University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Congruence Of Social And Governmental Authority Patterns: Political Cynicism Among Suburban Adolescents

(USC Thesis Other)

Congruence Of Social And Governmental Authority Patterns: Political Cynicism Among Suburban Adolescents

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological moans to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependant upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Paga(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of the page in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again - beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific peges you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 Nort h Zm O Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 4810S I I 75-15,518 B R EW STER , Lawrence G ilbert, 1945- C O N G R U E N C E O F SOCIAL A N D G O V E R N M E N T A L AUTHORITY PATTERNS: POLITICAL CYNICISM A M O N G S U B U R B A N ADOLESCENTS. University of Southern C alifornia, Ph.D., 1974 P olitical Science, general Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 C opyright © by L A W R E N C E G IL B E R T B R EW STER 1975 THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED. CONGRUENCE OF SOCIAL A N D GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY PATTERNS: POLITICAL CYNICISM A M O N G SUBURBAN ADOLESCENTS by Lawrence G ilbert Brewster A Dissertation Presented to the FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (Political Science) January 1975 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TH E GRADUATE SCHO OL U N IV E R S ITY PARK LOS ANG ELES. C A L IF O R N IA 8G 0 0 7 This dissertation, written by La wr ence ..G il bg r£. Brews k e .r............... under the direction of his.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y Date 8 - 7-74 DISSERTATION COMMITTEE 1C haim .7 ^ ^ ..* ? . xj u C Z j ............... TO MIKE WHO HELPED TO EXPAND M Y PERSONAL A N D EDUCATIONAL HORIZONS PREFACE In the wake of the antt-establishment behavior of the 60's, considerable re search time and energy has been devoted to the study of the young. The more re cent effort to explain the political behavior and attitudes of the young received added impetus when, contrary to the expected behavior patterns suggested by ear lier political socialization studies, the young demonstrated low levels of system support. One of the principal attitudes which serves as an underpinning for the extra-legal behavior of the young is their strong antipathy toward authority — social and political. Middle and upper-middle class young in particular express doubt as to the ability of authorities, suspicion as to their motives, and a sense of helplessness in changing the perceived directions of public decision-making — all of which manifested itself during the 60's in social and political action falling out side the "rules of the game" in pressing demands upon decision-makers. These modes of extra-institutional, or anomic, political behavior tended to alternate with apathetic frustration, which brings about the possibility of an unpredictable, unpattemed, and potentially volatile intervention of the alienated segment of the political community. There is a need, therefore, for a greater focus of attention on the child’s relationship to political authority figures. The individual's "positive affect" for, cooperation with, and acceptance of authority — social and political — is most crucial for the proper functioning of the personality within the social system and is a necessary prerequisite for the persistence of any political system. Even so, no political authority structure yet established has had the unqualified trust and con fidence of all its citizens. Regardless of the popularity of its leaders, or of how resourceful those leaden are in encouraging a feeling among the citizens that their opinions and desires are important inputs in the policy-making process, there are always those who are suspicious and distrustful of the government's motives, intentions, and actions. What is necessary for a stable political system is that a single proportion of its citizens sees governmental authority as legitimate and is willing to abide by its rules. It is toward this investigation of adolescent attitudes toward political author ity that this study takes focus. An effort is made to explain at least a part of the young's behavior in terms of subtle, and not so subtle, changes in the interactive patterns established with authority in the social system, i . e . , parents and school authorities. We are convinced that a child is as affected by his interaction within an environment which has low economic, racial, and ecological differentiation as with a lebenswelt of high differentiation, cleavages, and pluralism. This suggests that patterns of attitudes and behavior of adolescents in o heterogeneous high school and community would be more stable, more susceptible to traditional modes of social control, and more compatible with traditional models of high school status hierarchies and programming. In essence, we hypothesize that adolescents growing up in suburban milieux with a relatively homogeneous economic level and life-style, and who experience a more permissive home and school environment with its low level of demand and constraint on behavior, do not "loam" traditional roles and the consequent differentiation which constitutes the core of identity as well as individuation. With the breakdown of regular family interaction, a move ment away from strict and rigid parental care and discipline, the increased re liance on "psychological" methods of discipline, and the tendency in modem "progressive" schools to allow students to participate in their own educational ex perience, adding to the minimization of authoritative dictates in the schools, has led to a change in the attitudes of adolescents toward social authority figures. This then extends to political authority. In summation, this study is an attempt to explain the strong antipathy of the young toward political authority on the basis of changes in the young's interactive patterns with social authority figures, i . e . , parents and school administrators and teachers. It does not pretend to be a comprehensive treatise; rather, it is an at tempt to probe a number of family and school situational variables in which con siderable and significant change has occurred, and then to relate these changes to certain of the young's attitudes toward political authority. Part One introduces the problem to be investigated, establishes the founda tion for this investigation, and then proceeds with a discussion of the relevant literature. Part One concludes with a statement and discussion of the theory and hypotheses on which the empirical investigation is based. Part Two reports the methods and findings of our study and suggests some of the implications for further investigation. It remains to acknowledge the debts I have accumulated while working on this study. I feel extraordinarily fortunate to have developed a close friendship with two men in the process of this work. There are few words to express the deep gratitude I have for the intellectual inputs and the strong peisonal support given by Professor Michael Brown, to whom I dedicated this work. I also owe a special thanks to Robert Goodman, who has served both in the capacity of my chairman and as a personal friend. During the course of my study at the University of Southern California I have incurred an intellectual indebtedness to several faculty members of the Department of Political Science whose influence has helped to shape many of the intellectual directions which have had their impact on this study. I am especially grateful for the aid of Dean Charles Mayo and Professor Fred Krinsky. I owe a special thanks to Professor John Glaser whose aid in the closing days, both as a reviewer and member of my panel, was invaluable. A special recognition is also due the many who aided in the preparation and administration of the questionnaire. The more indispensable of these is Nadean O'Brien, who has served as an inspiration throughout the process. I should like to thank, as w ell, Rich Dumage and Samuel Duberville. Scholarly convention calls upon me to absolve all the above from any responsibility for what appears here. My w ife, Deri, has performed all of the traditional tasks of the traditional academic wife in a particularly outstanding fashion. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Poge PREFACE............................................................................................................. i i i I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 The Changing American Family and School ...................................... 3 The Fullerton Study: Purpose and Justification............................... 7 Discontinuity in the Socialization Process........................................ 1 1 Politics and Political Learning: One Perspective........................... 13 Limitations of Social Class as a Predictor.......................................... 17 Organization of the Study....................................................................... 18 I I . FAMILY A ND SCHOOL STRUCTURE: IMPACT O N SOCIAL A N D POLITICAL LEARNING .............................................................. 19 Two Components of Political Learning ................................................ 21 Parents as Agents of Socialization....................................................... 27 The Role of the Family vis-a-vis Other Socialization Agents. . . . 30 Parent-Child Relationship....................................................................... 36 School .......................................................................................................... 41 Summary........................................................................................................ 42 I I I . THEORY A N D HYPOTHESES........................................................................ 46 Eckstein's Congruence Theory................................................................ 55 • « V II Observations on the Young: A Summary............................................ 59 Hypotheses................................................................................................... 61 IV . INTRODUCTION AND M ETH O D O LO G Y............................................... 65 Introduction................................................................................................. 65 Methodology............................................................................................... 66 The Universe: Location and Sample Characteristics................. 66 Sample Size and Selection................................................................ 68 Survey Administration......................................................................... 68 Questionnaire ...................................................................................... 69 Scale and Measurement of Variables ............................................ 70 Family Authority Structure.............................................................. 73 Attitude Scales .................................................................................... 75 Index Formula ................................... 76 Questionnaire Coding and Processing............................................ 76 Data Presentation and Tests of Significance ............ 77 Discussion of Concepts....................................................................... 78 V . SPECIFIC SYSTEM SUPPORT: FEELINGS OF TRUST TOWARD POLITICAL A UTH O R ITY......................................................................... 81 Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority ............................................................................. 83 Relationship of Father's Occupational Status to Family Authority Structure and Political Cynicism ................................. 89 Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for S e x ...................................... 92 Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for High School....................... 95 • • • VIII Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Proximate Political Authority: Policeman and School Administrator...................................................................................... 100 Policeman............................................................................................ 100 School Administration...................................................................... 106 Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Best Mode of Government Influence....................................................................... 109 Summary ................. 114 SUMMARY AND CO NCLU SIO NS............................................................ 116 Indirect vs. Direct Political Socialization...................................... 118 The Changing American Family............................................................ 120 School: A Transitional Institution in the Socialization Process................................................................................................... 123 Congruent vs. Incongruent Political Socialization ...................... 126 Directions for Future Research.............................................................. 127 A Final W ord............................................................................................. 134 BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................. 136 APPENDIX 151 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling For Homogeneous vs. Heterogeneous Parental Pairings 86 2. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitudes Toward Political Authority 88 3. Relationship of Father's Occupation to Family Authority Structure 91 4 . Relationship of Father's Occupation to Attitude Toward Political Authority 92 5. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for Sex 94 6. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for Progressive High Schools 98 7. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for Traditional High Schools 99 8. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Police 101 9 . Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Police 102 10. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Police: Controlling for Progressive High School 104 11. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Police: Controlling for Traditional High School 105 12. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward School Administrators 107 13. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward School Administrators 106 14. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Best Mode of Government Influence 111 15. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Best Mode of Government Influence: Controlling for Progressive High Schools 112 16. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Best Mode of Government Influence: Controlling for Traditional High Schools 113 I xi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The preeminent paradox of middle class society is the contrast between the environment in which the young are raised — characterized by unprecedented a f fluence, permissive child rearing practices, and "progressive" education — and the outside or "real" social and political worlds — including economic and po litical authorities, with their restraints on behavior, war and bureaucracy. Through this unparalleled affluence, changing familial relationships, and pro gressive education we have unwittingly created the illusion of a world that can be possessed, enjoyed, and even manipulated at w ill. The results of this kind of childhood development, particularly when con fronted with the realities of the political and economic systems as they are ex perienced and perceived in the adolescent and adult years, cannot but lead to serious conflicts for most of these children. An important discontinuity in the socialization process is inevitable when you rear an entire generation convinced that the world is theirs and then suddenly expect them to accept the fact that others really manage it, own it and control it, and may in fact be the reason why so much of what characterizes adolescence today is typified by a kind of narcis sistic revolt against authority. 1 This paradox of middle clan society presents to students of political social ization an interesting and important question: what affect, if any, w ill incon gruencies between the authority structures of the social system end the political system have on adolescent political attitudes, and in peirticular their attitudes toward the various political authority roles. It is this question which serves as the impetus for this study. It is postulated that the extent of fulfillment of integrative functions of the political socialization process is related to the extent of congruence between the family and school systems and the political authority structures. It would seem that only if the expectations and dispositions toward authority raised in the family and in the school are not in total disharmony with and opposition to the political authority roles and identifications can "new" recruits into the political system be fully integrated, in otherwords, it may be said that only insofar as there are present, with the family and school authority roles, some orientations — both latent and manifest — which are congruent with governmental authority structures w ill succeeding generations be capable of being fully integrated into and suppor tive of the political system. Otherwise, the discontinuity between authority role expectations of adolescents and the political community S orientation is so great that it cannot be bridged. It is, then, only insofar as substantial congruence ex ists between the decision-making structures of the social system, in particular the family end the school as subsystems, end the governmental authority structures that the various authority roles encountered by young adults in the political com munity can be more or less clearly defined and readily internalized. O r, to state in different terms, that sphere becomes, in a way, undefined and unstructured, or rather is defined in contradictory ways, and hence not fully internalized. The Changing American Family and School That significant change has occurred in the Americcn family and school system over the past several decades is well accepted by most social scientists. Social researchers have, on a continuous basis, been interested in the study of familial change and institutional interpenetration.^ The general consensus among social scientists is that in the American so ciety, patterns of intra-familial relationships have changed considerably over the past few decades. There is a shift, particularly among middle class, suburban families, away from a more direct and strict disciplinary approach and toward more tolerant, reasonable, democratic (permissive) child-rearing methods. Fol lowing the dictates of noted doctors such as Spock, middle class mothers adopted a mode of child rearing which was based on a premise of greater respect for child ren and adolescents than the earlier attitude of coercive, if paternalistic, domin ance. The shift called for greater respect for the child's desires, and advocated that the child be allowed to express himself freely and openly. In essence, there ^See, for example, William F. Ogbum, Social Change (New York: V i king Press, 1922); W illiam F. Ogbum and Meyer F. Nimkoff, Technology and the Changing Family (New York: Houghton-Mifflin, 1955); Pitirim A . Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1941); Ruth N . Anshen, "The Family in Transition, in The Family: Its Function and Destiny, ed. by Ruth N . A shen (New York: Harper, 195^), pp. 3-lfc; Sidney M . Oreenfield, "Industrialization and the Family in Sociological Theory,” American Journal of Sociology, 67 (N o v ., 1961), pp. 312-322. 3 came to be a greater reliance on "psychological" methods of discipline, such as reasoning, appeals to conscience, and manipulative techniques, as distinguished from more rigid and direct techniques like physical punishment. It is a reasonable assumption that inherent in parents' standards for their children are conceptions of their own responsibilities as parents. We are able to say, as w ell, that the dominant motif of middle class parents is that the child develop his own standards of conduct: desirable behavior consists essentially of the child's acting in accordance with the dictates of his own principles. By con trast, the dominant motif of the traditional working class parents is that the child's actions be reputable: desirable behavior consists essentially of his not transgres sing parental proscriptions. In this sense we can say that middle class values imply a parental obligation to be sensitive to the child's thoughts and feelings, while the traditional view of working class values implies a parental obligation to make clear to the child what rules are to be obeyed. Finally, therefore, we should ex pect the ratio of support to constraint in parents' handling of their children to be higher in middle than in working class families. Bronfenbrenner suggests, in this context, "Over the entire period studied, parent-child relationships in the middle class are consistently reported as more acceptant and equalitarian, while those in the working clou are oriented toward maintaining order and obedience. Within this context, the middle clan has shown a shift away from emotional control toward freer expression of affection and greater tolerance of child's impulses and desires.1 2 U. Bronfenbrenner, "Socialization and Social C lan through Time and Space," in E. Malory, T .M . Newcomb, and E.L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology (New York: H olt, 1958). 4 In addition to the advice of "experts" that a more permissive approach to child rearing is preferable, changes in intra-familial relationships and interactive patterns have come about as the result of technological advancement, which in turn has altered, or rather diminished, the economic unity of the family. The waning of economic unity, more than any other change which has been wrought by technological advancement, has led to a break-up in family unity. Families living in suburban communities in particular experience the absence of the father as a result of his having to travel a considerable distance to work. The mother is now a woman of leisure and can enjoy more hours outside the home doing volun tary work or simply enjoying outside leisure activities. And, even with the pros pect of a reduced prosperity, the mother is now spending time outside the home in a job or profession so that the family can continue to enjoy the fruits of sub urban living. The children are unencumbered by the necessity of performing any household tasks, and enjoy resources enough to afford the mobility and pleasures of modem society. In short, the lack of economic unity, combined with affluence, has created the absence of social unity in the family. One indication of the un willingness or inability of the family to come together during the course of a day is provided in the response to the question concerning the number of days in a week that a family sits down together at dinnertime. This, after a ll, is tradition ally the one time of day when every member in a household is forced to confront one another.^ ^Respondents were asked the following question: "How often during age week do you and the members of your family living at home sit down at the table for dinner?"We found only 38% of our sample sit down on a regular basis with the entire family. The new emphasis on the "psychological" in child rearing has left a mark on the school environment as w ell. No longer does the teacher rely primarily on his authority as a teacher to force knowledge upon the recalcitrant child. Instead, he tries to elicit and hold the interest of the child in the subjects under discussion and in the complete learning process. Progressive education spelled the end to rigid class scheduling, e .g ., modu lar scheduling has been introduced into many "modem" schools, highly structured classroom assignmentsrand teacher-student relationships, and has marked the be ginning of a more tolerant and permissive attitude of school administrators toward students. Operating under the rubric of "progressive" education, school admin istrators and teachers have a set of norms and values which allow them to abandon coercive techniques of control in favor of manipulative ones, since these help them preserve a more favorable image of themselves as guides who are liked and accepted by the students. We are able to conclude,then, that there is the emergence of a pattern of familial relations, located most typically in middle class homes, having the fol lowing characteristics: (1) a strong emphasis on egalitarian interpersonal rela tions; (2) a high degree of permissiveness with respect to self regulation; (3) a greater willingness for the expression of affection; and (4) "increased reliance on indirect 'psychological* techniques of discipline, such as reasoning or appeals to 4 conscience vs. direct methods, such as physical punishment, scolding or threats." ^U. Bronfenbrenner, "The Changing American Child: A Speculative Analy sis," Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, V II (April, 1961), 74. 6 The Fullerton Study: Purpose ond Justification The major function of this study was to ascertain whether, in fact, the na ture of the family and school authority structures as perceived by adolescents af fects the individual's attitude toward political authority. The basic premise of this study may be stated as follows: when the authority patterns of the social system^ and the governmental authority structures are substantially incongruent, as these decision-making structures are experienced and perceived by adolescents, there w ill result a negative set of attitudes toward the political system — par ticularly as those attitudes relate to political authority. Even though there has been little work done on this question, the possibility for research in this area has been raised by several writers and most notably by Easton and Dennis: . . .it might be argued that a democratic system would scarcely be likely to survive if children were brought up under highly author itarian conditions in the family, school, voluntary associations, and other groups and then were expected to behave in a democratic man ner in the political arena. Conversely if children grew up with a high degree of involvement and responsibility for their own affairs and a significant voice, appropriate to their age, in decisions af fecting them in family, school, and so forth, we might question whether an authoritarian political regime could operate without strain as the children attained their political maturity. The problem centers on the extent to which discontinuities in the socialization of members in a system may produce conflicting attitudes and expectations within the individual that would u lti mately contribute to political instabilities. ^Our investigation w ill be restricted to two subsystems: the family and the school. Although it is important to study the impact of authority relations among peers, economic organizations, and the like, it is assumed that the family and the school are the more important agents in the early socialization process of adoles cents. ^David Easton and Jack Dennis, Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy (New York: M cG raw -H ill Book C o ., 1969), p .32. The adaptation of the humai species to its environment entails a number of processes that range from genetic transmission to acquisition of behavior through learning. Socialization applied to the learning process by which humans adapt to their social environment. More precisely, socialization, in the present con text, is defined cs the learning of the attitudes, norms, values and penonality traits of a culture.^ The interest in empirical investigation within the field of political social ization is, to a considerable degree, a product of this search to identify and explore those explanatory factors in the social setting which are related to the learning of political orientations, attitudes, and behavior patterns. It is in this search that one cepect of social life most obviously and immediately relevant to political behavior has been largely neglected — the authority patterns in non governmental social relationships such as the family, schools, peer groups, and economic organizations. Political socialization research has identified and A number of definitions have been proposed which reflect the substance of the one offered here. There are two elements common to such definitions: (I) the content is acquired through learning; and (2) the content is that which affects social behavior. The most comprehensive work to date on socialization is David A . Goslin, e d ., Handbook on Socialization Theory and Research (Chicago: Rand M cN ally and Company, 1969). It consists of 29 chapters which treat various aspects of socialization written by experts in the particular area. Another collection, more limited but worth examining, is John A . Clausen, e d ., Socialization and Society (L ittle, Brown, and Company, Boston, Massachu- setts, 1946). In the area of political socialization, there are several extensive reviews among which are: Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization (Little, Brown, and Company, Boston, Massachusetts, 1969); Jack frennis, “Major Problems in Political Socialization Research," Midwest Journal of Political Science, 17 (1968), pp. 85-114; and Herbert Hyman7~Political Socialization, (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959). 8 explored various explanatory factors which are related to the learning of political 8 9 attitudes and which affect political behavior. Socio-economic status, race, s e x ,^ and cognitive a b ility ^ are just a few of the many variables which seem to be associated with the learning process. We are given, as w ell, studies on per sonality characteristics as additional possible explanatory variables in the under standing of political activity. But, beyond allusions to the subject, we have no general propositions about the relations between politics on the governmental level and politics in nongovernmental social patterns. Eckstein suggests this is a serious omission "for it stands to reason that if any aspect of social life can di rectly affect government it is the experience with authority that men have in other spheres of life, especially those that mold their personalities and those to 12 which they normally devote most of their lives." If we accept the basic premise g See, for example, Robert Hess and Judith Tomey, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1967), Chapter 7. g See, for example, Schely Lyons, "The Political Socialization of Ghetto Children: Efficacy and Cynicism," Journal of Politics, 32 (1970), pp. 288-304. ^ S ee , for example, Fred I. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969), Chapter 6 . ^ S ee , for example, Elliott W hite, "Intelligence and Sense of Political Efficacy in Children," Journal of Politics, 30 (August, 1968), pp. 710-731; S.K. Harvey and T.G. Harvey, "Adolescent Political Outlooks: The Effects of Intelligence as an Independent V ariable," Midwest Journal of Political Science , 14 (1970), pp. 565-595; and Hess and Tomey, o p .c it., Chapter 7. 12 Harry Eckstein, Division and Cohesion Democracy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 225. 9 of political socialization research — that social environment closely affects poli tical life — is it not likely to do so chiefly through those of its aspects that are most like political life itself? If so, then certainly the authority patterns of so cial institutions experienced early in the socialization process would exercise con siderable influence on an adolescent's behavior in and attitude toward the political system. It has, for example, been suggested by Almond and Verba that an area of investigation rich in possibilities is in "...the non-political authority patterns to which an individual is exposed (which) have an important effect on his attitudes toward political authority.. .it is likely that his first view of the political system 13 represents a generalization from these experiences." The need to study the relationship of nongovernmental authority patterns to political attitudes and behavior is given added support by well-established social and psychological theories and promising new theoretical approaches in political study, including the theories of learning and socialization of strain, tension, and anomie, the theory of cognitive dissonance, and the political culture approach.^ These provide a simple, and surely sensible, assumption: that men are able ef fectively to participate in and respond to the demands of the political process if 13 Gabriel A . Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1965), p. 268. 14 A good introduction to the study of strains and tensions as sources of in dividual and social problems is Wilbert Moore (1963). Studies of learning and socialization are nearly inunerable, but the best comprehensive study of political socialization is Herbert Hyman, op. cit. Anomie theory, originating in Durkheim's classic study of suicide, is well treated, summarily, in S. DeGrazia. 10 their previously learned norms and behavior substantially prepare them for such roles, and if the norms and practices demanded by their concurrent social roles do not create sharp strains or painful ambivalences and contradictions with their political ones. Discontinuity in the Socialization Process In speaking of eliminating or minimizing strains or painful ambivalences and contradictions between political and social roles, one is really talking about the concept of discontinuity. Discontinuities are among the more important fac tors bearing on the network of socialization agents. The concept of "discontinu ity" is defined as a change occurring in the individual's social world which makes behaviors previously suited at point X in congruent with behaviors demanded at point Y . Discontinuities can be general in scope, requiring shifts in many be haviors, or quite narrow, entailing only a limited modification of behavior. Nu merous events may account for the appearance of a discontinuity. The reasons in clude almost any phenomenon producing significant shifts in an individual's en vironment such as aging, or geographic or social change. Political discontinui ties result from either direct or indirect pressures generated by the political or social structure. A path for research is disclosed when we relate the concept of discontinuity to the chronological development of individuals, the scope of political behaviors, and the network of socialization agents. There are a number of structural condi tions which regularly project discontinuities of various scopes and intensities into 11 the lives of individuals. A more obvious, and yet critical, period is that of ado lescence. Experiencing one type of authority pattern in the home and another in school is another point of possible discontinuity. Some who have studied the politicization process have ignored structural discontinuities, concluding that socialization is completed prior to adolescence.^ But, in light of the changes in behavior that a discontinuity might demand, such conclusions seem precarious. It is qualitatively different to assert that attitudes and behavior learned at one point in the maturation process affect those acquired later, than to suggest socialization is completed, or nearly so, by a given age. The failure to clarify the possible effects of discontinuities on the agents of socialization, as well as on the individual as he undergoes the socialization pro cess, has left a serious gap in the lite ra tu re .^ In particular, there is a need to explore the effect of discontinuous authority patterns as a child experiences the family, school and political structures. What is the impact, if any, on an indi vidual's political attitudes and behavior when he experiences one type of author ity structure in the home and school which is substantially different (incongruent) 15 Hess and Torney, op. c it., for example, go beyond their data when they argue that socialization is effectively completed prior to adolescence. While it may be true that important learning has occurred by the ages 12-13, it does not follow, especially in light of other research, that the process is nearly completed by that age. ^N orm ally, the concept of discontinuity refers to an incompatibility of behaviors developed and limited to one environmental setting with those de manded in another. The contradictory demands on behavior produced by a discon tinuity are, in many respects, similar to those produced by "cross pressures," a l though the former usually occur over time, whereas the latter are occurring simul taneously. Discontinuity and its counterpart, continuity, represent poles on a continuum. The impact on the individual's social behavior of discontinuities can 12 from the political authority structure? In this instance, in other words, the indi vidual is experiencing a discontinuity in the socialization process which may have an impact on his ability to relate to the political world. Politics and Political Learning: One Perspective We w ill assume from the outset that, like all aspects of development, the development of behavior and attitudes is a cumulative process that buildi at each point on the products of what has come before. It is possible to say as well that values, behavior patterns and life goals are learned in various situations one experiences. That is, an individual^ set of values, which help to determine sub sequent behavior, are not taught, but are acquired by interacting with and observ ing those people who make up the environment. For example, people learn what authority is by having someone who is bigger, older, stronger, and hopefully wiser intervene and cssert his w ill. If, as we say, values, such as obedience and respect for authority, accommodation to othen, and other patterns of inter action are learned in situ, then it becomes very important to take a look at dif ferent patterns of "growing up" and the potential impact this may have on subse quent behavior and attitude formation — particularly as it relates to the political system. vary in scope and strength. Finally, a less widely acknowledged point is that reordering among the agents of socialization may result from a discontinuity. For a traditional overview of the concept of discontinuity see Dawson and Prewitt, op. c it. , pp. 81-104. A divergent perspective, similar to the present one, which points up the impact on agents, can be found in Hans Sebald, Adolescence: A Sociological Analysis (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, 1968). 1 3 In the context of politics and political learning, we w ill draw from a rather general penpective. From the point of view of the writer, however poli tics is defined, it seems certain that the process referred to includes a wide range of phenomena that may be classified into two major categories: interpersonal relationships end social organizations. One is able then to say that, included in a definition of politics, is a variety of behaviors, interactions, and social pro cesses, e .g ., authority, conflict and conflict resolution, cooperation and roles. Important to the considerations in this study is the fact that political phenomena occur not only in relation to governmental and formal institutions, but also, to varying extents, in all social systems where people must share a common pool of scarce resources. We are able to conclude, therefore, that phenomena such as leader ship, authority, and conflict resolution are political wherever they occur, in families, classrooms, peer groups, and so on. It seems immediately clear that the individual is encountering political phenomena virtually constantly at any age, and that the activities related to government aid institutions are only a small and specialized aspect of the total political experience of any individual. In short, what we are suggesting is that individuals first leam of political pheno mena such as authority roles as they interact with their immediate social environ ments. If we accept the view that the child lives in a political world as much as the adult, then there are numerous dimensions of the childS world that can be identified and examined for the political learning they make possible. The 1 4 earliest and most obvious one, and the one which provides the focus for this study, is his relationship to authority. From birth, the child is subordinate in a hierarchical relationship to one or more adults. Traditionally, and certainly still at very early ages, the subordination is taken for granted by both the child and the adults as "the way things a re." On occasion, or frequently, depending on the individuals and the quality of their relationship, the child w ill question the subordination and the adult's power will have to be explicitly reasserted, verbally, behaviorally, or both. And, depending on the situation and nature of the family structure, this is done either through reasoning and explanation of the adult's more privileged status (as in the "democratic" home), through mere verbal assertion that the child is subordinate and must behave accordingly, through threats of punishment, through physical enforcement of the subordinate role by "making the child do what the adult is requesting"(as in the "traditional" home), or by means of still other alternatives. Growing from these superordinate- subordinate relationships children, and then adolescents, begin to learn and to understand such questions as when and how individuals obey authority, what the function of authority is for individuals and groups, what kinds of factors produce rebellion against authority, what the conditions are under which authority would lose its effectiveness, and what the costs and gains are for the individual of either abiding by the authority or going against it. In short, the subtle and ongoing learning of authority relationships in the home, school, and among peers becomes a factor internal to the individual and may eventually manifest itself in overt political behavior at some later point. Political learning thus 1 5 builds on itself in a complex manner to produce, at any point in time, the indi vidual % particular configuration of modes of relating to political events, through which he continues to engage in political learning and to further refine his poli tical functioning. We are saying, in other words, that the child^s adaptations to (his learning from) his interpersonal experiences constitute the basis for the development of his understanding of the larger system. The broad definition of politics adopted for this study, and the view that political variables are embedded in the interpersonal worlds of all individuals at all ages, lead one to conclude that the individual is assimilating end ctccom- modating to political events all the time; that is, he is developing political schemes and elaborcrting end mexlifying them in light of his continuing experience. At early ages, these schemes (ways of organizing and dealing with the environ ment) are probably mostly behavioral, end become increasingly verbal and ab stract with cge. Thus even the very young child has patterned end stable ways of adapting to the demands of authority, to attempts to influence him, to c o - operative end competitive situations, and so on, and the ways in which children leam to adept to these demends w ill vary in accordance with the nature of the authority structure, the nature of the demands, end the neiture of the sanctions (positive and negative) imposed on the child for failure to meet the demcmds — or, on the positive side, es an inducement to completing the demands. In short, the child's adaptations to (his learning from) his interpeisenal experien ces constitute the basis for the development of his understending of the larger system. 1 6 Limitations of Social Class as a Predictor Since its inception in 1968, the Fullerton study has yielded data tracing the stability and change of a broad range of political and social-psychological attitudes and behaviors among our adolescent community on a biannual basis. In the course of this long-term project, we have found low levels of support for the political system to be pervasive among predominately middle-class, white adolescents, a demographic profile which is related to higher rates of political participation among adult populations.^ These alienated and cynical attitudes are, as w ell, quite dissonant with what would be expected within this particular universe. These preliminary findings are of particular importance in that they indicate to us that the traditionally important socio-economic indices of occupation and education in accounting for differentials in political attitude sets provided a very low level of explanatory power among our sample. Within the Fullerton sample the meager explanatory power of the socio-economic indices 18 suggests that social class identification has been inhibited. While the fathers of this adolescent sample predominately held occupations of middle-class status, the occupational classifications were nearly equally divided between those in business, semiprofessional and professional endeavors and those in clerical and sales work. Yet the objective differences in occupational status of the father '^See, for example, Angus Campbell, et a l. , The American Voter (New York: John W iley and Sons, In c ., 1960); Lester Milbroth, Political l*orticipc- tion (Chicago: Rand M cN ally & C o ., 1965). ^®For a discussion of this see Michael E. Brown, "Alienation and Inte gration in the Political Attitudes of Suburban Adolescents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971). are not reflected in attitude differentials among their adolescent c h ild re n .^ The preliminary findings further support the idea that it may be more useful to look to the changes in patterns of interaction within intra-familial re lationships (in particular as these interactive patterns are demonstrated in the adoption of different child-rearing practices) as a principle explanatory factor in understanding the high levels of alienation and distrust among adolescents 20 toward political and social authority. Organization of the Study This study is divided into two parts. Part One begins with a descrip tive evaluation of the field of political socialization and the theory and research extant on the impact of familial and school authority structures on children's and adolescents' attitudes toward political authority (Chapter II). The theoretical foundation and hypotheses to be tested w ill be presented in Chapter III. Part Two begins with a description of the Fullerton universe and sample, the methods used in data collection and analysis, and operational definitions of the central concepts (Chapter IV ). The findings are presented and analyzed in Chapter V . In Chapter VI we summarize the findings of the study and suggest some of the implications for further investigation. ^See the preliminary discussion of this point in Michael E. Brown, To litical Efficacy: Alienation and Integration Within an Adolescent Community" (paper delivered to the American Political Science Association, September 5 -9 , 1972, Washington, D .C j* 20We w ill, of course, control for social class nevertheless, in order to confirm or disconfirm the contention that socio-economic variables have low pre dictive powers. 1 8 CHAPTER II FAMILY AND SCHOOL STRUCTURE: IMPACT O N SOCIAL AND POLITICAL LEARNING The adult is everywhere immersed in authority relations. Sometime in the individual life history of each person, he becomes socialized to authority be havior as a fundamental mode of human relations. It is the cumulative exper ience with authority, in the authority inception period, which emphasizes the familial behavioral setting, and after, when the child enters school, which serves as a major step in preparing the child for adequate participation in com plex social relations when he enters the adult world. In the context of this study, the need to look at the family and school system, two agents which trans mit the political culture to individuals, derives from their place in building up the individual's general attitudes toward authority, both social and political. When you study the effects of parental behavior on children you are, in effect, looking at the family as a miniature political system. If the family and the school are considered as small and relatively independent social subsystems with a culture, norms of behavior, mechanisms for reward and punishment, and a capacity for growth and change, then the role of its members within the subsystem can be seen to have implications for attitudes toward the system outside the family and school groups. This miniature political system is not only influenced 19 by the larger political system in which it is embedded but also, in turn, in fluences it. In the family, school, and larger political systems feelings of iden^ tification are developed. Feelings of in-group loyalty and support, which, in the family, might be operationalized as feelings of "closeness,1 1 can be con sidered the analog of "patriotism1 1 for the citizen of the nation-state. The family and school therefore may be considered as systems in which the young person learns something about how decisions are made, norm* about compliance, and certain skills about how to achieve his own goals. As Verba points out, "Participation in families, peer groups, workgroups, and other formally apolitical groups influences the individual's style of political behavior by developing certain expectations of political roles and certain skills for poli tical role playing."^ The young person may learn these lessons by observation of the parents, teachers, and school administrators' attitudes, either through informal over hearing or direct tuition, or by observing the behavior of these authorities. A number of writeis have emphasized that the young child, to a considerable degree, has the ability to generalize unconsciously.^ Verba, summarizing a study of the power structure of the home^ comments on the linkage between ^Sidney Verba, Small Groups and Political Behavior (Princeton, N .J .: Princeton University Press, 1 & 1 ), p. 40. ^See Everett E. Hagen, The Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins (Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1962), p . 125. ^See Alfred E. Baldwin, "Socialization and the Parent-Child Relation ship, 1 1 in D . McClelland (ed .), Studies in Motivation (New York: Appleton- Century Crafts, 1955). democratic and autocratic home environments and the politically relevant con sequences for the child. "Where the political system of the home was an open one—free communication in both directions between parents and children, some participation by children in family decision-making—children were better pre- pared to show initiative and participate fully in other role systems." The theoretical elucidation of the political roles of these two classes of agents (family and school) is mixed, and the empirical data available as to their relative influence on the development of political orientations remains inconclusive; although, from a composite perspective, these agents may, in American society, play a deciding role in the evolution of political man. For the purpose of this study, however, we w ill consider socialization agents in a dynamic, not static, context. That is, as time passes, continuing alternations are occurring within the network of socialization agents and the balance of influence among agents may change. The cumulative, processual nature of socialization as it makes up the "widening world of childhood" will be stressed in this study. In this context, we w ill be concerned less with the respective impact of the family and the school on adolescent political attitudes, and more with the influence of these two agents as they act and interact together. Two Components of Political Learning Before we begin with a review of relevant findings as they pertain to the process of socialization in both the familial behavioral setting and the school ^Verba, op. c it ., p. 32. 21 environment — with particular emphasis on studies which have investigated the influence (latent and manifest) of the authority structure of these agents on the individual's social and political attitudes and behavior — we w ill first introduce two theories of learning, which, together, contribute to our under standing of the process of political learning, and which serve to reinforce the idea that individuals learn important behavior patterns by observation and re inforcement from parents and teachers, the most critical being the ability to relate to authority. One process, described in psychology, which provides at least a partial explanation of human development, is instrumental learning, or learning through reinforcement. The principle idea advanced by this theory of learning is that people w ill pursue those goals and behaviors which are likely to result in posi tive consequences and will avoid that which w ill lead to negative results. That is, in instrumental conditioning, learning occurs through reinforcement — the individual learns to make a certain response to a certain stimulus because the response is followed by reinforcement when made in the presence of that stimulus. It is in terms of a reinforcement analysis that an individual's behavior is seen as being "shaped" by the pattern or schedule of reinforcement to which he is subject. Just as the rat's initially random behavior becomes smooth and efficient in pressing the lever to get food pellets, so does an individual's be havior become smoothly patterned when it is instrumental to bringing about some desired effect or avoiding a noxious one. 2 2 To a great’ extent parents and teachers use the principles of instrumental conditioning naturally when they give or withhold praise as a means of con trolling a child's behavior. For example, it seems that in most middle class suburban homes, the emphasis is placed on verbal manipulations on the part of both parent and child in attempting to realize goals, rather than on direct con frontation. Children learn early in this type of setting that if they are per sistent enough and are able to talk persuasively enough it is likely they will be able to realize whatever it is they are after. And, to the extent that the child's persistence and verbal manipulations serve the function of realizing the child's sought after goal, then the reinforcement w ill be highly effective in maintaining the same form of behavior through long periods of non-reinforce ment. What does reinforcement analysis have to say about political socializa tion and the particular questions addressed in this study? First, one is able to conclude from this approach to learning that the individual's perceptions and actions are shaped by the roles they hold in the social system — roles have re quirements and expectations and role occupants must meet them in order to con tinue playing the roles. But, pressing this further, precisely how are role be haviors acquired and maintained? The answer is in part through observation of appropriate others, and in part through the selective reinforcement of appropriate behaviors by other members of the system. The consequences that the individual seeks and expects, by virtue of being in the role, follow when he meets the ex pectations of the role and do not when he does not. 23 It becomes rather apparent as well that once behavior is acquired through direct or vicarious reinforcement, the behavior itself acquires reinforcing proper ties, and becomes in effect self-reinforcing. Thus, although instruction, model ing, and sanctions may be necessary in the learning of role behavior, much of role behavior is maintained because it has, itself, become satisfying for the individual. This principle is particularly evident with respect to complex human social behavior, but it is equally relevant to any instance of learning through reinforcement and it is clearly important for explaining the maintenance of behavior in the absence of overt environmental consequences. The effects of reinforcement on behavior are so ubiquitous that it is difficult to isolate a few examples of its role in political learning. The young child who persuades his mother to bend a rule and the student who is able to wrangle a higher grade from his professor are both experiencing positive con sequences as a result of their behavior and are thus more likely to repeat the behavior when the same or similar circumstances arise. In one family, the child can make his mother yield by throwing a tantrum. In another family, the mother ignores tantrums but is very responsive to verbal persuasion. In still another fam ily, the mother tries to reward rational pleas but sometimes gives in to a tantrum just to end it. And there are those families in which the child is pun ished if he maintains too persistent an attitude. Most obviously, each child is acquiring a particular pattern with which to deal with his mother's rules and de mands. The importance of this rests in the fact that subsequent behavior patterns are being established in part from these early experiences. Thus, for example, 24 one child might me tantrums to try to influence his father, his teacher, and his friends, as well as his mother. There are still other, more subtle, response-reinforcement patterns being established in the above examples. If, say, the mother does yield to the chi Id verbal plea, not only is that mode of dealing with undesirable rules being rein forced, but so is the use of verbal techniques in general. Also being reinforced is the particular mode of reasoning or argument that the child used successfully, making his mother feel guilty, revealing a logical flaw in her observance of the rule, or evoking fear that her husband would find out and be critical. A be havior pattern, in other words, consists of many elements, all of which may be reinforced to different extents by the same set of consequences. These elements may be parts of many other patterns which w ill thus be affected to some degree by reinforcement in a seemingly remote situation. In short, it seems evident that reinforcement analysis provides still another reason for suggesting that the family authority structure, as one form of social interaction, may have lasting consequences for an individual^ subsequent behavior in the face of social and political authority roles. The second theory of learning to be considered suggests that an individual's behavior may be the result of the observation of others' behavior; that is, be havior patterns develop from observational learning or modeling. Although it is possible to analyze observational learning in terms of reinforcement con tingencies, it is at the same time possible to discuss it on its own without resolving the issue of whether or not it is merely another form of reinforcement learning. To do so, I think, w ill be useful for the purpose of this study. 25 The effects of modeling on the behavior of an individual can be analyzed as occurring at various levels in a manner parallel to the earlier analysis of the ramifications of the reinforcement of one particular behavior. When, for example, a mother punishes her child for a transgression, in addition to the reinforcement effects that will operate, she is modeling a way of dealing with an undesirable event and a way of expressing anger or frustration. The effects of observing her behavior might thus affect the child's own way of dealing with negative events or feelings within a short span of time. In addition, however, the mother is also modeling a way of being a parent — a way of exercising authority — a way of manipulating another's behavior. And, important to the point of this study, the effects of the observation of these aspects may not be reflected in the child's behavior immediately or soon after but they may still cumulatively influence the child's corresponding patterns at the appropriate times years later. O f course, no single observation of a type of behavior is likely to have long-range effects, but an individual is exposed repeatedly to the same models in the course of de velopment and the behavior of these models tends to be patterned and consistent. Thus, these long-range, or delayed, effects can become potent and stable. What specifically does observational learning say about political learning and subsequent political behavior? Given the broad definition of political learning provided in Chapter I, it is evident that individuals of any age are continuously exposed to political models. Beyond the obvious direct relation ship of political actors as models however, it is perhaps more important to look again to the "real" and immediate social settings (situations) which offer the 2 6 individual at least some models of some dimensions of political functioning. For example, the child in a classroom is likely to observe, on any ordinary day, instances of the exercise of authority, of various forms of conflict and its reso lution, of rule enforcement, of diverse attempts at interpersonal influence, and so on. Similarly, the young child in the home is likely to also observe instances of authority, conflict and conflict resolution, rule enforcement, and interpersonal influence. By our definition of political, these events would be political events, the observation of which has learning consequences for the observer. Parents as Agents of Socialization The family is the primary sculptor of the personality of most individuals. In fact, a great many references to the family and the authority relations between the father and mother, between parents and children, can be found in traditional political thought, an indication of the long standing interest of students of poli tics in the antecedents of citizenship. To varying degrees family experience has been described as the precursor, prototype, and bulwark of political relation ships in the larger society. Several writers concerned with "national character" have commented on the parallels between the 'political' structure of the family and that of the nation. Gilbert comments on the parallelism between the political rules of Germany and the rules governing the German family. The submissiveness and lack of initiative or critical value judg ments which a r e .. .deeply ingrained in the child (in the authoritarian paternalistic pattern) provide a permanent basis for submissiveness to authority and lack of independence in adult social behavior. The 2 7 submission to authority in political life becomes a natural extension of the submission to the father's discipline in the home.'* In addition to "national character" studies, which have been criticized for not adhering at all times to specific child-rearing techniques, there are several socio-political studies which need to be considered in order to fully understand the possible effect of the family on the political system. Lane sug gests, in a comparison of American child-training practices with those of other countries, the relevance of the family to politics. "Some idea of the congruence between child training methods and poli tical systems may be seen by contrasting the 'reward for effort' or 'conditional love' in the American scheme with the systemmatic frustration of the child in other cultures with different political systems. That the American family is relatively unique in developing efficacious and supportive orientations toward the larger political system has been stressed by Lane and M itchell. Mitchell argues that the permissiveness by which children are reared in the United States leads them to develop an ability to manipulate power. What this means to the child is that power is not "mystical" and not something requiring "unquestioned obedience" but "a pragmatic thing with which one can bargain."^ Another familial factor which would be expected to be C .M . G ilbert, The Psychology of Dictatorship: Based on an Examination of the Leaders of Nazi Germany, 1950, p. 268, cited by Wasby, 1966, p. 18. ^Robert Lane, Political Life (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1959),p. p. 204. ^William C. M itchell, The American Polity (New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 163-4. conducive to active participation later in life is that, according to Lane, the American family makes the child feel that his expressed desires count and w ill be taken into consideration. "The American family takes the child's demands Q seriously.. .The family in the United States proceeds by consensus. In sum marizing the literature on this point one writer suggests "if the child did not feel effective with the family's politics, he would be less likely to participate in the external democratic polity, or at least less likely to feel effective in that arena. That the child demands to know why he must do something is a o correlate of the 'democratic view of equality' the child acquired." The actual dynamics of this process are aptly suggested by M iller and Swanson. Like discipline, a mother's requests have some obvious implica tions for her child's resolution of conflict. If she is arbitrary, he must obey without understanding. His world soon consists of high fences bounding many little spaces from which he can escape only by risking her disapproval. In new situations he cannot afford the risk of ar riving at his own judgements. Because he often does not understand the purposes of his mother's regulations, he cannot tell whether she w ill condemn the actions that he take> on his own initiative. He can be sure only that following directions, whether or not they make sense, is the best way to keep out of trouble and win approval. ®Lane, op. c it . , p. 204. o Stephen L. Wasby, "The Impact of the Family on Politics: An Essay & Review of the L it.," The Family Life Coordinator, X V (1966), p. 7. ^D aniel M iller and Guy Swanson, Inner Conflict & Defense (New York: Henry Holt and C o ., 1958), pp. 78-80. 29 The Role of the Fomily vis-a-vis Other Socialization Agent* A majority of those engaged in the empirical study of the family's role in the socialization process consider the family, which is the earliest and most proximate primary group, to be the most efficacious socialization agent in the political learning process. Several studies have reported extensive inter- generational congruence in political attitudes and values. Herbert Hyman's summary of the field of political socialization reported that except for parent- child differences of opinion over war and peace, the association between the views of parent and child was strong over a wide variety of politically relevant attitudes and values.^ ^ Although for some time it was generally held by social scientists that in the United States the family was the single most important agency of political socialization where children are concerned and that many political attitudes and values tended to be transmitted from one generation to another via the 12 medium of the family. Recent research has expanded and refined our know ledge in political socialization and has questioned the view of family influence 13 as either too simplistic or misleading an explanation of the causality involved. Despite such reassessments, however, the weight of the currently available ^Hym an, op. c it ., 1959. 12 See, for example, Herbert Hyman, Political Socialization, p . 69; Fredrick Elkin, The Child and Society (New York: Random House, 1960), p. 46; or James C . Davies, "The Family's Role in Political Socialization," Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 36 (September, 1965), pp. 10-19. ^Robert D. Hess and Judith V . Torney, The Development of Basic Attitudes 30 evidence still favois the view that in the United States the family, if not pre- dominant, is still regarded as one of the more important agencies of political socialization. Within the family, the individual learns both the various types of activi ties demanded of him as a full member of society, and the various ways of over coming the tensions and frustrations inherent in orderly social life. It is within the family that the infant learns gradually to postpone the immediate gratifica tion of his needs and to regulate his behavior according to various norms and rules. While during the fiist stages of life the child learns, through his rela tions with his mother and father, to regulate the conduct by which he attains his gratification. In addition, parents condition many of the secondary rewards and punishments which become central in the creation of new behavior. In this latter sense, the family teaches an individual many of the stimuli he will later perceive as rewards and punishments. The importance of the family as an agent of politically relevant social learning is further demonstrated through the transmission of party identification, an area of investigation especially amenable to empirical study, and which is well documented.^ Hess and Tomey, in noting that while party identification and Values Toward Government and Citizenship Purina the Elementary School Years, Part i , U .S . (Office of Education, 1965, pp. 193 & 260; Richard E. Dawson and Kenneth Prewitt, Political Socialization, pp. 105-109. ^Reports of parental transmission of party identification can be found in M . Jennings and Richard G . Niem i, "The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to C h ild ," American Political Science Review, LXII (March, 1968), pp. 169-184; Hymen, op. c it.; Martin L. Levin, "Social Climates and Political Socialization," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXV (W inter, 1961), 596-606; may be transmitted from parent to child, suggested there is, at the same time, an ability of parents to pass a wider range of political values to their children which may be less obvious. They conclude that . .the influence of the family seems to be primarily indirect and to influence attitudes toward authority, rules and compliance. Robert Lane has, in recent years, rather successfully demonstrated the per vasive influence of the family in determining the political orientations of an in d iv id u a l.^ Lane does not argue that the family's influence is absolute or that each behavior stems from the family. He proposes that the roots of an individual's ideology are traceable to family interaction. The individual's basic orientations to life and politics derive from the family and most subsequent behavior arises from social stimuli acting on these early formed political dispositions. Herbert McClosky and Harold E. Dahlgren, "Primary Group Influence on Party Loyalty, " American Political Science Review, LI 1 1 (September, 1959), pp. 757-776; and in the retrospective studies of Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin and Warren E. M iller, The Voter Decides (New York: Row, Peterson and C o ., 1954), and Eleanor E. Maccoby, Richard E. Matthews and Anton S. Morton, 'Youth and Political Change," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (Spring, 1954), pp. 23-39. ^Hess and Tomey, op. c it. , p. 247. As a result, many students of poli tical socialization are moving beyond on examination of the formal classroom cur riculum and are beginning to more closely investigate the formal and informal school milieux, e .g ., peer relationships and the school authority structure. See, James Coleman, Education and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton Uni versity Press, 1963), pp. 18-25; Martin Levin, Social Climates and Political Socialization," Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Winter, 1961), pp. 596-606; David Reisman, Foces in the Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), p. 559; T. Newcomb, Personality and Social Changes (New York: Dryden Press, 1943). ^Robert Lane, Political Ideology, (New York: The Free Press, 1962); Robert Lane, Political'Thinking end Consciousness, (Chicago: Markham, 1969). 32 Lane's findings are not atypical: the work of several others provides cor roboration for Lane's thesis. Kenniston's study of "radical youth" traces poli tical orientations to ideological systems of the fa m ily .^ In particular, Kenniston reports that his extremely alienated Harvard students who rejected virtually their entire culture had exceptionally close relations with their mothers in their early years. At the same time their fathers were absent psychologically (and sometimes physically). A psychological victory over their fathers in the Oedipal struggle turned out to be a pyrrhic victory since it deprived them of an important paternal model whom they could admire and also left the mother as an overprotective, dominating, and suffocating presence. While occassionally expressing some compassion for their father's "failure" these alienated students perceived their fathers as men who did not really count and who had abdicated much of their role as father and husband in their fam ily. Kenniston suggests that, because their pyrrhic victory over their fathers left a situation in their own ex perience which was worse than the one they tried to change , they tended to dis trust all socially ameliorative schemes. A rejection of reform was common to each of the students. Any type of social or political means to change the very society they despised was considered futile or dangerous. Almond and Verba present data illustrative of a strong association between the decision-making structure in the family and an individual's feelings of ^Kenneth Kenniston, Young Radicals: Notes on Committed Youth (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968). An earlier review of a I iena- tion also touched on the importance of the family. Kenneth Kenniston, The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth in American Society (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965). 33 18 political competency. Even though the family's influence may be indirect and incidental, this does not reduce its importance, but rather illustrates the subtlety of its role. Greenstein suggests that, beyond the party, the family predominates in shaping attitudes toward the President, other political executives and the national 20 government. This anticipates Hess and Torney's assertion that the family molds 21 attitudes toward the broader concepts of nation. Objects of this type, not surprisingly, are ones toward which attitudes are developed earliest and when 22 a child's ties to his family are strongest. The identification of a child with a particular parent could affect the degree of association which develops between family and child. Evidence indi cates that even in politically homogeneous families, one parent may be more influential than the other in shaping the child's behavior. It is difficult to '^Gabriel A . Almond and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1963). ^Methodological problems in some of the studies, such as inadequately defined concepts, small samples, and heavy reliance on subject recall, are cer tainly detractions. However, Lane and Kenniston, through their extended and in - depth analysis produce a penetrating insight which should not be discounted. In addition to these, other studies lend support to such conclusions. Among these are Walter A . Westley and N . Epstein, Identification and Its Familial Deter minants (Indianapolis, Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962). " " ^®Fred Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), pp. 44, 73-74, 83-84, 154-156. 21 Hess and Torney, op. c it ., p. 217, tend to agree, although they sug gest that family is less important and tends to reinforce the school as an agent. This ties in with their emphasis on direct, purposive socialization. ^ S e e the discussion in Chapter II which deals with the chronological 34 predict the parent with whom a child w ill identify, although Greenstein notes 23 that girls tend to identify more with their mothers. Others argue that the process is far too complex to make simple generalizations. Examination of parental identification is important because it might help “explain away" some of the low association that has been found between the attitudes of parents and children. Research indicates that the individual who is perceived as a group's poli- 25 tical expert would also function as the group's political opinion leader. In American families, children of both sexes view the father as the political e xp e rt^ but with the exception of political party affiliation, children of both sexes are 27 consistently closer to the mother in political attitudes. However, the data is inadequate for a full evaluation of family homogeneity and its impact on poli- 28 tical socialization. development of political orientations. 23 Greenstein, op. c it ., pp. 118-125. ^Robert F . Winch, Identification and Its Familial Determinants (Indianap olis , Indiana: Bobbs-Merrill, 1962) provides considerable evidence that it is the more functional parent with whom the child tends to identify. His data also sug gests the extreme complexity which precludes generalization. 25Th e proposition could be derived from the "opinion leader" discussed by Katz and Lazorfeld, op. cit. ^G reenstein, op, c it ., p. 119. Jennings and Longton, op. c it., ob- serves that this image develops slightly later among girls (after the fourth grade) than among boys. 27 Jennings and Langton, op. c it. 2 8 ^ Association between child and the closest parent were considerably weaker in heterogeneous families than homogeneous families. Structural characteristics of a family are likely to affect the amount of influence it exercises on the child's political behavior. Cohesion, power re- 29 lotions, frequency of contact and so on must be considered. It is noteworthy that the frequency of political conversation, which seems to reflect saliency of politics and frequency of contact, does not appear to affect the political cor- 30 respondence between parent and child. Parent-Child Relationship It is generally agreed that the essence of the child-rearing method is the nature of the parent-child relationship, and many researchers have described it. Preeminent in number and influence have been studies seeking to establish the effects of parental influences on the developing child. Bronfenbrenner has sug gested that formulations in this area may be grouped into three general families of hypotheses. The first, based primarily on psychoanalytic theory, focuses on the general affective quality of the parent-child relationship (for example, nur- turant versus rejecting) as the antecendent condition for the development of a particular form of behavior. The second group of formulations, employing con ceptual models deriving from a fusion of psychoanalytic and learning theories, is concerned with the effects of parental rewards and punishments upon specific 29 Several of these variables w ill be treated in the section below. ^Jennings and N iem i, op. c it ., pp. 181-182. Jennings and Langton, op. c it ., pp. 73-74, note some effects are due to compaign activities and partisanship level, but these account for only a minor portion of the variation. 3 6 child behaviors. The third, based largely on the concept of "modeling" treats 31 parental behaviors as providing role models for the child. One might include, in another category, studies deriving from field theory that attempt to character ize the total atmosphere within which socialization takes place or to analyze the complex of environment forces both inside and outside the family as well as studies of the relationship between intentions, behavioral skills, and actions as manifest in interaction within the family. O f the various dimensions of family organization one of the best studied is power, which is recognized as a critical aspect of a ll organizations and is often defined in terms of decision-making, though sometimes in terms of dominance and conflict resolution. Baldwin, for example, looking to the practice of demo cracy and control in the home, classified child-rearing methods along a con- 32 tinuum of "authoritarian," "democratic," and "laissez faire." The democratic home atmosphere is characterized by general permissiveness, avoidance of ar bitrary decisions, and a high level of verbal contract between parents and child (consultation about decisions, explanations of reasons for family rules, supplying answers to satisfy the child's curiosity). "Controlled" homes emphasize clear-cut restrictions on behavior, and consequently, friction over disciplinary procedures is low. 51----------------------- Bandura and R .H . Walters, Adolescent Aggression; A Study of the In fluence of Child Training Practices and Family Interrelationships (New York: Ronald, 1959). ^B aldw in, op. cif»# PP* 297-307. One of the difficulties with this and similar classifications of the family decision-making structure is the lack of oper ational definitions for the various types. See Chapter V for the operational defi nition developed for this study. 3 7 As a result of the many diverse ways in which balance of power within the family has been operationally defined, there is some difficulty in comparing studies. Yet, despite the diversity of studies and definitions, there is consider able consistency in findings showing that fam iliA do vary in the ways in which they distribute power and that these variations are related to social class and 33 3A ethnicity, the relative competence of husband and w ife, achievement moti- 35 3A vation in children, and psychopathology. Many studies, however, either isolate the balance of power from other dimensions of family organization or fail to differentiate it from some of them thus weakening findings about the causes of effects of variations in the balance of power. Although most sociological and psychological research related to parental decision making and its effect on children is unrelated to the development of political attitudes and behavior, a review of the literature yields at least one important area in which the decision-making structure of the family affects the personalities of its members which have very different consequences for the political system: through its effect on the superego and ego development of the child. In the area of ego development the effects of the family power QO Bandura and Walters, op. c it. 3^BIood and D .M . Wolfe, "Power and Authority in the Fam ily," in Oerwin Cartwright (ed .). Studies in Social Power, pp. 99-117. ^ F . Strodbeck, "Family Interaction, Values and Achievement," in D.C. McClelland, A.L. Baldwin, U . Bronfenbrenner, and F.L. S trod berg (eds.), Talent and Society (Princeton, New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958), pp. 135-194, 36lbid. 38 system on children con be seen in several studies. The better developed of these are sociological studies which relate characteristics of the family stru- ture to the development of certain general traits such as responsibility, leader s h ip ,^ and autonomy and confidence.^ Similarly, the development of the superego is equally affected by the distribution of power in the family. Superego controls are, to a great extent, introjected parental attitudes and are influenced by the character, clarity, and legitimacy of the power structure by the internalization of the family's modes of problem solution. If parental attitudes as manifest in decision making and discipline are contradictory, inconsistent, or destructive, one would expect to find parallel states in the superegos and egos of their children. Developing from the various, and often conflicting, findings on the effect of the parental power relationship to the child has been the increased concern in recent yean among psychologists, sociologists, parents, teachen and the like about the psychological and sociological implications of the various methods of child-rearing. Does early indulgence "spoil" children or does it give them a foundation of "security" to meet life's stress and strain? Does firm and consistent 37 V . Bronfenbrenner, "Some Familial Antecedents of Responsibility and Leadenhip in Adolescents," in L. Petrol lo and B .M . B o ss (eds.), Leaden hip and Inter-penonal Behavior (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961), pp. 239-271. 38 G len Elder, "Role Relations, Socio-cultural Environment and Auto cratic Family Ideology," Sociometry, X X V III, N o . 2 (June, 1965), p . 173. 39 discipline by the parents create in children inner hostilities, anxieties, and self-rejection or does it relieve anxiety and foster more successful self-discipline? It might be argued, for example, that young people raised in a middle-class, permissive family setting would find it difficult to accomodate to institutional expectations requiring submissiveness to adult authority, respect for established status distinctions, a high degree of competition and firm regulation of expressive impulses. They are likely to be particularly sensitized to what they perceive to be acts of arbitrary authority, to unexamined expression of allegiance to con ventional values, to instances of institutional practices which conflict with professed ideals. This view is in fact at least partially supported by the findings of Hoffman and Hoffman when they conclude: Generally, the findings support the common-sense supposition that restrictive discipline fosters inhibited behaviors, and permissive discipline more uninhibited behaviors. For example, in an early study in the area, Symonds (1939) compared children with dominating parents with those whose parents were submissive. Dominance was defined as the use of much control, restrictiveness, strictness, severe punishment, criticism, or excessive planning for the child's needs (overprotectiveness). Submission was defined as giving the child a great deal of freedom, ascending to the child's demands, indulging the child, being permissive, deserting and neglecting the child, and/or showing lax and inconsistent discipline. Children of domi nating parents were better socialized and more courteous, obedient, neat, generous, and polite. They were also more sensitive, self- sonscious, shy, and retiring. Children of submissive (permissive) parents were more disobedient, irresponsible, disorderly in the classroom, lacking in sustained attention flacking in regular work habits, and more forward and expressive. ^Hoffman and Hoffman, Review of Child Development Research (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1964), p. 197. 40 School While there is some disagreement among political scientists as to the im portance of the school in the socialization process, there are those who would argue the school is central to the socialization of children. Hess and Tomey, for example, suggest " . . .that the school stands out as the central, salient, 40 and dominant force in the political socialization of the young child." Studies reporting on the role of the school in the political socialization process have presented inconclusive findings and a general lack of evidence concerning the political impact of the formal and consciously planned class room curriculum. A number of findings in the United States and other countries have stressed the importance of education in determining political attitudes and behavior. The man with only a primary school edu cation is a different political actor from the man who has gone to high school or college. Yet direct evidence demonstrating the effect of college and high school curriculum upon political beliefs and behaviors of students is scarce and generally inconclusive. Our findings do not support the thinking of those who look to the Civics curriculum in American high schools as even a minor source of political socialization. As a result many students of political socialization are moving beyond an examination of the formal classroom curriculum and are beginning to more closely Hess and Torney, op. c it ., p .250. ^ Kenneth P. Lang ton and M . Kent Jennings, "Political Socialization and the High School Civics Curriculum in the United States," American Political Science Review, LXII (September, 1968), p .865. Edgar Litt, "Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoctrination," American Sociological Review, X X V III (February, 1963), p. 73, arrives at a similar conclusion. 4 1 investigate the formal and informal school milieu, e .g ., peer relationships 42 and the school authority structure. Summary It is painfully apparent at this point that the social scientists who have set for themselves the task of unraveling the consequences of child-rearing practices are faced with a problem with infinite complexities. The literature reviewed implies that the research strategy has been one of first establishing the more salient themes and then moving cautiously toward the variations on the themes produced by a more complex interaction of variables. To illustrate more concretely the potential rewards of pursuing these more complex inter actions, allow me to briefly summarize a rather stimulating analysis by Bronfenbrenner. His data are based on teachers' ratings of responsibility and leadership for 192 tenth-grade boys and girls. Evaluations of parental child- rearing practices were obtained from the adolescents themselves, who by and large have been shown to be rather accurate observers of the parents. Bronfenbrenner first found that rejection, neglect, and lack of disci pline from father were associated with irresponsible behavior in boys. High levels of responsibility were related to warm and nurturant attitudes, especially from father. Bronfenbrenner also found that too much discipline impeded the ^ S e e James Coleman, Education and Political Development (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965), pp. 18-25; Martin Levin, Social Climates and Political Socialization," Public Opinion Quarterly, 25 (Winter, 1961), pp. 596-606; Reisman, Faces in the Crowd (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952), p. 559; Newcomb, Personality and Social Change (New York: Oryden Press, 1941). 42 development of responsibility. In this context, for girls, a dramatically different picture emerges. While rejection and neglect lead to low responsibility as for boys, the presence of strong paternal discipline is particularly debilitating much more so than for boys. Again, the effect is curvilinear, but the highest responsibility in girls is associated with a low-moderate level of discipline rather than the high-moderate level found for boys. There appear to be optimal levels of authority, with the optimum level higher for boys than for girls. The results for leadership gave a similar picture with a slight change in focus. Rejection, neglect, parental absence, and protectiveness all related to low leadeiship for both sexes. For boys, leadeiship was facilitated by high nurturance, warm relations with parents, and principled discipline; however, these same factors served to discourage leadership in girls and foster dependency. Bronfenbrenner also examined the relative amount of authority wielded by each parent, apart from type of discipline used, and found this to relate to the child's behavior. Thus, paternal authority was found to facilitate responsi bility in boys and impede it in girls. Taking this one step further, both respon sibility and leadeiship are facilitated by relatively greater salience of the same- sexed parent. The evidence indicates, however, that too much dominance of either parent leads to lower levels of responsibility and leadership. We are able to conclude from the literature reviewed that for the most part the findings support the idea that American families are important contributors 43 U . Bronfenbrenner, 'Toward a Theoretical Model for the Analysis of Parent-Child Relationships in a Social C ontext,1 1 in J .C . Glidew ell (e d .), Parental Attitudes and Child Behavior (Springfield: Charles C . Thomas, 1961). 43 to the development of a child's political orientation and subsequent behavior. This is particularly true with respect to the more subtle effects the interactive patterns within a family have on a child's development. Where there is some disagreement among researchers is in the area of permissive vs. a more highly disciplined home environment and the differential effect the various home en vironments have on a child's learned behavior patterns. At least until recently, the general consensus among those investigating this area concluded that families which adopt permissive or democratic child-rearing practices are more likely to produce children who exhibit positive attitudes toward the political system and who w ill engage more actively in the political process. Others however have questioned (and are beginning to provide data to support their doubts) the ad vantages of raising a child in an environment in which few demands are placed on him — most notably Bronfenbrenner. The one conclusion we may feel reasonably assured about drawing from the literature reviewed is that it illustrates the need for additional research into the effects various child-rearing practices may have on a child's development, both politically and socially. We are able to say at this point that the fam ily, school and peer group play a direct, as well as indirect, role in the maturational process. It is the more subtle (indirect) effects that we must devote a greater part of our research efforts toward understanding, inasmuch as these are the less understood and potentially the more important. And, finally, it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that the modern, permissive home is the healthier one in which to raise a child. In increasing numbers, investigators are beginning to question the 44 assumptions laid down by those who advocated the free and undisciplined home and school environments. 4 5 CHAPTER III THEORY AND HYPOTHESES Social scientists and popular commentators have shown considerable in terest and have contributed a great amount of energy in understanding the at titudes and actions of the contemporary young. This interest was generated as a result of the resurgence of student interest in politics and the tendency to reject the old patterns of political participation in favor of demonstrations and protest beginning with the 1960's. The various social and political movements of the young represent a socio-political phenomenon of considerable significance. In the first place, it has had an important direct and indirect impact on the larger society. Secondly, it is significant because it is a phenomenon which was unexpected — unexpected, in particular, by those social scientists who are professionally res ponsible for locating and understanding such phenomena. The dominant theme of their research is that American children and adolescents hold favorable at titudes toward nearly everything political and, in particular, have positive affect for the political authority structure — a theme which has not been sup ported by the realities of the past decade. Based on my own experiential know ledge and secondary information provided by the media it would seem, contrary to the findings of socialization research, the middle and upper-middle class 4 6 young appear to be highly anomic and to demonstrate low levels of system sup port both overt (participative) and covert (attitudinal).^ With the benefit of hindsight we are able to say, with reasonable assur ance, that the middle class young expressed (and continue to do so) doubt as to the ability of authorities, suspicion as to their motives, and a sense of help lessness in changing the perceived directions of public decision-making — all of which manifested itself during the 1960's in social and political action fa l ling outside the "rules of the game" in pressing demands upon decision-makers. Not only did the young demand and expect immediate action on the part of government authority, but they made a great many demands as w ell, thereby threatening the political system with "system overload." This mixture of sullen hostility, anti-social behavior, bursts of both tradi tional and non-traditional political activism, and occasional violence among substantial numbers of adolescents and college students during these past years has reflected feelings of alienation, distrust, and a sense of hopelessness in the capacity of the political system to respond to demands for clear priorities and democratized procedures for demand input and institutional decision-making. Not only has the disaffection been evident in politically related action, it has also taken the form of a political withdrawal among many young people. ^For a more recent study which supports the idea that middle class young are less efficacious and more politically cynical than previous research would have us believe, see Michael E. Brown, "Alienation and Integration in the Political Attitudes of Suburban Adolescents" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971). 4 7 Simultaneously, there is at work here the replacement of the "private" person with the "public" person. That is, coming of age in the American m ass society of the 60's has carried with it the requirement of becoming, very early, a public person. Being aware, "concerned, " involved, and committed are terribly serious things and apt to be incredibly frustrating when the objects of these emotional acts are so remote from one's own peisonal group. In fact, they are almost gratuitous acts of reaching out. They are also ingenuous and naive. When unsuccessful or rebuffed, the same person can become hostile, bitchy and violent. There are, it would seem, several major distinctions which can be drawn between the non-conformist of the 50's and the so-called rebellious middle class adolescent of the 60's. Those individuals during the 50's who could not quite endure the new-found socialgram and group cooperation syndrome which permeated public schools and other organizational life had considerable latitude to do what they damn well pleased. It was the "beat e ra ," and the counter- valing beat sub-cultures thrived in small, literate, non-conformist cells in most medium to large-sized cities in the country. It was, in fact, an authentic counter-culture and contented itself with rather traditional modes of expression in the arts and literature, only occasionally taking on the establishment in forms of satire, never with the intention of actually changing it. And the antagonism had nothing to do with the peraonal or policy stupidity of the elites in power: that was so obvious as to obviate the necessity of making that point. Rather, it was a wholesale skepticism as to the worth of institutions period. And it was 48 an affirmation of the baric values of personal, primary experience, and almost by definition apolitical. A completely different posture was assumed in the 60's however. Build ing the better life took on a national meaning. Striking out boldly together as a nation, through the instrument and via the leadership of government would make things right. Jackson Pollock and Pablo Casals were in the White House. The elevation of the American mid-cult tastes was a province of politics; the underground heritage of the 50S was the cultural resource drawn upon in music, theater, literature and art. And, of coune, official sanction and consequent exploitation of the new "cultural" diversions and distractions and public and private support quickly closed the "underground" era. The cultural renaissance was short-lived, killed off by another govern ment project in Indochina. The eneigies of this generation have been expended in the public fight to change policy — a far cry from the 50's radicals who were engaged in private challenges to create themselves and affect their friends. In short, it would seem, at the risk of appearing to treat a complex question in a superficial fashion, the abiding assumption of the middle class suburban genera tion rests on the premise that public institutions should and can make life meaning ful, create justice and equality and can, through policy and legislation, imple ment the good life, however defined, or that government can enlarge areas of freedom and human alternatives. Somewhere along the line, partly in education, the more subtle arm o f the State, we have oversold the potential of government end law as a problem solver. 49 This would not be so potentially dangerous if it were not for the fact that the young display a strong antipathy toward arbitrary rule, centralized decision making and "manipulation." The anti-authoriatrian sentiment was fundamental to the widespread campus protests; in most cases, the protests were precipitated by an administrative act which was interpreted as arbitrary, and received impetus when college administrators continued to act unilaterally, coercively or secretive ly . Anti-authoritarianism was manifested further by the styles and internal proces ses within activist organizations; for example, both SDS and SNCC attempted to decentralize their operations quite radically and members were strongly criti cal of leadership within the organizations when it was too assertive. These observations, which are distinct from the pronouncements of social scientists, are made all the more glaring, and the questions raised as to why the young should behave politically as they have over the past decade have become more pressing, when we consider that you would expect to find the middle and upper-middle class young to be less anomic, more efficacious, and less politically cynical than the lower classes. Lester Milbrath points out that "no matter how class is measured, studies consistently show that higher-class persons are more likely to participate in politics than are lower-class persons. Members of higher status groups can usually affect governmental actions directly, ^Lester Milbrath, Political Participation: How and Why Do People G e t Involved in Politics? (Chicago: Rand M c N a lly , 1965), pp. 56,65, ^5-86. 5 0 and consequently, manifest attitudes of social and civic responsibility. Higher status individuals also have greater self-confidence, capacity to deal with ab stractions, and a greater ability to manipulate their political environment. How, then, can we account for the emergence of what are obviously dynamic and attractive radical movements among American adolescents which have at their core a strong antipathy toward social and political authority. Why should these anti-authoritarian feelings be particularly appealing to youth from upper status, highly educated families? Put in simple terms, why should those adolescents who are foremost in the mainstream of society by virtue of their socio-economic standing, be in the forefront of those who reject the decision making processes within the social and political systems? We have the diverse and not too satisfying answers of social scientists. Some observers did predict an intensification of the pattern of middle class conformism, declining individualism, and growing "other-directedness" based on the changing styles of child rearing prevalent in the middle class. The "democratic" and "permissive" family would produce young men who knew how to cooperate in bureaucratic settings, but who would lack a strongly rooted ego- Q ideal and inner control. But, at the same time, other social commentators ex plained the young's behavior in terms of the search for "meaning" and "self- 4 expression.” Still others reported that in their search for meaning and a more o Daniel M iller and G.E.Swanson, The Changing American Parent (New York: W iley, 1958); U . Bronfrenbrenner, "The Changing American Child: A Speculative Analysis," M errill Palmer Quarterly, 7 (1967), pp. 73-85; Erik Erikson, Childhood and Society (New York: Norton, 1963), pp. 306-325. ^K . Kenniston, The Uncommitted (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1965); 51 5 purposeful life, the young would be the saviors of mankind. While these studies of the youth 'tub-culture" exhort the virtues of the young's actions, none offer us any substantial clue as to why a whole generation would so confront and reject social and political authority — and particularly upper status children. The few studies and the popular commentary have produced considerable speculation and comment. Much of the research thus far has been fragmentary or based on intensive case studies or reflections on participant's observations. The purpose of this study is to offer at least a partial explanation for the behavior and attitudes of today's middle class young. The question is really one of linkages. In what capacity and in which manner do the family, school and peer group serve as linkage between the social and political systems? And, most important to the focus of this study, how do changes in the interactive patterns of the infra-structures of the family, school and peer group manifest themselves in a child's socio-political behavior? In short, we need to ask if the child who experiences a discontinuity in his socialization process as the result of being raised in an environment in which peer associations are age-graded, the family and school authority structures tend to perpetuate an environment in which few demands and expectations are placed on the child and his life experiences are such that he is denied the op portunity to experience a variety of persons as they are differentiated on the basis of socio-economic status, life-goals and experiences, ethnic backgrounds Theodore Newcomb and K. Flacks, "Deviant Subcultures on a College Campus," U .S . Office of Education, 1963. ^Theordore Rozak. and so forth, is the same child who holds negative attitudes toward political authority. We hypothesize that adolescents growing up in suburban milieux with a relatively homogeneous economic level and life style, living in families and attending schools in which there are relatively few demands and expectations made do not "learn" traditional roles and the consequent differentiation which constitutes the core of identity as well as individuation. Coupled with the breakdown of regular family interaction, the lack of neighborhood and informal age-differentiated peer interaction,^ there arises a pervasive syndrome of anomie and subtle estrangement and distrust. This pervasive alienation from sense of self and others is directly related to similar attitudes toward political and legal authority and greatly affects the high school environment which becomes the common locus for reinforcing and acting out through behavioral responses to the alienation syndrome. While there have always been those within high school communities who have exhibited these characteristics, they have generally been identified in terms of "broken homes, " lower economic status, or "maladjusted." We are suggesting that in homogeneous middle class high schools normlessness and estrangement are pervcsive and that anti-social or illegal behaviors have more subtle causes and motivations than those traditionally encountered. ^The assumption is that informal age-differentiated peer interaction w ill result in a lack of authority roles within the peer group. That is, everyone is perceived as equal in the decision-making process. Within the peer group, no one is any bigger, stronger, older, or wiser to whom the others can look for direction. 5 3 We are convinced at this point that a child is as affected by his inter action within an environment which has low economic, racial and ecological differentiation as with a lebenswelt of high differentiation, cleavages, and pluralism. This suggests that patterns of attitudes and behavior of adolescents in a heterogeneous high school and community would be more stable, more susceptible to traditional modes of social control, and more compatible with traditional models of high school status hierarchies and programming. The greatest single difficulty for a child coming from a homogeneous environment and experiencing nontraditional authority roles is the marked discontinuity experienced when faced with the realities and demands of the outside political world. It is this discontinuity which creates problems for the individual when attempting to reconcile what he has learned early with what he is faced with in the outside world. It is one aspect of this discontinuity in the socialization process with which we are primarily concerned in this study. It is our interest to investigate possible incongruencies between social and political authority structures and the potential effect these incongruencies may have on politically related attitudinal sets. Some light is shed on the impact of discontinuities between the social and political systems when we look to the main lines of the aiguments made in earlier theoretical formulations about the social and psychological source of strain for 7 8 9 youth. For example, through the work of Panons, Eisenstadt, and Erikson, ^Talcott Panons, "Youth in the Context of American Society, " in Erik Erilaon (e d .), The Challenge of Youth (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor, 1965). ^Samuel Eisenstadt, From Generation to Generation (Glencoe: The FreePress (1956). ?Erik Erikson, "Identity and the Life-Cycle," Psychological Issues, 54 we are better able to understand the sudden emergence of oppositional youth and the social functions of youth culture and movements in terms of discontinuities between the social and political systems. The kernel of their argument is that self-conscious subcultures and movements among adolescents tend to develop when there is a sharp disjunction between the values and expectations embodied in the traditional families in a society and the values and expectations pre vailing in the occupational and political spheres. The greater the disjunction, the more self-conscious and oppositional w ill be the youth culture. Eckstein's Congruence Theory Parson and Eisenstadt's concept of "disjunction" between family and the occupational and political world is not too dissimilar to Echstein's theory of congruence.^ Eckstein, recognizing the need to explore more fully the author ity patterns in nongovernmental social relationships, in families, schools, econo mic organizations and the like, developed the foundation for a theory of stable governments in which he hypothesized that a "government" w ill tend to be stable if its authority pattern is congruent with the other authority patterns of the so ciety of which it is p a rt.^ To expand, "governments w ill be unstable if the 1 (1959), pp. 1 -1 7 1 . ^ I t is not our intention to pursue Parsons', Eisenstadt's or Eckstein's theories, particularly as they relate to a theory of stable democracies. Rather, it will be useful for us to adopt Eckstein's concept of congruence in developing the theoretical assumptions of this study. In short, Echstein's concept of "con gruent authority patterns," coupled with (or reinforced by) Parsons' and Eisen stadt's concept of "disjunction” w ill provide the theoretical underpinnings for our itudy. ^ Harry Eckstein, "Authority Relations and Governmental Performance: A 5 5 authority pattern is isolated, i . e . , substantially different, from those of other social segments, or if a very abrupt change in authority patterns occurs in any adjacent segments of society, or if several different authority patterns exist in I O social strata furnishing a large proportion of the political e lite ." We must be careful to point out that for Eckstein this did not necessarily imply that stability requires the congruence of experiences in all organizations or social institutions, particularly the primary ones. He does make allowances for some heterogeneity, but only insofar as those structures which have divergent authority patterns (e .g ., the family, church, and schools) are not too close to governmental institutions themselves. The problem really centers on the extent to which discontinuities in the socialization of members in a system may produce conflicting attitudes and expectations within the individual that would ultimately contribute to political instabilities. In the context of his theory, Eckstein considers that "congruent" can have two senses which we shall refer to as the strong and the weak. The stronger is the sense of identical, synonymous in Eckstein's terms, with "close resemblance." This is not the sense applicable in a democracy because such a situation of con gruency of authority structures would not be possible there or, at least, it would have the "gravest dysfunctional consequences." Certain authority structures Theoretical framework," Comparative Political Studies, 2 (October, 1969), p .283. 12 Eckstein, Division and Cohesion in Democracy (New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1966), 1. 240-^4). 56 simply cannot be democratized — for instance, those in which socialization of the young occurs (family, school) for, although we might "pretend" that these are democratic, too realistic a pretence would produce "warped and ineffectual human beings." Similarly, in economic organizations, democracy might be "imitated" or "simulated" but even this, taken too far, would lead to "conse quences no one wants, " and moreover, "we certainly know that capitalist econo mic organization and even certain kinds of public ownership militate against a democratization of economic relations." Thus, it is just those spheres that Eckstein pointed out as most important for political behavior that must, neces sarily, be undemocratic. The weaker sense of "congruence" is that of "graduated resemblance, " a sense that makes "stringent requirements but not requirements impossible to fu lfill." This sense is not entirely clear, but Eckstein argues that some "segments" of society are closer to government than otheis, either in the sense of being adult or of being politicol. There w ill be congruence in the weak sense if (a) authority increases in similarity to government the closer they are to it or, (b) there is a high degree of resemblance in patterns "adjacent to government" and in distant segments functionally appropriate patterns have been 13 departed from in favor of actual or ritual imitation of the government pattern. There might seem to be a difficulty in the theory here because stability can only be attained and Strain" (a psychological state and social 13 (b) is the minimum condition for (meaning of) congruence, and (a) is, I take it, what Eckstein means by "a graduated pattern in a proper segmentation of society." 5 7 condition similar to that denoted by "anomie") avoided if congruence is achieved. Strain can be minimized if there are sufficient opportunities for individuals to learn democratic patterns of action, particularly if the democratic authority structures are those closest to government or those that involve the political elites, i . e . , if the weak sense of congruency is achieved. But Eckstein has al ready said that it is impossible to democratize some of the authority structures closest to government. This, however, is not really a problem for the theory because Eckstein argues that, therefore, for stable democracies, the govern mental authority pattern must be made congruent with the prevailing form of authority structure in the society; that is, the governmental pattern must not be "truly" democratic. It must contain a "balance of disparate elements" and there must be a "healthy element of authoritarianism." He also advances two other reasons for the existence of the latter element: one is part of the defini tion of stability — effective decisiontnaking can only take place if this element of authoritarianism is present — and the second is psychological — men have a need for firm (authoritarian) leaders and leadership, and this need must be satis fied if the stability of the system is to be maintained. While it is not my intention to pursue Eckstein's theory of a stable demo cracy, his thesis on the preconditions necessary for a stable democracy to be maintained is nevertheless useful in helping us to understand the alienated res ponses of middle class suburban children. In the last decade or more, there has been a radical change in the relationship of social authority patterns (at least within the middle class suburban element of society) vis-a-vis governmental 5 8 authority patterns. Foremost, I think Eckstein's fear that social authority pat terns would become too democratized has indeed become realized in some quarters of American middle class society. Second, and simultaneous to this shift, government has demonstrated, in the last ten or fifteen yean certainly, a tendency toward more authoritarian responses to societal demands — particularly in response to demands made by the younger segment of society. The combination^ it seems to me, has lead to real incongruencies between middle class authority patterns within the family, school and peer group, and governmental authority patterns. This, in turn, has created a discontinuity in the socialization process for these children. The net result is the display of a strong antipathy toward political and legal authority by those socialized under these circumstances. Observations on the Young: A Summary What, fin ally, can we say about the "new" generations which may account for their anti-authority, anti-establishment behavior? How are we able to ex plain these observations in terms of the theoretical concepts Panons, Eisenstadt and Eckstein developed? F in t, the behavioral and attitudinal trends of the young converge, in time, with a particular trend in the development of the family; namely, the emergence of a pattern of familial relations, located most typically in upper middle and middle class, professional homes, having the following ele ments: a . A strong emphasis on democratic, egalitarian interpersonal relations b. a high degree of permissiveness with respect to self-regulation 5 9 c . an emphasis on the expression of affection ~ less on discipline d . "increased reliance on indirect 'psychological’ techniques of discipline, such as reasoning or appeals to conscience vs. direct )4 methods, such as physical punishment, scolding or threats. " Second, young people raised in this kind of family setting, contrary to the expectations of some obervers, find it difficult to accommodate to insti tutional expectations requiring submissiveness to adult authority, respect for established status distinctions, a high degree of competition, and firm regula tion of sexual and expressive impulses. They are likely to be particularly sens- sitized to acts of arbitrary authority, to unexamined expressions of allegiance to conventional values, and to instances of institutional practices which con flict with professed ideals. Further, the values embodied in their families are likely to be reinforced by other socializing experiences, the most important of which is the educational experience in progressive schools. Third, the incentives operative in the occupational sphere are of limited efficacy for these young people — achievement of status or material advantage is relatively ineffective for an individual who already has high status and affluence by virtue of his family origins. This means, on the one hand, that these students are less oriented toward occupational achievement; on the other hand, the operative sanctions within the school and the laiger society are less effective in enforcing conformity. 14 Urie Bronfenbrenner, 'The Changing American Child: A Speculative Analysis, " Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, VII (April, 1961), p . 74. 60 In short/ It seems plausible that the generation of the 60's and on into the 70's was the first in which a substantial number of youth have been both socialized into feeling themselves capable and legitimately rebellious toward social and political authority and conventional status concerns, and could afford to do so. In this sense they are a "liberated" generation; affluence, coupled with permissive family and school experiences, has freed them, at least for a period of time, from some of the demands and expectations of the adult world. Hypotheses The first hypothesis develops from the principal theme of this dissertation, which is that a child experiencing a set of authority roles in the social system (parents, teachers, peers) which are incongruent with political authority roles are more likely to feel alienated from the political system. The assumption is that the child raised in an unstructured family and school atmosphere is going to experience a discontinuity in the socialization process when he begins to move out from proximate social authority relations and interact with non- praximate and more highly structured political authority. Hypothesis 1 : An adolescent socialized in a "permlssive"home w ill be cynical toward political authority. Hypothesis 1.1 : An adolescent socialized in a "permissive" home and attending a "progressive" high school w ill be more cynical than an adolescent socialized in a "permissive" home and attending a traditional (structured) high school. 6 1 In hypothesis 1.1 we are assuming that the educational system serves as an intervening variable, so that a child w ill benefit from an educational ex perience which is different from his home environment. In this regard, then, a child socialized in a home in which little structure is provided, but who at tends a highly structured (traditional) high school, w ill hold a more positive view of political authority than the child coming from a "permissive" home and attending a school which only serves to reinforce family conditions, i . e . , an unstructured school environment. The same principle holds for the child raised in an authoritarian home and attending a school which either reinforces those conditions, and therefore reinforces attitudes toward authority, or which coun ters the home environment, and therefore contributes to changes in attitudes toward authority. Our second hypothesis develops from the findings in the social-psychology literature which indicates that a child raised in a strict authoritarian home, i.e ., a home in which both parents are authoritative, will more likely act in a rebel lious manner toward the political community. Based on these findings we hypo thesize the following. Hypothesis 2 : An adolescent socialized in an authoritarian home — both parents are authoritative — will be cynical toward political authority. Hypothesis 2.1 : An adolescent socialized in an authoritarian home and who attends a "progressive" high school w ill be less cynical toward political authority than an adolescent who attends a traditional high school. 62 The third hypothesis develops from the idea that children benefit from heterogeneous environments, i . e . , environments which afford them the oppor tunity to experience a variety of authority roles. More than this, however, is the assumption that some authority (preferably from the father) is required in order to insure some structure (parameters) is established within which child ren w ill learn to operate. As indicated above, it would seem that most families (those adopting the permissive or pseudo-permissive approach to child training) no longer accept the traditional sanctions for paternal dominance. The sus picion, in the United States at least, of any form of authoritarianism, and the changes in the structure of society and the approved models of character pro vide modem couples with sufficient reasons. As a consequence, parents are afraid of authority, confused about what is "right, " and prone to accept com promises like the democratic family council. Whereas in the community, demo cratic organization is representative, with elected officials making all but the most important policy decision, in the family it is often taken to mean equal power for every member and responsibility for none. The weakness of community standards in our society give psychological needs an unusual degree of influence in the power structure adopted in modem families. We hypothesize that the family arrangement which w ill best promote positive, healthy attitudes toward authority is a compromise between the alter natives of permissiveness and authoritarianism in which the father is dominant — provides leadership and direction for the family — and the mother follows a more democratic or mediating role. 63 Hypothesis 3 An adolescent raised in a home in which one parent (preferably the father) is authoritarian and the other parent is democratic w ill have a positive attitude toward political authority. 64 CHAPTER IV INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY Introduction In the course of my involvement in socialization research since 1968, and on the basis of my experiential knowledge as a member of a suburban community, I have observed some important factsdealing with the situational-interactive patterns within the agencies (family, peer group, school) of socialization which potentially affect the individual's learned attitudes and behavior toward the political system. In essence, we have observed that adolescents growing up in suburban milieux with a relatively homogeneous economic level and life-style and experiencing the modern "democratic" family in which parents assume a limited authoritative role, do not learn traditional roles and the consequent differentiation which constitutes the core of identity as well as individuation. This observation combined with the apparent alienated political behavior and the pervasive syndrome of anomie and subtle estrangement from political (legal) authority motivated this investigation of the possible affects an adolescent's interaction with social authority roles may have on his political orientation and behavior. 65 Methodology The Universe; Locotion and Sample Characteristics In A pril, 1974, the study was executed in each of the seven high schools^ of the Fullerton Union High School District, the largest union high school dis trict in California. The school district includes the cities of Fullerton and La Habra and a part of Buena Park, Yorba Linda, Brea, and W hittier, as well as unincorporated areas in the north of Orange County, serving a total community of nearly a quarter of a million and a district-wide student enrollment of ap proximately 14,000. Our universe is not untypical of emerging suburban regions in California and in the Western United States. Orange County's social-economic stratifica tion and ecological arrangements vary from that of small cities or urban centers. For example, in 1972 the County had a medium family income of $12,000, and an earlier figure (1960) indicated that 76% of annual family incomes clustered around a level of $10,000. As is the case in other suburban communities, the populace of the county is young, with fully 42.5% of the population eighteen years of age or less. The overall population has grown rapidly in the past twenty years; between 1950 and 1960 it grew by 225.6% with 84% of the in crease attributable to in-migration. However, in recent years the growth has 2 slowed considerably. 1 ------------------------ Buena Park, Fullerton, La Habra, Lowell, Sonora, Sunny Hills, Troy. 2 This information was abstracted from Michael Brown's dissertation, "Alienation and Integration in the Political Attitudes of Suburban Adolescents," USC, 1971. 66 Our sample reflects the characteristics of the county as a whole. The relative affluence of the sample is attested to by the small number of students (5.5% ) from homes where the father is employed in a semi- or unskilled occu pation and the great number (51.2%) from homes of a professional-managerial and self-employed business status. There is, as w ell, a substantial (41.2%) white-collar (clerical and sales, skilled technological) strata. The sample reflects as well a rather stable living arrangement at least in terms of the nature of the communities in which they have lived. Seventeen percent have always lived in the same house. O f the eighty-three percent who have not, thirty-five percent moved within the same city they now reside in. And, of those sixty-five percent who are in-migrants from other cities, the majority (70%) moved to the county from other suburban environments. It is important to note that, while these universe and sample characteristics provide a context for the study, there is also need for some caution to those who are prepared to explain suburban behavior Wth stereotypes of social disorganiza tion and transiency. There is little doubt that the settling of undeveloped sub urban areas requires the uprooting of families from other places at some point, but the uprooting and cultural confusion traditionally associated with moves from region to region, country to city, inner city to suburb, and so forth does not seem to be particularly applicable in this instance and may not be for other suburban areas. We can say with relative assurance that our sample, for the most part, has spent a majority of its years in either the same area or in an area similar to 67 the one in which they now reside, and for the most part did not experience a radical change in environmental life-styles as in-migrant children. Sample Size and Selection The California State College and University computer facilities were u til- ized to generate a 12% random sample, which insured an accurate profile of the attitudes of each high school student body and maintained maximum efficiency in administration and the highest possible sampling validity. The school district supplied us with a computer tape of all students in the district, by school, from which the computer listed the names of those students selected on a random basis. We then placed each student's name onto a roster and onto separate "call slips" which, in turn, were supplied to every teacher indicating the time and place the listed students were to be released for survey administra tion . Survey Administration It was imperative that students be assured of anonymity and that the ad ministration of the survey be carried on without the presence of school administra tors, inasmuch as there are drug related questions included in the body of the student attitude survey.^ As a result of this, we were extraordinarily fortunate Q The actual number of respondents (n=1341) participating in the survey represented a sample of approximately 10% of the total universe. ^Reported in Michael Brown, "Drug Use Among High School Students: A Preliminary Report, " Center for Governmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton, 1969. 68 in receiving the cooperation of the school administrators in assuring that there would be no "test-taking” climate during the administration of the questionnaire, which has the potential of influencing young people to respond to attitudinal items in a "correct,” "accepted” or "expected” manner, rather than responding directly and affectually to the items. Questionnaire Since 1968, the Fullerton Union High School District has cooperated in this quasi-longitudinal study. The first draft questionnaire (1968) was con structed over a six-month period preparatory to pretesting in one district high school for analysis of item ambiguity or irrelevance, and to test the cohesive ness of attitude scale items. Over the course of the next six years we have re-entered the school district every two years (1968, 1970, 1972, 1974) with essentially the same measurement tool. Each subsequent questionnaire, however, was submitted to several months of rewriting in which several deletions and additions were made, based on the lessons learned from the previous question naires and as a result of new questions raised in our minds about the students' values and attitudinal structure. As a result, the 1974 questionnaire contains a little more than twice the number of items than did the 1968 questionnaire. And yet, because of format changes, we were able to maintain the same adminis tration time (approximately 45 minutes), thereby minimizing the fatigue factor among our sample. Attitudinal items were carefully reexamined, many modified for clarification and tone, and the items were arranged so that a ll intra-scale 69 item* were separated and that a ll scale ite m would be interspersed with other non*4caled attitude item , thus minimizing the possibility of "set response patterns. Scale and Measurement of Variables To test our hypotheses, we will select for study four of the seven high schools which represent the purest types in terra of the traditional/progressive authority structures.^ The two schools which are best representative of the traditional (authoritarian) authority structure are Fullerton and Buena Park high schools. Troy and Sonora clearly represent the more "progressive" educational approach. The selection of these four schools is based on the assessment pro vided by the head of research for the school district and the self-assessment provided by the head counselor of each school. Both Troy and Sonora high schools have the newer campus facilities. Sonora, for example, is an a ll enclosed facility with wall to wall carpeting in classroom and hallways alike, piped-in music — usually rock music is played — and open classroom. Each school maintains a flexible class scheduling in which the students are allowed maximum freedom in selecting classes and are allowed several "free" periods during the day. Until two yean ago, Troy operated on ^See Appendix A for reproduction of the final form of the questionnaire administered for this study. e w ill, of coune, look to all seven high schools in our preliminary analysis — but w ill reserve for special study the four high schools selected for the reasons given. 7 0 the "modular scheduling p lan ," which allowed the student to build up to sixteen modules of time per day. In essence, this allowed the student to move from class to class at w ill, opting to sit in a class for only one or two of the modules, although the class may run for as long as four or five modules. The student could choose to remain outside of class for as many as three hours in a day in order to pursue whatever was deemed important and creative in his own mind.^ While Troy no longer operates on the modular schedule, the system adopted is a modi fied version of the same plan. The students are still able to construct flexible class schedules and are allowed several "free" periods in a day. There is a distinct difference in the nature of the faculty and administra tors at Troy and Sonora, as compared with the other five high schools. The more obvious distinction rests with the fact that the faculty and administration are relatively young at the two "progressive" facilities. Almost without ex ception, the faculty are in their early thirties, and hold to a more liberal educational orientation. They believe strongly in the "seminar" approach to learning, in which the student is allowed maximum freedom of discussion. The emphasis in class is placed less on reading or writing and more on verbal skills as the means for communication. The administration is highly sensitive to the feelings of the community and are more easily influenced by parental pressure. ^We might note that Troy High School experienced the highest incidence of vandalism of any of the seven high school— makes one wonder if the "creative hours" weren't spent in a negative rather than positive fashion. 71 In fact, the principal of Troy high school has come under considerable criticism from his faculty for having bowed to the pressures of parental demands and largely ignoring the attitudes of his own faculty. On the other hand, Fullerton and Buena Park are still very much in the tradition of high schools ten and fifteen years ago. They maintain a closed campus, have six normal periods in a day — with the possibility of taking one study period (which is supervised in the library or in some other specific loca tion). The faculty tend to be older and more traditional in their approach to classroom assignments. There is a greater tendency to maintain strict grading standards. For example, when asked on the survey the question, "You can usually get 'B V at this school without a whole lot of effort," the majority of students at both Fullerton and Buena Park disagreed with this statement, while a majority of the students at Troy and Sonora agreed. The administration at both Fullerton and Buena Park are in the traditional mold. The principal of Buena Park, for example, is far more structured and traditional than any of the other principals in the district according to the head Q of research for the district. Important, too, is that the principal of Buena Park high school is far less responsive to the immediate demands and pressures placed on the school by parents and other community leaders. He is far more likely to make policy decisions based on the needs of his student body as perceived by his faculty and staff. ®This is confirmed when you meet face-to-face with the principal. 72 Fomily Authority Structure While sociological study of child-rearing practices has resulted in a now widely accepted differential patterning of lower-middle and middle class child life in which, in the lower-middle class, a psychologically closed, hirearchical, and quite rigid parental relationship with children exists, in the middle and upper- middle cultures there is a more open, ostensibly equalitarian and flexible rela tionship.^ In this study, we w ill not rely on socio-economic differentials as a basis for differing intra-familial authority structures; rather, we w ill use a scale which was constructed from a Guttman scale analysis^ of possible items J ' i o The scale items from the family authority scale were: 1. How do each of your parents deal with you when you are making a decision about what you want to do? a. No decision, you are told what to do (authoritarian) b. You have an opportunity to discuss the decision, but not the final word (fake democratic) Q See, for example, Melvin L. Kohn, "Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpretation," The American Journal of Sociology, 68 (1963), pp. 471-480; Melvin L. Kohn, ’^Social £lass and the Exercise of Parental Authority," American Sociological Review, 24 (1959), pp. 352-366; Robert D. Hess and Virginia C . Shipman, "Early Experience and the Socializa tion of Cognitive Modes in Children," Child Development, 36 (1965), pp. 869- 886; and Glen H . Elder, J r., "Parental Power Legitimation and Its Effect on the Adolescent," Sociometry, 26, pp. 50-65. ^Louis Guttman, The Basis for Scalogram Analysis," in Samuel A . Stouffer, et a l., Studies in Social Psychology in World War II: Measuremeint and Predic tion, V o l.IV (Princeton, N .J .: Princeton University Press, 1950), Chapter 3. ' ^We w ill of course still control for socio-economic class in order to measure any possible effect it may have as an intervening variable. ^The label following each value, e .g ., authoritarian, fake democratic, c . Decisions are made by discission and common agreement (democratic) d . You can make your own decision, but they want you to consider their opinion (peimissive) e . You can decide what you want, regardless of what he or she thinks (permissive) f. He or she doesn't care what you decide to do (indifferent) 2. When one or the other of your parents asks you to do something, and you don't get around to doing it, how does each one react? a . You w ill get spanked (or hit) for not doing it (authoritarian) b. You get yelled at and made to do it right away (authoritarian) c . You are asked why it wasn't done, and you are deprived of something you like or want (fake democratic) d. You are asked why it wasn't done, and an attempt is made to work out a time to get it done (democratic) e . You are told that you are like all kids, and the hope is that you w ill get it done eventually (permissive) f. Nothing happens because they usually don't notice whether you did it or not (indifferent) 3 . When one or the other of your parents asks you to do something, and you do it, what usually happens? a . Nothing happens because you were expected to do it (authoritarian} b . You are given privi leges or money if it was done the way you were told to do it (fake democratic) and so forth, are included to indicate the nature of the family authority struc ture based on a particular response. In constructing the Guttman scales and indeces, those response categories which were repeated more than once in any given item were collapsed. For example, the two "permissive" response categories in item 1 were collapsed. The same is true for the two "authoritarian" response categories in item 2. It should be noted as well that for each item the respondent was to have answered for both mother and father. 74 c . You are praised for having done it (democratic) d . They don't usually notice whether you did it or not (permissive) e . The question does not apply to you, since you are usually not asked to do much (indifferent) Attitude Scales In order to measure the one dimension of system supportive attitudes in 1 3 our sample, a scale was constructed from a Guttman scale analysis of pos sible items. The political trust scale was constructed to measure specific support feelings toward the politico role in the political authority structure in terms of self vs. public interest, role motivations, credibility, and personal honesty. The scale items for the trust of political authority scale, reversed as indicated, were: 1. In order to get elected to public office, a candidate must make promises he does not intend to keep. (-) 2 . Those running our government must hush up many things that go on behind the scenes, if they wish to stay in office. (-) 3. Those elected to public office have to serve special interests. (-) 4 . Politicians are usually looking out for themselves above a ll else. (-) 5 . We can trust politicians to do what is best for the country. (t) 6 . Politicians are mainly concerned with getting reelected. (-) Guttman, op. c it. 7 5 Included among the items designed to measure the respondent's attitude toward political authority — but not included in the political trust scale — are the following items measuring the respondent's attitude toward the police (a more proximate authority role). 1. When young people explain their point of view to the police, what effect do you think it has? It is given serious consideration. It is given little attention. It is usually ignored. 2. Do you feel that young people are treated by police in the same way the rest of the people are treated? treated better treated worse treated the same Index Formulation Each of the items in the attitude scale provided four possible response categories to the respondent: strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree. Questionnaire Coding and Processing Professor Michael Brown's political behavioral class at California State University, Fullerton was specially trained to help administer, code, and process each of the questionnaires. The questionnaires were hand coded and submitted to two separate procedures for coding error by Professor Brown and 76 myself. The clou then key punched the data and submitted the computer cards to the same verification procedures. Processing of the resultant data was exe cuted on a CDC 3170 in the computer facilities at the Chancellor's O ffice of the California State College and University System. Data Presentation and Tests of Significance 2 The presentation of the data are based upon the chi square ( ) test of significance. For table presentation of frequency distributions, and to insure enough cases for each c e ll, the family authority items have been trichotomized into: Authoritarian, Democratic, Permissive. The family authority items were collapsed in the following manner: Authoritarian and Fake-Democratic/Demo cratic (remains unchanged)/Democratic-Permissive and Permissive/Indifferent ( is dropped from consideration due to too few cases and the fact that it appears not to be compatible with any of the other response categories). The percentage and number of respondents in each of the categories is: _____________________________FATHER___________ MOTHER________ Authoritarian 31.7% (N=359) 25.5% (N«=296) Democratic 21.9% (N=248) 22.9% (N -266) Permissive 46.4% (N«525) 51.6% (N «600) In order to see what effect the family authority structure has on the child's political orientations, it is necessary to observe the impact of the father and mother simultaneously. To this end, we have measured the fo l lowing parental pairings: 7 7 Father-Authoritarian/Mother-Authoritarian 17.7 188 Father-Authoritarian/Mother-Democratic 6 .7 71 Father-Authoritarian/Mother-Permissive 8.1 86 F ath er -Democrat i c/Moth er - Author i tar ian 3 .9 41 F ath er-Democrat ic/Moth er-Democrat ic 14.2 151 Father-Democratic/Mother-Permissive 4.1 44 F ath er -Permi ssi ve/Mother - Author i tar ian 4 .4 47 Father-Permissive/Mother-Democratic 3 .5 32 Father-Permissive/Mother-Permissive 31.3 405 The political trust scale is divided into three ordered categories: High___________Medium_____________Low____________Total________ 38% (N«482) 34.6% (N-448) 27.3% (N**392) 100% (N -1320) Discussion of Concepts In every situation in which one attempts to obtain those values he desires, there is someone or some entity which has the power to allocate those values. There is an agent, then, which in the final analysis may make the final alloca tion. The whole process of bargaining and decision-making may even be found in Freud's concept of the human psyche. It is the ego which is the final decision maker in the intr^-psyche bargaining which goes on between the id, the superego, and the ego itself. The family is an ongoing unit of demand, bargain, and accomodation, but final decision-making and allocation of desired values rest with the parent. Although, in the modern "democratic" family,it appears that there is no "authoritative agent," a closer inspection reveals that the authority is simply more manipulative and rationalized, but it still rests, when the subtle manipulations and rationalizing as instruments are through, with one or both parents. And so, as has been indicated in previous chapters, the con cept of authority w ill be employed in this study as a characteristic of nearly any persistent social aggregate, at least in that certain actual practices of subordination and superordination w ill be found in such aggregates. In addition, it would seem plausible that there w ill exist, in the society's subunits, certain dominant notions as to how such practices should be conducted. And so, authority can be found to exist not only in the State itself, but in economic organizations, in various kinds of voluntary associations, in schools and families, and even in friendship groups, clubs and other similar groups. Authority, at all levels, is legitimized in some fashion. Legitimization means that those who must eventually submit to the judgments and decisions of some agent of authority accept those specific agents as the rightful decision makers and allocators. Parents, for example, are legitimized by tradition buoyed up with legal prerogatives over their children. Governmental decision makers have the legitimization of Law and its concommitant — legitimate coercion. A more formal presentation of our definition of authority can be stated in the following terms. We view authority patterns as sets of interactions among subordinates ("s") and superordinates ("S”), and among the superordinates 7 9 themselves in a social unit (for example, mother vs. father, teacher vs. administrator), insofar as they concern the exercise of superordination. The superordinates of a social unit are those in a position to issue and enforce d i rectives in the unit — i . e . , prescriptions, potentially backed by sanctions, that members act in an ordained manner. In particular, we w ill be interested in measuring the nature of the interactions among "supers" (S) and "subs" (s), i . e . , what is the nature of "influence" relations among them (the participation and compliance of the subordinates and the permissiveness and responsiveness of the superordinates. 80 CHAPTER V SPECIFIC SYSTEM SUPPORT: FEELINGS OF TRUST TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY Every political system is subject to various kinds of stress that threaten to prevent a society from continuing to allocate values authoritatively. One type of stress which is probably the more critical to the ultimate survival of the political system provides the focus for this study — the possibility that the members of a political community may be unwilling or unable to offer suf ficient support for some kind of structure of political authority. It is clear that the regime is a fundamental element in all political systems. Among other things, it includes the structure, both formal and oper ative, through which political authority is organized and exercised. Through history, men have nowhere been able to resolve all their differences without the intervention, however infrequently or intermittantly, of special persons speaking in the name of society, i . e . , political authorities. If, however, political authorities, as viewed by a sizable proportion of the political com munity, are without legitimacy and their actions are looked upon with suspicion and their decisions are without sufficient authority to insure their enforcement, then obviously the political process w ill be subject to eventual breakdown. It requires little argument to demonstrate that unless the decisions and actions of those members who bear the responsibility for taking care of the day-to-day problems of the system (political authorities) are normally accepted as binding or authoritative, a society w ill quickly be reduced to a state of chaos. Socialization represents an important mechanism that may help members of a system to internalize a need to comply with the decisions of political authorities. The predominant theme of the political socialization literature is that children learn early in life that authority generally, and political author ity in specific, is there to help. In fact, attitudes toward political authority figures and roles have been found to be extraordinarily positive among children J Easton and Dennis suggest that children develop this early positive orientation, at its highest in feelings toward the President and the policeman (labeled the "head and tails" effect), which is based in "personalization" which is in turn generalized into positive feelings toward the institutional structure and roles of government in later childhood. The findings of socialization researchers like Easton and Dennis which contend that children hold strong positive feelings toward the President and Presidential role were considered extremely important, particularly in terms of the implications the findings hold for later political trust. Perhaps Easton and Dennis can better sum up the importance they place on this: ^Fred I. Greenstein, Children and Politics (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965), pp. 35-36. 2 David Easton and J. Dennis, Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy (New York: M cG raw -H ill Book C o ., 1969), pp. 276- 281. 82 We cannot overemphasize the surprising nature of this finding. Here we have stumbled upon a possible means through which a poli tical system manages to transmit respect for at least one of the prin cipal offices in its structure. We are tapping a major source of con tinuity in a regime. In most large-scale political systems, persist ence requires some popular belief in structural legitimacy, the ac ceptance as right and proper of the basic organization of political relationships, formal and otherwise, our findings hint at the dynamic forces that enable maturing members to learn for the first time that persons may come and go, but that the structure — or more cautious ly, one basic structural component, the Presidency — can go on, if not forever, at least beyond the incumbency of the current occupant. And yet, quite simply, these and related findings which suggest specific system support on the part of children do not square with my primary experiences in the field and secondary perceptions through the media. Either the data does not adequately explain my experience or my perceptions of the feelings of the young are quite off the mark. For this reason as well as the fact that there is a paucity of data in this particular area of socialization, it seems to me there is an urgent need for a far better understanding of the early origins of a sense of legitimacy for the structure of political authority. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority A principle assumption of this study is that a young child's conception and perception of political authority are not greatly differentiated from the rules and authorities of the school and home. His early regard for laws and the various political authority roles is an extension of his feeling that it is important to obey adults. Thus the induction into compliance with authority and law appears Easton and Dennis, ibid^ p. 202. 83 to be mediated through visible authority figures, initially through the parents, classroom teachers, school administrators, and peers. The child may approve the actions and decisions of politicians, policemen , and so on because he generalizes from his relationship with more familiar figures of authority, especially parents, to the external political authorities. In the Freudian vein, it could be argued that the child's first and basic orientations toward authority are molded within the family, particularly from experience with his parents or their surrogates. That is, responses to family authority shape the child's first responses to authority in the wider environment. Idealization, or its opposite, of political leaders may be an extension of, or a reaction to, orientations to the child's parents. Perception of hierarchical relationships between political leaders may be reflections of experiences with hierarchy in the home. O r, the unwillingness to respond to authority in the political system may be reflective of a lack of strong authority roles in the home. In this connection, the distribution of power in the family is a key element in family organization. The character, clarity, and legitimacy of power distri bution constitute an essential part of the family's role relationships and functional efficiency. Both are likely to effect the personalities of the children. Super ego controls are introjected parental attitudes, and ego is, at least partially, constituted by the internalization of the family's modes of problem solution. It quite clearly, then, would be desirable to study such connections directly by examining how children perceive and respond to authority in both primary (fam ilial, educational, peer) and secondary (political) environments. 84 We hypothesize that an adolescent socialized by parents who have adopted a permissive approach to child training is more likely to feel alienated from and cynical toward political authority at every level, i . e . , school administration, police, politicians. The rationale for this hypothesis is a simple one. To re state the reasons provided in an earlier chapter, we suggest that a child who is accustomed to having considerable freedom of movement and who has been allowed a great deal of flexibility in decision-making in the home is more likely to question the decisions and actions of a more authoritative body, i . e ., government. In essence, we are saying that an adolescent who experiences a discontinuity in his political socialization as a result of the incongruence between his social authority structure and the political authority structure is going to be ill-equipped to handle the demands and decisions handed down by "real” authority. And, of course, the natural development from this con dition is a strong sense of distrust and cynicism toward political authority. We would expect to find, based on the first hypothesis, a greater per centage of those socialized in a permissive home to be cynical toward political authority than adolescents who have been socialized in a more structured intra- fam ilial environment. A comparison of the different family authority structures - a looking first at homogeneous vs. heterogeneous parental pairings — to the poli tical cynicism index^ indicated a strong relationship in the direction we would ^You w ill remember the cynicism index evaluates several aspects of the political actor role — integrity, honesty, personal motivation, self vs. non self regarding interest. 6 5 expect (Table I ) . Clearly, a greater percentage of the adolescents who come from permissive homes feel cynical toward political authority (44%). From this same table we are able to see that hypothesis 2 is supported as w ell. Ap proximately 30% of those raised in an authoritarian home have cynical attitudes toward political authority, while only 17% and 18% from father-^democratic/ mother-democratic homes and heterogeneous paired homes respectively have negative attitudes toward political authority. TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY: CONTROLLING FOR HOMOGENEOUS VS. HETEROGENEOUS PARENTAL PARINGS* Family Authority Structure Political Cynicism Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm . Heterogeneous Pairings High Medium Low 30% (N=53) 50% (N=94) 20% (N=41) 17% (N=26) 59% (N=89) 23% (N=36) 44% (N=151) 52% (N=170) 4% (N=42) 18% (N=66) 55% (N=177) 27% (N=84) * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. What is of particular interest is that, although the data supports our first two hypotheses, the percentage of those who are cynical toward political author ity is less than is expected. This, however, changes (a substantial increase in the percentage of those who are cynical toward authority) when we introduce school as an intervening variable (see below). 86 When we differentiate between the heterogeneous parental authority structures we find the data supports our third hypothesis. Table 2 shows that the family structure which is more conducive to an adolescent having learned a set of positive values toward political authority is the family in which one of the parents is authoritative and the other is democratic — with a stronger relationship in the father-dominant families. A finding not anticipated by our hypotheses is that an adolescent raised in a "democratic" home (both parents follow the democratic approach) is likely to have positive feelings toward political authority. A closer examination of the democratic response category ("Decisions are made by discussion and common agreement')suggests that the democratic home, as we have operationalized it, still provides a sense of authority and responsibility on the part of parents. That is, the child is not given a free hand in the decision-making process, nor is he allowed to pursue whatever course of action or activity he chooses. This finding, a l though tentative at best, suggests the need to investigate more closely the nature of a democratic home and the possible consequences this approach to child training may have on subsequent behavior. We are able to say from tables 1 and 2 that the highest frequencies of cynicism are among respondents with intra-familial authority arrangements in which either too much authority is exercised by the parents, or too little . And, in terms of heterogeneous parental pairs, the family with one parent (pre ferably the father) assuming a dominant role and the other a democratic role w ill lead to the development of positive feelings toward political authority in their TABLE 2 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDES TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY* Family Authority Structure_____________ Political Cynici»m Scale High Medium Low Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 30% (N=53) 50% (N=94) 20% (N=41) Father-Auth ,/M other-Dem . 18% (N=l 5) 44% (N -32) 38% (N=27) Father-Auth ,/Mother-Perm . 21% (N-19) 57% (N -49) 21% (N -19) Father-Dem ./M other-A uth. 19% (N=l 0) 53% (N=25) 26% (N -14) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 17% (N-26) 59% (N -89) 23% (N=06) Father-Dem ,/Mother-Perm . 26% (N-10) 53% (N -22) 20% (N = 9) Father-Perm ./M other-A uth. 27% (N -15) 55% (N -26) 17% ( N - 8) Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . 33% (N -l 5) 63% (N=28) 4% ( N - 2) Father-Perm ,/Mother-Perm . 44% (N -l 51) 52% (N = l 70) 4% (N -42) * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 88 Relationship of Father's Occupational Status to Family Authority Structure and Political Cynicism Sociological study of child-rearing practices has resulted in a now widely accepted differential patterning of lower-middle, middle, and upper- 5 middle clan child life. The studies of M an, Davis, Khun and others suggest, in the lower-middle c la n , a psychologically closed, hierarchical, and quite rigid parental relationship with children; while in the middle and upper-middle cultures there is a more open, ostensibly equalitarian, and flexible relation ship. Lower-middle clan parents are repeatedly seen as closed or inaccenible to the child's communications, especially of the milder types of disapproval of refusal or demand. Relationships between the parents being hierarchical (the father often the ponenor of the mother), the child is once removed, for these or other reasons, from direct communication with one parent or the other. These studies find parents of the middle clan today, however, to be open to the child's gainsaying parental requests — or so the children feel. Father and Mother, being relatively equal powers in the chi Id ^ eyes, are equally acces sible to him. Socially, they invite the child to share their activities or plan for special events with him. Psychologically the child seems free to expren both positive and negative feelings toward his more frequently adaptable parents; they have been found to modify decisions when the children, openly exploring their manipulative techniques, have sought extensions of parental limitation. ^Henry S. M an, "Some Social Clan Differences in the Family Systems and Group Relations of Pre and Early Adolescents, " Child Development, 22 (1951), pp. 145-152; see also Melvin L. Kohn, "Social Clan ana the Exercise of Parental Authority, " American Sociological Review, 24 (1959), pp. 352-366. 89 Research into child-rearing practices have uniformly found that children of the middle and upper-middle classes do not seem either to fear or to identify with the potentially threatening power of adults.^ Hess and Torney further suggest that between social classes the exercio of control and regulatory patterns in the family structure differ considerably. Working class parents are more likely to be imperative in their control, showing more concern with obedience, external behavior and appearance than with in ternal states and feelings. They are less likely to give reasons for their com mands or to encourage the child to make his own decisions in family matters. They appear to be less concerned with the child's opinion and to give him fewer alternatives for action or for thought.^ In summation, studies of child-rearing practices as they relate to social class have almost uniformly found that the hierarchical world of the lower-middle class pre-and early adolescents is one of imperatives and absolutes, physical punishment at home and psychological distance from adults. The world of the middle and upper-middle class young, on the other hand, seems more open for psychological exploration with both parents and peers. If, in fact, child- rearing practices and social class are highly correlated, then we might conclude that social class and not the family authority structure is the critical factor in determining whether an adolescent will be cynical toward political authority. ^See, for example, Sears, Macoby, and Levin, Patterns of Child Rearing (Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1957); M iller and Swanson, The Changing American Parent (New York: W iley, 1958); M iller and Swanson, Inner Conflict and Defense (New York: H olt, 1960). ^Hess and Torney, The Development of Political Attitudes in Children, p. 145. 90 Using the father's occupation as the indicator of socio-economic location® and relating this fin t to family authority structure (Table 3) we find no significant relationship exists. The data indicates only a slight increase in the number of respondents who, raised in a permissive or democratic home, are members of the upper class — the Guttman proved to be totally insignificant (30.03903 with 24 degrees of freedom). TABLE 3 RELATIONSHIP OF FATHER'S OCCUPATION TO FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE * Family Authority Structure Father's Occupation Status a b c Upper Middle Lower Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 51% (N=97) 19% (N=37) 29% (N=54) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 53% (N=36) 21% (N=15) 25% (N — 18) Father-Auth ./Mother-Perm. 48% (N=40) 21% (N=17) 29% (N=24) Father-Dem ./M other-A uth. 45% (N=17) 24% (N= 9) 29% (N = l 1) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 58% (N=93) 15% (N -23) 24% (N=39) Father-Dem ./Mother-Perm . 67% (N=30) 13% (N= 6) 20% (N= 9) Father-Perm ./M other-A uth. 36% (N=26) 40% (N=30) 28% (N=20) Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . 42% (N=13) 16% (N= 5) 42% (N=13) Father-Perm ./M other-Peim . 55% (N=217) 18%(N=71) 25% (N=98) a . Professional, Managerial, Self-employed Business b. C lerical, Sales, Skilled Worker *Row Percentages c . Semi-skilled, unskilled Worker Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number ®We found that occupation and education are intrinsically and Table 4 shows there is no significant relationship between social clan and attitude toward political authority. Again, our sample is rather evenly divided and so we are unable to predict a respondent's attitude toward poli tical authority on the basis of social class. TABLE 4 RELATIONSHIP OF FATHER'S OCCUPATION TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY* Father's Occupation________________ Political Cynicism Scale_______________ High___________ Medium__________ Low Upper 0 54% (N=142) 18% (N=46) 26% (N=70) M id d le b 48% (N=280) 21% (N=120) 30% (N=176) Lower ° 56% (N=184) 16% (N=53) 24% (N=79) a . Professional, Managerial, Self-employed Business b. C lerical, Sales, Skilled Worker c . Semi-skilled, Unskilled Worker * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority; Controlling for Sex Existing theories, mostly psychoanalytic in origin, regarding the effect of parent-child relationships on personality development, assume — and offer intricate explanations for — certain phenomena regarded as typical if not uni versal. One such phenomenon is the assumption that boys and girls are treated statistically related and so have chosen to use father's occupation as our indi cator of social class. 92 quite differently by the parent of each sex and that this differential treatment has markedly diverse effects on the child of each sex. For example, Freudian theory implies that punitiveness by the father is particularly traumatic for boys p and withdrawal of love especially critical for girls. Y et, very little is actually known about the variation that actually exists in the treatment of boys and girls by the parent of each sex or about the possible effects of such differential treatment. The data shows, when we control for sex, considerable sex role differ entiation in the direction of less cynicism for boys than girls when they are socialized in a father-dominant/mother-democratic family structure (Table 5 ). There is a marked increase ( 92 % as compared with 6 7% ) among those who feel cynical toward political authority when they are socialized in a permissive home environment. This would seem to indicate that for boys, at least, a strong male authority figure is important in the development of a positive a tti tude toward authority. There is a much weaker relationship between family authority structure and attitude toward the political system when we control for females. Our data does indicate, however, that for girls, a home in which the mother is dominant and the father democratic leads to stronger feelings of trust toward political authority — although certainly additional information is warranted. 9 U . Bronfenbrenner, "Some Familial Antecedents of Responsibility and Leadership in Adolescents, " in Petrullo and B ass (eds.), Leodeiship and Inter personal Behavior (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, In c ., 1961). 9 3 TABLE 5 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY: CONTROLLING FOR SEX* Family Authority Structure___________________________________________ Political Cynicism Male Female High Medium Low High Medium Low Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 63% (NN65) 24% (N=25) 12% (N =l 8) 73% (N=66) 15% (N=l 2) 12% (N»10) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 53% (N=16) 23% (N=7) 23% (N=7) 70% (N=29) 17% (N=7) 13% (N=5) Father-Auth ./Mother-Perm. 67% (N=28) 17% (N=7) 15% (N=6) 68% (N=30) 21% (N=9) 12% (N=14) Father-Dem ./Mother-Auth. 86% (N=24) 14% (N=3) 0% (N=0) 57% (N=l 1) 26% (N=5) 16% (N=3) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 60% (N=55) 25% (N=16) 15% (N =l 2) 62% (N=56) 21% (N=19) 17% (N -15) Father-Dem ./Mother-Perm. 73% (N=18) 18% (N=4) 8% (N=2) 65% (N=l 9) 28% (N=8) 7% (N=2) Father-Perm ./M other-Auth. 60% (N=l 5) 30% (N=6) 10% (N=2) 69% (N=18) 12% (N=<3) 19% (N=5) Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . 92% (N=20) 0% (N=0) 7% (N=3) 70% (N=l 4) 15% (N«3) 15% (N**3) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. 86% (N*=135) 8% (N=12) 6% (N=8) 68% (N136) 17% (N=33) 16% (N=31) *Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. It is clear from the data that boys, rather than girls, are more likely to be affected by variations in the family authority structure — with an un structured home environment being the least healthy for boys. Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Political Authority: Controlling for High School As the child moves outside the family there are a number of other agents and agencies of socialization to which he w ill be exposed. It is generally held that as the child moves into adolescence, he begins to develop alternate sources of affect and behavior cues. The general allocation of authority and affection and the division of labor within the family, as well as the influence of parental values and modes of sanctioning upon the child's identifications, school performance, and morality, have been studied. Nevertheless, our conceptual tools for the study of child hood socialization, and especially for encompassing the multitude of socializa tion influences upon children in particular social positions or for linking those influences to the larger social organization, remain crude. Indeed, the assess ment of the cumulative and interactive influence of what is transmitted and what is learned in the continuing series of socialization settings through which the child passes has been little discussed in the literature, except with reference to deviant behaviors and to the problems the lower-class child faces in the middle-class oriented schools. ^^For example, David Reisman, The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Chang ing American Character (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Fredrick Elkin, The Child and Society: The Process of Socialization (New York: Random 95 It is our interest to answer, if only on a suggestive and tentative level, the question of how important the educational system is as an intervening and interlinking variable between family and the outside social and political sys tems . As noted in an earlier chapter, there is no indication that the school as a formal instructional situation has a direct impact upon an adolescent's poli tical attitudes,^' but it is likely that the school has an indirect impact through the medium of the preferred values and hierarchical arrangements of the formal and informal cliques and the related allocation of valued symbols and status 12 within the school environment. It is, after a ll, in school when the child begins to move outside the familial setting and establish peer relations and to experience new authority roles — represented by the classroom teacher and school administrators. In supervised and unsupervised play with his peers he comes to participate in auto nomous groupings which have their own shared activities, codes of behavior, and controls. In this context, expectations and discipline are imposed, not only by the parents»but also by other adults and peers with whom the child comes in creasingly in contact as he develops and spends more time outside the primary family unit. In the larger and more complex society, the socialization process is progressively taken over by formal agencies of training, and the number and House, I960); and James S. Coleman, The Adolescent Society; The Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact Upon Education (New York; The Free Press, 196l). Chapter III. I^Hess and Torney, op. c it ., pp. 127-132, interpret part of their data as an indication that the teacher is a significant socializer in the elementary grades. 9 6 intensity of such influences may well overshadow the continuing activity of the fam ily— or it may simply serve to reinforce the family life-style. In short, in the context of the "widening world of childhood,” we are interested in observing whether a school environment which may act as a counter influence on the home environment w ill serve to change attitudes and behavior patterns of children. We hypothesize that a school structure which is similar to the home w ill serve only to reinforce and enhance socialized attitudes and behavior, while a school which offers the child alternative approaches to handling people and ideas w ill help to alter attitudes and values learned in the home. So, an adolescent's negative feelings toward political authority — the result of having been raised in a permissive home — w ill be attenuated if he attends a structured high school. The reverse is true for an adolescent raised in an authoritarian home. The data does*in fact, support the hypothesis that the high school plays an important inter vening role in the socialization process (Tables 6 and 7). Tables 6 and 7 show that an adolescent is more likely to be cynical toward political authority when he is socialized in a permissive home and attends a pro gressive high school (52% and 48%) than if he were to attend a traditional high school (19% and 21% ). A similar relationship exists for those who are raised by authoritarian parents and who attend a traditional high school (43% and 40%) as compared with those who attend a progressive high school (8% and 18%) — a l though the relationship is weaker when wee look to the authoritarian home/high school combinations than when comparing the permissive home/high school groups. 97 TABLE 6 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY: CONTROLLING FOR PROGRESSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS * Family Authority Structure_______________________________________________ Political Cynicism_____________________________ Sonora High Medium Low High Medium Low Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 8% (N=2) 40% (N=10) 52% (N=13) 18% (N=7) 42% (N =l 1) 40% (N=10) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 15% (N=4) 46% (N =l 2) 38% (N =l 1) 9% (N=10) 45% (N=41) 45% (N=41) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 0% (N=0) 50% (N=8) 50% (N=8) 0% (N=0) 62% (N =l 5) 38% (N=9) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 23% (N=4) 40% (N=7) 35% (N=6) 4% (N=3) 74% (N=39) 21% (N=18) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm .** 52% (N =l 2) 46% (N=20) 2% (N=14) 48% (N=49) 45% (N=42) 7% (N =*) * Row Percentages Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm/Mother-Dem.with Father-Perm/Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. < 8 TABLE 7 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLITICAL AUTHORITY: CONTROLLING FOR TRADITIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS * Family Authority Structure Political Cynicism Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . Fullerton Buena Park High Medium Low High Medium Low 43% (N=16) 44% (N=17) 13% (N=6) 40% (N=10) 45% (N=13) 15% (N=4) 28% (N=5) 43% (N=8) 28% (N=5) 20% (N=3) 40% (N=6) 40% (N=6) 33% (N=2) 50% (N=6) 16% (N = l) 33% (N =5) 40% (N=7) 26% (N=4) 19% (N=5) 57% (N =l 5) 23% (N=7) 21% (N=4) 42% (N=8) 37% (N=7) Father-Perm ./M other-Perm .** 19% (N =9) 36% (N=17) 45% (N=23) 21% (N=22) 46% (N=45) 33% (N=34) * Row Percentages Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number. * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. The tables show that adolescents who have democratic parents appear to be little affected by different school environments. There is no significant difference in the percent who are cynical toward political authority and who are from democratic homes and attend a progressive high school (23%) from those who attend a traditional high school (19%). Finally, a further indication of the importance of school as an inter vening variable is evidenced by the comparatively greater percentage of our sample who have a positive attitude toward the political system when they attend a high school which offers alternative authority patterns to the home (52%, 40%, 45%, 33%) than when we do not control for high school (see Tables 1 and 2). Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Attitude Toward Proximate Political Authority: Policeman and School Administrator Policeman. So far we have been looking at attitudes toward non- proximate political authority roles, i . e . , politicians. What about the more proximate political authority figures like the policeman and school adminis trators? The data indicates a significant relationship of the family authority structure to an adolescent's attitude toward police and in the direction we would expect (Tables 8 and 9). Only 36% of those socialized in a permissive home view the police as willing to treat young people the same way they treat other people (Table 8). On the other hand, the Father-Authoritarian/Mother- Democratic parental authority relationship leads to fully 64% of the sample viewing police as treating young people the same or better than others. 100 TABLE 8 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLICE * Family Authority Structure Attitude Toward Police Same Worse Better Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 30% (N=60) 63% (N =l 23) 6% (N =l 3) Fa ther-Auth. /M other-Dem . 40%' (N=29) 34% (N=24) 24% (N=18) Father-Dem ./Mother-Aut . 35% (N=16) 50% (N=24) 15% (N=9) Father-Dem./M other-Dem . 41% (N=65) 48% (N=73) 11% (N=17) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm . * * 32% (N=146) 64% (N=248) 4% (N=17) * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. (Question: Do you feel that young people are treated by police in the same way the rest of the people are treated?) * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm/Mother-Dem with Father-Perm/Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. A similar, although somewhat weaker, relationship exists for the second police item (Table?). 101 TABLE 9 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLICE * Family Authority Structure Attitude Toward Police Serious Consideration Little Attention Ignored Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 13% (N=30) 51% (N=100) 36% (N=66) Father-Auth ./Mother-Dem . 30% (N=18) 54% (N=43) 15% (N =l 1) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 20% (N=7) 54% (N=22) 26% (N=l 2) Father-Dem ./Mother-Dem . 27% (N=42) 53% (N=84) 20% (N=33) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm 15% (N=95) 59% (N=246) 24% (N=94) * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. (Question: When young people explain their point of view to the police, what effect do you think it has?) * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm . with Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. A possible confounding variable operative in this relationship is whether the respondent has had actual contact with police. The assumption is that those adolescents who have been stopped, searched or arrested by the police may have a more negative attitude toward police than someone who has had little or no contact, simply by virtue of their having been harassed. If this is the case, then perhaps the real indicator of an adolescent's view of police is his exper iential knowledge of their behavior and not so much secondary learning and a projection of learned attitudes about other authorities. In order to measure the extent to which this phenomenon may be operating within our sample, we controlled for the respondent^ (and his friends) experience 13 with the police. First, nearly half our sample (43.5% ) have had no involve ment with police, and of the half who have had some contact, over half of these were merely stopped (28% ). The same general distribution exists for their friends— only a slightly greater percentage having been stopped by the police. Relating these two items with the respondent's attitude toward police, we find no signi ficant relationship exists. There is, as w ell, no significant relationship when we compare police contact with family authority structure. That is, there is no more likelihood that a respondent raised in one kind of home w ill come into contact with the police than a respondent raised in another type of family author ity structure. Tables 10 and 11 show that when we introduce the high school as an inter vening variable, it serves to attenuate or promote cynical attitudes toward police just as we found with the political cynicism index. For example, a greater per centage of those socialized in permissive homes and attending a progressive high school feel the police treat the young wone than other people (84%), while sig nificantly fewer adolescents raised in a permissive household and attending a tra ditional high school feel the police do not discriminate against young people (38 ^The item used was: "Which one of the following contacts best describes what has happened to you and to any of the friends you run around with? (Mark the one answer that applies to you, and the one that applies to your friends.) a) stopped by the police; b) stopped and questioned; c) stopped and searched; d) arrested by police; e) have not been involved with p o lice .1 1 10 3 TABLE 10 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLICE: CONTROLLING FOR PROGRESSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS * Family Authority Structure Attitude Toward Police Sonora Same Worse Better Same Worse Better Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 41% (N =l 2) 41% (N =l 2) 16% (N=5) 33% (N=9) 63% (N=l 7) 3% (N = l) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 51% (N=6) 31% (N=4) 18% (N=2) 46% (N=6) 43% (N=5) 10% (N=2) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 28% (N=2) 71% (N=5) 0% (N=0) 25% (N = l) 50% (N=2) 25% (N = l) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 43% (N=l 0) 56% (N=l 3) 0% (N=0) 58% (N=10) 23% (N=4) 17% (N=3) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm .** 13% (N=l 2) 84% (N=65) 3% (N=3) 26% (N=l 7) 68% (N=30) 6% (N=3) *Row Percentages Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. **This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. (Question: Do you feel that young people are treated by police in the same way the rest of the people are treated?) 2 TABLE 11 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD POLICE: CONTROLLING FOR TRADITIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS * Family Authority Structure Attitude Toward Police Fullerton Buena Park Same Wone Better Same Worse Better Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 6% (N=3) 84% C M ii Z 8% (N=4) 18% (N=5) 76% (N=16) 4% (N = l) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 57% (N=4) 32% (N=3) 10% (N = l) 60% (N=3) 40% (N=2) 0% (N=0) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 33% (N=5) 50% (N=8) 16% (N=3) 50% (N=3) 50% (N=3) 0% (N=0) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 38% (N=10) 57% (N=15) 3% (N=l) 26% (N=7) 63% (N=I9) 10% (N=3) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. * * 39% (N=25) 38% (N=23) 2 2 % (N=18) 27% (N=13) 48% <N ii Z 25% (N =l 2) *Row Percentages Percentages rounded to nearest whole number. **This category is obtained by collasping Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. School Administration. The data indicates that a similar relationship exists between family authority structure and an adolescent's attitude toward the school administration that we found to be true with the police and political cynicism items (Tables 12 and 13). More than this, however, is the fact that not only does the data indicate a strong relationship and in the predicted d i rection, but also the tables show there is a slightly stronger relationship than is the case with attitudes toward police, and a significantly stronger relation ship than is the case with political cynicism. For example, the differentiation between the various family authority structures is greater when cross-tabulated with the school administration items than when related to the police items (compare Tables 12 and 13 with Tables 8 and 9). And, in turn, the differen tiation between the family authority structures is greater when related to the police items than when related to the political cynicism index (compare Tables 8 and 9 with Tables 1 and 2 ). While we are unable to offer an ade quate explanation for this phenomenon at this point in our analysis, we are able to conclude that the more proximate a political authority role is, the more likely it is to be affected attitudinally by an adolescent's interactive patterns with social authorities. 106 TABLE 12 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD SCHOOL ADMINISTRATORS * Family Authority Structure Attitude Toward School Administrators Serious Consideration Little Attention Ignored Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 23% (N«43) 47% (N=92) 30% (N -55) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 39% (N«24) 45% (N*35) 15% (N » ll) Father-Dem ./M other-A uth. 42% (N b 17) 39% (N -16) 19% (N“ 8) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 37% (N=58) 51% (N=80) 11% (N -18) Father-Perm ,/Mother-PermJ * 20% (N =l 03) 51% (N«225) 28% (N»124) * Row Percentages Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. (Question: When students at this school explain their point of view to the school administration, what effect do you think it has?) * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm . It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. 107 TABLE 13 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO ATTITUDE TOWARD SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION * Family Authority Structure____________ Attitude Toward School Adm?n?»tration Agree D if agree__________ Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 51% (N=88) 49% (N=82) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 79% (N =61) 22% (N=18) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 63% (N=30) 32% (N=13) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 70% (N =l 10) 30% (N=46) Father-Perm ./M other-Perm .** 48% (N=214) 52% (N=230) *Row Percentage* Percentages have been rounded to the nearest whole number. (Question: If I were caught breaking a rule or causing a disturbance, the administration at this school would treat me fairly.) **This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. 108 Relationship of Family Authority Structure to Best Mode of Government Influence An area for study which follows naturally from our investigation of ado lescent attitudes toward authority has to do with an adolescent^ willingness to opt for political protest actions in lieu of the more traditional modes of govern ment influence, e .g ., voting and letter writing. The assumption is that indi viduals who do not view as legitimate the decisions and actions of political authority are more likely to engage in nontraditional, extralegal means of influence. We are interested, on an exploratory level, in looking at possible environmental conditions associated with the incidence of political protest activities. Obviously, we cannot begin to explore all the complexities and subtleties inherent in the interrelationship between political and social environment vari ables on the one hand and political protest behavior on the other. That is, such factors as the nature of the chief executive, the distribution of social skills and status, and the degree of social disintegration, taken individually or collectively, serve in various ways to obstruct or facilitate citizen activity in pursuit of political goals. Other environmental factors, such as the climate of governmental responsiveness and the level of community resources, help to establish the chances of success of citizen political activity. In short, ele ments in the environment impose certain constraints on political activity or open avenues for it. The manner in which individuals and groups in the poli tical system behave, then, is not simply a function of attitude sets acquired through their socialization but of the openings, barriers, weak spots, and resources of the political system itself. There is, in this sense, interaction, or linkage, between the environment, understood in terms of the notion of a structure of political opportunities, and political behavior. What would we expect to find from our data? Based on what has been said to this point, we would expect adolescents socialized in permissive homes to view protest action as legitimate — indeed, the best mode of government influence. Table 14 shows that in fact this relationship exists. What is interest ing is that those from authoritarian homes are not any more likely to engage in protest activity than are adolescents from democratic or heterogeneous homes , even though we found adolescents from authoritarian homes to be more cynical toward political authority at every level. Possibly these adolescents, while more distrusting and cynical toward political authority, are not as willing to act out their resentment or exercise their rights in the form of protest simply because they are too aware of the possible consequences of their behavior. In this instancqthe school serves as an important intervening variable as in the relationships already discussed. Clearly, adolescents who attend a progressive high school and who are socialized in a permissive household are far more likely to select protest as the best mode of government influence (56% and 54%) than the adolescent who attends a traditional school and is raised in a permissive home (17% and 19%) — see Tables 15 and 16. Perhaps an even better indicator of how important school is as an intervening variable is by comparing the percentage of those raised in permissive homes and who opt for protest behavior (41%) to those who are raised in permissive homes and 110 attend a progressive high school (the percentage increases to 54% and 56%). Obviously, school, in combination with the kind of parental authority structure, is an important contributing factor to an adolescent^ willingness to choose protest behavior over traditional modes of government influence. TABLE 14 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO BEST MODE OF GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE * Family Authority Structure________Best Mode of Government Influence Write Letters Voting Protest Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 17% (N=33) 52% (N=99) 30% (N=57) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 28% (N=18) 53% (N=38) 19% (N=12) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 17% (N=8) 60% (N=29) 23% (N =l 1) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 20% (N=31) 53% (N=81) 27% (N=42) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. * * 22% (N=98) 35% (N=198) 41% (N=219) *Row Percentages Percentages rounded to nearest whole number (Question: Which one of the following do you consider to be the most important way of influencing government today?) **This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. Ill TABLE 15 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO BEST MODE OF GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE: CONTROLLING FOR PROGRESSIVE HIGH SCHOOLS * Family Authority Structures____________________________Best Mode of Government Influence Sonora Write Letters Vote Protest Write Letters Vote Protest Father-Auth ./M other-A uth. 16% (N=6) 60% (N=21) 24% (N=9) 10% (N=3) 72% (N=21) 17% (N=5) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 7% (N=8) 69% (N=29) 23% (N=16) 28% (N=5) 50% (N=8) 22% (N=4) Father-Dem. /M other-A uth. 0% (N=0) 75% (N==3) 25% (N = l) 12% (N=3) 47% (N=5) 40% (N=4) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 25% (N=4) 62% (N=10) 13% (N=2) 25% (N=6) 42% (N=l 0) 33% (N=8) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm?* 19% (N*12) 27% (N*18) 54% (N=32) 17% (N=l 3) 26% (N=28) 56% (N=49) * Row Percentages Percentages rounded to the nearest whole number (Question: Which one of the following do you consider to be the most important way of influencing government today?) * * This category is obtained by collapsing Father-Perm./Mother-Dem. with Father-Perm./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. TABLE 16 RELATIONSHIP OF FAMILY AUTHORITY STRUCTURE TO BEST MODE OF GOVERNMENT INFLUENCE: CONTROLLING FOR TRADITIONAL HIGH SCHOOLS * Fomily Authority Structures____________________________ Best Mode of Government Influence_______ Fullerton Buena Park Write Letters Vote Protest Write Letters Vote Protest Father-Auth ./M other-Auth. 25% (N=8) 32% (N=l 0) 42% (N=13) 26% (N=6) 52% (N=l 1) 45% (N=9) Father-Auth ./M other-Dem . 27% (N=2) 57% (NN4) 14% (N = l) 0% (N=0) 80% (N=10) 20% (N=3) Father-Dem ./M other-Auth. 20% (N=5) 60% (N=15) 20% (N=5) 17% (N=4) 66% (N=12) 17% (N=4) Father-Dem ./M other-Dem . 20% (N=5) 52% (N=l 3) 28% (N=7) 16% (N=<3) 58% (N=l 1) 26% (N=5) Father-Perm ./Mother-Perm .** 31% (N=14) 51% (N*23) 17% (N=8) 21% (N=l 0) 59% (N=27) 19% (N=9) * Row Percentages Percentages rounded to nearest whole number * * This category os obtained by collapsing Father-Perm ./M other-Dem . with Father-Perm./Mother-Perm. It is assumed there is little difference in the two family authority structures. Summary 1. Hypothesis 1 was confirmed. Our adolescent sample demonstrated high levels of cynicism when socialized in a permissive home. 2 . Hypothesis 1.1 was confirmed. We found school to be an important intervening variable which served to attenuate the cynical attitudes of adoles cents from permissive homes when they attended a more structured school, where as those adolescents raised in a permissive home and attending a progressive high school were significantly more cynical toward political authority. 3. Hypothesis 2 was confirmed — although the relationship proved to be less strong than was the case in Hypothesis 1. Our sample demonstrated high levels of cynicism when from an authoritarian home. 4 . Hypothesis 2.1 was confirmed — although the relationship was significantly weaker than in the case of Hypothesis 1.1. 5. Hypothesis 3 was confirmed. Clearly, an adolescent is far more likely to feel positively toward political authority at every level if he is from a home in which one parent — in particular the father — is authoritarian and provides structure and leadership and the other parent acts as a mediating agent through a democratic approach to child training. 6 . Only marginal and statistically insignificant differences were found in terms of social stratification, both in relation to family authority structure and in terms of the cynicism index. 7 . Boys more than girls require a home in which one parent is assertive and assumes a strong leadership role. Again, the relationship is significant!y 1 1 4 stronger when it is the father who assumes the authoritarian role. Girls are only maiginally affected by variations in the family authority structure. 8 . The "pure" democratic approach to child training proved significantly important, with adolescents from this home feeling less cynical toward political authority at every level than did adolescents from either permissive or authori tarian homes. 9. The more proximate the poltical authority role, the stronger was the relationship between the family authority structure and the adolescent^ attitude toward political authority. 1 1 5 CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Feelings of specific support directed toward the political system and the nature of the family and high school authority structures are strongly correlated dimensions among our adolescent respondents. Our sample of suburban high school students demonstrates less positive levels of specific system support (trust and respect for political authority) when socialized in a permissive home and is significantly more alienated from political authorities when they come from a permissive home and attend a progressive school. A similar, although weaker, relationship exists for adolescents who are raised in an authoritarian home and who attend a traditional (structured) high school. On the other hand, if an adolescent comes from either a permissive or a strict authoritarian home and attends a high school which offers an alternative set of ideas and approaches to authority relations and responsibility from that of the home, he will tend to change, in a positive direction, his attitude toward political authority at every level - - politicians, police, school administrators. From the point of view of the political system, the strongest family structure in terms of providing adolescents with a positive attitude toward authority is the father-led family. It is this parental relationship which seems to provide the best synthesis. There is enough difference in the authority of 116 the parents so that some direction is provided, but there is enough sharing to maintain a positive relationship between the parents. The father is not haish, the pattern is accepted in our society, and sufficient authority is centered in the handb of one person to keep the life of the family ordered and free of con flic t. Children in such families have the advantage of well-<leveloped and positive superegos and strong egos. Low levels of overt (participative) and covert (attitudinal) system support can lead to considerable stress for the political system, particularly when this lack of support is found concentrated among middle and upper-middle class adolescents — a group of people who have at their command sufficient resources (time, money, education) to press for change in the political system. In addi tion, these young people represent a segment of society we traditionally would expect to be in support of the system. Beyond specific system support, the political process requires as well that succeeding generations be socialized with a sense of self-restraint in the conveision of social wants into political demands which represents a major device in every age for the continuation of the political order. The individual member's own sense of what is or is not appropriate to inject into the political process and the mode by which to input into the system imposes limits on the volume and variety of demands which a system is called upon to process. Consequently, the socialization process must act as well as the means by which to govern the input of demands, so that each generation learns some degree of self-restraint, if the system is not to suffer from the stress of demand-input overload. 1 1 7 The findings indicate that adolescents from permissive homes and progres sive schools demonstrate strong approval for political protest as the best avail able means of influencing government. While we are unable to demonstrate that these same adolescents, who show strong antipathy toward political author ity and who see as legitimate political protest behavior, are likely to make too many demands on the system — the logical extension seems not too unreasonable. Indirect vs. Direct Political Socialization In this study we have been operating in terms of the proposition, implicitly if not explicitly, that the tension between indirect and direct modes of political learning can reduce the effectiveness of the socialization agents, particularly the family and school, in their ability to directly teach children to look on government with a positive set of attitudes. Indirect political socialization refers to the internalization of values not themselves political but which sub sequently influence the acquisition of analogous values that are political. Spe cifically, we have applied this conceptualization to the process by which children learn what to think about authority. Through his interactions with parents, teachers, and other "nonpolitical" authorities, the young child comes to expect certain things of persons in authority positions. He acquires a general disposition toward authority. Subsequently, this general disposition is attached to political authorities. His socialization with respect to attitudes toward poli tical authority has been indirect, it is a two step process involving the initial acquisition and the later transference. Direct political socialization refers 1 1 8 to learning situations where the content of what is transmitted is specifically political. The attitude is attached to a political object from the beginning. Although socialization theory is far from clear about the relationship between these two modes of political learning, the literature does suggest that direct political socialization can be seriously undermined by contradictory indirect socialization. Almost by definition, programmed political education stresses the direct mode of learning. Specific political orientations are to be attached to identi fied political objects. The curriculum materials, the patriotic ritual life and the teacher explicitly point out that this rather than that political value is the suitable one. But coterminous with his instruction in these "appropriate values," the student is involved in continuous learning experiences with latent political consequences. If the values he acquires in nonpolitical but politically relevant experience contradict the specific values channeled through the ex plicit program of political socialization, we expect the impact of the latter to be consequently weakened. This same principle applies equally as well to intra- familial patterns. The parents may exhort the value of respect and obedience to the law and political authorities, but if there is little cause in the home for the same kind of obedience and respect, then how can one expect the child to really "learn" what authority and responsibility are, let alone gain a respect and sense of obedience toward it. And, for a majority of our sample, the kind of child-training practices followed in the home did not provide for a strong enough sense of what authority and responsibility really entail. 1 1 9 In essence, we hypothesize that adolescents growing up in a suburban milieux with a relatively homogeneous economic level and life style do not "learn" traditional authority roles and the consequent differentiation which constitutes the core of identity as well as individuation. Coupled with the breakdown of regular family interaction, the lack of neighborhood and in formal age-differentiated peer interaction, and a shift away from the struc tured school, there arises a pervasive syndrome of subtle estrangement and distrust toward authority — political and social. We are suggesting that in middle class, suburban homes in which a minimum of authority is exercised, and in homogeneous, progressive high schools, estrangement is pervasive, and that this estrangement, which can lead to antisocial or illegal behaviors, is the product of more subtle causes and motivations than those traditionally encountered. The Changing American Family What precisely is the nature of this "new" intro-familial interactive pattern we have been discussing? We have suggested that at least since World War II, many changes have occurred in patterns of child rearing in the United States, but their essence may be conveyed in a single sentence: children used to be controlled, directed, and provided with a set of para meters within which they would operate by their parents. It may seem presumptuous to put that statement in the past tense. Yet it does belong in the past, or at least for nearly half of our sample. Over 120 the years, de facto responsibility for upbringing has shifted away from the family to other settings in the society, some of which do not recognize or ac cept the task. While the family still has the primary moral and legal res ponsibility for the character development of children, it often lacks the power or opportunity to do the job, primarily because parents and children no longer spend time together in those situations in which such training is possible, in addition to the fact that they (the parents) simply do not feel it encumbent upon them to enforce rigid standards of behavior onto their child. This is not because parents do not want to spend time or be more restrictive with their children necessarily. It is simply that conditions have changed. To begin with, families used to be bigger — not in terms of more child ren so much as more adults (grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins). Those relatives who did not live with you lived nearby. You often went to their homes. They came as often to yours, and stayed for dinner. You knew them a ll—the old folks, the middle-aged, the older cousins—ond they knew you. This had its good side and its bad side. As the stable world of the small town and even center city has become absorbed into an ever-shifting suburbia, children are growing up in a differ ent kind of environment. Urbanization has reduced the extended family to a nuclear one with only two adults, and the functioning neighborhood — where it has not decayed into an urban or rural slum — withered to a small circle of friends, most of them accessible only by car or telephone. Paradoxically, the more people there are around, the fewer the opportunities for meaningful 121 human contact. Whereat before, the world in which the child lived consisted of a diversity of people in a diversity of settings, now, for millions of American children, the neighborhood is nothing but row upon row of buildings where "other people" live. One house, or apartment, is much like another — and so are the people. They all have more or less the same income and the same way of life . But the child does not see much of that life, for all that people do in the neighborhood is to come home to it, have a drink, eat dinner, mow the lawn, watch television, and sleep.^ Increasingly often, today^s suburban communities have, except for highly concentrated, centralized shopping cen ters — which are removed from the immediate neighborhoods — no stores, no shops, no services, no adults at work or play. This is the sterile world in which many of our children grow, and this is the "urban renewal" we offer to families we would rescue from the slums. In the home there is minimal contact with others including the parents. First of a ll, the children are rarely home much anyway. They leave early for school and it is almost supper time when they get back; and then there may not be anybody home when they get there. If their mother is not working, 'When asked the question, "After dinner during weekday evenings which one of the following is each of your parents most likely to be doing, " 38.6% said their fathers were watching TV, another 14.5% said he was working away from home, 6 .6 % said he was out with friends and only 9% said he was either reading or doing a hobby. The same general figures apply for the mother as w ell— with substantially more mothers than fathers working at night (25.79Q. ^When asked the question, "How often during an average week do you and the members of your family living at home sit down together at the table for din ner, " only a third of our sample said they sat down every night, 19% said they almost never sit down together for dinner, and 42% said between 2 and 4 nights in a week. 122 at least part-time, she is out a lot because of social obligations — not just to be with friends, but to do things for the community. The men leave in the morning before the children are up, and do not get back until after the child ren have eaten supper. A ll of this means that American parents do not spend as much time with children as they used to. Systematic evidence consistent with this conclusion comes from our survey as well as other investigations — although we have not been able to devote much time to this particular aspect of the American sub urban home. This data, in combination with parental peimissiveness in child- training, spells a home experience in which little opportunity is afforded the child to "learn" in situ — rather than simply being told or taught — about authority relations. What specifically can we say about the socialization process prevalent in middle class suburban communities? First, we have identified the family as the American institution involved in the core of the process. And it is the withdrawal of the family from its child-rearing functions (or at least the move ment from a more traditional-authoritarian approach to the leu involving permis sive position) that we have identified as a major factor threatening the break down of the socialization proceu in America. School; A Transitional Institution in the Socialization Proceu In addition to the family, we have suggested a second important factor in the socialization proceu and that is the school system. The reason for looking to the school as well as the family springs from our social-psychological per spective and the picture it reveals of the sources of resistance and change in a social system. It is the function afterall of transitional institutions, especially \ the school, to progressively orient the individual away from the ascriptive and particularistic family ties and orientations and toward the broader perspective of the social and political worlds. In particular, our analysis points to a paradoxical situation. Even though the lack of parental involvement lies at the heretofore present malaise, parents by themselves are not responsible for the conditions described in this study. For, as we have suggested, it is not primarily the family, but other institutions in our society that determine how and with whom children spend their time, and it is these institutions that have created and perpetuated the age-segregated, and thereby amoral or antisocial, world in which our children live and grow. Cen tral among the institutions which, by their structure and limited concern, have encouraged these socially disruptive developments have been our middle class, homogeneous, relatively unstructured schools. Beyond direct political learning in the classroom, and in conjunction with the principle of indirect learning, we are concerned with another and perhaps far more important source of political socialization. The school is a social organism, with a pattern and atmosphere unique to itself, that does much to mold a student's sense of personal effectiveness and that conveys to him a view of the nature of the social world, the power allocation in it, and the student's particular position in this allocation. Thus a student w ill become politically 124 socialized during his yean in school, not only by what the school deliberately teaches him, but also by the inferences he makes from his school experience, which may or may not be related to classroom teaching. Particularly crucial in this context are teaching methods, treatment of pupils by school authorities, the social life (clubs, extracurricular activities, type of student body and its punuits) and the general ethos of a particular school. We have found some school systems to be very authoritarian, adhering to learning techniques in the traditional mold, e .g ., formal lecture, less class discussion, or at least, directed class discussion, more written assignments and so on. Other schools, on the other hand, pride themselves on their more permis sive atmosphere, encouraging class discussion, even student-teacher debates, sponsored student projects that are unsupervised by faculty, and so forth. Un doubtedly few school systems completely adhere to either mode, but student behavior w ill be conditioned by the extent to which the school adheres more to one model than to another. It must not be overlooked that the school, after a ll, is a social system of its own, containing unofficial groups, organizations, clubs, and the like. The ease with which students can have access to these groups, the extent to which the school is run by these groups, or by cliques within them, and the extent to which the school is an open system or a closed system all seem to shape pro foundly the young person S sense of belonging and his own sense of control over his environment. 1 2 5 One suspects that the schools w ill be at their maximum effectiveness in political socialization where there is great congruence between the deliberate and the incidental learning that transpires, whereas the school w ill perhaps fail when students perceive it to teach one lesson but to practice another. Congruent vs. Incongruent Political Socialization Implicit in this study is the assumption that the antipathy toward political authority found among our suburban adolescent sample is at least partially the result of alienating experiences rooted in structural discontinuities in the basic relationships within and between the institutions of socialization — family, school, peer group — and government institutions. Furthermore, since the com mon ingredient of these relationships is authority, it is here the incongruence and subsequent manifestation of that incongruence, e .g ., active participation in protest groups or anti-authority behavior regardless of the substance, content, or goal of protest is most easily observed. What we are suggesting in essence is that the closer the socialization agencies are in operating in the same general direction toward socializing the young so they are equipped to handle the demands and responsibilities of the socio-political world, the more effective w ill the socialization process be in promoting healthy, positive feelings and support for the political authorities. If the parents, teachers, school administrators, and peer groups are a ll urging (and demonstrating through their actions) the child to "obey the law ," comply with a set of rules, and value the needs and properties of others, the correlation w ill be high between the mesMge of any one agent and the child's attitude. 126 On the other hand, in a situation in which socialization agencies leave the child relatively free to choose and make his own decisions, with little or no input by adults, or allow (and in fact encourage) the child to make endless demands and have those demands listened to and responded to, a set of ex pectations w ill be fostered among adolescents that their social and political demands w ill be heard and acted upon by governmental authorities — an image which simply does not square with reality. We must point out, however, that based on our findings it appears as though, in the event a family provides the child with an environment which holds few sanctions or has few expectations as to how the child should behave, the school can and does serve as a counter influence. This is perhaps yet another reason why social observers and political leaders should regard the school system as a valuable agent for programmed political socialization — because the classroom, administrative structure, teacher*4tudent relationship, and general feeling tone on campus, of all the major socialization agencies, is the most susceptible to public control. Directions for Future Research Hopefully, one topic discussed in this dissertation, implicitly if not ex plicitly, which concerns the changes over the past century in the way young persons are introduced to adult life, w ill serve as an impetus for future research — in particular, with regard to the question of what can be done to improve con ditions for young people. This topic is an important one, and the question raised 1 2 7 is equally as important, for consideration, if for no other reason than that the problems of modern youth pose problems for the country at large. The mounting, adult-created irresponsibility and hothouse puerility of the young serves as a potential threat to our national culture and can lead to increasing political and social deviant behavior. We note,for example, that until recent decades, young persons were educated by their families, their communities, and their work. They had a daily relationship with adults, and with the realities of the world of work (on the farm, in father's store, in uncle's business, or in household chores from canning fruit and sewing to catching fish for the evening meal and building an addition to the house). The schools were auxiliary institutions which most persons attended for only a few years. Today, however, television, the peer group, and the schools and colleges almost monopolize the world of the maturing child. School, until the age of 16,is compulsory, and work by adolescents is prohibited or severely restricted. Hence, young persons today experience a severe discontinuity in their socialization process as a result of their being legally and socially cut off from adult society, from the larger business of life and work, and from responsibility for their action. People used to stop being "kids" at 12 or 14; now they are "kids" until they are 22 or 24, even though they develop physically and psycho logically earlier than ever before. It is difficult to expect adolescents, who have not been socialized in a manner which engenders a sense of responsibility and respect for authority, to act in a responsible manner when adults. 128 If, as Indicated by the findings of this study, the school is becoming a critical intervening variable in the socialization process, then the necessity to study the educational process, in its entirety, becomes all the more glaring. In particular, there is a need for a greater undentanding of the schools' unique role in the socialization process since World War II. In this context, it is necessary to conduct a careful analysis of the changes over time which have occurred in the structure and focus of schooling, training, and social and economic position of the young today. For example, we have moved from the exploitation of children toward greater protection of the young, and then into rigid exclusion of children from genuine participation in the economy. If school is indeed becoming increasingly a central factor in the socializa tion process, then perhaps we should begin to view school in a total learning context and not simply as a tool for providing children with reading and writing skills. That is, education should be viewed as a totality of experiences that teach, shape, and form us all to become the kind of penons we are. The school should be recognized for the important socializing role it now needs to perform — a role which at one time was assumed by the family, church, and community. And, in this sense, it therefore becomes necessary to investigate not simply curricular changes and impacts, but the entire school structure and interactive patterns. In part, the reluctance to study the school system in greater detail stems from the assumptions of the in itial, and consequently influencial, students of socialization theory which suggested that most of the socialization process is 129 completed in the childhood years. Generalizing from research on learning provided the basis for suspecting the political attitudes learned during child hood, when parents make up much of the individual's political environment, are likely to persist into adulthood. Research indicated that once behaviors are acquired, they need only intermittent reinforcement to be sustained, and oc casional reinforcements are likely to be forthcoming, thus encouraging the behavior to persist. Change among behaviors is likely to result from generaliza tion, discrimination or a reordering among response hierarchies. But, it was argued, modifications deriving from these processes noimally appear as refine ments rather than radical alterations in behavior. More recent studies conclude, however, that socialization cannot be viewed as a process completed by a given age. Accepting such a premise has distorted socialization theory and research, although the error is being 3 recognized increasingly. The period of adolescence may be of greater im portance to the political development of American youth than has been ack nowledged. Many complex behaviors are being acquired during this period and others are undergoing substantial refinement. The school, in particular, gains increasing control over reinforcements and perhaps becomes the most important center of rewards and punishment for the individual during adolescence. A manifest "youth culture" or "cult" in the United States makes this question more pressing than in previous years. This is only compounded by the modem communications technology, which often seems to accelerate social trends. '’The increased frequency of citations of O rville Brim, Jr. and Staton Wheeler, Socialization After Childhood: Two Essays (New York: W iley, 1966) is evidence for this point. Although this study marks a beginning in an examination of the effects secondary groupings^ might have on adolescents in their attempts to fill the void resulting from the decline of the family, church, and community, these findings provide only partial understanding. This study, however, does under score the fact that extended research along these lines is not only of theoretical interest, but holds immediate and practical consequences, because a chaotic process of socialization might well produce anomalous patterns in the behavior of individuals in the social system. That is, failure to establish systematically certain basic patterns of behavior in a society may contribute to a breakdown of the structure and internal order, because numerous incompatible patterns of behavior may arise. It is clear, too, that there is a need for greater understanding of the im pact of parent-child relationships on the development of political and social attitudes and values. Although there is certainly more information available on the effects of parent-child relationships than there is on the effects of the educational system in the development of political attitudes and values, there are, nevertheless, certain ways in which future research in the area of familial relationships might be strengthened. First, we need to reexamine many of our assumptions concerning parent- child relationships. Many assumptions have been in error and have consequently influenced research efforts. For example, because we have believed that the ^Even though this study restricts itself to an investigation of one secondary socialization agent — the school — of equal importance are studies on peer group interaction. This is particularly important when we consider that the important peer group relationships are found In school. 131 impact of the father upon the development of children's political attitudes and behavior is greater than the impact of mothers, we have investigated paternal impact to a far greater extent than we have examined the impact of mothers. Yet, much of the evidence of the past few years suggests that the variability of children's behavior can be more closely associated with the type of mother one has than the type of father. We need to investigate to a much greater extent the relationship of the father and mother, separately, to the children, particularly in the con text of the affluent, middle class suburban family. W hat, for example, are the possible effects of father's reduced role in family decision-making? In particular, we need to examine sex-pairings to determine the variable ef fects of the mother and the father on sons and daughters. More research effort needs to be pursued in terms of a national effort to solve the questions that have real relevance for families as w ell. Too often our research lacks practical significance. Much research is currently needed, for example, concerning the relationship between the drug abuse problem and various aspects of the parent-child relationships. This is not to suggest that all of our efforts should be focused on applied research for there are many investigations, highly theoretical in nature, which are of obvious significance. On a general level, more research energy should be channeled into an investigation of samples drawn from statewide, nationwide, and inter national levels. Too much of our research is based upon a secondary analy sis of the few existing studies of children and adolescents. It is obvious that we can have greater confidence in generalizing research results based upon broader samples, as well as insuring better information for specific geographic regions — each with their own set of problems and specific groups. For example, future researchers should explore familial patterns of interaction as well as patterns of interaction within schools in the con text of urban-rural environmental settings. A short note concerning the question of methodology seems appropriate. The item analysis and presentation of percentages in Chapter V was relatively straightforward. The question arises, however, as to what difference the ap plication of alternative scaling models might have made. Greater attention must be paid to the problems involved with the development of subscales for the non-political orientations, i . e . , values. In addi tion, exploration of systems utilizing typological classification schemes should be of considerable interest. The object here would be the identification of types of people as opposed to dimensions of attitudes. Fim ally, the desirability of longitudinal analysis is increasingly ap parent. It enables researchers to attain greater precision, and address them selves to some of the more complex and recurring problems in socialization. For analysis of the secondary institutions, in particular, research can be facilitated by incorporating comparative procedures. By looking at socializa tion in a cross-cultural (whether within the United States or on a cross-national level) perspective researchers can more readily examine variations among the institutional patterns of socialization agents and can clarify patterns and proces ses of influences among them. 133 A Final Word What, then, can we finally say concerning what the future may hold? Clearly, it is the view of this writer that the phenomenon of unstructured, relatively permissive homes and schools and its consequences for human be havior and development pose problems of the greatest magnitude for the Western world in general and for American society in particular. As we read the evi dence, both from our own research and that of others, we cannot escape the conclusion that, if the current trend persists, if the institutions of our society continue to remove parents, other adults, and older youth from active partici pation in the lives of children, and if the resulting vacuum is filled by the age"*egregated peer group, we can anticipate increased alienation, indif ference, antagonism, and violence on the part of the younger generation in all segments of our society — most particularly in the middle class segment of society. From this perspective, the emergence of hippie-ism appears as the least harmful manifestation o f a process which sees its far more destructive and widespread expression in the sharp rise in rates of "gratuitous violence” observed in recent years, with a substantial number of the offenders now coming from middle class homes. Why should age-grading, a lack of adult (parental and otherwise) super vision, and a general inexposure to adult influence bring social disruption in its wake? The dynamics of the process are not difficult to see. Regardless of how important genetic factors may be in the determination of human behavior, it is quite clear that such qualities as mutual trust, kindness, cooperation, 134 accommodation, and social and political responsibility cannot be insured through selective breeding; they are "learned" in situ from other human beings who, in some measure, exhibit these qualities, value them, and strive to develop them in their children. It is a matter of social rather than biological inherit ance. In short, the transmission cannot take place without the active partici pation of the older generation. If children have contact only with their own age-mates, there is no possibility for learning culturally established patterns of cooperation and mutual concern. It is clear that if adults do not once again become involved in the lives of children, there is trouble ahead for American society. New patterns of life have developed in our culture. One result of these changes has been the reduced participation of adults in the socialization of children. Although, to date, this pattern has continued to gain acceptance, there is reason to be lieve that it can do harm to our children and to our society. We are, there fore, faced with the necessity of developing a new style of socialization — one that w ill correct the inadequacies o f our contemporary pattern of living as it is affecting our children and providing them with the opportunities for humanizing experience of which they are now bereft. 1 3 5 B I B L I O G R A P H Y Books Almond, Gabriel A ., and Sidney Verba. The Civic Culture. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, In c ., 1965. Almond, Gabriel A ., and G . Bingham Powell, Jr. Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, In c ., 1966. Almond, Gabriel A ., and James S. Coleman. The Politics of Developing Areas. Princeton: Princeton University Press, I960. Bandura, and R. H . Walters. Adolescent Aggression: A Study of the Influence of Child Training Practices and Family Interrelationships. New York: Ronald, 1959. Bowen, Don R. Political Behavior of the American Public. Columbus: Charles E. M errill Publishing Company, 19681 ” Brim, O rvile, J r ., and Staton Wheeler. Socialization After Childhood: Two Essays. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1966. Brown, M ichael, ed. The Politics and Anti-Politics of the Young. Beverly Hills: Glencoe Press, 1969. Burdick, Eugene, and Arthur J . Brodbeck. American Voting Behavior. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. M ille r, and Donald E. Stokes. The American Voter. New York: John W iley and Sons, Inc., 1960. Campbell, Angus, Gerald G urin, and Warren E. M ille r. The Voter Decides. New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1954. Clausen, John A ., ed. Socialization and Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. 136 Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society: The Social Life of the Teenager and Its Impact Upon Education. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Coleman, James S. Education and Political Development. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1965. Dawson, Richard E ., and Kenneth Prewitt. Political Socialization. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1969. Easton, David and Jack Dennis. Children in the Political System: Origins of Political Legitimacy. New York: M cG raw -H ill Book Company, In c ., 1969. Easton, David. A Framework for Political Analysis. Englewood Cliffs, N .J .: Prentice-Hall, In c ., 1965. Easton, David. The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953. Easton, David. A Systems Analysis of Political Life. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1965. Eckstein, Harry. Division and Cohesion in Democracy. Ptinceton: Princeton University Press, 1966. Edwards, Allen L. Statistical Methods. New York: H olt, Rinehart and Arnston, 1967. Eisenstadt, S. N . From Generation to Generation: _Afle Groups and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, Elkin, Frederick. The Child and Society: The Process of Socialization. New York: Random House, In c ., 1960. Erickson, Erik H . Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W .W .N orton and Company, In c ., 1968. Eulau, Heinz. The Behavioral Persuasion in Politics. New York: Random House, In c ., 1963. Frey, Frederick, and Jack Dennis, eds. Political Socialization: A Reader in Theory and Research. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., forthcoming. 137 Friedenberg, Edgar Z . Coming of Age in America: Growth and Acquiescence. New York: Vintage books, In c ., 1965. Friedenberg, Edgar Z . The Voni»hing Adolescent. New York: Dell Publishing Company, In c ., 1959. G ilbert, C . M . The Psychology of Dictatorship: Based on an Exominotion of the Leaders of N azi Germany. New York: The Free Press, 1950. Goslin, David A ., ed. Handbook on Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand M cN ally and Company, 1969. Greenstein, Fred I. Children and Politics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965. Greenstein, Fred I. Personality and Politics. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969. Hagan, Everett. The Theory of Social Change: How Economic Growth Begins. Homewood, Illinois: The Dorsey Press, 1962. Hess, Robert D ., and Judith V . Torney. The Development of Political Attitudes in Children. Anchor Books. Garden C ity, New York: Doubleday and Company, In c ., 1967. Hyman, Herbert H . Political Socialization. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Jahoda, M arie, and N eil Warren, eds. Attitudes. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books, In c ., 1966. Kenniston, Kenneth. Young Radicals: Note on Committee Youth. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1968. Kenniston, Kenneth. The Uncommitted: Alienated Youth in American Society. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965. Kornhauser, W illiam . The Politics of Mast Society. New York: The Free Press, 1959. Lane, Robert E. Political Ideology. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Lane, Robert E. Political Life. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1959. Lane, Robert E. Political Thinking and Consciousness. Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969. 138 Langton, Kenneth P. Political Socialization. New York: Oxford University Press, 1969. Maslow, Abraham H . Toward a Psychology of Being. Insight Books. Princeton: 0 . Van Nostrand Company, In c ., 1962. Merton, Robert K . Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1957. Milbrath, Lester W . Political Participation. Chicago: Rand M cN ally and Company, 1965. M iller, Daniel and Guy Swanson. Inner Conflict and Defense. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1958. M iller, Daniel and Guy Swanson. The Changing American Parent. New York: John Wiley and Sons, In c ., 1958. M itchell, W illiam . The American Polity. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1962. Newcomb, T. Personality and Social Changes. New York: Dryden Press, 1969. Offer, Daniel. The Psychological World of the Teen-Ager: A Study of Normal Adolescent Boys. New York: Basic Books, In c ., 1969. Ogburn, William F . Social Change. New York: Viking Press, 1922. Ogburn, William F . and Meyer F. Nim koff. Technology and the Changing Family. New York: Houghton-Miff I in, 1955. Piaget, Jean, and Barbel Inhelder. The Psychology of the Child. Translated by Helen Weaver. New York: Basic Books, In c ., 1969. Remmers, H. H ., and D . H . Radler . The American Teen-Ager. Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merril Company, 1957. Reisman, David. Faces in the Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1952. Reisman, David. The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961. Robinson, John P ., Robert Athanasiou, and Kendra B. Head. Measures of Occu pational Attitudes and Occupational Characteristics. Ann Arbor: Insti- tute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969. 139 Robinson, John P., Jerrold G . Rusk, and Kendra Head. Measures of Political Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1968. Robinson, John P ., and Phillip R. Shaver. Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, 1969. Ruitenbeek, Hendrik, ed. Psychoanalysis and Social Science. New York: E. P. Dutton and Company, In c ., 1962. Sears, David, Robert Macoby, and Joseph Levin. Patterns of Child Rearing. Evanston: Row, Peterson, 1957. Sebald, Hans. Adolescence: A Sociologican Analysis. New York: Appleton- Century Crofts, 1968. Sorokin, Pitirim A . The Crisis of Our Age. New York: E.P. Dutton, 1941. Stone, L. Joseph, and Joseph Church. Childhood and Adolescence: A Psychology of the Growing Person. New York: Random House, In c ., 1957. Verba, Sidney. Small Groups and Political Behavior. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1961. A r t ic le s in Books Blood,and D .M . W olfe. "Power and Authority in the Fam ily." Studies in Social Power. Edited by Derwin Cartwright. New York: Random House, In c ., 1959. Anshen, Ruth N . "The Faimly in Transition." The Family: Its Function and Destiny. Edited by Ruth N . Anshen. New York: Harper, 1959. Baldwin, Alfred E. "Socialization and the Parent-Child Relationship." Studies in Motivation. Edited by D. M cClelland. New York: Appleton- Century tro fts, 1955. Brim, O rville G . , Jr. "Adult Socialization." Socialization and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: L ittle, Brown and Company"7i968. 1 4 0 Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Some Familial Antecedents of Responsibility and Leader ship in Adolescents." Leadership and Interpersonal Behavior. Edited by Luigi Petrullo and Bernard M . Bass. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "Socialization and Social Class Through Time and Space." Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by E. M alvey, T .M . Newcomb, and E .I.H a rtle y . New York: Holt, 1958. Brown, M ichael. "The Risk of Being Hip." Risk-Taking: Its Practical and Theoretical Application. Edited by Richard Carney. New York: Charles C . Thomas, Publisher, forthcoming. Clausen, John A . "A Historical and Comparative View of Socialization Theory and Research." Socialization and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Clausen, John A . "Perspectives on Childhood Socialization." Socialization and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Coleman, James S. "Research Chronicle: The Adolescent Society." Sociolo gists at W ork. Edited by Phillip E. Hammond. Anchor Books. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 1967. Donvan, Elizabeth, and Martin G old. "American Adolescence: Modal Patterns of Bio-Social Change." Review of Child Development Research, V o l.II. Edited by Martin and Lois Hoffman. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1966. Easton, David, and Robert D. Hess. "Youth and the Political System." Culture and Social Character. Edited by Martin Lipset and Lee Lewenthal. New York: The Free Press of Gelncoe, 1961. Fromm, Erich. "Psychoanalytic Characterology and Its Application to the Under standing of Culture." Culture ond Personality. Edited by S. Stansfeld Sargent and Marian W . Smith. New York: the Viking Fund, Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, In c ., 1949. Guttman, Louis. "The Basis for Sealogram Analysis." Studies in Social Psy chology in World War II: Measurement ond Prediction, V o l. IV . Edited by Samuel A . Stourfer, et o f! Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950. Inkeles, A lex. "Society, Social Structure, and Child Socialization." Socializa tion and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. 141 Lasswell, Harold D. "Impact of Psychoanalytic Thinking on the Social Sciences." Psychoanalysis ond Social Science. Edited by Hendrik Ruitenbeek. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, In c., 1962. Lippitt, Ronald. "Improving the Socialization Process." Socialization and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Maccoby, Eleanor E. "The Development of Moral Values and Behavior in Child hood." Socialization ond Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Parsons, Talcott. "Psychoanalysis and The Social Structure." Psychoanalysis and Social Science. Edited by Hendrik Ruitenbeek. New York: E.P. Dutton and Company, In c ., 1962. Parsons, Talcott. "Youth in the Context of American Society." The Challenge of Youth. Edited by Erik Erikson. Garden C ity, New York” Doubleday Anchor, 1965. Sigel, Roberta S. "An Exploration into Some Aspects of Political Socialization: School Children's Reaction to the Death of a President." Children and the Death of a President. Edited by Martha Wolfenstein and G ilbert Kilman. Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, In c ., 1965. Shils, Edward A . "The Study of the Primary Group." The Policy Sciences: Recent Developments in Scope and Methods. Edited by Harold D. Lasswell and Daniel Lemer. Palo A lto, (California: Stanford University Press, 1951. Smith, M . Brewster. "Competence and Socialization." Socialization and Society. Edited by John A . Clausen. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1968. Spiegel, Leo A . "A Review of Contributions to a Psychoanalytic Theory of Adolescence." The Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, V o l. V I. Edited by Ruth S. Eissler, et o l. New York: International Universities' Press, 1951. Strodbeck, F. "Family Interaction, Values and Achievement." Talent ond Society. Edited by D .C . McClelland, A.L.Baldwin, U. Bronfenbrenner, and F. L. Strodberg. New Jersey: Van Nostrand, 1958. 142 Articles in Periodicals Aberbach, Joel D. "Alienation and Political Behavior." American Political Science Review, LXIII (March, 1969), 86-99. Adelson, Joseph, and Robert P. O 'N e il. "Growth of Political Ideas in Adoles cence: The Sense of Community." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, IV (September, 1966), 295-306. Agger, Robert E ., Marshall N . Goldstein, and Stanley A . Pearl. "Political Cynicism: Measurement and Meaning." Journal of Politics, X X III (August, 1961), 477-505. Almond, Gabriel A . "Political Theory and Political Science." American Political Science Review, LX (December, 1966), 869-879. Bell, Daniel, "The'Rediscovery'of Alienation." The Journal of Philosophy, LVI (November, 1969), 933-952. Bender, Gerald J. "Political Socialization and Political Change." Western Political Quarterly, XX (June, 1967), 390-407. Bronfenbrenner, Urie. "The Changing American Child: A Speculative Analysis." Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, VII (A pril, 1961), 73-84. Clark, John P. "Measuring Alienation Within a Social System." American Sociological Review, X XIV (December, 1959), 849-852. Coleman, James S. "The Adolescent Subculture and Academic Achievement." American Journal of Sociology, LXI (January, 1960), 337-347. Dahl, Robert A . "The Behavioral Approach in Political Science: Epitaph for a Monument to Successful Protest." American Political Science Review, LV (December, 1961), 763-772. Davids, Anthony. "Alienation, Social Apperception, and Ego Structure." Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIX (February, 1955), 21-27. Davies, James S. "The Family's Role in Political Socialization." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 36 (September, 1965) 10-19. Davis, Kingsley. "The Sociology of Parent-Youth Conflict." American Socio logical Review, V (August, 1940), 523-535. 143 Dean, Dwight G . "Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement." American Sociological Review, XXVI (October, 1961), 753-758. Dean, Dwight G . "Alienation and Political Apathy." Social Forces, XXXVIII (March, 1960), 185-189. Dean, Dwight G . , and Jon A . Reeves. "Anomie: A Comparison of a Catholic and a Protestant Sample." Sociometry, XXV (June, 1962), 209-212. Dennis, Jack. "Major Problems of Political Socialization Research." Midwest Journal of Political Science, X II (February, 1968), 85-114. Douvan, Elizabeth, and Alan M . W alker. "The Sense of Effectiveness in Public Affairs." Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, LXX (1956), 1-19. Douvan, Elizabeth, and Joseph Adelson. "The Psychodyniamics of Social Mobility in Adolescent Boys." Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LVI (January, 1958), 31-4-fI Easton, David, and Jack Dennis. "The Child's Acquisition of Regime Norms: Political Efficacy." American Political Science Review, LXI (March, 1967), 25-38. Easton, David, and Jack Dennis. "The Child's Image of Government." The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 41-57. Eckstein, Harry. "Authority Relations and Governmental Performance: A Theoretical Framework." Comparative Political Studies, 2 (October, 1969). Elder, Glen H ., Jr. "Parental Power Legitimation and Its Effect on the Adoles cent." Sociometry (March, 1963), 50-65. Elder, Glen H ., Jr. "Role Relations, Socio-cultural Environment and Autocratic Family IdeoUogy." Sociometry, X X V III, N o .2 (June, 1965), 173. Elkin, Frederick, and William A . Westley. "The Myth of Adolescent Culture." American Sociological Review, X X (December, 1955), 680-684. Farris, Charles D. "Selected Attitudes on Foreign Affairs as Correlates of Authoritarianism and Political Anomie." Journal of Politics, X XII (February, 1960), 50-67. Fava, Sylvia Fleis. "Suburbanism as a Way of Life." American Sociological Review, X X I (February, 1956), 34-37. 144 Finifter, Ada W . "Dimensions of Political A lienation." American Political Science Review, LXIV (June, 1970), 389-410. Froman, Lewis A ., Jr. "Personality and Political Socialization." Journal of Politics, X X III (May, 1961), 341-352. Greenfield, Sidney M . "Industrialization and the Family in Sociological Theory." American Journal of Sociology, 67 (November, 1961), 312-322. Greenstein, Fred I. "The Benevolent Leader: Children's Images of Political Authority." American Political Science Review, LIV (December, 1960), 934-943. Greenstein, Fred I. "Personality and Political Socialization: The Theories of Authoritarian and Democratic Character." The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 81-95. Guttman, Louis. "The Cornell Technique for Scale and Intensity Analysis." Educational ond Psychological Measurement, V II (Summer, 1947), 247-279. Haan, N . , M .B . Smith, and J . Block. "Moral Reasoning of Young Adults: Political-Social Behavior, Family Background and Personality Correlates." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, X (November, 1968), 183— 20T Harvey, S .K . and T .G . Harvey. "Adolescent Political Outlooks: The Effects of Intelligence as an Independent V ariable." Midwest Journal of Political Science. 14 (1970), 565-595. Hess, Robert D. "The Socialization of Attitudes Toward Political Authority: Some Cross-National Comparisons." International Social Science Journal, XV (1963), 542-559. Hess, Robert D ., and David Easton. "The Child's Changing Image of the President." Public Opinion Quarterly, X XIV (Winter, 1960), 632-644. H en, Robert D. and Virginia C . Shipman. "Early Experience and the Socializa tion of Cognitive Modes in Children." Child Development, 36 (1965). Jennings, M . Kent, and Lawrence E. Fox. "The Conduct of Socio-Political Strategies and Problems of Access." The School Review, LXXVI (December, 1968), 428-444. Jennings, M . Kent. "Pre-Adult Orientations to Multiple Systems of Government. " Midwest Journal of Political Science, XI (August, 1967), 291-317. 145 Jennings, M . Kent, and Richard G . N iem i. "The Transmission of Political Values from Parent to C hild." American Political Science Review, LXII (March, 1968), 169-184. Kagan, Jerome. "The Concept of Identification." The Psychological Review, LXV (September, 1958), 286-305. Katz, Daniel. "The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes." Public Opinion Quarterly, XXIV (Summer, 1960), 163-204. Kohn, Melvin L. "Social Class and Parent-Child Relationships: An Interpreta tion." The American Journal of Sociology, 68 (1963). Kohn, Melvin L. "Social Class and Exercise of Parental Authority." American Sociolological Review, 24 (1959). Kuroda, Yasumasa. "Sociability and Political Involvement." Midwest Journal of Political Science, IX (M ay, 1965), 133-147. Lane, Robert E. "Fathers and Sons: Foundations of Political Belief." American Sociological Review, XXIV (August, 1959), 502-511. Lane, Robert E. "The Need to Be Liked and the Anxious College Liberal." The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 71-80. Lane, Robert E. "The Politics of Consensus in an Age of Affluence." American Political Science Review, LIX (December, 1965), 874-895. Langton, Kenneth P ., and M . Kent Jennings. "Political Socialization and the High School Civics Curriculum in the United States." American Political Science Review, LXII (September, 1968), 852-867. Levin, Martin L. "Social Climates and Political Socialization." Public Opinion Quarterly, XXV (Winter, 1961), 596-606. Litt, Edgar. "Civic Education, Community Norms, and Political Indoctrination." American Sociological Review. X X V III (February, 1963), 69-75. Litt, Edgar. "Political Cynicism and Political Futility." Journal of Politics, XXV (M ay, 1963), 312-323. Lyons, Schely. "The Political Socialization of Ghetto Children: Efficacy and Cynicism." Journal of Politics, 32 (1970), 288-304. Maccoby, Eleanor E ., Richard E. Matthews, and Anton S. Morton, "Youth and Political Change." Public Opinion Quarterly, X V III (Spring, 1954), 23-39. 146 Mats, Henry S. "Some Social Clast Differences in the Family Systems and Group Relations of Pre-and Early Adolescents." Child Development, 22 (1951). McClosky, Herbert. "Consensus and Ideology in American Politics." American Political Science Review, LVIII (June, 1964), 361-382. McClosky, Herbert, and Harold E. Dahlgren. "Primary Group Influence on Party Loyalty." American Political Science Review, LIII (September, 1959), 757-776. McClosky, Herbert, and John H. Schaar. "Psychological Dimensions of Anomy." American Sociological Review, XXX (February, 1965), 14-40. Mead, Margaret. "Age Patterning in Personality Development." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, X VII (April, 1947), 231-240. Meier, Dorothy L. and Wendell Bell. "Anomia and Differential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals." American Sociological Review, X X IV (A pril, 1959), 189-202. Merelman, Richard M . "The Development of Political Ideology: A Framework for the Analysis of Political Socialization." American Political Science Review, LXIII (September, 1969), 750-767. Middleton, Russell, and Snell Putney. "Political Expression of Adolescent Rebellion." American Journal of Sociology, LXV 1 1 1 (March, 1963), 527-535. M ills, C . Wright. "The Middle Classes in Middle-Sized Cities." American Sociological Review, X I (October, 1946), 520-529. Netter, Gwynn. 1 1 A Measure of Alienation." American Sociological Review, X X II (December, 1957), 670-677. Prewitt, Kenneth, Heinz Eulau, and Betty H. Zisk. "Political Socialization and Political Roles." Public Opinion Quarterly, X XX (Winter, 1966-67), 569-581. Riesman, David. "The Suburban Dislocation." The Annals, 314 (November, 1957), 123-146. Roberts, Alan H ., and Milton Rokeach. "Anomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice: A Replication." American Journal of Sociology, LXI (January, 1956), 353-358. 147 Rose, Arnold. "Alienation and Participation: A Comparison of Group Leaden and the 'Mass'." American Sociological Review, X XV II (December, 1962), 834-838. Rose, Arnold. "Attitudinal Correlates of Social Participation." Social Forces, X XX V II (March, 1959), 202-206. Rose, Arnold. "Incomplete Socialization." Sociology and Social Research, XLIV (M arch-April, 1960), 244-250. Rosenberg, Morris. "The Meaning of Politics in Mass Society." Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Spring, 1951), 5-15. Rosenberg, Morris. "Misanthropy and Attitudes Toward International Affairs." Conflict Resolution, I (December, 1957), 340-345. Rosenberg, Morris. "Misanthropy and Political Ideology." American Sociological Review, XXI (December, 1956), 690-695. Scoble, Harry M ., and Joan E. Laurence. "Ideology and Consensus Among Children of the Metropolitan Socioeconomic Elite." Western Political Quarterly, X X II (March, 1969), 151-162. Seeman, Melvin. "On the Meaning of A lienation." American Sociological Review, X X IV (December, 1959), 783-791. Sewell, William H . "Some Recent Developments in Socialization, Theory and Research." The Annals, 349 (September, 1963), 163-181. Siegel, Alberta Engvall, and Sidney Siegal. "Reference Groups, Membership Groups, and Attitude Change." Journal of Abnormal and Socio chology, LV (November, 1957), 360-364. Sigel, Roberta S. "Image of a President: Some Insights into the Political Views of School Children." American Political Science Review, LXII (March, 1968), 216-226. Srole, Leo. "Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study." American Sociologioal Review, XXI (December, 1956), 709-716. Steintrager, James. "Political Socialization and Political Theory." Social Research, XXV (Spring, 1968), 111-129. Thompson, Wayne E ., and John E. Horton. "Political Alienation as a Force in Political Action." Social Forces (March, 1960), 190-195. 148 Thurstone, L. L. "The Measurement of Social Attitude*." Journal of Abnormal and Socia I Psychology, XXVI (1931), 249-269. Wasby, Stephen L. "The Impact of the Family on Politics: An Estay and Review of the Literature." Family Life Coordinator, XV (1966), 7. Wengert, Norman. "One Swallow Does Not Make a Spring." P .S ., II (Summer, 1969), 354-355. W hire, Elliott. "Intelligence and Sense of Political Efficacy in Children." Journal of Politics, 30 (August, 1968), 710-731. W hite, Leslie A . "Culturological vs. Psychological Interpretations of Human Behavior." American Sociological Review, X II (December, 1947), 686- 698. W hite, Robert W . "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence." The Psychological Review, LXV I (September, 1959), 297-333. Wolfinger, Raymond E ., and Fred I. Greenstein. "Comparing Political Regions: The Case of California." American Political Science Review, LXII I (March, 1969), 74-85. Z ib latt, David. "High School Extracurricular Activities and Political Socializa tion." The Annals, 361 (September, 1965), 20-31. Reports County of Orange, Planning Department. "Orange County Progress Report." Santa Ana, California: County of Orange, Planning Department, 1969. Security-First National Bank. "The Growth and Economic Stature of Orange County. Publication *904. Issued by Security-First National Bank, 1967. Research Papers Patrick, John J. "Political Socialization of American Youth: Implications for Secondary School Social Studies." Research Bulletin N o .3 . Washington, D .C .: National Council for the Social Studies, n .d . 149 Unpublished Moterials Brown, Michael E. "Alienation and Integration in the Political Attitudes of Suburban Adolescents." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Southern California, 1971. Brown, Michael E. "Political Efficacy: Alienationand Integration within an Adolescent Community." Paper presented at the American Political Science Association meeting, September 5 -9 , 1972, Washington, D.C. Brown, Michael E. "Drug Use Among High School Students: A Preliminary Report." Center for Governmental Studies, California State University, Fullerton, 1969. Greenstein, Fred I . , and Sidney Tarrow. "An Approach to the Study of Com parative Political Socialization: The Use of a Semi-Projective Technique." Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2 -6 , 1969, New York. Kubota, Akira, and Robert Ward. "Family Influence and Political Socialization in Japan: Some Preliminary Findings in Comparative Perspective." Paper presented at the 65th Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, September 2 -6 , 1969, New York. 150 A P P E N D IX 151 Group for Behavioral Research C alifo rn ia State U n iversity, Fullerton Series: MCSS-III S/74 STUDENT ATTITUDE SURVEY To the student: You have been selected to particip ate in th is survey on the basis of a randon saaple o f the students in th is school. Your name is neither asked for nor desired for the purposes of th is study. You are completely anonyous. SECTION I: DIRECTIONS: Place an "X" in the answer space below the word which means the same as the f ir s t word. I f you do not know, GUESS. Work quickly. A NSKER ALL THE QUESTIONS. SAM PLE: happy dull seem glad fast (6 0 0 00 () pouch sack lean fla g toss rhyme hoar skin song poem 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 hasty ta rt m ean rash rich right turn true road hand 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 newel post raid a lly m oan haunt la ir hush wild hom e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 watch tic k bolt tend grab knave apse ship mal 1 jack C ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 je tty pier tide crag fast sieve many s ift ra in surf f) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tepee tent warm swim rio t strut step cord play twig 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 booth pick shed twin lave lunge jerk leap pul 1 pass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mince step cake chop meat mount toss rise p ity l i f t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 maize stun gam e trap corn chuck wood toss trim fate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 shore bank true land trim tarry slow weld wait unit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 frank f i l e open send seal hokum clod lout doze bunk 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 tread done* step lin e sewn b rie f pail lead lazy curt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 wafer lone sway pend disc c le ft r i f t lone note chin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 flock tame bevy goat game unite solo only even join 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 in te r bury mild e x it door talon chic coin claw long 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 stern bird grim cold look chant d ire sing bend bum p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 tough bulk welt limb firm 0 0 0 0 G O O N to Page Two, O V E R 1 5 2 - 2 - SBCTION I I : Indicate your answer to the fo llo w in ( questions by Marking an "X" inside the brackets which follows your answer. 1. What grade are you in at the present t l M f 2. What is your ageT 13 14 1 5 16 3. Are you 0 0 0 0 17 18 19 9th 10th 11th 12th 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 9 - 1 0 (11-12 Male .. Fesiale 0 0 (1 3 4. D o you liv e with your (1 4 Father and Mother () Mother only ..................... () Father only ..................... () Mother and Stepfather . () Father and Stepaother . 0 Guardian ........................... () Friend ............................... () 5. I f your parents are divorced or separated, how old were you when the divorce or separation took place? 1-5 years old ................... () 6-11 years old ................. () 12-16 years old ............... () 17 years old or older .. () 6. Are y o u ......... The only child in your fa m ily ............. () The oldest child in your fa a ily ......... () The youngest child in your fa a ily . . . () Between the oldest and the youngest . () 7. What type of work does your fath er (or stepfather)•do fo r a 1ivingT (15 8. What type of work does your aother (or stepaother) do fo r a living? 9. C ircle the last year o f schooling your father (or stepfather) coapleted: Grade: 8 9 10 11 12 College: 1 2 3 4 5 6 or aore years 10. C ircle the last year o f schooling your aother (or stepaother) coapleted: Grade: 8 9 10 11 12 College: 1 2 3 4 5 6 or aore years (1 6 (17 (18,19 (20 (21,22 ( 2 3 ,2 4 (25,26 153 - 3 - 1 1 . Mould you say th a t most o f your frie n d s o r* In your own grade a t th is school ................ () (27 In a l l d iffe re n t grade* a t th is school . . . () A t another school ................................................ () Out o f school ........................................................... () 12. Do you re g u la rly p a rtic ip a te in any o f the fo llo w in g a c tiv itie s ? Yes No School goverraaent and s p ir it groups .................... () () 1 School a th le tic s () () (29 School honorary o r special in te re s t clubs () ( j (30 13. Do you belong to any clubs o r org an izatio ns outside o f school? Ind icate what type (e .g . church, a th le tic , e tc .) , i f any: ^ 14. Looking back over your years in school, would you say th a t kid s were f r ie n d lie r in ......... eleaentary school ......... () ju n io r h i g h ..................... () high school ..................... () never very frie n d ly . . . () 15. A fte r high school, do you intend going to (32 NOrk ....................................................... () (33 M ilita r y service .............................. () Vocational o r trade school ......... () Jun io r College ............................ () College ................................................. () College and graduate school . . . . () Undecided ............................................ 0 (34 16. I f you plan to go to c o lle g e , which O NE o f the fo llo w in g do you th in k w ill be th e most im portant to you? Preparation fo r making a liv in g ............... () Caapus a c t iv itie s and s o c ia l l i f e . / . . . () Exposure to new ideas .................................... () New frie n d s who share your in te re s ts . . () 17. In th e long-run, do you th in k you w ill s e ttle down in an area which o ffe rs a s ty le o f l i f e s im ila r to t h is com m un ity ? Yes, d e fin ite ly . . . . ( ) OS Yes, p ro b a b ly () Probably not ............. () D e fin ite ly not ......... () 16. How many books have you read on your own outside o f cI s s m s in th is la s t y e a r, i f any? (M non* . . . () on* . . . () two . . . () th ro * . . . () fou r . . . () fiv e . . . () s ix . . . () seven . . . () e ig h t o r n o r* . . . () 154 I t . Suppose the c ir c le below represented the s o c ie l l i f e th e t goes on here e t school. Where would you place y o u rs e lf, i f number 1 is the center o f th in g s hereT (C irc le one number) 20. I f a boy and a g irl were to transfer into th is school from another high school, which one of the following types should each be in order to be "in" at th is school? (Mark one type for the boy and one for the g ir l) (b 3 8 The B O Y should be . . . () an ath lete () a student leader () a hip type The GIRL should be .. () a th le tic () a student leader () a hip type (g 39 21. Which one of the following do you feel would be the best place to find the things you want out o f life ? A large c ity ............. () A suburban area_ _ _ () (40 A rural area ............. () Another country . ... () N o preference ......... 22. Comparing your physical developaient to others in your you say that you are ......... more advanced . .. . () less advanced . . . . () about the same . . . () 23. Do your parents ........ own your h o n e.............. () rent your home .............. () rent your apartment . . . . () 24. Looking back, would you say that in the long-run when the change has been to a hone o f ......... much greater greater value ............... () about equal value .... () lesser value ................. () never moved ................... () 25. Does i t seem to you that the importance o f your fath er's job over the years h a s (44 remained about the same ................................ () indicated a steady advancement ................. () indicated a rapid ris e in advancement .. () fluctuated up and down .................................. () declined ............................................................... 0 not sute ............................................................... 0 same grade, would (41 (42 you have moved value (43 155 - 5 - 26. Are you considered to be ......... (45 old fo r your age ......................................... () young fo r your age ; .................................. () n eith e r old or young fo r your age . . 0 27. Nhich one o f the fo llo w in g contacts w ith p o lice best describes what has happened to you and to any o f the frien d s you run around withT (Mark the one answer th a t applies to you, and the one th a t ap p lies to y ~ r " ■ M W “ " ‘ B i B w * stopped by the p o lice () () (y4 « stopped and questioned () () stopped and searched Q () arrested by p o lice () 0 have not been involved with p o lice () () 21. A person who is alone is ......... (Mark ONE ending o nly) Bored . . . • 0 Happy . . . . 0 Unhappy . . 0 A fra id . . . 0 Relaxed . . 0 B u s y ......... 0 Lonely .. . 0 (46 29. When young people explain th e ir point o f view to the p o lic e , what e ffe c t do you th in k i t has? I t is given serious co n sideratio n . . . () (49 I t is given l i t t l e a tte n tio n .............. () I t is usu ally ignored .............................. () 30. How much tin e would you say th at you spend watching TV in an average day? (50 (51 1 hour or less on the average . . . . 0 2 hours or so on the average .. . . . () 3 hours or so on the average .. . . . 0 4 hours or so on the average .. . . . 0 S hours or so on the average .. . . . 0 31. What is your em otional fe e lin g about t h is high school? I have a v e ry stro n g attacluaent to i t .................................... I lik e i t , but my fe e lin g s are n o t s tro n g ........................... I have mixed fe e lin g s ........................................................................ I d o n 't lik e i t smch, b u t my fe e lin g s a re n o t s tro n g ., 1 th o ro u g h ly d is lik e i t .................................... ............... 32. Which p o lit ic a l p a rty be st rep rese nts y j r fe e lin g s ? (52 Democrat .................................... () R epublican ................................ () N e ith e r o f th e p a rtie s . . . () 33. Which one o f y o u r p a re n ts is le s s li k e ly to a p p re c ia te e f f o r t s you make to p le a s e theart (S 3 la th e r m o stly . . . . () M other m o stly . . . . 0 1 5 6 - 6 * 34. During high school m m s tu d o n ti fin d a parson who In s p ire s than and sarvss as a s o rt o f Ide al th a t they want to be lik e . Could you say th a t you have found a person lik e th is In ......... (Mark O N E o n ly) (54 one o f your teachers ................................................... () a school counselor ....................................................... () an a c t iv ity adviser ..................................................... () a coach .............................................................................. () soneone o ld e r outside th is school ........................ () an o ld e r re la tiv e outside your hone .................... () have not r e a lly found soneone lik e th is y e t . . () 35. I f you have found soneone lik e th is , is th is person ......... i* * 1----------------------------------------------------- M a le ____ () Fenale .. () 36. Is there a student in th is school who you adnire aore than anyone else and who r e a lly lik e s and encourages you? (56 Yes, in a lower grade..................................... () Yes, in my own grade ..................................... 0 Yes, in a higher grade ................................. () No, I have not found anyone in th is school lik e th a t ......................... () 37. I f you have found soneone lik e th is , is th is p e rs o n a y Male . . . . () Fenale .. () 36. How o fte n du rin g an average week do you and the aeabers o f your f a a ily liv in g a t hone s it down tog ether a t the ta b le fo r dinner? every n ig h t () **• every school n ig h t (Sun-Thursday) .......................... () fo u r n ig h ts a week on average .................................. () three n ig h ts a week on average ................................ () two n ig h ts a week on average .................................... () once a week on average ................................................. () our fa n ily h a rd ly ever s its down together fo r d in n e r ................................................................. 0 I f your fa n ily s it s down to dinner together a t any tin e d u rin g the week; 3 9 . Nhich one o f the fo llo w in g s o rts o f th in g s is n o ft lik e ly ( 3 9 to be ta lk e d about: F a th e r's a c t iv itie s ............................ M other's a c t iv itie s ............................ School work and a c t iv itie s ............. F a a ily probleas .................................... Outside to p ic s (s p o rts , TV, e tc .) P o litic a l issues .................................. G enerally, our fa a ily doesn't ta lk nuch a t the ta b le .......................... () 40. Mould you say th a t d in (60 a t your house Is u s u a lly q u ie t ................... t ) tense ................... 0 pleasurable . . . . 0 boring ................. 0 s tla u la tin g . . . . 0 157 - 7 - 41. During what period o f your l i f e did you f ir s t have your own bedrooa? Always had ay own bedroosi.................................... () (61 Had own bedrooa since eleaentary school ............. () Had own bedrooa since junior high ......................... () Had own bedrooa since being in high school ... . () Never have had ay own bedrooa .................................. () 42. In an average aonth, how many p o litic a l discussions take place within your hone? P o litics are hardly ever discussed ......... () Once a month ........................................................ () 2-3 times a month .............................................. () At least once a week ....................................... () Several times a week ........................................ () 43. H ow often during an average month do you "cut" school for the day (with or without some sort of "excuse") ( j 3 Never .......................................... () Once or twice a month ......... () 3-4 times a month ............ () S-6 times a month ............ () 7 or more times a month . . . () 44. How o fte n during an average month do you skip a class fo r whatever reason (w ith o r without some sort o f "excuse") Never ............................................. () Once or tw ice a month .......... () 3-4 times a month .............. () 5-6 times a month....... .............. () 7 or more times a month . . . () (64 4S. With which parent are you most lik e ly to discuss p o litic s ? 46. When you discuss p o litic s w ith th is p arent, do you Father . . () Mother . . () (65 (66 Alaost always agree . . . . () Frequently agree . . . / . . . () Sometimes agree ................ () Hardly ever a g re e () 47. Which o f the following best represents your parents' p o litic a l feelings? Both Democrat .................................................... () *67 Both Republican ................................................ () Mother Deaocrat-Father Republican ........... () Father Democrat-Mother Republican ........... () Don't know ........................................................... 0 48. W hen students a t th is school explain th e ir point o f view to the school a d ain is tra tio n , what e ffe c t do you think i t has? (68 I t is given serious consideration . . . () I t is given l i t t l e attention .......... () I t is usually ignored ........................ 0 158 49. Much one o f tha fo llo w in g statao ents c o m * clo se st to your fa a lin g s •bout y o u rta lfT (M I d o n 't p a r tic u la r ly I lk a n y a a lf th a way 1 aa; I 'd Ilk a to change a lo t o f th in g a ..................... () There are sone thin gs I 'd Ilk a to change, but not everything ....................................................... () I 'd lik e to stay very such the sane ....................... ( j <70 50. Mien you are w ith your frie n d s does the conversation tu rn to p o lit ic a l Issues ......... H ardly ever ............ () S o n a tin a s ................. () F re q u e n tly ............... () A ls» st always . . . . () 51. W ithin your fa a ily do you u s u a lly fin d i t e a sie r to discuss personal things w i t h . . . your fa th e r ................. () your n o ih e r ................. () fa th e r and anther . . . () o ld e r b r o th e r ............. () o ld e r s i s t e r ............... 0 younger b ro th er ......... () younger s is te r ........... () none o f the fa n ily .. () 52. Which one o f the fo llo w in g do you consider to be the aost ln p o rta n t way o f in flu e n c in g governaent todayT <72 W rite l e t t e r s .............................. () Vote ................................................ () Demonstrations o r s trik e s . . . ( ) 55. Do you fo a l th a t young people era treated by p o lic e in the sasn way the re s t o f the people are treate d? ( D tre a te d b e tte r ......... () tre a te d w o rs e () tre a te d the sane . . . () 54. In te rn s o f your In te lle c tu a l grasp o f th in g s , do you fe e l th a t you a re ......... o ld fo r your age . . . . , ............................. ( ) <7 4 young fo r your a g e ................................ 0 •b o u t the saaw as others your age . . . () 55. Suppose th e c ir c le below represented the s o c ia l l i f e th a t goes oa here a t scho ol. I f m nber 1 is th e center o f th in g s , where would you lik e to be i f you had your cholceT (C irc le one nunbar) <75 159 - 9 - 56. Sonetlaes parents want the saae thing fo r th e ir children, and soaetiaes they each want d iffe re n t things. Froa the three choices below aark the O NE closest to what your father would choose fo r you, and the O N E that your aother would choose fo r you. _____ FATHER M O TH ER would choose would choose to have a good job and ao n ey () () to be w ell-like d and get along . .. . () () to do whatever you want to do ......... () () 57. Out o f the seven nights o f the week, how aany evenings on the average do you spend out o f your house? (includ ing weekends) n o n c ....( ) o n c . . . .( ) two....() t h r e e . . . .() four....() f i v c . . . . ( ) s i x . . . . ( ) s e v e n ....() 58. I f you could change your own physical aspects (height, weight, color o f h a ir , e tc .) would you ......... adjust most o f thea ... . () change a few ....................... () change nothing ................... () 59. Judging y o u rs e lf, would you say th a t You are smarter than your grades show ................. () You get b etter grades than you probably deserve fo r the work you do ................................ () You work harder for the grades you get than others do ........................................................... () 60. C irc le the number that is closest to your grade average at th is school: .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 (F) (D) (C) (B) (A) 61. Do you learn things b etter by ......... (Mark O N E only) hearing soaeone explain thea . . . () reading about thea .......................... () seeing thea . ..■.................................. () 62. A fte r dinner during weekday evenings which one o f the following is each o f your parents aost lik e ly to be doing? FATHER My M O TH ER (Mark only O N E for each parent) ^ uld be: be: watching television () () reading a bjok () () reading a newspaper or aagaxine () () doing work around the house or fo r job . . . () () doing a c ra ft or hobby () () out with friends or at work.............................. () () sleeping () O 63. People often think what i t would be lik e to be a aeaber o f the opposite sex. How often have you thought th at the opposite sex (Answer ALL) Very often Soaetiaes Not often Never . . . has i t easier O 0 0 . . . has aore advantages () () () O . . . is happier () () 0 O <f76 (a77 (78 (79 (S O (1-2 (2-5 (6 (7 (fS (a9 (10 (11 (12 160 - 1 0 - SKTION I I I : Many o f tho questions on th is end the next pege have several p o ssib le answers lis te d below each question which are o fte n o n ly a l i t t l e d iffe re n t fro n each oth er. In choosing one answer fo r what your fa th e r would do, and one answer fo r what your aother would do, choose the answer th a t is c lo s e s t to what u s u a lly happens. 1. How do each o f your parents deal w ith you when you are naklng a d e cisio n about what you want to do? (Only one answer fo r each parent) Father Mother No decision, you are told what to do .................................... ■ 0 0 You have an opportunity to discuss the decision, but not the fin a l word ........................................................... 0 0 Decisions are aide by discussion and coaaon agreeaent , ■ 0 0 You can aake your own decision, but they want you to consider th e ir opinion ......................................................... , • 0 0 You can decide what you want, regardless of what he or she thinks ..............................................................................• 0 0 He or she doesn't care what you decide to do .................. • 0 0 2. When one o r the o th e r o f your parents asks you to do soaiething, and you don’ t get around to doing i t , how does each one react? (One answer fo r each parent) Father Mother You w ill get spanked (or h it) fo r not doing i t ............ • 0 0 You get y e lle d a t and aade to do i t r ig h t away ............. 0 0 You are asked why i t wasn't done, and you are deprived o f soaMthing you lik e o r want ....................... 0 0 You are asked why i t wasn't done, and an atteaqtt is aade to work o u t a tin e to get i t d o n e ..................... , 0 0 You are to ld th a t you are lik e a l l k id s , and the hope is th a t you w ill get i t done e v e n tu a lly .......... . 0 0 Nothing happens because they u s u a lly d o n 't n o tice whether you d id i t o r not .................................................. • 0 0 S. When one o r the o th e r o f your parents asks you to do something, and you do i t . what u s u a lly happens? (Only one answer fo r each parent) Father Mother Nothing happens because you were expected to do i t . You are given p riv ile g e s o r noney i f i t was done (C17 the way you were to ld to do i t .................................... You are praised fo r having done i t .................................. They d o n 't u s u a lly n o tic e whether you d id i t o r not The question does not apply to you, since you are (aid u s u a lly not asked to do auch ........................................ 4 . When one o r the o th e r o f your parents gives you a s p e c ific chore to do around the house, what u s u a lly goes on? (Only one answer fo r each parent) Father Mother 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( fl9 Your work is c lo s e ly supervised ........................................... You get advice when i t is f e lt you need i t —which is a la o s t a l l th e tia e ............................................................. Advice and d ire c tio n is o ffe re d o n ly when you ask . . . You are le t alone to do the chore any way you lik e . . . () 0 (.so 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 - 1 1 - 5 . During e le c tio n * do you o r your parent* o fte n do any o f the fo llo w in g : An*wer each one o f the fo llo w in g fo r both you and each o f your p a re n t*. 6. Y O U FATHER M O THER W o Yes Ho Yes Bo Yes Express strong fe e lin g s to others on a candidate o r issue ................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Wear a button o r use car bumper s tic k e r .................................................. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Attend p o lit ic a l r a llie s ................... 0 0 0 0 0 0 C o ntrib ute money to a campaign . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 0 V olunteer tin e in ca^>algn o ffic e . 0 0 0 0 0 0 Run fo r o ffic e o r paid worker ........ 0 0 0 0 0 0 rer the la s t few years do you re c a ll your fa th e r and ■other having .. FATHER M OTHER. No Yes No Ye* Voted .................................. 0 0 0 0 W ritte n le tte rs to o f f ic ia ls ........... 0 0 0 0 P a rtic ip a te d in demonstrations . . . . 0 0 0 0 (yJl-26 <f27-32 (m3 3 -3 8 ((39-41 (■ 4 2 -4 4 In f a n ily discussio ns, is your opinion given serious con sid eratio n . . . () MS (Answer o n ly one) given l i t t l e a tte n tio n () u s u a lly ignored .............................. () 8 . Mho would you say is the boss in your fam ily7 (Answer o n ly one) Mother, d e fin ite ly ................................. () ( 4 3 F a ir ly equal, but mother more .......... () Both equal .................................................. () F a ir ly equal, but fa th e r wore .......... () F ather, d e fin ite ly ................................. () 9. When one o f your teachers assigns you an im portant p ro je c t to do, which o f th e fo llo w in g ways o f helping you do you p re fe r: (Answer one) The teacher who gives you close supervision M 7 and d ire c tio n ............................................................... () The teacher who gives advice when they th in k you need i t , which is u s u a lly a lo t ................... () The teacher who is ready to give you advice and d ire c tio n when you ask fo r i t ................ () The teacher who leaves you alone to do i t the way you want ........................................................ () 10. Which one o f the fo llo w in g best stsnaarizes where you get your spending money: (4 8 a re g u la r allowance fo r doing chores around the house . . () a re g u la r allowance depending on my needs, not on whether o r not I do chores .......................................... () money when I need i t , not a re g u la r allowance ..................... 0 I work on the ou tside but also get some noney fr o * ho*M. () I earn a l l my money ou tside ; none fr o * h o n e ....................... () 162 - 1 2 - SECTION IV: In t h i i sectio n check the response which coeet fe e lin g s about each statem ent. S tron gly Agroe c lo s e s t to you: Agree Disagree r S trongly Disagree N ith everything so un certein these days, i t almost seeas as though anything could happen. 0 0 0 0 («» In order to get ahead in th is w o rld, women have to work nuch harder than Men. 0 0 0 O (so Public o f f ic ia ls care a great deal about what the people th in k . 0 0 0 O (s i To achieve the happiness o f mankind in the fu tu re , i t is often necessary to put up w ith in ju s tic e s in the present. 0 0 0 0 (52 While i t is tru e th a t in most thin gs I get what I need, when F th in k about i t I re a lly deserve the things I have. 0 0 0 0 (S3 In order to get elected to p u b lic o ffic e , a candidate must make promises he does not intend to keep. 0 0 0 0 (54 I f I were caught breaking a ru le o r causing a disturbance, the a d m in is tra tio n at th is school would tre a t m e f a ir ly . 0 0 0 0 (S3 A woman would be more lik e ly than a nan to take money fo r p o lit ic a l favo rs. 0 0 0 0 (56 I t is p re tty hard fo r ae to fin d anything I can r e a lly get in te re ste d in . 0 0 0 0 (57 The ru le s a t th is school are p re tty s t r ic t . 0 0 0 0 (56 What they teach in government classes doesn't re a lly help you understand why p o lit ic s is the way i t is . 0 0 0 0 (59 When kids are given fre e tin e a t th is school, they use i t w isely and p ro d u c tiv e ly . 0 0 0 0 (60 I t is u s u a lly easier to get good grades in a class th a t has a lo t o f group discussion instead o f w ritte n assigraw nts. 0 0 0 0 (61 I t doesn't seen as i f the govenaMnt r e a lly cares what people lik e m th in k . 0 0 0 0 (62 Everybody knows th a t you can get "C 's " around th is school w ith ou t doing nuch a t a l l. 0 0 0 0 (61 I f ideas o f r ig h t and wrong stood in the way o f what I f e lt was happiness, I would choose happiness.() 0 0 0 (64 163 - 1 3 - S tron gly S tron gly Although everyone is supposed to be equal under the law, we a ll know that a rich person has a better chance than a poor person in the law courts. 0 0 0 0 What is lacking in the world today is the old kind of friendship that lasts fo r a life tim e . 0 0 0 0 Those running our government must hush up many things that go on behind the scenes, i f they wish to stay in office. 0 0 0 0 Doing a good job of raising children is as m uch of a challenge to an in te llig e n t w om an as a career. 0 0 0 0 P o litic s and government seem so complicated that most people can't understand what's going on. 0 0 0 0 The solution to almost any human problem should be based on the situation at the time, not on som e general idea of rig ht or wrong. 0 0 0 0 As i t is today, student government at this school does not serve the needs of students. 0 0 0 0 While people are b asically good, i t is the society and its conditions which cause people to act badly. 0 0 0 0 Those elected to public o ffic e have to serve special interests. 0 0 0 0 You should do what you want that's fun now and worry about the future la te r. 0 0 0 0 P o litician s are usually looking out fo r themselves above a ll else. 0 0 0 0 Dow n deep almost everybody has a lo t o f violence in them even i f they do not act that way*. () 0 0 0 P o litic s should be le f t to men. 0 0 0 0 I often regret, that many things our parents stood for are going to ruin before our eyes. 0 0 0 0 Most people are inclined to look out fo r themselves. 0 0 0 0 Although we have to teach children that a l l people are created equal, almost everyone knows that som e are b e tte r than others. 0 0 0 0 You can usually get "B's" at th is school without a whole lo t o f e ffo rt. 0 0 0 0 People can almost always be trusted. 0 0 0 0 ( 6 5 (66 (67 (68 (69 (70 (71 (72 (73 (74 (75 (76 (77 (78 (79 (80 m (6 (7 1 64 - 1 4 - S tron gly S trongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree W e can trust p o litic ia n s to do what is best fo r the country. Since no values last forever, the only real values are those that f i t the needs o f rig h t noe. I don't think I can re a lly do anything about what the government does. I t is really society and its in stitu tio n s which keep people from acting as badly as they would otherwise i f we d id n 't have them. A wom an would be less likely than a m an to take a country into war. Obedience and respect fo r authority are the most important virtues children should learn. W hen you get rig h t down to i t , hardly anyone re a lly cares much what happens to you. There are many ways that people can change the actions of government. Police should not hesitate to use force to maintain order. P o litician s are mainly concerned with getting re-elected. People were probably happier in the old days when everyone knew ju st how he was expected to act. I f you don't watch yourself, people w ill take advantage of you. What th is country needs most, more than laws and p o litic a l progress, is a few courageous, tire le s s , devoted leaders in w hom people can put th e ir fa ith . I think that I am probably one of those people who are smart enough to get what they want without re a lly having to work for i t . Most people are ready to help others. G O O N TO THE NEXT PAGE (SECTION V (8 (9 (10 (11 (12 (13 (14 (13 (16 (17 (18 (19 (20 (21 (22 165 - 1 5 - SBCTION V: You o r * reminded th a t you are A N O N Y M O U S and th a t Info rm a tio n In th la a u c tio n i* o n ly to help ua In evaluating present p o lic ie s in education about drugs. Be honest. Re do not know and do not care who you a re . 1. How aany tin e s have you used marijuana? 1 - 2 tim es ........................................ 3-9 tin e s ........................................ 10-25 tin e s .................................... 2S-S0 tin e s .................................... More than 50 tin e s ..................... Never have tr ie d m arijuana . . . 2 . How aany o f your frie n d s would you estim ate use marijuana? AH ................................... () Most ...................................... () About h a l f .......................... () Less than h a l f .................. 0 Hardly any .......................... O None ...................................... 0 0 O 0 o 0 o 3 . Nhether you use m arijuana or n o t, which one o f th e fo llo w in g do you consider the BEST reason f o r NOT USING narijuana? (Mark one answer) (25 Because th e re is a law against i t ............................................... () Because my parents n ig h t fin d out............................................... () Because my frie n d s d o n 't use i t ................................................. 0 Because I n ig h t get caught by the p o lic e ............................ () Because I n ig h t get kicked out o f school ............................ 0 Because f iln s and ta lk s on narcotics show what narijuana leads to ................... () Because the e ffe c t o f m arijuana might in te rfe re w ith other thin g s I lik e to do ............................................... () I f you have ever used m arijuana, answer the next fo u r questions. I f you have never trie d n a riju a n a , s k ip to question 8 on the next page. (26 4. Mould you say th a t o v e ra ll you use o f n a riju a n a has ......... Increased ......................................... () Renained about the s a n e () Decreased ......................................... () Stopped ............................................. 0 5. Mho f i r s t turned you on to narijuana? A bo yfrien d or g i r l f r i e n d () A frie n d a t school ........................... () A frie n d out o f school ................... () A frie n d a t another school .......... () A r e la tiv e .... .......................................... O 6 . How aany tin e s over an average month do you smoke narijuana? 1 tin e . . . . () 2-3 tin e s . () 4-5 tin e s . () 6-9 times . () 10-15 times () 16 o r more () 1 6 6 - 1 6 - 7. I f you have t v t r used M ariju an a, which one o f th a fo llo w in g do you consider th o BEST reason fo r using narijuanaT <29 To fe e l good ......................................................................... () To nake no fe e l c lo s e r to ny frie n d s ...................... () To le t ne appreciate th in g s around no nore . . . . . . () To help ne understand n y s e lf b e tte r .......................... 0 To give ne sonethlng to do when nothing e ls e Is happening ...................................................................... () Because nost o f ny frie n d s use I t ................... () To take ny nlnd o f f th in g s around ne ............. () S. How nany tin e s have you used the hallucinogens: LSD and nescalineT Never 1-2 3-7 8-12 13-25 25* tin e s LS D ( ) ( ) 0 0 0 O 1 ,0 M escaline .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 9. I f you have ever used LSD o r n e scallne, would you aay th a t your use h a s LSD Mescal ine Increased .................................... "7 7 f t l i M Renained about the sane . . . . ( ) () Decreased ..................................... () () Stopped .......................................... () () (n33 9. How o fte n do you use "uppers" (speed, w hites) o r "downers" (reds) in an average nonthT Never 1 tin e 2-3 4-S 6 - 8 10-15 16* tin e s Uppers ......... () () 0 0 0 O 0 (3« Downers . . . . () () () 0 O O 0 („ 1 1 . I f you have ever used uppers o r downers in a nonth, would you say th a t your use has . . . . . Uppers Downers Increased .................................... () () Renained about the s a n e () 0 Decreased .................................. () 0 Stopped ........................................ 0 () (d37 12. How nany tin e s have you used cocaine o r heroin? Never 1-2 3-S 6-9 10+ tin e s (■M Cocaine . . . . 0 0 0 0 0 (m H e r o in () 0 0 0 0 ... (39 IS . Which one o f the fo llo w in g sources do you p e rs o n a lly r e ly on f o r in fo rm a tio n about th e variou s drugs? (Choose one answer o n ly ) Friends ...................................................................... () Parents .................................................................... () . School drug education programs ...................... () Law enforcement agency re p o rts ...................... () Media re p o rts (TV, ra d io , newspapers) () Books on drugs ....................................................... () Coanunlty o r re lig io u s g ro u p s ........................ () 167 - 1 7 - 14. How often do you drink alcholic beverage* in an average aonth during the achool year? Don't d rin k................ () Once a aonth..............() 6-9 tines a a o n th ...() 2-3 tines a a o n th ..() 10-15 tines a aonth.() 4-5 tiaes a a o n th ..() 16* tines a a o n th ...() 15. I f you drink at a l l , would you say that your drinking over the last year has......... Increased............................................. () Renained about the sane................ () Decreased............................................. () Stopped..................................................() 16. How aany cigarettes do you saoke a dayT Don't saoke ...............................(.) Less than a h a lf pack............() About a h a lf pack....................() About a pack a day.................. () More than a pack a day..........() 17. Whether or not you drink or saoke cig arettes, how aany o f the friends you go around with drink or saoke? Friends Drink Friends faoke a h ............................................ 0 ----------- — 0 ------------- Most.......................................... () 0 About h a lf.............................. () () Less than h a lf..................... () () Hardly any.............................. () () None.......................................... O () 18. Would youT parents get uptight i f you saoked a cig arette around then? Yes...( No.... 19. Would your parents get uptight i f you saoked narijuana around thoa? Yes... No.... 20. Would your parents get uptight i f you drank alcohol around than? Yes... No.... • * * * * • • 21*. Although we get news about what is happening in the world froa aany places, every person gets aost o f his news froa one naln place. Where do you get aost o f your news about p o litic s? Mark your O N E aain place and a fte r i t w rite in the naae or statio n . () Newspaper ______________________________ I) Radio __________________________________ () Television () Newsnagasine 22. Do you th in k th a t i t is probably e a sie r to Bake frie n d s a t th is school i f y o u ... own your own c a r.....................................() have re g u la r use o f a fa a ily c a r ..( ) n e ith e r one Bakes a d iffe re n c e .. . . ( ) (4 1 (42 (43 (£d44 <f*4S (46 (47 (48 (49 (50 (51 (52 (53 (5 4 168 1 8 - 23. Do you p o rio n a lly . . . ijs r 7 own your own c a r............................................() have re g u la r use o f a fa a ily c a r..........() n e ith e r own o r have use o f a c a r.......... () 24. I f you own o r have re g u la r use o f a c a r, check each o f the fo llo w in g thin gs you have to do: () d o n 't have to pay fo r any o f the fo llo w in g 0 pay fo r t r a f f i c tic k e ts () pay fo r gas and o il ' () pay fo r re p a irs and/or insurance () nake a l l o r p a rt o f the payments 25. Nhat was the naae o f the Jun io r High school you graduated fro n t (57 $ 58 26. Have you always liv e d in the sane house o r apartnent you are in nowT Yes...() (W No () NOTE: Answer the neat 4 questions i f you have ever noved: 27. How nany years have you been in the house o r apartnent you liv e in r ig h t now? (60>61 28. A ll tog ether, how many d iffe re n t houses and apartments have you ever liv e d in? ___________ (M „ 29. Mas the la s t house o r apartment you liv e d in in th is c ity ? Yes...() (64 N o.._..() 30. I f your la s t house was i n another c it y , what is the naae o f the C ity and State? (066,67 31. Do you u s u a lly .... sleep on your back........................ () (66 Sleep on your s id e ....................... () Sleep on your stoaach.................0 Thank you fo r cooperating w ith us in th is survey. Please s it q u ie tly i f you have fin is h e d before the oth ers. You n ig h t go back and check to see i f you answered a l l the questions and d id not skip a page by a ccid e n t. I f you d id not fin is h the f i r s t page, you nay go back and fin is h i t . Thank you again. 169

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Congruence of social and governmental authority patterns: Political cynicism among suburban adolescents

PDF

The Interventionist State Revisited: The Political Economy Of State-Business Relations In India

PDF

Alienation And Integration In The Political Attitudes Of Suburban Adolescents

PDF

Two essays in political economy of education and economics of immigration

PDF

The Electoral Impact Of School Desegregation In 67 Northern Cities

PDF

The political economy of the state and development strategies: A case study of Turkey, 1930-1980

PDF

Economic and political determinants of current account deficits in Greece, Spain and Portugal, 1970-89

PDF

Local General Obligation Bonds: Factors Which Have Influenced The Outcome Of School District Elections

PDF

An Application of the Global Monetarist-Wedge model to post-1973 Chilean economic policies and the effects of these policies on macroeconomic, social and political variables

PDF

Totalitarianism, groups, and technology: a case study of professionalism in the East German military: 1949-1971

PDF

A reappraisal of the concept, potentialities and limitations of fiscal policy in the American economy

PDF

Complex economic growth

PDF

An economic study of the social costs and benefits of a no-fault automobile accident victim indemnification system

PDF

The 1961 Mayoralty Election In Los Angeles: The Political Party In A Nonpartisan Election

PDF

Effects Of Media Presentation Mode And Learner Personality In The Teaching Of A Factual Learning Task

PDF

The politico-economic determinants of ASEAN regional economic cooperation

PDF

The Colombian Army: Political Aspects Of Its Role

PDF

The construction and testing of a continuous equilibrium flash vaporization apparatus

PDF

A multidimensional analysis of regional integration and cooperation: The case of the Economic Community of West African States

PDF

Policy formulation for the politico-economy of Greece: A system dynamics simulation

Asset Metadata

Creator Brewster, Lawrence Gilbert (author)

Core Title Congruence Of Social And Governmental Authority Patterns: Political Cynicism Among Suburban Adolescents

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Political Science

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,political science, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Goodman, Robert F. (committee chair), Glaser, John (committee member), Mayo, Charles G. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-529272

Unique identifier UC11225882

Identifier 7515518.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-529272 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7515518.pdf

Dmrecord 529272

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Brewster, Lawrence Gilbert

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA