AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS Thesis for the Degree of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY PAUL WILLIAM AARDSMA 1968 .n." ' ’.\F\’\ I\~\— J ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS by Paul William Aardsma Employing data gathered from samples of 1967 Mich- igan State University seniors and matriculating freshmen of fall term 1967, this paper was designed to analyze the relationship between selected social background charac- teristics and types of religious belief orientations. The data was submitted to the M.S.U. computer system using the CASC (CAtegory SCoring) program and the ACT (Analysis of Contingency Tables) program. These provided raw scores on each of four religious categories with sample means and standard deviations, and contingency tables showing bi- variate relationships for the variables chosen. It was hypothesized that there would be a direct relationship between the types of belief patterns evidenced by entering college freshmen and the variables of their so- cial environment prior to the college experience such as 1 Paul William.Aardsma the socio-economic status, community type, and "signifi- cant other" relationships. Tests were made to see if individuals evidencing religiously conservative profiles would possess the social factors of lower socio-economic status, rural rather than urban type communities, and homogeneous rather than heterogeneous "significant others." Contrariwise it was hypothesized that persons evidencing religiously liberal profiles would possess the social factors of higher socio—economic status, urban rather than rural type communities, and homogeneous "significant other" relationships. This hypothesis was tested in three parts relating each social environmental factor to the evidenced religious belief pattern. A second hypothesis evolved from the former. Assuming the first to be true it was theorized that a combination of these factors would evidence a cumulative effect when analyzed by means of an interrelation matrix. It was expected that in terms of a conservative belief remainder derived by subtracting the percentage of lib— eral belief profiles in each cell from the percentage of conservative belief profiles, there would be a steady decrease in values from a positive value at the low 2 Paul William Aardsma status-rural—homogeneous "significant other" relationships to a negative value at the high status-urban-homogeneous "significant other" relationships. Belief patterns were determined by use of the Toch-Anderson Belief Inventory Scale. This involved clas- sification on two religious dimensions: conservative, which incorporated Orthodoxy and Fundamentalism, and lib: eral, which included religious Liberalism and Secularism. Religion was defined from a philosophic perspective in the Durkheimean tradition with a traditional bias. There- fore, secularism is seen as‘a replacement of mystical, supernatural elements of traditional Christianity by demythologized, humanistic, ethical ones. Three indices were constructed to measure the social background factors. Socio-economic status was determined by father's occupation, education, and annual family income. Communities were typed as rural, transi- tional, or urban based upon size and type of community and size of the high school graduating Class. "Signif- icant other" relationships were categorized as homogeneous or heterogeneous. Homogeneous relationships were defined as those contributing to the formation of the subject's 3 Paul William Aardsma belief pattern that were supportive of his beliefs. They consisted of persons of the same belief who were perceived as having a positive influence on the respondent or per- sons of a different belief perceived as having a negative influence. Heterogeneous relationships were defined as those which weakened the consistency of a subject's belief system. They consisted of persons of the same belief per- ceived to have a negative influence on the subject or per- sons of a different belief perceived as exerting a posi- tive influence on the respondent. It was found that socio-economic status is most strongly related to religious belief patterns. Community type also shows a relationship in the direction hypoth— esized. Homogenous "significant other" relationships were found to reinforce those holding religiously conservative beliefs, but contradictory findings were obtained when correlating homogeneous "significant other" relationships to those subjects of liberal religious beliefs. Nine cell matrices were developed to relate socio—economic status to each of the other two indices and a method devised to provide a conservative remainder for each cell. The ma- trices supported the second hypothesis and suggest possible fruitful areas for further investigation. 4 AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY Paul William Aardsma A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1968 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Our interdependence as social beings is readily acknowledged in all aspects of living. Nowhere have I been made more aware of my dependence on others than in the preparation of this paper. I am deeply indebted to my good friend and colleague, Shelby Stewman, without whose continual encouragement this would never have been done. To Jim Clark for his help with the CASC program and to Tom Goodell for expediting the obtainment of the freshmen sample, I am grateful. I wish also to express my appreciation to my committee chairman, Dr. James B. McKee, and to the other members of the committee, Dr. Denton Morrison and Dr. Donald W. Olmstead for their many helpful suggestions and aids with this paper. In addi— tion, I am eternally indebted to my wife, Doris G. Aardsma, and my children, Carl, Lois, and Doug, for their patient understanding and c00peration in the trying days of thesis compilation when they learned what "Life Without Father" was really like. ii TABLE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . . . . . . LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION. . . . . Related Studies . Major Concerns. . Hypotheses. . . . Thesis Organization . II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . III. HYPOTHESIS TESTING AND RESULTS. P0pulation and Sample Instrument. . . . CONTENTS Operational Definitions Methods of Analysis . Sub-hypothesis l. Sub-hypothesis 2. Sub—hypothesis 3. Major Hypothesis I. . Major Hypothesis II . IV. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . APPENDIX Page ii iv 10 15 19 29 31 31 35 39 51 54 56 59 63 66 67 74 79 83 Table 5A. 5B. 5C. 6A. 6B. 6C. LIST OF TABLES Denominations Listed by Percentages in Each of Three Religious Belief Profiles. . . . . Standard Deviations of Means in Four Cate— gories of Freshmen and Senior Samples 1967 Compared with Toch-Anderson Studies of 1960. 1961. 1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mean Number of Items Agreed with in Four Categories by Freshmen and Senior Samples Compared with Toch-Anderson Studies of 1960. 1961. 1963. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Correlation of Belief Inventory Items for the Senior and Freshman Samples 1967. . . . . . Comparison of Fathers' Type Occupation by Income Controlling for Education. Freshmen 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Education with Annual Income of Seniors' Fathers. 1967. . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Education with Annual Income of Freshmen's Fathers. 1967. . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Size High School by Community Type: Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Size High School by Community Type: Seniors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Size Community by Community Type: Freshmen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv Page 17 37 38 41 44 44 44 46 46 47 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table 6D. 7A. 7B. 8A. 8B. 8C. 10. 11A. 11B. 12. 13A. Comparison of Size Community by Community Type: Seniors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Freshmen and Seniors on Religious Belief Categories Controlling for Sex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Religious Belief Patterns by Age. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Religious Belief Patterns by Religious Attendance. . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Belief Patterns by Father's Religious Attendance . . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Belief Patterns by Mother's Religious Attendance . . . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Religious Belief Patterns by S.E.S.. . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Religious Belief Patterns by Community Type. . . . . . . . . Comparison of Freshman Religious Belief Patterns by Homogeneity of "Significant Others" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of Senior Religious Belief Patterns by Homogeneity of "Significant Others" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M.S.U. 1967 Freshmen. Conservative/Liberal Ratio on S.E.S. by Type Community Comparison. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Interaction of "Significant Other" Relation- ships and Socio-Economic Status on Relig- ious Beliefs of M.S.U. Freshmen. Fall 1967. Page 47 52 53 58 58 58 6O 62 64 64 69 71 LIST OF TABLES (continued) Table Page 13B. Interaction of Community Type and Socio- Economic Status on Religious Beliefs of Freshmen. Fall 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 14. Comparison of Freshman Religious Belief Patterns to Categories of "Significant Other" Relationships. . . . . . . . . . . . 77 Vi AN ANALYSIS OF SOCIAL FACTORS IN THE FORMATION OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS Chapter I INTRODUCTION "A man who puts aside his religion because he is going into society, is like one taking off his shoes because he is about to walk upon thorns."--(Richard Cecil) Carol Martin wrote in 1962, "Previous research has placed a generally negative picture of the person who professes religious beliefs."2 She proceeds to demon- strate that a religious believer has been variously de- scribed as a conventional, conforming, pessimistic indi- vidual to whom social acceptance is very important but who is not readily acceptable because of his rigidity, prejudices, lack of intelligence and suspicious stances. 1Richard Cecil, quoted in The New Dictionary of Thoughts, Tryon Edwards, §t_al, compilers (Chicago, 111.: Standard Book Company, 1966), p. 555. 2Carol Martin and R. C. Nichols, "Personality and Religious Belief," Journal of Social Psychology. 56, 1962, p. 3. The introductory quote from an 18th Century divine inti- mates that the social unacceptibility of the religious person is not new. An article appearing in The Michigan State News of July 12, 1968, quotes associate professor Louis Stomatakos as saying religion is becoming irrele— vant as an influence in life.3 Despite all the ridicule and abuse heaped upon it, religion and religious belief systems display a tremendous ability to persevere. Of recent date, interest in religion and its relation to society has been renewed as evidenced by the popularity and demand for courses in religion. Thomas Luckmann traces the history of intellectual interest in religion and notes that, despite the renaissance of interest in recent years, sociologists yet have failed to see the importance of its study for a better understanding of the relation of the individual to his society.4 3See Michigan State News, Friday, July 12, 1968, p. 12. 4Thomas Luckmann, The Invisible Religion (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1967), pp. 17-20. Luckmann along with J. Milton Yinger, Sociology Looks at Religion (New Ybrk: The Macmillan Company, 1961), pp. 65-74, treat the current changes in religion as simply new social forms of an historic institution. The significance here is that this demonstrates the ability of religious insti— tutions to persist in and adapt to a changing society, and recognizes the renewed interest in religion per se as a proper subject for scholastic study. Having overcome the negative appellations in part, interest has increased in recent years and a Society for the Scientific Study of Religion has even been established. Especially has attention focused on the role of religion in a changing society. Luckmann notes that both Durkheim and Mead years ago reversed the traditional understanding of the relation between society and the individual. Tak- ing society as a_given, Luckmann writes that the fact of society provides the necessary condition for individua— tion and the process of society allows for the emergence of self. Religion, as a mediating institution, functions to locate the individual in the social processes.5 Religion, as a philosophical institution, is com- monly recognized as a means of inculcating a system of values and providing a consistent world-life view. As a social institution, religion provides an individual the Opportunity to express his beliefs about, and attitudes toward, life's processes. Religion, as a philoSOphy of life, becomes an integral part of the inner core of per- sonality, but as an individual seeks to relate himself 5Ibid., p. 19. See also pp. 42-53. Here he speaks of the "world View" of a society performing a religious function; of "socialization" as a religious exercise; and of "individuation" as a religious process. under varying social conditions, he finds it necessary to alter his expressed beliefs and attitudes. Both Philip E. Jacob and Ralph Dreger in reviewing this phenomenon assert that, although peripheral expressions change, the inner core of the personality in which the beliefs are rooted does not change very much.6 Although it is not the purpose of this paper to investigate either the nature of social change or the na- ture of religion per se, because of the close identifica- tion of these with the expressed belief systems of indi- viduals, it is important that we clarify the conceptual problems of what religion is and how it relates to the process commonly called secularization. The answer pro- vided the former in turn will determine the conceptuali— zation of the latter. The conceptualization of religion most followed today is based upon Durkheim's classic definition. His solution to the enigma of defining such a multidimensional phenomenon came from an arbitrary decision to inaugurate 6Philip E. Jacob, Changing Values in College (New Haven, Conn.: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation), 1956, pp. 6, 40-55; and Ralph Mason Dreger, "Just How Far Can Social Change Change Personality?" The Journal of Psychology, 64, 1966. PP. 167-191. investigation by an analysis of beliefs and rites which led him to dichotomize the world into sacred and profane elements. His definition of religion is broad enough to make all societies religiously analyzable, yet it is nar- row enough to provide for a specific account of the ob- jective institutionalized forms of religion. He wrote, A religion is a unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden--be- liefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them. Adaptations of this definition are abundant.8 His em— phasis upon symbolic meanings has influenced many scholars to explore religion as a symbol system that has evolved through social interaction and has provided man with "a set of symbolic forms and acts which relate man to the . . . . . 9 . . ultimate conditions of his eXistence." This is an 7Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Re- ligious Life (New York: The Free Press, 1915), p. 62. 8One needs only to read the definitions given by Vernon, Berger, Tillich, §t_§l, to note the similarity to Durkheim's formulation. See, for instance, Glenn M. Vernon, Sociology of Religion (New York: The Free Press, 1961), p. 55 and Peter L. Berger's article, "Religious Institu— tions," in Sociology: an Introduction, Neil J. Smelser (ed.) (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1967), p. 331 ff. 9Robert N. Bellah, "Religious Evolution," American Sociological Review, 29, June, 1964, p. 359. ideological approach to religion and is, in truth, but one dimension of a multidimensional phenomenon. Because religious belief systems are the focal point of this in— vestigation, the generalizations made will refer only to the ideological dimension of religion. It is not our in- tent to make generalizations about religion per se. But also, since the emphasis is on religious belief systems, rather than on religiosity or the nature of specific re- ligious acts, the findings should have implications for other types of belief systems as well as for personality theory. We define religion then in the Durkheimean fashion as do Glock and Stark. The term religion will be used . . . as one variety of value orientations, those institu- tionalized systems of beliefs, symbols, values, and practices that provide groups of men with solutions to their questions of ultimate mean- ing. Inherent in the Durkheimean position are the fol- lowing considerations: 1) religion is a specific human experience which seeks to orient man to his world; 2) the fact of social heterogeneity necessitates the allowance for great diversity of content of religions while assuming O . . . 1 C. Y. Glock and R. Stark, Religion and Soc1ety in Tension (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1965), p. 17. See also pp. 18-38. a common concern for ultimates among all men; 3) the pos— sibility of institutionalizing value systems arrived at through social symbolic interaction and perpetuated through socialization must also account for the fact of diversity; and, 4) there are two recognizable perspectives in our definition--the one psycholggical (a universally ingrained concern for ultimates,) and the other sociological (a viable concern for placement of the individual in the social order). One consequence of this position is that secularization in the latter becomes a religious process which takes the institutional form of "secularism."11 In this way, functionalists such as Luckmann and Yinger look for the appearance of new social forms of religion as a result of current changes in society affecting religion's role of placement for the individual in the social order.12 Luckmann, especially, emphasizes that, because of "poten- tial disjuncture" between creed (the "official" model) and deed (the practical application), the need for con- gruity will cause the functions of the "church-oriented" 11This is a basic distinction made by Harvey Cox, The Secular City (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1966), p. 18 ff. 12Luckmann, op. cit., and Yinger, op. cit. religion to decrease in the total life sphere of the individ- ual and to be limited primarily to the private sphere. The other consequence based upon the psychological perspective distinguishes between kinds of value orientations. This is the position of Glock and Stark and Bryan R. Wilson.14 It places emphasis upon the individual rather than the social order. The individual's appeal to a supernatural being or extra—worldly force for the solutions to problems of ultimate meaning would be catalogued as religious. whereas appeal to the immediate material world would be considered irreligious or secular. An example of this humanist perspective is supplied us by Berger's writing on religious institutions in which he draws attention to a study by Rose Goldsen. EEHEL- entitled. "What College Students Think."15 It is reported that of the subjects surveyed. 80% expressed a need for religious faith. but of these only 47% indicated that belief in a Deity is a highly important component of a religious or ethical system. The students listed as com- ponents of an "ideal" religious system such things as (l) "a 13Luckmann. op. cit. 14Glock and Stark. op. cit.. pp. 1-38. 86-122; and Bryan R. Wilson. Religion in Secular Society (London: C.A. watts and Company. Ltd.. 1966). 15Berger. op. cit.. pp. 332 ff. focus for personal adjustment and development," (2) "in- tellectual clarity about the fundamental problem of liv- ing," (3) "a strong community feeling of closeness with your fellow man," and (4) "an anchor for family life and children." The psychological perspective would character- ize this as secularism. It should be noted that both perspectives arise from the same basic social phenomenon. The sociologist classifies secularization as a new form of religion in the social order. The psychological perspective of Glock and Stark see secularization as a replacement (by individuals singly or collectively) of mystical, supernatural elements of traditional Christianity by demythologized, ethical l6 ones. l6Glock and Stark, op. cit., pp. 1-17, 116-117. For a fuller discussion of the current religion- secularization dialogue, the following references have been most helpful to this writer: Peter Berger, "A So- ciological View of the Secularization of Theology," Jour- nal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 5, Fall, 1966, pp. 3—16 and The Sacred Canopy (New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1967); Robert Bellah, "Religious Evolution," American Sociological Review, 29 (June 1964), pp. 358-374; Talcott Parsons, The Social System (New York: The Free Press, 1951), pp. 163-164, 367-309 and "Sociology and So- cial Psychology," in Religious Perspectives in College Teaching, Hoxie N. Fairchild (ed.) (New York: The Ronald Press Company, 1952), pp. 335-337; and Larry Shinar, "The Concept of Secularization in Empirical Research," in the Journal for the Scientific Study_of Religion, 6, Fall 1967, p. 207-220. 10 To recapitulate, we are proceeding from the psy- chological perspective and are biased toward a historical definition of religion. This serves the purpose of this study for we are ppp_interested in the emerging new forms of religion, but §£p_interested in the social factors 0p- erative in the particular formation of one's belief system. The purpose of this lengthy review of the religion- secularization dialogue is that it provides us a better basis on which to formulate categories of belief systems on a continuum from highly orthodox (belief systems which put great emphasis on the supernatural or mystical forces) to secular (belief systems which are humanistic in approach to questions of ultimate concern, and use demythologized, ethical elements to rationalize solutions). we are studying but one dimension (the ideological) of a multidimensional problem in order to investigate what social factors operate to predispose some young students to embrace one type of belief system rather than another. Related Studies With growing interest in religion, many studies have been conducted to measure the "religiosity," i.e., 11 the religious practices of people (students particularly). Few studies have been conducted to define belief patterns in such a way as to cross over denominational lines, and fewer which specify explicit factors determinative in the formation of particular belief patterns. A study by the Lynds of Middletown devotes a section to change in reli— gion but from the structural standpoint of the institution rather than dealing with beliefs.17 we have already re- ferred to Jacob's studies and his view that change in a college student's religious orientation is a matter of socialization rather than liberalization of beliefs, i.e., the change is peripheral rather than integral.18 His main contribution was the introduction of the concept of homo— geneity of beliefs, a variable factor between freshmen and seniors, which he attributes to the college sociali- zation process. In addition, he notes certain types of students more prone to change than others, "students who enter college with extremely rigid and fundamentalist be— liefs appear particularly vulnerable to liberalization."19 7Robert and Helen Lynd, Middletown in Transition (New York: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1937). 18Jacob, Op. cit., pp. 40—55. 19Ibid., p. 56. 12 Hans H. Toch, pp_§l, attempted to analyze change of beliefs by an isolation of structural attributes of belief systems. On the basis of inconsistent and illog- ical belief formations they predicted change would take place in the persons possessing them. Having reviewed the work of Allport, Gillespie, Young, and Jacob, Toch asserts, What is indisputable, however, is that some young men and women modify some religious be- liefs in transit through higher education. . . . The main object of our study was to iso— late patterns of belief which might carry high or low survival value. What sorts of beliefs characterize a person who tends to change his theoretical orientation? He proceeds to show by example that students with illog- ical formulations (holding inconsistent beliefs) tend to change toward the liberal pole. His emphasis is on incon- sistencies and illogical configurations of beliefs. Lenski attempted to measure religious interest and correlate it with social factors of married life such as sex, number of children, occupation, income, educational OHans Toch, pp_§1,, "'Secularization' in College: An Exploratory Study," in Religious Education, Nov.-Dec., 1964, pp. 491-493. See also pp. 498-502. (Emphasis his.) 13 level, etc.21 He found some significant relationships but measured purely religious activities rather than be— liefs. Isabelle K. Payne sought a relationship between attitudes and values and selected background character- istics in her study of "stereotypy." She concluded, it appears that factors most closely allied with change in stereotypic beliefs and values are familial in nature rather than intellectual: parental education, father's occupation, and re- ligious affiliation. Rosenberg and associates sought to find a psycho- logical explanation for change in personal behavior pat- terns in group situations. Although not particularly re- lated to a study of religious beliefs, it is nonetheless relevant for these researchers discovered what they termed an "assembly effect" which varies depending upon the type of individuals with whom the subjects were assembled.23 1Gerhard E. Lenski, "Social Correlates of Reli- gious Interest," American Sociological Review, 18, Oct., 1953. PP. 533-544. 22Isabelle K. Payne, The Relationship Between At- titudes and Values and Selected Background Characteristics, unpublished Ed.D. thesis, M.S.U., 1961, p. 87. 238. Rosenberg, pp_§l,, "Some Effects of Varying Combinations of Group Performance Measures and Leadership Behaviors," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 1955, p. 202. 14 Their use of authoritarian and nonauthoritarian type groups failed to reveal the influence of group norms, but, did reveal that authoritarians showed a greater increase (of membership change) in the direction of nonauthoritarian attitudes than was shown by nonauthoritarians.24 In other words, in terms of a person's belief system, his "significant others" may produce a direct influence on the individual acceptance or rejection of beliefs. A study by Ferguson found that "believers" tended to come from lower socio-economic levels, and from rural 2 rather than urban backgrounds. 5 Luckmann also draws at- tention to the fact that in EurOpe, the country is "more . . . 26 religious" than the City. This study is then a replication of other studies as well as an extention by reason of combination of sev- eral. 24Ibid. 25L. W. Ferguson, "Socio-Psychological Corre- lates of Primary Attitude Scales: I Religionism.II Hu- manitarianism," Journal of Social Psychology. 19, 1944, 2 . 6Luckmann, op. c1t., p. 29. 15 Major Concerns All of these studies make contribution to the understanding of the problem with which we are concerned. Our purpose was to isolate certain social factors which, when considered as independent variables, would affect the formulation of specific types of belief patterns, our dependent variable. We were interested in securing, first of all, some measure of religious beliefs that would cross de- nominational lines. It is generally recognized that re- ligious perspectives vary greatly within denominations as well as between them. It is also apparent that indi— viduals may possess widely varying reasons for partici- pation in the practices of denominations without being committed to the beliefs of the church. It was our aim to classify individuals by type of belief patterns rather than on the basis of single beliefs or affiliation with a denomination. Toch and Anderson have provided just such a scale. WOrking from their analysis of religious belief and denominational affiliation, they proceeded to the formulation of a belief inventory which provided four categories along two dimensions: Orthodoxy and 16 Fundamentalism in the conservative dimension and Religious Liberalism and Secularism in the liberal dimension. This scale avoids the error of classifying in the same dimension by denomination two or more individuals who might be quite diverse in actual beliefs. It was decided to extend these studies by inclu- sion of selected social factors for analysis in relation to types of belief patterns. Since Toch and Anderson had used an aggregate sample of 1967 seniors when they were freshmen in 1963 without gathering social background data, it was decided not to try a longitudinal study on the same individuals. This would have made us rely on undependable memories for data pertinent to their pre-college exper- ience. Therefore, it was decided to take other aggregate samples of 1967 graduating seniors and Fall 1967 matricu— lating freshmen. By gathering similar data from each, it was reasoned that a cross analysis could be made by 27Toch, et al., 0p. cit., and Hans Toch and Robert Anderson, "Religious Belief and Denominational Affilia- tion," Religious Education, May-June, 1960, pp. 193-200. In the latter, it was clearly demonstrated that the items used were successful in crossing denominational lines, that indeed there is a wide dispersion of beliefs within denominations as well as between denominations. A repli- cation test of our adapted form of the T-A inventory showed the same results. See Table 1. 17 moonz Isms iohv AH~C Roe. Acme Anne Amvv Remy Ram. Len. Amado mamuoa a Red man man x- xov xmv nae man see me mac umxaz 3 C 63 and 8 C 3 C 83 83 $3 $2 3 V SS . man gee xnn map mow gm. x~v *3» mod :54 xma _ amuman 83 83 t. V :8 S: S: 8: 83 8 V 3. C :3 m . L. _ m . . i so mes sod -- -- as gas sod x6e amp sow 1 IN C .mss .N a --- -u- Aw v .m C .vAC Anus lass isms w m>uum>ummcoo _ _ _¢ & o o s. _ 9. do «.10 900 «e 600 . Maw 99¢ 5%. «w... e90 60.9 oevrle Ame e? 3.6 0 or. o. 00 9% 9 )9 be t). s .6». e... 9 Ge 00 b. Q0 5» o. of. 30... Ge 99 a. o e 0 9 00 0 IV ?. )3? 9 OH! O so 00 09 Au b. \l ). o mBHhOflm hflHQflM gOHUHAmm ”an. ho £05m 2H mmsgflommm ha afiqu mIOHflflaEZflG A manna 18 controlling for similar social background factors. This would then provide a base—line from which change in re- ligious belief systems which occur during a college ex- perience could be successfully measured. Another concern is that a distinction be made be- tween an individual's religious orientation and his orien— tation to religion. By the former we mean a person's formal or informal pattern of beliefs which are in essence the answers to questions concerning ultimates and also the logical consistengy of this pattern. we are secondarily concerned here with the saliency of this belief pattern as it is applied to the problems of his social existence. By the latter--a person's orientation to religion -—we are referring to religion in the narrower sense of organized religion. Lack of orientation to religion may be used as a measure of the degree of secularization. But since we have already predisposed ourselves to reject denominationalism as a measure of religious orientation, and since we committed ourselves to an examination of be- lief configurations, while making the distinction we concentrate upon the former. 19 Hypotheses The first major research question of this study concerns the relationship of three major variables of a subject's social environment to the particular formula- tion of a religious belief pattern. That is, I propose to employ indices of the respondents' social environment and to test each index against the two dimensions of the four categories devised by Toch and Anderson. The in— dices proposed for testing are: l) the socio—economic status of the respondent's family, 2) the type of community from which the respondent comes, and 3) the "significant-other" relationships acknowledged by the respondent as important in the formulation of his religious beliefs. The religious pattern of beliefs will be ascer— tained by the application of a belief inventory question- naire, an adaption of the Toch-Anderson questionnaire earlier referred to. By enumerating items agreed with or 20 disagreed with in each category, a raw score on each cate— gory was obtained. Since each item in the questionnaire is rated in only one category, the respondent must agree or disagree according to a pre—determined design of the statements and will be assessed only on the basis of an— swers in agreement with this deSign. The first major hypothesis is as follows: I. Hypothesis: There are positive relationships between the type belief patterns evidenced by entering college freshmen and the variables of their social environment prior to college such as: l) socio—economic status of the family, 2) community factors, and 3) the "significant-other" re- lationships. To test this hypothesis, it will be necessary to consider it in the form of three sub-hypotheses. A brief theoret- ical rationale for the inclusion of each particular var- iable will be considered before each sub-hypothesis is stated. Socio-economic status has long been considered not only as a means for identifying the levels of social stra— tification, but also as a social variable determining the 21 occurrence of other social factors. The fact that differ- ence in socio—economic status determines intra—family as well as inter-family relationships by ascribing different life styles. predisposing different world—life views. and differing psychological needs. logically leads us to suspect that these basic differences will be reflected in the religious beliefs expressed. Evidence of this has been substantially supported by research.28 However. un- til recently. it was generally held that the more "reli- gious." i.e. orthodox or fundamental. beliefs were held by the less educated. more backward and lower-lower classes. Glock and Stark have done us great service by indicating that recent research has shown that both lib- eral and conservative belief systems are in large part a middle and upper class phenomenon. The basic argument of Glock and Stark is that most prior examinations of the be- liefs of the different classes were made among church mem— bers. Therefore. the only valid judgment that can be made 28The following works are relevant in this regard: Max Weber. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1958). pp. 72-78; N. J. Demerath III. Social Class in American Protestantism (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company. 1965); Richard Neibuhr. Social Sources of Denominationalism (Meridian Book. 1964). esp. pp. 26-33. 80-89; J. Milton Yinger. 0p. cit.. pp. 23— ‘63. 22 from the prior investigations is that of those engaged in religious activities among the lower class, the fund- amentalistic persuasion is more dominant than among middle and upper class persons.29 Therefore, since there is a differential rate of involvement in religious exercises by all classes, it is postulated herein only that of those directly disposed to religion and religious activity will the variable of social class have an effect, producing a more religiously conservative person from the lower socioe economic level while producing a more religiously liberal person from the higher socio-economic level. The hypoth- esis then is as follows: Sub-Hypothesis 1: There is a positive relation- ship between conservative be- lief patterns of college fresh- men and the low socio-economic status of their families. The second complex of social variables to be con- sidered here is the type of community from which the re- spondent comes to college. Three specific aspects of com— munity are herein considered as important: the size of the community, the size of the respondent's graduating 29Glock and Stark, 0p. cit., chapters 10 and 11. 23 class, and the type of community. A number of studies have already explored the effect of an individual's com- munity upon his religious perspectives.30 It is reasoned that structural differences between rural and urban centers afford some individuals with greater variety of associations than others. For in— stance, a person from a rural community is not as likely to meet as large a variety of persons with philosophical views differing from his own as is an urban resident. The congestion of the city with its inhabitants brought together from various cultures and with its ability to offer a vastly diverse selection of cultural opportunities predisposes that an urban individual is more likely to be tolerant of the cultural norms and mores of others than someone reared in the more Gemeinschaft rural community. In addition, the emphasis upon Specialization and differ- entiation in the urban center tends to have an effect upon an individual's total belief system to the extent that world views become discrete parts of his belief system 30For a logically sound presentation of this theory, see Richard A. Peterson and N. J. Demerath III, "Introduc- tion," in Millhands and Preachers by Liston POpe (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1942). Also see Gerhard Lenski, The Religious Factor (Garden City: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 1961), pp. 8—12. 24 rather than a unified whole with his beliefs. With the sphere of religious autonomy decreased, the importance of individual beliefs are more subject to doubt or ques— tioning. The type of community is likewise an important consideration for it is conceivable that two communities of equal size might be vastly different in their urban complexity and cultural opportunity. A suburban community with its ready access to the advantages of its neighboring city can be expected to be more like the urban center than a rural community of the same size, or an educational center will differ from a small semi-industrial center or larger agricultural community. The size of the high school graduating class is reasoned to have the same liberalizing effect upon an in- dividuals belief system that the urban center would have. It is reasoned the more an individual is faced with the necessity of cooperating with others of diverse Opinions, and the more he is made aware of belief systems differing from his own, the more critical he will be of his own be- liefs and tolerant to the beliefs of others. John Summer- skill has successfully related the variables of secondary school size, location, and size of home community with 25 . . . 3 . the attrition rates in college. 1 If such variables af- fect one's ability to adjust in college, it is reasonable to believe that they will have begun their influence upon the individual-—especially upon his belief system--prior to the college experience. Evidence of this position is given by Payne who writes, Increased knowledge of other religions gained through classroom experiences and association ‘with those affiliated with other religions has been reported by students as being most influ- ential, in lessening stereotypic beliefs. Therefore, our second sub—hypothesis is: Sub-Hypothesis 2: There is a positive relation- ship between conservative be- lief patterns of college fresh- men and the rural character of their home communities. Lastly, we wish to consider the complex of "significant-other" (”8.0.") relationships. "8.0." is de- fined as that person or persons whom the respondent per- ceives as having helped formulate his philos0phical views by exerting either a positive (confirming) or negative 31Jo'hn Summerskill, "Dropouts From College," in Collegg and Character, Nevitt Sanford (ed.) (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1964), pp. 188-192. 32Payne, 0p. cit., p. 75. 26 (Opposing) influence on his religious belief system. ‘We have already referred to Rosenberg's "assembly effect" showing the significance of types of associations.33 In addition, Strickland and Crowne report from their study, "Results indicated that subjects with a high need for so- cial approval conform significantly more often than those subjects with a weaker approval need."34 It is reasoned that the higher the need for social approval, the more sensitive an individual will be to differences of reli- gious belief, and the more influencedlmewill be by those persons significant to him who possess views differing from his own. On the other hand, those with lower appro- val needs will be the more self-confident individuals, less perceptive of differences between themselves and others and therefore the more confirmed in the particular View. These reference persons (they are not considered as an aggregate group of persons but rather as separate individuals producing individual effects) may serve to 33Rosenberg, op. cit., p. 129. 4Bonnie R. Strickland and Douglas P. Crowne, "Conformity Under Conditions of Simulated Group Pressure as a Function of the Need for Social Approval," Journal of Social Psychology. 58, 1962, p. 180. 27 confirm an individual's belief system in two possible ways. First, if they are homogeneous and considered by the subject to have exerted a positive influence (sup- portive of and acceptable to the subject) they will con- firm and strengthen religious convictions. Secondly, if the "8.0." is heterogeneous but considered by the re- spondent to have exerted a negative influence (contrary and not acceptable to the subject), this will also serve to strengthen religious convictions in their original configuration. This assumed phenomenon logically must work at all points on the religious belief continuum, i.e., a person of conservative beliefs will be confirmed in his conservatism by homogeneous-positive "S.O.'s", while a person at the liberal end with the same type "8.0." will likeWise be confirmed in his religious liberalism. Con- trariwise, a subject with homogeneous "significanteotherS" whom he perceives as exerting a negative influence, or with heterogeneous "significant—others" whom he regards as exerting a positive influence will be more likely to moderate or change his religious views.35 Our hypothesis is then: 35For a more adequate treatment of the "Significant- Other" concept, see William F. Rushby, Location in the 28 Sub—Hypothesis 3: There is a positive relation— ship between the homogeneity of "significant-other" rela- tionships and the consistency of the belief patterns of col- lege freshmen. The second major hypothesis is closely related to the former. It is reasoned that, if each of the above in- dices has an influence upon the religious belief patterns of the subjects, a cummulative effect should be recogniz- able. Therefore, if a matrix of inter-relation of these indices were constructed, and a scale deve10ped for equa- tion of the conservative-liberal beliefs of the aggregate sample, a progression should be noticeable from highly conservative in the rural. low status, individuals with homogeneous-supportive "3.0." Stated formally, our hypoth- esis is: II. Hypothesis: There will be shown in the form- ‘ulation of an inter-relation ma- trix of the independent variables: .1) socio-economic status, 2) com- munity factors, and 3) "signifi- cant other" relationships, when holding the belief patterns con- stant, a progressive direct Social Structure, Significant Other, and Level of Educa- tional and Occupational Aspiration: An Exploratory Study, an unpublished MIA. Thesis, M.S.U., 1966. 29 relationship with low status-— rural-—homogeneous "significant other" relationships producing a high conservative score; and with high status--urban--homo- geneous "significant otherfl re- lationships producing a low con- servative score. Thesis Organization With the aforegoing introductory information, we proceed now to consider the methodology employed to Oper- ationalize the major concepts. A rather involved explana- tion of the development of our indices is included. Chap- ter III will deal exclusively with the testing of our two major and three sub-hypotheses. Because of the nature of the first major hypothesis, it will automatically stand or fall on the test of the three sub—hypotheses and will be evaluated on the basis of a review of the three. The second major hypothesis grows out of the first and will be tested by an attempted construction of the suggested matrix. Chapter IV will include a final discussion and conclusion of the paper. Implications for additional research in this area will be made. 30 The appendix of this paper includes the bibliog— raphy, instruments and copies of the covering letters used with the mailed questionnaire. Chapter II METHODOLOGY The design and application of this study was a COOperative effort of two Michigan State graduate students who pooled their resources for its final accomplishment. Interested in the same problem area, it was decided to gather sufficient data to enable each to explore his own particular interest. It is the interest of this writer to gain an understanding of the influence of social fac- tors on the formation of religious belief patterns, while it was the interest of my colleague, Shelby Stewman, to pursue an investigation of the relation between any par- ticular change in these social factors produced by the college environment and change in religious perspectives. The methods employed, however, were designed with both interests in mind. Population and Sample Two samples were employed in this study. The first was comprised of 400 Michigan State Seniors drawn 31 32 from a total population of 6,548 seniors registered during spring term 1967. The M.S.U. Data Processing Center se- lected a simple random sample based on student numbers. To each of these seniors a covering letter and a two-part self-administered questionnaire were mailed enclosing a stamped, self-addressed return envelope. Three days fol- lowing the initial mailing, a personal telephone call urg- ing COOperation was made to each subject possessing a phone. Two weeks later, a second letter, questionnaire, and return envelope were mailed to the homes of those who had not responded. The initial effort produced 252 replies (63%) and an additional 49 completed instruments (12.25%) were re- turned following the second mailing. The 301 returned questionnaires representing 75.25% of the initial sample contained 59%;male respondents as compared with a total University male population of 56%“ The division by sex of the senior class was not available. The slight dif- ference between the sample and the pOpulation was not considered sufficient to have influenced the results ob- tained. In addition, the attrition rate of females throughout the college experience tends to increase the 33 male to female ratio. This alone could account for the 3% differential. Of the 301 returned instruments, 7 were unusable. One was obviously spurious for it listed such information as "Taoism" for personal religious preference, "American Nazi Party" as father's political reference, and both "Norman Rockwell" and "Martin Luther King" as "Signifi- cant Others" terming the former as "idol" and the latter as "friend" but both "positive" influence. The other six were incomplete in information, particularly in the second part. Of the reasons given, one expressed fear that their views would be misconstrued and misapplied, one cited personal ambivalence of beliefs, another called the ques- tions too personal, a fourth charged ambiguity in wording, and the remaining two gave no reason. Of the 99 non-respondents, 6 were returned to the researchers by the Post Office as undeliverable because addressee was "unknown," "moved, left no address," or "not at address given." The sex breakdown of the 99 showed 56 males and 43 females which is comparable to the total uni- versity division. A comparison of the 49 late respondents to the total senior sample showed both within a standard 34 deviation range between 2.4 and 4.3 and the following com— parison of mean scores in the four categories of belief patterns: Total Late Sample Respondents Difference Orthodoxy 3.0531 2.7755 -.2776 Fundamentalism 2.7755 2.5306 -.2449 Liberalism 6.2531 6.3265 +.0734 Secularism 4.9592 4.8163 -.1429 This indicates that the late respondents were very slightly less conservative than the total sample with the greatest difference in Orthodoxy and least difference in Liberal- ism. Therefore, if it is assumed that the non-respondents resemble the late responders in their beliefs, there is a slight conservative bias in the scores here reported. A second sample of fall term 1967 entering fresh- men was secured during the summer orientation sessions. No pre-determined design was employed in allotting assign- ments for orientation. Each student selected the time of orientation according to his own convenience and desire. The researchers were permitted by the Freshmen Orientation Director to select two such sessions for the application of their instrument. A total sample of 605 freshmen was thereby secured. Although the procedure employed does not 35 provide a strictly randomized sample, it is probably as close to random as one can come without the use of a pre- established random sampling procedure. It was believed that the method used would provide an adequate cross— sectional representation of the freshmen class. Forty- five percent of this sample were males. The pOpulation of freshmen following fall registration contained 52% males. This discrepancy may be reasoned as resulting from the probability that more males than females would have summer work commitments. The discrepancy means simply that the sample is slightly biased toward females. It is further recognized that a selective factor is incorporated into the study by using only college or— iented individuals. But it was reasOned that rather than bias the results in the direction of the hypotheses, this factor would work in the opposite way and make the support of the hypotheses more difficult to obtain, i.e. these individuals would probably be more liberal in their be- liefs than their non-college counterparts. Instrument A two part self—administered questionnaire was employed. The senior questionnaire contained additional 36 questions pertaining to the college experience, but aside from this was identical to the freshman questionnaire. Part I consisted of social demographic factors prior to the college eXperience. It was designed to pro— vide information about: 1) the socio-economic status of the respondent's family; 2) community factors which pro- vide an environmental context for the respondent's pre- college development; and, 3) "significant others" whom the respondent perceived as contributing to his world- life views. Part II of the questionnaire was a sixty—item adaptation of a belief inventory designed by Dr. Hans Toch and Dr. Robert Anderson of M.S.U. The adapted form. contained only those items upon which unanimity of opinion had been expressed by theologians and clergymen consulted by Drs. Toch and Anderson in the formation of their in- strument.1 The exact items used by them in the determi- nation of the four categories of orthodoxy, fundamentalism, religious liberalism, and secularism were emplpyed, 1For a complete description of the construction of the Toch-Anderson Belief Inventory, see Toch, H. and An- derson, R.; "Religious Belief and Denominational Affilia- tion," Religious Education, 1960, May-June, pp. 193—4; and "Secularization in College: An Exploratory Study," 32? ligious Education, 1964, Nov-Dec, p. 491. 37 eliminating only the placebo items. Table 2 compares the standard deviation of means in the four categories of the two samples of this study with the standard deviations ob- tained by Drs. Toch and Anderson in studies of 1960, 1961, and 1963. It indicates that the standard deviations of this study fall within the limits of the previous studies. Table 2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF MEANS IN FOUR CATEGORIES OF FRESHMAN AND SENIOR SAMPLES 1967 COMPARED WITH TOCHeANDERSON STUDIES OF 1960, 1961, 1963 Sr. Fr. Fr. Fr. Fr. Sr. 1967 1967 1963 1961 1960 1960 categorles n 294 n 611 n 153 n 304 n 412 n 42 n 14 Fundamental 3.0 3.2 3.8 3.4 3.3 2.9 n 16 Liberal 2.5 2.5 2_4 2.3 2,4 2.4 n 12 Secular n 18 I III!" III fl IIIII [Ill‘n «III . .II'III..4 . Ill I‘III. 1 A q 4 4 . 1 1 < 4 1 8 v o . ., . . - . _ .. .. .H ... . ¢ . . fl . . . I. .. . . . n .0. .. . . . .... . . . ~.. . . . .. . . . .. a . o . . . v o. . .. . . . 4 I 3 e. a . fl .4 o . ... .. . . . .o. .. 9 ..H. .. o . . 9 . . v. v .o . v .. oo.I . . . . .. . . . o . . . . ...... .. . .. . . .. . o ... .. .. .. ... . o... . CI .1 .t. . ... . . o p . .....-- ... no. -. .v.*o0 6...... .I 9.90.l- O-I9..vo.-%..4|....9.. .- .9. OH ..o 9 I..I..I990..II9.V-I|I.II.9 .6 «IO». . 0. . . . . . . fi . . . o u o.. .. ..... . ... ~ . 9. . . m . . . . . .0 .. . . . _ . — . a . ... — . . a . . ....o v . ..~ . . _. . c . - ... . o . . . . a . . .. . . . .n.. M. . H v . n . Illill‘ti‘i VIODO'OIIucll. 4 r 1 Ir 1 I1. 0 O . . . _ . . . . . ‘ .-. . . . ... . . . M . . o . .. _ . . . .. o . 00.. . p . n o .0. .0 .. ... a A ... ....« . . o H. 0 .. . 9 . 09 90 . . . o . . .. .o . . . .. ... . 00 . . . o . .. — 0. . u o. .. . . _ . _ o . . . . .o .. L. o .. ..H. . . o . .. v a 9 v.0... ._ .0 . o c. . .I o . 9 ..9 6.0.. .1... c..-9.! .10 vvvi¢9AAOOQIIVQOIa90$O f 9.0.0'0 no 11.0.9. +.v0 .99 I IL. I .... . L. . m . .. g. . . .. . _.++. ... . ... « . . . a a. fi +4 o . . . . . .. . . o _. .o. .. ... .9I¢I.. ..r .+ ...._ 4 . .. + 9. 09 I9 I . . o _ , _ .v o... ....o..** v- . .vol . .a... . .. ¢ . . . 4 4. I.V~... o . H . .. . . ~ . o .. u+....o r4 .0.....1|V .. 0.... . .. u . .H s 0.. . III-..I . .- 4 - i . . . . . . I. o t. _ . - d . . . ... ..*.. ..v v. .0. ..... ....+. . .0. v. .4 .. . 9 0 . 9 * 0.... . . . fl .. - . . . .. - ........ ... . ... Y... ...o,. .. .6. .. .o... - .. .. . . . o ,0 e v ... .. . . . o ..9 . ... .. . ..... o. .. .. .. .. . 9 .o. . . a .o . a . 6.0 . o . .. «. ... 0... .~.o..o ... . o .0 .. o.... . . . W o . no. . . .m 0 .IOIOIo.§o .. I. . .vvo . 0 v...ne . . -.. .o..99 1.7..999 990.9I907' 9.91904901v1.ola 10'11.909-.0. .. .I.tI-- I. a¢9 VI II .00. . . _ . u o .. . .u. .. ..... .u..4.. ....H ... 1. .. c . .... n o 0.. .91 .o.. . . _ . . ~ . o . .. . .. ... .. . ... . . ... . . . .. ... . . .. v . .. fi-l . o . .. . . o . I - o u. . . ..... .9._o.. ... o.. . o. ngo... . . . ...... . o . O. < 0.0 A A on... . . . . . . ... ... .~ 9. o. .. ... - .. .q. . l . . . . . .. 1. a o . 9.. .. LII. I I . I - - . . i . 1.. .9 .. . . . . . . o v. o . o . ..... 0.. H .. . I0 . 00. . . . . ..# .. ¢ . . ..*. . . ...0. . 0.. . . 0 .. ... 0... . 0 . .. v . a 0 . In I ._ . . . o _ . . o .. . .a .0 . .. .o... . . . . .. . P.- o. . ., . ~ .. . .. . . . ... .. . . o .... .. . .. c .. .. ..... .. . . 0‘... .to .c.!.9.. 0 o . O 0 v.400~.0'|-.I..I'l 0.0.9' 9 1".-.0’. OI..IIO-9I..0|0III'L .IQ Y1 .0.9O'..0.0'0 .IYO 1.10. OI‘I. I l o. .. . . H . . .— ... .. . o. . ... . . u... . 9 ... 9. 9o... . . . .. . ..04 9.. ...... . . . u — IA. . . . . . . .. v .. u. .. ..M .o a. 0 O a... .a. o . . . o. . .9..09.. 9.... O. .-... u » . o - . . .o. . . . .- .o.... .. ... .. w . . .. . . .. .. ..o.+ . . . .. o. . v.. A 0 . . . p . ..* .u. t. . . .... - . . . . ..<. . .. .6 . . . . .v ..00. v. ... .. .. . 9.. > . I > _ . p 1 . < ... fl 4 (.1 4H1 1H 4I1 4 4 1 1 ,H. I 1 1 4 .. o . . .... #1... o .. II9. . .ol . . .9. q . . o ..O .olf. 40..vllv+... .. 1.... I . a . . . n . .o . . . ... . .. ... o .. .Io .H..Ii. ... .. .. . . .. . .9 69 .ItHIH..v1..-.....0 .. .4 T... c . .. . . . . _ ..M . . .. .. . .e.... II. .+ . ... .. .. . .. . ..a I. II. .4) ... ... .L.-H q r .. . _ . . .. . .. . . .lH .. . .. . ... -.+-.,+...I... 1...... 9.... .— . . . .. .A.. ..o .....-... 90.1. .IO.....-0. .. .rloll.-I .11IIIIY..Ivo I-.T-..I90I.. o..f..0I| fi.. .110 LrI_I. . I OIOIIOIO¢O||.I|.I.I.I..§IIIa.l 1.- . 1 n . . o . .. . . . .~ . . . . ... .. o.. . 1.....IV. . ..~... .. . ..~ . . .o . ..¢I.l..«...-. ....v-... .v....- o .. v .. . . . a _ . . . . . . ... . .+H...I.. .. o..... I. ... a o .— . ..YI..94.9I. .o..¢0 .I4.YI 0.... .9 o. 9.. .. o . o . . . . . .._.. o . o. .o ... .9 I...-. o .. ....~ 0 . ... H. . ...YI.0.¢.9I.. ....P. .v .4...ov...v.- a. .o . . . . . . . . o v . .. . .. ..9II- . .... a .o.. A .9 . . H.1T..v.w91lto c..oo. .0. ..9. a... u o. v III I... I 0 -I . . . r . » - I. .4 « IHIH .. _ 4 . . . .. .. .... . . .u. . . 0... .01 .. o . .. IIH .. . . .v v.... .00 v...09 9. 90$.09. 0 0 . .7 . n 4 . . . . o .u.... .. e . 0... .o . ‘.00. .9.. . .l o. .0 . . .. o . . .0 9o 9...9O .. .990 . .pO... .- 090... O 0 vi! ._ . . . — . ‘ . . ... o. . .. .. . ... ._ o . . . . ... to . v. .0.9.. .99. .v. . o 0 T1. .. v . - . . . o . . . . .. . .- .. . o . ~ . . . .. . . . .. . I... ..v . ....o ... . 9......1......... .. TI. .| O. .. ... a. o 9I .. .t-... o.- ...99 .I-9.¢..09. ..I00VI- +9019.I.9 . I4.-I9. ‘IOIOIA. i. I...Io H I I..i.19I1I-VIOvIO9I1.40II9 109IIOII$ITQOI9I#0IOI’.JIOIOOOLY9 1. We . ._ . . . . .a . .u .o... . . . ..9. . .. . j o .H ... . a . 1. .. I ... .9... ...o o... .. ... . l. ...... v v c .. o . . .. . w .. . .... . . ... . .0. I I. .- u .. . . . .. .._ .4 u . .. 9 ..v.4.... .0. .0...lu. .4 .. v. 40 . o t . T... . . . . ... .. . ... . . o . . o. .7... ..... .. ...0 —. .o v. . .... ...oo..o. .99....o 4-..... 9. ... 4- .. .0.o....ra. . ..- T. . o . . . . .. . q. 4. ... ..<.9 .. ... o c r > . #0.. o. .00 .9 nal... .. .14.. . . 9 H... o w . I _ > _ > .. H H H. . I .L . . H...... . . - ..-H I... .I....II...I. 1‘ V “I _ 4.... . H o .. . a. o. . . .a .‘_ . .. .o .. . o . 0.. . . . .IL‘. . .H ..I. a). .. 9. ... 9. «I 01. . . 1. . .. . . . .. o . . .. . . x . . 0 .c. . a . . .0 . . ‘o . .0. .. ..I. a o ..l 6.. a . . 1. .~ .0 .n... 1...... ... . o _ .. .. .\ .... .c... . .. .. o . . 0“ .. . . .4. .Y+..I q .0. f .o 1.. . . a ’9... o. u . . v r. 0. - . I . . « . . . .9. o . IA . . VI. . v9. . 9 .I0. 9. .9... II o .16. . .I. I... 1.9. .II. I. . 1|! .I RI. 1 VII 10 .0. .4 0.9110 OIOAIIIIIOJ li1191 0vI 0 ol‘o . - . 00 ... .o . . .. _ .o .. a . .. o. c ...9. . .ou.”..0. .v v . .‘. . o . 1 o' _.I..9H ... .9.. .fi..... .uc..0 ...0 .c. .... .. 00 ‘ .... .. . . .. .. . .... _... .. ....... . . .....v. ... o ‘9‘. . . . .o40IIY. v...$ o... .ov- ....L.. .o.... .... ... .... .. 90a . ... .- . . . . v . . +.. . n . . a . . . .a..4|9... .. ..9. T6. .0 ..II.. ..9.. ....0 .. ....o. .. ctr. I00 . 1.“. . .h . . m . H . . I ¢ .i. .....I-.0.,1 .vI.ov.. Al. 0 .5». 9. .o0.- ....o . . . ... .- 9....) . 1 . IIII 1 ‘1 4. 4 I 1% J. J. 4 . a 1441 .0 V“ v . ~ . . . . .* \.. . ...-. ..ch .... 4 _..I..... .01...9. o)..... -.. .-. -._.. . .9. .. ...-. .. o. . 7|. .. . o .. i \ o.v.v o...l..9o.o.9. .n..e- . ..I .o .. 7‘19 0 t . o . .0“. . fro‘. H HI. p9..vl*.v.999. ...o9. A ..I.0+... 6:9. ... . .. o . .Q 1.04.. . . . . O. o...’ «u...0|¢.o .O'IO. .. .9.... ....Y... ... 0 . . . .P 09‘.- TOIO.0.901.. IO . O.||. .. .IQ. 1.0111911} IIOIAv99I9I1IOl-QILV9III+0I1I0I9AYI19.IO.IV999IIH.tIII" . U. ' 9...*. ..fi . . . 4 79.... v. .4.. ... v0... . .v9 ... .9. . ... . 5* . .I. v a: I 11.0.. o . ‘ 1......14. ¢... 9”... .- .0-. 0.... .-..I.. .. .4. .1 .I. .. .. a . .c I TOO... . . .x T9 .+..I.. .... .7. 90... ...T9 ....v.¢ .-..o.... ...~.. .. «Inn 07 -u 1...... . I...“ I ....-.. i..- ....I......-- .. .. . ..-. . . . ...\9 v r I r >. p > 14 " .11 4 . 1 09. 0.. -47 .‘ .. .-..69.09 40 .W. .1 .C .19 ¢..... . . . .ll lfi Y...004.. W. .. . . 0.. 7.. > O... .. . .. . . .. ....o.....vv. v... 09...... v o .. a . .0...H.....Y...... .o...... IIFIIO.II-Y .nI..O. . .9 .. .I.I-..?9. b 1T...) 1.. .. .. . H o . o . .. n . o. . .... .09. ... I... ......9. .. .. . .o. .. . - . . . .. ..... . no. v..v. .40. ...OO. 0.... 0 c .. .. . o. .. u. M ..0. . .I. _, .. .990....9.099 ....+.00. r ...v . . . . M o v . .1... o .....o.. .Vook. .. 0.9.... r , I > 1 4 A 4 4 . .4 1 4 «'1‘ . . o . .. .. . _ I. ...o..v..YII. 4*. .1». ... ,..I.II.. . .. . . . p . . o H .o... . ..W . . «.9......Av. .... 10.0 a... ,- a. . .. . . . .. . ..h... .. .. . H .‘.....9. .-.N.|. I. .9. 7 ... .H . . .. .’ .. . .h . . 1 .9. 7...!» .f.’..... I. . .ro. ' -.. 6 4.-..7...Ivv.|-.7. o... .0--- 9.0.e1...1v. .- iiivi4l'lflil’91 11' v. .. . .. a. . o . . 4 . .. . ......|'9 ...IA. . o. .. . . _ . . . - . . . .. .o . . . . . .. ...w. H ..I... I. “a. H . . H . . . + .. ... . M ... .lv .. .J.. ..-4 a . I . . 0 a . a o .H I. V 0 .40490. Mn).o H 4 LI 1 L. 44 4 . v. . . o . o. . . ~ . . . . .. .. . .Oo.9ov4..9#o .. . — . . v. m - .. . . . ... ....I.f ...o. O ... . . .. . . o . 0 v . .. . .k.. VI...~mv.09 ...000 T000.-0000. .9099... 0 u..l .19....0 . 0 #44199 «.14. . IV‘IOiIOIIIO‘QIl 40 .. . . .o p . . . .. . ... . ..L. . a . ..o ...T9 .flo. < .0... o .. o . ... . .. .. .9 . t . 0 u.9.¢.>..lv9 .. o .. . . .. . . . M . .. ~ ... .. .» . . .0 . ...J.....fi. 99... . W . . . . . . L .. . o. c ._0 .0... ....I- I. . 0 . v . I. I vow .~ 0 . .. .0 0 - . .. . o . u . 0 .. . . ...«..o. o“...4...H.o.09H ..I9 . ......o.... . . I. ... o. . .. ........ . .... . .c . .. u. .. . . .9...» ..,..I.r o...+o .. 9|... v.0.. .. .. .. . . .. o . _ .. o. . ~... ., . .o .. .. . .. . . 4 #4 » IH....LT+¢.. v.9 a o u . . . .. . .. .. . o . ... .. . c . .. .. .. . . a . . .Il.*.. T00.19 «1.. . 0...- o a...v.-~ .. cl... II. 0- 1....000 .499. 0109 0.:I.VI. .I0 I i+iiij+II O .. . .. a l . . . u o o .. . v.0 .. .o 4 .. . .. . u .o...‘ ... I 0Q.... ..* . .. _4 . . - .. o. p I. a. 4 fl.. .A 4 . .. . . . v+.'+.4 o..HJW. 00.... 4 .o .. .«I . .... . . o.. . 0.. .. . . Io. . 0. o 0. . . .4...9H ..i o v. 1... b . .o w . . .. .w . .iHH... .. .A.. H . I” . . an... .II..H I I .1 1 A 1 1 H . III 1 .1 a 4 .. .o .. o. . . .. . .< . . . .. «A. . -. .... .... .. . . .. 0. . . . 0 .... b... o . . . . o. . ..... .9 ..o u... ..... ....H...o ..... o . ....... . u. . .fi.<9.v.o. W. . o . .o * so . . .. ~o .. . .o .. .o..H o ... ..o. 9.. ......o. ... .o .. a... .4.94.. o..o 9 . .. .. . .o .. . . ..... ...o... 00. . ..... 9.. .... .9... 0 .0 ... . .9..9£ .1. .0 0.I¢ .‘co .' o.-. O..- 00.0 .I .0IO...v9I.9.9..900 9. 91.09! 1909194010 0.0I.9‘99w00‘491900600.0 000.. lio‘lxvifivti . — . _......... .. ...... . .0..... I... o A . . .a.. .o ..o.. ... ... .....fi. .. «00.. v.99#. a...« . ... . . .. . ....‘ ...o .. ....~ ... v .. .. . n .. .o... . . . . 00.. .49 . ... a... .....o..... 009. .. .2 .. . .Q . o .8. .0 .oo0~.hwh...o. ... .... .1 o.. I ... .. .. .. .. _ .. .n . 7.. .... ..a ... v...... «.o 9. . ... .. ... F.h ..... . ..3.... . ...... 9...... ... ... .. ....... ., o . .. ..... To ...... ....~ 9 .o. ..o ..... ....... ....... . o. . ...o ..0. . .0.“ ... c. .N. .. 0. . . .. . . .u. o ....... .. ... .. . .. ... a. .. ca. .. . .. .o... . ..oo .. .o.. .9 ..0 00.. . ... 9. .. . 4.. ..»- 09. In0v .0... .o. 0.900.IO_‘1....7.WQI.¢H.4..1Io*Qo9Q 10009;. 491041199 JIQ.79I909.HOOI9I I..t.0§.fll PLIov «I 01H#I.I I19 9+9? 1.499.199II . . . . ... .9 ....v. ..9 .o. .... 00.. .oo. . +.... 9.... . a. .. . .... .o....... ...d . ..c. ... . 40. ..9 o 09.... so. .. .. . ... o. .. .a .. . . o.. .I. .... _. .H.... ......... >....*... .0.... a. . 0.... .. O....H 00. . .o. n... ..h .. ... o .. . o .. ...+ . . ..n..... o ..W. .. on. » .o ...*.... .c.. ..o. 0....... 0....“ .o «o. .fioé..fit.~o . Q. .. . ..¢ .. o. o . . . ..H .. .. 4 . .p.~.. <.. .. ¢ ....H.... o..... .. o..0H.... . .. ... .. .o .. .oa. 4 .+ . 4... . ..o .0.. ...o o.. .. . I > » r . L L.) I > > 39 _Qperational Definitions The four categories of the belief inventory com- prise a liberal dimension and a conservative dimension. The belief items were chosen originally which could be classified as manifestations of religious conservatism (30 items) and religious liberalism (30 items). This pro- vides us with a dimension transcending denomination for whereas denominations vary greatly between and within themselves. the individual adherents of denominations vary to an even greater degree in the application of de- nominational teachings. The two conservative categories are referred to as "Orthodoxy" and "Fundamentalism." The two liberal categories are called "Liberalism" and "Secu- larism." An individual profile for each subject was con- structed on the basis of the items he agreed with or dis- agreed with. The instructions on the second part of the instrument read. "Please read the statements carefully. Whenever you find one with which you AGREE. please check the Space under "AGREE." Whenever you see one with which you DISAGREE. please check the space under "DISAGREE." If you neither agree nor disagree with a statement. please 40 leave both spaces blank. but make sure you catch all the statements about which you feel one way or the other." The orthodox category was determined by agreement with items 5. 17. 27. 36. 37. 42. 45. 46. 48. and 55 plus dis- agreement with items 13. 14. 15. and 44. The fundamental category comprised agreement with items 1. 8. 9. ll. 30. 32. 38. 39. 41. 49. 50. 52. 53. and 54 plus disagreement with items 24 and 56. The liberal category was measured by agreement with items 7. 10. 12. 16. 18. 21. 25. 28. 33. 47. and 58 plus disagreement with item 20. The last cate- gory of secularism was defined as agreement with items 3. 4. 6. 19. 22. 23. 26. 29. 31. 34. 35. 40. 43. 57. 59. and 60 plus disagreement with items 2 and 51. The items of the belief statements left blank were not computed in an individual's profile. It is reasoned that. if this breakdown of the items is valid. there should be positive correlation between the two conservative categories and also between the two lib— eral categories while there should be a negative correla- tion between the conservative dimension and the liberal dimension. Table 4 gives us the product—moment correla- tion of items chosen by both the senior sample and the freshman sample. The similarity of the correlations for 41 Table 4 CORRELATION OF BELIEF INVENTORY ITEMS FOR THE SENIOR AND FRESHMEN SAMPLES 1967 Seniors N:294 Freshmen N:6ll Cate- gories 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 1.00 1.00 2 0.51 1.00 0.50 1.00 3 -0.17 -0.27 1.00 -0.18 -0.14 1.00 4 -0.49 -0.45 0.37 1.00 -0.35 -0.30 0.50 1.00 Note: léOrthodox. 2=Fundamental. 3=Liberal. 4=Secu1ar. both samples indicates the reliability of the inventory and the positive correlations within the conservative and within the liberal dimensions together with the negative correlations between them indicates the validity of the classifications. Each individual respondent was classified as 2227 sistent in his beliefs. if he scored high in any one of the four categories and low in the other three. or if he scored high in either the conservative or liberal dimen- sion and low in the other. An individual was classified as inconsistent. or it is said he possessed a diffuse be- lief pattern. if he held comparable scores over the four 42 categories or two high scores in opposing dimensions. For tables of contingency analysis computations were made on the basis of 50% consistency in any one of the four cate- gories or 67% consistency in one of the two dimensions. If the criterion was not met. the individual was catalogued as "mixed" or "inconsistent" in his beliefs. The Socio-Economic Status (S.E.S.) of an individ— ual is classified as low. medium. and high based exclu- sively on the father's reported education. type occupation. and family annual income. Since less than 10% reported no information on the fathers and since few reported working mothers. for consistency of data. only the father's infor- mation was considered on the first two items. The index of S.E.S. was established as follows: Education less than high school was given a value of 1; high school graduate or some college was given a value of 2; college degree or advanced studies was given a value of 3. White collar workers including professionals. proprietors. managers. officials. clerical and sales workers were given a value of 2 while blue collar workers including craftsmen. farmers. service workers. operators. laborers. . . 2 and domestics were given a value of 1. Income was 2 . . . . . Primary sources used for occupational cla551fication 43 arbitrarily divided between income under $10.000 which was valued as l and income over $10.001 which was given a value of 2. This provided each respondent with a range of scores possible from 3 to 7. Those scoring 3 or 4 were classified as Low S.E.S.; those scoring 5 were classified as Medium S.E.S.; while those scoring 6 or 7 were classi- fied as High S.E.S. The inter—relationship of the three variables is seen in Tables 5A. B. and C. An index of three community types (rural. transi— tional. and urban) was constructed by correlating informa- tion about size of community. type of community. and size of the high school graduating class. The size of the church or synagogue was not included since a fairly large number of respondents indicated no church affiliation. The index was comprised by alloting the following values: Item Value community size under 2.500 1 2.500 - 10.000 2 10.000 - 50.000 3 50.000 - 100.000 4 100.000 - over 5 were: Charles H. Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Research (Northwestern University Press. 1963); and Joseph A. Kahl. The American Class Structure (New York: Holt. Reinhart & Winston. 1953). COMPARISON OF Table 5A FATHER'S TYPE OCCUPATION BY INCOME CONTROLLING FOR EDUCATION Freshmen 1967 N-537 Income less than $10.000 Income more than $10.000 Education 0-11 12-15 College 0-11 12-15 College yrs. yrs. degree a up yrs. yrs. degree a up L.B.C. n 59 55% 31% 2% 8% 5% 0% UOBOC. n 135 17%» 42% rx 10% 28% 2% L.W.C. n 78 8% 28% 11% 5% 35% 13% U.W.C. n 265 2% 10% 8% 3% 34% 42% N-537 Tab1e SB COHPARISON OF EDUCATION WITH ANNUAL INCOME O? SENIORS' IATHERB. 1967 Education Income 0-11 yrs. 12-15 yrs. Col1ege degree a up LESS than (n 40) (n 37) (n 20) 310.000 69% 3r% 19% MORE than (n 18) (n 80) (n 86) $10.000 31% 69% 81% Totals (58) (117) (106) N8281 Table SC COMPARISON OF EDUCATION WITH ANNUAL INCOME OP PRESHHEN'S FATHERS. 1967 Education Income 0-11 yrs. 12-15 yrs. College degree a up LESS than (n 68) (n 123) (n 35) 510.000 69% 44% 22% MORE than (n 30) (n 157) (n 124) 510.000 31% 56% 78% Totals (98) (280) (159) N=537 45 Item Value size of graduating class under 100 100 - 250 250 - 500 500 - 1.000 1.000 - over UlubUJNI-J type of community agricultural agricultural-industrial residential educational industrial 01wa%: A preliminary examination of the data revealed that. be— cause of similarity of patterns. residential-industrial. educational-industrial. and industrial—other could be all classified "Industrial." Also. agricultural—residential could justifiably be combined with “Agricultural" and suburban-residential and residential-other could be classed with "Residential." Educational also includes educational- residential. The total possible sums of the three variables gave a range of 3-15. This range was then subdivided to provide the following types of community: rural - scores of 3. 4. 5. or 6 transitional - scores of 7. 8. or 9 urban - scores of 10 and above A review of the inter—relatedness of these three variables is seen in tables 6A. B. C and D. 46 Table 6A COMPARISON OF SIZE HIGH SCHOOL BY COMMUNITY TYPE Freshmen N-643 Type Community loo—less 100-250 250-500 500-1000 1000—up Agricultural (38) ( 56) ( 4) ( 3) ( 1) 45% 32% 2% 3% 1% Agricultural- ( 7) ( 10) ( 5) ( l) (--) Industrial 8% 5% 3% xx —- Residential (24) ( 72) (107) ( 82) (72) 29% 4rx 58% 66% 9&% Educatiénal ( 5) ( 5) ( 7) ( 4) ( 1) 6% 3% 4% 3% 1% Industrial (10) ( 33) ( 60) ( 34) ( 2) 12% 19% V 33% 27% 3% Totals (84) . (176) (183) (124) (76) —————————————— J.---—_-——Jh--———- _ __._—-- - Table 63 I Seniors N8259 Type Community lOO-less 100-250 250-500 500-1000 1000-up Agricultural (35) (10) ( 2) ( 2) (--) 60% 16% 2% 5% -- Agricultural-~ ( 2) ( 7) ( 3) (--) (--) Industrial 3% 11% 3% -- ' .. Residential (10) (25) (47) (22) ( 1) . 17% 40% 51% 50% 100% Educational ( 2) ( 3) ( 8) ( 3) --- 3% 5% 9% 7% -- Industrial (10) (18) (‘32) (17) --- 17% 28% 35% 38% -- Totals (59) ' (63) (92) (44) ( 1) 47 Table 6C COMPARISON OF SIZE COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY TYPE Freshmen N=57l Type Comunity 2 o 500- 2 o 500- 10 o 000- 50 o 000- Over less 10.000 50.000 100.000 100.000 Agricultural (60) ( 32) ( 8) ( 8) --- 79% 24% 5% 4.5% -- Agricultural- ( 2) ( 13) ( 4) ( 2) ( 1) Industrial 3%. 10% 2% 2% E% Residential (10) ( 66) ( 98) (54) ( 61) ' 13% 50% 60% 64% 53% Educational ____ ( 2) ( 16) ( 4) ( l) -- 2%» 10% 4.5% n% Industrial ( 4) ( 19) ( 37) (21) ( 52) _5% 14% 23% 25% 45% 16:61. (76) (132) (163) i (as) (115) Table 6D m Seniors N-272 Type Community 2.500— 2.500- . 10.000- 50.000- Over less 10.000 50.000 100.000 100.000 Agricultural (28) (26) ( 3) ( 1) . ( 3) 85% 42% 4% 3% 5% Agricultural- ( 2) ( 6) ( 4) --- --- Industrial. 6% 10% 6% -- -- Residential ( 3) (23) (38) (22) , (20) 9% 38% 55% 55%) 31% Educational --- ( l). (‘7) ( 4) ( 4) -- 2% 10% 10%. r; Industrial --- ( 5) (l7) (13) (33) -- 8% 25% 32% 55% 'Totals (33) (61) (69) (40) (60) 48 "Significant Others" ("S.O.") are defined in this study as those persons whom the re3pondent perceives as having helped formulate his philosophical and religious views. The questionnaire asked the respondents to iden— tify the "S.O." by relationship to him. to designate their religious affiliation (if known). and to indicate whether the "S.O." had a positive (i.e. strengthening in the sense of supporting his personal views) or negative (i.e.. strengthening in the sense of opposing and hence causing him to defend his views) influence on his personal beliefs. The question also asked. "How strongly does he or she agree with your religious beliefs: Very Strongly. or Not Too Strongly?" This was intended to help delineate the homo- geneity or heterogeneity of the belief systems of the re- spondent's "S.0.." but because of apparent misinterpreta- tion of the question and questionable value. the question 'was not considered in the construction of the "Significant Other" Index. "Religious homogeneity" is defined as the degree to which a "S.O." is supportive of the respondent's belief patterns. It is considered in this study in two aspects of comparison between the respondent and his "S.O"z re- ligious preference of the "S.O."--whether it is identical 49 to or different from the respondent's own. and positive or negative influence upon the respondent. It is reasoned that a "S.O." of the same religious preference and positive in influence. or a "S.O." of different preference but nega- tive in influence would both produce the same effect upon the respondent and. therefore. contribute to homogeneity of ”S.O." relationship to the respondent. Contrariwise. an "S.O." of the same religious preference but negative in influence. or one of different preference but positive in influence would essentially produce the same effect and produce a situation of heterogeneity of belief context. This should make the respondent more susceptible to change of beliefs. The "S.O." Indices were constructed in the follow- ing way. First. the relationship of the "S.O." to the re- spondent was classified as either familial (considering both nuclear and extended family ties). peg; (including mate. fiance. "steady." school friend). or professional (including teacher—professor. minister. physician. employer. or author) based on 60% occurrence of one or another. If this criterion was not met. they were defined as mixed. Other designations were omitted. Secondly. the religious preference of the "S.O." was classed as either identical 50 to the respondent's. Protestant different (if respondent was Protestant). or Protestant-Catholic-Jewish-Agnostic different. The "S.O." whose religious preference was not known was discounted. Finally. the "S.O.'s" were classed as either homogeneous (supportive of the respondent's be— lief system). heterogeneous (producing a situation condu- cive to change of professed beliefs). or mix§d_(when two or more "S.O.'s" were listed and no clear [i.e.. less than 60%] homogeneous or heterogeneous situation could be de- termined). The following recoding of "S.O." thereby de- ve10ped in two aspects: First--the relationship aSpect-- O — no response or relationship other than famil- ial. peer or professional. 1 - familial relationship. 2 - peer relationship. 3 — professional relationship. 4 - mixed relationship (when no clear majority of family. peer. or professional deve10ped). Second—-religious homogeneity aSpect: 0 - no response. 1 - homogeneous influence. 2 - heterogeneous influence. 3 - mixed influence (when neither clearly homogeneous nor heterogeneous). 51 A combination of the two aSpects could then readily be made for purposes of analysis. Methods of Analysis For the analysis of the belief inventory section of the instrument. which provided a profile on each respon- dent. a Category Scoring (CASC) Program developed by James A. Clark. of Communication Research Center was employed. This provided a raw score of belief items re8ponded to cor- rectly in each category for the individual respondent and also a mean number of items responded to by the entire sample in each category along with a standard deviation for each category determined on the basis of the total sample. 0n the basis of CASC. recoding was done for each respondent classifying him as consistent in one of the four categories. consistent in either the conservative dimension or the liberal dimension. or inconsistent in belief pattern. The ACT II Program (Analysis of Contingency Tables) of the Computer Institute for Social Science Research of Michigan State University as revised January 12. 1968. was employed to provide computerized contingency tables relating 52 the dependent variable. religious belief profile. to the various social factors (the independent variables) which were hypothesized as determining the type profiles obtained. A control for sex and age was considered. but the results obtained on these two variables indicated that they could justifiably be considered as constants since there was so little sex differential (largest "e" secured was 4% for both seniors and freshmen) when sex was compared on the two religious dimensions. Only a 5% differential on the conservative dimension was found when compared by age while the liberal dimension showed an insignificant "e" of 3%. (See Tables 7A and B.) Table 7A COMPARISON OF FRESHMEN AND SENIORS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEF CATEGORIES CONTROLLING FOR SEX @ . ==== Belief rh—r—flflml."reshmen Seniors Categories Male Female Male Female Conservative (123) (139) ( 33) ( 31) 45% 41% 25% 28% Liberal (127) (157) ( 87) ( 71) 47% 47% 65% 65% Mixed ( 23) ( 41) -( l4) ( 8) 8% 12% 10% 7% Totals (273) (337) (134) (110) 100% 100% 100% 100% N=610 N=244 53 Table 7B COMPARISON OF RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY AGE Freshmen 1967 N=608 u: J: Belief Age Categories 17 18 19 Conservative ( 58) ( 99) (1) 23% 28% 100% Liberal ( 86) (131) --— 34% 37% -- Mixed (109) (124) --- 43% 35% -- Totals (253) (354) (l) 100% 100% 100% The large size of the freshman N predisposes sig- nificant findings when Chi Square computations are made. Therefore. no statistical test for significance was con— sistently applied. Chapter III HYPOTHESIS TESTING AND RESULTS In our approach to the data. early disclosures re- vealed that some revisions in our original treatment plans would have to be made for practical reasons. For instance. it was first planned to categorize the individual belief patterns on the basis of defining as Orthodox. Fundamental. Liberal. or Secular all individuals whose scores were 50% in one single category. to define as Conservative or Lib— eral all those not qualifying in the prior classification but whose scores fell more than 67% in either of the two dimensions. and to classify all the rest as Mixed or In- consistent in their religious beliefs. The paucity of in- dividuals qualifying on this basis for the first four cate- gories made us realize the untenableness of maintaining them. Therefore. it was decided to use only the 67% cri- terion and classify religious belief configurations on the three dimensions of Conservative. Liberal. or Mixed. A second problem arose in the attempt to analyze the significance of the Mixed dimension. It was found 54 55 that sometimes the distribution of those persons with Mixed religious beliefs resembled the Conservatives; other times they appeared more like the Liberals; and. still on other tests were different from both. On a few tests individuals with Mixed religious beliefs appear evenly distributed across the categories of the independent variable showing no distinctiveness whatever. Because of this. it was felt that a serious consideration of this phenomenon would con— fuse the intent of this study. Therefore. although the percentages of such respondents are reported. the main an— alysis was made on the comparison of the Conservative and Liberal scores. There is a possible explanation for the peculiar patterns of religiously inconsistent subjects which suggests a fruitful area for additional research. but an investigation here would be beyond the sc0pe of this paper and would require more time and resources than the researcher had at his disposal. We will return to the matter in Chapter IV. We have already outlined our intended procedure in the treatment of the first major hypothesis. It cannot be tested apart from the individual testing of the three sub-hypotheses which derive from it. Therefore. we will treat the analysis of the sub-hypotheses first. 56 Sub-Hypothesis l Sub-hypothesis 1 states that there is a positive relationship between types of religious belief patterns of college freshmen and their socio-economic status as meas- ured by father's occupation. education. and the annual fam- ily income. It is qualified that the direction of this finding will be such that the lower class will evidence persons of conservative disposition more frequently than will the upper classes.1 The reliability of incorporating the variables of father's occupation and education along with the annual lIn deference to the argument of Glock and Stark. we considered qualifying the hypothesis to a consideration of subjects with religiously oriented families. However. Tables 8A. B. and C indicate that to eliminate those sub- jects whose families do not attend religious services of any kind (although constituting a small percentage of the total sample) would unnecessarily bias the results in favor of the conservative dimension. Of the freshmen themselves. those who do not attend any religious services comprise only 5.6% of the sample but of this number. 85% are liberal. 12% mixed in beliefs. and only 3% conservative. Of the fathers of freshmen. 19% do not attend religious services at all. and of this number 52% are fathers of liberal stud- ents. 34% are fathers of students with inconsistent beliefs. and only 14% are fathers of students with conservative be- liefs. Considering the mother's religious attendance habits we find much the same situation. Of the 10% of mothers who do not attend religious services. 59% have liberal offspring. 34% have mixed—beliefs offspring. and only 7% have young peOple with conservative beliefs. Therefore. to maintain the qualifying condition appears untenable. 57 family income was already referred to in Tables 5A. B. and C. It is noteworthy that the correlation of education to income for both freshmen and seniors was nearly the same with an 3e" difference for seniors of 50% and for freshmen 47%4 Both are strong relationships in the same direction. i.e.. the higher the education. the significantly higher the income and conversely. the lower the years of schooling. the lower the annual income. (See Tables SB and C.) Table 5A compares father's type occupation by annual income and controls for education. This table indicates clearly that the three variables are interrelated. Fifty— five percent of lower blue collar fathers have less than 11 years of schooling and earn less than $10.000 annually. However. 42%.of upper white collar fathers have their col- lege degree or more and earn more than $10.000 annually. A gradation between these two poles is evident. From Tables 8A. B. and C there appears a direct re— lationship between the frequency of attendance at religious activities and the conservativeness of the respondent's be- lief patterns. For the freshmen themselves. 35% who attend church once a month or more are conservative in their be— liefs while only 24% in this category are liberal in their religious profile. Contrariwise. 61%»of those who attend 58 Table 8A COMPARISON OF FRESHMEN RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE Religious Attendance Belief Every 6 wks. to Categories Once a month less than every Not at all or more three months Conservative (152) ( 6) ( 1) 35% 4% 3% Liberal (102) (85) (29) 24% 61% 85% Mixed (179) (49) ( 4) ' 41% 35% 12% Total (433) (140) (34) 100% 100% 100% 3'607 Chi 810“. >~350 4 date. > .001 Table 83 COMPARISON OF FRESHMAN BELIEF PATTERNS BY FATHER'S RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE Religious Attendance COMPARISON OP PRESHMAN BELIEF PATTERNS BY MOTHER'S RELIGIOUS ATTENDANCE Belief Categories Every week to Once a month to Every 3 mos. to Not at ‘11 . every other wk. every six wks. less than 3 nos. Conservative (112) ( 9) (13) (15) 3 20% 14% 14% Liberal ( 67) (19) (48) . (54) 22% 40% 50% 52% Mixed (120) (19) (35) (35) 40%. 40% 36% 34% Total (299) (47) (96) (104) 100% 100% 100% 100% f u-546 Table ac Religious Attendance Ielie! Categories Every week to Once a no. to Every 3 mos. to Not t 11 every other wk. every six wks. less than 3 mos. I ' Conservative (131) (10) ( 9) ( 4) ~ 36% 19% 10% 7% Liberal ( 84) (26) (50) (35) 23% 48% 56% 59% Mixed (150) (18) (30) (20) 41% 33% 34% 34% Total (365) (54) (89) (59) 1001 100% 100% 100% N-567 59 between every six weeks to less than every three months are liberal while only 4% are conservative. The differ— ence is increased when we consider the non-attenders. If we consider the parents' religious attendance habits and the belief patterns of their offspring. the pattern is the same. From this we conclude that there is a real differ- ence between the religious conservatives and religious liberals in their reported church attendance habits. Table 9 tests the hypothesis directly. Here we note that 11%.more conservative than liberal type fresh— men come from low S.E.S. families and 24% more freshmen with liberal religious beliefs come from high S.E.S. fam- ilies than conservative. This is in the predicted direc- tion of the hypothesis and the difference is moderate. Because of the large N of 555. the finding is statistic— ally significant. Sub-Hypothesis 2 Our second sub—hypothesis concerns the effect of home community type on expressed religious beliefs. It was predicted that an individual coming from a rural type 60 Table 9 COMPARISON OF FRESHMAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY S.E.S. Belief SOCio-Economic Status categories Low Middle High Conservative (60) (32) ' (54) 37% 31% 19% Liberal (42) (33) (125) 26% 31% 43% Mixed (59) (40) (110) 37% 38% 38% Total (161) (105) (289) =555 Chi Square = 24.04. 4 d.f.. > .001. Coefficient of contingency = .20. community (with small population. small high school graduat— ing class and with an agricultural background) would enter college with more of a religiously conservative belief sys- tem than one coming from an urban. i.e.: large in popula- tion. with large high school graduating class. and of an industrial complexion. The interrelationship of the three factors compris— ing the index is shown in tables 6A-D. A review of these tables indicates that Agricultural and Agricultural-Industrial 61 communities rank highest in small size communities and small size high school graduating classes for both our freshman and senior samples. On the other hand. Residen- tial and Industrial communities rank highest in large size communities and large size high school graduating classes in both samples. Only Educational type communities are not consistent in relation to the other variables. The consistency of the findings in both samples increases the reliability of the index. When the three types of community (rural. transi- tional. and urban) are related to the religious belief patterns. Table 10 tells us that 33% of matriculating freshmen coming from a rural type home community hold conservative type religious beliefs and.27% indicate lib- eral religious beliefs. The percentages are almost exactly reversed for freshmen from transitional communities. and the difference is strengthened when the profiles of stud- ents with an urban background are considered. From urban centers. the freshmen show 23%.holding conservative beliefs and 40% holding liberal beliefs. What is also significant is the high percentage of individuals from each type com- munity holding mixed or inconsistent beliefs. 62 Table 10 COMPARISON OF FRESHMAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY COMMUNITY TYPE Belief Community Type Categories . . Rural TranSitional Urban Conservative (40) (51) (56) 33% 26% 23% Liberal (33) (64) (99) 27% 33% 40% Mixed (49) (81) (90) 40% 4E% 37% Totals (122) (196) (245) 100% L 100% 100% N=563 Chi Square = 8.09. 4 d.f.. < .05. Coefficient of contingency = .12. The small "e" differences of 10% on the conserva- tive dimension and 13% on the liberal dimension gives only slight credence to our hypothesis with the support being in the predicted direction. Comparing coefficients of contin- gency. noting the decrease from .20 to .12. we must con- clude that the type of one's home community is not as strong a factor as is the S.E.S. of the family in determin- ing the type religious profile one will evidence. 63 Sub-Hypothesis 3 Our third sub-hypothesis states that the relation- ship between "significant others" and the type of belief patterns of M.S.U. freshmen will depend upon the homogeneity of the "significant others." It was contended that a "sig- nificant other" whose beliefs are perceived to be the same as the respondent and who exerts a supportive influence ac— ceptable to the respondent will strengthen the respondent's religious beliefs. Likewise. a "significant other" of dif- ferent belief yet negative in influence. i.e.. antagonistic or not acceptable. will also strengthen the respondent's religious beliefs. Both types of "significant others" are classified as homogeneous. Heterogeneous "significant others" are those individuals who. though possessing the same beliefs. are perceived to exert a negative influence or if possessing different religious views are perceived as exerting a positive influence. Table 11A tests this hypothesis and clearly shows support for the hypothesis in regard to the subjects holding religiously conservative be- liefs. but fails to support the hypothesis in regard to those subjects revealing religiously liberal profiles. Thirty percent of the individuals tested who listed homo- geneous "significant others" were of the conservative 64 Table llA COMPARISON OF FRESHMAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY HOMOGENEITY OF "SIGNIFICANT OTHERS" Belief ~ Significant Others' Categories . Homogeneous Mixed Heterogeneous Conservative (99) (24) (25) 30%» 24% 22% Liberal (103) (34) (47) 31% 34% 42% Mixed (126) (43) (41) 38% 42% 36% Totals (328) (101) (113) 100% 100% 100% =542 4 Chi Square = 5.96. 4 d.f.. n.s. Coefficient of contingency = .10. persuasion. Also of this religious conviction were 24% of freshmen with mixed "significant others" and 22%.of those with heterOgeneous "significant others." In the reverse order. those with religiously liberal beliefs constitute 42%.of those with heterogeneous. 34% of those with mixed. and 31%.of those with homogeneous "significant others." A check of the senior sample (Table llB) indicates the same directional findings. On the conservative dimension 65 Table llB COMPARISON OF SENIORS RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS BY HOMOGENEITY OF "SIGNIFICANT OTHERS" Belief Significant Others Categories Homogeneous Mixed Heterogeneous Conservative (20) (11) ( 4) 19% 15% 7% Liberal (55) (44) (43) 52% 59% 77% Mixed (30) (19) ( 9) 29% 26% 16% Totals (105) (74) (56) 100% 100% 100% N=235 Chi Square 2 8.89. 4 d.f.. < .05. we have a freshman "e" difference of 8% between homogeneous and heterOgeneous "significant others." The difference on the liberal dimension is 11%. Again. we find only slight support for our hypothesis and only in the case of religious conservatives is it in the direction predicted. But when we consider that 56% of those with Liberal beliefs as well as 67% of those with Conservative beliefs chose homogeneous "Significant Others." added support is given to our 66 hypothesis. Comparison of the coefficients of contingency indicates. however. that this is the weakest of our three indices in degree of relationship to patterns of religious belief. Major Hypothesis I In the light of the above findings. we can say that our first major hypothesis is largely supported. There is seen a positive relationship between the reli- gious belief profiles and our social environmental factors. Of the three indices used. the socio-economic status is most significant. Clearly. persons of lower socio-economic status tend to be more religiously conservative than those of the middle and upper levels. Community factors of size and type community and size of graduating classes as reflected in our rural—urban categories is only slightly related to the expressed re- ligious profiles. The tendency for religiously conserva- tive persons to come from rural type communities is only slightly greater than for the same type person to come from an urban center. What is also significant here 67 besides the large number of mixed religious belief individ- uals is the general polarization of society toward the lib- eral end of the religious spectrum. The polarization pro— cess is evident in Table 3 which compares samples from 1960. 1961. 1963. and 1967. The "significant other" relationships are less clear in their effect upon the belief systems of college freshmen. Those holding religious conservative beliefs seem more confirmed in their beliefs by homogeneous "sig- nificant others" while the larger percentage of those claiming heterOgeneous "significant others" are found among the religiously Liberal individuals. In sum then. we find more support for our first hypothesis than lack of support. but the direction of the relationships are not as strong as first theorized. A clearer picture of the combined effect of these three in— dexed variables upon the religious configurations may be seen in our consideration of the second major hypothesis. Major Hypothesis II Based upon the belief that there would be support for the first set of hypotheses. it was theorized that 68 "there will be shown in the formulation of an interrelation matrix of the independent variables: 1) socio-economic status; 2) community factors; and. 3) "significant other" relationships. when holding the belief patterns constant. a progressive direct relationship with low status-rural— homogeneous "significant other" relationships producing a high conservative score; and with high status-urban- homogeneous "significant other" relationships producing a low conservative score." The develOpment of the matrix took the following form. It was believed that. if--in the cells produced by the interplay of any two variables-—the number of relig- iously conservative individuals were divided by the number of religiously liberal individuals. the quotient derived would provide a suitable measure for the testing of the hypothesis. Table 12 reveals the result of this approach. We did indeed obtain a ratio which indicated a decreasing conservativeness on the part of individuals categorized from rural-low S.E.S. to urban—high S.E.S. The scores de- creased from 2.444 to 0.452.2 But. since we were interested in relating all three indices at one time. a matrix comparing 2It should be noted that the scores decline as one proceeds from left to right in each row and as one goes down each column. 69 Table 12 M.S.U. 1967 FRESHMEN. CONSERVATIVE/LIBERAL RATIO ON S.E.S. BY TYPE COMMUNITY COMPARISON Socio-economic Community Type Status Rural Transitional Urban Low C/L 22/9 13/6 12/9 ratio 2.444 2.167 1.333 Middle C/L 7/0 3/9 13/10 ratio ----- .333 1.300 High C/L 6/10 14/27 19/42 ratio .600 .519 .452 N=23l the three type communities and controlling for homogeneity- heterogeneity—mixed "significant others" across by low- middle-high S.E.S.. each divided into conservative—liberal- mixed down. gave us an 81 cell matrix. To compare any one cell with another. the n of each cell was divided by the total N of the sample. However. the matrix proved too large and many of the cells possessed n's too small to be useful. However. the idea of giving each cell a value derived from the same base appealed to this writer who be- 1ieved that by this means any of the cells could be compared 70 with meaning. It was finally decided to make two matrices and. thus. to compare the interrelationship of two indices at a time holding the belief patterns constant. It was further decided to obtain a value for comparison by sub: tracting the liberal percentage value in each cell from the conservative percentage value. Since the mixed belief percentages formed no particular pattern but were at times greater than both conservative and liberal percentages. sometimes between them. and some other times equal to one or the other. it was decided to record them but to dis- count their relevance. Therefore. we were left with 9 cell matrices which proved useful. Tables 13A and B are the results of this effort. Table 13A gives us the interaction of the homoge- neity of "significant others" and socio-economic status upon the conservatism of the respondents. The high posi- tive conservative value found in cell one (.0307) repre- senting individuals with homogeneous "significant other" and low S.E.S. gradually reduces as "significant others" change from homogeneous to heterogeneous (.0198) to mixed (—.0022). On the other hand. the pattern is reversed on the high S.E.S. dimension. A negative conservative value of -0.0087 in cell nine increases to -.0395 in cell eight INTERACTION 0F 7]. 1 Table 13A "SIGNIFICANT OTHER" RELATIONSHIPS AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF M.S.U. FRESHMEN. FALL 1967 "Significant Other“ Types S.E.S. Belief Pattern Homogeneous Heterogeneous Mixed Conservative ( 34) .0746 ( 13) .0286 ( 7) .0154 Liberal ( 20) .0439 ( 4) .0088 ( 8) .0176 Low Status C - L ( 14) .0307 ( 9) .0198 (-l) -.0022 LMixed ( 20) .0439 ( 6) .0132 (15) .0330 Conservative ( 18) .0395 ( 5) .0110 ( 5) .0110 Liberal ( 11) .0242 (Q 8) .0176 (,3) .0066 Middle Status C -_L ( 7) .0153 ( -3) -.0066 ( 2) .0044 Mixed ( 25) .0549 ( 8) .0176 ( 2) .0044 Conservative ( 35) .0768 ( 4) .0088 (11) .0242 Liberal ( 57) .1250 ((22) .0483 (15) .0329 High Status C L ( 22) .0482 ( 18) -.0395 ( 4) -.0087 Mixed ( 61) .1338 ( 20) .0439 (19) .0087 N=456 Table 133 INTERACTION OF COMMUNITY TYPE AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF FRESHMEN. FALL 1967 Belief Pattern Community Types S.E.S. Rural Transitional Urban Conservative (27) .0593 ( 14) .0308 ( 13) .0285 Liberal (12) .0264 (_ 8) .0176 ( 12) .0263 Low Status C - L (15) .0329 ( 6) .0132 ( 1) .0022 Mixed (12) .0264 ( 10) .0220 ( 19) .0417 Conservative ( 7) .0154 ( 5) .0110 ( 16) .0351 Liberal --- .0000 ((10) .0220 ((12) .0264 Middle Status C - L ( 7) .0154 (- 5) -.0110 ( 4) .0087 Mixed ( 9) .0198 ( 16) .0351 ( 10) .0220 Conservative ( 7) .0154 ( 21) .0461 ( 22) .0483 Liberal (10) .0220 (_31) .0680 ( 53) .1162 High Status C ' L ( 3) -°055 ('10) -.0219 (-31) -.0679 Mixed (13) .0286 ( 45) .0987 ( 42) .0921 N=456 72 and to -.O482 in cell seven which represents those individ- uals of high S.E.S. possessing homogeneous "significant others." This finding lends some new credence to our third sub—hypothesis under the first major hypothesis. The reason why it contradicts our findings in Table 11A is not at this point clearly understood. Neither is the pattern discern- ible for those of middle S.E.S. clearly understandable for individuals with homogeneous "significant others" on this dimension provide us with a positive .0154 conservative remainder but a negative .0066 remainder is obtained by those individuals with heterogeneous "significant others." In cell six. we again obtain a positive .0044. Obviously more time and further testing is needed to assess these findings. Table 13B is much neater in its revelations. The interrelation of type community with socio—economic status and their combined effect upon the religious belief pat- terns is exactly as we theorized. Cell 1 provides us with a positive conservative remainder of .0329 which gradually reduces (with the exception of cell 5) until a negative value of .0679 is obtained in cell 9. This indicates clearly that there is direct influence of these two var- iables upon the formulation of conservative religious 73 belief patterns. Individuals coming to college from a rural. low socio-economic background will more often evi- dence conservative religious beliefs than individuals of high socio-economic level and urban community background. The fact of cell 5 might be explained by application of the theory of marginality. These middle status persons living in transitional type communities aspiring to higher status would be expected to be more like the higher status individuals whom they seek to emulate. However. since no measure of social status aspiration was taken. this can at best be only conjecture. Chapter IV CONCLUSIONS A general review of our findings is now in order. Testing Hypothesis I by an analysis of its three sub- hypotheses. we found general support for it. we noted that the relationship between socio—economic factors and religious belief profiles was stronger than either of the other two indices applied. We concluded that persons of a conservative religious orientation do tend to come from lower socio-economic levels. while persons of liberal re- ligious orientation come from the middle and high levels. This is supportive of the numerous studies that have re— lated "religiosity" to social class. Our own measure of "religiosity" was church attendance habits and we found that persons of conservative religious beliefs are much more frequent in their attendance at religious activities than are those of liberal beliefs. A person's community type also tends to relate to type belief profile. However. the relationshipis not strong. It might be argued that location in community 74 75 type may be determined by economic considerations and these. in turn. have the greater effect upon a person's religious beliefs rather than the community factors them- selves. However. in the light of our second major hypoth- esis. it is concluded that there is an interrelation of these first two variables to a significant degree and that they complement each other in their effect upon religious orientation. The effect of "significant others" on the forma- tion of types of belief patterns is not quite as clear as we would desire. Persons of conservative religious persua- sion do list homogeneous "S.O." 67% of the time. while those subjects more liberal in their religious profiles list homegeneous "S.O." 56% of the time. But religious liberals represent 42% of those listing heterogeneous "S.O." while religious conservatives represent only 22%. Our matrix interrelating socio-economic status and homo- geneity of "significant others" did provide contradictory findings to Table 11A and perhaps has provided us with a key for better understanding of the problem. Table 13A actually provides the same information that Table 11A gave us but controls for S.E.S. The disparity on the "signifi- cant other" dimension occurs in the middle socio-economic 76 class. Table 13B likewise indicates that this class does not follow pattern when S.E.S. is correlated to community type. and the problem is chiefly in the transitional cate- gory of the community type dimension. We suggest that so— cial status aspiration may be the answer. This is a socio- psychological problem and deserves more attention. In fact. the concept of marginality is suggested throughout the study by the large percentage of matriculating fresh— men who evidence mixed religious beliefs. The question which poses itself is. "Are these religiously marginal persons also socially marginal and is their religious mar- ginality a reflection of their social marginality?" More study is deserving on this matter. We also note that there is value in considering the type of "significant other" in relation to professed religious beliefs. Table 14 provides this information. Here we see that religiously conservative subjects repre- sent 30%,of.those who listed family type "S.O." and only 15%iof those listing peer type "S.O." Conversely. reli— giously liberal freshmen represent 31%.of those listing family type but 48%)of those listing peer type "S.O." Both dimensions of belief type represent about the same proportion of those listing mixed "S.O." but here the 77 Table 14 COMPARISON OF FRESHMAN RELIGIOUS BELIEF PATTERNS TO CATEGORIES OF "SIGNIFICANT OTHER" RELATIONSHIPS Categories of "Significant Belief Other Relationships Patterns Family Peer Profes- Mixed sional Conservative (41) (16) (12) (80) 30% 15% 39% 28% ' Liberal (42) (51) (11) (91) 31% 48% 35% 32% Mixed (52) (40) ( 8) (115) 39% 37% 26% 40% Totals (135) (107) (31) (286) 100% 100% 100% 100% N=559 largest percentage (40%) represents religious beliefs. Another suggestion we might those subjects of mixed offer for a better un- derstanding of our "significant other" problem is that a different method of research be employed to ascertain the true relationships existing. A structured questionnaire such as we employed has its limitations. especially in this realm. Personal. in-depth interviews would prove 78 much more fruitful in ascertaining the significance of personal relationships. In addition. it would give some indication of the effect of maturation upon the whole problem of religious belief formation. A further short- coming of this study is that no indicators of maturation were attained. It is generally recognized that in the age group with which we have been dealing. there is a marked shift from family—orientation to peer—orientation. This shift would. undoubtedly. produce an effect upon religious beliefs professed. One final word is in order concerning the general polarization of society toward the secular end of our re- ligious type continuum. A close analysis of Table 3 re- veals a real difference found by Toch and Anderson between their freshman samples of 1960. 1961. and 1963 and their senior sample of 1960. Our freshman sample resembles the senior sample of 1960 so closely that it is startling. In addition. our senior sample of 1967 is categorically the same as the freshman sample of 1963. The extreme findings on our senior sample puts them in a class by themselves. But the OVerall picture is one of a society that is polar- izing toward the religiously liberal dimension. BIBLIOGRAPHY General Works Cited Backstrom. Charles H.. and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Re- search. Northwestern University Press. 1963. Berger. Peter L. "Religious Institutions." in Sociology: An Introduction. Neil J. Smelser (ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.. 1967. Berger. Peter L. The Sacred Canopy. New York: Doubleday & Co.. Inc.. 1967. Cox. Harvey. The Secular City. New York: The Macmillan Co.. 1966. Demerath. M. J. III. Social Class in American Protestant- ism. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.. 1965. Edwards. Tryon. et a1. [compilers]. The New Dictionary of Thoughts. Chicago: Standard Book Co.. 1966. Glock..C. Y.. and R. Stark. Religion and Society in Ten- sion. Chicago: Rand McNally & Co.. 1965. Jacob. Philip E. Changing Values in College. New Haven. Conn.: The Edward W. Hazen Foundation. 1956. Kahl. Joseph A. The American Class Structure. New YOrk: Holt. Reinhart. and Winston. 1953. Lenski. Gerhard. The Religious Factor. Garden City. New York: Doubleday and Co.. Inc.. 1961. Lynd. Robert and Helen Lynd. Middletown in Transition. New York: Harcourt Brace & Co.. 1937. 79 80 Luckmann. Thomas. The Invisible Religion. New York: The Macmillan Co.. 1967. J Parsons. Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free Press. 1951. Parsons. Talcott. "Sociology and Social Psychology." in Religious Perspectives in College Teaching. Hoxie N. Fairchild (ed.). New YOrk: The Ronald Press CO. 0 1952. Peterson. Richard A.. and N. J. Demerath III. "Introduc- tion." in Millhands and Preachers. Liston Pope. New Haven. Conn.: Yale university Press. 1942. Summerskill. John. "Dropouts From College." in College and Character. Nevitt Sanford (ed.). New YOrk: John Wiley & Sons. Inc.. 1964. Vernon. Glenn M. Sociology of Religion. New YOrk: The Free Press. 1962. Weber. Max. The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism. New Yerk: Charles Scribner's Sons. 1958. Wilson. Bryan R. Religion in Secular Society. London: C. A. watts & Co.. Ltd.. 1966. Yinger. J. Milton. Sociology Looks at Religion. New York: The Macmillan Co.. 1961. Periodicals Bellah. Robert N. "Religious Evolution." American Socio- logical Review. 29. June 1964. pp. 358-374. Berger. Peter L. "A Sociological View of the Seculariza- tion Theory." The Journal For the Scientific Study of Religion. 5. Fall 1966. pp. 3-16. 81 Dreger. Ralph M. "Just How Far Can Social Change Change Personality?" The Journal of Psychology. 64. 1966. pp. 167-191. Ferguson. L. W} "Socio-psychological Correlates of Primary Attitude Scales." Journal of Social Psychology. 19. 1944. pp. 81-98. Lenski. Gerhard E. "Social Correlates of Religious Inter- est." American Sociological Review. 18. Oct.. 1953. pp. 533-544. Martin. Carol and R. C. Nichols. '"Personality and Relig- ious Belief." Journal of Social Psychology. 56. 1962. pp. 3-8. Rosenberg. S.. D. E. Erlick. and L. Berkowitz. "Some Ef- fects of Varying Combinations of Group Members on Group Performance Measures and Leadership Behavior." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 51. 1955. pp. 195-203. ' Shinar. Larry. "The Concept of Secularization in Empirical Research." The Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion. 6. Fall 1967. pp. 207-220. Strickland. Bonnie R. and Douglas P. Crowne. "Conformity Under Conditions of Simulated Group Pressure as a Function of the Need for Social Approval." Th2 Journal of Social Psychology. 58. 1962. pp. 171-181. Toch. Hans H.. et a1. "Secularization in College: An Ex- ploratory Study." Religious Education. Nov.-Dec.. 1964. pp. 490-502. Toch. Hans H. and Robert Anderson. "Religious Belief and Denominational Affiliation." Religious Education. May--June. 1960. pp. 193-200. 82 Theses Payne. Isabelle K. "The Relationship Between Attitudes and Values and Selected Background Characteristics." Unpublished Ed. D. Thesis. Michigan State Univer- sity. 1961. Rushby. William F. "Location in the Social Structure. Sig- nificant Other. and Level of Educational and Occu- pational Aspirations: An Exploratory Study. Un- published M.A. Thesis. Michigan State University. 1966. 1i .‘l‘li i APPENDIX A.--FRESHMAN QUESTIONNAIRE . MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY Instructions: The questionnaire, as you will see, is organised into two parts. This section concerns certain aspects of your personal background. Please read carefully and answerieach item as accurately as possible. If you cannot answer the question. write in "I do not know." 1. Personal Backgrougg; 1. Name (optional) ._ 2. Sex (check one) 1. Male 2. Female 3. How old were you on your last birthday? 4. Marital Status: 1. Married 2. ' Single 3. Divorced 5. ‘My religious preference now is (please be specific) 6. Have you ever belonged to another religion and/or denomination? yes _ no. If yes, to which did you belong? 7. This past year I attended religious services: every week . . about every three months about twice a month . . less than every three months about once a month not at all about every six weeks 8. List any church-related organisations (formal or informal) in which you have participated during high school. II. Community Information: 9. Name of community in which you have lived the most between ages 5-17: . Approximate size of community? Under 2.500 10.000-50,000 Over 100,000 2.500-10,000 50,000~lO0,000 10. Which of the following would most accurately describe your home community? (If mixed, check no more than two) 1. Agricultural ' 7 4. Military 2. Educational Center 5. Suburban residential 3. Industrial 6. Other (please specify) 11. Type of high school attended: Public Private Parochial (over) 83 12. 13. Approximately how many were in your high school graduating class? Under 100 250 - 500 OVER 1,500 100 - 250 500 - 1,000 Approximate size of church or synagogue attended? Under 100 250 - 500 OVER 1,000 100 - 250 500 - 1,000 III. Eggily Background: 14. 15. 17. n Us What is the highest level of formal education obtained by your parents? (Check one in each column.) MOTHER 33 5* 5'3 . Eight or less grades Grades 9-11 . High School degree Some college College degree Advanced college degree o‘UI-l-‘wNI-I Father's Occupation: If your mother works outside the home, what is her occupation? Family's approximate annual income: 1. Under $5,000 3. $10,000 - $15,000 2. $5,000 - $10,000 4. Over $15,000 Father's Organisational Membership: A. Religious Preference (If Protestant, specify denomination): Member: yes no Attends: every week about every 6'weeks about twice a month about every 3 months about once a month less than every 3 mo. not at all B. To which other organisations does he belong? Kiwanis Country club Music, drama, art Rotary Athletic club club Other service clubs Other recreational Cultural club Professional organization club - Mother's Organizational Membership: A. Religious Preference (If Protestant, specify denomination): Member: yes ___no Attends: every week about every 6 weeks about twice a month about every 3 months about once a month less than every 3 mo. not al all 8. To which other organizations does she belong? Red Cross Bridge club Music, drama, art club P. T. A. Country club Cultural club Women's Service Social club Professional organization Clubs or club .m .e .m .N \ .~ huusouaa o>uuemoa neeuouwbeoum vacuum goonoolmmmw .m .o . ”sandman .hflwcouuo oou uoz 7 no .hamcouum .huwsowum huo> Aauuom endow newsflash esonwuou oocosuucn mucouomoum Aoubweeoa assume“ nomV hash cows seams use no o>qummoz mucuwwflom mt seaweeds as may mamauwcn on coco afiwsouue so: .u no o>auwmom .n we: no ea: .0 as on macadamusdom .m as: no new .< .oue .muenosuu .mocequm .msagueueu assoc .eusouee nachuueowoaaubameoa nae confined seesaw .so>aw «masons use as so» On ausmcowumsou a“: one Aeauucw was an cameos sues Augusooa .coAuueoo anemone use» us magnum sch omega: o>m£ one “haobauaooo no a~o>doswos nonuosav uses one msusuasu use» ooososfiucw o>en_o:3 eaesoa>aoce spam on» scams been .msu«> macawwgou use assesseso~abo Mao sunfissuou m: use: ascends assoc ammo vowwswooeu hgsossoo no uH mafimho HZdUHmHZUHm .>H CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY This second section of the questionnaire is a Belief Inventory developed by Drs. Toch and Anderson of Michigan State University. It has been used in several prev10us studies with consistent results. Please read the statements carefully. Whenever you find one with which you 50552;- please check the space under "AGREE". Whenever you see one with which you nggmggz. please check the space under "DISAGREE." If you neither agree nor disagree with a statement, please leave both spaces‘blani, but make sure you catch all the statements about which you feel one way or tne 0232:. 1. My physical body will be resurrected in the after-life. 2. Things happen that can only be explained in supernatural terms. 3. Churches are too far behind the times for modern life. 4. The mind and the soul are just expressions of the body. 5. Only the clergy are competent to interpret scripture. 6. There is not enough evidence for me to be able to say "there is a God" or "there is no God." 7. It is possible that a new religion may arise that will be better than any present religion. 8. We should concentrate on saving individuals. When enough individuals are saved, society as a whole will be saved. 9.. God created the universe in six days and rested the seventh. 10. As the world becomes smaller and smaller, Christianity will be forced to compromise with other religions of the world on matters of belief and practice. 11. All information about history, nature and science is already contained in the Bible, ready to be interpreted. 12. Jesus differs from us only in the degree of perfection he °attained. 13. Jesus never intended to found a church. 14. Everyone should interpret the Bible in his own way because the Bible says different things to different people. 15. It makes little difference to what church one belongs. (over) 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. Agree People can be good Christians and never go to church. Our church is the one church founded by God himself. Belief in miracles is not essential. God is a product of man's wishful thinking. A church is a place for religion-churches shouldn't get involved in social and political issues. Man is essentially good. Jesus was only a man like ~nyone else. There is no life after death. Experiences of conversion are superficial and have no lasting effects. I! _ Buddha and Mohammed were as much prophets of God for their cultures as Christ was for ours. Churches are a leftover from the Middle Ages and earlier superstitious times. The church enjoys special divine guidance. Each man has a spark of the divine. Man lives on only through his good works, through his children and in the memory of his dear ones. Every word in the Bible is divinely inspired in all respects. The scientific method is the only way to achieve knowledge. There is no salvation for one who has not accepted Jesus Christ. Although the Bible is inspired by God, some parts of it are no longer relevant to us today. Nothing should ever be called "sin." Man is essentially neither good nor evil. The church is the ultimate authority on religious knowledge. The minister or priest exercises powers that ordinary men do not have. One day Jesus Christ will return to earth in the flesh. 22.5:st 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. Man is headed for destruction; only God's miraculous intervention can save us. It doesn't much matter what one believes, as long as one leads a good life. If faith conflicts with reason, we should be guided by faith. In Holy Communion the bread and wine change into the body and blood of Jesus. There is no such thing as a "miracle." The Church was created by man, not by God. The Church Sanctuary should be used only for worship services. There is only one true Church. There is no need for miracles because natural law itself is the greatest miracle of all. The Church was created by God. All non~Christians will go to hell. Every conversion is a miracle of God. Man is made up of a body and a soul. A person should know the day he has become converted or accepted by Christ. Unless missionaries are successful in converting peeple in non-Christian lands, these people will have no chance for salvation. To be a Christian, one must be converted or born again. The church building has a special holiness that other buildings do not have. The Revised Standard Version of the Bible is a truer version of the Bible than the King James version. There is no soul, in any sense of the word. The only significance of Jesus Christ is that in his life and message he left an example for later generations to follow. Everything that happens in the universe happens because of natural causes. ' A11 functions of the church could be handled by other institutions. Agree L I6 APPENDIX B.--SENIOR QUESTIONNAIRE a.»HICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY CONFIDENTIAL: FOR RESEARCH PURPOSES ONLY instructions: The questionnaire, as you will see, is organized into two parts. This section concerns certain aspects of your personal background. Please read carefully and answer each item as accurately as possible: If you cannot answer the question, write in "I do not know." 1. Personal Background: 1. Sex (check one) 1. Male 2. Female 2. How old were you on your last birthday? 3. Marital Status: 1. Married',2. Single 3. Divorced 4. In.what College of the University are you currently enrolled? 1° ___Agriculture 7. ___flome Economics 2.,__‘Arts and Letters 8. ___Natural Science 3~ *Businesa , 9. ____Vet. Medicine 4. ___Communication Arts 10. ___Buman Medicine 5.,___Educstion 11. ___Social Science 6. Engineering 5. What is your cumulative Grade Point Average? 6. How many years have you been at MSU? Circle One 1 2 3 4 More 11. Religious Activities Durigg College: 7. ZMy religious preference now is (please be specific) 8. have you ever belonged to another religion and/or denomination? yes __Jno. If yes, to which did you belong? 9. During college I attended religious services: every week about every three months about twice a month ‘ less than every three'months about once a month not at all about every six weeks 10. List any church-related organizations (formal or informal) in which you have participated during college. A AA ' A“ “M 44... #‘4 A AAA —A AAA‘ 89 (over) 111. Other Organized activities during college: IV. 11. '12. 13. 14. 15. Are you a member of a fraternity or sorority? 1. yes 2. no Are you a member of any honorary or professional or pro-professional societies? 1. yes 2. no Are you now or have you been an officer or committee chairman in your living unit or in student government? 1. yes 2. no Do you regularly participate in any organized special interest group or club on campus, for instance, a music, drama or hobby group? 1. yes 2. no Do you now participate or have you in the last year participated in any intramural or varsity sport? 1. yes 2. no Community Information Prior to College: 16. 17. 19. 20. 21. 22. Name of community in which you have lived the most between ages 5-17: . Approximate mileage from campus to your home: Approximate size of community? Under 2,500 10,000 - 50,000 over 100,000 2,500 - 10,000 50,000 - 100,000 Which of the following would most accurately describe your home community? (If mixed, check no more than two.) 1. Agricultural 4. Military 2. Educational Center 5. Suburban residential 3. Industrial 6. Other (please specify Type of high School attended: Public Private Parochial Approximately how many were in your high school graduating class? under 100 ______ 250 - 500 over 1,000 100 - 250 I 500 ~ 1,000 Approximate size of church or synagogue attended? under 100 __ 250 -500 over 1,000 100 - 250 500 - 1,000 Approximately how often did (or do) you go home each year in school? (answer in terms of the following: every week; about twice a month; about once a month; about every six weeks; about every three months; less than every three months.) . Freshman year . Sophomore year . Junior year . Senior year {>me V. Family Background: 23. Father's Education: , l. 8 or less grades 4. Some college 2. 9 - ll grades 5. College degree 3. 12 grades 6. Advanced college degree 24. Mother's Education: 1. 8 or less grades 4. Some college 2. 9 - ll grades 5. College degree 3. 12 grades 6. Advanced college degree 25. Father's Occupation w 26.} If your mother works outside the home, what is her occupation? W 27' Fam11Y'8 approximate annual income: - 1- ..___Undar $5,000 , 3. ___$10,000 - $15,000 2. $5,000 - $10,000 0. Over $15,000 28. Father's Organizational Membership: A. Religious Preference (If Protestant, specify denomination): Member: yes no Attends: every week not at all twice a month ' about every 6 weeks once a month about every 3 months less than every 3 months B. To which othe‘ organizations does he belong? Kiwanis ~ Country club ____Mnsic. drama, art Rotary Athletic club Club Other Service Clubs »0ther recreational____pultural club Professional organization] club ' Political party membership: If not a party member, specify preference: ' 29. Mother's Organizational Membership: A. Religious Preference (if Protestant, specify denomination): Member: yes no Attends: every week not at all tW1ce a month about every 6 week: once a month about every 3 months ‘ less than every 3 months B. To which other organizations does she belong? ___Red Cross ___pridge club Music, drama, art club ___P. T. A. ___Country club - Cultural club __JWomen's Service__‘Social club' Professional club or Clubs Organization Political party membership: If not a party member, specify preference: (over) . mum on won ZmBo w. onmnHoUmrwv no So 0. man on man U. womwnw