ATTITUDES TOUARD MINORITY GROUPS I1T
RELATION TO RURAL SOCIAL STRUCTURE

3y
JOHN BEM HOLLAl'ID

A THESIS
Subm itted to th e School o f G rad u ate S tu d io s o f M ichigan
S ta te C o lle g e o f A g r ic u ltu r e and A p p lied S cience
i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t o f th e re q u ire m e n ts
f o r th e d e g re e o f
1
DOCTOR OP PHILOSOPHY

D epartm ent o f S ociology and A nthropology

PH2FACB A2D ACKROULBDGMRLTTS

The m ajo r problem o f th e r e s e a r c h which i s being r e p o r te d
h e r e i s one o f s e v e r a l p roblem s a s s o c ia te d w ith a p r o je c t u n d e rta k e n
by th e S o c ia l R e se arch S e rv ic e o f th e D epartm ent o f S o ciology and
A nthropology o f M ichigan S ta te C o lleg e u n d e r th e j o i n t sp o n so rsh ip
o f th e American Jew ish Committee and th e A n ti-D efsm atio n League.
I owe a c o n s id e r a b le d e b t to th e members o f th e S o c ia l R esearch
com m ittee, to D r. Leo S ro le , D ir e c to r o f R esearch f o r th e A n tiD efam ation League, and Dr. Samuel Flowerman, D ir e c to r o f th e
D epartm ent o f S c i e n t i f i c R esearch o f th e A m erican Jew ish Committee.
I t was ny p r i v i l e g e to be a member o f t h e S o c ia l R esearch
S e rv ic e com m ittee which u n d e rto o k t h i s p r o j e c t , u n d er th e chairm an­
s h ip o f D r. W ilb u r B rookover, and to work w ith him and th e o th e r
members o f t h i s com m ittee.

F req u en t c o n s u lta t io n s were h e ld a ls o

w ith th e p r o j e c t sp o n so rs th ro u g h o u t th e p la n n in g , developm ent and
f i n a l r e p o r tin g o f th e p r o j e c t .

In a d d itio n , th e w r i te r sp e n t fo u r

months a s a community o b s e rv e r, l i v i n g i n th e county s e a t community
i n which th e r e s e a r c h was co n d u cted .

An a d d iti o n a l month i n

re s id e n c e was s p e n t t h e r e w h ile th e in te r v ie w in g to o k p l a c e .
T h is f i e l d work was done in th e w in te r and s p rin g o f 19^9-

The

t h e s i s which i s b e in g p r e s e n te d h e re was developed from t h e d a ta
c o l l e c t e d by th e in te rv ie w in g p r o c e s s , b u t h a s been supplem ented
by in fo rm a tio n g a in e d a s a community o b s e rv e r .
I f e e l t h a t th e t o t a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , o f which t h i s i s o n ly
one p a r t , r e p r e s e n ts a r e a l community o f e f f o r t .

The in te rc h a n g e o f

th e id e a s o f men from s e v e ra l r e l a t e d d i s c i p l i n e s s tre n g th e n e d

th e r e s e a r c h program .

T h is a p p l i e s to a l l p h a s e s o f th e r e s e a r c h ,

n e v e r th e le s s , I m ast a c c e p t s o le r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r th e a p p l i c a t i o n
o f th e method o f a n a l y s is and th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f th e d a t a .
B ut w h ile f u l l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y must be acknow ledged, t h e c r e d i t ,
i n s o f a r a s c r e d i t i s due, c a n n o t be so e a s ily accepted.,

"h e f i r s t

d e b t t h a t must be acknow ledged i s to Dr. C h a rle s Loomis, who, a s
head o f th e D epartm ent o f S o cio lo g y and A n thropology, a s a member
o f th e r e s e a r c h com m ititee, and a s my a d v is o r th ro u g h o u t my g ra d u a te
t r a i n i n g , h a s a s s i s t e d me i n ev e ry p o s s ib le way.

I w ish t o e x p re ss

my a p p r e c ia tio n f o r h i s many keen i n s i g h t s and h i s c o n s ta n t su p p o rt.
D r. W ilbur B rookover, a s chairm an o f t h e t o t a l r e s e a r c h p r o je c t ,
a s a cow orker in a l l p h a se s o f th e r e s e a r c h , and a s a m ajo r a d v is o r
i n t h e developm ent o f my ovm t h e s i s , h a s g iv e n u n s t i n t i n g l y o f h i s
own tim e and e n erg y . - To p u b l ic ly acknow ledge my d e b t to him can
o n ly be p a r t i a l repaym ent.
T here a r e many o th e r s b u t I went p a r t i c u l a r l y to th a n k D r. C h arles
H o ffe r who h a s r e a d and c r i t i c i z e d i n many h e lp f u l ways t h i s t h e s i s
and h a s c o n s ta n tly aid e d me from th e b e g in n in g o f my g r a d u a te work.
To D r. Duane G ibson I a ls o owe much, a s a te a c h e r , a s a member o f
th e r e s e a r c h com m ittee, and a s a c o n s tr u c tiv e and h e lp f u l c r i t i c
o f th e m ethodology o f t h i s t h e s i s .
Many o t h e r s , in c lu d in g t h e members o f t h e f i e l d r e s e a r c h and
th e c l e r i c a l s t j i f f o f th e S o c ia l R esearch S e rv ic e , w h ile a o t
d i r e c t l y acknow ledged, havo c o n tr ib u te d more th a n I can s a y .

To th e

o th e r members o f th e com m ittee, D r. A. T. H ansen, D r. E dgar S ch u ler,
D r. M ilton Rokeach, P r o f e s s o r John McKinney, P r o f e s s o r B etsy C a s tle ­

b e r ry , end Dr. Leo K atz, I w ish to ex p ress a g a in ny a p p r e c ia tio n .
I an e s p e c ia lly in d e b te d to D r. Hansen f o r h i s encouragem ent and
g u id an ce i n ta k in g th e community o b s e rv e r r o l e , and f o r h i s much
needed h e lp i n s o lv in g th e p ro b le m s the.t a r o s e d u rin g community
o b s e rv a tio n .

I a l s o owe much to D r. K atz f o r h i s h e lp in s e t t i n g

up th e m ethodology in v o lv e d i n th e r e s e a r c h a n a l y s is .

Mr. Fran!:

M artin , head o f th e T a b u la tin g D epartm ent a t M ichigan S ta te C o lleg e,
was ex trem ely h e l p f u l in s o lv in g th e p r a c t i c a l problem s in v o lv e d
in q u a n tify in g th e d a ta and making th e n e c e s s a ry e x te n s iv e
c a lc u la tio n s .
Qno f u r t h e r acknowledgment i s more th a n n e c e s s a ry .

D r. C lif f o r d

E rick so n h a s been a t a l l tim e s an a d v is o r and c o u n s e lo r i n much more
th an th e o r d in a r y s e n se .

I a n most g r a t e f u l f o r h i s u n f a i l i n g

'

sympathy, h i s aw aren ess and u n d e rs ta n d in g o f my f re q u e n t p e r ­
p l e x i t i e s , and h i s com plete r e a d in e s s to a s s i s t me a t a l l tim e s.
Above a l l th e w r i t e r m ust acknow ledge h i s g r a te f u ln e s s to
th e members o f th e a g r i c u l t u r a l e x te n s io n s t a f f end to th e p e o p le
o f Maple County f o r t h e i r f r i e n d l y c o o p e ra tio n th ro u g h o u t a l l
p h a s e s o f th e r e s e a r c h .

CONTENTS

Chapter

Page
PART I - ATTITUDES III THE RURAL
MIDWEST TOWARD MINORITY GROUPS

I.

THE PROBLEM AND METHODOLOGY OF THE RESEARCH
The P ro b lem ................................................................................
S e le c tio n o f th e R eg io n ............................................
S e le c tio n o f th e Sam ple............................................
Developm ent o f th e M easurement T e ch n iq u es.
. .
R e l i a b i l i t y o f th e I n s tr u m e n t..............................
The Method o f A n a l y s i s .....................................................

II.

1
3
6
11
17
21

MAPLE COUNTY AND ITS ATTITUDES TOWARD MINORITY GROIPS
Maple County - The S e t t i n g ...............................................
A tt i t u d e s tow ard M in o r itie s ........................................

25
39

PART I I - ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OE
POSITION IN THE SOCIAL STRUCTURE
INTRODUCTION TO PART T W O ...................................................
III.

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SEX, AGE, ETHNIC
AND RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENCES
Sex D if f e r e n c e s in A t t i t u d e s ...............................
Age and A t t i t u d e s tow ard M in o r iti e s .................
A t t i t u d e s a s a F u n c tio n o f
E a rly and L a te r Am erican O r ig in ........................
E c o lo g ic a l R e la tio n s h ip s a s a
F u n c tio n o f A ttitu d e s tow ard M in o r itie s . . .
C o n c lu s io n s .......................................................................

IV .

55

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL STATUS:

60
67
?6
85
93

OCCUPATION

T h e o r e tic a l C o n s id e ra tio n s w ith R espect to
S o c ia l S ta tu s and A tt i t u d e s tow ard M in o r itie s .
$6
O ccupation i n R e la tio n s h ip to
A tti t u d e s tow ard M in o rity Groups . . .
..
102
C o n clu sio n s w ith R esp ect to A -ttitu d e s
tow ard Jew s and O cc u p a tio n a l D if f e r e n c e s .
..
Ill
O cc u p atio n al D if fe r e n c e s and
A t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes and M exicans. .
..
117
C o n c lu s io n s .......................................................................
127

V

Chapter
V.

Page
ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OP SOCIAL STATUS:
INCOME ADD EDUCA.TICN
Income i n R e la tio n s h ip to
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M in o r itie s .......................................
E d u c a tio n i n R e la tio n s h ip to
A t t i t u d e s tov/ard M in o rity G r o u p s ............................
C o n c l u s i o n s .........................................................................

V I.

1^0
155

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL STATUS:
' SELF-EVALUATION OF SOCIAL CLASS AND
A CONSTRUCTED INDEX OF SOCIAL STATUS
A t t i t u d e s tov/ard M in o r itie s i n R e la tio n
to S e lf - E v a lu a tio n o f S o c ia l C lass . .
. ,.
A t t i t u d e s i n R e la tio n s h ip to a
C o n stru c te d Index o f S o c ia l S ta tu s . . . .
A t t i t u d e s o f Farm R espondents in
R e la tio n s h ip to an In d ex o f S ta tu s . . . .
A t t i t u d e s o f Non-Farm R espondents
in R e la tio n s h ip to an In d ex o f S ta tu s . . .
The A p p lic a tio n o f a New S ta tu s Index
to A t t i t u d e s tov/ard M in o rity Groups . . . .
C o n c l u s i o n s .........................................................................
Summary o f F in d in g s R e la te d
to S o c ia l S ta tu s I n d i c e s ...............................................

V II.

129

160
169
171
177
18^
186
187

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF
ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERSHIP ANT ACTIVITY
I - Kind o f Membership
R e lig io u s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M in o r it ie s ......................................
Membership in O ther O rg a n iz a tio n s in
R e la tio n s h ip to A ttitu d e s tov/ard M in o r itie s .
C o n c lu sio n s w ith R espect to
Zind o f O rg a n iz a tio n a l M embership.............................!

19^
20^
216

I I - E x te n t o f O rg a n is a tio n a l A c tiv ity
Church A .c tiv ity in R e la tio n s h ip
to A t t i t u d e s tov/ard M in o r i tie s ...............................
The R e la tio n s h ip o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n in O ther
O rg a n iz a tio n s to A t titu d e s toward M in o r itie s .
P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n Terms o f
Farm and Non-Farm R e s p o n d e n ts ............................... ..
C o n clu sio n s w ith R espect to th e R e la tio n s h ip
o f A t t i t u d e s to E x te n t o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n in
O r g a n iz a tio n s ........................................................................... i

218
231
237
2^3

Vi

Chapter
V III.

Page
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS JUTD IMPLICATIONS
Summary and. C o n c lu s io n s ...............................................
The I m p lic a tio n s o f T h is R e se a rc h ...........................

2*+5
256

H eferen ces C ite d i n th e T h e s i s ..................................

26l

APPENDICES
Appendix A - S e le c tio n o f th e Sample Region
.
A ppendix B - The S chedule and R e l i a b i l i t y D ata
Appendix C - A T e st o f th e Assum ption
o f Homogeneity o f V a ria n c e .
.
A ppendix D - The O r ig in a l D is tr i b u tio n s
o f th e T hree P re ju d ic o S co res
.
Appendix E - R e la tio n s h ip s among V a ria b le s
and th e Method Used f o r th e
C o n s tru c tio n o f an In d ex o f
S o c ia l S ta tu s . . . . .
.
Appendix P - The C o n s tru c tio n o f
th e P a r t i c i p a t i o n In d ex . . .
A ppendix G - T a b le s Showing An a ly s o s o f
V arian ce D iscu ssed b u t not
In clu d ed i n Mein Body o f T h e sis
Appendix H - Summary T a b le s Showing t h e
R e s u lts o f th e A n a ly s is o f
V arian ce f o r th e Three M in o rity
Groups by th e M ajor V a ria b le s
P re s e n te d in th e T h e s is . . .
.

26*1
268
27*+
279

282
291
29*+

308

PAST I

ATTITUDES III THE HJPAL MIDWEST
TOWAPD MI1T0PITY GRO'PS

CHAPTER ORE
THE PROBLEM A13) METHODOLOC-Y OP THE RESEARCH

The Problem
T h is r e s e a r c h vjas u n d e rta k e n f i r s t o f a l l to answ er whet
ap p eared to he a c o m p a ra tiv e ly sim p le q u e s tio n .

What a r e th e

p a t t e r n s o f s e n tim e n ts and b e l i e f s tow ard c e r t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l
m in o rity g ro u p s which a r e to h e found in th e r u r a l midwest?

In

r e c e n t y e a r s a number o f s u rv e y s , p a r t i c u l a r l y th o s e sponsored by
th e Am erican Je w ish Committee and th e A n ti-D efem atio n League, have
in q u ir e d i n t o t h e a t t i t u d e s to w ard m in o rity grouos which a r e
e x p re sse d by r e s i d e n t s o f l a r g e u rb a n c e n te r s .

But w h ile th e r e h a s

b een a g r e a t amount o f s p e c u la tio n about t h e p o s s ib l e s e n tim e n ts
t h a t o p e r a te i n r u r a l a r e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y th e m idw est, u n t i l th e
p r e s e n t p r o j e c t th e r e have b e e n no s y s te m a tic a tte m p ts to determ in e
th e c lim a te o f o p in io n i n t h i s im p o rta n t p a r t o f th e n a t i o n .

I t is

t r u e t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l p o l l i n g a g e n c ie s h a v e, from tim e to tim e ,
conducted n a t i o n a l su rv ey s o f a sample p o p u la tio n to d e te rm in e
an sw ers to a s p e c i f i c q u e s tio n o r so about Jew s o r ITegroes.

Prom

such su rv ey s e s tim a te s have been made o f r e g io n a l d i f f e r e n c e s b u t
such r e s u l t s a r e n o t com parable to th e more in te n s iv e su rv e y s of
u rb a n c e n te r s .

H e n c e ,th is r e s e a r c h was e n te r e d in t o , f i r s t o f a l l ,

to o b ta in a re a s o n a b ly co m p lete p i c t u r e o f th e g e n e ra l c lim a te of
o p in io n which p r e v a i l s i n a t y p i c a l p o r tio n o f th e r u r a l c o m b e lt of
midv;est A m erica.
S in c e World '/jar I I i t h a s become in c r e a s in g ly a p p a re n t t h a t th e

a t t i t u d e s o f r u r a l f o l k tow ard m in o r itie s , t h e i r i n s u l a t i o n from
o r s u s c e p t i b i l i t y to a n ti-d e m o c ra tic c re e d s and prop ag an d a, t h e i r
id e o lo g y , i n o t h e r words, i s ex trem ely im p o rta n t to th e d e te rm in a tio n
o f n a tio n a l e v e n ts .

The e v id e n c e o f r e c e n t s tu d ie s ^ h a s shown th a t

t h e lla z i movement re c e iv e d much o f i t s su p p o rt from th e German p e a s a n t.
What th e n i s t h e p r e v a i l in g l e v e l o f to le r a n c e o r in to le r a n c e i n r u r a l
m id-Am erica tow ard m in o ritie s ?
But w h ile th e answ er to t h i s q u e s tio n i s im p o rta n t to a c tio n
a g e n c ie s i n t e r e s t e d i n d is c o v e r in g where program s f o r in c r e a s in g
group u n d e rs ta n d in g a r e most needed, i t does n o t i n i t s e l f throw
l i g h t on what k in d s o f program s a r e n e c e s s a ry .

In f a c t much of th e

th in k in g a lo n g t h i s l i n e assum es t h a t th e r e i s one r u r a l America
and th a t th e f o l k t h e r e i n a r e much th e same.

In a modem i n d u s t r i a l

s o c ie ty i t i s easy to assume t h a t r u r a l a r e a s a r e p r im a r ily composed
o f farm f o l k w ith a few m erch an ts and p r o f e s s io n a l p e o p le to supply
t h e i r w an ts.

But s tu d ie s o f r u r a l l i f e i n d i c a t e th a t t h i s assum ption

d o es n o t h o ld — e s p e c ia lly i n t h e m idwost.

T here th e l i n e s o f

com m unication a r c e x te n s iv e and th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een c i t y and
c o u n try a r e becom ing l e s s and l e s s easy to d e te rm in e .

T hat i s , r u r a l

midwest America i s n o t a sim p le , f o l k s o c ie ty b u t a complex s e t o f
i n t e r r e l a t e d s o c i a l system s.

I n s o f a r as t h i s i s t r u e a more d i f f i c u l t

problem f o r r e s e a r c h i s r a i s e d .

What i s th e r e l a t io n s h i p betw een th e

s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e o f a t y p i c a l raidw estem a r e a to a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m in o rity groups?

^S ee C h a rles P . Loomis ana J . A lla n B eegle, "The Spread o f German
ITazisn i n R u ra l A re a s," Am. Soc. Rev. . ll:7 2 ^ -7 3 ^ » 19^6.

The n e c e s s ity to r a i s e t h i s q u e s tio n r e s t s upon th e assu m p tio n ths>t
i n th e r u r a l r e g io n s , a s i n l a r g e r c i t i e s , s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e i s a
com plex e q u ilib riu m which d epends f o r i t s m aintenance upon a v a r i e t y
o f in te r r e la te d v a ria b le s .

The answ er to th e q u e s tio n , i n s o f a r a s

i t can be answ ered, im p lie s th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d is c o v e rin g c e r t a i n
g e n e r a liz a tio n s ab o u t human r e l a t i o n s which may a p p ly n o t o n ly to
r u r a l s o c ie ty i n m id-Am erica b u t, w ith m o d ific a tio n s , to u rb a n
s o c ie ty a s w e ll.
The s p e c i f i c problem o f t h i s r e s e a r c h mey now be s t a t e d .

What

a r e th e p a t t e r n s o f a t t i t u d e s e x p ressed in th e r u r a l midwest tow ard
c e r t a i n m in o rity g ro u p s, and i n what ways a r e th e s e p a t t e r n s r e l a te d
to th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e ?

T h is problem may b e p h ra se d as a g u id in g

h y p o th e s is f o r th e r e s e a r c h a n a ly s is .w h ic h f o llo w s .

Namely,

w ith in a t o t a l - p a tte rn o f s e n tim e n ts and b e l i e f s a b o u t c e r t a i n
m in o rity grottos m a n ife ste d by neo-ole o f th e r u r a l m idw est, t h e r e
a r e d is tin g u ls h a b ly d i f f e r e n t s u b - c u ltu r a l - p a tte rn s which a r e
a s s o c ia te d w ith d i f f e r e n t -p o s itio n s i n th e s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e .
S e le c tio n o f th e Region
The f i n a l s e le c t io n o f th e s p e c i f i c re g io n to be in v e s tig a te d
was made a f t e r c o n s id e ra b le s tu d y .

The c r i t e r i a of "r u r a l i t y " and

"m idw estern" a r e th em selv es so broad t h a t many v a r i a t i o n s a r e p o s s ib le .
F o r example, w e s te rn Kansas i s b o th m idw estern and r u r a l b u t th e
p a t t e r n o f la n d u s e i s o b v io u sly d i f f e r e n t , among o th e r re a s o n s b ecau se
o f t h e dependence upon one cro p , from t h a t o f w e ste rn Ohio which i s
a l s o m idw estern and r u r a l .

The m e th o d o lo g ic a l problem was t h a t o f

s e l e c t i n g an a r e a sm a ll enough to be sampled a d e q u a te ly , l a r g e enough

to in c lu d e a l l m ajo r a s p e c ts o f human r e l a t io n s h i p s w ith in th e a r e a ,
and t y p i c a l , t o a c o n s id e ra b le e x te n t, o f many o th e r such a r e a s in
th e m idv/est.
T y p ic a lity i s a u s e f u l c o n s tr u c t a s lo n g a s i t i s u n d e rsto o d to
r e f e r to a c o m o n p a t t e r n w hich ap p ro x im a te s some p o r tio n o f r e a l i ty .
I d e a l- ty p o s , a s Weber, who made e x te n s iv e u s e of t h i s m eth o d o lo g ic a l
t o o l , h as p o in te d o u t, a r e n o t a v e ra g e s i n a s t a t i s t i c a l se n se ,
a lth o u g h s t a t i s t i c s may p la y some p a r t in d e te rm in in g th e c r i t e r i a
to be in c lu d e d i n th e i d e a l - t y p e .

To s e le c t t h e a v e ra g e , in a

s t a t i s t i c a l s e n s e , r u r a l m idw estern l o c a l i t y i s to d e v ia te c o n s id e ra b ly
from any one o f th e s e v e ra l t y p i c a l p a t t e r n s o f te c h n o lo g ic a l and
i
e c o lo g ic a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which a r e a c tu a lly to be found. F o r t h i s
r e s e a r c h one t y p i c a l p a t t e r n was s e le c te d an d , from a number o f
a r e a s where t h i s p a t t e r n p re d o m in a te d , a f i n a l s e le c tio n o f a " t y p i c a l ”
r e g io n was made,

2

The r e s u l t i n g ch o ic e was d e s ig n a te d a s Maple County, M id S tate.
T h is county was t y p i c a l o f many r e g io n s i n th e c o m b e l t .
p r i n c i p a l c ro p s a r e mixed g r a i n arid l iv e s t o c k .

3

The

The co u n ty s e a t i s

lo c a te d in th e c e n t e r o f th e c o u n ty , i s l a r g e r th a n any o f th e o th e r
tow ns, and, to a c o n s id e ra b le e x te n t, d o m in ates th e su rro u n d in g £ re a
i

i n term s o f t r a d e , p o l i t i c a l , and s o c ia l a c t i v i t y .

M oreover, Mhple

County i s lo c a t e d a t a s u f f i c i e n t d is ta n c e from la r g e u rb a n c e n te r s
so t h a t i t i s n o t d i r e c t l y dom inated by a m e tro p o lis .

On th e o th e r

hand, th e co u n ty i s c lo s e enough, w ith h ig h speed highw ays, to la r g e
p
^ F o r a more d e t a i l e d d is c u s s io n o f th e a c t u a l sterps which were tak en
to make t h i s c h o ic e th e r e a d e r i s r e f e r r e d to Appendix A.
^ T h is i s a pseudonym, a s a r e o t h e r names u se d in t h i s t h e s i s . The
p u rp o se i s to p r e s e r v e anonym ity, p a r t i c u l a r l y a s much o f t h i s t h e s i s
d a ta w i l l be u s e d i n th e t o t a l p r o je c t r e p o r t which makes many r e fe r e n c e s
to s p e c if ic i n d iv id u a ls who were g u a ra n te e d anonym ity by th e r e s e a r c h e r s .

-5 m e tr o p o lita n a r e a s so t h a t i t i s ty p i c a l o f much o f th e midwest
w here a jo u rn e y to a l a r g e c i t y and back may b e made w ith in one
d a y 's t i n e .
In g e n e r a l, Maple County, M idS tate i s a t y p i c a l c o m b e l t ,
c o u n ty -s e a t d o m in ated , a r e a .

I t i s n e i t h e r so le r g e a s t o in c lu d e

a d is p r o p o r tio n a te number o f i n d u s t r i a l , u rb a n r e s i d e n t s , n o r so
sm a ll a s to i n d i c a t e an a t y p i c a l , s p a r s e ly s e t t l e d re g io n .

The

co u n ty , a c c o rd in g to th e 1950 c e n su s, h a s a p o p u la tio n o f about
3 0 ,0 0 0 .

The p r i n c i p a l town’ o f Johnstow n, t h e county s e a t , acc o rd in g

to th e 1950 c e n s u s , h a s a p o p u la tio n o f a b o u t 8500.

B ro w n sv ille ,

which h a s 'c o n s id e r a b ly more i n d u s t r i a l ^/orlcers, p r o p o r ti o n a te l y , th an
t h e o th e r tow ns, h as a p o p u la tio n o f a b o u t 1800.

T his i s th e 1°40

ce n su s f i g u r e and i t i s p ro b a b le t h a t th e p o p u la tio n , a t th e tim e
th e r e s e a r c h was u n d e rta k e n , was n e a r e r 2.000.

Adams i s a town

composed i n l a r g e p a r t o f widows and r e t i r e d fa rm e rs and h a s about
1300 i n h a b i t a n t s a c c o rd in g to th e 19*K) c e n s u s .

I t i s not lik e ly th a t

t h i s f i g u r e w i l l be changed much when th e 1950 census f i g u r e s a r e
a v a ila b le .

T here i s one o t h e r town in Maple County b u t i t i s lo c a te d

a t th e estrem e n o rth w e ste rn t i p o f th e co u n ty and was n o t in c lu d e d in
t h e com ity s e a t community a r e a which was s e le c te d f o r a n a l y s i s .
Maple County i s t y p i c a l a ls o o f many o t h e r such c o u n tie s in th e
m idwest b ecau se th e r e a r e .f e w members o f t r a d i t i o n a l m in o rity groups
who l i v e i n th e c o u n ty .

I t i s t - p i c a l a ls o i n t h a t th e r e i s an e th n ic

group o f f a i r l y r e c e n t o r ig in which h a s fo u n d a p la c e f o r i t s e l f t h e r e .
In t h i s c a se i t i s a P o lis h group, how i n t h e t h i r d g e n e r a tio n , which
o r i g i n a l l y came to th e co u nty i n th e l a t t e r p e r t o f th e n in e te e n th

-6 c e n tu iy .

I n o t h e r r e g io n s su ch a group i s l i k e l y to be composed

o f S c a n d in a v ia n s, B utch, o r Germans who come to t h i s c o u n try and
m ig ra te d to th e midwest d u rin g t h e l a s t c e n tu r y .
S e le c tio n o f t h e Samole
Having s e le c te d an a r e a which was deemed t y p i c a l o f t h e r u r a l
m idw est, th e n e x t s te p was t h a t o f s e le c t in g a sample which was
a c c u r a te enough i n i t s main o u t l i n e so th a t i t could r e p r e s e n t th e
l a r g e r p o p u la tio n i n th e a r e a from which i t was drawn.

The problem ,

i n o th e r w ords, was t h a t o f draw ing a random sample p o p u la tio n which
was s u f f i c i e n t l y s t r a t i f i e d t o r e p re s e n t th e mein county s e a t community
a r e a which had b een chosen f o r s tu d y .

B ecause o f budget l i m i t a t i o n s

th e p r o je c te d sam ple was to be a p p ro x im a te ly UOO, which n e c e s s ita te d
c o n s id e ra b le c a r e i n th e draw ing o f th e sam ple.
The w r i t e r , s e rv in g a s a community o b s e rv e r f o r s e v e r a l months
b e f o re in te rv ie w in g began, to g e th e r w ith th e chairm an o f th e t o t a l
r e s e a r c h iD ro je ct, developed s e v e r a l c r i t e r i a f o r th e p u rp o s e .

It

w as, f i r s t o f a l l , n e c e s s a ry to draw p r o p o r tio n a te numbers o f
re sp o n d e n ts to ap p ro x im a te t h e a c t u a l p r o p o r tio n o f r u r a l and town
r e s i d e n t s o f th e co u n ty s e a t community.
In th e s m a lle r towns o f B ro w n sv ille and Adams, where no im p o rtan t
r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s were o b s e rv a b le , g o o g rrp h ic d i v i s i o n s were
made to in s u r e t h a t a l l p a r t s o f th e town w ere given an e q u a l chance
to b e r e p r e s e n te d , and p r o p o r tio n a te sam ples o f h o u seh o ld s were drawn
f o r in te rv ie w s .
In th e l a r g e r c i t y o f Johnstow n t h e r e w ere no c l e a r l y d e fin e d

-7 b ro ad a r e a s o f r e s i d e n t i a l d if f e r e n c e but t h e r e were a v a r i e t y o f
s u b -a re a s s c a t t e r e d th ro u g h o u t t h e toy/n y;hich yrere o b v io u sly
d i f f e r e n t from a d jo in in g a r e a s .

To o b ta in

a r e p r e s e n ta t iv e sample

o f h ead s o f h o u se h o ld s i n th e county s e a t t h e town was s t r a t i f i e d
i n t o r e l a t i v e l y homogeneous e c o lo g ic a l a r e a s .

These a r e a s were

d e lin e a te d by t h e community o b s e rv e r and th e chairm an o f th e r e s e a r c h
p r o j e c t upon th e b a s i s o f th e ty p e o f h o u sin g and th e p red o m in a te
o c c u p a tio n a l l e v e l known to l i v e i n th e s e a r e a s .

The s o u rc e s of

in fo rm a tio n v;ere th e c i t y d i r e c t o r y , r e e l e s t a t e a g e n ts , in fo rm a n ts
v/ho had liv e d f o r many y e a r s i n th e toy/n, and th e r a tin g s o f th e
r e s e a r c h e r s as th e y observed and mapped each o f th e h o u sin g a r e a s
i n th e c i t y .

A p r o p o r tio n a te random sample v/as draym from each o f

th e s ix s t r a t a d e lin e a te d by t h i s method.
The p ro b lem i n th e r u r a l a r e a y/as souevriiat more d i f f i c u l t .
S in ce th e m ajor t a s k o f th e r e s e a r c h v;as to d ete rm in e th e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip betyjeen s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and a t t i t u d e s toy/ard m in o rity groups,
i t y^is n e c e s s a ry to a tte m p t to s t r a t i f y th e r u r a l re g io n i n t o
s t r u c t u r a l com ponents.
One o f th e f i r s t th in g s to im p ress th e o b s e rv e r in Maple County
i s th e s i m i l a r i t y o f t h e c o u n try s id e —n o t so much i n te rm s o f i t s
p h y s ic a l a p p e a ra n c e b u t th e g e n e r a l im p re ssio n o f th e s i m i l a r i t y o f
i t s re s id e n ts .
d iffe re n c e s .

But t h e second o b s e rv a tio n i s one o f r a t h e r sharp
As th e o b s e rv e r d r iv e s around th e c o u n try , s to p p in g a t

c o u n try s t o r e s , v i s i t i n g w ith fa rm e rs, and in q u ir in g about v/hat
o r g a n iz a tio n s an d a c t i v i t i e s a r e a v a ila b le to th e r e s i d e n t s o f any
p a r t i c u l a r l o c a l a r e a , h e i s g r a d u a lly im p re sse d w ith t h e e x te n t to
which l o c a l i t i e s d i f f e r .

T h is d if f e r e n c e i s a s s o c ia te d y /ith th e k in d s

o f p e o p le and t h e i r o c c u p a tio n a l and s o c ia l a c t i v i t i e s .
One b a s i s f o r s t r a t i f i c a t i o n o f th e r u r a l a r e a , th e r e f o r e , was
th e amovuit o f p o s s i b l e i n t e r a c t i o n v;hich c o u ld ta k e p la c e w ith in a
g iv e n a r e a .

A map o f th e t o t a l county s e a t community v/as drawn on

Which numerous sm all r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s were d e lin e a te d .

Such l o c a l ­

i t i e s were d e te rm in e d from in te r v ie w s w ith a number o f in fo rm a n ts
i n th e l o c a l i t i e s and a d ja c e n t t h e r e t o .

Those l o c a l i t y g ro u p s were

composed o f p e o p le who had some i n t e r a c t i o n c e n te re d in such a c t i v i t i e s
a s a d i s t r i c t s c h o o l, r u r a l c h u rc h , c o u n try s to r e , home e x te n s io n c lu b ,
b ir th d a y c lu b , o r a co m b in atio n o f th e s e and s im ila r a c t i v i t i e s .

But

vrhen th e s e l o c a l i t i e s w ith such known c e n te r s o f p o s s i b le i n t e r a c t i o n
were i d e n t i f i e d t h e r e rem ained l a r g e a r e a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y i n th e
l a r g e r re o rg a n iz e d sch o o l d i s t r i c t s , where no such a c t i v i t i e s were
a v a i l a b l e a s p o s s i b l e s tim u la n ts to i n t e r a c t i o n end o r g a n iz a tio n a l
Eiembership.

Such a r e a s were th e n d iv id e d in to segm ents o f approx­

im a te ly th e seme s iz e a s th o s e w ith i d e n t i f i a b l e c e n te r s .

The

tjo u n d n ries o f t h e s e segm ents were u s u a lly d eterm in ed by t h e bound­
a r i e s o f th e i d e n t i f i a b l e l o c a l i t y g ro u p s, such a s form er school
i

d i s t r i c t b o u n d a rie s , h ig h sc h o o l a tte n d a n c e a r e a b o u n d a rie s, and
th e judgm ents o f in fo rm a n ts .

In a few c a s e s , where no such " n a tu ra l"

tjo u n d ario s co u ld be d is c o v e re d , a r b i t r a r y l i n e s were drawn to d iv id e
t h e a r e a s i n t o l o c a l i t i e s o f ab o u t th e same s iz e a s th o s e t h a t could
be i d e n t i f i e d .

The f i n a l map showed l o c a l i t y groups o f a p p ro x im a te ly

tw e n ty - fiv e to f o r t y f a m i l i e s .

T here were ap p ro x im a te ly one hundred

Such l o c a l i t i e s in th e open c o u n try a r e a o f th e county s e a t community.
if few l o c a l i t i e s t h a t were on th e p e rip h e ry o f th e county and c l e a r l y
4ound to o th e r com m unities w ere e lim in a te d from th e sam pling u n iv e r s e .

-9 These open c o u n try l o c a l i t i e s were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o rd in g to two
c rite ria :

(1 ) th e p re s e n c e o r ab sen ce o f i d e n t i f i a b l e b a s e s o f

l o c a l i t y group i n t e g r a t i o n , and ( ? ) th e d e g re e o f com m unication and
c o n ta c t w ith th e county s e a t c e n t e r .

In th e fo rm er c a te g o ry th e

l o c a l i t y group was c l a s s i f i e d a s " in te g r a te d " i f t h e r e was a s tro n g ,
f u n c tio n in g r u r a l sch o o l d i s t r i c t , o r sone o t h e r e q u a lly s tro n g
agency o f l o c a l i n t e r a c t i o n ; o r i f t h e r e w ere two l e s s in c lu s iv e
a c t i v i t i e s such a s a c o u n try s to r e , neighborhood c lu b , o r th e l i k e .
Those l o c a l i t i e s which had no such a c t i v i t i e s , o r an a c t i v i t y which
in v o lv e d o n ly p a r t o f th e p e o p le , were c l a s s i f i e d a s " n o n - in te g r a te d ."
In ac c o rd a n c e w ith th e second c r i t e r i o n t h e l o c a l i t i e s were
c l a s s i f i e d a s co u n ty s e a t tr a d e c e n te r l o c a l i t i e s i f th e f a m ilie s
in a g iv en l o c a l i t y were l i k e l y to have f r e q u e n t c o n ta c t w ith th e
co u n ty s e a t th ro u g h such i n t e r e s t s a s h ig h sch o o l a tte n d a n c e ,
in c l u s i v e sh opping, church a c t i v i t i e s , o r s im i la r re a so n s f o r
v i s i t i n g Jo hnstow n.

Those l o c a l i t i e s in which th e in h a b i t a n t s had

more f re q u e n t c o n ta c ts , o f th e k in d in d ic a te d , w ith a s u b s id ia r y
v i l l a g e i n o r n e a r th e c o u n ty th a n th e y d id w ith th e co u n ty s e a t,
a lth o u g h th e y w ere l i k e l y to go t h e r e on o c c a s io n f o r b u s in e s s ,
m ed ical c a re , s p e c ia liz e d shopping o r s im il a r s e r v ic e s , w ere c l a s s ­
i f i e d a s a p a r t o f th e g r e a t e r county s e a t community b u t n o t counts's e a t tr a d e c e n t e r l o c a l i t i e s .
By th e above d e s c rib e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a l l o f th e l o c a l i t i e s were
i d e n t i f i e d a s b e lo n g in g to o n e .o f f o u r s t r a t a .

In a d d itio n , th e

p ro b le m 'o f “sam p lin g a d is p r o p o r tio n a te number o f r u r a l farm o r non­
farm re sp o n d e n ts h?d to be s o lv e d .

Using t h e 19^5 farm c e n su s d a ta

t h e v a r io u s to w n sh ip s w ith in th e county were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o
v a r io u s p r o p o r tio n s o f r u r a l farm r e s i d e n t s .

By i n s p e c tio n th e r e

ap p eared to "be a " n a tu ra l" b r e a k when th e p r o p o r tio n o f 80 p e r c e n t
was u se d .

T hat i s , t h i s p r o p o r tio n ap p eared to d i f f e r e n t i a t e betw een

to w n sh ip s w ith p r im a r ily farm r e s i d e n ts and th o s e w ith c o n s id e ra b ly
l a r g e r numbers o f n o n -frrm r e s i d e n t s .

A c c o rd in g ly , t h i s p r o p o r tio n

was ta k en a s th e b e s t means o f d is tin g u is h in g betw een to w n sh ip s i n
te rm s o f h ig h and low p e r c e n ta g e s o f r u r a l farm r e s i d e n t s .

T his

f u r t h e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a d i v i s i o n o f th e l o c a l i t y groups
in t o th o se lo c a te d in to w n sh ip s w ith lo s s th a n 80 p e r c e n t r u r a l
farm r e s i d e n t s and th o s e in to w n sh ip s w ith more th an 80 p e r c e n t
r u r a l farm r e s i d e n t s .
l o c a l i t y g ro u p s.

T here wore th u s e ig h t p o s s ib le c a te g o r ie s o f

A p r o p o r tio n a te random sam ple o f l o c a l i t i e s was

drawn from each o f th e s e c a t e g o r i e s .

A t o t a l o f te n l o c a l i t i e s were

s e le c te d f o r s tu d y , s in c e t h i s f ig u r e y ie ld e d a p p ro x im a te ly th e
a n t i c i p a t e d p r o p o r tio n o f r u r a l re sp o n d e n ts n e c e s s a ry t o com plete
th e sample of t h e county s e a t community.
In each o f th e s e l o c a l i t i e s and i n th e tow ns e i t h e r th e male
o r fem ale head o f a l l h o u seh o ld s was in te rv ie w e d .

The s e l e c t io n o f

t h e h o u seh o ld s i n which th e fem ale was to b e in te rv ie w e d was made
by random num bers.

I f a h o u se h o ld d id n o t h av e th e d e s ig n a te d male

o r fem ale h ead , o r i f t h i s p e rs o n c o u ld n o t be reach ed f o r an i n t e r ­
view , s u b s t i t u t i o n s were n o t made i n th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s b u t were
made i n th e tow ns.

In te rv ie w s were o b ta in e d w ith o v e r 90 p e r cen t

o f th e d e s ig n a te d household h e a d s i n th e te n r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s .

Since

th e l o c a l i t i e s were s e le c te d a s in d ic a te d t h e re sp o n d e n ts r e p r e s e n t a

c r o s s s e c tio n o f th e open c o u n try s o c ia l g ro u p in g s in th e county
s e a t community.

They a ls o co m p rise a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e sam ple o f th e

m ale and fem ale h ead s o f h o u se h o ld s in th e open c o u n try .
I t sh o u ld h e p o in te d o u t t h a t th e su c c e ss o f th e r e s e a r c h in
re a c h in g such a l a r g e p r o p o r tio n o f th e r u r a l re sp o n d e n ts r e s u lte d
i n a somewhat l a r g e r p r o p o r tio n o f re sp o n d e n ts who l i v e d i n th e open
co u n try a r e a th a n th e p o p u la tio n d a ta r e n u ir e d .

T h is does n o t a f f e c t

t h e subseouent a n a ly s e s o f th e v a r io u s s t r u c t u r a l com ponents of th e
sam ple h u t i t d o e s a f f e c t , i n th e d ir e c t io n o f a g r e a t e r number of
r u r a l re sp o n d e n ts , th e r e p r e s e n ta tiv e n e s s o f th e t o t a l sam ple.

F or

p u rp o se s o f r e p o r t i n g th e t o t a l sample f in d in g s an a tte m p t was made
to c o r r e c t t h i s b ia s by s e le c t in g a t random, on th e b a s is o f th e
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n u se d i n th e tow ns, th ir ty - s e v e n town re sp o n d e n ts
whose re sp o n se s w ere d u p lic a te d on th e I.B .M . c a rd s and in c lu d e d
w ith th e hZ$ a c t u a l re sp o n d e h ts i n o rd e r to compxite th e r e s u l t s f o r
th e t o t a l sam ple.
Developm ent o f th e Measurement T echnloues
The f i n a l m eth o d o lo g ic a l problem which r e r u ir e d s o lu tio n b e fo re
th e re s e a rc h co u ld be u n d e rta k e n was th a t o f th e o p e r a tio n s which
m ight be a p p lie d to y i e l d th e d e s ir e d in fo rm a tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e
k in d s o f a t t i t u d e s m an ife sted by r u r a l m idw estern p e o p le tow ard c e r­
t a i n m in o rity g ro u p s.

F o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h th r e e t r a d i t i o n a l
J

m i n o r i t i e s , none o f whom were re p re s e n te d to any e x te n t i n th e county
_

T h is p r o c e s s , w hich was u n d e rta k e n to keep th e t o t a l sam ple e x a c tly
a s th e sam pling p ro c e d u re r e q u ire d , a c t u a l l y r e s u lte d in ex trem ely
sm all d if f e r e n c e s i n mean re sp o n s e s — ra n g in g from .00 to .0 8 . I t
sh o u ld a ls o b e p o in te d out t h a t t h e r e were ^30 re sp o n d e n ts i n t h i s
sam ple b u t one was e lim in a te d from th e a t t i t u d e a n a ly s is becau se of
in s u f f ic ie n t d a ta .

-1 2 -

s e a t community o f t h i s stu d y , were s e le c te d .
ITegroes, and M exicans.

These were Jew s,

A ll t h r e e groups hav e "been th e t a r g e t f o r

o v e r t h o s t i l i t y i n many a r e a s o f t h i s c o u n try .

Jews and N egroes

have lo n g b een t r a d i t i o n a l m i n o r i t i e s i n th e U n ite d S t a t e s .

M exicans,

s in c e th e need i n many p a r t s o f th e midwost f o r m ig ra to ry w orkers f o r
c e r t a i n c ro p s , h av e ap p eared f o r s h o rt tim e s i n in c r e a s in g numbers
th ro u g h o u t t h e m iddle p a r t o f A m erica.

In t h e i r own a r e a s i n th e

so u th w est, M exicans have o ccu p ied a d isa d v a n ta g e d p o s i t i o n and min­
o r ity s ta tu s .

They wore in c lu d e d f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t h i s sample

i n o r d e r to see to what e x te n t a t t i t u d e s in th e midwest tow ard a
m in o rity group which was becoming in c r e a s in g ly v i s i b l e , w ere fa.v o rab le
o r u n fa v o ra b le .
The p r i n c i p a l to o l f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s was th e
in te r v ie w .

The f i n a l sch ed u le r e q u ire d a b o u t one h o u r and covered

a wide ran g e o f c o n tr o l q u e s tio n s (in d e p en d en t v a r ia b le s such a s age,
s e x , o c c u p a tio n , e t c . ) , in fo rm a tio n w ith r e s p e c t to th e k in d s o f s o c ia l
system s in which th e re sp o n d e n t p a r t i c i p a t e d , and a number of a t t i t u d e
q u e s tio n s p e r t a i n i n g to th e th r e e m in o rity g ro u p s.
T h is in te r v ie w sch ed u le was c o n s tr u c te d a f t e r th e community was
s e le c te d and was ad ap te d to th e s p e c if ic s i t u a t i o n i n which i t was
used.

Numerous ite m s in th e s c h e d u le , p a r t i c u l a r l y th o s e item s

d e sig n e d to m easure a t t i t u d e s tov/ard m in o rity g ro u p s, were s im ila r
to th o s e u se d i n o th e r s tu d ie s in B altim o re , M in n eap o lis, and S t.
P a u l . ”’

In some c a s e s , how ever, ite m s used to in d i c a t e a t t i t u d e s in

' ’These s tu d ie s were conducted u n d e r th e a u s p ic e s o f th e D epartm ent o f
S c i e n t i f i c B esearch o f th e Am erican Jew ish Committee and, w ith th e
e x c e p tio n o f th e B a ltim o re stu d y , a r e n o t y e t p u b lis h e d .

u rb a n a r e a s were found to be il l - a d a p t e d to th e r u r a l s i t u a t i o n
when p r e t e s t e d , and wore m o d ified a c c o rd in g ly .
The t o t a l sch e d u le went th ro u g h e ig h t s u c c e s s iv e e d i t i o n s
d u rin g th e c o n s tr u c tio n p r o c e s s .

S ev e ra l Of th e s e e d i t i o n s were

ta k e n in to co m m u n ities,v e ry much l i k e th e one to be s tu d ie d , and
p re te s te d .

B e fo re g o in g i n t o th e sample a r e a one e n t i r e l o c a l i t y

o f about f o r t y h o u se h o ld s i n a n o th e r s im ila r co u n ty was in te rv ie w e d
to t e s t th e e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e q u e s tio n s ,

A f te r a r r i v i n g i n th e

sam ple a r e a a l o c a l i t y which had n o t been drawn f o r th e sam ple was
u sed a s a f i n a l " t r i a l run" and f o r tr a in iit g th e in te r v ie w e r s in
l a s t m inute p r e p a r a t i o n f o r t h e stu d y i t s e l f .
A ll o f t h e s e p r e p a r a tio n s were im o o rte n t, b o th f o r t h e t r a i n i n g
o f in te r v ie w e r s i n th e more p r e c i s e u s e o f th e in s tru m e n t, and f o r
d is c o v e rin g w eaknesses which r e q u ire d c o r r e c tio n b e f o re t h e in stru m e n t
was reed y f o r t h e f i e l d .

Meny o f th e r e v is i o n s in v o lv e d v o c a b u la ry

changes which w ere n e c e s sa ry to p u t th e q u e s tio n s and in tr o d u c to r y
s ta te m e n ts i n t o th e s p e c if ic v ern acu la.r o f t h e r u r a l p e o p le i n th e
sam ple re g io n .

O th ers in v o lv e d changes i n q u e s tio n sequence to

s e c u re more e f f e c t i v e re s p o n s e s .
The e n t i r e p ro c e s s o f sc h e d u le c o n s tr u c tio n was c a r r i e d on through
r e g u l a r c o n s u lta tio n among members o f th e r e s e a r c h com m ittee.

The

co m p o sitio n o f t h i s com m ittee was o f p a r t i c u l a r s ig n i f i c a n c e i n t h i s
a s w e ll a s o th e r s ta g e s o f th e t o t a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t .

I t in c lu d e d

a n th r o p o lo g is ts , a p s y c h o lo g is t w ith much e x p e rie n c e i n t h e a n a ly s is
o f p r e ju d ic e , a s t a t i s t i c i a n who had worked on numerous s o c ia l s c ie n c e
p r o j e c t s , s o c io l o g i s t s from s e v e r a l f i e l d s o f s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t s and

t r a i n i n g , and s o c i a l p s y c h o lo g is ts .

The c o n tr ib u tio n s o f a l l of

th e s e were fu se d in t o th e in te rv ie w in g in s tr u m e n t.
The in s tru m e n t in c lu d e d th r e e k in d s o f a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n s .
T h e re were a num ber o f q u e s tio n s w ith a p o s s i b l e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le
re sp o n s e , ra n g in g from " s tr o n g ly a g re e " to " s tr o n g ly d ise -g re e ."
T hese q u e s tio n s were asked o f t h e resp o n d e n t by th e in te r v ie w e r ,
who th e n e s tim a te d th e i n t e n s i t y o f th e r e s p o n s e .

Most o f th e

members o f th e in te rv ie w in g team to o k p a r t i n th e p r e t e s t i n g and
were th o ro u g h ly f a m i l i a r w ith th e sch ed u le anc what i t was d esig n ed
to do.

The i n s t r u c t i o n s to in te r v ie w e r s f o r coding th e answ ers to

th e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s wore t h a t th e y m ust d e te rm in e f i r s t th e
d i r e c t i o n o f th e re sp o n se and th e n e s tim a te i t s i n t e n s i t y .

They

were s tro n g ly c a u tio n e d to u s e th e extrem e ends of th e s c a le only
when they were a b s o lu te ly c e r t a i n t h a t i t was p ro p e r to do so.
c a s e s o f doubt th e y were to code th e l e s s i n te n s e re s p o n s e .

In

IThile

t h i s p e rm itte d some extrem e re sp o n s e s to be coded a t a more m oderate
l e v e l , i t ten d ed to in s u r e t h a t a l l re sp o n se s which were coded a s
extrem e were l i k e l y to be so .

E r r o r s by th e in te n f ie w e r i n coding

th e s e ite m s th u s ten d ed to move tow ard th e m id d le o f th e s c a le .
There were f i v e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s which p e r ta in e d to
a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.

In a d d itio n to th e s c o re f o r each q u e s tio n

t h e re sp o n se s t o th e s e f iv e a u e s tio n s wore summed f o r each respondent
and a " t o t a l Je w ish P r e ju d ic e sco re" c a l c u l a t e d .

There w ere fo u r

f i v e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s which p e r ta in e d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard M egroes.

^The f i n a l d r a f t o f t h i s sc h e d u le i s in c lu d e d i n Appendix B
I t in c lu d e s a l l th e q u e s tio n s f o r th e t o t a l r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t and,
h e n ce, more th a n i s b e in g r e p o r te d f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h
p roblem . In o r d e r to p r e s e r v e anonym ity i d e n t i f y i n g town, county
and s t a t e names have been changed to a g re e w ith th o se u se d h e r e in .

T hese v/ere summed i n th e same way so tha.t a " t o t a l ITegro P r e ju d ic e
sc o re " cn u ld be o b ta in e d .
I n a d d itio n to th e above d e s c rib e d ite m s , th e r e w ere- six . J.tems,
two r e f e r r i n g to each m in o rity , which u se d a th r e e - p o in t s c a le .
Some o f th e s e ite m s were ta k e n from , a l l w ere m odelled a f t e r some
7
o f th o s e u s e d i n th e C a l i f o r n i a s tu d ie s o f p r e ju d ic e .
In t h i s cage
th e resp o n d en t was handed a c a r d c o n ta in in g th e ite m s and th e th r e e
p o s s i b l e re s p o n s e s an a, a s th e in te r v ie w e r read each q u e s tio n , th e
resp o n d e n t in d i c a t e d th e re sp o n se which b e s t f i t h i s p a r t i c u l a r p o in t
o f view .

A ll o f th e s e q u e s tio n s were summed f o r each resp o n d en t and,

i n a d d itio n to th e sc o re f o r each s e p a ra te q u e s tio n , a"!P otal P r e ju d ic e
s c o re " was c a l c u l a t e d .

T h is s c o re was d e s ig n e d to m easure to some

e x te n t th e g e n e r a l p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts toward a l l th r e e m in o rity
g ro u p s to supplem ent th e in fo rm a tio n o b ta in e d w ith r e s p e c t to th e
p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts tow ard each m in o rity g ro u p .
B e sid es th e s e two k in d s o f s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s t h e r e were
t h r e e u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s .

Two o f th e s e q u e s tio n s p e r ta in e d to

H egroes and were b ased on what had been a v e ry r e a l s i t u a t i o n to
many o f th e. p e o p le o f Johnstow n and th e su rro u n d in g co u n ty s e a t '
community.

About e ig h t m onths b e f o re th e r e s e a r c h began t h e r e had

been a l e t t e r p u b lis h e d on th e f r o n t page o f th e county sea.t newspaper
p u r p o rte d ly from a Negro m i n is t e r in D e t r o i t , w herein a r e q u e s t was
made f o r f i 'f t y Negro f a m il i e s to move to Johnstow n.

As one Johnstown

in fo rm a n t to l d th e w r i te r , "You n e v e r h e a rd o f so much "'excitem ent.

^The q u e s tio n s r e f e r r e d to w ere developed f o r u s e in th e C a lif o r n ia
A t t i t u d e S c a le by th e I n s t i t u t e o f C hild W elfare, U n iv e r s ity o f
C a lifo rn ia .

Sverybody i n town was t a l k i n g ab o u t i t , b u t I g u e ss, deep down
i n s i d e , nobody was f o r i t . "

As a n a t t e r o f

f a c t th e l e t t e r was

a hoax by one o f th e r e s i d e n t s o f Johnstow n, a lth o u g h v e ry few
p e o p le in town were aw are o f t h i s .
T his l e t t e r , w ith i t s a tte n d a n t p u b lic d is c u s s io n , f u rn is h e d
a b a s is f o r an open-ended q u e s tio n to which th e resp o n d en t was
allo w ed to respond a s he w ish ed .

P robes w ere used to o b ta in more

in fo rm a tio n i f th e resp o n d e n t appeared r e l u c t r n t .

F u r th e r on in

th e sch ed u le a n o th e r open-ended q u e s tio n p e r t a i n in g to th e p o s s i­
b i l i t y o f a Negro fa m ily moving n e x t do o r to t h e re sp o n d e n t was a ls o
asked.

T h is

q u e s tio n co rresp o n d ed to a s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n con­

c e rn in g th e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f N egroes l i v i n g i n w h ite n eig h b o rh o o d s.
An a d d i t i o n a l u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n , which concerned th e p o s s i ­
b i l i t y o f a Je w ish m erchant b u y in g th e l a r g e s t s to r e in town ,
was a ls o u s e d .

T h is was done t o approxim ate th e s i t u a t i o n w ith

r e s p e c t to th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f N egroes moving to Johnstow n, and to
t e s t th e s te r e o ty p e s t h a t m ight be a s s o c ia te d w ith Jews i n m arket
re la tio n s h ip s .
The Mexican q u e s tio n s w ere few er i n number and a l l w ere o f th e
s tr u c tu r e d ty p e .
p o in t s c a le ite m s .

Two were f i v e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s and two were th r e e There was no a tte m p t made to develop a t o t a l

M exican p r e j u d ic e s c o re b ec au se th e number o f f iv e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s
d id n o t a p p e a r to w a rra n t i t .

The two t h r e e - p o i n t Mexican q u e s tio n s ,

how ever, were in c lu d e d i n th e " T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re ."
The in te rv ie w in g was com pleted a s r a p id ly a s p o s s i b l e .

In

o r d e r to re d u c e th e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t re s p o n s e s would be m o d ified b y

-1 7 connmni c a tio n betw een p e rso n s who had "been in te rv ie w e d and th o s e
who had n o t, each l o c a l i t y and s tra tu m i n town was in te rv ie w e d
w ith in a two d ay p e r io d .

The b a s ic team of in te r v ie w e r s was made

up o f g ra d u a te s tu d e n ts in so c io lo g y and r e c e n t g ra d u a te s w ith
t r a i n i n g i n so c io lo g y and p sy ch o lo g y ,
se rv e d a s a t r a i n i n g p e r io d .

-h e p r e t e s t i n g e x p e rie n c e

Out o f t h i s e x p e rie n c e a s e t . o f in te .r -

vievfing i n s t r u c t i o n s was p r e p a r e d .

These i n s t r u c t i o n s w ere u se d in

t r a i n i n g s e v e r a l sch o o l te a c h e r s ,f r o m com m unities n e a r th e scene o f
th e stu d y , who w ere u se d a s a d d i t i o n a l in te r v ie w e r s .

A n o f th e s e

h ad p e r s o n a l i n s t r u c t i o n and t r a i n i n g in th e f i e l d w ith a member o f
t h e b a s ic in te r v ie w in g team b e f o r e th e y began a c tu a l in te r v ie v d n g .
A ll sc h e d u le s w ere c a r e f u l l y e d ite d by an ex p erie n c e d in te r v ie w e r
who s e rv e d .a s a f i e l d s u p e r v is o r .

T his e d i t i n g im m ed iately a f t e r

th e in te rv ie w made i t p o s s i b le t o conrolete in a d e q u a te r e p o r tin g and
make o th e r c o r r e c t i o n s i n th e sch ed u le t h a t would have been im o o ssib le
i f th e e d i t i n g had been d e la y e d u n t i l r e tu r n from th e f i e l d .
R e l i a b i l i t y o f th e In stru m e n t
The q u e s tio n o f th e r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y o f any in stru m e n t
d e sig n e d to

o b ta in a t t i t u d e s i s alw ays a d i f f i c u l t problem .

T here

a r e a number o f s t a t i s t i c a l d e v ic e s which nay be u sed to approxim ate
some answ er to t h i s q u e s tio n , alth o u g h each p r e s e n ts c e r t a i n method­
o lo g ic a l p ro b lem s and th e p o s s i b i l i t y f o r some e r r o r .

The q u e s tio n

o f v a l i d i t y i s u l tim a te ly an e p is te m o lo g ic a l problem .

To what e x te n t

th e knower can know, how much congruence o f meaning t h e r e i s between
a s k e r and re sp o n d e r, a r e q u e s tio n s which c an n o t be answ ered w ith
f i n a l i t y f o r t h i s o r any o t h e r r e s e a r c h a t o u r p r e s e n t s ta g e o f

s c ie n tific

d ev elo p m en t.

to o b ta in v a l i d re s p o n s e s .

N e v e r th e le s s , some a tte m p t must "be made
In t h i s r e s e a r c h much dependence was

p la c e d on th e f i e l d t r i a l s t o which th e sc h e d u le was p u t.

Q u estio n s

w ere a l t e r e d a g a in and a g a in u n t i l th e y provoked r e p l i e s t h a t
in d ic a te d t h a t a s k e r and re sp o n d e r were w ith in com m unicating ran g e,
a lth o u g h such l i n e s o f com m unication wore, i n a l l p r o b a b i l i t y , sub­
j e c t to many u n iq u e v a r i a t i o n s in t e r n s o f u l tim a te m eaning.
I t i s n e c e s s a r y a t t h i s p o i n t to f a l l b ack upon th e a d v a n ta g e s
and d is a d v a n ta g e s o f th e o p e r a ti o n a l method.

In term s o f o p e r a tio n s ,

c e r t a i n re sp o n d e n ts , s e le c te d a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s o f a l a r g e r pop­
u l a t i o n , were a sk e d c e r t a i n q u e s tio n s p e r t a i n i n g to v a r io u s f a c e t s
o f o p in io n s a b o u t th r e e m in o rity g ro u p s.

O p e r a tio n a lly i t may be

claim ed o n ly t h a t th e r e p l i e s i n d i c a t e th e w illin g n e s s o f th e r e s ­
p o n d e n ts to m a n ife s t c e r t a i n s e n tim e n ts — s e n tim e n ts d e lim ite d by th e
n a tu r e o f th e q u e s tio n s th e m se lv e s.
I f t h i s w ere p r im a r ily a stu d y o f th e o r g a n iz a tio n o f a t t i t u d e s
w ith in th e u n iq u e fram e o f r e f e r e n c e o f th e p s y c h o lo g ic a l in d iv id u a l
th e s e o p e r a tio n s would n o t be enough.

They can r e v e a l l i t t l e ab o u t

t h e p e rs o n a l m eaning a tta c h e d to such e x p re s s io n s .

Q u e stio n s r e l a t i v e

to th e s a lie n c y o f a p a r t i c u l a r ite m f o r a p a r t i c u l a r re sp o n d e n t may
w e ll b e r a i s e d .

To what e x te n t th e w illin g n e s s o r u n w illin g n e s s o f

t h e resp o n d en t t o m a n ife st a c e r t a i n se n tim e n t i s r e l a t e d to h i s w i l l ­
in g n e s s o r u n w illin g n e s s to engage in p a r t i c u l a r a c tio n s tow ard in d i­
v id u a l members o f m in o rity groups i s n o t d e te rm in a b le by th e s e oper­
a tio n s .

But t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n o th e r p o s s i b i l i t i e s from a s o c io lo g ic a l

p o in t o f view .

The problem i s one o f o b ta in in g a p i c t u r e a t a p a r t i c u l a r
moment i n tim e o f th e b e l i e f s and se n tim e n ts m a n ife ste d by r u r a l
p e o p le i n th e m idv/est tow ard Jew s, N egroes and M exicans.

The g r e a te r

th e number o f q u e s tio n s , th e more c a r e f u l l y th e in te r v ie w e r i s tr a in e d ,
th e l a r g e r th e p o p u la tio n in te rv ie w e d , th e more c o m p le te ly q u e s tio n s
a r e reworked so t h a t re sp o n d e n ts a p e e a r to know what i s in te n d e d by
t h e q u e s tio n , t h e more n e a r ly v a l i d i t y i s ap p ro ach ed .

I t h as been

th e i n t e n t o f t h i s c h a p te r to p r e s e n t th e s p e c i f i c n a tu r e o f th e
s te p s ta k e n in t h i s re s e a rc h to approach v a l i d i t y and to show t h a t
th e s e s te p s w ere a t l e a s t a d e q u a te .
The r e l i a b i l i t y o f th e ite m s u sed i n t h e sch ed u le p r e s e n ts a
somewhat d i f f e r e n t problem .

I f i t had been th e i n t e n t o f th e sched­

u l e to u s e a g iv e n s e t o f r e s p o n s e s to p r e d i c t s im ila r re sp o n s e s
which m ight be made

in th e f u t u r e by an in d iv id u a l re s p o n d e n t, we

would be p r e s e n te d w ith one k in d o f problem .

Even h e r e , a s Pepinsl'y®

h a s a b ly arg u ed w ith re s p o c t to s o c io m e tric t e s t i n g , t h e r e i s need
to examine c a r e f u l l y what we mean by r e l i a b i l i t y in any in d iv id u a l
case.

But th e sch e d u le was d e sig n e d to t e s t t h e ran g e and mean o f
i

• >

>

>

re s p o n s e s which a sample p o p u la tio n , c o n s id e re d a s a group o r s e t
o f su b -g ro u p s, made to c e r t a i n q u e s tio n s .

I n o th e r w ords, what

s e n tim e n ts a r e m a n ife ste d by t h i s p o p u la tio n ?

Ho assu m p tio n i s

made t h a t s e n tim e n ts w i l l n o t change i n in d iv id u a l c a s e s , b u t an
assu m p tio n i s made t h a t th e r e s p o n s e s , c o n s id e re d a s a g ro u p ,to a
v a r i e t y o f q u e s tio n s r.bout Jew s, N egroes and M exicans, w i l l y i e l d a
O

P a u lin e P e p in sk y , "The Meaning o f 'V a l i d i t y ' and 'R e l i a b i l i t y ' a s
A p p lied to S o c io m e tric T e s ts ," Ed. ana P s y c h o l. Meas. . 9i39-*J9, 19 *<9.

p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts , a s l i c e o f th e t o t a l c u l t u r e o f th e
re s p o n d e n ts , which w i l l i n d i c a t e th e l e v e l o f to le r a n c e o r
i n to le r a n c e t h a t i s ,

in g e n e r a l, o p e ra tin g f o r t h e t o t a l group

and th e su b -g ro u p s th e r e o f .
T h is argum ent, how ever, i s n o t in te n d e d to bo used to av o id
te s tin g fo r r e lia b ility .

W hile i t w a s n o t f e a s i b l e to p e rfo rm a

t e s t o f r e l i a b i l i t y w hich was b ased on th e sam ple p o p u la tio n o r to
o b ta in a s im i l a r p o p u la tio n f o r a r e l i a b i l i t y check, th e a t t i t u d e
q u e s tio n s u sed i n th e sc h ed u le were a d m in is te re d i n a p r e - and p o s t ­
r e l i a b i l i t y ex p erim en t to a p o p u la tio n o f c o lle g e s tu d e n ts a t M ichigan
S t a t e C o lle g e .

An e x p la n a tio n of th e method and a d e s c r i p t i o n o f th e

r e s u l t s from t h i s experim ent a r e g iv en i n A ppendix B w here th e f in d ­
in g s a r e summarized i n T able A.
S in ce, f o r th e p u rp o se s of. t h i s r e s e a r c h ,, th e b a s ic problem
was to b e c e r t a i n t h a t th e a t t i t u d e q u o s tio n s provoked re s p o n s e s
t h a t w e re .re a s o n a b ly i n d i c a t i v e o f th e s e n tim e n ts o f th e sam ple pop­
u l a t i o n , c o n s id e re d a s a group a t a g iv e n moment i n tim e, th e p r e and p o s t - t e s t means f o r th e i n d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s a r e , p e rh a p s , most
s ig n ific a n t.

These d i f f e r e n c e s ran g e from .0 1 to .16 and a r e sm all

enough t o i n d i c a t e , i n s o f a r a s th e c o lle g e p o p u la tio n i s an ad eq u ate
s ta n d a rd , t h a t t h e a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n s a p p e a r to provoke q u i t e s im ila r
re s p o n s e s when g iv e n a t two f a i r l y c lo s e p e r io d s i n tim e .

The v ery

l a r g e p e r c e n t o f re sp o n d e n ts who gave th e same re sp o n se to b o th
t e s t s i n d i c a t e s t h a t , i n i n d i v id u a l c a s e s , t h e in stru m e n t a p p e a rs
to hav e a f a i r l y h ig h d e g re e o f r e l i a b i l i t y .
I t may b e n o te d i n p a s s in g t h a t th e w r i t e r h a s used th e term s

se n tim e n ts and a t t i t u d e s in te rc h a n g e a b ly .

I t should he c l e a r from

th e fo re g o in g d is c u s s io n why t h i s u sag e ha-s p r e v a ile d .

A ttit u d e s

a r e n o t ta k e n i n t h i s r e s e a r c h to r e f e r to th e u n iq u e o r g a n iz a tio n
o f any i n d iv id u a l i n term s o f a s e t o f b e h a v io r a l r e s p o n s e s .

R ath er

th q y a r e ta k e n a s o b je c tiv e m a n if e s ta tio n s o f th e u n d e rly in g c u r r e n t
o f b e l i e f s and s e n tim e n ts w hich p r e v a i l i n th e c u lt u r e o f th e g ro to
w hich was chosen f o r stu d y .

I t should be remembered, a s d a t a a r e

p r e s e n te d and i n t e r p r e t e d i n f u tu r e c h a p te r s , th a t f u l l allo w an ce
m ust be made f o r th e l i m i t a t i o n s o f method.

F ollow ing P a r e t o 's

a n a l y s is o f th e r o l e o f s e n tim e n ts t h i s w r i t e r w i l l u s e th e d a ta
to im pute s e n tim e n ts which a r e m an ife sted by th e t o t a l sam ple and
su b -g ro u p s o f t h i s sample i n re sp o n s e t o th e q u e s tio n s d e sig n e d
f o r th e in te r v ie w sc h e d u le .

W hile, i n th e f i n a l a n a ly s is , th e s e

se n tim e n ts may n e v e r known i n a l l t h e i r c o n p le te n e s s , th e e m p iric a l
d a t a should c o n s t i t u t e one k in d o f ev id en ce o f t h e i r p re s e n c e .
The Method o f A n a ly s is
The method o f a n a ly z in g th e d a ta o f th e r e s e a r c h , i n o rd e r to
d e te rm in e i f t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r it ie s
w hich a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in p o s it i o n in th e s o c ia l
s t r u c t u r e , w i l l be t h a t o f th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .

T h is a n a ly s is

y i e l d s a s t a t i s t i c known a s F which, when o n ly two groups a r e compared,
i s t h e a lg e b r a ic e q u iv a le n t o f th e f a m i l i a r S tu d e n t's t_.

In such a

c a s e F *» t. .
By means o f th e a n a l y s is o f v a r ia n c e , how ever, s e v e r a l groups
may be compared s im u lta n e o u s ly .

The e s s e n t i a l problem i s to d ete rm in e

i f th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u ps i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a te r th a n th e

v a r ia n c e w ith in g ro u p s.

F, a s computed "by th e a n a ly s is i s th e

s t a t i s t i c which i n d i c a t e s th e p r o b a b i li t y t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e
betw een groups i n com parison w ith th e d if f e r e n c e w ith in g ro u p s i s a
chance o c c u rre n c e .
s iz e o f

F is h e r h a s developed t a b l e s to d e te rm in e th e

F, i n r e l a t i o n s h i p to th e number o f g ro u p s a.nd t h e s iz e o f

"the sample p o p u la tio n , which i s r e q u ir e d i n o r d e r to be s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t a t a g iv e n p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

I n t h i s r e s e a r c h Snedecor*s

t a b l o s , ' b ased on th e o r i g i n a l t a b l e s o f F is h e r , were u s e d .

For t h i s

r e s e a r c h b o th th e f i v e p e r c e n t and th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l s
w ere u se d .

The one p e r c e n t l e v e l , w herein t h e r e s u l t s c o u ld o ccu r

by chance o n ly once in a hundred t r i a l s , w il l be a c c e p te d w ith con­
f id e n c e .

The f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l w il l b e a c c e p te d more c a u tio u s ly

and i t s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n w i l l depend upon supplem entary d a t a .
The a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e te c h n iq u e depends upon two m ajor
a ssu m p tio n s.

One i s t h a t th e e r r o r s which o c c u r w i l l be d i s t r i b u t e d

a t random i n te rm s o f a norm al p o p u la tio n o f e r r o r s .

T h is assum ption

was made f o r th e d a ta o f t h i s r e s e a r c h a f t e r t h e o r i g i n a l d i s t r i ­
b u tio n s f o r th e q u e s tio n s and t h e i r sub-group com ponents w ere in s p e c t­
ed .

W hile no t e s t o f t h i s assu m p tio n was made th e d i s t r i b u t i o n s

ap p e a re d to ap p ro x im a te norm al d i s t r i b u t i o n s i n a s t a t i s t i c a l se n se .
9

Gr. W. S nedecor, S t a t i s t i c a l M ethods. Ames:
P r e s s , 1 9 ^ . p p . 222-225.

Iowa S ta te C o lle g e

"^ P e arso n h a s d e m o n stra te d t h a t even w ith m o d erately skewed
d i s t r i b u t i o n s v e ry l i t t l e b i a s i s in tro d u c e d in to th e P t e s t .
See E. Si P e a rs o n , "T h e & ialy sis o f V a ria n c e i n Cases o f NonUormal V a r i a t i o n , « B io m e trik a , 23:11^-133, 1931.

The second assum ption i s t h a t o f hom ogeneity o f v a r ia n c e .
That i s , i n making any a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e i t i s assumed th a t
"w hatever f a c t o r h a s r e s u l t e d i n s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n grouo
means vri.ll n o t a ls o r e s u l t i n s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s in group
v a r i a n c e s .”^

T h e o r e tic a lly ev ery a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e sh o u ld be

p re c e d e d by a t e s t o f th e assu m p tio n o f hom ogeneity of v a r ia n c e .
W hile t h i s was n o t done i n t h i s r e s e a r c h a sample o f th e a n a ly s e s
o f v a r ia n c e com puted i n t h i s t h e s i s was s e le c te d and t e s t e d f o r
hom ogeneity o f v a r ia n c e .
A ppendix

0.

The r e s u l t s a r e shown in T able B in

Hone o f th e s e t e s t s f o r hom ogeneity o f v a r ia n c e

were s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

Host

were f a r below a p r o b a b i l i t y o f s u f f i c i e n t s iz e to throw any
do u b t on th e assu m p tio n o f hom ogeneity.

On th e b a s is o f t h i s

sam ple o f t e s t s i t i s b e lie v o d t h a t th e a.ssum ptlon o f hom ogeneity
o f v a ria n c e

h a s been met f o r th e d a ta a n a ly z e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h .

I n a d d itio n to th e u se o f t h e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , t h e rank
o r d e r f in d in g s , which show th e c o n s is te n c y o f p o s it i o n o f sub-sam ples
on a p a r t i c u l a r s e t o f q u e s tio n s , w ill a ls o be u sed to supplem ent th e
d a ta .

The f in d in g s which a r e to b e d is c u s s e d depend upon an accum­

u l a t i o n o f ev id e n ce and n o t upon th e r e s u l t o f any one s t a t i s t i c a l
a n a ly s is .
F i n a l l y , i t must be p l a i n l y s p e c if ie d t h a t t h e f in d in g s o f t h i s
r e s e a r c h must b e u n d e rsto o d s o le ly i n term s o f th e l i m i t a t i o n s o f th e
sam ple, in s tru m e n t, and a n a l y s is te c h n iq u e .

F o r co n v en ien ce th e d a ta

■^E. P . L in d q u is t, S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly s is in E d u c a tio n a l R esearch .
Cambridge: Houghton M if f lin Company, 19*JO» p . 99.

- ? .k -

w i l l be h an d led w ith o u t re p e a te d em phasis upon th e l i m i t i n g
fa c to rs .
f in d i n g s .

T h is te n d s to le a d to an a p p a re n t r e i f i c a t i o n o f th e
I t i s f o r t h i s re a so n t h a t th e w r i t e r w ish es to

em phasize now t h a t th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h must alw ays
he u n d e rsto o d i n term s o f th e l i m i t a t i o n s o f th e m ethodology
w hich have emerged from th e d is c u s s io n o f t h i s c h a p te r .

CHAPTER CTO
MAPLE COUNTY AND ITS ATTITUDES TOWARD MINORITY GROUPS
I
Maple County - The S e ttin g
In Maple County main t r a v e le d highw ays L i s e c t th e co u n ty "both
n o r th to so u th and e a s t to w e s t.

These highw ays a ls o d iv id e th e

co u n ty s e a t, Johnstow n, in to f o u r o u a d ra n ts.

The highw ays p ro v id e

re a d y a c c e s s to la r g e m e tro p o lita n c e n te r s a s w ell a s to th e s t a t e
c a p i t a l and num erous s m a lle r c i t i e s .

None o f th e s e c e n te r s i s

c j o s e r th e n f i f t y m ile s and t h e l a r g e r ones a r e somewhat f u r t h e r .
A r a i lr o a d ru n s th ro u g h th e cou n ty s e a t and numerous tr a n s p o r t tru c k
r o u te s t r a v e l t h e highways o f th e community.
Johnstow n i s lo c a te d n e a r th e g e o g ra p h ic a l c e n te r o f th e county
and p ro v id e s th e main tr a d in g , h ig h sch o o l, and com m unication c e n te r
f o r th e co u n ty .

These f o u r tow ns o f Johnstow n, B ro w n s v ille , Adams

and Edgertown a r e th e only tow ns la r g e enough to p ro v id e th e s e rv ic e s
n e c e s s a ry i n a r u r a l community.

Each h a s a h ig h sch o o l, p o s t o f f ic e ,

b an k , r a i l r o a d s e r v ic e s , c h u rc h e s, c lo th in g and hardw are, lum ber,
im plem ent, f e e d , g ro c e ry and o th e r r e t a i l o u t l e t s .

Johnstow n h a s

t h e o n ly h o s p i t a l , which i s a county p r o j e c t , th e o n ly d a i l y p a p e r,
and a r e c e n tly e s ta b lis h e d r a d io s t a t i o n .

The o th e r towns p u b lis h

w eekly p a p e rs w hich c i r c u l a t e g e n e r a lly i n th e tr a d e a r e a o f each,
b u t th e Johnstow n News re a c h e s many more homes th roughout th e county.
A lthough each o f th e o th e r towns h a s numerous o r g a n iz a tio n s such
a s lo d g e s, c h u rc h g ro u p s, c o o p e r a tiv e s , and o th e r i n t e r e s t groups,
th e county-w ide o r g a n iz a tio n s , such a s th e Farm B ureau, A g r ic u ltu r e
E x te n sio n S e rv ic e s , p o l i t i c a l p a r t i e s , R u ral Youth, l i b r a r y , P u b lic

H e a lth S e rv ic e s , and th e Maple County Community A s s o c ia tio n a l l
h ave t h e i r h e a d q u a r te rs i n Johnstow n.

In a d d it io n to th e s e th e

o f f i c e s o f th e county governm ent and th e d i s t r i c t c o u rt a r e lo c a te d
i n th e county s e n t.

W ith a p o p u la tio n o f 8500 Johnstovm i s d e cid ed ­

l y l a r g e r th a n any o f th e o t h e r tovms, and i t s p o s itio n a s th e
county* s e a t i n th e c e n te r o f th e county makes i t th e c e n te r o f a
l a r g o r community t h a t in c lu d e s n e a r ly a l l o f th e c o u n ty .

The

o t h e r tovms a r e lik e w is e th e c e n te r s o f s u b s id ia r y com m unities
w hich have many t i e s in to th e county s e a t.

F or some p u rp o se s ,

how ever, th e s e com m unities f u n c tio n a s more o r l e s s in d ep en d en t
u n its .
Johnstovm in a d d itio n to b e in g th e main c e n te r o f t r a d e f o r
t h i s r u r a l c o u n ty ,w ith a p p ro x im a te ly 1^,000 open co u n try farm and
n o n -farm p e o p le , h a s s e v e ra l sm a ll i n d u s t r i e s .

Among th e s e a r e

f o u n d r ie s , a f u rn a c e f a c t o r y , p l a s t i c p ro d u c ts m a n u fa c tu rin g , shoe
f a c t o i y , o v e r a l l f a c t o r y and s e v e ra l o th e r s p ro d u cin g a v a r i e t y o f
m e ta l p r o d u c ts and au to m o b ile p a r t s .

S ince a tr a n s p o r t tru c k in g

company fo rm e rly had a te r m in a l i n Johnstovm end i t i s on some o f
t h e main highw ays from a u to m o b ile m an u factu rin g c e n te r s numerous
t r a n s p o r t s a r e o ccasio n ally p a rk e d n e a r t h e homes of Johnstovm d r iv e r s .
A s t a t e sponsored i n s t i t u t i o n f o r th e t r a i n i n g o f h an d icap p ed
c h ild r e n , lo c a te d j u s t o u ts id e th e c i t y , i s a m ajor a c t i v i t y i n
t h i s County s e a t community.
B ro w n s v ille , which i s so u th w est o f th e county s e a t, a ls o h a s
i n d u s t r i e s w hich employ c o n s id e ra b le numbers o f w o rk ers.

Many p e o p le

who l i v e i n th e v i l l a g e s and open co u n try p o r tio n s o f th e community

commute to B ro w n sv ille d a i l y to work i n th e s n a il i n d u s t r i e s t h e r e .
T h is tr a d e c e n t e r , a lth o u g h n o t a s com plete a s Johnstovm , p ro v id e s
n o s t o f th e s e r v ic e s f o r th e su rro u n d in g fa rm in g a r e a .

A lthough

f a r from eq u al i n s iz e , p ro d u c tio n , o r tr a d e , B ro v m sv ille a s p ir e s
to compete w ith th e co unty s e a t a s a c e n te r o f a c t i v i t y .

Its

s e r v i c e s , in c lu d in g a weekly new spaper and on e x te n s iv e r e o rg a n is e d
sc h o o l d i s t r i c t , make i t th e main c e n te r f o r a c o n s id e ra b le p o r tio n
o f t h e w e ste rn p a r t of th e c o u n ty .

The c e n t r a l i z a t i o n o f th e

co unty-w ide a c t i v i t i e s i n Johnstovm , however , s tr u c t u r e s th e
community a c t i v i t i e s in such a way t h a t 3 r o w n s v llle rem ain s a
s u b s id ia ry c e n te r i n many r e s p e c t s .
E a st o f th e cou n ty s e a t i s th e town o f Adams.
a l l y no i n d u s tr y .

I t has p ra c tic ­

I t i s a h ig h school c o n te r f o r an e x te n s iv e r u r a l

a r e a which l i e s p r im a r ily to th e n o r th and s o u th .

The r e s i d e n t s n o t

engaged i n th e u s u a l tr a d e c e n te r a c t i v i t i e s a r e employed elsew h ere,
m ain ly i n Johnstovm .

Many r e t i r e d fa rm e rs and widows have e s ta b lis h e d

r e s id e n c e i n Adams and make up a s iz e a b le p o r ti o n o f th e p o p u la tio n .
P ro x im ity to Johnstow n and th e f a c t th a t many Adams' r e s i d e n t s work
t h e r e li m i t th e im p o rtan ce o f Adams a s a tr a d e c e n te r .
On th e n o r th e r n boundary o f th e county i s th e town o f E dgerton.
I n mary r e s p e c ts i t i s l i k e Adams, b u t s in c e i t i s l e s s th a n 20 m iles
from th e c i t y o f V Jh eatv ille i n th e a d jo in in g county, i t s p e o n le le a v e
th e county to f i n d employment and many o th e r a c t i v i t i e s .
re a so n , and b e c a u se o f i t s lo c a t i o n on th e

F or t h i s

p e r ip h e ry o f th e county,

i t was e lim in a te d a s an a r e a o f c o n c e n tra te d i n v e s t i g a t i o n .

The

co u n ty s e a t community, which i s th e scene o f th e stu d y , should n o t

-2 8 be c o n s tru e d , t h e r e f o r e , a s i d e n t i c a l w ith th e g e o g ra p h ic a l l i m i t s
o f th e co u n ty .
A lthough th e towns o f M aple County have been d e s c rib e d i t i s
o n ly because th e y a r e th e c e n t e r s o f a c t i v i t y n o t b ecau se they
dom inate th e community.
community.

Maple County i s e s s e n t i a l l y a farm in g

In Johnstow n th e p e o p le v a i l t e l l you t h a t th e commu­

n i t y i s dep en d en t upon i t s fa rm e rs f o r i t s p r o s p e r i t y .
n o t w holly t r u e .

T h is i s

The i n d u s t r i e s o f Johnstow n and B ro w n sv ille p la y

a m ajor r o l e i n th e economic l i f e o f th e c o u n try p e o p le a s w e ll a s
th e to w nspeople.

As one d r iv e s th ro u g h th e v a r io u s s e c tio n s o f th e

community th e o b s e rv e r i s in ro ressed w ith th e a r e a s where t h e r e i s
an a p p a re n t c o n c e n tr a tio n o f fa rm in g .

F u r th e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n , how­

e v e r, r e v e a ls t h a t many farm homes a r e o ccu p ied by w h ite c o l l a r o r
manual w orkers who g a in t h e i r liv e lih o o d in th e n earb y tovm s.

The

in c r e a s in g s iz e o f farm o p e r a tio n s , made p o s s i b le by modern m achinery,
h a s r e le a s e d th e p o p u la tio n f o r employment else v .h ere.

The p ro sp e ro u s

farm in g a r e a s a r e s p o tte d w ith numerous m a rg in a l and su b -m arg in al
s e c tio n s .

In t h e s e a l a r g e r p r o p o r tio n o f th e farm s a r e worked by

f a m il i e s whose members a r e e i t h e r f u l l o r p a r t- ti m e w orkers i n th e
tovm s.

These economic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f t h e p a t t e r n s

o f i n t e r a c t i o n which b r in g th e town and c o u n try p e o p le i n t o a common
community.

T h is i s n o t to sa y , however, t h a t th e r e a r e no d i f f e r ­

en ces betw een th e two p o r tio n s o f th e community.
The ra n g e o f th e e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l o f th e s d u lt s o f Maple County
i s in d ic a te d by th e e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l of t h e kjO re sp o n d e n ts in th e
sam ple a s shown by T ab le 1.

The median l e v e l o f e d u c a tio n i s i n th e

-2 9 T able 1
EDUCATIONAL LEVEL OF MAP15 COUNTY RESPONDENTS
♦Grade
Conroleted

Open Country/P e r Cent
No.

No.

T om s
P e r Cent

Pour y ears o r le s s

10

4 .0

3

1 .7

F iv e to seven

23

9 .1

12

6 .8

E ig h t

81

32.0

42

23.7

N ine to Eleven

66

26.1

38

2 1 .5

Twelve

50

19-7

^9

27.7

T h ir te e n o r f o u r te e n

10

4 .0

17

9 .6

F i f t e e n o r s ix te e n

10

4.0

13

7 .3

S eventeen and o v er

0

-

2

1 .1

O ther

3

1 .1

1

o .6

T o ta l

253

100.0

177

10 0 .0

(♦ T h is in fo rm a tio n was o b ta in e d from th e i n t e r v i ew sc h e d u le s)

9 -1 1 y e a r i n t e r v a l f o r b o th g ro u p s b u t i t w i l l be n o te d t h a t th e r e
i s c o n s id e ra b le d if f e r e n c e betw een th e tow nspeople and th o s e who
l i v e in th e c o u n try .

In th e open co u n try 45$ have a t t a i n e d th e

e ig h th g ra d e o r l e s s , w h ile i n th e th re e tow ns o n ly 32$ a r e in
t h i s c a te g o ry .

T here was l i t t l e d if f e r e n c e betw een men and women

i n e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l , a c c o rd in g to th e a n a ly s is o f th e in te r v ie w
s c h e d u le s .
Maple County i s p re d o m in a te ly a P r o t e s t a n t community.

The

M eth o d ist E p is c o p a l church i s th e la r g e s t s in g le d en o m in atio n .
S l i g h t l y o v er one in f i v e o f th e re sp o n d e n ts in d ic a te d a f f i l i a t i o n
w ith t h a t c h u rc h .

The Roman C a th o lic group i s th e n e x t l a r g e s t

-3 0 d en o raination w ith a b o u t 13$ o f th e sample a f f i l i a t e d .

Humorous

o t h e r P r o te s t a n t d en o m in ations a r e r e p re s e n te d in th e co u n ty .

These

in c lu d e th e B a p t i s t s , P r e s b y te r ia n , E p is c o p a l, P ree M e th o d ists, Church
o f God, H azarene, A d v e n tis t, C o n g re g a tio n a l and s e v e ra l o t h e r s .
The two C a th o lic p a r i s h e s in th e community have t h e i r churches
lo c a te d in Johnstovm and B ro w n s v ille .

The l a t t e r - i s composed p r e ­

d o m in a te ly o f p e o p le o f P o lis h o r i g i n and th e p r i e s t i s a ls o P o lis h .
The Johnstovm p a r i s h lias a much g r e a t e r d i v e r s i t y o f n a tio n a l o r ig i n s .
T here a r e some o f P o l i s h , I t a l i a n , German, I r i s h , and o t h e r o r ig in s ,
b u t f o r th e most p a r t th e y a r e n o t i d e n t i f i e d a s e t h n i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t .
B oth C a th o lic p a r i s h e s m a in ta in elem en tary s c h o o ls b u t t h e r e i s no
p a r o c h ia l seco n d ary school i n Maple County.
The C a th o lic s in th e B ro w n s v ille a r e i d e n t i f i e d a s P o l i s h by
th e n o n - c a th o lic p e o p le .

Such e q u a tin g o f C a th o lic and P o lis h may

n o t be a c c u r a te i n a l l i n d iv id u a l c a s e s b u t i t in d ic a te s t h a t th e
s te r e o ty p e i s p re d o m in a n tly P o li s h r a t h e r th a n C a th o lic .

A lthough

some C a th o lic s i n th e Johnstovm p a r is h ha-ve p ro m in en t r o l e s in th e
community and a r e f r e q u e n tly m entioned i n c o n v e rs a tio n , th e y a r e n o t
commonly i d e n t i f i e d a s C a th o lic s .

T his i s ev id en ce o f t h e r e l a t i v e l y

s l i g h t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n betw een C a th o lic s and P r o te s t a n t s i n th e comm­
u n ity .

Even i n th e B ro w n sv ille a r e a , where th e r e i s a h ig h p e r c e n t­

ag e o f P o l i s h C a th o lic s , th e s u p e rin te n d e n t o f sch o o ls r e p o r te d t h a t
th e s e p e o p le su p p o rte d w h o le h e a rte d ly th e sc h o o l r e o r g a n iz a tio n and
in d ic a -te d no d e s i r e to m a in ta in s e p a ra te secondary s c h o o ls .
There a r e M eth o d ist E p is c o p a l ch u rch es i n each o f t h e towns and
i n v a rio u s r u r a l h a m le ts and open c o u n try a r e a s o f th e community.

-3 1 As one d r iv e s th ro u g h B ro w n s v ille , Johnstovm , and Adams t h e
prom inent c h u rc h e s a r e r e a d ily v i s i b l e .

The M eth o d ist E p isc o p a l i s

rec o g n iz e d i n a l l , b u t i n Johnstovm th e P r e s b y te r ia n , B a p t i s t , and
E p is c o p a lia n a r e a ls o a c t i v e c e n te r s o f r e l i g i o u s s e r v ic e s and church
o r g a n is a tio n s .

The o b s e rv e r must le a v e th e main s t r e e t s and some­

tim e s i n v e s t i g a t e th e more d e p re s s e d a r e a s o f th e c i t y to f in d th e
o t h e r ch u rch b u i l d i n g s .
C hurches i n th e r u r a l h a m le ts and open c o u n try a r e seem ingly
more homogereous i n t h e i r r e l i g i o u s s e r v ic e s and o r i e n t a t i o n even
though th e r e a r e v a rio u s d en o m in atio n s r e p re s e n te d among them .
Many o f th e r u r a l p e o p le vjhose l i f e s ty l e i s n o t c o m p a tib le w ith
t h e r e l i g i o u s o r i e n t a t i o n o f th e c o u n try ch u rch es have t r a n s f e r r e d
t h e i r a f f i l i a t i o n to th e town c h u rc h e s.

Over o n e - th ir d o f th e r u r a l

p e o p le i n th e sam ple had t h e i r church a f f i l i a t i o n in th e town.

T his

u r b a n iz a tio n o f r e l i g i o u s l i f e le a v e s th e c o u n try ch u rc h e s w ith
d e c id e d ly s m a lle r numbers and l e s s f i n a n c i a l su p p o rt th a n i s nec­
e s s a r y f o r a v a r ie d and a t t r a c t i v e church program .

The d e c l in e in

i n t e r e s t and s u p p o rt h a s c u lm in a te d in th e d isb a n d in g o f s e v e r a l
r u r a l c h u rch es i n th e community.

A f te r an i n t e r v a l some o f th e s e

have re o rg a n iz e d , u s u a lly a s in te rd e n o m in a tio n a l g ro u p s.

O th ers,

on th e o th e r hand rem ain o n ly a s d ila p id a te d b u ild in g s o r b u ild in g s
c o n v e rte d to o t h e r p u rp o se s .

They e x i s t a s memories about which th e

o l d e r p e o p le a r e o c c a s io n a lly re m in is c e n t.

Only two o r t h r e e of th e

r u r a l ch u rch es c o u ld be c l a s s i f i e d a s s tro n g and a c t i v e .

These a r e

lo c a te d some d is ta n c e from th e county s e a t and o th e r tovm s.

In

o th e r p la c e s th e c o n g re g a tio n s c o n tin u e to f u n c tio n b u t th e y a r e v e ry

-3 2 sra a ll and g e n e r a lly have o nly a v e ry l im ite d program o f a c t i v i t i e s .
A lthough t h e u r b a n iz a tio n p ro c e s s h a s had. a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t
on th e r e l i g i o u s l i f e o f Maple County, i t n u s t n o t he concluded th a t
t h e r e s id e n ts have become s e c u la r iz e d to th e p o in t t h a t th e y c o n s id e r
r e l i g i o n u n im p o rta n t.

The c h u rc h and r e l a t e d o r g a n iz a tio n s a r e s t i l l

th e c e n t r a l f o c u s o f th e community l i f e o f many.

None would th in k

o f su g g e stin g t h a t th e ch u rch i s u n d e s ir a b le , a lth o u g h a few more
w o rld ly i n d i v i d u a l s m ight i n d i c a t e t h a t i t h a s f a i l e d in i t s m issio n .
Some i n d ic a tio n o f th e s ig n i f ic a n c e o f r e l i g i o n i n th e l i v e s o f th e s e
p e o p le i s p ro v id e d by th e f a c t t h a t only ab o u t one in f i v e o f th e
re sp o n d e n ts i n th e sample s a id th a t th ey d id n o t c o n s id e r th em selv es
o r t h e i r sp o u ses i d e n t i f i e d w ith any r e l i g i o n .

Even a s m a lle r p r o ­

p o r ti o n i n d i c a t e d t h a t th e y w ere n o t "b ro u g h t up in " any ch u rch .
The h ig h p r o p o r tio n o f r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n should n o t, however,
be in te x p r e te d a s i n d i c a t i v e o f a h ig h r a t e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in church
a c tiv itie s .

About one in f i v e o f th e sample to o k no p a r t i n church

a f f a i r s , a lth o u g h th e y i d e n t i f y th em selv es w ith a ch u rch , w h ile
a n o th e r one i n f i v e b elo n g and a tte n d church o c c a s io n a lly , b u t a r e
not a c tiv e .

About 30-^0 p e r c e n t o f th e p e o u le o f Maple County,

a c c o rd in g to th e sample d a ta , ta k e an a c t iv e p a r t and s u p o o rt th e
ch u rch r c t i v i t i e s .

In g e n e r a l, th e r e f o r e , i t may be s a id t h a t most

p e o p le i n th e community lo o k w ith fa v o r on th e c h u rch es, b u t only a
m in o rity a r e a c t i v e and f in d t h e i r m ajor f o c u s o f s o c ia l i n t e r a c t i o n
i n th e c h u rc h .
Many o r g a n iz a tio n s b e s id e s th e church a t t r a c t th e i n t e r e s t s o f
Maple County p e o p le .

As th e o b s e rv e r becomes a c q u a in te d w ith th e

-3 3 a c t i v i t i e s o f th e community, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n th e l a t e w in te r months,
h e o b ta in s th e im p re ssio n t h a t o r g a n is a tio n a l fu n c tio n s consume a
m ajo r p o r tio n o f th e tim e o f many p e o p le .

She resp o n d e n ts in d ic a te d

t h a t 65 p e r c e n t o f th e men and 60 p e r c e n t o f th e women b elo n g to
a t l e a s t one o r g a n is a tio n o t h e r th an th e c h u rch .
in c lu d e a wide v a r i e t y o f a c t i v i t i e s .

These m em berships

The m ost p o p u la r o r g a n is a tio n s

a r e c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t f o r r u r a l and town p e o p le .

In th e r u r a l a r e a s

th e Farm B ureau, w ith 36 p e r c e n t o f th e men and 22 p e r c e n t o f th e
women re p o rte d a s members, a t t r a c t s by f a r th e l a r g e s t number of
p a rtic ip a n ts .

Among th e c o u n try men th e Grange and th e com bination

o f e i t h e r Masons o r Oc’. d fe llo w s a r e th e n e s t most p o p u la r o rg a n iz a tio n s .

F o r th e r u r a l women, how ever, th e v a r io u s church and m iss-

io n a iy g roups an d th e Home E x te n sio n c lu b s ra n k h ig h e r th a n th e
G range.

A lthough th e. A g r ic u ltu r e E x ten sio n S e rv ic e does n o t sponsor

a men'B c lu b coraparablo to th e Home E x te n sio n Clubs f o r women, i t
sh o u ld n o t be assumed t h a t th e y do n o t have c o n ta c t w ith many o f th e
farm men.

O b se rv atio n would i n d i c a t e t h a t th e E x ten sio n O ffic e h as

a s much o r more com m unication w ith th e men a s w ith th e women.

T his

i s c a r r ie d on, hov/ever, th ro u g h more in fo rm a l groups and o th e r organ­
i z a t i o n s such a s th e Farm B u reau .

A lthough th e Farm B ureau does n o t

c o n t r o l o r employ th e e x te n s io n s t a f f i n M id S tate, a s i t do es i n
some o th e r m id w estern s t a t e s , th e r e i s a v e ry c lo s e r e l a t io n s h i p w ith
t h a t o r g a n iz a tio n .
I f one c o n s id e rs th e a c t i v i t i e s o f th e A g r ic u ltu r e E x te n sio n
S e rv ic e , in c lu d in g th e ^-H c lu b s and E u ra l Y outh, th e Farm B ureau,
th e Grange, and th e S o il C o n se rv a tio n a c t i v i t i e s a s a c l u s t e r o f

-3*4i n t e r r e l a t e d farm g ro u p s, th e y can he r e a d il y reco g n ized a s th e
c o re o f th e farm s o c ia l system .

Many n on-farm p e o p le who l i v e i n

th e county a r e a f f i l i a t e d v /ith some o f th e s e o r g a n iz a tio n s o r
a c t i v i t i e s , h u t th e y a r e dom inated hy th e a c t i v e fa rm e r o r th o s e t h a t
t h e Maole County p e o p le c a l l th e " r e a l f a rm e r s ."

T his te rm i s used

to d i s t i n g u i s h them from th e p a r t- tim e o r week-end fa rm e rs who h o ld
o th o r jo b s ,a n d from th e

l e s s com m ercially o r ie n te d fa rm e rs who

make a l i v i n g h u t n o t a b u s in e s s o u t o f t h e i r farm ing a c t i v i t i e s .
The farm in g n a tu r e o f th e o r g a n iz a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s o f th e
r u r a l p e o p le i s f u r t h e r in d ic a te d hy an a n a l y s is o f th e g ro u p s i n
w hich th e y a r e most a c t i v e .

Among th e men i n th e sample th e Farm

B ureau ra n k s f i r s t and th e Grange second.

Among women th e Farm

B u reau and th e Home E x ten sio n c lu b s rank d i r e c t l y "below th e church
and m issio n a ry g ro u p s.

The h ig h l e v e l o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e s e

farm and home o r ie n te d o r g a n iz a tio n s i s no douht r e l a t e d to th e
s e r v ic e s which th e y p ro v id e .

The Farm B ureau, f o r exam ple, i n

a d d itio n to f u n c tio n in g a s a l e g i s l a t i v e p r e s s u r e group, o p e r a te s
a number o f c o o p e r a tiv e s , sp o n so rs a h o s p i t a l in su ra n c e g ro u p , p ro ­
v id e s a s o i l t e s t i n g s e r v ic e , and ta k e s an a c t i v e r o le i n many o th e r
community f u n c t io n s .

The E x te n s io n S e rv ic e th ro u g h th r e e s t a f f

members, t h e Sraith-Eughes v o c a tio n a l te a c h e r s who o p e ra te s e p a r a te ly
i n th e sc h o o ls, and many v o lu n te e r w orkers, p ro v id e many e d u c a tio n a l
s e r v ic e s th ro u g h th e sc h o o ls, farm p la n n in g g ro u p s, ^-H c lu b s f o r
b o th boys and g i r l s , E u ra l Youth g ro u p s, Home E x ten sio n c lu b s , and
numerous farm d e m o n stra tio n s o f v a r io u s s o r t s .

I n a l l o f th e s e groups

th e o p p o rtu n ity f o r r e c r e a ti o n and fe llo w s h ip a r e seldom o v erlo o k ed .

-3 5 In th e Grange such a c t i v i t i e s a r e i t s p rim ary f u n c tio n i n Maple
County.
The s o c ie ty o f " r e a l fa rm e rs" i s r e a d ily ev id e n t to th e o b se rv e r
th ro u g h t h i s c l u s t e r o f farm and home a c t i v i t i e s which p ro v id e s
av en u es o f i n t e r a c t i o n and com m unication th ro u g h o u t th e community.
The county a g r i c u l t u r e a g e n t i s one o f the*m ost w idely known and
th e most f r e q u e n tly m entioned le a d e r s i n t h e c o u n ty .

A lthough th e r e

a r e some r u r a l segm ents v/ith which he h a s l i t t l e com m unication, th e r e
i s no doubt t h a t h e and h i s s t a f f i n th e e x te n s io n o f f i c e p ro v id e a
m ajo r c e n te r f o r th e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f in fo rm a tio n , id e a s , and b e l i e f s
in-M aple County.

The o f f i c e o f th e Farm B ureau i s c lo s e ly a l l i e d

w ith th e e x te n s io n o f f i c e and s e rv e s much th e same f u n c tio n i n th e
com m unication system i n t h i s farm s o c ie ty .

W ith some j u s t i f i c a t i o n

th e p r o s id e n t o f th e Farm B ureau r e p o r ts t h a t w ith in a few h o u rs h e
co u ld p e r s o n a lly c o n ta c t 30 o r ko " le a d e rs " who would, i n tu r n , have
d i r e c t com m unication w ith and in f lu e n c e on many o f th e farm p eo p le
i n th e co u n ty .

In t h i s c a l c u l a t i o n i t must be re c o g n iz e d t h a t t h i s

man i s t a l k i n g ab o u t th e c o re o f th e farm in g system .

The numerous

n on-farm and p a r t - t i m e farm p e o p le who l i v e on th e la n d a r e seldom
in c lu d e d in h i s sp h ere o f a s s o c i a t i o n s .

N e ith e r a r e many o f th e

s u b s is te n c e fa rm e rs .
The o r g a n iz a tio n a l and com m unicational r e l a t io n s h i p s o f th e s e
no n -farm o r ie n te d groupB i n th e county a r e n o t so e a s i ly i d e n t i f i e d .
Many have t h e i r main p a t t e r n s o f a s s o c ia tio n w ith o th e r o c c u p a tio n a l
g ro u p s.

The f a c t o r y w orkers and t r u c k e r s som etim es f in d l i t t l e in

common v/ith th e fa rm e rs o r th e w h ite c o l l a r w orkers who l i v e on th e
la n d .

A s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r tio n of th e s e p a r t- t im e o r m arg in a l fa rm e rs,

-3 6 who do n o t b e lo n g i n th e c o re system o f a s s o c i a ti o n s , a r e engaged
i n o th e r o c c u p a tio n s t h a t c la im t h e i r main i n t e r e s t .
them in t o o th e r o r g a n iz a tio n s and a c t i v i t i e s .

T h is d i r e c t s

There a r e , on th e

o th e r hand, some non-farm p e o p le , th e p r o d u c ts o f farm homes t h a t
c o u ld n o t p ro v id e employment f o r a l l th e a d u l t s , v/ho rem ain a
p a r t o f th e farm s o c ie ty and b elo n g to th e same o r g a n iz a tio n s t h a t
t h e i r farm in g r e l a t i v e s do.

I t i s n o t u n u s u a l f o r th e s e to a n t i ­

c i p a t e tu r n in g to farm in g when th e y can accu m u late th e n e c e s s a r y
fund to s t a r t b u y in g a farm and equipm ent.

Except f o r t h i s l a t t e r

group th e n o n -farm p e o p le v/ho l i v e on th e la n d may be found in a
s c a t t e r i n g of o th e r o r g a n iz a tio n s such a s v e te r a n s o r g a n iz a tio n s ,
lo d g e s , and l a b o r u n io n s , o f th e tow ns.
A much w id e r d i v e r s i t y o f i n t e r e s t s i s in d ic a te d i n th e organ­
i z a t i o n a l mem berships o f th e p e o p le l i v i n g i n th e tow ns.

The com­

b i n a tio n o f th e Masons and th e O ddfellow s a t t r a c t s a s much a s onef i f t h o f th e men.

Next in fre q u e n c y a r e th e v e te r a n s o r g a n iz a tio n s

to which 17 p e r c e n t o f th e town men b e lo n g .

Among th e women th e

m u ltitu d e o f ch u rch o r g a n iz a tio n s when ta k e n to g e th e r in c lu d e s a
l a r g e r p r o p o r tio n o f women th a n any o th e r group o f o r g a n iz a tio n s .
In second ra n k a r e th e women*s b ran ch es o f t h e Masons and O ddfellow s.
V eteran o r g a n iz a tio n a u x i l i a r i e s and m usic, g ard en , and s i m i l a r c lu b s ,
a s w ell a s th e s t r i c t l y s o c ia l c lu b s , have s i g n i f i c a n t p r o p o r tio n s o f
th e town women i n t h e i r membership l i s t s .
The to w nspeople who b e lo n g to no o r g a n iz a tio n s o th e r th a n th e
ch u rch make u p a b o u t th e same p ro p o rtio n o f t h e t o t a l group a s do
th e r u r a l p e o p le i n th e same c a te g o ry .

The p r o p o r tio n o f th e women

-3 7 i s i d e n t i c a l , i n th e sam ple, w h ile th e town nen seem to he
s l i g h t l y more f r e q u e n tly members o f some o r g a n iz a tio n .

I n th e

tovm s, however, th e r e i s no r e a d i l y v i s i b l e c o n c e n tr a tio n i n a
r e l a t e d system o f o r g a n iz a tio n s a s th e r e i s i n th e farm in g system .
Membership and a c t i v i t y i s w id ely d is p e r s e d among many d i f f e r e n t
lo d g e s, v e te r a n s o r g a n iz a tio n s , s e rv ic e c lu b s , church r e l a t e d
g ro u p s, and, among th e women, v a r io u s women’ s c lu b s .

T h is no

doubt r e f l e c t s somewhat th e d i v e r s i t y o f o c c u p a tio n s i n th e tovm s.
I t a ls o su g g e sts g r e a t e r s o c ia l s t i - a t i f i c a t i o n .
As th e o b s e rv e r se e s th e p e o p le who l i v e on th e la n d in Maple
County h e r e a d i l y d is c o v e rs t h a t th e r e a r e two groups o f p e o p le w ith
d e c id e d ly d i f f e r e n t ty p e s o f l i v e s .

One i s made up o f t h e 62 p e r

c e n t whose p rim a ry o c c u p a tio n i s farm ing; t h e o th e r i s composed o f
t h e 38 p e r c e n t who a r e n o t p r im a r ily fa rm e rs .

The l a t t e r a r e

d i f f e r e n t i r t e d by a wide ra n g e o f o c c u p a tio n s end o th e r s t a t u s
d e te rm in a n ts .

The form er, who a r e n e a r ly a l l engaged i n ab o u t th e

same ty p e o f d i v e r s i f i e d g r a in and liv e s to c k farm in g , a r e l o s s
e a s i l y p la c e d i n d e f i n i t e s t r a t a . However, a farm c l a s s system
*
' *
seems to be em erging o u t o f th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e " b ig
fa rm e rs" (v/ho a r e s t i l l v e ry in f r e q u e n t) , th e " r e a l fa rm e rs " , and
th e t r a d i t i o n a l o r o ld -fa s h io n e d fa rm e rs .

A ll o f th e s e h av e much

more i n common, how ever, th a n th e fa n n e rs h a v e , a s a w hole, w ith th e
n o n -fa rm e rs.

T h ere a r e , o f c o u rse , many in s ta n c e s o f a s s o c ia tio n

betw een th e s e two m ajor g ro u p s o f co u n try p e o p le , b u t th e ev id en ces
o f d i f f e r e n c e s a r e more e a s i ly observed th a n ev id e n c e s o f s im i l a r i t y .
The p a t t e r n s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p between th e v a r io u s g ro u p s of

-3 8 tow nspeople and th e p e o p le v;ho l i v e on th e la n d a r e o f p a r t i c u l a r
i n t e r e s t in th e a n a ly s is o f t h i s cou n ty s e a t c e n te re d community.
W hile th e " b ig fa rm e rs" n e c e s s a r ily have c lo s e c o n ta c t w ith th e
b u s in e s s and p r o f e s s i o n a l p e o p lo o f Johnstow n, th e o th e r c o u n try
r e s i d e n t s a ls o h av e numerous c o n ta c ts w ith t h a t p o r tio n o f th e
community t h a t l i v e s i n th e tovm s.

A ll o f th e r u r a l p e o p le have

t r a d e and o th e r b u s in e s s r e l a t i o n s w ith th e c e n t e r s .

Many f a m ilie s

i n th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s i n t e r a c t w ith th e tovm speople th ro u g h th e
sch o o l and c h u rch a f f a i r s , a s we11 a s th ro u g h more in tim a te v i s i t ­
in g and k in s h ip r e l a t i o n s .

J u s t o v e r h a l f o f th e re sp o n d e n ts who

l i v e in th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s do most o f t h e i r tr a d in g i n Johnstovm ,
w h ile one o u t o f f i v e c o n c e n tr a te t h e i r a c t i v i t i e s i n B ro w n s v ille ,
The o th e r 30 p e r c e n t go to o th e r tovms, o r in d ic a te d t h a t th e y
d iv id e d t h e i r t r a d e somewhat e q u a lly betw een two o r more tow ns.
Among th e r e s i d e n t s o f th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s a p p ro x im a te ly twot h i r d s go to Johnstow n a t l e a s t once a week r e g a r d le s s o f t h e i r
p rim ary tr a d in g c e n te r .
l e a s t once a d a y .

Of th e s e , n e a r ly one o u t o f f i v e go a t

Of th e re m a in in g o n o - th ir d , a n o th e r one o u t o f

f i v e go a t l e a s t once a month b u t l e s s o f te n th a n once a week.

The

i n t e r a c t i o n betw een Johnstow n and c o u n try p e o p le flow s in th e o th e r
d i r e c t i o n f o r a c o n s id e ra b le number a l s o .

More th a n two o u t o f f iv e

o f th e re sp o n d e n ts i n r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s wore v i s i t e d a t l e a s t once a
month by r e l a t i v e s o r f r i e n d s from Johnstovm .

In a d d itio n to p e rs o n a l

c o n ta c ts , th e Johnstow n News i s re a d r e g u l a r i l y by p.bout tw o - th ir d s
o f th e r u r a l r e s i d e n t s .

-3 9 A ll o f t h e s e d a ta su p p o rt th e o b s e rv a tio n th a t th e r e i s c o n s ta n t
and e x te n s iv e com m unication betw een th e town and c o u n try p e o p le in
th e Maple Covmty community.

A lthough th e fa rm e rs o p e r a te in a

somewhat d i f f e r e n t system o f r e l a t i o n s th an do th e n o n -fa rm e rs,
t h e r e a r e no sh a rp b a r r i e r s betw een them.

Many o f th e r e s i d e n t s

o f Johnstow n and th e o th e r tow ns o f th e county were b o m and brought
up on th e farm s o f th e community and have r e l a t i v e s who a r e s t i l l
th e r e .

I'h ere a r e a ls o many p e o p le l i v i n g i n th e c o u n try , p a r ­

t i c u l a r l y th e n o n -fa rm e rs , who have p r e v io u s ly liv e d i n Johnstovm ,
3 ro w n s v ille , Adams o r o th e r tovm s.

5he i n t e r e s t s and th e o rg a n iz a ­

t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s o f th e farm p e o p le a r e somewhat d i f f e r e n t , b u t
n e a r ly a l l re c o g n iz e t h a t th o s e i n t e r e s t s c o n s ta n tly b r in g them in to
c o n ta c t w ith th e i n t e r e s t s o f th e tow nspeople.

(Ehese f r e q u e n t p o in ts

o f i n t e r a c t i o n , and th e common a r e a s o f i n t e r e s t , a r e th e b a s e s upon
w hich th e community o f Johnstow n and th e v i l l a g e s and open co u n try
o f Maple County o p e r a te .
II
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M in o r itie s
W ith th e fo re g o in g p i c t u r e i n mind o f th e l i f e and g e n e ra l
s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a r e to be found w ith in t h e a r e a choBen
f o r stu d y , we may now in q u ir e in to th e k in d s o f a t t i t u d e s a r e p re s e n t­
a t i v e sa n p le o f th e s e p e o p le m a n ife st tow ard c e r t a i n m in o rity g ro u p s.
!Ehe d a ta to be p r e s e n te d a r e b ased on th e t o t a l sarrole a s a d ju s te d
to m a in ta in th e p r o p o r tio n a te number o f town and open c o u n try
r e s i d e n t s v/ho a c t u a l l y liv e d i n th e co u n ty .

-h O -

The fo llo w in g ta b le s i n d i c a t e som ething o f th e p a t t e r n o f
se n tim e n ts which o b ta in s w ith r e s p e c t to Jew s, N egroes and M exicans.
These t a b l e s show th e number o f re sp o n d e n ts and p e r c e n t o f re sp o n se s
to each q u e s tio n i n term s o f th e s c a le used to c a te g o r iz e th e re sp o n se s
The av erag e re sp o n s e , b ased on th e s c a le u sed to m easure i t , i s
a ls o shown.
For th e f i v e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s a re sp o n se o f " s tr o n g ly ag ree"
i s coded a s one and i s th e most u n fa v o ra b le resp o n se th a t can be
made to an ite m .

F or th e th r e e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s a " d is a g re e "

re sp o n se i s coded a s one and i s th e most u n fa v o ra b le re s p o n s e t h a t
can be made.

Thus, th e low er th e Mean re sp o n s e to any o f th e

s tr u c tu r e d ite m s th e g r e a t e r th e d eg ree o f " in to le r a n c e " o r
" p re ju d ic e " w hich may be a s c r ib e d to th e sam ple.
The m id -p o in t o f th e f i v e - p o i n t s c a le i s " c a n 't d e c id e " and
i s coded t h r e e . ^

A verage re s p o n s e s low er th a n t h i s would seem to

i n d i c a t e a f a i r l y s tro n g u n fa v o ra b le a t t i t u d e a s m easured by any
p a r t i c u l a r q u e s tio n .

But s in c e a " c a n 't d e c id e " re sp o n se can

h a r d ly be c l a s s i f i e d a s a t o l e r a n t re sp o n se , a resp o n se o f lo s s
th a n fo u r on th e s c a le can not be c o n sid e re d i n d i c a t i v e o f a f a v o ra b le
a t t i t u d e tow ard th e m in o rity group covered in a p a r t i c u l a r q u e s tio n .
The u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s were d e sig n e d to provoke a f r e e r
re s p o n s e .

The c a te g o r ie s w hich were used f o r s e e lin g th e s e r e ­

sp o n ses were d ete rm in e d a f t e r th e In te rv ie w s had been b ro u g h t back

■^There were a few " d o n 't know" and "no re sp o n se " answ ers on b o th th e
f i v e and t h r e e - p o in t s c a le ite m s . Since th e s e were in f r e q u e n t f o r
any one ite m th e y were coded a t th e m id -p o in t o f th e s c a l e f o r b o th
k in d s o f ite m s . T h is was done p r im a r ily to f a c i l l i t a t e com putations
on th e I.B .M . m achines. On l o g i c a l grounds t h i s p ro c e d u re can be
d efen d ed , b u t on m e th o d o lo g ical grounds i t i s an assu m p tio n .

-4 1 to th e r e s e a r c h la b o r a to r y .

These c a te g o r ie s were d ev elo p ed

a f t e r a la r g e sam ple o f re sp o n s e s had been in s p e c te d .

I t cannot

be claim ed t h a t th e s c a lin g r e p r e s e n ts e q u a l i n t e r v a l s (anymore
th a n th e s c a le f o r th e s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s a c tu a l ly r e p r e s e n ts
eq u a l i n t e r v a l s ) , b u t th e s c a l e does in d i c a t e th e apnroxim ate
s te p s covered i n th e range o f u n s tr u c tu r e d re sp o n s e s found i n
th e d a ta .

F o r th e s e u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s a s c a le s c o re o f one

r e p r e s e n ts th e most f a v o ra b le resp o n se to th e q u e s tio n .

Thus,

th e h ig h e r th e a v era g e re sp o n s e to any o f t h e u n s tr u c tu r e d
q u e s tio n s , th e g r e a t e r th e d eg ree o f " in to le r a n c e " o r " p re ju d ic e "
m a n ife ste d by t h e sam ple.

T h is , i t should b e n o ted , i s c o n tr a r y

to th e d i r e c t i o n o f re sp o n se s to th e s tr u c t u r e d q u e s tio n s .

It

sh o u ld be n o ted a ls o t h a t th e p o s s ib le range o f re sp o n se s f o r th e
u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s i s n o t th e same i n each c a s e .

T h is i s due

to th e wording o f th e p a r t i c u l a r q u e s tio n s , w ith th e r e s u l t a n t
ra n g e o f re sp o n s e s a c tu a lly found from th e d a t a .
The th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s ,

b ein g b ased on s tr u c t u r e d ite m s,

a r e sc a le d so t h a t th e lo w er th e sc o re th o g r e a t e r th e d e g re e o f
i

i n t o l e r a n c e m a n ife ste d by th e sam ple.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Jews may be determ in ed from an ex am in atio n o f
T a b le s 2 and 3«

These t a b l e s in d i c a t e t h a t th e s e n tim e n ts r u r a l .

p e o p le m a n ife st tow ard Jew s, i n resp o n se to th e in s tru m e n t u se d , a r e
f a r from f a v o r a b le .

F or th e f iv e - p o i n t s c a l e ite m s t h e r e i s no

q u e s tio n w h erein t h e a v e rag e re sp o n se i s a s g r e a t a s t h r e e .

These

q u e s tio n s ran g e from s te r e o ty p e s about Jews to th o s e in v o lv in g

2

T hese a r e e x p la in e d in more d e t a i l f u r t h e r on in t h i s d is c u s s io n .

Table 2
ATTITUDES OP MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDENTS TOWARD JEWS AS
MEASURED BY STF.UCTUP.ED QUESTIONS (EXPANDED SAMPLE)
S c a le W eight =
T o ta l No.
of res- .
P iv e -P o in t S cale Item s
•pondents

1
S tro n g ly
A gree
Eo^ E a r .Qept

Agree
ESL*. P.er C ent

3
C a n 't
D ecide
go*. P_er Cent

D is a g re e
Ecu. P e r Cent

5
S tro n g ly
D is a g re e
E&j. P e r Cent

Average1*
S c a le
Response

The tr o u b le w ith most Jews
i s t h a t th e y th in k th e y 'r e
b e t t e r th a n o th e r p e o p le .

465

53

11.40

148

3 1 .8 3

101

2 1.72

146

31.40

In most e v e ry th in g th e y do
Jews t r y to push ahead o f
everybody e l s e .

465

98

21.08

257

55.27

56

1 2 .0 4

50

1 0 .7 5

We should see to i t t h a t not
too many Jew s become d o c to r s ,
law y ers, o r te a c h e r s .

463

42

9 .0 7

168

36.29

72

1 5 .5 5

161

3^.7 7

20

Am ericans must be on g u ard
a g a in s t t h e Jews g e t t i n g
too much pow er.

465

97

20.86

244-

52.47

45

9 .6 8

69

1 4 .8 4

10

2.15

2.25

We would a l l b e b e t t e r o f f
i f we ship p ed th e Jews b ack
to P a l e s t i n e .

464

47

1 0 .1 3

134

28.8 8

91

1 9.61

176

37.93

16

3 .^ 5

2.96

2
C a n 't Q u ite
A gree
iIp. P e r Cent

3
Agree
C om pletely
No. P e r Cent

3 0 .5 4

174

37 . 42

149

3 2 .0 4

2.02

53.13

108

23.33

109

2 3 .54

1.70

S ca le W eight =
T o ta l No.
of resT h re e -P o in t S cale Item s
n o n d en ts

D isag ree
ITo. P e r Cent

The Jew ish p e o p le a r e j u s t
a s h o n e s t, warm and f r i e n d l y
a s o th e r p e o p le .

465

142

I t i s a l l r i g h t w ith me i f
more Jew ish p e o p le move in to
ny neighborhood.

463

246

Average
S cale
Response

17

3 .6 5

0 .8 6

4 .3 2

2 .8 4

2.15

2.89

(♦ S caled so t h a t th e
lo w er th e sco re the
g r e a t e r amount o f
p r e ju d ic e .)

-143T able 3
ATTITUDES OF MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDED S TOWARD JEWS AS MEAS­
URED BY ONE UNSTRUCTURED QUESTION AND A TOTAL JEW ISH PR EJU D ICE
SCORE BASED ON F IV E -P O IN T SCALE ITEMS (EXPANDED SAMPLE)
Q u estio n :

I f a Jew ish p e rs o n were t r y i n g to btgr th e b ig g e s t s to r e
i n town, do y o u th in k a n y th in g should be done abovit i t
o r not?
S c a le o f R esponses (coded a f t e r :interviex*)
T o ta l No,
of re s ­
pond e n ts P e r Cent

S ca le
Weight
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

U n q u a lifie d a c c e p ta n c e
No, n o th in g
Q u a lif ie d ( c o n d itio n a l) a c c e p ta n c e
A voidance o f d e c is io n
R e je c tio n w ith o u t p la n s f o r a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith i l l - d e f i n e d p la n s f o r a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p l a n s f o r l e g a l o r economic
a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p l a n s f o r a c tio n in v o lv in g
o v e r t h o s t i l i t y and p o s s ib le c o n f l i c t

Average S c a le Response = 3*27

T o ta ls

b4
208
16
87
48
17

9 .4 6
44.73
3 .4 4
18.71
10.32
3 .6 6

36

7 .4 4

__ 2.

1 .9 4

465

100.00

Jew ish P r e ju d ic e S core (b a se d on f iv e - p o i n t s e a l e ite m s , w ith a
t h e o r e t i c a l raw sco re ran g e from 5 to 25, and a s c a le range, basec
on th e n in e - p o in t Je w ish P r e ju d ic e S c a le , o f 1 to 9 . )
S c a le
Weight
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

T o ta l
of r e s ­
p o n d e n ts

Raw
S cores
5-6
7-8
9-10
11-12
13-1^
15-16
17-18
19-20
21 and o v e r

A verage S c a le Response «* 4 .7 0

25
27
79
88
87
68
68
15
_2_
T o ta ls

466

P e r Cent
5.37
5.80
16.95
18.88
18.67
14.59
14.59
3.22
1 ,2 2 100.00

_Zj4 -

r e s t r i c t i v e and th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f o p p re ss iv e a c tio n ,

-h e most

extrem e q u e s tio n , which i n tim a te s t h a t "we would a l l he b e t t e r
o f f i f we sh ip p ed th e Jews hack to P a l e s t in e " invokes th e most
f a v o ra b le a t t i t u d e s .

P u t even h e re 39 p e r c e n t o f th e sam ple

a g re e w ith t h i s sen tim en t and 20 p e r c e n t c a n 't d e c id e .

The

mean re sp o n se i s 2 . 9 6 , which i s below th e m id -p o in t o f th e s c a lo .
F or th e t h r e e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s th e r e s u l t s a r e s im i l a r .
S ix ty - e ig h t p e r c e n t e i t h e r d is a g r e e o r c a n 't q u ite a g re e w ith
th e sta te m e n t "Jew s a r e j u s t a s h o n e s t, warm end f r i e n d l y a s
o th e r p e o p le ."

An even g r e a t e r number d is a g r e e o r c a n 't q u ite

a g ro e w ith th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f Jews moving i n t o th e im m ediate
n eighborhood.
The re sp o n s e to th e u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n i s on a somewhat
d i f f e r e n t d im en sio n b u t l e s s th an 10 p e r c e n t o f th e sam ple
gave u n q u a lif ie d a p p ro v a l to th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a Jew ish mer­
c h a n t buying th e l a r g e s t s t o r e i n to m , w h ile n e a r ly 13 p e r c e n t
r e j e c t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w ith some id e a o f a c tio n to p r e v e n t i t .
A lthough a m a jo rity w i l l a c c e p t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y t h e r e i s a s ie e a b le m ih o rity who e i t h e r a v o id a d e c is io n on th e q u e s tio n o r
r e j e c t th e id e a o u t r i g h t .
The a v e ra g e resp o n se to th e Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c a le i s *K70.
T h is sc o re was computed p r im a r ily f o r th e co m p arativ e a n a ly s is
w hich w i l l b e p r e s e n te d l a t e r , b u t i t sh o u ld b e i n t e r p r e t e d a t
t h i s p o in t.

I n o rd e r to o b ta in t h i s sco re th e re sp o n s e s o f each

in d iv id u a l to each o f th e f i v e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le q u e s tio n s p e r t a i n ­
in g to Jews w ere summed and on th e b a s is o f th e r e s u l t i n g d i s t r i b -

-k 5 -

u t i o n o f th e s e raw s c o re s a n in e - p o in t Jew ish P r e ju d ic e S c a le
was c o n s tr u c te d .

Thus, a resp o n d en t who re c e iv e d a s c o re o f

one f o r each o f th e q u e s tio n s would have a t o t a l s c o re o f f iv e ,
which was g iv e n a s c a le w i g h t of one on t h e Jew ish P r e ju d ic e S c a le .
T a b le 3 shows t h i s s c a le to g e th e r w ith th e a c t u a l raw s s c o re s ,
grouped by i n t e r v a l s o f two, upon which i t wss b ased , and th e
p e rc e n ta g e o f re sp o n d e n ts to be found a t each p o i n t .
The a v e ra g e re sp o n se to th e s c a le was d eterm in e d by add in g
each o f th e summed re sp o n s e s to th e f i v e q u e s tio n s which was made
by each i n d iv id u a l re sp o n d e n t, i n acco rd an ce w ith th e s c a le w eig h ts
a s s ig n e d to t h e raw s c o re s , and d iv id in g by th e t o t a l number of
re sp o n d e n ts .

The r e s u l t i n g s c o re i s an a v e ra g e which i s b ased on

th e riiiB -p o in t Je w ish P r e ju d ic e S c a le and g iv e s an a p p ro x im a tio n to
th e averag e re sp o n s e to th e f i v e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le Je w ish q u e s tio n s
when th ey a re c o n s id e re d a s a g roup.

S in ce t h i s s c a le was con­

s tr u c te d d i r e c t l y from th e o r i g i n a l d a ta , i t i s n o t composed o f
e n t i r e l y e q u a lly spaced s t e p s . ^

I t sh o u ld , t h e r e f o r e , n o t be

^The r e a d e r may a s k why a r e d u c tio n to a n in e - p o in t s c a le . The '
answ er i s p a r t l y a r b i t r a r y , p a r t l y m ech an ical, and p a r t l y based
upon th e d a t a . S ince th e d a ta were to be computed by means o f I.5 .M .
m achines, i t was im p o rta n t to o b ta in s c o re s which could be coded in
one column on th e I.B .M . c a r d . T h is was p o s s i b l e by d o u b lin g up th e
a c t u a l i n t e r v a l s o b ta in e d by summing th e s e p a r a te s c o re s f o r in d i ­
v id u a l ite m s . I n s p e c tio n o f th e o r i g i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s (which a r e
shown in Appendix D) in d ic a te d t h a t t h i s would a llo w maximum u s e o f
th e d a t a f o r m achine p u rp o se s w ith o u t d o in g g r e a t v io le n c e to th e
d i s t r i b u t i o n s . S in ce th e s e s c a le s were to be used f o r i n t e r n a l
com parisons and n o t f o r d i r e c t com parisons o f Jew ish , Negro and
Mexican a t t i t u d e re sp o n s e s, th e s li g h t i n e q u i t i e s o f s c a lin g do
n o t a p p ea r to do s e rio u s v io le n c e to th e p u rp o se s f o r which th e
s c a le s were in te n d e d .
^A s c a le w eig h t o f n in e was g iv e n a l l r e s p o n s e s o f tw en ty -o n e o r o v e r.
A c tu a lly t h e r e were no re sp o n s e s which t o t a l e d tw e n ty - f iv e .

-4 6 compared d i r e c t l y w ith th e o t h e r p r e ju d ic e s c o re s .

I t i s p ro b a b ly

b e t t e r to i n t e r p r e t th e a v e ra g e sc o re i n term s o f th e s c a lin g o f
th e o r ig i n a l q u e s tio n s .
Thus, 4 .7 0 , b ein g u n d e r f iv e , in d i c a t e s an a v e ra g e re sp o n se
which i s
S c a le .

below th e m iddle o f th e n in e - p o in t Jew ish P r e ju d ic e
Hence, in term s o f th e o r i g i n a l q u e s tio n s t h i s s c o re of

4 .7 0 i s th e e q u iv a le n t

o f an av erag e re s p o n s e which i s below

t h r e e , th e m id d le o f th e f i v e - p o i n t s c a le f o r th e in d iv id u a l
ite m s .

I f e v e ry resp o n d en t h a s a s much a s an av erag e re sp o n s e

o f th r e e to each o f th e f i v e q u e s tio n s , t h e maximum p o in t t h a t
c o u ld be re a c h e d on th e n in e - p o in t Jew ish P r e ju d ic e S c a le would
be f iv e .

The a v e ra g e re sp o n s e to th e f iv e Jew ish q u e s tio n s ,

when th e y a r e t r e a t e d a s a group, i s c l e a r l y a t th e l e s s t o l e r a n t
end o f th e p r e ju d ic e s c a le .
A ttitu d e s tow ard N egroes a r e shown by T ab les 4 end 5 .

The

q u e s tio n s c a n n o t be eq u ated w ith th o se a p p ly in g to Jews so i t i s
h o t p ro p e r to make d i r e c t co m p ariso n s.

The q u e s tio n s ran g e from

th o s e d esig n ed to provoke s te r e o ty p e s to th o s e in v o lv in g r e s t r i c t i v e
a c t i o n , s e n tim e n ts a tta c h e d to p r o p e rty , and s u b o rd in a te w h ite
r e l a t io n s h i p s t o ITegroes.
Two o f th e f i v e - p o i n t s c a le q u e s tio n s hav e an a v e ra g e resp o n se
g r e a t e r th a n t h r e e , b u t l e s s th a n f o u r .

One o f th e s e q u e s tio n s i s

j u s t b a r e ly beyond th e l e v e l o f th r e e .

I t i s , however, t h e resp o n se

to th e q u e s tio n ,in v o lv in g th e encouragem ent o f N egroes to e x e r c is e
th e r ig h t o f f r a n c h i s e ,

w hich may throw c o n s id e ra b le l i g h t upon

th e e x te n t to which Maple County r e s i d e n t s a r e f a v o ra b le tow ard

Table 4
ATTITUDES OP MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDENTS TOWARD NEGROES
AS MEASURED BY STRUCTURED QUESTIONS (EXPANDED SAMPLE)
S cale W eight =
T o ta l No.
of resP iv e -P o in t S ca le Item s
p o ndents

1
S tro n g ly
Agree
No. P e r Cent

2

.

Agree
No. P e r Cent

4

3
C a n 't
D ecide
No. P e r Cent

D isa g re e
No. P e r Cent

5
S tro n g ly
D isa g re e
No. P e r Cent

Average
Scalo
Response

G e n e ra lly speak in g N egroes
a r e la z y and ig n o ra n t.

466

39

8 .3 7

201

43.13

67

1 4 .3 8

145

31.12

14

3.00

2.77

I t i s a good id e a to keep
Negroes o u t o f w h ite
n eig h b o rh o o d s.

4-66

129

27.68

264

56.65

25

5 .37

45

9.66

3

0 .6 4

1.99

466

10

2 .1 4

95

20.39

45

9 .6 6

273

55.58

43

9 .2 3

3.52

466

4o

8 .4 8

122

26.19

105

22.53

172

36.91

27

5 .79

3.05

* N egroes sh o u ld he encouraged
to v o te i n a l l e le c tio n s
th a t w h ite s v o te i n .
The tr o u b le w ith N egroes w ith
h ig h e r e d u c a tio n i s t h a t th e y
th in k th e y know too much.

S cale Weight T o ta l No.
of resT h re e -P o in t S ca le Ite m s
p o n d en ts

D isag ree
No. P e r Cent

The w h ite and Negro p e o p le
would g e t a lo n g b e t t e r i f
th ey a t e i n th e same
r e s ta u r a n t s .

466

314

67.38

80

17.17

72

1 5 .4 5

1 .4 8

I t would make no d if f e r e n c e
to me i f I had to ta k e
o rd e rs from a Negro.

463

324

69.98

60

1 2.96

79

17.06

1.47

C r n 't Q u ite
Agree
No. P e r Cent

3
Agree
Com pletely
No. P e r Cent

Average
S cale
P.esnonse

(♦ T h is ite m was coded so t h a t "ag ree" re sp o n se s i n d i c a t e p r e ju d ic e d re sp o n s e s, a s i s th e c a s e f o r th e o th e r f iv e - p o in t
s c a le ite m s . Thus, f o r a l l ite m s t h e lo w er th e s c o re th e g r e a t e r amount o f p r e j u d ic e .)

-L'£T able 5
ALTITUDES OF MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDENTS TOWARD NEGROES AS
MEASURED BY TWO UNSTRUCTURED QUESTIONS AND A TOTAL NEGRO
PR EJU D IC E SCOPE BASED ON FIV E -P O IN T SCALE ITEMS (EXPANDED SAMPLE)
Q u estio n :

S cale
Welght
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8

Sometime ago i t was r e p o rte d t h a t some Negro f a m ilie s
were i n t e r e s t e d in moving to Johnstow n. Did you h e a r
a n y th in g ab o u t th is ? IF YES, What do you th in k should
havo done, a b o u t t h i 3?
.
T o ta l ITo.
of resS c a le o f R esponses (coded a f t e r in te rv ie w ) u o n d en ts P e r Cent

U n q u a lifie d a c c e p ta n c e
Q u a lif ie d ( c o n d itio n a l) a c c e p ta n c e
A voidance o f d e c is io n
R e je c tio n w ith o u t p la n s f o r a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith i l l - d e f i n e d p la n s f o r a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r moving away
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r le g a l o r s e m i-le g a l
a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r a c tio n in v o lv in g
o v e r t h o s t i l i t y and p o s s ib le c o n f l ic t
A verage S ca le Response =

Q u estio n :

1
2
3
h
5
6
7
8
9

3 .8 5

T o ta ls

73
52
66
102
h3
3

16.98
1 2.0 9
1 5 .3 5
2 3.72
10.00
0 .7 0

87

20.23

__ h

.. 0 .2 1

h3o

100.00

I f a Negro fa m ily wore p la n n in g to move onto th e farm
o r ( i f in town) in to a home n e x t door, do you th in k
a n y th in g sh o u ld be done ab o u t i t o r n o t?

U n q u a lifie d a c c e p ta n c e
No, n o th in g
Q u a lif ie d ( c o n d itio n a l) a c c e p ta n c e )
A voidance o f d e c is io n
R e je c tio n w ith o u t p la n s f o r a c ti o n
R e je c tio n w ith i l l - d e f i n e d p la n s f o r a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r moving away
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r l e g a l o r s e m i-le g a l
a c tio n
R e je c tio n w ith p la n s f o r a c tio n in v o lv in g
o v e r t h o s t i l i t y and p o s s ib le c o n f l ic t
A verage S cale R esponse =

h.59

T o ta ls

33
101
ho
55
81
36
26

7 .1 0
2 1.72
8 .6 0
11.8 3
1 7 . h2
7 .7 h
5 .5 9

81

17 .h2

12

2.58

h65

100.00

-4 9 -

T a b le 5 (C ontinued)
AIT’ITUDES OP MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDENTS TOWARD ITE&ROES AS
MEASURED BY W O UNSTRUCTURED QUESTIONS AND A TOTAL ITECRO
PR EJU D IC E SCORE BASED ON EIVE-POI1TT SCALE ITEMS (EXPANDED SAMPLE)

Negro P re .iu d ic e S core (b ased on f i v e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s,
w ith a t h e o r e t i c a l raw s c o re ran g e from 4 to 20, and a
s c a le ran g e, b ased on th e n in e - p o in t Negro P r e ju d ic e
S ca le o f 1 t o 9)
S c ale
Weight

Raw
S co res

1
2
3
1+
5
6
7
8
9*

4 -5
6-7
• 8 -9
10-11
12-13
14-15
16-17
18-19
20
A verage S ca le R esponse -

T o ta l No.
of re s­
p o n d en ts P e r Cent

4 .4 4

T o ta ls

8
25
76
140
117
65
32
1
2

1 .7 2
5 .3 6
16.31
3 0 .0 4
25 .11
13.95
6.87
0 .2 1
0 ,4 3

466

100.00

(♦ A c tu a lly , s in c e i t i s im p o ssib le to o b ta in b u t one s c o re , r.
more a c c u r a te w eig h t would be 8 .5 . T h is i s im p r a c tic a l, how ever,
f o r m achine a n a l y s is . The d i f f e r e n c e s a p n e a r to be r e l a t i v e l y
u n im p o rtan t f o r th e co m o arativ e a n a ly s e s which a r e l a t e r made.
The d a ta i n A ppendix D a ls o i n d i c a t e t h i s . )

1

N eg ro es.

The a v e ra g e re sp o n se f o r t h i s q u e s tio n i s 3«52.

In so fa r

a s th e a r e a sampled i s i n th e m idwest, w herein th e r ig h t o f f r a n c h is e
f o r a l l i s presum ably an i r p o r t a n t b e l i e f , t h i s av erag e re sp o n se ,
b e in g h a l f a s c a le s te p below "ag ree" i s h a rd ly in d i c a t iv e o f g r e a t
to le r a n c e tow ard N egroes,
The q u e s tio n s i m p l i c i tl y in v o lv in g s e g re g a tio n y i e l d a v e ra g e
re sp o n s e s which a r e d e f i n i t e l y u n fa v o ra b le , a s i s th e q u e s tio n
co n cern in g th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f t h e subordinancy o f th e w h ite respond­
e n ts to N egroes.
T ab le 5 shows th a t 5^ p e r cen t o f th e sample r e je c te d th e id e a of
N egroes moving to Johnstow n, 15 p e r c en t could n o t d e c id e , w h ile JL
p e r c e n t r e je c te d t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w ith some p la n f o r a c tio n to p re v e n t
it.

T h irty -o n e p e r cen t a ls o r e j e c t , w ith some p la n s f o r a c ti o n to

p re v e n t i t , th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a Negro fa m ily moving n e x t d o o r o r on
a farm a d jo in in g th e re sp o n d e n t.
The av erag e re sp o n se on th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e S c a le i s h.W f.
(T h is s c a le was c o n s tr u c te d i n th e same way a s th e t o t a l Je w ish P re ­
ju d ic e S c a le .)

T h is i s below th e m id -p o in t.

I n term s o f t h e o r ig i n a l
f

q u e s tio n s t h i s i n d i c a t e s an a v e ra g e resp o n se o f l e s s th a n t h r e e .
When i t i s remembered t h a t th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e

S cale in c lu d e s

th e resp o n se to th e q u e s tio n o f Negroes v o tin g , i t cannot be s a id t h a t
to le r a n c e tow ard N egroes, a s m easured by th e in s tru m e n t, i s g r e a t.
T h is would seem to be th e c o n c lu s io n w ith r e s p e c t to th e a t t i t u d e s o f
Maple County re sp o n d e n ts tow ard N egroes a s shown by a l l th e q u e s tio n s .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown by T ab le 6 .

I t d o es n o t

r e q u ir e e la b o r a tio n o f th e s e f in d in g s to co n clu d e th a t a t t i t u d e s

Table 6
ATTITUDES OF MAPLE COUNTY RESPONDENTS TOWARD MEXICANS AND TOTAL PREJUDICE SCOH?
(EXPANDED SAMPLE)
S cale W eights =
3
5
T o ta l Ho.
S tro n g ly
C a n 't
S tro n g ly
of res­
Agree
Agree
Decide
D isa g re e
D isa g re e
F lv a - P o in t S cale Item s
p o n d en ts No. P e r Cent No. P e r Cent Ho. P e r Cent Ho. P e r Cent Ho. P e r Cent
♦Mexicans sh o u ld he p e r m itte d
to become c i t i z e n s and v o te
th e same a s anybody e l s e .
I t i s a good id e a to keen
M exicans o u t o f v M te
n eig h b o rh o o d s.

466

24

5 .1 5

150

32.19

56

1 2 .0 2

218

4 6 .?8

466

90

19.31

282

60.51

44

9 .4 4

45

9.6 6

S ca le W eight =

3 .8 6

3.12

1 .0 8

2.13

1
of res­
_______
p o n d en ts

T h re e -P o in t S cale Item s

18

D isag ree
No. P e r Cent

C a n 't Q u ite
Agree
No. P e r Cent

A gree
C om pletely
No. P e r Cent

A verage
S cale
Response

I f more M exicans want t o come
t o M id S tate th ey sh o u ld be
allow ed to e n t e r .

466

242

51.93

169

36.27

55

11.80

1.60

M exicans sh o u ld be allo w e d to
e a t i n th e same r e s t a u r a n t s
a s w h ite p e o p le .

465

172

36.99

140

3 0 .1 1

153

3 2.90

I .96

T o ta l P r e ju d ic e Score (b a se d on a l l s ix th r e e - p o in t s c a le item s - Mexican, ITegro, Jew ish ite m s - w ith a t h e o r e t i c a l raw
s c o re range from 6 to IB, and a s c a le ra n g e , b ased on th e se v e n -p o in t T o ta l P r e ju d ic e S cale o f 1 -7 )
S cale W eight

Haw S co res

1
2

6-7
8-9

10-11
12-13

14-15
16-17
7 **
18
v erage S cale Responses = 2 .8 8

No. o f R espondents
100

119
96
62
54
22

_ z
T o ta ls 460

P e r Cent
2 1 .7 4
25.87

3 :8
1 .5 2
1 0 0 .0 0

(♦ T h is ite m was coded so t h a t " a g re e " re sp o n se s in d ic a te
p r e ju d ic e d re sp o n s e s, a s i s th e c a s e f o r th e o th e r f iv e p o in t ' q u e s tio n . T hus, f o r b o th ite m s th e lo w er th e sco re
th e g r e a t e r amount o f p r e j u d ic e .)
(♦♦As f o r th e Negro P r e ju d ic e S c a le , th e w e ig h tin g a t t h i s
end o f th e s c a le i s s l i g h t l y h e a v ie r th an s t r i c t accu racy
r e q u i r e s . The s c a le w eirfit o f 7 was u s e d , how ever, f o r the
same re a so n s in d ic a te d in T a b le 5 . )

tow ard M exicans, j u s t a s f o r Jew s and N egroes, a r e n o t f a v o ra b le
in Maple County.
The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e S c a le , shown in T able 6 , was c o n s tr u c te d in
th e sane way a s th e Jew ish P r e ju d ic e S calo , b u t was based on th e s ix
t h r e e - p o i n t s c a le ite m s .

S ince th e r e two such ite m s f o r each o f th e

m in o rity g ro u p s, t h i s was c a l l e d a " t o t a l p r e ju d ic e " s c a le .
a v e ra g e resp o n se i s 2 .8 8 .
P r e ju d ic e S c a le .

The

T his i s below th e m id -p o in t o f th e T o ta l

I n term s o f th e o r ig i n a l q u e s tio n s t h i s in d i c a t e s

t h a t th e a v e ra g e re sp o n se to a l l th e t h r e e - p o in t s c a lo ite m s i s u n d e r
tw o.

T h is s c a l e , l i k e th e o th e r s c a le s , does n o t in d i c a t e a h ig h

l e v e l o f t o l e r a n t se n tim e n ts tow ard th e th r e e m in o rity groupb which
have been exam ined.
The fo re g o in g t a b l e s show a d e f i n i t e p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts
tow ard th e th re e m in o rity g ro u p s.

G ranted th e im p e rfe c tio n o f th e

q u e s tio n s end th e d if f e r e n c e s to be found betw een them, th e g e n e ra l
im p re ssio n s t i l l rem ain s th a t Maple County r e s i d e n t s a r e n o t fa v o r­
a b le tow ard th e s e m i n o r itie s .

The re sp o n se s i n d i c a t e th e g e n e ra l

c lim a te o f o p in io n which i s to be found in th e c u ltu r e o f t h e respond­
e n ts .

The answ er to th e f i r s t q u e s tio n r a is e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h ap p ears

to be t h a t th e t o t a l c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts and b e l i e f s w ith
r e s p e c t to Jew s, N egroes, and M exicans, which i s m an ife sted by th e
k in d s o f re sp o n se s provoked by th e in s tru m e n t, i s d e c id e d ly u n fa v o r­
a b le to th e s e m i n o r i t i e s .
The q u e s tio n y e t rem ains a s to th e n a tu r e o f t h i s c u l t u r a l
p a tte rn .

I s i t one which p e rv a d e s a l l a s p e c ts o f th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e

o f t h e s e p e o p le so t h a t th e r e a r e few d if f e r e n c e s to be found no

-5 3 m a tte r how th e re sp o n d e n ts a r e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d ?

Or a r e th e r e

d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h i s p a t t e r n , d i f f e r e n c e s which s p p e a r to be
s u b - c u ltu r a l v a r i a t i o n s o f th e t o t a l p a t t e r n , which a r e r e l a t e d
to c e r t a i n a s p e c ts o f th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e ?

I t i s w ith th e answ er

to th e s e q u e s tio n s t h a t th e f o llo w in g s e c tio n w i l l be c o n c e rn e d .

PAST I I

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF
POSITION IN THE SOCIAL STHJCTUEE

INTRODUCTION TO PART TWO
How u n i v e r s a l l y a r e th e s e n tim e n ts m a n ife ste d by th e t o t a l
sample tow ard Jew s, N egroes, and M exicans m a in ta in e d "by v a rio u s
su b -g ro u p s w ith in th e sample?

Are t h e r e s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s

among su b -g ro u p s and what sub-groups a r e im p o rta n t from a s tr u c ­
t u r a l p o i n t o f view?

Wien c e r t a i n v a r i a b l e s a r e s e le c te d as

in d ic e s o f th e s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e what v a r i a t io n i s to be found i n
a t t i t u d e s , and in what way a r e such v a r i a t io n s , i f d iso o v e re d ,
r e l a t e d to p o s it i o n i n th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e ?
T h ere a r e few s tu d i e s t h a t d e a l d i r e c t l y w ith th e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip o f s o c ia l p o s i t i o n to s e n tim e n ts toward m i n o r i t i e s .

Such

s tu d ie s a s a re a v a i l a b l e w i l l be r e p o r te d when a p p r o p r ia te to t h e
d is c u s s io n o f a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e .

Such v a r i a b l e s a s age, sex ,

e d u c a tio n , income, and o cc u p a tio n a r e common i n d i c a t o r s o f p o s it i o n
w ith in a s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e and w ill be an aly zed i n t h i s s e c tio n t o ­
g e th e r w ith a number o f o th e r v a r i a b l e s which a r e l e s s commonly
d is c u s s e d .

S ince s o c io lo g y and a n th ro p o lo g y a r e com prehensive
r

*

f i e l d s , i t w i l l be n e c e s s a ry i n t h i s t h e s i s to i n v e s t i g a t e a
v a r i e t y o f v a r ia b le s i n o rd e r to d is c o v e r to what e x te n t th e g u id ­
in g h y p o th e s is o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s su p p o rte d .

Such an e x te n s iv e

a n a l y s is i s a ls o i n d i c a t e d , i f r e l a t i o n s h i p s betw een p o s i t i o n in
th e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s a r e found,
i n o r d e r to d e lim it more p r e c is e l y t h e k in d s o f v a r i a b l e s which
a r e im p o rta n t.

B e fo re d o in g so, how ever, th e fo llo w in g d e f i n i t i o n s

and assu m p tio n s should be c l a r i f i e d .

-

56-

F i r s t , th e term in d ep en d en t v a r i a b l e

vrf.ll he used on o c c a sio n

to d e s c r ib e th e v a r io u s in d ic e s o f s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e which a r e to he
te s te d .

I t i s n o t assum ed, how ever, t h a t any o f th e s e v a r i a b le s

a r e in d ep en d en t o f each o th e r .

On th e c o n tr a ry , i n s o f a r a s th e y

a r e a c t u a l i n d i c a t o r s o f p o s itio n w ith in a s o c ia l system , th e
o p p o s ite assum ption must he made.

A lthough th e r e l a t io n s h i p o f

every s in g le v a r i a b l e to every o th e r v a r ia b le u se d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h
was n o t d eterm in ed , s u f f i c i e n t a n a l y s is o f i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a s
been u n d e rta k e n to show t h a t t h i s assu m p tio n i s . j u s t i f i e d . '1'
On th e o th e r h an d , w h ile a dynam ic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f a s o c ia l
system r e q u ir e s th e a c c e p ta n c e o f th e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s o f se n tim e n ts
to a l l o th e r a s p e c ts o f th e s o c ia l

system , i t i s p r e c i s e l y

c h a r a c te r o f t h i s i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s

which i s th e o b je c t

re se a rc h .

th e

o fth is

E d u c atio n , a s measured by th e number o f y e a r s in a system

o f fo rm al e d u c a tio n , i s on q u ite a d i f f e r e n t d im en sio n th a n th e
re sp o n se to a q u e s tio n such a s , "G e n e ra lly sp e a k in g Negroes a r e
la z y and ig n o r a n t."

Hence, i n t h a t se n se e d u c a tio n o r some o th e r

such v a r i a b l e may be re g a rd e d a s on indep en d en t v a r i a b l e .
Second, s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e a s u s u a ll y d e f in e d i n th e s o c ia l
s c ie n c e s r e f e r s to th e p e r s i s t e n t s e t s o f r e l a t io n s h i p s t h a t o cc u r
w ith in a group o r s e t o f g ro u p s.

The s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e o f a g ro u p ,

t h e r e f o r e , i s th e t o t a l i t y o f p e r s i s t e n t s o c ia l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which
can be a b s tr a c te d a t a g iv en moment in tim e .
t h i s se n se i s e s s e n t i a l l y a s t a t i c

^See T a b le s D and E in Appendix E.

c o n c e p t.

S o c ia l s tr u c tu r e i n

When i t i s s a id t h a t th e in d ep en d en t v a r ia b lo s which a r e to
"be

d is c u s s e d a r e i n d i c a t o r s o f th e s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e , i t i s meant

t h a t th e y a r e i n d i c a t o r s o f c e r t a i n k in d s o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s .

Thus,

th e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f sex d i f f e r e n c e s to a t t i t u d e s i s in v e s tig a te d
b ecau se in any s o c ie ty t h e r e a r e a v a r i e t y o f s o c ia l r e l a t io n s h i p s
p e c u l i a r to sex d i f f e r e n c e s .
d i f f e r e n t age g ra d e s .
s tr u c tu r e .

L ik ew ise, p e o p le i n t e r a c t i n te rm s o f

Age and sex a r e o r g a n iz a tio n a l ax e s o f s o c i a l

D if fe r e n c e s i n age and sex a r e , t h e r e f o r e , in d ic e s o f

d i f f e r e n t p o s it i o n s w ith in th e s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e .

Because o f o n e 's

age o r sex i n t e r a c t i o n f r e q u e n tly ta k e s p la c e i n d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f
s o c ia l r e l a t i o n s h i p s th a n w i l l o cc u r f o r a n o th e r p e rso n of d i f f e r e n t
age o r sex .

I n s o f a r a s th e s e d i f f e r e n t s e ts o f r e l a t io n s h i p s may

be in d ic a te d by d i f f e r e n t age o r sex g ro u p in g s, th e q u e s tio n can be
ask ed :

Does th e d i f f e r i n g p o s it i o n o f a g iv en s e t o f s o c ia l a c t o r s

from t h a t o f a n o th e r s e t o f s o c ia l a c t o r s w ith in th e same s o c ia l
s tru c tu re s have any r e l a t i o n s h i p to a t t i t u d e s tow ard c e r t a i n m in o rity
groups?

That i s , do p e o p le , w ith in th e s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e u n d er con­

s id e r a t i o n , d i f f e r i n term s o f t h e i r membership i n a p a r t i c u l a r age
o r sex gro\ro?
F i n a l l y , th e u s e o f th e term f u n c tio n should be c l a r i f i e d .

As

u sed h e r e in , and a s a p a r t o f th e t i t l e o f t h i s s e c tio n , f u n c tio n i s
a co n cep t which h a s b een borrowed from m ath em atics.

The h y p o th e s is

t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard a m in o rity group a r e r e l a t e d to , o r a f u n c tio n
o f, any one o f th e v a r i a b l e s chosen f o r a n a ly s is i n t h i s t h e s i s nay
be e x p re sse d f u n c tio n a lly by th e e q u a tio n f ( x ) » y .

That i s , a s x ,

-5 8 th e in d e p en d e n t v a r i a b l e , i s changed, a t t i t u d e s , th e dependent
v a ria b le

w i l l a ls o ch an g e.

i s u se d i n t h i s s e c t io n .

I t i s i n t h i s se n se t h a t f u n c tio n

The c h o ic e o f t h i s term h a s been

d e l i b e r a t e i n o rd e r to a v o id th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f im p u tin g c a u s a l i ty
to such r e l a t io n s h i p s a s may be u n co v ered .

1

CHAPTER TERES

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SEX, AGE,
ETHNIC A2TD RESIDENTIAL DIFFERENCES
Sex D if f e r e n c e s in A ttltu fl.e s
One o f th e f i r s t m e th o d o lo g ical q u e s tio n s which had t o he
answ ered b e fo re t h i s r e s e a r c h co u ld p ro c e e d Yi?as t h a t o f th e p ro ­
p o r tio n o f men and women t h a t should he in c lu d e d i n th e sam ple.
The f i n a l d e c is io n vras to sample on t h e b a s is o f one woman respond­
en t f o r ev ery two m ale re sp o n d e n ts .

I t was re a so n e d th a t a sample

o f men o n ly m ight n o t he r e p r e s e n t a t i v e .

On th e o th e r hand,

o b s e rv a tio n o f th e co u n ty in d ic a te d t h a t i n many ways th e a t t i t u d e s
o f vromen i n r u r a l a r e a s would n o t d i f f e r g r e a tly from t h a t o f men.
The r e s u l t i n g d e c is io n to sample on a o n e-to -tw o b a s is vras a com­
p ro m ise .

I f th e r e wore no d if f e r e n c e s between men and v/omen, t h i s

p r o p o r tio n Yfould in c r e a s e th e number o f fo rm al o r g a n iz a tio n a l mem­
b e rs h ip p a t t e r n s which could be tr a c e d th ro u g h m ale a s s o c ia t io n s .
I f th e h y p o th e s is o f no d i f f e r e n c e was d isp ro v ed by th e re s e a rc h
f in d in g s , i t vrould s t i l l be p o s s ib le to ap p ro x im a te a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e
sam ple by w e ig h tin g t h e sample so t h a t th e p r o p o r tio n o f women vrould
eq u al th e p r o p o r tio n o f men.
T here have been a number o f s tu d ie s which h av e in c lu d e d some
m a te r ia l on th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betvreen sex s t a t u s and a t t i t u d e s toivard
m in o ritie s .

Haag1 found v e ry l i t t l e d if f e r e n c e betw een th e sex es

w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s toward N eg ro es.

C losson^ found th a t male

1H. L. Haag, "A Study o f R a c ia l A tt itu d e s o f H i^ i School and U n iv e r s ity
S tu d e n ts ," u n p u b lish e d M. A. t h e s i s , U n iv e r s ity o f M ichigan, 1930.
2

E. E. C losson, "A S tu d y o f th e F a c to r o f In fo rm a tio n in Race
P r e ju d ic e , " u n p u b lis h e d M. A. t h e s i s , S ta te U n iv e r s ity o f Iovra, 1930.

h ig h sc h o o l s tu d e n ts i n Iowa were n o re l i b e r a l in r a c e a t t i t u d e s .
Moore^ found t h a t s o u th e rn c o lle g e women s tu d e n ts a r e more t o l e r a n t
o f n e g ro e s th an a r e s o u th e rn c o lle g e men s tu d e n ts .
M in a rd 's^ stu d y o f h ig h school and ju n io r h ig h school c h ild r e n
o f Iowa in d ic a te d t h a t sex d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s a r e n e g l i g i b l e .
C ole'’ found h ig h sc h o o l women to he more l i b e r a l , a t l e a s t in
C o lo rad o .

In Sims and P a t r i c k 's

f r e q u e n tly quoted stu d y , i t was

d eterm in e d t h a t s o u th e rn c o lle g e women were more fa v o ra b le i n t h e i r
a t t i t u d e s toward N egroes th a n were th e so u th ern c o lle g e men.
o p p o s ite was t r u e f o r n o r th e rn c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .

P o rte rfie ld

The
7

found l i t t l e o r no sex d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard r a c e .
i s a ls o t r u e f o r Murphy and L ik e r t.

T h is

8

One o f th e f i r s t sy ste m a tic n a tio n -w id e su rv ey s o f a t t i t u d e s
tow ard N egroes was co n d u cted by th e F o rtu n e Survey f o r th e C a m e g ie -

^G. W. Moore, " S o c ia l and P o l i t i c a l A ttitu d e s o f S tu d e n ts a t N orth
C a ro lin a S ta te C o lle g e , 11 u n p u b lish e d M. A. t h e s i s , N orth C a ro lin a
S ta te C o lle g e, 1931*
4
R alph D. M inard, Race A ttitu d e s o f Iowa C h ild re n . U n iv e rs ity o f
Iowa S tu d ie s in C h a r a c te r . V ol. 4, No. 2, Iowa C ity : U. o f Iowa, 1931.
^N. E. C ole, "The P e r s o n a l A ttitu d e s o f H i^ i School P u p ils in
Colorado tow ard A lie n N atio n s and P e o p le s ," u n p u b lish e d M. A.
t h e s i s , Colorado S t a t e T eechers C o lle g e , 1932.
^V. M. Sims and J . R. P a t r i c k , " A ttitu d e s tow ard t h e Negro o f
N o rth e rn and S o u th ern C o lleg e S tu d e n ts ," J . o f Son. P s y c h o l..
7 : 192- 204, 1936.
7
A. L. P o r t e r f i e l d , "E d u cation and Race A t t i t u d e s , " S o c io l. and
Soc. R es. . 21: 538-543, 1937.

g
G. Murphy and R. L i k e r t , P u b lic O pinion and th e I n d iv id u a l. New
York: H arp er and B r o th e r s , 1938.

Ity rd a l p r o j e c t . ”
sexes b u t

T h is su rv ey found m inor d i f f e r e n c e s betw een t h e

th e y v a r ie d i n d i r e c t io n .

Horowitz^-® summarizes much of

th e fo re g o in g r e s e a r c h and co n clu d es t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes
have n o t been d em o n strated to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s
i n sex s t a t u s .
Boynton and Mayo‘S f in d l i t t l o
tow ard H eg ro es.

H a rla n

12

sex d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s

found t h a t women c o lle g e s tu d e n ts were

more f a v o ra b le tow ard Jews th an were men c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .

S m ith -* - 3

found t h a t men s tu d e n ts were more f a v o r a b le to th e Hegro th an wore
women s tu d e n ts .
14
A llp o r t and Kramer
found, on an in stru m e n t d esig n e d to t e s t
a summation o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes, Jew s, and C a th o lic s , t h a t
R a d c lif f e women were more t o l e r a n t th a n H arvard men.
w ere more t o l e r a n t th a n Dartm outh men.

Both g roups

The a u th o r s deduce a c u l­

t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e , b u t conclvide t h a t c o lle g e women a r e more t o l e r a n t
th a n c o lle g e men.
9

T h is was a s p e c ia l p o l l conducted by th e F o rtu n e Survey in
c o n n e c tio n w ith th e stu d y o f th e Hegro in A m erica, sponsored by th e
C arn eg ie F oundation u n d e r th e le a d e r s h ip o f Gunnar M yrdal. I t i s
r e p o r te d by H orow itz ( s e e th e fo llo w in g r e f e r e n c e ) .

^ E . L. H orow itz, "Race A t t i t u d e s , 11 i n O tto ICLineberg ( e d .) ,
C h a r a c te r ls t 1 c s o f th e American H egro. Hew York: H aroer and
B r o th e r s , 1 9 ^ , p p . 1^1-243. F or summary se e p . 229.
11

P a u l L. Boynton and George D. Mayo, "A Comparison o f C e rta in
A t t i t u d i n a l R esponses o f White and Hegro High School S tu d e n ts , 11
J . o f Hegro E d u c.. 1 1 :5 8 7 -5 9 ^, 19&2.

^H ow ard H. H arlan , "Some F a c to rs A f fe c tin g A ttitu d e s tow ard Je w s,"
Am. S o c io l. Rev. . 7 s 8 1 6-82?, 19^2.
13f . T red w ell Smith, ,An Experim ent i n M odifying A ttitu d e s Toward t h e
H egro. Hew York: T e a c h e rs C ollege,"C olum bia U n iv e r s ity , 19^3.
^ G o rd o n W. A llp o rt and B ernard M. Kramer, "Some R oots o f P r e ju d ic e , "
J . o f P s y c h o l. . 22: 9- 39, 19^6.

Campbell'1'-’ c o n c lu d e s th a t men a r e s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o ra b le
tow ard Jew s th an a r e women, h u t th e s e d if f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s t a t i s ­
tic a lly

s ig n if ic a n t.

A more re c e n t and am b itio u s p o l l was th a t

sp o n so red and d i r e c t e d by th e American Jew ish Committee and con­
d u c te d i n th e f i e l d by th e n a tio n a l O pinion R esearch C en ter.
(This i s th e B a ltim o re stu d y .

In t h i s p r o je c t' a s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e wag found betw een men and women.

The

i n v e s t i g a t o r s co n clu d e t h a t "In g e n e r a l, women e x p re ss m o r e 'a n tiS em itism 1 th an do m e n ." ^
From th e fo re g o in g rev iew i t i s e v id e n t t h a t p r e v io u s r e s e a r c h
i s e i t h e r in c o n c lu s iv e o r c o n tr a d ic to r y and u s u a lly c o n fin e d to
c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .

S in ce th e te c h n iq u e s o f sam pling and m easure­

ment u s e d i n such r e s e a r c h vary

g r e a t l y , i t i s d i f f i c u l t to

maize d i r e c t co m p ariso n s.
In term s o f th e g u id in g h y p o th e s is o f t h i s r e s e a r c h a l l o f th e
v a r i a b l e s which a r e to be examined may be in c lu d e d u n d e r i t .

Some,

such a s th e d eg ree o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o r g a n iz a tio n s , a r e i n d i c a t o r s
of p o s i t i o n i n th e dynam ic i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s o f a s o c ia l system .
O th e rs, such a s age and sex, r e f e r more d i r e c t l y to th e s t a t i c
s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c ts o f th e s o c ia l system .

A ll, i n one way o r a n o th e r,

t e s t th e p r o p o s itio n t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r it ie s a r e r e l a t e d to
p o s i t i o n in th e s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e .

F o r th e im m ediate a n a ly s is , th e r e ­

f o r e , th e s p e c if ic h y p o th e s is i s t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n sex a r e r e l a t e d
15
A. A. Campbell, " F a c to rs A s so c ia te d w ith A t tit u d e s tow ard J e w s,"
i n T. M. Newcomb and E. L. H a r tle y ( e d s . ) , R eadings in S o c ia l
P sy ch o lo g y . New York: Henry H o lt and C o., 19^7. p p . 518-527.
■^The B a ltim o re P o l l - mimeo, New York: D ept, o f S c i e n t i f i c R esearch,
A m erican Jew ish Committee, 19^9 , p p . 55-56.

to d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s, N egroes, and M exicans.
T h is h y p o th e sis may he te s t e d w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jews by exam ining T able 7 which g iv e s th e mean, ra n k
o rd e r, and F f o r men and women f o r th e Jew ish ite m s and th e
t o t a l Je w ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

T here a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t d i f f ­

ere n c e s re v e a le d by t h i s a n a ly s is .

There i s no marked tre n d

end f o r s e v e ra l q u e s tio n s th e means o f b o th g ro u p s a r e rem ark­
a b ly a l i k e . .

. . .

A ttitu d e s tow ard N egroes arc shown in T able 8 .

Once a g a in

th e r e a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s f o r any q u e s tio n , n o r f o r
th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

The d i r e c t io n v a r i e s from

q u e s tio n to q u e stio n and th o means f o r b o th g roups a r e o f te n
s t r i k i n g l y s im ila r .
The f in d in g s f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans a r e o f a s im ila r
n a tu r e , a s shown by T ab le 9 .

T h is t a b l e a ls o shows th e T o ta l

P r e ju d ic e Score, w hich, i t w ill be r e c a l le d , m easures a t t i t u d e s
tow ard a l l th re e m i n o r i t i e s .

Again th e d i f f e r e n c e s betw een men

end women a r e s l i g h t and n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , e i t h e r
f o r a t t i t u d e s toward M exicans o r toward a l l th r e e m in o r itie s a s
r e f l e c t e d by th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to n o te ,

b o th f o r t h i s ta b le and f o r th e two which p reced ed i t , th e la r g e
number o f q u e s tio n s w h erein th e v a r ia n c e w ith in g ro u p s i s g r e a te r
th an th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
Prom th e fo re g o in g i t may be concluded t h a t , f o r t h i s sam ple,
and i n term s o f th e m easurem ents which have been u se d , th e r e a r e
no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s o f men and women tow ard

Table 7 1
ATTITUDES OF MEfT AKD WOMEH TOWARD JEWS
T o ta l Ho. J ewi sh
o f rem erchant
su o n d en ts^ Kean
if

Jews t h in k
th ey •re b e t t e r
Kean
R

Jews
push
Mean

R e s t r i c t Guard
a g a in s t Jews
Jews
R Mean
R Kean R

Ship
J ews back
Mean R

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r S core
Kean
R

J ews
are
h o n e st
Mean R

Jews in
my n e ig h 00 rhood
Mean
R

Ken

282

3 .3 ^

2

2.02

1

2 .16

2

2.9 5

1

2 .2 8

1

2.99

1

^ .7 8

1

2.02

2

1 .7 1

2

Women

lb 6

3 .0 3

1

2

2 .2 3

2

2 .9 6

2

*i.66

2

2.08

1

1 .7 5
1 .7 2

1

3 .2 b

2.79
2.90

2

b28

2.19
2.17

1

T o ta l

2 .7 5
2 .8 6

2 .7 2

2 .b 8

F2

JL
T

1.92

2.27
7JLr

2 .98
#

b .? b
JL

•1

2 .0 b
JL

a

#

■^For t h i s ana a l l subsequent ta b le s th e a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n s a r e g iv e n i n a b b re v ia te d form . The re a d e r i s r e f e r r e d to
th e c h a p te r -which d e s c r ib e s th e t o t a l sample re sp o n s e s f o r th e e x a c t wording o f th e q u e s tio n s .
F i s th e r a tio : o f "betw een” group v a r ia n c e to “w ith in " group v a r ia n c e .
I m p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3*86 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

F o r t h i s t a b l e F must be 6.70 to re a c h th e

*5
-'In o rd e r to keep th e in fo rm a tio n shown on t h i s and subsequent t a b l e s on one pag e th e t o t a l number of re sp o n d e n ts f o r
each s p e c i f i c q u e s tio n i s n o t shown. The t o t a l number column e n a b le s th e r e a d e r t o see th e approxim ate s i z e o f each
sub-group u sed i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e f o r each q u e s tio n .'
^R s ta n d s f o r ra n k o r d e r . In t h i s and a l l subsequent t a b le s a ra n k o f 1 r e p r e s e n ts th e most t o l e r a n t p o s i t i o n .
Whenever n e c e s sa ry t h e mean f o r a group i s c a rrie d , to th e t h i r d decim al p la c e i n o rd e r to a s s ig n th e c o r r e c t
ra n k v a lu e .
In c a se two means a r e e x a c tly th e san e, th e y a r e b o th a ssig n e d t h e same rank o r d e r.
# -

T h is s ig n w i l l alw ays be u sed t o 'i n d i c a t e t h a t th e "w ith in " group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e "betw een" group
v a r ia n c e .
Hence an F t e s t i s u n n e c e ssa ry s in c e th e h y p o th e s is th a t th e r e i s g r e a t e r v a r ia n c e betw een groups
th a n w ith in groups i s a lre a d y d is p ro v e d .
I t i s th u s u n n e c e ssa ry to i n q u ir e i f th e v a r ia n c e between gro^Tps in
co iro ariso n to th e v a ria n c e w ith in g roups exceeds a g iv e n p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

Table 8
ATTITUDES OF MEN AND W0M3I TOWARD 1TE0R0E5

T o ta l H0 .
of re spondents

N egroes
to J o h n s town
R
Mean

H egroes
n ex t
d oor
Mean R

H egroes
a re
la z y
Mean R

Keep H egroes
N egroes
o u t o f u n ite
sh o u ld
neighborhoods v o te
Mean
R
Mean R

ITegroes
T o ta l
w ith
Hegro
e d u c a tio n P r Score
R_ Mean
R
Mean

W hites and
H egroes i n same
re s ta u ra n ts
Mean
R

Men

283

3 .9 ^

2

4 .6 4

2

2 .7 4

2

2 .0 3

1

3.57

1

3.07

1

4.47

1

1 .4 8

2

Women

146

3 .6 5

1

4 .2 3

1

2 .8 5

1

1 .9 5

2

3 .4 2

2

3 .03

2

4.41

2

1 .5 0

1

429

3 .8 4

4 .5 0

2.78

1.78

2 .92

1 .0 3

T o ta l
P1

2.00
X
V

3 .5 2

3 .0 5

1 .9 3

A
:!

4 .4 5
X

1
1.41

1 .4 9

1 .46

#

#

*Por t h i s t a b l e P must "be 6 .7 0 to re a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3-36 to re a c h th e 5?: p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
w - W ith in group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n between group v a r ia n c e .

O rders
fro n a
Hegro
Mean
R

2

Tabl9 9
ATTITUDES OF MEN AND WOMEN TOWARD MECICAHS,
AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE
T o ta l No.
of re ­
spondents

Mexicans
as c itiz e n s
and v o te r s
Mean
R

Keep M exicans
o u t o f w h ite
neighborhoods
Mean
R

Mexi cans
coming to
Mid S ta te
Mean
R

M exicans i n
r e s t a u r a n ts
w ith w h ite s
Mean
R

'

T o ta l2
P r e ju d ic e
Score
Mean
R

Men

283

3 .1 2

2

2.15

l

1 .5 8

2

. 1.97

1

2.89

2

Women

146

3 .1 4

1

2 .08

2

1.67

1

1 .97

1

2.97

1

429

3 .1 2

T o ta l
F1

JL

V

2.13
#

1 .61
1 .5 6

1.97

2.92
A
ii

■*For t h i s t a b l e F mast be 6 .? 0 to re a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; 3.86 to re a c h th e 5^ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l
^ I t mast "be s tr e s s e d t h a t t h i s sc o re was o b ta in e d from t h e s ix t h r e e - p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s and a p p li e s to
a l l th re e m in o rity g ro u p s. I t i s n o t a p p lic a b le o n ly to M exicans b a t to Jews end N egroes a s w e ll. I t
i s shown on th e t a b l e s which a p p ly to a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans f o r co n v en ien ce o f p r e s e n t a tio n o n ly .
7T - W ith in group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een group v a r ia n c e .

th e th r e e m in o rity g ro u p s t e s t e d .

Hence th e f in d in g s do n o t co n firm

th e g u id in g h y p o th e s is o f t h i s r e s e a r c h .
A re and A tti t u d e s tow ard M in o ritie s
T h e re a r e n o t a s many s tu d ie s o f a d u lt age d if f e r e n c e s a s t h e r e
a r e s tu d i e s o f sex d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
The F o rtu n e Survey1? o f 19^6 co n clu d es t h a t th e age group 35-^9 i s
s l i g h t l y more a n ti- S e m itic th an th e age group 21-3*K

The F o rtu n e

Survey1® o f 19^7 a ls o co n clu d es t h a t , w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jew s and H eg ro es, th e younger age grouos a r e more t o l e r a n t
th a n th e o ld e r .
Cam pbell1^ f in d s no c o n s is te n t r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een age and
a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.
and Janowitz^®*

The same i s t r u e f o r th e stu d y by 3 e tte lh e im

T h is l a t t e r stu d y i s lim ite d to a s p e c ia l p o p u la tio n :

150 a d u l t , u rb a n v e t e r a n s , s tu d ie d by means o f i n te n s iv e in te rv ie w s .
The f in d in g s o f t h e B a ltim o re s tu d y

21

i n d i c a t e t h a t th e r e i s a

te n d en cy f o r younger (1 8 -3 5 ) p e o p le to be l e s s a n ti- S e m itic th a n
o ld e r (35-5*0 p e o p le .

When e d u c a tio n was h e ld c o n s ta n t, however,

th e r e w ere no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s .
The fo re g o in g rev iev ; would i n d i c a t e th a t age d if f e r e n c e s a r e
n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a s f a r a s a t t i t u d e s tov/ard Hegro03 and

^ " T h e F o rtu n e S urvey", F o rtu n e . F e b ru a ry . 19^6.
^ " T h e F o rtu n e S u rv ey ," F o rtu n e . O c to b e r, 19^7.
^ C a m p b e ll, on. c i t .
^ B ru n o B e tte lh e im and M orris J a n o w itz , Dynamics o f P r e ju d ic e . Hew
York: H arp er and B r o th e r s , 1950, p p . *Jo-**9.
21

The B a ltim o re P o l l , o n . c i t . . p . 5 8 .

Jews a r e co n cern ed , b u t t h a t th e r e nay "be a te n d e n c y f o r younger
p e o p le t o h e more t o l e r a n t .

The B a ltim o re stu d y s u g g e s ts t h a t t h i s

tendency i s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l and n o t th e f a c t o r
o f ag e.
I t h a s been custom ary f o r s o c io l o g i s t s to t r e a t age and sex
a s two im p o rta n t v a r i a b l e s .

P a r t o f t h e rea so n f o r th is s te m s from

th e o b s e r v a tio n s o f a n th r o p o lo g is ts t h a t age g ra d e s and sex s t a t u s
a r e im p o rta n t o r g a n iz a tio n a l ao:es i n p r i n i t i v e c u l t u r e s .

O bserva­

t i o n o f contem poraiy A m erica a ls o i n d i c a t e s th a t t h e members o f a
g iv e n s o c i a l system i n t e r a c t in a v a r i e t y o f d i f f e r e n t ways b ecau se
o f membership i n d i f f e r e n t age and sex g ro u p s.

I n term s o f th e

g u id in g h y p o th e s is t h e s p e c if ic h y p o th e s is o f th e fo llo w in g a n a ly s is
i s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n a d u lt age g r a d e s ^ a r e r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s
i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s, Hegroea and M exicans.
The d a ta b e a rin g on t h i s h y p o th e c is may be examined f i r s t by
r e f e r e n c e to T able 1 0 .

There a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s ig n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s f o r any one q u e s tio n , n o r f o r th e Je w ish P r e ju d ic e
s c o re .

However, two q u e s tio n s

p e r cen t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l . T here

a r e alm o st s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e f i v e
i s a ls o some ten d en cy f o r th e

younger, p a r t i c u l a r l y th o s e u n d er 30, to be more t o l e r a n t th an th e
o ld e r .

T h is i s q u ite c l e a r

i n th e ra n k o r d e r f o r t h e Jew ish P re ­

j u d ic e

s c o re , b u t th e tre n d i s n o t c o n s is te n t betw een age g rad es

on th e o t h e r q u e s tio n s .
2^A stu d y o f sch o o l ag e e h ild r e n was a p a r t o f th e t o t a l p r o je c t
b u t n o t o f t h i s p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h . There i s some ev id en ce,
which can n o t be r e p o r te d h e re , t h a t even w ith ed u catio n , h e ld
c o n s ta n t th e younger sch o o l age c h ild r e n a r e more t o l e r a n t th a n
a d u l t s i n Maple County.

T a b le 10

ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY AGE GRADES
Guard
a g a in s t
J ct/s

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
J ewi sh
P r Score

Jews
a re
h o n e st

Jews in
ny n eig h ­
borhood

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

J ewish
m erchant

Jew s
push

Mean

J OY/S th in k
th ey *re
bcstt<er
R Mean
£

Mean

R

Mean

R Moan

R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

R Mean

3 .6 7
2 .56

-

-

-

2

-

1

1 .6 7
2 .0 7

2 .6 7

2

3 .3 3
3 .21

-

20-29

3
62

1.76

1

30-39

85

40-49

Age
Under 20^

-

R e s tr i c t
J ews

-

3 .0 0

-

1

2 .6 7
2 .2 4

4

3.21

1

5 .3 3
5 .0 0

2 .8 9

3

2 .41

1

3 .1 4

2

4 .9 0

2

2.011 5

1.68

5

4

2 .9 7

2

2 .2 9

3

3.00

3

4 .8 5

3

2.0 1 2 4

1 .7 4

2

2 .1 7

3

2 .8 8

5

2 .3 2

2

2 .9 4

4

4 .6 5

4

2 .0 9

1

1.695

4

6

2.30

1

2 .5 4

6

2 .0 2

6

2 .8 7

5

4 .4 3

5

1 .9 8

6

1 .7 0

3

2 .6 9

5

2 .0 0

6

2.91

4

2 .1 4

2 .4 9

6

4 .3 4

6

2 .0 3

3

1.66

6

2 .7 2

-

2 .2 9

-

2 .5 7

-

2 .4 3

5
-

2 .5 7

-

4 .5 7

-

2 .2 9

-

1 .7 2

-

1

2 .6 7
3 .0 0

1

2 .3 3
2 .1 9

3.*fO

5

2 .9 9

2

2 .1 4

4

79

3 .2 8

2

2.85

4

2 .1 4

50-59

92

3 .2 9

3

2 .8 8

3

60-69

6l

3 .3 9 . 4

2.66

70-79

35

3 .6 3

6

80 and over ^

7

3 .8 6

-

Dot a sk e d o r
no re sp o n se

4

T o tal

428

F2

3 .2 4

2.86

2 .1 7

2 .90

2 .27

2.98

1 .8 9

#

#

1 .8 6

1 .0 0

1 .6 0

4 .7 4

2 .0 4

#

#

'*'Not in c lu d e d i n r a n k o rd e r b ecau se o f sm all s iz e o f sam ple. The "not ask ed " and "no re sp o n s e " c a te g o r ie s were
in c lu d e d , f o r th e sake o f co m p lete n ess, i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .
^For t h i s t a b l e F m ust be

R

6 to r e a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 1 .9 0 t o re a c h th e 5$> p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

# - VELthin g ro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een gro u p v a r ia n c e .

1 .7 2

#

T a b le 11 shows a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.

A gain th e r e a r e

no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s betw een a g e groups f o r
any one q u e s tio n , n o r f o r th e Nogro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

Nor a r e th e r e

any in s ta n c e s where even th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l i s
ap p ro ac h ed .

There i s a g a in some ten d en cy f o r th e younger a d u lt age

g roups to be more t o l e r a n t b u t th e tr e n d i s n o t c o n s is t e n t between
age g ro u p s.
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans by age groups a r e shown i n T able 12.
T here a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s .

There i s a

s l i g h t ten d en cy f o r th o s e u n d e r 30 to "be more t o l e r a n t .
A t t i t u d e s tow ard a l l th re e m in o r i tie s , a s t e s t e d by th e T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e sc o re ;,a re a ls o shown in T able 12.

There a r e no s t a t i s ­

t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s .
As a f u r t h e r t e s t o f p o s s ib le d if f e r e n c e s betw een age g roups
th e sam ple was r e c l a s s i f i e d in to th o s e o v e r and th o s e u nder 50
23
y e a r s o f a g e . J A s e le c te d number o f Jew ish q u e s tio n s and b o th
th e Jew ish and th e Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re s were th e n reexam ined.
^he r e s u l t s a re shown i n T a b le 13.

On.one q u e s tio n th e r e i s a

23
'Two "n o t asked" and two "no re sp o n se " c a se s were a ls o in c lu d e d
in th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e i n o r d e r t h a t such an a n a ly s is m ight
bo made q u ic k ly from th e e x is tin g d a t a . In o rd e r to e lim in a te
th e s e f o u r c a s e s e n t i r e l y i t would have been n e c e s s a r y to make
an e n t i r e l y n e t s e t o f c a l c u l a tio n s - a p ro c e d u re which d id n o t
seem j u s t i f i e d by th e d a ta a lre a d y review ed. The age l e v e l o f
50 was an a r b i t r a r y r e fe r e n c e p o in t which was s e le c te d by
in s p e c tin g th e d a t a . I t appeared to p ro v id e a b a s is f o r l o c a t broad d i f f e r e n c e s i f th e r e were an y .

Table 11

I

ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BY AGE GRADES
N egroes
t o Jo h n s­
town

Age
Under 20

T o ta l n o .
o f respond—
eolM ____________ Mean .
3
3 .3 3
62
3 .4 4

Negroes
n ext
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep N egroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

N egroes
should
v o te

N egroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R Mean
R
- 1 .0 0

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean
1 .0 0

-

50-39

86

4 .0 5

R Mean R Mean R Mean
- 2.6 7 - 2 .33 — 2 .0 0
1 4 .3 3 1 3 .0 0 1 1 .9 7
5 4 .6 0 4 2 .9 4 2 2.06

to -49

79

4 .1 2

6

4 .4 8

3

2 .8 9

3

2.01

3

3.60

2

3 .1 1

2

4 .5 9

2

1 .4 7

2

1 .4 7

3

50-59

92

3 .9 7

4

4 .6 3

5

2 .5 8

6

2.00

4

3 .5 9

3

3 .0 2

4

4.3 3 7

5

1 .4 6

4

1 .5 0

2

61

3 .5 1

2

4 .4 1

2

2 .5 9

5

2 .0 3

2

3 .5 1

5

2 .9 7

5

4.3 4 4

4

1 .6 2

1

1.46

4

35

3 .6 9

4 .6 6

6

2 .6 9

4

1 .8 6

6

3 .6 9

1

2 .7 7

6

4 .2 3

1 .29

6

3 .5 7

4.57 -

2 .4 3

—

2 .2 3

-

3 .2 9

— 2 .43

— 3 .86

6 1 .4 6
— 1 .5 7

4

7

3
-

1 .3 3

-

4 .5 0

2 .7 8

2.00

3 .5 2

3 .0 5

• 4 .4 5

1 .4 9

1 .4 6

#

#

#

#

20-29

60-69
?0-79
50 an d over'*’
Hot ask ed o r
no resp o n se ^
T o tal
F2

R
5
1

Mean

tj

3 .3 3

R Mean
- 3 .0 0

-

Mean
4 .0 0

3 .5 5

4

3.26

1

4 .6 8

1

1 .4 5

6

1.56

1

3 .2 9

6

3 .0 9

3

4 .5 0

3

1 .4 7

2

1 .4 0

5

4
429
#

3 .8 4
#

i a r a & k o rd e r b ecau se o f sm a ll s iz e o f sample
i u ded, f o r th e sak e o f co m p le te n e ss, i n th e a n a ly s is of
^ o r t h i s ta b l e F m ust be 2 .4 6 to re a c h th e Vf> p r o b a b i li t y :
- 1/i t h in group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een group var:

*

1 .0 1

*

The "not ask ed " and "no re sp o n s e " c a te g o r ie s were
v a r ia n c e .
; 1 .9 0 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

R

Table 12

Age
Under 20^

T o ta l no
o f re s'io 'r c u ts

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS
AND ANALYSIS 0? TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE BY
1lexicon 3
Keep I-fsricrns M eric m s
c o ~ ir *1 to
a s c itjz o n .s o u t c f v i i t c
>nd v o te r s
nniriib o rh o o d s I-iirst • t e
i;san

R

:ici.n

R

2 .00

Mean

R

AGE GRADES
H rvicr nr 5”
r o o t ir> v r - t s
vrith ' ' "It OS
Rear.

R

| T o ta l
j Pre/juc.ico
i S co re
i
Morn
R
3 .3 3

T

t 3 .0 7
2 .7 8

1

3
62

3 -33
3 .2 3

2

2 .07

If

1 .6 6

1

2 .1 2

1

30-39

86

2 .9 2

6

2.20

2

1 .6 4

2

1 .9 9

3

40-49

79

3.151

4

2.05

5

92

3 .1 5 2

3

2.15

3

5
4

1 .8 7
1 .9 2

5
4

2 .8 7

50-59

1 .5 9
1 .6 0

5
4

2 .9 5

3

60-69

6l

3 .1 1

2.25

1

1 .6 2

2

2 .9 8

2

3 .2 6

1 .9 4

6

1 .4 9

3
6

2 .0 2

35

5
1

6

2 .6 2

6

80 and over'1’

7

3 .2 9

-

2 .l*f

-

1 .7 1

-

1 .7 7
2 .0 0

-

3 .2 9

-

Not a sk e d or
no response^*

4

20-29

70-79

T o ta l
P2

429

3 .1 2

2 .1 3

1 .1 5

#

1 .6 7

1 .6 1
#

2 .6 7

1 .9 7

2 .9 2

1 .1 7

#

"Slot In c lu d e d i n r a n k o rd e r because o f sm all s iz e o f sam ple. The "not asked" and "no re sp o n se " ca
were In c lu d e d , f o r th e sak e o f co m p leten ess, i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .
^Por t h i s t a b le P m ust he 2 .^6 to r e a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 1 .9 0 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
Vi t h i n g ro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een group v a r ia n c e .

Table 13
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS AiTD HEGROES
iTHSLT AGS GRADES ARE CONSOLIDATED

T o ta l ITo.
of resu o n d en ts

Age

Jew ish
m erchant
Mean
R

Jews th in k
th e y ’r e
b e tte r
Mean
R

R e s tric t
Jews
Mean
R

Guard
a g a in s t
J ev/s
Mean
R

Ship
J ews
back
Mean

R

T o ta l
Je w ish
P r S core
Mean
R

T o ta l
ITegro
P r Score
Mean
R

U nder 50

230

3 .1 3

1

2 . 9^

1

3.01

1

2.33

1

3 .11

1

4 .9 1

1

^.5 7

1

50 and over

195

3M

2

2.77

2

2.77

2

2.19

2

2.82

2

^ .5 2

2

^ .3 0

2

UQt asked o r
no resp o n se
T o ta l
F2

k
i+29

3 .2 ^

2 .86

2.90

2.27

2.98

^ .7 ^

2.69

1.29

2.89

*

3.91*

2.3 2

1 .9 6

■'’In c lu d e d in a n a l y s is o f v a r ia n c e .
^F or t h i s t a h l e F must be **.66 to re a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l ; 3-02 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betv/een group v a r ia n c e .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

d i f f e r e n c e which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e f i v e p e r
cen t p r o b a b ility le v e l.

On th e o th e r hand th e tendency tow ard

s ig n if ic a n c e f o r th e two Jew ish q u e s tio n s , which was in d ic a te d
by T a b le 10, h a s d e c re a s e d when th e age g rad es w ere c o n s o lid a te d .
I t should be n o te d , however, t h a t th e r e i s a c o n s is te n t
of
te n d en cy f o r th o se u n d e r 50 to be more t o le r a n t/je v ;s and Negroes
th a n th o s e o v e r 50.

A re -e x a m in a tio n o f T ab les 10, 11, and 12

would seem to i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s tre n d might p o s s ib ly h o ld f o r
s t i l l o t h e r Negro and Jew ish q u e s tio n s , but t h a t th e tre n d on
th e Mexican q u e s tio n s i s n o t d e c is iv e .
F u r th e r a n a ly s is was n o t a tte m p te d b ecau se o f th e la c k of
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f in d in g s .

It, m ight be s ta te d , however,

t h a t , from th e d a ta examined, t h e r e i s a tendency f o r th e youngBr
(u n d e r 50) to be more t o l e r a n t th a n th e o ld e r (o v e r 50) on a
number o f th e a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n s and th e Jew ish and Negro P re ­
ju d ic e s c o re s .
B ut i t should be r e c a l l e d t h a t a review o f p re v io u s r e s e a r c h
in d ic a te d

much th e same tendency, a lth o u g h th e f in d in g s wore

n o t, j u s t a s h e re ,

c l e a r - c u t f o r p a r t i c u l a r age g ro u p s, and d id

n o t h o ld f o r a l l th e g roups whore th e s ig n if ic a n c e o f age group
d i f f e r e n c e s we.s t e s t e d .

The B a ltim o re s t u d y ^ in d ic a te d t h a t t h i s

tre n d , where found, m ight be due to th e f a c t t h a t th e o ld e r h ad , a s
a r u le , l e s s e d u c a tio n th a n th e younger.
I n t h i s sample i t i s a ls o t r u e t h a t th e o ld e r have l e s s form al
e d u c a tio n th an th e y o u n g er, a s shown by Tabid l*f.
2k

The B a ltim o re P o l l , i b i d .

The Chi Square o f

-7 5 Table 1*5COMPABISQK 0? ACS &RASSS BY EDUCATIOIIAL LEVEL

Formal
B lu c a tio n

llo. u n d e r 50
y e a r s o f age

8 th g ra d e
o r le s s

62

9 -1 1 g ra d e s

61

High s c h o o l
g r a d u a te o r
above

107

T o ta l

Ho. o v er
50 y e a r s o f age

T o ta l Ho. o f
R espondents

108

170

230

103

1/+9

b2
192

Chi S quare - *4-1.23 ( s i g n i f i c a n t beyond .001 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l)
C o e f f ic ie n t o f C ontingency - . 2.9
*1-1 . 2 3 , v/hich i s s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e .0 0 1 p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l ,
c o n firm s our in s p e c tio n o f th e t a b l e .

The C o e f f ic ie n t o f Mean

So.uare C ontingency ( . 2 9 ) i s , t h e r e f o r e , s i g n i f i c a n t .

W hile t h i s

r e l a t i o n s h i p i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t to be h ig h ly p r e d i c t i v e i n i n d i ­
v id u a l c a s e s , i t th ro w s c o n s id e ra b le support to t h e -h y p o th e s is
t h a t th e ten d en cy f o r t h e younger age g rad es to b e s l i g h t l y more
t o l e r a n t th a n th e o l d e r age g ra d e s i s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e
e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l . ^

In view o f t h i s f in d in g and th e f a c t t h a t

th e above d is c u s s e d d a ta re v e a l a lm o st no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f ­
ic a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een age g ra d e s , f u r t h e r a n a l y s is was n o t
atten u ated .
25
-'In a n t i c i p a t i o n o f th e f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t t o e d u catio n , i t
may be s ta te d t h a t t h i s v a r ia b le i s c o n s is t e n t l y r e l a t e d to
t o le r a n c e tow ard m i n o r i t i e s . The h ig h school g ra d u a te and
above group i s c o n s i s t e n t l y more t o l e r a n t th e n th e o th e r
g ro u p s.

A ttitu d e s e s a

F u n c t i o n o f S n r l y a n d L & te r A m e r ic a n O r i g i n

I n Maple County th e P o lis h -A n e ric a n s c o n s t i t u t e th e only
r e a d i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e e th n ic group.

T his group i s composed o f

l a t e n in e te e n th c e n tu ry im m igrants and t h e i r d e s c e n d a n ts.
These p e o p le a r e s t i l l c o n c e n tra te d i n a few a r e a s i n th e c o u n ty ,
a lth o u g h th e r e i s an in c r e a s in g tendency f o r second and t h i r d
g e n e r a tio n P o lis h -A n e ric a n s to s c a t t e r over th e co u n ty .

The

a c t u a l number o f p e o p le , in c lu d in g fo re ig n - b o rn and second and
t h i r d g e n e r a tio n s , who make up t h i s group i s unknown.

It is

p ro b a b ly pbout fo u r p e r cen t o f th e t o t a l co u n ty p o p u la tio n ,
a lth o u g h t h i s f ig u r e may be too low .
By chance one o f th e l o c a l i t y g roups used f o r th e t o t a l
sanrole was one which was p red o m in an tly P o lis h .

I f th e above

e s tim a te i s a c c u r a te , th e n t h i s ten d ed to o v e rlo a d th e sam ple.

26

I t th u s seems a d v is a b le to d e te rm in e w hether th e P o lis h group
d i f f e r s s u f f i c i e n t l y from th e r e s t of th e sa n p le to b ia s i t a s
a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e sam ple.

M oreover, i t i s im p o rta n t i n term s o f

th e m a jo r re s e a rc h h y p o th e s is to d e te rm in e i f t h i s e th n ic
s t r u c t u r e d i f f e r s i n th e m a n ife s ta tio n o f s e n tim e n ts toward
m in o r i t i e s from th e p red o m in a tin g Old American s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e .
W ith r e s p e c t to t h i s l a t t e r problem th e r e h a s been l i t t l o
r e s e a r c h which bearB s p e c i f i c a l l y upon th e p r e s e n t a n a ly s is ,
^ ^ P ro p o r tio n a te ly th e t o t a l sample in c lu d e d 1 1 .6 ^ P o lish -A m erica n s.
The a c t u a l number, however, would n o t seem to b e s u f f i c i e n t l y
l a r g e to b i a s u n d u ly th e t o t a l sam ple u n le s s t h e resp o n ses o f th e
P o lish -A m e rlca n s d i f f e r g r e a tly from th o s e o f o ld A m ericans.
That t h i s i s n o t th e c a se may be seen by exam ining th e t a b l e s r e ­
p o r te d i n t h i s s e c t io n . The d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e means f o r
th e t o t a l sample and t h a t f o r th e Old m erican s i s sm all, v a ry ­
in g from .00 to . 0 9 .

-7 7 -

a lth o u g h th e r e have "been a number o f s tu d ie s o f " s o c ia l
d i s t a n c e " , and a few s tu d i e s o f

c le a v a g e s betw een e th n ic and

27
o th e r g ro u p s, '
B e fo re d is c u s s in g th e a n a ly s is th e method o f d ete rm in in g
th e P o lish -A m e ric a n s in th e sam ple should be e x p la in e d ,

The

i n te r v ie w sch ed u le ask ed i f e i t h e r o f th e r e s p o n d e n t's p a r e n ts
was b o rn i n a f o r e ig n c o u n try .

Only tw e n ty -se v e n re sp o n d e n ts

answ ered i n th e a f f i r m a t i v e , a lth o u g h th e known number o f P o lis h A m ericans in th e sam ple was h ig h e r th a n t h a t .

T h is was due to

th e f a c t th a t th e sam ple in c lu d e d t h i r d g e n e r a tio n P o lis h A m ericans.

Hence i t was n e c e s s a ry to u s e a n o th e r p ro c e d u re .

I t was known t h a t th e C a th o lic s in th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s were
P o lis h .

I t was assumed t h a t th e C a th o lic s l i v i n g i n th e town

o f B ro w n s v ille , w here t h e P o lis h C a th o lic church i s lo c a te d ,
would a ls o be P o l i s h .

I t was f u r t h e r assumed t h a t C a th o lic s

i n th e towns o f Johnstow n and Adams, where th e r e a r e p r a c t i c a l l y
no P o lish -A m e ric a n s, would n o t be P o lis h .

The C a th o lic s were

Examples o f th e l a t t e r stu d y a r e ELin L. A nderson, We A m ericans:
A Study o f C leavage i n an Am erican C ity . Cambridge; H arvard
U n iv e r s ity P re s s , 1937; o r C. P . Loomis, "E th n ic C leavages i n
th e Southw est a s R e fle c te d i n Two Higk S c h o o ls," S ociom etry.
6 :7 -2 6 - , 19^3* S in c e th e tim e o f B o g ard u s' f i r s t stu d y th e r e
have been a number o f s tu d ie s o f s o c ia l d is ta n c e . P o r th e
o r i g i n a l stu d y see Emory S. B ogardus, Im m ig ratio n and Race
A t t i t u d e s . B oston: D. C. Heath & C o., 1928. In t h i s and
sub seq u en t s tu d ie s i t h a s been shown t h a t , a p a r t from a h ig h e r
s e lf - e v a l u a t i o n , v a r io u s e th n ic g ro u p s te n d to ra n k o th e r g roups
i n a b o u t th e same o r d e r . The p o p u la tio n s s tu d ie d , however, a r e
u s u a ll y c o lle g e o r h ig h school s tu d e n ts and a r e n o t s im ila r to
th e p o in x latio n o f P o lish -A m erica n s u n d er c o n s id e r a tio n h e re .

th e n s o r te d o u t o f t h e sample and th o s e who were r e s i d e n t s o f Jo h n s­
town and Adams (a t o t a l o f 12) were e lim in a te d .

The rem ainder con­

s t i t u t e d th e group which w i l l be d is c u s s e d a s P o lish -A m erica n s in
c o n t r a s t to th e p re d o m in a n tly w h ite , o ld A m erican, P r o te s ta n ts who
c o n s t i t u t e th e re m a in d e r o f th e t o t a l sam ple.
O b se rv a tio n o f th e county le d to th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t th e P o l is h A m ericans o f th e second and t h i r d g e n e r a tio n s wore i n th e p r o c e s s of
becom ing co m p letely a s s im ila te d i n t o th e c u ltu r e o f t h e i r environm ent.
F o r exam ple, th e p r e s e n t P o lis h - s p e a k in g p r i e s t i s th e t a r g e t o f a
d e te rm in e d campaign
A m ericans.

by th e s e g e n e r a tio n s to become more l i k e o th e r

He h as been fo rc e d to g iv e up th e re q u ire m e n t o f P o lis h

a s a second language i n th e p a r o c h ia l sc h o o l, and he commented a t
le n g th to th e w r i t e r on h i s i n a b i l i t y to i n t e r e s t h i s p e o p le in
P o lis h lan g u ag e n ew sp ap ers.
v i l l e h a s only e ig h t g ra d e s .

M oreover, th e p a r o c h ia l school in Browns­
Beyond t h a t g ra d e , and i n in c r e a s in g

num bers, th e younger g e n e r a tio n o f P o lish -A m e ric a n s a tte n d s th e l o c a l ,
p u b lic h ig h sch o o l.
B ecause o f t h e s e and o th e r o b s e rv a tio n s th e w r i te r was o f th e
o p in io n t h a t th e sam ple o f P o lish -A m e ric a n s would, on th e w hdle, be
v e ry s im i l a r i n a t t i t u d e s toward m in o rity groups to th e o ld A m ericans
i n th e sam ple.

But community o b s e rv a tio n , a lth o u g h in fo rm a tiv e , was

n o t th e b a s is f o r d e r iv in g th e s p e c i f i c e m p iric a l h y p o th eses to be
t e s t e d by t h i s r e s e a r c h .

E a th e r th e m ajor h y p o th e s is o f c u l t u r a l

d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n was th e b a s is f o r t e s t i n g e m p iric a l d if f e r e n c e s in
s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e .

Hence, th e s p e c i f i c h y p o th e s is o f t h i s a n a ly s is o f

d if f e r e n c e s i n e th n ic o r ig i n must be t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n e th n ic

membership a r e r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s,
N egroes and M exicans.
D ata h e a rin g on t h i s h y p o th e s is w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s toward
Jews may he examined by r e f e r r in g to T able 15.

T h is t a h l e shows th e

mean, ra n k o rd e r and P f o r P o lish -A m e ric a n s and o ld Am ericans f o r
each q u e s tio n and f o r th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

There a r e

no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s f o r any q u e s tio n , n o r f o r
th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

P o r th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e

s c o re and f o r a l l h u t one q u e s tio n th e w ith in group v a ria n c e i s
g r e a t e r th an th e v a r ia n c e hotween g ro u p s.

I t should he n o ted f u r t h e r

t h a t , w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s, t h e r e i s no c o n s is te n t
tre n d d i s c e r n i b l e f o r e i t h e r group.
P o r a com parison o f P o lis h and o ld Am erican group a t t i t u d e s
tow ard N egroes, T ah le 16 should he examined.

The d if f e r e n c e betw een

th e s e g ro u p s i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l o f p r o b a b i li t y
f o r t h r e e o f th e e ig h t q u e s tio n s :

th e two u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s

ab o u t N egroes moving to Johnstow n and moving n e x t door, and th e s te r e o ­
ty p e q u e s tio n which s t a t e s t h a t "N egroes w ith h ig h e r e d u c a tio n th in k
'th e y know too’ much."

In each c a s e th e P o lish -A m erica n s g iv e l e s s

t o l e r a n t re s p o n s e s .

T here i s no s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e betw een th e

groups on th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

However, th e P o lis h -

A m ericans ran k below th e o ld A m ericans on t h i s s c o re and on each o f
th e f o u r q u e s tio n s which a r e u sed to determ in e t h i s s c o re .

Only on

th e l a s t two q u e s tio n s do th e P o lish -A m erica n s ra n k above th e o ld
A m ericans i n d eg ree o f to le r a n c e .
The fo re g o in g seems to i n d i c a t e t h a t th e r e i s some ten d en cy f o r

Table 15
ATTITUDES OF POLISH AMD OLD AMERICANS TOWARD JEWS

E th n ic Grout)
Old A m ericans
P o lis h Am ericans
T o ta l
F1

Guard
a g a in s t
J ov/s

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Jew ish
m erchant

Jews
push

Mean

J gy/s th in k
th e y * re
b e tte r
H Mean
R

Mean

R

378

3 .2 5

2

2 .8 7

1

2 .1 7

2

2 .9 0

1

2 .2 6

2

50

3 .1 4

1

2 .7 8

2

2 .22

1

2 .8 8

2

2 .3 4

1

428

3 .2 4
#

2.86
ti

2 .1 7

R e s tr i c t
J ews

Mean ' R Mean

2.90

#

*

Ship
Jews
Back

R Moan

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R

Mean

3 .0 1

1

2 .7 3

2

4 .7 5
4 .6 6

2 .2 7

2 .9 8

#

2 .8 2

4 .7 4
#

Jews
a re
h o n e st

H Mean
1
2

R Mean

R

2 .0 4

1

1 .7 2

1

1 .9 8

2

1 .69

2

2 .0 4
#

^For t h i s t a b l e F m ust be 6 .7 0 to re a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3*86 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin gro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een gro u p v a r ia n c e .

Jews in
ny neigh­
borhood

1 .7 2
#

T a h le 16
ATTITUDES OP POLISH AND OLD AMERICANS TOWARD NEGROES ■

N egroes
t o Johns­
town

Negroes
next
door

N egroes
are
la z y

E th n ic Group

SU lM _________

Mean

R Mean

V

Mean. R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

V

Mean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

Old Am ericans

379

3 .7 6

1

4 .4 1

1

2.80

1

2.01

1

3 .5 2

1

3 .0 9

1

4 .4 8

1

1 .4 9

2

1 .4 4

2

P o lis h Am ericans

50

4 .4 3

2

5 .1 6

2

2.56

2

2.00

2

3 .4 8

2

2.76

2

4 .2 0

2

1 .5 2

1

1 .6 4

1

T o tal

429

3 .8 4

4 .5 0

2 .7 8

2 .0 0

4 .38*

. 4 .3 3 *

2.30

#

T otal no*
o f respond-

P1

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

N egroes
should
v o te

3 .5 2

*

N egroes
w ith
ed u c a tio n

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

R

3 .0 5

4 .4 5

1 .4 9

1.46

4.10*

1 .7 9

#

3 .0 9

1.
P or t h i s ta h l e P must he 6 .7 0 to r e a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3*86 to re a c h th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin g ro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een gro u p v a r ia n c e .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

th e P o lish -A m e ric a n s to "be l e s s t o l e r a n t o f N egroes th a n a r e t h e o ld
A m ericans i n th e sam ple.

T h is c o n c lu s io n h o ld s o n ly f o r th e q u e s tio n s

which a r e b ein g exam ined.

However, assum ing t h a t t h i s tre n d would

h o ld f o r N egroes a s a g e n e ra l r u le , i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to s p e c u la te
on th e re a so n f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f in d in g .

I f t h i s had been th e

f in d in g w ith r e s p e c t to Jew s i t would a t f i r s t g la n c e seem to be
e a s i e r to e x p la in .

T h at i s , a c a s e m ight b e made f o r th e c o n tin u a n c e

i n t h i s c o u n try o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews t h a t w ere o r ig i n a l l y a p a r t
o f th e P o lis h c u l t u r a l h e r i ta g e .

On th e o th e r han d , n e i t h e r i n

Poland n o r i n Maple County have th e s e p e o p le had much a c tu a l ex­
p e r ie n c e w ith N eg ro es.

One s u g g e s tio n , however, can be o f f e r e d

which " e x p la in s " b o th th e s i m i l a r i t y o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews and
d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s toward N eg ro es.

I f i t i s t r u e th a t most o f

th e P o lish -A m e ric a n s i n th e sample a.re i n a s ta g e where th ey a r e t r y ­
in g to become c o m p le te ly i d e n t i f i e d w ith th e o ld Am erican g ro u p , th en
i t would fo llo w t h a t th e y would, i n s o f a r a s p o s s i b l e , s h a re th e sen­
tim e n ts o f t h a t g ro u p .

On th e o t h e r hand, one c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f such

s t r i v i n g groups i s t h a t th ey do n o t i n t e r p r e t a l l th e nuances and
sh a d in g s o f th e c u l t u r e th e y w ish to a s s im ila te - o th e rw ise i t would
n o t be n e c e s s a ry to s t r i v e .

Hence, th e p re d o m in a n tly u n fa v o ra b le

s te r e o ty p e s o f th e N egro, which a r e a p a r t o f t h i s c u l t u r e ( a s th e
a n a l y s is of th e t o t a l sample h a s shown), a r e a c c e p te d and a r t i c u l a t e d
even more r e a d ily by P o lish -A m erica n s th a n by o ld A m ericans.
Robin W illiam s a r r i v e s a t a s im il a r c o n c lu s io n when he say s:
" P re ju d ic e a g a in s t N egroes and c e r t a i n o th e r m in o r iti e s i s l i k e l y
to be e s p e c ia lly v ig o ro u s and v o c a l among e th n ic groups which have

“b een o n ly r e c e n tly

'A m e rican ized 1 and which a r e a tte m p tin g to move

up i n th e c l a s s h ie r a r c h y ."

28

On th e o th e r hand th e U nited S t a te s o f f i c i a l l y fo u g h t a g a in s t
th e f o r c e s o f 'a n ti- S e m itis m ' abroad d u rin g World War I I .

T h is m ight,

th e r e f o r e , cau se t h e P o lish -A m erica n s to modify any s im ila r extrem e
s ta te m e n ts ab o u t Jew s which were a p a r t o f th e P o l i s h h a l f o f t h e i r
c u l t u r a l h e r i ta g e .
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans a r e shorn in T able 17.

There a r e no

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s f o r any q u e s tio n and th e v a ria n c e w ith in
groups i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s f o r th re e o f th e
f o u r q u e s tio n s .

T h e re i s no d i s c e r n i b l e tr e n d .

The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re , show ing a t t i t u d e s tow ard a l l th r e e
m i n o r i t i e s , i s a ls o sh o rn in T able 17.

T here a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s and th e v a r ia n c e \* ith in groups i s g r e a t e r th a n th e
v a r ia n c e between g ro u p s.
The c o n c lu sio n seems in d ic a te d t h a t w ith r e s p e c t to Jews and
M exicans th e h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e a r e

s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s

betw een th e s e n tim e n ts m a n ife ste d by P o lis h and o ld Am ericans i n
Maple County h a s n o t been su p p o rte d .

There i s , on th e o th e r hand,

some ten d en cy f o r th e P o lish -A m erica n s to be l e s s t o l e r a n t o f
N egroes th a n th e o ld A m ericans a r e .

S ince t h i s tendency i s n o t

s tr o n g ly E x p o r te d by th e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e , th e h y p o th e s is t h a t
d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in e th n ic o r ig i n
can n o t be acc ep te d w ith com plete c o n fid e n c e .

B u t, s in c e th e tendency

^®Robin W illiam s J r . , The R eduction o f In te rg ro u n T e n sio n s. S o c ia l
S cien ce R esearch B u ll. 57, 19^7. P . 6l .

T ah le 17

ATTITUDES OP POLISH AND OLD AMERICANS TOWARD MEXICANS
AKD ANALYSIS OP TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE
M exicans
a s c itis o n .s
and v o te r s

Ile rlc rn s
o u t c f '*-nito
neighborhoods

M exicans
eo-.ir.,c; to
Hid s t a t e

I{eric m e 5r.
re s ta u rrn ts
w ith n i t e s

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
S co re

I:e?n

3

"c a n

Mean

R

Moan

R

Morn

£

379

3 .1 5

1

2 .1 5

l

1 .6 1

2

1 .9 6

2

2 .90

2

50

2 .9 6

2

1 .9 6

2

1 .6 4

1

2 .0 2

1

3 .0 4

1

429

3 .1 2

2 .1 3

1 .6 1

1 .9 7

2 .9 2

#

2 .1 3

#

#

#

T o ta l no.
o f r e s 'io 'c E th n ic Group
Old Am ericans
P o lis h A m ericans
T o ta l
f-

O lts

K ccrp

S
■

P o r t h i s t a h l e P most he 6 .7 0 to re a c h th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l , 3*86 to r e a c h th e 5$ p ro a b i l i t y l e v e l ,
fr - W ithin gro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een gro u p v a r ia n c e .

e x i s t s , n e i t h e r can i t "be u n eo u iv o cab ly r e j e c t e d .
S in c e th e sam ple o f P o lish -A m erica n s in c lu d e s n e a r ly a l l o f th e
C a th o lic s in th e t o t a l sam ple, th e fo re g o in g i s a ls o an a n a l y s is o f
th e a t t i t u d e s o f P o l i s h C a th o lic s i n Maple County in com parison v/ith
th e re m ain d e r o f th e sam ple.

A more d e ta i le d a n a ly s is o f th e r e l a t i o n ­

sh ip o f r e l ig i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n to a t t i t u d e s tow ard' m in o r itie s w il l
*
"be p r e s e n te d in C h a p te r Seven.
E c o lo g ic a l R e la tio n s h ip s a s a F u n c tio n
o f A t t i t u d e s toward M in o r itie s
The resp o n d e n ts from th e th r e e towns may now "be compared w ith
each o th e r and th e re sp o n d e n ts l i v i n g in th e open c o u n try .
seem p e r t i n e n t to do

I t would

so s in c e th o s e th r e e tovms ap p ear to d i f f e r in

mary ways, and b e ca u se a l l o f them d i f f e r from th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s .
I f th e census c r i t e r i o n i s u se d , only one o f th e s e tovms, Jo h n s­
town, b e lo n g s i n th e u rb an c a te g o ry .

The r e s e a r c h f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t

to u r b a n - r u r a l d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity groups a r e
mixed o r in c o n c lu s iv e .

A c tu a lly , th e r e a r e no s tu d ie s which p a r a l l e l

t h i s r e s e a r c h end th e problem o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g a t t i t u d e s i n tovms
o f th e s iz e s in c lu d e d i n t h i s sam ple rem ains r e l a t i v e l y u n to u ch ed .
The few f in d in g s t h a t a r e a v a i la b le a r e h e re r e p o rte d a s s u g g e s tiv e
o n ly and not a s b e a r in g d i r e c t l y upon t h i s r e s e a r c h .
Sims and P a t r i c k ^ found no r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een s iz e o f comm­
u n i t y from which c o lle g e s tu d e n ts come and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s tov/ard
th e Negro .

H a r l a n ^ r e p o r ts t h a t r u r a l and sm all town c o lle g e s tu d e n ts

29
'S im s and P a t r i c k , on. c i t .
•^ H a rla n , cm. c i t .

-8 6 a r e more t o l e r a n t w ith r e s p e c t t o a t t i t u d e s m a n ife ste d tov/ard Jews
th en a r e c o lle g e s tu d e n ts who come from la r g e c i t i e s .

M inard^1

f in d s t h a t sm all town c h ild r e n a r e l e s s p r e ju d ic e d th an c h ild r e n
from l a r g e tovms and c i t i e s .

K e l t z e r ^ found, i n a stu d y o f th e

s o c ia l d is ta n c e m a n ife ste d "by sch o o l c h ild r e n , t h a t th e g e n e ra l
o rd e r o f p re fe r e n c e o r ex p ressed s o c ia l d is ta n c e f o r h i s sample
was a b o u t th e seme w hether th e c h il d r e n were u rb a n o r r u r a l .

How­

e v er, t h e r e was a te n d en cy f o r th e r u r a l c h ild r e n to be l e s s t o l ­
e r a n t tow ard o th e r e th n ic g roups, ex cep t f o r th e Nogro, th an u rb an
c h ild r e n .

H orow itz

f in d s t h a t u rb a n c o lle g e s tu d e n ts a r e more

t o l e r a n t o f ITogroes th a n a r e r u r a l c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .

G a rriso n and

B u rch -^ a ls o r e p o r t th e same f in d in g f o r N orth C a ro lin a S ta te
C o lle g e s tu d e n ts .
The F o rtu n e S urveys o f 19*^6 and 1 9 ^ 7 ? 'r e s p e c tiv e ly , p r e s e n t
somewhat c o n tr a d ic to r y f in d in g s .

The 19^6 p o l l c o n clu d es t h a t 'a n t i -

S em itism ' i s s tr o n g e s t i n l a r g e c i t i e s and w eakest in tovms.

-h e

19^7 p o l l , however, co n c lu d e s t h a t p r e ju d ic e tow ard Jews and N egroes
i s g r e a t e s t among fa rm e rs and p e o p le in sm all tovm s.

A c tu a lly , o f

c o u rse , th e s e two f in d in g s may be co m p atib le b e c a u se o f th e d i f f e r e n t
■^Minftrd, on. c i t .
32

33

H. M e lts e r, "Group D iffe re n c e s in N a tio n a lity and Eace P r e fe r e n c e
o f C h ild r e n ," S o cio m etry . 2 :8 6 -1 0 5 . 1939*
H orow itz i n 0. K lin e b e rg , on. c i t .
C. G a rris o n and U. S. Burch, "A Study o f E a c ia l A ttitu d e s o f
C o lle g e S tu d e n ts ," J . o f Soc. P s y c h o l. . ^-:230-235. 1933*

-^The F o rtu n e Survey, F o rtu n e . F e b ru a ry 19^6 and O ctober 19^7, ou. c i t .

( t h a t i s , non-com parable) p o p u la tio n u n i t s which were u se d , and
becau se o f th e d i f f e r e n t ty p e q u e s tio n s .

I f we assume Johnstow n to

be u rb a n , i t m ight b e c la s s e d a s som ething l e s s th e n a l a r g e c i t y
w h ile d i f f e r i n g g r e a t l y from tovms l i k e B ro w n sv ille and Adams. We
m ight th e n co n clu d e, on th e b a s is o f th e F o rtu n e Survey, th a t th e
a t t i t u d e s o f Johnstow n r e s id e n ts would be more f a v o ra b le to Jews
and ITegroes th a n a r e th e a t t i t u d e s of r e s id e n t s o f e i t h e r th e o th e r
toyms o r th e r u r a l a r e a .
O b serv a tio n o f th e county in d ic a te d th a t th e town o f B ro w n sv ille ,
b e ca u se o f th e e x te n t o f . i t s i n d u s tr y , might be expected to d i f f e r
from Adams, which was ab o u t th e same s iz e b u t w ith o u t in d u s tr y .
L ik ew ise, Johnstow n m ight be expected to d i f f e r from b o th .

On th e

o th e r hand, th e r u r a l a r e a gave ev eiy in d ic a tio n o f th e in c r e a s e d
u r b a n iz a tio n o f open c o u n try o r r u r a l l i f e .

A c tu a lly , about 40 p e r

c e n t o f th e r u r a l sam ple i s composed o f p e o n le who a r e n o t fa rm e rs .
The increa-sed i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s which, a c c e le r a te d by World
War I I , h as m echanized and e l e c t r i f i e d man;/- o f t h e fan n s in th e mid­
w est, h a s r e s u lte d i n a s t y l e o f r u r a l l i f e which i s s im ila r i n many
im p o rta n t ways to th e l i f e of th o s e who dw ell i n th e tovms o f th e
ru ra l area.

To what e x te n t th e s e in c r e a s in g s i m i l a r i t i e s would be

r e f l e c t e d in s im ila r a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s was p r e c i s e l y th e
p o in t to be in v e s t i g a t e d , b o th in term s o f r e s id e n c e and in te rm s o f
o c c u p a tio n .
F o r th e above re a s o n s , and in term s o f th e g u id in g h y p o th e s is ,
th e s p e c i f i c h y p o th e s is f o r t h i s a n a ly s is i s t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e th r e e m in o rity groups a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s

i n r e s id e n c e .

I t should be c l e a r t h a t r e s id e n c e i s only an i n ­

d i c a t o r of p o s it i o n w ith in th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e o f t h i s co u n ty .

The

g e o g ra p h ic a l f a c t o f re s id e n c e i s o f im portance only i n s o f a r a s i t
p o i n t s to d i f f e r e n c e s i n e x te n t, k in d , and co m p lex ity of s o c ia l
system s a v a ila b le to r e s i d e n t s o f th e d i f f e r e n t a r e a s .

I t i s assumed

t h a t such d i f f e r e n c e s in i n t e r a c t i o n r e s u l t i n d if f e r e n c e s in b e l i e f s
and s e n tim e n ts .

The c r u c i a l problem h e ro becomes th a t o f

d e te rm in ­

in g to what e x te n t b e l i e f s and se n tim e n ts m a n ife ste d toward c e r t a i n
m in o rity groups a r e a f f e c t e d by c u l t u r a l v a r i a t io n s induced by
lo c a tio n in d i f f e r e n t r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s .
T h is h y p o th e s is i s su p p o rted to some e x te n t by th e d a ta f o r
a t t i t u d e s to^rard Jew s, a s shown by T able 18.

T here a r e s i g n i f i c a n t

d i f f e r e n c e s a t o r beyond th e f i v e p e r cen t p r o b a b i li t y le v e l f o r th r e e
o f th e q u e s tio n s .

D if fe r e n c e s f o r th e T o ta l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re a r e

a ls o s i g n i f i c a n t , somewhat beyond th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
An a n a l y s is o f th e ra n k o rd o r end th e means f o r each o f th e r e s id e n t ­
i a l g ro u ps i n d i c a t e s t h a t , f o r th e most p a r t , th e s e d if f e r e n c e s a r e
due to th e tendency f o r B ro w n sv ille and Adams to be more to l e r a n t th en '
e i t h e r Johnstow n o r th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s .

T his tendency su p p o rts th e

h y p o th e s is and a p p e a rs to be c o n s is te n t f o r th e r e s i d e n t i a l groups
in v o lv e d .
The h y p o th e s is may be t e s t e d f o r ITegroes by exam ining th e d a ta
p r e s e n te d in T able 1 9 .

H ere th e r e i s o n ly one d if f e r e n c e v/hich i s

s i g n i f i c a n t , a lth o u g h i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y
le v e l.

I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to n o te th a t w h ile t h e r e i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e on th e q u e s tio n o f N egroes moving to Johnstow n,

C able 18

ATTI CUBES TOWARD JEWS BY RESIDENCE

R esiden ce

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Guard
a g a in s t
J cus

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

J ews
a re
h o n e st

Jcv/s i n
ny neigh­
borhood

J cwish
m erchant

Jews
push

Mean

Jews th in k
th e y ir e
b e tte r
R
R Mean

Kean

R

Mean

R. Mean

R Mean

R

Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

R e s tric t
J ev/s

R

B ro w n sv ille

39

3 .0 3

1

3 .2 3

1

2 .1 5

3

3 .2 8

1

2 .7 2

1

3 .2 3

2

5 .3 3

2

2.21

1

2 .0 3

1

Adams

28

3 .2 1

2

3 .0 4

2

2 .4 3

1

3 .1 8

2

2 .3 9

2

3 .2 5

1

5 .3 6

1

2 .1 4

2

1 .8 6

2

Johnstow n

108

3 .2 9

4

2 .9 3

3

2 .0 5

4

2.96

3

2 .3 1

3

3 .0 0

3

4 .7 1

3

1 .96

4

1 .6 7

4

R u ral l o c a l i t i e s

253

3 .2 5

3

2.76

4

2.20

2

2 .7 8

4

2 .1 7

4

2.90

4

4 .5 9

4

2 .0 3

3

1 .6 8

3

T o tal

428

3 -2 4

E1

#

’

2.86

2 .1 7

2.90

2 .2 7

2 .9 8

4 .7 4

2 .0 4

1 .7 2

2.61*

1 .5 0

3.30*

3.63*

1 .8 5

2.92*

1 .06

2 .3 8

Eor t h i s t a b l e E m ast re a c h 3 .8 3 t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vja p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 2 a t

th e $$> p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

# - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een group v a r ia n c e .
* - S ig n if ic a n t a t o r beyond 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

(Note - 2 .6 1 i s assumed to be J u s t£ t

th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l)

T a b le 19
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BI RESIDENCE
N egroes
to Joh ns­
town

R esiden ce
B ro w n sv ille

T o ta l n o .
o f respond—
fin is ___________ Mean

Negroes
n ex t
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

R Mean

R Mean. R Mean

N egroes
should
v o to

R

Mean

R Mean

P.

Mean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

Negroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

R

39

3 .3 7

1

4 .9 2

3

2 .90

2

2 .1 8

2

3 .5 6

2

3 .2 3

1

4 .6 9

2

1 .7 2

1

1 .5 9

1

28

3 .8 1

3

4 .1 4

2

3 .0 4

1

2 .21

1

3 .7 5

1

3 .2 1

.2

4 .7 9

1

1 .61

2

1 .3 2

4

Johnstow n

109

4 .1 5

4

5 .3 3

4

2.78

3

1 .8 5

4

3 .4 8

4

3 .1 7

3

4 .4 3

3

1 .3 7

4

1 .3 6

3

R u ral l o c a l i t i e s

253

3 .7 7

2

4 .1 2

1

2 .73

4

2 .0 2

3

3 .5 0

3

2.96

4

4 .3 6

4

1 .4 9

3

1 .5 0

2

T o tal

429

3 .84

Adams

F1

1 .5 0

4 .5 0
•

7.48**

2 .78

2 .0 0

3 .5 2

3 .05

4 .4 5

1 .4 9

1 .4 6

#

2.16

#

1.66

1 .9 7

2 .4 1

1.55

^■For t h i s t a h l e F most r e a c h 3*83 to h e s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 2 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een group v a r ia n c e .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

t h i s town ra n k s a s l e a s t t o l e r a n t on t h i s q u e s tio n .
I n g e n e r a l, i t a p p e a rs from T ahle 19 t h a t th e r e s i d e n t i a l
groups do n o t d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tov.vrd
I-Tegroes.

There i s a g a in a tendency on s e v e ra l q u e s tio n s f o r "both

Johnstow n and th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s to he l e s s t o l e r a n t , a lth o u g h ,o n
th e one q u e s tio n f o r which th e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e , Jo h n s­
town d i f f e r s most from th e r u r a l l o c a l i t i e s .
A tt i t u d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e summarized in T ahle 20.

Two o f

th e f o u r Mexican ite m s r e v e a l s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s , one heyond th e
one p e r cen t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

T hese d if f e r e n c e s c l e a r l y seem to he

due to th e f a c t t h a t Johnstovm re sp o n d e n ts a r e l e s s fa v o ra b le i n t h e i r
a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans th a n a r e re sp o n d e n ts from th e o th e r r e s id e n t­
ia l a reas.
T a h le 20 a ls o shows th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

The d if f e r e n c e s

a r e s i g n i f i c a n t heyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
a p p e a rs to he due to th e Johnstown re s p o n d e n ts .

Again t h i s

I t may he concluded

from t h i s t a h l e t h a t th e r e i s some ev id en ce to su p n o rt th e h y p o th e s is
o f d i f f e r e n c e and t h a t , f o r th e s e ite m s , Johnstovm c o n tin u e s to he
c o n s is t e n t in th e d i r e c t i o n o f l e s s fa v o ra b le a t t i t u d e s toward m inor­
i t y g ro u p s.
Prom th e fo re g o in g i t may h e seen t h a t th e r e i s some ev id en ce to
su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e s id e n c e a r e a s s o c ia te d
w ith d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.

W hile t h e d i f f ­

e re n c e s a r e n o t g r e a t f o r any one q u e s tio n , t h i s h o ld s tr u e p a r t i c u l a r l y
f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews and M exicans.

There i s a c o n s is te n t tendency

f o r Johnstow n to he l e s s t o l e r a n t th a n th e o th e r r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s on

T a b l e 20
ATTITUBES TOWARD MEXICAIIS ADD A1IA1YSIS 0? TOTAL EREJUDICE
score by b e s i hence

B esidence

T o ta l n o .
o f respond­
e n ts _______

.lex ico n s
a s c ity sons
and v o te r s

Keen Ile ric c n s
o u t c f ?-n ite
noirhfhorhnor.s

I fe ric rn s
co-ir.,^ to
IJid s t a t e

Mcr'icrvnr ir.
rc s tL u irrn ts
vritli r.'fite s

T o ta l
Pre.jud.icc
S co re

Ifeon

?.

Mean

3

Mean

R

.Moan

B

Zlcrn

£

B ro w n sv ille

39

3 .1 5

2

2.15

3

1 .6 9

1

2 .3 3

1

3 .5 4

1

Adams

28

3 .4 3

1

2 .4 3

1

1.61

3

2.C4

2

3.00

2

Johnstovm

109

3.10

3

1 .9 5

4

1 .5 1

4

1 .7 1

4

2.52

4

B u ra l l o c a l i t i e s

253

3 .0 9

4

2 17

.

2

1 .6 4

2

2.02

3

2.9 8

3

T o tal

429

3 .1 2

2 .1 3

1.61

1 .9 7

2 .9 2

#

3.00*

1 .0 8

6 .36**

4.80**

Bor t h i s t a h l e B must re a c h 3*83 to he s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vp p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 2 a t th e 5# p r o b a b i li t y le v e l.
$ - Vi th i n gro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n betw een gro u p v a r ia n c e .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e Vp p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

a l l q u e s tio n s ,

^he rura.1 l o c a l i t i e s a ls o ten d to "be s im ila r to

Johnstow n on a number o f th e q u e s tio n s b u t th e tre n d f o r th e s e
l o c a l i t i e s i s not a s c o n s is te n t a s i t i s f o r Johnstovm .
th e sam ples of

C onversely,

B ro w n sv ille and Adams ten d to be s im ila r on a number

o f q u e s tio n s and te n d to be more t o l e r a n t .

T h is h o ld s tr u e f o r

a t t i t u d e s tov/ard N egroes even though 31 p e r c e n t o f th e B ro w n sv ille
sample i s P o lis h .
F u rth erm o re, s in c e p r o p o r tio n a te ly Johnstow n and th e r u r a l
l o c a l i t i e s com prise th e g r e a t e r p a r t o f th e sam ple and tend to
m a n ife s t s im ila r a t t i t u d e s on many q u e s tio n s , i t may be concluded
a ls o t h a t th e r e ap-oear to be no s ig n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s betw een u rb an
and r u r a l re s id e n c e i n terras o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s .

At

l e a s t th e d a ta o f t h i s samole do n o t i n d ic a te t h a t a n a ly s is alo n g
t h i s l i n e would be p r o f i t a b l e .
C o n clu sio n s
In t h i s c h a p te r c e r t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l v a r i a b le s , such a s sex , age,
e th n ic and r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s , have been an aly zed i n o rd e r to
d e te rm in e to .w h at e x te n t such v a r i a b l e s a re r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jews, N egroes and M exicans.

The s p e c if ic e m p iric a l con­

c lu s io n s which a p p ear to be w arranted by th e d a ta may be s ta te d
a s fo llo w s :
1.

T here ap p ear to b e no d if f e r e n c e s between th e sexes w ith r e s p e c t
to a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s , e i t h e r i n terra s o f s t a t i s t i c a l
s ig n if ic a n c e o r tr e n d s .

2 . T h ere a r e p r a c t i c a l l y no d if f e r e n c e s among v a r io u s age g ra d e s
which a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .

There i s a tendency f o r th e

_9*Jyounger age grad es to
hut th is

tr en d

"be m o r e t o l e r a n t

th a n t h e o ld e r a g e g r a d e s ,

a p p e a r s to h e a s s o c ia t e d

w ith

th e

e d u c a tio n a l

fa c to r .
3.

In

g e n e r a l,

t h e P o lis h - A n o r ic a n s te n d

o l d e r A m e r ic a n s i n
fo r

th e P o lis h

to

th e ir a ttitu d e s .
he

even l e s s

to

h e r e m a r k a b ly l i k e

T here i s ,

fa v o r a b le in

how ever,

th e

a te n d e n c y

th e ir a ttitu d e s

to w a r d N e g r o e s th a n a r e o ld A m e r ic a n s .

b.

T here i s

e v id e n c e

m in o r ity g r o u p s.
th a n

th a t r e s id e n c e

is

r e la te d

B r o v m s v i l l e an d A dam s t e n d

e it h e r J o h n sto w n o r r e s i d e n t s o f t h e

J o h n sto w n i s
ten d to

c o n s is te n tly

he le s s

r e s id e n ts .

to

lo s s

to le r a n t

a ttitu d e s

t o h e m o re t o l e r a n t

rural lo c a litie s .

w h ile

th e

to le r a n t hut a r e n ot a s c o n s is te n t

The a n a l y s i s o f r e s id e n c e

to w a r d

in d ic a te s

rural lo c a lit ie s
a s J o h n sto w n

a ls o

th a t

fo r

th is

s a m p le t h e r e w o u ld h e fe w d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n u r b a n an d r u r a l
g rou p s,

if

th e c e n su s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n

w ere u s e d

a s a b a s is fo r

a n a ly s is .

1

CHAPTER FOUR
ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL STATUS:

Som e o f t h e v a r i a b l e s
a r e p r im a r ily
s o c ia l

e d u c a tio n ,

o f v o r tic a l

in c o m e ,

of

A s s o c ia te d

w ith

sta tu s or p o s itio n

and o c c u p a t io n ,

s t a t u s .^

in

T hat i s ,

w h ic h
in

sex,

th e
how over,

appear to b e c le a r ly

a r e la tiv e ly

open

m o b i l i t y g r e a t e r a m o u n ts o f f o r m a l e d u c a t i o n ,

p r o f e s s io n a l o r w h ite c o l l a r
in d ic a tiv e

su c h a s a g e and

T h e r e a r e a num ber o f o t h e r v a r i a b l e s ,

i n d i c a t i v e o f a c h ie v e d
sy ste m

d is c u s s e d ,

i n d i c a t o r s o f a s c i ’i b e d

str u c tu r e .

su ch a s

so f a r

OCCUPATION

sta tu s
su ch

a m o u n ts o f p r e s t i g e ,

o c c u p a tio n s ,

w h ic h i s

an d h i g h e r i n c o m e s ,

o r c a n b e a c h ie v e d

s t a t u s and su c h in d ic a t o r s
in

te r m s o f a c o m m u n ity ^

w ith in
of

are

su ch a

sy ste m .

sta tu s are g r e a te r

r a t in g a lo n g a v e r t i c a l

2
s c a le

of

s o c ia l e ste e m .

It

is

w ith

a r e i n d i c a t i v e o f h ig h e r and lo w e r
th a t

th is

and t h e f o l l o w i n g

th e s e v a r ia b le s — v a r ia b lo s

s o c ia l

sta tu s

tw o c h a p t e r s v r i l l b e

The te r m s a s c r ib e d and a c h ie v e d s t a t u s a r e u s e d
o r i g i n a l l y p r o p o s e d b y R a lp h L i n t o n .

w ith in

w h ic h

a c o m m u n ity —

concerned.

in

t h e m e a n in g

2
The l i t e r a t u r e i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s s t a t e m e n t i s r a t h e r e x t e n s i v e
and v r i l l n o t b o d e t a i l e d h e r e .
T h e W arner s t u d i e s , I y n d ' s a n a l y s i s
o f M i d d l e t o w n , a n d m any o t h e r c o m m u n ity s t u d i o s b e a r u p o n t h i s
p o in t.
I t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o a g r e e o n t h e p r e c i s e m e a n in g o f t h e
te r m s s o c i a l c l a s s o r s o c i a l s t a t u s , o r o t h e r su c h te r m s , t o s t a t e
t h a t , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h a t t h e o r e t i c a l fra m e o f r e f e r e n c e i s b r o u g h t
t o b e a r , e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i o n , a n d in c o m e a r e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y
d i s t r i b u t e d am on g m e m b e r s o f m o d e r n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i a l s y s t e m s a n d
t h a t su c h d i f f e r e n t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n a p p e a r s to b e a s s o c i a t e d w ith
d i f f e r e n t i a l a m o u n ts o f s o c i a l e s t e e m .

T h e o r e t ic a l C o n s id e r a t io n s w ith H e s p e c t to
S o c i a l S t a t u s and A t t i t u d e s to w a rd M i n o r i t i e s
In

te r m s o f a g e n e r a l th e o r y o f

a c tio n

th a t ta k e s p la c e

of

c o m m u n ity ,

th e

o f a s o c ia l

w ill

th is

str a ta

are c u ltu r a lly

m e n ts,

ev en th o u g h ,

sh are in

research

and

q u ite

s e n tim e n ts

p e o p le
th a t h e
w is e ,

groups f i t
th e

d iffe r e n t d eg rees.

th a t th e N egro

s o c ia l

in to

su ch q u e s t io n s a r e
fo r th e

to ta l

s a m p le .

T hat i s ,

s o c ia l

and c e r t a i n

su ch

str a ta ;

sy ste m a r e

and c o s m o lo g y .

sy ste m

a ttitu d e s

F o r e x a m p le ,
to

in

th is

in

th a t

r e je c te d

s a m p le m o s t

th e h o u se n e x t d o o r.

it

in

v o t e b u t m any f e e l
L ik e ­

t h a t J e w s a r e p u s h in g and
w o u ld b e a g o o d i d e a t o

The d i f f e r e n c e s in
a s w as s e e n i n

th e r e i s

s e n ti­

s o c ia l

id e o lo g y ,

e n tir e

a s m azy a g r e e t h a t

a ju ite d i s t i n c t ,

and

a g e n e r a l and b a s ic p a t t e r n

m ove in t o

P a le s tin e .

su ch

E x a m o le s o f b a s i c

e n tir e

a v e r y la r g e num ber o f p e o p le b e l i e v e d

th e Jew s back to

sy ste m ,

s e n tim e n ts .

s h o u ld b e a llo w e d

s h o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d t o

str a ta

to w a r d m em bers o f

te r m s o f b e l i e f s

e c o n o m ic an d p o l i t i c s !

fo rw a r d , b u t n o t n e a r ly
s h ip

in

and

a t t it u d e s w i l l b e a c c e p te d

agree

o b s e r v a tio n

a d e r iv a tiv e o f th e

sh ared by th e

and s e n tim e n ts w ith in

o b v io u s ly

w h ic h i s

d iffe r e n tia te d

A t t i t u d e s to w a r d m in o r it y

c e r ta in

o f d ir e c t

a ttitu d e s

as a part o f a to ta l

th o se p e r ta in in g to

of b e lie fs

v ie w

in te r ­

s te m s fr o m a n a s s u m p tio n t h a t

com m on m any b e l i e f s

com m on b e l i e f s

in

e v in c e d i f f e r e n t

T h is h y n o t h e s is ,

m e ijo r h y p o t h e s i s o f

a ls o

and

sy s te m s and th e

th e h y p o th e s is w as ad van ced t h a t d if f e r e n t

sy ste m

m in o r ity g r o u p s.

th e r e in ,

s o c ia l

th e r e s p o n s e s to

th e d a ta p r e se n te d

a d is tin c t

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n

w h i c h t h e p r e v i o u s a n a l y s e s h a v e sh o w n ( a n d w h ic h f u t u r e a n a l y s e s w i l l
c o n tin u e to

sh ow ) i s

v is ib le

no n a t t e r h ow y o u d i f f e r e n t i a t e

and

a n a ly z e v a rio u s c l a s s e s o f re sp o n d e n ts w ith in th e t o t a l c u l t u r e .
On th e o th e r hand, th e h y p o th e s is to he t e s t e d in t h i s and th e
n e x t two c h a p te rs i s t h a t w ith in a common p a t t e r n o f "b e lie fs and
s e n tim e n ts ab o u t m in o rity groups t h e r e a r e d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s
which a r e r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s t a t u s .

But t h i s g e n e ra l

h y p o th e s is does n o t in c lu d e th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e s e a t t i t u d e s , a s i t
should i f i t i s to be soundly s ta t e d .

In term s o f group h o s t i l i t y

s e v e ra l a l t e r n a t e , though not n e c e s s a r i ly m u tu a lly e x c lu s iv e , sub­
h y p o th e se s should be examined.
A rnold Rose-' end Robin W illiam s

have summarized and d is c u s s e d

many o f th e c u r re n t t h e o r ie s o f p r e ju d ic e and h o s t i l i t y betw een g ro u p s.
Rose d oes n o t s y s te m a tic a lly c a ta lo g u e th e o r ie s o f p r e ju d ic e b u t he
in c lu d e s some tv/enty p o s s ib le h y p o th e se s.

W illiam s h a s examined some­

what more r ig o r o u s ly th e concept o f p r e ju d ic e and o u tl in e s 102 pro p ­
o s i t i o n s , ran g in g from t e n t a t i v e g u e s se s to w e ll-s u p p o rte d a s s u r p tio n s .
One m ajor h y p o th e s is t h a t b o th w r i te r s advance i s th e " c o m p e titio n "
h y p o th e s is .

T h is h y p o th e s is h as s e v e r a l v a r i a t i o n s .

P r e ju d ic e may be

d e fin e d sim ply a s th e outcome o f a c t u a l o r th r e a te n e d economic Corn­
p e titio n .

'S

Or th e r e l a t io n s h ip o f p r e ju d ic e to c o m p e titio n may be

^A rnold Rose, S tu d ie s i n th e R eduction of P r e ju d ic e , mimeo, Chicago:
Am erican C ouncil on Race R e la tio n s , 19^7. C hapter 7> "The Psy­
chology o f P r e ju d ic e ."
i|

Robin W illiam s, J r . , on. c i t . See C hapter 3* " P ro p o s itio n s on
In te rg ro u p H o s t i l i t y and C o n f l i c t ," p p . 36-77.

' ’T his i s a f a m i l i a r M arxian theme. One non-M arxian exponent o f t h i s
h y p o th e s is i s Carey McWilliams who h a s p re s e n te d t h i s theme in a
number o f boolcs. W ith r e s p e c t to • a n ti-S e m itis m ' h e h as o u tlin e d
i t i n A Mask f o r P r i v i l e g e . B oston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 19*J8.

e n v is a g e d a s a so m ew h a t m ore c o m p le x ,
sta te d

in

so m e fo r m

s im ila r to

s u b tle r e la t io n s h ip

and

th e fo llo w in g :

"Am ong t h e m e m b e r s o f a n y d o m in a n t g r o u p t h e g r e a t e s t
i n c i d e n c e o f o p e n c o n f l i c t b e h a v i o r to w a r d a g i v e n
m i n o r i t y w i l l b e f o u n d am ong t h o s e c l a s s e s w h ic h a r e
m o st v u ln e r a b le t o c o m p e t it io n fr o m t h e m in o r i t y .
It
i s a l e g i t i m a t e g u e s s fr o m t h e s c a t t e r e d e v i d e n c e a t
h a n d t h a t g r o u p c o n f l i c t i s n o t s o m uch a c o r r e l a t e
o f d iffe r e n c e in s ta tu s a s i t i s o f ch an ges in s ta tu s
a n d i n t h e h i g h l y v i s i b l e s y m b o ls t h e r e o f .
A ll

su ch t h e o r ie s ,

p s y c h o a n a ly tic p o in t
fo r

w h e th e r a p p r o a c h e d

o f v ie w ,

su ch go o d s a s p ow er,

d e a l y ith

sta tu s,

fr o m a M a r x ia n o r a

th e

c o n c e p t o f c o m p e titio n

and w e a lth .

T here i s ,

in o th e r

w ord s,

a r e a l d i f f e r e n c e and a r e a l c o n f l i c t b e c a u s e o f t h a t d i f f e r ­

ence.

In t h i s

c o n flic t

m ay b e u s e d a s
ual

en d s,

p o s itio n

e a s ily

s y m b o ls i n

id e n tifia b le

th e c a lc x ila te d p u r s u it

o r t h e y m ay b e p e r c e i v e d
o f d e p r iv e d

e th n ic

g rou p s.

o f r a tio n a l,

a s th r e a ts to

A c c o r d in g t o

o r r a c ia l grou p s
in d iv id ­

th e a lr e a d y in s e c u r e

a num ber o f t h e o r i e s ,

b o th phenom ena a r e in v o lv e d .
S till

a n o th e r b a s ic

h y p o th e s is .

h y p o th e s is i s

T h is h y p o t h e s is i s

c o n tr a d ic to r y

to th e

r e la te d to

d ir e c t
g rou p s,
w ith in

of

sy ste m .

In

. a r e d e p r iv e d ,

w ho a r e p e r m i t t e d
T h is an d

6
E o b in W illia m s J r . ,

a ls o

on.

c it. . p.

s o m e tim e s

te r m s o f t h i s

or fe e l

s o c ia l

g e n e r a te d b y su ch d e p r iv a tio n

o r " sc a p e g o a ts" ,
s o c ia l

but i s

s c a r c e go o d s w ith in a g iv e n

th e h o s t ilit y

th e

" s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "

" c o m p e titio n " h y p o t h e s i s .

h y p o t h e s i s m em b ers o f g r o u p s who
to b e d e p r iv e d ,

th e

to

th e m s e lv e s

sy ste m w i l l
th e v u ln e r a b le

o b j e c t s o f a g g r e s s io n

s im ila r t h e o r ie s a r e th e p ro d u ct

59*

o f p s y c h o a n a ly tic a n a l y s is and f r e q u e n tly stem from John B o ll a r d ’ s?
tre a tm e n t o f F re u d ’ s " f r u s tr a tio n - a g g r e s s io n " h y p o th e s is ,

^he

" s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is h a s heen a p p lie d f re q u e n tly a s an
e x p la n a tio n o f v i o l e n t 'a n t i - S e m i t i s m . '

P a rs o n s , f o r oxamnle,

th e o r iz e s t h a t
" . . . . T h e most im p o rta n t so urce o f v i r u l e n t a n ti-S e m itis m i s
p ro b a b ly th e u r o j e c t i o n on th e Jew, a s a symbol, of f r e e f l o a t i n g a g g re s s io n , s p rin g in g from i n s e c u r i t i e s and s o c ia l
d i s o r g a n i z a t i o n ."8
The re v e rs e s id e of th e above h y p o th e s is h a s been su g g ested by
C h arles B o lla rd :
"M aintenance o f th e 'Am erican Creed* in in te rg r o u n m a tte rs
i s u s u a lly s tr o n g e s t among sm all groups o f p r o f e s s io n a l
and u p p e r -c la s s p e rs o n s , and em phasis upon i t s u n iv e r s a l
v a lu e s c i r c u l a t e s downward i n t h e s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n
py ram id . In g e n e r a l, on ly p e rs o n s in 'u p p e r' groups have
s u f f i c i e n t s e c u r i t y to work a c t i v e l y f o r in n o v a tio n s in
th e d i r e c t io n o f g r e a t e r p r i v i l e g e s f o r m i n o r i t i e s . "9
S t i l l o th e r h y p o th e se s em phasize th e r o l e p la y e d by th e e a r ly
s o c ia liz a tio n p ro c e ss.

Thus, th e young le a r n th e approved c u l t u r a l

s te r e o ty p e s , b o th f a v o ra b le and u n fa v o ra b le .

W hile h o s t i l i t y may be

a r e s u l t a n t o f f a c t o r s w ith in a s o c ia l system , e i t h e r due to th e
s t r a i n imoosed on th e in d iv id u a l by th e s o c i a l i z a t i o n p ro c e s s i t s e l f ,
o r r e s u l t i n g from c o m p e titio n f o r s c a rc e goods, t h e r e a r e in many
s o c ia l system s n y th s , o ld f o lk t a l e s , and t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f s p e r ­
t a i n i n g to v a rio u s k in d s o f m in o rity group mem bership;

The " s o c i a l -

7 T h is h y p o th e s is i s e la b o ra te d upon i n John B o lla r d and o th e r s ,
F r u s t r a t i o n and A g g re ss io n : New Haven: Y ale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 1939® T alc o tt P a rso n s, "The S ociology o f Modem A n ti-S em itism , " i n Isacq u e
G raeb er and S te u a r t H. B r i t t ( e d s . ) , Jews i n a G e n tile World.
New York: The M acm illan Company, 19^2, p . 121.
9

Robin W illiam s J r . ,

on. c i t . , p. 59*

i z a t i o n " h y p o th e s is h a s been t r e a t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s p r im a r ily a s an
u n d e rly in g assu m p tio n .

That i s , th e a n a ly s e s t h a t have and w i l l he

made assum e t h a t b e l i e f s and s e n tim e n ts p e r t a i n in g to m in o rity groups
a r e p a s se d on from o ld to young in o u r c u l tu r e .

Hence, ma.jor a t t e n ­

t i o n h a s been d i r e c t e d to th e v a r io iis p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r c u l t u r a l
d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and c u l t u r a l g e n e r a liz a tio n i n te rm s o f a t t i t u d e s
toward th e m in o rity g ro u p s s e le c te d f o r stu d y .
The "c o n ro e titio n " and " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e se s, on th e
o th e r hand, su g g est p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r th e p r e d ic tio n o f th e d i r e c t i o n
o f d i f f e r e n c e s betw een su b -g roups w ith in a g e n e r a l s o c ia l system .
F or th e p u rp o se s o f t h i s t h e s i s , and in view o f th e fo re g o in g , sub­
h y p o th e se s w ith r e s p e c t to th e d i r e c t i o n o f d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard m in o r itie s t h a t a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith th e s t a t u s v a r ia b le s which
a r e to be examined i n t h i s and subsequent c h a p te r s may be s ta te d as
fo llo w s :
1.

In term s o f an h y p o th e s is o f c o m p e titio n we may expect t h a t
h ig h e r s t a t u s g ro u p s w ill d is p la y more p r e ju d ic e and h o s t i l i t y
tow ard Jews th a n do low er s t a t u s g ro u p s,

( -h e assum ption h e re

i s t h a t upper s t a t u s groups a r e more l i k e l y to be i n e it h e r
economic o r o th e r c o n ro etitio n w ith Jews th a n a r e low er s t a t u s
g r o u p s .)
2.

In term s o f an h y p o th e s is o f c o n p e titio n we may expect t h a t
lo w e r s t a t u s g ro u p s w i l l d is p la y more p r e ju d ic e and h o s t i l i t y
tow ard N egroes and M exicans th a n do upper s t a t u s g ro u p s,

(^he

assu m p tio n h e r e i s t h a t N egroes and Mexicans o f f e r g r e a te r
economic and o th e r co n ro etitio n to low er s t a t u s groups th a n th e y

do to u p p er s t a t u s g ro u p s.

F or example, in th e county s e a t

community o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , where th e r e a r e a few Negro f a m il i e s ,
th e Negroes a r e s t r i c t l y lov;er s t a t u s i n term s o f income,
o c c u p a tio n , r e s id e n c e and p r e s t i g e ,

^hey a r e n o t even th o u g h t

o f a s p o s s ib le c o m p e tito rs f o r any s c a rc e v a lu e by members o f
u p p e r s ta t u s g r o u p s .)
3.

In term s o f a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is wo may ex p ect
t h a t upper. s t a t u s groups w il l d is p la y g r e a t e r to le r a n c e tow ard
a l l m in o r itie s th a n do low er s t a t u s g ro u p s.

(T h is assum es t h a t

u p p e r s t a t u s group members have g r e a te r s e c u r i t y i n term s o f th e
v a lu e s o b ta in a b le w ith in th e s o c ia l system th a n do low er s t a t u s
group members who a r e d e p riv ed , o r f e e l d e p riv e d , o f some o f th e
v a lu e s o b ta in a b le w ith in th e s o c ia l sy stem .)
I t w i l l be n o te d t h a t th e th ix ’d h y p o th e sis a p p e a rs to be i n
c o n tr a d ic tio n to th e f i r s t h y p o th e s is .
a r e by no means m u tu a lly e x c lu s iv e .

Ih e s e h y p o th e se s, how ever,

I t i s o u ite p o s s ib le th a t u p p e r

s t a t u s group members may f e e l se c u re enough to d is p la y to le r a n c e i n
t h e i r s ta te d se n tim e n ts toward a l l m in o rity grout)s and y e t a c t in a
d is c r im in a to r y way tow ard Jews, f o r examole, i f o r when Jews a r e p e r ­
ceiv e d a s a c tu a l c o m p e tito rs .

The r e v e rs e may a ls o be t r u e .

^hat. i s ,

lo w er s t a t u s group members may d i r e c t a s much a g g re s s io n tow ard Jews
a s tow ard m in o rity group members w ith whom th e y a r e in a c tu a l com­
p e t i t i o n , because a g g re s s io n tow ard Jews i s p e r m is s ib le w ith in th e
t o t a l s o c ia l system .

Hence, an open channel o f a g g re s s io n w i l l be

u t i l i z e d by such lo w e r s t a t u s g ro u p s, in term s o f a " s e c u r ity d e p r iv a tio n " th e o ry , r e g a r d le s s o f th e e x te n t o f a c tu a l c o m p e titio n .

But th e d a ta to be examined a r e c o n fin e d to th e m a n ife s ta tio n s of
s e n tim e n ts tow ard m i n o r i t i e s .

Hence, th e su b -h y p o th eses can o n ly

be t e s t e d in term s o f such m a n if e s ta tio n s .

I f u p p e r s ta tu s g roups

c o n s is te n tly m a n ife st more t o l e r a n t se n tim e n ts tow ard a l l th r e e
m i n o r i t i e s th a n do low er s t a t u s g ro u p s, th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n "
h y p o th e s is i s su p p o rte d .

But th e "co n ro etitio n " h y p o th e s is i s

su p p o rted only w ith r e s p e c t to th e m a n ife s ta tio n of sen tim en ts
toward Negroes and M exicans
O ccupation i n R e la tio n s h ip to
A tt i t u d e s toward M in o rity Prrouos
One im p o rtan t i n d i c a t o r o f s o c ia l s ta t u s , in term s o f a system
o f v e r t i c a l s o c ia l m o b ility , i s t h a t o f o c c u p a tio n .

There i s l i t t l e

p r e v io u s p u b lis h e d r e s e a r c h w ith r e s p e c t to th e r e la t io n s h i p o f
a t t i t u d e s and o c c u p a tio n .

Murphy and L i k e r t ^ found, f o r c o lle g e

s tu d e n ts a t Columbia and New York U n iv e r s ity , t h a t sons o f p r o f e s s io n ­
a l men and b u s in e s s men were s l i g h t l y more t o l e r a n t than sons o f
la b o re rs .

T h is was n o t t r u e f o r U n iv e r s ity of M ichigan s tu d e n ts .

Nor d id Sims and P a t r i c k 11 f in d any s y ste m a tic r e la tio n s h i p
#

•

*

.

betw een p a r e n ta l o c c u p a tio n and a t t i t u d e s o f c o lle g e s tu d e n ts .
H orow itz

12

lik e w is e found no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een

g e n e r a liz e d to le r a n c e and o c c u p a tio n .
I n an e a r ly F o rtu n e Survey th e a u th o rs co n clu d e t h a t "by s iz e
o f p l a c e and by o c c u p a tio n , d if f e r e n c e s were n e g lig ib le , except th a t

10G ardner ’Murphy and R. L ik e r t, op. c i t .
^ V . M. S ins and J . R. P a tr ic k , on. c i t .
H orow itz i n 0 . K lin e b e rg , cm. c i t . . r e p o r t o f stu d y by V. M intz, p . 225.

farm han d s were f a r o u t o f l i n e — 2 0 .9 P e r c e n t "being a n ti- J e w is h .
IZ4.

In a l a t e r F o rtu n e Survqy,

however, i t was found th a t , w ith r e s p e c t

to a t t i t u d e s toward "both 1!eg ro e s and Jews, fa rm e rs a r e n o re p r e ­
ju d ic e d , w h ile p r o f e s s i o n a l , e x e c u tiv e and m inor s a la r ie d (w h ite
c o l l a r ) w orkers a r e more t o l e r a n t .

I n th e B e tte lh e im and Jan o w itz

stu d y " ^ d if f e r e n c e s on an in d ex o f socio-econom ic s t a t u s ( o f vrhich
o c c u p a tio n was one f a c t o r ) wore n o t s ig n i f i c a n t .
From th e s e s c a t t e r e d f in d in g s th e r e a p p e a rs to he l i t t l e
ev id en ce t o su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is th a t d if f e r e n c e s in o c c u p a tio n
a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
However, much o f t h i s r e s e a r c h was n o t conducted on s u f f i c i e n t l y
s t r a t i f i e d p o p u la tio n s to p ro v id e an a d eq u ate t e s t o f such an
h y p o th e s is .

In te rm s o f th e h y p o th e s is which was p re s e n te d e a r l i e r

in t h i s c h a p te r, t h e r e should he d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m in o rity groups which a re r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in o c c u p a tio n ,
i n s o f a r a s o c c u p a tio n i s i n d ic a tiv e o f s o c ia l s t a t u s .

I t is

f u r t h e r h y p o th e siz e d t h a t th e d i r e c t i o n o f such d if f e r e n c e s w i ll
acco rd w ith e i t h e r a " c o n p e titio n " o r a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n "
h y p o th e s is , o r , f o r some m in o rity g ro u p s, "both.
®ie o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s which were u sed f o r coding

13i,iphe F o rtu n e S u rv e y ," Jan u ary , 1936 .
1 1\.
F o rtu n e . O ctober, 1947, on. c i t .

^"W uno B e tte lh e im and M orris Ja n o w itz , on. c i t .

th e o r i g i n a l d a ta w ere th o s e o f E d w a rd s .^

The s o - c a lle d Edwards*

s c a le h a s been u sed f re q u e n tly i n many re s e a rc h p r o j e c t s a s a b a s is
f o r such c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s .

I t h a s been s u b je c t to c r i ti c i s m b u t no

argum ent w ill be p r e s e n te d h e re e i t h e r a s to i t s m e rits o r d e m e r its .
I t i s u se d f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h a s an ap p ro x im atio n f o r Ahe exam ination
of th e v a r i a b l e o f o c c u p a tio n —b e a rin g in mind * h a t o ccu p atio n i t s e l f '
i s c o n s id e re d a s a rough b u t a p p r o p r ia te m easure o f s o c ia l s t a t u s .
Only men were in c lu d e d i n t h i s a n a ly s is , sin c e th e number of fem ale
f u l l - t i m e w orkers i n th e sanrole was veyy sm a ll.
T rb le 21 shows th e mean, rani: o rd e r, and F f o r each o f th e
Q u e stio n s p e r ta in in g to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews and f o r th e t o t a l
Jev/ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

Four of th e f iv e f iv e - p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s

e r e s i g n i f i c a n t ; t h r e e o f them beyond th e one t»er c e n t p r o b a b ility
le v e l.

The t o t a l Jev /ish P r e ju d ic e sco re i s a ls o s ig n i f i c a n t beyond

th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

T h is p r o v id e s s tro n g su p p o rt

f o r th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n o c c u p a tio n a r e r e l a t e d to
d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.
The rani: o rd e r on th e Jev/ish q u e s tio n s ana t h e Jev/ish P r e ju d ic e
sc o re i n d i c a t e t h a t , in g e n e ra l, th e farm group and th e u n s k ille d
la b o r group te n d t o be c o n s is te n tly more p r e ju d ic e d toward Jews th a n
a r e o t h e r o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s e s .

On th e o th e r hand, th e p r o f e s s io n a l

and p r o p r i e t o r c le .ss e s te n d to be more l i b e r a l .
b ro u g h t o ut more c l e a r l y in T able 22.

These tre n d s a r e

In t h i s t a b l e th e p r o f o s s io n a l-

■^Alba Edwards,
Social-E conom ic Grouping o f G a in fu l Workers o f
th e U n ited S ta te s . W ashington, P .O .: Government P r in tin g O ffic e ,
1938, p . 2.

T a b le 2 1
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY OCCUPATICK - MEH QLZLY

O ccu p atio n al
C la s s i f i c a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Mean

S

Jews th in k
th e y * re
b e tte r
Mean
B

Jew ish
m erchant

Guard
a g a in s t
J CV/S

Jews
push

B e s tr ic t
J ews

Mean B

Mean

B Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jcvdsh
P r Score

Jews in
ny n eigh­
borhood

J e v .'S

a re
h o n e st

B Mean

H Mean

B Mean

B Mean

B

P r o f e s s io n a l

11

3 .0 9

3

3.45

2

2.55

1

3 .55

2

3 .0 0

1

3 .9 1

1

5 .4 5

2

2 .0 9

3

2.00

1

P r o p r ie to r

28

2 .6 4

1

3M

1

2.11

5

3 .6 1

1

2 .96

2

3 .6 8

2

5.96

1

2.25

1

1 .8 2

4

C le r ic a l

24

2 .9 2

2

3.13

3

1.92

6

3 .1 3

3

2 .3 8

3

3 .0 8

4

4 .7 2

5

2 .0 4

6

1 .7 4

5

S k i lle d

48

3 .1 5

4

2.90

5

2 .33

2

3 .0 0

6

2 .2 5

4

3 .1 3

3

5 .0 2

3

2.10

2

1 .8 3

3

S e m i-s k ille d

47

3.531

5

3.00

4

2.26

3

3 .0 2

5

2 .19

5

2 .9 4

6

4 .7 7

4

2.06

5

1 .87

2

U n s k ille d

ik

4 .2 9 ' 7

2.36

7

1 .7 9

7

3 .0 7

4

1 .7 9

7

3 .0 0

5

4 .2 9

7

2 .0 7

4

1 .4 3

7

6

2 .7 4

6

2 .13

4

2.61

7

2 .1 2

6

2.66
•

7

4 .3 8

6

1 .9 0

7

1 .5 7

6

Parmer

107

Farm Labor ^

1

Not determ in ed -*"

2

T o tal
F2

282

3 .5 3 2

3 .3 4

2 .92

1 .4 3

2.41*

2.16

2.95

2 .2 8

2 .9 9

4 .7 8

2 .0 9

1 .71

3 . 26**

3.05**

4.11**

2.78**

1 .0 2

1.55

^These g roups a r e n o t in c lu d e d i n th e ra n k o rd e r a n a ly s is , a lth o u g h th e y a r e in c lu d e d
b ecause th e sm all s iz e of th e sam ples makes com parisons d i f f i c u l t .
^Por t h i s ta b le F must re a c h 2 .6 0 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vfc p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ;
# - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th e n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i lity l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .

i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e ,

1 .9 8 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y

le v e l.

T a b l e 22
ATTITUDES TOliABD JEWS BY OOCUPATIOHA1 CLASSES - MED OULY
J e w is h
m erchant
M ean

B

J ew s th in k
th e y * r e
h o tte r
M ean
E

63

2 .8 3

1

3-33

M anual

112

3 .4 5

2

Pana

107

T o ta l

282

O c c u p a tio n a l
C la s s
W h ite C o l l a r

P1

T o ta l n o .
o f resp o n d ­
e n ts

Jew s
p u sh

E e s tr ic t
Jew s

G uard
a g a in s t
Jew s

S h ip
Jew s
B ack

M ean

E

K ean

E

M ean

E

T o ta l
J c w is h
P r Score

Jew s
aro
h on est

K ea n

E

M ean

E

M oan

E

1

2 .1 4

1

1 .8 2

1

J c v /s i n
iry n e i g h ­
borhood

K ean

E

1

2.11

3

3 .4 1

1

2 .7 5

1

3 .4 9

1

2.87

2

2 .2 2

1

3 .0 1

2

2 .1 8

2

3 .0 2

2

4 .8 0

2

2.06

2

1 .7 8

2

3 .5 3 : 3

2 .7 4

3

2 .1 3

2

2.61

3

2 .1 2

3

2.66

3

4 .3 8

3

1 .9 0

3

1 .5 7

3

3 .3 4

2 .9 2

3 .1 0 * ‘

6.53**

2.16

2 .9 5

*

11.16**

2 .2 8
8 .66**

2 .9 9
12.58**

5 -3 9

4 .7 8

2 .0 2

1 .71

6.41**

2.16

2 .6 7

^Por t h i s t a h l e P m ast re a c h 4 .7 1 to he s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vf> p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3*04 a t th e St> p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

p r o p r ie to r -c le r ic a l
c o lla r

c l a s s e s a r e g r o u p e d t o g e t h e r u n d e r t h e w h it e -

c la s s ific a tio n ,

w h ile t h e

s k ille d ,

and fa r m la b o r g r o u p s a r e c l a s s i f i e d
It

can b e se e n a t o n ce th a t

a c c e n tu a te s th e

s ig n ific a n t

q u e s tio n s th a t w ere
T a b le

22,

and beyond

over,

th e u n str u c tu r e d

ic a n t,
F fo r

a lth o x ig h a t

P erh ap s,

tren d s a s

o n ly

th e f iv e

o f th e

J e w is h P r e j u d ic e

is

s till

s to r e in

c o n s is te n t
sco re.

to w n i s

a - ls o

to o

lo w t o
is

in

M o re­

on a l l

of a

s ig n if­

le v e l.

in c r e a s e d ,

T he

a lth o u g h

sp e a k w ith c o n f i ­

th e

c o n c e r n in g t h e

th e

c o n s is te n c y o f th e
q u e s tio n s .

" p u s h in g n e s s "

W ith
o f Jew s,

q u e s tio n s and on th e t o t a l

F arm ers ra n k a s le p .s t

to le r a n t,

w h ile

and m an u al w o rk ers ra n k

tw o g r o u p s .

The la r g e F ^

in

T a b le 22 im m e d ia te ly r a i s e

th e d iffe r e n c e s in

p erh ap s,

le v e l.

p er cen t p r o b a b ility

c o l l a r w o r k e r s a r e m ost t o l e r a n t ,

b e tw e e n th e s e

s ig n ific a n t

r a n i: o r d e r o n e a c h o f t h e

q u e s tio n

A ll o f

c o n c e r n in g t h e p o s s i b i l i t y

th e la r g e s t

sh o w n b y t h e

e x c e p tio n

th a t

T a b le 21 a r e

m o st im p o r t a n t o f a l l

th e rank ord er i s

in

o f T a b le 2 1 .

t h e tw o t h r e e - p o i n t q u e s t i o n s h a s a l s o

dence.

w h ite

in

q u e s tio n s

th e l e v e l o f p r o b a b ility

th e

su c h a r e g r o u p in g o f t h e d a t a

th e one p er cen t n r o b a b ility

J e w is h m erch an t b u y in g

u n s k ille d

t o g e t h e r a s m anual l a b o r . ^

d iffe r e n c e s

s ig n ific a n t

s e m i-s k ille d ,

la r g e ly d u e to

th e p o s s ib ilit y

o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s e s a r e a c c e n tu a te d
th e d if f e r e n c e s in

fa r m

and,

and n o n -fa r m

17
'F o r c o n v e n ie n c e i n c a l c u l a t i n g th e a n a l y s i s o f v a r ia n c e n e c e s s a r y
f o r t h i s t a b l e , t h e u n d e te r m in e d and fa rm l a b o r g r o u p s ( a t o t a l
o f t h r e e r e s p o n d e n ts ) w ere c l a s s i f i e d w ith t h e m anual la b o r
group.
T h e r e i s so m e j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t h i s b u t , w h e t h e r t h e r e
i s o r n o t, i t c a n b e d em o n str a te d s t a t i s t i c a l l y th a t su ch a
g r o u p in g a f f e c t s t h e f in d in g s t o a v e r y l i m i t e d e x t e n t .

o c c u p a tio n s .

T h is h y p o th e s is nay he te s te d hy examining

T ahle 23 .
That th e r e i s c o n s id e ra b le su p p o rt f o r t h i s h y p o th e sis may
he seen a t once.

Four o f th e f i v e - p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s a r e

s i g n i f i c a n t , two a t th o one p e r cen t p r o h a h i l i t y l e v e l .

The

t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s s ig n i f i c a n t heyond th e one p e r
c e n t p r o h a h ility l e v e l .
i s n o t s ig n i f i c a n t

The q u e s tio n ahout th e Jew ish m erchant

h it ho th th e th r e e - p o in t q u e s tio n s a r e .

More­

o v e r, i n term s o f ra n k o rd e r, fa rm o rs a r e alw ays more p r e ju d ic e d
in t h e i r re sp o n se s to th e q u e s tio n s asked th an a r e n o n -fa rm e rs.
A f u r t h e r t e s t may he made hy exam ining o c c u p a tio n a l c la s s e s
o f n o n -fa rm e rs.
T a h le 2 k .

The r e s u l t s o f such an a n a l y s is a r e shown in

Here t h e r e i s some ev id en ce t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in

a t t i t u d e s toward Jews a r e n o t c o n fin e d to d if f e r e n c e s i n fa rm e rs
and n o n -fa rm e rs.

T hree o f th e q u e s tio n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t , a lth o u g h

o n ly one heyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o h a h ili ty l e v e l .

The t o t a l

Jew ish P re ju d ic e s c o re i s s ig n i f i c a n t j u s t a t th e f iv e p e r c e n t
p ro h a h ility le v e l.

The evidence h e r e i s not a s s tro n g a s in th e

p r e v io u s t a b l e s , h u t i s s t i l l s tro n g enough to in d i c a t e t h a t
d if f e r e n c e s in o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e r e l a t e d to d i f f e r ­
ences i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard J ews f o r h o th farm and non-farm gro u p s,
a n a ly z ed alo n e and to g e th e r .
The tre n d s i n T ahle 2k a r e hy no means a s c le a r - c u t a s i n
T ah le 23 h u t, in g e n e r a l, th e p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r i e t o r c l a s s te n d s
to he most t o l e r a n t and th e u n s k ille d la h o r c l a s s te n d s to he

T a b le 23
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY FARM AND NON-FARM OCCUPATIONS - MEN CEILY

O ccupatio n al
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts _______

J owi sh
m erchant

Jews th in k
th e y * re
b e tte r
H Mean
R

Jews
push

R e s t r ic t
Jews

Mean

Mean R

Mean

Guard
a g a in s t
Jews

JR Mean

Ship
Jews
Sack

R Mean

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R

Mean

Jews
are
honest

R Mean

Jews in
ny n e ig h borhood
R Mean

R

Non-farm

172

3 .2 3

1

3 .0 4

1

2 .1 9

1 3 .1 6

1

2 .3 9 1

3 .2 0 l

5 .0 3

1

2 .1 0 l

1 .81

1

Farm

107

3 .5 3

2

2 .7 4

2

2 .1 3

2 2.61

2

2 .1 2 2

2 .66 2

4 .3 8

2

1 .9 0 2

1 .5 7

2

T o tal

279

3*34

2 .9 2

2 .16

2 .9 5

2 .2 8

2 .9 9

4 .7 8

2 .0 3

1 .7 3

1 .8 1

5 , 2k*

#

111.13**

4.1 2 *

24.41**

8.48**

4.4 2 *

5.85*

I1

^For t h i s t a b l e F m ust re a c h 6 .7 0 t o be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$6 p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3*86 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin gro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
*

- S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5 $ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

T ab le 24
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY OCCUPATION - HCN-PARM MEN ONLY

O ccupatio n al
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

R e s t r ic t
Jews

J cvdsh
m erchant

J ews
push

Mean

Jews th in k
th e y * re
b e tte r
R
R Mean

Mean

R

Mean

Guard
a g a in s t
J ews

R Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

R Moan

R

Mean

Jew s
a re
h o n e st

R Mean

Jews in
my n eig h ­
borhood
R Mean

R

P r o fe s s io n a l

11

3 .0 9

3

3 .45

2

2.55

1

3-55

2

3 .0 0

1

3*91

1

5-45

2

2 .0 9

3

2.00

1

P r o p r ie to r .

28

2 .6 4

1

3 .46

1

2.11

4

3 .6 1

1

2.96

2

3 .6 8

2

5*96

1

2.25

1

1 .8 2

4

C le r ic a l

24

2 .9 2

2

3 .1 3

3

1 .9 2

5

3 .1 3

3

2 .3 8

3

3 .0 8

4

4 .7 2

5

2 .0 4

5

1 .7 4

5

S k ille d

48

3 .1 5

4

2.90

5

2 .3 3

2

3 .0 0

5

2.25

4

3-13

3

5 .0 2

3

2.10

2

1 .8 3

3

S e m i-s k ille d

47

3 .5 3 ' 5

3 .00

4

2.26

3

3 .0 2

4

2 .1 9

5

2 .9 4

5

4 .7 7

4

2.06

4

1 .8 7

2

U n sk ille d 1

15

4 .1 3

6

2 .3 3

6

1.80

6

3 .0 0

5

1 .8 0

6

2 .9 3

6

4 .2 0

6

2.00

6

1 .40

6

173

3 .2 2

3 .0 3

2 .1 8

3 .1 6

2 .3 8

3 .1 9

5 .0 2

2.10

1.80

1 .3 4

2.33*

1 .2 4

1 .7 0

3.09**

2.49*

2.18*

#

#

T o tal
P2

t h i s and s im ila r t a b l e s showing a t t i t u d e s tow ard Negroes and M exicans, t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in c lu d e s th e one farm
la b o r e r i n th e sample*

P ot

^Por t h i s t a b l e P m ust re a c h 2*92 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vfa p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2 .16 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e V$> p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u p s.

-Illl e a s t t o l e r a n t toward. Jew s.

An a tte m p t was made to c l a r i f y

th e s e tre n d s hy r e c l a s s i f y i n g th e d a ta a c c o rd in g to T ahle 25.
In t h i s t a h l e o n ly th e q u e s tio n s which wore found s ig n i f i c a n t
in T ah le 2b were exam ined.

The r e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n in to p r o f e s s io n a l

p r o p r i e t o r , c l e r i c a l , s k il le d , and s e m i- s k ille d and u n s k ille d
g roups in c re a s e d s ig n if ic a n c e heyond th e one p e r cent -n ro h a h ility
l e v e l f o r one q u e s tio n and th e d if f e r e n c e s in re sp o n se a s meas­
u re d hy th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sco re now ap-nroach th e one p e r
cent le v e l of p ro h a h ility .
A ccording to T ah le 25 th e s e m i- s k ille d and u n s k ille d resp o n d ­
e n ts , ta k e n to g e th e r , a r e more p re ju d ic e d in t h e i r re sp o n se s
tow ard Jews th a n a r e th e p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r ie to r re sp o n d e n ts.
The d if f e r e n c e s in ran k o rd e r and means f o r th e s k il l e d and
c l e r i c a l groups a r e n o t c o n s is te n t n o r, in a l l p r o h a h ility ,
s ig n if ic a n t.
C o n clu sio n s w ith R espect to A ttitu d e s
tow ard Jews and O ccu p atio n al D if fe r e n c e s
T his r a t h e r e x te n s iv e a n a ly s is o f th e r e l a tio n s h ip of
v

a t t i t u d e s toward Jews to o c c u p a tio n a l d if f e r e n c e s may now he
summarized.

The h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s in

a t t i t u d e s toward Jew s which a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in

occup­

a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n h a s heen su p p o rted , in th e fo llo w in g manner
1.

When th e Edw ards' s c a le i s used a s a h a s is f o r a n a ly s is ,
a number o f d i f f e r e n c e s a r e re v e a le d .

2.

R e c la s s if i c a t i o n o f t h i s s c a le in to farm er, w hite c o l l a r ,
and manual w orker groups a c c e n tu a te s such d if f e r e n c e s and

T a b le 2 5
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY OCCUPATION ITCH-FARM MHT OITLY ( R e c la s s if ie d )

Mean

Mean

R

Mean

R

Mean

R

i-1

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Guard
a g a in s t
Jews

1

O ccu p atio n al
C la s s ific a tio n

Jews th in k
t h e y 'r e
b e tte r

2.97

1

?.7b

1

5.82

1

R

Ship
Jews
hack

T o ta l
Jew ish
F r Score

P ro fe s s io n a l-p ro p rie to r

39

VO

C le r ic a l

2b

3 .13

2

° .3 3

2

3.08

3

^.72

3

S k ille d

b8

2 .90

3

. 2.25

3

3.13

2

5 .02

2

Semi- and u n s k ille d

62

2.8if

b

2.10

h

2 . 9b

if

^.63

if

173

3 .0 3

2.33

3.19

5.02

3 . 16*

5.67**

b . 85**

3 .78*

T o ta l
F1

^F or t h i s ta h l e F must reach 3*91 to "be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1 $ p r o h a h i li t y le v e l ;
2.67 a t th e 5£ p r o h a h i li t y l e v e l .
* - S ig n if ic a n t heyond th e 5^ p r o h a h i li t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t heyond th e I p p r o h a h i li t y l e v e l .

t h e r e i s a d e f i n i t e tre n d , su p p o rted "by s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , f o r w h ite c o l l a r w orkers to "be
l e a s t p r e ju d ic e d , fa rm ers to h e most p r e ju d ic e d , and manual
w orkers to be l e s s p re ju d ic e d th a n fa rm e rs b u t more p re ­
ju d ic e d th a n w h ite c o l l a r w o rk ers.
T here i s a ls o c o n s id e ra b le evid en ce t h a t th e non-farm
o c c u p a tio n s, when summed and compared w ith th e farm group,
d i f f e r s ig n i f i c a n t l y ; th e non-farm o c c u p a tio n s , when con­
s id e re d a s one c a te g o ry , alw ays a r e most t o l e r a n t .
D iffe re n c e s i n o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a r e n o t due
s o le l y to d if f e r e n c e s in farm and non-farm g ro u p s.

When

th e non-farm o c c u p a tio n s a r e a n aly zed , t h e r e i s some su p p o rt,
though n o t a s s tr o n g , f o r th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in
o c c u p a tio n a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s toward
Jew s.

The p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r i e t o r group te n d s to be most

t o l e r a n t and th e u n s k ille d and s e m i- s k ille d la b o r group
te n d s to be l e a s t t o l e r a n t .

The c l e r i c a l group does n o t

e x h ib it a c o n s is t e n t tre n d to be more t o l e r a n t than th e
s k i l l e d la b o r g ro u p .

I t i s a p p a re n t t h a t th e c l e r i c a l group

does n o t c o n s is t e n t l y a c c e n tu a te th e d if f e r e n c e s f o r th e soc a lle d w hite c o l l a r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , n o r does th e s k il le d
la b o r group c o n s is t e n t ly a c c e n tu a te th e d if f e r e n c e s f o r th e
manual la b o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .

A p p aren tly th e gro\ips t h a t do

make th e d i f f e r e n c e a r e th e p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r i e to i y group,
on nno hand, and th e semi- and u n s k ille d group, on th e o th e r .
B efo re d is c u s s in g th e d i r e c t i o n o f th e d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d

-11*1-

tovrard Jews m a n ife ste d "by th e s e v e r a l o c c u p a tio n a l c la s s e s , th e
p o s i t i o n o f th e fa rm e rs slunild be d is c u s s e d .

Prom th e o b serv a­

ti o n s o f t h i s w r i t e r , i t does n o t seem p o s s i b le to in c lu d e t h e
fa rm e rs o f Mpple County in any c l e a r - c u t system o f v e r t i c a l
s o c i a l m o b ility .

W hile some o b s e rv e rs

18

have been a b le to make

such c l e a r - c u t d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n s , community o b s e rv a tio n o f Maple
County su p o o rts a th e o ry o f r a p id a c c u ltu r a t io n and i n d u s t r i a l ­
i s a t i o n o f th e farm which i s le a d in g to b u t h a s n o t y e t s o l i d i f i e d
in to a d e f i n i t e system o f s o c ia l s t r a t a an alo g o u s to and t i e d in to
th e somewhat more r i g i d l i n e s o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n found i n th e
towns and v i l l a g e s o f th e c o u n ty .

That i s , th e r e i s an em erging

s o c ia l c l a s s system i n Maple County which may, i n tim e , make i t
p o s s i b l e to d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i f f e r e n t c l a s s e s o f fa rm e rs.

The o ld

f o l k economy o f t r a d i t i o n a l a g r i c u l t u r e i s r a p id ly d is a p p e a rin g
and, h en ce, th e s e n tim e n ts a s s o c ia te d w ith such an economy a r e
a ls o d is a p p e a rin g .

But th e y have n o t y e t d is a p p e a re d .

M oreover,

t h e r e a re s i m i l a r i t i e s to th e h a z a rd s , m ethods, and t r a d i t i o n s o f
th e o c c u p a tio n o f farm in g in a d i v e r s i f i e d farm in g a r e a such as
th a t o f Maple County which make f o r th e m aintenance o f many common
s e n tim e n ts , b e l i e f s , and tech n o lo g y f o r th e m a jo r ity o f farm ers
when view ed a s a s in g l e o c c u p a tio n a l g ro u p .

18

N o ta b ly Svon Z. V ogt, J r . , C h ap ter 1*1, "Town and Country: The
S tr u c tu r e o f S u r a l L i f e , " in W. Lloyd W arner, Democracy in
J o n e s v i l l e , New York: H aip er and B ro th e rs, 19**9- T his w r i te r
would h e s i t a t e from th e ev id en ce t h a t Vogt advances to co n clu d e
t h a t a d e f i n i t e system o f s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i s in o p e r a tio n ,
a lth o u g h th e r e i s o b v io u sly th e b a s is f o r th e developm ent o f
such a system .

In g e n e ra l, a t th e t i n e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h , th e a t t i t u d e s o f
frrm e rs te n d to r e f l e c t th e a t t i t u d e s o f one groun and not
s e v e ra l.

A number o f a tte m p ts were made to d i f f e r e n t i a t e v a r io u s

c l a s s e s o f fa rm e rs f o r p u rp o se s o f s t a t i s t i c a l a n a ly s is w ith
v a ry in g d e g re e s o f s u c c e ss . 19

B u t. in g e n e r a l, fa rm e rs as a

group do n o t f i t i n t o any one p la c e i n a system o f s o c ia l s t r a ­
t i f i c a t i o n "based on o c c u p a tio n .

H ie farm ers o f Maple County a r e

n o t a t th e bottom o f th e s o c ia l s c a le , n o r a r e th e y a t th e to p .
They a r e somewaht a p a r t from any system o f e v a lu a tio n u sed by
n o n -fa rm e rs, and t h e r e i s no an alo g o u s system which i s a p p lie d
to th e farm er by h i s own k in d .

The m easure t h a t i s im p o rta n t

i s t h e answ er to th e q u e s tio n , " I s he a good farm er?"

The p ro ­

p e r answ or to t h i s q u e s tio n im poses a system o f s o c ia l ev alu ­
a t i o n which i s n o t y e t equated to one based e n t i r e l y on a money
econoity and an i n d u s t r i a l te c h n o lo g y .

The w r i t e r b e lie v e s t h a t

^T hese a tto m p ts w ere b ased on s iz e and k in d o f form ing o p e r­
a t i o n s . One a n a l y s i s , b ased on th e th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s ,
i s g iv e n i n T ab le F i n th e A ppendix G. T h is a n a l y s is was
u n d e rta k e n in o r d e r to see i f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s betw een
p a r t - t im e fa rm e rs , who a r e l a r g e l y manual w o rk ers, and o th e r
fa rm o rs . Hone o f th e sc o re s were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t ,
b u t th e manual w o rk ers who l i v e i n th e c o u n try snd p r a c t i c e
farm in g a s a second o c c u p a tio n a r e c o n s is t e n t l y th e most
t o l e r a n t group, w h ile th e "p u re" fa rm e rs a r e th e l e a s t t o l ­
e r a n t g ro u p . T h is tendency m erely co n firm s community o b se rv ­
a t i o n w herein a c l e a r d i f f e r e n c e i n system s o f i n t e r a c t i o n
f o r ru ra l, n on-farm a s compared to r u r a l farm was in d ic a te d .
S in ce th e manual w orkers in T a b le F a r e in c lu d e d i n th e
sam ple o f manual w orkers i n T a b le 22, th e s e f in d in g s m erely
a c c e n t th e f in d in g t h a t fa rm e rs a r e l e s s t o l e r a n t th a n e i t h e r
th e w h ite c o l l a r o r manual la b o r g ro u p s. An a tte m p t was a ls o
made to d i f f e r e n t i a t e fa rm e rs by a " s t a t u s in d e x ." The
r e s u l t s a r e d is c u s s e d i n C h ap ter S ix .

th e l a t t e r ty p e o f e v a lu a tio n i s em erging, "but th e p o in t made
h e re i s t h a t , f o r p r e s e n t p u rp o se s , an em erging system o f s o c ia l
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n must n o t be confused vdth an em ergent system .
We may now c o n s id e r th e d i r e c t io n of d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jew s.

The fa rm e rs, a s a group, a r e c l e a r l y more 'a n t i -

S e m itic 1 th a n a r e th e n o n -farm ers, e i t h e r when compared to
s e p a ra te c la s s e s o f n o n -farm ers, except, u n s k ille d la b o r , o r to
n o n -fa rm e rs in g e n e r a l.

3 u t, a t th e *ime o f t h i s r e s e a rc h , th e r e

i s no evid en ce t h a t th e fa rm e rs, a s a group, a r e in s e c u re , d e ­
p r iv e d , o r in s e r io u s c o m p e titio n w ith any o t h e r g ro a n s.
have l i t t l e in common w ith u n s k ille d la b o r .

They

I n 19**9 p r ic e s o f

farm p ro d u c ts te n d e d to rem ain h ig h and th e g e n e ra l l e v e l o f
l i v i n g f o r farm ers h a s s te a d il y r i s e n sin c e b e fo re World War I I ,
u n t i l i t eo u a ls o r s u rp a s s e s many o f th e w h ite c o l l a r w orkers in
th e tow ns.

On th e o th e r hand, t h e r e i s ev id en ce t h a t in Maple

County many fa rm e rs f e e l th a t Jews c o n tro l l i v e s t o c k n u rc h a se s
and o th e r m ark etin g e n t e r p r i s e s .

To th e e x te n t t h a t t h i s fe e lin g

e x i s t s , Jews may be p e rc e iv e d a s c o m p e tito rs i n an economic
m a rk e t.

On th e o t h e r hand, many o f th e comments o f fa rm e rs

in d ic a te d t h a t th e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f l iv e s to c k b u y ers w ith Jews
was p r im a r ily a s te r e o ty p e and o c c u rre d even though th e respond­
e n t was aware t h a t th e p a r t i c u l a r li v e s t o c k b u y er u n d er d is c u s s ­
io n was n o t Je w ish .

I t i s p o s s ib le t h a t Jews a r e p e rc e iv e d a s

r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f a c o m p e titiv e , u rb a n , money economy, a s f a r a s
fa rm e rs a re con cern ed , and t h a t th e a t t i t u d e s o f in to le r a n c e
tow ard Jews r e f l e c t a t r a d i t i o n a l d i s l i k e f o r such u r b a n ity .

-117M oreover, such a t t i t u d e s may h e a s s o c ia te d w ith th e f e a r o f
b e in g d efrau d ed , an h y p o th e s is advanced hy I c h h e is e r .

on

In

any e v e n t, th e r e i s no su p p o rt f o r th e " s e c u r i ty - d e p r i v a ti o n ”
h y p o th e s is a s f a r a s fa rm e rs a r e concerned..

T h ere i s S'-'me

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t th e d a ta su p p o rt th e "c o n ro e titio n " h y p o th e s is
o r some o f i t s p o s s i b l e v a r i a n t s .
But th e d is c u s s io n o f f a r m e r s ' a t t i t u d e s i s n o t one which
i s a s s o c ia te d w ith an in d e^ o f s o c ia l s t a t u s .

More im p o rta n t

d a ta f o r o c c u p a tio n a l g roups whose d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s a r e
a s s o c ia te d w ith d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s t a t u s i s t h a t f o r th e non­
farm g roup.

A lthough . t h i s sample i s sm all th e r e i s some su p p o rt

f o r th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is .
su p p o rt f o r a " c o m p e titio n " h y p o th e s is .

T here i s l i t t l e

T hat i s , th e u p p er

s t a t u s group ( p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r ie to r ) i s more t o l e r a n t of Jews
th a n th e low er s t a t u s group ( s e m i- s k ille d and u n s k ille d l a b o r ) .
O ccu p atio n al D if f e r e n c e s and
A t t i t u d e s tow ard ITegroes and M exicans
The d a ta f o r a t t i t u d e s to \;a rd ITegroes, an aly zed f o r a l l o f
th e o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s e s u sed ir. th e o r ig in a l a n a ly s is , a r e shown
in T a b le 26.

V/hile th e f in d in g s a r e n o t c l e a r - c u t , two o f th e

fiv e -o o in t. q u e s tio n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t , one beyond th e one p e r cen t
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l , and th e t o t a l ITegro P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s s i g n i f ­
i c a n t beyond th e f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

20

There i s some

O ustav I c h h e is e r , "F e a r o f V io le n c e and F e a r o f F raud, w ith
some Remarks on th e S o c ia l P sy ch o lo g y o f A n ti-S e m itism ,"
S o cio m etry . 7 :3 7 6 -3 8 3 . 1 9 ^ .

T a b le 26
ATTITUDES TOWARD HEGROES BY OCCUPATION - MELT OULY

H egroes
to Joh n s­
town

Hegroes
next
door

H egroes
are
la z y

Keep H egroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

H egroes
should
v o te

T o ta l
Hegro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Hegro

T5

Mean

W hites and
H egroes in
sane
re s ta u ra n t
R Mean
R

Mean

R

H egroes
w ith
e d u c a ti on

T o ta l n o .
o f respond—
O ccupatio n al
C l a s s i f i c a t i on £0&B_______________ Mean

E

Mean

R

Mean. R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

P r o f e s s io n a l

11

3 .8 2

4

4 .3 6

2

2.91

3

2 .2 7

1

4 .4 6

1

3 .7 3

1

5 .5 5

1

1 .3 6

6

2 .00

1

P r o p r ie to r

28

4 .1 7

6

5-36

7

3 .0 7

1

1 .9 6

6

3 .6 8

3

3 .5 4

2

5 .0 0

2

1 .4 6

4

1 .3 0

6

C le r ic a l

25

3 .6 7

1

5 .0 8

6

2 .92

2

2 .0 0

5

3 .4 0

6

3 .1 2

4

4 .4 8

4

1 .4 8

3

1.46

4

S k il le d

4-8

3*78

2

4 .6 7

2 .6 5

5

2 .0 2

4

3 .3 1

7

3 .1 7

3

4 .4 0

5

1 .5 8

2

1 .46

4

S e m i-s k ille d

47

4 .0 4

5

4 .6 8

3
4

2 .8 9

4

2 .1 1

2

3 .8 9

2

3 .0 6

5

4 .7 0

3

1 .6 0

1

1 .6 8

2

U n s k ille d

14

5-38

7

5.0 7 6 5

2 .6 4

6

1 .7 9

7

3 .4 3

5

2 .7 1

7

3 .9 3

7

1 .2 9

7

1 .2 1

7

107

3 .8 0

3

4 .2 3

1

2.60

7

2 .0 4

3

3 .4 8

4

2.86

•6

4 .2 3

6

1 .4 4

5

1 .4 7

3

Parmer
Parm Labor

1

Hot determined^*

2

T o tal
P2

283

3 .9 4

4 .6 4

2 .7 4

2 .0 3

1 .1 8

1 .3 5

1 .0 4

#

3 .5 7

3 .0 7

4 .4 7

2.73**

2.19*

2.47*

1 .4 8
#

1 .4 9
1 .6 2

^These g ro u p s a r e n o t in c lu d e d i n th e ra n k o rd e r a n a ly s is , a lth o u g h th e y a r e in c lu d e d i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , "because
th e sm all s iz e o f th e sam ples makes com parisons d i f f i c u l t *
% o r t h i s t a b le E m ust re a c h 2 .6 0 to "be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 1*98 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
# - W ith in group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
** ~ S ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

te n d e n cy , t h e r e f o r e , f o r th e v a r io u s o c c u p a tio n a l greuos to
d i f f e r in a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e ITegro.
The d i r e c t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e s i s n o t c l e a r when th e rani:
o r d e r on th e v a r io u s q u e s tio n s i s c o n s id e re d , b u t th e r e i s a
ten d en cy f o r th e p r o f e s s i o n a l - p r o p r i e t o r group to be more
t o l e r a n t tow ard N egroes th a n th e o th e r g ro u p s, a t l e a s t f o r th e
q u e s tio n s f o r which th e r e a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r ­
ences.

There i s a l s o a c le a r-c u t. tr e n d f o r th e u n s k ille d la b o r

group to be l e a s t t o l e r a n t .
F a r th e r a n a l y s is o f d if f e r e n c e s i s shown i n T able 2?.
W hile o n ly one q u e s tio n i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , th e
t o t a l Hegro P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s s i g n i f i c a n t . a t s l i g h t l y beyond
th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

The rea so n f o r t h i s i s

a p p a re n t when th e rani: o rd e r com parisons a r e made f o r each
q u e s tio n .

For t h r e e o f th e f o u r f iv e - p o in t q u e s tio n s , upon which

th e Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re i s b a se d , w hite c o l l a r w orkers ra n k a s
most t o l e r a n t , fa rm e rs a s l e a s t t o l e r a n t , and manual w orkers i n
betw een.
I n o rd e r to d e te rm in e th e e x te n t to which o c c u o a tio n a l
d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes a r e a s s o c ia te d \jith
d if f e r e n c e s betw een farm and non -farm o c c u p a tio n s , T able 28 nay
b e exam ined.

I n s o f a r a s th e s tr u c t u r e d q u e s tio n s a r e concerned,

th e f in d in g s a r e s i m i l a r to T ab le 27.

That i s , fa rm e rs ten d to

be l e s s t o l e r a n t i n t h e i r re sp o n s e s th a n a r e n o n -fa rm e rs .

T h is

tr e n d i s b ro u g h t o u t by th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re , w herein
th e d i f f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e f i v e p e r

(Cable 27
ATTITUDES TOWARD HEGROES E l OCCUPATICHIAL CLASSES - MEH OHLT

H egroes
t o Jo h n s­
town

Hegroes
next
door

Hegroes
a re
la z y

Keep Hegroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

H egroes
should
v o te

Mean

R Mean

R

Mean.

R

Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

?.

Kean

W hites and
H egroes in
sane
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

64

3 .9 0

2

5 .0 8

3

2 .9 8

1

2 .0 3

2

3 .7 0

1

3 .4 1

1

4 .8 9

1

1 .^ 5

2

1 .4 8

2

Manual

112

4 .0 9

3

4 .7 8

2

2 .7 3

2

2 .0 2 7

3

3 .5 7

2

3 .0 7

2

4 .4 6

2

1 .5 4

1

1 .5 1

1

Earm

107

3 .8 0

1

4 .2 3

1

2.60

3

2 .0 4

1

3 .4 8

3

2 .8 6

3

4 .2 3

3

1 .4 4

3

1 .4 7

3

T o tal

283

3 .9 4

4 .6 4

2 .7 4

#

2.76

2 .58

O ccupati onal
C l a s s i f i c a t i on
White C o lla r

E1

T o ta l no*
o f re sp o n d -

gate...

2 .0 3
#

H egroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

T o tal
Hegro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Hegro
Mean

R

3 .5 7

3 .0 7

4 .4 7

1 .1 3

5.50**

4.81**

1 .4 8

1 .4 9

#

#

Eor t h i s t a b l e E must re a c h 4 .7 1 t o be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3 .0 4 a t th e 5# p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin gro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e be W een g ro u p s.
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

T a b le 28
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BY FARM ADD HOD-FARM OCCUPATIONS - MEN ODLY

•
O ccupati onal
C la s s ific a tio n
Non-farm
Farm
T o tal
F1

T o ta l n o .
o f re sp o n d $n£s_______

H egroes
t o Jo hns­
town

Hegroes
next
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Hegroes
o u t o f White
n e i ghbo rho od s

H egroes
should
v o te

Mean

R

Mean

R

Mean. R Mean

R

Mean

4 .0 2

2

4 .8 5

2

2 .8 4

1

2 .0 3

2

3 .6 2 1

107

3 .8 0

1

4 .2 3

1

2.60

2

2 .0 4

1

3 .JJ8

280

3 .9 4

4 .6 2

2 .75

*

4.39*

3 .2 8

173

2 .0 3
#

Hegroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

R Mean

2

T o ta l
Hegro
P r Score

T> Mean

W hites and
H egroes in
sane
re s ta u ra n t
R Mean
R

** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

Mean

3 .1 9

1

4 .6 2

1

1 .5 1

1

1 .51

2.86

2

4 .2 3

2

1 .4 4

2

1 .4 7

3 .57

3.06

4 .4 8

1 .4 9

1 .4 9

1 .5 2

6 .63*

5.42*

*

#

^For t h i s t a b l e F m ast r e a c h 6 .7 0 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3»86 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g re a te r th a n th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u p s.

O rder
from i
Hegro

-122c e n t -p ro b a b ility l e v e l .
But t h i s tr e n d does n ot h o ld f o r th e two u n s tr u c tu r e d
q u e s tio n s , on one o f which t h e

d i f f e r e n c e i s s ig n i f i c a n t beyond

th e f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l , th e farm group b ein g most
to le ra n t.

Since t h i s i s in c o n tr a d ic tio n to t h e g e n e ra l tr e n d ,

i t sh o u ld be e x p la in e d .
A lthough, in t h i s t h e s i s , th e s p e c if ic c o n te n t of th e
v a r io u s q u e s tio n s h a s n o t been examined to any e x te n t, i t may be
v.'ell to do so a t t h i s p o in t.

The two u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s a r e

on a somewhat d i f f e r e n t l e v e l th a n th e s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s .
The l a t t e r p e rm it th e m a n ife s ta tio n o f c e r t a i n t r a d i t i o n a l
( s te r e o ty p e d ) b e l i e f s and se n tim e n ts p e r ta in in g to N egroes.
In te rm s o f such se n tim e n ts th e farm group te n d s to b e l e s s
to le ra n t.

The u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s , how ever, d e a l w ith a

s i t u a t i o n which had q u ito c o n c re te meaning to many of th e respond­
e n ts who were r e s i d e n t s o f Johnstow n.

As h a s been shown i n

C h ap ter Three, Johnstow n re sp o n d e n ts tend to be c o n s id e ra b ly l e s s
t o l e r a n t in re sp o n se to th e s e tvro q u e s tio n s th a n o th e r respond­
e n ts .

The d i f f e r e n c e f o r th e q u e s tio n about a Negro fa m ily moving

n e x t d o o r i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e one p e r c e n t
p r o b a b ility le v e l.

M oreover, f o r o u r p r e s e n t a n a ly s is , Jo h n s­

town re sp o n d e n ts com prise n e a r ly ^40 p e r c e n t o f th e non-farm
re sp o n d e n ts .

Hence, th e d if f e r e n c e between farm and non-farm

g ro u p s would a p p e a r t o be r e l a t e d to th e a t t i t u d e s o f Johnstow n
re sp o n d e n ts more th a n to farm and non-farm d i f f e r e n c e s .

I t should a ls o "be p o in to d o u t th a t such q u e s tio n s a s zoning
deed r e s t r i c t i o n s , p r o te c t io n o f p ro p e rty v a lu e s , and th e l i k e ,
which a r e f r e q u e n tly a s s o c ia te d w ith o r "become r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n s
f o r a c tio n a g a in s t H egroes, a r e tg -p ic a lly u rb an q u e s tio n s .

To

fa rm e rs th e problem o f a Hegro fa m ily moving to th e a d jo in in g
farm would ap p ea r to be conceived q u ite d i f f e r e n t l y th a n th e
same problem i s co n ceiv ed o f by non-farm re sp o n d e n ts who, i n
g e n e r a l, s h a re i n a more u rb an o r i e n t a t i o n .
In o th e r w ords, th e a p p a re n tly c o n tr a d ic to r y f in d in g s a.re,
in p a r t a t l e a s t , a f u n c tio n o f th e q u e s tio n s i n r e l a t i o n to a
s p e c i f i c s o c ia l s i t u a t i o n .

The w r i t e r would contend t h a t , on

th e b a s is o f th e tre n d shown by th e s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s , i t i s
p ro b a b le t h a t farm resp o n d e n ts would ap p ear l e s s t o l e r a n t on
o th e r a c tio n - ty p e q u e s tio n s , i f such q u e s tio n s could be fram ed
to in d u ce th e same k in d o f s o c ia l s it u a t i o n a s a p p lie d in t h i s
case to Johnstow n, and, to a l e s s e r e x te n t, o t h e r town resp o n d en t
H ence, in term s o f m a n ife s ta tio n s o f s e n tim e n ts tow ard H egroes,
th e ev id en ce s t i l l seoms to i n d i c a t e t h a t th e farm group i s l e s s
t o l e r a n t th an th e non-farm group.
A f u r t h e r t e s t o f o c c u p a tio n a l d if f e r e n c e s i s shown i n
T a b le 29, w herein th e non-farm o c c u p a tio n s a r e an aly zed sepa­
ra te ly .

There i s only one q u e s tio n f o r which th e d if f e r e n c e s

a re s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t.

The tre n d s a r e n o t c le a r - c u t

ex cep t t h a t th e u n s k il l e d la b o r group i s c o n s is t e n t l y among th e
most p r e ju d ic e d g ro u p s.

Hence, much o f th e d if f e r e n c e t h a t h a s

been found in a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes appeajs to be r e l a t e d to

Table 29
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BY OCCUPATION - NON-PARM MEN-ONLY

O ccupati onal
J l a s s i f i c a tio n

T o ta l n o .
o f respond­
e n ts

N egroes
to Jo h n s­
town

Negroes
next
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
ou t o f White
n e i ghbo rho od s

Mean

R Mean R Mean. R Mean

R

N egroes
should
v o te
Mean

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Negro

?.

Mean

W hites and
N egroes in
sane
r e s ta u r a n t
R Mean
R

Mean

Negroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

R Mean

R

P ro fe s sio n a l

11

3 .8 2

3

4.3 6

1

2.91

3

2 .2 7

1

4.4 6 1

3 .7 3

1

5 .55

1

1.36

5

2 .0 0

1

P ro p rie to r

28

4 .1 7

5

5 .3 6

6

3 .0 7

1

1 .96

5

3 .6 8 3

3 .5 4

2

5 .0 0

2

1 .4 6

4

1 .3 0

5

J le ric a l

25

3 .6 7

1

5 .0 8

5

2 .9 2

2

2.00

4

3 .4 0 5

3 .1 2

4

4 .4 8

4

1 .4 8

3

1.46

3

S k ille d

48

3 .7 8

2

4 .6 7

2

2.65

5

2 .0 2

3

3 .3 1 6

3 .1 7

3

4 .40

5

1 .5 8

2

1 .4 6

3

S e m i-sk ille d

47

4 .0 4

4

4 .6 8

3

2 .89

4

2 .11

2

3 .8 9 2

3 .06

5

4 .7 0

3

1 .6 0

1

1 .6 8

2

U nskilled

15

5 .3 8

6

5 .0 7

4

2.60

6

1 .8 0

6

3 .4 7 4

2 .80

6

4 .0 0

6

1 .2 7

6

1 .2 0

6

3 .6 3
3-54**

3 .2 0
1 .4 9

Dotal
E1

174

4 .0 2
1 .2 0

4 .8 6
#

2 .8 3
#

2 .03
#

4 .6 3
1 .8 4

1 .5 1
#

S?or t h i s t a b l e P must re a c h 2 .9 2 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vj> p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2.16 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
I- - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u p s.
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

1.51
1.95

th e d if f e r e n c e in farm and non-farm o c c u p a tio n s .

The d a ta o f

T ab le 27, however, e s p e c ia lly a s b ro u g h t out by th e t o t a l ITegro
P r e ju d ic e sc o re , i n d i c a t e th a t t h e r e i s a te n d e n c y f o r th e w h ite
c o l l a r group to b e more t o l e r a n t th a n th e manual la b o r group.
A ttitu d e s tow ard M exicans were analyzed i n e x a c tly th e same
way- a s a t t i t u d e s tow ard Negroes were a n a ly z e d .

T ables G, H, I

and J , i n Appendix G, show th e r e s u l t s of th e s e a n a ly s e s , none
o f which re v e a le d s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t, d if f e r e n c e s betw een
g ro u p s.

There i s a g a in a ten d en cy , a s shown by T able H, f o r th e

w h ite c o l l a r group to be more t o l e r a n t th a n e i t h e r th e f a r n o r
m anual la b o r g ro u p s.

YJhen th e non-farm group a s a whole i s com­

p a re d w ith th e farm groxip th e n on-farm re sp o n d e n ts tend to be
more p r e ju d ic e d .

However, s in c e th e v a ria n c e w ith in groups i s

alw ays g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s, and th e d i f f e r ­
ences betw een th e means a r e so sm a ll, f u r t h e r d is c u s s io n of t h i s
tr e n d ap p ea rs to be u n p r o f i ta b le .
D iffe re n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward a l l th re e m in o rity g ro u p s,
when o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s th e b a s is f o r a n a ly s is , a r e
a ls o shown by th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re in T a b le s G, H, I and J .
There a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s f o r any o f th e
v a r io u s com parisons o f o c c u p a tio n a l d if f e r e n c e s when t h i s sc o re
i s u se d a s a m easure o f a t t i t u d e s .

B ut, once a g a in , th e w h ite

c o l l a r w orkers c o n tin u e to be l e s s p r e ju d ic e d , a s measured by
t h i s s c o re , th an e i t h e r th e farm group or manual w orkers.
In summary, d i f f e r e n c e s in o ccu p atio n a p p e a r to be r e l a t e d ,
from a s t a t i s t i c a l p o in t o f view , l e s s to d if f e r e n c e s in

a t t i t u d e s toward H egroes and M exicans th an tow ard Jew s.

But

t h e r e i s some ev id e n ce th a t th e r e a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t
d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward H egroes which a r e r e la te d to
o c c u p a tio n a l d i f f e r e n c e s .

The p r in c ip a l f a c t o r f o r th e s t a t i s ­

t i c a l d if f e r e n c e a p p e a rs to he th e d if f e r e n c e i n a t t i t u d e s of
farm and non-farm g ro u p s.

B ut, a lth o u g h n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t a s a r u le , w h ite c o l l a r w orkers te n d to he l e s s
p r e ju d ic e d toward H egroes th an a r e manual w o rk ers.

In so fa r

a s th e s e d if f e r e n c e s a r e between farm and non-farm grouos
th e f in d in g s do n o t h e a r uwon any h y p o th ese s b ased on occupa­
ti o n a s an i n d i c a t o r o f s o c ia l s t a t u s , h u t do su p n o rt th e m ajor
h y p o th e s is o f t h i s r e s e a r c h .

I n s o f a r a s th e f in d in g s in d ic a te

d if f e r e n c e s betw een w h ite c o l l a r and manual w orkers, th e hypo­
t h e s i s t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r iti e s a r e
a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in s o c ia l s ta t u s h a s been su p p o rted ,
W hile no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s were found
f o r any o f th e q u e s tio n s co n cern in g M exicans, th e same tre n d s
a p p e a r, a s a g e n e ra l, r u le , a s wore found f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard
H eg ro es.
io n .

The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re i s a lso in th e same d i r e c t ­

Hence, a lth o u g h th e s t a t i s t i c a l evidence prom pts g r e a te r

c a u tio n , much th e same c o n c lu s io n s ap p ear to be w arran ted .
The d i r e c t i o n o f th e d i f f e r e n c e s f o r b o th a t t i t u d e s tow ard
H egroes and tow ard M exicans i s in acco rd w ith th e " s e c u r ity d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is .

That i s , th e h ig h e r s t a t u s groups, as

m easured by o c c u p a tio n , te n d to he more t o l e r a n t th an th e low er
s t a t u s g ro u p s.

T h is tre n d a ls o su p p o rts th e " c o m p e titio n 11

-127hjrpo t h e s i s .
C o n clu sio n s
In t h i s c h a p te r o ccu p atio n h a s "been used a s one in d e s o f
s o c ia l s t a t u s .

I t h a s n o t been assumed t h a t o c c u p a tio n a l

d if f e r e n c e s id 11 c o r r e l a t e in any a b s o lu te se n se w ith a dynamic
system o f v e r t i c a l s o c ia l m o b ility .

But broed d if f e r e n c e s i n

th e o c c u p a tio n s o f Maple County r e s id e n t s should acco rd w ith
b ro ad d if f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s t a t u s .

Hence, th e fo reg o in g

a n a ly s e s should b e a r uuon th e h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e a r e d i f f ­
e re n c e s in a t t i t u d e s which a ro a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in
s o c ia l s t a t u s .

C e r ta in su b -h y p o th eses re g a rd in g th e p o s s ib le

d i r e c t i o n o f such d if f e r e n c e s have a ls o been t e s t e d .

A lthough,

a s we m ight e x p e c t, th e r e s u l t s a r e n o t a b s o lu te n o r c l e a r - c u t
f o r a l l e m p iric a l in s ta n c e s which have been t e s t e d , c e r t a in o v e r­
a l l g e n e r a liz a tio n s ap p e ar to bo su p p o rted .
1.

T here i s s tro n g sup p o rt f o r th e h y p o th e sis th a t d if f e r e n c e s
i n s o c ia l s t a t u s a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jew s.

T here i s lik e w is e support f o r th e 11s e c u r ity -

d e p riv a tio n " h y p o th e s is i n t h a t u pper s t a t u s growus ten d to
be more t o l e r a n t th a n lo v e r s t a t u s g ro u p s.

The " c o m p e titio n 11

h y p o th e s is , how ever, h as n o t been supported in s o f a r a s i t
h a s been a p p lie d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.
2.

A ttitu d e s tow ard H egroes a r e n o t a s c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d
alo n g o c c u p a tio n a l l i n o s .

However, th e d a ta in d ic a te a

tendency, as shown by rank o rd e r a n a ly s is , f o r u p p e r s t a t u s

g ro u p s to be more t o l e r a n t th a n a r e low er s ta t u s gro u p s.
T h is fin d in g m ust be s ta te d i n c o n s e rv a tiv e te rm s, b u t
t h e r e i s some su p n o rt f o r th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s
i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s
i n s o c ia l s t a t u s .

The d i r e c t i o n o f such d iffe re n c e ;- i n i n

ac co rd w ith b o th th e " se c u rity -d e p riv a tio -jx " and "c o m p e titio n "
h y p o th e s is .
The fin d in g s w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Hegroes may
a ls o h old f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans, a lth o u g h th e ev id en ce
i s l e s s c o n c lu s iv e .
In g e n e ra l, a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews a r e more c l e a r l y d i f f e r ­
e n t i a t e d , in term s o f th e in stru m e n t u sed i n t h i s r e s e a r c h ,
by an o c c u p a tio n a l in d ex o f s o c ia l s ta t u s th a n a r e a t t i t u d e s
tow ard e i t h e r H egroes o r M exicans.
The d if f e r e n c e betw een farm and non-farm re sp o n d e n ts i n t h i s
sample a r e n o t w holly c o n s is te n t f o r a l l m in o rity g ro u p s.
YJith r e s p e c t to th e m a n ife s ta tio n s o f s e n tim e n ts tow ard Jews
th e farm group i s c l e a r l y more p re ju d ic e d th a n th e non-farm
g ro u p .

A t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes a r e n o t a s c l e a r l y shown,

b u t a g a in i t a p p e a rs t h a t th e g e n e ra l p a t t e r n o f se n tim e n ts
i s one w herein farm re sp o n d e n ts a r e more p r e ju d ic e d th a n nonfarm re s p o n d e n ts .

With r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s toward M exicans

t h e r e i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n between farm and non-farm
re sp o n d e n ts.

CHAPTER PIVE
ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OP SOCIAL STATUS:
INCOME AND EDUCATION
Income in R e la tio n s h ip to
A t t i t u d e s tow ard M in o r itie s
Income and e d u c a tio n a r e two v a r ia b l e s v/hich a ls o have
been found to he a s s o c ia te d vrith s o c ia l s t a t u s .

As i s th e c a s e

w ith o cc u p atio n t h e r e l a t io n s h ip betw een e i t h e r income o r educ­
a t i o n and th e a c t u a l p o s it i o n a p e rso n h as i n a system of
v e r t i c a l s o c ia l m o b ility i s not a b s o lu te .

But such in d i c a t o r s ,

w h ile n o t p e r f e c t , can g iv e some c lu e s w ith r e s p e c t to a sample
p o p u la tio n , even th ough th ey may n o t be p r e d i c t i v e in every
i n d iv id u a l i n s ta n c e .

I t i s from t h i s r e l a t i v e p o in t o f view

t h a t th e s e v a r i a b l e s w i l l be u se d to t e s t th e r e la tio n s h i p o f
s o c i a l s ta t u s to a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
The f i r s t v a r i a b l e to be c o n s id e re d i s t h a t o f income.

Por

t h i s re s e a rc h d a ta on income were g a th e re d by a s k in g th e resp o n d ­
en t t o i n d ic a te , from a card handed to him f o r th a tp u rp o s e , th e
ap p ro x im ate t o t a l fa m ily income.

T h is method i s n o t p r e c i s e b u t,

f o r th e p u rp o se o f o b ta in in g b ro a d s ta tu s c a te g o r ie s , serv es th e
f u n c tio n f o r which i t was in te n d e d .
D ata from farm re sp o n d e n ts were found to be of l e s s e r v a lu e
b e c a u se of th e o b serv ed tendency f o r such re sp o n d e n ts to co n fu se
n e t income w ith incom e rem aining a f t e r a l l expenses wore p a id .
Thus, farm e rs w ith known h ig h cro p y i e l d s and s a le s f re q u e n tly
i n t e r p r e t e d t h e i r n e t income a s l i t t l e more th a n s u b s is te n c e .
H ence, th e d a ta w ere n o t com parable w ith t h a t f u rn is h e d by th e

-130non-farm p o p u la tio n which r e p o r te d income from s a l a r i e s , wages,
and b u s in e s s p r o f i t s .

For t h i s re a so n income a s an in d e x o f

s o c ia l s t a t u s i s a n aly ze d o n ly f o r non-farm re sp o n d e n ts .
S tu d ie s of th e r e l a t io n s h ip o f a t t i t u d e s toward, m in o r itie s
to s iz e o f income a r e n o t e x te n s iv e , n o r a r e th e y d e ta il e d i n
a n a l y s is .

The f o llo w in g a r e r e p r e s e n tr - tiv e o f such r e s e a r c h .

Minard^ found no c la s s d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward
m in o r itie s a s f a r a s h ig h school and j u n i o r h ig h school s tu d e n ts
were concerned.

C la s s in t h i s se n se r e f e r s to socio-econom ic

p o s it i o n , w ith income o r w ealth b e in g th e p rim a ry r e f e r e n t .

Sims

and P a tr ic k ^ found th e same th in g to be tr u e o f c o lle g e s tu d e n ts
i n s o f a r a s a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes were co n cern ed .

? Ie ltz e r

3

a ls o

r e p o r t s th e same f o r p u b lic school c h ild r e n , ex cep t t h a t he found
a s l i g h t tendency f o r p o o r c h ild r e n to be l e s s t o l e r a n t tow ard
th e Hegro.
On th e o th e r hand, H arlan

A}.

r e p o r t s t h a t p r e ju d ic e toward

Jew s, m an ifested by c o lle g e s tu d e n ts , in c r e a s e s w ith th e re p o rte d
income o f th e p a r e n t s .

Levinson and Sanford^ r e p o r t th e same.

^M inard, on. c i t .
p

Sims and P a t r i c k , on. c i t .

^ M e ltz er, op,, c i t .
h

H a rla n , on. c i t .

^D an iel J . L evinson and R. N e v itt S anford, "A S c a le f o r th e
Measurement o f A n ti-S em itism , J . o f P sy c h o l. . 17:339-370, 1 9 ^ .

g
An e a r l y F o rtu n e Survey
g ro u p s

te n d

to fa v o r

co n clu d es t h a t h ig h e r socio-econom ic

re sid e n tia l

s e g re g a tio n f o r Hegroes more

th a n low er socio-econom ic g ro u p s.
7
Horow itz r e p o r t s an u n p u b lish e d study o f N egroes o f Newark
by V. M ints w herein th e r e were no s ig n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h i p s be­
tw een g e n e ra liz e d to le r a n c e and a c tu a l an n u al incom e.

T his i s

a ls o th e fin d in g o f Murphy and L ichert® w ith r e s p e c t to th e
a t t i t u d e s o f c o lle g e s tu d e n ts tow ard N egroes.

The F ortune

Survey o f 19^6^ r e p o r t s t h a t •an ti-S em itism * in c r e a s e s w ith
w e a lth .

C am pbell,1^ however, f in d s no c o n s is te n t r e la tio n s h ip

betw een a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews and incom e.
The B a ltim o re s t u d y ^ found t h a t b o th th e lo w est and th e
h ig h e s t income g ro u p s were more • a n ti- S e m itic ' th a n th e m iddle
income g roup.

The lo w est group ( th o s e e a rn in g

p e r week) tended to b e th e most 'a n t i - S e m i t i c . •

l e s s th a n $50
A1 though th e r e

was a v e ry h ig h r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l and
incom e, th e a u th o r s o f t h i s stu d y found th e economic f a c t o r

6 S p e c ia l p o l l r e p o rte d by H orow itz i n 0. K lin e b e rg , on. c i t .
^H orow tiz, i b i d . , p p . 225-226.
O
Murphy and L ic k e r t, o n . c i t .
9

F o rtu n e . F eb ru ary , 19^6.

■^Campbell, on. c i t .
~^The B a ltim o re P o l l , o n . c i t .

i m p o r t a n t w h en t h e e d u c a t i o n a l f a c t o r v a s h e l d c o n s t a n t .
In one o th e r stu d y , t h a t o f B e tte lh e im and Jp n o v d tz,

*1 O

th e socio -eco n o m ic in d e x , which in c lu d e d income a s one f a c t o r ,
was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.
The fo re g o in g r e s e a r c h i s in c o n c lu s iv e , a s m ight he
ex p ected s in c e i t in c lu d e s
and sam pling p r o c e d u re s .

a wide v a r ie ty o f in s tru m e n ts
Where s t r a t i f i e d p o p u la tio n s wore

u se d , i n c o n t r a s t to school p o p u la tio n s , a s i n th e B altim o re
and F o rtu n e s tu d i e s , th e r e i s some evidence t h a t ’a n ti-S e m itis m ',
a t l e a s t , i s r e l a t e d to d i s t r i b u t i o n o f incom e.

The Campbell

stu d y , however, which atte m p ted to anproxiraate a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e
(b u t sm all) sample o f th e e n t i r e U n ited S ta te s , d id n o t y i e l d
t h i s f in d in g .

With th e fo re g o in g i n mind, th e f in d in g s o f th e

p r e s e n t p r o j e c t , w ith r e s p e c t to a r e p r e s e n t a tiv e r u r a l midw e ste rn p o p u la tio n , may now be examined.
The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews and amount o f
income f o r n o n -fa rm e rs i s shown by T able 30.

1?

Four of th e f i v e

f i v e - p o i n t q u e s tio n s show a s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e ; th re e a r e

12

B e tte lh e im ana J a n o w itz , o n . c i t .

^ T h e "b re ak s" f o r th e income c l a s s i f i c a t i o n u sed in t h i s t a b l e
a r e a r b i t r a r y . The p u rp o se was to o b ta in f a i r l y l a r g e c a te g o r ie s
which m ight be u s e f u l a s i n d i c a t o r s o f s o c ia l p o s itio n i n a
system o f v e r t i c a l s o c ia l m o b ility . The method u sed to o b ta in
in fo rm a tio n w ith r e s p e c t to incom e was n o t d e sig n e d to a c h ie v e
a b s o lu te p r e c i s i o n alo n g a t h e o r e t i c a l s c a le o f fa m ily earn ­
in g s . I t s m ajor p u rp o se was to f u r n is h in fo rm a tio n w ith r e s p e c t
t o p o s s ib le s t a t u s d i f f e r e n c e s . F or t h i s re a s o n th e broad
c a te g o r ie s o f income which were u s e d f o r t h i s a n a ly s is were
deemed most a p p r o p r ia te .

(C able 3 0
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY S IZ E OP FAMILY INCOME - 1TOT-FARM ONLY

Annual Inrsnmn
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Jew ish
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s tr ic t
Jews

Mean

Mean R

Mean

Jews th in k
th ey rr e
b e tte r
R Mean
R

Guard
a g a in s t
J cws

_R Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

R Moan

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R

Mean

Jew s
a re
h o n e st

R Mean

Jews i n
ny n eig h ­
borhood
R Mean

R

$5000 and above

40

2 .9 8

1

3 .4 0

1

2 .05 3

3 .2 3

1

2 .4 5

2

3 .4 5

1

5M

1

2 .0 8

3

1 .7 5

3

$3000-$4999

85

3 .2 2

3

3.16

2

2 .1 9 2

3 .1 8

3

2 .35

3

3 .2 3

3

5 .1 6

2

2 .11

1

1 .3 5

2

$2000-$3999

71

2 .8 3

2

2 .8 9

3

2 .3 8 1

3 .2 0

2

2 .5 8

1

3 .2 5

2

5 .0 6

3

2.10

2

1 .8 9

1

B elov $2000

60

3 .8 5

4

2 .4 7

4

2 .0 5 3

2 .5 8

4

2 .05

4

2 .6 2

4

4 .1 2

4

2 .0 0

4

1 .6 6

4

T o tal
F1

256

3 .2 2 *

2.96

2 .1 9

3 .0 5

2.36

3 .1 3

4 .9 3

3.7 9 *

7.35**

1 .70

4.55**

2.63*

6.19**

5-29**

2 .1 7

1 .80

#

#

For t h i s t a b l e F m ust re a c h 3*88 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2.65 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l*
(For t h i s t a b l e 2 .6 3 i s assumed t o be j u s t a t th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l . )
# - W ithin gro u p v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r , th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t a t o r beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e Vja p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

s i g n i f i c a n t 'beyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l and one
j u s t a t th e f i v p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

As m ight be e x p e c t­

ed, th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re , b ein g b a se d on th e s e ques­
t i o n s , a ls o shows a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e —a g a in beyond th e one
p e r cen t p ro b a b ility le v e l.

The open-end Jew ish q u e s tio n i s

a ls o s i g n i f i c a n t and ap p ro ach es th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b ilit y
le v e l.

T here a p p e a rs to be good ev id en ce, t h e r e f o r e , to su p p o rt

th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews a r e
r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s t a t u s , i n s o f a r a s income i s
an in d e x o f such s t a t u s .
A n a ly sis o f t h e ra n k o rd e r on each o f th e s e q u e s tio n s i n ­
d i c a t e s t h a t th e incom e groups do n o t behave c o n s is t e n tly on a l l
q u e s tio n s .

However, f o r th e q u e s tio n s f o r which th e r e a re

s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s and f o r t h e t o t a l Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e sc o re , th e h ig h e s t income group i s g e n e r a lly th e most
t o l e r a n t , w h ile th e lo w est income group i s c o n s is te n tly th e
le a s t to le ra n t.

The two

m iddle income groups ten d to be much

a l i k e , in g e n e ra l, and to l i e betw een th e h ig h e s t and th e lo w est
income g ro u p s, i n s o f a r a s a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews a r e concernod.
T h is d i r e c t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s does n o t su p n o rt th e "com peti­
tio n " h y p o th e s is .

T h is i s a ls o seen by exam ining one q u e s tio n

t h a t in v o lv e s th e id e a o f d i r e c t c o m p e titio n — th e q u e s tio n d e a lin g w ith th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f a Jew ish m erchant buying th e b ig g e s t
s to r e i n tow n.

In term s o f a c o m p e titio n th e o ry th e h ig h e r

s t a t u s groups sh o u ld be l e s s t o l e r a n t .

T h is i s not th e c a s e .

On th e o th e r hand, th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is
r e c e iv e s some su p p o rt from th e ev id en ce o f T ab le 30.

That i s ,

th e h ig h e s t s t a t u s group e v in c e s a w illin g n e s s to he l e s s p r e ­
ju d ic e d tow ard th e Jew ish n i n o r i t y , v i i l e th e low er s ta t u s group
i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t in th e deg ree o f p r e ju d ic e shown by
i t tow ard th e Je w ish m in o rity , b e in g c o n s is te n tly more p r e ju d ic e d .
A ttitu d e s tov/ard H egroes may be determ ined f o r income groups
by exam ining T a b le J l .

One q u e s tio n shows a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i ­

f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e beyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l and
th e t o t a l Hegro P r e ju d ic e sco re i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t
j u s t beyond th e f i v e n o r cent p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .

T his i s by

no means s tro n g p r o o f f o r su p p o rt o f th e h y p o th e s is of d i f f e r ­
ences betw een income g ro u p s, but th e f a c t th a t th e t o t a l Hegro
P r e ju d ic e sco re i s s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y
l e v e l i n d ic a te s a ten d en cy f o r t h e h y p o th e sis t o h o ld .
Tiie ra n k o r d e r fin d in g s a r e n o t w holly c o n s is te n t b u t
th e r e i s a tendency f o r h ig h e r s t a t u s g ro u p s, a s measured by
incom e, to be l e s s p re ju d ic e d th a n th e lo w est s t a t u s group.
T h is tendency h o ld s f o r th e q u e s tio n s f o r which th e r e a re
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s .

On o th e r q u e s tio n s th e

h ig h e s t s t a t u s group i s n o t c o n s is te n t, b u t th e tendency does
rem ain on a l l q u e s tio n s f o r th e lo w e st s ta tu s group to be a t th e
lo w er end o f a p r e ju d ic e s c a le , w h ile th e next to th e h ig h e s t
group i s a t th e u p p e r end o f such 0 s c a le .
The tre n d s , th e r e f o r e , a r e n o t as c l e a r - c u t , n o r a r e th e
d if f e r e n c e s betw een g roups a s sharp f o r th e m a n ife s ta tio n o f

T a b le 31

ATTITUDES TOWABD NEGROES BY SIZE OP FAMILY INCOME - NON-FARM ONLY
N egroes
to Jo h n s­
town

Annual
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l n o .
o f respond—
safes ________ Mean

Negroes
next
door

N egroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

N egroes
should
v o te

N egroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

R Mean ?.

Mean. B Mean

B

Mean

R Mean

B

Mean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
K
B Mean

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

B

$5000 and above

41

3 .9 2

4

5.**9

4

2.90

2

1 .9 0

3

3 .4 4

4

3*41

1

4 .6 6

2

1 .4 4

4

1 .4 6 3 3

$3000-$4999

85

3 .8 3

1

4 .6 0

2

3.0 9

1

2.20

1

3 .6 5

1

3 .3 6

2

4 .9 5

1

1 .6 2

1

l.*l64 2

$2000-2999

n

3 .8 6

2

4 .2 4

1

2.80

4

2 .0 8

2

3 .5 4

2

3 .1 7

3

4 .5 6

3

1 .5 5

2

1 .5 9

1

Below $2000

60

3 .8 9

3

4 .8 0

3

2 .8 2

3

1.9 0

3

3 .4 8

3

2 .8 2

4

4 .2 8

4

1 .4 7

3

1 .4 5

4

257

3 .8 7

4 .6 9

2 .9 2

2 .05

3 .5 4

#

2 .2 8

1 .1 3

1 .5 5

#

T o tal
P1

3 .1 9

4 .6 5

1 .5 4

1 .4 9

4.00**

2.68*

#

#

Par t h i s t a b l e P m ost re a c h 3*88 t o he s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e l$o p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l : 2 .6 5 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l*

s e n tim e n ts tow ard H egroes a s tow ard Jew s.

But th e g e n e ra l

tendency i s one which o f f e r s some su pport f o r t h e h y p o th e s is
t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n s t a t u s a re r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s i n
a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.

The d i r e c t i o n o f such d if f e r e n c e s

i s i n acco rd w ith b o th th e " c o m p e titio n " and " s e c u r i ty - d e p r i v a tio n " h y p o th e s is .
I t should b e p o in te d o u t, h o i/ev er, t h a t i n th e county
s e le c te d f o r t h i s stu d y b o th N egroes and M exicans a re i n th e
lo w e r income grown s .

They do n o t have h ig h

so c ia l

s ta t u s .

T here i s no p o s s i b i l i t y , a t p r e s e n t, t h a t th e r e can be c o m p e titio n
betw een th e s e m i n o r i t i e s and th e u p p e r s t a t u s g ro u p s.

The

q u e s tio n t r e a t i n g o f th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f N egroes moving to th e
cou n ty s e a t, how ever, would a p p e a r to p o se th e t h r e a t o f
c o m p e titio n to lo w e r income g ro u p s i n g e n e r a l.

At l e a s t th e

o b je c t o f such m ig ra tio n i n su rro u n d in g a r e a s h a s been to
i n c r e a s e th e la b o r m arket supply a t th e low ^r l e v e l .

Hence, in

te rm s o f a " c o m p e titio n " h y p o th e s is , we might expect th e lo w e st
income group to be l e a s t t o l e r a n t i n i t s re sp o n se to t h i s q u e s tio n .
But a c t u a l l y th e d if f e r e n c e
s l i g h t f o r t h i s q u e s tio n .

betw een income groups i s v ery

I t i s p o s s ib le th a t such a q u e s tio n

p o s e s a t h r e a t to u p p e r a s w e ll a s low er s t a t u s groups in th a t
a m ig ra tio n o f N egroes to Johnstow n i s seen a s a t h r e a t to
c lo s u r e o f th e s o c i a l system .

That i s , th e r e a c t i o n of u p p e r

s t a t u s g roups may be i n term s o f a d e s ir e to m a in ta in th e p r e s e n t
s t a t u s quo and k eep , a s one re sp o n d e n t p u t i t ,
s to c k ."

"our own blooded

R e g a rd le ss o f th e c o n te n t meaning o f in d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s ,
how ever, th e d a t a i n d i c a t e some tendency f o r u p p e r s t a t u s g ro u p s,
a s m easured by incom e, to d i f f e r in t h e i r a l t i t u d e s tow ard
H egroes from low er s t a t u s g ro u p s.

The most im p o rta n t d if f e r e n c e

a p p e a rs to he t h a t betw een th e lo w e s t income grouu and th e
o th e r h ig h e r income g ro u p s.
A ttitu d e s tow ard 'Mexicans may he examined in T able 32.
There i s one d i f f e r e n c e which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if i c a n t
heyond th e f iv e p e r cont p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

The n e x t to th e

lo w e s t income group a p p ea rs to h e r.o s t t o l e r a n t ; th e lo w est
income group l e a s t t o l e r a n t .

The tre n d s f o r th e h ig h e r

incom e g roups a r e n o t w holly c o n s is te n t w ith th e h y p o th e s is , h u t
th e g e n e ra l c o n c lu s io n seems to h e

w arran ted t h a t th e r e i s some

ten d en cy f o r incom e, a s a m easure o f s o c ia l s t a t u s , to d i f f e r ­
e n t i a t e a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans.

The most im p o rta n t f a c t o r

a g a in a p p e a rs to he th e a t t i t u d e s o f re sp o n d e n ts in th e lo w e st
income group.
T ah le J>2 a l s o shows th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re , which a p p li e s
to a t t i t u d e s tow ard a l l th r e e m in o r i tie s .

The d if f e r e n c e s a r e

n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t h u t th e tendency rem ains f o r th e
lo w e st income group to he l e s s t o l e r a n t of m in o r itie s th a n th e
o t h e r income g ro u p s.
In summary, th e f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t to th e r e la t io n s h ip
o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s and d if f e r e n c e s i n income a p p e a r
to s u p p o rt, though not p r e c is e ly f o r a l l th r e e m in o rity g ro u p s,
th e h y p o th e s is t h a t s t a t u s d if f e r e n c e s a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s

T ab le 32

ATTITUDES TOVIAED MEXICANS ADD ANALYSIS OP THE SCORE BY
SIZE OP PAMILY I1ICOME - EOK-EARM OHLY

Annual Income
C la s s i f i c a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f resnorxo n ts

ller.icans
as c itiz e n s
<vr.o vo«,ors

Keep Iio ric m s
o u t c f ■'•Mite
n e if i iboihoods

H e rn

1‘cc.n

H exicrns
co~ir.fi to
I-Iid stfte

Horri.cr.nr J r
re o ta u rrn ts
vritli v i t n s

R

Mean

R

‘foan

R

1 T o ta l
J P r e ju d ic e
} S core
1
!Iorrt
R

$5000 and above

4-1

3 .4 l

2

1 .9 5

4

1 .5 6

3

1.85

3

2 .8 5

3

$3000-$4-999

85

3-33

3

2.24

2

1 .6 5

2

2 .0 7

1

3 .0 8

2

$2000-$2999

71

3 .4 2

1

2 .2 8

1

1 .7 7

1

2 .0 6

2

3 .2 9

1

Below $2000

60

3 .0 3

4

2 .0 7

3

1 .4 8

4

1 .7 8

4

2 .6 6

4

257

3 .1 8

2 .1 6

1 .6 3

1 .96

3 .0 0

3.57*

1 .4 4

2 .0 0

1 .8 6

1 .7 5

T o tal
P1

Bor t h i s t a b l e P m ust re a c h 3*88 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1J5 p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 5 a t
le v e l.
♦ - S ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

he 5$ p r o b a b i li t y

i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.

The d a ta in d ic a t e th a t

t h i s h y p o th e s is r e c e iv e s c o n s id e ra b le su pport from th e a n a ly s is
o f a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.

The d i r e c t i o n o f such d if f e r e n c e s

i n d i c a t e s some su p p o rt a ls o f o r th e ns e c u r ity - d © privation"
h y p o th e s is , f o r u p p e r income g roups ten d to be l e s s p r e ju d ic e d
tow ard Jews th an lo w er income g ro u p s, even though th e form er
may be i n more d i r e c t co m p e titio n w ith Jews in t h e i r b u s in e s s
r e la tio n s h ip s .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Negroes and M exicans a r e n o t a s c le a r ly
d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , a lth o u g h th e o v e r - a l l tr e n d s te n d to support th e
h y p o th e s is .

I t may be th a t in Maple County a t t i t u d e s toward

Jews a r e more c l e a r l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d i n many ways th a n a t t i t u d e s
tow ard N egroes and M exicans.
such a p r o p o s itio n .

Tho d a ta of t h i s c h a p te r sup p o rt

Tho d a ta o f succeeding c h a p te r s w ill

re in fo rc e i t .
E d u c atio n in R e la tio n s h ip to
A ttitu d e s toward M in o rity Groups
E d u catio n o f re sp o n d e n ts h a s a ls o been c o n s id e re d a s a
m easure o f s o c ia l s t a t u s .

T h is v a r ia b l e , l i k e income and occupa­

t i o n , i s n ot a sim p le, d i r e c t in d e x o f such s t a t u s .

But, in

g e n e r a l, i n modern i n d u s t r i a l A m erica, g r e a te r amounts o f educaio n a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith g r e a te r amounts o f s o c ia l p r e s t i g e .
The re s e a rc h f in d in g s a r e n o t e x te n s iv e i n t h i s a r e a .

There

h a s been c o n s id e ra b le a t t e n t i o n p a id to th e e f f e c t o f ed u catio n
14
on a t t i t u d e s
from th e p o in t o f view o f d i r e c t a tte m p ts to
^ S e e summary by Robin W illiam s, J r . , op,, c i t . . pr>. 27-35.

in f lu e n c e a t t i t u d e s , b u t l i t t l e r e s e a r c h h a s been done on th e
r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l i n an a d u lt -oom ilation to
a t t i t u d e s toward m i n o r i t i e s .

T h is i s u n d e rs ta n d a b le , sin c e much

o f th e p re v io u s r e s e a r c h h as been done on c o lle g e p o p u la tio n s
where d if f e r e n c e s in e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t to t e s t
h y p o th e se s such a s have been advanced h e r e .
One o f th e f i r s t a tte m p ts to t e s t f o r e d u c a tio n a l d i f f e r ­
ences i n a r e p r e s e n ta tiv e sample i s re p o rte d by Sam elson."^
T h is i s th e N a tio n a l O pinion R esearch C en ter su rv ey o f May, 1 9 ^ ,
o f 2523 w hite re s p o n d e n ts , s e le c te d a s r e p r e s e n ta t iv e o f th e
U n ited S ta te s , and q u e rie d w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e
N egro.

The g e n e ra l fin d in g was t h a t f o r p r a c t i c a l l y a l l q u e s tio n s

asked t h e r e were d if f e r e n c e s betw een p e o p le w ith c o lle g e , h ig h
s c h o o l, and grammar sch o o l e d u c a tio n .

The o v e r - a l l c o n c lu s io n

was t h a t e d u c a tio n tended to d im in ish p r e ju d ic e .
Chein and L a k s ^ s tu d ie d i n te n s iv e l y 200 h ig h ly educated p e r ­
sons i n one Now York C ity p r e c i n c t .

They found more u n fa v o ra b le

re sp o n s e s toward a l l o u t-g ro u p s by p e rso n s w ith h ig h e r e d u c a tio n
th an f o r th e a v e rag e in th e p r e c i n c t .
17
The F o rtu n e Survey o f 19^+6
su g g e sts t h a t a breakdown on

1 5 B ab ette Samelson, "Does E d u catio n D im inish P r e ju d ic e ,"
J . of, Soc. I s s u e s . 1 :1 1 -1 3 , 19^*5 •
^ 1 . Chein and L. Laks, " A ttitu d e s and th e E d u c a tio n a l P r o c e s s ,"
J . o f E d u c . S o c i o l . . 19:365-375, 19^6.
17

F o rtu n e . F eb ru ary , 19^6, _op. c i t .

th e h a s is o f e d u c a tio n , i f e d u c a tio n v/ere s tu d ie d indepen­
d e n tly o f w ealth , would show t h a t an in c r e a s e i n e d u c a tio n a l
l e v e l i s a s s o c ia te d w ith a d e c re a s e in 'a n ti- S e m itis m '.

The

F o rtu n e Survey o f 1 9 ^ 7 ^ i n d ic a te s th a t c o lle g e g ra d u a te s a r e
more t o l e r a n t th a n n o n -c o lle g e g ra d u a te s .
On th e o th e r hand, th e Campbell s u r v e y ^ d is c lo s e d a tre n d
w herein an in c r e a s e i n 'a n ti- S e m itis m ' was a s s o c ia te d w ith i n ­
c r e a s in g e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l , th e s h a rp e s t b re a k b ein g betw een
th e h ig h school and c o lle g e g ro u p s.
w itz

20

But B e tte lh e im and Jan o -

found a ten d en cy f o r v e te r a n s w ith a t l e a s t some c o lle g e

e d u c a tio n to be more t o l e r a n t tow ard Jews, a lth o u g h n o t s i g n i f ­
i c a n t l y so in term s o f s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s .

The B altim o re stu d y

found th a t e d u c a tio n i s more h ig h ly re la .te d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard
Jews th a n i s any o th e r s in g le background f a c t o r .

The a u th o rs

co n clu d e t h a t " in g e n e r a l, th e more e d u c a tio n an in d iv id u a l h a s
had, th e l e s s l i k e lih o o d th e r e i s o f h i s h o ld in g 'a n t i - S e m i t i c '
a ttitu d e s .
W ith th e e x c e p tio n o f th e Campbell stu d y th e p o llin g d a ta
su g g e st t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s toward some m in o r itie s ,
a t l e a s t , te n d to be a s s o c ia te d w ith d i f f e r e n c e s in e d u c a tio n a l
l e v e l ; th e most t o l e r a n t b eing th o s e w ith th e g r e a te s t amount o f

TO

F o rtu n e , O ctober, 19^7» 022,. c i t .
19

20

21

A. A. Campbell, ot>. c i t .
Bruno B e tte lh e im and M orris Ja n o w itz , o n . c i t .
The B altim o re P o l l , on. c i t . , p . ^-1.

-Ih 3 fo r m a l e d u c a tio n .
s im ila r

The h y p o t h e s i s f o r

th is

a n a ly s is i s

t o h y p o t h e s e s "based o n t h e p o l l d a t a ,

som ew h at d i f f e r e n t

rea so n s.

T hat i s , e d u c a tio n

an in d e x o f

sta tu s.

In a c c o r d a n c e w ith

th a t

s o c ia l

a s s o c ia te d

vary

d iffe r e n c e s in

w ith d i f f e r e n c e s i n

an d M e x ic a n s .

Th^> d i r e c t i o n

som ew h at i n

on o n e h an d ,

and t h e

fr o m a n y a s s u m p t io n s a s
is

e x te n t

fr o m

w ill

on th o

"be e x a m in e d a r e n o t

e ffe c ts

o f fo rm ^ L ed u ca ­

e ig h t c a t e g o r ie s

b a b ly a m ore r e f i n e d
so m e t e s t

set

s o c ia l

of

th a t, i s

d e r iv e d

r e la tio n s h ip

of

The r e s p o n d e n ts

e d u c a tio n a l a t t a i n ­

s ta tu s a n a ly s is

o f c a t e g o r i e s th a n i s

o f th e p r o p o s itio n

w ith

e d u c a tio n .

to w a rd m in o r it y g r o u p s .

grouped in to

w ith t h e

of

m in d w e m ay n o w e x a m in e t h e

For th e p u rp o ses o f

d ir e c tly

h y p o th e s is ,

o f fo r m a l e d u c a tio n — an h y p o t h e s is

e d u c a tio n t o a t t i t u d e s

a llo w s

how ever,

n o t m a in ta in e d t h a t p r e j u d ic e v a r i e s d i r e c t l y

W ith t h i s i n

m e n t.

th e

su ch a s s u m p tio n s a b o u t th o e f f e c t s

w ere f i r s t

s h o u l d "be

" c o m p e titio n " h y p o t h e s i s ,

th e h y p o th e se s to
to

s o c ia l

to w a rd J e w s , H e g r o e s

" s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "

d e r iv e d

It

th e

as

th e h y p o th e se s

su ch d if f e r e n c e s ,

a c c o r d a n c e w ith

In o th e r w ord s,

tio n .

a ttitu d e s

fo r

u se d h e r e in

e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l

of

o th e r .

it

is

h e ld

a r e " b ein g e x a m in e d w i t h i n t h e g e n e r a l f r a m e w o r k o f

s ta tu s a n a ly s is ,

th e

"but i s

som ew h at

th is

is

n ecessa ry ,

pro­
"but

th a t p r e ju d ic e v a r ie s

e x t e n t o f fo r m a l e d u c a tio n .

A ttitu d e s tow ard Jews a r e shown i n T a b le 33.

It is at

once a p p a re n t t h a t e d u c a tio n i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to d i f f e r ­
ences i n a t t i t u d e s toward t h i s g ro u p .

There a r e d if f e r e n c e s

which a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e one p e r cen t

T ab le 33
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY EXTHIT OP FORMAL EDUGATIOE

E d u c atio n a l
L evel

T o ta l no,
o f respond­
e n ts

Guard
a g a in s t
J ct/s

Jew ish
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s tr i c t
J ews

Mean

Jews th in k
th e y 1r e
b e tte r
R
R Kean

Mean R

Mean

R Mean

T o ta l
Jev/ish
P r Score

Ship
Jews
Back

R Mean

R

Mean

Jews
a re
h o n est

Jews in
my neigh
borhood

R Mean

R Mean

R

More th a n 4 y r s f
of c o lle g e

2

3 -4 y r s . c o lle g e

22

2*36

1

3*09

3

2*59

1

3 .8 2

1

3 .41

1

w
00•

1

6 .3 5

1

2 .5 9

1

2.4L

1

1 -2 y rs* c o lle g e

27

2*78

3

3 .30

1

2 .0 4

5

3 .41

2

2.45

3

3 .5 9 2

5 .5 9

2

1 .8 2

6

1 .9 3

2

H .S. g ra d u a te

99

2 .7 7

2

3 .25

2

2 .2 3

2

3 .1 6

3

2.49

2

3 .2 8 3

5 .1 6

3

2 .0 9

2

1.81

3

9-11t h g rad e s

103

3 -5 7 . 6

2.66

5

2 .13

4

2.81

4

2.20

4

2.89 4

4 .6 1

4

2 .0 5

3

1 .5 7

5

8 th g ra d e

123

3*37

5

2*75

4

2 .17

3

2 .6 5

5

2 .0 2

6

2 .7 4 5

4 .3 7

5

2 .0 3

4

1 .7 0

4

5 - 7 th g ra d e s

35

3*97

7

2*38

7

2 .0 3

6

2 .4 0

7

1.86

7

2 .2 9 7

3 .71

7

1 .9 1

5

1 .5 4

6

4 t h g ra d e o r l e s s

13

3 .3 1

4

2*54

6

1 .9 2

7

2 .6 2

6

2.15

5

2 .5 8 6

3 .7 7

6

1 .5 4

7 . 1 .4 6

7

Bo inform atio n ^T otal
F2

4
428

3 .2 4

2.86

2 .1 7

2 .9 0

2 .2 7

2 .9 8

4 .7 4

2 .0 4

1 .72

3.43**

4.42**

1 .1 7

5-59**

6.^3** 6

3.03**

6.55**

2 . 61 **

3.48**

« o t In c lu d e d i n ra n k o rd e r 116081186 th e sm all s iz e of th e sam ples makes com parisons d i f f i c u l t * These sam ples were
in c lu d e d i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , however, i n o rd e r to u s e a l l a v a ila b le d a ta f o r th e f i r s t s e t of an aly ses*
% o r t h i s t a b l e P must re a c h 2*55 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1J5 p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 1*96 a t the. 5$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l*
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e lfi p r o b a b i li t y le v e l*

p r o b a b ility le v e l
J e w is h P r e j u d ic e

e n ts
th o se

on a l l b u t on e

q u e s tio n and f o r

sc o r e a s w e ll.
e x a m in e d ,

it

w ho h a v e g r a d u a t e d

fr o m h i g h

s c h o o l a r e m ore t o le r a n t

w ho h a v e n o t .

a s s o c ia te d

is

c le a r

b e tw een

e x te n t

of

p a r tic u la r ly by th e

to le r a n c e

t o t a l J e w is h P r e j u d ic e

o r d e r f o r t h e l o w e r tw o e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l s
T h ese f in d in g s d e f i n i t o l y

en ces in

in

a ttitu d e s

sta tu s,

a ls o

th e

su p p o r te d .

s p e c ific

is

are not as

tic a lly

s ig n ific a n t

c o n v in c in g ,

s ig n ific a n t,

to w a rd J e w s

su ch d i f f e r e n c e s

su p p o r ts

T h e ttc o m p e t i t i o n M

o r fo r th e

sh o w n b y T a b l e

a lth o u g h th e r e

d i f f e r e n c e s h e r e th a n f o r

h a s b een d is c u s s e d .

end o n e o f

a ttitu d e s

s o c ia l

r e g a r d in g t h e J e w is h m e r c h a n t.

r e s u lts

are

a n in d e x

su p p o r te d e it h e r f o r a t t it u d e s

A t t i t u d e s to w a r d N e g r o e s a r e

th a t

of

h y p o th e s is .

not

is

th a t d iffe r e n c e s in

c o n s id e r e d a s a g e n e r a l phenom enon,

q u e s tio n

a lth o u g h t h e

rev ersed .

e d u c a tio n

w ith d i f f e r e n c e s i n

" s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "

to w a r d J e w s ,

In so fa r a s

The d ir e c t io n

h y p o th e s is , h ow ever,

sh o w n

su p p ort th e h y n o th e s is th a t

th e h y p o th e s is

s ta tu s a re a s s o c ia te d

to b e

T h is i s

sco re,
is

but th e

to w a r d J e w s a r e a s s o c i a t e d w it h d i f f e r ­

e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l .

s o c ia l

e d u c a tio n

to w a rd J e w s .

th e n

sh o w p e r f e c t

e d u c a tio n and a t t i t u d e s ,

f o r g r e a t e r a m o u n ts o f

w ith g r e a t e r

d iffe r e n c e s

th a t th o se resp o n d ­

Tho r a n k o r d e r f i n d i n g s d o n o t

g e n e r a l te n d e n c y i s

is

to ta l

W hen r a n k o r d e r i s

c o r r e la tio n

of

th e

H ere t h e

a r e m ore s t a t i s ­
any o th e r v a r ia b le

Two o f t h e f i v e - p o i n t

s c a le

q u e s tio n s

o n e beyond th e o n e p e r c e n t p r o b a b ilit y le v e l;

t h e tw o

th r e e -p o in t

s c a le q u e s tio n s i s

s ig n ific a n t—

(Cable 3 4
ATTITUDES TOWAED NEGBOES -BY EXTENT OF FORMAL EDUCATION

E d u c a tio n a l
le v e l

T o ta l n o .
o f responde n tu

N egroes
to J o h n stown

N egroes
should
v o te

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

V

Mean. a

Mean

a

Mean

H Mean

1

2

2

3.87
3.70

Mean

a Mean

l

More th a n 4 y r s ? ’
o f c o lle g e

2

3-4 y r s . c o lle g e

23

2.76

1 -2 y r s . c o lle g e

27

3.24

3.39 1 3.04 2 2.44
2 4.26 2 3.15 1 2.41

H. S. g ra d u a te

99

3.53

3 4.57 5 2.95 3 1.90

6

3.46

9 - l l t h g ra d e s

103

4.06

8 t h g ra d e

123

4.00

5-7th g ra d e s

35

4 .6 l

5 4.27 3 2.75 4 1.97
4 4.56 4 2.63 5 1.99
7 5.34 7 2 .6 2 8 6 1.94

4th g ra d e or l e s s

13
4

4.08

6

2.23

7 1.69

429

3.84

2.78

2 .0 0

1.72

2 . 11 *

No in fo rm a tio n ^
T o tal
p2

2 . 16 *

Negroes
w ith
ed u catio n

Negroes
next
door

5.31
4.50
#

6

T>

T o tal
Negro
P r Score
Mean

a

W hites and O rders
N egroes in from a
sane
Negro
r e s ta u r a n t
Mean
a Mean a

1

5.30 1

2.09

3

3.70
3.41

2

5.51

2

4

3.36

3

4

3.456 5

3.14

3

3.455 6

5

3.51

7

1.67

5

4.64 3

1.47

4 1.45

4

4

4.44 4

1.37

6

1.37

7

2 .7 2

5

4.15

5

1.49

3 1.48

3

7

2.57

6

4.06 6

1.46

5 1.40

6

3.92 1

2.31

7

3.85

7

1.30L

7 1.85

1

3.52

3.05

4.45

1.49

1.46

6.24**

3 . 65 **

2.69**

1.44

#

^Not in c lu d e d i n ra n k o rd e r because th e sm all s iz e o f th e sam ples makes com parisons d i f f i c u l t * These sam ples were
in c lu d e d i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , however, i n o rd e r to u s e a l l a v a ila b le d a ta f o r th e f i r s t a n a ly s e s .
% o r t h i s t a b l e P must re a c h 2*55 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$6 p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 1*96 a t t h e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
# - Tiftt h i n group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyona th e 5 ? p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i lit y l e v e l .

2

1.83
2 1.44

1

"beyond th e one p e r c en t p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

The t o t a l Negro

P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s a ls o s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e
one p e r ce n t p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l.
Again th e ra n k o rd e r f in d in g s a r e n o t e n t i r e l y c o n s is te n t,
b u t, i n genei’a l , h ig h sch o ol g ra d u a te s end above te n d to bo th e
most t o l e r a n t g ro u p .

The ra n k o r d e r f o r th e t o t a l Negro P re ­

ju d ic e sc o re i s e x a c tly c o n s is te n t w ith th e h y p o th e s is t h a t
e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l i s d i r e c t l y a s s o c ia te d w ith d i f f e r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.
These f in d in g s su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is t h a t e d u c a tio n a l
l e v e l and, h en ce, s o c ia l s ta t u s , i s a s s o c ia te d w ith a t t i t u d e s
tow ard N egroes.

The d i r e c t io n o f such d if f e r e n c e s acco rd s w ith

b o th a "co m p e titio n " h y p o th e s is and a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n "
h y p o th e s is .
In view o f p r e v io u s f in d in g s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i t i s
e s p e c ia lly i n t e r e s t i n g to examine a t t i t u d e s tow ard Mexicans a s
shown by T able 35.

The p re v io u s f in d in g s have re v e a le d few

d if f e r e n c e s a t a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t l e v e l f o r a t t i t u d e s
tow ard t h i s g roup.

In T able 35t however, one o f th e f iv e -

p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e
one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; so a ls o i s one o f th e th r e e p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s .

The o th e r th r e e - p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n

i s s ig n i f i c a n t j u s t about a t th e f i v e p e r cen t p r o b a b ilit y
le v e l.

The ev id en ce h e r e s u p p o rts th e h y p o th e s is th a t ed u cat­

io n a l le v e l i s a s s o c ia te d w ith a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans.
The rani: o rd e r f in d in g s f o r Mexicans te n d to conform to

T a b le 35

E d u c a tio n a l
Level

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PHEJUCIDE SCOHS
BY EXTHIT OF FOEMAL EDUCATION
liemicons
Keep Ile ric rn s 1Tex! e m s
Hc:*iCPnc Sr.
T o ta l
1* P r e ju d ic e
a s c i t i z e n s o u t c f T-nitc
co~ir.g to r o c tc v T r r tc
T o ta l no.
and v o te rs
neighborhoods liid s tP te
S core
w ith w h ites
o f re sn o n roi t s
Mean
2
liean
3
’ifrtpw *1
T)
Mean
R Moan
R

More th a n 4 y r s .
o f c o lle g e

2

3 -4 y r s . c o lle g e

23

3 .7 8

1

2 .7 4

1

2 .1 7

1

2.43

1

4 .5 5

1 -2 y r s . c o lle g e

27

3 .4 8

2

2 .5 6

2

1 .8 9

2

2.19

2

3.19

H. S. g ra d u a te

99

3 .0 6

5

2.07

1 .6 7

3

• 2 .0 4

3

3 .0 2

3

9 - l l t h g ra d e s

103

3.058

6

2 .1 6

3

1 .5 2

5

1.88

6

2 .70

6

8 th grade

123

3 .0 2

7

2 .0 2

5

1 .5 0

7

1 .89

5

2 .8 2

4

5 -7 th g ra d e s

35

3 .U

4

1 .9 4

7

1 .5 1

6

1.91

4

2 .71

5

4 th grade o r l e s s

13

3 .1 5

3

2 .00

6

1 .6 2

4

1.77

7

2 .5 4

7

No inform ation^"
T o ta l
F2

•

4
429

1

3 .1 2

2.13

1 .6 1

1.97

2 .9 2

1 .8 4

3.04**

3.67**

1.94*

6.76**

^"Not in c lu d e d in ran k o r d e r "because sm all s iz e o f sam ples makes com parisons d i f f i c u l t . These sam ples, however,
v;ere in c lu d e d i n th e a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e , i n o rd e r to u se a l l a v a ila b l e data, f o r th e f i r s t a n a ly s e s .
%*or t h i s t a b l e F must re a c h 2.55 t o b e s ig n if i c a n t a t th e 1^ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l; 1 .9 6 a t th e 5^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
* - S ig n if ic a n t j u s t a t th e 5^ p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l (N ote— i t i s assumed h e re t h a t 1 .9 4 i s j u s t a t th e $p p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l . )
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

th o se f o r Jews and N egroes, w ith h ig h school g ra d u a te s and
above te n d in g to be most t o l e r a n t .

(This s u p p o rts both th e

"c o m p e titio n 11 and " s e c u rity -d e r> riv a tio n " h y p o th e se s.

The T o ta l

P r e ju d ic e sco re a ls o su p p o rts th e f in d in g s f o r a l l o f th e
m in o rity groups, b e in g s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e one p e r c en t
p ro b a b ility le v e l.
In o rd e r to v e r i f y th e b road tre n d s which ap p ear in th o
fo re g o in g t a b l e s , th e e d u c a tio n a l c a te g o r ie s were reduced to
th re e :

re sp o n d e n ts w ith e ig h th g re d e e d u c a tio n o r lo s s ;

re sp o n d e n ts w ith some h ig h sch o o l e d u catio n , b u t n o t g ra d u a te s;
and re sp o n d e n ts who were h ig h school g ra d u a to s o r above.
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a ly s is f o r a t t i t u d e s toward Jows a r e
shown in T able 36 .

From th e s iz e o f th e F s c o re s on a l l b u t two

q u e s tio n s , i t would a p p ea r th a t th e d if f e r e n c e s brought o u t by
th o f i r s t a n a ly s is ha.ve been a c c e n tu a te d when th e e d u c a tio n a l
l e v e l s a r e condensed.

The r e s u l t s confirm th e p re v io u s a n a ly s is

both w ith re s p e c t to d if f e r e n c e and d i r e c tio n o f d if f e r e n c e .
H ere, however, i t i s c l e a r t h a t i t i s th e resp o n d en t who has
g rad u a ted from h ig h sch o o l t h a t makes th e d if f e r e n c e .

The low er

e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l s tend to be more a l i k e in t h e i r average r e ­
sp o n ses, a lth o u g h , in term s o f ra n k o rd e r, th e degree o f educ­
a tio n ap p e ars to be a s s o c ia te d w ith e x te n t o f p r e ju d ic e tow ard
J cws.
A ttitu d e s tow ard N egroes a r e shown i n T ab le 37.

-h e r e s u l t s

a r e much th e same a s f o r th e o r ig i n a l a n a l y s is , a lth o u g h one
q u e s tio n d ro p s i n s t a t i s t i c a l s ig n if ic a n c e w h ile a n o th e r i n c r e a s e s .

T a b le 36
ATTITUDEIS TOWARD JED'S BY EXT52TT OE FORMAL EDUCATIOIT

E d u catio n a l
Level

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

J Owish
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s t r ic t
Jews

Mean

Mean R

Mean

Jews th in k
th e y Tr e
b e tte r
R Mean
R

Guard
a g a in s t
J cws

R Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

R Mean

T o ta l
J ewish
P r Score
R Mean

J CWS
a re
h o n e st

R Mean

Jews in
my neighborhood
R Mean

H. S. g ra d u a te
o r above

150

2 .7 4

1

3.2*1

1

2.25

1

3 .3 0

1

2.61 1

3.43 1

5. **2 1

2.11 1

1.91

9-11t h g rad e s

103

3.57

3

2.65

3

2.13

2

2 .8 1

2

2.20 2

2.89 2

4 .6 l

2

2.05 2

1.57

8 th grade or! l e s s

171

3.49

2

2.654

2

2.12

3

2.59

3

2.00 3

2.6*1 3

**•.19

3

1.97 3

1 .6 4

T o ta l

424

3 .2 5 .

2.86

2.17

2 .90

2.26

2.98

**•.73

2 .0 4

1.72

9.36**

14.97**

1.07

17.81**

24.01**

19.07**

1.30

6.45**

F1

15.27**

S 'o r t h i s t a b l e F must re a c h 4 .6 6 to b e s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e i f p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3 .0 2 a t th e 5f> p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1f p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l.

T a b l e 37
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BY EXTENT OF FOE1AL EDUCATION
N egroes
Negroes Negroes
to Johns— next
a re
tovjn
door
la z y

E d u c atio n a l
Level

T o ta l no*
o f respond—
Mean
c a ts

103

Mean

R Mean

2 .co i

2.07

1

3.58

1

3 . il3

1

1*.27 1

2 .7 5 2

1.97

2

3M

0

3 . li*

2

l*.78 3

2.60 3

1 .9 6

3

3.50

2

2 .66

3

2.00

3.36

1

i *.36

i*.o6

2
3

2

8 th grade o r l e s s

171

1*.13

T o ta l

1*25

3.81*

l*.5l

2.78

6.12**

1 .86

5.1*6**

F1

R

t*

w

* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li ty le v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond t h e $ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l .

Mean

R

1.59

1

1.50

1

U-.hh

2

1.37

3

1.37

3

l* .ll

3

1.1*7

2

1.1*9

2

3.52

3.05

i*.i*5

1.1*9

1.1*6

*

22.05**

11.05+*

2 . 71*

#

F or t h i s t a b l e F o u st re a c h 1*.66 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e Vf; p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; 3-02 a t th e 5^ p r o b a b ility le v e l.
# - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.

O rders
from a
Negro

1

•

9- l l t h g rad e s

151

R Mean R. Mean. R Mean

T o tal
W hites and
Negro
N egroes i n
P r Score same
r e s ta u r a n t
T> Mean
R
R Mean
00

H. S. g ra d u a te
and above

Keep Negroes
N egroes Negroes
o u t o f White
should w ith
neighborhoods v o te
e d u c a tio n

In g e n e r a l, th e s iz e o f th e F*s f o r a l l o f th e q u e s tio n s f o r
which th e r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s in d ic a te s th a t
d if f e r e n c e s a r e a c c e n tu a te d when th e e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l s a r e con­
d en sed .

The h ig h sch o o l g ra d u a te s a g a in ten d to account f o r

much o f th e d i f f e r e n c e .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans and th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e sco re f o r
a l l t h r e e m in o rity groups a r e shown in T able 38.

VJhile th e d i f f e r ­

ences a r e n o t g r e a t l y a c c e n tu a te d , th e r e s u l t s o f T able 35 a r e
co n firm ed .

The re sp o n d e n ts w ith a t l e a s t a h ig h school e d u c a tio n

a r e c o n s is te n tly most t o l e r a n t and ap p ear to a c c o u n t f o r th e
g r e a t e r p a r t o f th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l s .
One a d d itio n a l a n a ly s is was a ls o made.

I n C hapter Pour

i t was shown t h a t o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n appeared to be
r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s toward m in o rity g ro u p s.

The r e la tio n s h ip

in t h i s sample o f e d u ca tio n to th e o ccu p atio n o f th e male house­
h o ld head i s r a t h e r h ig h .

The c o r r e c te d c o e f f i c i e n t o f con­

tin g e n c y , b ased on a Chi Square which i s s ig n i f i c a n t beyond
th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l , i s .50 f o r n o n -farm ers.

It

may be a p p r o p ria te , th e r e f o r e , to an aly z e e d u c a tio n a l c a te g o r ie s
when o ccu p a tio n i s h e ld c o n s ta n t.
I t should b e p o in te d o u t, however, t h a t t h e p r in c ip a l con­
c e rn o f t h i s c h a p te r i s w ith e d u c a tio n a s an in d e x o f s o c ia l
s ta tu s .
re la te d .

I t was ex p ected th a t e d u c a tio n and o c c u p a tio n would be
To waht e x te n t one o r th e o th e r v a r i a b l e h a s th e g r e a t­

e r in flu e n c e in d e te rm in in g a t t i t u d e s i s im p o rta n t i f m ajor con­
c e rn i s w ith i s o l a t i n g s p e c if ic c a u s a l f a c t o r s .

T h is problem i s

(CABLE 38
ATTITUDES TOWARD I-EXICAITS M B ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCORE BY EXTENT OF FORMAL EDUCATION

E d u c a tio n a l
L evel

T o ta l n o.
o ? r e s u o - .f rsut s

M e x ic a n s
a s c itiz e n s
and v o t e r s

K e e p M o r ic r n s
out c f v iitn
n e ir iib o r h o o d s

M e x ic a n s
c o r in g to
I l i d s t . ’- t e

Ifsa n

E

M ean

R

M ean

R

H e r r ic r p c i ”
r e sta n r r r tc
v d t l i v' i t e s
Jfear.

. i T o ta l

j

P r e ju d ic e
Score

R

M ean

R

H. S. g r a d u a te o r
above

151

3 .2 5

1

2 .2 5

1

1 .7 7

1

2 .1 1

1

3 .2 5

l

9 -llth

103

3 .0 6

2

2 .1 6

2

1 .5 2

2

i.a s

3

2 .7 0

3

8 th grad e o r le s s

171

3 .0 5

3

2.01

3

1 .5 1

3

1 .89

2

2 .78

2

T o ta l

425

3 .1 2

2.13

1 .6 1

1.97

2 .9 3

1 .6 4

3.29*

6.83**

3.56*

5.28**

F

1

grades

*For t h i s t a h l e F mast re a c h 4 .6 6 t o he s ig n if ic a n t a t th e
* - S ig n if ic a n t "beyond th e 5?= p r o b a b i li t y le v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i lity l e v e l l

3$

p r o h e h i li t y l e v e l ;

3 .0 2

a t bhe 5£ p r o b a b i li ty le v e l.

n o t a p p r o p ria te f o r t h i s t h e s i s , f o r h e re th e ta s k h as been t o
d e te rm in e i f th e r e a r e c e r t a i n g e n e ra l r e l a t io n s h i p s between
v a r i a b l e s o f s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e , i n t h i s c a se s o c ia l s ta tu s
v a r i a b l e s , and a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r it ie s .

Form t h i s p o in t

o f view o cc u p a tio n and e d u catio n a r e n o t assumed to be sim ple
and d i r e c t c a u s a tiv e f a c t o r s .

T h e y 'a re ass\imed to be f u n c tio n ­

a l l y r e la te d to a whole c o m le x o f v a r ia b le s which a r e o f m ajor
im p o rtan ce in d e te rm in in g s o c ia l s t a t u s .
I t i s o f i n t e r e s t , however, to see to what e x te n t ed u catio n
may s t i l l be r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r it ie s when th e
o c c u p a tio n a l v a r i a b l e i s h e ld c o n s ta n t.

In making such an

a n a l y s is , i t i s n e c e s s a r y e i t h e r to e lim in a te women from con­
s id e r a tio n o r in c lu d e them in th e o c c u p a tio n a l c a te g o r ie s to
which t h e i r husbands' ( o r o th e r male household head s) belong.
T h is i s due to th e f a c t t h a t th e o c c u p a tio n a l a n a ly s is was
made o n ly f o r men, w h ile th e e d u c a tio n a l a n a ly s is h as been made
f o r th e e n t i r e sam ple.

In t h i s in s ta n c e women have been in c lu d e d

The th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s were u se d to make t h i s t e s t .

22

T h is was n o t done s o le ly on l o g i c a l grounds. I t h as been found
t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n th e resp o n ses o f
men and women i n t h i s sample. M oreover, i n s o f a r a s o ccu p atio n
i s an in d ex of. s o c ia l s ta t u s i t may be assumed th a t women in
Maple County u s u a ll y ta k e th e s t a t u s a p p r o p r ia te to th e occup­
a t i o n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f th e m ale household head. In a d d itio n
however, an a n a l y s is o f v a ria n c e was c a lc u la te d , though n o t
r e p o r te d i n t h i s t h e s i s , f o r farm and non-farm o ccu p atio n s
w herein woman were c l a s s i f i e d in th e c a te g o ry of th e male house
h o ld h ead . The r e s u l t s were q u ite s im ila r t o th o se found when
men were an aly zed a lo n e .

The r e s u l t s a r e shown in T able 39.

^?or th e w hite c o l l a r

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n th e e d u c a tio n a l c a te g o r ie s ap-oeared to "be to o
sm all to .ju s tif y an a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e .

F o r th e o th e r t* »

o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s an a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e was
c a l c u l a t ed.
For h o th farm and manual la h o r groups i t i s ap p aren t t h a t
e d u c a tio n i s s t i l l an im p o rtan t v a r ia b le in d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g
a t t i t u d e s toward m in o rity g ro ups, even when o ccu p a tio n i s h e ld
c o n s ta n t.

The tr e n d s which wore found in th e s e p a ra te a n a ly s is

o f e d u c a tio n a p p e ar to ho ld w ith in o c c u p a tio n a l g ro u u s.

The

ra n k o rd e r f in d in g s a r e a ls o q u ite s im ila r f o r th e w hite c o l l a r
g ro u p .

Hie p r i n c i p a l d if f e r e n c e a p p ears to be between h ig h

sch o o l g ra d u a te s and th o s e w ith l e s s form al e d u c a tio n , which
a c c o rd s w ith th e p r e v io u s f in d in g s .
In summary, e d u c a tio n a p p ears to be an im p o rta n t index o f
a t t i t u d e s toward m in o rity g ro a n s, even wdth o c c u p a tio n h e ld
c o n s ta n t.

Hie most im p o rtan t f a c t o r ap p ears to be th e d i f f e r ­

ences c o n trib u te d by th e u p p er e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l , th a t i s , th e
h ig h school g ra d u a te s .

The d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e two low er

e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l s (when th re e c a te g o r ie s a r e u s e d ) a re n o t a s
c o n s is te n t n o r a s la r g e , a3 a r u le , as th e d if f e r e n c e s between
th e s e l e v e l s and th e u p p er e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l .

The d ir e c tio n of

such d iff e r e n c e s a c c o rd s w ith a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e sis
b u t n o t a "c o m p e titio n " h y p o th e sis w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s to ­
ward Jew s.

Both h y p o th e se s a r e supported by th e d a ta f o r Negroes

and M exicans.

-156T able 39
ATTITUDES TOWARD MINORITY C-ROUPS BY EXTENT OP FORMAL EDUC­
ATION, WITH OCCUPATION OF MALE HOUSEHOLD HEAD HELD CONSTANT

O ccu p atio n al
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
Mean
R

T o ta l
T o ta l
Negro
P r e ju d ic e
P r Score Score
Mean
R Mean
R

Farm er
H. S. g ra d u a te o r above

36

5.33

1

4 .6 1 ' 1

3.25

1

9-11 g ra d e s

42

4.29

2

4 .3 1

2

2.5?

8 th g rad e o r l e s s

84

4 .1 4

3

3 .9 6

3

2.73

3
2

162

4 .44

4 .2 0

2.81

6 .4 6**

3.49*

2 .7 4

T o ta l
F1
Manual Labor
H. S. G raduate o r above

50

5.68

9-11 g ra d e s

47

8 th g ra d e o r l e s s
T o ta l

1

1
2

3.42

1

4 .7 4

4 .98
2. 4.49

2 .85

3

64

4.22

3

4 .2 3

3

2.86

2

l6 l

4.83

4 .5 4

3.03

8.85**

3.83*

3.83*

Fl
W hite C o lla r
H. S. g ra d u a te o r above

59

5.41

2

4 .97

1

3.21

1

9-11 g ra d e s

11

6.00

1

4 .5 5

2

2.50

2

8 th g rad e o r l e s s

13

4.38

3

4 .3 1

3

2.38

3

83

5.33

T o ta l

4 .8 1

2.99

F2
'I'F or t h i s ta b le F must re a c h 4 .7 5 to be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i lity
l e v e l ; 3*06 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i lity l e v e l .
^Not c a lc u la te d b ecau se o f sm all s iz e o f two o f t h e th re e sam ples.
* - S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
** - S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

1

I t nay w ell be argued t h a t th e d if f e r e n c e s which have been
found a r e due to th e f o r n a l e d u c a tio n a l p ro c e ss i t s e l f , w herein
th e " r i g h t " re sp o n se s a r e le a rn e d and g iv en to th e q u e s tio n s which
were a sk e d .

This i s p r e c i s e l y th e problem o f t h i s t h e s i s . U anely,

th e r e a r e s u b - c u ltu r a l p a t t e r n s which d i f f e r from each o th e r,
a lth o u g h th e y ap p ro x im ate th e t o t a l c u ltu r e of which they a r e a
p a rt.

I t nay be e j e c t e d t h a t fo rm al ed u catio n p la y s an im p o rtan t,

p a r t i n d eterm in in g such s u b - c u ltu r a l d if f e r e n c e s .
But th e h ig h sch o o l g ra d u a te i s more th an th e product o f a
form al system o f e d u c a tio n .

The p r o c e s s i s a s s o c ia te d w ith a c h ie v ­

in g o r m ain ta in in g p a r t i c u l a r s o c ia l s ta t u s p o s i t i o n s w ith in th e
s o c ia l system .

I f th e h ig h school g ra d u a te h a s le a rn e d to tem per

h i s re sp o n s e s, i t h a s n o t been done i n a vacuum, n o r s o le ly b ecause
o f fo rm al e d u c a tio n .

H is e d u c a tio n a l a tta in m e n t i s a s s o c ia te d

w ith a h o s t o f o th e r v a r ia b le s which in flu e n c e h i s resp o n ses and,
i n t h i s sen se, "cau se" him to tem per o r modify h i s e x p re ssio n o f
a t t i t u d e s toward m i n o r i t i e s .
T h is i s n o t to deny th e p o s s ib l e m ed iatin g in flu e n c e o f form al
system s o f e d u c a tio n .

I t i s q u ite p o s s ib le t h a t f o r th e in d iv id u a l

p s y c h o lo g ic a l a c t o r th e "meaning" o f classroom d is c u s s io n h a s be­
come an in t o g r a l p a r t o f h i s t o t a l re sp o n s e s.

But f o r ou r p u rp o ses

th e more im p o rtan t f a c t o r i s th e e x te n t to which a group o f in d iv id ­
u a l a c t o r s may be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by e d u c a tio n a s an index o f s o c ia l
s ta tu s .

C on clu sio n s
In t h i s c h a p te r in co n e and e d u c a tio n have "been used as in d ic e s
o f s o c ia l s ta t u s i n o r d e r to t e s t f o r d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s to ­
ward m in o rity g ro u p s.

C e rta in g e n e r a l c o n c lu s io n s ap p ear to "be

w a rra n te d by th e d a ta .
1.

I n s o f a r a s in c o n e i s an index o f s o c ia l s ta t u s , a t t i t u d e s to ­
ward Jews a p p e ar to be d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by c e r t r i n broad income
l e v e l s , th e u p n e r income groups b ein g more t o l e r a n t .

The

d i r e c t i o n o f such d if f e r e n c e s su p p o rts a " s e c u r ity - d e o r iv a tio n "
h y p o th e s is but n o t a " c o m p e titio n ” h y p o th e s is .
VJhen income i s u sed a s a v a r ia b le th e r e i s some sup p o rt, b u t
by no means a s s tro n g a s in ( l ) above, f o r th e h y p o th e sis th a t
a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes d i f f e r i n term s o f s o c ia l s ta t u s .

The

d i r e c t i o n o f such d iff e r e n c e s i s n o t alw ays c l e a r - c u t b u t,
where th e re a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s , h ig h e r
income groups te n d to be nore t o l e r a n t o f N egroes th an low or
income g ro u p s.

On a l l q u e s tio n s th e lo w est income group te n d s

to be more i n t o l e r a n t th an o th e r s ta t u s g ro u p s.

T his a c c o rd s

w ith bo th th e " s e c u rity -d e ro riv a tio n " h y p o th e s is and th e
"co m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is .
3.

W ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans, t h e low est income
group ag ain te n d s to be l e a s t t o l o r a n t and t o account f o r th e
d if f e r e n c e s betw een groups f o r th e or. 3 q u e s tio n vhich i s
s ta t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t.

T h is acco rd s w ith b o th th e " s e c u r ity -

d e p riv a tio n " h y p o th e s is and th e "co m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is .

-159k.

D if fe re n c e s in e d u c a tio n were found to "be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d
to d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tov:ard a l l th re e m in o r itie s and to
su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is t h a t s o c ia l s ta t u s , when ed u catio n i s
u sed a s an in d e x , i s r e la te d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity
g ro u p s.

The d i r e c t i o n o f th e d if f e r e n c e s u p p o rts th e " s e c u r ity -

d e p riv a tio n " h y p o th e s is f o r a l l m in o r itie s which have "been
a n a ly ze d , hut th e "co m p etitio n " h y p o th e sis i s supported only
w ith re s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Negroes and M exicans.
5. When o ccu p atio n i s h e ld c o n s ta n t th e r e i s evid en ce to in d i c a t e
t h a t e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l i s s t i l l a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s .

1

CHAPTER S IX

ATTITUDES AS A FUNCTION OF SOCIAL STATUS:
SELF-EVALUATION OF SOCIAL CLASS AND A
CONSTRUCTED INDEX OF SOCIAL STATUS

A ttitu d e s toward M in o ritie s i n
R e la tio n to S e lf-E v a lu a tio n o f S o c ia l C lass
One k in d o f d a ta w ith r e s p e c t to th e s o c ia l s ta tu s o f a
resp o n d en t i s d e r iv e d by sim ply a sk in g him to what c la s s do es
he th in k he b e lo n g s.

T h is method o f s e lf - e v a lu a tio n of s o c ia l

c l a s s was u sed by C en ters1 and waB adopted w ith s li g h t m odif­
i c a t i o n f o r t h i s re s e a r c h .

I n s te a d o f ask in g th e respondent

d i r e c t l y i n what s o c ia l c la s s h e co n sid e re d h im s e lf to b e, he
was asked:

" I f you were asked to u s e one o f th e s e f o u r names

f o r y o u r s o c ia l c l a s s , which would you say you belonged in ? "
He was th en handed a card which l i s t e d th e fo llo w in g :

M iddle

c l a s s , low er c l a s s , w orking c l a s s , and u p p er c l a s s .
W hile C e n te rs b e lie v e s h e h a s d em o n strated " c la s s
co n scio u sn e ss" by t i l l s method, i t i s n o t c e r t a i n t h a t th e
co n cep t i s v a lid f o r a r u r a l p o p u la tio n .

However, th e

c o r re c te d c o e f f i c i e n t o f c o n tin g e n c y i s .51 f o r o ccu p atio n and
s e lf - e v a lu a tio n o f s o c ia l c la s s f o r th e non-farm group.

The

Chi Square, upon which t h i s c o e f f i c i e n t i s b a se d i s s ig n i f i c a n t
beyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

Hence, we have some

ev id en ce t h a t s e lf - e v a l u a t i o n o f s o c ia l c la s s i s r e la te d a t
l e a s t to o c c u p a tio n a l c l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f n o n -fa rm e rs.

I t was,

t h e r e f o r e , d e cid ed to u s e s e lf - e v a lu a tio n o f s o c ia l c la s s a s an
■^•Richard C en te rs, The Psychology o f S o c ia l C la s s e s . P rin c e to n ,
New J e rs e y : P r in c e to n U n iv e r s ity P r e s s , 19**9. See in te rv ie w
sch ed u le i n th e Appendix o f t h i s book.

in d e x o f s o c ia l s t a t u s , and to t e s t th e h y p o th ese s re g a rd in g
d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
The o n ly o t h e r re s e a rc h a p p lic a b le to t h i s v a r ia b le i s
t h a t o f C e n te rs.

He found t h a t , w ith r e s p e c t to h i s m easure

o f Negro p r e ju d ic e , th e w orking c la s s ten d ed to be more p r e ­
ju d ic e d th a n th e m iddle c l a s s .

W ith r e s p e c t to h i s m easure o f

a t t i t u d e s toward Jews he found no d if f e r e n c e s between c l a s s e s .
!By f a r th e g r e a t e r number o f Maple County resp o n d en ts who
were a b le o r w i l l i n g to g iv e t h e i r own e v a lu a tio n o f t h e i r
s o c ia l c la s s p o s i t i o n f a l l in to th e working and m iddle c la s s
g ro u p s.

Only f o u r resp o n d e n ts i d e n t i f i e d th em selv es a s lo w er

c l a s s and f o r p u rp o se s o f th e fo llo w in g a n a ly s is th e y were
in c lu d e d i n th e w orking c l a s s .

T h irte e n o f t h e resp o n d en ts

i d e n t i f i e d th em selv es a s u p p e r c l a s s and f o r t h i s a n a ly s is
h av e been in c lu d e d w ith th e m iddle c l a s s .

The d a ta to be

an a ly z e d , th e r e f o r e , a r e b ased on two r a t h e r la r g e segments
o f th e Maple County sample a s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d by s e lf - e v a lu a tio n
o f s o c ia l c la s s .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Jews a r e shown by T able *40.

Two o f th e

f iv e - p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s a r e s ig n i f i c a n t , one beyond th e one
p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

The t o t a l Jew ish P re ju d ic e s c o re

i s s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e f i v e p e r cen t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

The

ev id en ce i s n o t c o n c lu s iv e b u t s u p p o rts th e h y p o th e s is th a t
s e lf - e v a l u a t i o n o f s o c ia l c l a s s , a s a m easure o f s o c ia l s t a t u s

^R ich ard C e n te rs, I b i d . . p p . 1*43-1*44.

Table 40
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS Ef SELF-FVALUATIO-T OF SOCIAL CLASS

S e lf-E v a lu a tio n
o f S o c ia l C lass
Middle Class^"
Working C lass
T o tal
F3

2

Jew i sh
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s tr ic t
Jews

Mean

Jews th in k
th ey *re
b e tte r
R. Kean
R

Mean R

Moan

163

3.29

2

3.00

1

2.13

2

254

3.20

1

2.80

2

2.21

1

417

3 .2 4

T o ta l no. .
. o f respond­
e n ts

jl

2.88
3.23

2.18
#

Guard
a g a in s t
J cws

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

Jews in
ny neigh­
borhood

R Mean

E

1. 5.01

1

2.09

1

1.79

1

4 .6 0

2

2.02

?

1.68

2

R Mean

R Mean

3.1 5

1

2.39

1

3.11

2.75

2

2.20

2

2.89

2

R

Mean

Jews
a re
h o n e st

2.91

2.27

2.99

4 .7 6

13.29**

3.29

4.69*

4.70*

2 .04
A
it

Mean

1.72
1.52

In c lu d e s 13 re sp o n d en ts who s ta te d th e y were u p p er c l a s s .
2

In clu d ed 4 resp o n d e n ts who s ta te d th e y were low er c l a s s .

^For t h i s t a b l e F must reach 6.70 to be s ig n i f ic a n t a t th e 1^ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3 .8 6 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ili ty l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e between g ro u p s.
+ - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5^ p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1£ p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l.

R

-1 6 3 -

d if f e r e n c e s , i s r e l a t e d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.

In g e n e ra l

th e tre n d i s f o r th e m iddle c l a s s to he more t o l e r a n t th a n th e
w orking c l a s s .

T h is tr e n d s u p p o rts th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n "

h y p o th e s is hut n o t th e " c o m p e titio n 11 h y p o th e s is .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Negroes a r e shown hy T a h le 41.

On a l l

h u t one q u e s tio n th e v a ria n c e w ith in groups i s g r e a te r th a n
th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.

F o r t h i s q u e s tio n , however, th e

d i f f e r e n c e s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t heyond th e one p e r c en t p r o b a b ilit y
le v e l.

The d i f f e r e n c e s on th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e sc o re a r e

s i g n i f i c a n t heyond th e f iv e p e r cen t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

In

g e n e ra l th e m iddle c l a s s te n d s , a lth o u g h th e tr e n d i s sm all f o r
in d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s , to be more t o l e r a n t o f Negroes th a n th e
w orking c l a s s .

The fin d in g s le n d some su p p o rt f o r th e hypo­

t h e s i s th a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s ta tu s a r e r e l a te d to d i f f e r ­
en c es in a t t i t u d e s .

The tre n d su p p o rts b o th th e " s e c u r ity -

d e p r iv a tio n " and " c o n p e titio n " h y p o th e se s.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown i n T ab le 42.

There

a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s betw een c la s s e s f o r
any o f th e in d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s .

The tirend, however, c o n tin u e s.

The m iddle c la s s i s more t o l e r a n t th a n th e w orking c la s s .
The d i f f e r e n c e s on th e T o ta l P re ju d ic e s c o re a r e not
s ig n ific a n t.

However, th e m iddle c la s s c o n tin u e s to be some­

what more t o l e r a n t o f a l l th re e groups, a s m easured by t h i s
s c o re , th a n th e w orking c l a s s .
Since b o th farm and non-farm resp o n d en ts were in c lu d e d in
t h i s a n a ly s is a f u r t h e r s te p was ta k e n .

A nalyses o f v a ria n c e

Table

t

ATTITUDES TOWAED HEOEOES BY SELF-EVALUATI027 OF SOCIAL CIASS

T o ta l n o .
S e lf-E v a lu a tio n o f respond—
Middle C la s s ‘d
Working C la ss
T o ta l
F3

2

H egroes
to Johns­
town

Hegroes
next
door

Hegroes
a re
la z y

Keep Hegroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

Mean

B Mean H Mean. B Mean

l 6*+

3.81

1

*+.59

2

2 .8 1

1

2 5*+

3 .8 6

2

*+.*+7 1

2 .7 6

2

* + is

3.8*+

*+.52

2 .7 8

JL
It

#

JL
u

H egroes
should
v o te

Hegroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

W hites and
H egroes i n
same
r e s ta u r a n t
H Mean
B

T o tal
Hegro
P r Score

B

Mean

H Mean

P. Mean

2 . 0*+

1

3.5*+

1

3 .3 ?

1

*+.67

1

l.*+9

2

l .*+6

1

1 .99

2

3.50

2

2.88

2

*+.33

2

1 .5 0

1

l .*+5

2

2.01
.

#

3.52
JL
7T

3 .08
2 1 . 52**

*+.*16
5.97*

1.50
JL

TT

In clu d e s 13 resp o n d e n ts v/ho s ta te d th ey were n p p er c l a s s .
2
In c lu d e s *+ resp o n d en ts who s ta te d th e y were lov;er c l a s s .
I b r t h i s ta b le F must reach 6.70 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e l)o p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; 3 .8 6 a t th e 5^ p r o b a b ility le v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e betv/een. g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l .
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i lit y le v e l.

O rders
from a
Hegro
Mean B

l.*+5

T a b l e h2
ATTITUDES TO-fAST MEFIC/3TS AI7D ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PFFJITICF
5C0E3 3Y SELF-EYALUATI CUT OF SOCIAL CLASS

S e lf-E v a lu a tio n
o f S o c ia l C lass
M iddle Class'*"
Working C la ss
T o ta l
P

2

T o ta l no.
o f resw o rro its

Il e x i c o n s

K een I -o r ic r n s

T fercica n s

a s n i t j zcrvs
and v o te rs

o u t c f w h ite
n e i riib 0 rho 0d s

cou»',f; to
Mid St..,:t e

Mean

Mean.

3

. Mean

H

3

i’o:*icr nr J-*
ro s tn irr-tr
With v* it OS

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
Score

Moar.

3

Morn

TJ

16^

3 .1 3

2

2 .20

1

1 .6 8

1

1.98

1

2 .99

1

254

3 .1 ^

1

2 . 0?

2

1 .5 7

2

1.97

2

2 .8 8

2

418

3 .1 3

2 .1 3

1 .6 1

Jt
V

1.63

2 .17

1.97
JL
T

2.93
A
,1

In c lu d e s 13 resp o n d e n ts who s ta te d th e y were u p p er c l a s s .
2

In c lu d e s 4 resp o n d en ts who s ta te d th e y were low er c l a s s .
Q
For t h i s t a b l e F must reach 6.70 to be s ig n i f ic a n t a t th e 1$6 p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; 3 .86 a t

# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a r ia n c e between g ro u p s.

he 5% p r o b a b ility l e v e l.

were computed f o r farm and n on-farm g ro u p s.

The th re e p r e ­

ju d ic e sc o re s wore u sed a s th e h a s is f o r th e s e a n a ly s e s .
r e s u l t s a r e sham i n T ab le

The

l a a l l c a se s th e m iddle c la s s i s

more t o l e r a n t th a n th e working c l a s s .

T h a tis , th e m ajor tr e n d s

a lre a d y d is c u s s e d h o ld f o r b o th farm and non-farm re sp o n d e n ts.
The d iff e r e n c e s a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t f o r th e non-farm group b u t
th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e one
p e r c en t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l f o r fa rm e rs.

The Jew ish P r e ju d ic e

s c o re a ls o ap p ro ach es th e f iv e p e r cent l e v e l o f p r o b a b ility
f o r t h i s group.

Hence, th e s t a t i s t i c a l d if f e r e n c e s re p o rte d

i n T a b les *K) and ^1 may be due t o th e farm p o r tio n o f th e
t o t a l sam ple.

But th e tre n d s a r e c le a r ly th e same f o r b o th

farm and non-farm g ro u p s.
Exam ination o f T able

a ls o shows t h a t , w h ile th e d i f f e r ­

en ces between m iddle and w orking c l a s s re sp o n d e n ts a r e in th e
same d i r e c tio n f o r b o th farm and non-farm re sp o n d e n ts , th e farm
re sp o n d e n ts c o n tin u e to in d ic a t e more p r e ju d ic e .

Those farm ers

who say t h a t th e y b elo n g to th e m iddle c la s s a r e more p r e ju d ic e d
th a n non -farm ers who say t h a t th e y belong to th e m iddle c l a s s .
T h is i s a ls o t r u e o f w orking c la s s re sp o n d e n ts .

In f a c t , th e

mean f o r m iddle c l a s s farm ers f o r a l l p r e ju d ic e sco res i s
p r a c t i c a l l y th e same a s th e mean f o r working c l a s s n o n -farm ers.
Can such d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s be explained?
The w r i te r h a s a lr e a d y in d ic a te d t h a t , i n h i s o b s e rv a tio n ,
th e farm ing system o f Maple County i s r a p id ly becoming m echanized
and i n d u s t r i a l i z e d .

C oncom itantly, th e r e a p p e a rs to be an

-1 6 7 t a b l e **3
ATTITUDES TOWARD MINORITY GROUPS ANALYZED
BY SELF-EVALUATION OF SOCIAL CLASS
FOR FARM AND NON-FARM RESPONDENTS

Non-Farm

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
Score

Mean

R

Mean

R

Mean

R

M iddle C lass

103

5 .1 2

1

**.7**

1

3.03

1

Working C lass

156

**•79

2

**.53

2

2.9**

2

259

h .92

**.6l

1 .7 2

1 . 2**

T o ta l
1
F

2.98
•

1.29

Farm
M iddle C lass

61

**.82

1

**.56

1

2.93

1

Working C lass

98

4 .3 0

2

**.01

2

2.79

2

159

**.50

**.22

3-*»9

7.36**

T o ta l
•

p2

2.85
#

^F must reach 6 .7 6 to "be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ le v e l;
3 .8 9 a t th e 5$ l e v e l .
^F must reach 6 .8 1 to "be s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ le v e l;
3 .9 1 a t th e 5$ l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e
between g ro u p s.
+* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .

i

em erging system o f s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n which i s r e la te d to
s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n th e towns of th e county.

The p o in t was made,

how ever, th a t t h i s i s an em erging, n o t an em ergent system .
The d a ta o f T ah le 43 do n o t c o n tr a d ic t t h i s h y p o th e s is .
A pproxim ately o n e - th ir d o f th e farm re sp o n d e n ts c l a s s i f y them­
s e lv e s a s m id d le -c la s s , w h ile ah o u t tw o - th ir d s id e n tif y them­
s e lv e s a s wo riding c l a s s .

I t i s su g g ested h e r e t h a t th e l a t t e r

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s p ro p e r i n th e o ld e r f a rm - fo lk economy w herein
th e farm er co n sid e re d h im s e lf a s a working man.

But m iddle

c l a s s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n in d ic a te s some aw areness o f th e modern,
i n d u s t r i a l i z e d , money economy which has 'been ex ten d in g in to
th e r u r a l m iddle west w ith a g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r sweep.

That

i s , such farm ers r e v e a l i n such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a t t i t u d e s
a p p r o p ria te to th e statem e n t o f te n made by them th a t "farm in g ,
i s a b u s in e s s ."

They a r e and th e y a r e b eg in n in g to see them­

s e lv e s a s modem e n tre p re n e u rs w ith a f a i r l y la r g e investm ent
i n equipment and la n d .

T h e ir i d e n t i f i c a t i o n cannot be w holly

t h a t o f th e "w orking man."
W hile th e fo re g o in g may n o t be a com plete o r w holly
a d e q u ate e x p la n a tio n , b o th th e s t a t i s t i c a l com putations and
community o b s e rv a tio n su p p o rt i t .

To th e e x te n t th a t such an

e x p la n a tio n h o ld s we might expect th a t th e tr e n d f o r middle'
and w orking c l a s s non-farm resp o n d e n ts to d i f f e r would a ls o
h o ld f o r farm re sp o n d e n ts, i n s o f a r as changing system s o f
se n tim e n ts a r e o c c u rrin g .

M oreover, we would s t i l l expect

m iddle c la s s fa rm e rs to be more p re ju d ic e d t h a t m iddle c l a s s

n o n -fa rm e rs, "because th e form er a r e s t i l l c lo s e ly i d e n t i f i e d
w ith o th e r fa rm e rs who have "been dem onstrated to "be c u l t u r a ll y
d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from n o n -farm ers i n t h e i r a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m i n o r itie s .
In summary, w h ile s e lf - e v a lu a tio n o f s o c ia l c l a s s , when
u s e d a s a n in d ex o f s o c ia l s t a t u s , does n o t re v e a l u n eq u iv o cal
s t a t i s t i c a l su p p o rt f o r th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e s a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in s o c ia l s ta tu s ,
t h e c o n s is te n c y o f d i r e c t io n f o r th e m iddle and working c la s s
re sp o n d en ts in d i c a t e s t h a t such an h y p o th e sis cannot "be
r e j e c t e d w ith c o n fid e n c e .

That i s , th e ran k o rd e r fin d in g s

te n d to confirm th e h y p o th e s is .

T his i s t r u e f o r th e t o t a l

sample and f o r farm and non-farm resp o n d en ts when th e y a r e
an aly zed s e p a r a te ly .
A ttitu d e s in R e la tio n s h ip to a
C o n stru cted Index o f S o c ia l S ta tu s
In t h i s and th e p re v io u s two c h a p te rs c e r t a i n assumed
components of s o c i a l s ta t u s in a system o f v e r t i c a l s o c ia l
m o b ility were d is c u s s e d i n r e la tio n s h ip to a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m in o rity g ro u p s.

These components wore income, o ccu p atio n ,

e d u c a tio n , and s e lf - e v a l u a tio n o f s o c ia l c l a s s .
W hile each o f th e s e components may "be c o n sid e re d as an
in d e x o f s o c ia l s ta t u s , th e i n e v ita b l e q u e s tio n a r i s e s a s to
what e x te n t th e s e components a r e i n t e r r e l a t e d .

Moreover,

i n s o f a r a s th e r e a re extended i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , to what
e x te n t can a t t i t u d e s toward m in o rity groups be analyzed in

t e r n s o f an in d ex o f s o c ia l s t a t u s v/hich i s r e p r e s e n ta tiv e o f
such complex i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s ?

I t i s custom ary, where th e

s a n p l'1 i s o f s u f f i c i e n t s iz e to a tte m p t to h o ld c o n s ta n t one
o r more i n t e r r e l a t e d f a c t o r s w h ile d eterm in in g th e e f f e c t o f
a n o th e r f a c t o r .

T h is k in d o f a n a ly s is was made when th e v a r i ­

a b le o f e d u c a tio n was an aly zed a t th e same tim e th a t th e v a r i ­
a b le o f o c c u p a tio n was h eld c o n s ta n t.

L ik ew ise, farm and non-

f a r n resp o n d en ts have been a n a ly s e d s e p a r a te ly f o r c o r ta in
v a ria b le s .
E a rly i n th e p la n n in g f o r th e a n a ly se s t h a t have been
p re s e n te d i t ap p eared d e s ir a b le to develop some k in d o f s ta t u s
in d ex which t r e a t e d a number o f h y p o th e tic a lly im p o rtan t s t a t u s
v a r ia b le s a t th e same tim e.

A ccordingly, an a n r l o r l s ta t u s

in d ex was c o n s tr u c te d which to o k in to c o n s id e ra tio n c e r ta in
v a r ia b le s t h a t were found to be i n t e r r e l a t e d i n term s o f th e
c o e f f i c i e n t o f mean square co n tin g e n c y .

T h is contingency was

b ased on Chi S quares v/hich were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t be­
yond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

In o rd e r to havo an

in d e x a p p lic a b le e q u a lly w ell t o farm and non-farm resp o n d en ts
th e v a r ia b le o f income (a s g iv e n by th e re sp o n d en t) was n o t
in c lu d e d .

On th e o th e r hand an in d e x o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n

o r g a n iz a tio n a l a c t i v i t y , which was c o n s tru c te d from th e i n t e r ­
view d a ta , ap p eared to be s u f f i c i e n t l y r e l a t e d to o ccu p atio n ,
e d u c a tio n , and s e lf - e v a lu a tio n o f s o c ia l c l a s s to make i t a
u s e f u l a d d itio n to t h i s s ta tu s in d ex .

A ccordingly, th e

re sp o n d en ts were c l a s s i f i e d i n t o c a te g o r ie s ran g in g from

"p u re ” low to "p u re" h i ^ i s t a t u s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , i n term s o f
th e k in d o f o c c u p a tio n , e x te n t o f form al e d u c a tio n , kind o f
s e lf - e v a lu a tio n o f s o c ia l c l a s s , and e x te n t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n form al o rg a n iz a tio n s o f each respondent.-^

I t i s th is

s t a t u s in d ex , c o n s tru c te d on a n r i o r i grounds b e fo re a n a ly s is
o f th e d a ta , w hich w i l l be d isc u s s e d f i r s t .
A ttitu d e s o f Farm R espondents in
R elatlo n sh i-p to an Index o f S ta tu s
The b a s ic s e t o f h y p o th eses th a t have been advanced with
r e s p e c t to s o c ia l s t a t u s and i t s r e la tio n s h ip to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard m in o rity g roups may now be examined i n term s o f th e
s ta t u s in d ex d e s c rib e d above.

In C hapter F our i t was shown

t h a t farm and non-farm re sp o n d en ts o fte n d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y
in t h e i r ex p ressed sen tim e n ts toward Jew s, N egroes, and
M exicans.

A cco rd in g ly , th e a n a ly s is o f th e s t a t u s index was

u n d e rta k e n s e p a r a te ly f o r each o f th e s e g ro u p s.
3
The "pure" low group was composed o f re sp o n d e n ts who had n o t
been to h ig h sc h o o l, were i n a manual o c c u p a tio n ( o r th e house­
h o ld head w as), e stim a te d t h e i r c la s s p o s it i o n s s working c la s s ,
p a r t i c i p a t e d v e ry l i t t l e i n o r g a n iz a tio n s . "Pure" h ig h was th e
o p p o s ite extrem e: h ig h school g ra d u a te , m iddle c la s s s e l f e v a lu a tio n , w h ite c o l l a r o ccu p atio n , c o n s id e ra b le p a r t i c i p a t i o n
i n o r g a n iz a tio n s . The d e t a i l s o f c o n s tr u c tio n a re g iv en i n
Appendix E. T ab le D shows th e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between
s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s . Since o ccu p atio n was a c o n s ta n t f o r th e
farm group t h e r e a r e o nly f o u r s ta t u s c a te g o r ie s f o r t h i s
g ro u p , w h ile t h e r e a r e f iv e s t a t u s c a te g o r ie s f o r th e non­
farm group. The o r ig i n a l p u rp o se o f th e in d e x was to sep­
a r a t e th e two extrem e groups, b u t in te rm e d ia te groups,
p a r t i c u l a r l y th o s e n e a r th e two extrem es, p ro v e to be o f
im portance in c l a r i f y i n g tr e n d s .

A ttitu d e s tow ard Jews a r e shown in T able M*.

There a r e

two q u e s tio n s f o r which th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een s ta t u s g roups
a re s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t.

P erh ap s more im p o rtan t i s th e

f a c t t h a t th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sco re r e v e a ls d if f e r e n c e s
w hich a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond t h e one p e r c e n t
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

There i s some ev id en ce, th e r e f o r e , t h a t

a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews a r e r e l a t e d to th e s o c ia l s ta tu s in d ex
o f farm re sp o n d e n ts .
The d i r e c t i o n o f th e r e l a t io n s h i p i s n o t c le a r - c u t but
th e g e n e ra l ten d en cy i s f o r h ig h s ta tu s g roups to be more
t o l e r a n t th a n low s t a t u s g ro u p s.

Such i s th e d i r e c t io n f o r

th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re a l s o .

Such fin d in g s su p p o rt

th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is b u t do n o t support a
"co m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is .

I t i s t r u e , how ever, th a t f o r th e

one q u e s tio n which h as been assumed to i n d i c a t e some p o s s i b i l i t y
o f d i r e c t i o n c o m p e titio n ( th e q u e s tio n c o n cern in g th e Jew ish
m erchant) th e "p u re " low group i s most t o l e r a n t and th e "pure"
h ig h group l e a s t t o l e r a n t — a l l o f which a c c o rd s w ith a "com­
p e t i t i o n " h y p o th e s is .

But th e second h ig h e s t s ta tu s group

ra n k s n e x t to th e "pure" low group i n d e g ree o f expressed
to le r a n c e .

M oreover, th e v a ria n c e w ith in each group i s g r e a t e r

th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s, and th e d if f e r e n c e between
means i s sm all.

A ll o f th e s e f a c t s in d ic a te t h a t th e f in d in g s

on t h i s q u e s tio n cannot be used w ith s a fe ty t o support a "com­
p e t i t i o n " h y p o th e s is ; th e b a la n c e o f th e d a ta d e f i n i t e l y do n o t.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Negroes a r e shown i n T a b le

Hore

TABLE 44

S ta tu s
C l a s s if ic a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS ANALYZED I 1T TERMS OF
A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX - FARM ONLY
Gua
■uard
J cwi sh
Jows th in k Jev/s
R e s tr i c t a g a in s t
m erchant th e y * re
push
J cws
J ev/s
"better
Mean
R
Mean
Moan
R Mean R.

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jev/s
Jcv/ish
a re
P r Scoro h o n e st

Jcv/s in
rry n eigh­
borhood

Mean

R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

R
2

"P ure” High

19

3 .7 ^

4

3 .oo

1

2.26

2

3.05

1

2 .53

1

3 .0 5

2

5.16

1

2.11

1

1.63

High (H igh on tv;o
a t t r i b u t e s ; low
on one)

38

3 .2 1

2

2.92

2

2.32

1

3.00

2

2 .2 9

2

3.13

1

5.13

£

0

2.05

2

1.66

Lov; (Low on two
a t t r i b u t e s ; h ig h
on one)

56

3 .2 2

3

2.61

4

2.18

2 .5 6

3

2 .o 4

3

5.57

3

4 .1 8

4

1.609

45

3 .1 3

l

2.62

3

2.02

2 .4 i

4

2.00

4. 2 .5 6

4

4.09

3
4

1.97

“P ure” low

3
4

1 .9 8

3

1.61

158

3 .2 5

T o ta l
F1

JL
V

2.73

2.18

2.69

2 .15

2 .76

4.50

1.30

#

3.53*

2 .32

5.97**

4 . 32**

2.01

1.62

7T

1por t h i s t a b l e F must re a c h 3.91 to be s ig n if i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2.67 to b e s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 5$
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ith in group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a te r th an th e v a r ia n c e betvzeen g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1^ p r o b a b i li ty le v e l .

#

T a b le 4 5
ATTITUDES TOWARD NFGROES ANALYZED IN TERMS OP
A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX -.FARM OITLY

S ta tu s
C la s s if ic a t i o n

T o ta l n o .
o f resp o n d £H&B________

N egroes
to Johns­
town

Hegroes
next
door

Mean

R Mean

Hegroes
are
la z y

Keep Hegroes
out o f White
n e i ghbo rho od s

R Mean. R Mean

Negroes
should
v o te

Negroes
w ith
ed u catio n

T o tal
Hegro
P r Score

R

Mean

R Mean

?.

Kean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean R

"Pure" High

*9

3 .6 9

2

4.11

2

2 .69

2

1.79

4

3.53

3

3.37

1

4 .53

2

1.47-

2

1.69

1

High

38

3.59

1

3.92

1

2.79

1

2.11

1

3.66

1

3 .1 9

2

4 .6 6

1

1.47

2

1.26

4

Low

56

3.81

3

4.59

4

2 .6 1

3

1.91

3

3.32

4

2 .8 4

3

4 .1 1

3

1 .3 6

4

1.38

3

"Pure" Low

45

3.86

4

4 .1 6

3

2 .36

4

1.96

2

3 .62

2

2.47

4

3.87

k

1.51

1

1.51

2

158

3.76

4 .2 5

2.59

*

*

1 .1 6

T o ta l
F

1

1 .96
#

3.52

2.89

4 .2 2

1.21

4.71**

3.35*

1 .4 4
#

^For t h i s t a b l e F must re a c h 3*91 to b e s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l; 2.67 a t th e 5v p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li ty le v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e Vp p r o b a b i li t y le v o l.

1.43
1.75

t h e r e i s only one q u e s tio n f o r which th e d if f e r e n c e s a re
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t.

The t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re ,

however, i s s i g n i f i c a n t "beyond th e f iv e p e r cen t p r o b a b i lity
le v e l.

Hence, th e r e i s some evid en ce f o r th e h y p o th e sis t h a t

a t t i t u d e s tow ard Negroes a r e r e l a t e d to th e s t a t u s index o f
farm re sp o n d e n ts.
The d i r e c t io n o f d if f e r e n c e s in d ic a te s t h a t th e h ig h
s t a t u s groups te n d to be more t o l e r a n t th an th e low s ta tu s
g ro u p s, alth o u g h th e h ig h e s t s ta t u s group i s n o t n e c e s s a r ily
th e most t o l e r a n t .

T his a c c o rd s w ith b o th th e " s e c u r ity -

d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is and th e "co m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown in T able k 6 .

On

o n ly one o f th e q u e s tio n s i s th e d if f e r e n c e s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s ig n ific a n t.

The ra n k o rd e r f in d in g s a ls o a r e n o t c le a r ly

i n d i c a t i v e o f d i r e c t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s , a lth o u g h th e r e i s s t i l l
some tendency f o r h ig h s ta tu s g roups to be l e s s p re ju d ic e d
th a n low s ta tu s g ro u p s.

I n g e n e r a l, a t t i t u d e s tow ard Mexicans

a r e l e s s c le a r ly d i f f e r e n t i a t e d th an e i t h e r a t t i t u d e s tow ard
Jew s o r N egroes.
The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s a ls o shown i n T able
The v a ria n c e w ith in groups i s g r e a t e r th a n t h e v a ria n c e
betw een g ro u p s, and th e ran k o rd e r does not acco rd w ith th e
p r e v io u s ly d e fin e d d i r e c t io n o f a t t i t u d e s .
betw een th e means i s q u ite s m a ll.

The d if f e r e n c e

In g e n e r a l, th e T o tal

P r e ju d ic e sc o re does n o t su p p o rt any o f th e h y n o th eses o f
t h i s c h a p te r.

T a b le 4 6
ATTITUDES TOWARD M3XICA2IS AM) TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE ANALYZED
ITT TERMS OF A COIISTEUCTED STATUS INDEX - FARM ONLY
Mexicans
S ta tu s
C la s s if ic a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f res'TO'co-lts

Mean

.

«

M orf.cr. 71r 5".
r e stc w r r n ts
v r it li w' i t e s

1 T o ta l
| P r e .j x if .ic c
i Score

1

Mean

R

Mean

R

Moan

R

M orn

R

"Pure" High

19

3.16

3

2.47

1

1.63

2

2 .0 5

1

3.05

1

High

38

2 .7 6

1

2 .2 6

2

1.71

1

1.97

3

2 .8 4

3

Lov;

56

2 .98

2

2.00

3

1.625

3

1 .93

4

2.76

4

"P ure” Low

45

3.33

4

1 .9 6

4

1 .4 4

4

2 .0 4

2

2 .86

2

158

3 .0 5

2.11

1.59

#

3.31*

1.02

T o ta l
F1

* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b ili ty l e v e l .

jl

7T

le v e l;

# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th an th e v a ria n c e betw een gro u p s.

2.85

1.99
jl

7T

2.67

at

•

ie

5^

prob

-1 7 7 Tent a t iv e c o n c lu s io n s may be drawn t h a t f o r th e farm
group th e r e i s a tendency f o r s ta t u s l e v e l s to be a s s o c ia te d
w ith d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r it ie s .

T h is a p p e a rs

to be f a i r l y s tr o n g w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s toward Jews,
l e s s so f o r N egroes, l e s s s t i l l f o r M exicans.

The d i r e c t io n

o f d if f e r e n c e s s u p p o rts a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e sis
w ith r e s p e c t to th e developm ent and d i r e c t i o n o f p r e ju d ic e .
F o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes, and, to th e e x te n t th a t th e
f in d in g s a r e a p p lie d to a t t i t u d e s toward M exicans, th e r e i s
some su p p o rt f o r th e "c o m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is .

T his h y p o th e s is ,

however, i s n o t su p p o rted i n s o f a r a s a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews
a r e concerned.
A ttitu d e s o f Non-Farm R espondents
in R e la tio n s h ip to an Index o f S ta tu s
U sing th e same s t a t u s in d e x th e non-farm resp o n d en ts were
a n a ly z e d .

The r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s

tow ard Jews i s shown in T a b le ^4-7.

The d if f e r e n c e s f o r fo u r

q u e s tio n s a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t and th e t o t a l Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e s c o re i s s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o ­
b a b i l i t y le v o l .

T h is i s s tro n g su p p o rtin g evid en ce f o r th e

h y p o th e s is o f d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s which a r e a s s o c ia te d
w ith d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c ia l s t a t u s .
The rank o r d e r fin d in g s i n d i c a t e c l e a r l y t h a t th e low
s t a t u s groups a r e th e most p r e ju d ic e d o f th e s ta tu s g ro u p s.
The te n d e n c ie s a r e n o t so c o n s is te n t \&en th e th r e e u pper
s t a t u s l e v e l s a r e compared; b o th th e medium and "pure" h ig h

T a b le U7
ATTITUDES TOWARD JSivS ANALYZER III TERMS OF
A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX - HOIT-FARM OITLY

T o ta l no.
S ta tu s
o f respondC la s s ific a tlo n e a ts

Guard
a g a in s t
Jews

Jew ish
m erchant
Mean

Jews th in k Jews
R e s tr ic t
th ey fr e
push
Jews
h o tte r
R Mean
R
Mean R Mean
R Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

R Mean

T o ta l
Jevdsh

P r Score

Jews
a re
h o n e st

Jews in
my n e ig h borhood

R

Mean

R Mean

R Mean

27

2.67

1

3.26

2

2 .0 8 U

3.59

1

2.82

1

3 .7 h 1

5 .5 h

2

2.37

1

1.82

High (H igh on th r e e
a t t r i b u t e s ; low
on one)
36

3.11

3

3.28

1

1.8 9 5

3 .U U

2

2.50

3

3 .2 2 3

5 .1 h

3

2 .0 6

3

1.81

Medium (High on
two a t t r i b u t e s ;
low on two)

55

2.80

2

3.2h

3

2.h6 1

3.20

3

2.69

2

3.55 2

5 .6 6

1

2 .1 3

2

2.09

Low (Low on
th r e e a t t r i b u t e s
h ig h on one)

8U

3.26

U

2.7h

5

2.23 2

2.87

h

2.10

5

2 .9 2 u

h.58

u

1.95

5

1.69

5

" P u r e ” Low

36

3.81

5

2.81

k

2.17 3

2.72

5

2.11

Ur

2.78 5

Ur.U$

5

2.00

U

1.70

U

238

3.15

2.20

3.09

2.38

3.18

5 .0 0

2 .0 6

1.81

2.11

3.35*

h.3i*+

6.15**

U .Z 2 * *

1.52

2.00

"Pure" High

T o ta l
p1

2 .3 2

-3.00
3 . 06 *

*"For t h i s t a b l e F must re ach 3 . h i to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l; 2 . h i a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 1# p r o b a b ili ty l e v e l .

-17 9 g ro u p s ten d to "be somewhat more t o l e r a n t th a n th e h ig h g r o tp .
In o th e r words, th e c o n c lu sio n must he t h a t th e d if f e r e n c e s in
s t a t u s groups i s due to th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e low er end
o f th e s ta t u s s c a le and th e o th e r th re e g ro u p s.
(These f in d in g s su p p o rt a " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is .
S in ce a t t i t u d e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e not as c l e a r l y shown a t th e
u p p e r end o f th e s ta t u s s c a le we cannot he c l e a r a s to d i f f e r ­
en ces which may e x is t

w ith in th e h ig h e r s t a t u s g ro u p s.

I t is

p o s s ib le t h a t such d if f e r e n c e s may have some h e a rin g on th e
"c o m p e titio n " h y p o th e s is .
i3

However, th e main d if f e r e n c e , which

t h a t between h ig h and low s t a t u s groups, does n o t su pport

such an h y p o th e s is .
A ttitu d e s tow ard H egroes a r e shown i n T able *16.

There

a r e d if f e r e n c e s on one q u e s tio n which a r e s ig n i f i c a n t beyond
th e one p e r cen t p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .

D if fe re n c e s on th e rem ain­

in g q u e s tio n s , how ever, and on th e t o t a l Hegro P r e ju d ic e s c o re ,
a r e not s ig n if ic a n t.

T h is does n o t su p p o rt s tro n g ly th e hypo­

t h e s i s t h a t h as been advanced.
The rank o r d e r a n a ly s is i n T able *16 in d ic a te s th a t th e r e
may be c e r ta in d if f e r e n c e s among s ta tu s g ro u p s b u t th e d i r e c t io n
o f th e s e d if f e r e n c e s i s n o t c l e a r .

The "pure" h ig h and medium

s t a t u s groups te n d to be more t o l e r a n t th a n th e o th e r g ro u p s.
The h ig h group te n d s to be most i n t o l e r a n t —a tendency sh ared
w ith th e low and l,p u re" low s t a t u s group s .

However, f o r th e

one q u e s tio n i n t h i s t a b l e f o r which th e r e a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s th e ra n k o r d e r f in d in g s a r e d i r e c t l y in

T a b le 4 8
ATTITUDES TOWARD 1730R0ES ANALYZED I1T TEEMS 0?
A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX -NON-PARK ONLY

S ta tu s
C la s s if ic a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n t ________

N egroes
to Johns­
town

Negroes
next
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Mean

H Mean

R Mean

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

Negroes
should
v o te

Negroes
w ith
ed u catio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

R Mean

R

Moan

R Mean

?.

Kean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

R

"Pure" High

28

3.50

2

4.79

3

3 .0 4

2

2.36

1

3 .6 4

1

3.89

1

5.29

1

1.75

l

1.39

5

High

36

4 .15

4

4.89

4

2.81

4

1.78

5

3 .4 5

4

3.2*

2

4.50

4

1.39

5

1 .^9

3

Medium

55

3.31

1

4.51

1

2 .8 6

3

2.15

2

3 .^ 2

5

3 .3 5

3

4.67

2

1.60

3

1 .50

2

Low

84

4.20

5

4.63

2

3 .05

l

2.01

4

3.52

3

3.05

4

4 .6 2

3

1 .43

4

1.47

4

"Pure" Low

36

4.09

3

5.03

5

2 .6 4

5

2.11

3

3.639 2

2 .7 5

5

4 .3 1

5

1.67

2

1 .61

1

239

3.89

4 .7 2

2.90

2.06

3.52

3.23

1.91

#

1.07

1.64

£

T o ta l
1
F

6. 19**

4 .6 4

1 .5 ^

• l .?6

1.59

‘S ’o r t h i s t a b l e F must re a c h 3.41 to he s ig n if ic a n t a t th e l £ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l; 2..41 a t th e 55* p r o b a b i lity l e v e l .
r - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
** - S t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

1.4Q

su p p o rt o f p re v io u s f in d in g s .

That i s , th e h ig h e r s ta tu s

g ro u p s a r e more t o l e r a n t th an th e low er s t a t u s g ro u p s.

T h is

s u g g e sts th a t t h e d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard H egroes, a s
d is tin g u is h e d by th e ty p e of q u e s tio n and th e kind o f s ta t u s
in d e x which h as been u sed h e r e , a r e not d i s t i n c t b u t t h a t th e r e
i 8 some ev id en ce, in g e n e ra l, t h a t th e h ig h e r s ta tu s groups te n d
to be somewhat l e s s p re ju d ic e d th a n lo w er s t a t u s groups.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown i n T ab le ^9.

None of

th e d if f e r e n c e s on any o f th e q u e s tio n s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t .

The

ra n k o rd e r f o r each o f th e q u e s tio n s i s n o t c o n s is te n t f o r a l l
g ro u p s b u t th e "pure" h ig h group i s alw ays th e l e a s t p r e ju d ic e d .
The "pure" low group te n d s c o n s is te n t ly to bo a t th e more p r e ­
ju d ic e d end o f th e s c a le .

I n g e n e r a l, w h ile th e r e i s n o t

s tro n g sup p o rt to be drawn from th e d a ta , th e r e i s some te n ­
dency f o r h ig h and low er s ta tu s groups to d i f f e r w ith r e s p e c t
to a t t i t u d e s tow ard M exicans.

I n s o f a r as t h e r e a r e such d i f f e r ­

en ces, th e h ig h e r s t a t u s groups ap p ear to be l e a s t p r e ju d ic e d .
T h is acco rd s w ith b o th th e " s e c u r ity - d e p r iv a tio n " and "com­
p e t i t i o n " h y p o th e se s.
The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re i s a ls o shown in T able
D iffe re n c e s betw een s ta t u s g roups a r e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s ig n ific a n t.

The h ig h e s t ("p u re " h ig h ) s t a t u s group i s l e a s t

p r e ju d ic e d and th e n e x t to th e low est (low) s ta t u s group i s
most p re ju d ic e d i n term s o f t h i s s c a le .

The o th e r groups do

n o t, however, f i t n e a tly in to a su p p o rtin g p a t t e r n f o r th e
h y p o th e s is .

I n g e n e ra l wo may conclude t h a t th e r e i s some

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICA1IS AKD TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE ANALYZED
III TERMS OP A CONSTRUCTED STATUS IITDEX - 1T01T-FARM OlfLY

S ta tu s
C la s s i f i c a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f resu o '.co n ts

Keen i-n ric m s
h e ric o n s
a s c it5 7.CX1.S o u t c f w h ite
and v o te rs
n oi rifhorhond s

Meric?' ns
co “ir,' to
III fist? t e

i!r" :.c rn r 5”
ro o t? :u rr~ ts
w ith v 'i t n s

Kson

R

h e rn

R

Mc?m

R

:?OO.r.

R

j T o ta l
j P r e ju d ic e
j Score
1
| Morn
R

"Pure" High

28

3.61

1.

2 .43

1

1.89

1

2 .1 8

1

3 .37

1

High

36

3.20

3

1 .97

5

1.67

2

1 .9 4

4

2 .8 6

4

Medium

55

3 .0 4

5

2.27

2

1 .6 4

3

2 .00

2

3.28

2

Low

84

3.22

2

2 .1 2

4

1.52

5

1 .9 5

3

2.77

5

"Pure" Lov;

36

3 .1 4

4

2 .1 4

3

1 .5 6

4

1 .9 4

4

3.oo

3

239

3 .21

2.17

1 .62

1.99

1 .42

1 .12

1.58

7s*

T o tal
P

1

H

3.00
1 .19

F or t h i s ta b le F must reach 3.41 t o be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; 2 .4 l a t t ie $ i prob
le v o l.
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g r o tn s .

s l i g h t ev id en ce, when th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re i s used a s a
m easure, t h a t h ig h e r s ta t u s g ro u p s a r e more t o l e r a n t than low er
s t a t u s g ro u p s.

But t h i s tendency i s n o t c o n s is te n t f o r a l l

s t a t u s groups d i f f e r e n t i a t e d "by th e s ta tu s in d ex .
In o rd e r to check f a r t h e r i n t o th e s e r a t h e r s l i g h t
te n d e n c ie s w ith r e s p e c t to th e a t t i t u d e s of non-farm re sp o n d e n ts
tow ard Negroe3 and M exicans, and t o compare them w ith a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jew s, a f u r t h e r a n a ly s is was u n d e rta k e n .

The s ta tu s

c a te g o r ie s were r e c l a s s i f i e d i n t o low, medium, and h ig h g ro u p s.
T h is ig n o re s p o s s i b l e d if f e r e n c e s between th e "pure" low and
th e o th e r low s t a t u s ca te g o ry ; and lik e w is e between th e " p u re ”
h ig h and th e o th e r h ig h s t a t u s c a te g o ry .

However, i t p e rm its

a com parison t h a t t e s t s f o r th e g e n e ra l te n d e n c ie s which have
been n o te d .

The th r e e p r e ju d ic e sco res were used a s a b a s is

f o r a n a ly s is .

The r e s u l t s a r e shown in T able 50.
T able 50

ATTITUDES OF NON-FARM RESPONDENTS TOWARD MINORITY
GROUPS ANALYZED IN TERMS OF A CONDENSED STATUS INDEX

S ta tu s
C la s s i f i c a t i o n

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
Mean
R

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score
R
Mean

T o ta l
P re ju d ic e
Score
Mean
R

High

64

5 .31

2

4 .8 4

1

3 .08

2

Medium

55

5 .6 6

1

4.67

2

3 .2 8

1

120

4 .5 4

3

4.53

3

2 .8 4

3

239

5 .0 0

4 .6 4

3.00

8.00**

1 .9 6

1.19

Low
T o ta l
F1

■^For t h i s t a b l e F must re ach 4 .7 1 .to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1 $
p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3*04 a t th e S'p p r o b a b ility le v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

The d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward Jews ap p ear to be
a c c e n tu a te d by condensing th e s t a t u s l e v e ls , with th e p r in c ip a l
d i f f e r e n c e b ein g t h a t betw een low s ta tu s and th e o th e r s t a t u s
le v e ls .

The d if f e r e n c e s f o r th e t o t a l Nogro P r e ju d ic e s c o re

and th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e sc o re a r e not s ig n i f i c a n t b u t, once
a g a in , th e low s t a t u s group i s more p re ju d ic e d th an th e h ig h e r
s t a t u s gro u p s.

T h is , i t w il l be r e c a lle d , was th e c o n clu sio n

from th e a n a ly s e s which were made o f th e r e la tio n s h ip of
a t t i t u d e s tow ard Nogroes and Mexicans to th e v a rio u s s ta tu s
l e v e l s o f th e s t a t u s in d e x .

T ab le 50, t h e r e f o r e , su p p o rts th e

t e n t a t i v e c o n c lu s io n s t h a t have been d r a m w ith re s p e c t to th e
d if f e r e n c e s and d i r e c t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s th a t a r e a s s o c ia te d
w ith th e s ta t u s in d e x .
The A p p lic a tio n o f a Now S ta tu s Index
to A ttitu d e s tow ard M in o rity Groups
In th e fo llo w in g c h a p te r th e P a r ti c i p a t i o n Index i s
a n a ly z e d .

The r e s u l t s do n o t i n d ic a te a c l e a r - c u t r e la tio n s h ip

to a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s .

Since t h i s in d ex was in c lu d e d ,

on a -p rio ri g ro unds, i n th e s t a t u s index i t may be th a t th e
r e l a t io n s h i p o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n to a t t i t u d e s , which i s n o t c le a r ,
somewhat co n fu ses th e r e s u l t s o f th e a n a ly s is o f th e s ta tu s
in d e x .

A cco rd in g ly , f o r th e non-farm re sp o n d e n ts, a new s ta t u s

in d e x was c o n s tr u c te d .

T his in d ex was d eveloped in much th e

same manner a s haB been d e s c rib e d in th e Appendix f o r th e o ld
s t a t u s in d ex ex cep t t h a t income was s u b s tit u te d f o r p a r t i c ­

-185ip a tio n .

4

The new s t a t u s in d e x was then checked a g a in s t

a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s,

^he th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s

were u se d a s th e b a s i s f o r a n a l y s is .

The r e s u l t s a r e shown

in T able 51.
T able 51
ATTITUDES OF NON-FARM RESPONDENTS TOWARD MINORITT
GROUPS ANALYZED IN TERMS OF A NEW STATUS INDEX____________

S ta tu s
C la s s ific a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f resp o nde n ts

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R
Mean

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score
R
Mean

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
Score
Mean
3

"Pure" h ig h

33

5 .5 8

1

5 .0 6

2

3.13

2

H igh (h ig h on th r e e
a t t r i b u t e s ; low on
one)

37

5 .49

2

4 .8 4

3

3 .1 4

1

Medium (low on two
a t t r i b u t e s ; h ig h
on two)

45

5.09

3

5 .11

1

3.09

3

Low (low on th ro e
a t t r i b u t e s ; h ig h
on one)

73

4 .7 7

4

4 .4 l

4

2.89

4

"^u re" low

33

4 .2 4

5

4 .21

5

2.79

5

221

5 .0 0

4 .69

3.01*

3.30*

T o ta l
F1

2.99
#

■'’F o r t h i s t a b l e F must reach 3-41 to t>o s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$
p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .4 l a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een
g ro u p s.
* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .

^F or t h i s a n a ly s is an income o f l e s s th an $3000 p e r y e a r was
c o n sid e re d low; an income o f $3000 and above, h ig h .

i

Both th e t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re and th e t o t a l
Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re re v e a l d if f e r e n c e s v?hich a r e s ig n if i c a n t
"beyond th e f iv e p e r c en t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

The d if f e r e n c e s

on th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e sco re a r e not s ig n i f i c a n t b u t th e tre n d
i s s im ila r to t h a t f o r th e o th e r two s c o re s .

In g e n e ra l, t h i s

a n a ly s is o f th e new s ta t u s in d e x conforms to th e above a n a ly s e s
and in d ic a te s t h a t th e r o a r e d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward
m in o rity groups which a re a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s in s t a t u s .
The low s ta tu s g roups a r e c o n s is te n tly more p re ju d ic e d th a n th e
medium and h ig h s t a t u s g ro u p s.

T his acco rd s w ith th e " s e c u r ity -

d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is , w ith r e s p e c t to a l l th re e m in o rity
g ro u p s, and w ith th e "co m p etitio n " h y p o th e s is w ith r e s p e c t to
N egroes.
C onclusions
In t h i s c h a p te r a s e lf - e s tim a te o f s o c ia l c la s s p o s itio n
and a c o n s tru c te d in d ex o f s o c ia l s ta tu s were used to t e s t f o r
r e l a t io n s h i p s betw een a t t i t u d e s toward c e r t a i n m in o ritie s and
s o c ia l s ta t u s .

The c o n clu sio n s j u s t i f i e d by th e s e a n a ly se s

may be summarized a s fo llo w s:
1.

T or both farm and non-farm resp o n d e n ts, a t t i t u d e s tow ard
Jew s, and to a l e s s e r e x te n t, toward N egroes and M exicans,
ap p ea r to be r e l a t e d to th e in d ic e s u sed i n t h i s c h a p te r
to measure p o s s ib le s ta tu s d if f e r e n c e s .

Upper s ta tu s

groups, m easured e ith e r by s e lf - e s tim a te o f "middle
c la s s " o r a c o n s tru c te d in d e x o f s o c ia l s ta tu s , ap p ear to

-1 3 7 be more t o l e r a n t th an low er s ta tu s g ro u p s.

The tre n d s

a r e c o n s is te n t f o r low er s t a t u s groups to be l e s s t o l e r a n t ,
b u t d i f f e r e n c e s among medium and u p p er s t a t u s groups a r e
le s s c le a r.
2.

The d i r e c t io n o f such d if f e r e n c e s s u p p o rts a " s e c u r ity d e p riv a tio n " h y p o th e s is .

The "co m p etitio n " h y p o th e sis

may a ls o h o ld w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s toward Negroes
and M exicans, b u t th e r e i s l i t t l e evidence f o r i t s
a p p lic a tio n to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.
T h is c h a p te r concludes th e a n a ly s e s which have been u n d er­
ta k e n o f c e r t a i n assumed components o f s o c ia l s ta t u s .

B efore

a n a ly z in g o th e r a s p e c ts o f s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e i n r e la tio n s h ip to
a t t i t u d e s th e f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t to s o c ia l s ta tu s should be
summarized.
Summary o f F in d in g s
R e la te d to S o c ia l S ta tu s In d ic e s
The e n ro iric a l fin d in g s w ith re s p e c t to each o f th e
v a r i a b l e s which have been examined a s a p a r t o f th e s o c ia l
s t a t u s a n a ly s is have been s ta te d c a u tio u s ly .

T his i s p ro p e r

inasmuch a s th ey a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e la te d to each o th e r and
any sta te m e n ts ab o u t a p a r t i c u l a r v a r ia b le must be made w ith
t h i s in mind.

However, th e s e v a r ia b le s have been used a s

in d ic e s o f s o c ia l p o s it i o n i n a system o f s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n
r a t h e r th a n a s s e p a ra te e n t i t i e s i n th e m se lv e s.

An a t t e n p t

was made to h o ld co n sta n t f o r th e s ta tu s f a c t o r by means o f a
s t a t u s index w hich was based on th e s e p a ra te v a r ia b le s .

I t is

a l s o p ro p e r, t h e r e f o r e , to s te p hack, as i t w ere, from th e n aze
o f s t a t i s t i c a l f in d in g s and view th e t o t a l p i c t u r e th a t th e s e
a n a ly s e s g iv e .
I t would a p p e a r, when a l l allo w an ces a r e made f o r th e
s e p a ra te e m p iric a l fin d in g s w ith re s p e c t to in d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s ,
t h a t th e g e n e ra l tr e n d s , su p p o rted fre q u e n tly hy s t a t i s t i c a l
t e s t s of s ig n if ic a n c e , a r e i n th e d ir e c t io n o f th e h y p o th eses
o f th is re se a rc h .

S p e c if ic a lly , th e s ta tu s f a c t o r s su pport th e

h y p o th e s is th a t th e r e a r e d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward min­
o r i t y groups which a r e r e l a te d to d if f e r e n c e s i n p o s it io n i n a
system o f v e r t i c a l s o c ia l m o b ility .

T his h y p o th e s is , i n t u r n ,

su p p o rts p a r t i a l l y th e h y p o th e s is t h a t ,w i t h i n a t o t a l p a t t e r n
o f sen tim en ts and b e l i e f s about c e r t a in m in o rity groups man­
i f e s t e d by p e o p le o f th e r u r a l midwest, th e r e a r e d is tin g u is h a b ly d i f f e r e n t s u b - c u ltu r a l p a t t e r n s which a r e a s s o c ia te d w ith
d i f f e r e n t p o s it i o n s i n th e s o c ia l s tr u c t u r e .
The su p p o rt f o r t h i s h y p o th e s is i s g r a p h ic a lly p re s e n te d
i n F ig u re s 1, 2, and J .

In th e s e , ed u catio n i s used a s an in d ex .

A ttitu d e s tow ard th e th r e e m in o rity groups, a s rev e a le d by th e
in stru m e n t u sed i n t h i s re s e a r c h , a r e shown i n term s o f th e
mean resp o n se f o r h ig h school g ra d u a te s, re sp o n d e n ts w ith an
e ig h th g rad e e d u c a tio n o r l e s s , and th e t o t a l sample.

I t should

be borne in mind t h a t th e q u e s tio n s a r e n o t e q u iv a le n t, s in c e
t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n t s c a le p o in ts f o r th e v a r io u s q u e s tio n s .
Hence, th e mean re sp o n se f o r u n s tr u c tu r e d q u e s tio n s and th r e e p o in t s c a le q u e s tio n s can n o t be conpared w ith each o th e r o r

—> " TOLERANT

TOLERA NCE SCALE

HIGH

SC H O O L

TOTAL
8 ™

GRADUATES

SAM PLE

GRADE

OR.

LESS

INTOLERANT

X /

JE W S

T H IN K

T H E Y 'R E

JE W S
PUSH 1

R E S T R IC T
JEW S"

B E T T E R ."

"JE W S
IN
N E IG H B O R H O O D ’

P ig . 1. P a tte r n s o f S entim ents tow ard Jews
M anifested "by T o ta l Sample and "by
High and Low E d u c atio n a l Groups in
Maple County a s Measured by Average
Responses to S tru c tu re d and Un­
s tr u c tu r e d Q u estio n s.

SCALE

IN T O L E R A N T ^ 5

TOLERANT

TOLERANCE

■---------------- H I G H

SC H O O L

-----------------

to tal

----------------

am

GRADUATES

sa m p l e

g rade

o r

l e ss

I___________ I____________I___________ I____________I___________ I--- :--------------1------------------ 1------' negroes

' keep negroes

"n e g r o e s

" negroes

ARE

OUT O F w h it e

SH O U L D

W IT H -

L A tY "

N E IG H B O R H O O D S"

VOTE"

E D U C A T IO N *

"n e g r o e s
IN

W H IT E

R E ST A U R A N T S"

"o r d e r s
FR O M

A

NEGRO*

' negroes
TO
JO H N ST O W N *

n & 2 P a tte r n s o f S entim ents toward Negroes
M anifested 'by T o ta l S anple and by High
and Low E d u c a tio n a l Groups in Maple
County, a s Measured by A verage Responses
to S tru c tu re d and U n s tru c tu re d Q u estio n s

"neg ro es
NEXT
Door"

TOLERA NCE

SC A L E

IN T O L E R A N T

T O LER A N C E

H IG H

SC H O O L

TOTAL
8

GRADUATES

SA M PLE

111 G R A O E

OR

SCA LE

H
I
tf

H IG H

U1
-J

O
Vz

TOTAL

& —

SC H O O L G R ADUATES
SAM PLE

GRADE

OR

LESS

L E SS

A

<C

a.

ul

LI

£
M E X IC A N S
AS

M E X IC A N S

° U T O F W H IT E

C IT IZ E N S *

P ig . 3

"K EE P

N E IG H B O R H O O D S *

" M E X IC A N S

M E X IC A N S

JEWISH

TO

IN W H IT E

P R E J U D IC E

M ID S T A T E '

R E ST A U R A N T S'

P a tte r n s o f S entim ents toward Mexicans
M an ifested by T o ta l Sample and by High
and Lov; E d u c a tio n a l Groups in Maple
County, a s Measured by Average Responses
to S tru c tu re d Q u estio n s.

SC O R E

P ig . h- P a tt e r n s o f S entim ents toward M inority
Groups M an ifested by T o ta l Sample and
by High and Low E d u catio n al Groups i n
Maple County, a s Measured by Three
P r e ju d ic e S co res.

- 192 w ith th e f iv e - p o i n t s c a le q u e s tio n s .
The s t a t i s t i c a l fin d in g s hav e a lre a d y been given and
in t e r p r e t e d .

E d u c atio n was s e le c te d f o r g ra p h ic p r e s e n ta tio n

becau se, in term s of th e g e n e ra l f in d in g s , i t was one of th e
c l e a r e s t in d i c a t o r s o f th e p r o p o s itio n th a t th e r e a r c b o th
t o t a l p a t t e r n s o f sen tim e n ts and s u b - c u ltu r a l p a t te r n s o f
se n tim e n ts which a r c m an ifested tow ard th e th r e e m in o rity
g ro u p s.

The p u rp o se o f th e f ig u r e s i s to show, in g rap h ic

fa s h io n , t h i s p r o p o s itio n .
I t i s c le a r from in s p e c tio n th a t th e r e i s a g e n e ra l,
p e r v a s iv e p a t t e r n o f sen tim en ts tow ard a l l th r e e m in o r itie s .
3 u t, i t i s a ls o c l e a r t h a t th e r e a r e im p o rtan t d e v ia te
p a t t e r n s which approxim ate th e g e n e ra l d i r e c t io n o f th e
t o t a l p a t t e r n b u t d i f f e r from each o th e r .

T h is i s most c le a r

f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jews, b u t i s a ls o a p p a re n t f o r a t t i t u d e s
tovrara th e o th e r two m in o rity g ro u p s.

The f ig u r e s i l l u s t r a t e

th e g e n e ra l fin d in g t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e th r e e m in o r itie s
a r e a fu n c tio n o f p o s itio n in a system o f s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .
They a ls o i l l u s t r a t e th e g e n e ra l p a t t e r n o f sen tim en ts which
o b ta in s r e g a rd lo s s o f p o s it io n in th e system o f s o c ia l
s tr a tific a tio n .

i

CHAPTER SEVEN
ATTITUDES AS A FU1ICTI01T CE
OEGAHIZATI ORAL MEMBERSHIP AND ACTIVITY
I
Kind o f Membershin
Warner and Lynd, i n t h e i r c l a s s i c tre a tm e n ts o f Yankeetovm and M iddletown, r e s p e c tiv e ly , have shovm t h a t o rg an iza.tio n a l membership and a c t i v i t y a re r e l a te d to s o c ia l s ta tu s .

Warner,

p a r t i c u l a r l y , h a s shown t h a t th e form al a s s o c ia tio n s and th e
church membership p a t t e r n s o f a s o c ia l system o p e ra te in d i f f e r ­
en t ways; some a r e in c lu s iv e o f a l l members w ith in a s o c ia l
system ; o th e rs a r e e x c lu s iv e and r e s e rv e membership f o r th o s e
o f l i k e s ta t u s .

O rg a n iza tio n s and church membership, i n h i s

a n a ly s is , become v e h ic le s f o r upward m o b ility in th e system o f
s o c ia l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n .
In t h i s r e s e a r c h b o th community o b s e rv a tio n and s t a t i s ­
t i c a l a n a ly s is , by means o f th e c o n s tru c te d in d ex o f s o c ia l
s t a t u s , in d ic a te d t h a t th e re wore d if f e r e n c e s i n o rg a n iz a tio n ­
a l membership which fo llo w ed s t a t u s l i n e s .

I t was a lso

in d ic a te d , however, t h a t th e s e l i n e s were not c le a r ly drawn
and th a t th e re were many p e o p le i n th e sample who belonged to
no o rg a n iz a tio n s o r had l i t t l e in te r a c tio n i n th e few to which
th ey d id b elo n g .
Since th e p re v io u s d is c u s s io n has a lre a d y shown th a t
s t a t u s d if f e r e n c e s a r e r e la te d to d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s

tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s, th e problem f o r th e p r e s e n t a n a ly s is
was s e t a s t h a t o f d eterm in in g i f o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership
d if f e r e n c e s wore in them selves o f some im p o rtan ce i n d e t e r ­
m ining a t t i t u d e d if f e r e n c e s .

S in ce th e sub-sam ples were sm all

i t was p o s s ib le i n o n ly a few in s ta n c e s to o b ta in groups which
i n t e r a c t e d d i r e c t l y i n p a r t i c u l a r o r g a n iz a tio n s .

I t was only

p o s s ib le to o b ta in groups which in te r a c t e d i n th e same g e n e ra l
k in d o f o r g a n iz a tio n a l p a t t e r n w ith in Maple County.

Thus, i t

was not p o s s ib le to compare, f o r example, th e M othodist church
membership of Adams w ith th a t o f Johnstow n.

I t was p o s s ib le

to compare re sp o n d e n ts who i d e n t i f i e d th em selv es a s M eth o d ists
w ith th o se who i d e n t i f i e d them selv es as members of o th e r
c h u rch es.

T h is k in d o f a n a ly s is cannot f u r n is h c lu e s to th e

dynamic a s p e c ts Of o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership.

I t may, however,

r e v e a l broad s t r u c t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s w ith r e s p e c t to th e r o le
of form al a s s o c ia tio n s in a la r g e s o c ia l system .
The s p e c if ic h y p o th e sis f o r th e fo llo w in g a n a ly s e s was
t h a t d if f e r e n c e s i n o r g a n is a tio n a l a c t i v i t y a r e r e la te d to
d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s, N egroes, and M exicans.
T h is h y p o th e sis i s d eriv e d from th e g e n e ra l g u id in g h y p o th e sis
o f t h i s r e s e a rc h .

The f i r s t v a r ia b l e to be analy zed w ill be

t h a t o f r e l ig i o u s membership.
R e lig io u s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and
A ttitu d e s toward M in o ritie s
T here i s o n ly a lim ite d amount o f r e s e a r c h on th e r e l a t i o n ­
sh ip o f r e l ig i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r itie s .

Cam pbell,* in th e stu d y p r e v io u s ly c ite d , found v ery l i t t l o
d if f e r e n c e between P r o te s ta n t and C a th o lic .

He d id not

a tte m p t to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between P r o te s ta n t d enom inations.
The B altim o re p o l l lik e w is e f a i l e d to f in d s ig n i f i c a n t
d if f e r e n c e s betw een P r o te s ta n ts and C a th o lic s w ith r e s p e c t
to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s.

P r o te s ta n t denom inations were

an aly zed i n t h i s stu d y , b u t, alth o u g h th e r e was "a tendency
f o r members o f c e r t a i n P r o te s ta n t denom inations to be more
p r e ju d ic e d th a n members o f o th e r s ,"

2

th e r e w ere not s u f f i c i e n t

c a s e s to p la c e c o n fid e n c e in t h i s tr e a d .

A llp o r t and Kramer^

s t a t e t h a t a n ti-N e g ro p r e ju d ic e i s lo w est among Jews and p e r ­
sons acknow ledging no r e l ig io u s a f f i l i a t i o n , h ig h e r among
P r o te s t a n t s , and h ig h e s t among Roman C a th o lic s . B ettelh eim
k
and Janow itz found no s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r sample
o f v e te ra n s t h a t were r e la te d to r e lig io u s d if f e r e n c e s .
In ea x -lier s tu d ie s , H arlan^ found no r e lig i o u s d i f f e r ­
en ces between P r o te s ta n t and C a th o lic c o lle g e s tu d e n ts i n
g
te rm s o f t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward Jew s. M erton r e p o r ts th a t
r e l i g i o u s groups can be ranked a cco rd in g to th e deg ree of
^Cam pbell, 22.* c i t .
% h e B altim ore P o l l , on. c i t . . p p . 6 0 -6 l.
3

A llp o r t and Kramer, on. c i t .
h
B e tte lh e im and Jan o w itz , on. c i t .
% a r la n , o n . c i t .
^R. K. Merton, "P act and P a c titio u s n e s s in E th n ic O p in io n a ire s,
Am. S o c io l. Rev. . 5J13-28, 19*K).

u n fa v o ra b le n e s s tow ard Negroes a s fo llo w s:

C a th o lic s , P ro ­

t e s t a n t s , Jew s, no r e l ig i o u s a f f i l i a t i o n .
These f in d in g s i n d ic a te , i n g e n e ra l, th a t d if f e r e n c e s in
r e l i g i o n on a "broad l e v e l , such a s P r o te s ta n t- C a th o lic d i f f e r ­
en ces, a r e not l i k e l y to "be r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard m i n o r i t i e s .

T his i s a ls o th e fin d in g f o r t h i s p r o je c t,

i n s o f a r a s P r o te s ta n t- C a th o lic d if f e r e n c e s can he d is tin g u is h e d .
I t w ill ho r e c a l l e d t h a t th e P o lish -A m erican s wore compared to
th e Old A m ericans.

T h is i s , i n some ways, a l s o a com parison of

P o lis h C a th o lic and Old American P r o te s ta n t, f o r th e r e were
o n ly tw elv e C a th o lic s in th e t o t a l sample who wore not a ls o
^ o lis h .

Hence, th e p re v io u s com parison a ls o becomes, to a

c e r t a i n e x te n t, a com parison o f r e lig io u s d i f f e r e n c e s .
However, a n a n a ly s is may he made on a more p r e c is e b a s is ,
and th e p re s e n t re s e a rc h was concerned n o t o n ly w ith P r o te s ta n tC a th o lic d if f e r e n c e s , h u t a ls o w ith th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f d i f f e r ­
ences between P r o te s t a n t denom inations, and between denomina­
t i o n s and n o n -ch u rch members.

A ccordingly, each respondent

was asked what r e l i g i o n he c o n sid e re d h im s e lf and, i f Pro­
t e s t a n t , what d enom ination.

The answer to t h i s q u e stio n does

n o t in d ic a te w hether th e resp o n d en t was d e e p ly r e lig io u s o r
n o t.

N e ith e r do s im ila r d enom inational i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s in d i c a t e

t h a t th e resp o n d e n ts in te r a c te d i n a s p e c if ic r e l ig i o u s system .
In g e n e ra l, f o r th e sample a s a whole, th e answ er to t h i s
q u e s tio n m erely in d ic a te s t h a t th e respondent could be c l a s s ­
i f i e d a s one who i d e n t i f i e d h im s e lf w ith a p a r t i c u l a r P r o te s -

t a n t c h u rc h , th e C a th o lic c h u rc h , o r no c h u rc h ,
The h y p o th e s is o f s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between
r e l ig i o u s groups may be t e s te d w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jews by exam ining T able 52 -

There a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t

d if f e r e n c e s f o r any o f th e s e p a r a te q u e s tio n s , n o r f o r th e
t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

The rank o r d e r f o r th e denom­

in a tio n s f o r each q u e s tio n does n o t r e v e a l any c o n s is te n t tr e n d .
There i s a p p a re n tly some tendency f o r B a p tis ts to be c o n s is te n tly
l e s s t o l e r a n t and f o r th e r u r a l in te r-d e n o m in a tio n a l church
members to be more t o l e r a n t; b u t, f o r th e most p a r t , th e se
g roups do n o t seem to d e v ia te g r e a tl y from th e mean f o r th e
t o t a l group.
T able 53 shows a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e Negro by r e l ig io u s
membership.

T h is t a b l e shows two s ig n i f i c a n t d iff e r e n c e s ;

one a t th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y le v e l and one a t th e one
p e r cent p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l.

A com parison o f th e rank o rd e r

f o r each o f th e s e q u e s tio n s , however, r e v e a ls a g r e a t amount
o f in c o n sis te n c y o f resp o nse f o r many d enom inations.

The

B a p tis ts , however, ap p ear to be l e s s t o l e r a n t in t h e i r r e ­
sp onses to th e se q u e s tio n s ( a s th e y a r e on a l l o f th e o th e r
Negro q u e s tio n s and on th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re ).
L ik ew ise, C a th o lic s ap p ear l e s s t o l e r a n t on b o th q u e s tio n s .
In g e n e ra l, however, th e tre n d i s f o r one denom ination to be
h ig h on one q u e s tio n and low on th e o th e r .

In o th e r words,

most o f th e se denom inations behave a s though random samples
drawn from a p a r e n t p o p u la tio n .

T his h o ld s t r u e f o r th e rank

T a b l e 52
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY RELIGIOUS IDEliTIPICATIOlT

C ath o lic
M ethodist E p sico p al
E v a n g e lic a l U.B.
B a p tis t
P re s b y te r ia n and
E p isco p alian
R ural I n t e r ­
d enom inational
P re e o r Wesleyan
M ethodist
H oliness and
r e la te d s e c ts
C ongregatio n al
A d v en tist
2
Other Denom inations
Hone
T o ta l
p3
H ot in c lu d e d

in

Ship
Jews
Back

Jews
push

R e s tr ic t
J ews

Mean

Jews th in k
th ey * re
b e tte r
R Mean . R

Mean R

Mean

R Mean

62
99
10
ho

3.11
3.29
3.90
3.23

5
8
11
6

2.78
2.87
2.80
2.68

7
5
6
8

2.19 6
2 . 1h i 8
2.30 3
1.93 11

2 .9 b
3. Oh
2 . 6o
2 .7 8

5
h
9
8

2 .h 2 3
2.29 6
1.90 11
2.15 7

29

3.31

9

3 . 2b

2-

2.138 9

3 .2 8

2

2.52

15

3 .0 7

b

3.33

1

2 .h0

2

3 .3 3

1

2.53

17

3 . 2b

7

2.65

9

2.hi

l

3 .0 6

3

2.00 10

lb17
b
50
71
h28

3.00
3-058

1
2

2.57
2.65

11
9

3.h8 10
3.056 3
3.2h

2.96
2.89
2.86
=II£

3
b

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Helierio.-i

Guard
a g a in s t
J cws

Jew ish
m erchant

it
T

rank o r d e r B eca u se o f

s m a ll s i z e

2 . 1h3 7
2.00 10

2 .8 6
7
2.5 8 8 10

2 . 2b b 2 .9 0
2.239 5
2.17
it
V

6
2.586 11
2 .9 0
1 .5 0

o f s a m p le , B u t in c lu d e d

R Mean

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R Mean

4

-

W ith in g r o u p v a r ia n c e i s

he s ig n ific a n t

at

th e 1 $ p r o b a b ility

g r e a t e r th a n b e tw e e n g ro u p v a r ia n c e .

R Mean

Jews in
ny n eig h ­
borhood
R Mean

R

6 2.05 5
h 2.06 h
5 2.00 6
10 1.78 11

1.77
1.63
1.60
1.70

5
8
Q
y
6

2. 2 . i h

2

1.79

h

5.27

1

1.93

9

2.00

1

8

h .65

7

1.88 10

l.h l

11

2,77 9
3.08 h
3.20 2
2.73 10

b . 73
h . 8h
h .80
h.3S

2

3 . Oh

5

5.00

1

3 . ho l
2.82

2.07
2.35

8
5

2.93 7
2.53 11

h .5 7
h . 2h

9
11

2.00
1 .9 ^

6
8

1.86
l.h 7

3
10

2 . ho
2.06
2.27

h
9

3.20
3.03
2.98
1.27

2
6

h .9 h
h . 6h
b .? b

3
8

2.22
2.09
2 . 0h
It

1
3

1.98
1.67
1.72
1.21

2
7

to

Be

1.09

it

7T

in a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .

^ T h is i s a l o o s e c a t e g o r y w h i c h i n c l u d e s a v a r i e t y o f P r o t e s t a n t s e c t s an d d e n o m i n a t i o n s w h ic h a r e
c o n s id e r e d s e p a r a t e ly and do n o t f i t i n t o a n y c l e a r l y d e fin e d c a t e g o r y .
■^For t h i s t a B l e P m u s t r e a c h 2 . 2 9

Jews
are
h o n e st

le v e l;

1 .8 1

to o s m a ll

a t t h e 5'y p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

Table 53
ALTITUDES TOWARD 1TEC-P.CES 3 1 RELIGIOUS IT>TT?I?I CATION
N egroes
to Jo h n s—
to w n

N egroes N egroes
next
are
door
la z y

q n t t t . ...

M ean

Mean

C a th o lic
62
M e th o d is t E p is c o p a l Q
✓O
/
E v a n g e l i c a l U. 3 .
10
B a p tis t
4o
P r e s b y te r ia n and
E p is c o p a lia n
29
R ural I n te r ­
d e n o m in a tio n a l
15
F r e e a n d W e s le y a n
M e th o d is t
17
H o lin e s s and
lb
r e la te d s e c t s
C o n g r e g a tio n a l
17
b
A d v e n ti s t ~
O t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n s 50
72
N one
429
T o ta l

4.4o
3.70
3.78
4.16

10

4.46

T o ta l n o .
o f resp on d R e lig io n

F

R

* ** -

Vfi

M ean

N egroes
s h o u ld
v o te
R

N egroes
w ith
e d u c a tio n

p

R

M ean

2.0 0

5

1.93

8

2.77
3.^0

Mean

T o ta l
N egro
P r Score
K ean

R

W h ite s and
N egroes in
sa m e
r e sta u r a n t
M ean
R

.

O rders
fro m a
N egro
M ean

3 1 .6 1
4 1.43
11 1.40
10 1.23

R

3

2 .0 0

5

1.90

10

3.50 6
3.595 4
3 . bo 9
3.38 10

7

2.48 11 1 .8 6

11

3.28 11

3.55

1

4.31

6

1.45

8

1.35

10

3 .6 0

1

2.93

4 2.27

2

3 .6 0

3

3.33

3

4.87

1

1.93

1

1.73

1

3

4.31

5

3.24

1 1.94

7

3.76

1

2.94

7

4.71

3 1.471

7

1 .6 5

2

4.00
3.63

8
b

3.93 3 2 .7 2
5.47 11 2 .8 8

8 2.14
5 2 .2 9

4

3.43
3.71

8
2

2.71

10
h

4.21
4.76

8 1.50
r* 1.41

6

3.91
3.38
3 . 8b
l.b 6

7
2
—

4.78 8
4.06 4
4.50 1.89*

3 2 .20
7 1.92

3
9

3 .6 0

3
7
-

2 .9 6
2 .9 5 8

4.60
4.306
4.45
1 .0 2

5

1 .5 8

7

1.472
1.49
I . 2.5

5 1.43
0✓ 1.47
«C
*•*
1.55
6 1.39
1.46

11

b. 62

3.31

1

3.56

5
6
9

2.96
2.75
2.78
1.32

s m a ll s i z e o f

—

2 .0 0
1 .0 6

p r o b a b ility

1

—

s a m p l e , "but i n c l u d e d

3.47
3.52

le v e l.
le v e l.

2 .6 0

2.75

3 .0 0

8 '4.209 9
4
2 4.66
11 4.20 10
0s 4.18 11

5
6

3.05
2 . 70 **

in a n a ly s is

s ig n ific a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l;

g r e a t e r th a n b e tw e e n g ro u p v a r ia n c e .

S ig n if ic a n t beyond 5 $ p r o b a b ilit y
S ig n if ic a n t beyond

R

2 .5 8 10
2.82 6
3 .0 0 2
2 .6 0 9

S ’o r t h i s t a b l e F m u s t r e a c h 2 . 2 9 t o b e
is

M ean

5.15 10
b .J 8 6
3.70 2
4.80 9

^ N o t i n c l u d e d i n r a n k o r d e r " b e c a u se o f

# - W ith in g r o u p v a r i a n c e

R

K eep N e g r o e s
o u t o f W h it e
n e ig h b o r h o o d s

.

1 .8 1

1.53
1.52
1 .1 0

1.35

1 .0 9

o f v a r ia n c e ,
a t th e

5^ p r o b a b ilit y

le v e l.

6
8
11

5
4
9
“

-2 0 0 o r d e r fin d in g s
is

f o r th e o th e r N egro q u e s tio n s a s w e ll.

N or

t h e r e a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e " b etw een d e n o m i n a t i o n s o n t h e

t o t a l N egro P r e j u d ic e s c o r e .

In g e n e ra l, th e s e fin d in g s a r e n e g a tiv e .

The tendency f o r

C a th o lic s to be l e s s t o l e r a n t may bo r e la t e d to th e f a c t t h a t
50 o u t o f th e 62 C a th o lic s i n th e sample a r e P o lish -A m erican s,
f o r th e s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n T able 53 p a r a l l e l th e f in d ­
in g s f o r two o f th e th r e e q u e s tio n s on which th e r e a r e s ig n i f ­
i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s between P o lis h and Old A m ericans.

In such a

c a s e i t i s d i f f i c u l t to d eterm in e w hether th e d iff e r e n c e s a r e
due to th e f a c t o f r e l i g i o n o r th e f a c t o f e th n ic o r ig in .
T here w ere n o t
m ake a n y
it

is

enough n o n -P o lis h

s ta tis tic a l

apparent

c o n s is te n t

set

th a t

c o m p a r is o n s .
th e C a th o lic

o f a ttitu d e s

C a th o lic s i n

t h e s a m p le t o

In any e v e n t,

fro m T a b le

s a m p le d o e s n o t r e f l e c t

53

a

to w a r d N e g r o e s .

The h y p o th e sis o f a t t i t u d e d if f e r e n c e s a s a fu n c tio n o f
r e l ig i o u s d if f e r e n c e s may be t e s t e d f o r Mexicans by exam ining
T able 5 ^.

There a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s f o r any o f th e

q u e s tio n s on t h i s t a b l e .

On none of th e s e q u e s tio n s i s th e

v a ria n c e between groups g r e a te r th an th e v a ria n c e w ith in g ro u p s.
The sample o f B a p t i s t s s t i l l a p p e a rs to rank a t th e le s s
t o l e r a n t end o f th e s c a le .

T here i s a ls o a tre n d , on th e s e

q u e s tio n s , f o r P re e M eth odists and Wesleyan M eth o d ists to ran k
a t th e l e s s t o l e r a n t end of th e s c a le .
fa v o ra b le g ro u p s.

There a r e no c le a r l y

In g e n e ra l, th e fin d in g s a r e n e g a tiv e .

The f in d in g s a r e a ls o

n e g a t iv e f o r th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e

ATTITUDES TOWARD IEXICAIIS A H - D IA L Y SIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE
3 1 RELIGIOUS IDEMTIFICATIOIT

R e lig io n

T o ta l no.
o f resuo.rec its

C ath o lic
62
M ethodist E pisco p al
99
E v a n g e lic a l U.B
10
B a p tis t
bo
P re s b y te ria n and
29
E p isc o p a lia n
R ural In te rd e n o m in a tio n a l
15
F ree and Wesleyan M ethodist 17
lb
H oliness and r e la te d s e c ts
C ongregatio n al
17
b
A d v en tist
O ther denom inations
50
72
Hone
h29
T ^ ta l

lie” ic o n s
a s c i t j 7.ens
and v o te rs
V.Gvn

3

. 3.00
3 .1 b
2.80
2.93

Kocro M cricrns
o u t c f w hite
n o i rlih o rhood s

Mexicans
c o rin g to
Mid s t a t e

H ovicrnr
r e s ta u r r - itc
w ith v i t e s

» To t e l
j P r e ju d ic e
Score

Mean

R

Mean

R

.•fear.

R

6
5
11
7

1.97
2 .2 5
1 .90
2 .08

9
2
10
5

1.65
1.68
l.bQ
1.50

5
3
10
8

1.97
2.09
2.00
1.88

5
2
b
8

3.08
2.95
2 . bo
2 .b j

3
b
11
10

3.38
2.93
2.83
2.86
3 .2 b

1
8
9
10
3

2.lh
2.07
2.00
1 .8 6
2 .06

b

6
1.59
h.
1.67
1.35 11
l . b -3 9
1
1.71

1.758 11
1
2.20
o
1.82
6
1 .93
1 .7 6 10

2.90
3.^7
2.59
2.93
2.71

6
1
0s
5
8

3 .1 6
3.33
3 .12

h

2.28
2.17
2 .13
A
U

1.56
1.69
1.61

r..ob
1.92
1.97

3.22
2.87
2.92
1 .0 b

2
7

/*»
<.

6
8
11
7
1
3

Morn

✓

7
t
o

•

&
u

3
7
2

ji
u

^Hot in c lu d e d i n rank o rd e r because

of sm all sir.e o f sample, b u t in clu d e d in a n a ly s is of v a r an ce.

2For t h i s

he s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l ,

# -

t a b l e F m u st r e a c h 2 . 2 9 t o

W i t h i n fg r o u p v a r i a n c e i s

g r e a t e r t h a n b e tw e e n g r o tto v a r i a n c e .

1 .8 1 a t

th e

R

5$ p r o b a b ility

le v e l.

-2 0 2 -

s c o re a s shown, "by T a b le 5^.

Once a g a in , however, th e B a p tis ts

ra n k a t th e l e s s t o l e r a n t end o f th e s c a le .
Prom th e fo re g o in g i t i s e v id e n t t h a t t h e h y p o th e s is o f
s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s among g roups th a t d i f f e r
in term s o f r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n h a s n o t been supported by
th e f in d in g s .

The s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s found f o r two o f th e

Negro q u e s tio n s f u r t h e r c o n fu ses th e p i c t u r e , s in c e , in g e n e r a l,
th e runk o rd e r f in d in g s d i f f e r c o n s id e ra b ly on th e s e two
q u e s tio n s .

There i s some ten d en cy , a lth o u g h not c o n s is te n t,

f o r C a th o lic s to be a t th e more p re ju d ic e d end o f a rank o rd e r
s c a le , e s p e c ia lly w ith re s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.
B a p tis ts appear to be c o n s is te n tly l e s s t o l e r a n t toward a l l
th r e e m in o r itie s .

However, t h i s tendency f o r C a th o lic s and

B a p tis ts may be a s s o c ia te d w ith many f a c to r s o th e r th an r e lig io u s
d if f e r e n c e s .

C e r ta in ly th e d a t a o f t h i s r e s e a r c h do not su p p o rt

any g e n e ra l h y p o th e s is t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity groups
v a ry i n term s o f d if f e r e n c e s i n r e l ig i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n .
Since th e r e were d if f e r e n c e s between r e l ig i o u s groups on
th e s ta t u s in d ex which were s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e one p e r cen t
p r o b a b i li t y le v e l^ a f u r t h e r s te p was ta k e n .

U sing th e con­

s tr u c te d index o f s o c ia l s ta t u s th e r e l ig i o u s denom inations were
O

c l a s s i f i e d in to f o u r s ta t u s g ro u p s.

I f s t a t u s i s a s s o c ia te d

7See T able E i n Appendix E.
g

These groupB were s e le c te d by in s p e c tio n on th e b a s is o f th e
averag e sco re f o r each group on th e s ta tu s in d e x . Group A had
h ig h s ta t u s (above 3*00 on th e s ta t u s in d ex ) and c o n s is te d o f
P r e s b y te r ia n , E p is c o p a lia n , and M ethodist E p isco p al; Group B
had medium h ig h s ta t u s and c o n s is te d o f B u ral In to r-d e m o n in a tio n a l,
P re e and W e^rlean M ethodist; Group C had medium low s ta t u s and

w ith a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity groups, and i f r e lig io u s
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a s s o c ia te d w ith s ta tu s , such a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
may re v e a l d if f e r e n c e s t h a t a r e masked by th e fo reg o in g
a n a ly s is of d e n o m in a tio n al d if f e r e n c e s .
The t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sc o re and th e t o t a l Negro
P r e ju d ic e s c o re were u sed to t e s t , by means o f th e a n a ly s is
o f v a ria n c e , f o r s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s betw een th e s e f o u r
r e l i g i o u s g ro u p s.

As shown in th e p re v io u s c h a p te r, f o r th e

s t a t u s in d ex t h e r e wore d if f e r e n c e s which were s ig n if ic a n t
beyond th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i l i t y le v e l f o r th e Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e sc o re, and beyond th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b ility
l e v e l f o r th e Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

Hence, wo might expect

d if f e r e n c e s to be shown by t h i s a n a ly s is .

The f in d in g s , a s

shovn by T able K in Appendix G, in d ic a te t h a t th e two h ig h
s t a t u s groups te n d to be more t o l e r a n t th an th e two low s ta tu s
g ro u p s.

Even so, th e d if f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t .

These r e s u l t s would seem to in d ic a te t h a t even though
re sp o n d e n ts who i d e n t i f i e d them selv es w ith d i f f e i 'e n t r e lig io u s
denom inations may d i f f e r in te rm s o f s o c ia l s ta t u s , r e l ig io u s
i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s a broad s o c ia l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c which c u ts
a c r o s s v e r t i c a l in d ic e s o f s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e .

While th e r e may

be o th e r way3 i n which th e s e r e l i g i o u s groups may be c l a s s i f i e d ,
on th e b a s is o f th e fo re g o in g th e r e i s l i t t l e support f o r th e

8 ( c o n tin u e d )c o n s is te d o f C o n g reg atio n al and B a p tis t; Group D
had low s ta tu s and in clu d e d C a th o lic , E v a n g e lic a l U nited
B re th e m , H o lin e ss , and A d v e n tis t. Those w ith o th e r o r no
r e l i g i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n were e lim in a te d from t h i s a n a ly s is .

h y p o th e slo th a t d if f e r e n c e s in r e lig io u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a r e
a s s o c ia te d w ith d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s .
Membership in O th er O rg a n iz a tio n s i n
R e la tio n s h ip to A ttitu d e s tow ard M in o ritie s
In a d d itio n to r e l ig i o u s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , th e r e a r e a
number o f o th e r k in d s o f o r g a n iz a tio n a l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n open to
resp o n d e n ts i n t h i s sample.

I n t h i s p r o je c t th o se resp o n d en ts

w ere asked to i n d i c a t e th e o r g a n is a tio n s to .which th ey belonged
i n a d d itio n to th e ch u rch .

The o rg a n iz a tio n s th a t were r e ­

p o r te d ranged from s p e c ia l i n t e r e s t groups to f r a t e r n a l a sso c ­
ia tio n s .

Since th e r e could be and f re q u e n tly was more th a n one

answ er t o t h i s q u e s tio n , and s in c e membership, th e r e f o r e , i n
one o rg a n is a tio n overlapped w ith a n o th e r, i t was d i f f i c u l t to
compare one o r g a n iz a tio n d i r e c t l y w ith a n o th e r.

A cco rd in g ly ,

th e fo llo w in g p ro c e d u re was adopted to make co n p ariso n s
p o s s ib le .
Each resp o n d en t in d ic a te d n o t only h i s o r g a n iz a tio n a l
membership b u t th e e x te n t to which h e p a r t i c i p a t e d in each
o rg a n iz a tio n h e l i s t e d .

As a p a r t o f th e coding p ro ced u re th e

o rg a n iz a tio n i n which each resp o n d en t was most a c tiv e was
in d ic a te d .

I t was, th e r e f o r e , p o s s ib le to s e p a ra te resp o n d en ts

in term s o f t h e i r most a c tiv e o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership, and to
a n a ly z e d if f e r e n c e s by means o f an a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e which
in c lu d e d th e e n t i r e sample.

T hat i s , d if f e r e n c e s i n o rg an iza­

t i o n a l membership could be compared f o r a t t i t u d e d if f e r e n c e s ,
b o th w ith one a n o th e r and w ith th o s e re sp o n d e n ts (about 38$)

who belonged to no o r g a n iz a tio n .
T his p ro c e d u re r e s u lte d i n th e com parison o f th e organ­
i z a t i o n s re p o rte d h e r e in .

I t should bo p o in te d out th a t th e s e

o rg a n iz a tio n s c o v e r a v a r ie ty o f s o c ia l l e v e l s and s o c ia l
in te re s ts .

One o r g a n iz a tio n , th e D orrance Community Club,

in c lu d e s only p e o p le who i n t e r a c t i n f a c e - t o - f a c e m e e tin g s.9
O ther o r g a n iz a tio n s , such a s th e Grange, Farm Bureau, o r Masons,
in c lu d e members from g e o g ra p h ic a lly d i f f e r e n t su b o rd in a te u n i t s
o f th e l a r g e r o r g a n iz a tio n s viho may seldom i n t e r a c t i n f a c e - t o fa c e s itu a tio n s .

The ca teg o ry o f O ther O rg a n iz a tio n s in c lu d e s

a v a r i e t y o f neighborhood c lu b s , b rid g e g ro u p s, book c lu b s , and
s p e c ia l economic i n t e r e s t groups which vrere n o t o f s u f f i c i e n t
s iz e to t r e a t a s s e p a ra te u n i t s .
The s in g le c r i t e r i o n met by a l l o f th e s e o rg a n iz a tio n s i s
t h a t th e membership analyzed i s th e "most a c tiv e " membership
a v a il a b l e from th e sample s e le c te d f o r t h i s re s e a r c h .

The

a p p lic a tio n o f t h i s c r i t e r i o n does not mean t h a t each member
was an extrem ely a c tiv e member o f th e s p e c if ie d o rg a n iz a tio n ,
b u t only t h a t , i n term s o f a u n iv e r s e o f p o s s i b le o rg an iza­
t i o n a l m em berships, t h i s was t h e r e s p o n d e n ts most a c tiv e
o r g a n iz a tio n .
belo n g ed .

I t may be th e only o rg a n iz a tio n to which he

N e v e rth e le s s , th e s p e c if ie d o rg a n iz a tio n doos

r e p re s e n t th e o r g a n iz a tio n i n which th e resp o n d en t i s most
a c tiv e .
^ T h is club i s . i n a sen se, b o th an e c o lo g ic a l and an organ­
i z a t i o n a l u n i t . I t s memoers a r e drawn e n t i r e l y from a r u r a l
l o c a l i t y which ap p eared to have a c o n s id e ra b le degree o f
neighborhood i n t e g r a t i o n .

A ttitu d e s tow ard Jews a r e shovm i n T able 55.

On only

one q u e s tio n i s t h e r e a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e ,
and t h a t a t th e f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

N e ith e r a r e

th e d if f o r e n c e s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t f o r th e t o t a l Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

There i s a tendency f o r t h e D orrance Commun­

i t y Club to be l e s s t o l e r a n t o f Jews th a n a r c th e o th e r o rg an ­
iz a tio n s .

T his i s a ls o th e tr e n d f o r t h e E a g le s and Moose,

and, to some e x te n t, f o r th e Farm Bureau.

On th e o th e r hand,

t h e r e i s some tendency f o r th e S e rv ic e Club members and f o r
th e members o f v e t e r a n s ' o rg a n iz a tio n s to be somewhat more
to le ra n t.

B ut, on th e whole, t h e r e i s l i t t l e

evidence to

su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is t h a t d if f e r e n c e s in o r g a n iz a tio n a l
membership a r e r e l a t e d to d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s toward Jew s.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Negroes by o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership a r e
shown in T able 5$.

Two o f th e q u e s tio n s show d iff e r e n c e s t h a t

a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e one p e r cen t p r o b a b ilit y
le v e l.

D iffe re n c e s f o r th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e sco re a r e

a ls o s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e f i v e p e r c en t p r o b a b i li t y le v e l .
T here a r e a ls o two q u e s tio n s w herein th e F o f 1.77 and 1 .7 ^ .
r e s p e c tiv e ly , ap p ro ach es th e f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l
o f 1 .8 1 .

A ll o f th e s e d a ta in d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s some te n ­

dency f o r o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership to be a s s o c ia te d w ith
a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.

When ran k o rd e r i s examined t h e r e

a p p e a rs to be a tendency f o r most of th e f r a t e r n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s
(M asons, O d d fello w s,E ag les, and Moose) to be l e s s t o l e r a n t .
T h is , lik e w is e , c o n tin u e s to be t r u e f o r th e D orrance Community

T a b le 55
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS E f ORGANIZATION K EK 33ESH I?

O rg an izatio n

T o tr l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Parm 3 u reau
Grange
S erv ice Clubs
V e te ra n 's Groups
Labor U nions
K nights o f Columbus
D orrance Club
E lks
Masons, Oddfellows
E ag les, Moose
Other O rg an iza tio n s
Ho o r g a n iz a tio n a l
membership

161

T o ta l

b2 8

F1

bb
21
15
18
lb

17
11
7
31
23
66

Jews th in k
th e y fr e
b e tte r
R
R Mean

J e ifis h
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s tr ic t
J ews

Mean

Mean R

Mean

3 .3 6 10
2
2.90
b
2.93
3 .0 0
5
2.929 3
l
2.88
6
3 .0 9
11
3.57
3 .9 h •12
3 .3 1
9
8
3 .2 6

2.73 11
1
3.33
2
3.27
3.17
3
3.07
5
2.82h 9.
2 .6 b 12
b
3 . 1b
6
2.90
2.826 8
2.86
7

3 .2 1
3 . 2h

2 .75
2.86

#

7

1.01

10

2.25
2.238
1.87
2.61
2.22
2.235
2.09
2.29
2.13
1.96
2.15

3 ‘ 2 .7 0
b
2 . 6?
12 3.53
1
3.33

2.16
2.17

Guard
a g a in s t
J CV/S

_R Mean
11
12
1
2
b
10

Shin
Jews
Sack

R Mean

2.25 6
2.19 7
2.87 1
2 . hh • 3
2 .lb 9

2 .8 6

T o ta l
J cwi sh
P r Score
R Mean
8

b .6 6

9

2 .8 6
2 . 8h

11
8

2.91
3.18

3.29 2 b .8 6
3.53 1 5 . t o
3.28 3 5.53
2.85? 0/ h.79
2 .2 9 5 2.81 11 b .6 b
9 2 .0 9 11 2.73 12 b .2 ?
6 2 . 1 b 9 2.85? 9 b .71
7 2 .b $ 2 3 .2 3 b b .8 b
5 2.0866.2 2.87 7 b .3 0
3 2.39 b 2 .9 9 5 b .97

7

2.79

8

6

3 .0 0

5

2.71
2.73

10
2

6

2.17

8 2 .9 0

2 .9 0

2.27

2.9 8

b .57
b .7 b

1.56

-7T

1.03

#

J ews
a re
h o n e st

R Mean
8
b
2
1
6
0s
12

2 .0 2

2.38
2.07
2 .2 2

2.36
2 .0 6
2 .0 0

Jews in
my neigh­
borhood
R Mean

6
1.77
b
1.81
2
6 1.82
h 1.89
1
•5 1.57 11
7 1 . 6b? 0✓
9 1.55 12
1 1 .8 6
3

8

7 2.57
C,
«✓ 1.87 11
11 1.65 12
3 2 .0 8 5
10

1.99 10
2 . oh
2 . 05 *

l . 6 b s 10

1.70
1 .8 0

7
5

1.67

8

1.72
ji

^For t h i s t a b l e F must reach 2.29 t o "be s ig n if i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 1 .81 a t th e 5R p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a r ia n c e i s g r e a te r th a n betv/een group v a r ia n c e .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

R

Table 56
ATTITUDES TOWARD iTFGP-O:ZS
N egroes
to Johns­
town

O rg a n iz a tio n

T o ta l n o .
o f respond—
Mean
e n ts .

Farm Bureau
Grange
S erv ice Clubs
V e te ra n 's Groups
Labor Unions
K nights o f Columbus
D orrance Club
E lks
Masons, O ddfellow s
E agles, Moose
Other o rg a n iz a tio n s
Ho o r g a n is a tio n a l
membership
T o ta l
F1

44
21
15
19
lb17
11
7
31
23
66
l 6l
429

3.82
4.29
3.38
2.87
3.93
4.18
3.73
4.67
4 .2 4
3.81
3.78
3.809
3.8b

Negroes
next
door

R Mean ?.
7
11
2
1
8
9
3
12
10
6
4
5

llegroes
are
la z y

4

7.38**

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

Mean. R Mean

3 .6 4 1 2 .52 9
b .10 3 2 .8 6 5
5.33 10 3 .3 3 2
3 .89 2 3.37 1
4 ,6 4 7 2 .5 ? 8
4.538 5 2.71 7
5 .64 12 2.27 11
5.43 11 3 .0 0 3
4 .7 4 8 2 .2 6 12
4 .83 9 2 .3 0 10
4 .59 6 2 .9 9 4
4.51
. b.50

0EGAHIZATIORAL M’l'BSP..SHIP

2 .8 5
2 .78
2 . 91**

6

R

2 .0 5
1 .8 6
2.13
2 .1 6
2.21
2 .2 4
1 .64
1.43
2.00
1.91
2.00

5
10
4
3
C.
1
11
12
7
9
7

2.01
2.00
A

6

It

*■>

N egroes
should
v o te
Mean

-

N egroes
w ith
ed u catio n

R Mean

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

T
*3« Mean

3.50 6
3 .5 2 5
4.13 1
3 .4 ? 8
3.79 2
3 .71 3
3 .18 11
3 .43 9
3.b 8 7
3 .13 12
3.42 10

3.068 7 4 .30
2 4.62
3.b€
1 5.53
3.80
4 4.89
3.32
6 4.50
3.07
2.82 11 4.53
2 .55 12 3 .6 4
3.b3
3 4.5?
8 4 .1 9
3.06
2.87 10 3 .91
3.17
5 4 .58

3-55
3.52

2.91
3.05

1.19

4

1.77

9

4 .4 3
4 .45
1.90*

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R Mean
R

9 1.50
3 1.57
1 1 .7 3
2 1 .7 4
7 1 .86
6 1 .6 5
12 1.18
5 1 .1 4
10 1.42
11 1 .17
4 1 .5 5
8

* - S ig n if ic a n t j u s t above th e 5$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .
** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l .

Mean

R

7 1.477 6
5 1.38 8
3 1 .7 3 3
2 1.58 5
1 1 .6 4 4
4 1.88 1
10 1.82 2
12 1.29 10
9 1.26 11
11 1 .13 12
6 1.375 9

1 .4 5
l.b 9
1.52

'S ’o r t h i s t a b l e F m ist re a c h 2.29 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e l £ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l; 1 .81 a t th e 5$> p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n betveen group v a ria n c e .

O rders
from a
Negro

8

1.471 7
1.46
1 .74

C lu b .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

v e te r a n s*

o r g a n iz a t io n s c o n tin u e

ex p ress g r e a te r

to w a r d N e g r o e s h o l d s ,
s ta tis tic a lly

b a b ility

le v e l,

th e r e

in

b o th c a s e s fo r th e
m em b ers o f

g e n e r a l,

s ig n ific a n t
is

at

s ta tis tic a lly

ran k n in th on th e

th a t N eg ro es a r e la z y

e le v e n t h and t h ir d

a r e r e s p o n s ib le in
d iffe r e n c e s .

w h ere th e y c o u n t m o st,

stru ctu red

in

b o th

in

to

N egroes,

T h e E lk s ran k

T h ese d if f e r e n c e s a r e

end o f t h e
cases,

fo r

c o n c lu d e t h a t , w ith r e s p e c t to
th e tr e n d

h y p o th e s is o f t h i s

is

t o le r a n c e on

q u e s t i o n w h ic h

ran k o rd er s c a le
th e

s ta tis tic a lly

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s w h ic h w e r e f o u n d . • H e n c e ,
sa fe st

it

is

a t t i t u d e s to w a r d

t h a t w h ic h h a s b e e n i n d i c a t e d

c h a p te r i s

For

w h i l e S e r v i c e C lu b m em b ers

r e s p e c tiv e ly .

e x tr e m e b u t a r e a t t h e

rank o r d e r f o r

t o N e g r o e s m o v in g n e x t

and ig n o r a n t.

r e s p e c tiv e ly ,

ra n k t e n t h and s e c o n d
n o t o n ly

in

t h e F arm B u r e a u r a n k f i r s t

door,
sta te s

th e one p er cen t p ro ­

s ig n ific a n t

q u e s tio n p e r t a in in g

to

f o r b o th q u e s tio n s

sa m e f a c t o r s

th e u n str u c tu r e d
w h ile th e y

w ith r e s p e c t

enough in c o n s is t e n c y

t o b e som.e d o u b t t h a t t h e

e x a m p le ,

a te n d en cy to

th a t h a s b een in d ic a te d

th a t are

th e r e

to in d ic a t e

to le r a n c e .

W h i le t h e t r e n d
a ttitu d e s

t h e m e m b e r s o f S e r v i c e C lu b s a n d

n o t c le a r ly

but th e

su p p o r te d .

D iffe re n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown by
T ab le 57.

Here t h e r e a r e no d if f e r e n c e s on any o f th e se

q u e s tio n s which a r e s i g n i f i c a n t .

In g e n e r a l, th e r e i s some

tendency a g a in f o r s e v e ra l o f th e f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s to
be l e s s t o l e r a n t , w h ile th e S e rv ic e Club members a g a in a p p e a r

T a b l e 57
ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXIGAES AITD ANALYSIS OF THE TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCORE BY 0RGA1TIZATIORAL MEMBERSHIP

O rg an iz a tio n
Farm Bureau
Grange
S e rv ic e Clubs
V e te r a n 's Groups
Labor Unions
K nights o f Columbus
D orrance Club
E lks
Masons, Ocldfellov?s
E a g le s, Moose
O ther O rg a n iz a tio n s
Ho o r g a n iz a tio n a l
membership
T o ta l

T o ta l no.
o f resno:*ro its
Ub
21
15
19
1^
17
11
7
31
23
66

^ F or t h i s t a b l e F m u st r e a c h 2 .2 9
W ith in g ro u p v a r ia n c e i s

Keep Ife ric m s
o u t c f v h ito
neigh horhoods

M ericr ns
co -.ire to
Mir’st.r t e

IVr-ic m r
re st:: w r s t c
vritk
itc s

i'Gi’51

?.

::c tn

R

'•can

R

•fear.

R

'.torn

E

2.93 10
2 .90 11
3 .53
1
2 .95
9
3 .1 ^
6
3.235 5
3 .^ 5
2
3.29
3
3.032 7
2.83 12
3 .03
8

2.23
2.19
2.13
2.21
2.36
1 .9 ^
2.09
1.57
2 .26
1.78
2.17

3
5
7
b
1
10
0j
12
2
11
6

b
1.66
1.^3 10
1
1.93
1.631 6
1.50
9
7
1.59
1.73
3
1.29 11
8
1.52
1.22 12
2
1 .7 k

2 .0 5
2.00
2 .33
2.11
2.07
2 .35
2.09
1.71
1.81
1 .78
1.83

6
7
2
3
5
1
b
12
10
11
9

3.09
3.00
3.60
3.28
3.21
3 .^1
3.00
2.57
2M
2.13
2.92

5

b

2.12

8

1.63^
1.61
l . 6b

1 .9 6

8

1.97

2.88
2.92

1 .13

l.b 7

3 . 2h

161
h29

F1

# -

H ericans
a s c itiz e n s
and v o te rs

3.12

2 .13

1.01

V

JL

to h e s ig n if ic a n t a t th e

g r e a t e r th a n b e tv r e e n

5

p r o b a b ility le v e l;

group v a r ia n c e .

1 .8 1 a t

1 T o ta l
| P re iu r.ic o
< Score
|

th e

6
1
3
b
2
6
10
11
12
8
9

5^ p r o b a b il it y

le v e l.

to "be more t o l e r a n t .

The tr e n d s f o r t h i s t a b l e a r e s li g h t and,

i n g e n e ra l, i t may be s a id t h a t th e sam ples o f o r g a n iz a tio n s
behave a s random

sam ples drawn from a p a r e n t p o p u la tio n .

The

d a ta do n o t su p p o rt th e h y p o th e s is th a t d if f e r e n c e s i n organ­
i s a t i o n a l membership a r e r e l a t e d to d i f f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard M exicans.
The T o ta l P r e ju d ic e sc o re i s a ls o shown by T able 57 •

^he

d i f f e r e n c e s betw een o r g a n iz a tio n s a r e not s ig n i f i c a n t , a lth o u g h
th e tre n d s t h a t have been d is c u s s e d ap p ear to h o ld , except f o r
th e D orrance Community Club.

T h is l a t t e r f a c t ap p ears to be

due to th e co m p arativ ely t o l e r a n t a t t i t u d e s o f members o f
t h i s clu b toward M exicans, a s shown by th e two Mexican ques­
t i o n s which a r e in c lu d e d i n th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re .
Prom th e fo re g o in g d a ta , a lth o u g h th e r e a r e a p p aren t ceiv
t a i n te n d e n c ie s , th e h y p o th e s is t h a t h a s been advanced cannot
be accep ted w ith c o n fid e n c e .

There i s p a r t i a l su p p o rt in s o f a r

a s a t t i t u d e s tow ard Negroes a r e concerned, b u t th e r e i s l i t t l e
su p p o rt f o r th e h y p o th e s is when i t i s a p p lie d to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard e i t h e r Jews o r M exicans.
The d if f e r e n c e s t h a t a p p e a r, however, a r e p ro v o c a tiv e ,
e s p e c ia lly when i t i s remembered t h a t th e a n a ly s is o f organ­
i z a t i o n a l membership which h as been attem p ted h as s e v e ra l
im p o rta n t d is c r e p a n c ie s .

Thus, th e farm o r g a n iz a tio n s have

b een in clu d e d , a lth o u g h th e p re v io u s fin d in g s in d ic a te a d i f f ­
ere n c e between farm and non-farm groups.

The D orrance Commun­

i t y Club i s an o r g a n iz a tio n whose members l i v e i n one r u r a l

-2 1 2 -

lo c a lity .

The members o f th e K nights o f Columbus a r e C a th o lic .

The c a te g o ry o f O ther O rg a n iz a tio n s i s composed o f many k in d s
o f g ro u p s.

A ll o f th e s o o rg a n iz a tio n s were u sed in th e

a n a ly s is to o b ta in a f i r s t app ro x im atio n to th e r o le o f
o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership i t s e l f .
But, s in c e th e fin d in g s have been lim ite d , some a tte m p t
should be made to r e f i n e th e o r g a n iz a tio n a l a n a ly s is .

Accord­

in g ly , a number o f o rg a n iz a tio n s wore e lim in a te d and c e r t a in
com binations were made.

The farm o r g a n iz a tio n s , T orrance

Community Club, K nights o f Columbus, and O th er O rg a n iz a tio n s
v e re o m itte d .

T h is l e f t a s o t o f p r im a r ily male a s s o c ia tio n s .

The f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s were grouped in to one c a te g o iy .
A lthough fa rm ers w ere in c lu d e d , t h e i r num bers, p r o p o r tio n a te ly ,
were q u ite sm a ll.

Hence, th e a n a ly s is becomes one of p r im a r ily

u rb a n , male a s s o c i a t i o n s .

F or com parative p u rp o se s th e c a t­

egory o f "no o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership" was r e t a in e d .

T his

a g a in in c lu d e s fa rm e rs and t h e i r w ives, b u t, as may be seen
by a com parison w ith th e o r ig i n a l san p le d a ta , th e mean f o r
t h i s group i s q u ite c lo s e to th e moan f o r th e t o t a l sample.
The th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s were u sed a s a b a s is f o r th e
new a n a ly s is .

The r e s u l t s a r e shown in T able 58.

In a d d itio n ,

s in c e th e s t a t u s f a c t o r may be o f im portance, a com parison o f
th e s t a t u s in d ex f o r th e v a rio u s o r g a n iz a tio n s i s shown in
T a b le 59*
The d a ta a r e somewhat more in fo rm a tiv e th an th e o r ig in a l
a n a l y s is .

I n s p e c tio n o f T able 58 shows t h a t w h ile th e d i f f e r -

T a b l e 58
ATTITUDES OF SELECTED
ORGANIZATIONS TOWARD MINORITY GROIPS
T o ta l no.
o f resp o n d e n ts

O rg a n iz a tio n

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
Li<m

T o ta l
Negro
P r Score
Mean
R

S e rv ic e Clubs

15

5M

/">

£

5.53

V e te r a n s ' O rg a n iz a tio n s

19

5 .53

1

L abor Unions

lb-

F r a te r n a l O rganizations'^"
No O rg a n iz a tio n a l
Membership
T o ta l
p2

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
S core
R
Mean
1

b .89

l 3.60
oC 3 .2 8

b.79

3- b-.50

3 .2 1

3

61

b.62

k

b .13

5

2 .3 6

5

l 6l

b.57

e;

b.b -3

k

2.88

k

270

b-.7i

k .k 6

2.85

1 .7 2

3 . 149**

3.05*

H laso n s, O ddfellow s, E lk s, E a g le s, Moose.
^F or t h i s a n a l y s is F must re a c h 3*^1 1° be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e
ifj p r o b a b ility le v o l; 2 . b l a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .
♦♦ - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e l £ T > robabillty l e v e l . ______________
T able 59
STATUS OF SELECTED ORGANIZATIONS AS
MEASURED BY A CONSTRUCTED INDEX OF SOCIAL STATUS
O rg a n iz a tio n

T o ta l n o . of
re sp o n d e n ts

S ta tu s Index
Mean
R

S e rv ic e Clubs

Ik

h .86

1

V e te r a n s ' O rg a n iz a tio n s

17

3.1 8

2

L abor Unions

13

2.00

5

F r a te r n a l O rg a n iz a tio n s

59

3 .0 5

3

1^3

2.01

k

2k6

2.50

No O rg a n iz a tio n a l
Membership
T o ta l
F

39.03**

** - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 1# -p ro b a b ility l e v e l o f 3 .4 1 .

2

e n c e s on th e J e w is h P r e j u d ic e

score ere not

th o se

s c o r e and th e T o ta l p r e j u d ic e

f o r th e N egro P r e ju d ic e

sco re are a t th e
r e s p e c tiv e ly .
are

s ig n ific a n t,

o n e and f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b e - b ilit y l e v e l s ,

The ran k o r d e r f in d in g s f o r a l l

th r e e

sco res

q u ito c o n s is t e n t .

The S e rv ic e Clubs and v e t e r a n s ' o r g a n iz a tio n s a r e c l e a r l y
most t o l e r a n t .

Labor u n io n s occupy an in te rm e d ia te p o s it i o n .

The f r a t e r n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s a r e c le a r ly most i n t o l e r a n t .

The

n o n -o rg a n iz a tio n a l members ra n k j u s t above t h e f r a t e r n a l
o r g a n iz a tio n s on th e two s c o re s f o r which th e d if f e r e n c e s a r e
s ta t i s t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t.

They a r e , however, a s m ight be

ex p ected , q u ite c lo s e to th e mean f o r th e sample a s a w hole.
The s ta t u s d if f e r e n c e s , a s shown by T able 59•
beyond th e one p e r cen t l e v e l o f s ig n if ic a n c e .

But th e ra n k

o r d e r fin d in g s a r e n o t w holly i n l i n e w ith th o s e o f T able 58.
T hus, f r a t e r n a l o rg a n iz a tio n s ran k th ir d in s ta t u s b u t f i f t h
on th e two p r e ju d ic e sc o re s f o r which th e r e a r e s ig n if i c a n t
d if f e r e n c e s .

L abor u n io n s ra n k l a s t in s t a t u s b u t a r e above

th e moan in T a b le 58, w ith a c o n s is te n t ran k o f th r e e .

The

S o rv ico Clubs and v e t e r a n s ' o rg a n iz a tio n s ra n k in accordance
w ith th e e x p e c ta tio n s o f th e s t a t u s in d ex .
I t i s p o s s ib le t h a t th e d if f e r e n c e s may be due p r im a r ily
to th e s ta t u s f a c t o r .

That i s , th e co m p arativ ely h ig h t o l ­

era n c e sc o re s o f th e S e rv ic e C lubs and v e t e r a n s ' o rg a n iz a tio n s
may account f o r th e d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s a s r e f le c te d by
o r g a n iz a tio n a l m em bership.

I f so, th e f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t

to s ta t u s , a s shown i n th e p re v io u s c h a p te r s , would i n d ic a te
t h a t th e s ta t u s f a c t o r i s o f g r e a t inroortance in th e e x p la n a tio n
o f T able 58.

However, w h ile th e s ta tu s in d e x f o r th e S e rv ic e

C lubs i s h ig h , t h a t f o r th e v e te r a n s ' o r g a n iz a tio n s and f r a ­
t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s i s v e ry s im il a r .

M oreover, th e sample

o f f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s i s n e a r ly tw ic e t h a t o f th o S e rv ic e
Clubs

and v o t e r a n s 1 o rg a n iz a tio n s combined.

I t i s p o s s ib le

t h a t o th e r f a c t o r s o f e more dynamic n a tu re may be in v o lv e d .
I f th e o r g a n iz a tio n s shown i n Table 58 a r e arran g ed alo n g
a continuum o f open and c lo s e d groups, th e f in d in g s f i t i n t o
a th e o ry of p r e ju d ic e a s a f u n c tio n o f th e d e g re e o f c lo s u r e
o f a s o c ia l system .

Thus, th e f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s a r e

c o n p a ra tiv e ly c lo s e d g ro u p s.

V e te ra n s ' o rg a n iz a tio n s and

S e rv ic e Clubs te n d to be more open in th e se n se t h a t by
m eeting c e r t a i n f a i r l y s in p le c r i t e r i a any member o f th e
t o t a l s o c ia l system may b e lo n g .

In a c tu a l p r a c t i c e , o f

c o u rse , t h i s d o es n o t alv;ays o c c u r.

B ut, i n s o f a r a s a

system o f se n tim e n ts i s concerned, such o r g a n iz a tio n s a r e
much more a c c e s s ib le th an many f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s .

On

th o o th e r hand, la b o r u n io n s occupy a p o s it io n somevjhat i n th e
m iddle o f th e s c a le .

Membership i s lim ite d more d r a s t i c a l l y

th a n i s t h a t o f S e rv ic e Clubs and v e te r a n s ' o r g a n iz a tio n s , b u t
l e s s so than f r a t e r n a l o r g a n iz a tio n s .
I t w i l l b e n o te d th a t th e f in d in g s f o r
of

s a a r o le s f o l l o w s t h e d e g r e e o f c l o s u r e ,

above,

t o a r e m a r k a b le e x t e n t .

th is

s e le c te d

set

a s h a s b e e n assu m ed

T he m ore c l o s e d

th e o r g a n iz a tio n ,

th o g r e a te r th e d e g re e of p r e ju d ic e ex p re sse d by th e member­
s h ip .
T h is e x p la n a tio n demands much more c a r e f u l a n a ly s is th a n
th e d a ta o f t h i s re s e a rc h p e r m it.

But, t h e r e i s evidence t h a t

membership in c e r t a i n o r g a n iz a tio n s i s a s s o c ia te d w ith th e
a t t i t u d e s e x p ressed tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.

There i s some

p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t t h i s may be r e l a t e d to o r g a n iz a tio n a l p a t t e r n s
o f se n tim e n ts q u i t e a p a r t from th e s ta t u s f a c t o r s which a r e
a ls o r e l a t e d to o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership.
One a d d itio n a l a n a ly s is was u n d e rta k e n .

The sample o f

fa rm e rs was s u f f i c i e n t l y la r g e so th a t th r e e groups could be
s e p a ra te d :

a c t i v e Farm Bureau members; n o n -a c tiv e Farm B ureau

members; and non-Farm Bureau members.
were u sed a s th e b a s is f o r a n a l y s i s .
T ab le L i n Appendix: G.

The t h r e e p r e ju d ic e sc o re s
The r e s u l t s a r e shown i n

There i s l i t t l e evid en ce t h a t , e i t h e r

in term s o f e x te n t o f a c t i v i t y o r membership alo n e , th e r e a r e
d if f e r e n c e s i n th e a t t i t u d e s o f farm ers tow ard m in o r itie s which
a r e r e la te d to th e o r g a n iz a tio n a l c r i t e r i a u s e d f o r t h i s
a n a l y s is .
C o n clu sio n s w ith R espect to
Kind o f O rg a n iz a tio n a l Membership
The d a ta so f a r d isc u s s e d may be summarized a s fo llo w s :
1.

Church membership does n o t ap p ear to be r e l a te d to
a t t i t u d e s tow ard th e th r e e m in o rity g roups which were
te s te d .

The few tre n d s t h a t wore d is c lo s e d a r e i n s u f f i c i e n t

to a t t r i b u t e to th e f a c t o f church membership a lo n e .

2.

O rg a n iz a tio n a l membership, e x c lu s iv e o f church member­
sh ip and c o n s id e re d e s a broad., in c lu s iv e c a te g o ry ,
ap p e ars to have some te n d e n c ie s tow ard r e la tio n s h ip to
a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes, b u t not Jews o r M exicans.

3.

When o rg a n iz a tio n s a r e s e le c te d f o r p u rp o se s o f g r e a te r
hom ogeneity o f membership and w ith re g a rd to th e p re ­
dominance o f o th e r f a c t o r s which may be o f im portance,
th e r e i s some evidence t h a t a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity
groups a r e r e la te d to o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership.

T his

i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e f o r a t t i t u d e s tow ard N egroes.

The

r e s u l t s f o r th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re and th e ran k o rd e r
f in d in g s f o r th e Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sc o re in d ic a t e th a t
t h i s a p p lie s a ls o to a t t i t u d e s tow ard Jew s and M exicans.
1+.

Such r e l a t io n s h i p a s e x i s t s between o r g a n iz a tio n a l member­
sh ip end a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s i s in flu e n c e d by th e
s ta t u s f a c t o r .

However, t h e r e i s a ls o a tendency f o r t h i s

r e la t io n s h i p to be a f u n c tio n o f th e d eg ree o f c lo s u re o f
group s.
II
EXTENT OF OROANIZATIONAL ACIIVITI
The second q u e s tio n t h a t may be r a is e d w ith re s p e c t to
o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership i s t h a t of th e q u a l i t y o f th e
p a r t i c i p a t i o n o f members.

Does th e e x te n t o f p a r t ic ip a ti o n

in th e program o f th e church o r o th e r o r g a n iz a tio n s d i f f e r ­
e n t i a t e between members o f th e s o c ia l system i n term s of th e
m a n ife s ta tio n o f sen tim en ts tow ard m in o rity groups?

T h is

-218cruestion i s d i r e c t e d to th e exam ination of t h e dynamics o f
th e s o c ia l system and n o t to th e s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c ts a lo n e .
The d a ta o f t h i s re s e a rc h do n o t make p o s s ib le an exam ination
o f th e p o s s ib le e f f e c t s o f i n t e r a c t i o n i n s p e c if ic sub­
sy stem s o f th e t o t a l s o c ia l system .

There i s , however, some

d a t a which b e a r on th e f a c t o r o f i n t e r a c t i o n a s an a sp e c t o f
th e t o t a l s o c ia l s t r u c t u r e .
Church A c tiv ity i n R e la tio n s h ip
to A ttitu d e s tow ard M in o ritie s
To \tfhat e x te n t a r e a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s r e l a te d to
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n th e program o f v a rio u s ch u rch es, r e g a r d le s s
o f th e kin d o f church?

There i s l i t t l e evidence to be found

from p re v io u s s tu d i e s .

The A llp o rt-K ra m e r^ stu d y concludes

t h a t r e lig io u s t r a i n i n g in i t s e l f does not le s s e n p r e ju d ic e
b u t r e l ig i o u s t r a i n i n g t h a t s t r e s s e s to le r a n c e and b r o th e r ­
hood d o es.

The im p lic a tio n i s t h a t church a c t i v i t y i t s e l f

makes l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e a s f a r as a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r itie s
a r e concerned.
A nother in c o n c lu s iv e b u t i n t e r e s t i n g stu d y o f th e
in flu e n c e o f c h u rch a c t i v i t y i s re p o rte d by Boyd.'*''''

His

stu d y in Lubbock County, Texas o f s e v e ra l hundred in d iv id u a ls ,
presum ably a l l P r o te s t a n t , re v e a le d t h a t r e g u l a r a tte n d a n ts
a t ch u rch ten d ed to be somewhat l e s s l i b e r a l th a n th o se who

^ A llp o rt

and Kramer, on. c i t .

^ J . E. Boyd, "The In flu e n c e o f th e Church upon Race A ttitu d e s
i n West T e x as," u n p u b lish ed M. A. t h e s i s , U n iv e rs ity o f
D enver, 1938*

d id n o t go a t a l l o r were i r r e g u l a r i n t h e i r a tte n d a n c e .

As

f a s a s a n ti-S e m itis m i s concerned th e B a ltim o re stu d y r e p o r ts
t h a t " In g e n e r a l, th e r e i s no d if f e r e n c e in t h e a t t i t u d e s
tov/ard Jews h e ld by fre q u e n t church g o ers a s compared to
in f r e q u e n t c h u rc h g o e rs ."

12

However, an a n a ly s is o f th e r e la tio n s h ip o f church
a c t i v i t y to a t t i t u d e s was u n d ertak en in t h i s study w ith th e
e x p re ss h y p o th e s is t h a t th e r e would be s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s
in a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o r itie s which a r e r e l a t e d to th e e x te n t
o f church a c t i v i t y .

A f u r t h e r h y p o th e sis was h eld th a t th e

more a c tiv e ch u rch members, r e g a r d le s s o f church membership,
would be more t o l e r a n t toward m in o rity g ro u p s.

T his hypo­

t h e s i s i s i n one sen se a d e r iv a tio n o f th e b a s ic re s e a rc h
h y p o th e s is .

In a d d itio n , community o b s e rv a tio n , p a r t i c u l a r l y

o f Johnstovm , in d ic a te d th a t m in is te r s remind t h e i r congre­
g a tio n s , from tim e to tim e, of th e American Creed and i t s
r e l a t io n s h i p to C h r is tia n p r a c t i c e s .

W hile i t may be argued

t h a t t h i s i s o n ly " l i p s e r v ic e ," i t may a ls o be argued t h a t
t h i s pronounced c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c should have some
e f f e c t on th o se in v o lv e d .

I n o th e r words, th e more a c tiv e

church members would be more r e g u la r ly s u b je c te d to such
s tim u li and, h en c e, m ight be expected to m a n ife st more t o l e r a n t
s e n tim e n ts th a n th o s e viho were l o s s a c tiv e an d , hence, l e s s
s u b je c t to such c u l t u r a l s tim u li.

12

The B altim o re P o l l , on. c i t . , p . 6l .

As a f i r s t s te p in t h i s a n a ly s is , re sp o n d e n ts were c l a s s ­
i f i e d in to a number o f c a te g o r ie s .

T his a tte m p t v/as made in

o r d e r to see i f c e r t a i n r a t h e r p r e c is e d i s t i n c t i o n s i n q u a li ty
o f church p a r t i c i p a t i o n might be r e la te d t o a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m in o rity g roups.

Thus, th o se w ith no church a c t i v i t y were

c l a s s i f i e d i n t o th o s e w ith and th o s e w ithout a church connec­
tio n .

There w ere a ls o s e v e ra l k in d s o f "nom inally" a c ti v e

p a rtic ip a n ts :

th o se who belonged because th e y f e l t o b lig e d to

su p p o rt th e church; th o se who supported th e church because
th e y f e l t i t was a good th in g b u t d id n o t a tte n d ; th o se who
a tte n d e d but d id n o t belong; and th e more c o n v en tio n al c a t­
egory o f th o se who belonged to church b u t were not a c tiv e .
There were a ls o th r e e k in d s o f a c tiv e members:

a c tiv e b u t

n o t u s u a lly o f f i c i a l s ; a c tiv e and u s u a lly o f f i c i a l s ; and
m in is te r s (o f which th e r e were only two in th e sam ple).
The r e s u l t s o f t h i s a n a ly s is a r e sh o rn i n T ables M, N,
and 0 in Appendix.G.

These t a b l e s show a number o f i n t e r e s t ­

in g v a r ia tio n s b u t th e r e s u l t s a r e not c o n s is te n t n o r a r e thqy
u s u a lly s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t .

However, i t ap p ears from

th e s e ta b le s t h a t th e more a c ti v e church members te n d to be
more t o l e r a n t .

In o rd e r to make a more p r e c i s e t e s t of t h i s

h y p o th e s is th e c a te g o r ie s were regrouped in to th e o r ig in a l
th re e c la s s if ic a tio n s :

no church a c t i v i t y ; nom inal church

a c t i v i t y ; a c tiv e church members.
The h y p o th e sis may be te s t e d f i r s t by exam ining T able 60
which g iv e s th e mean, ran k o r d e r , and F f o r each o f th e Jew ish

T a b le 60
ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS TY EXTEST OF CHURCH ACTIVITY

E x ten t o f
Church A c tiv ity

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Guard
a g a in s t
J cv/s

Jew ish
m erchant

Jews
rash

R e s tr ic t
Jews

Mean

Jews th in k
th e y ’r e
b e tte r
R
R Mean

Mean R

Mean

R. Mean

Ship
Jews
Back

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

Jews
a re
h o n est

Jcv/s in
ny neigh­
borhood

R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

R Mean

R

A ctiv e

109

2 .9 4

1

2 .88

1

2.24

1

3 .2 4

1

2.49

1

3 .0 6

1

5.09

1

2.15

1

1 .8 5

1

Nominal a c t i v i t y

153

3.48

3

2.856

2

2.18

2

2 .8 5

2

2.27

2

2.99

2

4 .73

2

2.01

2

1.72

2

No church a c i t i v i t y

166

3.20

2

2.855

3

2.13

3

2 .72

3

2.12

3

2.92

3

il.51

3

1.99

3

1.63

3

T o ta l

428

3 .2 4

F1

2 .8 4 '

2.86
n

2.17
#

2 .90

2.27

2.98

9.17**

4.31*

#

^For t h i s ta b le F m s t re ac h 4.66 t o be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e Vp p r o b a b i li t y le v e l;
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th an th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5^ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e Vp p r o b a b i lity le v e l.

3 .0 2

4 .7 4

2.08

1.72

3 . 22*

1.42

2.40

a t th e 5^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

a t t i t u d e q u e s tio n s a n d f o r th e t o t a l J e w is h P r e j u d i c e s c o r e .
On one q u e s tio n t h e r e i s a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c
beyond th e one p e r cent p r o b a b i li t y le v e l ; on a n o th e r q u e s tio n
th e d if f e r e n c e i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e f iv e
p e r cent p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l .

The t o t a l Jew ish P r e ju d ic e sc o re

i s a ls o s ig n i f i c a n t beyond th e f i v e p e r cent p r o b a b ility le v e l
P erh ap s more im p o rtan t th a n th e number o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y
s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i s th e ranlc o rd e r o f th e th re e g ro u p s.
The a c t i v e church members a r e c o n s is te n tl y more t o le r a n t th a n
th e o th e r two g ro u p s.

This tre n d a ls o h o ld s f o r a l l th re e

g ro u p s and su p p o rts th e h y p o th e s is th a t th e g r e a te r th e church
a c t i v i t y th e l e s s th e w illin g n e s s to m a n ife st sen tim en ts un­
f a v o ra b le to m in o rity g ro u p s.

In g e n e ra l, th e d if f e r e n c e s

a p p ea r to be g r e a t e s t between th e a c tiv e church gro'Jp and th e
o th e r two g roups, w h ile th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een th o se who
have no church a c t i v i t y and th o s e who have a nominal amount of
church a c t i v i t y ap p ea r to be l e s s .

Even so, f o r t h i s t a b l e ,

th o s e w ith no church a c t i v i t y te n d to ran k a t th e more i n t o l ­
e r a n t end o f a ran k o rd e r s c a le .
T h is a n a ly s is may be co n tin u ed by exam ining T able 6 l f o r
a t t i t u d e s toward N egroes.

T here i s one q u e s tio n where th e

d if f e r e n c e s betw een groups i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t be­
yond th e f iv e p e r c e n t p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .

The t o t a l Negro

P r e ju d ic e sc o re does n o t i n d i c a t e any s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s .
However, th e ten d en cy f o r th e a c t i v e church members to ra n k a t
th e more t o l e r a n t end o f a ran k o rd e r s c a le c o n tin u e s f o r a l l

T a b le 61
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES BY EXTEFT OE CHURCH ACITIVITY.

E x ten t o f
Church A c tiv ity

T o ta l no.
resp o n d -

N egroes
to Johns­
town

Negroes
next
door

Mean

R

Mean

R Mean. R Mean

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

N egroes
should
v o te

R

Mean

R Mean

?.

Kean

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R
R Mean

N egroes
w ith
ed u catio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

R

A ctiv e

109

3.76

1

4.41

1

2 .8 4

1

2.19

1

3.57

1

3.23

1

4 .6 8

1

1.5 9

1

1.56

1

Nominal A c tiv ity

153

3.89

3

4 .4 4

2

2.751

3

1.99

2

3.52

2

2.993

3

4.39

2

1 .50

2

1.44

2

No church a c t i v i t y 167

3 .8 4

2

4.61

3

2.754

2

1.90

3

3.43

3

2.994

2

4 .3 6

3

1 .4 2

3

1.41

3

T o ta l
1
F

3 .8 4

429

#

4.50
n
T

2 .7 8
JL

r

2.00
3.82*

3.52
»»

3.05

4 .4 5

1.49

1.46

1.92

1 .9 8

1.63

1.36

^For t h i s t a b l e F mast re a c h 4 .6 6 to b e s ig n i f ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ilit y le v e l ; 3.02 a t t h e 5? p ro b a b ility le v e l.
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* — S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5^ p r o b a b ility le v e l.

q u e s tio n s and f o r th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

The d i f f e r ­

en ces "between th e sample o f th e n o n -a c tiv e and th e sample o f th e
n o m in ally a c tiv e a r e , a g a in , n o t g re a t and, i n t h i s ta b le ,
te n d to v a iy somewhat.

Those who a r e nom inally a c tiv e s t i l l

te n d to he s l i g h t l y l e s s p re ju d ic e d on a m a jo rity o f q u e s tio n s
and on th e t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

In s h o r t, th e hypo­

t h e s i s o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i s not sub­
s t a n t i a t e d by th e s e d a ta , b u t th e tre n d c o n tin u e s to su pport
t h e h y p o th e s is .

That i s , w h ile th e d if f e r e n c e s between each

o f th e groups i s sm all and n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t,
th e s e d if f e r e n c e s c o n tin u e to be c o n s is te n t, e s p e c ia lly w ith
r e s p e c t to th e a c t i v e church g ro u p .

S ince th e samples a r e

f a i r l y la r g e , t h i s would seem to be a s ta b le f in d in g and
n o t th e r e s u l t o f th e ch o ice o f a sm all and b ia s e d sample.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown in T able 62.

Here

t h e r e a r e no d i f f e r e n c e s on any o f th e q u e s tio n s th a t a r e
s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t.
tr e n d c o n tin u e s .

In g e n e ra l, however, th e same

On one q u e s tio n th e a c tiv e church group ran k s

l e a s t t o l e r a n t , b u t i t w ill be n o ted t h a t th e d iff e r e n c e s in
sample means a r e q u ite sm all f o r a l l th ro e g ro u p s.

On a l l

o th e r q u e s tio n s th e a c tiv e church group c o n tin u e s to rank a s
l e a s t p re ju d ic e d tow ard m in o rity groups.

The d if f e r e n c e s in

means f o r a l l groups a r e sm all, and th e h y p o th e s is of s t a t i s ­
t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s i s not s u b s ta n tia te d .

However,

th e tre n d c o n tin u e s to su p port th e h y p o th e sis t h a t th e e x te n t
o f church a c t i v i t y i s r e l a te d to a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity

T a b le 62
ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSI S OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCOEE 3Y EXTENT OF CHUP.CH ACTIVITY

E xtent of
Church A c itiv ity

T o ta l nc.
o f r e s 'i n 'r ou ts

Keep i: o r ic m s
Ilexicons
a s c i t j 7.c;.-».s o u t c f ’•’ . i t a
and v o te rs
n oi rhhorh'iod s
r eon

E

n

p

Uexirf
CO
• to
IIi r str to

*»...* A_

Mean

R

*rC£T*

R

:
cr r r
re st.-i r r - t r
v d th r -v i t os

| T o ta l
j Prejuc' ic e
• Score
Hern

P

A ctiv e

109

3-07

3

2 .2 5

1

1.70

1

2 .C6

1

3.2h

1

Nominal a c t i v i t y

153

3.137

2

2.08

3

1.63

2

1 . 9^

2

! 2 .8 8

2

No church a c t i v i t y

167

3.1^3

1

2 .1 0

2

1.5^

3

1.93

3

2.7^

3

T o ta l

^29

3.12

2.13

1.61

1.97

2 .9 2

w
- t?

l.h 2

1.65

1 .0 7

3.66*

F1

For t h i s t a b le F must re a c h h .6 6 to he s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l; 3 .0 2 a t th e 5
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th an th e v a ria n c e betveen g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5/^ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l.

p r o b a b ilit y le v e l,

grou p s,

and t h a t

a c t i v e c h u r c h m e m b ers t e n d t o

be le s s

in to le r a n t.

T able 62 a l s o shows th e T o ta l P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

?he

d if f e r e n c e betw een groups i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t a t th e
f i v e p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l and th e rani: o rd e r i s e x a c tly
in term s o f th e h y p o th eses a lr e a d y s ta te d .

Vfliile th e f iv e p e r

c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l i s n o t to be tak en w ith th e same d eg ree
o f co n fid en ce a s th e one p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y le v e l , th e com­
b in a tio n o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s and a ran k
o r d e r which i s i n l i n e w ith th e p re v io u s f in d in g s would seem
to p ro v id e s tro n g support f o r th e hypotheses o f t h i s c h a p te r .
If

a ll

th a t

th r e e p r e ju d ic e

tw o a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y

p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
scores
ity

s c o r e s a r e r e e x a m in e d ,
s ig n ific a n t

M oreover,

T hat i s ,

to

w ill be

in

a ttitu d e s

th e p a r t ic ip a t io n

seen

fiv e per cent
fo r a ll

th a t d iffe r e n c e s in

d iffe r e n c e s

t h e m ore a c t i v e

th e

th e rank o rd er

su p p o rt t h e h y p o th e s is

a re r e la te d

at

it

th r e e

church a c t iv ­

to w a rd m i n o r i t i e s .
in

church a c t i v i t i e s ,

t h e g r e a t e r t h e d e g r e e o f t o l e r a n c e m a n if e s t e d to w a rd t h e
m in o r ity g r o u p s.
ite m s te n d ,

in

The ra n k o r d e r f i n d i n g s f o r

g e n e r a l,

a ls o

to

su p p o rt

H ow ever, a s h a s b e e n p o in t e d
a p p e a r s t o b e so m e r e l a t i o n s h i p
and a t t it u d e s

o u t,

th is

th e in d iv id u a l
h y p o th e s is .

th e f a c t

th a t th e r e

b e tw e e n a p a r t i c u l a r v a r i a b l e

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s d o e s n o t im p ly t h a t

s im p le f u n c t io n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p .

th r e e

th is i s

a

E ven th o u g h a t t i t u d e s to w a r d

m i n o r i t i e s m ay b e a f u n c t i o n o f. t h e e x t e n t o f c h u r c h a c t i v i t y ,
th is

fu n c tio n ,

in

tu r n ,

i s p r o b a b ly com p osed

of

se v e r a l o th e r

in te r a c tin g
u n d e r ly in g

e le m e n ts .

ITo o n e o f th e m c a n b e d e n o t e d

in s o fa r a s

a p p ears th a t

s ig n ific a n tly

r e la te d

th e

to th e

cen t le v e l

o f p r o b a b ility .

ily

s ta tu s fa c to r ?

of

f o r b o th

church a c t i v i t y

B e c a u se o f th e

h ig h

s m a ll

s iz e

r e la te d

to

b e m ost t o l e r a n t ,

but

e x te n t

ex ten t

c o n sta n t.
sta tu s

6 3

.

O n ly f o r t h e

score.

s ig n if­

For th e

c h u r c h m e m b e rs t e n d

t h e lo w s t a t u s
ap p ear to

it

a s w as d on e in

th e v a r ia n c e w ith in g r o u p s i s
For

th e

th e

o f church a c t iv it y

t h e m ean d i f f e r e n c e s a r e

groups i s

is

s in c e

w as h e ld

s a m p le s ,

th r e e gro u p s,

c h u r c h m em bers a c t u a l l y

a lth o u g h

sta tu s

so m e o f t h e

t h e m ore a c t i v e

th a n th a t b e tw e en g r o u p s.

in

of

w h ile

t h e J e w is h P r e j u d ic e

m e d iu m s t a t u s g r o u p

a c tiv e

s c o r e a s a m ea su re,

s ta tu s and ch u rch a c t i v i t y ,

in to

th e

I n T a b le E i n

e x te n t o f church a c t iv it y

T h e r e s u l t s a r e sh o w n i n T a b l e

s ta tu s group i s

ic a n tly

s y s te m s o f s e n tim e n ts

A r e t h e a b o v e f i n d i n g s d u e p r im a r ­

w as a n a ly s e d

in d e x w as c o n s o lid a t e d
T a b le 5 0 .

an im p o r ta n t

s t a t u s in d e x b eyon d t h e one p e r

U s in g th e J e w is h P r e j u d ic e
w as s ig n i f i c a n t

is

to w a rd m in o r it y g r o u p s .

A p p e n d ix S i t

th e

sta tu s

th e r e a re d if f e r in g

v ; h ic h a r e m a n i f e s t e d

to

s o le

cau sal fa c to r .

I t h a s a l r e a d y b e e n sh o w n t h a t
fa c to r

th e

to

g r e a te r

g rou p t h e m ore

b e m ost p r e j u d ic e d ,

s m a ll a n d t h e v a r ia n c e w it h ­

g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e b e tw e e n g r o u p s .

The r e s u l t s

fo r

t h e m e a s u r e u s e d w o u ld

t h a t o n ly f o r t h e h ig h

seem to

in d ic a te

s ta tu s grou p s d o e s church a c t iv it y

d i f f e r e n t i a t e b e tw e e n a t t i t u d e s to w a rd m i n o r i t i e s .

B ecau se o f

-2 2 3 T a b le

63

ATTITUD3S TOWARD JZWS BY 3SY21TT 0 ? CHURCH
ACTIVITY WITH STATUS I2IDEK COHSTAHT,
AS MEASURED 3Y JEWISH PREJUDICE SCORE
J ev ;i s h
Fr Score
S ta tu s

T o ta l n o . o f
r e so u n d e n ts

In d e s:

M ean

R

H ig h S t a t u s

A c tiv e

5 .7 9

1

n o m in a l A c t i v i t y

b6

5 .1 1

2

Ho C h u r c h A c t i v i t y

33

k .70

3

T o ta l

121

F1

5 .2 3
4 .1 6 *

M edium S t a t u s
A c tiv e

17

6 .1 2

1

llo m in a l A c t i v i t y

16

5»bb-

3

Ho C h u rch A c t i v i t y

22

5 .^ 5

2

55

5.65

T o ta l
F

#
L ow S t a t u s

A c tiv e

bj

b .19

3

H o m in a l A c t i v i t y

81

it .51

1

Ho C h u r c h A c t i v i t y

97

it. 3

2

T o ta l

221

F

1

1

3 6

7r

F o r t h i s t a b l e F m u st r e a c h it. 8 2 t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e
l £ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 3 . 0 9 a t t h e 5 /^ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

# -

W ith in g r o u p v a r i a n c e i s
b e tw e e n g r o u p s .

* -

S ig n ific a n t

beyond

g r e a t e r th a n

th e v a r ia n c e

th e 5$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l .

-229th o

s m a ll

not

in fo r m a tiv e b u t th e r e i s

to

s a m p le

th e f ir .d in g s f o r

be a s s o c ia te d

sta tu s is

h o ld

s t a t u s gro u p s w here th e
th e r e i s
th e

little

e x te n t

s a m p le i s

in d ic a te ,

a s s o c ia te d

m ost t o le r a n t

H ow ever,
a ll

th e

cases.

th e d is c u s s io n

w ith

each

is

and

in d ic a te

th a t

th e d is c u s s io n

th e

of

s a ir o le f o r

to

d if f e r e n c e s in
t h e d a ta

sta tu s

c o n sta n t.

church a c t iv it y

o f th e

th is

sta tu s

r e la tio n s h ip

th e r e i s

T h e m ed iu m

e x p la in e d

in

in d e x ,

a

" p ure"

s c a le .

lTnanely,

th e o th e r ,

is

sta tu s

The m ore

lo w e r s t a t u s g r o u p s

h ig h e r

ap p ears to

is

sta tu s

th a t a lr e a d y p r e s e n te d in

sta tu s grou p s.

b e r e la te d

to

som e

H ow ever, t h e r e

is

m ost a p p l i c a b l e to u p p e r

s t a t u s g r o rps a n d o f l e s s e r a p p l i c a b i l i t y
On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

as

sta tu s

a t t i t u d e s to w a r d m i n o r i t y g r o u p s .

e v id e n c e th a t

in

s t a t u s group l e a s t

c a te g o r y ,

w ith

in d e x .

o f T a b le 6 U
-

d iffe r e n c e s

s e p a r a tin g r e l a t i v e l y

c o n s is te n t

may

t h e m ed iu m s t a t u s g r o tto i s

th is

t e n d t o b e m ore i n t o l e r a n t t h a n
su m m ary,

church a c t i v i t y

sta tu s

h e ld

e n d o f a- h y p o t h e t i c a l
is

th a t

th e lo w e r

o f th e c o n s tr u c tio n

im p o r ta n t f i n d i n g

e x te n t to

en ou gh to

s ig n ific a n t

M oreover,

m ix e d c a t e g o r y u s e f u l i n

In

la r g e

A c c o r d in g ly ,

H ere th e r e a r e

s t a t u s group i s

groups a t

e v e n w h en

d o e s n o t h o ld f o r t h e lo v /o r

how ever,

e v e n w h en c h u r c h a c t i v i t y

s m a ll in

church a c t iv it y

a t t i t u d e s w h ic h c a n b e r e l a t e d

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s .

a re p r e se n te d .

to le r a n t.

fo r

o f church a c t iv it y .

b e a f a c t o r w h ic h i s

le v e ls

s t a t u s group a r e

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s ,

But t h is

d iffe r e n c e in

T h ese f in d in g s

a ttitu d e s

so m e t e n d e n c y

w ith , a t t i t u d e s

c o n sta n t.

t h e m ed iu m

to

su p p o rt fo r th e

lo w e r

sta tu s grou p s.

f i n d i n g s w ith r e s p e c t

-230T eble 6k
ATTITUDES TO ', TAPE JETS 3Y STATUS WITH
EXTENT OF CHURCH ACTIVITY CONSTANT, AS
:3ASURED 3Y THE JEWISH PREJUDICE SCORE

E x te n t o f Church A c tiv ity

T o ta l no. o f
resp o n d en ts

T o ta l
Jew ish
? r Score
Mean
P.

A ctiv e
2

17

5.79
6.12

Low S ta tu s

43

4.19

3

T o ta l

102

5.17

High S ta tu s

42

Medium S ta tu s

1

1 1 . *19**

F1
Nominal A c tiv ity
High S ta tu s

k6

5.11

2

Medium S ta tu s

16

5 .k b

1

Low S ta tu s

81

4.51

3

T o ta l

143

k.QO

F?-

3.29*

No Church A c tiv ity
High S ta tu 3

33

4.70

2

Medium S ta tu s

22

5.45

1

Low S ta tu s

97

4.31

3

T ottil

152

4 .5 6

f3

3.43*

■^F must re ac h 4 .8 2 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p ro b a b ility l e v e l ; 3*09 a t th e 5 p r o b a b ility le v e l .
^F must reach 4 .7 8 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility
l e v e l ; 3*07 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ili ty le v e l.
3 f must reach 4 .7 5 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility
l e v e l ; 3.06 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ility le v e l .
* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5'p p r o b a b i lit y l e v e l .
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 1$£ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

to s t a t u s d if f e r e n c e s evnn wher th e e x te n t o f church a c t i v i t y
i s h e ld c o n s ta n t.
The R e la tio n s h ip o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n in O ther
O rg a n iz a tio n s to A ttitu d e s tow ard M in o ritie s
In o rd e r to make some com parisons of resp o n d en ts i n te r n s
o f th e e x te n t o f t h e i r p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o r g a n is a tio n s o th e r
th a n th o church a p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d ex wa3 c o n s tru c te d .

(The

d e t a i l s o f th e c o n s tr u c tio n o f t h i s index a r e given in Appen­
d ix P .)

O b serv atio n o f th e i n t e r a c t i o n t h a t took p la c e in a

number o f o r g a n is a tio n s i n th e county, p a r t i c u l a r l y farm o rgan­
i z a t i o n s , in d ic a te d th a t th e r e appeared to be an c c tiv e group
o f p eo p le who to o k a r o le of some im portance i n more th a n one
o r g a n is a tio n .

On th e o th e r hand, th e r e ap p eared to be a - l a r g e r

group o f p e o p le who to o k l i t t l e o r no p a r t i n o r g a n iz a tio n a l
a c t i v i t i e s o f any k in d .
J u s t a s th e q u e s tio n was asked about church a c t i v i t i e s ,
so i t was a ls o asked about o th e r o r g a n is a tio n a l a c t i v i t i e s .
In th e form er c a s e , however, t h e r e appeared to be some b a s is
f o r a s p e c ific h y p o th e s is re g a rd in g th e r e la tio n s h i p o f church
a c t i v i t i e s to th e d i r e c t io n of a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
In th e p re s e n t c a s e th e re i s no re s e a rc h to serv e a s a g u id e ,
n o r d id community o b s e rv a tio n y ie ld any h y p o th ese s a s to th e
d i r e c t io n o f a t t i t u d e s which m ight be r e l a t e d to th e e x te n t of
p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o r g a n iz a tio n s .

However, th e p a r t i c ip a ti o n

in d ex was found to be r e l a t e d to c e r t a in s t a t u s v a r ia b le s (s e e
T a b le D in Appendix E ).

The h y p o th e s is was e n te r ta in e d th a t

a t t i t u d e s toward m in o r itie s a r e r e la t e d to d if f e r e n c e s in
p a rtic ip a tio n .

A f u r t h e r h y p o th e s is was h e ld th a t more a c tiv e

p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n form al o r g a n iz a tio n s i s r e l a t e d to more t o l ­
e r a n t a t t i t u d e s tow ard m i n o r itie s .

T his second h y p o th e sis was

d e riv e d from th e f in d in g s w ith re s p e c t to s t a t u s .

The f i r s t

h y p o th e s is , in a d d itio n to i t s e m p iric a l d e r iv a tio n , i s r e l a te d
to th e m ajor r e s e a r c h h y p o th e s is .
These h y p o th ese s may he t e s t e d w ith r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s
tow ard Jews by exam ining T able 6 5 .

There a r e no s ig n i f i c a n t

d if f e r e n c e s f o r any o f th e q u e s tio n s , n o r f o r th e t o t a l Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e s c o re .

There i s , however, a c o n s is te n t tendency f o r

th e graun> w ith a p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d ex c a te g o r is e d as " a c tiv e "
to ran k a t th e more to le r a n t end o f a rank o rd e r s c a le .

But

th e "v ery a c tiv e " p a r t i c i p a t o r s , in g e n e ra l, in d ic a te th e
o p p o s ite ten d en cy .

W hile th e d if f e r e n c e s a r e n o t s ig n i f i c a n t ,

th e r e s u l t s a r e p ro v o c a tiv e .
A ttitu d e s tow ard Negroes a r e shown in T a b le 6 6.

There i s

one q u e s tio n f o r which th e d if f e r e n c e s i n e x te n t o f o rg an iza­
t i o n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e s ig n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d , a t th o f i v e
p e r c e n t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l, to d if f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s tow ard
m in o rity g ro u p s.

Tor t h i s q u e s tio n , th e g r e a t e r th e p a r t i c ­

i p a t i o n th e g r e a t e r th e d eg ree o f to le ra n c e toward N egroes.
The r e s u l t , h o w e v e r ,

d o e s n o t h o ld

on th e o th e r q u e s t io n s .
grou p to b e l e s s
s is te n t a s i t

T here i s

p r e ju d ic e d ,

w as i n T a b le

fo r th e

ran k o rd er f in d in g s

a te n d e n c y

fo r th e

b u t t h is te n d en cy i s

65.

The v a r ia n c e

" a c tiv e "

not as

w ith in

con­

each o f th e

ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS A1TALYZED 3Y PARTICIPATION DI'TX

a rtic ip a tio n
n o rg a n iz a tio n s

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

Guard
a g a in s t
J cws

J c w sh
m erchant

Jews
push

R e s tr ic t
Jews

Mean

Jev/s th in k
th e y ’r e
b e tte r
R
R Mean

Mean R

Mean

_R Mean

Ship
Jews
Rack

R Mean

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score
R Mean

Jev'S
a re
h o n est

R Mean

Jews in
ny neigh­
borhood
R Mean

R

ery a c tiv e

45

3 .5 6

4

2.87

j

2.16

3

2 .8 4

3

2 .24

2

3.02 2

4.688 3

2.02

2

1.51

.c tiv e

94

3 .1 4

l

3.0*4-

1

2.20

1

3 .1 5

1

2.50

1

3.20 1

5 .1 2

1

2.23

1

1.81

1

fominal a c t i v i t y

129

3.23

3

2.88

2

2.19

2

2 .8 7

2

2.22

3

2.899 4

4.689 2

1.95

4

1.79

2

(one

160

3 .2 1

2

2.74

4

2.15

h

2 .7 9

L

2.17

4

2.90 3

4 .5 6

1.99

3

1.67

3

[o ta l

428

3 .2 4 ‘

2.86

2.17

2 .9 0

2.27

2.98

4 .7 ^

2 .0 4

1.72

#

1.48

f

2.2 1

2.26

1.89

1 .81

2.61

1.82

1
P

4

S?or t h i s t a h l e E mast re a c h 3.83 to he s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i lity le v e l; 2 .62 a t th e 5^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
f - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s great•'■r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.

e 66
ATTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES ANALYZED BY PARTICIPATION INDEX

P a r tic ip a tio n
Ln O rg an iza tio n s

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts

N egroes
to Johns­
town

Negroes
next
door

Kean

R Kean

R

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o ut o f White
n e i ghbo rho od s

Mean

R Mean
1

N egroes
should
v o te

Negroes
v/ith
e d u catio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

R

Mean

Mean

?.

Kean

R

1

R

ITeiy a c tiv e

^5

b .21

Ur b.82

L

2 .8 b

1 .91

U

3 .b 0

U 3.31

1

b .56

Hctive

95

3 .6 8

1

U.5Z

2

2.715 U 2 .0 6

1

3M

3

3 . 2b

2

Nominal a c t i v i t y

129

3 .89

3

b.33

1

2.72

Hone

160

3.82

2

E otal

U2$

3 . 8b

F1

JL

7r

W hites and O rders
N egroes in from a
Negro
sane
r e s ta u r a n t
Mean
R Mean '
1.62

1

1.37

u.u 9

l.b 9

3

l .b g

3

2.007

2

3.57

1

3.00

3

b .b l

U 1.50

2

l.b 6 5

U.5U-

2.837 2

2 .0 06

3

3 .5 5

2

2.91

U

U.U3

3

l.W r

b

l . b -7

U.50

2 .78

2.00

JL

u

JL
IT

tt
zs

3 .52
n

■f

3.05
2 . 78*

u .u 5
JL

7T

l .b 9
#

^"Eor t h i s t a b l e F mast re a c h 3.83 to "be s ig n if ic a n t a t t h e 1$ p r o b a b i lity le v e l; 2 .62 a t th e 5;^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e betv?een g ro u p s.
* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5r> probab i l i t y le v e l .

l.b 6
#

-235groups i s

g r e a te r ,

in

a ll

cases,

except fo r

t h e one q u e s tio n

a lr e a d y m e n tio n e d ,

t h a n t h e v a r i a n c e " b etw een g r o u p s .

h o ld s tr u e f o r th e

t o t a l IT egro P r e j u d i c e

th e

T h is

sc o r e a s w e ll a s fo r

in d iv id u a l q u e s tio n s .

A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e s e t o u t i n Table 67.

There

i s a d if f e r e n c e which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e f iv e
p e r cent p r o b a b i li t y le v e l f o r one q u e s tio n .

On a l l o th e r ques­

t i o n s th e v a ria n c e w ith in groups i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e
betw een g ro u p s.

There i s a tendency f o r th e "very a c tiv e "

group to be l e a s t t o l e r a n t o f M exicans.

The rani: o rd e r on th e

q u e s tio n which i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if i c a n t in d ic a te s th a t th e
g r e a t e r th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o rg a n iz a tio n s th e l e s s th e deg ree
o f to le ra n c e tow ard M exicans.

T his i s th e r e v e rs e o f what was

shown f o r th e one q u e stio n which was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f i c a n t
f o r H egroes.
The T o tal P r e ju d ic e sco re i s a ls o shown in T able 67.

There

i s no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n i f ic a n t d if f e r e n c e betw een groups.

The

" a c tiv e " group ra n k s a s most t o l e r a n t , w h ile th e "very a c tiv e "
group ranks l a s t .
P rom t h e f o r e g o i n g i t

is

c le a r th a t th e h y p o th e s is

th a t

t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d m i n o r i t y g r o u p s w h ic h
are

s ig n ific a n tly

ip a tio n

r e la te d

has n ot been

W h ile t h e r e i s

to

d iffe r e n c e s in

su p p o r te d b y th e d a ta o f

a te n d e n c y f o r t h e

b e l e s s p r e ju d ic e d ,
r e s p e c t to a t t i t u d e s

e x te n t o f p a r tic ­

th is i s

research .

" a c tiv e " p a r t i c i p a t o r s

n ot a c o n s is te n t

to w a r d J e w s .

th is

T here i s

tr en d

to

e x c e p t w ith

lik e w is e a ten d en cy ,

Table 67
ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE SCORE BY P A ^ IC IP A T I'N T INDEX

P a r ti c i p a t i o n
in o rg a n iz a tio n s

T o ta l no.
o f r e s u o 't o its

!lexicons
a s c itjz c n s
rn d v o te rs

Koro M oricrns
o u t c f li to
51oi rirb o riio o d s

U e ric rn s
eo-i»v,- to
Midst.; to

i!o"f or nr 5r o o t; : u r r - t r
w ith v' i t o s

T otn

Mean

E

E cin

R

Mean

R

’ fear.

R

Morn

R

P r e ju d ic e
Score

Very a c tiv e

b$

2.67

b

2.09

b

1.60

3

1.89

*

2.7?

b

A ctive

95

3.13

3

2.18

1

1.68

1

1.99

2

3.10

1

Nominal a c t i v i t y

129

3 .1 ^

2

2.116

3

1 .5 b

^

2.00

1

2.91

2

None

160

3 . 2b

1

2.118

2

1 .6 ^

2

1.95

3

2.67

3

T o ta l
1
F

h29

3.12
3.b9*

2 .1 3
JL
IT

1.61
#

1.97
Ji
u

I b r t h i s ta b le F must reach 3 .8 3 to be s ig n if i c a n t a t th e Vp p r o b a b i lity l e v e l ; 2 .6 2 a t th e
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i li ty le v e l.

2.92

p p r o b a b ility le v e l.

a lth o u g h a g a in
p a r tic ip a to r s
In

th is

c ip a te

n o t a c o n s is te n t
to

resp ect
in

tr e n d ,

h e m ore p r e j u d ic e d
th e y a r e s im ila r

fo r m a l o r g a n iz a t io n s .

su p p o r te d c o n s i s t e n t l y
E s s e n tia lly

th e

fo r

th e "very a c tiv e "

to w a rd m in o r it y g r o u p s .

t o t h o s e w ho do n o t r s a r t i H one o f t h e s e

enough t o h e

tr e n d s i s

s t a t e d v /ith

c o n fid e n c e .

fin d in g s a r e n e g a tiv e .

P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n T erras o f
F a rm a n d H o n -P a rra R e s p o n d e n t s
As a fu r th e r
n o n -fa r m

ste p

r e sp o n d e n ts.

th e

The r e s u l t s

e n t i r e l y n e g a t iv e and a r e
A p p e n d ix C-.

sh o v m i n

s m a ll,

in to

fn rra a n d

f o r t h e fa r m g ro u p a r e
T a b le s P ,

T h ere a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y

e n c e s on an y q u e s t i o n s ,
q u ite

s e m p le w as d i v i d e d

Q, a n d H i n

s ig n ific a n t

d iffe r ­

t h e d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e o n m eans i s u s u a l l y

and th e v a r ia n c e w ith in g ro u p s i s

g r e a t e r th a n t h a t b etw e e n g r o u p s .

fr e q u e n tly

T h e r e a r e n o t r e n d s w h ic h

a p p e a r to b e c l e a r - c u t and c o n s i s t e n t .
F o r t h e n o n -fa r m grou p th e r e a r e a fe w p o s i t i v e
T a b le

68

sh o w s a t t i t u d e s o f n o n - f a r m e r s to w a r d J ew s b y e x t e n t

o f p a r tic ip a tio n
tis tic a lly
p r o b a b ility
sh o w s no
a c tiv e "
to

in

o r g a n iz a tio n s .

Two q u e s t i o n s

s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s beyond t h e
le v e l.

s ig n ific a n t
group to

w h ic h t h e r e a r e
group i s

sh o w s t a ­

f iv e p er cent

The t o t a l J e w is h P r e j u d i c e s c o r e , h o w e v e r ,
d iffe r e n c e s .

The tr e n d

b e m o st p r e j u d ic e d and f o r

b e le a s t p r e ju d ic e d .

a c tiv e "

fin d in g s .

H ow ever,

th e

f o r th e "very
" a c tiv e "

group

f o r t h e tw o q u e s t i o n s f o r

s ig n ific a n t d iffe r e n c e s
n ot c o n s is te n t.

is

th e

tr e n d fo r th e

The tr e n d i s

c o n s is te n t

" v e iy
fo r

Table 68

P a r ti c i p a t i o n
i n o r a a n iz a tio n

ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BY PARTICIPATI01T - 1T01T-PARM OZilY
Guard
Jew ish
Jews th in k Jews
R e s tr ic t a g a in s t
T o ta l n o .
m erchant th e y * re
push
Jews
Jews
respond—
"better
R Mean
e n ts
Mean
R
Mean R Mean _R Mean R

Ship
Jews
Back
Mean

R

T o ta l
Jew ish
P r Score

Jews
are
h o n e st

Mean

Mean

R

Jews in
my n eigh—
borhood
R

Mean

R

Vexy a c t i v e

26

3M

b

2 .92

3

1 .96

b

2.81

b

2 .31

3

3.039 3

b .$ b

b

2 .0 8

2

1.50

b

A ctive

59

2.86

1

3 .10

1

2.20

2

3.32

1

2 .58

1

3.32

1

5.22

1

2 .3 2

1

1.93

1

llom inal a c t i v i t y

73

3 .^0

3

3.07

2

2.30

1

3.16

2

2 .b 2 2

3 .U

2

5.15

2

1 .9 5

b

1.92

2

ITone

105

3.20

2

2 .81

b

2.13

3

2.86

3

2 . 19

3.038

h.68

3

2 .0 0

3

1.69

3

T o ta l

263

3.21 ’

2.96

2.18

3 .0 ^

2.35

3.12

b. 92

2 .0 6

1.79

1.13

1.17

#

2.76*

1 .7 1

#

1.73

2.91*

2.53

Ev­

b

^ o r t h i s ta b le P must reach 3.91 to b e s ig n i f ic a n t a t th e l £ p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l ; 2 .67 * t t h e 5^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* — S ig n if ic a n t beyend th e 5/-' p r o b a b i li ty l e v e l .

th e " a c tiv e " p a r t i c i p a t o r s .

The d a ta , however, y i e l d l i t t l e

t h a t nay he a c c ep ted w ith c o n fid en ce in su p p o rt o f th e hypo­
th e s is .
T ahle 69 shows th e a t t i t u d e s o f n o n -farm ers tow ard N egroes
by e x te n t of p a r t i c i p a t i o n .

One q u e stio n i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t beyond th e f iv e p e r cen t p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l.

The

t o t a l Negro P r e ju d ic e sco re shows no s ig n i f i c a n t d if f e r e n c e s ,
and th e v a ria n c e w ith in groups f o r t h i s sc o re i s g r e a te r th an
th e v a ria n c e betw een g roups.
tr e n d s .

T here appear to be few c o n s is te n t

F or th e q u e s tio n f o r which th e r e a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s th e "very a c tiv e " p a r t i c i p a t o r s ran k
as most t o l e r a n t , b u t t h i s tre n d does n o t h o ld f o r a number o f
o th e r q u e s tio n s .

In g e n e ra l, f o r most q u e s tio n s th e d i f f e r ­

en ces between means i s sm all and th e v a ria n c e w ith in groups
i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e between groups.

There i s l i t t l o

ev id en ce to su p p o rt th e h y p o th ese s t h a t have been advanced.
A ttitu d e s tow ard Mexicans a r e shown in T able 70.

One

q u e s tio n shows d if f e r e n c e s which a r e s t a t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t
beyond th e one p e r c en t p r o b a b i li t y le v e l .

But on a l l o th e r

q u e s tio n s th e v a r ia n c e w ith in groups i s g r e a t e r th an th e
v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.

T here i s a tendency f o r th e " a c tiv e "

p a r t i c i p a t o r s to be most t o l e r a n t and f o r th e "very a c tiv e "
p a r t i c i p a t o r s to be l e a s t t o l e r a n t .

Once a g a in , however, i t

ca n n o t be s ta te d t h a t th e d a ta sup p o rt th e h y p o th e s is .

Nor

a r e o p p o s ite c o n c lu s io n s f u l l y w arran ted .
W hile th e f in d in g s a r e g e n e r a lly n e g a tiv e and, th e r e f o r e ,

T a b le 69
ATTITUDES T0WA3D 3E & 302S BY PARTICIPATION INPTTl - MON-FAB!-' ONLY

P a r tic ip a t i o n
in o rg a n iz a tio n

T o ta l no*
o f respond­
e n ts _______

N egroes
to J o h n stown

Negroes
next
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f W hite
neighborhoods

N egroes N egroes
should
w ith
v o te
e d u catio n

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Negro

Mean

E

Mean

V

Mean E

Mean

Mean

E

Mean

Kean

Mean

H

E

W hites and
N egroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
E
E Mean

Vexy a c tiv e

26

4 .0 8

4

5 .15

4

2 .8 5

3

1.81

U

3.23

4

3.58

1

4.538 4

1.65

1

l.? 4

4

A ctive

60

3.76

1

4 .6 8

2

2 .82

4

2.17

1

3.50

3

3.33

2

4 .6 8

1

1.57

3

1.60

1

Nominal a c t i v i t y

73

3.73

2

4 .4 2

i

2 .88

2

2.08

2

3.62

1

3.16

3

4 .6 4

2

1.58

2

1.49

2

None

105

3.93

3

4.73

3

2.97

1

1.98

3

3.55

2

2 .98

4

4 .5 4

3

1.45

4

1.48

3

T o ta l

264

3.87

F1

#

4.68
JL
T

2.90
JL
7T

2.03
1 .0 4

3.53
tf
rr

3.17

4.60

2.82*

#

1.53
H

2S

^Por t h i s t a b l e P n u st re a c h 3 . 9I to be s ig n if ic a n t a t t h e l £ p r o b a b i li t y le v e l; 2.67 a t th e 5:h p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b i lity le v e l .

1.49
l .? 6

T a b le 70
ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSIS 0? TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCOHE BY PAHPICIPATION INDEX - NON-PAPM 01TLY

P a rtic ip a tio n
in o rg a n iz a tio n s

T o ta l no.
o ' r e s u o 'c o its

Ilexicons
a s c itjr .e o s
and v o te rs

Keep I-e ric rn s
o u t c f v ‘ii.tc
neighborhoods

Iteyicrrvs
to
Midst.* to.

rsa n

P

.Iccn

Mean

R "oar.

R

Mean

3

4

1.88

4

1 .5 4

4 1 .81

4

2.60

4

1

3.32

3

co-irg

Ipv-icrpr
re s t;. n r r ~ tr
vrith Twi t e s

T o ta l
P r e ju d ic e
Score

Very a c t i v e

26

2.50

A ctiv e

60

3.28

2 .2 2

1

1.73

1 2 .02

Nominal a c t i v i t y

73

3.37

2.19

2

1.56

3

1.97

3

2.96

Hone

105

3.18

2 .1 4

3

1 .6 4

2

1.98

2

2.91

T o ta l

264

3.19

2 .1 5

F1

4.85**

#

1.63
tt
7?

1.97

2.99
2.35

^For t h i s t a b l e F m s t re a c h 3.91 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2.o7 a t t h e . $ p r o b a b ility le v e l.
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th an th e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.
** - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e l £ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

n o t in su p p o rt o f th e h y p o th ese s t h a t were t e s t e d i n th e se
a n a ly s e s , c e r t a i n d is c r e p a n c ie s and th e la c k of tre n d s may
p o s s ib ly be e x p la in e d .
Inasmuch a s th e P a r t i c i p a t i o n Index was in c lu d e d i n th e
s t a t u s in d ex and th e r e i s , t h e r e f o r e , a s ig n if ic a n t r e l a t i o n ­
s h ip between th e two, i t would seem th a t th e e x te n t o f p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n should fo llo w somewhat more c lo s e ly th e f in d in g s
w ith re s p e c t to s t a t u s th a n h a s a c t u a lly been th e c a s e .

But

i n view o f th e t e n t a t i v e c o n c lu s io n s w ith r e s p e c t to d i f f e r ­
en ces between c e r t a i n o r g a n iz a tio n s , as shown in T able 58,
o th e r , p o s s ib ly more dynamic, f a c t o r s may be in v o lv ed .

The

la c k o f p o s i t i v e f in d in g s would seem to in d i c a t e t h i s p o s s ­
ib ility .

In o t h e r words, i t may n o t be th e e x te n t o f form al

o r g a n iz a tio n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n which i s im p o rta n t.

P erhaps,

more im p o rtan t i s th e e x te n t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a p a r t i c u l a r k in d o f o r g a n iz a tio n . 13
U n fo rtu n a te ly th e sm all s iz e o f sWaples, when broken down
in to u n i t s s u i t a b l e f o r th e complex a n a ly s is suggested above,
do n o t p e rm it an ad eq u ate t e s t .

T his h y p o th e s is , l i k e th a t

su g g e sted by th e d if f e r e n c e s betw een open and c lo se d o rg a n i­
z a tio n s , must b e l e f t f o r more ad eq u ate t e s t i n g i n o th e r r e ­
s e a rc h .

The e x p la n a tio n th a t h a s been o f f e r e d , however, i s

co m p atib le w ith th e t e n t a t i v e c o n c lu s io n s su g g ested w ith re s p e c t
to o r g a n iz a tio n a l membership.

I t must a ls o b e s p e c ifie d th a t

^ P o r example, n e a r ly h a l f th e sample o f members o f f r a t e r n a l
o rg a n iz a tio n s i s composed o f e i t h e r a c tiv e o r v e iy a c tiv e
p a r t i d ip a t o r s .

th e la c k o f f in d in g s v/ith r e s p e c t to th e P a r ti c i p a t i o n Index
may h e, in p a r t a t l e a s t , a f u n c tio n of 'h e in d ex i t s e l f .
T hat i s , i t may n o t he ad eq u ate to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between r e a l
i n t e r a c t i o n a l p a t t e r n s in a dynamic s o c ia l system .
C o n clu sio n s w ith R esp ect to th e R e la tio n s h ip o f
A tti t u d e s to B xtont o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n in O rg a n iz a tio n s
When th e f in d in g s o f t h i s re s e a rc h in to th e p o s s ib le r e ­
l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e e x te n t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n o r g a n iz a tio n a l
program s i s summarized th e r e a r e few p o s it i v e c o n clu sio n s th a t
may he s ta te d w ith co n fid en ce.
1.

Church a c t i v i t y ap p ears to he r e la te d to some degree to
a t t i t u d e s tow ard a l l th re e m in o r itie s .

The a c tiv e church

members a r e c o n s is te n tly more t o le r a n t th a n th e n o n -a c tiv e .
T h is, however, may he due to s ta tu s d if f e r e n c e s .

Only f o r

th e h ig h s t a t u s group do os th e co n clu sio n appear to he
w arranted
2.

when th e s t a t u s in d ex i s h e ld c o n s ta n t.

The s ta t u s in d e x co n tin u es t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between groups
re g a rd le s s o f th e e x te n t o f church a c t i v i t y .

3.

P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n form al o r g a n iz a tio n s o th e r th an the
church does n o t appear to he r e la te d to d if f e r e n c e s in
a t t i t u d e s tow ard m in o rity gro u p s.
f o r fa rm e rs.

T his i s c le a r ly t r u e

There a r e d if f e r e n c e s f o r non-farm groups,

h u t th e s e d i f f e r e n c e s a r e n o t g r e a t, n o r a r e they c o n s is te n t.
The la c k o f f in d in g s w ith r e s p e c t to p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n non­
church o rg a n iz a tio n s may he due to th e la c k o f s e n s i t i v i t y
o f th e in d e x which was u s e d .

I t i s a ls o p o s s ib le t h a t th e

- 2 ‘M-

dynamic f a c t o r o f p a rtic ir j& tio n i n p a r t i c u l a r organ­
i s a t i o n s may acco u n t f o r th e la c k of c le a r - c u t f in d in g s .
That i s , in term s o f th e dynam ics o f p a r t i c u l a r organ­
i z a t i o n a l p a t t e r n s we can n o t p r e d i c t, on th e b a s is o f th e
re s e a rc h , th e d i r e c t io n o f a t t i t u d e s f o r s p e c if ic organ­
iz a tio n s .

i

CHAPTER EICHT
su m m a h t ,

c o n c l u s io n s

Airo i m p l i c a t i o n s

Sum m ary a n d C o n c l u s i o n s
T h is t h e s i s h a g le a d
tim e s te d io u s d is c u s s io n
m a n ip u la tio n s .
ob scu red

of

It

i n v o l v e d a n d so m e ­

e m p ir ic a l d a ta and s t a t i s t i c a l

T h is m ass o f a n a l y s i s h a s ,

t h e m a jo r p r o b le m o f t h i s

m ost c a s e s t h e
ig n o r e d .

th r o u g h a lo n g ,

research .

c o n t e n t m e a n in g o f s p e c i f i c

is

fr o m tim e to

p r o b a b le th a t a tr e a tm e n t

M oreover,

a ttitu d e

to

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n
a p a r t.

s a m p le .

su ch a t o t a l

th e r e a re d is tin g u is h a b ly d if f e r e n t
w h ic h a r e r e l a t e d t o

H ence,

num ber and l i m i t s

of

th e

th e

s o c ia l

s ta tis tic a l

su b ­

str u c tu r e o f

c o n s id e r a tio n h a s b een d ir e c te d

to

th e

d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n g r o u p s

r e sp o n d e n ts and th e g e n e r a l tr e n d s ,

s ig n ific a n c e o f

H ere

o f a to ta l

The m a jo r h y p o t h e s is h a s b e e n th a t w it h in

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n s

of

th e p o s s i b i l i t y

th e s is .

o f w h ic h a t t i t u d e s t o w a r d m i n o r i t y g r o u p s a r e

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n

th e

to

in

Such an a n a l y s i s ,

b e y o n d t h e im m e d ia t e s c o p e o f t h i s

a t t e n t io n h as b een d ir e c te d

ite m s w as

m easu re s e n tim e n ts

t o w a r d m i n o r i t y g r o u p s w o u ld p r o v e f r u i t f u l .
is

in

o f t h e sa m e d a t a

term s o f th e c o n te n t o f th e q u e s tio n s u sed

how ever,

tim e ,

w ith o u t r e f e r e n c e

c o n te n t o f t h e q u e s tio n s

to

th e

f o r w h ic h s u c h

d iffe r e n c e s o ccu rred .
The s i n g l e ,

m ost s t r ik in g

r e s u l t h a s b e e n t h a t o b ta in e d

f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a b l e s w h ic h h a v e b e e n a s s u m e d t o b e
im p o r ta n t i n d i c a t o r s o f s o c i a l
s o c ia l n o b ility .

s ta tu s in

a sy ste m

o f v e r tic a l

W hen s u c h v a r i a b l e s w e r e a n a l y s e d

th e fin d in g s

-zk 6 m ade a c o n s i s t e n t p a t t e r n .
s ta tu s v a r ia b le s
in

te r m s o f

ia b le s .
w h o le ,
te r ,

th e

s ta tis tic a l

sam e.

tr a e

e v id e n c e ,

th a t

it

s ta tu s in

w as n o t

added,

Por i t

in

how ever,

m u st b e r e m e m b e r e d t h a t

w hen o n e i s
th e s is

research :

b y p e o p le o f th e

a b ly d if f e r e n t

n a m e ly ,

c u ltu r a l d iffe r e n c e s

n o n -fa r m

o f th e se v a r ia b le s ,

s u p p o r t s t h e m a jo r h y p o ­
th a t w ith in

r u r a l m id w e s t,

s o c ia l

w h ic h

a to ta l p a tte r n

th e r e

are d is tin g u is h -

th a t

str u c tu r e .

w ith in a g e n e r a l c u lt u r a l p a tte r n o f

o f th e

r e sp o n d e n ts in

h a v e b een d is c u s s e d ,

w ith

su p p o r ts th e h y p o t h e s is o f su b ­

and s e n t im e n t s m a n ife s te d
is

The im p o r ta n t

a b o u t c e r t a i n m i n o r i t y g r o u p s man­

th e

A fu r th e r fin d in g ,

M e x ic a n s ,

s o c ia l m o b ility .

s u b - c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s w h ic h a r e a s s o c i a t e d

d if f e r e n t p o s it io n s in

b e lie fs

of

th a t th e a n a ly s is o f a l l

s e n tim e n ts and b e l i e f s

ife s te d

rough in d ic e s

t h a t t h e h y p o t h e s i s w o u ld b e w h o l l y

com p ared w ith a n o t h e r ,

o f th is

o n ly

su p p o r te d by an y o n e v a r i a b le .

is

on t h e

c h a p te r a f t e r ch ap ­

a d y n a m ic s y s t e m

e x p e c te d

an d o v e r w h e lm in g ly
r e s u lt,

som e o f t h e

e v id e n c e r e m a in s ,

s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s w ere assu m ed t o b e

H ence,

fo r

th a n f o r o t h e r s t a t u s v a r ­

th e

A s e v id e n c e i s

becom es im p r e s s iv e .

o f a c tu a l s o c ia l

of

is

t h e f i n d i n g s w e r e m ore e x p l i c i t an d d e f i n i t e ,

But t h e d ir e c t io n o f

it

th e se

It

is

to w a r d J o w s ,

H eg ro es,

and

s h a r p d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n fa r m a n d
th e

s a m p le .

not tr e a te d

T h is ,

f o r reason s th a t

a s a s t a t u s d iffe r e n c e .

T he d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n fa r m and n o n -fa r m r e s p o n d e n t s
a c c o r d w ith o b s e r v a t io n o f t h e
o n ly

s o c i a l p r o c e s s e s o c c u r r in g n o t

i n M a p le C o u n t y b u t t h r o u g h o u t t h e r u r a l m i d w e s t .

W ith in

an emerging system o f i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n o f th e farm economy
t h e r e a p p ea rs to rem ain, a t th e p r e s e n t tim e, a c o n s id e ra b le
farm i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w ith t r a d i t i o n s and sen tim en ts a s s o c ia te d
w ith th e o ld e r and d is a p p e a rin g fa rm -fo lk econony.

Such

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i s shown by th e r e s u l t i n g d if f e r e n c e s in a t t i t u d e s
tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.

I n s o f a r a s farm ers s t i l l c o n s id e r them­

s e lv e s members o f an in -g ro u p , wo might expect and p r e d i c t t h a t
t h e i r a t t i t u d e s tow ard any m in o rity would be l e s s to l e r a n t th an
t h a t o f n o n -fa rm e rs.

The l a t t e r may sh a re l e s s of an in -g ro u p

i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and, h ence, may have a somewhat more r a t io n a l
r a t h e r th an t r a d i t i o n a l o r ie n ta ti o n i n a t t i t u d e and a c tio n w ith
r e fe r e n c e to m in o rity g ro u p s.
On th e o th e r hand, a n a ly s is o f b o th th e B ocial s ta tu s
in d e x and th e r e s p o n d e n t's s e lf - e v a lu a t io n o f s o c ia l c la s s
i n d i c a t e s th a t th e r e i s some ten d en cy f o r th e s ta tu s v a r ia b le s
to o p e ra te w ith in th e farm ing system .

T or a l l groups w ith in

th e system , how ever, th e l e v e l o f p r e ju d ic e te n d s to be g r e a t e r
th a n f o r e q u iv a le n t groups o f n o n -farm ers.

These fin d in g s

su p p o rt th e s ta te m e n t t h a t an emerging system o f s o c ia l s t r a ­
t i f i c a t i o n , w ith concom itant changes i n system s o f sen tim en ts
h e ld by sub-g ro u p s w ith in th e system , i s a p p a re n t i n th e farm
econony.

But i t i s a ls o t r u e , a t th e p r e s e n t tim e, th a t t h i s

em erging system i s s t i l l d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from th e non-farm ing
system in many ways, in c lu d in g b e l i e f s and se n tim e n ts man­
i f e s t e d tow ard m in o rity g ro u p s.
The two f in d in g s j u s t d e s c rib e d i n th e above p ara g ra p h s

r e p r e s e n t t h e m a jo r c o n c lu s io n s an d su p p o r t
th e s is o f th is

th e s is .

s tr u c tu r e y ie ld e d

t h e m a jo r h y p o ­

A n a ly s is o f o th e r v a r ia b le s o f s o c ia l

g e n e r a lly n e g a tiv e r e s u lt s .

d i f f e r e n c e s on s p e c i f i c

q u e s tio n s but in

T here w ere

c o m p a r is o n t o

th e

s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s an d t h e fa r m and n o n -fa r m a n a l y s i s t h e

1
r e s u l t s a r e n o t im p r e s s iv e .
T he s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e fo r m and n o n -fa r m p a r t s o f
th e

s a m p le a r e n e c e s s a r i l y

o p e r a te w ith in

a d y n a m ic

s ta tic

s o c ia l

a ttr ib u te s

sy ste m .

w h ic h i n a c t u a l i t y

H ence,

th e a n a ly s is

t h a t h a s b e e n m a d e d o e s n o t r e v e a l t h e d y n a m ic f a c t o r s t h a t
m ay b e o p e r a t i n g
and
to

in

r e la tio n s h ip

s e n t im e n t s w h ic h h a v e b e e n

to th e p a tte r n s o f b e lie f s

sh ow n .

Som e a t t e m p t w a s m ad e

d o s o t h r o u g h t h e a n a l y s i s o f o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m e m b e r s h ip ,

church a c t iv it y ,

and r e s id e n c e .

r e v e a le d

d iffe r e n c e s ,

en ces,
w ork o f

c e r ta in

w here th e y

W h ile s u c h a n a l y s e s

th e d ir e c tio n

o ccu rred do n o t f i t

e x p la n a tio n .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

e m p ir ic a l e x p la n a tio n s f o r d i s c r e t e
" le t

th e fa c ts

sp e a k f o r th e m s e lv e s "

d e s c r i b e d b y A . N . W h it e h e a d a s
c r e te n e s s ."

H ence,

in to a
to

s o m e t im e s

o f su ch d i f f e r ­
c o n s i s t e n t fr a m e ­
o f f e r p u r e ly

e m p ir ic a l f in d in g s o r to
is

t o w a lk i n t o

" th e f a l l a c y

th e tr a p

o f m is p la c e d c o n ­

t h e s e f in d in g s , w here t h e y o c c u r r e d ,

w ere

^ T a b l e s S , T, a n d U i n A p p e n d ix H g i v e a su m m ary o f t h e s t a t i s ­
t i c a l l y s ig n ific a n t d iffe r e n c e s in resp o n se to th e a ttitu d e
it e m s and t h e v a r i o u s p r e j u d i c e s c o r e s i n t e r m s o f t h e m a jo r
a n a l y s e s w h ic h h a v e b e e n p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s .
The f i r s t
p a g e o f e a c h t a b l e g i v e s t h e r e s u l t s fr o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e
B t a t u s v a r i a b l e s a n d t h e fa r m a n d n o n -fa r m g r o u p s .
The s e c o n d
p a g e sh o w s t h e r e s u l t s fr o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f a l l o t h e r v a r i a b l e
The d iffe r e n c e s a re c le a r .

- 2 *49 -

tr e a te d

c o n s e r v a tiv e ly .

B o th i n
th e

term s o f th e o r y and th e im p lic a t io n s o f

d a ta o f t h is

th e s is i t

and e x te n t o f p a r t ic ip a t io n
s o c ia l

in

in

se e m p r o b a b l e t h a t

th e t o t a l c u ltu r a l p a tte r n .

so m e w h a t b e y o n d

th e

T h is t h e s i s o f f e r s l i t t l e

m e m b e r s h ip

in

in f a c t ,

th e p roof lie s

s c o p e o f t h e i m m e d ia t e r e s e a r c h p r o b l e m .

Som e o f t h e f i n d i n g s ,

how ever,

w ith

resp ect

c e r ta in o r g a n iz a tio n s ,

im p o r ta n t i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r f u t u r e
of

t h e d e v e lo p m e n t,

and c h a n g e o f s u b - c u lt u r a l p a t t e r n s o f s e n tim e n ts

su p p ort o f t h i s h y p o th e s is an d ,

ity ,

th e k in d

su b -sy ste m s w ith in a t o t a l

sy ste m a r e o f g r e a t im p o r ta n c e to

m a in te n a n c e ,
w ith in

w o u ld

som e o f

to

and

church a c t iv ­
r e s id e n c e h a v e

resea rch in to

t h e d y n a m ic s

s e n tim e n t f o r m a t io n and m a n if e s t a t io n w it h in a s o c i a l

sy ste m .

T here i s

th in g o th e r th a n

so m e e v i d e n c e ,
th e

th o u g h n o t g r e a t ,

th a t

so m e ­

s t a t u s o r f a r m a n d n o n - f a r m d i f f e i ’e n c e s

2
is

in v o lv e d .
But th e la c k

of

s u ffic ie n t

d a t a f o r t h e d y n a m ic a n a l y s i s

^ P o r e x a m p le , J o h n s t o w n r e s i d e n t s t e n d t o b e n o r c p r e j u d i c e d
th a n r e s id e n t s o f o th e r a r e a s .
T hey a r e n o t g r e a t l y d i f f e r e n t ,
h o w e v e r fr o m r e s i d e n t s o f r u r a l a r e a s .
The d if f e r e n c e i s b e­
t w e e n r e s i d e n t s o f B r o w n s v i l l e a n d A d a m s.
On a s t a t u s i n d e x ,
h o w e v e r , J o h n sto w n r e s i d e n t s r a n k h ig h e r th a n r e s i d e n t s o f
o th e r a rea s.
A g a in , f o r t h e h ig h s t a t u s g r o u p a c t i v e c h u rch
m e m b e r s h ip a p p e a r s t o b e r e l a t e d t o a g r e a t e r d e g r e e o f t o l ­
e r a n c e t h a n t h a t m a n i f e s t e d b y l e s s a c t i v e c h u r c h m e m b e r s.
T h is f i n d i n g d o e s n o t h o ld f o r t h e lo w s t a t u s g r o u p , and o n l y
p a r t i a l l y f o r t h e m ed iu m s t a t u s g r o u p .
But i t ' i s s u g g e s tiv e
t h a t i t s h o u ld h o ld f o r t h e h ig h s t a t u s g r o u p .
L ik e w is e , th e
P o l i s h - A m e r i c a n s t e n d t o h a v e l o w e r s t a t u s t h a n t h e O l d e r A m er­
i c a n s b u t a r e r e m a r k a b l y l i k e th e m w i t h r e s p e c t t o a t t i t u d e s
to w a r d J e w s.
On t h e o t h e r h a n d , t h e y t e n d t o b e so m e w h a t l e s s
to le r a n t o f N eg ro es.
The d i f f e r e n c e d o e s n o t a p p e a r to b e o n e
w h i c h i s w h o l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s t a t u s , e l s e i t w o u ld a p p e a r
f o r b o th Jew s and N e g r o e s.

o f th e r e l a t io n s h i p o f s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e to a t t i t u d e s to\*ard
m in o r itie s does n o t m itig a te th e fin d in g s which have emerged.
M oreover, th e re i s some ev id en ce to support dynamic co n cep ts
o f th e fo rm atio n and o p e ra tio n o f th e mechanism o f p r e ju d ic e .
The

s o -c a lle d

11 s e

c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "

t h e s e s h a v e "been e x a m in e d a t
of

c u ltu r a l d if f e r e n t ia t io n

te ste d .

th e
in

of a

s o c ia l

th e in s tr u m e n t.

h y p o th e s is ,

p e o p le d o.
of

th a t i t

a c tio n

a lth o u g h

te r m s

N e v e r th e le s s ,

to

ite m s a s w e ll a s

is

be

it

a ls o

r e a lity

to

th e o p e r a tio n o f

T h is p r o b le m

is

to

r e la te d

to

th e la r g e r
sa y and w hat

o f u n d e r ly in g p a t t e r n s

r e la te d

to

s e n tim e n t p a t ­

le v e l.

i n s o f a r a s t h e ite m s u s e d i n

i n s t r u m e n t m ry u n c o v e r t e n d e n c i e s t o
resea rch

o n ly in

s e n tim e n t p a t t e r n s ,

an in d ic a tio n

The l a t t e r

te r n s but a t a d iffe r e n t

th is

su p p o r ts

d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n w hat p e o p le

The fo r m e r i s

s e n tim e n ts .

th e

m ay b e u s e d w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n

sy ste m s.

th e a ttitu d e

q u e s tio n o f th e

a p p ly to

s ta tu s v a r ia b le s

o t h e r d y n a m ic h y p o t h e s e s w i t h r e s p e c t

c o n te n t o f

th e in d i­

W h ile t h e i n s t r u m e n t h a s b e e n sh o w n t o

s h o u ld n o t b e in f e r r e d

p r e j u d ic e w ith in

to

to

sy ste m .

c a p a b le o f d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g b e tw e e n

th e

as here,

o f p r e ju d ic e on th e

" s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "

te st

s t a t u s w as

o f p r e j u d ic e w ith in

B u t t h e y m ay a l s o h e u s e d ,

The d i r e c t i o n

of

s o c ia l

th e h y p o th e s is

T h e s e h y p o t h e s e s h a v e "been m o s t f r e q u e n t l y a p p l i e d

com ponent p a r t s

th e

sam e t i m e t h a t

te r m s o f

t h e d e v e lo p m e n t an d o r g a n i z a t i o n
v id u a l.

and " c o m p e titio n " h y p o ­

a c tio n ,

th e

th e resea rch
e v id e n c e o f

su p p o r ts th e " s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n " h y p o th e s is .

T hat i s ,
lo w e r ,

h ig h e r

s t a t u s g r o u p s t e n d t o "be m o r e t o l e r a n t

and p r e s u m a b ly ,

d e p r iv e d

e v id e n c e w as n o t n e c e s s a r i l y

c o n c lu s iv e

s t a t u s v a r ia b le b u t in c r e a s e d
v a r ia b le

w as c o u p e r e d .

s ta tu s g rou p s.

as

th a n

A g a in t h e

fo r a p a r tic u la r

s ta tu s v a r ia b le

T h is w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y

a fte r sta tu s

tr u e fo r a tt it u d e s

to w a r d J e w s .
On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
of

and a g a in

t h e m e a s u r in g in s t r u m e n t ,

not

a p p ly t o a t t i t u d e s

th e

i n v ie w

o f th e lim ita tio n s

" c o m p e titio n " h y p o t h e s is d id

to w a r d J e w s .

I t m ay b e t r u e

th a t Jew s

e r e n o t regarded

a s c o m p e titio n s b y u p p er s t a t u s g ro u p s in

th is

is

of

s a m p le .

th e

It

s a m p le a r e a .

Jew s c o n s titu te
is

tr u e

little

H ow ever,

a te st

su p p ort

t h a t t h e r e a r e fe w J e w is h r e s i d e n t s
in s o fa r a s th e

o f th e

fo r i t

q u e s tio n s a b o u t

" c o m p e titio n " h y p o t h e s is

fro m

th e

e v id e n c e o f t h i s

th e r e

research .

W it h r e s p e c t t o N e g r o e s a n d M e x ic a n s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e a n a l ­
y s is

su p p ort t h e

" c o m p e titio n "

" s e c u r ity -d e p r iv a tio n "
of

e it h e r h y p o th e s is ,

h y p o th e s is ,
is

th e

S t i l l a n o th e r c o n c lu s io n
o v e r a ll c o n s id e r a tio n
or

e th n ic h o s t i l i t y

p h en o m en o n and a l s o
h o s tility
is

h y p o th e s is a s w e ll a s th e
s in c e p r e d ic tio n ,

in

te r m s

sam e.
a p p e a r s t o b e w a r r a n t e d fr o m a n

o f th e d a ta .

The p h en o m en a o f p r e j u d i c e

h a s b een v a r io u s ly tr e a te d
a s a s e r ie s

a s a u n ita r y

o f d i s c r e t e phenom ena.

E th n ic

a s a f u n c t i o n o f s e v e r e p e r s o n a l a d ju s tm e n t p r o b le m s

fr e q u e n tly tr e a te d

a s a p e r v a s i v e p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r by-

p s y c h o lo g is ts .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,

s o c io lo g is ts i t

is

am ong b o t h p s y c h o l o g i s t s a n d

s o m e t im e s a r g u e d t h a t p r e j u d i c e i s

s p e c ific

to

g r o u p s and t o

of

cou rse,

not

th e p r o b a b ility

in c o n s is te n t

tr e a tm e n t o f
la tio n s h ip

th e o p e r a tin g

s itu a tio n a l fa c to r s .

th a t

r e se a r c h in

s o c ia l

sy ste m s,

s e n tim e n t p a t t e r n s ,

o f in d iv id u a l and s o c i a l a c t io n

b ro a d and p e r v a s iv e

how ever,

w h ic h a r e s i m i l a r t o

are

th e

a t t i t u d e s to w a rd J e w s .
e x a m in e d s e p a r a t e l y ,

of

W it h in t h i s

E ven h e r e ,
th ere

e x a m p le i s

s e n t im e n t s fr o m

a c o n s id e r a b le

fr e q u e n tly ,
each o th e r .

e x t e n t w ith r e s p e c

w h en t h e a t t i t u d e

ite m s

ap p ear to be d iffe r e n c e s in

th e

s u b -c u ltu r a l d if f e r e n c e s .

The

w h ic h t h e r e a r e s h a r p

m ost s t r i k i n g

a

o f s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h i s

t o t a l p a t t e r n b u t w h ic h ,

in d egree o f in te n s ity

e x te n t to

th a t th e r e i s

th e r e a r e s u b -c u ltu r a l p a tte r n s

T h is h a s b e e n d e m o n str a te d t o
to

in d ic a te

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n

and th e r e ­

sy stem s.

to w a r d J e w s , N e g r o e s , an d M e x ic a n s .

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n ,

d iffe r

b o th d ir e c t io n s i s

b u t a w a it s a m ore c o m p r e h e n s iv e t h e o r e t i c a l

The f in d in g s o f t ills r e se a r c h

m a n ife s te d

T here i s ,

th a t o f

th e q u e s tio n

w h ic h s t a t e s

th a t

" In m o st e v e r y t h in g t h e y do J e w s t r y to p u sh ah ead o f e v e r y b o d y
e l s e . 11

A t no p o i n t i n

t h is a n a ly s is h as t h is

s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s am ong g r o u p s .
it

h as proved o f

v a s iv e n a tu r e o f

little

But i t

From t h a t p o i n t o f v i e w
d o e s sh ow t h e b r o a d , p e r ­

o n e k i n d o f a t t i t u d e m a n i f e s t e d to w a r d J e w s .

On t h e o t h e r h a n d ,
to

u se.

d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n g r o u p s w ith r e s p e c t

a t t i t u d e s to w a rd N e g r o e s h a v e b e e n l e s s

o f a t t i t u d e s to w a r d J e w s.
p e r v a s iv e p a tte r n

q u e s tio n r e v e a le d

of

T hat i s ,

d is tin c t

th a n t h a t

t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e a m o re

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h o p e r a t e w i t h r e s p e c t

N e g r o e s th a n t h a t f o r J e w s.

T h e sam e t h i n g h o l d s t r u e t o

to
a

g r e a te r d egree fo r a ttitu d e s
w h ic h i s
in

v is ib le

M a p le C o u n t y ,

c u ltu r a l

to w a r d M e x ic a n s .

th e r e a re s t i l l

few er d if f e r e n c e s in

su b ­

s e n tim e n t p a t t e r n s .
o f th e

in s tr u m e n t.

T hat

t h o q u e s t i o n s a b o u t J e w s may b e m o r e e f f e c t i v e d i f f e r ­

e n t ia t in g d e v ic e s

th a n q u e s t io n s a b o u t t h e o t h e r m in o r i t ie s .

H ow ever,

f o r th o

p ro v e to

be th e c a s e ,

e d u c a tio n a l v a r ia b le ,

at

le a s t,

a ssu m e th a t
itie s

th e d iffe r e n c e s a re

H ence,

ca u sed s o le ly

we c a n n o t

by th e in e o u a l-

o f t h e m e a s u r in g d e v i c e .
The p r i n c i p a l c o n c l u s io n

th a t a t t it u d e s

th o

th is does not

- h e r e a r e m any d i f f e r e n c e s o n n e a r l y a l l

q u e s t i o n s w h en t h i s v a r i a b l e w a s a n a l y z e d .

is

group,

to an even l e s s o r e x te n t th a n N eg ro es and Jew s

T h e s e f i n d i n g s may b e a f u n c t i o n
is ,

For t h is

to w a r d a l l

t o t a l c u ltu r a l p a tte r n ,

th a t

th e d a ta a p p ea r to

th r e e m in o r itie s a r e ,
u n fa v o r a b le .

te r n

is

m ost c l e a r w it h r e s p e c t

and,

t o a so m e w h a t l e s s e r d e g r e e ,

w arrant

in te r m s o f

T h is u n fa v o r a b le p a t ­

to a ttitu d e s

to w a r d M e x ic a n s

w ith r e s p e c t t o a t t i t u d e s

to ­

w a rd N e g r o e s .

F o r t h e s e m i n o r i t i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y M e x ic a n s ,

th e r e a re lo s s

f r e q u e n t d e v i a t i o n s fr o m t h e g e n e r a l p e r v a s i v e

p a tte r n

of

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h o p e r a t e s w i t h i n

o f th is

r u r a l r a id w e s te r n a r e a .

d e v i a t i o n and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n
o p e r a te w ith in
a lth o u g h

F or J ew s,
in to

th e t o t a l c u ltu r e

th e r e i s

g r e a te r

s u b - c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s w h ic h

t h e fra m ew o rk o f t h e t o t a l c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n ,

th is p a tte r n

can n ot b e c a lle d a h ig h ly

fa v o r a b le on e

a t m ost p o i n t s .
!The g e n e r a l c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s

research ,

w h ic h f o l l o w

fro m

-2 5 ^
th e

a n a ly s is o f

th e

s e p a r a te e m p ir ic a l f in d in g s f o r

v a r i a b l e s w h ic h h a v e b e e n
I.

s tu d ie d ,

may nov; b e

T he m a jo r h y p o t h e s i s t h a t , w it h in a t o t a l
of

s e n tim e n ts m a n ife s te d

th e r e a re s ig n if ic a n t ly
w h ic h a r c a s s o c i a t e d
str u c tu r e ,

th o sy ste m

c u ltu r a l p a tte r n
m in o r ity

grouns

s u b -c u ltu r a l p a tte r n s

fo r th is

th e

s o c ia l

s a m p le o f r a i d w e s t e m

t h e f o l l o w i n g m anner:
s o c ia l

o f v e r tic a l

str u c tu r e

th a t cu t a cro ss

s o c ia l m o b ility ,

a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m e m b e r s h ip ,

be s ig n ific a n tly

s u m m a r iz e d .

w ith d i f f e r e n t p o s i t i o n s i n

T h ose v a r i a b l e s o f

sex,

d iffe r e n t

m u st b e m o d ifie d

r u r a l r e sp o n d e n ts in
A.

to w a rd c e r t a i n

t h e m any

r e la te d

su ch a s a g e ,

do n o t appear to

to d if f e r e n c e s

in a t t it u d e s

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s .
B ..

T h ose v a r i a b l e s o f s o c i a l

str u c tu r e

to

s o c ia l n o b ilit y ,

th o

sy ste m

e d u c a tio n ,
s o c ia l

o f v e r tic a l

o c c u p a tio n ,

sta tu s,

w h ic h a r e r e l a t e d

and a c o n s tr u c te d

appear to

be s ig n ific a n tly

su ch a s

in d e x o f
r e la te d

to

t h e a t t i t u d e s w h ic h r u r a l p e o p l e m a n i f e s t t o w a r d t h e
m in o r ity
th e r e a r e
te r n s o f
d iffe r e n t
s o c ia l
C.

groups te s te d
s ig n ific a n tly

in

th is

resea rch .

d iffe r e n t

That i s ,

s u b -c u ltu r a l p a t­

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h a r e r e l a t e d

to b r o a d ly

s t r a t a o f a s y s te m o f h ig h e r and lo w e r

sta tu se s.

I n a r u r a l a r e a s u b - c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n fa r m
and n o n -fa r m g ro u p s a r e in d ic a t e d b y d if f e r e n c e s in
t h e p a t t e r n s o f s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h a r e m a n i f e s t e d t o w a r d

[

-255th e m in o r ity g ro u p s t e s t e d
D.

in

The m a jo r h y p o t h e s is o f t h i s

th is

research ,

h a s "been s u p p o r t e d w i t h r e s p e c t
str u c tu r a l c h a r a c te r is tic s ,
p o r te d w ith r e s p e c t

to

research .

to

th e r e fo r e ,

tw o c l e a r - c u t

h u t h a s n o t "been s u p ­

a v a r ie ty

o f o th e r

str u c ­

tu r a l c h a r a c te r is tic s .
II.

-h ere i s

a little

e v id e n c e ,

t e n t a t iv e im p lic a tio n ,

th a t

w h ic h m ay h o

III.

th a t

o f th e

sy ste m .

to ta l

s o c ia l

a fu n c tio n

ta k e s p la c e w ith in

o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m e m b e r s h ip ,

m ay s u p p o r t t h i s

i m p l i c a t i o n hut, a r e n o t

e x p lo r e d i n

th e s is

T here i s

so m e e v i d e n c e ,

in te r p r e te d
t h a t lo w e r
" secu re"

in

th e lig h t

te r m s o f

sy s te m a s a w h o le ,
th a n a r e h ig h e r
t h i s m ay a l s o
g o o d s w ith in

th e

an d r e s i d e n c e

s u ffic ie n tly

w h ic h a r e a s s u m e d t o h e l e s s
are,

th e goods a v a ila b le

s ta tu s g rou p s.

sy ste m .

to

o f th e o p e r a tio n s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h ,

m o re p r e j u d i c e d

h e due to

resp ect

m u st h e c a r e f u l l y

a n d , p e r h a p s , m ore " d e p r iv e d " ,
in

su h -sy ste m s

s t a t e c o n c lu s iv e ly .

a lth o u g h i t

s ta tu s gro u p s,

d e p r iv a tio n

th e

to

sen ­

o f th e

The f i n d i n g s w ith

church a c t i v i t y ,

th is

o n ly a s a

th e m a n ife s ta tio n o f

t im e n t s to w a r d m in o r it y g r o u p s i s
d y n a m ic i n t e r a c t i o n

sta te d

b eca u se o f
to

th e s o c ia l

to w a rd m in o r it y g r o u p s

F o r lo w e r

s ta tu s groups

c o m p e titio n f o r l e s s

a v a ila b le

F o r h ig h e r s t a t u s g r o u p s,

how ever,

e x te n t o f h y p o t h e t ic a l c o n r o e titio n f o r t h e g o o d s o f

s o c ia l

sy ste m d o e s n o t a p p e a r t o h e r e la t e d

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s .

to

a ttitu d e s

th e

IV .

On t h e b a s i s

o f d o te

u sed

stu d y

in

th is

c o n c lu s io n

fo r th e

(J e w s,

H egroes,

appears to he ju s tifie d

b road p e r v a s iv e p a tte r n o f
to w a r d a l l

th r e e m in o r ity g ro u p s

M oreover,

th a t

th e r e i s

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h i s

m in o r ity g r o u p s .

u n fa v o r a b le .

an d M e x ic a n s ) t h e

T h is p a t t e r n

th e d iffe r e n c e s

is

a

m a n ife s te d

g e n e r a lly

in

it

th a t h a v e

b e e n sh o w n t o h a v e s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p

to

th e s o c ia l

sy ste m a r e n o t a s g r e a t f o r
S p e c ific a lly ,
m ore g r e a t l y

th e p a tte r n

of

d iffe r e n tia te d

s u b - c u lt u r a l p a t t e r n s th a n
to w a r d N e g r o e s .
p a tte r n o f
ic a n s .

s e n tim e n ts
in to

is

M o st s i m i l a r

d iffe r e n tia tio n
th is

to w a r d

in to

th is

to w a r d J e w s i s

s ig n ific a n tly d iffe r e n t

th e p a t t e r n o f s e n tim e n ts
to t h e

t o t a l u n fa v o r a b le

s e n t im e n t s to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s

A ttitu d e s

u sed in

som e g r o u p s a s f o r o t h e r s .

is

t h a t o f M ex­

group a r e l e a s t

su b je c t

to

s u b - c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n s b y t h e m e th o d s

research .

The I m p lic a t io n s o f T h is R e se a r c h
T here a r e
resea rch .

tw o k i n d s o f i m p l i c a t i o n s w h ic h

One i s

th a t p e r ta in in g

o th e r i s

th a t

e ste d

in c r e a s in g

in

The f i r s t
p o in ts
in

w h ic h p e r t a i n s t o

set

th is

fu rth e r

stu d y b y o th e r s o f a

The

r e l a t i o n s h i p s am ong a l l g r o u p s .

o f im p lic a tio n s h a s been

th e need to

resea rch .

a c tio n program s fo r th o se in t e r ­

th r o u g h o u t t h e d i s c u s s i o n

m ost r e s e a r c h ,

fr o m

fa v o r a b le

to

s t e m fr o m t h i s

o f th is

te st

in d ic a te d a t

th e s is .

several

T hera i s ,

as

th e c o n c lu s io n s r e s u lt in g

s im ila r n a tu r e .

In th e s o c i a l

-257s c ie n c e s

t h e p r o b le m

o f d e fin in g

w h ic h a r e a v a i l a b l e h a s b e e n s o
ig n o r e th e p o s s i b i l i t y
be

e x p e r im e n ts and o b s e r v a t io n

im p o r ta n t t h a t

in t e r p r e t b o th

it

s ig n if ic a n t g u id e p o s ts to
a s we u t i l i z e

p o s s ib le

to

c h e c k and m ore

s u p p o r tin g and c o n t r a d ic t o r y
The c o n c lu s io n s

a t h e r e a r e p r im a r ily f o r

a lte r e d ,

we f r e q u e n t l y

O n ly b y c a r e f u l l y d u p l i c a t e d

is

in g s o f p r e v io u s r e s e a r c h .
a r r iv e d

a rea s o f research

t h a t o u r r e s e a r c h d e s i g n may s o m e t im e s

in a d e q u a te and in a c c u r a t e .

s ig n ific a n tly

th e v a st

fin d ­

th a t h ave been

th e p u r p o se o f fu r n is h in g

be checked,

antf p e r h a p s s u b s t a n t i a l l y

m ore p r e c i s e d e v i c e s

to

m easu re th e

o u tc o m e s o f o u r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s .
In a d d itio n
m e t h o d , h o y /e v e r ,

to

t h is g en era l a ffim a tio n

t h e r e a r e a num ber o f o t h e r

T h is r e s e a r c h h a s p o in te d
en ces in

a ttitu d e s

s o c ia l p o s itio n

in

to

th e fa c t

th a t

a sy ste m o f v e r t i c a l
to

th e r e are d if f e r ­

th e fin d in g s

and f o r u r b a n l o c a l i t i e s

show n?

te r m s o f p r e s e n t

d e s c r ip tiv e th e o iy
are

sy ste m s o f

o f c u ltu r a l

p r in c ip le to

W hat

f o r o th e r r e g io n s

p r im a r ily a

v ;o u ld im p l y t h a t

th e r e

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h a r e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h v a r i o u s

str a ta o f a v e r tic a lly
h a s in d ic a te d

The

The t h e o i y o f s o c i a l

research i s

str a ta ,

to

s o c i a l m o b ility .

s im i l a r i t i e s and d if f e r e n c e s in

w h ic h i n

r e la te d

a r u r a l m id w e s te r n a r e a .

can b e

s c ie n tific

im p lic a tio n s .

t o w a r d m i n o r i t i e s w h ic h a r e

sa m p le h a s b e e n l i m i t e d

c la s s ,

o f th e

th a t
th e

m o b ile

s o c ie ty .

The p r e s e n t

research

t h e r e a p p e a r s t o b e som e a p p l i c a t i o n o f

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h a r e m a n i f e s t e d

tr a d itio n a l m in o r itie s .

But o t h e r r e s e a r c h

is

th is

to w a r d c e r t a i n

n ecessary

to

d e te r m in e i f

th is

is

a p h e n o m e n o n o f s o m e t h i n g w h ic h i s

in a d e q u a te ly

d e s c r ib e d

a s t h e A m e r ic a n c u l t u r e ,

sy ste m s o f s e n tim e n ts ,
m in o r itie s ,

are

d ir e c tio n s to
in te r a c tio n

in c lu d in g

r e la te d

th e

in

s o c ia l

w ith in

is

m a n ife s ta tio n ,
area

sta tu s

in

o th e r

str a ta

m a in te n a n c e ,

s o c ia l

and ch a n g e.

and

R esea rch in to

of

s e n tim e n ts

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s

t h e w ay t h a t i n t e r a c t i o n

su b -sy ste m s o f a t o t a l
s e n tim e n ts b y

th is

l i g h t b o th u p on th e r e la t io n s h ip

s o c ia l

in

s y s t e m m o d if y t h e

s o c ia l a c to r s

in

a h ig h ly

s o c ie ty .

The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p e o p le a n x io u s to
t o v /a r d m i n o r i t i e s a n d t o
b e tw e e n a l l p e o p le i n

and c o n c lu d e t h a t
C e r ta in ly ,
th e

th e

m o d if y a t t i t u d e s

im p r o v e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s

t h i s c o u n t r y m u st b e s t a t e d

H o t h i n g w o u ld b o e a s i e r t h a n t o

w ith

sy ste m s o f

o f v ie w t h e m o st im p o r ta n t

c o n s id e r a b le

sy ste m s,

m a n ife s ta tio n o f
m o b ile

o f p a r tic u la r

t h o A m e r ic a n s o c i e t y .

to t h e m a n if e s t a tio n

p a r tic u la r

t h o s e m a n i f e s t e d to v /a r d

t h a t o f t h e d y n a m ic s o f s e n t im e n t f o r m a t io n ,

s h o u ld th r o w

of

th e

d i f f e r e n t w ays and in d if f e r e n t

F ro m t h e w r i t e r ' s p o i n t
im p lic a tio n

or i f

w hat i s

n e e d e d m o st i s

e x t e n t o f t o le r a n c e m a n ife s te d

a program o f e d u c a tio n .
c le a r ly

m u st b e rem em b ered t h a t e d u c a t i o n w as s e l e c t e d

of

s o c ia l

But

a s an in d e x

a n d t h e f i n d i n g s m u st b e i n t e r p r e t e d i n t e r m s

o f a sy ste m o f h ig h o r and l o v e r
not

a s s o c ia te d

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s .

it

T h is i s

c a u tio u s ly .

e x a m in e t h e d a t a o n e d u c a t i o n

e x t e n t o f fo r m a l e d u c a tio n i s

sta tu s

e x is tin g

to

say th a t

s o c ia l

sta tu se s.

e d u c a tio n i t s e l f

is

o f no i m p o r t a n c e .

T here i s
th e
to

c e r ta in ly

sta tu s fo c to r
do w ith t h e

so m e r e a s o n
th e

to

e d u c a t i o n a l f e c t o r -p er s e

e x p r e s s io n o f p r e j u d ic e .

d en c e th a t th e

s c h o o ls in

su ch p ro gram s h a v e s t i l l

fin d in g s

w ith

e a r lie r ,

do n o t

te n t

resp ect

to

s s o m e th in g

th ere

i s no e v i­

W here t h e y h a v e ,
"be c o r r e c t l y

t o c o l l e g e jjr o g r a m s ,

in d ic a te a c le a r -c u t

to

th e e f f e c t s

assessed .

as

The

w as p o in t e d

r e la tio n s h ip

any

out

b e tw e e n c o n ­

and r e s u l t .
T he im p o r ta n t i m p l i c a t i o n s

b e l e s s p r o m is in g .
w e s t w as o b ta in e d ,

T here i s

little

p erso n s in te r e s te d

exp ressed

th a t

im p o r ta n t a r e a

o f o p i n i o n w h ic h p r e v a i l s .
th e o v e r a ll p a tte r n

to w a r d m i n o r it y g r o u p s ,

o f t h e A m e r ic a n c r e e d .

th a n in

s h o u ld n o t b o o v e r lo o k e d .

to
a ll

exp ress
th e

The im p lic a t io n i s

th e c i t i e s .

b e an sw ered h e r e .

T here i s

b e tw e e n th e m a n if e s t a t io n o f
th e

s o c ia l

a q u e s t i o n w h ic h c a n n o t

an im p lic a tio n ,

o v e r a ll program s a r e n o t th e a n sw er.

in

^he

t h e c o r n b e l t a s m u ch , a n d p e r h a p s

W hat k i n d s o f p r o g r a m s a r e n e e d e d i s

p o s itio n

T h is i s

of

t h e o p i n i o n s w h ic h may r e p r e s e n t t h i s v a s t

t h a t program s a r e n eed ed in
m ore,

a c t i o n p rogram s s h o u ld

n o t a t o u o r in g b u lw a r k o f d e m o c r a c y r e a d y

th e in p lic a t io n s

m ore r e a so n

in

c o m fo r t to b e ta k e n in

s e n t i m e n t s w h ic h i s
m id w e s t i s

f o r p r o g r a m p l a n n i n g se e m t o

I n s o f a r a s a n a d e q u a t e s a m p le o f t h e m id ­

b e aw are o f th e g e n e r a l c lim a t e

a ll

But

to

1m

t h e m id w e s t h a v e c o n c e n t r a t e d

e x t e n t on p r o g r a m s o f t o l e r a n c e .
of

s u sp e c t th a t in a d d itio n

If

s e n tim e n ts

str u c tu r e ,

it

is

how ever,

th a t broad

th e r e a re r e la tio n s h ip s
to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s and
im p lic it th a t th e p ro­

-2 6 0 b le m

o f c h a n g in g

e n t K a y s.
lo w e r

th ese

s t a t u s p e o p le ,
is

o f w h ic h t h o m a n i f e s t a t i o n
o n ly o n e a s p e c t ,

t h a t p r o g r a m s a im e d a t

o f th e se g rou p s.

c i p l e h o ld s f o r fa r m and n o n -fa r m

c e r ta in

o th e r hand t h i s

in

d e s p ite

not

th e lim it e d
it

p r e s e n t stu d y f o r

im p o r t a n t.

sex ,

T h e sam e p r i n ­

are

and e t h n ic

seem s c le a r t h a t

research ,

r e s e a r c h a r e m any.

They

a r e m uch l e s s

P r o g r a m s d e s i g n e d f o r t h e m id ­

M oreover,

d iffe r e n c e s in

p r o b a b le d i f f e r e n t i a l l e v e l s
s o c ia l

may b e .

th e im p lic a tio n s o f th e

s h o u ld b e d e v e lo p e d w it h a n a w a r e n e s s o f

account th e

d iffe r e n c e s

B u t o r g a n i z a t i o n a l m e m b e r s h ip ,

fin d in g s o f t h i s

w h i c h now p r e v a i l t h e r e .

th e

te r m s o f

grou p s.

A go,

e x t e n s iv e f o r a c t io n p rogram s.

in to

a x io m a tic

r e s e a r c h h a s sh o w n t h a t t h e r e

t h e m id w e s t.

g e n e r a l,

F in a lly ,

w est

is

s e n tim e n ts

s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c t s w h ic h d o n o t a p p e a r t o b e i m p o r t a n t

f o r program s in
are,

th e n i t

of

t h e s e g r o u p s m u st d i f f e r i n

c u ltu r a l c h a r a c t e r is t ic s

On t h o

in d if f e r ­

I f t h e r e a r e c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n u p p e r and

t o v /a r d m i n o r i t i e s

th e

s e n t i m e n t s m ast b e a t t a c k e d

th e s e n tim e n ts

su ch p r o g ra m s s h o u ld t a k e

th e s o c ia l

o f r e c e p tiv ity

s t r u c t u r e and t h e
w h ic h o p e r a t e i n

s y s t o m s f o r w h ic h t h e p r o g r a m s a r e d e s i g n e d .

REFERENCES CITED IN THE THESIS

A llp o r t, (Jordon W. and Kramer, B ernard M ., “Some R oots o f
P r e j u d i c e ." J . o f P sy c h o l. , 2 2 :9 -3 9 . 1 9 ^ .
A nderson, ELln L«. We A m ericans. Cambridge:
P r e s s , 1937*

H arvard U n iv e rs ity

B e tte lh e im , Bruno and Jan o w itz , M o rris, Dynamics o f P r e ju d ic e .
New York: H arper and B ro th e rs , 1950*
B ogardus, Bnory S ., Im m igration and Race A tti tu d e s . B oston:
D» 0* Heath & C o., 1928.
Boyd, J . E», "The In flu e n c e o f th e Church upon Race A ttitu d e s in
West T ex as," u n p u b lish e d M. A. t h e s i s , U n iv e r s ity o f Denver, 1938*
Boynton, P a u l L . and Mayo, George D ., "A Comparison of C e rta in
A t t i t u d l n a l R esponses o f White and Negro High School S tu d e n ts ,"
J . o f Negro E duc., 11:4 8 7-^9^. 19^2.
Campbell, A. A ., " F a c to rs A s so c ia te d w ith A ttitu d e s tow ard Jew s,"
i n Newcomb, T. M. an d H a rtle y , E. 1 . (e d s » ), R eadings i n S o c ia l
Psychology. New York: Henry H o lt and C o., 19*1-7•
C e n te rs, R ic h a rd , The P sychology o f S o c ia l C la s s e s . P rin c e to n ,
New J e r s e y : P r in c e to n U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 19*J9*
Chain, I . and Lake, L ., " A ttitu d e s and th e E d u c a tio n a l.P ro c e s s ,"
£ • o f Educ. S o c lo l. . 19:365-375. 19**6.
O losson, E. E», "A Study of th e F a c to r of In fo rm a tio n i n Race
P r e ju d ic e ," u n p u b lish e d M* A. t h e s i s , U n iv e r s ity o f M ichigan, 1930*
C ole, N. E ., "The P e rso n a l A ttitu d e s o f H igh School P u p ils i n
Colorado tow ard A lie n N atio n s and P e o p le s ," u n p u b lish e d M. A.
t h e s i s , Colorado S ta te Teachers C o lleg e, 1932*
D o lla rd , John, e t a l , F r u s tr a tio n and A g g ressio n , New Haven:
Y ale U n iv e rs ity P r e s s , 1939*
Edwards, A lba, A Social-B eonom ic Grouping o f G ainful Workers of
th e U n ite d S t a t e s , W ashington, D. 0 . : Government P r in tin g
O ffic e , 1938.
G a rriso n , K. 0 . and Burch, U. S ., "A Study o f R a c ia l A ttitu d e s o f
C o lleg e S tu d e n ts ,"
.of Soc. P sy c h o l. , *j:230-235« 1933*
H a a g , H . I * . "A S t u d y o f R a c i a l A t t i t u d e s o f H ig h S c h o o l a n d
U n i v e r s i t y S t u d e n t s , u n p u b l i s h e d M. A . t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y o f
M ic h ig a n ,

1930*

H arlan , Howard H ., "Some F a c to rs A ffe c tin g A ttitu d e s tow ard Jew s,"
Am* S o c lo l* Rev*. 7*816-827. 19*42*
H orow itz, S . L ., "Race A t t i t u d e s ," I n K Lineberg, O tto ( e d .) ,
O h a r a c te r ls tie s o f th e Am erican Negro, New York: H arper and
B ro th e rs, 19*4*4.
I c h h e is e r , G ustav, "Fear of V iolence and F ear o f F raud, w ith
Some Remarks on th e S o c ia l P sychology of A n ti-S e m itism ,"
Soclom etry, 7*376-383* 19*4*4.
L evinson, D enlel J . and S anford, R. N e v itt, "A S cale f o r th e
Measurement of A n ti-S e m itism ,"
o f P sy c h o l*. 17*339-370, 19*4*4.
L in d q .u ist, E. P*, S t a t i s t i c a l A n a ly s is i n E d u catio n al R esearch .
Cambridge* Houghton M if f lin Company, 19*4-0*
Loomis, C harles F*, "E th n ic C leavages i n th e Southw est a s R e fle c te d
i n Two High S c h o o ls," Socl om etry, 6 :7 -2 6 , 19*43 •
---------------------------- and B eegle, J . A lla n , "The Spread o f German
Nazism i n R u ral A re a s," Am. S o c lo l. Rev*. 11-72*4-73*4. 19*46*
McWilliams, C arey, A Mask f o r P r i v i l e g e . B oston:
and Company, 19*48*

L i t t l e , Brown

M eltz e r, H ., "Group D iffe re n c e s i n N a tio n a lity and Race P re fe re n c e
o f C h ild re n ," S oclom etry, 2:86-105, 1939*
M erton, R. K*, "F act and F a c titio u s n e s s i n E thnic O p in io n a ire s ,"
Am* S o c lo l* Rev. , 5*13-28, 19*40*
M inard, R alph B», Race A ttitu d e s of Iowa C h ild re n , Vol* *4, No. 2
o f th e U n iv e rs ity o f Iowa S tu d ie s i n C h a ra c te r, Iowa C ity :
U n iv e rs ity of Iowa, 1931*
Moore, G« W., " S o c ia l and P o l i t i c a l A ttitu d e s o f S tu d en ts a t
N orth C a ro lin a S ta te C o lle g e ," u n p u b lish e d M. A. t h e s i s , N orth
C a ro lin a S ta te C o lle g e, 1931*
Murphy, G. and L i k e r t , R*, P u b lic O pinion and th e I n d iv id u a l,
New York: H arper and B ro th e rs , 1938*
P a rso n s, T a lc o tt, "The S ociology o f Modern A n ti-S e m itism ,"
i n G raeber, Issacq.ue and B r i t t , S te u s r t H ., ( e d s .) , Jews i n a
G e n tile World. New York: The M acmillan Company, 19*42*
P earso n , E. S ., "The A n a ly sis o f V ariance i n Oases of Non-Normal
V a r ia tio n ," B lom etrllea. 23*11*4-133. 1931*

-263P ep in sk y , P a u lin e , "The Meaning of •V a lid ity * and • R e lia b ility *
a s A p p lied to S o cio m etric T e s t s ,MJJd. and P sy c h o l. Meaa. ,
9 :3 9 -4 9 . 1949.
P o r t e r f i e l d , A . L . , " E d u c a t io n a n d R a c e A t t i t u d e s , "
S o c . R e s . . 21:538-543, 1937*

S o c lo l. and

R o s e , A r n o ld , S t u d ie s i n t h e R e d u c tio n o f P r e j u d ic e ,
C h ic a g o :
A m e r ic a n C o u n c i l o n R a c e R e l a t i o n s , 1947*

m im eo ,

Samelaon, B a b e tte , "Does E ducation D im inish P r e ju d i c e ,n
£ • .2f Soc. I s s u e s . 1 :1 1 -1 3 , 1945*
S i m s , V . M. a n d P a t r i c k , J . R . , “A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d t h e N e g r o o f
N o r th e r n a n d S o u th e r n C o lle g e S t u d e n t s ," £ . o f S o c . P s y c h o l. ,

7:192-204, 1936.
S m i t h , P . T r e d w e l l , A n E x p e r im e n t i n M o d i f y i n g A t t i t u d e s t o w a r d
t h e N e g r o . N ew Y o r k :
T e a c h e r s C o l l e g e , C o lu m b ia U n i v e r s i t y , 1943*

Snedecor, G. W.» S t a t i s t i c a l Methods. Ames, Iowa:
P r e s s , 1946.
The B altim o re P o l l , mlmeo, New York:
American Jew ish Committee, 1949.

S ta te C ollege

D ept, o f S c i e n t i f i c R esearch,

"Die Eor tu n e S u rv ey ," F o rtu n e . Jan u ary , 1936.
"The F o rtu n e S u rv ey ." F o rtu n e . F eb ru ary , 1946.
"The F o rtu n e S u rv ey ," F o rtu n e . O ctober, 1947.
Vogt, Evon Z. J r . , "Town and C ountry: The S tru c tu re of R ural
L i f e , " i n Warner, W. L loyd, Democracy i n J o n e s v llle , New York:
H arper and B ro th e rs, 1949.
W illia m s , R o b in J r . ,

The R e d u c tio n o f I n te r g r o u p T e n s io n s ,

S o c ia l S cience R esearch B u ll. 57. 1947.

i

APrSHDIX A

SELECTION OF THE SAMPLE REGION

-265The s e l e c t i o n
d e te r m in e d t o
w h ic h ,

a

o f t h e c o m m u n ity a r e a t o b e s t u d i e d v /a s

la r g e

e x te n t by th e g e n e r a l c h a r a c t e r is t ic s

on a n r i o r i g r o u n d s,

a b le fo r

th e g e n e r a l p u rp o ses o f

tw o l i m i t a t i o n s p l a c e d
b e m id w e 8 t e m

on t h e

and r u r a l.

c u lt u r e ’s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
m id w e s t w a s d e f i n e d
c o r n b e lt
g r a in

w ere

t h e r e w as a v a r i e t y

o f a s m ost d e s i r ­

th is resea rch .

s e le c tio n

The f i r s t

w e r o t h a t t h e c o m m u n ity

F o l l o w i n g t h e D e p a r tm e n t o f A g r i o f a g r ic u lt u r a l r e g io n s ,

a s th e c o m b c lt a rea .

are fu r th e r c la s s if ie d

and l i v e s t o c k .

c o n c e iv e d

T he c o u n tie s in

a s g r a in ,

liv e s to c k ,

On t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t
o f m arket

th e r u r a l
th e

a n d m ix e d

a co u n ty in

w h ic h

c o n t a c t s w o u ld m o r e n e a r l y a p p r o x ­

im a te a t y o i c a l p a t t e r n i n t h e

r u r a l m id w e s t

th a n o n e i n

w h ic h

t h e r e v /a s a c o n c e n t r a t i o n o n o n e t y p e o f f a r m - m a r k e t r e l a t i o n ­
s h ip ,

th e

s e le c tio n

w as lim it e d

to

t h e m ix e d g r a i n a n d l i v e

s to c k c o u n tie s .
To i n s u r e

t h a t th e a r e a w as t y p ic a lly

t h a t w ere w ith in
o r m ore,

fo r ty

one m illio n ,
th a n 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 ,
le s s

a fifty

m ile

r a d iu s o f c i t i e s

m ile r a d iu s o f c i t i e s

th ir ty

m ile r a d iu s o f

and a tw e n ty m ile

th a n 1 5 0 ,0 0 0

r u r a l,

o f one m illio n

o f 4 0 0 ,0 0 0 b u t l e s s

c itie s

of

1 5 0 ,0 0 0

r a d iu s o f c i t i e s

w ere e lim in a te d .

a l l c o u n tie s

For th e

of

th a n

but l e s s
but

1 0 0 ,0 0 0

sa m e r e a s o n i t

w as

a s s u m e d t h a t a c o m m u n ity t h a t v /a s t o o f a r f r o m a m a j o r c e n t e r
o f p o p u la t io n w as h a r d ly t y p i c a l o f th e

r u r a l m id w e s t.

c o u n t i e s t h a t w e r e m ore th a n a o n e d a y t r i p
m ile s -

to

a m a jo r c i t y

w ere,

th e r e fo r e,

-

d e fin e d a s

A ll
1 2 5

e lim in a te d .

? h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h e b u d g e t an d t i m e m ad e i t

n ecessary

to

s e l e c t a c o m m u n ity o f m a n a g e a b le s i z e n o t

th e re se a r c h h ea d q u a r te r s.
c o u n tie s

in N eb rask a,

For t h is

K an sas,

to o d is t a n t

fr o m

rea so n th e c o m b e lt

M is s o u r i,

M in n e s o ta ,

and w e s te r n

Iow a w ore e lim in a t e d .
A ty p ic a l
c o u n ty

seat

e n v is a g e d a s o n e w h e r e in t h e

w as t h e c e n t e r o f a c t i v i t i e s f o r

p o r tio n o f th e
of

c o u n ty w as a l s o

c o u n ty .

th o se c o u n tie s

in

D e la te d

to

w h ic h t h e r e

a c o n s id e r a b le

t h i s w as t h e e lim in a t io n

w ere c i t i e s

o f su ch s i s o

th a t

t h e y m ade u p a m a j o r p o r t i o n

of

c o u n ty ,

d o m in a te t h e c o u n ty -c o m m u n ity .

and, h e n c e ,

L ik e w is e ,
th a n

th e

ten d ed to

th e t o t a l p o p u la tio n o f th e

c o u n t i e s w h ic h c o n t a i n e d
c o u n ty

seat

c o m m u n ity ,

c o m m u n it y w h i c h w a s n e i t h e r
n o n -fr r m .
th e

fir s t

To p r e v e n t
or la s t

as

w as in

it

wft 3 n e c e s s a r y

e x c lu s iv e ly

t h is th o so

q u a r tile

w h a t m ay b e c a l l e d
to

s e le c t a

c o u n t i e s w h ic h w e r e i n

w ith r e g a r d to

ty p ic a l.

In th e

sa m e w ay t h o s e c o u n t i e s t h a t

or

q u a r t i l e w ith r e g a r d

a g r ic u lt u r e w ere n o t c o n s id e r e d

to

w ore i n

a s c o m p u te d b y t h e D e p a r tm e n t o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,

s id e r e d

t o o f a r f r o m t h e norm t o

fir s t
of

w ere con­

be t y p ic a l o f c o m b e lt,

r u r a l,

s e a t c o m m u n itie s .

T h ere w ere tw e n ty -s e v e n c o u n t ie s in

by

th e

th e in d e x o f r u r a l l e v e l

liv in g ,

th e

e ith e r

th e p e r c e n t o f

engaged in

c o u n ty

a

fa r m n o r e x t e n s i v e l y

e m p lo y e d w o r k e r s

fo u r th

la r g e o r la r g e r

w ere e lim in a te d .

S in c e t h e p r im a r y i n t e r e s t
im r a l c o u n ty s e a t

c itie s

c r i t e r i a a lr e a d y in d ic a te d .
s e le c tin g th e

th ir te e n

t h e m id w e s t w h ic h m et

T h is l i s t

c o u n tie s n e a r e st

w&s f u r t h e r r e d u c e d
t h e m e d ia n i n p o p ­

-267u la tio n ,

p r o p o r tio n o f w ork ers en gaged in

in d e x o f r u r a l l e v e l
w ith

reg a rd to

m in o r itie s ,
S ix

o f liv in g .

n a tio n a l o r ig in s ,

w id e ly

ty p ic a l o f c o m b e lt
F ro m t h i s g r o u p

s tu d ie d

s i z e and t y p e o f t r a d i t i o n a l

se p a r a te d

c o u n tie s in

as

resp ect

to

th e sc e n e o f stu d y .

f o r p u r p o s e s o f a n o n y m ity i s
w ith in a

g e o g r a p h ic a r e a s w ore m o st

t h e c o u n ty m ost a c c e s s i b l e

c e n t e r w as s e le c t e d

D e tr o it,

T h ese w ere c a r e f u lly

and

a n d n a t u r e o f t h e t r a d e c e n t e r c o m m u n ity a r e a s .

c o u n tie s in

lo c a te d

a g r ic u ltu r e ,

c a lle d

th e se
to

fa c to r s.

th e r e se a r c h

T h is c o u n ty ,

M a p le C o u n t y ,

w h ic h

M id S ta te ,

t r a p e z o i d w h o s e f o u r c o m e r s a r e C h ic a g o ,

C o lu m b u s ,

and I n d ia n a p o lis .

is

A2P3EDIX 3

THE SCHEDULE AND HELIA3ILITY DATA

The f o l l o w i n g

in te r v ie w

str u c te d

fo r th e

h a s been

o n ly o n e p a r t .

fo r

w ith in

th e

. In ord er

and,

It

167 c o lle g e

not

to

o b t a in a n a p p r o x im a tio n o f
th is

s t u d e n t s ta k in g

e x p e r im e n t.

w e r e m ade b y g r o u p s o f

o p in io n

o f t h e ite m s u s e d

m any w h ic h d o n o t p r o p e r l y

co u rses in

S o c ia l S c ie n c e and

S t a t e C o lle g e w as s e le c t e d

The c o n d i t i o n s

stu d e n ts

in

of th e

s itu a tio n

th e

The o n ly

q u e s tio n s a r e

v a le n t

c la s r .e s

c la im

th a t

r e lia b le ,

to

t h e fo r m o f a p a p e r a n d p e n c i l
draw n fr o m

s o c ia l

t h e s a jip le p o p u la t io n d is c u s s e d

r e t e s t r e sp o n se s to

had b een p o s s ib le

b ecau se r e sp o n ses

r e g u la r c o l l e g e

m a n y a r e a s o f M i c h i g a n a n d f r o m m any k i n d s o f

research .

fo r a

e x p e r im e n t d id

The c o lle g e p o p u la tio n i t s e l f ,

d o e s n o t a p p r o x im a te

of

a s a m p le p o p u l a t i o n

q u e s tio n s p r e s e n te d in
s c h e d u le .

th e r e lia b ilit y

research ,

w h o lly a p p r o x im a te t h e r e s e a r c h

a ttitu d e

th e s is

s p h e r e o f t h e r e s e a r c h p r o b le m r e p o r t e d h e r e .

S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y a t M ic h ig a n
te st-r e te st

o f w h ic h t h i s

in c lu d e s a l l

th e r e fo r e ,

th e a t t it u d e ite m s u s e d in
of

t h a t w h ic h w a s c o n ­

to ta l research p r o je c t,

th e in te r v ie w

fa ll

s c h e d u le i s

m ay b e m ade i s

th e y
th o se

th a t,

s e ttin g s ,
in

th is

in s o fa r a s

s h o u l d p r o d u c e so m e w h a t e q u i ­
t h a t m ig h t b e o b t a i n e d i f

it

t o u s e a p o p u l a t i o n a n d m e th o d e q u i v a l e n t t o

th a t o f th e r e se a r c h .
The q u e s t io n s w ere p r e s e n t e d
a tw o w e e k i n t e r v a l . .
No d i s c u s s i o n i n
a d m in is tr a tio n o f

A ll c la s s e s

a t t h e b e g in n in g and end o f
r e c e iv e d u n ifo r m

c l a s s w as p e r m it t e d u n t i l a f t e r

in s tr u c tio n s .

th e

seco n d

th e q u e s tio n s .

T a b l e A s h o w s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f s t u d e n t s who m ad e n o

TABLE A

TEST HE-TEST PERPORMANCE OP COLLEGE STUDEHTS
ON STRUCTURED ATTITUDE QUESTIONS

Jew ish Item s

T o ta l
Number

Unchanged
No> P e r Cent

The tro u b le w ith m ost Jews
i s t h a t th ey th in k t h e y 'r e
b e t t e r th an o th e r p e o p le . 161

llh

I n must ev e ry th in g th e y do,
Jews t r y to p ush ah ead o f
everybody e l s e .
160

97

We sh o u ld se e to i t t h a t
n o t to o many Jews become
d o c to r s , la w y e rs, o r
te a c h e r s .

70.81

6 0 .6 3

70.81

P er Cent
of Maximum
D isagreem ent

N et D if­
fe re n c e

Ah .Heqnq

8.70

.07

13»13

.16

8 .23

.1 4

11.18

.11

l6 l

llh

Am ericans m ust be on g u ard
a g a in s t th e Jews g e t t i n g
to o much pow er.
l6 l

105

We would a l l be b e t t e r o f f
i f wo sh ip p ed th e Jews back
to P a l e s t i n e .
159

10h 65 . h i

11.64

.09

The Jew ish p eo p le a r e J u s t
a s h o n e s t, an d warm and
f r i e n d l y a s o th e r p e o p le .
165

125

75»?6

14*55

.0 4

I t i s a l l r i g h t w ith me i f
more Jew ish p eo p le move in ­
to my neighborhood.
164

109

66,k6

21.95

.0 7

G e n e ra lly sp eak in g , Negroes
a r e l a z y and ig n o r a n t.
164

110

67*07

9*76

.01

I t i s a good id e a t o keep
N egroes out o f w h ite n eig h s
b o rh o o d s.
164

114

69*51

8.99

.08

N egroes sh o u ld be encouraged
to v o te i n a l l e le c tio n s
t h a t w h ites v o te i n .
165

115

69*70

11.67

.0 5

65*22

N egro Ite m s

-2 7 1 TABLE A (CONTINUED)

TEST BE-TEST PERFORMANCE OP COLLEGE STUDENTS
ON STRUCTURED ATTITUDE QUESTIONS

Negro Item s (C ontinued)

T o tal
Number

Unchanged
No. P er Cent

P er Cent
o f Maximum
Digngreement

N et D iffe re n c e
i n Means

The tr o u b le w ith Negroes
w ith h ig h e r e d u c a tio n i s
t h a t th e y th in k th e y know
to o much.

164

120

73.17

7 .9 3

.10

The
p le
te r
th e

w h ite an d Negro peo­
would g e t a lo n g b e t­
i f th e y b o th a t e i n
same r e s t a u r a n t s .

166

113

6 8 .0 7

17*77

.14

I t \fould make no d i f f e r ­
ence to me i f I to o k a
Job where I h ad to ta k e
o rd e rs from a N egro.

163

107

65*64

23*93

.10

M exicans sh o u ld be p e r­
m itte d to become c i t i z e n s
and v o te th e same a s any­
body e l s e .

159

100

6 2 .8 9

12.5 8

.07

I t i s a good id e a to keep
Mexicans from moving in to
w h ite n eig h b o rh o o d s.

157

96

61.1 5

13*85

.0 6

I f more Mexicans want to
come to M ld S tate, th e y
sh o u ld be allo w ed t o e n t e r . 163

112

68.71

1 6 .2 6

.09

Mexicans sh o u ld be allo w ed
to e a t i n th e same r e s t a u ­
r a n t s w ith w hite p e o p le .

102

6 6 .2 3

21.75

»01

Mexican Item s

154

change in

th e ir

se c o n d tim e ,

r e s p o n s e s w h en t h e t e s t

th e a c tu a l d iffe r e n c e in

p o p u l a t i o n a s a v : h o lo ,

r e lia b ility

ta b le can g iv e

o f. t h e q u e s t i o n s ,

h ig h r e l i a b i l i t y .

s e v e n ty -fiv e p e r
c o n s id e r a b le

cen t fo r

s ta b ility

s a m p le m ea n s f o r t h e

e x p e r im e n t.

o f u n c h a n g e d r e s p o n s e s w o u ld
fa ir ly

a

a n d t h e p e r c e n t o f m axim um d i s a g r e e m e n t ' 1’

w h ic h o c c u r r e d d u r in g t h e
W h ile t h i s

w as a d m in is te r e d

in

o n ly a n a p p r o x im a tio n t o
t h e e v id e n c e o f

seem

to

in d ic a te

th e

th e p e r c e n ta g e
th a t

th ey a r e o f

T h is p e r c e n t a g e v a r i e s fro m s i x t y

to

t h e v a r io u s q u e s t io n s and i n d i c a t e s
in d iv id u a l c a s e s .

M aximum d i s a g r e e m e n t w a s a r b i t r a r i l y b a s e d o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n
t h a t a n y r e s p o n d e n t c o u l d c h a n g e a s m uch a s f o u r o r tw o s c a l e
s t e p s (d e p e n d in g o n t h e s c a l e u s e d f o r a p a r t i c u l a r it e m ) d u r­
in g t h e e x p e r im e n t.
T h u s, t h e b a s e f o r a n y f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e
i t e m w a s f o u r t i m e s t h e n u m b er o f s t u d e n t s who r e s p o n d e d t o
b o th a d m in is tr a tio n s o f th e ite m .
T h is f i g u r e w as th e n d i v i ­
d e d b y t h e sum o f t h e a c t u a l d i s c r e p a n c i e s ( t h a t i s , t h e n u m b er
o f s c a l e p o i n t s t h e r e s p o n d e n t s m oved a w a y f r o m p e r f e c t a g r e e ­
m e n t ) t o o b t a i n t h e p e r c e n t o f maximum d i s a g r e e m e n t ,
^he
t h r e e - p o in t s c a l e ite m s n e c e s s a r ily h ave la r g e r p e r c e n ta g e s o f
m axim um d i s a g r e e m e n t t h a n t h e f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e i t e m s , e v e n w hen
t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f u n c h a n g e d r e s p o n s e s r e m a i n s t h e sE m e, b e c a u s e
t h e s m a lle r s c a l e - r e d u c e s t h e am ount o f p o s s i b l e d is a g r e e m e n t ,
a n d , h e n c e , i n c r e a s e s t h e p e r c e n t a g e o f m axim um d i s a g r e e m e n t .
T h e m e th o d u s e d t o o b t a i n t h e m aximum d i s a g r e e m e n t s c o r e i s n o t
w h o lly a c c u r a t e .
I t w o u ld b e m o r e a c c u r a t e t o b a s o maximum
d is a g r e e m e n t on t h e a c t u a l fr e q u e n c y d i s t r i b u t i o n o f ea ch o f
th e q u e s tio n s .
I f t h i s w e r e d o n e i t w o u ld e i t h e r l o w e r o r
r a i s e t h e a m o u n t o f maximum d i s a g r e e m e n t .
H ow ever, a s u s e d ,
t h e m aximum d i s a g r e e m e n t c a l c u l a t i o n g i v e s so m e r o u g h i n d i ­
c a t i o n o f r e l i a b i l i t y b y s h o w in g som e i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e
c h a n g e s ta k in g p la c e i n th e in d iv id u a l r e s p o n s e s to th e
v a r io u s ite m s .
A P e r s o n i a u jr c o u l d n o t b e u s e d t o o b t a i n
t h e m ore u s u a l r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t s b e c a u s e t h e d i s t r i ­
b u t i o n s f o r t h e s e c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s w e r e e x t r e m e l y sk e w e d a n d ,
h e n c e , a n r b a s e d on th e a s s u m p tio n o f a n o rm a l p o p u la t io n
d id n ot ap p ear to b e j u s t i f i a b l e .

F or th e p u r p o se s o f t h i s

research ,

im p o r ta n t i n d i c a t o r o f r e l i a b i l i t y
d iffe r e n c e s in
to

.0 1

.1 6

in d ic a te
th is

pre-

fo r

th a t

t h e v a r io u b

if

th e

th a t o f

n ean s,

th e

t h e m ost
s n a il

T h ese ran ge fr o n

q u e s t i o n s a n d w o u ld s e e n t o

th e m a n ife s ta tio n

in s tr u m e n t i s

T hat i s ,

and p o s t - t e s t

is

how ever,

of

s e n tim e n ts by n c a n s o f

o f c o n s id e r a b le r e l i a b i l i t y

s a n n le o f s t u d e n t s i s

fo r gro u p s.

an a d e q u a te in d ic a t o r ,

t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e M a p le C o u n ty

s t u d y v /o u ld b e m uch t h e sa m e

if

to

it

w ere p r a c t i c a l l y

th e o r ig in a l

p o s s ib le

r e te st

s a m p le a t a n a p p r o x im a t e ly

th e r e sp o n d e n ts in

s im ila r p o in t in

tim e .

The r e s u l t s o b ta in e d by u s e o f th e maximum disagreem ent
s c o re a r e a ls o su g g e stiv e b u t a r e o f l e s s e r im portance th an
th e o th e r f in d in g s b ecau se o f th e l i m i ta tio n s o f th e method.

ICHIGAN
STATE
OLLEGE
5/ 5/ I #

1- 3 .

SOCIAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE
M.G.Comm.

INTERVIEW SCHEDULE

Schedule Number

DON'T ASK QUESTIONS 1 and 2 h u t RECORD.
li.

I s resp o n d en t male o r fem ale?

Male
1
F em ale_______ 2

5.

Where does resp o n d en t l i v e ?
(Give to w n sh ip , l o c a l i t y , s e c tio n , and ro a d o r s t r e e t num ber.)
Township
o r Town
__________________
L o c a lity N o .______________ _
S e c tio n and R o ad________________________________
or
S t r e e t and number

_______

BEGIN HERE
(In te rv ie w e r:
6.

P u t your name i n th e space b elo w .)

I a m _________
__ _ _ ______
from th e S o c ia l R esearch S e rv ic e
o f M ichigan S ta te C o lleg e and f would l i k e t o have some tim e to t a l k
to you ab o u t^g u r community. We a r e making a su rv ey o f s e le c te d n e ig h ­
borhoods in % m i County t o g a in an u n d e rsta n d in g o f th e o rg a n iz a tio n
o f a t y p i c a l r u r a l m idw estern community and t o le a r n what you p eo p le
th in k about c e r t a i n g ro u p s. Such knowledge i s im p o rta n t f o r us to
u n d erstan d p la c e s l i k e t h i s .
In th e f i r s t group o f q u e s tio n s we want t o know som ething about th e
towns you go t o . ( I f in town: About where you go down tow n.)
F i r s t I would l i k e t o know;

7.

Where (do) you do most o f y our tra d in g ?
:
(ASK RESIDENTS o f tow ns: Do you do most o f your tr a d in g h e re ? )

O th er, in d ic a te .
8.

1
2
3
k
5

On th e averag e about how o f te n do you go t o t h i s town?
(ASK TOWN RESIDENTS: On t h e ............do you go down town?)
D a ily o r more th a n once a day
__________ 1
Once a week o r more b u t l e s s th a n d a i l y ________ 2
Once a month o r more b u t l e s s th a n weekly.
3
L ess th a n once a month
__________ b

(6 0 5 1 )

9.

Where do you n e a r ly alw ays go when you go th e r e ?

,0.

IF RESPONDENT DOES NOT LIVE IN TOWN ASK: Who from th e r e comes to see you?
How o fte n ?
Name
F requency_______________________ __

LI.

cv
t n j , ir\

13.

h

L2.

3»K hfYWwn
On th e av erag e about.how o f te n do you go t o M B M n ?
I f r e s id e n t o f WmUiBMiA ASK: On th e . . . you do down town?
D a lly o r more th a n once a day
Once a week o r more h u t l e s s th a n d a i l y
Once a month o r more h u t l e s s th a n w eekly
L ess th a n once a month
N ever, p r a c t i c a l l y

Where do you n e a r ly alw ays go when you go th e r e ?

,

7oH A lS7^^y
IF DESPONDENT DOES NOT LIVE i n m m m m m a s k :
Who from th e r e comes t o see you? How o fte n ?
F reqency
Name

F o r t Wayne,
- 2 ______
- b ______
- 6 ______

___

15.

Are you m arried ?

(6 0 5 1 )

Yes
No

o

9 - 1 0 ______
11 - 15 ______
16 - 20 __________
More th a n 20 ______
Hone
______

ir \ v o .

7 - 8

H ; cvj,

3A» How many tim e s i n th e l a s t y e a r have you gone t o D e t r o i t, C hicago,
o r an y o th e r la r g e c i t y l i k e th a t?
1
3
5

16. Do you have c h ild re n ?

How many?

( C irc le c o r r e c t num ber.)

I f yea to 16 ask:
Do any go to sch o o l: I f y e s , where do th e y go?
What i s ( a re ) th e nam e(s) o f th e c h ild ( r e n ) in school?
What grade i s each in?

i

17.

G rade

Name o f C h i l d

Name o f S c h o o l

How lo n g have you liv e d h ere?

One
Two
„
Three
__
Four
__
F iv e
S ix
Seven o r more.
None
_

i

(your p r e s e n t re s id e n c e )
L ess th a n 2 y e a rs .
2 to k y e a rs
_
5 - 9 y o a rs
__
10
llf y e a rs
__
15 y e a rs to l i f e „„

18.

( I f l e s s th a n 15 y e a r s ) How many tim e s have you moved sin c e 1935?
Once
_
Twice
__
Threo tim es _
Four tim es
F ive ItIt
S ix
Seven o r more
None
_

19.

Where d id you grow up ( f o r th e most p a r t) ?
How la r g e a p la c e was i t ?
Name o f p la c e ___________________________
S t a t e _____________________________ _____
S iz e
__ __ ___________ ______________

20.

Where d id your w ife (o r husband) grow up?
Name o f p la c e _____
S ta te
S ize .

21.

Were e i t h e r o f your p a r e n ts b o rn in a f o re ig n country?

( 6051 )

19.

20

Yes, b o th __
Yes, F ath er.„
Yes, M other..
N e ith e r
—

£2-25.

jlf-25.

What do you (o r y our husband) do f o r a liv in g ? Do you (o r husband) have any
o th e r means o f making a liv in g ? Do you (o r w ife ) work away from home?
I f y e s , what d o (e s) you (sh e) do?
1 s t O ccupation
2nd O ccupation
Man

22.

Woman

23.

(IF NEITHER FARMER OR FARM LABORER) Where do you (e n d /o r y our husband) work?
1. Husband - Employer_______________________P la c e ___________________________
2.

>4a.

26.

Wife

Employer..

P la c e

(IF A FARM LABORER) I s th e p e rso n you work f o r a r e l a t i v e o f yours?
F a th o r
O ther r e l a t iv e .
No r e l a t i o n
No resp o n se __

.

..1
2
3
0

(IF NOT A FARMER) How many tim e s in th e l a s t 15 y e a rs have you (o r has your
husband) changed ty p e o f work? (Got d a ta f o r man o n ly )
.1
Once_________ ___
2
Twice
___
Throe tim es ___
3
Four
"
___ ...... h
G
F iv e
"
6
S ix
"
Seven o r more
„.. 7
o
None

26a. (IF FARMER a sk Q u estio n s 26a-31. IF NOT A FARMER go on to Q uestion 32) Have
you (o r h as y our husband) done any o th e r ty p e o f work in th e l a s t 15 y e a rs?
I f y e s , how many o th e r ty p e s o f work have you (o r h as he) done?
No
0
One................. .....—......... 1
Two.
2
Three
______ 3
Four
^
F iv e o r m ore_____ 5
27.

How many a c re s do you (your husband) farm?

28.

Do you r e n t o r own?

29.

IF OWN, I s your farm c l e a r o r a re you buying i t ?

6051 )

27..
Own a l l
R ent a l l
B oth
No response.,
C lear
Buying
No response™

....1

2
3
0
.. 1
„2
...0

-5 -

Do you
I f NO,

( o r your husband) and y o u r fa m ily do a l l y our own farm work?
Howmuch f u l l tim e and p a r t- tim e h e lp do you have?
Yes
One hand In busy seaso n
S e v e ra l in busy season
One hand f u l l tim e
One hand f u l l tim e and e x tr a h e lp in busy season
Two f u l l
tim e men
More th a n two f u l l tim e men

_________ 1
2
3
b
________ 5
6
J

I f you were t o compare y our farm o p e ra tio n s to th o se o f o th e r farm ers In
t h i s County would you c o n s id e r y o u rs t o be l a r g e r th a n a v e ra g e , a v e ra g e ,
or s m a lle r th a n av erag e?
L a rg e r th a n average
Average
S m aller th a n average
No o p in io n
No re sp o n se

1
.2
3
It
.0

I WOULD l i k e t o a s k you a few q u e s tio n s a b o u t th e o rg a n iz a tio n s around
e . F i r s t ab o u t th e ch u rc h .
-33.

Would you mind t e l l i n g me what r e l i g i o n you (and your husband o r w ife )
c o n s id e r y o u r s e lf ? I f p r o t e s t a n t , what denom ination? 32-Man
33-Woman
„1
1 . C a th o lic
„.....2
2 . M eth o d ist E p isc o p al
3 . E v a n g e lic a l U n ited B re th ren
__3
B a p tis t
__ 5
5 . P r e s b y te r ia n , E p isc o p a l
6 . R u ra l In te r-D e n o m in a tio n a l
........6
F
ree
M
eth
o
d
ist
o
r
W
esleyan
7.
__.7
8 . H o lin e ss and r e l a t e d S e c ts (su ch a s Church o f
C h r i s t , Assembly o f God, M ission T a b e rn a c le ,
.8
Church o f God)
9
9 . C o n g reg atio n al
A d v e n tist
x.
x
y
y. O th e r, name___________________________________
o
o . None

35.

What church were you ( o r spouse) bro u g h t up in ?
3*t-M an

1.
2.
3.
U.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
x.
y,
0.

51)

C a th o lic
M ethodist E p isc o p al
E v a n g e lic a l o r U n ited B re th re n
B a p tis t
P r e s b y te r ia n , E p isc o p a l
A n a b a p tist (& n ish , M ennonite, Church o f th e
B re th re n , i e . , Dunfcard)
F ree M ethodist o r W esleyan
H o lin ess and r e l a t e d S e c ts (su ch a s Church o f
C h r is t, Assembly o f God, M ission T a b e rn a c le ,
Church o f God)
C o n g reg atio n al o r C h r is tia n
A d v e n tist
O th e r, name__________________ ________________
None

35-W om an

1

2
______ 3
_________ it

5

6
7

8
..9
_x

..y
...o

-6 ( I f e it h e r s p o u se , o r b o th , h a s any r e lig io n s
32)
WHAT PART DO YOU TAKE IN CHURCH?

J6-37.

1.
2,
3*.
h.
5 .
6

.

7.
8 .

c o n n e c tio n s a s in d ic a te d in
3 6 -M a n
37-W om an

1

B e lo n g b e c a u s e h e f e e l s o b li g e d t o s u p p o r t
S u p p o r ts c h u r c h , b u t d o e s n o t a tte n d
B e lo n g an d a t t e n d o c c a s i o n a l l y b u t n o t a c t i v e
A t t e n d r e g u l a r l y , b u t n o t a m em ber
A c t iv e m em ber, a t t e n d r e g u l a r l y , b u t n o t o n e
who h a s o f f i c i a l d u t i e s in c h u r c h .
A c t iv e m em ber, a t t e n d s r e g u l a r l y , and u s u a l l y
h a s so m e o f f i c i a l p o s i t i o n i n c h u r c h .
M in is te r
N one ( a s in 3 2 )

2

3
u

6
7
0

( I f e i t h e r s p o u s e h a s a c h u r c h c o n t a c t A SK ) A b o u t how o f t e n h a v e y o u
g o n e t o c h u r c h i n t h e l a s t 6 m o n th s?
( M u lt ip le a tte n d a n c e on a Sunday
Borne a s s i n g l e a t t e n d a n c e ) .
3 8 -M a n
39-W om an
1.
E v e r y S u n d a y o r m o r e t h a n 8 0 $ ________________________ ___________
2.
M ore t h a n h a l f b u t l e s s t h a n 8 0 $
___________
3 . L e s s t h a n h a l f b u t m o r e t h a n 20j6
___________
U.
O nce o r t w i c e - l e s s t h a n 2 0 $
___________
0.
N o n e __________________________________________________________ ____________

38-39.

( I f r e lig io u s id e n tific a tio n
U 0-M an
1.
D o n 't g o

is

W h ere d o y o u p e o p l e g o t o
U l-W om an
1.
D o n 't g o

g iv e n )

2.

1
2

3
14
0

church?
40

2.

NOW I WOULD L IK E TO KNOW ABOUT SOME OP THE WELL KNOWN PEOPLE
in
county .
1*2

.

Who w o u ld y o u s a y a r e
t h e im p o r ta n t p e o p le
in t h i s c o u n ty ?

^3 .

Why i s h e ( e a o h )
im p o r ta n t ?

M .

How m any t i m e s h a v e
y o u t a l k e d w i t h h im
in th e l a s t y ea r?

_____________
1

.

2

.

4 3 __________
lfl*___________
3 ..
^

15.

Who a r e t h e i m p o r t a n t p e o p l e i n t h i s
l o c a l i t y ( n e i g h b o r h o o d ) . ( F u l l nam e)
Any o t h e r s ?

i*

6

.

Why d o f o l k s t h i n k t h i s
im p o r ta n t?

p erso n

is

1.
**5___________
2

.

3

h

6051 )

k6___________

-7 -

1*7-52.

Ask th e s e q u e s tio n s f o r b o th husband and w ife i f resp o n d en t i s m a rrie d ,
R epeat A8-52 f o r each o r g a n iz a tio n . When a sk in g 1*7 probe to g e t them
by a sk in g "Any farm o r g a n iz a tio n s ? Any Lodges? Any S erv ic e Clubs?
Local c lu b s? " For 1*8-50 probe w ith "Are you a c tiv e o r n o t? " , "Do you
hold o f f ic e ? "

1*7.

BESIDES THE CHURCH,
WHAT ORGANIZATIONS
DO YOU BELONG TO?
(Your husband o r .
wife)
Mon's O rg a n iz a tio n s
1. Farm Bureau
2. Grange
3. R u ral Youth
. Mason
5. Oddfellows
6. E lks
7. L io n ' s Club
8. R otary
9, Kiwanis
10. Chamber o f
Commerce
U . P.T .A .
12, Community Club
13. American Legion
l 1*. Labor Union
15. Men's Church group
16, O ther ( name)
53.
Women's O ro a n iz atio n a
1. Farm Bureau Women
2. Grange
3. R ural Youth
1*. E a ste rn S ta r
5. Bebeocas
6 , Home E x ten sio n Club
7. P.T .A .
8, Community Club
9. W.C.T.U.
10. Labor Union
U , C hild Study Club
12, Legion A u x ilia ry
13. L a d ie s ' Aid o r
M issionary S o o iety
l1*. Bridge o r o th e r
s im ila r Club
15. Sewing o r o th e r
s im ila r clu b
[6. O ther ( name)

( 6 O5 1 )

1*8-50
WHAT PART DO YOU TAKE IN THIS?
A ctiv e
Q u ite a c tiv e
Belong member b u t
and g e n e r a l­
b u t n o t n o t one who ly have some
h o ld s o f f ic e o f f i c i a l
v ery
p o s itio n
a c tiv e r e g u la r ly

■

51. WHAT
PROPORTION
OF THE
MEETINGS
HAVE YOU AT­
TENDED IN
LAST YEAR?

52.
WHERE
DOES
THIS
MEET?
(P la c e )

4-

57

58

•

-8-

59.

Supposing you had th e tim e a r e th e r e any o th e r o rg a n iz a tio n s i n th e county
t h a t you would l i k e t o j o i n i f you were in v ite d ?
1 . No
59..
2 . I f Yes, which o n e?_________________________________________________

60.

I f f o r some re a so n you co u ld he i n o n ly one o rg a n iz a tio n , which o f th e
ones you b elo n g t o now would you l e a s t want t o g iv e up? ( I f church i s
g iv en , ASK any o th e r )

60.

What k in d s o f p eo p le a re t h e r e around h e re t h a t you would n o t want i n
t h i s o rg a n iz a tio n ?
1 . Would want them a l l i n
2.

61.

61.

62.

Why w o u ld n 't you want them in ?

62 .
63.

Of a l l th e o rg a n iz a tio n s i n th e county which ones do you th in k a re most
im p o rta n t, t h a t i s , have th e m ost in flu e n c e i n th e community?
63____

6h~65.

What o rg a n iz a tio n s a re th e r e i n th e county t h a t you would n o t jo in
even i f you had th e tim e?
1
2 . ____________________

. „ _______

66- 67.

Why w o u ld n 't you jo in i t ?
1 s t o r g a n i z a t i o n ___________________________________________________
2nd o r g a n i z a t i o n ________________ .----------------------------------------------------

__

6k

65.____
6 6 ------67-------

Some of th e im p o rta n t r e l a t io n s h i p s betw een p eo p le a re th e v e ry in fo rm a l ones which
we o fte n do n o t th in k much a b o u t. I n o rd e r t o l e a r n som ething about th e s e , I would
lik e to have you t e l l me some o f th e p eo p le you know and a s s o c ia te w ith . What you
say w i l l n o t be p asse d on t o any o f your f r ie n d s .
People o f te n s to p i n a t t h e i r frie n d s * homes, o r c a l l them on th e te le p h o n e .
Who around h e re do you (and your husband o r w ife) o f te n drop i n to see o r c a l l
on th e te le p h o n e? (Get f u l l nam es.)
M a n 's B e s p o n s e

W om an 's B e s p o n s e

1.

1 . _________________________

2

2 ._______________

k _________________________________________4 . _______ _______________
I f you were hav in g some f o lk s i n t o Sunday d in n e r, who would you be most
l i k e l y t o i n v i t e o u ts id e your im m ediate fa m ily .
1 . _______________________________________
2 . __________________________________________

(6 0 5 1 )

I f t h e r e w as a n Im p o r ta n t q u e s t io n t o b e d e c id e d a b o u t th e
b e a b le t o g iv e t h e b e s t a d v ic e a b o u t t h e q u e s tio n ?

s c h o o l s , w ho w o u ld

1.
2 . ___________________________________
I f a f e w p e o p l e g o t t o g e t h e r t o c o n s i d e r w ho s h o u l d b e y o u r P a r t y ' s c a n d i d a t e
f o r t o w n s h i p s u p e r v i s o r , w ho w o u ld b e m o s t l i k e l y t o b e t h e r e ?

I* _________ __________________________ ___ _

B y t h e w a y , w h a t P a r t y d o y o u c o n s i d e r y o u r s e l f t o b e a m em ber o f ?
R e p u b lic a n
____
D e m o c r a tic
____
O t h e r ................. .......
........
I n d e p e n d e n t _____________ ____
N o R e s p o n s e _____________ ____
I f t h e r e w a s d i s c u s s i o n a b o u t so m e c h u r c h p r o b l e m , w h o a r o u n d h e r e c o u l d
g iv e th e b e s t a d v ic e a b o u t i t ?

2

.__________________

W hat k i n d s o f p e o p l e a r e t h e r e
b e t t e r o f f w ith o u t?

th a t th is

c o u n t r y ( t h e U . S . ) w o u ld r e a l l y b e

69_
A re t h e r e a n y k in d s o f p e o p l e
so o n n o t h a v e around?

l i v i n g a r o u n d h e r e t h a t f o l k s w o u ld j u s t a s

7 0 ____

W hat d o y o u t h i n k

s h o u ld b e d o n e a b o u t s u c h p e o p le ?

7 1 ____
W hat k i n d s o f p e o p l e a r e t h e r e i n t h e U . S . t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o t a k e
a d v a n ta g e o f p e o p le l i k e y o u i n a b u s in e s s d e a l?

72..

H ave y o u h a d a n y d e a l i n g s w i t h p e o p le

lik e

th a t?

I f y e s , W hat k in d ?

73

-1 0 -

7ft.

DON'T ASK OF DECENT SOUTHERN MIGRANTS.
In r e c e n t y ears^ & g o o d many p e o p le from Kentucky and o th e r s t a t e s in th e South
have come
t o l i v e . I n g e n e r a l, how do you f e e l ab o u t th e s e peo p le

7ft____
75.

Some p e o p le a r e b r in g in g some d is p la c e d p e rso n s from Europe i n t o th e county
to h e lp w ith
th e farm work. Haveyou h e a rd about
it?
IF YES,Can you r e c a l l how you
No
x
f i r s t h e a rd ab o u t i t ?
N eighbors o r
f r ie n d s
2
Newspaper
______ 3
M eeting
ft
______ 5
Church
( In d ic a te ) O ther
6

76.

I f 2 -3 - o r ft above, g e t name o f s o u rc e .
Who?
What p ap er?
What m eeting?

77*

' ----------

What do. you t h in k sh o u ld be done about some d is p la c e d p erso n s coming
to M i l County?

77
78
7

Sometime ago i t . was. r e p o r te d t h a t Some Negro f a m ilie s were i n t e r e s t e d
in moving t o
h e a r an y th in g ab o u t t h i s ?
D

i d

y

o

IF YES, Can you r e c a l l how you
f i r s t h e a r ab o u t
it?

N eighbors o r
f r ie n d s
Newspaper
M eeting
Church
( I n d ic a te ) O ther

79.

i

u

I f 2 -3 - o r ft above, g e t name o f s o u rc e .
Who?
What P aper?
What M eeting?

2
______ 3
ft

5
6
^

80. What do you th in k sh o u ld have been done about t h i s ?

80.

I f a Negro fa m ily was p la n n in g t o move o n to th e farm _ o r ( i f
)
i n to a home n e x t d o o r, do you t h i n k a n y th in g sh o u ld be done about i t
o r n o t?
No
D o n 't know
I f Yes, What do you t h in k sh o u ld be done?

(6 0 5 1 )

81

-1 1 '

.

I f a Jew ish p e rso n was t r y i n g t o buy th e b ig g e s t s to r e i n town do you th in k
an y th in g sh o u ld be done a b o u t i t o r n o t?
1. No.
2. D o n 't know.
8 2 _____
3 . I f Yes, What do you th in k sh o u ld be done?
Who around h e re would have good Judgment ab o u t Jew s, N egroes, f o r e ig n e r s , and
such people?
1.
2 . ______________________________

-8U.

83.

What o rg a n iz a tio n s a r e th e r e i n th e county t h a t do n o t ta k e in people
b ecause o f t h e i r r a c e , r e l i g i o n , o r f o r e ig n background?
None
D o n 't know

81f.

What groups a r e excluded?

3 ..
k.,

5*.
The fo llo w in g q u e s tio n i s t o be r e p e a te d f o r each group. A f te r ask in g "Have
you . . . . ? " f o r each group, ASK "What ty p e . . . , ? " and th e n q u e s tio n 89-92.

•88.

Have you had any ty p e o f a c t u a l c o n ta c t w ith Jew s, (N egroes), M exicans),
(Labor Union members)? IP YES, what ty p e o f c o n ta c t? (D e a lt w ith them,
worked w ith them , liv e d n e x t t o , e t c . )
85
86
87
88
Jews Negroes Mexicans Labor Union members
1 . B u sin ess d e a lin g s
2 . Employed them
3 . Worked f o r them
If. Worked w ith on Job
5 . Lived n e x t t o them
6 . I n same o rg a n iz a tio n
7. C lose f r ie n d s
8 . P lay ed w ith when a c h i l d
9. A s s o c .in M il i t a r y S e rv ic e
x . M arried in t o fa m ily
y . O ther ( __________________ )
0 . No c o n ta c t
F o r each group w ith which r e ­
spondent h as had any c o n ta c t,
ASK:

92.

W ere y o u r e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h Jew£
( N e g r o e s ) , ( M e x i c a n s ) , (L a b o r
U n io n m e m b e r s )

1 . P le a s a n t
2 . No d i f f e r e n t th a n w ith
o th e r p eople
3 . U npleasant
(Cheek i n c o r r e c t p l a c e .)

' 89

90

91

92

-1 2 -

Q u e s tio n s 9 3 ~ H 3 f o l l o w .
In s tru c tio n s : Hand ca rd w ith s ta te m e n ts on to R espondent. I n d ic a te which p e rso n ,
if both hushand and w ife o re p r e s e n t. P u t a c i r c l e around 1 , 2 , h , and 5 to in d ic a te
the degree o f agreem ent o r disag reem en t w ith th e s ta te m e n t. Say: "Here i s a l i s t
of statem en ts t h a t p eo p le have d i f f e r e n t o p in io n s ab o u t. I would l i k e f o r you to
t e l l me what you th in k ab o u t each one."
Road th e sta te m e n t w ith th e r e s n o n s e n t. " F i r s t " . . . .
|l.

I f i t wasn’ t f o r f o re ig n -b o rn a g i t a t o r s we w o u ld n 't
have so much la b o r tr o u b le .

S tro n g ly .A g re e ________1
Agree
2
C a n 't docide
_______ 3
D isag ree
k
S tro n g ly D isa g re e ______ 5
_______ 0
No Response

Refugees sh o u ld bo k ep t o u t o f th o co u n try because th e y ta k e
Jobs away from A m ericans,
S tro n g ly Agree _______ 1
Agroo
2
C a n 't d ecid e
_______ 3
D isag ree
_______
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _____ 5
No Rosponso
0
5.

Tho tro u b le w ith most Jows i s t h a t th e y th in k th e y a re b e t t o r
th a n o th e r p eo p le .
S t r o n g l y A g r o e ____
2
A gree
C a n 't d e c id e
___ ____ 3
D is a g r o e
____ ____ i+
S t r o n g ly D is a g r o e
___/
No R e sp o n se
____ ___ 0

G en erally spooking, N egroes a re la z y and ig n o ra n t.

In most e v e ry th in g th e y do, Jews t r y to push ahoad o f
everybody e l s e .

(6 0 5 1 )

S tr o n g ly A gree
____ ____ 1
A groe
------ ____ 2
C a n 't d e c id e
____ ___ 3
D is a g r o e
____ ___ JS t r o n g l y D i s a g r e e __ ____ ✓
No R e sp o n se
------ ___ .0

S tro n g ly Agree
Agree
C a n 't d ecide
D isagree
_
S tro n g ly Disagree_
No Response

J.
...2
3
k

30

-13-

S tro n g ly Agree
Agree
Can1t d ecid e
_
D isag ree
_
S tro n g ly D isagree.
No Response

We should see to i t t h a t n o t to o many Jows become d o c to r s , la y y o rs ,
o r te a c h e r s .
S tro n g ly Agree
Agree
C a n 't d ecid e
„
D isag ree
_
S tro n g ly D isagree
No Response

b b . M oTo
t V

Most la b o r u n io n s hove to o much pow er.

ovn -p-U. ro w

The most im p o rtan t th in g to te a c h c h ild ro n i s a h s o lu te obedience o t
t h e i r p a r e n ts .
S tro n g ly Agree
Agree
C a n 't d ecide
D isagree
S tro n g ly D isagreo.
_
No Response

(

S tro n g ly Agreo __
Agroe
—
C a n 't d ecide
_
D isag ree________ _
S tro n g ly D is a g re e ..
No Response

b b lrU b W

The Communist P a r ty Bhould bo outlaw ed i n t h i s c o u n try .

Americans must bo on g u ard a g a in s t th e Jews g e t t i n g to o much power.
S tro n g ly Agree
Agreo
C a n 't decide
D isgaree
S tro n g ly D isagree
No Response

b b W b lo W

0.

S tro n g ly Agree __
Agroe
—
C a n 't d ecid e
D isagree________ __
S tro n g ly D isag ree..
No Response

b u .W b .b w

I t i s a good id e a t o keep N egroes o u t o f w h ite n e ig h b o rh o o d s..

12.

Mexicans should be p e rm itte d t o become c i t i z e n s and v o te th e same a s
anybody e l s e .
S tro n g ly Agree
1
Agree
^
Can’t d ec id e
----------- 3
D isag ree
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _______ 5
No Response
P

13.

Most la b o r u n io n s a re Communist c o n tr o lle d .

S tro n g ly Agree

1

Agree
2
Can’t d ecid e
_______ 3
D isag ree
^
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _______5
No Response
0
Ik.

We would a l l be b e t t e r o f f i f we sh ip p ed th e Jews back t o P a le s tin e .
S tro n g ly Agree
_
2
Agree
—
C a n 't d ecid e
_______3
D isag ree
^
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _______5
No Response

15.

Negroes sh o u ld be encouraged to v o te i n a l l e le c tio n s t h a t w h ite s v o te i n .
S tro n g ly Agree
---------- 1
Agree
^
_______ 3
C a n 't d ecid e
D isag ree
**■
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _______5
No Response
P

16.

I t i s a good id e a t o

keep

Mexicans from moving in t o w h ite neighborhoods.
1
S tro n g ly Agree
----2
Agree
---C a n 't d ecid e
_______3
D isag ree
5
S tro n g ly D is a g re e _______5
No Response
0

17.

The tr o u b le w ith
know to o much.

(

6051)

N e g ro e s

who have h ig h e r e d u c a tio n i s t h a t th e y th in k t h y
S tro n g ly Agree
____ _
Agree
\
C a n 't d ecid e
_______3
D isag ree
£
S tro n g ly D is a g re e
...... 5
No Response

18.

Most c rim in a ls a re I t a l i a n s o r o th e r f o r e ig n e r s .
S tr o n g ly a g r e e
__________
A g r e e _________________ __________
C a n 't d e c id e
_______;___
D is a g r e e
k
S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e __________ 5
No R esp o n se
__________ 0

L9.

Y ou s h o u l d n e v e r

J u d g e a m an b y h i s

race or r e lig io n .
S tr o n g ly A gree
__________
A gree
C a n 't d e c id e
D is a g r e e
S t r o n g ly D is a g r e e
No r e s p o n s e

20.

21

.

T h ere a r e tw o k in d s o f p e o p l e ,

th e w eak an d th e

str o n g .
__
S tr o n g ly a g r e e
A gree
„
C a n 't d e c id e
D is a g r e e
S t r o n g ly D is a g r e e
No r e s p o n s e

(A s k o f n o n - C a t h o l i c s ) A m e r ic a n m u s t b e o n g u a r d a g a i n s t t h e p o w e r o f t h e
C a t h o lic C hurch?
S tr o n g ly a g r e e
A gree
C a n 't d e c id e
______
D is a g r e e
______
S t r o n g l y d i s a g r e e ______
No r e s p o n s e
______

JSE CARD
H e r e a r e so m e m o r e q u e s t i o n s o n w h i c h p e o p l e h a v e d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s .
Y ou
nay d i s a g r e e w i t h so m e o f t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s a n d y o u m a y a g r e e w i t h o t h e r s .
I f y o u d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t , I w i l l m a rk " I D i s a g r e e " .
I f y o u a r e n o t s u r e o r c a n n o t q u i t e a g r e e w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t , I w i l l m a rk
'I c a n n o t q u i t e a g r e e " .
I f y o u a g r e e c o m p l e t e l y w i t h t h e s t a t e m e n t , I w i l l m a rk " I a g r e e c o m p l e t e l y " .
Q u e s t io n s 1 1 4 - 1 1 9 . f o l l o w :
1.

I f m ore m e x ic a n s w a n t t o

2.

T he J e w i s h p e o p l e a r e

[(6 0 5 1 )

co m e t o

t h e y s h o u ld b e a llo w e d t o e n t e r ,
I d i s a g r e e __________ ______
I c a n n o t q u i t e a g r e e ____
I a g r e e c o m p l e t e l y _______

J u s t a s h o n e s t a n d w arm a n d f r i e n d l y a s o t h e r p e o p l e .
I d is a g r e e
I c a n n o t q u i t e a g r e e __
I a g r e e c o m p l e t e l y _____

5,

Tho w h i t e a n d N e g r o p e o p l e w o u ld g e t
r esta u r a n ts.

a lo n g " b e tte r i f

th e y b o th a te

in th e

sam e

No
_
I can n ot q u ite agreo
I a g r e o c o m p l e t e l y __
If,

" it i s

.1

2
'.3

a l l r i g h t w i t h mo i f m o r e J e w i s h p e o p l e m ove i n t o my n e i g h b o r h o o d " .
I d is a g r o o

____

I cannot q u ite ag ro e______ 2
I ag ree co m p letely ________ 3
5. " i t would make no d iffo ro n c o to mo i f I to o k a job where I had to ta k e o rd e rs
from a N egro".
______ 1
I t would make no d if f e r e n c e
I t would make a l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e
2
I t would malco a d if f e r e n c e
______ 3
5.

M e x ic a n s B h o u ld b e a l l o w e d t o

oat

in th o

sa m e r e s t u a r a n t s w i t h w h i t e p e o p l e .

I d is a g re e ________________ 1
I cannot q u ite a g r o e
2
I agroe co m p letely ________ 3
Now I would l i k e to a sk you o few more q u e s tio n s .
the resp o n d en t h a s . )

(Ask f o r th e c a rd which

120. Have you h o ard t h a t th o U nitod S t a t e s r e c e n tl y approvod a $100 m illio n lo a n
to th e New Jew ish S ta te o f I s r a e l ? (P ause) I f Yes, where d id you hoar
about i t ?
H a v e n ’ t h e a r d a b o u t i t _______ 1
N e w s p a p e r s ______________________ 2

___________ ____ _3
Radio
N eighbors - f rio n d s _______ 4
O ther ( In d ic a te
_______ 5

121. Do you th in k t h i s was th o r i g h t th in g to do o r th e wrong th in g to do?
R ig h t t h i n g ______ 1
Wrong t h i n g ______ 2
D o n 't know ______ 3

(6051 )

-1 7 L2 2 .

Do y o u t h i n k i t w o u ld "bo a g o o d t h i n g o r a "bad t h i n g i f a l l e m p l o y e r a h i r e d
p e o p le w it h o u t r e g a r d f o r t h e i r r e l i g i o n , n a t i o n a l i t y , o r r a c e ?

Good t h i n g
B ad th in g

1
______ 2

D o n 't know
L23.

3

What w o u ld y o u t h i n k a b o u t t h o S t a t o L e g i s l a t u r e i n M ic h ig a n p a s s i n g a l a w
w h ic h w o u ld r e q u i r e e m p l o y e r s t o h i r e p e o p l e w i t h o u t r e g a r d f o r t h e i r r e l i g i o n ,
n a tio n a lity , or race?
G ood t h i n g
1
B a d t h i n g _______ 2
D o n 11 k n o w
3

12U.

How s t r o n g l y d o y o u f o o l t h a t s o m o t h i n g s h o u l d b o d o n e t o w ip o o u t d i s c r i m i ­
n a tio n and p r e ju d ic o a g a in s t m in o r ity g r o u p s?
W o u ld y o u s a y , v e r y s t r o n g l y ,
f a ir ly s tr o n g ly , n o t so s t r o n g ly , o r n o t s tr o n g ly a t a ll?
V ory s t r o n g ly
_______ 1
F a i r l y s t r o n g l y _______2
N o t s o s t r o n g l y ______3
N ot a t a l l
k

NOW A FEW F IN A L QUESTIONS TO GET SOME INFORMATION WE NEED ABOUT YOU.
125.

What n o w a p a p o r s d o y o u r o a d r u t h o r r e g u l a r l y ?

2
O th e r l o c a l
L arger c it y
Name o f l a r g e
126.

c ity

n ew sp a p er

3
^
____ 5

p a p e r . ______________________________

W hat m a g a z i n e s d o y o u r o a d m o ro o r l o s s

r e g u la r ly ?

126_____
127,

(H and c a r d t o r o s p o n d o n t . )
I f y o u w ore a s k e d t o u s e o n e o f t h e s e
f o r y o u r s o c i a l c l a s s , w h i c h w o u ld y o u s a y y o u b e l o n g e d i n ?

f o u r nam es

M id d le c l a s s
______ 1
L ow er c l a s s
______ 2
W o r k in g c l a s s
3
U pper c l a s s
h
No o p in io n
...... ✓

1
(6051 )

-1 8 128.

W hat w a s t h e nam e o f t h e

la s t

s c h o o l y ou a tte n d e d ?

A bout w h at g r a d e d id y o u c o m p le te t h e r e ?
1

2

3

k

5

6

7

8

9

1 0

1 1

1 2

1 3

Ik

1 5

128

(E n c ir c le )

1 6

I n a l l s t u d i e s o f t h i s s o r t w e u s u a l l y w a n t t o k n ow a b o u t w h a t in c o m e t h e
p e o p le h a v e s o t h i s c a n b e u s e d a s a b a s i s f o r c o m p a r is o n .
USE CARD.
129.

I n w h i c h o f t h e s e b r a c k e t s w o u ld y o u s a y y o u r ( f a m i l y ) y e a r l y in c o m e f a l l s ?
( I f fa r m e r , ad d :
’’T h a t i s , a f t e r y o u r f a r m b u s i n e s s e x p e n s e s a r e p a i d , " )
( I f h u sb a n d an d w i f e h a v e s e p a r a t e in c o m e s , i n d i c a t e b o t h ; i f s i n g l e ,
i n d i c a t e u n d e r m an o r w o m a n .)
I f F a m ily
C heck h e r e

irwo
!
I

(a n d y o u r h u sb a n d o r w i f e ) ?
s

|

131 ----

!

I

1 3 2 _____

W hat d o y o u a n d y o u r f a m i l y r a t h e r f r e q u e n t l y d o f o r r e c r e a t i o n ?
:

H
cj

!
i
:

tr\
i
1

: !

vo c~-co o\ x >1

:
i
:

D a n c in g
C ard p l a y i n g
M o v ie s
S h o p p in g
A th le tic a c t i v i t i e s
C hurch S o c i a l
a c tiv itie s
V is it in g fr ie n d s
R e a d in g
L is t e n t o r a d io
Go t o t a v e r n
O th e r
I n d ic a te
No r e s p o n s e

(6 0 5 1 )

^
___

cu 00

Wo
W o r ld War I
W o r ld War I I

i

A b o u t how o l d a r e y o u
M a n __________
W om an_______

s e r v i c e d u r in g e i t h e r
h

133.

O ver $ 1 0 ,0 0 0
$ 5 , 0 0 0 - $9,999
$ 3 , 0 0 0 - $1^,999
$ 2 ,0 0 0 - $ 2 ,9 9 9
$ 1 ,0 0 0 - $ 1 ,9 9 9
U nder $ 1 ,0 0 0

D id y o u ( o r y o u r h u s b a n d ) h a p p e n t o b e i n m i l i t a r y
W o r ld W ar?
*

1 3 1 -1 3 2 .

s i n g l e woman
C heck h e r e

01

13 0 .

If

h

A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.

I f s i n g l e m an
C heck h e r e

APF3SDIX C

A TEST OF Tin: AS SUM 'TIC1':'. OF HOKOGEilFIF

OF VAPJAiTC

-2 7 5 One m a j o r a s s u m p t i o n f o r t h e
th a t

th e v a r ia n c e w ith in g ro u p s

s tr ic t

s t a t i s t i c a l approach

of

v a r ia n c e .

is

th e

s h o u l d h e m ade b e f o r e a p p l y i n g

a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e i s
h om o g en eo u s.

te st of

th e F t e s t

T h is w as n o t d on e in

p r e s e n ta tio n

of

o n a num ber o f

t h e d a ta , i n c l u d e d

th is

r e sea rc h b ecau se th e

s e p a r a te k in d s o f t o t a l p r e ju d ic e

su b -g r o u p s a s w e ll a s u t i l i s e d

th e F to o t

fo r

each o f

th e a n a ly s is
to o l,

w as c o n s id e r e d

th e fin d in g s o f

th e v a r ia b le s p r e s e n te d .

o f v a r ia n c e ,

score;

on t r e n d s and t h o

r a n k in g o f

s ta tis tic a l

o f th e a n a ly s is

a s w e ll a s p e r fo r m a n c e a s

and b e c a u s e t h e d i s c u s s i o n c o n c e n tr a te d

w ord s,

a s s u m p tio n

c o m p a r is o n o f p e r f o r m a n c e

se p a r a te q u e s tio n s ,

m easu red by t h r e e

th is

F rom a

In o th e r

w h ile c o n s id e r e d

th e b a s ic

w a s s u p p le m e n t e d b y o t h e r a n a l y s e s ,

and w hat

" p r o o f" o f any h y p o t h e s is d e p en d ed on t h e s e

s u p p le m e n ta l a n a l y s e s o f tr e n d s and r a n k in g s a s w e ll a s t h e
a n a ly s is

o f v a r ia n c e .

H ow ever,

it

is

s till

n ecessary

to

d e te r m in e i f

th e

a s s u m p tio n o f h o m o g e n e ity o f v a r ia n c e a p p e a r s t o b o j u s t i f i e d ,
even

th o u g h

t h e a s s u m p t i o n may n o t b e t e s t e d

a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e w h ic h w e r e c o m p u te d i n
A c c o r d in g ly ,

it

p r o v id e a b a s is
tio n
as

w as d e te r m in e d
fo r

o f h o m o g e n e ity .

th e b a s is fo r

to

th is

s a m p le w i d e l y

th e a c c e p ta n c e o r r e j e c t io n
T he t h r e e p r e j u d i c e

th e

th e s is .
enough to
o f t h e a ssu m p ­

s c o r e s w ere s e le c t e d

s a m p lin g e a c h o f t h e in d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s .

T h ese v a r ia b le s w ere t e s t e d

in

tio n

o n ly

o f th e f i r s t

fo r a ll

v a r ia b le ,

ran d om o r d e r a n d w i t h t h e
one p r e ju d ic e

excep­

s c o r e w as t e s t e d .

-2 7 6 -

The b a s is f o r s e le c tin g th e sc o re to be te s te d was th a t o f
in s p e c tio n of th e d i s t r i b u t i o n s .

The v a ria n c e s were in s p e c te d

f o r th e th re e p r e ju d ic e sc o re s and that, sco re was s e le c te d
which appeared t o o f f e r th e g r e a t e s t amount of v a ria n c e .

In

o th e r words, th e sample was loaded in th e d i r e c tio n o f h e te r o ­
g e n e ity o f v a r ia n c e .

T his was done f o r th e reason th a t th e

sample was lim ite d and i f , when th e most v a r ia b le p r o p s were
c o n sid e re d , th e r e were s t i l l few s ig n if ic a n t d if f e r e n c e s , wo
m ight c o n sid e r t h a t th e assum ption o f homogeneity o f v a ria n c e
would hold f o r o th e r item s a s w e ll.
The t e s t f o r homogeneity o f v a ria n c e t h a t was used i s th a t
o f B a r t l e t t 's .

The form ula which was used i s given by Snedecor.^"

The r e s u l t s a r e shown in Table B.

I t should be p o in te d out th a t

th e Chi Squares shown in t h i s t a b l e a re u n c o rre c te d .
a p p e a r s li g h t l y l a r g e r then th ey a c tu a lly a r e .

Hence, they

However, none

o f th e t e s t s were s ig n i f ic a n t a t e i th e r th e ono o r fiv o tie r cen t
l e v e l s o f p r o b a b i li t y .

Hence i t was not co n sid e red n e c e ssa ry

to apply th e c o r r e c tio n form ula to th e s e Chi Squares.
I n s o f a r a s th e r e s u l t s o f t h i s ta b le a r e a p p lic a b le to
th e t o t a l number o f a n a ly se s o f v a ria n c e computed in t h i s r e ­
s e a rc h , we may a c c e p t tho assum ption o f homogeneity of v a ria n c e .
At th e f iv e p e r c e n t le v e l o f p r o b a b ility , f o r th e twenty-tw o
Chi Squares which were computed, we might expect th a t by chance
one would be s i g n i f i c a n t .

However, t h i s was not th e case.

Snedecor, on. c i t . . pp. 2^9-252.

TABLE B
TEST OF HOMOGEHEITT OF VARIANCE

V a r ia b le T e s te d

Most A ctiv e O rg a n iza tio n
B e lig io u s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
A c tiv ity i n Church
Age
Sex
P o lis h and 01 d-Amerleans
Town and Country R esidence
Farm and Non-Farm
P a r ti c i p a t i o n Index - Farm
P a r ti c i p a t i o n Index - Non-Farm
P a r ti c i p a t i o n Index - T o tal
E ducation
S ta tu s Index - Non-Farm
S ta tu s Index - Farm
S ta tu s - R ural
S ta tu s - Town
O ccupation
Income
S o c ia l C lass E stim a te

O hi S q u are
f o r J e w is h
P r e .lu d ic e S c a r e

l4.6*i8

O hi S q u a r e
f o r N egro
P r e .lu d ic e S c o r e

C hi Square
f o r T o ta l
P r e .lu d ic e S c o r e

D egrees
F reedom

Chi Square a t
5 P er C ent
P r o b a b ility L ev el

11.914

12.098
6 .8 4 4
16.292

11
11
9
9
1
1
3
1
3
3
9
8
5
4
4
4
8
6
5

19.675
19.675
16.919
16.919
3.841
3.841
7.815
3.841
7.815
7.815
16.919
15.507
11.070
9.488
9.488
9.488
15.507
12.592
11.070

4.478
0.800
2.109
5 .^ 9
3.474
5.889
2.689
5.969
8.959
1.552
1.011
3.880
1.928
9.465
4.303
3.199

of

-

276 -

A lthcugfr i t i s s t i l l p o s s ib le t h a t or. a fev: o f th e item s v/hich
v/cre te s te d by a n a ly s is of v a ria n c e th e assum ption o f i omoc e n e ity i s not j u s t i f i e d , th e r e s u l t s of t h i s a n a ly s is

indicate

t h a t v;e may have co n fid en ce in th e qp l i c n b i l i t y o f th e te c h ­
n iq u e o f a n a ly s is ;;hich h as been used in t h i s re se a rc h .

APPEHDIX D

THE CRIGIITAL DISTRIBUTIONS
OF THE THREE PREJUDICE SCORES

The manner in which th e th r e e p r e ju d ic e sc o re s wore con­
s t ru c te d has "been p re se n te d in C hapter Two.

Since t h i s method

depends upon th e assum ption th a t th e r e s u l t s o f a n a ly s is o f th e
p r e ju d ic e s c a le s i s c lo s e ly approxim ate to th e r e s u l t s th a t
m ight have been o b ta in e d i f th e raw d a ta were used e x c lu s iv e ly ,
th e o r ig i n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n s a r e p re se n te d h e r e in in Table 0.
I n s p e c tio n o f th e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n s in d ic a te s th a t t h i s assump­
t i o n h as some j u s t i f i c a t i o n .

There a re d if f e r e n c e s b u t th ey

do n o t ap p ear tc bo o f s u f f i c i e n t s iz e to unduly b ia s th e
r e s u l t s obt.'dned from a n a ly s is o f th e p r e ju d ic e sc o re s.
In o rd e r to t e s t f u r th e r th e assum ption th a t was made
when th e p r e ju d ic e s c a le s were c o n s tru c te d , th e means of th e
th r e e p r e ju d ic e s c o re s were c a lc u la te d from th e raw d a ta .
Means were th en c a lc u la te d from th e th re e p re ju d ic e s c a le s ,
u s in g th e method o f an assumed mean and c o r re c tin g f o r grouped
d a ta .

T his c a lc u la tio n se rv e s to approxim ate th e r e s u l t s

o b ta in e d by c a lc u la tin g a mean d i r e c t ly from th e rav; d a ta .
The d iff e r e n c e s between th e two s e ts of me,-us ranged from
.05 to

.0 7 .

T h is sm all d if f e r e n c e would seem to in d ic a te

th a t, f o r th e way th e p re ju d ic e s c a le s were u sed in t h i s t h e s i s ,
th e r e i s l i t t l e d if f e r e n c e betw een th e r e s u l t s th a t might have
been o b ta in e d i f raw sco res had been used and th e r e s u l t s
t h a t were o b ta in e d when th e d a ta were grouped to form th e
p r e ju d ic e s c a le s .

-2 8 1 -

TABLE 0
TEE ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTIONS OF THE
THREE PREJUDICE SCORES UP01I WHICH
THE PREJUDICE SCALES ARE BASED
Jew ish
P r e ju d ic e
Score
Score
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Negro
P r e ju d ic e
Score

P er Cent

Score

12
11
9
14
30
41
33
48
37
43
32
32
26
39
5
10
4
2
1
1
__0

2 .7 9
2.56
2 .0 9
3.26
6 .9 8
9 .5 4
7 .6 7
11.16
8.60
10.00
7 .4 4
7 .4 4
6 .0 5
9 .0 7
1.16
2 .3 3
0 .9 3
0 .4 7
0 .2 3
0 .2 3
0.00

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

430

100.00

No.

T otal
P re ju d ic e
Score

P e r Cent

Score

No.

P er Cent

1
7
6
17
35
37
62
63
65
41
39
22
24
7
1
0
__ 2

0.23
1 .6 3
1.40
3.96
8.16
8 .62
14.46
14.69
15.16
9.55
9 .09
5.1 3
5 .5 9
1.63
0.23
0.00
0 .47

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

39
47
66
43
50
41
36
24
30
21
13
7
6

9.22
11.11
15.60
10.17
11.82
9.69
8.51
5 .6 7
7.09
4 .9 7
3 .0 7
1.66
1 .4 2

423

100.00

429

100.00

No.

AFPEHDIX

s

BSLATI "TISHIPS AM01IG VARIABLES A!ID THE METHOD USED
FOE THE COITSTKUCTIOIT OF AIT IITDEX OF SOCIAL STATUS

W h ile a n u m b e r o f v a r i a b l e s may h e a s s o c i a t e d
sta tu s,
tio n

c e r ta in

su ch a s

o r s o c ia l

n e c e s r a iy

s t a t u s in

t o d ocu m en t a g a in

th o w r it e r

c la s s

r e a lly

is

w is h
or i s

m ade t h a t v a l u a t i o n
fe llo w

m em b ers i s

le v e l,

and in c o m e .

la tio n s h ip .
th e

to

a s s o c ia te d

t h e V’a m e r s t u d i e s ,
set

fo r th

ty p e o f P l a i n v i l l e . in o r d e r to

does

in c o m e ,

o n e fo rm o r a n o t h e r .

t h e common o b s e r v a t i o n s

th e

e d u c a tio n ,

h a v e b e e n fo u n d to b e c o n s i s t e n t l y

c la s s

or

v a r ia b le s

engage in

n o t.

It

s o c ia l

and o c c u p r -

v : it h
is

s o c ia l

not

M id d le to w n

i n m any m o n o g r a p h s o f
accept

t h is p o in t,

llo r

a d is c u s s io n o f w hat s o c i a l

For t h is

s t u d y t h e a s s u m p tio n i s

b y t h e m e m b er s o f a s o c i a l s y s t e m o f t h e i r

r e la te d

to o c c u p a tio n a l p o s it io n ,

T h is i s

P r e c is e ly

n o t,

o f cou rse,

w hat t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p

e d u c a tio n a l

a o n e -to -o n e r e ­
may b e i s

beyond

sco p e o f th e p r e s e n t in q u ir y .
I n m a k in g so m e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s e s i t

th a t
to

w ith

c e r ta in o f th o se

each o th e r .

tio n ,

t o m ake,

d e ta ils

r e la te d
tr u e

In a d d itio n

th e s e lf - e v a lu a t io n

w as ask ed
fo r

s t a t u s v a r ia b le s w ere

to

of

to

e a c h o t h e r and t o

s ig n ific a n tly

r e la te d

in c o m e , an d o c c u p a ­

s o c i a l c l a s s w h ic h e a c h r e s p o n d e n t

and t h e P a r t i c i p a t i o n

o f c o n s tr u c tio n )

w ere a ls o
th e

o f th e n o n -fa r m p o r t io n o f

f o r fa r m e r s.

e d u c a tio n ,

w as d e te r m in e d

The r e la t io n s h ip s

I n d e x ( s e e A p p e n d ix F

fo u n d

to be s ig n if ic a n t ly

o th e r v a r ia b le s .
t h e s a m p le ,
sh o w n b y t h e

T h is w as

b u t m uch l e s s
c o r r e cte d

so

co­

e ffic ie n t

o f c o n t in g e n c y a r e g i v e n f o r b o t h fa r m an d n o n -fa r m

groups in

T a b le D .

-2 8 4 -

' T a b le D

COEFFICIENT OF CONTINGENCY SHOWING THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CENTAIN OF
__________THE STATUS VARIABLES

Non-Farm
O ccupation
E d u c atio n

E d u c atio n
.50**

P a r ti c i p a t i o n
S e lf-E v a lu a tio n
Index
Income o f S o cial G lass
.4-2**

.48**

.51**

.33**

.46**

.50**

.48**

.4o**

P a r tic ip a tio n
Index
Income

. 36**

Farm
E d u catio n
P a r tic ip a tio n
Index
Income

.45**

.29

.18

.41**

.28
.24

**I n d ic a te s t h a t th e Chi Square i s s ig n if ic a n t "beyond th e
one p e r c e n t l e v e l o f p r o b a b i li t y .

T his ta b le in d ic a te s t h a t , w h ile th e r e la tio n s h ip s a r e n o t
n e c e s s a r ily h ig h , th e y a r e n o t chance r e la t io n s h i p s in s o f a r as
th e non-farm p o r ti o n o f th e t o t a l sample i s concerned.

The

la c k o f s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t io n s h i p s between s ta t u s v a r ia b le s f o r
th e farm sanrole (e x ce p t f o r th e r e la tio n s h ip o f p a r t ic ip a ti o n
to e d u c a tio n and income) i s c o n s is te n t w ith p re v io u s o b serv a­
t i o n o f th e co u n ty w herein i t was determ ined t h a t th e common
s t a t u s in d ic e s u se d f o r u rban p o p u la tio n s in th e U nited S ta te s
do not so r e a d ily n o r so e a s ily apply to r u r a l , e s p e c ia lly

f a r e p o p u la tio n s .
As a part

of

e x a m in a tio n o f
a ttitu d e s
th a t

s h o u ld a l s o

c o m p r is in g

o r u n r e la te d

in

s t a t u s w ore r e l a t e d

o r ity

it

w as in te n d e d
of

each

to w a r d m in o r it y g r o u p s .

in d e x ,

r e la te d

th e s is

th e r e la tio n s h ip

so m e a t t e m p t

p o s ite

of

th is

gro u p s.

th e

H ow ever,

th e

A c c o r d in g ly ,

a

it

d e te r m in e i f

to

sta tu s

th e

to

w as a l s o

fe lt

a co m ­

s ta tu s v a r ia b le s ,

s a n e vray t h a t

o r u n r e la te d

m ake a f u l l

s t a t u s v a r ia b le

b e m ade t o

so m e o f

to

w as

se p a r a te in d ic e s

a t t i t u d e s to w a r d m in ­

in d e x w as d e v is e d i n

th e

f o l l o w i n g w ay.
O c c u p a tio n ,

e d u c a tio n ,

s e lf-e v a lu a tio n

an d t h e in d e x o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n
a b ase.
h e ld

of

as

to

its

m e n n in g fu ln e s r

T h a tls ,

fo r

c o n fu s io n th a t

A lth o u g h t h e

s h o u ld b e c o n s t r u c t e d i n
In

e x is t

v a lid

it

w as f e l t

each group to

a ttitu d e s

in c o m e f a c t o r

w as n o t u s e d .

The s t a t u s

th e c o n c e p t

th a t th ey

th e s ta tu s

m ig h t b e u s e d

w o u ld b e p o s s i b l e

sta tu s

th e

e x te n t

th a t

fr o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f

A c c o r d in g ly ,

sta te

f o r fa r m e r s b e c a u s e

th e

su c h a w ay t h a t i t

t h i s w ay i t

to

s t a t u s v a r ia b le s d id n o t a p p ea r

r e s u l t s o b ta in e d
in d e x f o r

o f th e

w ith r e s p e c t to

f o r t h e fa r m g ro u p t o

th e n o n -fa r m g ro u p ,

b o t h g r o x ip s .

be le s s

appeared to

b e in te r r e la te d

w ere fo r

t h e fa r m p o r t i o n

t h e m e th o d o f a s k i n g t h e r e s p o n d e n t

f a m ily in c o m e a p p e a r e d t o

o f n e t in c o m e .
to

o r g a n is a t io n s w ere u se d a s

In com e w as n o t u s e d b o c a iis e o f t h e d o u b t t h a t w as

s a m p le .
th e

in

o f s o c ia l c la s s ,

to

in d e x
fo r

com pare t h e

th e r e la tio n s h ip

o f th e

to w a r d m i n o r i t i e s .

in d e x f o r t h e n o n -fa r m g rou p

is

a s fo llo w s :

-2 8 6 -

"ci rht
1

Classvf i c a t io n
Pure loy; (aiar/unl occupation; wcrhing or lo v er c la s s
e s tim a te o f s o c ia l c la s s ; low p a r t ic ip a t i o n in d ex o f 2 o r le s s ; and low educational
le v e l - Q -8th grade e d u c a tio n )
Lov; (low on th re e v a r ia b le s ; high on one v a r ia b le )

3

Medium (lov; on tv/c v a r ia b le s ; high on two v a r ia b le s )

^

High (h ig h on th re e v a r ia b le s ; lo v on one v a r ia b le )

5

P ure h ig h (w h ite c o l l a r o ccu p atio n ; m iddle o r u o p er
c l a s s e s tim a te o f s o c ia l c la s s ; high p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n - index of 3 or above; ana high
e d u c a tio n a l le v e l - high school g rad u ate
o r above)

The ed u c atio n v a r ia b le was n o t used c o n s is te n t! " throughout
th e index because o f th e f a c to r o f s iz e o f sam ple.

While th e

"pure" h ig h and lov; groups a r e as s ta te d , in th e mixed c a te g o r ie s
£i high e d u c a tio n a l le v e l was co n sid e red to be th a t v/herein th e
resp o n d en t had a t l e a s t some h ig h school e d u catio n .
The s ta t u s in d ex f o r th e farm group i s s u b s ta n tia lly thS
same a s f o r th e non-farm group excopt th a t th e v a r ia b le o f
o c cu p a tio n v.-s-s a c o n s ta n t and, th e r e f o r e , was not in v o lv ed .
The e d u c a tio n a l le v e l o f th e "pure" lov; group i s th e same a s
f o r th e non-farm grout;.

For th e "uure" high group, however,

b ecau se o f th e s iz e o f th e sam ple, an e d u c a tio n a l a tta in m e n t
which in c lu d e d some h igh school a tte n d a n c e
b e in g a hig h e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l .

v;&e

con sid ered

aB

F or th e o th e r c a te g o rie s th e

e d u c a tio n a l l e v e l was th e same aB f o r th e non-farm sample.
The index was g iv e n th e same n u m erical weight, in each c a s e .
However, sin c e th e r e were only th r e e v a r ia b le s f o r th e farm

-2 8 7 -

sam plc, th e re were no rcsocnil.cn';s in t h i s sample which re c e iv e d
a w eight o f t h r e e .
T h is in d e x i s

su b je c t to

m ake p o s s i b l e a n a n a l y s i s

m any c r i t i c i s m s ,

but

it

o f g r o u p s w ith in t h e t o ' n l

does
s a m p le

w hich d i f f e r s t r i k i n g l y in te r m s o f th e s t a t u s v a r ia b le s .
m akes i t

p o s s ib le

sa m e t i m e a n d t e s t

t o h o ld

c o n s t a n t a n u m b er o f f a c t o r s a t

fo r th e r e la tio n s h ip

th e y a r e c o n s id e r e d a s a u n it ,

to

o f su ch f a c t o r s ,

a ttitu d e s

It
th e
w h en

to w a r d m in o r it y

g rou p s.

In a d d itio n to th e r e la tio n s h i p between c e r ta in s o c ia l
s t a t u s v a r ia b le s , which i s shown in f a b le It, an a n a ly s is of
v a ria n c e was computed f o r a number of o th e r in d ic a to r s of
p o s it i o n in th e s o c ia l s tr u c tu r e in o rd er to o b ta in some
m easure o f th e r e l a t io n s h ip betw een th e s e in d ic e s and th e
s o c ia l s ta tu s in d ex .

Hie r e s u l t s a re shown i n T able E.

ZABLE E

ZHE RELATI 01TSHIP OF SOCIAL STATUS
(AS MEASURED BY A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX)
TO CERTAIN OTHER INDICES OF POSITION IN THE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS SHOWN BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

Variables

T o tal
Number

Mean

Rank
—

Under 20
20-29
30-39
40-4-9
50-59
60-69
70-79
80 and over
Not asked
No response

3
58
82
73
89
55
28
6
1
2

2.68
2.66
2 .72
2.89
2 .8 5
2.36
2.14
1.33

Total

397

2.66

4
3
1
2
5
6
7

——

2.46** = 2.46

F

S ign ifican t
a t Vf) le v e l

Residence
Open Country
Johnstown
Brownsville
Adams

238
97
37
25

2.46
3.01
2.95
2.80

Total

397

2.66

4
1
2
3

5*25** > 3 * 8 8 - S ign ifican t
a t 1$ le v e l

F
E th n ic O rig in
Old Americana
P o lis h Americans
T o ta l
I

352
4-5

2 .742.02

397

2.66
11.83** > 6 . 7 6 - S ign ifican t
at 1$ le v e l

-2 8 9 TABLE E (CONTINUED)

THE RELATIONSHIP OP SOCIAL STATUS
(AS MEASURED BY A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX)
TO CERTAIN OTHER INDICES OP POSITION IN THE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS SHOWN BY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE
T o tal
Number

Mean

Over $10,000
$5000-$9999
$3000-$4999
$2000-$2999
$iooo -$1999
Under $1000
Don’ t Know

11
28
85
67
32
11
5

4 .4 5
3.75
2.70
2.37
2.34
2.00
—

T o ta l

239

2.73

V a ria b le s

Rank

F am ily Income (Non-Farm)
1
2
3
4
5
6

11.28** > 2 . 9 0

F
•

S ig n if ic a n t
a t 1$ le v e l

R e l i e i on
C a th o lic
M eth o d ist E p isco p al
E v a n g e lic a l U n ited B re th e rn
B a p tis t
P r e s h y te r ia n and E piscopa­
lia n
R u ra l In te r-d e n o m in a tio n a l
F ree M ethodist and Wesleyan
H o lin e ss and r e l a t e d s e c ts
C o n g reg atio n al
A d v e n tis t
O ther
None
T o tal
F

55
94
9
38

2.18
3 .12
2.11
2.45

9
2
10
7

26
15
16
13
15
3
47
66

3.85
2.60
2.56
1 .9 2
2.47
2.00
2.85
2.27

1
4
5
11
6

397

2.66

—

3
8

5.61** > 2 . 3 4

S ig n ific a n t
a t 1$ le v e l

-2 9 0 TABLE E (CONTINUED)
THE RELATIONSHIP OP SOCIAL STATUS
(A S MEASURED BY A CONSTRUCTED STATUS INDEX)
TO CERTAIN OTHER IN DICES OP PO SITIO N IN THE
SOCIAL STRUCTURE AS SHOWN BY ANALYSIS OP VARIANCE

V a r ia b le s

T o ta l
N um ber

M ean

R ank

1*4
19
31
7
21
11+
17
16
13
10
62
11+3

2.57
3.21
3 .^ 2
3.1iv
2 . 1*8
1+.86
3.18
2.38
2.00
2.80
3.21+
2.01

8
1+
2
6
9
1
5
10
12
7
3
11

397

2.66

O r g a n i z a t i o n a l M e m b e r s h ip
P axm B u rea u .
O range
M a so n s, O d d fe llo w s
E lk o
E a g l e s , M o o se
S e r v i c e C lu b s
V e t e r a n 's O r g a n iz a tio n s
K n i g h t s o f C o lu m b u s
L a b o r U n io n s
D o r r a n c e C o m m u n ity C lu b
O th er
N one
T o ta l

13.23** > * 2 .5 0 -

P

S ig n ific a n t
at
le v e l

E x te n t o f C hurch A c t i v i t y
No ch u rch a c t i v i t y
N o m in a l a c t i v i t y
A c tiv e
T o ta l
P

152
11+3
102

2.45
2.66
2 .9 9

397

2.66

3
2
1

5 .5 2 * * > ^ .7 l -

S ig n ific a n t
a t Vp l e v e l

AFPEHDIH ?

THE CCiTSTEUCTICil

07

'THE PAH TICIEATIG : I1TDEX

i

The p a r t ic ip a t io n Index referred to in Chapter Seven was
ezorm ined by a s s ig n in g n u m erical w eights to th e ex ten t o
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o rg a n iz a tio n s in d ic a te d by th e resp o n d en t.
The in te rv ie w e r n o t only in d ic a te d th e o rg a n iz a tio n s to which
he respondent belonged but a ls o th e e x te n t o f h i s p a r t ic ip a ti o n
in each.

The resp o n d en t was sco red a s fo llo w s : A score o f 1

f o r each o rg a n iz a tio n to which he belonged b u t did not ta k e a
v ery a c tiv e p a r t ; a sco re o f 2 f o r each o rg a n iz a tio n to which
he belonged, to o k an a c tiv e p a r t , b u t in w’ ic h he d id n o t
u s u a lly hold o f f i c e ; a score o f 3 f o r each o rg a n iz a tio n in
which he was a c t i v e and u s u a lly held some o f f i c i a l p o s itio n .
These sco res were sunned and th e t o t a l was u se d as an index
o f p a r t ic ip a ti o n in form al o rg a n iz a tio n s .
The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f th e p a r t ic i p a ti o n index was skewed in
th e d i r e c t io n o f l i t t l e

o r no p a r t ic ip a ti o n ,

-h a t i s , th e

g r e a t e s t number o f resp o n d en ts had a score o f 0, o r no p a r ­
t i c i p a t i o n , and d ecreased in r e g u la r o rd e r, a s shown below:
P a rtic ip a tio n
Index
0
1 -2
3-b
5-6
7-3
9-10
11-12
13-14

15-16
17 and above

lTumbcr o f
R espondents
160
129
67
23
23
9
5
k
2
2

-2 9 3 -

In. p erfo rm in g th e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e f o r th e se d a ta ,
th ey were regrouped and c a te g o ris e d as fo llo w s:
0 - iione (no p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o r g a n is a tio n s )
1-2 - lio u in al a c t i v i t y ( l i t t l e p a r t ic ip a t i o n in o rg a n is a tio n s )
- 6 - A ctiv e (c o n s id e ra b le p a r t i c i p a t i o n in o rg a n iz a tio n s )
7 and above - Very A c tiv e ( g r e a t a c t i v i t y in o rg a n is a tio n s )

1

ATP3HDIX C-

TA3LZS SHO-'IMO ANALYSIS Ox VARIANCE DISCUSSED
BUT HOT INCLUDED IK l-'AIK BODY 0 ? THESIS

i

i

-295taele f

ATTITUBES TOWARB JEWS ANB NEGROES
BY EARM ABB RURAL MANUAL LABOR GROUPS (MEN ONLY)

Total
Number

Total
Jewish
Pr Score

Total
Negro
Pr Score

Total
Prejudic<
Score

Mean R

Mean R

Mean R

Pure Farm
(No second occupation)

81

4.36

3

4 .2 7

3

2.90

3

Farm
Second occupation Manual

16

4 .2 5

4

4.25

4

2.38

4

Manual
(Rural - No second occupa^tlon)

21

4 .5 7

2

4 .5 7

2

2.95

2

5 .0 3

1

4.70

1

3.40

1

Manual (Rural)
Second occupation Farming
Total
F1

148

4.51

4 .4 0

2.95

1 .1 4

1 .02

2.02

1 For t h i s ta b le F m e t re a c h 3.91 to he s ig n if i c a n t a t th e 1# •
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 7 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

T a b le G
ATTITUDES TO'tfAHD MEXICANS A1TD ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PHFJUDICE SCOBS
BY OCCUPATIQTS - MEN OITTY

Occupational
C la ssifica tio n

Totcl no.
of res-io-co its

Keep Horicrns
Mexicans
as r.iti zcn.s out c f ’••litn
» nd voters
noiriihorhood.s

Meric; ns
co "it*' ; to
Midst; to

Hry-'1c.rnr ?*
rest; nrrntr
•rltli v* i t e s

I'can

1

'.'.ci n

H

'•can

n

: fear.

B

* T otcl
j Prejudice
i Score
1
Morn N

P rofessional

11

3.12

*4

2.6*4

1

2.00

l

2.09

2

3.55

1

Proprietor

28

3.0*4

6

1 .9 6

6

1.61

*4

1 .8 6

6

2.85

5

C lerical

25

3.32

1

2.32

2

1.72

2

2.16

l

3.00

3

Skilled

*18

3.23

2

2.10

5

l.*48

6

1 .9 6

5

2 .96

*4

Sem i-skilled

b7

2.9*1-

7

2 .1 *48

*4

1.51

5

1.98

*4

3.09

2

Unskilled

1*4

3.22

3

1.93

7

1.36

7

1.69

7

2.31

7

107

3.05

5

2.1*49

3

1.62

3

2.00

3

2.81

6

Farmer
Farm Labor‘d

1

Not determined ^

2

Total
2
F

283

.1
3.12

2.15

1.58

1.16

1.51

1.20

1.97
n
if

2.89
1.09

^Theso groups e re n o t in clu d ed in th e rank o rd e r a n a ly s is , a lth o u g h th ey a r e included in th e a n a ly s is o f v a ria n c e ,
because th e s n a il s iz e o f th e san p le s makes comparison d i f f i c u l t .
2 For t h i s ta b le F must

reach 2 .6 0 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e l 3 p r o b a b ility le v e l ; 1.98 a t th e 5y p r o b a b i lity le v e l.

T a b le H

ATTITUDES TOWARD HECICAKS ADD ANALYSIS OP TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCOHS Bl* OCC-UPAT1ORAL CLASSES - MET OiTLY

Occupational
Class

Total no.
o f res'oo'ro its

1lexicons
as c itiso n s
ano voters

Keen lio ric rn s
out c f white
noiriihorhoods

ITericrns
co ■'ii-/ : to
M U 1St.; tn

ilo"icrr>r 5"
r e s t.n u 'rr
vdth V*• it

1'si'n

lla n

'•can

*foar.

1

R

R

R

T o ta l
Pre/juc.ico
Score
.loan

6k

3.28

1

2.22

1

1.72

1

2.02

1

3.03

Manual

112

3.09

2

2.12

3

1.^7

3

1.91

3

2.89

Parm

107

3 .0 5

3

2 .15

2

1.62

2

2.00

2

2.81

Total

283

3 .12

2.15

1.58

1.03

#

2.87

White Collar

P1

1.97
7T

R
1

2.89

#

Por t h i s ta b le P mast reach h .71 t o be s ig n i f ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l ; 3 .0 ^ a t th e Sfs p r o b a b ility
le v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n t h e v a ria n c e between g ro u p s.

S a b le I

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICAMS AMD AHALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCOBE BY FARM AMD HOB-FARM OCCUPATICES - MEM ONLY

O ccupational
C la s s if ic a tio n

T o ta l r»c.
o f res-io-cn it s

llo rico n s
a s n i t 3sons
and vot c rs

Keep H oricrns
o u t c f vvitci
n oi riihn rhood. s

H ericr ••>3
c o r i r t to
H irs t; to

i!rr*.icrpr 5"
re s t;, u rr i t s
vrith v i t ns

i'san

" c tn

R

'.'■p.r.n

R

*Toar.

R

I T o tn
; Pre/jur.ico
• Score
1
Morn
R

Uon-Faxm

173

3 .1 7

1

2.14-

2

1 .5 7

2

1 .9 7

2

2 .9 7

1

Farm

107

3 .05

2

2 .1 5

1

1 .6 2

1

2 .0 0

1

2.81

2

T otal

280

3 .1 2

2.15

#

#

F1

*F or t h i s ta b le F must re a c h 6 .7 0 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e

1 .59
#

1 .9 8

2.91

#

#

p r o b a b ility l e v e l ; 3 .86 a t th e j &p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n th e v a ria n c e betw een g ro u p s.

I

T ab le J

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSIS OP TOTAL PREJUDICE SCCEE
BY OCCUPATION - NOK-FAHM MIN ONLY

O ccupational
C la s s if ic a tio n

T o ta l no.
o f re sn o -c o \t £

| T o tn l
; Pre^ucJ
i Score

licrico n s
a s c i tiz e n s
and v o te rs

Keen Moricans
o u t c f v v ito
noirf'boriinod.s

Morin; ns
c o 'i r t to
Midst; to

i:o—•c rp r
a.
v«-m*r~ts
vritli v '- itc s

Moan

R

Hein

3

Moan

R

’fear.

R

Morn

R

3*55

1

2.85

5

CO

P ro fe s s io n a l

11

3*12

4

2 .6 4

1

2.00

1

2.09

2

P r o p r ie to r

28

3 *oh

5

1 .96

6

1 .6 1

3

1 .86

5

C le r ic a l

25

3*32

1

2*32

2

1 .7 2

2

2.16

l

3 .0 0

3

S k ille d

48

3 .2 3

2

2*10

4

1 .4 8

5

1.96

4

2.96

4

S e m i-s k ille d

47

2 .9 4

6

2.15

3

1.51

4

1 .9 8

3

3 .0 9

2

U n s k ille d

15

3.13

3

2 .07

5

1 .3 3

6

1 .6 4

6

2.21

6

17^

3*16

T otal
JL
P

1*36

2.16
#

^Por th is table P mast reach 2.92 to he sig n ific a n t a t the

1.56
1.46

** - S ig n ifica n t beyond the 1% prob ab ility lev el*

#

2.96
#

proh ah ility le v e l; 2.16 a t the 5$ p rob ab ility le v e l*

# - Within group variance i s greater than the vaAance between groups*
♦ - S ig n ifica n t beyond the 5$ p rob ab ility lev e l*

1.96

i

-3 0 0 -

TABLE K
ATII TUBES TOWARD JEWS AND NEGROES
BY CHUEOH IDENTIFICATION OF RESPONDENTS
OROUPED BY STATUS OF CHURCH

Churches Grouped
by S ta tu s

T o tal
Number

Jew ish
Pr Score
R
Mean

Negro
P r Score
Mean R

Group A

128

4 .8 8

2

4 .5 0

2

Group B

32

4 .9 4

1

4 .7 8

1

Group 0

57

4 .3 3

4

4 .3 5

3

Group D

90

4 .6 9

3

4 .2 4

4

307

4 .7 3

4 .4 6

1 .2 4

1 .6 9

T o tal
F1

F or t h i s ta b le F m a t re a c h 3*88 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t the 1$
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 2.65 to be s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ility
le v e l.

Group
Group
Group
Group

ABCD-

P r e s b y te r ia n , E p isc o p a lia n , M ethodist E piscopal
R u ral In te rd e n o m in a tio n a l, F ree and Wesylean M ethodist
C o n g reg atio n al and B a p tis t
C a th o lic , E v a n g elic al U n ited B re th e rn , H oliness and
A d v e n tist

(Group A has h ig h e s t s t a t u s , Group D has lo w est s ta tu s )

-301TABLE I
ATTITUDES TOWARD MINORITIES ANALYZED
IN RELATIONAHIP TO MMBERSHIP IN FARM BUREAU

T otal
Jew ish
P r Score

T o tal
Negro
Pr Score

T o tal
Number

Mean

R

Mean

R

Mean

R

Perm Bureau A c tiv e Members

38

4.6 1

2

4 .1 3

3

3 .7 7

1

Farm Bureau Not A ctiv e

32

4 .8 8

1

4 .3 4

1

2 .7 4

2

Non-Farm Bureau
Members

95

4 .2 4

3

4 .1 5

2

2.7L

3

165

4 .4 5

4 .1 8

2.80

1 .5 9

#

1 .0 4

T o ta l
F1

T otal
P re ju d ic e
Score

■^For t h i s ta h le F must exceed 4 .7 5 to he s ig n i f i c a n t a t th e 1$
p r o b a b i li t y l e v e l ; 3«°6 a t th e 5 jo p r o b a b ility le v e l*
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r than th e v a ria n c e between
g ro u p s.

1

T a b le M
ATTITUDES T013AHD JEWS 3 1 EXT2TT OF CHURCH ACTIVITY

E x ten t o f
Church A c tiv ity

T o ta l n o .

J e w is h
m erchant

Jew s th in k
t h e y 1r e

o f reswonde n ts

Mean

h c tte r
R Mean
R

G u a rd
a g a in s t
Jew s

Jew s
p u sh

R e s tr ic t
Jew s

Mean R

Mean

R. Mean

T o ta l
J e w is h
P r Score

S h ip
Jew s
B ack

Jew s
are
h on est

R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

J c v /s i n
my n e i g h horhood

R Mean

R

A ctiv e member b u t
n o t an o f f i c i a l

74

3.00

2

2.92

2

2.23

2

3 .2 4

1

2.49

2

2.99

4

5.1**

2

7.067 4

1.81

3

A ctiv e and u s u a lly
an o f f i c i a l

33

2.82

1

2.79

6

2.18

4

3 .21

A
C. 2.42

3

3.21

2

5.06

3

2.27

1

1.88

2

M inister'*’

2

Belongs because he
f e e l s o b lig e d to
support church1

4

Supports b u t does
n o t" a tte n d church

27

3.33

5

3.30

1

2.41

1

3 .0 4

3

2.52

1

3.26

1

5.15

1

2.22

2

1.92

1

Belongs b u t n o t an
a c tiv e member

93

3.37

6

2.86

4

2.12

5

2 .8 6

4

2.27

4

2.97

5

4 .78

4

1.99

6

1.70

4

A ttends but n o t a
member

23

3.83

7

2.57

7

2.09

6

2 .7 8

6

2.13

6

2.83

7

4 .35

2.00

5

1.65

5

Ho church co nnection

70

3 .1 4

3

2.87

3

2.22

3

2 .5 4

7

2.03

7

3.02

3

4 .56

7
>e

2.07

3

1.65

5

Church co nnection b u t
does n o t a tte n d

96

3 .2 4

4

2 .8 4

5

2.C6

7

2 .8 4

5

2.19

5

2.84

6

4.47

6

1.9**

7

1.62

7

T o tal

6
428

3 .2 4
1.06

2.86
1.13

2.17
1.76

2.90
2.38*

2.27
1.71

2.98
JL

ir

4 .7 4
1.19

•"3
■0
■ £•

Ho response, e tc .^ -

1.72

1.4 4

^-Kot in clu d ed in ran k o rd e r because o f sm all number o f sample, b u t in clu d ed i n a n a ly s is of v a r ia n c e .
2 F or t h i s ta b le F must reach 2.46 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1$ p r o b a b ility le v e l;
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n between group v a ria n c e .
* 1 :-. S ig n if ic a n t " b e y o n d t h e 5 $ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

1 .9 0

a t th e 5/? p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

Table IT

ATTITUDES TOWARD 1T3C-R0ES BY EXTENT OF CHURCH ACTIVITY

E x ten t of
Church A c tiv ity

T o ta l no.
o f respond­
e n ts ________

N egroes
to Johns­
town

Negroes
next
door

Negroes
a re
la z y

Keep Negroes
o u t o f White
neighborhoods

Mean

R Mean R Mean. R Mean

Negroes
should
v o te

Negroes
v/ith
ed u catio n

W hites and
Negroes i n
sane
r e s ta u r a n t
R Mean
R

T o tal
Negro
P r Score

R

Mean

R Mean

T> Mean

O rders
from a
Negro
Mean

S

A ctiv e member but
n o t an o f f i c i a l

74

4.01

6

4.89 5

2 .7 6

4

2.07

2

3.50

4

3.12

3

4.49

2

1 .5 8

2

1.547

l S t S ? i l ? l i U 3ually

33

3.21

1

3.52 1

2.97

1

2.39

1

3.67

1

2.39

1

4.97

1

1 .5 5

3

1.545

1 .6 3

1

1 .3 7

'
i

Minister"*"

2

Belongs because he
f e e l s o b lig e d to
supoort church1

4

Supports b u t does
n o t a tte n d church

27

3.62

3

4.70 4

2.56

7

1.89

6

3.63

2

3.33

2

4.48

Belongs b u t n o t an
a c tiv e member

93

3.87

4

4.20 3

2 .7 5

5

2.02

3

3 .5 3

3

3.032

4

4.41

4

1 .5 2

4

1 .4 4

A ttends b u t n o t a
member

23

4.00

5.27 7

2 .96

2

1.91

6

2.70

6

1.435

4.10 2

2.82

3

1.96

3.45

7

2.94

4 .3 4

7

1 .39
1 .49

6

3.42

7
6

4 .35

71

5
4

3 .48

Wo church co nnection

5
2

5

1 .4 6

Church co n n ectio n but
does not a tte n d

96

4.16

7

4.99 6

2.71

6

1.85

7

3.50

4

3.031

5

4.38

5

1.37

7

1 .3 8

3.84

4.50

2 .7 8

2.00

1.32

2.39*

1.26

2.03*

Ho respo n se, e tc .
T o ta l
F2

6
429

3.52

3.05

4.45

1 .4 9

1 .4 6

#

1.86

1.57

1.28

#

^Tot in clu d e d in rank o rd e r because o f s n a il number i n san p le, but in c lu d e d i n a n a ly s is o fv a ria n c e .
2F or t h i s ta b le F must re a c h 2 .4 6 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e Vp p r o b a b ilit y le v e l; 1 .9 0 a t th e 5,^ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .
# - W ithin group v a ria n c e i s g r e a te r th a n between group v a ria n c e .
* - S ig n ific a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b ility le v e l .

S a b le 0

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICAHS AHD AHA1YSIS OP TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCORE BY EXTEHT OP CHURCH ACTIVITY

fic te n t o f
Church A c tiv ity
A ctiv e member b u t
n o t an o f f i c i a l
A ctiv e and u s u a lly
an o f f i c i a l

T o t a l r io .

1lexicon s
a s n i t j 7. CIS
VOtc rs

o f ve srw 'cOi t £

i ’ru’n

74
33

M in ister^

2

Belongs because he f e e l s ,
o b lig e d to su p p o rt ch u rch 1-

4

0

Kecr> !: o ric m s

Ueyic: 515

irc".icrrr

o u t c f v ’n t o

co

n oi rliY. 0 rho od s

T'if'st.;

r o o tM U V 'tc
v itli
itn s

” cr n

3

to
to

Moan

R

*foar.

R

| T o ta l
j P rejuc.ico
i Score
i
R
!Iorn

3 .0 3

6

2 .0 8

4

1 .6 4

4

1.96

3

3 .10

3

3 .09

3

2.55

1

1 .7 9

1

2 .2 4

1

3 .3 9

1

,

Supports b u t does n o t
a tte n d church

27

3.41

1

2.07

5

1 .7 4

2

2 .0 7

2

3 .1 9

2

Belongs b u t i s n o t an
a c tiv e member

93

3 .08

4

2 .05

6

1 .5 7

6

1 .89

7

2 .83

5

A tten d s b u t i s n o t
a member

23

3 .0 4

5

2 .1 3

3

1.61

5

1 .9 1

6

2.78

6

Ho church co n n ectio n

71

3-38

2

2.18

2

1.65

3

1 .929

4

2.90

4

Church co n n ectio n b u t
does n o t a tte n d

96

2 .97

7

2 .03

7

1 .4 7

7

1.926

5

2 .6 2

7

Ho resp o n se , etc.'*’
T otal

1

6
429

3 .1 2

2.13

1 .61

1 .9 7

2.92

1 . 7^

1.76

1 .46

1 .0 7

1.9&*

^Uot in c lu d e d i n ra n k o rd e r because o f sm all number i n sample, b u t in c lu d e d i n a n a ly s is o f v a r ia n c e .
% o r t h i s ta b le P must reach. 2.46 to be s ig n if ic a n t a t th e 1/5 p r o b a b ility l e v e l ; 1 .90 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b ilit y l e v e l <
* - S ig n if ic a n t beyond th e 5$ p r o b a b ility l e v e l .

ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS BT PARTICIPATION IHDEX - FARM ONLY

P a r tic ip a tio n
i n o r g a n iz a tio n s

T o tr l n o.
o f resp o n d ­
e n ts

M ean

R

Jew s th in k
t h e y Tr e
b e tte r
M ean
R

J ew i sh
m erchant

J ev/s
p u sh
M ean

R

R e s tr ic t
J e v ;s

G u a rd
a g a in s t
J CUS

S h ip
Jew s
B ack

Mean

R

M ean

R

Moan

J c v /s i n
rny n e i g h ­
borhood

T o ta l
J cv:i s h
P r Score

J e v ’S

R

M ean

R

M ean

R

M ean

R

are
h on est

V ery a c t i v e

19

3 .68

b

2.7 9

2

2.h2

2

2.89

1

2 .1 6

2

3.0 0

1

*.89

1

1.95

k

1 .53

*

A c tiv e

35

3.6 0

3

2.9^

1

2.20

3

2.86

2

2.37

1

3.00

1

b .9 b

2

2 .0 9

1

1 .6 0

3

H o m in a l A c t i v i t y

56

3.00

1

2 .63

3

2.53

1

2.^7

h

1 .96

b

2 .63

k

b.09

t

1.9 7

3

1.625

2

H on e

55

3.2^

2

2 .62

h

2 .18

b

2.65

3

2 .13

3

2 .6 k

3

11 - 3 5

3

1.9 8

2

1.629

1

165

3.28

T o ta l
F1

1 .12

•

2 .71

#.

2 .1 6

#

2 .66

2.13

2 .75

bM

1.^ 3

1 .62

1 .68

2 .2 7

1 .99
JL

7T

\ o r t h i s t a b l e F m u s t r e a c h 3 .9 1 t o h e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e l £ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 7 a t t h e 5 # p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .

# - W it h i n g ro u p v a r i a n c e i s g r e a t e r t h a n t h e v a r i a n c e b e tv re e n g r o u p s .

1 .6 1
JL

ir

T a b l e Q,
ATTITUDES TOWARD 1T305DES BY PAST IC I P AT IOH IHEEK - PASH ®ILY

P a r tic i p a t i o n
i n o rg a n iz a tio n s

T o ta l no.
o f respond­

ents__ ...

ITegroes
to Johns­
town

llegroes
next
door

Hegroes
a re
la z y

Keep Hegroes
out o f White
n e i ghborho od s

Hegroes
should
v o te

llegroes
w ith
ed u catio n

T o tal
Hegro
P r Score

O rders
from a
Hegro
Mean

R

Mean

R Kean P. Mean. R Mean

R

Mean

R Mean

?.

Mean

W hites and
Hegroes in
same
r e s ta u r a n t
R Mean
R

Very a c tiv e

19

4.19

4-

b.37 -

2 . 8b 1 2.05

2

3.63

1

2.95

2

^.58

1

1 .5 8

1

1.56

1

A ctive

35

3.52

1

4.23 3

2 .5 b

3

1.83

b

3.37

b

3.09

1

4.18

3

1.37

b

1 .2 9

b

Eominal a c t i v i t y

56

4-.04-

3

4-. 21 2

2.52

b

1.91

3

3.50

3

2.79

3

4.11

b

1.39

3

1 .43

3

Hone

55

3.59

2

4-.16 1

2.58

2 2.06

1

3 .55

2

2.78

b

b.20

2 • l .hb

2

1.4-5

2

T otal

165

3.79

b .22

2.58

1 .9 6

4.21

l .b 2

P1

#

&
u

#

ff

’f

3.50

2.87

A

£{<

H
TT

#

S t a r t h i s t a b l e P m a s t r e a c h 3 .9 1 t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e I m p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 7 a t t h e 5% p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
$ — W ith in g r o u p v a r i a n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n , t h e v a r i a n c e b e tw e e n c .r o a p s .

1.4-3
JL

;r

T a b le H

ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
SCORE BY PARTICIPATION INDEX - FARM ONLY

P a r ti c ip a t i o n
i n O rg an izatio n s

T o ta l no.
o f r e s ’w f T its

lle ri carts
a s c it iz e n s
and v o te rs

Kecro Ilo ric rn s
o u t c f v « itn
n oi fi:T;0riiooc’.s

Mericf MS
co ri»v : to
liif’st: to

I!c"': c rp r 5:*
ro st.M irr-tc
’.dt'.i v' l.to s

Ifcan

R

"cm

R

Mean

R

Moar.

R

1 T o ta l
; Pro/juc.ico
i Score
i
.lorn
R

Yery a c tiv e

19

2.89

2

2 .37

1

1 .6 8

1

2 .00

2

2.8 9

1

A ctive

35

2.86

3

2.11

2

1.60

3

1 .9 4

3

2.71

4

Nominal a c t i v i t y

56

2 .8 4

4

2 .0 2

4

1.50

4

2 .0 4

1

| 2 .8 4

2

None

55

3 .3 5

1

2 .0 7

3

1 .6 4

2

1 .8 9

4

2.80

3

165

3.01

2.10

2.64

1 .1 3

T o tal
F1

1 .5 9
#

1 .9 6
*

2.80
#

^F o r t i l l s t a b l e F m ust r e a c h 3*91 to h e s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e Vf> p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l ; 2 .6 7 a t th e 5$ p r o b a b i l i t y l e v e l .
# - W ith in g ro u p v a r ia n c e i s g r e a t e r th a n th e v a r ia n c e betw een g ro u p s .

APPENDIX H

SUMMARY TABLES SHOV'IHG THE RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS
OF VARIANCE FOR THE THREE MINORITY GROUPS BY
THE MAJOR VARIABLES PRESENT RD IH TIIE THESIS

T a b le S

SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES T
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS MEASURED BY .
Independent V a ria b le

O c c u p a tio n ( i n c .

fa n n e r s)

Jew ish
m erchant
R1 p2 rP

Jews th in k
t h e y 'r e b e t t e r
R
P
D

Jews
push
R
P

No

Yes

.05 P r o f.
Prop.

No

.01 White
C o lla r
.05 P ro f.
P rop.

No

Yes

No

No

.
.

O c c u p a tio n ( f a r m , w h i t e c o l l a r ,
a n d m a n u a l)

•

D

R e s tr ic t
Jews
P
D
R
Yes

.01 P:
P:

O c c u p a tio n ( n o n - f a r m o n l y )

Yes .01 White
C o lla r
No

Yes

O c c u p a tio n ( f a r m v s .

No

Yes

.05 N-F

No

Yes

.01 N-

Income ( n o n - f a r m o n l y )

Yes .05 H igher

Yes

.01 H igher

No

Yes

.01 H:

Education (8 c a te g o r ie s )

Yes .01 H igher

Yes

.05 H igher

Ho

Yes

.01 Hi

Education (3 c a te g o r ie s )

Yes .0 1 H. S.
Grad.

Yes

.01 H. S.
Grad.

No

Yes

.01 H.
Gi

No

No

No

Yes

.01 M3

Social s ta t u s in d ex (farm )

No

No

No

Yes. .05 Hi

Social s ta tu s in d e x (non-farm )

No

Yes

No

Yes

n o n -fa r m )

Yes

.01 W]
Cl

O c c u p a tio n ( f a r m v s . p a r t - t i m e
fa r m )

Education - w ith o cc u p a tio n
held co n stan t': Farm
Manual
S elf-estim ate o f s o c ia l c la s s
S elf-estim ate o f s . c . (farm )
S elf-estim ate o f s . c . (non-farm )

.05 H igher

.05 Hi

Revised s o c ia l s t a t u s in d e x
(non-farm )
K ey:

R e la tio n s h ip in d ic a te d - y
o

P r o b a b ility th a t r e la t io n s

^ D ir e c tio n o f r e la t io n s h ip

DES TOWARD JEWS TO CERTAIN
D BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
ic t

Guard
a g a in s t Jews
R
P
D

S hip Jews
back
R
P
D

.01 P ro f.
Prop.

Yes

.01 P ro f.
Prop.

Yes

.0 1 White
C o lla r

Yes

.01 White
C o lla r
.0 1 P ro f.
P rop.

Yes

P

D

Yes
.01 N-F

Yes

.05 N-F

Yes
Yes

T o t a l J e w is h
P r e ju d ic e S c o re
R
P
D

Je w s a r e
h o n est
R
P
D

Jews in my
neighborhood
R
P
D

.0 1 P ro f.
Prop.

Yes

.01 P ro f.
Prop.

No

No

.0 1 White
C o lla r
.05 P ro f.
Prop.

Yes

.01 White
C o lla r
.05 P ro f.
Prop.

No

No

No

No

.01 N-F

Yes
Yes

.01 N-F

Yes

.05 N-F

Yes

.05 N-F

No
.0 1 H igher

No

.01 Higher

Yes

.01 H. S.
Grad.

Yes

.01 M iddle

01 H igher
.01 H. S.
Grad.

No

Yes

.01 H igher

Yes

.01 H igher No

Yes

.0 1 H igher

Yes

.01 H igher Yes

Yes

Yes

.0 1 H. S.
Grad.

.01 H igher

Yes .01 Higher

Yes

.01 H. S.
Grad.

Yes

.01 H. S.
Brad.

Yes

.01 H. S.
—
Grad.
.05 Middle No

No

.05 M iddle Yes

No

No

Yes

No
No
,05 H igher

No

,05 Higher

Yes

.0 1 H igher

Yes

.01 H igher Yes

.01 Higher No

No

Yes

.01 H i t l e r Yes

.01 H igher No

No

Yes

sd - yes o r no
itio n s h ip i s due to chance
iship w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d

.05 H igher —

.01 H. S.
Grad.

T a b le S
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP OF A
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS ME
Jewish
m erchant

Jews th in k
th e y * re b e t t e r

Independent V a r ia b le

R^

R

S ex

No

No

No

No

Age

No

•No

No

No

Age (over v s . under 50)

No

No

—

No

E th n ic

No

No

No

No

R e s id e n c e ^

No

Yes

No

Yes

Religious I d e n t i f i c a t i o n

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

P a rtic ip a tio n Index

No

No

No

No

P a rtic ip a tio n In d ex (farm )

No

No

No

No

P a rtic ip a tio n In d ex (non-farm )

No

No

No

Yes

.05 A

Church a c t i v i t y

No

No

No

Yes

.01 A

P

D

Jews
push
R

.05 B, A

R e s tr ic t
Jews
P

D

R

P

.05 1

Religious I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
(by s ta t u s in d ex )
O rganizations o t h e r 't h a n
th e church
Fara Bureau v s . non-Farm
Bureau members (fa rm ers o n ly )

Key:^ R e la tio n s h ip in d ic a te d - y
^ P r o b a b ility t h a t re la tio n s !
^ D ire c tio n o f r e la tio n s h ip i
^Four groups:

B - Brownsvl

f a b le S (C o n tin u e d )
CP OF ATTITUDES TOWARD JEWS TO CERTAIN
, AS MEASURED BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

3trict
P

i

D

.05 B, A

Guard
a g a in s t Jews
R
P
D

Ship Jews
back
R
P
D

T o ta l Jew ish
Jews a re
P re ju d ic e Score * ho n est
R
D
R

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

.05 B, A

No

Jews i n my
neighborhood
R

.05 Younger No

.05 B, A

No
No

No

No

Yes

.05 Grange
E lks
Unions

No

No
No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

.05 A ctive

Mo

No

No

Yes

.01 A ctive

Yes

No

Yes

.05 A ctiv e

.05 A ctive

No

.05 A ctive

No
No

;ed - y es o r no
L ationship i s due t o chance
m ship w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d
'o w n sv ille ; A - Adams;

J - Johnstown;

R - R ural L o c a litie s ( tr e a t e d as one group)

P

D

T a b le T

SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES '
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS MEASURED E

Negroes to
Jg h nstgw n^

Negroes
n ex t door
_R
P
D

Negroes
a re la z y
R
P
D

Keep Negro
w hite n eig
R
P
D

Occupation ( in c . fa rm e rs)

No

No

No

No

Occupation (farm , w h ite c o l l a r ,
qnd m anual)

No

No

No

No

Occupation (non-farm o n ly )

No

No

No

No

Occupation (farm v s . non-farm )

No

Yes

No

No

Occupation (farm v s . p a r t- tim e
faxm)
Income (non-farm o n ly )

No

No

No

No

Education (8 c a te g o r ie s )

Yes

.05 H igher

No

No

Yes

Education (3 c a te g o r ie s )

Yes

.0 1 H. S.
Grad.

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Social s ta tu s in d e x (faxm )

No

No

No

No

Social s ta t u s in d ex (non-farm )

No

No

No

No

Independent V a ria b le

.05 Faxm

.01 H. S.
Grad.

.05 Hi

No

Education - w ith o c cu p a tio n
held c o n s ta n t: Faxm
Manual
S elf-estim ate o f s o c i a l c l a s s
S elf-estim ate o f s . c . (faxm)
S elf-estim ate o f s . c . (non-farm )

Revised s o c ia l s t a t u s in d e x
(non-farm )
^-R elationship in d ic a te d ^ P r o b a b ility t h a t r e l a tio i
D ire c tio n o f r e l a t io n s h i

T a b le T
fTITUDES TOWARD NEGROES TO CERTAIN
EASURED BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

eep Negroes o u t o f Negroes
h i t e neighborhoods sh o u ld v o te
P
D
R
P
D
0

Yes

3

No

3

Yes

)

No

Negroes w ith
ed u c atio n
R
P D

.0 1 P ro f.
Yes
Semis k ille d
Prop.
Yes
.01 P ro f.
No
Semi­
s k ille d
Prop.
Yes

W hites and
T o ta l Negro
Negroes i n
O rders fi
P re ju d ic e Score same r e s ta u r a n t a Negro
R
P
D
R
P
D
R
p

.05 P ro f.
Yes
Prop.
Semis k il l e d

.05 P ro f.
No
P rop,
Semis k il l e d

No

.01 White Yes
C o lla r
No

.01 White
No
C o lla r
No

No

.05 N-F

.05 N-F

No

No

No

Yes

No

No
>

No

Yes

.01 Higher

Yes

.05 H igher No

is .05 H igher

No

Yes

.0 1 H igher

Yes

.01 H igher Yes

1

No

Yes

.01 H. S.
Grad.

Yes

.01 H. S .
Grad.

No

Yes .05 H. S.
Grad.

—

Yes .05 H. S .
Grad.

—

.0 1 H igher

No
No

•
No

Yes

.01 Middle

Yes

.05 Middle

Yes

.01 M iddle

'V
No

No

—

No
No

Yes

.01 H igher

Yes

No

Yes

.01 H igher

No
Yes

i i c a te d - y es o r no
t r e la tio n s h i p i s due t o chance
L a tio n sh ip w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d

.05 Higher

.05 H igher

No

No

No

No

—

TABLE T (C on
SUMMARY OF RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS MEASURED

Negroes t o
Johnstown

Negroes
n e x t door

Negroes
a re la z y

Keep Neg
w h ite ne

Independent V a ria b le

R1

Sex

No

No

No

No

Age

No

No

No

No

Age (over v s . under 50)

—

—

—

—

Ethnic

Yes

No

No

P2

D3

.05 Old

R

Yes

A m er.

P

D

.05 Old

R

P

D

R

P

A m er.

Residence^-

No

Yes

.01 R, A

No

No

Religious I d e n t i f i c a t i o n

No

Yes

.05 R u ra l
No
Evan.U.B.
H o lin ess

No

O rganizations o th e r th a n church

No

Yes

.01 F.B .
Yes
V eteran s
Grange

Farm Bureau v s . non-Fann Bureau
members (farm e rs o n ly )

—

—

—

—

Church a c t i v i t y

No

No

No

Yes

P a rtic ip a tio n Index

No

No

No

No

P a rtic ip a tio n In d ex (farm )

No

No

No

No

P a rtic ip a tio n Index (non-farm )

No

No

No

No

Religious I d e n t i f i c a t i o n
(by s t a t u s in d ex )

£22*

.01 S e rv ic e No
V eteran s
E lks

.05

^ R e la tio n s h ip in d ic a te d - ye
^ P r o b a b ility t h a t r e la tio n s h
^ D ire c tio n o f r e la tio n s h ip w
V o u r groups:

A - Adams; B

T (C o n tin u e d )
JUDES TOWARD NEGROES TO CERTAIN
iURED BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
sp Negroes o u t o f
.te neighborhoods
P
D

W hites and
Negroes in
3ame r e s ta u r a n t

O rd e rs f i
a Negro

R

R

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

.01 E p isc . No
Method.
R ural
No

No

No

.05 S e rv ic e No
V eterans
Grange

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Negroes
should v o te
R
P
D

Negroes w ith
ed u ca tio n

No

No

No

No

R

P

D

,

T o t a l Negro
P re ju d ic e Score
R
D

No
No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

.05 Old
Amer.

Yes

No
.05

A c tiv e

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

Yes

.05 A ctive

.05 A ctive

sd - yes o r no
itio n s h ip i s due to chance
iship w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d
imsj B - B ro w n sv ille j

J - Johnstown; R - R ural L o c a litie s ( tr e a t e d a s one group)

TABLE U

RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AN
SCORE FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS ;

In d e p e n d en t V a ria b le

Mexicans
as c i t i z e n s
JL1
L2 R3

Keep Mexicans out o f
w h ite neighborhoods
R
P
D

O ccupation ( in c . farm )

No

•No

O ccupation (farm , w h ite c o l l a r , and
m anual)

No

No

O ccupation (farm v s . non-farm )

No

No

O ccupation (farm v s . p a r t- tim e farm )
Income (non-farm o n ly )

Yes

E d u catio n (8 c a te g o r ie s )

No

Yes

.01

H igher

E d u c a tio n .(3 c a te g o r ie s )

No

Yes

.05

H. S. Grad.

No

No

S o c ia l S ta tu s In d ex - farm

No

Ye3

S o c ia l S ta tu s In d ex - nonr»farm

No

No

.05

H igher

No

E d u c atio n - w ith o ccu p atio n h e ld
c o n s ta n t: Farm
Manual
S e lf - e s tim a te o f s o c ia l c la s s
S e lf - e s tim a te o f s . c . - farm
S e lf - e s tim a te o f s . c . - non-farm
.05

H igher

Bmrised S o c ia l S ta tu s In d ex - non-farm

^ R e la tio n s h ip in d ic a te d - ;
P r o b a b i l i t y t h a t re la tio n s
^ D ire c tio n o f r e la tio n s h ip

ANS AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
S, AS MEASURED BY ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
M exicans i n
r e s t a u r a n t s w ith w h ites
R
P
D

T o ta l
P re ju d ic e Score
R
E.
D

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

M exicans
t o M idState
R
P

f

D

No
No

Jrad.

No

No

Yes

.01

H igher

Yes

.05

H igher

Yes .01

H igher

Yes

.0 1

H. S. Grad.Yes

.05

H. S. Grad.

Yes .01

H. S. Grad.

No
Yes
No

No

No

No
No
No

No

No

No

No

No
No

bed - yes o r no
L a tio n sh ip i s due t o chance
onship w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d

I

.05

H. S. Grad.

TABLE U (C o n t.ii
RELATIONSHIP OF ATTITUDES TOWARD MEXICANS AND I
SCORE FOR CERTAIN INDEPENDENT VARIABLES, AS ME;
Mexicans
as c i t i z e n s

Keep Mexicans o u t o f
w h ite neighborhoods
R
P
D

Independent V a ria b le s

r1

Sex

No

No

Age

No

No

E th n ic

No

No

Residence^-

No

Yes

R e lig io u s I d e n t i f i c a t i o n

No

No

O rg a n iz a tio n s o th e r th a n t h e church

No

No

Church a c t i v i t y

No

No

1

P a r t i c i p a t i o n Index

Yes

NonNo
p a r t ic ip a to r s

I

P a r t i c i p a t i o n In d ex (farm )’

No

No

1\

P a r t i c i p a t i o n In d ex (non-farm )

Yes

No

N

p2

d3

.0 5

R, A

Farm B ureau v s . non-Farm Bureau members
(farm ers o n ly )

.05

.01

Nominal
and
A ctive

^"R elationship in d ic a te d - y
2 P r o b a b ility t h a t re la tio n s '.
3
D ire c tio n o f r e la tio n s h ip 1
^Four groups:

A - Adamsj B

C o n tin u e d )
AND ANALYSIS OF TOTAL PREJUDICE
IS MEASURED 3Y ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
Mexicans
t o M idS tate

Mexicans i n
r e s t a u r a n t s w ith w h ite s
R
P
D

T o ta l
P re ju d ic e S core
R
P
D

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

R

P

D

.0 1

B, A

Yos

.0 1

B, A

,05

A ctiv e

No
No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

d - yes o r no
b io n sh ip i s due to chance
sfiip w ith more t o l e r a n t group in d ic a te d
as; B - B ro w n sv ille; J - Johnstown;- R - R ural L o c a litie s ( tr e a te d as one group)