- tism. His research clearly indicated: The more liberal a clergyman's theological position, the greater his sympathy for the civil rights cause. Similarly, the younger a clergyman is, the more liberal his feelings are likely to be about civil rights . . . . Thus it can be seen that theological position is roughly twice as important as age in explaining attitudes about civil rights (Hadden, 1969, p. 118). Perhaps one of the strongest indictments against the Church is that it has done so little to effect much change in the racial situation in America. Although there have been many resolutions passed, many sermons preached, and some programs put into effect, very little has been accomplished. It is as if the Church has Spoken words, but engaged in ’...'e n6 an .....e V9 V“ "‘ -;v~oy H‘firfl **3A' IO‘OU O .- a u 0.9 . c‘v voohbvt .Qu‘ . . q“"" 0—. --'-»~:4- I as ...:: ; ‘ ' :‘;"" 'fi-vv y‘ u'u: voou ya. 5.; “ ::':"" ‘lh cr- . " .30..” ‘v Q \ N " " *‘+~~4 . “‘ue . .‘A -'- .‘ N“‘:‘.' “Le.] a“; C“ ., :‘1- 11 little action. Although the ideals have existed (at least in many churches) for racial equality and human betterment, the Church has given very little leadership to our nation. Rather, as many critics claim, the Church has passively and dependently waited upon other (secular) groups to provide leadership for integration and equality for all peoples. Although some churches prompted the action which led to the 1954 Supreme Court decision, perhaps the most evident demonstration of this belief is the fact that the Church waited for the Supreme Court to carry the responsibility for equality for all people, and then little by little churches began taking a stand. In speaking to the point of the dependent, follower- ship attitude of the Church, as Opposed to leadership, Ralph Abernathy and Andrew Young of the Southern Christian Leader- ship Conference look with considerable hope to the new black militants: We black Christians have too often ignored the Church and felt its power to be too limited or irrelevant in the principalities of this age. Has God raised.up this one (referring to the Black Manifesto) from his own children of Abraham? (Lecky, 1969, p. 13). There was a marked response to the Black Manifesto in many major demonimations. Largely the Manifesto was a shock which stimulated both pro and con responses in the traditionally white churches. Even though Abernathy and Young see some new hope in the new black leadership, they still follow in the footsteps, theology, and philosophy of Martin Luther King, Jr. Their ° c 9 1s e. .l'. U D . .h‘QCp 2.;- +18%. £56 I v .4- 56 ‘ as 2-3:.(5 O ‘ :~-:‘.\,...D' “‘ 22:33! fine C 325: 335. an ~'-.-‘ ‘0 q‘ . :3...» big» the £4 ‘3‘. c ' \ H 0"“ ‘ ‘.I ~'Oh:“dl . IL.“ TAU: h, -.. uUéu raVls i."q “sud. fer tka ¢‘\ .‘; .‘l «Muglng to t 15‘ Ii“: a: ‘ Vs the r“ Q. 1‘... VI a: ~ " 0;." w ‘4‘ :ranCiSr \ .1 ."fin . “s H ‘lv ~Cd'lr n “’1‘" I S. m . ‘ «Jltn. ‘ 6‘ “ “hie Om. :‘QA “Br¥: a I :- re Stri. l“ I'M M Q‘it CA I ‘58 U "et ”1 “‘ EM" e C0329 Hf°ka216d ‘ HQQV,‘\ l: ‘\'n ' ‘v-A I ,7.” "Vh “ CESS C Os 1 12 approach is essentially Christian non-violent resistance, and they have a considerable following among whites as well as blacks. One of the broader areas of concern which the Church has in the racial issue is what the impact of racism does to human beings. Although its action, and even its theological statements, have not always indicated an authentic love for mankind, the Church holds to the ideals of love, brotherhood, peace, and an abundant life for all humanity. It is at this point that the human appeal in favor of civil rights has its most powerful support from the Church. Even many of those who hold racist positions are quick to say that they want blacks to have a good life, one which may be separate but equal. Some of the most indicting criticisms of the Church have been expressed in terms of its allowing the dehumanizing process of racism. By accepting the attitudes of the white church for their own, some blacks have been accused of con- tributing to the dehumanizing process themselves. Using some of the new black terminology, A. Cecil Williams, Pastor of San Francisco's Glide Memorial Methodist Church, has said: The Church is shuckin' and jivin'. By shuckin' and jivin' I simply mean talking out of both sides of its mouth. This can easily be seen through the minister, the congregation, politicians, city officials, busi- nessmen, and eSpecially white middle-class Negroes who are striving to become middle-class in terms of whiteness. Let me come back to say that the black church is as enslaved in its shuckin' and jivin' as the white church. The black church had allowed the dehumanizing process of white man's Christianity to deny its own :u e C. a. . u nu. u b. a.» 2. av a: g a F“. If!” “U C- ’- -fi A-qa - . . O a .. a. a . a. S a n .. I.“ u . .H“ a. .HU ”a C E t v. N. a. «D s: «C V5 p. g a :5 v . :a n u a . .u «l . a c V ‘Qv K... ll i!‘ I M" 5‘ . - S .n.. .7. LL ‘1‘ I. In > .. s 3 a u N . a: .p. u . ‘~ .“’VL ‘ . y.‘ (,3 Q. \‘ ‘0. _. u Amw S N. s Q» a .H . 2h . .\\. 5.! s ~ .~\ tuv‘ ~ 00's . l3 blackness. Throughout the history of the church black people have played a subservient role and have never been participants in the power decision-making process of the church. Because the theology of the church has always served the needs of white peOple it has always created that situation in which the white man has been looked upon as the chosen or superior one. The black experience has been written off as its shame and dis- grace, and has, in fact, been looked upon as its sin (Williams, 1970, p. 35). In his criticism leveled against the social impact of the ghetto, Lee Rainwater further emphasized: Lower class Negroes are forced to live in a slum culture which is highly destructive to the people who must live in it . . . . In the Negro slum culture growing up involves an ever-increasing appreciation of one's shortcomings, of the impossibility of finding a self-sufficient and satisfying way of living. It is in the family first and most devastatingly that one learns these lessons (Rainwater, as reported in Graubard, 1966, p. v). An adequate treatment of the psychological factors involved in racism are beyond the scope of this thesis; how- ever, the position of the Church and its involvement with the racial issue cannot be described without at least the reference that, though it often falls short of its ideals, the Church is now and always has been committed to the principle of a full and abundant life for every human being. The Place of the Clergy in Religion and Race There is both an implicit and explicit attitude that Clergymen are the leaders of the church. They are generally the stated, formal leaders, and most high level positions in the various church organizations are filled by Clergymen. Sometimes Clergymen believe and feel as if they are the leaders of their churches, yet this attitude is somewhat ' _'~.— ‘ V‘ ...‘O‘ V '6 :F‘V .f‘ .¢.~¢‘ 'U a 5“- ..-- “ sun- - ¢..uo “59‘ ‘v‘vp .‘n ~¥ .. * :‘Aas t W 2‘ L .. t it no a a. . v. ~\~ Hva .“a.‘ .2. . . 14 subject to change according to the age of the minister, the kind of experience he has had in the church, and his present morale. Generally the above attitude is also held by most laymen. At least until there is some problem regarding the clergyman or the leadership of the church, most laymen are willing to follow the leadership of their clergyman and usually hold him in some degree of esteem. In today's church there appear to be four areas in which the clergyman's leadership is most likely to be threatened: race, war and peace, social involvement or politics, and sexual morality. When the clergyman begins to move into any of these areas with any degree of involvement, tensions tend to arise between himself and his laymen. It is at this point where ministers become most aware of the struggle between being leaders or followers of their laymen. In recent years a large number of Protestant Clergymen have been removed from their positions, because they have attempted to integrate previously all-white churches. Thus, when leadership is tested, at least in congregational type churches where the local congregation has the final authority over their pastor, Clergymen have discovered (sometimes too late) that their leadership is accepted only up to a certain point. Beyond that they are not free to express their faith--at least not without serious consequences. Laymen, therefore, view ministers with a very mixed attitude today. Apparently the older church members still p -~~I -‘4 V V 5.0% Q- A ad ‘,5 ....ra .5 u A- f by Q‘- -_~_ .) vs... V l“ OR 0 by; fi '- up... - --‘ 3",?“ .. . ','§F V-..VC‘. -qvv Uh--ia ”I. 'g Q ‘ V e. 3 A.» 4.9-! ..¢ - ‘ . 4 . 3- K ~‘v- N‘cai . bog- 15 look to their ministers for guidance and leadership, but an increasing number of church members are turning less and less to their ministers as their leaders in anything other than church functions and sometimes not even there. Nevertheless, even with a limited and waning influence, Clergymen still have a significant place in the community as well as in the church. Thus Cecil Williams, a black, and one of the more creative ministers of today, complained that many laymen are still looking to their ministers as figures of hOpe. "Even the young blacks," complained Williams, "still feel that black.ministers have the greatest potential of reaching the people in the community" (Williams, 1970, p. 37). But there is a trend today for people to turn to their pastor less and less and to other persons more and more when they are facing a crisis. It is as if we have advanced into what Henry Mitchell (among others) has called "the post- Christian era." Mitchell maintained that the historic domi- nation of the western world by the Christian Church is past, and that we must learn to live according to a new ethic (1970, p. 43). It is most evident among the young revolutionaries who are generally anti-establishment that the Church is con— sidered insignificant and irrelevant. Presumably this is because the Church is, for the most part, essentially tra- ditional, conservative, and status-quo in its orientation. Even so, it is reported by some black pastors that the black militants have exerted great pressure on them in attempts to speak from their pulpits to the church. 16 It is very clear from the research reported by Hadden and others (1969, p. 77) that there is a strong relationship between belief in free enterprise and adherence to conserva- tive theological beliefs. There is a division in every de- nomination studied by Hadden between the conservatives and liberals. For example, among American Baptists, 82 percent of those calling themselves fundamentalists agree that free enterprise is the only economic system which is compatible with the idea of freedom and constitutional government (Hadden, 1969, p. 77). Furthermore, it is reported by Hadden that other research confirms his findings that clergy- men have a significant influence on the political views of -their congregations. Specifically, he found that theo- logically liberal ministers have a liberalizing effect on the political behavior of their laity who by social status should tend toward conservatively political behavior, while theo- logically conservative ministers have a moderating influence on laity who by social status should tend toward liberal political behavior (Hadden, p. 83-84). He Specified the results of his study as follows: In other words, where active church laity are caught in a cross pressure between class-based political trends and'the theological position of their ministers, there is a trend for their minister to affect their political outlook (Hadden, 1969, p. 84). Nevertheless, while congregations are influenced by the theological position of their ministers, ministers are also influenced by their congregations. The issue is not that the congregation influences the minister's political beliefs at the cognitive level, but it substantially -pn :“.95 u-‘ no a .3 .l . . .VU Q I‘ «my and .DH NV .3 .7. ,u. "14 .. . :- - g 2 T... fi‘fl vo.\.e:“ 0‘ A b .;";1 'v‘l .‘ s.“ “5 Ex 5 Lu 0 L L ~\~ _. ‘ ~s~ as. l l7 influences his overt behavior. Hadden concluded: "In Spite of the fact that a large proportion of ministers feel that they should have the right to speak out on significant political issues, only a very small proportion actually do so" (Hadden, 1969, p. 89). But in regard to the racial issue and civil rights he concluded: . . . perhaps the most profound finding in our study is that whatever their theology, clergy as a group are overwhelmingly sympathetic to the general principle of achieving social justice for Negroes in America (Hadden, 1969, p. 104). Furthermore, the large majority of clergy express deep concern over the Church's failure to be more influential in the racial crisis . . . . Clergy are concerned that Christians have not fully understood the implications of their faith for the racial issue (Hadden, 1969, p. 106). The Bible and General Clergy Attitudes Probably more than any other group of people, clergy- men tend to identify with models. They make a conscious effort to emulate the personalities presented to them in the Bible. The Bible personalities are presented repeatedly as idealized models for ministers. Generally the Biblical characters who are idealized are strong, prophetic, and heroic in personality type. It is not unusual, however, for Jesus to be presented as an effeminate, emasculated type of man. Consequently, many Christian men, and especially many ministers, tend to model themselves after Jesus in a passive, dependent, and emasculated manner. This is generally called ”the gentle Jesus, meek and mild" complex. Furthermore, many of the Biblical ideals presented as guides for behavior q t"’ c on“? .0“- . < .A.-;-""' ‘— DO. 6 ‘9.“ .04 v v“... -.oc- .- ‘ 5A. ‘ m .V‘-3 :u. at. qvfi Q q A on,- t. v...“ .FA‘ 7 b“ .A — .05 W . g .A‘ :wgue :01; a. ‘q 9- a te; m: V.“ l8 teach that people should be passive, dependent, meek and long-suffering. Therefore, many Christians, including ministers, find examples and teachings which endorse any tendency they may already have toward weakness, conformity, and followership. It appears, in fact, that most ministers tend to select the model with whom they identify according to their pre-existing personality dynamics. Thus, two types of persons frequently respond to the call into the ministry: the weak, passive, dependent type who is more comfortable as a follower; and the power seeking, aggressive, ego-centric type who needs to have a group of people following and admiring him. It appears to be quite evident, as suggested above, that men tend to express their personalities in their style of ministry as they do select the ministry according to the dynamics of their personalities. For example, Joseph R. Washington, Jr., in his book, Black Religion, has described Martin Luther King, Jr. as representing in the public imagery the quality, depth, and energy of Negro church life. "He is accepted as the man who most of all contributes pure-form Christianity and the ideal of love to the racial revolution." Yet Washington described King as a "syncretist," one who has "tried to fuse Jesus'" revelation of divine love with Ghandi's practice of non-violence; to confuse Christian love with the demand for justice--in short, is to misunderstand the Christian faith" (Washington, 1964, p. xv). Yet washington's analysis contains the likelihood of not only being superficial but his own misunderstanding of .l .3 a. — ._ A . q a In a: w“ .fi. Y“ H 3. e .3 1 3 C .r e n .: ... 2. t n C S .l 3 .1. Z. .3. a. r. 3. a. p“ a“ t .t I 3 S 1 .4 ..... ..ta 2. :. a .. . .T J . .. . v“ a» 2. a. C . .C .4 .3 n. km .F. .. .. . . .. . .3 .1 ... ~ _ Cal te .‘§-l Q» ". :E ‘ § ‘h .9‘ Va 3 r 3. e F. .l r .H N C t «a PL i.» is ~\~ . ,q‘ ,. \ . . x . 19 the meaning of faith in a life. Christian love may very well be presented as a just love, not a mere love of self- suffering m. 3 Furthermore, the example of Jesus Christ as a model for the Christian must never become a kind of purist identification which eliminates other models or denies the uniqueness of the individual Christian. Even so, Washington's point is an excellent illustration of the com- plexity of the theological-personal factor in the identity of the Christian minister. Biblical-Theological Foundations for Racial Attitudes Doctrines are not the only matters which require a Biblical text. Ministers generally like to base their sermons on a Biblical passage. Indeed, the Bible, pro- claimed by many Protestants as the supreme authority in matters of faith, is used as much as possible as a foundation for values, attitudes, and behavior. Therefore, it is a common practice, especially for ministers, to look to the Bible as a guide and justification for their personal beliefs. The Use and Mis-Use of the Bible Biblical interpretation is a highly complex and tech- nical procedure. It involves many factors including language, theology, a knowledge of social circumstances, and among other things, a receptive spirit. Two of the most obvious abuses or errors of Biblical interpretation which occur most frequently in regard to racism are using an isolated passage without due consideration for the context, and "eisegesis." 4 A -:L&er C u up u . .30. u b A O'.‘ 3» - v-Q ‘ F.’ -mc‘oa‘ -n- - ~— ras \- Vs On‘ by. r.“ “’MMlC < 4". ~25 ‘ SE Q Q ‘ ' fin. v *‘ A \~:' § ..-:l 4“ , v q “} a . . Ml». . .-.’..._§ ‘ v \~ I .1& ¥« G e n t ‘ .1“ . >AW§ ‘5 v ‘Iu um uh 20 The matter of context is self—explanatory. The term "eise- gesis" is a term used in contrast to "exegesis." Exegesis is the critical explanation of the meaning of the words and passages in the Bible; it is reading the meaning out of the Bible. Eisegesis, on the other hand, is reading one's own meaning into the Bible. , By taking verses out of the full context of their textual setting, and missing the total context of the whole Bible as a unity, it appears to be relatively easy for min- isters as well as others to easily misinterpret the message of the Bible. The practice of eisegesis appears to be pri- marily a matter of the personality as a demonstration of the wish or need to use the Bible to document an inner wish. The Schizmatic Attitude Toward the Bible and Race It is little wonder that the Church appears to be schizmatic on the matter of race relations. The Church is made up of a great variety of peOple who have all of the idiosyncrasies that are found in the general population. Therefore, it is to be expected that the confusion, contra- diction, and emotion surrounding the whole issue of race will be found in the Church. It is unfortunate, however, inasmuch as the Church has proclaimed a love for all mankind that racism is still a part of the thought and behavior of the Church. Given the schizoid characteristics within the Church and the errors or abuses of Biblical interpretation, it is u. AJttinvw ‘ 9 .Ju h.-.LUU- \- jzs:;fy rams: - at’:*cr'- "‘ ovd v‘. .v‘. v "3 -'- n . :J. “15 Great: lili“‘*~ 4. ‘ F I ““““Jp 5.x! .- "'.'1- ‘- "bfi‘iie of ‘4‘ n... 'I:" an: - ’4; (ll , n 21 not difficult to see that the Bible can readily be used to justify racism or some other attitude such as communism. Old Testament Passages Often Used to Support Racism A theological analysis of racial life starts with God the Creator. DeSpite attempts to segregate men from the beginning, the consensus of Christianity is to affirm the doctrine of unity and equality of racial life in creation. Nevertheless, some passages have repeatedly been used as a basis for justifying the separation and denegration of the races and of one race above another. Several representa- tive and key passages are given below; however, there will be no attempt to be comprehensive nor to list all possible passages. Genesis l:26.--"Then God said, 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over . . . .'" The question comes to mind immediately: what does it mean to be created in the image of God? Some light is shed on the meaning by the Psalmist: What is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him? Yet thou hast made him little less than God and dost crown him with glory and honor. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou has put all things under his feet . . . (Psalm 8:4-6) Both the racist and humanist view the creation of man as God's highest act in creation. Man is seen as the child of God, whole, beautiful, and one who pleases God. . an n I: val" 31' a a. -d..:~‘ o-nl- A: .3 a: 3:: ‘i‘ u 1 u c 1‘ |1I “a. t‘ a a fifi ‘ an S C 2.. G 22 Beyond the appreciation of man in the beginning, the humanist belief is that every person created (regardless of race) must be regarded with the respect due to a child of God. Anyone who is in the image of God ought not to be pro- faned or dehumanized by racism. Genesis 7:13.--On the very same day (that the Flood began) Noah and his sons, Shem and Ham and Japheth and the three wives of his sons entered the arc. Genesis 9:18-29.--The sons of Noah who went forth from the arc were Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Ham was the father of Canaan. These three were the sons of Noah; and from these the whole earth was peopled. Noah was the first tiller of the soil. He planted a vineyard; and he drank of the wine, and became drunk, and lay uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brothers outside. Then Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it upon both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness. When Noah awoke from his wine and saw what his youngest son had done to him, he said, "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers." He also said, "Blessed by the Lord my God be Shem; and let Canaan be his slave. God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tent of Shem; and let Canaan be his slave." Racists hail the Genesis account of the separation of peOples after the flood as proof of the divine origin of the segregation of the races. This story relates the sepa- ration of the sons of Noah into what was to become three separate races. Gillespie, a leading proponent of Christian racism, comments on this passage as follows: . C a» . a n n! .. .nv‘ 531w“ a" ‘0‘ \ .F‘ i fig 4.. .a.‘ .4 23 The descendants of Shem migrated eastward and occupied most of Asia; the descendants of Japheth migrated westward . . . and ultimately occupied the continent of EurOpe; while the children of Ham moved . . . southward . . . and occupied the continent of Africa. This brief record . . . while affirming the unity of the race, also implies that an all-wise Providence . . . is . . . responsible for the distinct racial characteristics . . . which are chiefly responsible for the segregation of racial groups across the countries and in our time. (GillesPie, as reported in Tilson, 1958, p. 20). Gillespie implies at least two assumptions in the use of this passage in support of segregation: (a) that Japheth, Ham, and Shem were progenitors of three distinct races, and (b) that all subsequent migrations of these racial groups have been without divine sanction. The humanist interpretation of this passage is more complex. First, Genesis 7:13 and 9:18 indicate that the three brothers Ham, Shem, and Japheth all had the same father. Scripture says nothing about them having other than the same mother; although with Noah's great age, he must have had more than one wife. Tilson, in commenting on this passage, declared: . . . at least we can say this without fear of re- proof: no reputable scientist has yet attempted to account for the origin of the three major racial groups within a single generation from a set of common parents (Tilson, 1958, p. 21). A second argument has grown out of this above passage: the so-called "curse of Ham." Here the assumption is that Noah, embarrassed by Ham seeing him naked in his drunken stupor, said, " . . . cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be to his brethren." At least five I u I .--«—o. " A“ V‘s . d-u‘I". b- -\\ ed .. .o-V “" O .",...uh A ~ '.-.. ' N f .. x *5 s.. “I. 24 assumptions are contained in this argument: (a) that God pronounced the curse, (b) that the curse is biologically transferable, (c) that Ham is the original victim of the curse, (d) that the children of the original curse will be slaves, and (e) that the original victim of the curse will be a member of the Negro race. Without going deeply into critical detail the human— ist position is quite easily made. First, there is no Scriptural basis for the curse being attributed to God. Furthermore, Noah pronounced the curse upon waking from a drunken stupor--hard1y a condition in which one is most likely to represent God. Second, does God condemn one generation for the sins of another? According to the Bible the answer may be either yes or no. It depends upon which Biblical proverb you choose to follow. In Ezekiel (18:2) it is claimed by Ezekiel's contemporaries: "the fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." Yet it is impossible to accept that verse without rejecting Ezekiel as God's spokeSman, for he declares in the name of the Lord: The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him (Ezekiel 18:20). For the third assumption there is an incredible account regarding the curse on Ham and his children's chil- dren to the hundredth generation. Actually the Biblical curse is not on Ham, but on Canaan, one of Ham's four I O C . «rah ‘I- A t..r-.:e- ""er 1 cubob. Va. O n”: 0" U to.“ .L. - . “'1 .. ..... a. _... a ..: ... 1 .: t r s .n. . a .1 t t z a r C F. e 2.1 C G C ._ a e e. .1. ~3 e a .l .1 A» «v a». a.» “a st 4 1 Q» s 5 “V U . .. . 3 C O a. .1. C t .J . e S .I S . . 3 .2. Li . MW WC. NW. ”A“ .mu m; x. h“ LI. «.9 is a,» .1. ....¢ av a» ... *1 ms Ly is .5... 1 «Q .~. LL . 5: NW no .1 a. .1. an ...1. a . nzw .5 1.. L... 3 C .k .0. mu .4 Y tam. Jaw. \....u 6.: as L... . k . .. *3... DAN mi. .. “.1. “3. . . .3 .. . a: ‘1. - .. ... W... -3» . z PL nu t IA. 115 O 1... a. L .1 E .3. ..... 2 .e ...... .. : ...... .. 25 children. If the curse had, in truth, been effected upon Ham, three-fourths of the world's population would presumably live under this curse. In regard to the fourth assumption, it seems neces- sary to ask: Did Canaan become the slave of Shem and Japheth? And were his children the slaves of their cousins? The amazing thing is that quite the opposite is true. Canaan's descendants dominated the whole of Palestine (not Africa) un- til long after the death of Moses, and Jerusalem, which took its name from Canaan's son Jebus, remained in Canaanite hands until David led Israel in its capture. At the time Jerusalem was a city state, and while many other parts of Palestine fell to the Israelites following Jericho, Jerusalem remained in Canaanite hands. Therefore, as Tilson has stated so emphatically: According to the peOple who treat Genesis l-ll as sober history, this (the fall of Jerusalem) happened about seventeen centuries after the invocation of Noah's curse on Canaan! Indeed, granted the historicity of the geographical distribution of this passage, the only possible conclusion would be just the reverse of this notion (Tilson, 1958, p. 25). George Rawlinson, writing about the relative contri— butions of comparative cultures has also stated support of this view: For the last 3000 years the world has been mainly in- debted for its advancement to the Shemitic and Indo- European races; but it was otherwise in the first ages. Egypt and Babylon, Mizraim and Nimrod--both descendants of Ham--led the way and acted as pioneers of mankind in the various fields of art, literature, and science. Alphabetic writing, astronomy, history . . . agriculture, textile industry--seem, all of them, to have had their origen in one or the other of these two countries (Rawlinson, as reported in Tilson, 1958, pp. 25-26). o A. .— ~ A“ av O..- a“: ‘ o g d u.. a v ‘6' . .- U- V b ' V ’ Al-- \ "“U ‘0. .u'v-v 9 s '5 -a‘.- " ' ‘L- P’. 'o 93—; R‘ .. . J ‘i 1.P.\ .2. S E S n... O S E 5.3. 1 . t E «1 t t .3 C . . . . 4 i. C. .... a e T. i I G t t 5 Lu P. 0 P .5 r. en a. a!» h. t C r .r. «L C .hu O 2. F. 3 . C .d .3 Q r 3.. .3 5 .Q .1 a. :1 a. .3 C. C e .5 a... O. a... Q L... Q a. ... a. 3...... 2.. .1 2. .L L... S L... at. a h...“ a... .1 t L. .I S :u S ab n! I . ‘ .nl. ‘ 2.3 z...» .... . u .3 .t . a. .2 t. .. .t . . .J. _. .. .... .3. . s Vo‘ s... v Q .r. h h. . v s n n c 26 There is a very obvious conclusion as a result of the above evidence--a conclusion which is difficult for any racist to accept. Considering the length of time during which the descendants of Canaan were in power (seventeen centuries!), and considering the contribution they made to civilization, the curse against Canaan must have been the pronouncement either of a man who misunderstood the mind of God, or of a deity incapable of making good on his pro- nouncement. As to the question of whether or not the descendants of Canaan were Negro, the most obvious question would be to ask if the inhabitants of the land of Canaan (later called Judea or Palestine) were Negroes. W.F. Albright, one of the leading archeologists of Biblical lands answers the question with an emphatic negative. According to Albright, all of the known ancient races in the Palestinian area belonged to the so-called "white" or "Caucasian" race, with the exception of the Cushites (Ethiopians) who were strongly Negroid in type. Genesis ll:l-9.--Another often quoted passage is the one about the confusion of tongues at Babel. Now the whole earth had one language and few words. And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, "Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly." And they had brick for stone and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, "Come, let us build our- selves a city, and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth." And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, "Behold, they are one people, and they have one language; 27 and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." So the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore, its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth; and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. Gillespie calls this text, " . . . an act of special Providence to frustrate the mistaken efforts of godless men to assure the permanent integration of the peoples of the earth" (Tilson, 1958, p. 27). Tilson maintained that there are four assumptions related to this interpretation of Scripture: (a) that God inflicted the confusion of tongues on men as a punishment for their attempt at racial integra- tion, (b) that the existence of linguistic difference denotes progress among men, (c) that linguistic differences and racial differences are coextensive, (d) that the division of men after the Fall would be by racial groups (Tilson, 1958, p. 28). To interpret the first assumption as God's punishment for attempted integration of the races is to misunderstand and to twist the Bible. The issue, however, was not in regard to integration. The issue, according to the text is two-fold: first, the arrogance and pride of men--"Come, let us build . . . and let us make a name for ourselves"; second, the issue was not integration between men but a familiarity with the gods--not Yahweh, but lesser gods. Cuthbert A. Simpson, writing in The Interpreter's Bible, has helped to clarify the problem by pointing out that this passage is .17 ft, bad a #3- U. a Q ‘- .‘f‘fi‘ « 'i‘-‘ Q . F‘F!‘ I... P: I“ lgvflifl. V . ". ON...“ .1 Z a T E t .3 C .2 a. va a E .... C W; at L .. S e .....,. i I C t .d .l i r C t :0. .0; E a: L» a» .2 Y. T. A: kw t» aw. v. 53 - Lg an Au .1\ .i vb. 1b.. flu C .L .... .2 .3: a. .3 T. m: E E E a t 1 ex . . C. S s. . .: C. C «L E .C E I . H c. I e. a.“ 3 \~\ .q‘ u s t 5% e n. .S‘ s... ..:.R .r...‘ . 28 probably the work of two authors (J1 and J2) and that some editorializing probably occurred to make an ancient myth fit into Jewish thinking and inclusion in the Bible. In de- scribing the tower he said: Whence Jl derived the tale it is difficult to say. It would seem, however, that the problem of diverse peoples and languages would have been of more interest to the inhabitants of Palestine than to the nomad, whom it affected more remotely. It may accordingly be inferred that J1 found the myth current in Palestine and in- corporated it . . . into his narrative . . . . It is unlikely, however, that a myth representing the building of a ziggurat--undoubtedly the original of the tower--as a defiance of God took its rise among the Babylonians themselves. It is more probably that some ruined or unfinished tower was explained as a result of divine action against human arrogance, perhaps by nomads who later moved to Palestine, where over the years they came to associate it with the confusion of tongues, possibly because of the similarity between Babel, the site of the ruin, and balel, "to confuse." The ziggurat, the most conspicuous feature of a Babylonian sanctuary, is described . . . as "a huge pyramidal tower rising, often in 7 terraces, from the center of the temple area and crowned with a shrine at the top . . . . These structures appear to have embodied a half-cosmical, half-religious symbolism: the 7 stories represented the 7 planetary deities as mediators between heaven and earth; the ascent of the tower was a meritorious approach to the gods; and the summit was regarded as the entrance to heaven. . . . The name Babel = Babylon--a transliteration of the Hebrew rendering of Bab-ili, "Gate of God"--is here fancifully derived from the polpal of balal, "to mix," "to confuse" . . . (Simpson, 1952, p. 564). Thus it may easily be seen that the meaning, if there is a literal meaning, in this religious myth is that God is condemning the arrogant pride and desire of men to have fellowship with other gods and their attempt to work their way to heaven. Gillespie's assumption, therefore, does not appear to be valid. ‘05 .9- ;::‘—-v--U¢o -;fiAO;S 7%? o~.av V!— :t. h ‘: ":b 3.. 6- boa-Ab .— ' 1 "5‘3“ : .‘" Ono-A. 5‘ .u PW‘AR; -. ~ ' ”fvva 9‘- ‘..- A “.v‘ ct" - o s “U c .'“ .. Pg“. ‘ 3‘) N ‘ .‘~ I '0 S: V LE ‘ ._, tum”- ‘leac o‘.‘_ ‘4: £51.,” H‘t ! - “.05 : 1‘ 5., H‘ ‘2. ‘ ,Z‘ 5““; E the t‘h‘s ‘~ Nb . . C th‘e“ .. F ~ I u 53:3 - C ~z" J Q5 :Q’F‘ “‘Plc \ CL. Q S», ~ I Vt“ ‘-' '. “:1 c1 \ ‘) i I‘- ‘ .‘ 7‘.- 5 ‘ .le 10‘ C u H‘ ‘- ‘ ‘1 w \‘:"a.. £\‘ I 5" u.\“ \. s cc ‘ £ h 29 The text certainly does not support the second assumption: that the existence of linguistic difference denotes progress among men. The opposite of this assumption is that we should all be living in a one-language world if the men had not built such a tower. Furthermore, the misun- derstandings and problems of the world are compounded by the terrible lack of communication that exists today. Therefore, the opposite is closer to the truth: that a common language among the various peOples of the world would indicate more progress and contain the hope of progress. The third and fourth assumptions are obviously in- valid. We need only to look at the continent of Europe where a whole variety of languages is spoken by members of the same race to see that languages and races are not co-extensive. Leviticus 25:44-46.--Another favorite Biblical passage for those who hold the racist View is this passage which says that Hebrews may have slaves: As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from the nations that are round about you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your prOperty. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them, but over your brethren the people of Israel you shall not rule . . . . Christian slaveholders were taught to think of their situation as a continuation of the patriarchal system in which slaves were a part of the household. Just as the head of the household was responsible for the upbringing of his children, so he was also responsible for a benevolent disci— pline of his slaves. T .' 8.1a - R :. I‘! on 5“ v- IL '60 d‘h ‘3-.. TA In. JCI .12“: .. 1 q..”’- i:-.;-:-' ‘ ' I ‘~ " I.” ‘b 1.: f4 ' ‘u U! 5.1 I. _ z '5‘. :3‘ H Q» ~ R .J“ “.‘“.f‘.‘ “H . V- Q. A w ‘ . hi ~.... :19] cg ‘~.' 3- “In . ' ~ “ C ‘5.‘ LL‘ - C 1 I -. .. up“ ~‘ .‘:::I 30 Liberal humanitarians have held various objections to the Biblical permission regarding slavery. Even in the New Testament slavery is accepted as a fact of life. William Ellery Channing, an early American spokesman against slavery of any kind, objected to reducing human beings with their natural, God given rights, and inborn dignity to chattel. "It is iniquitous," he exclaimed, "to seize a man and hold him as property because he has rights" (As reported in Moéllering, 1965, p. 71). Man was seen as created in the image of God, and a child of God, and to treat him as an animal was an affront against God himself. The problem seems to stem from the practice of certain racists who make literal interpretations from what contemporary scholarship clarifies as religious myth, and then build a system of prejudicial attitudes upon other non- scientific understandings of culture and its development. It would be possible to illustrate how Biblical passages can be used to support racism and how the same texts can be explained in other ways by using additional passages, yet it hardly seems necessary. The above passages adequately demonstrate the problem. New Testament Passages Often Used to Support Racism Several segregationists have claimed that there are New Testament passages which indicate that Jesus had a separatist attitude toward certain groups of people. They conclude, therefore, that they are merely following Christ's NV. uh : :u .. 2‘ -. . f .u A . V. .3 .. n I fix :. .-. . .. . I . a» .a u v. . ~ v . L . .. .» a. .D .3 I 5.. f» I a... u... u. z _ _. my. my . J A . . ~ 2 ..... e. .d 2 a. y g x? h \ L up" a?“ Him 9 v. . . . x... .. 2.5. .L .C .3 .D +t n a .5 Va 5 .Q : . {Ix a .31 r .f.‘ w& 5.: a.» x s . . r . . .. .2 . * a. :4 3» r1 .2 a e . n a . a .4 . .4 .2 :~ .1 .. . u .... av . . L~ .. x Q a a a a." v. .. .. a r a... . . . . . . ... . : . . . . i. .3 s s .. \ ..~\ “5‘. 52“ Us .\ w s“ 31 example of exclusiveness when they refuse to associate with Negroes. Mason indicates at least three passages from the Gospels which illustrate Jesus' exclusivist tendencies (Mason, 1957, p. 103). Therefore, as soon as some Christians claim that the Gospels call for integration and brotherhood, other Christians quote passages in support of separation (e.g., Mark 7:24-30, Matthew 10:5-6, Matthew 18:17). Mark 7:24-30.--This story is commonly referred to as "The healing of the daughter of the Syrophoenician woman." And from there he arose and went away to the region of Tyre and Sidon. And he entered a house and would not have anyone know it; yet he could not be hid. But immediately a woman whose little daughter was possessed by an unclean spirit, heard of him, and came and fell down at his feet. Now the woman was a Greek, a Serphoenician by birth. And she begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter. And he said to her, "Let the children first be fed, for it is not right to take the children's bread and throw it to the dogs." But she answered him, "Yes, Lord; yet even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs." And he said to her, "For this saying you may go your way; the demon has left your daughter." And she went home, and found the child lying in bed, and the demon gone. (In Matthew 15:21-28 this same woman is referred to as a "Canaanite" woman). It makes little difference whether we consider the story in Mark or Matthew; the issue is essentially the same. In any event this is a very difficult passage to exegete and interpret, because it appears to indicate a prejudice and bigotry and exclusiveness on the part of Jesus. This is a problem when there is so much evidence in the Gospels indi— cating that Jesus' usual attitude was exactly the opposite of exclusiveness. Different scholars offer different ex- planations. The setting for this story is outside of Jewish J . b: s on \— or” 5v- . “\w' .F‘ . . . ~ q cans"- QUQ‘V“ - ‘ . ‘o‘navg ~. -~ . 5.. U . ,.yv‘ ' v..- a .‘U--‘-. .- ..-O - a: 'ers we :31e '7fly- ‘ 'bs. .. I Q. 32 territory where Jesus apparently withdrew following a contro- versy over the clean and unclean persons. Both Mark and Matthew bring together in this section a series of healing incidents for Gentiles which would tend to indicate Jesus' interest in Gentiles. But the question is what Jesus said, thought, and felt about helping the daughter of this Gentile woman as compared to Jewish peOple. Two other phrases in Matthew emphasize the problem: " . . . his disciples came and begged to him saying, 'Send her away, for she is crying after us,'" and "He answered, 'I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel'" (Matthew 10:5-6). Some commentators simply ascribe the actual words to Jesus, implying that he was most concerned with the Jews and others were to get only what was left over. There was a significant controversy among the early church members as to whether or not the mission of Jesus was ever meant for the whole world or merely for the Jews (the problem of the Judiazers). If the early writer were a Judaizer, his own bias might have included the phrase into the mouth of Jesus in this way. There were also ancient rabbinical sayings which designated "godless peOple" and "heathen" as dogs. According to Sherman E. Johnson, writing in The Interpreter's Bible, there appear to be five possibilities which are most commonly accepted by Biblical scholars: (a) It is suggested that Jesus playfully used the diminutive word for dogs . . . thus indicating that he really did not despise foreigners, as many other Jews did. But late Greek uses diminutives carelessly, and we do not know what Semitic word Jesus might have employed. it Or h Gentiles In other lesson. oar'v by-) 0 o h. H y :3. V. o. - u 9.5 ‘_ ‘ 5th “or; A.“ ~‘ ha. JI.) ”#354 A... , ugh to a\ 2‘4.“ “‘wkfor :5“~ . ‘fid‘fi‘eht c “ n . L V‘ “A“ ‘ 5‘V": Y ‘ I 1 t. .'“. \~ A case I J: ‘.\_‘ «NI-if!“ I 5». 33 (b) Or he is saying, in effect, "My disciples regard Gentiles as dogs; what have you and I to say to that?" In other words, he is trying to teach his followers a lesson. But there is no evidence for this in the story . . . . (c) Or he is simply testing the sincerity and humility of her faith. (d) Or . . . Jesus is asked to give foreigners that which he is prevented from bestowing on his own people, and this is his first immediate response. On this theory the story represents a new stage in Jesus' view of his own mission. The situation with which he is faced leads him to act on the principle "that God shows no par- tiality" (as in Acts 10:34). (e) Finally it is just barely possible that vss. 26-27 are from some old anecdote which was not originally connected with Jesus at all but crept into the Gospel tradition. In any case, it must be remembered that Jesus healed the girl (Johnson, 1952, pp. 442-443). It is apparent that the issue may be debated. Part of the issue which Opens it to debate or not is how literal the reader is in his interpretation. It appears that the more literal the reader is, the more easily he may tend to read any passage with a simplistic attitude which may lead him not to consider a variety of possibilities of meaning for the original spokesman. Furthermore, it is imperative that the reader keep in mind that Biblical stories were kept alive and passed on from person to person via the oral tra- dition for many years before they were cannonized into the permanent form of Scripture, and though the peOple conscien- tiously sought for accuracy, errors were possible. Most of all, any particular statement should be considered within the context of the total message of the person being quoted (in this case, Jesus). Thus, if Jesus saw his mission to all mankind, it would not fit his mind to exclude anyone or any group from his ministry, even when he said, " . . . and you 5211‘ be my witne; Saaria and to th- ':e keg: in mind t '. . . Go theref Stitch-3w 28 :18) . .3388 tw’elvE $633? the Ge: t“: 90 rathe. ‘3‘: v.,. ok‘ K (Mark ' ‘;“si. Va 0 M.t -'._ “q 1 N: a .. k", menticit 34 shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the end of the earth" (Acts 1:86). It must be kept in mind that the "Great Commission" of Jesus was: " . . . Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . ." (Matthew 28:18). Matthew lO:5-6.--Here Jesus directs his disciples to begin their mission and to go only to "the lost sheep of the house of Israel." These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans, but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel . . . ." Fredrick C. Grant suggested a viable possibility in his exegesis of the parallel passage in Mark. Grant's Opinion was: Perhaps a clue to the present form of the story may be found in the saying which Matthew inserts at this point (Matt. 15:24): "I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel," in which the original emphasis lay upon "lost sheep," not upon "Israel"--the meaning then would be: my mission is to the lost and neglected . . . (Grant, 1952, p. 754). It is worth noting that the parallel passages in Luke and Mark (Mark 6:8-11 and Luke 9:2-5) do not contain any in- dication of Matthew's exclusiveness, and some critics deny the authenticity of this passage. Jews were often admonished not to go near Gentiles. The concern apparently was to maintain a religious purity and especially to avoid any sexual involvements which might tend to lead to inter- marriage. At least one Jewish law forbade traveling on a road if the road led only to a Gentile city during the time of any pagan festival. Jesus generally worked in Jewish —-H n , ‘ ‘ :arztory, “0395 . lust once was :5 the P‘nar isee s. ’:‘-.I_\~ -\ . ‘ .¢~U¢§' Sula, ':;r 1“ y i~ . ‘fll: “alfirl 35 territory, though he apparently traveled on Gentile soil and at least once was in the neighborhood of Samaria. Much of his own work was done among the "lost sheep" of Israel. These may have been the Amhaarez, the "peOple of the land" or country people. Such country peOple were considered careless of the details of the law and regarded with contempt by the Pharisees. Hillel, one of the greatest of all rabbis, said, "No Amhaarez is religious," but Jesus gave most of his time to such outsiders (Grant, 1952, p. 365). Thus, a superficial and "non-critical" reading of this passage might allow the reader to conclude that Jesus was an exclusivist, but a more critical reading which con- sidered the total message, mission, and relationships of Jesus would lead to the conclusion that he is not intending a rejection of the Gentiles. The conclusion of this section on Biblical passages which are frequently used to support racism is that a criti- cal review of practices indicates that a racist interpreta- tion has been an inadequate or a misinterpretation, due either to a superficial reading or to some purposive misuse of Scripture. It may seem unbalanced merely to present the negative or racist group of Biblical passages, yet to attempt to pre- sent the passages which positively assert the humanist view is virtually impossible, because there are so many. The Bible is filled with passages which tend to lift up the reader's appreciation of man, mankind, and all men as one :33:- or one 980?; 32:11:29. man is :5 image of (305" 335' (Psalm 815) ~ The Sari; gave himself to E- itez'ze: it may h: :3: 427-15) , a ‘! 113-.3), or his ‘ . .RA in Nb Jews of what MCI" "f a339x231” (r- “t :.«.‘n ,. J» {\LPJESian‘ "L35! f6 ‘1 \J V" v , e t hi Nits, - C1 «35:3. ‘1 36 race or one peOple. The concept of "man as sinner" notwith- standing, man is viewed as "a child of God" (Mark 10:15), "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:26-27), "but little less than God" (Psalm 8:5). The Scriptures are very clear in stating that Jesus gave himself to persons of different groups of people, whether it may have been the Samaritan woman by the well (John 4:7-15), a Roman centurian of great faith (Matthew 8:5-13), or his use of a "Good Samaritan" as an example to the Jews of what a man of faith should really be like. Furthermore, there can be no question whatsoever that Jesus intended all peOple such as the EthiOpian (Acts 8:27) to be included in his mission and his Church (Matthew 28:18- 20). This command of necessity includes people of all races. They are not merely to be considered as fellow Christians, but as "brothers in Christ" (James 4:11), and "members one of another" (Ephesians 4:25), a part of "the household of God" (Ephesians 2:19), and even as part of "the Body of Christ" (I Corinthian 12:12-27). Or as God said to Peter in Acts 10:34 so that Peter understood in a new way: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation any one who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.” It would be easy to cite additional passages, but the above texts are illustrative as well as the major references used. Therefore, a thorough examination of additional texts would be both unnecessary and redundant. It would iatcry of relig: :e sccp-e of this are the impact gesent attitude. Leas: a brief se. religion and rac- .inister frsm the pers s. u.~ One ma I Ii”. . atfalrs Of . s‘o‘es thO‘IJQ \" \ “in h «Les S n“" . I 5“\“h - 37 0 Historical Perspective of Religion and Race It would involve a series of books to report on the history of religion and race. Such an effort is far beyond the sc0pe of this study. Nevertheless, in order to appre- ciate the impact of historic events and tradition upon the present attitudes of ministers, there is a need to have at least a brief section on the historical perspective of religion and race. Ministers who tend to hold a Biblical world view do so from the perspective that there have always been human abuses of one man or one people against another. War, oppression, and slavery are all included in the Biblical nar- rative. Usually these abuses against men are seen as illus- trations of the dehumanization of man and sin against God. Yet there seems to be an attitude of passive acceptance of the affairs of men so that the dehumanization elements are sometimes thought of as "the way things are" with an attitude of acceptance rather than with a will or commitment to change. Even so, the vast majority of ministers do believe in humani- tarian justice and the civil rights cause (Hadden, 1969, p. 59). Members of the Hebrew-Christian religious heritage are not exempt from religious, ethnic, or racial prejudices. They tend to have the same religious and personality problems as other people in regard to feelings of inclusiveness/ exclusiveness. There appears to be some basis for their attitudes of exclusiveness due to their concepts of "the l :lzcsen peOPle I t a 'Sod's on P5 :;::s to love yo; :5: c acegts hati '2 Church throu' From the :2 church regar. earliest controv: 12ers (Acts, Chs nu .E. COnQ'yeIts 5’54.- . “‘55 ‘chtmks 0 EL :13 l . v‘r§ O that k“ Nels enSla‘J \ei’s as \e‘ . 3 Euro ijr‘ I A. V . “an! grc 38 chosen people," the "promised land," the "body of Christ," and "God's own people." Combined with the Biblical admoni- tions to love your neighbor and treat all men as brothers such concepts have tended to help maintain a bifurcation in the Church throughout history. From the very beginning there was controversy within the church regarding insiders and outsiders. One of the earliest controversies was around the problem of the Juda- izers (Acts, Chs. 10,11). Some church leaders claimed that new converts had first to become Jews and observers of the Law before they could become Christians. The immediate background for what has become modern "racial" alienation is the religious intolerance of the Middle Ages. In medieval culture, group antipathy and con- flict on religious grounds was considered normative. The first victims of religious intolerance were Christians them- selves who were deemed "heretics" by their fellow Christians and Jews. But as Christianity and Islam became embroiled in the religious Crusades, intolerance increased between the two groups so that eventually Christians enslaved Moslems and Moslems enslaved Christians. Both groups enslaved heretics and Jews as well. As European expansionism increased over much of the world, many groups of natives were seized and used as slaves, but this was especially true of dark skinned natives and of the Negroes of Africa. The rationale for such slavery was that they were regarded as outside the human community, because they were considered to be without religion, law, or morals. were not cor. O :51: skin color attest God. 2:. suggest. :2 right of con arch neverthel- ;:;qile§e . Kel S J srrOxL— " a a” , ““Orlal o o.‘ ~ Jatif‘- . loathn c 353' '-. - . 0.51%. In "I'm“.ic take 811011: 30111- ‘aVe . Am Wn t 1 ms 33““ f y e> Hula Irish /l,:. u I ~he .5 2. L133 ‘0. u. 39 They were not considered subjects for slavery because of their skin color but because they were considered infidels without God. Thus heathen lands were "legitimate" areas of conquest. Although the medieval and early modern Church approved the right of conquest and enslavement of the "heathen," the Church nevertheless called for a responsibility with that privilege. Kelsey described that responsibility as follows: In the fifteenth century (POpe) Nicholas V issued a Papal Bull authorizing the Portugese "to attack, subject, and reduce to perpetual slavery the Saracens, pagans, and other enemies of Christ southward of Cape Bojador and Non, including all the coast of Guinea." The condition attached to this authorization was that the captives must be converted to Christianity, and conversion must be followed by manumission (freedom from slavery) (Kelsey, 1965, p. 21). Approximately one century after the Bull of Nicholas V, a memorial of the ArchbishOp of Valencia was issued to Philip III of Spain. This memorial reaffirms the "Christian justification for conquest and enslavement," but there was a new motive. In addition to the motive of conversion the economic motive was present. . . . Your majesty may, without any scruple of conscience, make slaves of all of the Moriscos and may put them into your own galleys or mines, or sell them to strangers. And as to their children they may all be sold at good rates here in Spain, which will be so far from being a punishment, that it will be a mercy to them; since by that means they will all become Christians . . . . By the holy execution of which piece of justice, a great sum of money will flow into your majesty's treasury (Ina Corinne Brown as quoted in Kelsey, 1965, p. 20). The Church was not always tolerant nor silent regard- ing the abuses of slavery and racism. The internal conflict has been contradictory and confusing to those outside the lurch. For wh; - there, encourage- there: 'The Ir. 3253:: of the Chu‘ T 3~ Possessions , ('2 ‘!;+H r so“ tue til 8 L :‘A “:e frn "fiery. - . . ClCe '5 1;; . .1 Viz-tile“ :25 o . 40 Church. For while many church leaders, including the POpes above, encouraged slavery, others were extremely outspoken against it. Pepe Paul III in 1937 spoke out against the massacre and enslavement of the Indians of the Western hemi- 5phere: "The Indians, though still not received into the Bosom of the Church, must not be deprived of their freedom or possessions, for theyyare men" (italics in original) (Hastings, 1968, p. 140). Depending somewhat upon the opinion of the reader many people claim that the Christian Church took the lead in extirpating the slavery system. Holding the opposite view was Ernst Troeltsch, who was convinced that the teachings and practice of the Church constituted one of the main sanctions for its perpetuation (Troeltsch, 1931, p. 133). Slavery has existed since ancient times, and most peOple accepted it as an inevitable condition of man. Slav- ery existed in Africa, for example, long before any white man ever landed there, and the Hebrews themselves were slaves in Egypt for 400 years. Even Aristotle rationalized the prob- lem with the thesis that "certain peOples are worthy of being free from birth, while others are naturally intended for slavery." Cicero, differing at times with his teacher, wrote: "Men differ in knowledge but all are equal in ability to learn; there is no race which, guided by reason, cannot obtain virtue" (As reported by Moellering, 1965, p. 25). Some of the Roman emperors at times eased the lot of slaves, especially when unusual circumstances existed such as illness, fcrzec' prostitut; 5.3.765 . Christia: :5 the authoritit As the medie' accepted sla' Imus, at the of St. Gerna. ¥ertin of Tc Villiers ses- encccraged t 5313‘ Christi. 3f the prcfi 5119985. that five percent in slavery c is hierarc': ‘A {gr ~ the ir pj CE fifih~~v ‘ . \rtthacn an: ‘s“ a} 41 forced prostitution for women, or physical mutilation of slaves. Christian leaders often follow the direction and ways of the authorities of State. Moellering reported: As the medieval church grew in wealth and power it accepted slave labor for use in its own institutions. Thus, at the beginning of the eighth century the Abbey of St. Germain-des-Prés had eight thousand slaves, St. Martin of Tours had twenty thousand, the Church at Villiers several thousand. The Kings of France were encouraged to give slaves to the church. The Venitians sold Christian slaves to the Saracens, and with part of the profit built shrines for the saints. It is alleged that at the beginning of the Crusades ninety- five percent of the population of Europe were either in slavery or serfdom. There is little evidence that the hierarchy of the church showed any pity or concern for their plight (1965, p. 27). Nevertheless, the Church often sought to ease the burden of slaves. Slaves and freemen were members of the same church and shared at the same communion table. Slaves could also rise to the priesthood, and P0pe Callixtus is said to have been a fugitive slave. Following the Reformation, the Protestant Church did little more than the Catholics for slaves of any race. Luther and Calvin seemed pre-occupied with theological and ecclesiastical issues rather than humanitarian ones. Slavery seemed to be a convenient way of settling diSputes over debts, crime, or prisoners of war. When the enslavement of Africans became commercially profitable in Europe, the "Christians" of Portugal took the lead in organizing slave expeditions to Africa. In 1441 a slave market was set up in Lisbon. The slave trade grew until in 1537 it is estimated that as many as 10,000 slaves were shipped across the Atlantic. Other :a‘cr ruropean p; 25513:, and man; 5:1:zies and 0th: L'ncler to A 2:: economic 0;; w. sin. lo. I .. ...e alerlcan Us. 33:92am civil i z -‘:’~~ ‘1 ---5‘ ‘\'a £18 Eur: 4‘ 353191281 bac :3“? ice- n . u.. v\. O.‘ tell 5‘ . ..‘ ~ ‘ '5...|A"A . erarce were a fiJews_ For e .5: ‘- I..:.i‘ e“. I . t silo ailiih‘. 1'1 Of C“ . ‘1 53‘ 42 major European powers engaged in the commerce of slave trading, and many of the subjects were shipped to the Colonies and other countries in the Western Hemisphere. Under the theme of political and religious freedom and economic opportunity the planting of EurOpean colonies in the American colonies in the seventeenth century opened a whole new continent to the possibility of domination by the European civilization. The churches carried with them to America the European attitudes of religious intolerance. In the medieval background of Europeans group antipathy and conflict on religious grounds was accepted as normative. As mentioned above, some of the first victims of religious in- tolerance were Christians themselves, known as "heretics," and Jews. For each religion it seemed as if the human race were divided into two groups: "we" and "they." One ancient heritage for this is found in the Biblical concept of "Jews and Gentiles." "We" and "they" generally means believers (of our way) and unbelievers. Unbelievers, of course, were viewed as fit subjects for conversion, conquest, or enslave- ment. It should be recalled that much of the missionary expansion of Christianity (along with the European influence) was based upon an improper concept of missions. It was a one way affair, from the rich and powerful, dominant soci— eties of Asia, Latin America, and Africa. This was not the witness of one People of God going to the whole world. A secular interpretation of "God's own people" (sovereign, powerful, western Christian nations) replaced the Biblical one (Redeemed of God from every t: "The Biblical God) was alsvI we * I P It is ac Sign religion i ¢ 5:: r631igious fr in.‘ c °35ri‘-'al of t tri-ival 05 a Du: first, 1619 . ‘ :as been Ieferre erred by Pirate The in u] :vx “e tho “.9 deCks :58 deCks 3:“: the Cal. mn‘. «.1 JUKS 0‘) t k‘a . as net -,_ “Eric . 26:: so 66 ls e Other ‘3: \I‘i ti 43 from every tribe and tongue and peOple and nation). The Biblical view of "nations" (people who do not know God) was also secularized (primitive, backward, non- western peoples). In practice this meant that the base of missions was located in the West while the field was "over there"; that western countries sent missionaries and eastern countries received them; and that missions inevitably proceeded from higher economic and cultural levels to lower ones (Scherer, 1964, p. 140-141). It is not without significance that the history of Negro religion in America predates the history of the search for religious freedom in a new land which is symbolized by the arrival of the Mayflower in 1620. It begins with the arrival of a Dutch man-of-war at Jamestown, Virginia in August, 1619. Although little is known about this ship, it has been referred to as "a ship ironically named the Jesus," manned by pirates and thieves under a mysterious captain named Jope (Culverhouse, 1970, p. 297). The introduction of the African to the American Jesus and the Christianity present at that time must have been a shock beyond belief. Vincent Harding reported the Negro's response this way: We first met the American Christ on slave ships. We heard his name sung in hymns of praise while we died by the thousands, chained in stinking holds beneath the decks, locked in with terror and disease and sad memories of our families and homes. When we leaped from the decks to be seized by sharks we saw his name carved on the ship's solid sides. When our women were raped in the cabins they must have noticed the great and holy books on the shelves. Our introduction to this Christ was not propitious. And the horrors continued on America's soil. So all through the nation's history many black men have rejected this Christ--indeed, the miracle is that so many accepted him (Harding, 1968, p. 86). Other attempts have been made to deny the humanity, human rights, and dignity of Negroes. Some of these attempts \ raided religioj lgzstclic of Floz‘ aztitides and wr f:r the Vatican ignity of the t; V '1‘ 1‘ 6 W especiall assert t1”. :0: are they . .. (Leona Thus, th :93: the matter iii-3.“. Paul wrote: 2:: free, but al 3A‘ 1. 3w :3. tflas KJAH in . .lntime i ci ‘fi \‘Y '5; \- ‘e v B'ezl’oe (Ciak. ~‘t‘ae‘ht l S ' _ ln‘ 2; m0 lfie H . Bra “$4 | ‘n 44 included religious arguments. BishOp Augustine Verot, Vicar Apostolic of Florida, was so disturbed by some of the racist attitudes and writings abroad in America that he pressed hard for the Vatican Council of 1870 to include a section on the dignity of the Negro people. His proposal read as follows: We especially condemn the inept error of those who dare to assert that Negroes do not belong to the human family nor are they endowed with a spiritual and immortal soul . . . (Leonard, 1963, p. 29). Thus, the Christian conscience has not been at ease over the matter of slavery from the beginning of the time when Paul wrote: "there shall be no male nor female, no bond nor free, but all are one in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Galatians 3:28). In America the impact of slavery has been felt since the twenty Negroes were unloaded from the "Jesus" on the dock at Jamestown in 1619 and were sold into slavery in this country. Both whites and blacks could be slaves in America, but it was much easier for whites to escape and run away. Thus in time, it became illegal for whites to be slaves in America and slavery became identified only with the racial issue. Blacks were deemed inferior due solely to their race. Slavery had been attempted with Indians and Haitians, but only the Negroes seemed to be able to withstand the terrible punishments inflicted against their bodies, their minds, and their health. The accounts of the abuses against the African slaves are almost unbelievable (Moellering, 1965, Ch. 2). The practice of slavery and racism were established deep in historic antiquity. Most cultures that have a 11;:ten history ‘ 572.11. The Bit :stcry of slave. ::-:':y. Yet, eve :553 the term "r :ere is only or. we are all God‘ 5 45 written history record some kind of slavery or control of man by man. The Bible takes us back some 6,000 years into the history of slavery, and still there are elements of slavery today. Yet, even while the Bible includes slavery, it never uses the term "race" as we do today. In Biblical thought there is only one race: the human race, the family of man; we are all God's children. According to Dean Liston Pope it was not until "almost exactly one hundred years ago that a well articulated theory of racial superiority appeared in the world in the writings of a French diplomat, Comte Arthur de Gobineau" (Pope, 1957, p. 22). By that time the era of colonial expansion had been under way for about three hundred years, and white Europeans had come into contact with, and generally had subdued, colored peeples in most parts of the world. But the theory of racial superiority did not arise in the first instance from the consideration of the proper relationship of white to colored. It arose in an effort to differentiate between classes of white Europeans and to buttress a declining aristocracy. For an excellent review of specific attitudes, events, and responses of the Church and American society to the issues of slavery in America the reader is referred to chap- ters 4, 5, and 6 in Moellering (l965)--The Theological Defense, Protest, and Neutrality of Slavery. Whether the reader is inclined to term the problem in America, "The American Dilemma" as Myrdal has done (Myrdal, 1944) in terms of the discrepancies of the "American Creed" and American behavior, or "The Schizoid Mind of the Church," it is very clear that there is no single attitude regarding religion and race in America. This is just as apparent today ' 1 as it was 111 cc. Ease-Lien shocked 11:1:‘1e in the I; ‘ . C-vnvnw .‘H .- -voao‘. a babe nos '2. 1, ..34_. Although 21:: have not iss 3321011 of the r :herches have a ....a: hiaCL-ts in ‘v‘r; werarchy e 3130 b0 ”:1": ,4 ‘ \- auueu t i"; :raL‘0n\‘tv:lat i Lie s 46 as it was in colonial times. Some years ago editor Kyle Haselden shocked the religious community when he wrote an article in the New York Times and called 11:00 o'clock Sunday morning "the most segregated hour of the week" (Haselden, 1964). Although there are very few denominations which by now have not issued public declarations in favor of inte- gration of the races, very few churches are integrated. Some churches have a kind of token integration with a few white collar blacks in their memberships. In the modern black rhetoric such blacks are not thought of as true blacks but as black peOple who are white inside. There is a higher degree of actual integration within the Roman Catholic Church where ecclesiastical practice is subject to the dictates of the hierarchy even if many of the laymen object. It must also be added that black people are not trying to get into white churches as white peOple once feared they might. What blacks appear to want, if anything, is an authentic inte- gration--that is, an integration which is an amalgamation of the two churches and not merely allowing a few blacks into what essentially remains a white church in practice, leader- ship, policy, worship, and spirit. Contemporary Issues in Religion and Race One fact is uppermost: there is no single attitude in the churches regarding race. But there are patterns, and there are trends which indicate change is coming. The ques- tion, of course, is: will the change help? Will it be enough? Will the Church really make any difference, or will 1: :erely follO‘e zenied to do in fishnet of re Eealinq to the «a: will the CT: issues of life? Izternal Confli-r One maj with will inf the internal c fates there 331592‘3ative~ 4.13%: v~ 3 Bad C v! Q .LQ‘ Nut: b 18 stii L‘;T.DI it'v o f ‘1 :- Wa ldo '* on t‘o 1x~ -~3 ' 9. 1c is ~ =7 QVQb i I e~-. 14$ 1:333?“ ‘3‘”! “02¢ \W‘ ~~1Qfi ‘4‘ ‘::~ "9% 90:1? 47 it merely follow along with the rest of society as it has tended to do in the past? Will the Church really become an instrument of reconciliation, taking the lead, in bringing I healing to the social ills of mankind—-a true balm in Gilead —-or will the Church dwindle into insignificance in the major issues of life? Internal Conflict One major factor which exists in the Church today which will influence its future action in race relations is the internal conflict within the Church. There exists today, just as there did in the very beginning of the Church, a conservative-liberal schizm. Although the great majority of members and clergy in the Church are somewhat "silent,“ there is still a very vocal and active, and at times radical, minority of conservatives and of liberals. We must admit, with'Waldo Beach that there is no single mind within the Church. There is, rather, a continuum of attitudes held by ministers ranging the whole distance from radical conserva- tives on the right to revolutionaries on the left (Beach, 1959, p. 19). It must be pointed out, however, that there is an overwhelming majority of ministers who favor integra- tion, equal justice for all, civil rights legislation, more opportunities for socially deprived people, and more church involvement with these issues. They do not always act on these convictions, but they are in favor of them (Hadden, 1969). The over 217:1 rights by 'Vfi,"n_ "ran-I . ' - Cle Iba343 . :E ge‘caflll c. 2511+ i lvll I“ :1 A139! is 48 The overwhelming rejection of the statement against civil rights by such a large percentage of the ministers in every denomination as indicated in Table 1 clearly reveals the strong support of civil rights by ministers as a general group. Table 1 Clergy Strongly Support the General Principle of Civil Rightsa % Agreeing 8 5 4 6 5 8 c u M £3 31 rd +1 .C‘. O s a n. p c m m m s m "I b - 11 d ' JJ I: 3:: m 1—1 U) asrca .y isapprove m m o c : 11g of the c1v11 rights move— A 9. u m m Hid ment in America" 8 8 3' 9| 3 3 3 s m m H u or: 11 a 1 w w 1: z m m 5 5 2.4 aFrom Hadden, 1969, p. 104. Clergymen are also strongly disappointed in the lack of leadership the Church has given to the nation in regard to the civil rights movement. Although many ministers as individuals have given sacrificially of themselves (some have given their lives), the churches have not mobilized their efforts to accomplish what they could in this crucial issue. Clergymen themselves are probably the strongest and most out- spoken critics against the Church for this failure. Table 2 indicates the results of Hadden's research on this question. 49 Table 2 Most Clergy Feel That Churches Have Been Inadequate In Facing Civil Rightsa % Agreeing 76 70 76 77 7O 69 c u m 3 31 re p .c o c c a. u c g g m s m "For the most part, the .p ,4 u m g m churches have been woefully' ,fl 3‘ 3 g g :15 inadequate in facing up to '8 o '51 3 3 514 the civil rights issue" ,5; 8 m H H 82 11 '3. 11 w w as E m m E E 214 aFrom Hadden, 1969, p. 105. Agreement with the statement in Table 2 runs exceed- ingly high for every denomination from the most liberal to the most conservative. Status-Qggism Versus Reformation Generally ministers are much more in favor of the civil rights cause than laymen, but there is a wide differ- ence of attitudes within the ministerial group. Consistent with the conservative-liberal schizm/continuum is the problem of status:guoism versus reformation. There are many facets of the continuing battle between peOple to hold on to the values, forms, and structures of the past and to change them with a continual reformation. For purposes of clarification it is helpful to classify these reaction patterns into the following attitudinal groups: (n 1»: '5‘ n 1‘: s- Tradit r! Mainten' PreServe Conserv .- avally Olde s‘I-A‘N‘ “Coaognl Ree? .‘ i be at the OED fazor new for. farrlinvcl . raoially in feraoes, an 53.76 t'.e 0 3n ‘1. . Chur“ “Espread lies u $11 50 Status-Quoism Reformation Tradition Revolution-Rejection Maintenance Relevance—Involvement Preservation Renewal Conservation Restitution Using these basic valuational attitudes it is rela- tively easy to anticipate the position a church or a minister might have in regard to racial issues. Ministers who tend to fall into the status-quo category will tend to be those who are religiously (and politically) conservative, are generally older, want the church to hold to the old fashioned theology, keep religion and politics separate, have separate but equal schools, segregated churches, and let every man be on his own to cope with the problems of the world. Those who tend to fall into the reformation category will tend to be at the opposite end of the continuum. They will tend to favor new forms of organization and worship within the church, church involvements in social issues, new forms of ministries, a racially integrated membership, freedom to marry between the races, and some form of helping the depressed pe0p1es to have the Opportunity to catch up with other Americans. Church institutions as well as "secular" organizations are spread along this continuum of conservative/liberal atti- tudes. Since the 1954 proclamation of the Supreme Court most major.denominations have fallen into line and have accepted the position of integration as a principle. Many churches, of course, had been fighting for this issue for many years, 32‘: same church- ::;ar.izational tare still exi :3 sure extent 1:: churches . In a p: :ere ppears t Lille-rial attltu :3"ev ~"‘ ‘3 genera] ""‘J‘a‘ ' "' 1" ~ Ni.» x ‘ 15 I tn ll) twat! ‘h “‘1 that the ‘flv “ I ' y- 5 ' 'e‘ t1: ‘ lcan Pro- 3 51 yet some churches still do not accept integration as an organizational policy. Within every denomination, of course, there still exists a wide variety of individual opinion which to some extent hinders any effective action on the part of the churches. In a position similar to the ministers as individuals, there appears to be a very consistent pattern of denomi- national attitudes and denominational proclamations. The pattern generally indicates that the more fundamentalist a church is, the more it supports the status-quo position; the more liberal churches tend to support reform in the church and society. For example, Hadden (1969) reported in his study that theological conservatives tend to believe that poverty stricken persons are responsible for their own problems as indicated in Table 3. In seeking a reasonable explanation for the attitudes indicated in Table 3 Hadden argued that sensitivity to the dilemma of poverty, and the complex forces which tend to produce poverty, is significantly influenced by a person's ideology. In other words, "conservative theology tends to limit one's awareness to an underlying cause of poverty" (Hadden, 1969, p. 79). Some time earlier Stark and Glock (1968) argued this position in a paper presented at the University of California Centennial Symposium of Patterns of American Prejudice. Theo] ¥ *— Fxfiamenta Conservat fies-Ortho Liberal 52 Table 3 Theological Conservatives Tend to Believe Poverty Stricken Are Responsible For Their Own Plighta % Agreeing Fundamentalist 6l *’ 53 52 51 60 Conservative 40 54 26 39 37 36 Neo-Orthodox 22 16 12 17 19 14 Liberal l9 16 ll 14 23 * s u m m H '5' B '8 "Most people who live a c n. u s in poverty could do .3 .3 3 3 g' something about their '3 '3 g c a win situation if they -H 8. g‘ m m H16 really wanted to." '8 o g .3 .3 8 33' I: m m H H m .c: 11 11. 11 w w .1: s: m a. 5 5 >1 .4 aFrom Hadden, 1969, p. 80. *The number of cases is too small for statistical reliability. In an attempt to understand the underlying theo- logical conceptions which gave a foundation for such preju- dicial tendencies Stark and Glock offered this explanation: Underlying all traditional [emphasis added] Christian thought is an image of man as a free actor, as essentially unfettered by social circumstances, free to choose and thus free to effect his own salvation. This free will conception of man has been central to the doctrines of sin and salvation. For only if man is totally free does it seem just to hold him utterly responsible for his acts; to punish him for his sins, and to demand repentance . . . . At least since the work of Max Weber, it has been widely recognized that this conception of human nature had been a mainspring in the deve‘. greatly inf“ accountabil ' .111 image oi all such no made man, a: of merit. Rest r11 ci‘; zen are incl EDI. their 'captain as then I haVe to? v'n .vc ‘Lat Ila , "me or Class '1. .' . 53 in the development of Western civilization and has greatly influenced our attitudes on personal accountability and the ingredients of personal success. An image of man as free and yet responsible lies behind all such notions as rugged individualism, the self- made man, and the justification of wealth on the basis of merit. In short, Christian thought, and thus Western civilization is permeated with the idea that men are individually in control of, and reSponsible for, their own destinies. If I am really the "captain of my soul, and the master of my fate," then I have no one but myself to thank or to blame for what happens to me (Glock as reported in Hadden, 1969, pp. 80-81). It is true that such a "purist" form of theology has had some modification, particularly in the United States. Nevertheless, the conservative wing of the Christian Church tends to be the group which holds on to the past and his- toric or classical theological position. Thus, the conserva- tives are not only the slowest to modify or change their position, but they have a tendency to regress into a more and more fundamentalist ("back to the Bible") position. There is a tendency for many persons with conserva- tive theological views to integrate personality and theology into a unified form of prejudicial attitude. In the UNESCO statement on Racial Myths (Race and Science, 1951) the religious and pathological elements are appropriately con- nected: . . . Our own civilization attaches special importance to the colour of the skin and relatively dark pigmen- tation is a mark of difference condemning numerous human groups to contempt, ostracism and a debased social status. In certain persons colour prejudice is so strong as to give rise to almost pathological phobias; these are not innate but reflect, in an exaggerated form, the prejudices of the social environment. . . . in Las Casas . . . there were more people who sought to maintain the status guo on the grounds that the Negro v. instance. 1 listed a 111: African Co}. '- .-~'9 1... u: '*-\.:-l 5, :m v- . 1- o\:|e|. ‘.a U ‘ u " V's! ,. 513.9,“ h of the Bar; scientific ‘ H v. nature (t A. .. “a- 1.: .'dbl’a :is'.s (1951 ' .1 ' ' re FICTI‘Ct . as? ‘ A“ anta- .Faalc a:liit’v ‘iik \1‘\: w. i .. «t5 :.*: ‘q‘*Qb 54 the Negro was "inferior" to the white man. For instance, in 1772 the Reverend Thomas Thompson pub- lished a monograph, The Trade in Negro Slaves on the African Coast in Accordance with Humane Principles and with the Laws of Revealed Religion, in 1852 the Reverend Josiah Priest published A Bible Defense of Slavery, while C. Carroll (1900) The Negro as a Beast or in the Image of God includes a chapter ("Biblical and Scientific Proofs that the Negro is not a Member of the Human Race") in which he asserts that "all scientific research confirms his typically simian nature" (UNESCO, 1951, p. 27). For an excellent and extensive statement (too long to be included here) on the Race Question in Modern Science, the reader is referred to the UNESCO Statement of 1951, drafted by a group of physical anthropologists and geneti- cists (1951, pp. 502-506). It is the persistence of the concept of the indi- vidualism of man, according to Stark and Glock, which is such an important factor in the continuing support of prejudicial attitudes: . . . radical and traditional Christian images of man prompt those who hold them to put the blame for dis- advantage upon the individuals who are disadvantaged. A radical free-will image of man makes for an in- ability to perceive the effect of those forces outside the individual which may utterly dominate his circum- stances . . . . It is not that these Christians con- done the social forces that deprive Negroes, but that they simply do not recognize the existence of such forces in the world (Glock, 1966, p. 81). Stark's use of the term "traditional" is what is generally considered to be "fundamental" or "conservative" theology, that is, the view which is generally that of Bibli- cal 1itera1ism. In Hadden's research (1969, p. 81) there was general agreement that theological belief was strongly asso- ciated with the way a person views the economic order and the relationship of man to that order. Conservati‘: ,. The F I y! u Pu I (’t .i" v ' r" ‘ .4' '1 —‘ (T tnfal: F‘lni amen ta 1 Conservati“ Heo-Orthodc -ree ente term is the 3:18 0331 deStl ...erprise S‘ 3" stian CO“ :anserva t ive 3 its 55 Table 4 Conservative Theological Beliefs are Associated With Unfaltering Commitment to Free Enterprisea % Agreeing Fundamentalist 71 * 88 82 76 76 Conservative 61 45 52 65 51 56 Neo-Orthodox 38 29 24 31 28 20 Liberal 33 28 26 18 29 * c . u m "The free enterprise .3 3 U system is the single 9 .c 0 economic system com- 3 g 3' ‘3 g patible with the re- “ :3 '3 m 9 m quirements of personal m m m s c le freedom and constitu- :3 g' ‘5" 8 8 '3 g ' II . . tional government. ,8 8 fi 1", a 8 g 11 11. 11 w 0’ .5111 a m m E 5 2.4 aFrom Hadden, 1969, p. 77. *The number of cases is too small to compute sta- tistically reliable percentages. With the concept that every person is responsible for his own destiny combined with the idea that the American free enterprise system is the only system compatible with the Christian concept of man, it is a natural conclusion that conservatives would believe that most poverty stricken people are resPonsible for their own limitations. Thus it is clear that conservative religious views are positively correlated with conservative economic, politi- cal, and, we hypothesize, racist views. It is not clear, raver, just :1 whether rel; fsrration of a: racial attitude :ezween the id 51255 the CO.“ ~1 Q I 1151131: *t the. “\.. It‘d. ? -k ~‘ ‘K “g \\ ‘- ~\*ess ‘. q ‘5 ~ ‘» ‘4 as r \ ta ‘J:\ h ‘V‘Qfi ~", \ I ‘ “ \p ‘\ \ Qr2.fi & s§- ' . .'. ‘ I I a Q t‘.‘ 56 however, just how much this is a matter of mere correlation or whether religion tends to be a causative agent in the formation of attitudes. Schizoid Nature of Religion and Race - Reference has been made to the schizoid nature of racial attitudes within the Church. It is the conflict between the ideal of Jesus and the reality of behavior which smites the conscience of the Christian. Allport (1966) claimed that the division between the ideal and behavior is a part of the reality of religion: Two contrary sets of threads are woven into the fabric of all religion--the warp of brotherhood and the woof of bigotry. I am not speaking of religion in any ideal sense, but rather religion-in-the—round, as it actually exists historically, culturally, and in the lives of individual men and women, the great majority of whom (in our land) profess some religious affiliation and belief. Taken in the round, there is something in religion that makes for prejudice, and something about it that unmakes prejudice . . . . It is a well established fact in social science that, on the average, churchgoers in our country harbor more racial, ethnic, and religious prejudice than do non- churchgoers. Needless to say, this fact is both surprising and distressing to thoughtful religionists. In attempting to explain (away) the dynamics of this distressing problem, churchmen have hypothesized many factors such as geographic location, level of education, age, and socio-economic level. Speaking to the problem of the above factors Stouffer's research put an end to attempts to rationalize away the prob- lem: "More churchgoers are intolerant of . . . non-conformity . . . than non-churchgoers." Furthermore, this relationship Jn 1:15 "when ed. eke: into acc: The poi is: :any char: social justice ,I ‘. Le: so many a: jersonal cost, j‘;s:ice, freed 1::st not ca; gresent in the “9 Pom: that F \ .‘s . "file“ a S“ ‘ “ I ~‘:‘t« 57 holds "when education, age, region, and type of community are taken into account" (Stouffer, 1955, p. 147). The point can well be made (as Allport pointed out) that many churchmen have been battlers for civil rights, social justice, and racial equality. Long before today, when so many are fighting for racial brotherhood at great personal cost, religious ideals have led men to fight for justice, freedom, and brotherhood. Nevertheless, even heroic acts do not cancel out the reality of bigotry which is more present in the Church than out of it. Allport (1966) made the point that there exists "three religious contexts which seem to me to contain the seeds of bigotry: l. the theological context 2. the sociocultural context 3. the personal-psychological context" Social Psychology and Religious Attitudes In a further analysis of the three religious contexts suggested by Allport (1966), the fact that many white parish- ioners leave their churches when Negroes and/or other minority members join the churches indicates that ethnic and class values hold priority over religious values for them. As Allport (1966) said: "Church membership for them is pri- marily of sociocultural significance, a matter of class and caste-~a support for their own ethnocentrism." It is here that we find a most helpful key to a better understanding of prejudice in the Church. Allport's analysis was: The rea: prejuiiz religio: l rge n1 logical both pru termeno viies t. iiien; relief. Prejudi zenacin RCt ter functio identic s :isf'v V J “kWVAEN bu“ ‘- ale ‘ 3 " w; “‘Dsu ke ::E‘H‘ice 1" he W U. "16', ‘I : 5““ «" I“ in“ I. ' ta.» “SJ .- . {€- «‘4 .;?e. In 3‘s: .‘h an? sk‘ence 12‘: \‘a ‘ eners :F J \ ‘ PI,‘ .'“ V: j«¥::+. . qul I ‘A‘ I et ah‘ ‘ ‘3 58 The reason why churchgoers on the average are more prejudiced than non-churchgoers is not because religion instills prejudice. It is rather that a large number of peOple, by virtue of their psycho- logical make-up, require for their economy of living both prejudice and religion. Some, for example, are tormented by self-doubt and insecurity; religion pro- vides them a tailored security. Others are guilt- ridden; prejudice provides a scapegoat, and religion relief. Still others live in a fear of failure. Prejudice provides an exPlanation in terms of menacing out-groups; religion provides a heavenly, if not terrestrial reward. Thus for many individuals the functional significance of prejudice and religion is identical. One does not cause the other; rather both satisfy the same psychological needs. Multitudes of churchgoers, perhaps especially in times of social anomie and crisis, embrace both supports (1966, p. 451). It is not surprising to find that Allport associates prejudice with extrinsic (individualistic) religion and intrinsic (outreaching) religion with the unprejudiced person who is more Open and compassionate with the other person. Thus, Allport's thesis is consistent with the liberal point of view that we should seek to develop a religion which is all-inclusive and thus less bigoted. Ministers are urged to help develop an authentic, intrinsic religion of brotherly love. In his article on "Ascetic Protestantism and Political Preference," Benton Johnson (1962) demonstrated that religious leaders d2 have an influence on the political views of their congregations even when such views may not be considered "religious." Specifically, he found that theologically liberal ministers tended to have a liberalizing influence on the political behavior of their laity who by other factors would have tended toward more conservative political behavior. In the same manner theologically conservative ministers a“ ,. CT. --er «Li. ‘- LC \v &.' .b‘ .QD: Q? Ana: ru‘. 34 our“ .'3 '1‘... .. .AI ~ ’ . qt. ls.-- . .vu ; H . ~ 4 £ \ r: . u I. t .. t S . l a: a: w "I a.» e .Pu r r A: 4 u a t .9. Q¥ r v s u .N.‘ .hh .N.‘ H; . . . C s .. .1 .2.‘ .55» .Zw . . 5.4N s- s is. a p“. ‘s Sh w h. a. .s on .5 5 M. t. i u A h§ \U a.“ s1 59 tended to have a moderating influence on their laity who by social status would be expected to tend toward more liberal behavior. Factors such as political party affiliation and amount of church attendance were considered, and in cases where active church laity were caught in a cross pressure between class-based political tendencies and the theological position of their ministers, there was a tendency for the minister to influence the laymen in the direction of the minister's position (Johnson, 1962, pp. 43-45). In a counter situation reported by Hadden (1969, p. 87) it was reported that the political views of the laity do not have a significant influence upon the political views of the minister: It is interesting to note, however, that while the laity do not have a determining effect upon the politi- cal views of their ministers, there tends to be a very definite influence upon their behavior. That is, while the laity do not bring changes in the minister's cognitive or affective attitudes, the ministers have a general tendency to restrain their overt behavior when they believe that it may diSplease their laymen. Thus, it appears quite likely that many ministers are in considerable tension between their inner attitudinal beliefs and their overt behavior. The research indicates that they apparently do not feel free to be the spokesmen and to provide the leadership they want (Hadden, 1969, p. 89). It is exceedingly difficult to determine whether or not a minister is leading or following his congregation-- even when he is speaking out on certain controversial issues. DE .h’A ‘ ‘ _‘. :11 a - é-vv i-1 c D '3‘," unto-AV. . "HP-’Aa .b-“&'vc.s t .1. ii. W O I D.“ o. . .3 C e : +t .1 e t a: a: 5... +5 .. nu a. n.“ I. 3 at I .3 pt 3. u... b A... Ti CCle o g a x. ‘Jr C v. 7 S e a at 3.4 4-. I C S C. C E C . e E. .D m. D. bu" : \ PK QC 2‘ MN 5 nmw e .s s . \y \ N...“ 60 Even at best, his leadership may be reflecting a small minority of significant persons in his membership or among his friends. Some research has indicated, for example, that ministers, like other professionals, are more influenced by opinions their peers may have regarding them than they are by their clients (parishioners). One outspoken black minister, A. Cecil Williams of San Francisco's Glide Memorial Church, has a creative way of Speaking out for himself and many other blacks: I think that we are at a point in our lives where black peOple have the greatest opportunity to liberate the whole church--and we have not always done this. To get on with the case simply means that we not only understand that we let the white religionists and the black religionists know that we know what they have done and are doing to us, but that we will no longer let it happen . . . . We know, for instance, that we have experienced a whole lot of game playing in the whole realm of religion--and the games are always to our disadvantage. For example, the James Forman episode of reparation exposed racism in the church more than any other place in the last few years, because it hit at the level where the white man becomes most threatened--his pocketbook . . . (Williams, 1970, p. 37). Williams continued in a style of writing that was uniquely black and carried a powerful indictment against the whites as well as encouragement for the blacks: Oooooooeeeeee 1!! all of a sudden life is good 11!! Black peOple been put down so many ways I been put down man. 61 Angela Davis came to Glide Speaking preaching giving us the word yea! and they put Angela down for bein' in the church//rappin' And if Angel's down i'm down in fact this is JUST THE WAY IT IS! bein' black and beautiful and communist/ like, having too many strikes against you! But don't let anybody put you down brothers and sisters! One thing that we got We got a STYLE OF LIFE A real new thingllll CAN YOU DIG IT??? The way it was ain't goin' to be the way it's goin' to be Too long black churchmen been doin' somebody else's thing ain't need of nobody doin' somebody else's thing especially when they got too much to give imagine the time is here imagine change is Here! imagine new ministers/churches new communities . I .0: «1‘ ‘4‘ “‘1' J r\ 62 imagine a new religion it is a spiritual experience it is resurrection/ revolution/ new life! CAN YOU DIG IT? BLACK SOULS ARE NOT FOR SALE! (Williams, 1970, p. 42). CHAPTER III REVIEW OF RELATED RESEARCH According to McGuire (1969) there is a renewed in- terest in attitude research. Attitude research has in the past decade returned to the dominant position it had within social psychology many years ago. This growing interest has made the study of attitudes the most popular area of study within social psychology. The renewed interest in attitude research, however, does not suggest that there has been any breakthrough into a more adequate methodology. The nature of attitudes, as usually defined, is such that it is not open to direct study. Related Issues in Attitude Research To understand human behavior, especially with refer- ence to attitudes, it is necessary to systematically sort out and arrange behavior into patterns which are behavioral- ly meaningful. Moreover, in order to achieve more than a mere correlation of certain antecedents and behaviors so that a more dynamic or predictive relationship may be demonstrat- ed, it is necessary to create theoretical constructs which are a part of a clearly defined theoretical system. 63 "w Wanna: .u' Firs akutattit: warding t} :15 is exac atzitude res 5).called attitude '1; Conside: 5; :cer PSYCholc that the is that Of the inconsis are lar: albigui1 I? f‘ V. LA UIQEI. w thQOthi‘ 1'0 55;] an” . . ‘Vgnltlt Liiv' 64 The Meaning of Attitude First of all, in order to communicate meaningfully about attitudes, there should be a high degree of agreement regarding the meaning of the subject of our research, yet this is exactly the nature of a foundational problem in attitude research. Fishbein, quoting from Elizur (1970, p. 36), called the problem on agreement on the definition of attitude ”incredible": Considering that it is now 110 years since Herbert Spencer first employed the term attitude in the psychological literature, it is somewhat incredible that the one thing on which most investigators agree is that "there exists no commonly accepted definition of the (attitude) concept." . . . many of the apparent inconsistencies and controversies in the attitude area are largely pseudOproblems created by this concept of ambiguity (1972, p. 488). Therefore, a description of what is meant by "attitude" is in order. Scott (1968) described attitude as a hypothetical construct which is defined by the properties asSigned to it in theoretical formulations. This conceptual approach allows for a variety of categorical definitions such as: "a state of readiness arousal" (Newcomb, 1965, p. 40) or as "an en- during organization of motivational, emotional, perceptual, and cognitive processes with respect to some aspect of the individual's world" (Kretch, 1948, p. 152). One advantage of Scott's approach is that attitude may be viewed as a distinct category or a sub—category of another factor such as motivation. A disadvantage of Scott's approach is that while it allows for some flexibility in the f att 258 O ~rflfl“v 3:5. vscc. S EIEZt p... i... I . ;I 1 P‘ "S .‘“.u" d 35 e C «1» Ga. u «.33 PF‘I .fi,‘ I .413 . EH1; n “ A ,. «unit: I ’Q h,‘ .i b.“ A. «Q e an 3. 5. .fi . y.‘ VDHV“n.~ . AU RM 0 FUs 65 use of attitude as a construct, it also is illustrative of the problem at hand: that is, there is a tendency for re- searchers (and others) to use the term "attitude" to convey different meanings. Moreover, the context and difference in meanings may not always be apparent nor clear when reading different authors. Thus, it is evident that different re- searchers may be discussing different concepts and yet be unaware of doing so when they are using the same word, "atti- tude." A good example of this variance at work is Hamersma's assumption that the term "racial attitude" necessarily implies racial prejudice and his use of Allport's definition of prejudice to explain what he meant by racial attitude (Hamersma, 1969, p. 6). Hamersma is correct in making the observation that prejudice is generally implied when dis- cussing racial attitudes, but prejudicial attitude may or may not be present depending upon factors of emotional pre- judgment and bias which are not consistent with the facts of reality. Allport (1935) reviewed some 16 earlier definitions of attitude (before offering his own), while others (such as Campbell, 1947) have considered as many as 30 different definitions. Allport defined attitude as: An attitude is a mental and neural state of readiness, organized through experience, exerting a directive or dynamic influence upon the individual's response to all gbjgigs and situations with which it is related (1935, In his consideration of Allport's definition, McGuire (1969, p. 142) analyzed attitude into five categories as D HQ‘V' '4 4.... a... “S"; b“‘ s. O .nv- U u nA n ‘OI d5.‘ ev9*‘ JHS 1 t b .v H:.~Q v " 0!- "VV ....v .v' '6!- FA brat! :I Quit A85 «NH 2» Wu G» .PJ Q» t“ n n 1 h A ““::e ‘V‘ 66 follows: "(1) it is a mental and neural state (2) of readi- ness to respond (3) organized (4) through experience (5) exerting a directive and/or dynamic influence on be- havior." Although Allport's definition is broad enough and specified enough to lend itself to provide theoretical hypo- theses for testing, it is apparent that his concept is pri- marily limited to considering attitude as a predisposition to behavior, rather than as behavior per g3. In contrast to this limitation of attitude as a predisposition toward behavior, Guttman included behavior itself in the concept of attitude. With specific reference to the use of the term "atti- tude" as used in this particular research project, the less elaborate, yet broadly inclusive, definition of Guttman will be used. Guttman (1950, p. 51) defined attitude as: a_dg: limited totality of behavior with resPect to something." It is evident from this definition that Guttman's concept of attitude embraces a variety of covert and overt behaviors. Where other concepts may consider the attitude universe merely as a predisposition to think-feel-act, Guttman defined attitude as a subclass of behavior: in our case six such ”delimited totalities" exist in the six subscales described later in this chapter. Jordan emphasized the unifying capacity of the Guttman attitude-behavior paradigm as advan- tageous: The (Guttman) attitude-behavior research paradigm . . . accepts the attitude concept as basic within social psychology and postulates that the Guttman structural facet theory approach to the definition of a research A U . ‘ Pd «5 :5 VJ v a . by h... . B ht: C . s i ‘L 67 problem, the selection of the variables for study, and the specification of the structure of the variables is necessary if one is to do research on attitudes that is both socially relevant and methodologically rigorous (1970a, p. 3). One of the distinct advantages of the Guttman facet approach is that, even with an essentially self-report type of questionnaire research such as this present project, the multi-faceted structure of the Guttman paradigm provides some of the character and advantages of a multiple-indicator in- vestigation. Thus, without the complex and uneconomical pro- cedures of the usual multiple-indicator research project, Guttman's facet theory provides a variety of levels of in- tensities of behavior as well as different types of behavior. Cook, in attempting to go beyond the usual self-report measuring techniques to a systematic, multiple-indicator analysis of the inferences involved in the measurement of attitudes, reported: By "the nature of the inferences involved" we mean the grounds for believing that attitude toward the presumed object is a determinant of responses to the measuring instrument, and the bases for inferring the nature of the attitude from the characteristics of the responses We have found it useful to think in terms of five major groupings: (a) measures in which the material from which inferences are drawn consists of self-reports of beliefs, feelings, behavior, etc., toward an object or class of objects; (b) measures in which inferences are drawn from observed overt behavior toward the object; (o) measures in which inferences are drawn from the individual's reactions to, or interpretations of, partially structured material relevant to the objects; (d) measures in which inferences are drawn from per- formance on objective tasks where functioning may be influenced by disposition toward the object; and (e) measures in which inferences are drawn from physio- logical reactions to the object (1964, pp. 25-26). a a . r. e: l. . -1 . . . C n v . \s . a .3 M». .G. .- . e C saw . a... a S S e 1‘ a NJ «I e +L «r .v .1 4M *4. .. a )x u. 1:. &. .m .. .r,.. 9. u. .aw Q» Jk HQ Q. .nw ”a o; Pb =~ 5.. :s W4 5; 1‘. Ls ‘ k. r. a. n“ .. a. .1 I. as a; 3. t. .I :. .: “I . s A J a: .w... “I A: : a s . .3 a . ‘g .. 68 Although the cross reference of different measures, as in a multiple—indicator approach, may be very desirable, such a complex system of assessment of a measuring instrument would be extremely burdensome and economically prohibitive in terms of the massiveness of most research. Thus, although Guttman's paradigm may not fill all of the qualifications of a multiple-indicator instrument, its multi—faceted character, its economy on the part of researcher and subjects, combined with social relevancy and methodological rigor make it a most effective instrument. Classes of variables In a comprehensive review of the literature Jordan found that: . . . four classes of variables are important determi- nants of attitudes: (a) demographic factors such as age, sex, and income; (b) socio—psychological factors sudh as one's value orientation; (c) contact factors such as amount, nature, perceived voluntariness, and enjoyment of the contact; and (d) the knowledge factor, i.e., amount of factual information one has about the attitude object. Many of the research studies were inconclusive or con- tradictory about the predictor variables, but close examination of the instrumentation reveals that often the so-called attitude scales were of different struc- tures, thus, one could not expect the predictor variables to behave consistently (1968, pp. 96-97). Jordan (1970d) also reported on extensive reviews (Erb, 1969; Hamersma, 1969) on racial attitudes which indi— cated that none of the previous studies had employed an attitude scale constructed according to the structural theory of Guttman (1959). In the above reviews it could not be determined what attitudinal levels or sub-universes in the h . e wmvng.w Grim O n“ ‘15 \. F4 huh 51 “av fix 0 \MU.“ ml iv :5 m h It “"essior‘q sales usec 3‘;:‘.:.an’s 1 rearing ‘ F;- 4-6) ‘W4eSOto 5.1-. . 69 Guttman model were being measured. Furthermore, although the material did not lend itself to a clear—cut analysis, the impression, as interpreted by Jordan, was that most of the scales used would: "Likely fall at the stereotypic level in Guttman's paradigm" (1970b). Definitions for This Research In order to facilitate clarity of meaningful communi- cation a number of specific definitions are given with the meaning they have for this particular research. The basis for most of these definitions is taken from Jordan (1968, pp. 4-6), with modifications by the author. For details, see Appendix A. Religion, Attitudes, and values In our description of religious attitudes we are con— sidering a generalized, healthy, and wholesome religion. Recognizing that all religious attitudes are not healthy, wholesome, or mature does not mean necessarily that we should consider the neurotic aspect in order to have a balanced or average position. Generally, the position of Allport is taken as a workable description of religion. Allport has said: . a mature personality always has some unifying philosophy of life, although not necessarily religious in type, nor articulated in words, nor entirely complete. But without the direction and coherence supplied by some dominant integrative pattern any life seems frag- mented and aimless (1950, p. 60). It does not exactly do justice to reduce Allport's description of religion to his well-known terms of intrinsic separate w. "Wire, .' ”rd 1;“. 3 1 "as . ,h/ A -‘:l\ Tie If 'readJ flnct. I ha?! 63"61'1; 4 70 versus extrinsic religion, yet this distinction does much to separate what Allport considers traditional, second-hand, immature, and possibly even neurotic religion, from his con- ception of healthy and mature religion. Allport considered the term "religion" to be too broad and too general to be useful in research; therefore, he has preferred to use the term "religious sentiment." In reality, however, religious sentiment varies tremendously with the uniqueness of every individual. In describing the two forms of religious senti- ment Allport maintained: The religious sentiment varies not only in depth and breadth, but also in its content and mode of functioning. Indeed, since every personality is unique, I have argued . . . that the religious sentiment in every life must take a unique form. Still, for research purposes it is allowable to select one important dimension of variability. The dimension I have in mind is a continuum ranging from the type of religious sentiment that has only instrumental or extrinsic significance in a life to the type of senti- ment that is itself a major motive in life, and thus has intrinsic value. The latter type serves itself alone; it is subordinant to no other motives. For many peOple (extrinsic) religion is a dull habit, or a tribal investment, to be used for occasional ceremony, for family convenience, or for personal comfort. It is something to use, but not to live [italics in original]. Intrinsic religion is not an instrumental formation. That is to say, it is not pri- marily a means of handling fear, or a mode of conformity, or an attempted sublimation of sex, or a wish- fulfillment . . . . It is integral, covering every- thing in experience and everything beyond experience; it makes room for scientific fact and emotional fact. It is a hunger for, and a commitment to, an ideal uni- fication of one's life, but always under a unifying conception of the nature of all existence (1968, pp. 148-151). A considerable amount of time and space was given to religious attitude studies in Chapter II of this research. ‘F' \ p.23 5 82 I". A oub ,..n{~',fi““‘ bags V““‘ .s of y. uv.. ,- .7. .3 «C 3: pr . V \r E ell... _h‘.‘“e Lu ‘ Lulu i“. .55: I.“ -&.~: 555s A: vs 6 .‘h DC $15 .1 : a Luu Q.» q .n. ~3C G (L! h h... «C 0 +5 1.. v.“ .h.“ ‘i‘ \H‘ 9V.“ Q5 4 s1... I ‘q n 5.9.. «HA fix. a 71 The emphasis presented there was religion as a foundational background or predictor of behavior. That is, a conceptual, valuational, and/or motivational aspect of attitude. In terms of the Guttman system prOposed herein, the predictive or predisposition aspect will be considered as a sub-universe of the total attitude universe. Nevertheless, it is herein considered unwise to discount the significance and power of attitude as a weltanschaung, a situational predisposition to act, a mindset which influences perception, feeling, and gives direction to behavior. A most timely example of the difference religious attitudes can make upon response is the tremendously new and different Spirit in some black religion today from what it was some time ago. In the first words of his book, Positively glagk, Roger D. Abrahams illustrated the difference between the black man's religion before and after the new black consciousness. There is a distinct difference between the old and the new: An Old-Time Story Everybody 'round heah is talkin' 'bout 'ligion, gittin' happy an' Shoutin'. Theah's one thing 'bout this 'ligion deal I cain't unastand. I see white people go to church, they got theah at eight o'clock, they out at 'leben. The coloahed man get theah at eight, he's out at two. White man go back at eight o'clock, he's out at nine. Coloahed man got back theah eight o'clock that night, he stays til 'leben. An what I cain't unahstand about it is this: the white .man goes theah at 'leben an' stays theah till twelve, «an! he go fishin', huntin', swimmin', play dominoes, ean' shoot a few craps, an' wake up the nex' moahnin' Ein.fin' an oil well in his backyahd; the poah coloahed nuanflll go to wo'k, stay theah all night sayin', "You \r. 72 can have all this worl', but gi'me Jesus." An wake up the nex' moahnin' an fin' a "Fo' Rent" Sign hangin' on his doah. And A New One After the Lord had created the Earth, he created the white man, the Mexican, and the Negro. So one day he told them, "Go out and get you some rocks." The white man, being industrious, went out and got a huge rock. The Mexican got a middle-sized rock, and the Negro, being lazy, got a pebble. Later on that evening, the Lord said, "I'm going to turn these rocks into bread." AS a result, the white man had a lot of bread, the Mexican had a sufficient amount, but the Negro only had a crumb, and he stayed hungry. So the next day, the Lord again told them the same thing. This time the white man got a great big rock, the Mexican got a little smaller rock, but the Negro brought back a whole half of a mountain. That evening the Lord stood before them and said, "Upon this rock I will build my Church." The Negro said, "You're a mother-fucking liar, you're going to make me some bread" (Abrahams, 1970, p. ix). According to McGuire (1969, p. 151) two different courses have been followed in an attempt to distinguish between the concepts attitude and value. The more common approach tends to consider value merely as a broader factor than attitude. A number of theorists, among others (Allport, 1937), tend to conceive of this relationship as one long con- tinuum which includes: opinion, attitude, interest, and value. The second is to consider values as a component of attitudes. "An attitude," according to McGuire (1969), "toward some state of affairs is perceived to have positive or negative instrumentality." In terms of this definition, McGuire is different from Rokeach (1968) who described values as the foundational concept upon which beliefs and attitudes may be based. Rokeach has defined value as a type of belief which is centrally I :3: one on; of exiStenc abstract ic situation < .1 11:: or ide beach, p: ‘4 c . . he‘s! tHC. . M {Lie SYSte Ooh ,: #5 Ideal‘ the differ{ fixeach ha Villas hat're t‘. EXiSte: 5a”! th. mode 0. and so: duet 0: terna1. staiia: “5 ma. Situat. and at- and f0: 73 centrally located within one's total belief system, about how one ought or ought not to behave, or about some end-state of existence worth or not worth attaining. Values are abstract ideals, positive or negative, not tied to a specific situation or object and represent one's ideal modes of con- duct or ideal terminal goals. An adult, according to Rokeach, probably has tens or hundreds of thousands of be- liefs, thousands of attitudes, but only a dozen values. A value system is a hierarchical organization--a rank ordering --of ideals or values in terms of importance. In describing the differences and relationship between attitudes and values Rokeach has said: Values, on the other hand (as distinct from attitudes), have to do with modes of conduct and end-states of existence. To say that a person "has a value" is to say that he has an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally and socially preferable to alternative modes of con- duct or end-states of existence. Once a value is in- ternalized it becomes, consciously or unconsciously, a standard or criterion for guiding action, for developing and maintaining attitudes toward relevant objects and Situations, for justifying one's own and other's actions and attitudes, for morally judging self and others, and for comparing self with others. Finally, value is a standard employed to influence the values, attitudes, and actions of at least some others--our children's for example (1968, pp. 159-160). . . . While an attitude represents several beliefs focused on a specific object or situation, a value is a single belief that transcendentally guides actions and judgments across specific objects and situations, and beyond immediate goals to more ultimate end-states of existence. Moreover, a value, unlike an attitude, is an imperative to action, not only a belief about the preferable but also a preference for the preferable. . . . A person's value system may thus be said to represent a learned organization of rules for making choices and for resolving conflicts--between two or more modes of behavior or between two or more end states of existence (Ibid., p. 161). v.4: .0: O C V ‘ x'ODV: o..\-§u‘h ';u-:': had... y . 4‘ .4? - 1 ".‘1 ‘c -‘ . 0-. -‘l ‘~~ '54.: .. .F ”R s“. (1.) mm A r‘“ If 9 "'1 fl! 74 With particular reference to values as considered in the present research project, Jordan (1968) reviewed the literature for possible models which might facilitate our understanding of a person's value structure. From Spranger's early formulation (1928) he reported the intuitive classi- fication of men into Six general types of distinct behavior patterns. It was Spranger's belief that man can be best understood through the study of his personal values which, in Spranger's opinion could also be called interests or motives. The six basic values he used were: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious (Jordan, 1968). In the Study of Values Allport, Vernon, and Lindsey (1951) used Spranger's six basic values as the foundation for empirical research. In general agreement with Allport and Spranger, Gordon asserted that "a person's motivational patterns or the values he holds" are important in personality assessment (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). On the foundation of these six values Gordon developed a Six scale instrument (Survey of Interpersonal Values). His Six scales are described as: Support: Being treated with understanding, receiving encouragement from other peOple, being treated with kindness and consideration. Conformity: Doing what is socially correct, following regulations closely, doing what is accepted and proper, and being a conformist. Recognition: Being looked up to and admired, being considered important, attracting favorable notice, achieving recognition. Independence: Having the right to do whatever one wants to do, being free to make one's own decisions, being able to do things in one's own way. v" h‘.‘ .. CC v-A I“ nacoUv Q, fvv: vVQ¢ b you.- y- w .14»- v? 2 a 'f‘ u. 4.5 O \J 75 Benevolence: Doing things for other people, Sharing With others, helping the unfortunate, being generous. Leadership: Being in charge of other people, having authority over others, being in a position of leader- ship or power (Gordon, 1960, p. 3). Jordan (1968) reporting on Gordon's study of com- paring the relationships between Gordon's SIV scale and Allport's Study of Values indicated that the inter- correlations moderately overlap in what they measure and other relationships appear reasonably compatible. The im- portant factors with reference to the present research are: The theoretical is positively correlated with Leader— ship and Independence (.42 and .36 respectively). Other positive correlations are Economic with Recog- nition (.29); Social with Benevolence and Conformity (.52 and .37) (Jordan, 1968, p. 19). In Chapter II of this research a number of studies of religious attitudes were reported. Some of the most Sig- nificant research indicated that church members tend to be more racially prejudiced than non-church goers (Hadden, 1969; Stark, 1968; Rokeach, 1960). Stark and Glock's research in- dicated that Christians have long held a biased view against Jews and even held Jews responsible as a group for the Cruci- fixion of Jesus (Stark, 1968). Rokeach has gone so far as to claim that the Church is a positive influence helping to create an attitude of racial intolerance and bigotry in the United States (Rokeach, 1970). He even went so far as to tell a Sunday School class (First Baptist Church, Lansing, Michigan, 1966) that he purposely kept his own children away from the Synagogue in order to help prevent the influence toward bigotry they might receive there. In his research _‘ . oAq fl-l' an‘ 15".!" narr; 'V.‘ fi . n ' l . (I) a‘. “v. \_ . i 5’ ”a 76 Rokeach (1970) concluded that religious beliefs have a high correlation with bigotry and that the degree of religiosity is positively correlated with the degree of (racial) bigotry. In his opinion radical action must occur before the problem can be changed to any significant degree: "From the reli- gious point of view, the Church needs to be transformed. From a non-religious point of View, it needs to be destroyed" (1970). Hadden's conclusions (Chapter II, pp. 51-65) were: (a) racial prejudice tends to be positively correlated with church attendance; (b) the more actively participating church members tend to be either mprg bigoted or lgpg bigoted--it is the author's conclusion in reference to this factor that this is a phenomenon of (Allport's) extrinsic versus in- trinsic religion; (c) clergymen actually dg_have an influence upon the political, social, and racial attitudes (if the members are active church members) even when other factors, such as socio-economic class, or political affiliation would tend to provide the expectation that the members would be at cross-purposes to the attitude of the clergyman. The conclusions from Adorno's earlier but very ex- tensive work (1950) were: (a) there is a positive correlation between church membership and racial bigotry; (b) many church members have a Biblical-theological rationale for prejudice against the Jews; (c) the influence of clergymen and the Church in terms of attitude formation is relatively less sig- nificant when compared with other social psychological .urr uni-r a u..— -~~~ 0'1 iv. 9. D ‘9... ‘a -‘\. 77 experiences; (d) a general attitude of indifference toward the Church and its proclamations tends to be a normative response of both church members and non-church members in America; therefore, (e) religion does not play as Significant role in the life of Americans as it once did (Adorno, 1950, Ch. XVIII). In a comparison of different religious groups Larson (1964) reported that Jews are more tolerant than Roman Catho- lics who in turn are more tolerant than Protestants. Catho- lics were also more in favor of integration than were Protestants. Jewish university students were more favorable toward integrated university facilities than Catholic stu- dents. Earlier research on religion and racial attitudes indicates some factors which are the opposite from more recent findings. This may indicate a possible change or trend regarding changes in religion and racial attitudes. For example, Merton (1940) reported that Catholics tended to be more prejudiced than Protestants. One fundamental factor which may have a significant effect on this condition is the participation of more blacks in Roman Catholic schools and churches in recent years. Allport and Kramer (1946) and Rosenblith (1949), who replicated their research, also found that Catholics held more anti-Negro prejudice than Protes- tants. Merton (1940) also found that Jews and those with no church affiliation tended to be the least prejudiced of all. This is consistent with the findings of Adorno (1950). 1. (h hi ._. In 1 h.‘ - 'vv‘ c ‘\ 2., a .,_“ '.1~‘ Q-‘. ‘Y - III A. J ’# ’:C I"! (4) '7] 78 An interesting factor which could not be ignored by the author, regardless of the ethnic limitations of Judaism, is that when an attempt waS made to include Jewish clergymen in this study, he was told that virtually no black Rabbis were available, and thus the study of racial attitudes of black and white Jewish clergymen was eliminated from the study. The objective fact, therefore, is that regardless of all of the emphasis on non-prejudice, equality, and equal opportunity for all, the ethnocentrism of Judaism has for the most part, excluded Negroes from its ministry. A summary of Allport's extensive writings on the sub- ject of religion and prejudice may be offered in three cate- gories: a description of religious involvement in prejudice, an analysis of the essential dynamic factors involved, and what might be done about it. First, Allport (1960) has said that in the Christian religion in particular and in other religions to some extent: . . . there are three intrinsic sources of bigotry. l. Doctrine of Revelation--the Truth, once revealed cannot be tampered with. Since all sects claim to have (God's) the "judging word“ on their side, revelation Opens the way to bigotry. 2. Doctrine of election-—the view that one's own group is chosen leads away from brotherhood and into bigotry. It does so, because it feeds one's pride and hunger for status--two important roots of prejudice. Bishop Leslie Newbigin of the Anglican Church (Church of South India) writes: "We must claim absoluteness and finality for Christ and His finished work; but that very claim for- bids us to claim absoluteness and finality for our understanding of it." 3. Theocracy--has lost much of its power. History is testimony to this phase of bigotry (Allport, 1960, p. 258). ANN”; “I .5 '1 "-" -aav- ¢oav n 5‘. ”cvyno q \ the ‘GF bat Ihf‘~~;' UV“...»‘ v, . V ' JV“ r 1 q and C . obi ' t ‘. Lfie iS 79 Second, Allport analyzed the personality dynamics in terms of "intrinsic" versus "extrinsic" religion: The relationship between religion and prejudice hinges on the type of religion that the personal life harbors. When it is extrinsic (stereotyped, formal, used as a means to an end, and institutionalized), the tie with prejudice is close; when intrinsic (doesn't "use" his religion--"lives" it, flexible, personal) prejudice is restrained (Allport, 1960, p. 266). With the above description and analysis offered, Allport recommended an action the Church might take with new under- standing and effectiveness: Now that religious bodies are becoming self-critical and alert to the issue (the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic religion and their effect on racial attitudes), they would do well to employ this central fact to guide their policies and plans for the future. The problem, if I may venture to state it for them, is how to transform the prejudice-linked extrinsic style of religion held by most of their members--what- ever the religious body may be--into intrinsic re- ligion, where the total creed of equimindedness becomes woven into the fabric of personality itself (Allport, 1960, p. 266). Thus far in the section on religious attitudes and values we have considered the definitions and meanings of religion, attitudes, and values, and the descriptive as well as the dynamic place religious attitudes and values have as an influence on racial prejudice. With Specific reference to this research, therefore, certain religious-personality dynamics will be considered. They are: Religious intensipy: how strongly one feels about his religion, how important it is to him, how conscien- tiously he is observant of and obedient to the rules and regulations of his religion. Open—closed mindedness: to what extent the person indi- cates his personality, belief system, and behavior '- I; d?“ \ er h _F. a r all Lb- ! V J In I. u ( INN Th .4. ‘.k .ul.‘ ‘ o a... fit. 9 .1 . .S C I. C. a . CI hu .1 I O. u . a T. Au t . y. a e a 4 Va 0 e . -1 C x 7m; R. a .n. G. n . s S -1 ‘Q .4 r .I« A. . -..l . . Q. 0. v1 c.» a. +.. at Rb. Gs ‘ a? .L .4. d a a: .s t. {a ~13 Ah» 4 . on» P 1 cs :5 .q: 4 4 flu ‘ s .: a L. .:.. A: .14 L . a». .u» .‘a «:h it t. .. . € s 1, a ~11 A... v s g . au- - J t n .- 1 . s . h a F: u, u :6 QIV. nan» . . 80 indicate an openness and flexibility or a closedness and rigidity to experience. Extrinsic-intrinsic religion: the extent to which the person indicates that he "uses" or ”lives" his religion. Authoritarianism: the extent to which the person indi- cates an authoritarian attitude toward others in relation to self. Self—actualization: the extent to which the person believes he is reaching his fullest potential of experience and personal satisfaction. The Place of Theory The theoretical system upon which research is based will tend to give structure to the concepts, hypotheses, design, and scope of the research. In this study the Guttman-Jordan facet theory is accepted as the model for researdh. In this model it is accepted that the term "atti— tude" embraces a variety of covert and overt behaviors from stereotypic generalizations to specific behaviors toward some object (person) which may or may not be favorable. Much of the systematic formulation, according to Jordan (1968), is more accurately considered not "theory" in the highly rigor- ous sense, but it is more appropriately considered the testing of "partially verified propositions." Theory and research are, therefore, considered in an active interrelation- ship of the attempt to describe a "provisional systemization of events." Guttman's (1950) general description of attitude is a "delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." In their research, Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) pro- posed four types or levels of interaction with an attitude .- ‘1 § M‘- b. uh“. ‘bu-I 2A-”- ‘~_J 'fll-A p \3 . i .. a ‘4 81 object. These four levels of interaction were elaborated by Guttman (1959) into a structural theory of belief and action based on and defined by facets and elements to produce each level. Guttman defined the four levels as: (a) Stereotype, (b) Norm, (c) Hypothetical Interaction, and (d) Personal In- teraction (Tables 1 and 2). In this schema, therefore, "attitude" ranges from stereotypic level to the subject's actual reported behavior. Guttman's earlier scalogram techniques have not re- ceived as much attention as his present facet analysis as instruments for measuring racial attitudes (McGuire, 1969). The scalogram analysis is generally limited to measuring whether or not the attitude universe involves a single dimension. If an attitude universe is unidimensional it will yield a near-perfect scale so that it is possible to arrange all of the responses of any number of respondents into a particular pattern depending upon their scores. Hamersma (1969) reviewed the use of Guttman's scalo- gram technique by a number of researchers and stated that before the present series of racial attitude studies, under the direction of Jordan at Michigan State University (of which this study is a part), Guttman's facet theory had not been widely used as an instrument in studying racial atti- tudes. Some of the criticisms of Guttman's earlier scalogram technique have been taken into account. Jahoda and Warren (1966) pointed out that the scalogram technique might not be ..n-b".‘" aubfi'J‘ 5"3 day." be}; H?! v...» V~i d ‘1' "' 4v jd$\ ‘ . 01$ 0. ‘n .‘“‘h QL. Una ( ‘ ‘Q L . K. I . E .C .l 3 Kw \ ; s E «1 Wu .5. R u .l 9.. a» a a It. a . .CJL vs .h. A 1.1 -a . u . I. :6 as .. .m; ‘d V“ 3‘ .nhaa . ,U .Ah 4 b w A SH .‘hq‘ w:- . 1.. . is. alum... {axe \ \ VL w. .5 e . s 11H 3 «A. ... < MN. I a C . \ . . O «C a : ~ .4 .. s; E . I .3 t .3 .. Q. . . . Y a In ”N p. s W .m.‘ ‘1 ,1 a a .5 82 an appropriate instrument to use in measuring complex social attitudes, inasmuch as its scope is unidimensional. Further- more, they pointed out that a scale may be unidimensional for one group but not necessarily for others; Another criticism offered by Edwards (1957) was that scalogram analysis gives no guidance in selecting appropriate items for the scale. All of these criticisms appear to have been met sufficiently in Guttman's present model of facet theory analysis. The more recent Guttman facet theory approach is consonant with a structural theory of attitude study. As such, it fits into McGuire's (1954, pp. 144-145) positivistic approach, and facilitates a cognitive-affective-conative (knowing, feeling, and acting) analysis of the human condition (Jordan, 1970b). The Guttman-Jordan Attitude Facet Theory Beginning with Guttman's definition of attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something," the development of facet theory provides a structure for a multidimensional analysis which is qualitative as well as quantitative. "Facet theory," wrote Jordan (1968, p. 72), "in conjunction with the newer multidimensional (non—metric) Guttman-Lingoes computer programs (Bloombaum, 1968; Lingoes, 1966), allows one to examine the profiles of individual sub- jects or groups of subjects who have the same profile." Whereas most of the previous methods of analysis accounted for the individual subject via the correlation matrix, the newer multidimensional scalogram programs by Guttman and J “9?..n‘ a'.db ‘lnfll .‘ouflv ( .'JA'. hot-VA. 14 . . (u 1' r... 4... ru~ :\ C‘ C.\ h; .l .1 n... C U T. C .7: I. .3 .3 a . z.‘ 3. a e n: . . a» w a an “a 1.... i. a a .. a: L.» S .. _. .3 v . «iv a. v v a .3 a» a .1 u...‘ .. s «C {a s a .i .1. - .u ..i x?“ u e. a . u. . v . :N 3‘ v s 1.. at a . a J - I . «4‘ an a A v . pr; .\~ ‘4 :n n 1 h. . eyw. I. i it ~.\~ I 83 Lingoes represents the subjects as points, variables as partitions, and categories of the variables as regions of partitions (Guttman and Schlesinger, 1967, p. 46). Briefly, the research paradigm provided by facet theory enables the researcher to construct the content of a scale by a semantic, logical, a priori technique and to be able to predict (within the limits of probability) the order structure which should result in the empirical data. The distinct advantage here over traditional factor analysis is immediately apparent: (a) the structure of facet theory analysis is not a "blind" analysis; i;§;., it is hypothesized directly from a facet theory design based upon social psy- chological principles. Furthermore, "blind" analyses are now known to be incapable of producing ordered (gpgp, simplex) structures even when they may appear to be such before analysis; (b) at least two different rotations of design axes are meaningful in facet analysis, and the dimensions are named in advance. It is anticipated that even a third axis may be included in the not too distant future when the appro- priate psychology is available; (c) the use of variances as distance functions instead of standard deviations implies using a non-Euclidean metric for the variables which gives some advantage of direction as well as distance from the norm (Guttman, 1959, pp. 327-328). Guttman's four level theory develOped out of his scalogram interest, attitude research, and followed his analy- sis of the research on racial attitudes done in Brazil by r I 84 Bastide and van den Berge (1957). Bastide and van den Berge described four types, or subuniverses of content in connection with interracial behavior: . . . From these two postulates there is derived a classification of subjects on six scales treated as unidimensional variables. Four of these variables corresponding to each part of the questionnaire are treated as components of a general prejudice-tolerance continuum. Variable a is a measure of acceptance or rejection of stereotypes. Variable p_measures tolerance or prejudice in social norms. Variable 9 measures actual interracial behavior as reported by the subjects. Variable d measures willingness to enter into specific personal relationships with Negroes or mulattos (1957, p. 691). .-\r. ".u -’“? "syn ‘ e 3;- ~¥A.: "’ e .- ~§oe~ fizb + N...- “ CHAPTER IV EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Using the four types of interpersonal behavior given by Bastide and van den Berghe, Guttman postulated a struc- tural theory for intergroup beliefs and actions (1959). His proposal was that with respect to intergroup attitudes and behavior there are three necessary facets which may be com- bined according to definite procedures to determine the se- mantic as well as the statistical component structures of four important subuniverses or levels of the attitude uni- verse (Tables 5 and 6). Guttman stated that both the semantic and statistical elements were essential. The semantic ele- ment provides the meaningful content within which it is possible to view the subuniverses. From this it is possible to predict a certain statistical structure for the matrix of correlation coefficients. The empirical data are then ex- amined to see whether or not they are congruent with the statistical structure predicted from the semantic structure (1959, p. 319) Guttman's Facet Design Procedures Using Bastide and van den Berghe's four types of in- terpersonal behavior, Guttman distinguished three facets involved in any particular attitude response in respect to 85 . v- .‘a Av- ‘T '- It: II I I” (I) (I): Al (I ll 86 intergroup behavior: the (a) subject's behavior (a1 belief or a2 overt action), the (b) referent (b1 the subject's group or b2 the subject himself), and (c) the referent's intergroup behavior (cl comparative or c2 interactive). He labeled the first of the two options, or elements given above in paren- theses, of each facet as the "weaker." Therefore, a particu- lar attitude item would be as strong as the number of stronger elements (those with the number 2 subscript) which appeared. TABLE 5 Guttman's Facets Used to Determine Component Structure of an Attitude Universe (A) (B) (C) Subject's Behavior Referent Referent's Intergroup Behavior a1 belief bl subject's cl comparative group a overt action b subject c interactive 2 2 . 2 h1mse1f According to this model if an attitude item can be distinguished semantically in terms of these three facets (subject's behavior, referent, referent's intergroup behav- ior), then an individual item could have a total of four combinations: none, one, two, or three strong facets. Guttman's logic, for only four permutations of strong-weak facets, was that if the elements are correctly ordered within facets, and facets are correctly ordered with respect to each other, a semantic analysis of attitude items according to n- dichotomous facets would reveal N + 1 types of attitude items. 87 These types were called "levels" (in some places called "sub- scales"). There is an inherent order (a simplex one) where each level has one more strong facet than the level following. Hamersma (1969, p. 69) reported that although there are only four possible combinations of weak-strong combinae tions, using Guttman's model, there are several ways to ar- rive at the four combinations. Therefore, both logic and intuition must be used in selecting the appropriate levels. In arranging the levels, one element from each and every facet must be represented in any given statement. These statements are then grouped into profiles (particular ele- ments from each facet) of the attitude universe by a multi- plication of the facets A x B x C which yields a 2 x 2 x 2 combination of elements of eight semantic profiles in all, ipg., the combinations range from: (a) a1 b1 c1, (b) al b1 c2, . . . (h) a2 b2 c2. From these eight possible profiles or levels, Guttman selected four which made the most sense logically, 1:3,, some combinations are not logically consis- tent.1 Of the eight possible combinations, only the four in Table 6 were used by Bastide and van den Berghe (1957). Using the models of Tables 5 and 6 it is possible to consider the three original facets (ABC) identified by Guttman (Table 5) and their four combinations of weak-strong facets with the descriptive names which he attached to each of the combinations or levels (Table 6). Two continua run lMaierle (1969) has developed an elaborate analysis of the principles leading to logical combinations. 88 throughout the facets: other-self and verbal-action. Guttman declared that the orderings in each case indicate a progression from a wggk to a strong form of the subject's behavior toward the object. The strength is indicated by the number of "2" elements contained in a set. TABLE 6 Guttman Facet Profiles of Attitude Subuniverses Subscale Type-Level Subuniverse Profile 1 Stereotype al b1 c1 2 Norm al b1 c2 3 Hypothetical Interaction al b2 c2 4 Personal Interaction a2 b2 c2 Using Bastide and van den Berghe's work with racial attitudes of whites toward Negroes, Guttman described a series of definitions of the levels or subuniverses: l. Stereotype: Belief of (a white subject) that hip ownggroup (excels--does not excel) in comparison with Negroes on (desirable traits). 2. Norm: Belief of (a white subject) that his own rou (ought-ought not) interact with Negroes 1n soc1a1 ways). 3. Hypothetical Interaction: Belief of (a white subject) that he himself (will-will not) interact with Negroes in (social ways). 4. Personal Interaction: Overt Action of (a white subject) himself (to-not to) 1nteract with Negroes in Social ways)(l959, p. 319). vvu‘uvln" "H-‘uu 'yA :u‘ulnn V: :ffl‘Pa-r itng 5.!" ' 89 The italics and parentheses used indicate the semantic structure being used to describe intergroup behavior. The common, or fixed elements, indicate the universe of which the subuniverses are subsets. The universes differ from one another, and differences also exist within each subuniverse separately, for each, in turn, is a set of elements. The four definitions differ primarily with respect to the three facets involved. In describing the relationships of the different levels Guttman said: Each definition concerns a type of behavior of a subject vis-a-vis a type of intergroup behavior of a type of referent. Two kinds of behavior for the sub- ject occur in the definition: belief (a form of covert behavior) and overt action. Also, two kinds of referents occur: the subjeCETs group and the subject himself. SimilarII, two kinds of intergroup behavior are diStinguished: comparative and inter- active (1959, p. 320). Using this model, facet analysis of the semantic and statistical structures of attitudes provides a theoretical system for use in social psychology. When items are written to correspond to each of the four levels, then levels closest to one another should be more Similar and thus should corre- late more highly with one another than levels which are more distant. This relationship is termed the "principle of con- tiguity" by Guttman and is described as: Our analysis above of the semantic structure of ABC pro- vides a social-theoretical basis for predicting the structure of this empirical correlational matrix. One cannot presume to predict the exact size of each correlation coefficient from knowledge only of the semantics of universe ABC, but we do propose to predict a attern or structure for the relative sizes of the statistical coefficients from purely semantic con- siderations. 90 Contiguity Hypothesis: Subuniverses closer to each other in the semantic scale of their defin- itions will also be closer statistically. (1959, p. 324). The above hypothesis is ascertained statistically by what Guttman calls a "simplex." A simplex is defined as "sets of scores that have an implicit order from 'least complex' to 'most complex'" (1954-1955, p. 400). Its charac- teristics are: (a) ascending correlations starting from the zero point (where the two coordinates meet) to the end points of either axis, and (b) closer correlations between adjacent levels than the correlations separated by one or more levels. Thus, level 1 would correlate higher with level 2 than it would with level 3 but higher with level 3 than it would with level 4; level 2 would correlate more highly with levels 1 and 3 than with level 4, SEE- This type of relationship is expressed by the formula: 1 < 2 < 3 < 4. The exact magni- tudes of the correlations are not predicted, but the order and patterns are. An example of a Guttman four level hypo- thetical correlation matrix with a simplex structure is presented in Table 7. TABLE 7 Hypothetical Matrix of Level-By-Level Correlations Illustrating the Simplex Structure Level 1 2 3 4 1 -__ 2 .60 --- 3 .50 .60 --- 4 .40 .50 .60 --- 91 When Bastide and van den Berghe (1957) reported their research they were not aware of facet design and nonmetric analysis and thus represented their findings in other terms. When their data is expressed in facet theory terms, using the order they imposed on it, the levels are in the following order: (1) Stereotype, (2) Norm, (4) Personal Interaction, and (3) Hypothetical Interaction. Their order of 1, 2, 4, and 3 has one level misplaced when described in Guttman's terms. The simplex produced by their order is Shown in Table 8, and Table 9 indicates a reorganization of the levels in accordance with Guttman's theory. The reVised order then becomes the expected order of 11¢ 2 < 3 < 4. TABLE 8 Bastide and van den Berghe's Original Matrix Level 1 2 4. 3 1 _-- 2 .60 --- 4 .25 .51 .49 3 .37 .68 —-— --- A comparison of Tables 7 and 8 indicates that only one reversal existed in the original structure of Bastide and Van den Berghe when revised according to facet theory. In the original matrix of Table 8, however, there are a number of reversals. One slight exception to the expected pattern in Table 9 is that of r4 3 (-.49) does not quite exceed r4 2 (-.51) even though semantically level 3 lies between 92 between levels 2 and 4. This slight deviation was not con- sidered as an exception to facet theory by Guttman (1959), however, as the small size of the difference is within the probability of sampling error. TABLE 9 Bastide and van den Berghe's Empirical Matrix As Revised According to the Order of Facet Design Level 1 2 3 4 1 -_- 2 .60 —-- 3 037 .68 --- 4 .25 .51 .49 --- Jordan's Six Level Adaptation of Guttman's Facet Theory The facet theory design developed by Guttman made use of three facets and thus four levels for analysis. Hypothe- sizing that these three facets and four levels did not cover the "necessary" conditions for an adequate analysis of inter- group interaction, Jordan (1968), accepting Guttman's levels as an appropriate base, expanded facet analysis for attitude items dealing with intergroup situations to include five 2 Tables 10 and 11 por- facets and hence six levels (N + 1). tray this expansion in contrast to Tables 5 and 6. Jordan (1968) defines joint struction in his model as the ordered sets of the five facets of Table 10 from low 2In this paradigm, a scale is composed of Six levels or sub-scales, so when the word "scale" appears by itself, it Should be kept in mind that it includes six levels or sub- Scales (Hamersma, 1969, p. 76). 93 some .m semanemm conmmmmm Hmwoom cmfiamme mpflmum>flso How wusuflumcH Hmman mumum cmmecowz assuusu mwooq cmpHOb .m anon .th .m .mwma ecMUHOHV GOHDOMIHMQH0> one mammluwnuo ”mumomm map nmsounu can mscwucoo 039 .ucwfimpdn mo Hmuuma m mayhem Haflum me mumm mo macho eummhe e no coauomamm one .HmowmoH mum mcoHuwcHneoo Has no: awn» pmuoc ma Omam tasonm DH .mpsufluum man no enumcmuume may Housmum can .mswmusoo pom m mucoEMHm em: umwuomQSm once one .hamsomcmuaseflm muoomw m>fim Ham mmouom cows 0» 30H Eonm muoomm m>flw mums» mo mumm pmnmcuo on» we consume madmcowumnmmo “cowuosnum ucHOUN .AHH magma mmmv Hmowucmpw mum Honor 0cm .ucmumm Ion .uoanSm .m .m .e Hm>mq CH “Houom on» nuflz Doc pun .ucmummmu why nuH3 ascensmofl mum Houom use “newsman N was H Hm>mq cw ..m.H “on hawnmmmmomc Doc pan .zuon Ho Houom no ucmummmu segues as“? HMOflucmpfl me mnflmccowummsw on» #50 mcwaawm pomnnsm may mmSHDmEOm umnu Umuoc on panonm DH .mmam “Hmowmoaafi Ewmm mGOfiumcHnEoo meow ..m.H =.ucmumwmcoo= on Duds m can m .mmmmo £05m cH .Hmowgcmpfi mum U was s .mawummmmomc #0: van .maucmswmum .H0H>mnmn m.U mmwMHHmsv m ow .Hofl>m5mn m.¢ mmflmwamav m we H A>E\mcflsv Anoa>mcmn unm>ov AHV ascoeumummo mm cowuomumucfl mp mama mo mocmflnmmxm Na mamm mm Hmowumnuommn Hm comHHcmEoo Hp mumnuo Ho mowamn an mumnuo Hm uoa>mcom How>mnmm m.Hou04 mdoumumucH How>mnmm mo season m.u0po¢ nouns usmummmm ucoumwmm Amy has Luv Ame lav omHm>HcD mpsuwuud cm mo mcowuosnum ucHOh mcwsumumo on poms Hmuoomm m.smpH0h OH mandfi 94 to high across all five facets Simultaneously. Joint struction is that part of the semantic structure of attitude items which can be determined independently of item content, i12°r it defines the level of attitude being measured. Lateral struction (earlier called "disjoint struction" in contrast to "conjoint struction") deals with the content of the item and is dependent upon a specific situation and attitude object. Table 11 reveals the struction profile of progressive strength to be ordered such that levels 1‘< 2 < 3 4 4 < 5‘: 6 or Societal Stereotype <:Societal Interactive Norm.‘mulcnsuuauw .Amemev neemees eeee umeeeuee N.comauan500 «momxdaca oeucaEmm Ho>oHIme cannon use Ho>odluzom casuaau Lo HoHunEocomIIH .mau H: I I j I I I x I I I I I x x x I I I I I x x I I I I I I I x I I I I I I I x I I I I I x x x x x ////1 x XI ,/1 I/r xaamccfiumumao accumuceal mama you mamm ucmEmHm [llr / mcouum > I I I I I I x I I III DH IIIIIIX I X HHH I I I I I I x x I I I I I I I x HH I I I I I I x x rllllllll x I I I I I I x H I I I I I I x I I I I I I x > x I I I I I I x >Ham0flammm>m mummawo mmmruo m>mflamm wmmmHMI¥ acmemam xama uoa>mLMm I I I I accumumucw uoe>mcmn I I I I ncchuzu m.ucmumumm acmumemm m.uomwn:m uoH>mrmn unfi>acmn Hm>ma m.uouom oaoumumuca uofi>mrmn ncauuon Ncaunon Lo cameos m.u0ao< uouoq acououox accustom anon; Enumxm 99 Thus far we have considered Bastide and van den Berghe's four levels of intergroup interaction, Guttman's development of their description into a facet theory analysis, and Jordan's expansion of facet theory to a six-level analysis, including semantic combinations of the levels of interaction. The task now is to bring the rigorous system- atic configuration together with a relevant social condition so that they form a functional, integrated, and unified approach to social experimentation. Guttman (1959) has suggested that any coherent theory referring to empirical research can be expressed in a mapping sentence (see Figures 1 to 5). Furthermore, Guttman ex- pressed concern that care must be taken in sentence mapping to provide for semantic as well as statistical concerns: . . . lack of theoretical clarity as to the specifi- cation of the facets of the mapping may be the Situation that often impedes the connection between abstract theory and empirical work (1959, p. 323). The mapping sentence is, therefore, an essential step toward making the theoretical structure Operational in an empirical situation. By systematizing the attitude universe Yia the mapping sentence and selected combinations, specific questions may be formulated for the research. With particular concern regarding the measurement of the racial attitudes of blacks and whites toward each other, questions will be defined according to the format of Figures 2 to 5. For reference to a mapping sentence for other groups in addition to blacks and whites, see Figure 3 which is taken from Jordan (1968, p. 81). 100 Combinations 7acets and Subscripts Basis of In In Eliminationc Figure Figure 3 5 No.b A B c D E l 1 Level 1 o b o c h 2 2 Level 2 o b o i h 3 3 - i b o c h 4 4 Level 3 i b o i h 5 5 —- o b m c h 6 6 - o b m i h 7 7 - i b m c h 8 8 Level 4 i b m i h 9 - - o e o c h 2 10 9 - o e o i h 11 - - i e o c h l 2 12 - - i e o i h 1 l3 - - o a m c h 1 2 14 - - o e m i h l 15 - - i e m c h 2 16 10 Level 5 i e m i h 17 -- - o b o c p 3 4 18 - -- o b o i p 4 19 - - i b o c p 3 4 20 - - i b o i p 4 21 - - o b m c p 3 4 22 - - o b m i p 4 23 - - i b m c p 3 4 24 - - i b m i p 4 25 - - o e o c p 2 3 26 ll -- o e o i p 27 - - i e o c p l 2 3 28 -- - i e o i p l 29 -- -- o e m c p l 2 3 30 -- —- o e m i p l 31 - - i e m c p 2 3 32 12 Level 6 I_i e III Ljhp Fig. 2-Combinations of five two-element facetsa and basis of elimination. aSee Table 10 for facets. bNumbering arbitrary, for identifica- tion only. cLogical semantic analysis as follows: Basis 1: an ”e" in facet 8 must be preceded and followed by equivalent elements, both "e" or "i" in facet A or "m" in facet C. Basis 2: a "c" in facet 0 cannot be preceded by an "e" in 8. Basis 3: a "c" in facet 0 cannot be followed by a "p" in E. Basis 4: a "p" in facet E cannot be preceded by a "b” in B. l()1 «has .e euro: uoa_>oe cutaneom _e_uom ue__aa< to; eu:u_«oc. .oeto_ ceSauaa o_:ou xu_ato>_c= eueam ceu_;o_x castes .u snow .se___aa._e .e... «_et« .aauue .aeu_ccec .o.o. «_et a : .taue _o>04 «_eth “we oc_>—o>c_ towed Axelee e 0;“ «u ease do u u< cacao o_c;uo to .eco_aec coon «as yo: me; saunas a: crutch oou=u_uu< ho co_uu .ocoetoa .vo_m_ooau. to» ue«:a_«uaso an ace .orooz .too: oats .o__o;oo—e .uc__a .ueoe no gas» cacao —e_oou to coerce ac< .co_uu:tum ac_os tea on; «_ an comuuatam pursue; to» x__:~ an coao_o>acu _Louto 05h .:o_uoatum .otoaua to «caucoo ou:«_uue succou a goaoagu a spouse —o>o— to co_ao:tum uc_oa euocev u sonatgu < museums .ecoutom uuo_~_uoam seam n_etoae4 use cuc_oo we e_ox_ec< wooed use to» oocoucom uc_aaez (IIm .o_u .ocootoa e>mu_ooa «x .uo_a_ooeu. nausea coco—e> e>_«eoec « quanne> Ax. .oc_aoo. ..oto_>ezoav .eu_ox;a A. co_u_ucou NH _o%coe=tuocw n_ eu_aoou n; A gene: go_; no o>_«u0ume ~_ t_o;« eo essence «a ooccutoae_ e:_ooe No «a «_ cu «veneer ;«_a a mo _o>o_ so «a _e>u ‘2. A0. \\ aco_ue_01 cacao staccoooao» :4 »__see one x3h co_«e_o_oo— a stem—o; .;a_eo;o» ..oe». ea accuser «geese—neon; co_uooauoam V demqo_maeomo No co_ueoa00tm» c. accuses a one so: oco_ue—OL cacao ares_ta m eue_u_ooae. ..eu_«o;uo g «a a«.etu «contend o r. a: 13.33.” oe_e .\ . .u. .m. .to_>egon $+wo «a round age «to>o .Ouo .eeo:o.»oaxe «corneas cu o_>IeIu_> «uduHuuumwu Na on; as; .Atacaoo as c. oo«:a_tuao Ax. «unqnam an. . a uu_»amwm chLuvec L05 8 A $0 ea «guano. 3a.; acooaoa eu_g3 to zoo—o «u ..x. goaotaa .u. .oaooou oo>.o>c. co_uoat- .atoauau ..m. gozotga .4. canoe» no>—o>c_ :o_uo=aao ac.oae .cautoa ace «across: as uo>po>ua .togao goes negro“ oou=«.auc ...u :3 ecu .oxou_n yo co_uo:taa o_aaaa¢— we. a«c_oq he a.oa_o:e «one» use to» conceacoo oc_aaux (IIa. _u ac_aoo o>_u_ooa we «.ate .eauoo «q .oro.>a;oa « .oacosaaaac. M. 2:23.... ._ Alll 2a: 253...:- «_. 2,203: m. null-line}; 3H. _ .2. .a. n n N :32... use to; seJ ...aeoe e ee.e . e..>_.ee-_ae_e_.aa e. route can as a. ooaeuoa N; co_aa:_e>o ea_oee «a o¢_>—e>c. «no a» c. a oc.oaog n» s ao_ «a ec.aeo:uo «a no «a toaoutc u a. damage... r :33 a... L .o. .a. ..oo». ea ocean.» a_o; a__e_ooau N noou a__eco_u¢toao «o ;«.a evacuees. u .g«_a. oaaaeoo outcasou « to_>ogoo .o. recon age as to.>agoa no.3: .;u¢_ ea oa«:a_ta«a «acreage I 0.0:: a on .ao .x. uneqasu use «use cue-.toaxo «a use to. o «a 4434553.. .0. «cameo «a .<. 103 .9383! H053” god»: no Rana lung-Hon 3.3.35” mecca-vacuum Em nomic 33.3de as: panda—such mo pain 0.3 canon—pack!— 5 3.330 annals-pa vacuuducoov .Hobon. a.“ 5:25.". macho» no non—32:62 m B. N ...wa .84 23 5 Ya. 30383-8... .qu $3333.80 0585 you 35331.: Hugging; and $3395 #35 .330." qunaoduunficnu: 0303»: no noun? Hobos-Han aoocuuobguum .UE Eacofiugomd 135.39 M floNvNoNnNu w cannon Hucouhom 2.. 93>...» unofiuoauovcwa a cocoahomuno. M NH adj—uni 57335093 : «oNuNoNan m mfiaoou Hanouuom ...... Anwfiaoourunoapogofim a ooaoduonufl M o.“ ,jalolwl 3333.309. 20.30.. 93.8 Huang. 3333005» .20an oonodhoauuo. 93an 3 A .n o o o nose. I l m HoN~H.NoHnN.~ : H333»; Haconua .... hiogonpos 2030335. E 3033 H m 3 Nana-«H03 Madam I .2333 3383 mars Euogonaofim Aunoflpuvoomxo unodpoahoucfl .223“ oocofluomxfl :0an m s a o o o msouwv ulna voafiuaoopm haddoavonuog A253» Hucomuom v2.8.3: uncapouuopnfl a obodaom 935m. o a a. a n o haanoaav anooaoonflnom 5330505 232493“ a obofiom M N N. a; o a n a Auosaa> vozoouomv Encapoauomhm oNvaoanNa m :oavasaubo H985 Haqouuom T. acouvogopcfl .nuofim obnfinom M : jlolnlml angina choouom 62.323 96.5 38302005 «coming-om a o>ofinom 303.8. m HnNoaaqnao F3: Huuodoom ...; #:0303333 0 v o n a 2536 33002024“. .205” oboflnom gonad « N n a o a. o N 96pm 625.33 3:533 3.3335005 «canton—Sm .nuonvm oboflnom w. n a o o n H M253» 96AM donwdnnq gasoduonpomhm HoHUHoHnfiq 9.09 v 9:333» Huuowoom ...... Sontag-pom .nuonpm oboflnom 205.0. 0 H a, a 232 ozumdhonon ovnoaovavm 1:03?“qu mo: N .3...“ oHCoum .7on u 5 .oz pooch 104 Attitude Content Areas of the Study In responding to the concerns and guidance of a number of black persons who served as consultants to our major study, particularly the suggestions from personnel of the Urban Adult Education Institute and the Foundation for Racial Equality: In Memory of Martin Luther King, Jr. in Detroit, some specific factors were included in the attitude content items. This is especially the case for such factors as law and order, political activism, and war and military service. For the most part, however, considerable attention was given to the issues brought to light by the comprehensive study included in the Repgrt of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (1968, pp. 143-144). The "Kerner Report" (as the Report is often called) became aware of a consistent hierarchy of grievances among blacks in fifteen major cities, four sub-urban communities, and from some 1200 individual interviews conducted following the series of violent disorders. The Kerner Report ranked "the deepest grievances" into the following three levels of rela- tive intensity: First Level of Intensity 1. Police practices 2. Unemployment and underemployment 3. Inadequate housing Second Level of Intensity 4. Inadequate education 5. Poor recreation facilities and programs 6. Ineffectiveness of the political structure and grievance mechanisms 105 Third Level of Intensity 7. Disrespectful white attitudes 8. Discriminatory administration of justice 9. Inadequacy of federal programs 10. Inadequacy of municipal services 11. Discriminatory consumer and credit practices 12. Inadequate welfare programs The amount of research currently being done on racial issues is overwhelming in its quantity. One of the central problems in considering such research was the attempt to distinguish between quality research materials which are apprOpriate for our study and those which were not. Many writings today appear to be compilations of essays, sermons, rhetoric, and personal Opinions which are of a different character than actual research. There is also a growing body of relevant research which is very helpful and useful for our purposes. Reference has been made to the work of Hadden (1969), Hasselden (1959, 1964), Allport (1951, 1950, 1960, and 1966), Berkowitz (1967), Stark and Glock (1968, 1969), Parsons and Clark (1965), Grimshaw (1969), Bray (1972), Jordan (1972), and many others. In considering all possible conditions which seemed relevant to our research projects, the team of researchers at Michigan State University (of which this study is only one Part) selected eight major attitude content areas with which 'to»do their comparative research. Without any significance 'tc>their relative order, these areas are: l. (C) Characteristics-Personal 2. (E) Education 3. (H) Housing 106 4. (J) Jobs 5. (L) Law and Order 6. (P) Political Activism—Racial 7. (W) War and Military 8. (G) General The total series of research projects,_therefore, has been, and is, concerned with two particular groups-- blacks and whites—-and how they think, believe, feel, and act toward each other's race in regard to the above eight content areas. This particular portion of the study, as it relates to the total series of projects, is specifically con- cerned with black and white ministers from some of the major denominational groups in the United States. For specific details see the section on Sample. In addition to the common queStionnaire used in each of the research projects, this project is also concerned with determinants of the racial attitudes of ministers. Therefore, a considerable amount of time and space were given to the factors which tend to be determinative or predictive of such attitudes. In addition to the reView of the attitude research literature, the Biblical—theological factors upon which ministers tend to place so much emphasis has been con- sidered in Chapter II. Many of the factors particular to ministers have been included in the demographic portion of the questionnaire and in the independent variables. In developing the questionnaire a six-level scale was constructed in accordance with Hordan's six-1eVel adaptation 107 (Table 11) of Guttman's original four-level paradigm for attitude item construction. Each of the eight attitude con- tent area scales from pages 105-106 contained the six levels of: (a) Societal Stereotype, (b) Societal Interactive Norm, (c) Personal Moral Evaluation, (d) Personal Hypothetical Be- havior, (e) Personal Feelings, and (f) Personal Action as in- 3 were constructed for dicated in Table 11. Fourteen items each of the eight major content areas, and each item was in- cluded in the six levels or sub-scales for each of the areas (i;g., each area contains 84 items). PreVious to the present series of research projects Hamersma (1969, p. 87) reported that attitude scales using the Guttman design for attitude scale construction included different content items in each of the sub—scales or six levels. Following Hamersma's lead, however, in this project each attitude item is repeated across all six levels or sub-scales with the items being altered to fit the structure of the six levels but with the content of the items remaining the same (Hamersma, 1969, p. 87). This procedure allows the item content (see Figures 3 and 4, facets F through K) to be held constant so that the attitude structure, or "joint struction" (see Tables 10 and 11), is assessed using the simplex as a measure. An example of the manner in which items have been written across all six levels, including the directions for each level, is seen in Figure 6 (Hamersma, p. 88). The 3See Figure 7 for the Specific items per content area. 108 Directions: Other Whites believe the following things about whites as compared to Negroes: Level 1 Item: Whites can be trusted with money (1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes) Directions: Other whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: Level 2 Item: For Whites to trust Negroes with money (1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved) Directions: In respect to Negroes, do you yourself be- lieve that it is usually right or wrong: Level 3 Item: To expect Whites to trust Negroes with money is (1. usually wrong 2. undecided 3. usually right) Directions: In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: Level 4 Item: Would you trust Negroes with money? (1. no 2. undecided 3. yes) Directions: How do you actually feel toward Negroes? Level 5 Item: When Negroes trust Whites with money I feel (1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good) Directions: Experiences or contacts with Negroes: Level 6 Item: I have trusted Negroes with money (1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes) Fig. 6--An actual example taken from the ABS-WN-C scale illus- trating the six-level structure and the directions for each level.3 3From Hamersma (1970, p. 88) Appendix A, item number 3 on scale 1 (31 on scale 2, 59 on scale 3, 87 on scale 4, 115 on scale 5, and 143 on scale 6) from the Personal Characteristics (C) scale area and is meant for a White respondent. 109 exanmde of test construction illustrated by Hamersma (Figure 6) has been taken from the (C) Characteristics-Personal scale used in the expanded research questionnaire. In the present study the complete series of questionnaires (1 through 8) was not used: rather, the (G) General Questionnaire (ABS: BW/WN-G) was used. The (G) General Questionnaire is a final composite questionnaire made up of certain specific "key" items within the first seven attitude content areas. See Figures 6 and 7 for a sample of the items used in the Composite (G) Scale. There are two principal reasons for using the Composite Scale: first, the lengthy volume of the complete questionnaire is extremely time consuming for the respondents to complete, and, hence, it seemed impossible to obtain the voluntary partici- pation of a sufficient number of ministers to provide an adequate sample. Second, certain specific items within the first seven (1 through 7) levels have indicated a sufficiently high degree of statistical significance of correlation with the total sub-scales that they adequately sample and represent the total sub-scale. These items have been carefully ex- tracted from the original seven scales and incorporated into the (G) General Scale for a more economical sampling measure. In describing the processes involved in the actual construc- tion of the (G) General or Composite Scale, Hamersma provided the specific details as follows: . . . To select the items to be included in the final composite scale, the criterion was established that each item had to have a high positive correlation (.50 or above) across all six levels for both groups and for the three categories with both groups. This criterion was quite stringent since each item would have 110 New Area and Scale Original Items fir Revised 3 No. No. General (G) Scale 1 C(3) --can be trusted with money 2 C(23) --families are closely knit 3 E(l) --intellectual ability 4 E(7) --desire a higher education 5 H(l9) --help their neighbors 6 H(27) --neighborhoods are safe 7 J(7) -—obey job rules and regulations 8 J(ll) --enjoy working with . . . 9 L(15) --resist arrest 10 L(27) --are the victims of "police brutality" 11 P(ll) --misuse trial-by-jury 12 P(15) --vote for . . . candidates for public office ‘ l3 W(ll) --desire draft deferments l4 W(l9) --are careful with their weapons Fig. 7.--Items for revised ABS: WN/BW-G.1 1G = a general overall measure composed of two items from each of the seven attitude scale areas. 2See Hamersma (1970) Appendix A for original scale and item numbers. 3Copyrighted by Hamersma and Jordan. Hamersma, 1970 111 to pass through 36 successive "sieves" to be con- sidered for inclusion in the final composite scale. For each of the seven attitude scale areas, four items from each group were selected and then matched with the items selected from the other group. From these items, two items per each of the seven attitude scale areas were selected for the final composite scale which then contained these 14 items across the six levels. 1When the criterion of .50 or above was applied to the item-to-total correlations approximately 25 per cent of the.items were below the desired level. When the criterion was lowered to .45 for the items selected approximately 20 per cent of the items were below this point and when .40 was used approximately 15 per cent of the correlations were below this level (1969, pp. 112-113). For the specific items selected to form the (G) Composite Scale, refer to Hamersma, 1969, pp. 133-114. One further contribution has been offered by Maierle (1969) which has to do with a better (more ideal) simplex pattern when the order of the scale level administration is randomly varied in its presentation. Prior to Maierle's report the data for the matrices had been given by adminis- trating the various level member sub-tests in the same order, i.e., all items of level one have been presented first, all items of level two presented second, and so forth. When Maierle randomly varied the order of scale presentation of a new Guttman facet type attitude scale to a large number of respondents, he found that a better (more perfect) simplex approximation was obtained when correlations were plotted according to theoretical relationships rather than according to a particular order of administration, thus lending further support to the theoretical assumptions involved in facet theory analysis. 112 Predictor Variables for Attitude Research The place of intuition in scientific research has a degree of validity. Intuitive insights have often given clues to what is truly significant for research, and many meaningful and helpful hypotheses have been founded on in- tuitive insight and curiosity. Facet theory analysis, how- ever, provides not only a more scientific but a more effec- tive instrument for selecting the variables in scientific research. For example, following the lead of Bastide and van den Berghe, Guttman, and Jordan, it has become more clear that there are four classes of variables that are significant determinants, correlates, and/or predictors in attitudinal research. That is, in attitudinal research we are not so nearly limited to intuitive insights or personal experiences before we can have relevant and significant leads to meaning- ful research. Following the lead of the researchers just cited, we have considerable basis upon which to consider the four variables related to attitude research: (a) demographic factors, such as age, sex, level of income, education, religion, etc.; (b) socio-psychological factors such as one's value orientation; (c) contact factors such as amount, nature, and enjoyment of the contact, and (d) the knowledge factor such as the amount of factual or experiential information one has about the object. 113 Demographic Variables The factor of age is reported by different researchers to have different effects on racial attitudes. Some studies have resulted with inconclusive and varying results (Weller, 1964: Brink and Harris, 1964: Brink and Harris, 1967; Campbell and Schuman, 1968). Carter and Mitchell (1955-1956) and Holtzman (1956), on the other hand found that with an increase in age, there was an increase in positive racial attitudes. Both of these results are different from studies done by Allport and Kramer (1946), by Mussen (1963), and by Harris (1969) who found that aging tends to be positively correlated with negative racial attitudes. The latter studies are in agreement with Hadden (1969) whose results are of particular interest to this study in that he found a clear-cut, definite relationship between age and racial attitudes among ministers. Hadden found that younger ministers tend to be far less prejudiced racially than older ministers (see Chapter II of this study). The variable of sex is unlikely to play a very important role in this research, inasmuch as nearly all the ministers studied are male. The results of research regarding racial attitudes among women has indicated more prejudice (Carter and Mitchell, 1955-1956), less prejudice (Allport and Kramer, 1946; Larson, et. al., 1964), and no difference in racial prejudice (Kelly, et. al., 1958; Weller, 1964). Need— less to say, such results are confusing as well as inconclusive. The results of Jordan's (1968) study indicated that, in general, 114 women were more inclined to help those in need than were men. Jordan's results seem to indicate some tendency in women to help those most in need, the oppressed, including victims of prejudice. Probably one of the most clearly significant vari- ables in regard to racial attitudes is that of level of education. Nearly all competent research indicates a nega- tive relationship between racial prejudice and higher levels of education. A long list of researchers could be included to support this relationship. Hadden (1969) has indicated that level of education among ministers is negatively related to prejudice. Holtzman (1956) found that the more advanced the college student was, the more he favored abolishing segregation. Thus, seniors were found to be more racially tolerant than were freshmen. Allport and Kramer's study (1946) indicated that college students are disposed to give less prejudiced responses than an unselected population. Harris (1969) stated it more succinctly as: "the more edu- cation one has, the less prejudiced he is." The same general principle appears to apply for blacks as for whites. Carter and Mitchell (1955-1956) found that as Negro pupils advanced in grade levels in school their attitudes toward whites became more positive. The educational level of parents is also important. The research of Allport and Kramer (1946) and Lombardi (1963) both indicate that the higher the parent's level of education, eSpecially college education, the lower the prejudice or more favorable were the attitudes of their children toward Negroes. TL 1451' 115 An additional factor of interest is that the major field of academic interest of college students was related to their intolerance of Negroes (Allport and Kramer, 1946; Stephenson, 1952; Holtzman, 1956; and Kelly, et. al., 1958). All the students studied tended to reveal similar results in- dicating that students majoring in fields such as business, pharmacy, and engineering were more intolerant than students majoring in the social sciences and humanities. 'ri It is anticipated that level of income will have a significant influence upon racial attitudes. Generally, level of education and level of social status have some loqical degree of positive correlation. More education tends to aid in efforts for higher income and social mobility; however, specific research on this particular factor is somewhat lacking. One factor, in addition to level of in- come, which may be involved is political affiliation. Fur- thermore, some persons who apparently have a need to protect their position in the status quo, may have attitudes nega- tively related to tolerance and acceptance. Harding and Hogrife (1952), for example, concluded that anxiety regarding loss of status may tend to help explain the tendency of a positive relationship between higher status and prejudicial attitudes. One case in point may be the traditional resist- ance of some labor unions not to permit Negroes among their memberships. Geographic area of the United States has long been assumed to be positively related to racial prejudice; although 116 many southerners claim that prejudice may be just as prevalent in the North but in less obvious forms. The geographic mobility of Americans may be breaking down the "Bible belt" type of prejudice which used to be so prevalent in the South. Nevertheless, basic differences are still apparent between different parts of the United States. The research by Hadden (1969)and the Kerner Report (1968), among others make it quite clear that there are still marked differences, at least in kind of verbalizations about prejudice, in different parts of the country. The simplistic approach in regard to geographic areas is probably passe, however, as pointed out by Harris (1969) in these words about outmoded stereotypes: These results point clearly to a new coalition on racial matters in the United States. An all-white opposition to nearly any effort in behalf of blacks exists among lower-middle income, older, and less well- educated whites, particularly those who live in small towns and rural areas. Significantly, the differences between the attitudes of this section of white society in the North and South have now all been wiped out (p. 48). Consequently, one must be cautious when considering sweeping generalizations regarding racial attitudes and geographic areas. Although research still tends to indicate a clearly defined negative attitude toward race in the South, more sophistication should be used in considering the various research methods, population samples, and variances within the studies before jumping to simplistic conclusions. Dell Orto (1970) reported a number of studies, particularly among college students, which confirmed that the South still tends to hold an unfavorable view toward Negroes; however, Waldo and Hadden (1969) have pointed out emphatically that with 117 particular reference to the Church and racial attitudes there is no single "mind" of the South. There are many different attitudes and opinions among both blacks and whites in the South. That is, it is no longer a "solid" South, but there are many variations of attitudes among residents in the South as well as in the North. Racial attitudes in urban/rural areas are not clear according to present research; neither do the results indi- cate what might be expected. For example, Holtzman (1965) found no differences in attitudes toward desegregation ex- pressed by students from rural and urban areas, yet Brink and Harris (1967) found that rural areas are more racially nega- tive than urban areas. Holtzman (1956) found an additional factor which may prove significant in that a relationship exists between intolerance of segregation and the prevalence of Negroes in the respondent's home region; iiiir the more Negroes, the less tolerance. Some research has indicated that school integration tends not to be a problem in the North until the Negro school population reaches more than 40%, and then the white students (and their families) begin withdrawing from the school district. A considerable amount of Space was given to the place of religion as an influence on racial attitudes in Chapter II of this study. Rokeach (1970) was of the opinion that religion had an extremely detrimental influence on the de- velopment of racial prejudice and bigotry in general. His earlier research (1960 and 1969) also emphasized that the an RV 118 more active a perSon is in church life, the more bigoted he tends to become. In a series of studies Stark and Glock (1968, 1969, 1971) and Glock and Stark (1966) tended to find the same positive relationship between church attendance and bigotry or prejudice. Hadden (1969) generally agreed that there is a positive relationship between church membership, active church attendance, and prejudice with some variations considered. The results of the research by Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) indicated that Baptists tended to be the most opposed to desegregation, followed by various other Protestant denominations, then Roman Catholics, then Jews, and finally persons expressing no religious convictions at all. In addition to the material offered in Chapter II of this study, the section of religious attitudes and values in Chapter III is also relevant to this variable. One of the most helpful concepts for understanding and useful for research is that presented by Allport (1950, 1951, 1958, and 1966) when he distinguished between extrinsic and intrinsic religion. The extrinsically religious person tends to "use" his religion in an external sense and in it tends also to be bigoted and prejudiced; the intrinsically religious person tends to "live" his religion and in so doing tends to be brotherly and considerate of all fellow human beings. An attempt will be made in this research to discover what differences exist between ministers of the various denominations in terms of racial prejudice and how much ulu «AH -.\I I H‘s "... 119 difference theological (conservative versus liberal) position makes. The 1ast demographic variable to be considered among ministers is the relationship between political party affiliation and race prejudice. As reported earlier, Hadden (1969) found a definite difference between political parties and prejudicial attitudes in the general public. Ministers have had some change effect on members of their congregations in that Opinions of active members moved in the direction of that of the minister; therefore, the minister's attitude is viewed as a significant factor in the consideration of atti- tude change. Socio-Psychological Variables As mentioned above, the religious value orientation is viewed as a significant variable; it is, moreover, viewed not merely as a demographic variable but also as a more dynamic, socio-psychological factor as well. Enough has already been said about it, but it is mentioned here for purposes of inclusion in this section. Three factors appear to be closely related to one another, and_yet their interrelationships are not yet clearly described. These factors are: change orientation, gpen/ closed mindedness, and efficacy. Change orientation was in- cluded in the Attitude Behavior Scale by Felty (1965). In his research he selected certain specific attitude areas as indicators of change orientation: i.e., attitudes toward: self-change, child rearing practices, birth control, automa- 120 tion, and political leadership change. Later items which were added to this category were: local governmental aid to education, federal aid to education, and who should be responsible for educational planning. In his study of open/closed belief systems, Rokeach (1960) found persons with relatively closed belief systems also to have a tendency toward highly structured systems, high rigidity, and resistance to change. In regard to closed mindedness, Rokeach (1960) tended to differ from Hadden (1969), Stark and Glock (1968), and especially the "Berkeley group" (Adorno, et. al., 1950) by demonstrating that authoritarianism, dogmatism, and closed mindedness were not merely limited to conservative or funda- mentalistic religious or political beliefs. Rokeach (1960) insisted that a distinction be made between structure and content in terms of open-closed belief systems. That is, closed mindedness appears to contain both factors: structure and content. With a form of closed personality structure a person tends to apply his closedness to most all forms of thinking: religious, political, educational, economic, SEE- Such a person would likely be the kind of person who would be labeled "dogmatic" or "authoritarian." With closed £227 tent a person may tend to be closed in the particular sense of closedness with reference to that particular subject area of his life, but he may have some other areas which tend to be more Open. Thus, Rokeach (1960) makes the point in his search for the open-closed personality dynamics which reach 121 beyond any particular historical, political, or cultural issue, that the structure of the personality in terms of open-closed belief systems is the key factor. That is to say, rather than having merely a "rightist" concept of dog- matism (i;g;, the type of person most likely to be preju- diced), it must be kept in mind that there may be authori- tarian or dogmatic liberals and middle-of-the roaders as well as conservatives. This can well be observed in any argument which includes dogmatic conservatives versus liberals; one is just as closed as the other to really hearing the other person or changing his point of view. As a measure of efficacy Erb (1969) reported on the "Life Situations" scale of Wolf (1967) which is a Guttman- type scale designed to measure man's feelings regarding his power to influence or change his environment. Wolf described the respondent's View of himself: The continuum underlying this scale ranged from a View that man is at the mercy of his environment and could only hope to secure some outside measure of adjustment to forces outside himself, to a view that man could gain complete mastery of his physical and social environ- ment and use it for his own purposes (1967, p. 113). In the Attitude Behavior Scale this variable was labeled "efficacy,” because the scale purports to measure man's attitudes toward his effectiveness in relationship to his natural world situation. In his use of this scale Hamersma (1969) found a positive relationship between the efficacy variable and favorable attitudes toward the Opposite racial group. Dell Orto (1970) pointed out that the study by Allport and Kramer (1946) found that those who were non- 122 efficacious tended to have a "jungle" philosophy of life-- viewing the world as basically evil and dangerous--and were generally more prejudiced. In an attempt to understand the place of values in the dynamics of attitude behavior, several authors have con— ducted definitive research (Allport, 1937, 1950, 1951; Rokeach, 1968; McGuire, 1969; Gordon, 1960, 1963). Each author takes a somewhat different view of the place of values. See pp. 69-75 for a fuller discussion regarding values. In this research values are more specifically defined as the importance Of religious values to the respondent. As such, values herein referred to fit the description of Rokeach (1968) where they are considered basic and foundational to a number of beliefs and attitudes. Contact Variables Dell Orto (1970) pointed out that there are two main points of view regarding contact and racial attitudes: either contact does affect attitudes, or it does not. He presented a further possibility, iagir that contact may affect the person cognitively but not affectively. Two further possi- bilities seem likely in terms of Egg they affect the person. First, that contact may, conversely, affect the person affectively but not cognitively; and second, contact may affect the person either positively or negatively. That is, the way in which contact influences racial attitudes is important; contact may have either positive or negative in- fluence and it may be either cognitive or affective. 123 In considering the subject of contact, it appears that at least three factors are operative: amount, in: tensity, and kig§_of contact. The amount of contact may merely be a condition of being in (or out) of contact with persons from other races over a period of time. Such a factor may, nevertheless, include many important experiences such as knowledge, personal awareness and experience, and the reso- lution of certain emotional responses. The effects of fre- quency of social contact on liking or disliking (satisfaction) were reviewed by Zetterberg (1963) and found to be dependent upon two variables: the cost of avoiding a particular con- tact, and the availability Of better alternative rewards. His conclusion was: "If the costs of avoiding interaction are low, and if there are available alternative sources of reward, (then) the more frequent the interaction, the greater the mutual liking" (Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13). The amount of contact is generally the one considered in this present research. It is assumed that some positive effects occur with contact per se. Guttman and Foa (1959), for example, have shown that intensity of attitude is related to the amount of social contact with the person. To some extent these experiences are described in other aspects of the study. Intensity of contact has been found to be significant by several investigators. Rosenberg (1960, p. 360) found the intensity component of an attitude to be an action predictor. Early and/or initial contact with strong attitude intensity 124 was found by Carlson (1956, p. 259) to result in more re- sistance to change than moderately held attitudes. Attitude intensity is also a critical factor in de- termining the "zero point" that differentiates the "true" positive from the "true" negative attitude direction (Jordan, 1968). Intensity is useful in predictability and in helping to locate the zero point when the area of content is scalable (Guttman and Suchman, 1947). The zero point aids in the elimination of question bias which is Often a problem in attitudinal studies (Foa, 1950; Guttman, 1954). The kind of contact has been found to be significant by a variety Of studies. Allport (1958, pp. 250-268), after examining a variety of different kinds of contact, stated that "equal status contact" created more favorable attitudes, especially when the contact was during the pursuit of a common goal (p. 267). The study by Kramer (1950) and commented on by Allport (1954) aptly illustrated that resi- dential contact often brings the most critical of all types of contact, because it contains a variety of "kinds" of con- tact within it. Factors of economics, sexual contact, fear of violence or children's involvements, and competition for prestige and power may all be included in residential contact. Jordan (1968) in commenting on the research done by Jacobson, Kumata, and Gullahorn (1960), compared research related to intergroup contact to be primarily an inter- cultural contact. In America, for example, it is likely to be an inter-cultural contact between two or more sub-cultures of the total population. Jacobson (1960) concluded that when 125 one group does not fully accept the other group as holding an equal status position, contact between persons of equal status, but from the different groups, is more likely to deve10p friction if their status is uncertain. A considerable amount of research regarding contact between different races has been reported during the past few years, and even more is in process. The work of Harding and Hogrife (1952) demonstrated that equal—status contact between blacks and whites had a positive effect in that it improved the willingness of whites to work with blacks; how- ever, this attitude was not carried over into social activi- ties. Lombardi (1963), on the other hand, found an insig- nificant relationship between contact and racial attitudes. Merton, West, and Jahoda (1949), Deutsch and Collins (1951), and Wilner, Walkly, and Cook (1952) found results of slight to moderate decreases in prejudice among persons living closely together in integrated housing. Allport's study on the Nature of Prejudice indicated, that in regard to resi- dential contact a game of "social checkers" has long been in progress. He declared: It can be illustrated by the North End of Boston. When the Irish immigrants moved in, the Yankees moved out; when the Jews moved in the Irish moved out; when the Italians moved in the Jews moved out. In other localities the sequence has been Anglo-Saxon, German, Russian, Jew, Negro. So long as frontiers were wide, suburbs uncrowded, and horizontal mobility easy, this gamgsgsnt on without attracting much attention (1958, The most serious conflict tends to occur at the points of residential contact, i.e., the residential bound- 126 aries of the segregated region. Focusing on this problem, B.M. Kramer (1950) found that the attitudes of white people vary with the immediacy of a Negro "invasion" of their resi- dential territory. Kramer (1950) marked off five zones at the southern edge of the "black belt" in Chicago: zone number 1 being the point of actual contact with the expanding Negro residential movement, zone number 5 being from two to three miles away. Table 13 indicates the closer the Negro move- ment, the more spontaneous were the expressions of (white) hostility. TABLE 13 Spontaneous Expressions of Anti-Negro Sentiment Among Respondents in the Five Zonesa Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Percentage Spontan- eously expressing anti-Negro sentiment 64% 43% 27% 14% 4% Total N 118 115 121 123 142 aFrom Kramer, 1950, p. 61. In commenting on Kramer's research (as illustrated in Tables 13 and 14) Allport offered this comment: Table 11 illustrates interesting trends in "social perceptions." In Zone 1, where residents encounter more Negroes, we find fewer complaints that they (Negroes) are personally and physically unclean or diseased. In Zone 5, where there is little knowledge-giving contact, this stereotype is more common. On the other hand, a more realistic problem comes to the fore in Zone 1. What will happen when the children play together? The probability of love affairs and mixed marriages is bound to increase. Granted the state of social Opinion today, such an eventuality is viewed quite realistically as fraught 127 with potential suffering for the children. In Zone 5 this issue is mentioned much less Often since white and Negro children in the region have not yet met (1954, pp. 257-258). TABLE 1 4 Percentage of Respondents Giving Indicated Reasons for Wanting to Exclude Negroes from Their Neighborhooda Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Negroes are personally unclean, diseased, smell bad, are physi- cally unpleasant to associate with 5 15 16 24 25 Don't want children associating with Negroes, fear social mixing and inter- marriage 22 l4 14 13 10 aFrom Allport, 1954, p. 258. The inverse ratio of the two tables is obvious. All- port (1954, p. 258) concluded from reviewing Kramer's study that "the approaching residential contact is viewed as a threat by the dominant group, but the nature Of the complaints and perceptions vary with the immediacy (or distance) of the threat." According to the research reported by Allport (1954) there appears to be a difference between anticipated or potentially threatened problems and actual problems that come with living together in integrated housing. For example, in one study where it seems certain that the white residents in an integrated housing unit and the white residents in a segregated housing unit had the same initial attitude toward 128 Negroes, a marked difference was found when they were asked how they felt about living in the same building with Negroes. Among those in the all-white unit, 75% said they would "dis- like the idea." Among those already living in an integrated unit only 25% indicated that they disliked the idea (Allport, 1954, p. 259). There appear to be several factors at work in the study Of attitudes which produce a variety of results. One which is being emphasized in this research is that many re— searchers are measuring what Guttman/Jordan consider to be different levels or facets of attitudes without recognizing the distinctions. Another is that a variety of measuring instruments are being used, iLEL, questionnaires, observa- tions, multidimensional techniques, 232: Another problem may be related to the matter that different kinds of atti- tude contents are being measured as well as the general attitude structures of authoritarian, dogmatic persons (Rokeach, 1960). Allport and Kramer (1946, 1954), and Cook and Seltiz (1955) have reported that the kind of contact is important in understanding attitudes. Carter and Mitchell (1955-56) found that the amount of contact was important, yet Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman (1958) found that the amount of social contact, per se, does not tend to determine positive racial attitudes but that it is more related to the factor of intensity. Quality of contact has been found to be an essen- tial factor in attitude change by Kelly, Ferson, and Holtzman 129 (1958), Cook and Seltiz (1955), and Allport and Kramer (1946). Williams (1970) found that the positive effect of contact was affirmed to some extent at almost every level of his research; however, statistical significance was indicated at only two of the six levels of the Attitude Behavior Scale: Black White/White Negro for Black and White police officers and Black and White church members (level 3: moral evalua- tion and level 6: personal action). One factor which may have influenced his limited results is the distinction Rokeach makes between structure and content in belief systems. Another may have been his assumption that stated membership in a strict, conservative church may have a limited effect on attitudes and actual behavior. Still another factor may have been variances within the police sample. Some research referred to by Williams (1970) has indicated a difference between stated attitudes and actual behavior. One last factor may be that the research of Hadden (1969), Stark and Glock (1968), and Rokeach (1960) all indi- cate that: (a) church membership is positively related to prejudice: (b) more active church membership, iifirl more "strict" and "conservative" behavior, tends to lead to more prejudice: and (c) the attitudes of the clergymen involved may have a significant effect on the results. In summarizing the factors related to attitude con- tact, Jordan (1968, p. 11) concluded: Frequent contact with a person or group is likEIy to produce more favorable attitudes if the contact is: 1. Between status equals in pursuit of common goals (Allport, 1958, p. 267). 130 2. Perceived as instrumental to the realization of a desired goal value (Rosenberg, 1960, p. 251). 3. With members of a higher status group (Allport, 1958, pp. 254, 261-262). 4. Among status equals and (when) the basis of status is questioned (Jacobson, et. al., 1960, p. 13). 5. Volitional (as interpreted from Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13). 6. Selected over other rewards (as interpreted from Zetterberg, 1963, p. 13). Knowledge Variables To determine what actually constitutes "knowledge" is a complex matter. Several assumptions are generally made, however. One is the level of academic education a person completes, especially at the college level. In the (earlier) section on demographic variables several factors were mentioned in regard to the level of education. Briefly, they are: (a) a negative relationship exists between prejudice and higher levels of education; (b) students in upper grades favor abolishing segregation in all school facilities; (c) the higher the level of education Of the parents (especially college education), the less prejudiced the children tend to be; (d) major academic interest is positively correlated with prejudice. But academic level is not the only factor involved in knowledge. Experience certainly has an important place in knowledge. Contact, as indicated in the immediately pre- ceding section is significant. Williams (1970) indicated 131 that the results of contact, such as "gain" or "enjoyment" are also significant. Allport and Kramer (1946) have indicated that the kind of experience affects knowledge of persons of other races. They found that equal-status contacts were particu- larly favorable to the reduction of prejudice. This is simi- lar to what Hadden (1969) meant when he said that everyone knows that the Church hasn't done "it"; baseball (and Jackie Robinson) has done "it," but not the Church. "It," of course, in this case means bringing about integration. Therefore, the conclusion of this writer is that knowledge is a multi-faceted factor in itself; although, in this study it is primarily measured in terms of level of education, degree of residential integration, and contact with equal-status peers. Sample of American Clergymen A random sample of fifty (50) black and fifty (50) white clergymen was sought from five major church groups in America; although the exact sample obtained varied with each group. The intent was to select black and white ministers from five denominations, but actually six denominations were required in order to provide for both black and white Pente- costal clergymen. No single Pentecostal denomination exists which meets the four criteria of our study; therefore, the two Pentecostal groups will function as a single denomination for the purposes of this study. When reference is, therefore, made to five denominational groups, such reference means the .‘A. v—_ 132 two Pentecostal groups are being considered as one functional unit. The Assemblies of God constituted the white Pente- costals, and the Church of God in Christ constituted the black Pentecostals. The religious denominations are divided into three general groups: Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Pentecostal. As mentioned earlier, an attempt was made to include Jewish rabbis in the study, but not enough (if any) black rabbis exist to meet the statistical design requirements. The religious bodies were selected on the criteria that: (a) the denomination be a national group that is not restricted to any particular geographic area of the United States; (b) the denomination include both black and white clergymen (the Pentecostals were an exception); (c) that the clergymen be regularly ordained and, therefore, recognized by their de- nomination as church leaders; (d) that a mailing list be made available from which we could select a random sample of at least fifty black and fifty white ministers to be used in this research. The fourth criteria (d), which seemed simple at first, turned out to be important in eliminating three intended denominations; although they included black clergy— men in their denominations, these men were no longer classi- fied as "black" in their directories or the denomination did not have an up-to-date mailing list of their black ministers. The denominational groups finally selected were: Roman Catholic Protestant 133 American Baptist Convention The EpiSCOpal Church The United Church of Christ Pentecostal (functioning as one group) Assemblies of God, General Council (whites) Church of God in Christ (blacks) Table 12 portrays the five denomination groups' extent of involvement in the research project. In accordance with criteria (c) for the same in Table 15, the level of education is somewhat standardized. That is, most denominations require four years of college plus at least three years of seminary for ordination. It should be kept in mind, however, that there is no generally accepted standard, including that set by the American Asso- ciation of Theological Schools, which is accepted by all denominations. Therefore, some variation is to be expected in level of education for the sample. TABLE 15 Sample Of Clergymen Participating in Racial Attitude Study Number of Clergymen Denomination Black White Total American Baptist Convention 31 53 84 Assemblies of God 47 Church of God in Christ 30 77 The Episcopal Church 29 38 67 The Roman Catholic Church 49 43 92 The United Church of Christ 29 41 70 Total Sample 168 222 390 134 One other variation is expected. Some denominations seem to have their largest populations in certain geographic areas of the United States. It is expected that this mem- bership concentration will show up in the sample of clergymen. Independent Variables In addition to the Attitude Behavior Scale: Black White/White Negro - General (ABS:BW/WN-G), each respondent completed a Personal Data Questionnaire. With the addition of the Personal Data Questionnaire, each respondent, there- fore, completed a total of eight (8) major attitude content areas. Seven (7) of these, of course, were included in the single composite General Questionnaire. Therefore, from the point of view of the respondent, he completed one, large questionnaire which contained two sections within it: (a) the Personal Data Questionnaire, and (b) the General Composite Questionnaire comprised of the other seven (7) attitude content areas. A total of 40 questions were included in the Personal Data Questionnaire. These questions provided the basis for the independent variables. They were designed according to the four classes of variables reviewed earlier: (a) demo- graphic, (b) socio-psychological, (c) contact, and (d) knowl- edge. Demographic From the review Of the literature it was found that a number of different demographic items tend to influence 135 racial attitudes. These independent conditions have been arranged according to the following nine items: Item Hypothesis Question Number Number Age H-2 Marital Status H-3 General religious group H-4 Church denomination H-5 Level of education completed H-6 Total family income H-7 Socio-economic level H-8 11 Geographic area H-9 39 Political party H-lO 12 Socio-Psychological The socio-psychological variable includes six items. Each of these items, however, is comprised of a large number Of questions. For example, in item number one (theological position) eighteen questions reveal some aspect of theological view or behavior. Hypothesis Question Item Number Number Theological position 5,10,15,17, (conservative/liberal) H-ll 18,19,20,21, 22,23,25,26, 27,28,29,33, 34,38 Change orientation H-12 8,13,14,15, l6,l7,18,l9, 20,21,22,23, 24,28,29,34, 38 Extrinsic/intrinsic religion H-13 8,9,27,28 136 Open/closed mindedness H-l4 8,10,13,14, 15,16,17,18, l9,20,21,22, 23,24,25,26, 28,29,33,34 38 Efficacy H-15 6,7,11 Values H-l6 8,9,10 Contact Seven items suggested by the review of literature have been included in the contact variable. They are arranged to the following schedule: Hypothesis Question lggm Number Number School experience H-17 6 Church experience H-18 30,31,32,33, 34,36,37 Residence H-l9 35,40 Personal experience H-20 30,36,37,40 Peers H-21 37,38 Work H-22 32,36,38 Income H-23 7 Socio-economic level ‘ H-24 8 Knowledge The knowledge variable included three factors which have been found to be related to racial attitudes. They are: Hypothesis Question Item Number Number Level of education H-25 6 Age H-26 2 Experience H-27 32,35,36,37, 40 137 Major Research Hypotheses The Simplex H-l: The ABS:BW/WN-G will form a simplex for each of the denominational groups of clergymen. Demographic Variables H-2: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the opposite race. H-3: Marital Status will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the opposite race according to the following pattern: single > married > widowed > separated > divorced. H-4: General religious group. Roman Catholics will be more positively related to favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race than Protestants who will be more positively related than Pentecostals. H-5: Ministers of the specific denominations will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the oppo- site race according to the following pattern: Episcopalians > United Church of Christ > Roman Catholics >~American Baptists > Assemblies of God > Church of God in Christ. H-6: Level of education completed will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race. H-7: Total family income will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race. H-8: Socio-economic level will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race. 138 H-9: Geographic area will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race according to the following pattern: Northeastern > Northern > Western > Mid-Western > Southwestern > Southern United States. H-10: Political party will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race according to the following pattern: "Other" parties > Non- Partisan > Democratic Party > Republican Party. Socio-Psychological Variables H-ll: A conservative theological_position will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. H-12: Change orientation. A high score on change orientation will be favorably related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. H-l3: Extrinsic/intrinsic religion. Intrinsic religion will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-l4: Open/closed mindedness. Open mindedness will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. H-15: Efficacy. Persons who score high in efficacy will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward persons of the opposite race. 139 H-16: Values. Persons who score high in values will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward persons of the opposite race. Contact Variables H-l7: School experience. Integrated school experi- ence will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-18: Church experience. Integrated church experi- ence will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. H-19: Residence. Integrated residential experience will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-20: Personal experience. A high score in personal contact will indicate a positive relationship to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-21: Peer relationships. A high score in peer contact will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-22: Work. A high score in integrated work experi- ence will be pOsitively related to favorable attitudes toward members Of the opposite race. H-23: Income. A higp level of income will be pggg: tively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. H-24: Socio-economic level will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. 140 Knowledge Variables H-25: Level of education. A higher level of edu- cation will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. H-26: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward persons of the Opposite race. H-27: Experience. Direct personal experience will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. Analysis Procedures The data were analyzed by the Control Data Computers (CDC 3600 and CDC 6500) at Michigan State University. The same design format was used as with the larger comprehensive study, Of which this study is a part, and thus these data become part Of the data for the comprehensive research project. Desc iptive Statistics Two Frequency Column Count programs (Clark, J., 1964) designated as FCC - I and FCC - II were used to compile the frequency distribution for every item and variable of the study. This procedure was useful as a final precaution to assure accuracy of data fed into the computers, correct in- valid punches, and gain a "clinical feel" for the data. Other types of descriptive statistics are provided through the first part of the MDSTAT program (Ruble and J. 141 Rafter, 1966). This program produced the N's, means, and standard deviations for all groups used in the study. Correlational Statistics In addition to the above procedures the CDC MDSTAT program (Ruble and Rafter, 1966) was used to process the vast amount of information in the study. Through it a great amount of data can be employed in a single analysis. Separate analyses can be done for the total group and for any number of sub-groups or partitionings of the data. Pearson Product Moment correlations were provided for all of the variables of the study. "Item-to-total" scores on each of the separate sub-scales or levels and "level-to-level" scores on the whole scale were provided. The "level-to-level" procedure is the simplex correlation structure which allows a check on how accurately the simplex is approximated. Partial and multiple correlations were obtained from the general multiple regression model used in the CDC program at MSU (Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966). An advantage in using partial correlation is that a number of variables which may be assumed to have a relationship to a criterion, or dependent variable, can be examined simultaneously. The con- tribution each variable makes to the criterion can be deter- mined as the effects of all but one are held constant. The multiple correlation program provided the follow- ing statistics: (a) the beta weights of all predictor variables, (b) a test of significance for each beta weight, (c) the partial correlations between each predictor and the 142 criterion, and (d) the multiple correlation between the criterion predictor and the combined predictor variables. Analysis of Variance Statistics The UNEQl routine (Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966b) was used to calculate the one-way analysis of variance statistics. This program provides for the management of unequal frequencies occurring in the various categories. A two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze groups with unequal n's (Ruble, Paulson, and Rafter, 1966). In such groups all F tests were based on coefficients repre- sented by the adjusted means. This procedure equalizes or accounts for the variance in the size of the group samples. Although differences between two means are usually tested by the 5 statistic, to facilitate computer programming the F statistic was used to test all mean differences. Edwards (1967) has indicated that the results are the same for two means using either test. Although a significant overall 3 leads to the re- jection of the experimental hypothesis, it does not indicate whether or not each mean is different from other means when three or more means are involved. Several methods have been prOposed for determining the nature of the differences between treatment means (Winer, 1962). The §_test for group comparisons is the usual one where the g test measures dif- ferences between "adjusted means" of "pairs of groups" and is equal to a two tailed 3 test while also accounting for the other experimental factor. The "adjusted mean" equalizes 143 or accounts for the variance in the size of group samples as well as other unequal factors distributed within samples. This procedure for testing the significance among multiple means approximates Duncan's Multiple Means Test (Edwards, 1965, Kramer, 1956, pp. 307-310) up to and including three treatment means. The procedure is somewhat more liberal than Duncan's when more than three means are included, how- ever, thus increasing the likelihood of Type I error. The procedure also fails to account for non-independence among the pair of treatment means. Simplex Approximation Test A procedure for testing a simplex approximation has been formulated by Kaiser (1962). His procedure performs two functions: (a) the "sorting" and rearranging of all possible arrangements of adjacent pairs of correlation co- efficients in order to generate the best empirically possible simplex approximation, and (b) the assignment of a descrip- tive statistic, Q2, to the original and rearranged matrices. The index, Q2, is a descriptive one with a range of 0.00 to 1.00. A computer program has been developed at MSU which (a) reorders the level of a semantic path, according to Kaiser's procedures, so as to generate the best possible empirical simplex approximation; and (b) to calculate 92 for the hypothesized (theoretical) ordering and for the empiri- cally best ordering of each matrix. 144 As yet there is no test of significance available to measure the values of the Q2 test. Hamersma (1969) deter- mined to accept no more than six order reversals in a 6 x 6 matrix in order for it to approximate a simplex. By this criterion he found a Q? value of .60 was minimal and that preferably a value of .70 should be used in order to consider a matrix as approximating a simplex. Therefore, since no test is available for the significance of Q2, statistical comparisons that involve significant levels will not be made across matrices--iigi, from simplex approximation to simplex approximation. The simplex approximation test (Kaiser, 1962) will be used to obtain data which will enable testing of the hypothesis that the Q2 of the theoretical ordering will approximate the g? of the empirically best ordering of levels Of the ABS:BW/WN-G. Level of Statistical Significance The level of significance for both the correlational and analysis of variance statistics in the present research was set at .05. Although the .05 level allows for more possibility of error in accepting spurrious results as statistically significant, it is nevertheless believed that the possibility of this danger is necessary at the present stage of theoretical development and that whatever results are uncovered may be further refined at a later date. 145 "Clinical" Sample of Laymen A small "clinical" sample of five laymen was taken from each of three churches. The purpose of this sample was to attempt to obtain a more in-depth assessment of a pastor's racial attitudes than his self-report. With the pastor's permission five active laymen were randomly selected from among the present membership of some major board in the church he served. A questionnaire, "Laymen's Perceptions of Their Pastor's Racial A-titudes," (Appendix B-3) was prepared which contained many questions parallel to those asked of the pastor. A tabulation was prepared from the answers of the laymen for each church. The tabulation was then compared with the parallel answers given by the pastor, and the degree of agreement was noted. The limited number of persons in this sample cannot demonstrate statistical validity or reliability, but the clinical approach, on the other hand, may be suggestive of a possible approach to document some of the data in the pastor's self-report of his racial attitudes. CHAPTER V ANALYSIS OF THE DATA As indicated in Chapter IV the data were analyzed by the Control Data Computers (CDC 3600 and CDC 6500) at Michi- gan State University. Descriptive statistics, partial and multiple correlations (Ruble and Rafter, 1966; Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966a), analysis of variance (Ruble, Kiel, and Rafter, 1966b), and the simplex approximation test (Kaiser, 1962) were Obtained from the data. The level of signifi- cance selected was P < .05. Majpr Research Hypotheses Guttman-Jordan Simplex Analysis H-l: The ABS:BW/WN-G will form a simplex for both black and white ministers. Hypothesis 1 deals with the simplex aspect of this study. An examination of Table 16 reveals that a simplex across the six levels was formed by the black ministers with a Q2 significance level of .84 for the original ordering and .85 for the best ordering. Q? must exceed .70 in order to be considered at the significant level (Maierle, 1969). The simplex for the white ministers also reached the significance level as indicated by Table 17. 146 147 TABLE 1 6 Simplex Structure for Black Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WN-G Original Ordering .07 oz = .84 .13 .34 .ll .24 .26 .10 .08 .17 .45 .12 .10 .02 .15 .12 l 2 3 4 5 Levels Best Ordering .13 Q2 = .85 .07 .34 .ll .26 .24 .10 .17 .08 .45 .12 .02 .10 .15 .12 l 2 3 4 5 Levels 148 TABLE 17 Simplex Structure for White Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WN-G Original Ordering .21 Q2 = .84 .03 .32 .04 .21 .60 .11 .10 .24 .46 .14 .07 .16 .27 .06 1 2 3 4 5 Levels Best Ordering .21 92 = .87 .11 .10 .04 .21 .46 .03 .32 .24 .60 .14 .07 .06 .27 .16 l 2 3 4 5 Levels 149 The simplex for both groups combined into a total group again exceeded the level required for significance of Q2 as indicated in Table 18. TABLE 1 8 Simplex Structure for Total Ministers As Measured on the ABS: BW/WN-G Original Ordering .33 Q2 = .76 .25 .18 .02 .18 .42 .02 .06 .22 .46 .23 .22 .04 .17 .04 l 2 3 4 5 6 Levels Best Ordering .23 92 = .92 .33 .22 .25 .04 .18 .02 .17 .18 .42 .02 .04 .06 .22 .46 l 2 3 4 5' 6 Levels 150 The data in Tables 16, 17, and 18 indicate that Hypothesis 1 is supported for each group of ministers and for the total group of ministers. Such results confirm the possibility of predicting the structure of attitudes, rela- tive strengths, and interactive relationships by facet theory analysis. Demographic Variables H-Z: Age will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the Opposite race. The results of the variable of age and its relation- ship to racial attitudes is portrayed in Table 19. TABLE 19 Correlations and Significance Levels Between Age and the ABS Levels Groups Level Blacks Whites Total r a r a r a l -.01 .10 .05 .48 .02 .75 2 .09 .24 .05 .43 .06 .22 3 .17 .03 -.10 .13 .02 .68 4 .22 .01 .01 .98 .12 .02 5 .16 .04 .21 .01 .18 .01 6 .08 .33 -.13 .05 -.06 .28 In general H-2 was not supported. Older ministers married > widowed > separated > divorced. The means for each group at each level are recorded in Table 20. The comparative rela- tionship in terms of strength of attitude are recorded in Table 21. F score and significance levels between compared groups are listed in Table 22. Finally, the comparison of the marital groups including the F scores and significance levels are given in Table 23. TABLE 20 Means of Marital Groups and Attitude Levels Groups Levels Single Married Widowed Separated Divorced l 26.41 24.69 25.75 26.00 26.00 2 30.26 31.56 32.50 31.00 33.40 3 35.92 37.35 37.75 32.00 37.60 4 37.89 38.44 38.13 42.00 41.00 5 38.15 37.74 37.75 40.00 37.60 6 42.90 41.10 38.88 54.00 43.00 153 TABLE 2 1 Relationship Between Marital Groups and Racial Attitudes Levels Group Number Group Number 1 l >* 4 = 5 >* 3 >* 2 S >* Sep = D >* w >* M 2 5 :> 3 > 2 :> 4 :> 1 D :> W > M :> Sep >’ S 3 3 >‘3 5 >*2 > 1 > 4 W >* D J‘M > S >Sep 4 4 > 5 > 2 :> 3 :> 1 Sep :> D > M :> W >> S 5 4 1> 1 > 3 I> 2 2> 5 Sep :> S > W :> M >> D 6 4 >' 5 > 1 >’ 2 >’ 3 Sep :> D > S 2> M :> W *P < .05 In Tables 21 and 22 the differences between the groups reach the significance levels primarily at levels one and three. There is a definite difference between how the different groups view the societal stereotype (l) of racial attitudes. Single ministers have the highest correlation with societal stereotypes, and there is a significant differ- ence between themselves and separated ministers who are the second highest. Next in order of agreement with society are separated and divorced ministers; although their scores are equal. Divorced ministers are higher correlated with society than are widowed, and widowed ministers are more highly correlated with society's stereotypes than married ministers. At level one it appears that the hypothesis is pgp supported. The only other level at which significant scores occur is at level 3, personal moral evaluation (see Tables 154 om. em.H hm. mm. Hm. mH.H mo. mH.~ mm. mm.H No. mm.m mus MH. hm.H Hm. mm. Hm. an. mo. mm.~ em. Hv.H mo. mm.m mum mm. mH.H hm. em. ow. mm. mo. MH.~ em. H¢.H No. mm.m sum NH. mm.H Hm. mm. mm. mm. mo. mm.m mm. m~.H mo. ov.m mum om. mm.H mm. mm. ov. mm. mo. «H.m mm. mv.H No. om.m sum NH. om.H Hm. mm. Hm. mH.H mo. Hm.m mm. hm.H mo. o¢.m mum HH. Ho.~ mm. om. mm. me. no. mm.m mm. mo.H mo. mm.m muH mm. vv.H mm. mm. me. mm. no. mm.m mm. N¢.H mo. mm.m euH SH. mm.H mm. om. Hm. om.H mo. mH.~ mm. OH.H Ho. mv.m muH he. mm. mm. mo. me. mm. as. me. Hm. mm. mm. mo. NuH o m o m o m a m o m a m _m mmsouw mo me>wH wosuwuus GOmHummEOU me>wH OOGMOHMHcmHm use whoom m an mGOmHHmmEOU macaw HmuHHmz NN mqmdfi 155 TABLE 2 3 Comparison of Marital Groups Including F Score and Significance Level Levels Groups Compared by Order of Favorable Attitudes 1 1 > 4 4 = 5 5 > 3 3 > 2 F/a 3.53 .02 1.0 .00 3.53 .02 3.40 .02 2 5 > 3 3 > 2 2 > 4 4 > 1 F/d 1.41 .24 1.37 .25 1.43 .23 1.42 .23 3 3 > 5 5 > 2 2 > 1 1 > 4 F/a 2.53 .05 2.53 .05 .42 .74 2.32 .07 4 4>5 5>2 2>3 3>l F/a 1.19 .31 .68 .58 1.19 .31 1.20 .31 5 .4 > 1 l > 3 3 > 2 2 > 5 F/a .26 .85 .30 .83 .32 .81 .32 .81 6 4 > 5 5 > 1 l > 2 2 > 3 F/a 1.54 .20 2.01 .11 .86 .47 1.96 .12 22 and 23). At this level the order is widowed, divorced, :married, and the difference between each of these groups is significant. These groups of ministers report being the most cmoncerned about the morality of racial attitudes. Even so, art the actual personal action level these groups do not act Imost favorably. The comparative order of most favorable action is separated, divorced, single, married, widowed. The hypothesis, therefore, is not supported. 156 H-4: In reference to the general religious groups, it is hypothesized that Roman Catholics will be more posi- tively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race than will be Protestants, and Protestants will be more favorably inclined than Pentecostals. In Table 24 the means for the three major groups can be seen. Table 25 indicates the relative F scores and significance levels. Table 26, finally, indicates the order of comparison of the groups with the significant differences cited. TABLE 24 Means of General Religious Groups and Racial Attitudes Groups Levels Catholics Protestants Pentecostals 26.58 24.40 26.05 30.42 31.45 31.88 36.02 37.26 37.00 38.02 38.56 38.14 38.28 37.69 37.96 42.53 41.97 40.18 157 TABLE 25 Comparison of General Religious Groups by F Score and Significance Levels Groups Compared with One Another Levels 1:2 1:3 2:3 F a F a F a 1 2.63 .07 9.35 .01 6.62 .01 2 .91 .40 .61 .55 1.65 .19 3 .52 .59 1.63 .20 1.28 .28 4 .24 .79 .67 .51 .65 .52 5 .40 .67 .88 .42 .36 .70 6 2.58 .08 1.07 .34 1.47 .23 TABLE 26 Comparison of General Religious Groups by Group Means Levels Group Order 1 Catholics >* Pentecostals >* Protestants 2 Pentecostals > Protestants > Catholics 3 Protestants > Pentecostals > Catholics 4 Protestants > Pentecostals > Catholics 5 Catholics > Pentecostals > Protestants 6 Catholics > Protestants > Pentecostals .05 158 Although the order of strength of attitudes is readily apparent, the only significant differences are found at the societal stereotypic level (1). Catholics rate society's attitudes more highly than the other groups do. Catholics are again most favorable in their own attitudes at the personal feeling level (5) and in actual personal action (6); although the attitude differences at levels 5 and 6 are not at the significant level. Protestants were most positive at the levels of moral evaluations (3) and hypothetical personal behavior (4); al- though not at the significant leVel. Moreover, they did not carry out their feelings or hypothetical behavior into actual situations. At the actual action leVel (6) the hypothesis indi- cated the comparative relationship: hOwever, the figures were not at the declared level of significance, and thus the hy- pothesis was not supported. HwS: Ministers of the specific denominations will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race according to the following pattern: Roman Catholics:> Episcopalians =»United Church of Christ > .American Baptists =tPentecostals. The means of the different denominations are given in Table 27. Table 28 presents the compara- tive groups in order of strength and with their Ineans. Table 28 goes on to give the camparative differences between the groups by F score. Table 29 reveals the sig- nificance level associated with each F score, and finally, 159 TABLE 27 Means of Denominational Groups at the Attitude Levels Groups Levels Bapt. Pent. Episc. R.C. U.C.C. 1 24.83 28.26 24.14 26.16 23.71 2 31.68 34.08 30.53 30.14 31.17 3 36.69 36.64 37.55 36.15 37.90 4 38.90 39.21 38.28 37.88 37.74 5 38.45 39.21 38.28 37.88 37.74 6 40.46 43.70 41.55 41.58 41.93 TABLE 28 Comparison of Denominational Groups and Attitude Levels Levels Denominational Groups 1 Pent. > R.C. Bapt. Episc. > U.C.C. 28.26 26.16 24.83 24.14 23.71 2 Pent. > Bapt. U.C.C. Episc > R.C. 34.08 31.68 31.17 30.53 30.14 3 U.C.C. > Episc. Bapt. Pent. > R.C. 37.90 37.55 36.69 36.64 36.15 4 Pent. > Bapt. Episc. R.C. > U.C.C. 39.21 38.90 38.28 37.88 37.74 5 Bapt. > R.C. Pent. Episc. > U.C.C. 38.45 38.23 38.03 37.31 37.09 6 Pent. > U.C.C. R.C. Episc. > Bapt. 43.70 41.93 41.58 41.35 40.46 160 TABLE 29 Comparison of Denominational Groups by F Scores and Significance Levels Groups Compared Levels 1:2 1:3 1:4 1:5 2:3 F a F a F a F a F a 1 5.69 .01 10.48 .01 9.45 .01 9.96 .01 4.09 .01 2 2.72 .04 3.62 .01 3.13 .03 3.97 .01 1.38 .25 3 2.05 .10 1.68 .17 1.88 .13 1.30 .27 1.79 .15 4 1.60 .19 1.40 .24 .88 .46 .78 .51 1.29 .28 5 1.81 .14 1.02 .38 1.86 .14 .60 .62 1.67 .17 6 6.77 .01 1.09 .35 1.05 .37 .92 .43 .79 .51 2:4 2:5 3:4 3:5 4:5 F a F a F a F a F a 1 8.79 .01 2.56 .05 8.11 .01 10.67 .01 6.77 .01 2 .42 .74 2.21 .09 4.01 .01 3.94 .01 3.68 .01 3 1.97 .12 1.54 .20 1.04 .38 2.00 .11 .44 .73 4 .86 .47 .77 .52 1.53 .20 1.47 .22 1.62 .18 5 1.87 .13 1.50 .21 1.30 .27 1.28 .28 .95 .42 6 .75 .53 .94 .42 1.30 .27 1.28 .28 1.28 .28 161 TABLE 30 Comparison of Denominational Groups by Attitude Levels Levels Denominational Groups 2 Pent ' >* Bapt. >* U.C.C. >* Episc. >* R.C. 3 U.C.C. > Episc. > Bapt. > Pent. > R.C. 4 Pent. > Bapt. > Episc. > R.C. > U.C.C. 5 Bapt. > R.C. > Pent. > Episc. > U.C.C. 6 Pent > U.C.C. > R.C. > Episc. > Bapt. * P <2 .05 Table 30 presents the order of attitudinal strength of each denominational group with an indication of the differences between them that are significant. From Table 29 only one difference that is significant is not included in Table 30. It is between groups 1 and 2 on level 6. These groups are at the opposite ends of the comparisons on their levels; and their difference, though significant, cannot be seen in Table 30. From Tables 27 to 30 a clear picture can be Obtained of the racial attitudes of different denominational groups. fiflue first thing that is clear is that they do not follow the predicted pattern, and thus the hypothesis is not supported. When it is considered by many that the societal norm (level 2) ix; generally a negative racial attitude, however, the 162 hypothesis is very near to predicting the actual circum- stances Of denominational attitudes. Although the rest of the figures do not reach the required level of significance, the pattern is nevertheless interesting and suggestive. Ministers of the United Church of Christ express the greatest moral concern about racial attitudes (3), but are lowest in expressing hypothetical behavior (4) and express the least favorable feelings (5) toward members of the Opposite race. Pentecostals who were hypothesized to have the least favorable attitudes, expressed the highest hypothetical behavior (4) and highest actual ace tion toward the opposite race. Baptists, on the other hand, who expressed the most favorable feelings (5) toward the Op- posite race, actually acted (6) the least favorable toward the other race. Roman Catholics did not express any par- ticularly comparative position or action toward the Opposite race as might be expected from other research. This may in- dicate some shift in direction of attitudes among the Catho— lic clergy. Two things should be kept in mind in interpreting this research. First, some of the comparative differences are very small (2139' the actual action level, 6, in Tables 25 and 26). Second, ppip_races are included in the reports ixi'these tables, so that the reader must not jump to the con- clusion that the results apply only to blacks or whites. It is difficult to Offer attempts at explanation for the patterns in the tables. At levels one and two, for 163 example, it could be argued that groups that are most estab- lishment oriented would tend to be most in agreement with (negative) societal stereotypes and norms. On the other hand, one explanation for the lack of significant differences at the other levels may very well be that there is con- siderable agreement among ministers regarding the morality and feelings as well as action in race relations, and thus the differences are not sufficient to reach the level of significance. H-6: Level of education will be positively related to favorable attitudes to members Of the Opposite race. The results of the research on this hypothesis are found in Table 31. The larger number of negative correlations at the 'societal levels (1 and 2) by ministers with a higher level of education tend to indicate that these men are not in agreement with the typical societal stereotypes and norms. Indeed, they tend to reject society's attitudes. Among higher educated black ministers all corre- lations except one (personal feeling, 5) are negative. This appears to be more than a chance difference; rather, it indicates a strong rejection toward the general (white) society, its attitudes, values, and modes of conduct. Higher educated blacks tend to perceive the world and social interactions with more understanding and less naiveté. Furthermore, they generally have not only the will but the ability and power to resist what they consider to be social wrongs and domination by the whites in our society. 164 TABLE 3 1 Level of Education and Attitude Levels Levels Groups Blacks Whites Total r a r a r a l -.05 .44 -.19 .01 -.18 .01 2 -.08 .33 -.10 .14 -.13 .01 3 -.07 .35 .08 .25 .04 .46 4 -.17 2.03 .22 .01 -.01 .95 5 .03 .71 .08 .22 .06 .22 6 -.18 .02 .24 .01 .01 .92 At levels four (hypothetical personal behavior) and six (actual personal behavior) the black and white groups reach significant correlations in the opposite directions. The more highly educated black ministers had negative responses to both hypothesized and actual behavior toward the Opposite race. While the more highly educated white ministers hypothesized and carried out more positive behavior toward the opposite race. The meaning of this data may lend itself to some variety of interpretations. In reference to the ‘white ministers a higher education may be harmonious with the (goals of integration, racial equality, and mutuality. With :reference to the black ministers higher education may make the nmnnimore aware of societal abuses and provide the men with a strong determination to resist social domination by the whites in our soc iety . 165 H-7: Total family income will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. The data in Table 32 indicate both positive and negative attitudes in ministers with a higher family income. In general the hypothesis is not supported. TABLE 3 2 Total Family Income and Racial Attitudes Levels Groups Blacks Whites Total r a r a r a 1 -.04 .61 -.14 .04 .01 .86 2 .12 .12 .12 .07 .15 .01 3 .04 .63 .12 .07 .05 .35 4 -.07 .57 .14 .04 .01 .81 5 —.17 .03 -.05 .51 -.11 .03 6 .01 .96 .15 .03 .13 .01 Black ministers with higher incomes express negative personal feelings (5) at a significant level. On the other hand, white ministers with a higher income have a signifi- cantly negative response to the societal stereotype, hence rejecting society's attitude. At the same time they report Jhypothesizing and carrying out actual positive behavior toward the Opposite race. H-8: Socioeconomic level will be negatively related to favorable attitudes toward the opposite race. Similar to leved.of income, but with broader meaning with regard to 166 family position, socioeconomic level is reported in Table 33. It is readily evident from the data that the hypothesis is not supported. The only significant correlation is that of the whites in hypothetical personal behavior (4) which may indicate an intention to favorable racial behavior but which is not put into action. TABLE 3 3 Socioeconomic Level and Racial Attitudes Levels Groups Blacks Whites - Total r a r a ' r a 1 .14 .07 -.08 .19 -.08 .10 2 -.08 .32 .10 .16 -.03 .61 3 -.06 .44 .06 .37 .04 .42 4 .01 .89 .16 .02 -.09 .10 5 -.08 .28 .02 .77 -.02 .68 6 .03 .68 .10 .13 .Ol .82 H-9: Geographic area will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race according to the following pattern: Northeastern > Northern > Western > Mid-Western > Southwestern > Southern United States. The means of the different geographic areas are shown in Table 34. From Table 34 a comparison can be made of relative position on each level. The differences are compared, and the F score and significance levels are given in Table 35. 167 The groups that differ at a significant level can therefore be determined. TABLE 3 4 Means of Geographic Areas Levels Group Means l 2 3 4 5 6 24.94 25.35 24.00 24.36 25.28 26.39 31.99 31.26 29.22 33.99 30.28 31.38 37.14 36.60 34.43 38.10 37.20 37.07 38.38 38.37 35.37 38.30 38.86 38.48 37.83 37.90 34.14 37.84 38.53 38.26 41.27 42.88 38.38 44.67 41.30 42.35 In Table 36 the comparative relationship of the various groups is shown by their identifying number and by a capitol letter. This summary table makes the comparison by groups readily apparent. From the table it can be seen that there is no significant difference between how the different geographic groups of ministers perceive societal stereotypes. The differences between how the groups perceive society inter- acting, however, is significant between every group. That is, it can be concluded that ministers in different parts of the country perceive normative social behavior (in their geographic area) toward persons of the opposite race to be significantly different. It is interesting and encouraging that ministers from different parts of the country express little difference between themselves regarding the morality 168 0H. hm.H Ho. oa.m Ho. mm.m mo. NH.N mo. mm.m mm. mm.H mum MH. Hm.H Ho. om.m Ho. mm.m CH. mm.H no. HN.N we. hm. one an. hm.H Ho. Hm.m Ho. NN.m OH. hm.H mm. vm.H NN. mv.H muv mm. NH.H mH. mm.H mm. mo.H mv. mm. mo. mm.~ 55. we. mum HN. mv.H mm. 0H. mm. mo. vb. ms. mo. mh.m Hm. HN.H mum mm. we. Ho. em.m 0H. mm.H mp. Hm. em. MH.H mH. mm.H «um mo. mo.~ Ho. om.m Ho. mN.m mo. no.m No. vm.~ 5N. om.H mum NH. mm.H Ho. om.m Ho. om.m mo. Ho.N mo. mu.N 5H. om.H mum oH. mm.H Ho. vm.m Ho. om.m MH. mb.H ho. om.N NN. vv.H «um «e. «m. so. mm.N mm. Hv.H mm. mm.H vo. mv.m mm. 0N.H mum 0H. mm.H Ho. vm.m Ho. mm.m ho. NH.N No. vm.m om. mm. ouH mo. NH.N Ho. Nm.m No. NH.m no. NH.N mH. mh.H mH. mm.H muH mm. mm.H Ho. vm.m Ho. om.m 0H. mm.H mo. mv.m mH. mm.H qu Hm. mv.H vH. N5.H Hm. mm. Hh. mm. NH. mm.H em. am.H muH MH. Hm.H Ho. vm.m Ho. om.m mo. mo.N mo. Nw.N mH. «m.H NuH a m o m o m o m o m o m m mHm>ma mosuHuua mmsouw Mo cOmHHmmEOO me>wH wOGMOHMHcon one mwuoom m pond OHnmmumowo mm HHm¢H 169 TABLE 3 6 Geographic Areas Compared by Group Means Levels Group Number Group Number 1 63> 23> 53> 13> 43> 3 77> S > DMN>' NE> 10>: SW 2 4>*1>*6>*2>*5>*3 N>*NE>*W>*S>*MW>*S 3 4> 5>1> 6> 2>3 N> MW> NE> W> S> SW 4 5>*6>*1>*3>"2>*4 MW>*W>*NE>*SW>" S>*N 5 5>*6>*2>*4>*1> 3 MW>*W>*S>*N>*NE> SW 6 4>’ 2>’ 6>' 5> 21> 13 11> S > W > Dfl3> NE1> SW’ *P < .05 of personal interracial behavior. A significant difference is expressed regarding hypothetical personal behavior between ministers of the Mid-West and West, West and Northeast, and the South and North. The contrast between hypothetical be- havior and moral evaluation may be a matter of reality orientation and honesty on the part of those reporting. At the point of personal feelings about behavior toward the Opposite race there is again a significant differ- ence between groups. Nevertheless, the feelings do not appear to be carried out into actual behavior. Furthermore, the relative strength of positive behavior does not follow the order of the feelings expressed. It is worthwhile to note the direction Of strength of positive attitudes. At no time do ministers from the South have the strongest positive attitude, yet only once are they 170 the lowest. That one is on perceived societal stereotype. In terms of actual positive behavior toward the Opposite race, however, ministers from the South indicate the second strongest positive behavior. Such action, along with their personal feelings, must surely put them into conflict with others in their geographic area. Considering the variety of responses and relative group positions, it must be concluded that the stated hypo- thesis is not supported. H-10: Political party will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward the opposite race according to the following pattern: "other" parties > Non-Partison > Demo- cratic Party > Republican Party. The means of the different parties at the various levels are given in Table 37. From TABLE 3 7 Means of Political Parties Level Political Parties Democratic Republican Non-Partisan Other 1 25.66 23.98 25.16 27.07 2 31.64 31.01 30.49 30.19 3 36.67 37.74 37.09 34.99 4 38.49 38.28 38.03 37.45 5 37.76 38.33 37.51 37.78 6 43.39 38.02 40.70 43.89 the means the comparative strengths of attitudes may be Observed. In Table 38 the various groups are compared with 171 TABLE 38 F Score and Significance Levels of Comparative Political Parties Level Political Party 1:2 1:3 1:4 2:3 2:4 3:4 1 F .88 4.83 4.64 3.85 2.94 4.32 a .42 .01 .01 .02 .05 .01 2 F .83 .28 .88 1.03 1.08 1.16 a .44 .76 .42 .36 .34 .32 3 F .88 2.21 1.80 2.05 .89 1.55 a .42 .ll .17 .13 .41 .21 4 F .42 .23 .22 .44 .33 .42 a .65 .79 .80 .65 .72 .66 5 F .27 .74 .83 .12 .75 .81 a .76 .48 .44 .88 .47 .44 6 F .82 11.87 14.78 12.57 12.12 14.04 a .44 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 one another, and the F scores and significance levels are given. Only two levels indicate differences at the required level of significance. Level 1, societal stereotype, and level 6, actual personal behavior both indicate significance between nearly every group. At the behavioral level the level of significance is extremely high indicating consider- able differences in behavior between persons in different political parties. In Table 39 political parties are compared with regard tx::re1ative positions of strength of favorable racial atti- tudes at the various levels. The significant differences between the different groups at levels 1 and 6 are in the direction of the stated hypothesis, but Democratic and 172 TABLE 39 Comparison of Positive Racial Attitude by Political Party Level Political Parties 1 Other >* Democratic >* Non-Partisan >* Republican 2 Democratic >Republican :>Non-Partisan >’Other to Republican > Non-Partisan > Democratic >~ Other 4 Democratic :> Republican Sr Non-Partisan >» Other 5 Republican > Other => Democratic a» Non-Partisan 6 Other >* Democratic >* Non-Partisan >* Republican *P < .05 Non-Partisan parties are in a reversed order. Therefore, the hypothesis was not supported. Democratic party members tend- ed to be most positive at level 2, societal interactive norm; and level 4, hypothetical personal behavior, indicated a stat- ed intent to act favorably. Republican members were most positive on personal moral evaluation, level 3, and personal feelings, level 5. The actual behavior of Republicans, how— ever, is least favorable of any political party which may in- dicate considerable internal conflict between their morality, feelings, and conduct. Socio-Psychological Variables H-ll: A conservative theological position will be 173 negatively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. A multiple correlation coefficient was run on the questions which contribute to a conservative theOlogical position (see p. 135), and the results were in- dicated in Table 40. Low R's indicate a weak relationship TABLE 40 TheOlogical Position and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .25* .36* .27* .ll .23* .14* .14 .27* .19* .33* .32* .13* .29* .15* .18* .19* .34* .24* *P 4 .03 between attitude scores and a liberal theological position. Fron1the table it is apparent that theological position is highly significant in reference to racial attitudes. Except for black ministers at only two levels, liberal ministers achieNed stronger relationships between attitude levels and 'theological position (Table 40). This finding is consistent ‘with.the research of Hadden (1969). The hypothesis is clearly supported . 174 Using a simple correlation coefficient (r) from variable 39, where the ministers merely stated their theo- logical position, a somewhat different picture was formed. In Table 41 the direction (positive or negative) of the cor- relations can be seen more easily than in Table 40 where a multiple correlation (R) was used. Table 41 indicates that TABLE 41 Statement of Theological Position and Direction of Relationshipa Regarding Racial Attitudes Level Simple Correlations (r) Blacks ‘ Whites ‘ Total r a r q r a, 1 .12(-) .12 .27(-) .01 .03 .59 2 .01 .92 .07(-) .30 .05 .36 3 .10(-) .20 .05 .44 .08(-) .13 4 .25(-) .01 .19 .01 .04(-) .40 5 .17(-) .03 .03 .71 .07(-) .16 6 .02(-) .83 .22 .01 .23 .01 aDirection of relationship (i.e., correlation) is indicated by a negative sign in parenthesis after the fig- ures that were negative. The positive correlations are not indicated. the attitudes of both black and white liberal ministers were negatively correlated with societal stereotypes; although blacks were not at a statistically significant level. On the other hand, at the hypothetical action level (4) liberal blacks 175 and whites had correlations in Opposite directions. Liberal whites had high correlations at the hypothetical action level (4), but liberal blacks had negative correlations at the hy- pothetical action level (4). This may be one example of the new black attitude toward whites. There was also a nega- tive correlation between theological position and attitudes at level 5 (feeling) for liberal blacks. At the actual per- sonal action level (6), however, liberal black ministers had neither a favorable nor unfavorable correlation. Liberal white ministers reported a higher positive correlation on personal action (6) than conservatives did. The data do not support Hypothesis ll. H-12: A high score on change orientation will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using eleven questions related to change orientation (see p. 135). The results are given in Table 42. From the table it can be seen that change orientation is a significant factor at every level in regard to favorable attitudes toward members ofthe opposite race. This finding is consistent with our exPectation and supports the hypothesis. Rigid, inflexible thinking which resists change would seem to prevent learning and adjustments to new situations. The results of Table 42 appear on the following page. 176 TABLE 42 Change Orientation and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites‘ ' ' Total 1 .27* .36* .36* 2 .28* .18* .19* 3 .29* .29* .19* 4 .32* .36* .16* 5 .29* .15* .17* 6 .22* .37* .27* *P < .03 H-13: Extrinsic/Intrinsic religion will be positive- ly related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opp- osite race. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using four questions as a measure of extrinsic/intrinsic religion (see p. 135). The results are found in Table 43 where it can be seen that an intrinsic type of religion (high scores) is very significantly related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. The results support the hypothesis, and this is consistent with the expectation that an authentic acceptance of the Christian religion would tend to help people to think and act in terms of world brotherhood and the unity of mankind. 177 TABLE 43 Extrinsic/Intrinsic Religion and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .18* .30* .23* 2 .21* .14* .09 3 .17* .09 .10* 4 .33* .23* .11* 5 .29* .16* .19* 6 .16* .23* .19* *P < .05 H-14: Open/Closed mindedness will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Op- posite race. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using twenty-one (21) variables related to open/closed mindedness (see p. 136). The results can be found in Table 44 where it is apparent that Open mindedness highly correlated with favorable racial attitudes. Open mind- ed ministers were more highly correlated with favorable attitudes toward the opposite race than closed minded minis- ters at every level of the scale. The hypothesis is clearly supported. 178 TABLE 4 4 Open/Closed Mindedness and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .33* .41* .41* 2 .36* .25* .27* 3 .31* .33* .23* 4 .47* .39* .28* 5 .39* .34* .31* 6 .30* .41* .32* *P<: .01 H-lS: High scores on efficacy will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opp- osite race. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated us- ing three questions as a measure of efficacy (see p. 136). The results on the efficacy variable are found in Table 45. The hypothesis is clearly supported by a positive correlation between ministers of both races who were high in efficacy and favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. At every level all groups were above the .05 level of significance. 179 TABLE 45 Efficacy and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .20* .24* .25* 2 .22* .20* .24* 3 .16* .14* .09* 4 .25* .18* .12* 5 .23* .13* .12* 6 .20* .23* .14* *P <: .05 H-l6: High scores on the importance of religious values will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. A multiple corre- lation (R) was calculated on three questions as a measure of the importance of religious values (see p. 136 ). The results may be found in Table 46. The importance of religious values and favorable racial attitudes provides a mixed picture. Black ministers had positive correlations between religious values and fav- orable attitudes at all levels, except at the actual per— sonal action level (6). White ministers had positive cor- 180 relations between religious values and for societal stereo- type (1), hypothetical action (4), and actual personal action (6). The results for the total group are not conclusive. TABLE 46 Religious Values and Racial Attitudes -; _—‘L Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites TOtal 1 .18* .22* .18* 2 .16* .10 .06 3 .17* .10 .06 4 .28* .14* .06 5 .25* .07 .15* 6 .13 .19* .07 *P < .05 The hypothesis is, therefore, only partially supported. This variable seems to indicate some of the inner conflict min- isters have regarding racial attitudes. Blacks' correlations are significant at every level except at the strongest and most crucial one -- personal action. Whites' correlations are significant at only three levels but do include actual personal action. The total group, Of course, reflects the discrepancies. An absence of a significant correlation on personal moral evaluation (3) for whites is somewhat sur- prising, inasmuch as it would be expected that it should be 181 especially high for those ministers who gave the highest values to their religion in their daily lives. Contact Variables H-l7: Integrated school experience will be positive- ly related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opp- osite race. The effect of a greater amount of integrated school experience at the grade school, high school, college and seminary levels was considered in this hypothesis. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using the four levels of education as the basis for integrated school experience. In Table 47 the correlation between integrated school exper- TABLE 47 Integrated School Experience and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total’ .16* .14* .14* .16* .14* .09 .06 .18* .07 .12 .21* .08 .08 .10 .07 .18* .21* .11* *P < .05 ience2and the minister's racial attitudes can be seen. 182 though the hypothesis was supported, it was not supported as conclusively as was expected. Black ministers with more integrated school experience had significant correlations only at the levels for societal stereotype (l), societal interactive norm (2), and actual personal action (6). White ministers had significant correlations at all levels except personal feelings (5). The total group reflects these varied scores. A close examination of the data revealed the unex- pected information that less than 50% of the black ministers had had an integrated school experience at any level of their education. H-18: Integrated church experience will be positive- ly related to favorable attitudes toward members of the op- posite race. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using seven questions as the basis ofr integrated church experience (see p. 136). The results of integrated church experience are found in Table 48, and it is encouraging to find that the correlations reach the required level of significance for each group at every level. The conclusion to be drawn is that integrated church experience is very significant in helping to deve10p positive racial attitudes. It must be stated at this point, however, that many ministers--both black and white--indicated that they had had no integrated church experience at all. 183 TABLE 48 Integrated Church Experience and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Totals .15* .26* .47* .20* .13* .28* .29* .25* .27* .23* .32* .20* .20* .22* .16* '.2o* .48* .46* *P <: .05 H-19: Integrated residential experience will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. In Table 49 the effect that living in an integrated neighborhood has on favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race is indicated. Although the table does not indicate significant correlations on every level, it is quite apparent from the levels indicated (especially actual personal action, the strongest) that integrated residential experience is an important factor in regard to favorable racial attitudes. 184 TABLE 49 Integrated Residential Experience and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .10 .15* .31* 2 .10 .ll .18* 3 .23* .16* .14* 4 .16* .26* .04 5 .04 .14* .06 6 .19* .38* .43* *P < .05 H—ZO: A high score in personal experience will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the Opposite race. A multiple correlation (R) was run using four questions for the variable on personal experience (see p. 136). The results as indicated in Table 50 reveal that personal experience with persons of the opposite race is very important in the development of favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. The required level of significance was reached for all groups on every level ex— cept hypothetical personal behavior (4) for the total group; yet both blacks and whites were significant at that level. 185 TABLE 50 Personal Experience and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total I .16* .20* .45* 2 .18* .14* .26* 3 .33* .21* .20* 4 .22* .28* .09 5 .16* .23* .17* 6 .26* .48* .48* *P < .05 H-Zl: A high score in peer relationships will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. A multiple correlation (R) was run using two questions on ministers who have more frequent and more valued peer relationships with ministers of the opposite race. The results can be found in Table 51, and they form a very interesting pattern. The only level at which blacks reach significance is hypothetical personal behavior (4). ‘Whites do not reach significance at the levels for societal stereotype (1) or societal interactive norm (2), which are the two weakest levels, but they do at all other levels. The tuytal group reaches the required level of significance on every'level. The hypothesis is largely supported. 186 TABLE 51 Peer Relationships and Racial Attitudes Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites Total 1 .04 .05 .42* 2 .04 .09 .24* 3 .13 .15* .20* 4 .22* .l7* .l7* 5 .12 .14* .14* 6 .07 .23* .33* *P < .05 H-22: A high score in integrated work experience will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. Besides working with other ministers of opposite races, many ministers work closely with church members and ecumenical church members in a variety of situ- ations. A multiple correlation (R) was calculated using three questions regarding integrated racial experience in the minister's work (see p. 136). Table 52 gives a clue as to how integrated work experience influences ministers. Once again there is limited positive correlation for black mini- sters with more integrated work experience and favorable racial attitudes. The only place where they reached the re- quired level of significance was personal moral evaluation (3). 187 TABLE 52 Integrated WOrk Experience and Racial Attitudes w Level Multiple Correlations (R) Blacks Whites L_Total l .12 .13* .32* 2 .14 .10 .21* 3 .23* .13* .12* 4 .ll .17* .06 5 .ll .17* .14* 6 .08 .37* .35* * P '<.05 This pattern of correlations suggests that those ministers believe that they ought to have favorable racial attitudes, but in fact they do not. There may very well be ample cause for such a score. Many black ministers have expressed con- cern that in mixed racial church work they are left out of any worthwhile or significant positions. Furthermore many black ministers resist merger with "white" denominations, because the black group is often absorbed into the white group and blacks are forced into subservient positions ‘while their denomination virtually ceases to exist. H-23: A high level of income will be negatively :related tofavorable attitudes toward members of the oppo- sitecrace. The correlation between level of income and 188 favorable racial attitudes is indicated in Table 53. Black ministers with a higher income had negative correlations at the level for personal feelings (5) but not at actual per— sonal action.(6). White ministers with higher incomes had negative correlations with the societal stereotype (l) and positive correlations at the levels for hypothetical personal behavior (4) and actual personal action (6). The total group of ministers reached levels of significance at the societal interactive norm (2), a negative correlation at the personal feelings level (5), and a positive correlation at the actual personal action level (6). The results were mixed, and the hypothesis was not supported. TABLE 5 3 Level of Income and Racial Attitudes Level Simple Correlations (r) Blacks Whites . Total r a r a r a l .04(—) .61 .l4(-) .04 .Ol .86 2 .12 .12 .12 .07 .15 .01 3 .04 .63 .12 .07 .05 .35 4 .07(-) .37 .14 .04 .01 .81 5 .l7(-) .03 .05(-) .51 .ll(-) .03 6 .01 .96 .15 .03 .13 .Ol 189 It may be that blacks with higher incomes are more able to cope with society, are more competitive with whites, and thus have more negative feelings toward them. Whites who have higherincomes may have greater feelings of indepen— dence from society's values and thus reject the stereotypes and have positive attitudes toward blacks. H—24: Socio-economic level will be negatively re- lated to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. From Table 54 it can be seen that only one attitude reached the leVel of significancerequired (white 4). Socio- economic level is not synonymous with level of income due to other sources of wealth and income in addition to salary. Nevertheless it was anticipated that there would be much TABLE 5 4 Socio-Economic Level and Racial Attitudes Level Simple Correlations (r) Blacks. Whites - Total I a r a r a l .14 .07 .09(-) .19 .08(-) .10 2 .08(-) .32 .10 .16 .03(~) .61 3 .06(-) .44 .06 .37 .04 .42 4 .01 .89 .16 .02 .90 .10 5 .08(-) .28 .02 .77 .02(-) .68 6 .03 .68 .10 .13 .01 .82 190 similarity between theSe two variables. The hypothesis is not supported. Hn25: A higher level of education will be positively related to favorable attitudes toward members of the opposite race. Although this factor is included here for purposes of illustrating thevalue ofgersonal contact, it is recorded earlier in the research in Table 31. Reference to Table 31 reveals that ministers with higher education had negative correlations at the 1eVels for societal stereotypes (l) and norms (2). Just exactly how this variable of higher educa— tional level, which indicates favorable attitudes, is in op- position to integrated school experience is not exactly known. Table 31 and H-6 represent only level of education, whereas Table 47 represents integrated school experience. In Table 47 the contact variable of personal knowledge as compared to academic knowledge appears to negate H—25; therefore the hypothesis is not supported. Laymen's Perceptions of Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes On page 145 mention was made of a "Clinical Sample of Laymen." The churches selected for the "clinical" sample were three American Baptist Churches. All three churches seem to be socially relevant and progressive. One is some- what conservative theologically; one has members with a wide Variety of theological positions; and one is quite liberal. theologically. The three churches were from central metro- POlitan, suburban metropolitan, and suburban locations. Two 191 of the churches were not integrated. The other church is moderately integrated with approximately one—third of its members black or of other non-white races, and most of its members tend to think of it as a well integrated church. The laymen in the sample were all adults, of both sexes, ranging in age from 22 to 67 years. Due to the small number of lay- men included in this sample (15) it is believed that the trends indicated herein would be even more significant when and if a larger sample were used; therefore, a lower level of probability of error (P < .08) is used to indicate a signifi- cant correlation. Only the totals for the three churches (three pastors and fifteen laymen) are reported here. The total number of significant correlations for the laymen's questionnaire reached 248; although some of the variables overlapped. Thus, even a cursory reporting of all the correlations indicated would be far beyond the scope of this thesis. For a complete listing of the significant correlations, refer to Appendix D. From the total list of correlations two listings are included here, because they offer a meaningful sample of the attitudes without extensive- ly listing the 248 variables. These listings are provided in 'Tables 55 and 56. Table 55 indicates positive or negative relationships for all variables with significance levels above P <:.08 on the six attitude levels. Table 56 lists the laymen's response to their pastors' attitudes according to a positive or negativecorrelation. In interpreting the meaning of the findings listed in 192 Table 55 it should be kept in mind that low correlations indicate a relationShip that expresses a conServative, tra- ditional, negatiVe type of value and that more liberal, open and more progressive attitudes receive a higher correlation. Thus, on the age variable, a young person who looked with favor on his pastor's conservative Views would register a high negative correlation, and an Older person who favored his pastor's liberal attitudes would register a positive correla- tion. Furthermore, it should be kept in mind that beyond the initial demographic questions regarding the layman's own per- sonal situation, the major emphasis of the queStions is in reference to their observations regarding their pastor's racial attitudes rather than their own exclusive attitudes. From Table 55, therefore, the following observations and conclusions may be drawn: Variable 2: Laymen who had been members of the church for a longer period of time had a positive correlation with their pastor on societal norm (2), personal feelings (5), and actual personal action (6). That is, they saw their pastor in agreement with societal norms, saw him expressing favorable personal feelings, and observed favorable personal action toward the Opposite race.V Variable 3: Older laymen had a positive correlation with their pastor on societal norm (2), hypothetical personal behavior (4), and a negative correlation on personal feelings (5). That is, they saw their pastor as having attitudes Similar to the norm and expressing negative personal feelings 193 TABLE 55 a Significance Levels and Direction of Relationship for Laymen's Perceptions of Pastor's Racial Attitudes Variable Levels No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 2 Yrs. Member .01 .01 .01 3 Age .02 .04 .01(-) 6 Educ. Level .08(-) .07 10 Ed. Integr. .Ol(-) .02 .02 .Ol(-) 11 Memb. Integr. .Ol(-) .02 .02 12 Bds. Integr. .O3(-) .01 .Ol(-) 14 Want Int. Staff .05(-) .04(-) .03 16 P. Speak on R. .08(-) .02(-) .08 17 P. Spk. on R/Pol. .01 .O3(-) .04(-) .01(-) .01 19 P. Theol. P05. .03(-) .08(-) 23 Like P's.R.View .05(-) .04(-) .03 25 Like P's. Ec.View .03 .01(-) .01(-) .01 29 P. Birth Control .06 .06(-) 31 Maint. Theol. .01 .03(-) .01 .01(-) 32 Maint. Worship .03 .01(-) .01(—) .01 34 Authority .01(-) .01 .02(-) 39 Racial Marr. .08(~) .08 54 Personal Contact .07 .07(-) .04(—) aDirection of the relationship (i.e., correlation) is indicated by a negative sign in parentheSis after the ones that were negative. The positive ones are not indicated. toward the opposite race, but they also saw him as expressing favorable hypothetical behavior. Variable 6: Educational level of the laymen result- ed in a negative correlation at the societal stereotype (l) and a positive correlation at the personal feeling (5) levels. That is, the laymen who had received a lower education tended to see their pastor as agreeing with societal stereotypes. 194 Laymen with a higher education saw him as having positive personal feelings toward the Opposite race. Variable 10: The questionnaire imprOperly reversed the direction for Integrated Board Members. The question was: ". . . is that (your) board racially integrated? a. Yes _____ b. No _____," Thus, the negative and positive order of the correlations are reversed. The corrected change (also corrected in Table 55) for integrated board members indicated negative correlations for societal norm (2) and actual personal action (6). They indicated positive correlations for moral concern (3) and personal feelings (5). That is, members Of non-integrated boards looked at their pastor as not agreeing with societal norms and not engaging in favorable actiontoward the Opposite race. Members Of in- tegrated boards saw their pastor as expressing his concern about the morality of race relations and expressing favorable personal feelings toward members of the opposite race. Variable 11: On the integrated church variable lay- men registered a negative correlation between their pastor's attitude and societal norms (2) and positive correlations with their pastor's favorable moral concern (3) and personal feelings (5). Variable 12: Laymen who served on integrated church boards had a positive correlation with their pastor's favor- able moral attitude (3) but negative correlations with the societal norm (1) and the pastor's actual favorable action (6) toward members Of the opposite race. 195 Variable l4: Laymen who would like a racially inte- grated ministerial staff serving their church presented a mixed attitude regarding their pastor. They had a negative correlation with their pastor's expressed hypothetical person- al behavior (4), but they had a positive correlation with his personal feelings (5) toward members of the Opposite race. Variable 16: The laymen's response to their pastor's speaking out in public regarding racial matters resulted in negative correlations for the moral (3) and hypothetical personal behavior (4) levels; however, there was a positive correlation with his expressing his personal feelings regard- ing (5) race. Variable 17: When the pastor spoke out regarding the Ipolitical issues involved in racial matters the laymen had loositive correlations at the societal stereotype (l) and per- ssonal feelings (5) levels but negative correlations at the ssocietal norm (2), moral concern (3), and hypothetical per- sonal behavior (4) levels. Variable 19: The laymen's responses to their under- Standing Oftheir pastor's theological position resulted in heagative correlations to his expressed attitudes at the so— C=ietal norm (2) and hypothetical personal behavior (4) levels. Variable 23: The laymen who most reported that they lillted their pastor's racial view had negative correlations <>site race according to stereotypic attitudes the laymen had positive responses toward them, but when the ministers e”(pressed hypothetical behavior or actually acted favorably 1’3- real situations the laymen looked on such attitudes with disfavor. From Table 56 several patterns are evident. The Agg veilC'iable indicates that for "older" laymen age correlated 198 positively with their pastor's favorable racial attitudes at the leVels for societal norm (2) and hypothetical behavior (4). Younger laymen had negative correlations with personal feelings toward the Opposite race, educational level, and on speaking out on race, racial politics, liberal theology, economics, and new forms Of worship. From the Amount of Education variable it can be seen that laymen with a lower amount of education Obtained nega- tive correlations with societal norms, age, conservative political viewpoint, perceived a lower economic class level for their pastor, and supported a more conservative view re- garding child guidance. Laymen with a higher amount of education had positive correlations with personal feelings; want an integrated church; progressiveness in religious and social action; new forms of worship; integrated churches, schools, housing; and non-authoritarian leadership. They also indicated that what our country needs is more than religious leaders, and classifying people into strong and weak categories. 199 TABLE 56 (1 of 2) Laymen's ReSponses to Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes* r (+) Variable r <') Age (3) Feeling Societal Norm Educ. Level Hypoth. Behavior P.Speak on Race P. Speak on Race/Pol. P's Theol. Position Like P's Econ. View Maintain Theology Maintain Worship Educa- Societal Norm Feeling tional Age P. Wants Integration Level (7) Political Party Like P's Re./Soc. Action P's Economic Level Maintain Worship P's Child Guid. View Authority Religious Leaders Weak/Strong Integrated Church Integrated Schools Integrated Housing ILike P's Societal Norm Feeling IRacial Hypothetical Behavior Age ‘View (23) Want Integrated Church P. Speak on R./Politics P. Wants Integration P. Political Party Like P's Econ. View Like P's Pol. View Interracial Marriage Integrated Church Integrated Schools Integrated Housing Equal Opp. Educ./Jobs Religious Leaders Push Opposition 200 TABLE 56 (2 of 2) Variable r (-) W V r (+) Want Integrated Church (15) Moral Hypothetical Age p. Speak on Race P's Theol. Position Societal Norm Hypothetical Behavior Age P. Set in Ways Integrated Church Neighborhood Race Leader (49) *P 4 .08 Want Integrated Staff Like P'sRacial View Like P's Econ. View Religious Leaders Follower/Leader Agree with P. on Race Feeling P. Speak on Race/Pol. Maintain Worship Church Traditions Follow/Initiate Integrated Church Integrated Schools Integrated Housing Push Opposition Personal Contact Like P's Econ. View Like P's Re./Soc. Action Maintain Theology Want Integrated Staff Want Integrated Church Like P's Race View Follower/Leader Agree on Race The category Want an Integrated Church had no negative correlations . It correlated positively with want integrated sstaff, like pastor's racial view, like pastor's economic \riew, what our country needs is more than religious leaders, 1:heir pastor is a leader more than a follower, and agree with Ipastor on race. 201 The category Want Their Pastor to Speak 09319“ Race had negative correlations with: moral eValuation, hypothetical personal behavior and age. It was positively correlated with: personal feeling, pastor speak out on racial politics, main— tain worship, church traditions, initiate more than follow behavior, integrated church, integrated schools, integrated housing, push Opposition to race, and personal contact. The category Pastor's Theological Position was nega- tively correlated with societal norm, hypothetical behavior, age, pastor is set in his ways, and integrated church neigh- borhood. It was positively correlated with: like pastor's economic view, like pastor's religious social action, and maintain theology. The category Race Leader had no negative correlations. It was positively correlated with want integrated staff, want integrated church, like pastor's racial View, the pastor as leader more than follower, and agree on race. The conclusions to be drawn from Tables 55 and 56 are Inany and varied. Certain patterns have become relatively clear, and they help in interpreting the various results. (One pattern that is very clear is that there are many nega- ‘tive correlations between generally conservative attitudes Vvithin the church and levels 2 (societal norm) and 4 (hypo— ‘thetical behavior). That is, from the laymen's view, con- Eservatism (in their pastor or elsewhere) tends to be anti— racial . There was a mixed reaction to societal stereotypes(l). 202 There appeared to be a strong concern regarding the moral is- sue and thepastor's place in Speaking out regarding it. Where thepastors did not speak out on the moral issue the laymen had negative reaponses; therefore, the moral issue is a vital issue as viewed by the laymen. The pastor's expression of favorable feelings toward members of the Opposite race was very much supported by the laymen, but when it came to their pastor actually dging something in terms of actual personal action, laymen gener- ally looked with disfavor upon it. This attitude of resist- ing actual personal action is more apparent in Table 55 where the six attitudinal levels are presented than in Table 56 'where it appears that certain laymen can be and are very sup- portive Of their pastor's progressive racial attitudes. Per- haps this is where the hope lies for the minister. In general, therefore, it appears that the minister (ministers from other denomination groups are assumed to have somewhat similar problems to Baptists) is caught in a ldouble bind by his laymen. They accept and want him to accept the societal racial stereotypes while they reject society's norms. They tend to emphasize the moral concern land hypothetical behavior expected of their pastors. Strong jpersonal feelings of a positive nature toward the Opposite :race seem to be expected and supported. When it comes to iactually doing anything about it, however, most laymen tend ‘to be against their pastor taking action. The exception to ‘the above is, of course, that a group Of laymen with concerns 203 and attitudes similar to those of their pastor may be very supportive of their pastor's favorable racial attitudes. The small group of supporters seems, therefore, essential before the pastor can have any hOpe of support and/or impact in his church. The inner group is vitally essential to the pastor. It is at this point where church members who have an intrin- sic, humanitarian religious experience may find an Oppor- tunity to express their religious faith in action. Apparent- ly such an inner group of like-minded church members needs to become a primary sociological group where they can share and shape each other's attitudes and support one another in their attempts at mission and ministry in the church and in society. 204 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS It has been the purpose of this thesis to explore the relationships of religion in general and clergymen in parti- cular and racial attitudes in America. In Chapters I and II considerable space was given to various religious factors which have contributed to racial attitudes and racial preju- dice. In addition to a number of previous studies concerning religion and race,sections were included on the Biblical- theological foundations for racial attitudes and the histori- cal practice Of theChurch. An effort was made to clarify to what extent a single religious attitude regarding race exists (or ever did exist) . . . even in thechurches Of the South. There is, in fact, a profound schism within the Church regarding racial atti- tudes. The division is to some extent an expression of a larger schism between literal fundamentalistic and progres- sive humanistic approaches and interpretations of the Chris- tian faith. Some of the results in the analysis of the data supported this general Observation; however, there were many ‘Variations from the anticipated results and many results ‘which indicated significance at only certain attitudinal levels. It was most helpful to consider Allport's contribu— ‘tion to the understanding of religion and race. His distinc— ‘tion between extrinsic and intrinsic religion is most helpful ‘Nhenconsidering the individual's priorities in the Christian 205 conflict between cultural and personal religion. When church membership is primarily a matter Of social class and caste the foundation is laid for religion to be associated with prejudice. It appears that further attention should be given to helping church members to develop an intrinsic type .of religion rather than a merely extrinsic religion. Obvious- 1y this is an ideal much easier to recommend than to accom— plish. It is the type of religion many ministers have wanted their members to have. Nevertheless, it seems almost mandatory that new emphasis, research, methods, and effort be given to the development of intrinsic religion if there is to be any progress against racial and other types Of bigotry in the church. Even so, it appears that religion and prejudice seem to be used by persons with certain personality structures or dynamics to maintain some semblance Of personality balance. They Often are associated and go together in the same person- ality, and religion probably is not, therefore, the causative factor which it has been accused of being by so many critics. Rather, it is used, as prejudice is used, by needy persons who are not able to be humanly united with all men as brothers. Some of the data in Chapter V is as was expected; some data seems contradictory and confusing; some data is discour- aging. For example, it is encouraging to find the theory that the black, white, and totalgroups of ministers all re- sulted in highly significant Q2 scores in H—l. It is confus- ing that Roman Catholics had the most favorable and Pentecos- tals the least favorable scores for the general religious 206 groups on level 6 in Table 26, but in Table 28 on level 6 where the different denominational groups were compared the Pentecostals scored the most favorable attitudes toward the opposite race. In Table 26 the scores were not at the re- quired significance level, but the direction still exists. More discouraging, however, is that integrated school experiences from grade school through graduate school indicat- ed only limited differences in regard to favorable attitudes toward the opposite race. This is below expectations and it is in contrast to some other research. One possible expla— nation maykn that for clergymen who generally favor improved human rights and conditions for everyone the differences may not have been great enough to give significant results. It is true, however, that greater significance was indicated on other variables. A considerable amount of data has been gen- erated by the research in this thesis, and a number Of subse- quent studiescnuld benefit from the informationcnntained herein. Integrated church experience, indicated several sig- nificant levels regarding favorable attitudes toward the Op- posite race. Just why integrated church experience seems more beneficial than school experience is not known. One explanation might be that clergymen are quite ego involved in the life of the church and thus have been most responsive to the experiences they have had within the church. One of the theOretical contributions apparent in the data is that attitudes can no longer be looked upon as single, 207 unitary factors. The significance leVel on the different attitudinal leVels varied on many of the hypotheses indicat— ing that different elements are operative within a single situation. The complexities are such that one hypothesis hardly seems sufficient for an attitude when the various levels are considered. Take the American Baptist ministers, for example. From Table 28 it can be seen that they occupy a different comparative position on each level. Although one hypothesis helps to set up the problem to allow for testing, comparison, and understanding, it is hardly suffi- cient to be confirmed or rejected. Thus, several of the hypotheses were partially supported, but not in the same manner at all levels. A new and different manner Of hypothe- sis formulation needs to be found that facilitates looking at the multidimensional nature of attitudes implied in the "six- level" approach. Ministers and Racial Attitudes In keeping with the research of Hadden (1969) and the comments Of Williams (1970) it is the conclusion of this re- search that, although their influence may be less than in previous years, ministers still have a very significant in- fluence on the attitudes of many people. It is more clear as a result of this study that very few ministers are strong leaders without the support of at least a small inner circle of laymen in their churches. That is, it is difficult to tell if the-ministers are leaders or followers of their inner Circle of laymen, but perhaps the distinction is unnecessary. 208 If leadership is considered as a matter of interpersonal in- fluence rather than the quality of a Single individual, then the minister's influence can be considered as a catalytic in- fluence which.is both giving and receiving with a small, or large, group of people; One thing is quite clear, however, every minister certainly must have the support of a group of laymen who are significant persons to him, or he cannot func- tion well or long in any church. Laymen have a significant role too! The Baptist minister in particular appears to be a person in much conflict regarding his racial attitudes. From Table 28 it can be seen that he is second in his hypothesized behavior and first in his feelings, but he is last in terms of actual personal action toward the Opposite race. When that is considered along with the results Of the laymen's questionnaire it can be seen that he is almost exactly where the laymen see him and want him. The only change they would add is that he might also moralize about it more. However, when he would try to actually d2_anything about positive mor- al Opinions, feelings, or hypothesized behavior, he would come into conflict with his laymen. Therefore, in the training Of ministers three factors ought to be considered. First, min- isters need to learn how far they can go, in terms of teach- ing, preaching, and doing the Gospel, before they come into conflict with their members. Second, they need to seek to develop a group of laymen with whom to work and interact who can share the leadership with them. It may eVen be that such 209 a group of laymen can be developed into the front line lead- ers for cutting through the difficult resistances which are certain to come against pastoral leadership. Third, an at- tempt should be made in the training of ministers to help them to become less dependent on and needy for the approval Of their laymen. Such a dependent need tends to make them easily manipulated by others. An unexpected part Of the response to the question- naires should be included here. It was surprising how many ministers took the extra time (even with a long questionnaire) to try to communicate their actual feelings regarding the questions. Dozens Of the questionnaires had comments written beside thecheck mark answers. Changes, differences, arguments, and ambiguities were all written in by the ministers. There seemed to be a conscientious attempt to communicate their real feelings besides merely filling out the questionnaire. Some were critical, such as, "Why a questionnaire such as this? So there is racism in the Church! So, what else is new?" There wereseveral comments that even our questionnaire itself was a demonstration of racism in the way it was worded. And one black minister I will never forget did not like merely filling in the answers in an anonymous manner. On several pages he wrote: "I want to be identified{ My name is Dennis Jackson." REFERENCES REFERENCES Abrahams, R.D. Positively black. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice- Hall, 1970. Academy of Religion and Mental Health and Metropolitan Applied Research Center, Inc., Joint Conference, April 29-30, 1970, New York, New York. Moderator: Stephen Graubard. Panelists: Matthew P. Dumont and James Turner. Racism and prejudice. Journal of Religion and Health, 1970, 9, 331-369. Adams, P.L., Schwab, J.J., & Apoute, J.F. Authoritarian parents and disturbed children. American Journal of Psychiatry, 1965, 121, 1162-1167. Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levenson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. The authoritarign personality. Pt. I. New York: Wiley, 1964. [c 1950]. (a) Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levenson, D.J., & Sanford, R.N. The authoritarian personality. Pt. II. New York: Wiley, 1964. iTCBI950]. (b) Ahmann, M. (Ed.) Race: Challenge to religion. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1963. Albright, L.E., Kirsch, A.D., Lawshe, C.H., & Remmers, H.H. A longitudinal comparison of student attitudes toward minorities. Journal Of Educational Psychology, 1956, 47, 372-379. Allport, G.W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clark University Press, 1935. Allport, G.W. The individual and his religion. New York: MacMillan, 1950. Allport, G.W. The nature of prejudice. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1954, 1958. Allport, G.W. Becoming. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1955. (a) Allport, G.W. Attitudes. In C. Murchison (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Worcester, Massachusetts: Clarki University Press, 1955. (b) 214 215 Allport, G.W. Pgrsonality and social encounter. Boston: Beacon Press, 1960. Allport, G.W. The religious context of prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 1966, 5(3), Allport, G.W. The person in psychology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1968. Allport, G.W., & Kramer, B.M. Some roots of prejudice. Journal of Psychology, 1946, 22, 9-39. Allport, G.W., Vernon, P., & Lindzey, G. A study of values (Rev. ed.). Cambridge: Houghton-Mifflin, 1951. Anastasi, A. Psychological testing. London: MacMillan, 1968. Anders, A.F., & Dayan, M. Variables related to child rearing attitudes among attendants in an institutional setting. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1967, 71, 848-851. Anderson, H.E. The effects of response sets in questionnaire studies. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 1965, 19, 348-350. Anderson, H.E., Jantzen, A.C., Shelton, M.J., & Dunteman, G.H. The effects of response sets in questionnaire studies. American_Occupational Therapy Association, 19657 19(b7, 348—350. Andersonfi‘L.R. Some personality correlates of strength Of belief and strength Of affect dimensions Of the summation theory Of attitude. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 25-38. Anderson, L.R., & Fishbein, M. Prediction Of attitude from the number, strength, and evaluative asPect of beliefs about the attitude Object: A comparison of summation and congruity theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2(3), 437-443. Atwood, J.H. The attitudes of Negro ministers of the major denominations toward racial division in American protestantism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University Of Chicago, 1930. Babbit, P.H. Appraisal of parental attitudes. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1964, 30(1), 20-21. 216 Banks, W.R. Changing attitudes towards the Negro in the United States: The primary causes. Journal of Negro Education, 1961, 30, 87-93. Bastide, R., & van den Berghe, P. Stereotypes, norms, and interracial behavior in Sao Paulo, Brazil. American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 689-694. Beach, W. A theological analysis of race relations. In P. Ramsey (Ed.), Faith and ethics: The theology of H. Richard Niebuhr. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1957. Beach, W. Ecclesiology and race. Union Seminary Quarterly Review, 1959, 14, 19-25. Becker, W.C., & Krug, R.S. Parental attitude research instrument: A research review. Child Development, 1965, 36, 329-365. Bem, D.J. Beliefs, attitudes, and human affairs. Belmont, California: Brooks Kole, 1970. Berkowitz, M., & Johnson, J.E. Social scientific studies of religion. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press, 1967. Bettelheim, B., & Janowitz, M. Dynamics of prejudice: A psychological and sociological study of veterans. New York: Harpers, 1950. Bloomhaum, M. The conditions underlying race riots as portrayed by multi-dimensional scalogram analysis: A reanalysis Of Lieberson and Silverman's data. American Sociological Review, 1968, 33(1), 76-91. Bogardus, E.S. Measuring social distances. Journal of Applied Sociology, 1925, 9, 299—308. Bogardus, E.S. Racial distance changes in the United States during the past thirty years. Sociology and Social Research, 1958, 48, 127-135. Bolles, M.M., Metzqer, H.F., & Pitts, M.W. Early home back- ground and personality adjustment. American Journal Of Orthopgychiatry, 1941, 20, 530—534. Brink, W.J., & Harris, L. The Negro revolution in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1964. Brink, W.J., & Harris, L. Black and white: A study Of U.S. racial attitudes today. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1967. 217 BrOphy, I.N. The luxury of anti-Negro prejudice. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1964, 9, 456-466. Burns, A. Color prejudice. London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd., 1948. The California F-scale. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed personality. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Campbell, A. Civil rights and the vote for president. P§ychology Today, 1968, 9, 26-31. Campbell, A., & Schuman, H. Racial attitudes in_fifteen American cities. Supplemental studies for the national advisory commission on civil disorders. Government Printing Office, June 1968. Campbell, A., & Schuman, H. Racial attitudes in fifteen American cities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969. Campbell, D.T. The generality Of social attitudes. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 1947. Campbell, D.T. The indirect assessment of social attitudes. Psychological Bulletin, 1950, 47, 15-38. Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. Experimental and qpasi- experimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1963. Campbell, E.Q. Scale and intensity analysis in the study of attitude change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962, 26, Campbell, E.Q., & Pettigrew, T.F. Christians in racial crisis: A study Of Little Rock's ministry. Washington, D.C.: Public Affairs Press, 1959. Carlson, E.R. Attitude change through modification of atti- tude structure. Journal Of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 52, 256-261. Carmichel, S. What we want. Witness, December 1967, 2(2), 11-19 0 Carter, C.A., & Mitchell, L.E. Attitudes of Negro pupils toward whites. Journal Of Human Relations, 1955-56, 4(3), 90-99. Cattell, R.B. (Ed.) Handbook of multivariate experimental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. 218 Cattell, R.B., Heist, A.B., Heist, P.A., & Stewart, R.G. The Objective measurement of dynamic traits. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1950, 10, 224-248. CBS News. White and Negro attitudes toward race related issues and activities. New York: CBS, 1968. Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. (Eds.) The authoritarian personality. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954. (a) Christie, R., & Jahoda, M. (Eds.) Studies in the sc0pe and method of the authoritarian personality. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press, 1954. (b) The church and the urban crisis. Witness, December, 1967, 2(2), 5-6. Clark, E.T. Children's perception of educable mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiengy, 1964, 68, 602-611. (a) Clark, E.T. Children's perception Of a Special class for educable mentally retarded children. Exceptional Children, 1964, 30, 289-295. (b) Clark, J. Manual of computer programs. Research services, Department of Communications, Michigan State University, 1964. Clark, K.B. Dark ghetto. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1965. Clark, K.B. Beyond the dilemma. Journal of Religion and Health, 1970, 9, 307-315. Clark, K.B., & Kreidt, P.H. An application Of Guttman's new scaling techniques to an attitude questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8, 215-223. Clark, R. Racism and human dignity. Journal of Religion and Health, 1970, 9, 316-322. Cline, V.B., & Richards, J.M. A factor analysis study of religious belief and behavior. igurngl of Personality and Social Psychology, 1956, 2, 569-578. Cone, J.H. Black theology and black power. New York: Seaburg Press, 1969. Cone, J.H. A black theology_9f liberation. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1970. (a7? 219 Cone, J.H. Black consciousness and the black church. Christianity and Crisis, 1970, 30, 244-250. (b) Conrad, R.L. Race and the institutional church. Concordia Theological Monthly, 1968, 39, 762-771. Cook, S.W., & Selltiz, C. Some factors which influence the attitudinal outcomes of personal contact. Inter- national Social Science Journal, 1955, 7, 51-58. Cook, S.W., & Selltiz, C. A multiple-indicator approach to attitude measurement. Psychological Bulletin, 1964, 62, 36-55. Cook, S.W., & Selltiz, C. A multiple-indicator approach to attitude measurement. In G.F. Summer (Ed.), Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Cooley, W.W., & Lohnes, P.R. Multivariate procedures for the behavioral sciences. New York: Wiley, 1962. Crano, W.D., & Schroder, H.Y. Complexity of attitude structure and processes of conflict reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 5, 110-114. Culverhouse, P. Black religion: Folk or Christian. Foundations, 1970, 13, 295-315. Daniels, R., & Kitano, H.H.L. American racism: Ex loration Of the nature of prejudice. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1970.. Davies, A.T. Law and morality in race relations. Christian Century, 1965, 82(41), 1256-1258. Davis, E.E. Attitude change: A review and bibliography of selected research. UNESCO, 19, 1964, whole issue. Davis, J.E. Teaching for attitude change on race. Journal of Human Relations, 1962, 1963, 11, 140-144. Dean, J.T. An analysis Of attitudes toward education, theological orientation, interpersonal values, and educational experiences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. De Blank, J. The biblical doctrine of race. In C.S. Hill and D. Mathews (Eds.), Race--a Christian gymposium. London: Victor Gollancz, 1968. Deed, M.L. Attitudes of four religious-oriented psycho- therapists. Pastoral Psychology, April 1969, 20, 39-44. 220 De Fleur, M., & Westie, F.R. Verbal attitudes and overt acts: An experiment on the salience of attitudes. Amerigan Sociological Review, December 1958, 23, 667-673. De Jonge, J.J., & Sim, F.M. Use of factor analysis programs for the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Laboratory for Social Science Research, Technical Report, 2, January 20, 1964. Dell Orto, A.E. Attitude-behaviors of rehabilitation counselor trainees toward racial differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Miami, Florida, September 1970. Dell Orto, A.E. A Guttman facet analysis Of rehabilitation counselor trainees racial attitudes. Paper presented at the annual meeting Of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans, March 1970. Deutsch, M., & Collins, M.E. Interracial housing: A psychological evaluation Of a social experiment. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1951. Deutsch, M., Katz, 1., & Jensen, A.R. (Eds.) Social class, race, and psychological development. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Digman, J.M. The dimensionality of social attitudes. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1962, 57, 433-444. Dotson, L. An empirical study Of attitude component theory. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1962, 26, 64-76. Dubin, S.S. Verbal attitude scores predicted from responses in a projective technique. Sociometry, 1940, 3, 24-28. DuBOis, P.H. An analysis of Guttman's simplex. Psycho- metrika, 1960’ 25’ 173-182. DuBOis, P.H. An introduction to psychological statistics. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Duijker, H.C.J. Methods and results: Comparative research in social science with special reference to attitude research. International Social Science Bulletin, 1955, 7(4), 555-566. Duijker, H.C.J., & Rokkan, S. Organizational aspects of cross-national social research. Journal of Social Issues, 1954, 10(4), 8-24. 221 Duncan, D.B. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, 1955, 11, 1-42. Duncan, D.B. Multiple range tests for correlated and heteroscedastic means. Biometrics, 1957, 13, 164-176. Editorial, The Nashville Banner, June 5, 1954. Editorial, The Nashville Tennessean, March 11, 1956. Edwards, A.L. Experimental design in psychologipal research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1950. Edwards, A.L. Techniques Of attitude scale cosstruction. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957. Edwards, A.L. Statistical methods for the behavior sciences. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1961. Edwards, A.L. Statistical methods. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1967. Elizur, D. Adapting to igpovation. Israel: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1970. Engel, G. Some college students' responses concerning Negroes Of differing religious background. Journal of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 275-283. Erb, D.L. Racial attitudes and empathy: A Guttman facet theory examination of their relationship and determi- nants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Erb, D.L. Attitudes of white college education seniors toward blacks. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans, March 1970. Eysenck, H.J. Personality and social attitudes. Journal of Social Psychology, 1961, 53, 243-248. Fager, C.E. White reflections on black_power. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967. Feldman, C.E., & Hass, W.A. Controls, conceptualization, and the interrelation between experimental and corre- lational research. American Psychologist, 1970, 25(7), 633-635. Felty, J.E. Attitudes toward physical disability in Costa Rica and their determinants: A pilot study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1965. 222 Fendrich, J.M. Perceived reference group support: Racial attitudes and overt behavior. American Socio- logical Review, 1967, 32, 960-970. Festinger, L., & Kelley, H.H. Changing attitudes through social contact. Ann Arbor: Research Center for Group Dynamics, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, September 1951. Fichter, J.H. American religion and the Negro. Daedalus, 1965, 94(4), 1085-1106. Fishbein, M. (Ed.) Readings in attitude theory and measure- ment. New York: Wiley, 1967. Fishbein, M., & Raven, B.H. The AB scales: An Operational definition Of belief and attitudes. Journal of Human Relations, 1962, 15, 35-42. Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. Attitudes and opinions. Annual Review Of Psychology, 1972, 23, 487-544. Fisher, R.A. The design Of experiments. New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1966. Foa, U.G. Scale and intensity analysis in Opinion research. International Journal Of Opinion and Attitude Research, ESQ, I, 192-208. Foa, U.G. The contiguity principle in the structure of inter- personal relations. gournal of Human Relations, August 1958, 4, 229-238. Foa, U.G. Convergences in the analysis of the structure Of interpersonal behavior. Psychological Review, 1961, 62(5), 341-353. Foa, U.G. A facet approach to the prediction of commonalities. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 220-226. Ford, R.N. Scaling experience by a multiple-response technique: A study Of white-Negro contacts. American Sociological Review, 1941, 6, 9-23. Forster, A., & Epstein, B.R. Report on the Ku Klux Klan. New York: Anti-DefamatiOn League of B'nai B'rith, n.d. Frazier, E.F. The Negro church in America. New York: Schocker Books, 1964. 223 Fréchette, E. Attitudes of Canadians and West Indian Negro immigrants toward each other: A Guttman facet theory examination of their relationships and determinants. Paper presented at the annual meeting Of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans, March 1970. Galfo, A.J., & Miller, E. Interpreting educationaliresearch. Dubuque, Iowa: Wm. C. Brown, 1970. [c 1965T Gardner, E.C. Biblical faith and social ethics. New York: Harper & Row, 1960. Gillespie, G.T. A Christian view of segregation. Winona, Mississippi: Association of Citizen's Councils, 1954. Gilmore, J.H., Jr. When lovegprevails: A pastor speaks to a church in crisis. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans PubliShing Co., 1971. Glock, C.Y., & Siegelman, E. (Eds.) Prejudice U.S.A. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, I969. Glock, C.Y., & Stark, R. Christian beliefs and anti- semitism. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Gordon, L.V. Manual for the survey of interpersonal values. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1960. Gordon, L.V. Research briefs in the survey of interpersonal values. Chicago: Science Research Associates, 1963. Gottlieb, K.R. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward mental retardation in Columbia: Content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Cough-Sanford Rigidity Scale, Appendix c. In M. Rokeach, The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Grant, F.C. The Gospel according to St. Mark: Introduction and exegesis. The interpreter's Bible. Vol. VII. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952. Graubard, S.R. Editorial, Daedalus, 1966, 95, i—vii. Green, E.F. Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Reading, Massachusetts: Addenn-Wesley, 1954. Green, E.F. A method of scalogram analysis using summary statistics. Psychometrika, 1956, 21, 79-88. 224 Grey, Sister M. Martin de Porres. The church, revolution and black Catholics. The Black Scholar, 1970, 2(4), 20-26. Grier, W.H., & Cobbs, P.M. Black rage. New York: Bantam Books, 1968. Grimshaw, A.D. (Ed.) Racial violence in the United States. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Guttmann, L. A basis for scaling qualitative data. American Sociological Review, 1944, 9, 139-150. Guttman, L. The Cornell technique for scale and intensity analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Summer 1947, 7(2), 247-279. Guttman, L. The basis for scalogram analysis. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. (a) Guttman, L. The problem of attitude and opinion measurement. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton UnIVersity Press, 1950. (b) Guttman, L. Relation Of scalogram analysis to other techniques. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton UniVersity Press, 1950. (CT Guttman, L. The principal components Of scalable attitudes. In P. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954. Guttman, L. An outline of some new methodology for social research. Public OpinionOuarterly, 1954-1955, 18(4), 395-404. Guttman, L. What lies ahead for factor analysis? Edggational and Psychological Measurement, 1958, 18(5), 497-515. Guttman, L. A structural theory for intergroup beliefs and action. American Sociological Review, June 1959, 24(3), 318-378. Guttman, L. The structuring of sociological spaces. Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, 1961, Technical note 3, contract AF 61(052)-121, U.S. Air Force. 225 Guttman, L. The non-metric breakthrough for the behavioral sciences. Paper presented at the Second National Conference on Data Processing, Rehovoth, Israel, January 1966. (a) Guttman, L. Order analysis of correlation matrices. In R.B. Cattell (Ed.), Handbook of multivariate experi- mental psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966. Yb) Guttman, L. The development Of nonmetric space analysis: A letter to Professor John Ross. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1967, 2, 71-82. Guttman, L., & Foa, U.G. Social contact and an intergroup attitude. Public OpinionOuarterly, Spring 1951, 51, 43-53. Guttman, L., & Schlesinger, I.M. Development of diagnostic and analytical ability tests through facet design and analysis. Research Project No. OE-4-21-014. The Israel Institute of Applied Social Research, Jerusalem, Israel, 1966. Guttman, L., & Suchman, E.A. Intensity and a zero point for attitude analysis. American Sociological Review, February 1947, 12(1), 57-67. Hadden, J.K. The gathering storm in the churches. Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1969. Hafterson, J.M. Multiple scalogram analysis. (MSA) on the CDC 3600. Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Technical Report 6, February 10, 1964. Hamersma, R.J. Construction of an attitude-behavior scale of Negroes and whites toward each other using Guttman facet design and analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harding, J., & Hogrefe, R. Attitudes of white department store employees toward Negro co-workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 18-28. Harding, V. Black power and the American Christ. In F.R. Barbour (Ed.), The black power revolt. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1968. Harrell, D.B., Jr. White sects and black men. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 1971. 226 Harrelson, L.E. A Guttman facet analysis of attitudes toward the mentally retarded in the Federal Republic of Germany: Content, structure, and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Harris, L. How whites feel about Negroes: A painful American dilemma. Newsweek, October 1963, 62, 44-50. Haselden, K. Eleven A.M. Sunday is our most segregated hour. The New York Times Magazine, August 1964, 9-27. Haselden, K. The racialpproblem in Christian perspective. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1959. Hastings, A. The theology of race. In C.S. Hill, & D. Mathews (Eds.), Race--a Christian sympgsium. London: Victor Gollancz, 1968. Heaten, W.H. Attitudes of Michigan clergymen toward mental retardation and toward education: Their nature and determinants. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1967. Henry, H., Jr. Toward a religion of revolution. The Black Scholar, December 1970, 2(4), 27-31. Heyer, R. (Ed.) Am I a racist? New York: Paulist Press and Association Press, 1969. Hill, C.S., & Mathews, D. (Eds.) Race--a Christian symposium. London: Victor Gollancz, 1968. Himelstein, P., & Moore, J.C. Racial attitudes and the action Of Negro- and White-background figures as factors in petition-signing. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 267-272. Holtzman, W.H. Attitudes of college men toward non-. segregation in Texas schools. Public Opinion Onarterly, 1956, 20, 559-569. Holtzman, W.M., Kelly, J.C., & Ferson, J.E. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 305-317. Hovland, C.I., & Sherif, M. Judgmental phenomena and scales of attitude measurement: Item displacement in Thurstone scales. Journal of Abnormal and Social PsychOlOgy, 1952, 477’882-893. 227 Hoyt, C.J. Test reliability estimated by analysis of variance. In W. Mehrens, & R. Ebel (Eds.), Principles of educational andpsyghclogical measure- ment. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967. Hunt, J.M. Environment, develOpment, and scholastic achievement. In M. Deutsch, I. Katz, & A.R. Jensen (Ed.), Social class, race, and psychological develop- ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968. Insko, C.A., & Robinson, J.E. Belief similarity versus race as determinants Of reactions to Negroes by southern white adolescents: A further test of Rokeach's theory. Journal of Personality and Social At Psychology, 1967, 7, 216-221. Jacobson, E. Methods used for producing comparable data in the OCSR seven-nation attitude study. Journal Of Social Issues, 1954, 10(4), 40-51. Jacobson, E., Kumata, H., & Gullahorn, J.E. Cross-cultural contributions to attitudinal research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24(2), 205-223. Jaffe, J. Attitudes and interpersonal contact: Relation- ships between contact with the mentally retarded and dimensions Of attitude. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1967, 14(5), 482-484: (a) Jaffe, J. What's in a name?--Attitudes toward disabled persons. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 1967, 45, 557-560. (b) Jahoda, M., & Warren, N. Attitudes. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966. Johnson, B. Ascetic protestantism and political preference. Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring 1962, 26, 35-46. Johnson, B. Theology and party preference among Protestant clergymen. American Sociological Review, April 1966, 31, 200-208. Johnson, S.E. The Gospel according to Matthew: Intro- duction and exegesis. The interpreter's Bible. Vol. 7. New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1952. Jones, L. Black churches in historical perspective. Christianity and Crisis, 1970, 30, 226-228. Jones, M.J. Black awareness: A theology of hope. Nashville: Abingdon, 1971. 228 Jones, R.M. The issues of power. Witness, December 1967, 2(2), 26-34. Jordan, J.E. Review of research on counseling and special services in Latin American education. Latin American Research Review, 1967, 3(1), 63-76. Jordan, J.E. Attitudes toward education and physically disabledppersons in eleven nations. East Lansing: Latin American Studies Center, MiEhigan State University, 1968. Jordan, J.E. Guttman facet design and development of a cross—cultural attitude toward mentally retarded persons scale. East Lansing: Michigan State Uni- versity, 1969, available from author. Jordan, J.E. A Guttman facet theory analysis of teacher attitudes towards the mentally retarded in Columbia British Honduras, and the United States. Indian Journal of Mental Retardation, 1970, 3, 1-20. (a) Jordan, J.E. Guttman facet theory and attitude research design. Paper presented at the 78th annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Miami, Florida, September 1970. (b) Jordan, J.E. Racial attitudes: A Guttman facet theory research design. A paper delivered at meeting no. 204 of the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans, March 1970. (0) Jordan, J.E. A facet theory research paradigm for attitude behaviors toward drug addiction dependency. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 1972. Jordan, J.E., & Friesen, E.W. Attitudes of rehabilitation personnel toward physically disabled persons in Columbia, Peru, and the United States. Journal Of Social Psychology, 1968, 74, 151-161. Kaiser, H.F. Scaling a simplex. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 155-162. Kaple, J. Construction Of an attitude-behavior toward illegal drug users scale. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 1972. Katz, D., Sarnoff, I., & McClintock, C. Ego-defense and attitude change. Journal of Human Relations, 1956, 229 Katz, D. The functional approach to the study Of attitudes. Public Opinion Onarterly, Summer 1960, 24, 163-204. Katz, D., & Allport, P.H. Students' attitudes. Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 1931. Katz, D., & Scotland, E. A preliminary statement to the theory of attitude structure and change. In S. Kock (Ed.), Psychology: A study of science. Vol. 3. Formulations of thepersonjand thesgcial context. New York: McGraw Hill, 1959, 423-475. Katz, I. Factors influencing Negro performance in the desegregated school. In M. Deutsch, I. Katz, & A.R. Jensen (Eds.), Social class, race, and psycho- logical develOpment. New York: Holt, Rinehard, & Winston, 1968. Kelly, J.G., Ferson, J.E., & Holtzman, W.H. The measurement of attitudes toward the Negro in the South. Journal of Social Psychology, 1958, 48, 305-317. Kelsey, G.D. Racism and the Christian understanding Of man. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1965. Kemp, C.G. Changes in values in relation to Open-closed systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. Kenworthy, A.L. Use of analysis of variance routines on the CDC 3600. ABS Program description 2, Computer Laboratory, Michigan State University, September 1963. Kerlinger, F.N. The attitude structure Of the individual. A Q-study of the educational attitudes of professors and laymen. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 1956, 53, 283-329. Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965. Kiel, D.F., & Ruble, W.L. Use of the core routine to calculate multiple regressions (least squares to fit arbitrary functionsi'on the CDC 3600. ABS PrOgram Description 4, Michigan State University, Computer Laboratory, September 1963. Kiesler, C.A., Collins, B.E., & Miller, N. Attitude change: A critical analysis of theoretical approaches. New York: Wiley, 1969. 230 King, M.L. Stride toward freedom. In M. Ahmann (Ed.), Race: Challenge to religion. Chicago: Regnery, 1963. Kitagawa, D. The pastor and the race issue. New York: The Seabury Press, 1965. Kluckholn, C. Values and value orientation in the theory of action. In T. Parsons, & E.A. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1951. Kluckholn, F.R. Dominant and variant value orientations. In C. Kluckholn, E.A. Murray, & D.M. Schneider (Eds.), Personality: In nature, society and culture. New York: Alfred A. KnOpf, 1953. Kluckholn, F.R., & Strodtbeck, F.L. Variations in value orientations. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1961. Knapp, R.R. An empirical investigation Of the concurrent and Observational validity Of an ipsative versus normative measure Of six interpersonal values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 65-73. Kogan, N., & Downey, J.E. Scaling norm conflicts in the area of prejudice discrimination. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1956, 53, 292-295. Komorita, S.S. Attitude content, intensity, and the neutral point on a Likert scale. Journal of Social Psychology, 1963, 61, 327-334. Korel, J. White racism: -Apsychohistory. New York: Vintage Books, 1970. Kramer, B.M. Residential contact as a determinant of atti- tudes toward Negroes. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard College Library, 1950. Kramer, C.Y. Extension Of multiple range tests to group means with unequal numbers of replications. Biometrics, September 1956, 12, 307-310. Krathwohl, B.R., Bloom, B.S., & Masis, B.B. A taxonomy of educational Objectives: Handbook II: The affective domain. New York: David McKay, 1964. Kretch, D., & Crutchfield, R.S. Theory and problems in social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948. Kretch, D., Crutchfield, R.S., & Ballachey, E.L. Individual in society. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. 231 Kuder, G.F., & Richardson, M.W. The theory of the estimation of test reliability. Psychometrika, September 1937, 2(3), 151-160. Kutner, B., Wilkins, C., & Yarrow, P.R. Verbal attitudes and overt behavior involving racial prejudice. Journal oprbnormal and Social Psychology, July 1952, 47, 649-652. Kutner, B., Wilkins, C., & Yarrow, P.R. Verbal attitudes and overt behavior involving racial prejudice. In G.F. Summers (Ed.), Attitude Measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. LaPiere, R.T. Attitudes versus actions. Social Forces, 1934, 13, 230-237. Larson, R.F., Ahrenholz, G.L., & Graziplene, L.R. Integration attitudes Of college students at the University of Alabama. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 327-332. Lazarsfeld, P. (Ed.) Mathematical thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1954. Lecky, R.S., & Wright, H.E. (Eds.) Black manifesto: Religion, racism, and reparations. New York: Sheed and Ward, 1969. Lehmann, I.J., Sinha, B.K., & Hartnett, R.T. Changes in attitudes and values associated with college attendance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1966, 57, 89-98. Leonard, J.T. Theology and race relations. Milwaukee: The Bruce Publishing Company, 1963. Lesser, G. Application of Guttman's scaling method to aggressive fantasy in childhood. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1958, 18, 543-552. Lessing, E.E., & Zagorin, S.W. Black power ideology and college students' attitudes toward their own and other racial groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 21(1), 61-73. Lewis, A. The economic profile Of the American black. Ocurnal of Religion and Health, October 1970, 9(4), 323-330. Lincoln, C.E. The Black Muslims in America. Boston: Beacon Press, 1961. u. _;M_-yfl—i ..._...—— . 232 Lincoln, C.E. Sounds of the struggle: Persons and perSpectives in civil rights. New York: Wm. Morrow, 1967. Lingoes, J.C. Multiple scalogram analysis: A generalization of Guttman's scale analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1960. Lingoes, J.C. Multiple scalogram analysis: A set theoretical model for analyzing dichotomous items. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1963, 23, Lingoes, J.C. An IBM-7090 program for Guttman-Lingoes multi- dimensional scalogram analysis-I. The University Of Michigan, 1965. Lingoes, J.C. An IBM-7090 program for the Guttman-Lingoes multidimensional scalogram analysis-I. Behavioral Sciences, 1966, 11, 76-78. (a) Lingoes, J.C. The multivariate analysis Of qualitative data. Paper presented at the Conference on Cluster Analysis Of Multivariate Data, New Orleans, December 1966. (b) Linn, L.S. Verbal attitudes and overt behavior: A study of racial discrimination. Social Forces, March 1965, 43, 353-364. Lipetz, M.E. Authoritarianism and the use Of information for the assessment Of attitudes. Journal of Social Lipset, S.M. The value patterns of democracy. American Sociological Review, 1963, 28(4), 515-531. Littell, F.H. Religion and race: The historical perSpective. In M. Ahmann (Ed.), Race: Challenge to religion. Chicago: Regnery, 1963. Loescher, E.S. The Protestant church and the Negro: A pattern of segregation. New York: Association Press, 1948. Loew, C.A. Acquisition of a hostile attitude and its rela- tionship to aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5, 335,341. Lombardi, D.N. Factors affecting changes in attitudes toward Negroes among high school students. Journal Of Negro Education, 1963, 32, 129-136. 233 Loomis, C.F. Social systems. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1960. Loth, D., & Fleming, H. Integration north and south. New York: The Fund for the Republic, 1956. Lynes, B.C. Black power in the black revolution. Witness, December 1967, 2(2), 3-4. Maclean, C.B. The effects Of workshop training on attitude- behaviors of physicians and nurses toward drug users: A Guttman facet analysis. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 1972. Magoon, J., & Cox, R. The principal component structure Of multiple Guttman scales. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, February 1968. Maierle, J.P. An application of Guttman facet analysis to attitude scale construction: A methodological study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1969. Maliver, E.L. Anti-Negro bias among Negro college students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 2,V770-775. Marney, C. Structures of prejudice. New York: Abingdon Press, 1961. Marshal, C.B., III. The black church--It's mission is liberation. The Black Scholar, December 1970, 2(4), 13-19 0 Mason, P. Christianity and race. New York: St. Martins Press, 1957. Maston, T.B. The Bible and race. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press, 1959. Mayer, C.S., & Pratt, K.W., Jr. A note on non-reSponse in a mail survey. Public OpinionOuarterly, 1967, 637- 646. Mays, B.E. Seeking to be Christian_in race relations. New York: Friendship Press, 1957. McGuire, W.J. The nature of attitudes and attitude change. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. Vol. 3. The individual in a social context. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison- Wesley, 1969. [c 1954] 234 Merton, R.K. Discrimination and the American creed. In R.M. MacIver (Ed.), Discrimination and National Welfare. New York: Harper, 1949. Merton, R.K. Social theory and socia1_structure. New York: The Free Press Of Glencoe, 1957. Merton, R.K., West, P.S., & Jahoda, M. Social fictions and social facts: The dynamics of race relations in Hilltown. New York: Columbia University of Applied Social Research, 1949. (Mimeographed.) Mitchell, H.H. Black power and the Christian church. Foundations, 1968, 11, 99-109. Mitchell, H.H. Black Christianity in the post-Christian era, U.S.A. Black Scholar, December 1970, 2(4), 43-49. Moellering, R.L. Christian conscience and Negro emancipation. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1965. Montagu, A. Statement on race. New York: Henry Schuman, 1951. Morris, J. Rank correlation coefficients. Technical Report NO. 40, Computer Institute for Social Science Research, Michigan State University, January 1967. Mosteller, F. Remarks on the method Of paired comparisons: I. The least squares solution assuming equal standard deviations and equal correlations. Psychometrika, March 1951, 16(1), 3-9. Mukherjee, B.N. Derivation of likelihood-ratio tests for Guttman quasi-simplex covariance structures. Psychometrika, March 1966, 31(1), 97-123. Mussen, P.H. The psychological development of the child. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1963. Myrdal, G. An American dilemma: The Negro problem and modern democracy. New York: Harper, 1944. 2 vols. National Committee of Negro Churchmen. Black power. Witness, December 1967, 2(2), 20-25. The Negro in America--what must be done. Special report. Newsweek, November 20, 1967. Nelson, H.A. Expressed and unexpressed prejudice against ethnic groups in a college community. Journal Of Negro Education, 1962, 31, 125-131. 235 Newcomb, T.M. Persistance and regression of changed atti- tudes: Long-range studies. Journal of Social Issues, 1963, 19(4), 3-14. Newcomb, T.M., Turner, R.B., & Converse, P.E. Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965. Nicholson, W.N. A comparative analysis of attitude- behaviors of heroin users and mental health therapists toward drug-users. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 1972. Nicholson, W.N. A Guttman facet analysis of attitude- behavior toward drug users by heroin addicts and mental health therapists. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1972. North, W.E., & Schmid, A. A comparison of three ways of phrasing Likert-type attitude items. Journal of Experimental Education, 1960-1961, 29,fi95-100. Oldham, J.H. Christianity and the race problem. London: Student Christian Movement, 1924. Osgood, C.E., & Tannenbaum, P.H. The principle of congruity in the prediction of attitude change. Psychological Review, 1955, 62, 42-55. Ostrom, T.M. The relationship between the affective, behavioral, and cognitive components Of attitude. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1969, 5, 12-30. Parsons, T., & Clark, K.B. The Negro American. Boston: Beacon Press, 1965. Photiades, J.D. The American business creed and denominational identification. Journal Of Social Forces, September 1965, 44(1), 92-100. POpe, L. The kingdom beyond caste. New York: Friendship Press, 1957. Powell, A.C. Black power in the church. The Black Scholar, December 1970, 2(4), 32-34. Price, K.O., Harburg, E., & Newcomb, M. Psychological balance in situations of negative interpersonal attitudes. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3' 265-2700 236 Proenza, L., & Strickland, B.R. A study of prejudice in Negro and White college students. Journal of Social Psychology, 1965, 67, 273-281. Proshansky, H., & Newton, P. The nature and meaning of Negro self-identity. In M. Deutsch, I. Katz, & A.R. Jensen (Eds.), Social class, race, and psychological develop: ment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968. Przeworski, A., & Teune, H. Equivalence in cross-national research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966-1967, 30(4), 551-568. ‘ Raab, e. (Ed.) American race relations todey. Garden City, New York: Doubleday Anchor, 1962. Rainwater, L. Crucible of identity: The Negro lower-class family. Daedalus, 1966, 95, 172-216. Ramsey, P. (Ed.) Faith and ethics: The_theology of H.R. Niebuhr. New York: Harper, 1957. Randel, W.P. The Ku Klux Klan: A century of infamy. Philadelphia: Chilton Books, 1965. Reimers, D.M. The race problem and Presbyterian union. Church History, 1962, 31, 203-215. Reimers, D.M. White Protestantism and the Negro. New York: Oxford University Press, 1965. Robaye, F., & Jordan, J.E. Relations entre attitudes connaissance directe et systeme des values. Revue de l'Institut de Sociologie, Brussels, Belgium, 1968, in press. ' Rokeach, M. Dogmatism and Opinionation in religion and politics. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (a) Rokeach, M. The measurement Of Open and closed systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (b) Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (c) Rokeach, M. The organization of belief-disbelief systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (d) Rokeach, M. Personality, ideology, and cognitive functioning. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (e) 237 Rokeach, M. Rotated factor loadings for dogmatism and related concepts. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. (f) Rokeach, M. The nature and meaning Of dogmatism. In E.P. Hollander, & R.G. Hunt (Eds.), Current perspectives in social psychology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1963. Rokeach, M. Attitude change and behavioral change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1966-1967, 30(4), 529-550. Rokeach, M. Beliefs, attitudes and values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1968. Rokeach, M. H. Paul Douglas lectures for 1969. I. Value systems in religion; II. Religious values and social compassion. Review Of Religious Research, Fall 1969, 11, 3-39. Rokeach, M. Faith, hOpe, and bigotry. Psychology Todsy, April 1970, 3(11), 33-37, 58. .Rokeach, M., & Restle, F. A fundamental distinction between open and closed systems. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The Open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. iRokeach, M., McGorney, W.C., & Denny, M.R. 'Dogmatic thinking versus rigid thinking: An experimental distinction. In M. Rokeach (Ed.), The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. :Rommetreit, R., & Isreal, J. Notes on the standardization Of experimental manipulations and measurements in cross- national research. Journal of Social Issues, 1954, 10(4), 61-68. :Root, R. Progress against prejudice. New York: Friendship Press, 1957. :Rosenberg, M.J. A structural theory Of attitude dynamics. Public Opinion Quarterly, 1960, 24(2), 319-340. :Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. Self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom: Teacher's expectations as unintended determinants of pupil's intellectual competence. In M. Deutsch, I. Katz, & A.R. Jensen (Eds.), Social class, race, and osychological develOpment. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968. :Ruble, W.L., & Rafter, M.E. Calculation of basic statistics when missing data is involved (the MDSTAT Routine). Statistics Series Description No. 6, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. 238 Ruble, W.L., Kiel, D.F., & Rafter, M.E. Calculations of least squares (regression) problems on the LS routine. Statistics Series Description NO. 7, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, 1966. (a) Ruble, W.L., Kiel, D.F., & Rafter, M.E. One-way analysis Of variance with unequal number of replications permitted (UNEQl Routine). Statistics Series Description NO. 13, Agriculture EXperiment Station, 1966. (b) Ruble, W.L.,_Paulson, S.J., & Rafter, M.E. Analysis of covariance and analysis of variance with unequal frequenciespermitted in cells-no interaction effect. (LS Routine,pTemporary). Statistics Series Descrip- tion NO. 115, Agriculture Experiment Station, Michigan State University, May 1966. Russell, J. God's lost cause: A study of the church and the racial problem. Valley Forge: Judson Press, 1969. Salley, C., & Behm, R. Your god is too wnite. Downers Grove, Illinois: Inter-Varsity Press, 1970. Sargent, C.J., Jr. Negro churches and the American Baptist Convention. Paper presented at the annual meeting Of the American Baptist Convention, May 1966. Scherer, J. Missionary go home. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Schneider, L. (Ed.) Religion, culture and society. New York: Wiley, 1964. Schuchter, A. Reparations. New York: J.B. Lippincott, 1970. Schwitzqebel, R.L. Behavior instrumentation and social technology. American Psychologist, 1970, 25(6), 491-499. Scott, W.A. Attitude measurement. In G. Lindzey, & E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of socialpsychology. Vol. 2. Research Methods. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison Wesley, 1968. (E 1954] Selltiz, C., Jahoda, M., Deutsch, M., & Cook, S.W. .Attitude scaling. In M. Jahoda, & N. Warren (Eds.), Attitudes. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1966. Shaw, M.E., & Wright, J.M. Scales for the measurement Of attitudes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 19671 239 Sherif, C.M., & Sherif, M. Attitude, ego-involvement, and change. New York: Wiley, 1966. Sherif, C.M., Sherif, M., & Nebergall, R.B. Attitude and attitude change, the social judgment-involvement approach. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1965. Silberman, C.E. Crisis in black and white. New York: Random House, 1964. Simpson, C.A. The book of Genesis: Exegesis. The inter- preter's Bible. Vol. I. New York: Abingdon- Cokesbury, 1952. Smith, M.B. Social psychology and human values. Chicago: Aldine, 1969. Spranger, E. Lebensform (types of men). P.J.W. Pigors, translator, New York: SteEhent, 1928. Stark, R., & Glock, C.Y. Religion and prejudice. University Of California Symposium, Patterns Of American Prejudice, March 24-26, 1968, Berkeley, California. University of California Press. Stark, R., & Glock, C.Y. Prejudice and the churches. In C.Y. Glock, & E. Siegelman (Eds.), Prejudice U.S.A. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1969. Start, R., Foster, D.F., Glock, C.Y., & Quinley, H.E. Wayward shepherds: Prejudice and theProtestant clergy. New York: Harper 8 Row, 1971. Steckler, G. Authoritarian ideology in Negro college students. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 1957, 54, 396-399. Stephenson, C.M. The relation between attitudes toward Negroes of white college students and the college or school in which they are registered. Journal of Social Psychology, 1952, 36, 197-204. Stephenson, W. The study Of behavior: Q-teChnique and its methodology. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1953. :Stouffer, S.A. (Ed.) Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. £3touffer, S.A. Communism, conformity and civil liberties. Garden City: Doubleday, 1955. 240 Suchman, E.A. The intensity component in attitude and Opinion research. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measure- ment and prediction. Princeton: Princeton Uni- versity Press, 19 O. (a) Suchman, E.A. The scalogram board technique for scale analysis. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and rediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. (b) - Suchman, E.A. The utility of scalogram analysis. In S.A. Stouffer (Ed.), Measurement and prediction. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. (c) Suchman, E.A. An analysis of bias in survey research. Public Opinion_Quarterly, 1962, 24, 102-111. Suchman, E.A. The comparative method in social research. Rural Sociology, June 1964, 29(2), 123-137. Suchman, E.A., & Guttman, L. A solution to the problem of question bias. Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1947, 11, 445-455. Summers, G.F. (Ed.) Attitude measurement. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970. Taylor, D.A. The relationship between authoritarianism and ethnocentrism in Negro college students. Journal of Negro Education, 1962, 31, 455-459. Taylor, J. What do attitude scales measure, the problem Of social desirability. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 386-390. 'Tillich, P. Love,4power, and justice. New York: Oxford University Press, 1954. 'Tillman, J.A. The nature and function of racism: A general hypothesis. Journal of Human Relations, 1963-1964, 12, 50-59. 'Filson, E. Segregation and the Bible. New York: Abingdon Press, 1958. (Tittle, C.R., & Hill, R.J. Attitude measurement and pre- diction of behavior: An evaluation of conditions and measurement techniques. Sociometry, 1967, 30, 'roynbee, A. A study of history. (2nd ed.) Vol. 1. London: Oxford Union Press, 1935. 241 Triandis, H.C. Attitude and attitude change. New York: Wiley, 1971. Troeltsch, E. The social teaching of the Christian churches. Vol. I. New York: Macmillan, 1931. UNESCO. Statement on race and racial prejudice. UNESCO Courier, May 1968, 21, 30-32. United nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization. Race and science: The race question in modern science. New York: Columbia University Press, 1951. United States Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. Report. New York: Bantam Books, 1968. Updike, T.B. Cognitive styles and client-therapist relationship effectiveness with heroin users. Paper presented at the 2nd International Symposium on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, May 1972. Vanecko, J.J. Religious behavior and levels of prejudice. Social Analysis, Fall 1967, 28(3), 111-122. ‘Verschuuren, G. Race and races. The Heythrop Journal, 1971, 12, 164-174. ‘Vidulich, R.N., & Krevanick, R.N. Racial attitudes and emotional responses to visual representations of the Negro. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 68, 85-93. ‘Visser T'Hooft, W.A. The ecumenical movement and the racial problem. Paris: UNESCO, 1954. ‘Vriegen, Th. C. An outline_of Old Testament theology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958. ‘Waisanen, F.B. A research note: A notation technique for scalogram analysis. Tne SociologicalQuarterly, October 1960, 1(4), 245-251. ‘walton, J. Substance and artifact: The current status of research on community power structure. American spurnal of Sociology, January 1966, 71(4), 430-438. ‘ward, J.H. Multiple linear regression models. In H. Borko (Ed.), Computer applications in the behavioral sciences. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice- Hall, 1962. Washington, J.R., Jr. Black religion: The Negro and Ohristianity in the United States. Boston: Beacon Press, 1964. 242 Weatherford, W.D. American churches and thepgegro. Boston: The ChristOpher Publishing House, 1957. Webster, S.W. The influence of interracial contact on social acceptance in a newly integrated school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1961, 52, 292-296. Weller, L. The relationship Of personality and non- personality factors to prejudice. Journal of Social Psychology, 1964, 63, 129-137. Wilcox, P.R. So you want to be black. Witness, December 1967, 2(2), 35-42. Williams, C.A. Black folks are not for sale. The Black Scholar, December 1970, 2(4), 35-42. Williams, R.M., Jr. Strangers next door: Ethnic relations in American communities. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, 1964. Williams, W.S. Attitudes of black and white police toward the Opposite race: A Guttman facet theory exami- nation of their relationships and determinants. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, March 1970. ‘Wilner, D.M., Walkley, E.P., & Cook, W.W. Residential proximity and intergroup relations in public housing. Journal Of Social Issues, 1952, 8, 45-70. ‘Winer, B.J. Structural principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1962. ‘Wblf, R.M. Construction of descriptive and attitude scales. In T. Husen (Ed.), International study of achievement in mathematics. New York: Wiley, 1967. ‘WOodmansee, J.J., & COOk, S.W. Dimensions of verbal racial attitudes: Their identification and measurement. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 7(3), 240-25 . (Noodnuff, A.D., & Di Nesta, R.J. The relationships between values, concepts, and attitudes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1948, 8, 645-660. Viright, J.M. Attitude change as a function Of authoritarianism and punitiveness. Journal Of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 1(2), 177-181. 243 Yarrow, M.R., Campbell, J.D., & Yarrow, L.F. Interpersonal dynamics in racial integration. In E.E. Maccoby, T.M. Newcomb, & E.L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1958. Yinger, J.M. The scientific study of religion. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1970. Young, R. Analytical concordance to the Bible. (22nd American ed., Rev. ed.) New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1936. Yuker, H.E. Attitudes as determinants of behavior. Journal of Rehabilitation, 1965, 31, 15-17. Yuker, H.E., Block, J.R., & Young, J. The measurement of attitudes toward disabled persons. Human Resources Study NO. 5, Albertson, New York: Human Resources Foundation, 1960. Zetterberg, H.L. On theory_and verification in sociology. Totawa, New Jersey: Bedminster Press, 1963} Zinnes, J.L. Scaling. In P.H. Mussen, & M.R. Rosenzweig (Eds.), Annual review of psychology: Vol. 20. Palo Alto, Caiifornia: Annual Reviews, 1969. Zuk, G.H. The religious factor and the role of guilt in parental acceptance of the retarded child. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1959-1960, 64, 139-147. ADDENDUM :Bray, D.H. & Jordan, J.E. Ethnic inter-group attitude levels among New Zealand teachers college students. The Journal of the Polynesian Society, 1973, 82, 3, 266-280. 1De11, OrtO, A.E. & Jordan, J.E..A multivatiate analysis of racial attitudes: Structure, content, and determin- ants. Rehabilitation Psychology, 1974, in press. Hamersma, R.J., Paige, J., & Jordan, J.E. Construction of a Guttman facet designed cross-cultural attitude-behav- ior scale toward racial-ethnic interaction.‘ Educa- tional and Psychological Measurement, 1973, 33, 3, 565-576. Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, Jordan, 244 J.E. Attitude-behavior research on physical-mental- social disabilty and racial-ethnic differences. PsychOlogical Aspects of Disability. 1971, 18, 1, 5-28. (a) J.E. Construction of a Guttman facet designed cross- cultural attitude-behavior scale toward mental retar- dation. American Journal of Mental Deficiancy, 1971, 76, 2, 201-219. (b) J.E. & Chigier, E. Attitudes of six groups in Israel toward education and disabled persons. Annual of Israel National Society for Rehabilitation of the DISabled: 1971, 8, May, 30-34. J.E. & Chigier, E. Attitudes toward the disabled in Israel and eleven other nations. The Middle East Journal, 1972, 26, 3, 326-331. J.E. Facet theory and cross-cultural research meth- odology. In J. Dawson & W. Lonner (Ed's.). Readings in Cross-Cultural PsychologY: Proceedings of the lst International Conference of Cross-Cultural PsYcholo- gists. University of Hong Kong Press, 1973. (a) J.E. Attitude-behaviors toward drug addiction/depen- dency. In Einstein & L. Miller, (Ed's.). Proceedings --2nd International Congress on Drug Abuse, Jerusalem, 1973. (b) J.E. & Brodwin, M.G. Racial prejudice and word sym- bolism. Journal of Social Psychology, 1974, in press. J.E. 3 Addis-Castro, G., & Zuniga, E. Construccion de una escala transcultural de compartamiento actitudi- nal hacia el retardo mental de acuerdo con la teoria de facetas de Guttman. Revista Interamericana de Psicologia, 1974, in press. Kim, Y.C. Jordan, J.E. & Horn, H. The facet theory approach in attitude-behavior research. The Journal Of Educa- tional Research (Korea), translation of Jordan and Horn, 1972 article. In Korean, English summary, 11, 1, 26-36. APPENDICES APPENDICES Page Appendix.A Glossary of Terms . . . . . . . . . . . 246 Appendix B Instrumentation B-l Personal Questionnaire: Demographic and Religious questions 0 O O O O O O O O O O O 248 B-2 Attitude Behavior Scale: 3' Black White/White Negro-General. . 259 B-3 Laymen's Perceptions Of Their Pastor's Racial AttitUdes . C O O O O C O O O O O 276 Appendix C Code Book Variables . . . . . . . . . . 288 C-1 Laymen's Form 0 o o o o o o o o o 289 C-2 MiniSter's Form . . . . . . . . . 291 Appendix D Correlations Between Pastors' Reported Racial Attitudes and Laymen's Perceptions of Their RaCial AttitUdes O O C O O O O O O O O 293 245 APPENDIX A GLOSSARY OF TERMS Attitude: This general term is used following Guttman's definition of an attitude as "a delimited totality of behavior with respect to something." For example, the attitude of a Caucasian person toward Negroes could be said to be the totality of behaviors that the person has performed with respect to Negroes. Attitude Content: The attitude content component refers to the actual item statements within an attitude scale. Attitude Intensity: The attitude intensity component refers to the affecting statements that a respondent makes regarding each content item: operationally, it consists of a statement on which the respondent may indicate how strongly he feels about the statement. Attitude Scale: In this study an attitude scale is consid- ered to be a set of items which fall into a particular relationship in respect to the ordering of respondents. A set of items can be said to form a scale if each person's responses to each item.can be reproduced from the knowledge of his total score on the test within reasonable limits of error. Attitude Universe: An attitude universe is that total combination of multivariate factors which make up the totality of behavior toward an attitude object. Demographic Variables: In this study demographic variables refer to certain categories of statistical data fre- quently used in sociological descriptions of persons. These variables are age, sex, level of education, income, geographic area, theological position, political party, and religious denomination. Facet Theory: Facet theory describes attitudes as multi- dimensional (i.e., multivariate). As such, facet design is a "definitive relational system" by which a non-metric statistical structure is defined by means of a semantic profile in a mapping sentence. 246 247 Joint Struction: Joint struction is operationally defined as the ordered sets of the facets from low to high across all the facets simultaneously. The higher the score of the facet elements, the stronger the attitude. Lateral Struction: Lateral struction is the term given scores on the characteristics within the facet areas. In the mapping sentences illustrated in Figure 3 items F through J denote the attitude content for lateral struction. Occupational Personalism: This term is operationally defined by questionnaire items designed to ascertain: first, about what percent of the time people work with others with whom.they feel personally involved; second, how important it is to work with people with whom one is personally involved; and third, how willing they are to I; be involved in working with someone of the opposite race. Prejudice: .A term used for a pre-judgemental attitude of a perjoratative nature generally based upon normative, stereotypic, or other depersonalizing criteria. Relational Diffusion: A term operationally defined by a questionnaire item designed to determine the extent to which personal relations on the job diffuse into a person's non-job milieu (socially). Religiosity: A term used to denote orientation to religion. Operationally, it is defined by four terms: first, religious denomination; second, the importance of religion; third, the extent to which the rules and regulations of the religion are followed; and fourth, a liberal or conservative theological position. Simplex: Sets of scores that have an implicit order from 'least complex” to "most complex". Value: Two value categories are used which are defined operationally by the same set of measures. Asset values predispose a person to evaluate others according to his own unique and inherent qualities. Comparative values predispose a person to evaluate others according to some preconceived external criteria of success and achievement. The value of a person's religion to him- self is also considered. APPENDIX B-l RACIAL.ATTITUDES OF BLACK.AND WHITE MINISTERS AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR.SCALE PERSONAL QUESTIONNAIRE: DEMOGRAPHIC AND RELIGIOUS QUESTIONS G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Irvine Center for Creative Living Santa Ana, California 248 _ ‘VAII‘r f-“ ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE (ABS: BW/WN - G) This questionnaire is a technical Attitude Behavior Scale which is designed to assist us in a better understanding of racial attitudes and behaviors. Your cooperation and assist- ance is very much appreciated. Because this is a complex scale, it is important for you to provide an answer to every question. If the meaning of the question is not clear, please give what you believe to be the closest answer to the most obvious aspect of the question. If your answer is more complex or does not fit into a simple answer, please "force" your answer into the category which comes closest to your point of view. There are no trick questions. It should take you less than an hour to complete the ques- tionnaire. Most of the questions are arranged so that you can use a check.mark or circle a number in order to save time. We prefer that each respondent remain anonymous, so please be as frank and honest as you can. we are most interested in your feelings, rather than well thought out intellectual answers. A self-addressed, pre-stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience. It is also very important that this question— naire be returned with as much urgency as possible. Thank you very much for your contribution to this important research. Yours very appreciatively, Wfiw . Scott Irvine, Jr. ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE (BW/WN-G) Directions This part of the questionnaire deals with a wide variety of questions about yourself. Please answer every question as frankly and simply as possible. There should be only one answer to each question. Since the questionnaire is come pletely confidential, you may answer all of the questions freely without fear of being identified. Please read every question carefully, and remember that it is important to obtain an answer for every question. Please in- dicate your answer by circling the appropriate number. 1. Please indicate your sex. 1. Female 2. Male 2. Please indicate your age as follows: 1. 21-30 2. 31-40 3. 41-50 4. 51-60 5. 6l-+ 3. 'What is your marital status? 1. Single 2. Married 3. Widowed 4. Separated 5. Divorced 4. What is your general religious group? Roman Catholic Protestant Pentecostal Other PUDNH O O O 73125-74 etc. -2- GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G 5. What is your church denomination? UIJ-‘UJNH O O O 0 American Baptist Convention Church of God in Christ -- Assemblies of God The Episcopal Church The Roman Catholic Church The United Church of Christ 6. What is the highest level of education you have completed? \IO‘U‘I-PUJNH I High School Junior College -- 2 yrs. Bible School -- 2 yrs. College -- 4 yrs. B.D. or MQDiv. -- 3 yrs. beyond college D.Min. -- 4 yrs. beyond college Th.D., Ed.D., or Ph.D. 7. What was your total family income from all sources last year (before deductions)? \OQNO‘U’lJ-‘WNH O O O O 0 Below $4,000 $4,000-$5,999 $6,000-$7,999 $8,000-$9,999 $10,000-$11,999 $12,000-$13,999 $14,000-$15,999 $16,000-$l7,999 $18,000 plus important is it for you to be a clergyman? It is merely a profession. It is a significant type of Christian work, but I could be happy in another vocation. It is the best way I can express my Christian life, and I am committed to it. It is the only kind of work I would ever consider doing. 73125-74 etc. -3- GSI-US ABS : BW/WN-G 9. How important is your religion in your personal style of life? 1. Not very important. 2. Somewhat important. 3. Very important. 4. It determines all that I do. 10. How loyal or obedient are you to the religious rules and regulations of your church? Frequency (Please check) _s__16ateor= mmmwm 1. Attend worship __ __ __ __ __ 2. Pay up financial pledge __ __ __ __ __ 3. Read Bible daily __ __ __ _ .— 4. Observe daily prayers __ __ __ __ __ 5. Observe church rules regarding drinking Obey superiors in church organization 0 0 11. How do you rate yourself as to socio-economic level? Upper Lower Class Lower Middle Class Middle Middle Class Upper Middle Class Lower Upper Class U'I-l-‘UDNH 12. To which political party are you in most agreement or do you belong? 1. Democratic 2. Republican 3. Non-partisan 4. Other (F111 in) 13. Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate yourself? 1. I find it difficult to change. 2. I find it slightly difficult to change. 3. I find it somewhat easy to change. 4. I find it very easy to change. 73125-74 etc. -4- GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G 14. Some people feel that in bringing up children new ways and methods should be tried whenever possible. Others feel that trying new ways is dangerous. What is your feeling about the following statement? "New Methods of raising children should be tried whenever possible." Strongly disagree. Slightly disagree. Slightly agree. Strongly agree. watord O O O 15. Family planning is discussed very frequently today. How do you feel about a married couple practicing birth control if they want to do so? . It is always wrong. . It is usually wrong. . It is probably all right. . It is perfectly all right. hwwrora 16. People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you feel about the following statement? "Automation and similar new procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry), since eventually they create new jobs and raise the standard of living." . Strongly disagree. . Slightly disagree. . Slightly agree. . Strongly agree. Dwarord 17. People have different opinions regarding changes in the church. How do you feel about the following statement? "The Church must firmly maintain the established forms of the religious life." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. . Strongly disagree. 73125-74 etc. ‘5' #wNI-J l8. 19. 20. 21. 22. GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G People have different opinions regarding changes in the church. How do you feel about the following statement? "In order to continue to be relevant in the world the Church must be constantly changing the fbrms of religious worship and life." . Strongly disagree. . Slightly disagree. . Slightly agree. . Strongly agree. «l-‘tJDIQI-nI The statement that agrees more closely with my own thinking about God is: l. I have the assurance of faith that what I believe about God is true. 2. I form.my ideas about God cautiously -- there is much that I do not understand. When I consider God's unchangeableness and his constant creativity, the attribute which means more to me is: 1. His unchangeableness. 2. His constant creativity. When attracted by ideas which could tend to undermine my faith: 1. I am careful not to become too involved with them. 2. I feel I mmst entertain them honestly, regardless of what might happen to my faith. How do you feel about this statement? "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. Strongly disagree. $~O>Nnd O O O 73125-74 etc. -6- GSI-US ABS: BW/WNFG 23. How do you feel about this statement? "Those who are trying to bring about change in the church do not appreciate our traditions and will destroy those beliefs we highly value." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. Strongly disagree. Duprord I O O 24. How do you feel about this statement? "I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on.my own." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. . Strongly disagree. waH O O 25. How do you feel about this statement? ”What this country needs most, more than laws or political programs, is a few courageous religious leaders in whom the people can put their faith." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. Strongly disagree. Dwarord O O O 26. How do you feel about this statement? "People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong." Strongly agree. Slightly agree. Slightly disagree. Strongly disagree. pWNH O O C 73125-74 etc. ~7- 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G How do you feel about this statement: "My religious beliefs are what really lie behind my whole approach to life." . Strongly disagree. Slightly disagree. . Slightly agree. . Strongly agree. Dwurord Which description most nearly fits your theological position? 1. Conservative 2. Mbderate 3. Liberal Which description most nearly fits the theological posi- tion of the school where you received your last theological degree? 1. Conservative 2. Moderate 3. Liberal 4. No particular position HOW”mUCh personal contact have you had with persons of different races (Blacks or Whites)? 1. None 2. Very little 3. Quite a bit 4. Considerable How much integration existed in the schools you attended? 1. Grade School 1. None 2. Some 3. Highly integrated 73125-74 etc. -8- GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G 31. Continued 2. High School 1. None 2. Some 3. Highly integrated 3. College 1. None 2. Some 3. Highly integrated “ flomu‘n—L.‘ ' L 4. Seminary 1. None 2. Some 3. Highly integrated 32. To what extent does integration exist among those with whom you now work (or serve) in your present position? 1. Not at all integrated 2. Slightly integrated 3. Moderately integrated 4. Highly integrated 33. What has been your past experience regarding performing a marriage for a racially mixed couple? 1. Have never been asked 2. Very few 3. Many 34. What would be your response to a request to marry a couple where one was Black and the other White? 1. Would certainly refuse. 2. 'Would probably refuse. 3. WOuld marry after careful consideration of circum- stances and counseling. 4. WOuld not hesitate at all. 73125-74 etc. -9- 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. GSI-US ABS: BW/WN-G HOW”mUCh racial integration now exists in your immediate neighborhood? 1. Not at all integrated 2. Very slightly integrated 3. Moderately integrated 4. Highly integrated To what extent are persons of the opposite race on the boards and committees with which you frequently work? 1. None 2. Very few I 3. Several 4. ‘Many ” HOW'mUCh personal working contact do you have with clergymen of the opposite race? 1. None 2. Very little 3. Frequent 4. Much How willing would you be to serve in a staff relation- ship with a person of the opposite race as your imr mediate supervisor? 1. Not at all 2. Reluctantly 3. Moderately 4. Would welcome it In what geographic part of the United States are you now serving? . North Eastern United States . Southern United States South Western United States . Northern United States . iMidWestern United States . ‘Western United States ONfi$>U>NHd 'What has been your personal experience regarding guests of the opposite race visiting in your home? 1. Never 2. Seldom 3. Occasionally Frequently -lO- 4. 73125-74 etc. APPENDIX B-Z RACIAL ATTITUDES L OF * BLACK AND WHITE1 MINISTERS AN ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR.SCALE (ABS: BW/WN'- G) G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Irvine Center for Creative Living Santa Ana, California 1The scale included here is intended for a White respondent. For a Black respondent, the only changes nec- cessary are to substitute the referent term White for Negro, or Black, throughout the scale. The revised version of the scale for Whites also uses the referent term Black instead of Negro as was used in 1971 when this research was con- ducted. 259 ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE -- WN:G Directions This booklet contains statements of how people feel about certain things. In this booklet you are asked to indicate for each of these statements how most other Whites believe that Whites compare or interact with Negroes. Here is a 1 sample statement: SAMPLE l. Chance of being taller (;) less chance . about the same 3. ‘more chance If other Whites believe that Negroes have less chance than Whites to be taller, you should circle the number 1 as shown above. NOTICE: Please do not put your name on the booklet. Thank you for your participation in filling out the questionnaire. By: Richard Hamersma DePaul University John E. Jordan iMichigan State University Researcher: G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Irvine Center for Creative Living Santa Ana, California 73125-74 etc. -11- ABS-IAWN-G Directions: Section 1 In the following statements circle the number or fill in the space that indicates how other Whites compare themselves to Negroes. It is important to answer all questions even though you may have to guess at some. Other Whites believe the following things about Whites as compared to Negroes: l. Whites can be trusted with money 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 2. White families are closely knit l. more often than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 3. Whites' intellectual ability is l. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3.- less than Negroes 4. Whites desire a higher education 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes 5. Whites help their neighbors I. ‘more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes '73125-74 etc. -12- 10. ll. 12. ABS -I -WN-G White neighborhoods are safe 1. more often than Negro ones 2. about as often as Negro ones 3. less often than Negro ones ‘ Whites obey job rules and regulations 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 'Whites enjoy working with Negroes 1. less than Negroes do 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes do Whites resist arrest 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes Whites are victims of "police brutality" 1. less than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. more than Negroes Whites misuse trial-by-jury 1. less often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. more often than Negroes Whites vote for Negro candidates for public office 1. more than Negroes 2. about the same as Negroes 3. less than Negroes 73125-74 etc. -l3- 13. 14. ABS-I-WN-G Whites desire draft deferments l. ‘more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes Whites are careful with their weapons 1. more often than Negroes 2. about as often as Negroes 3. less often than Negroes 73125-74 etc. -l4- ”'m_ mm- ABS-II-WN-G Directions: Section II In this section you are asked what other Whites believe about interacting with Negroes. Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes. 15. For Whites to trust Negroes with money 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 16. For White families to be as closely knit as Negro ones A 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 17. For Whites' intellectual ability to be the same as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 18. For Whites to desire a higher education integrated with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 19. For Whites to help Negro neighbors I. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 20. For Whites to believe that Negro neighborhoods are safe for them. 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved 73125-74 etc. -15- ABS--II-WN-G Other Whites generally believe the following about interacting with Negroes: 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. For Whites to obey job rules and regulations with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to enjoy working with Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to resist arrest from Negro officials 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For Whites to be the victims of "police brutality" from Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For'Whites to misuse trial-by-jury when they deal with Negroes 1. usually approved 2. undecided 3. usually not approved For'Whites to vote with Negroes for Negro candidates for public office 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For'Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved For Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are 1. usually not approved 2. undecided 3. usually approved -l6- 73125-74 Etc 0 ABS-III-WN-G In respect to Negroes do you yourself believe that it is usually right or usually wrong: 42. To expect Whites to be as careful with their weapons as Negroes are is . usually wrong undecided . usually right 1 2 3 73125-74 etc. -l9- ABS-IV-WNFG Directions: Section IV In this section you are asked how you personally would act toward Negroes in certain situations. In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. Would you trust Negroes with money? 1. no 2. undecided I 3. yes -1 ‘Would you want your family to be as closely knit as you I think Negro families are? E 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want the same intellectual ability as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you want to have the same desire Negroes do for a higher education? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes Would you help Negro neighbors? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 'Would you want White neighborhoods to be as safe as you believe Negro ones are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 73125-74 etc. -20- ABS-IV-WN-G In respect to a Negro person would you yourself: 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 'Would you obey job rules and regulations with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes ‘Would you enjoy working with Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes WOuld you resist arrest if arrested by Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no WOuld you expect "police brutality" from.Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no would you misuse trial-by-jury when dealing with Negroes? 1. yes 2. undecided 3. no 'WOuld you vote for a Negro candidate for public office? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes ‘Would you want Whites to be given draft deferments as much as Negroes? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 'Would you be as careful with weapons as you think Negroes are? 1. no 2. undecided 3. yes 73125-74 etc. -21- ABS-V-WN-G Directions: Section V This section concerns actual feelings that White people may have about Negroes. You are asked to indicate how you feel about the following statements. How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 57. ‘When Negroes trust Whites with.mpney I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 58. ‘When White families are as closely knit as I think Negro families are I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 59. ‘When Whites' intellectual ability is the same as Negroes I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content 60. When Whites desire a higher education as much as Negroes do, I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content 61. When Negroes help White neighbors I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 73125-74 etc. -22- 62. ABS-V-WN-G When Whites are safe in Negro neighborhoods I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. When Negroes obey job rules and regulations with Whites I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied 'When Negroes enjoy working with Whites, I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good When Negroes resist arrest less than Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content ‘When Negroes use "police brutality" with Whites I feel . happy indifferent 1 2 3 angry When Negroes misuse trial-by-jury in relation.to Whites I feel 1. happy 2. indifferent 3. angry When Negroes vote for White candidates fbr public office I feel 1. bad 2. indifferent 3. good 73125-74 etc. -23- ABS -V -WN -G 29. When Negroes are given draft deferments as much as Whites I feel 1. discontent 2. indifferent 3. content How do you actually feel toward Negroes: 70. When Negroes are as careful with their weapons as Whites are I feel 1. dissatisfied 2. indifferent 3. satisfied 73125-74 etc. -24- ABS-VI-WN-G Directions: Section.VI This section concerns actual experiences you have had with Negroes. Try to answer the following questions from the knowledge of your experiences. Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 71. 72. 73. 74. 75. I have trusted Negroes with.money 7 1. no experience A 2. no F 3. uncertain : 4. yes E“ I have seen that White families are as closely knit as Negro ones 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes My intellectual ability is equal to the Negroes I know 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have wanted a higher education as much as the Negroes I have known 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes I have been helped by a Negro neighbor 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 73125-74 etc. -25- ABSAVI-WN-G Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 76. I have felt safe when in Negro neighborhoods 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 77. I have seen that Negroes obey job rules and regulations When working with Whites 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 78. I have enjoyed working with Negroes 1. no experience 2. no 3. uncertain 4. yes 79. I have resisted arrest by Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 80. I have been the victim of "police brutality" from Negroes 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 81. I have seen Negroes misuse trial-by-jury with Whites 1. no experience 2. yes 3. uncertain 4. no 73125-74 etc. -26- "'_r' ‘0 .1” ABS-VI-WN-G Experiences or contacts with Negroes: 82. I have seen that Negroes vote for White candidates for public office DWJIOFH no experience no uncertain yes 83. I have seen that Negroes are given draft deferments as waH much as Whites no experience no uncertain yes 84. I have seen that Negroes are as careful with their weapons as Whites waI-J O O 0 no experience no uncertain yes 73125-74 etc. -27- APPENDIX B-3 LAYMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR PASTOR'S RACIAL ATTITUDES A SUPPLEMENT TO THE ATTITUDE BEHAVIOR SCALE (ABS: BW/WN-G-R) Constructed by G. Scott Irvine, Jr. Irvine Center for Creative Living Santa Ana, California 276 Laymen's Perceptions of Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes To the Laymen First, I want to thank you for your willingness to participate in this important research. Second, I want to share with you that this research is a part of a multiple research project on racial attitudes in the United States which already has considered teachers, school administrators, police officers, rehabilitation counse- lors, and others. Similar research is also being done in other countries. Third, I wantyou to know that we are aware that this research instrument is not perfect. We may use some terms and phrases which seem "racist" to you. That is because we are trying to work within the context of the racial mentality that exists in America right now. Fourth, we want to be as open as possible with you about our purposes. Briefly, our goals are: (a) to learn What attitudes presently exist in.America today (in our particular situation that means in the church). This questionnaire, for example, is part of a large research project on "Racial.Atti- tudes of.American Ministers;" (b) to learn how clearly I ministers convey their attitudes to their church members (this is Where‘ygg come in); (c) to learn how we may work to improve racial attitudes in the Church; and (d) to learn how we may improve the training of ministers so that they may be more effective church leaders in the area of race relations inside and outside of the Church. Instructions Regarding the Questionnaire The answers you place on the questionnaire are confiden- tial. That is, no one in your church, including your pastor, will see any answer you give. Only general, "averaged", answers from.a number of churches will be available to anyone. The questions have been arranged in multiple-choice for- mat so that you may give quick, check mark, answers for your convenience. Use check marks or circle letters where appro- priate. Please be as candid, honest, and forthright as you can be. Do not try to protect or blame your pastor. Just call it like you see it. There are no "right" or "wrong" answers. We are seeking your feelings about this subject. Please give an answer to each question. If no stated option seems quite correct, give the answer Which seems closest. Thank you for your participation. Laymen's Perceptions of Their Pastor's Racial Attitudes What is the denomination to which your church belongs? a. Assemblies of God b. American Baptist Convention c. Church of God in Christ d. Episcopal Church e. Roman Catholic Church f. United Church of Christ How:many years have you been a member of this church? a. 1-4 b. 5-9 c. 10-14 d. 15-19 e. 20+ Please indicate your age: a. 20-24 f. 45-49 h. 25-29 g. 50-54 c. 30-34 h. 55-59 d. 35-39 1. 60-64 e 0 40"“! j 0 65+ Please indicate your sex: a. Female b. Male Please indicate your political party or the party toward which you.have the most sympathy: a. Republican b. Democratic c. Other d. No party preference Please indicate the highest level of education you have completed. a. Less than 12th grade b. High school c. Junior College (2 years or less than 4 years) d. College (4 years) e. Master's Degree f. Doctor's Degree 10. ll. 12. 13. Please indicate your socio-economic level: a. Lower class b. Upper lower class c. Lower middle class d. Middle middle class e. Upper middle class E. Lower upper class How many years have you known your present pastor? a. 1-4 b. 5-9 c. 10-14 d. 15-19 e. 20+ Do you serve as a member of a major board or committee in your church? a. Yes b. No If "yes", is that board racially integrated (in terms of Blacks and.Whites only--not other races)? a. Yes b. No To what extent would you say racial integration exists in your church membership? ‘ a. Not at all b. Slightly integrated c. Moderately integrated d. Highly integrated To what extent does integration exist in the boards and committees of your church? a. Not at all b. Slightly integrated c. 'Moderately integrated d. Highly integrated If your church has more than one ministerial staff 1member, does it have both blacks and Whites represented? a. Yes b. No 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. How would you feel about having a person of t e o posite race from your own as a member of your church 3 m nister- ial staff? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How do you feel about your church becoming racially integrated? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How often does your pastor speak out (in sermons and other public meetings) about Christiantiy and racial issues? a. Never b. Seldmm c. Occasionally d. Frequently How often does your pastor speak out (in sermons and other public meetings) about the political issues in- volved in racial issues? a. Never b. Seldom c. Occasionally d. Frequently How do you think your pastor feels about your church being racially integrated? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Please estimate what you believe to be your pastor's relative theological position: a. Conservative b. Moderate c. Liberal Please estimate how loyal and obedient you think your pastor is to the rules and regulations of your church. a. Strongly loyal and obedient b. Generally loyal and obedient c. SomeWhat willing to disobey when appropriate »d. Very willing to disobey When appropriate How would you rate your pastor's socio-economic level? a. Upper lower class b. Lower middle class c. Middle middle class d. Upper middle class e. Lower upper class To which political party do you think your pastor belongs or agrees with the most? a. Republican b. Democratic c. Non-Partisan d. Other How well do you like your pastor speaking out (in ser- mons or other public meetings) about racial issues? a. Strongly oppose b. Slightly oppose c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How well do you like your pastor speaking out (in ser- 'mons or other public meetings) about political issues? a. Strongly oppose b. Slightly oppose c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. How well do you like your pastor speaking out (in ser- mons or other public meetings) about economic issues? a. Strongly oppose b. Slightly oppose c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How well do you like your pastor speaking out (in ser- mons or other public meetings) about religion and social action? a. Strongly oppose b. Slightly oppose c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor Some people are more set in their ways than others. How would you rate your pastor? a. He finds it very difficult to change b. He finds it slightly difficult to change c. He finds it someWhat easy to change d. He finds it very easy to change Some people believe more in new methods than others. How do you think your pastor would feel about this statement? "New methods of raising children should be tried when- ever reasonable." a. Strongly disagree b. Slightly disagree c. Slightly agree d. Strongly agree What do you think your pastor believes about a married couple practicing birth control if they want to do so? a. Strongly disagrees b. Slightly disagrees c. Slightly agrees d.’ Strongly agrees 30. 31. 32. 33. People have different ideas about what should be done concerning automation and other new ways of doing things. How do you think your pastor believes about the follow- ing statement? "Automation and similar procedures should be encouraged (in government, business, and industry) since eventually they create new jobs and raise the standard of living." a. Strongly disagrees b. Slightly disagrees c. Slightly agrees d. Strongly agrees People have different feelings about changes in the Church. How do you think your pastor would feel about this statement? ‘ "The Church must firmly maintain the established theology and beliefs of the Christian faith." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees c. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees People have different opinions regarding changes in the Church. How do you think your pastor would feel about the following statement? ’ "In order to continue to be relevant in the world the Church must be constantly changing the fonms of religious worship and ministry." a. Strongly disagrees I b. Slightly disagrees c. Slightly agrees d. Strongly agrees How do you think your pastor would answer this question? "When I consider God's unchangeableness and.his constant creativity, the attribute which means more to me is:" a. His unchangeableness b. His constant creativity 8 34. 35. 36. 37. How do you think your pastor would feel about this state- ment? "Obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees c. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees How do you think your pastor would feel about this state- ment? "Those who are trying to bring about change in the Church do not appreciate our traditions and will destroy the beliefs and practices we highly value." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees 6. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees How do you think your pastor would feel about this state- ment? "I find it easier to follow rules than to do things on.my own." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees c. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees How do you think your pastor would feel about this state- ment? "What this country needs most, more than laws or political programa, is a few courageous religious leaders in whom the people can put their fait ." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees c. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. How do you think your pastor would feel about this state- ment? "People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong." a. Strongly agrees b. Slightly agrees c. Slightly disagrees d. Strongly disagrees How do you think your pastor would respond to a request to marry a racially mixed (Black and White) couple, even after considerable predmarital counseling? a. He would certainly refuse. b. He would probably refuse. c. (After careful consideration he would probably marry them. d. He would not hesitate at all. How much integration exists in the area relatively near your church? a. None b. Very little c. ‘Moderately integrated d. Highly integrated How would you rate your pastor's attitude about racial integration in the church? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor HOW'WOUId you rate your pastor's attitude regarding racial integration in the schools? a. strongly opposed b. Slightly Opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor 10 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48. How would you rate your pastor's attitude regarding racial integration in housing? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How would you rate your pastor's attitude regarding integration and equal opportunity in education? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How would you rate your pastor's attitude regarding integration and equal opportunity for jobs? a. Strongly opposed b. Slightly opposed c. Slightly in favor d. Strongly in favor How would you rate your pastor in regard to his open- ness or closedness to new ideas? a. Very closed b. Slightly closed c. Slightly open d. Very open How would you rate your pastor in regard to his willing- ness to change? a. Very difficult b. Slightly difficult c. Slightly easy d. Very easy. To What extent do you consider your pastor to be a leader in race relations? a. Strongly resists leadership in this area b. Slightly resists leadership c. Slight leadership in this area d. Strong leadership in this area 11 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. To what extent do you believe your pastor would speak out in favor of positive race relations when other strong leaders were in opposition? a. He would not Speak out b. He would speak out reluctantly c. He would speak out willingly d. He would speak out strongly To what extent do you believe your pastor is leading or following other strong leaders in the church regarding race relations? a. He is merely following others b. He slightly follows others c. He slightly leads others d. He strongly leads others How moch are you in agreement with what you believe to be your pastor's racial attitudes? a. Strongly disagree b. Slightly disagree c. Slightly agree d. Strongly agree How much are you in agreement with your pastor's theological position? a. Strongly disagree b. Slightly disagree c. Slightly agree d. Strongly agree How much are you in agreement with your pastor's attitudes about change in the church? a. Strongly disagree b. Slightly disagree c. Slightly agree d. Strongly agree 12 54. HOW‘mUCh personal contact do you have with members of the opposite race? a. None at all b. Slight contact c. Moderate contact d . Much contact 55. How much do youenjoy the contact you do have with persons of the opposite race? a. Strongly dislike ( b. Slightly dislike I c. Slightly enjoy F d. Strongly enjoy [ Thank you for your participation in and contribution to this important research. ‘ l3 APPENDIX C CODE BOOK VARIABLES ._~_._ APPENDIX C - 1 VARIABLE LIST BY IBM CARD AND COLUMN ABS BLACK/WHITE MINISTER'S STUDY LAYMEN'S FORM W Variable Range of IBM ABS B/W MIN Scores Card Col. Page Items l Denomination l-6 7 ll 3 l o 2 Years membership 1-5 7 12 3 2 :E' 3 Age 1-9 7 l3 3 3 o. 4 Sex 1-2 7 14 3 4 S 5 Polit. party 1-4 7 15 3 5 g0 6 Educ. level 1-6 7 l6 3 6 8 7 Econ. level 1-7 7 l7 4 7 g 8 Known pastor 1-5 7 18 4 8 9 Board member 1-2 7 19 4 9 u 10 Board integr. 1-2 7 20 4 10 3 11 Memb. integr. 1-4 7 21 4 11 t; 12 Boards integr. 1-4 7 22 4 12 8 13 Staff integr. 1-2 7 23 4 l3 14 Want integr. staff 1-4 7 24 5 l4 8 15 Want integr. church 1-4 7 25 5 15 'g 16 P. speak on race 1-4 7 26 5 16 u 17 P. speak on race/pol. 1-4 7 27 5 17 L" 18 P. want integr. 1-4 7 28 5 18 :3 19 P. theol. position l-3 7 29 6 19 20 P. obey rules 1-4 7 30 6 20 .'” 21 P. econ. level l-5 7 31 6 21 $5 22 P. pol. party 1-4 7 32 6 22 u 23 Like P's race view 1-4 7 33 6 23 g 24 Like P's pol. view 1-4 7 34 6 24 n. 25 'IfikePs econ. view 1-4 7 35 7 25 44 26 Like P's rel&soc act. 1-4 7 36 7 26 0 27 P. set ways 1-4 7 37 7 27 m 28 ‘P. child guid. 1-4 7 38 7 28 8 29 P. birth control 1-4 7 39 7 29 '5' 30 Automation 1-4 7 40 8 30 8‘ 31 Maintain theol. 1-4 7 41 8 31 B 32 Maintain worship 1-4 7 42 8 32 o D... 289 290 MIN ABS B/WItems IBM Page e 0f d Col. Rang 5 Car 33 Score 8 34 ‘ 1e 43 9 Variab 1-2 ; it; 9 32 ve -4 9 hange/creati i-A ; Z? 10 3; God: c -4 10 33 Am:lmrfltgaditions L4 3 48 10 23 34 church itiate 1-4 49 10 41 35 llow/in ders 7 50 0 m F0 lea 1-4 7 1 42 m 36 113. 4 51 11 'o 37 Re [strong 1- 7 2 43 3 Weak rriage , ch. 1-4 7 5 11 44 38 e ma hbor. 53 .... RaC neig 1-4 7 11 45 <1 40 Integr. schools 1-4 7 55 11 47 .0) 2;- Integr- housing 1-4 7 53 11 48 '4 r. duc. 5 o 1nteg . e 1-4 12 9 u 43 1 Opp bs 7 8 4 3 44 Equzl opp.djo 1-4 7 :9 i; 50 m 45 ngn/close 1-: 7 60 12 5% '8 46 Cfiange r 1:4 7 61 12 53 47 leade ion 1 7 62 5 can ‘3 Race posit 1-4 7 3 13 o 4 Push op110W 1-4 7 6 I: 49 ad/fo ace 4 54 9‘ 50 Le ee on r 601. 1- 13 55 3 51 Agr on th e 64 13 u 2 Agree on chang 4 7 65 m 5 ree 1- 7 0.. 53 Ag t 1-4 1 contac .- PelssonZlontact " u U 5" Enjoy 1-3 - ° 55 7 -5 - n o 4 n u 1 7 6-8 -- g l-3 7 u U l-lS 7 9 80 Nation t Group 7 7 78- 56 Interes No. 5‘ 57 Subject ity 7 H 58 rd No.' Ident '3' 59 Ca ister s o 60 Min .'5’. APPENDIX C-Z ‘VARIABLE LIST BY IBM CARD AND COLUMN ABS BLACK/WHITE MINISTER'S STUDY MENISTERS' FORM N \D l-‘ Range of IBM ABS B/W MIN Variable Scores Card Col. Page Items 1 Stereotype 14-42 1 11-24 12-14 1-14 .8 2 Norm. 14-42 2 11-24 15-16 15-28 3 3 Moral 14-42 3 11-24 17-19 29-42 :3 4 Hypothetical 14-42 4 ll-24 20-21 43-56 g 5 Feeling 14-42 5 11-24 22-24 57-70 6 Action 14-56 6 11-24 25-27 71-84 7 Sex l-2 l 26 2 l 8 Age 1-5 1 27 2 2 9 Marital 1-5 1 28 2 3 10 Relig. general 1-4 1 29 2 4 ll Relig. denom, 1-6 1 30 3 5 12 Educ. level 1-7 1 31 _3 6 o 13 Fam. income 1-9 1 32 3 7 E 14 Clergy importance 1-4 1 33 3 8 an 15 Relig. impor.: style l-4 l 34 4 9 3 16 Obed.: worship 1-5 1 35 a 10.1 23° 17 Obed.: pledge 1-5 1 36 4 10.2 8 18 Obed.: Bible 1-5 1 37 4 10.3 ‘3 l9 Obed.: prayer 1-5 1 38 4 10.4 20 Obed.: drinking 1-5 1 39 4 10.5 21 Obed.: Superiors 1-5 1 40 4 10.6 22 Econ. level 1-5 1 41 4 ll 23 Polit. party 1-4 1 42 4 12 24 Set ways 1-4 1 43 4 13 a: 25 Child guidance 1-4 1 44 5 14 2.9 26 Birth control 1-4 1 45 5 15 g 27 Automation 1-4 1 46 5 16 L) 28 Church forms 1-4 1 47 5 17 29 Church worship 1-4 1 48 6 18 30 Set theol. 1-2 1 49 6 19 31 God: set/creative 1-2 1 50 6 20 ABS B/W' MIN Variable Range of Scores Card Col. Items o 32 Faith challenge 1 51 6 21 2933 Authority 1 52 6 22 ,2 34 Church traditions 1 53 7 23 t) o. :3 35 Follow/initiate 1 54 7 24 a 36 Relig. leaders 1 55 7 25 ,3 37 ‘Weak/strong 1 56 7 26 8 ..‘l 38 Relig. foundation 1 57 8 27 g 39 Theol. position 1 58 8 28 ‘3}, 40 Theol. pos. seminary 1 59 8 29 0H H 3‘2 41 Personal contact 1-4 1 60 8 30 42 Integr.: Gr. Sch. 1-3 1 61 8 31.1 43 Integr.: H.Sch. 1-3 1 62 9 31.2 44 Integr.: College 1-3 1 63 9 31.3 45 Integr.: Sam. 1-3 1 64 9 31.4 46 Integr.: work 1-4 1 65 9 32 g 47 Integr.? married 1-3 1 66 9 33 m 48 Integr.: would marry 1-4 1 67 9 34 E 49 Integr. neighborhood 1-4 1 68 10 35 8 50 Integr. boards 1-4 1 69 10 36 51 Integr. clergy 1-4 1 70 10 37 52 Integr. supervisor 1-4 1 71 10 38 53 Area of U.S. 1-6 1 72 10 39 54 Guests in home 1-4 1 73 10 40 :>~. 55 Nation 1 -3 -- .3 56 Interest group 1 -5 -- '3 57 Subject No. 1 -8 -- .8 58 Card No. l 9 -- l-l APPENDIX D CORRELATIONS BETWEEN PASTORS' REPORTED RACIAL ATTITUDES AND LAYMEN'S PERCEPTIONS OF THEIR RACIAL ATTITUDES APPENDIX D Correlations Between Pastors' Reported Racial Attitudes and Laymen's Perceptions of Their Racial Attitudes* '52; Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 1 L2:Ll r= .01 (-) Norm : Stereo. 2 L3:Ll r= .01 (-) , Moral : Stereo. 3 L4:Ll r= .01 (-) Hypothetical : Stereo. 4 L4:L2 r= .01 Hypothetical : Norm 5 L4:L3 r= .Ol Hypothetical : Moral 6 L5:L1 r= .04 Feeling : Stereo 7 L5:L2 r= .01 (-) Feeling : Norm 8 L5:L4 r= .01 (-) Feeling : Hypoth. 9 L6:L2 r= .01 Action : Norm 10 L6:L3 r= .04 (-) Action : Moral ll L6:L5 r= .01 (-) Action : Feeling 12 2:L2 r= .01 Yrs. Mamb. : Norm 13 2:L5 r= .01 (-) Yrs. Memb. : Feeling 14 2:L6 r= .01 Yrs. Memb. : Action 15 3:L2 r= .02 Age: Norm 16 3:L4 r= .04 Age: Hypoth. 17 3:L5 r= .01 (-) Age: Feeling 294 295 NE; Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 18 3:2 r= .03 Age : Yrs.MEmb. 19 6:L2 r= .08 (-) Ed Level : Norm 20 6:L5 r= .07 Ed Level : Feeling 21 6:3 r= .07 (-) Ed Level : Age 22 6:5 r= .03 (-) Ed Level : Pol. Party 23 7:2 r= .02 Econ. Level : Yrs. Memb. 124 8:3 r= .06 Lk. P's Pol. View : Age 25 10:L2 r= .01 Bd. Integ. : Norm ‘ 26 10:L3 r= .02 (-) Bd. Integ. : Ebral 27 10:L5 r= .02 (-) Bd. Integ. : Feeling 28 10:L6 r= .01 Bd. Integ. : Action 29 10:2 r= .01 Bd. Integ. : Yrs. Mamb. 30 llILBL r= .01 (-) Mbmb. Integ. : Norm 31 11:L3 r= .02 Memb. Integ. : Moral 32 11:L5 r= .02 'Memb. Integ. : Feeling 33 11:2 r= .04 (-) Mamb. Integ. : Yrs.'Memb. 34 12:L2 r= .03 (-) Bds. Integ : Norm 35 12:L3- r= .01 Bds. Integ : Moral 36 12:L6 r= .01 (-) Bds. Integ :.Action 37 12:2 r= .01 (-) Bds. Integ : Yrs. Mbmb. 38 13:2 r=1 .04 Staff Integ : Yrs. Memb. 39 13:7 r= .03 Staff Integ : Econ. Level 40 13:8 r= .04 Staff Integ : Known P. 41 l4:L2 r= .05 (-) Want Int. Staff : Norm 296 ‘Ng; ‘Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 42 14:L4 r= .04 (-) want Int. Staff : Hypoth. 43 l4:L5 r= .03 Want Int. Staff : Feeling 44 14:5 r= .02 Want Int. Staff : Pol. Party 45 16:L3 r= .09 (-) P. Spk. on R. : Moral 46 16:L4 r= .02 (-) P. Spk. on R. : Hypoth. 47 16:L5 r= .08 P. Spk. on R. : Feeling 48 16:3 r= .04 (-) P. Spk. on R. : Age 49 17:L1 r= .01 P. Spk. on R/P: Stereo 50 ' 17:L2 r= .03 (-) P. Spk. on R/Pol : Norm 51 17:L3 r= .04 (-) P. Spk. on R/Pol : Moral 52 17:L4 r= .01 (-) P. Spk. on R/Pol : Hypoth. 53 17:L5 r= .01 P. Spk. on R/Pol : Feeling 54 17:3 r= .04 (-) P. Spk. on R/Pol : Age 55 18:6 r= .05 P. wants Int. : Educ. Level 56 19:L2 r= .03 (-) P. Theol. Pos. : Norm 57 19:L4 r= .08 (-) P. Theol. Pos. : Hypoth. 58 19:3 r= .01 (-) P. Theol. Pos. : Age 59 19:4 r= .05 (-) P. Theol. Pos. : Sex 60 21:5 r= .06 P. Econ. Lev. : P. Party 61 21:6 r= .01 (-) P. Econ. Lev. : Ed. Level 62 23:L2 r= .05 (-) Lk. P's Rs View : Norm 63 .23:L4 r= .04 (-) Lk. P's R. View : Hypoth. 64 23:L5 r= .03 Lk. P's R" View : Feeling 297 8E2. variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 55 25:L1 r= .03 Lk. P's Econ. View : Stereo 66 25:L2 r= .01 (-) Lk. P's Econ. View : Norm 67 25:L4 ' r= .01 (-) Lk. P's Econ. View : Hypoth. 68 25:L5 r= .01 Lk. P's Econ. View : Feeling 69 25:3 r= .03 (-) Lk. P's Econ. View : Age 70 26:6 r= .05 Lk. P's Rel/Soc Act: Ed. Level 71 26:7 r= .03 Lk. P's Rel/Soc Act: Econ. Lev. 72 28:6 r= .02 (-) P. Ch. Guid. : Ed. Lev. 73 29EL3 r= .06 P. Birth Contr. : Mbral 74 29:L6 r= .06 (-) P. Birth Contr. : Action 75 29:2 r= .03 (-) P. Birth Contr. : Yrs. Memb. 76 31:L2 r= .01 (-) Maint. Theol. : Norm 77 31:L4 r= .03 (-) ‘Maint. Theol. : Hypoth. 78 31:L5 r= .01 Maint. Theol. : Feeling 79 31:L6 r= .01 (-) 'Maint. Theol. : Action 80 31:2 r= .01 (-) iMaint. Theol. : Yrs. MEmb. 81 31:3 r= .01 (-) Maint. Theol. : Age 82 32:L1 r= .03 Maint. Worship : Stereo 83 32:L2 r= .01 (-) IMaint. Worship : Norm 84 32:L4 r= .01 (-) 'Maint. Worship : Hypoth. 85 32:L5 r= .01 'Maint. worship : Feeling 86 32:3 r= .03 (-) Maint. Worship : Age 87 32:6 r= .03 Mbint. WOrship : Ed. Lev. J: 'L 298 §@h_ Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 88 33:5 r= .02 (-) God Chg/Create : Pol. Party 89 34:L2 r= .01 (-) Auth. : Norm 90 34:L5 r= .01 Auth. : Feeling 91 34:L6 r= .02 (-) Auth. : Action 92 34:6 r= .04 Auth. : Ed. Lev. 93 34:6 r= .02 Rel. Leaders : Ed. Lev. 94 38:6 r= .06 ‘Wk/Strg : Ed. Lev. 95 39:L4 r= .09 (-) Race Marr : Hypoth. 96 39:L5 r= .08 Race Marr : Feeling 97 41:6 r= .05 Integr. Ch. : Ed. Lev. 98 42:6 r= .05 Integr. Schs. : Ed. Lev. 99 43:6 r= .05 Integr. Hsg. : Ed. Lev. 100 50:7 r= .01 Lead/Follow : Econ. Lev. 101 54:L1 r= .07 Pers. Contact : Stereo 102 54:L4 r= .07 (-) Pers. Contact : Hypoth. 103 55:L6 r= .04 (-) Enjoy Contact : Action 104 11:10 r= .01 (-) Memb. Integ. : Bd. Integ. 105 12:10 r= .01 (-) Bds. Integ. : Bd. Int. 106 12:11 r= .01 Bds. Integ. : Memb. Int. 107 13:12 r= .03 (-) Staff Integ. : Bds. Int. 108 15:14 r= .01 ‘Want Int. Church :‘gggfiflnt. 109 17:14 r= .02 P. Spk, on R/Pol. : Want Int. Staff 110 17:16 r= .01 P. Spk. on R/Pol. : P. Spk. _ on R. No. Variables Correlation 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 18: 21: 22: 22: 22 23: 23: 23: 23 24: 26 24: 24: 25: 25: 25: 25: 25: 25: 26: 27: 27 28: 16 20 18 19 :20 15 17 18 :22 11 :12 21 23 15 17 18 19 23 24 19 19 :22 13 r: r: .‘ I: r: r: r: r- r: r: r: .08 .03 (-) .01 .03 (-) .07 .03 .02 .01 .01 .02 .06 .06 (~) .02 .03 .01 .00 .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 (-) .05 .01 299 Abbreviated Description P. Wants Int. P. Econ. Lev. P. Pol. Pty. P. Pol. Pty. P. Pol. Pty. Lk. P's R. View Lk. P's R. View Lk. P's R. View Lk. P's R. View Lk. P's Pol. View Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. Lk. P's P's P's P's P's P's P's P's P's P's : P. Spk on R : P. Obey Rules : P. wants Int. : P. Theol. Pos. : P. Obey Rules : want Int. Ch. : P. Spk. on R/Po : P. Wants Int. : P.POI. Pty. : Memb. Int. Pol. View Bds. Int. Pol. View : P. Econ. Lev. Pol. View : Lk. P.R. View Econ. View : Want Int. Ch. Econ. View : P.Spk. on R/Pol. Econ. View : P.Wants In. Econ. View : P. Theol. Pos. Econ. View : Lk.P's Pol. View Econ. View : Lk.P's Pol. View Rel/Soc Act: P. Theol. P08. P. Set Ways: P. Theol. P03. P. Set Ways: P.Pol.Pty. P. Ch. Guid. : Staff Int. 300 No. Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 134 28:21 r= .04 P. Ch. Guid. : P. Econ. Lev. 135 29:11 r= .03 P. Birth Contr. : Memb. Int. 136 29:12 r= .01 P. Birth Contr. : Bds. Int. 137 29:20 r= .03 P. Birth Contr. : P. Obey Rules 138 30:13 r= .01 Automation : Staff Int. 139 30:21 r= .04 .Automation : P. Econ.Lev. 140 31:10 r= .02 (-) Maint. Theol. : Bd. Int. 141 31:11 r= .02 'Maint. Theol. : Memb. Int. 142 31:17 r= .08 Maint. Theol. : P. Spk. on R/Pol. 143 31:19 r= .01 Maint. Theol. : P. Theol. P08. 144 32:16 r= .01 ‘Maint.'Worship : P. Spk. on R. 145 32:17 r= .01 'Maint. Worship : P. Spk. on R/Pol. 146 32:18 r= .03 Maint.'WOrship : P. Wants Int. 147 34:10 r= .02 (-) Authority : Bd. Int. 148 35:16 r= .01 Ch. Traditions : P. Spk. on R. 149 35:17 r= .03 Ch. Traditions : Spk. on R/Po 150 35:18 r= .08 Ch. Traditions : P. wants Int. 151 36:16 r= .07 Follow/Initiate: P. Spk. on R. 152 36:18 r= .03 Follow/Initiate: P. Wants Int. 153 37:11 r= .05 Rel. Leaders : Memb. Int. 154 38:12 r= .06 Wk/Strg. : Bds. Int. 155 38:21 r= .02 (-) Wk/Strg. : P. Econ. 301 No. Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 156 39:17 r= .06 Race Marr. : P. Spk. on R/Po . 157 39:18 r= .01 Race Marr. : P. wants Int. 158' 39:23 r= .02 Race Marr. : Lk. P's R. View 159 40:19 r= .02 (-) Int. Ch. Neigh.: P. Theol. P08. 160 40:22 r- .01 Int. Ch. Neigh.: P. Pol.Pty. 161 41316 r= .08 Int. Ch. : P. Spk. on R. 162 41:18 r= .01 Int. Ch. : P. Wants Int. 163 41322 r= .01 Int. Ch. : P. Pol. Pty. 164 41 23 r= .01 Int. Ch. : Lk. P's R. View 165 42:16 r= -08 Int. Schs. : P. Spk. on 166 42:18 r= '01 Int. Schs. : P. want Int. '67 , 42‘22 r: -01 Int. Schs. : P. P61. Pty. 168- 42:23 r= .01 Int. Schs. : Lk. P's R. View 169 43:16 r= .08 Int. Hsg. : P. Spk. on R. 170 43:18 r= .01 Int. Hsg. : P. Wants Int. 171 43:22 r= .01 Int. Hsg. : P. Pol. Pty. 172 43:23 r= .01 Int. Hsg. : Lk. P's R. iew 173 44316 r= .03 Equal Opp/Ed Jobs : P. Spk. on R. 174 44:18 r= .01 Equal Opp/Ed Jobs : P. wants Int. 175 44:22 r= .01 Equal Opp/Ed Jobs : P.Pol. Pty. 176 44:23 r= .01 Equal Opp/Ed Jobs : Lk. P's R. View 177 48:14 r= .01 Race Leader : Want Int. Staff No, 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 48 48 49: 49: 49: 49: 49 49 50: 50: 51: 51: 51: 51: 51: 51: 54: 54: 55: 55: 55: 55: Variables :15 :23 16 17 18 22 :23 :24 13 15 15 17 18 22 22 24 16 17 10 ll 12 24 r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: r: .01 .01 .01 .01 .01 .04 Correlation (-) 302 Abbreviated Description Race Leader Race Leader Push Opposition Push Opposition Push Opposition Push Opposition Push Opposition Push Opposition Lead/Follow : Lead/Follow Agree on R Agree on R Agree on R Agree on R Agree On R Agree on R Pers. Contact Pers. Contact Enjoy Contact Enjoy Contact Enjoy Contact Enjoy Contact : Want Int. Ch. : Lk. P's R. View : P. Spk. on R. : P. Spk. on R/Po : P. wants Int. : P. Pol. Pty. : Lk. P's R. View : Lk. P's Pol. View Staff Int. :Want Int. Ch. : want Int. Ch. : P. Spk. on R/Pol. : P. Wants Int. : P. Pol. Pty. : Lk. P's R. View : Lk. P's Pol. View : P. Spk. on R. : P. S k. on R/PoI. : Bd. Int. : Mamb. Int. : Bds. Int. : Lk. P's Econ. View 303 No. Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 200 26325 r= .03 Lk P's Rel/Soc.Act. : Lk. P's Econ. View 201 30:28 r= .02 Automation : P. Ch. Guid. 202 31=25 r= .05 Maint. Theol. : Like P's ‘ Econ. View 203 32:25 r= .01 Maint. Worship : Like P's Econ. View 204 32:26 r= .03 iMaint. Worship : Lk. P's ‘ Rel/Soc Act. 205 32:31 r= .01 Mbint. worship : Maint. Theol. 206 34:31 r= .04 Authority : Maint. Theol. 207 35:27 r= .01 Ch. Trad. : P. Set ways 208 36:31 r. .01 Follow/Initiate: Maint. Theol. 209 36:32 r= .01 Follow/Initiate: Maint. 'WOrship 210 37:28 r= .05 (-) Rel. Leaders : P. Ch. Guid. 211 37:32 r= .04 Rel. Leaders : Maint. ‘Worship 212 38:37 r= .01 Wk/Strg. : Rel. Leaders 213 39:25 r= ~01 Race Marr. : Lk. P's Econ. View 214 39:32 r= .01 Race Marr. : Maint. WCrship 215 39:35 r= '01 Race Marr. : Follow/ Initiate 216 40:26 r= -01 (-) Int. Ch. Néigh. : Lk. P's Rel/Soc.Act. 217 41:25 r= .03 Int. Ch. : Lk. P's Econ. View 213 41:32 r= .03 Int. Ch. : Maint. Nor. 219 41:36 r= .03 Int. Ch. : Follow/ Initiate 220 41:39 r= .01 Int. Ch. : R. Marr. 221 42:25 r= .03 Int. Schs. : Lk. P's Econ. View 222 42:32 r= .03 Int. Schs. : Maint. 'WOrship 304 No. Variables Correlation Abbreviated Description 223 42:36 r= .03 Int. Schs. : Follow/ Initiate 224 42:39 r= .01 Int. Schs. : R. Marr. 225 43:25 r= .03 Int. Hsg. : Lk. P's Econ. View 226 43:32 r= .03 Int. Hsg. : Maint. WOr. 227 43:36 r= .03 Int. Hsg. : Follow/ Initiate 228 43:39 r= .01 Int. Hsg. : R. Marr. 229 44:25 r= .03 Equal Opp. Ed. : Lk. P's Econ. View 230 44:32 r= .03 Equal Opp. Ed. : Maint. Wor. 231 44:36 r= .03 Equal Opp. Ed. : Follow/ Initiate 232 44:39 r= .01 Equal Opp. Ed. : R. Marr. 233 47:27 r= .01 Change : Set Ways 234 49:32 r= .01 Push Opposition : Maint. WOr. 235 49:36 r= .03 Push Opposition : Follow/Init. 236 49:39 r= .01 Push Opposition : R. Marr. 237 50:25 r= .01 Lead/Follow : Lk. P's Ee 6:1. (1' JVieW . 238 50:26 - . L d F 11 : Lko P's r- 03 ea I 0 CW Rel/Soc.Act. - = ree on R. : Lk. P's 239 51.25 r .01 A8 Bonn. View 240 51:39 r= .02 Agree on R. : R. Marr. 241 55:38 r= .01 Enjoy Contact : Wk/Strg. 242 50:48 r= .03 Follow/Read : R. Leader 243 51:41 r= .01 Agree on R. : Int. Ch. 244 51:42 r- .01 Agree on R. : Int. Schs. 305 N2. Variables Correlation Abbreviated description 245 51:43 r = .01 Agree on R. : Int. Hsg. 246 51:44 r = .01 Agree on 'R. : Equal Op. Ed. 247 51:48 r = .01 Agree on R. : R. Leader 248 51:49 r = .01 Agree on R. : Push Opp. *P <: .08