University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

(USC Thesis Other)

Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content SOCIAL CLASS MEMBERSHIP AND ETHNIC PREJUDICE IN CEDAR CITY by Abraham L. Rosenblum 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 (Sociology) June 1959 UNIVERSITY O F S O U T H E R N CALIFORNIA GRADUATE S C H O O L U NIVERSITY PARK LOS ANG ELES 7. CA LIFO R N IA This dissertation, written by A braham L . R o s e n b lu m under the direction of FLS....Dissertation C om mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by the Graduate School, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y {<<■ ' : > ... Dean Date.. tUUl- DISPUTATIO N COMMITTEE TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER PAGE I. THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITIONS OF TERMS........... 1 Statement of the Problem....................... 2 Operational Definitions ....................... 3 Social Stratification ....................... 3 Social Class.................................. 3 Religiosity.................... ............. 4 Prejudice.................................... 4 Significance of the Study .................... 5 Hypotheses....................................... 7 Organization of the Dissertation.............. 9 II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE......................... 11 Differentiation and Stratification........... 12 Social Class.................................... 13 Contradictory Conclusions Concerning the Class Concept................................ 42 Class in Classless Societies.................. 46 The Prejudice Phenomena ....................... 65 Summary of Discussion ......................... 60 III. AN EVALUATION OF THE CONCEPT CLASS.............. 62 Denotative Aspects of the Class Concept . . . 62 Connotations of the Class Concept ........... bg iv CHAPTER PAGE The Utility of the Class Concept............. 66 Criticisms of Schools of Thought............. 71 Proposed Approach for Class Studies ......... 73 Summary......................................... 76 IV. CEDAR CITY......................................... 78 Population, Location, and Topography......... 78 Organizations.................................. 79 The Neighborhood................................ 79 Development and Population Composition. . . . 80 Home Owners.................................... 80 V. METHODOLOGY...................................... 82 Systematic Random Sample....................... 82 The Mailed Questionnaire....................... 83 Testing the Questionnaire .................... 84 Scales........................................... 37 The Field Research............................. 97 VI. PRESENTATION AND ANALYSES OF THE DATA............102 Relationship of Class to Religiosity and Prejudice.......................................105 Roman Catholic and Lutheran Groups..............118 The Three Class Division......................... 124 Comparisons of the Approaches ................ 128 Social Class and Political Behavior ......... 176 CHAPTER PAGE VII. SUMMARY AND FINDINGS...................................178 Summary........................................ 178 The Concepts.......................................181 Procedure......................................... 181 Findings............................................183 Suggestions for Further Study . . . .............188 BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................ 191 APPENDIX A. THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE...................2l4 APPENDIX B. THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW................... 219 APPENDIX C. A PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN FOR STRATIFICATION.................................. 224 Types of Research Design......................... 227 Social Change .................................. 234 Suggested Criteria of Class . . . . . . . . . 240 Summary............................................252 APPENDIX D. PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE ................... 255 LIST OF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. The Sample of the Mailed Questionnaire . . . 85 II. The Sample of the Interviews........... 86 III. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to the Questionnaire Belonging to Different Social Strata According to C S I ......................................... 103 IV. Number of Classes Perceived by Respond ents and Per Cent of Total...................106 V. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire Belonging to Certain Social Classes and Their Relationship with Reli giosity According to C S I .....................108 ; VI. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes .................. 109 VII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire and Their Relationship Between Prejudiced Attitudes and Religiosity.....................Ill TABLE VIII. IX. X. XI. XII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire and Their Relationship with Religiosity and a Dichotomy of Prejudice and no Prejudice According to CSI .......... Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire Belonging to Certain Social Classes and Their Relationship with Attitudes of Prejudice According to CSI........ Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire Belonging to Different Social Classes and Their Relationship with, the Intensity of Prejudice According, to CSI................................... Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Catholic Respondents to the Question naire and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes . Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Lutheran Respondents to the Question naire and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes . vii PACE . 113 114 116 . . 119 . . 121 viil TABLE PAGE XIII. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to the Questionnaire Designated as Religious and Non-Religious...................123 XIV. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to the Questionnaire According to CSI, ISP, and C S D ...................................126 XV. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire and Respondents to the Interviews and Their Class Affiliation According to CSI..............................................129 XVI. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire and Respondents to the Interviews and Their Class Affiliation According to CSI..............................................132 XVII. Number and Per Cent of Religious and Non-Religious Respondents to Interview 1.....................................135 XVIII. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to Interview II Designated as Religious and Non-Religious..............................136 XIX. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to the Questionnaire, ix TABLE PAGE Interview I, and Interview II, and Their Relationship to Each Other in the Designation of Religiosity............138 XX. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview I and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes ....................... 139 XXI. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview II and Their Relationship Between Prejudiced Atti tudes and Religiosity......................... l4l XXII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview II and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes ....................... 143 XXIII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview II and Their Relationship Between Prejudiced Atti tudes and Religiosity......................... 144 XXIV. Per Cent Comparison of Respondents to the Mailed Questionnaire, Interview I, and Interview II, and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudiced Attitudes......................... 14-7 X TABLE PAGE XXV. Per Cent Comparison of Respondents to the Mailed Questionnaire, Interview I, and Interview II, and Their Relationship Between Prejudiced Attitudes and Religiosity.....................1^9 XXVI. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of the Combined Approaches of Respondents to the Questionnaire, Interview I, and Interview II, and Their Relationship Between Religiosity and Prejudice............153 XXVII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of the Combined Approaches of Respondents to the Questionnaire, Interview I, and Interview II, and Their Relationship Between Prejudice and Religiosity............155 XXVIII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview I and Their Relationship Between CSI and Prejudice....................................... 158 XXIX. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Interview II and Their Relationship Between CSI and Prejudice....................................... l6l xi TABLE _ PAGE XXX. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to Interview I and Their Relationship with CSI, ISP, and C S D ....................... 165 XXXI. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to Interview II and Their Relationship with CSI, ISP, and C S D ...................... 168 XXXII. Number, Per Cent, and Chi Square of Respondents to Both Categories of the Interviews: Those Who Did Answer the Questionnaire and Those Who Did not Answer it and Their Class Designation According to C S I ..............................17C XXXIII. Number and Per Cent of Respondents to the Interview of Both Categories, I and II, and Their Relationship with CSI, ISP, and CSD..............................17^ LIST OF CHARTS CHART PAGE I. Degrees of Prejudice Scale: Weights Applied to Answers to Questions 11-17 of the Questionnaire .................................. 91 II. Scores of Prejudice Scale: Sum of Weights of Answers to Questions 11-17 of the Questionnaire ...... .................... 93 III. Weights Applied to Answers to Questions 7 and 9 of the Questionnaire Forming a Dichotomous Scale of the Religiosity Scores........................................... 98 IV. Scores of Religiosity Scale: Sum of Weights of Answers to Questions 7 and 9 of the Questionnaire .................................. 99 LIST OP GRAPHS GRAPH PAGE I. Suggested Research Design Sample .............. 229 II. 0»uestions Posed to Subjects Revealing Change of Attitudes Over Time...................232 CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM AND DEFINITION OF TERMS It is generally assumed that the social class phenomenon, If the pattern of it may serve any purpose of study, should show a differential mode of behavior on the part of the different segments of society. For this purpose, students of social stratification select one or more variables of social behavior and correlate these variables with social class affiliation. However, the concept of "social class" has no clear-cut definition and It is therefore necessary to define this term in every study. Some studies deal with this concept as if it were a phenomenon that is readily recognized by every indivi dual in the community and In the nation; others deal with this concept as an euphoric term, serving no other purpose than for the researcher to dabble in statistics and make sweeping generalizations. It is contended here that neither of the two extreme views is applicable to the study of stratifi cation. The stratification phenomenon, or more speci fically, the social class concept, dates back to the beginnings of social science studies, even as far back as 2 the Greek philosophers, Plato and others. Social classes do exist in essence. The difficulty of delineation and recognition stems from the time of the emancipation when, theoretically, the strict breaks of class-belonging were abandoned. In the United States, the difficulty is more pronounced since Its culture is in the tradition of "all men are created equal." According to this pronouncement, the members of American society may feel ambivalent in regard to theory and fact of social equality.1 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In this study, attempts are made to find answers to such questions pertaining to social class as: How people in a certain locale view these phenomena; how many social classes they can, or think they can, distinguish; and by virtue of what factors they arrive at such conclusions. The problem in this study will be also to determine the extent of variability on the part of respondents stating that they belong to certain social class categories with differential attitudes of behavior. The two principal variables to be considered are: prejudice and religiosity. ^Cf. Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^). 3 OPERATIONAL DEFINITIONS Since the terms social stratification, social class, religiosity, and prejudice are concepts that draw no positive objective criteria, it is necessary to define such concepts. Social Stratification. The term social stratifica tion is applied in a variety of ways. It is generally conceived as an ordering of people in higher and lower layers, or strata, on the heap of a social system, without attributing a specific measurement of prestige to a parti cular individual. This term is used in the present study as an awareness of a prestige or status difference in society between people. It is used in the sense that people do know of the existence of a patterning of higher and lower degrees of a prestige hierarchy on the social ladder. Social Class. The concept social class is defined In several ways. Some researchers apply to the term, social class, objective criteria such as: occupation, style of life, income, dwelling area, and/or education. Others define the term through psychological means of consciousness of kind. In this study, the term social class is operationally defined according to the respon dents1 answers to certain key questions in the question naire, concerning class identification. These answers 4 reveal that the subjects have a knowledge of the existence of a number of classes, are able to name them, and Iden tify themselves with one of the classes mentioned. Religiosity. This term in general is difficult to define. There are many criteria, subjective and objec tive, which may be taken to mean religious behavior. In regard to the definition of religiosity, Glock states: The lack of consensus over definitions and the crudity of indicators for differentiating types of religious orientation have made it impossible to explore thoroughly the preconditions of various forms of religious expression. There has, however, been some interest in examining the social cor relates of differences in such overt measures of religiosity as denominational affiliation and church-going practices. A number of interview studies have been conducted to Investigate the relationship between such factors as sex, age, education, and occupation, on the one hand, and denominational affiliation, frequency of church attendance, and expressed religious beliefs, on the other.2 In this study, religiosity is operationally defined according to the answers of the respondents to certain questions in the questionnaire concerning the frequency of church attendance and positive attitudes toward the institution of the church. Prejudice. The concept of prejudice has various degrees of denotative and connotatlve applications. The 2Charles Y. Glock, "The Sociology of Religion," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959), pp. 169-170. term generally denotes blind acceptance of a stereotyped attitude In both positive and negative directions. Allport defines prejudice in this manner: an avertive or hostile attitude toward a per son who belongs to a group, simply because he belongs to that group, and is therefore presumed to have the objectionable qualities ascribed to the group.3 In terms of Allport's definition, prejudice is here operationally defined according to the answers of the respondents to specific questions pertaining to selected attitudes toward members belonging to different racial and/or ethnic groups. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY An attempt was made to establish the existence or non-existence of class structure in the minds of the res pondents. Centers' approach, In which he readily accepted the survey of Fortune magazine and presented his subjects with the Idea of a class structure, and even named and enumerated them, is not accepted. The Fortune magazine survey was limited because the questions were posed In an hypothetical manner. It is contended that if a question is posed to an Individual In an hypothetical manner, he will give a stereotyped answer because he himself is, so ^Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958)» P. 8* 6 to speak, not personally involved. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to establish these facts: (l) whether or not there is an awareness of a class structure, or class distinctions, among the respondents; (2) if so, how many classes are distinguished by respondents; (3) in what class do respondents place themselves; and (4) on what criteria do they base their designation of the selected class. An attempt was made also to correlate the subjective answers of respondents with those of Centers' subjective criteria, and Holllngshead’s objective Index of Social Position, using occupation and education as criteria.^ To date, there are no studies that substantiate the mailed questionnaire as being representative of the sample of the universe. The problem with mailed questionnaires has been that a one hundred per cent return is improbable. The methodological question always arises concerning the representativeness of data received by a partial return of mailed questionnaires. Can inference be made to the universe of discourse from only a percentage of the mailed ^It is noted, however, that "subjectivity" and "objectivity" here do not necessarily mean that one is more objective than the other. For a discussion of the meaning of subjectivity and objectivity, see Richard T. Morris, "Social Stratificatlon," In Leonard Broom and Philip Selznick, Sociology (Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, 1955)t PP^ 167-192. questionnaires received? For this purpose, structured Interviews were used to supplement and test the mailed questionnaire technique, thereby making it possible to determine whether or not inference can be made to the universe of discourse from the percentage of returns of the mailed questionnaire. Should evidence be found that there is a high correlation between the structured inter view of those respondents who answered the questionnaire and those subjects who did not answer the questionnaire, it might be possible to infer that the mailed question naire is a reliable and valuable tool for research. HYPOTHESES The hypotheses are formulated from a theoretical frame of reference. Hypothesis 1. The more religious a person is, the more he will tend to be prejudiced. This hypothesis is taken from the theoretical framework that a religious person may feel that his particular way of adhering to a religious way of life is the only true religion; there fore, he will be negative to all other ethnic or religious groups. Hypothesis 2. It is contended that since religion teaches unity among men — the fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man — a religious person will tend to be 8 less prejudiced than a non-religious individual. The succeeding hypotheses are formed in the direction of the social class phenomena. Hypothesis 3. There is variability in prejudiced attitudes on the part of individuals belonging -- or who think they belong — to different social class strata. Hypothesis 4. The higher the social class status of an individual, the more prejudiced he will tend to be toward out-group individuals. This hypothesis is formed in the consideration that individuals of high status will try to keep their group free from infiltration by indivi duals they consider to be of lower status. Hypothesis 5. The lower class individual will tend to be more liberal and free from prejudice. This hypo thesis suggests that the lower classes do not aspire to status. Hypothesis 6. The middle class individual will tend to display less extreme prejudiced attitudes than the upper class individual. Although the middle class indivi dual is generally considered to be socially mobile with an intense aspiration for higher status, he is, nevertheless, imbued with a conviction that influences him toward equalitarian and liberal attitudes. Hypothesis 7. It is contended that the middle class individuals, Inasmuch as they are very mobile and 9 are striving to achieve higher status, will tend to have a greater proportion of some prejudiced attitudes toward out-groups than members of any other class. It is also theorized that the middle class indivi dual, Inasmuch as he is striving to achieve higher status, will tend to be more religious. This theory is based on the proposition that a socially mobile individual cannot omit any opportunity to further his social ascendancy, which is also possible to achieve through the religious ladder. The next hypothesis Is derived from this theoretical consideration. Hypothesis 8. The middle class individual will be more religious than the upper or lower class individual. Hypothesis 9. There is no statistically signifi cant difference between data received from the mailed questionnaire and the structured interview. Hypothesis 10. There is no statistically signifi cant difference between data received from interviews of subjects who answered the mailed questionnaire and those who did not answer same. ORGANIZATION OF THE DISSERTATION The problem and definitions of terms used were presented in Chapter I. Chapter II presents a review of the literature on the subjects of social stratification, social class, and the prejudice phenomenon. Chapter III consists of an evaluation of the class concept. Chapter IV contains a description of Cedar City, its location, population, and general features. In Chapter V, the methodology employed in this study is presented. Chapter VI is concerned with the presentation and analyses of the data for this study and the results of the methodology used. Chapter VII Is a report of the findings in this study and suggestions for further study In the light of the method of approach used. A bibliography and appendices conclude the report. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The concept class has been In vogue for a number of centuries, even as far back as Plato. A variety of mean ings are applied to the class concept in contemporary studies, and the critics reciprocate with a greater bar rage of meanings. Pfautz states: "Probably no area of current sociological interest suffers so much from the disease of overconceptualization as that of class and stratification."5 What are the possible reasons for such great disagreement in the denotative aspect of the concept class? In order to try to answer this question in a some what feasible manner, it is necessary to review briefly the usage of the term as a sociological concept and the probable implications derived from such usage. In short, does the usage of the concept possess connotative as well as denotative meaning, or Is it simply a term, an heuris tic device, which explains for the scientist a phase of social phenomena? A possible reason for the confusion In the use of ^Harold W. Pfautz, "The Current Literature on Social Stratification," The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVIII (January, 195377 p. 392. the term class Is that the same "yardstick" is not used in measuring the social class phenomenon, because the entire concept is vague in definition, and almost every student of stratification approaches and interprets the existence or non-existence of social class with a different set of criteria. Thus, schools of thought on social class range from objective studies specifying particular membership in a specific class by virtue of possessions, attributes, etc., to analyses of class using such subjective criteria as "class consciousness" and "consciousness of kind." DIFFERENTIATION AND STRATIFICATION In order to arrive at the concept class, it may be advisable to take a step backward and note that the con cept may be derived, or distinguished, directly or indi rectly, from other concepts, e.g., differentiation and stratification. It seems that there exists a consensus in regard to the concept differentiation. In almost every society, a differentiation may be noted between at least age and sex. There are further differentiations of Intel ligence and other inherent traits that no society can Ignore among its members. The social significance of such differences may vary in time and space but the biological differences are noticed In every society with which they are being reckoned. In regard to differentiation, 13 Broom 3tates: The differentiated elements . . . of a popu lation are examined according to their discrete functions, which need not have hierarchical significance, and the functioncanalizing /sic7 effects of ethnicity, which do not directly pertain to stratification.® Hence, a differentiation may be distinguished from strati fication in that the former is not based on the ordering of people in different layers, higher or lower strata in society, but is a simple qualitative differentiation. Social stratification is already a more detailed conceptual distinction which may Involve socio-economic status gradation. Williams defines social stratification as, "the ranging of individuals on a scale of superiority - Inferiority - equality, according to some commonly accepted basis of valuation."7 An individual can be ranked in the social scale in many ways, depending upon criteria. Thus, an individual may be placed in one setting in a higher stratum and at the same time in a lower stratum depending on criteria used. For example: if a measure is taken for ranking indices of income and education, an individual may be ^Leonard Broom, "The Social Differentiation in Jamaica," American Sociological Review. Vol. XIX (April, 195*0, P. 115. ^Robin M. Williams, Jr., American Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951)> p. 8o. 14 ranked high on income and low on education, or vice versa. A problem of ranking would arise if it would be desired to place two individuals into specific classes using the above criteria in the case of a poor college professor and an Ignorant millionaire. In the historical sense, how ever, these two individuals belong to definite classes, because only a single criterion is used. Historically, a division in society was ascribed to different strata by virtue of birth. A man was born into a group hierarchy with his rights and duties all cut out for him. These classes were held together by common feel ing and like thinking. The eighteenth century revolutions in Prance and the United States, and the rise of modern Industry, set In motion two conflicting intellectual traditions. On the one hand, conservatives tried to maintain the 3tatus quo, the most important issue being that equilibrium in society was to be maintained by every one doing that which he was best suited for; the radicals, on the other hand, were impressed by the conflict between the classes of owners and workers and saw the issue In the dignity of man. Medieval European society was composed of estates; differences in opportunities were fixed largely at birth. In a caste society, stations In life are ascribed by descent and remain 3tatic throughout life. In contem- 15 porary American society, which is theoretically an "open class" system, an individual's original position may be altered by later achievement or lack of it. Differences among men have been the subject of speculation and investigation for a long period of time. Modern scholars are concerned with visible differences such as Income, occupation, educational attainment, stan dard of living, etc. In the past, scholars were concerned with the inherent qualities of men. According to Lipset and Bendix,® contemporary studies of social stratification have essentially the same characteristics; some pursue the subject from the view point of a prestige hierarchy which suggests mainly the investigation of an existing stratification and where an individual fits into it. Others Investigate collective behavior insofar as it is affected by the underlying economic organization. These studies assume that men in the same occupation and income bracket have the propensity to think and act alike. According to Davis and Moore,9 stratification stems ^Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendlx, "Social Mobility and Occupational Career Patterns," The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (March, 1952), p. ^94. ^Kingsley Davis and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Prin ciples of Stratification," American Sociological Review, Vol. X (April, 19^5)» PP. 242-2^9~T l6 from a need in the division of labor in society. Inasmuch as all Jobs are not equally important or pleasant, and human abilities are far from being equal, the rights and perquisites are distributed unequally. The function of stratification is usually con sidered necessary in complex societies, serving to place and motivate people in the social structure. It serves to accommodate inter-class relations, making for social equi librium. On the other hand, this can, at the same time, contribute to the dysequilibrium or dysfunction. Schelsky says: actually the concept of social stratification stems from the meaning of 3oclal class in the 19th century, so that students of stratifica tion today substitute an abandoned ideological and realistic class differentiation concept. (Writer's free translation from the German.) According to Centers, it Is a descriptive term: Since stratification is merely a descriptive term for the existence of high and low in a society it is theoretically possible to have as many kinds of stratification as one can discover criteria for defining.H The tendency is to delineate the term class from H. von Schelsky, "Die Bedeutung des Schichtungs- begrlffes fur die Analyse der Gegenwartigen Deutschen Gesellschaft," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology. International Sociological Association, Vol. II (195M* P- 358. ^Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19^9), p. 15. 17 the general term stratification. Centers distinguishes between stratum as collecti vities of people in similar economic position, and class which is psychological. Class as distinguished from stratum can well be regarded as a psychological phenomenon in the fullest sense of the term. That is, a man’s class is a part of his ego, a feeling on his part of belongingness to something, an identification with something larger than himself. Morris distinguishes between stratification and class in the following manner: The members of societies classify each other into categories and place these categories above or below one another on a scale of superiority and inferiority. This process (italics added) is called stratification, and the categories (italics added) are called strata or classes.13 There is a degree of consensus as to the concept of stratification as denoting a system of inequality, higher and lower, superior and inferior, among the members of a society.^ However, when a further question is asked: 12Ibid., p. 27. 13Richard T. Morris, ojc. clt. , p. 167. li+See for example, Pitirim Sorokin, Social Mobi lity, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927); Hans Speier, "Social Stratification In the Urban Community," American Sociological Review (April, 1936), pp. 193-202; Talcott ParsonsT "Social Classes and Class Conflict in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory," American Economic Review, Vol. XXXIX (May, 19^9), p. 16; Harry Elmer Barnes and Oreen M. Ruedl, The American Way of Life: An Introduction to the Study of Contemporary Society (New York: Prentice- 18 Inequality with respect to what?, as Pfautz asks, the question of class needs to be defined.^5 SOCIAL CLASS What Is meant by "social class"? There Is general agreement that a knowledge of Its patterning contributes to an understanding of peoples' actions, but there is no agreement as to its definition. Class Is used by sociologists to refer to the horizontal and vertical stratification of a population. Within this general delimitation the concept of class has no precise, agreed upon meaning, but is used either as an omnibus term to designate differences based on wealth, income, occupation, status, group identification, level of consumption, and family background or by some particular researcher or theorist as resting specifically on one of these enumerated factors. The research student is always forced to define his terms in whichever perspective he deems it necessary to study a particular group. The con cept also implies the possibility of at least a minimum Hall, Inc., 1950); C. Wright Mills, White Collar: The Ame rican Middle Classes (New York: Oxford University Press, 195l); Kingsley Davis, "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratifi cation," American Sociological Review (June, 19^2), pp. 309-321; Alfred McClung Lee and Oscar Wesley, "Social Status," Dictionary of Sociology. Henry Pratt Fairchild, ed. (New York: Philosophical Library, 19^). ■^Harold W. Pfautz, 0£. clt.. p. 395. 19 amount of movement from one class to another, some sort of vertical social mobility. The early American sociologists, Ward, Sumner, Small, Giddings, Cooley, and Ross, the "Fathers of American sociology," as Charles H. Page calls them, paid considerable attention to the concept and role of class. In general, these early sociologists offered, with varying degrees of emphasis, two concepts of class: (l) a Marxian framework based on economic factors and (2) a more sub jective concept concerned with elements of status feelings and class consciousness or identification. However, these early sociologists did not lead directly to the founding of major schools of class research or theory. They found their way into the text books and general treatises in the middle twenties with class accepted as a necessary concept, without a precise meaning of the term and practically no recognition of the class framework as a major area of investigation within the discipline. A period of revival of interest in class phenomena occurred In America. The ecological school,Sorokin, ■^The anthropologist, W. Lloyd Warner, and associ ates, studied the class phenomena from an ecological approach; cf. W. Lloyd Warner, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status (Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 19^9). 20 the Lynda,all concerned themselves with class and stratification. It is characteristic that the awakening of interest In this concept took place in the years of economic depression, from 1929 onward, which probably served as a stimulus for the interest. Karl Marx maintained that all of history, which may be divided roughly into three parts: ancient civiliza tion, feudalism, and capitalism, is characterized by a predominant mode of production. It is based upon a class structure consisting of a ruling class and an oppressed class. In the main, the stress was on economic factors, and the entire social, political, and Intellectual realm, the "superstructure," was of secondary significance. (This concept was later denied by Engels.) Parsons believes that the Marxian view of class conflict is of great Interest to sociology. However, Marx and Engels treated the socio-economic structure of capi talist enterprise "as a single Indivisible entity rather than breaking it down analytically Into a set of the distinct variables Involved in It."1^ In view of the ^Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study in Contemporary American Culture (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1929); Robert Staughton Lynd and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937). ■^Talcott Parsons, ojd. clt. 21 changes that took place In modern sociological analysis, the result is "an Important modification of Marx's empiri cal perspective in relation to the class problem as in other contacts. The emphasis no longer falls on orien tation of the capitalistic enterprise with an emphasis on profit and exploitation, but rather on the structure of occupational roles in the system of industrial society. Marx, nevertheless, made some impression upon modern sociological thought regarding social class as is evi denced by the seriousness with which his view was taken by the three great theoretical founders, Pareto, Durkheim, and Weber. Many sociologists are divided into two schools on the subject of stratification. One school states that social classes do not exist in American communities if classes are defined as discrete groups perceived by the average Individual. The second school, largely composed of men with background in community research, Insists that social class division is a reality perceived by the average citizen in a community. Exponents of the first school can be identified with men like George C. Homans, Pitlrlm Sorokin, Talcott Parsons, John Cuber, Thomas Lasswell, and others. The 19ibid. 22 second school includes W. Lloyd Warner, Allison Davis, Burleigh B. and Mary R. Gardner, August B. Holllngshead, Gerhard E. Lenski, and others. Parsons20 defines class in terms of membership in a kinship unit, personal attributes, achievements, pos sessions, and authority and power. Differential moral valuations are attached by members of a society to such attributes. Thus, a social class is a large aggregate of persons who occupy a similar position in a hierarchy by virtue of their having similarly valued objective cri teria. The kind of criteria which are considered ''right" will vary from group to group and from time to time within a group. To Parsons, class patterning is an inherent pheno menon in every society. "Some set of norms governing relations of superiority and inferiority is an inherent need of every stable social system."21 Two fundamental functional bases can be analyzed in the hierarchical aspect: (1) differentiation of levels of skill and competence and (2) kinship. Regarding kinship, Parsons says: "If the status of the parents is hierarchi- 20Cf. Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied (Glencoe: The Free Press, 19^9), pp. 171-172, et passim. 21Cf. Talcott Parsons, "Social Classes and Class Conflict in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory," op. cit., p . 17. 23 cally differentiated, there will inevitably be an element of differential access to opportunity."22 parsons then defines class in a sociological sense to be: "a plurality of kinship units which, in those respects where status in a hierarchical context is shared by their members, have approximately common status."23 Systems of stratification have potentialities resulting in class conflict and also in certain respects have positive functions in the stabi lization of a social system. The theoretically oriented students have approached the social class phenomenon from different points of view. Writers have approached this phenomenon as (l) the func tion of prestige and/or esteem, (2) categories of special privileges and obligations, and (3) some sort of hier archy, standing in the community, rank in the community and/or status prestige.2^ Weber seems to make a 22Ibid., p. 21. 2\ o c . cit. 2^por a discussion of these different approaches see for example: Max Weber, The Theory of Social and Eco nomic Organization, translated by A . M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (New York: Oxford University Press, 19^7); E. T. Hiller, Social Relations and Structures: A Study in Principles of Sociology (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^7) S RaTph Linton, The Study of Man: An Introduction (New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., Inc., 1937); Edward Byron Reuter, Handbook of Sociology (New York: The Dryden Press, 19^1); Alfred McClung Lee and Oscar Wesley, op. cit.: Kingsley Davis, ojd. cit. ; George A. Lundberg, Foun dations of Sociology (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1939). 24 distinction between "class status" and "social status"2^ which has no meaning today. And again other writers have conceptualized the class phenomenon with breakdowns of "status," "station," "office," and "position."2^ George Lundberg maintains that: the societal position or status of anyone in a situation is . . . merely the static aspect of his behavior (function) in that situation, or more especially, the group’s appraisal of that function according to the standards which are accepted by the group.27 This seems, in a sense, to be functional. However, it is not "functionalism" as this term is understood today. The idea seems to be, rather, a shifting of time, which is not acceptable today as a possible class structure. In a recent paper, Broom says: Goodness of fit in stratification may be ap proached from three major perspectives: (l) status consistency at the level of the individual, (2) the consistency of attributes of the strata, and (3) the relationship between differentiated sys tems of strata and associated subcultures.2o He goes on to explain and elaborate on 3tatus consistency. It is contended, however, that status 25Max Weber, o£. cit.. pp. 424-428, passim. 2^See Kingsley Davis, oji>. cit. . pp. 309-310, et passim. 2?George A. Lundberg, op., cit.. p. 312. 28Leonard Broom, "Social Differentiation and Stra tification," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today, op. cit.. p. 430, et passim. 25 consistency may be of less Importance than the behavior consistency of different class strata which, in turn, are subject to change in time and space. The importance of class consistency cannot be assessed without the inevi table variant of social class behavior. If to D a v i s , Linton,3° and Hiller^ the concept of status represents rank or position in society, to Lundberg^ it is a condition to be ranked. There Is also a definite lack of agreement con cerning the simple meaning of "social class" In all of the writings of the theorists or the so-called concep- tualists in its basic and fundamental meaning.33 ^^Kingsley Davis, loc. cit. 3°Ralph Linton, 0£. cit., p. 113. 31E. T. Hiller, cit., p. 330. 32George A. Lundberg, loc. cit. 33see for example: Charles H. Cooley, R. C. Angell, and L. J. Carr, Introductory Sociology (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933J; A. W . Kornhauser, "Analysis of Class Structure of Contemporary American Society," Indus trial Conflict, George W. Hartmann and Theodore M. Newcomb, eds., (New York: The Condon Company, 1939); T. H. Marshall, "Social Class: A Preliminary Analysis," The Sociological Review (January, 193*0, PP. 55-70; George Simpson, Class Analysis: What Class Is Not," American Sociological Review (December, 1939), pp. 827-835; Milton M. Gordon, "Social Class in American Sociology, American Journal of Socio logy (November, 19*+9), pp. 262-268; C. Wright Mills, op. cit..; Paul Mombert, "Class," Encyclopaedla of the Social Sciences, 193** edition, Vol. Ill, pp. 531-53^; Cecil C. North] "Social Classes," in Joseph S. Roucek (ed.), Social Control (New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 19*+7); 26 Gordon sets up a list of five theoretically dis crete alternative factors with which a population's social structure may be analyzed within the concept of class. These five factors also have subdivisions. The major factors are as follows: (l) economic power, (2) status ascription, (3) group life, (4) cultural attributes, and (5) political power. In regard to political power, he states, in part: "The relationship of political power either in the local community or on the national scene to economic power or to status position is a legitimate and challenging problem of class research."3^ "Our task," says Sorokin: consists in determining whether there is a specific multibounded group, different from the family, tribe, caste, order, or nation, that in modern times has exerted a powerful influence . . . Whether we designate the group in question as a social class or by some other term is unimportant. The answer to the question is in the affirmative.35 After giving in detail the prescribed criterion of Thorstein Veblen, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Eco nomic Study of Institutions (New York: Vanguard Press, 1926); P. Stuart Chapin, "Class Structure, ' Dictionary of Sociology: Max Weber, o£. cit.; H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology (New York: Oxford University Press, 19^o)j E. T. Hiller, op. cit.; Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied, op. cit. 3^Milton M. Gordon, oj). cit. . p. 63. 3^Pitirim A. Sorokin, "What Is a Social Class?," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Lipset, Class, Status and Power (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953)* p. 87. 27 a class, Sorokin concludes that there are four major classes In Western society: (1) the Industrial labor, or proletarian, class, (2) the peasant-farmer class, (3) the dwindling class of large landowners, and (4) the capi talist class, now being transformed into the managerial class.^ Sorokin explains the nature of class and takes as an example for his explanation the proletariat class, attributing to it three primary bonds. He says "that each of these ^/other three7 classes is likewise made up of a coalescence of the same three primary bonds as the proletariat."37 The three bonds, according to Sorokin, are: 1. An occupational group. In it is included the 'intellectual proletariat* such as clerks, ’white collar' workers, professional man, and minor government officials. 2. It is an economic group which gets its sub sistence mainly by selling its services in a shifting and insecure market. 3. Theoretically the group is equal before the law but in actuality it is not so. The 36Ibid., p. 90. 37ibld., p. 91. 28 nature of the proletariat's work is often physically disagreeable; higher education, desirable positions, etc., are ordinarily unavailable. He is in a subordinate posi tion to and dependent on the capitalists.38 Sorokin, in another paper, simplifies the descrip tion of class as being a manifestation of many bonds which can be reduced in the final analysis to "a compound of occupational and economic bonds plus the bond of stratification."39 This variety of criteria, as used by theorists, is different from the second school of thought, the members of which stress objective criteria for the class phenomenon. Much of the research on the subject of social class has attempted to show that American social classes have become relatively static and well-defined. "Implicitly or explicitly, most sociologists have taken for granted an Increasing solidification of class lines in the United States during the past half century."^0 Sociologists have 38Loc. cit. 39pitirlm A. Sorokin, Society. Culture and Person ality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1948')’ , ' p. 272. ^°Gideon SJoberg, "Are Social Classes in America Becoming More Rigid?," American Sociological Review. Vol. XVI (December, 1951)* p. 775. 29 cited the following factors contributing to class rigidity: the closing of the frontier, the decreased flow of immigration, the possible slowdown of industrial expan sion, decreasing fertility differentials among the various social classes, and possibly other determinants, "^/which/ act to restrict mobility and as such make for greater rigidity in the class system. On the other hand, In his study of a city in Southern California, Lasswell finds: "Social strata in Citrus City are not rigorously distinguished by the general p o p u l a t i o n . " 2* ^ Citrus City, a fictitious name, may represent a typical American city, if such can be said to exist. However, the ability of the citizens, . . . to live together without overt conflict . . . give evidence of a strain toward cultural homogeneity in American social organization. To that extent Citrus City is representative of the small town in the United States.^3 The structure of class is defined by Warner, ejt al, as "two or more orders of people who are believed to be, and are accordingly ranked by members of the community, in socially superior and inferior positions." From their 4lIbid. ^Thomas E. Lasswell, "A Study of Social Stratifi cation Using an Area Sample of Raters," The American Sociological Review. Vol. XIX (June, 195*0 * P. 313. 4 3 i b i d . . p . 3 1 1 . 30 study they find that class definitely exists in American society and that "... these social levels are not cate gories invented by social scientists to help explain what they have to say; they are groupings recognized by the people of the community."1 ^ Hatt describes the results of an attempt to rank occupations. He maintains that many students of strati fication are convinced that occupation is one of the most important determinants of prestige status in our society. If this is so, it should be possible for sociologists to rank the different occupations and construct a scale that would lend Itself to the classification of all workers consistently and reliably. He argues for a distinction between status and situs, the arrangement of occupations in sets of families. This may eventually enable the sociologist to construct a scale based upon those occupa tions in a particular set, thereby giving him a simple, reliable, and quantitative definition of prestige and greatly facilitating research in social stratification. While there is insufficient evidence to put forth the occupational families and situses as finally established exactly as set forth here • • • Hopes that from this7 . . . a more precise method of stratification study may be developed which . . . will be systematically Lloyd Warner, et al, Democracy in Jonesville (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^9), pp. 13-15* passim. 31 coherent with the postulates of stratification . . . and a practical tool for empirical research.^5 Lenski maintains that the factors which affect the 3tatus of families are very numerous and therefore it cannot be ascertained which contribute to a class hier archy. In his study of the community of Danielson, he concludes that: the prestige system was not structured in the form of a series of discrete social classes whose limits and membership were common know-.- ledge shared by the members of the community. Inasmuch as the factors which affect the status of families are very numerous, the class structure, according to Lenski, can best be thought of as a continuum. There are countless combinations of factors which would give status to a family, such as education, occupation, income, religion, kinship ties, ethnic background, etc. Classes seem to emerge In differentiation if only one or two variables are considered. For example, when the ^5paul K. Hatt, "Occupation and Social Stratifica tion." The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVI (May, 1950), p. 5 W . For a recent discussion of both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of situses, see: Richard T. Morris and Raymond J. Murphy, "The Situs Dimension in Occupa tional Structure," American Sociological Review. Vol. XXIV (April, 1959), pp. 231-239. ^Gerhard E. Lenski, "American Social Classes: Statistical Strata or Social Groups?," The American Jour nal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (September, 1952), p. 143. 32 investigator classifies a certain group or community in terms of two variables, e.g., education and income, and makes up a scale criterion for the classes, a limited number of classes result. Blumenthal conducted a study in a small town, about the size of West's Plainvllle"to discover the traits common to all (small towns) which have been recognized from time immemorial . . . under the term of Small Town Stuff."1 *® He used a method described by Burgess, who edited the book, as follows: A house-to-house canvass launched for the purpose of securing formal statistical data was abandoned shortly after it was begun. Such a venture, likely to encounter the running fire of gossip, should have been planned so as to be completed, if possible, in one day's time. Some data were plotted upon maps, but this method was not extensively employed. The main method relied upon was, in short, that of friendly conversation, in which the other person communicates his experiences, feelings, and attitudes much as if he were talking to himself. This is essentially the method which Charles H. Cooley has named 'sympathetic introspection. ' But it was some thing more in that chief reliance is here placed upon the documents obtained rather than . upon the interpretation given to the materials, 9 Blumenthal's study resulted in the "recognition" of ^James West (pseud., Carl Withers), Plainville. U.S.A. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1945). ^Albert Blumenthal, A Sociological Study of a Small Town (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1932). ^9lbld., p. 11. 33 social stratification, but he concluded that it was "so informal, unstable, and intangible as almost to defy accurate investigation."5° This study seemed to draw inaccurate results Inasmuch as no methodology amenable to detection of class lines was applied. Dollard,^! who was mainly concerned with the caste and class relationship, approached his study by means of Interviews and case study. It is questionable, however, whether or not racial lines can be termed "caste," as he seemed to approach the matter. Caste has an altogether different meaning. It applies within a racial group rather than between racial groups. For that matter, he could have also approached his study of stratification within the Negro race. P o w d e r m a k e r , on the other hand, though the study is similar to that of Dollard's, definitely expressed the assumption of a three class breakdown: upper, middle, and lower. The greatest reactions and voluminous comments, criticism and contra criticism were created by the Yankee 5°ibld.. p. 159. 51john Dollard, Ca3te and Class in a Southern Town (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937TT 5%ortense Powdermaker, After Freedom: A Cultural Study in the Deep South (New York: The Viking Pres3, 1939). 34 City Series, the first volume of which was written by Warner and Lunt, under the title, The Social Life of a Modern Community.53 C. Wright Mills, in reviewing Warner and Lunt's work, states as follows: Stated as precisely and in as balanced a manner as I can, the 'pluses' and 'minuses' of this study are as follows: Plus in general focus (topic) and in accumulated 'data*. Minus: in theory and in conceptual distinc tions, the 'data' accumulated are 'plus' only to the extent that they are presented 'in the raw.' Therefore, the chapters of the volume can be ranked in terms of how much reporting there is and how little conceptualizing is attempted.54 Warner and associates developed an Index of Status Characteristics (I.S.C.) and a device of Evaluated Parti cipation (E.P.) in which they claim that social class consists of and is determined by possession of some specified sum of ranks in the nature of economic quali ties. There are four categories which they consider, namely, occupation, source of income, housing type, and residence location. It is contended that these qualities could not be thought of as universal. These qualities may 53w. Lloyd Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modem Community (New Haven, Yale University Press, 19^1). 54c. Wright Mills, "The Social Life of a Modern Community." American Sociological Review. Vol. VII (April, 1942), p. 2TT: 35 have applied in the locale they studied, but in any other locale, these qualities and the weights applied to them may not apply at all, or they may be so highly correlated with each other from one of these variables, that the full picture of the class phenomenon cam be derived without the necessary complications of other variables. Warner, it seems, has given to class too many definitions as is evidenced by his other works in which he refers to class as institutional structures, conflict groups, symbols of acceptability, and such ideas as "social forces." These "definitions" essentially refute the class concept because they make the concept so vague as to be all-inclusive and meaningless. Deep South by Davis, Gardner, and G a r d n e r ,55 i3 a work, the study of which was approached in almost the exact style as Warner's and therefore falls under about the same criticism. Useem, Tangent, and Useem^ approached their study by means of "Judges" in the 3ame manner as studies con- 55Allison Davis, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. Gardner, Deep South (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941). 56john Useem, Pierre Tangent, and Ruth Useem, "Stratification in a Prairie Town," American Sociological Review (June, 1942), pp. 331-342. 36 ducted by Lundberg^7 and S c h u l e r . Form^ attempted to study the stratification system in a planned community in which he found eight "status groups" newly formed in the community without a carryover of status which the subjects may have had where they lived previously. He proposed "an empirical method of finding the factors upon which status is built.However, his conclusions can only serve as hypotheses. West^1 made a study in Plalnville. U.S.A.. in which he used the approach of participant observation. He designated six criteria by which he determined the class structure in this small community. However, he created doubts about the validity of his criteria when he states: The Plainviller does not really assign class status to another individual but in stead designates the ’respect' which he feels is due to that person within the ranks of the class where he assumes he 'belongs.1 Respect 57George A. Lundberg, "Measurement of Socio economic Status," American Sociological Review (October, 19^0), pp. 29-39. 5®Edgar A. Schuler, "Social and Economic Status in a Louisiana Hills Community," Rural Sociology. Vol. V (March, 19^0), pp. 69-85. ^^William H. Form, "Status Stratification in a Planned Community," American Sociological Review (October. 19^5), PP. 605-613. 6°Ibld.. p. 605. ^James West, o£. cit. 37 and clagg are separate aspects of the prestige system. Hollingshead, out of expediency, uses a monistic approach to social stratification in Elmtown1s Youth.^3 He states: Three possibilities were open to us. First, a single factor index . . . second . . . a composite index such as that of the Chapin scale . . . third . . . a rating procedure . . . The (rating procedure) idea seemed to be sound in view of the size of Elmtown, the sta bility of the population, the knowledge one person had about another, and the way people referred to one another, to social groups, organizations, and institutions.^ Hollingshead finds a five class division, but does not assign descriptive names to them. As he states in his book, Warner's approach and his correlate highly in the same locale. From the study of social mobility and occupation by Lipset and Bendix, it is revealed that doubt exists as to whether or not a particular present occupational position is a relatively permanent indicator of positjon in the social hierarchy. The findings show that the rate of occupational change is high. However, the rate of change 62Ibid., p. 605. ^August B. Hollingshead, Elmtown'3 Youth: The Imoact of Social Classes on Adolescents (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1 9 ^ 9 j• 64 Ibid., pp. 26-27. 38 Is higher from job to job than from occupation to occupa tion, though the latter also occurs from manual to non- manual occupations and vice versa. In their second report, Lipset and Bendlx show definitely that "social mobility largely goes on within (italics added) manual and non-manual occupations rather than between them."^ Even though a majority of the respondents have held positions in both manual and non-manual categories, one or the other was only temporary. If stratification is to be based on Income, then the janitor who has a larger Income than the tenants he serves should be considered higher in the social hier archy. In actuality this does not seem to be the case. In a study by Ray Gold, in which thirty-seven janitors of apartment buildings were Interviewed, the dilemma that occurs in status-income Is illustrated. The janitor is considered by his tenants as subservient, even though his Income may be higher than the tenants'. Concerning the janitor's occupation, the stereotype has been perpetuated that "if a man cannot do anything else successfully, he can always become a j a n i t o r ."66 A characteristic fact was ^Seymour M. Lipset and Relnhard Bendlx, ojd. cit. 6%lay Gold, "Janitors Versus Tenants: A Status Dilemma," The American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVTI (March, 19527, p. 487. 39 brought to light In the 3tudy: the individual janitor also regards the janitorial occupation as very low, but excludes himself. The individual janitor thinks of him self as something special. This study suggests that it is not the criterion of income that makes for status, but that attention is focused on the type of work plus income. Riessman bases class for his particular study on occupation, income, and education. Defining class, he states: For the purpose of this analysis, 'class' is determined by means of three commonly used vari ables — occupation, Income and education. More specifically, this sample of adults was divided into 'higher' and 'lower' class groups at the median of each of the three distributions.°7 Ellis, in his Jamaican study, tested the notion of "class awareness" which is very important to stratifica tion phenomena. He has improved on Centers' procedure Inasmuch as the key question in the structured Interview was open-ended. The obvious shortcoming in this study lies in the fact that all the alleged "low class" people are excluded. The study is of value, however, since it brings to light that class awareness and differential per ceptive concepts are capable of empirical demonstration. ^Leonard Riessman, "Class, Leisure, and Social Participation," American Sociological Review. Vol. XIX (February, 195^), p. 79. 40 Ellis 3tates that conclusions from this study do not establish a rule for another locale or community in the United States, as Warner claims from his Jonesville study.68 According to Wilson and Kolb, the average American citizen is aware of the existence of a social class. However, he cannot readily recognize, or identify, the distinction of the upper, middle, or lower class struc tures. Thus, if an average person were to be asked to place a particular individual in a certain class, he would be unable to do so because he has no definite criteria of what constitutes a class. On the other hand, If the distinctions of class did not exist in the minds of the members of our society, "it would be difficult to say in what respect social classes ’exist.’"69 xn other words, if the average man were not aware of the existence of social classes, the scientist would have no basis for distinction between classes. Therefore, since the average man in society is conscious of the existence of class but is unable to point to specific criteria, the social 68Cf. Robert A. Ellis, "Class Awareness in a Jamaican Market Town," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation (Yale University, 1955). 69Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis (New York: Hareourt, Brace and Company, 1949), P. 431, 41 scientist has the job of differentiating and defining the term and testing its validity. Scales purporting to measure social class struc ture were formed by Chapin,70 Sewell,71 and G u t t m a n . 7 2 Following these, scaling techniques were expanded by Counts,^ 3 Davis,74 Anderson,7 5 H a r t m a n n , 76 Lehman,7 7 7°F. Stuart Chapin, Scale for Rating Living Room Equipment, Institute of Child Welfare Circular No. 3 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, January, 1930). 71william H. Sewell, "The Construction and Stand ardization of a Scale for the Measurement of the Socio economic Status of Oklahoma Farm Families,1 ' Technical Bul letin No. 9 (Stillwater: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, 1940) . 72Louis Guttman, "A Review of Chapin's Social Status Scale," American Sociological Review (June, 1943)* pp. 362-369. 73oeorge S. Counts, "The Social Status of Occupa tions: A Problem in Vocational Guidance," School Review (January, 1925), pp. 16-27. 7^Jerome Davis, "Testing the Social Attitudes of Children In the Government Schools in Russia," American Journal of Sociology (May, 1927), pp. 947-952. 75w. A. Anderson, "The Occupational Attitudes of College Men," Journal of Social Psychology (1934), pp. 435-465. 7^G. W. Hartmann. "The Prestige of Occupations," Personnel Journal (1934), pp. 144-152. 77h . C. Lehman and Paul Witty, "Further Study of the Social Status of Occupations," Journal of Educational Sociology (October, 1931), PP. 101-112. 42 Coutu,?® and Smith.79 CONTRADICTORY CONCLUSIONS CONCERNING THE CLASS CONCEPT The studies In class structure present somewhat contradictory conclusions. One study will conclude that there Is definitely an awareness on the part of the average citizen of the existence of class structure with discrete breaks; another study gives Just the opposite conclusions according to empirical data.®0 Mayer states: "It Is clear that no progress can be made in the field of social class without a dynamically oriented framework of adequate theoretical concepts."®-*- The concept of class seems to baffle almost everyone and it has been used Indiscriminately denoting status, pres tige, political power, class In general, social class, occupational class, economic and psychological class. Of 7®Walter Coutu, "The Relative Prestige of Twenty Professions as Judged by Three Groups of Professional Students," Social Forces (May, 1936), pp. 522-529. 79Mapheus Smith, "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occupations," American Sociological Review (April, 1943), PP. 185-192. ®°Por the different views on the continuum theory and the rigorous social class distinctions, see Notes 33, 42, 53, and 63, supra. ®^-Kurt Mayer, "The Theory of Social Classes," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology. International Sociological Association, Vol. II (1954), P. 334. 43 the most pronounced schools of thought in contemporary class literature are Warner and his associates, Hollingshead and Centers. The following will, in a small way, exemplify the ways in which the concept class is dealt: It appears that scientists who try to define class as having a particular meaning do so with the aim in mind to correct the meaning as against that of Marx (and Engels) in the Communist Manifesto of 1848. Marx developed the theory that the main issue in all of history was the struggle between the peoples of the "haves" and "have nots," those who possess and control the means of production, and those who have no access to the means of production. The former are said to be the rulers, the capitalists, the exploiters, and the latter are the workers, the slaves, the ruled, the exploited. However, Marx lived at a time when empiricism in the social sciences was unheard of thereby having a free hand in theorizing. Marx's speculation led him to conclude that people who are engaged In the same type of vocation, who inter mingle and associate with each other, tend to think alike and therefore an esprit de corps is developed which con stitutes class consciousness. This consciousness, or Identification, leads to social action and antagonism 44 against the group or groups who are not included in their own group. Thus, class consciousness was defined by Marx as the potential of conflict groups. This theory is a departure from that of Plato who saw in class structure an immediate potential for complementary and cooperative action for the good of the state (or society) as a whole. Marx, as correct or incorrect as he may have been in his prophecy of the outcome of such class struggle, disregarded many important considerations in the realm of human behavior. Some agreement can be reached with Marx in that similar preoccupation and association will usually produce similar thinking and possible similar behavior and therefore a group identification, but there can be no agreement with him that only one type of preoccupation will lead to this result. It should be made clear also that like preoccupation may not inevitably lead to like thinking and like behavior. If there Is agreement with Marx that identification may lead to a class structure, it Is also contended that Identification could come about In a variety of other ways. Two important changes have taken place since Marx^ time: (l) in Western Europe, capitalism has evolved to a welfare oriented ideology and (2) a welfare state makes upward mobility for the individual easier. Much of the research on the subject of social class 45 has attempted to show that American social classes have become relatively static and well-defined. "Implicitly or explicitly, most sociologists have taken for granted an Increasing solidification of class likes in the United O p States during the past half century. "0c: Stratification can be viewed in terms of criteria by which classes are differentiated. The most obvious criterion which would lend itself to empirical test is that suggested by the Marxian approach: ownership or non ownership of the means of production. Other approaches stress standard of living, the style of life, or posses sion of a common ideology, a set of attitudes toward the system of economic organization. Still others play down the economic determinants and emphasize "universal prin ciples of intellectual superiority and Inferiority." Max Weber’s criteria of class is more inclusive, stressing standard of living, accessibility to cultural opportunity, and possession of economic means. Wilson and Kolb say that Weber's definition would be quite satisfactory, if it is borne in mind that for a class system to function there must be some consciousness of kind or sharing of sentiments among members of the same class, as well as a sharing of common values by all the classes if the system is to work at all.°3 82Gideon Sjoberg, op. clt., p. 775- 83Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, loc. clt. 46 Another important factor in class differentiation is achievement, such as occupational position, Income, and possession, denoting material items such as a home or an automobile. Achievement and possession are typically Interrelated. "In the United States, class differen tiation based on achievements and possessions has been undergoing considerable modification under the impact of a number of nationwide social forces."®^ Income has abso lutely Increased in the lower classes but decreased in proportion to the higher classes. Leisure, according to Sjoberg, formerly restricted to the upper and middle classes, has become unimportant as a differentiating characteristic due to the advent of a shorter work-week and paid vacations. As a result, these factors may be responsible for a minimization of "class consciousness" among many groups in this country. CLASS IN CLASSLESS SOCIETIES To view for the present another type of society, focus Is directed to the Kibbutz In Israel. In the Kibbutz, Rosenfeld states: "Members with high and low status regard each other with a set of stereotyped atti tudes, and in their relations the awareness of being a ^Gideon Sjoberg, ojd. clt.. p. 779. 47 distinct social type is clearly expressed."^5 The high and low strata play distinct roles in the process of institutional change and the difference in their Weltanschaungs is well-known. In the original organization of the Kibbutz, the aim was equalization. Rosenfeld posits several questions: 1. How did the distinct strata emerge out of the equalitarian group of early settlers? 2. What are the criteria for locating members in one of the strata? 3. What are the characteristics of each stratum? 4. What are the relations between them and their attitudes to each other? 5. What special roles do they play In the process of Institutional change? 6 . What self perpetuating processes can be observed? The emergence of social strata in the Kibbutz came about with skill in special work, particularly in mana gerial positions. The Vatlkim (old-timers) are the elite. The Identification of the highest rank is the Ish Hashoov (an important personality), who Is usually one of ®5Eva Rosenfeld, "Social Stratification In a ’Classless Society,•" American Sociological Review. Vol. XVI (December, 1951), p. 7&7. 48 the top leaders of the Kibbutz or a highly skilled indivi dual specializing in some activity of general interest in the Kibbutz movement. Reference to an individual is made in the following diffident manner: he is one of the old- timers; he is working steady at a responsible job; he is one of the chief field workers; she is the head nurse of infants. The lowest designation is the stam pkak, just an unskilled, movable worker. The concept of rank is thus based on objectively defined attributes of seniority and managerial position in work or administration. Even though the organization was aimed at complete rotation of managerial positions in order to achieve total equalization, it seemed impossible to put these alms into practice. In the United Nations Monograph, it is stated: . . . The ideal of complete rotation / o f officers in the klbbutz7, however, Is seldom achieved, especially in the larger settle ments where the need for specialization is correlated with the physical expansion of the settlement. In a general way It may be said that the Increasing need for experience and specialized knowledge has tended to create -- especially in the larger Kibbutzim managerial groups from whose ranks officers for Important positions are usually recruited.^® In the collective settlement a person substitutes as compensation for one’s labor recognition instead of o/r United Nations Series on Community: Organization and Development, Monograph No. 13, Israel (1954), p. 5. 49 money. This reward — recognition — is sought by all members of the Kibbutz, but overtly, only the elite attain it. It is attained by virtue of their own identification with the whole of the progress of the settlement, as seniority is highly correlated to managerial and leader ship positions. According to Rosenfeld, the class structure in the Kibbutz is In a sense almost hereditary. Children of parents who are "Important personalities" receive some of the "halo effect" of their parents. They are also trained better and given higher education outside of the Kibbutz as they "objectively" show special talent and great promise. The following contributions toward stratification can be observed in the so-called "classless" society: 1. A distinct relation between the prestige of personality attributes and the prestige of social position. Scarcity of managerial abilities forces the group to keep the highly valuable and esteemed members within a narrow range of important, managerial positions. This prestige in turn becomes associated with the position held, then emerges as an index of high social status. 2. High status position does not necessarily bring 50 economic reward. In fact, "the higher ups" may and often do, benefit less materially; however, the high status does bring about emotional gratification which is in essence the most valuable reward in a collective system. 3. A conflict of interest among the elite and the rank and file. The elite, the managerial stratum, upholds the collective ideology and status quo, while the rank and file favor change. The struggle, or this status quo, though not for material gain, is equally responsible for the sharp division of the classes, since it is the Important struggle for emotional gratification.®? Another example of a "classless" society Is the Soviet Union. Inkeles,®® in reviewing the state of social stratification In Soviet Russia, saw a definite solidifi cation of social classes in this "classless" society. As a result of economic and political measures, the Soviet Union possesses a precise and elaborate system of ®?Cf. Eva Rosenfeld, loc. cit. ®®Alex Inkeles, "Social Stratification and Mobility In the Soviet Union; 1940-1950," American Sociological Review. Vol. XV (1950), pp. 456-479. 51 stratification. Inkeles lists three major social class groups: the intelligentsia, the working class, and the peasantry. These in turn are divided into sub-units. The intelligentsia is divided into four sub-units; the working class into three divisions; and the peasantry into two sub-units. In addition, the forced labor group, who are outside the formal class structure, form another group having an internal class structure of their own on the same basis as the class structure of the society as a whole. In respect to this class structure, Inkeles states: The sequence in which the sub groups are listed above may be taken as reflecting their rank order within each of three major categories . . . The rank order within the structure as a whole appears to be as follows: ruling elite (1); superior intelligentsia (2); general intelligentsia (3); working class aristocracy f4); white collar (5.5); well-to-do peasants (5.5); average workers (7); average peasants {8.5;; disadvantaged workers (8.5); forced labor (10).“9 Inkeles further states: Membership in any one of these major social class groups was _/by 19^07 predominantly determined on the basis of a complex of condi tions, of which occupation, income, and the possession of power and authority were the main elements.yO This system then is based on the functions performed by 89lbld.. p. 467. 9°Iblcl. 52 the Individuals in either the productive process, power structure, and/or administrative capacity, and not on heredity. During the war years, the system of stratification was intensified and more fully formalized: The fact that large numbers of Soviet citizens now wear Insignia of rank formally designating their position in the hierarchy of income, power, and prestige, must be recognized as giving the most direct, formal, and official sanction to a precise system of social stratification. Thus, in effect, the Bolshevik leaders have restored to the Soviet Union the system of chiny, or formal civil service ranks, which was a central aspect of the Tsarist system of social differentiation and had traditionally been treated by the Bolsheviks as one of the paramount symbols of class exploitation and stratification.91 Provisions were made for widows and heirs of promi nent Soviet officials which provided for them large grants and annuities. Also, an inheritance tax revision has been enacted. These provisions benefit only the higher classes since the lower classes have no possibility of accumula ting large sums of money. During the war years, acts were put into effect which restricted social mobility and which solidified the stratification pattern into a more closed class system. These developments are: (l) restriction of access to educational opportunities; (2) changes in inheritance 91lbid.. p. 471. 53 taxes; (3) the tendency to favor certain desirable statuses dependent at least in part on birth; (4) the tendency to draw individuals for important managerial posts from those trained and already high in status; and (5) the strengthening of the family. While the Soviet leaders remain formally committed to the goal of attaining a classless society, the present 3y3tem of stratification seems not merely stable, but is of such an order that it would probably require a new social and poli tical revolution to restore the kind of dynamism necessary to create even an approxi mation of a classless society as defined in classical Marxian terms.92 Still another example of the "classless" society in the Soviet Union is cited in an article in Fortune maga zine describing the social structure of the Soviet. It is stated that "the 'classless society' has evolved into a society more rank-conscious than any in the West."93 An unskilled Soviet worker earns about 3*600 to 4,800 rubles a year. A factory manager may earn in salary and bonuses 80,000 to 120,000 rubles a year, plus a house, an automobile, chauffeur, etc. This range is approxi mately thirty times the earning capacity of the lowest working man. Artists and scientists, with the exception 92Ibid.. p. 479. ^Anonymous, "Soviet Society: From the Dacha Set Down," Fortune. Vol. XLVII (February, 1953), p. 126. 5^ of the Kremlin elite, are the most enviable group in Russia. Income tax is low but sales tax is high, which tends to favor the higher income group. There is a defi nite hierarchy of the classes; moreover, the chances of vertical mobility from one class to another are almost non-existent. Describing the manipulations and maneuvers of the Nineteenth Congress, and describing the hierarchical structure In the Soviet, Smogorzewski states: "The revised rules are calculated to strengthen the inner discipline of the Party and to legalize the privileged position of the bureaucratic caste."9^ In the field of education, requirements have also changed with respect to fees. "These changes in education policy / f e e s ? greatly reinforced the tendency of the •toiling intelligentsia1 to become a hereditary class."95 Prom these tactics and others, a definite social hierarchy in the Soviet Union has emerged. Though the social hierarchy is not yet rigid and there is still possible recruitment from below, "it is however much less 9^k . M. Smogorzewski, "Nothing New from Moscow," The Fortnightly, Vol. 178 (November, 1952), p. 325. 9^Hugh Seton-Watson, "The Social Contradiction of Stalinism," The Fortnightly. Vol. 178 (December, 1952), p. 37^. easy than it was fifteen years ago, and difference in material conditions between the upper strata and the masses J_Tn Soviet Russia7 is very great. "96 THE PREJUDICE PHENOMENA Prejudice is a way of feeling, a bias which con sists of a commonly shared attitude of hostility, contempt or mistrust, or of devaluation of the members of a parti cular social group, because they happen to belong to that group. One who reacts in a prejudiced manner toward a certain group does not necessarily have to know the members of such a group. It is said that Shakespeare had not ever met a Jew, yet described the Jew in a stereotyped way. Allport distinguishes between prejudice as a nega tive attitude and simple prejudgment in this manner: Prejudgments become prejudices only if they are not reversible when exposed to new knowledge. A prejudice, unlike a simple misconception, is actively resistant to all evidence that would unseat It. We tend to grow emotional when a prejudice Is threatened with contradiction. Thus the difference between ordinary prejudg ments and prejudice is that one can discuss and rectify a prejudgment without emotional resistance.97 After discussing many phases and possible 96ibid. 9^Gordon W. Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1958"J7 pp. 9-10. 56 definitions of prejudice, Allport presented his final definition of negative ethnic prejudice as: an antipathy based upon a faulty and inflexible generalization. It may be felt or expressed. It may be directed toward a group as a whole, or toward an individual because he is a member of that group.98 Jahoda, e_t al,99 described discrimination and prejudice stating that "it can be distinguished between interindividual and social relations as two types of human relations . . . Prejudice may exist in purely inter individual relations as in social relations."100 Prejudice and discrimination are, as a rule, reci procally related: prejudice will breed discrimination, and this practice of discrimination in turn will breed more prejudice. Regarding prejudice and overt hostile action, Allport states: . . . any negative attitude tends somehow, some where, to express itself in action. Pew people keep their antipathies entirely to themselves. The more Intense the attitude, the more likely It is to result in vigorously hostile action. Regardless of the motives behind a particular 98ibld., p. 10. 99p/iaria Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations, Appendix B (New York: The Dryden Press, 1955)» PP. 56^-380, passim. 100 Ibid., pp. 364-365 101Gordon W. Allport, ojd. cit. , p. 1^. 57 prejudice, when it is translated into discriminatory acts, it becomes a medium for indoctrination and future genera tions acquire this feeling, mainly through the influence of prevailing customs. "Much prejudice is a matter of 102 blind conformity with prevailing folkways." The prejudiced attitude is basically sustained by social usages and sanctions. A prejudiced attitude is generally not confined to a particular individual or a specific ethnic group. The prejudice phenomenon seems to be an attitude of general ized proportion, of in-group versus out-group rejection. Allport states: One of the facts of which we are most certain is that people who reject one out-group will tend to reject other out-groups. If a person is anti-Jewish, he is likely to be anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, anti any out-group . -*-03 The phenomenon of prejudice i_s usually thought to be prevalent with individuals belonging to the majority group versus a minority group of the existing society. Studies in the field of prejudice usually emphasize the majority versus the minority way of viewing prejudice and neglect considerations of the possibility that this vari able may also occur within a minority or ethnic group. It 102lbld.. p. 12. 1Q3Ibid., p. 66. 58 may be theorized that the prejudice phenomenon, inasmuch as its major premise rests on stereotyping and a sort of "blind’' acceptance of "traditional" indoctrination, could also occur in inter and intra ethnic groups. Studies dealing with this phenomenon of prejudice have shown varied results. It seems that prejudiced attitudes are more preva lent among people who have little contact with the stereotyped group. However, when such groups are brought together by circumstances, the attitude may change. This 10g idea was brought out by studies in the field. J From the 10 See for example: Kurt Lewin, R. Lippit, and R. K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experi mentally Created 'Social Climates,'" Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. X (1939), pp. 271-299; William J. MacKinnon and Richard Centers, "Authoritarianism and Urban Stratification," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LXVI (May, 1956), pp. 610-620; Alvin Scodel and P. Mussen, "Social Perceptions of Authoritarians and Non- authoritarians," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology Vol. XLVIII (1953), pp.” lHl-184; T. W. Adorno, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950); Fillmore H. Sanford, Authoritarianism and Leader ship (Philadelphia: Stephenson Brothers, 19 5 0 ) Richard Christie and J. Garcia, "Sub-cultural Variation in Auth oritarian Personality, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. XLVI (1951), PP• 457-469; Abraham L. Rosenblum, "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," Sociology and Social Research. Vol. XLIII (March-April, 1959), PP. 272-276. l°5see for example: Robin M. Williams, Jr., The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions (New York: Social Science Research Council, Bulletin No. 57, 1947); A. Rose, Studies in the Reduction of Prejudice (Chicago: American Council on Race Relations, 1947;; Bruno Bettelheim and Morris 59 results of their investigation, Deutsch and Collins con cluded that a change in attitudes toward Negroes occurred in integrated housing projects. This discredited the notion of William G. Sumner who maintained that "stateways cannot change folkways." They state: "It is evident that from the point of view of reducing prejudice and of creating harmonious democratic intergroup relations, the net gain resulting from the Integrated projects is considerable. Other studies show that most of the problems of prejudice and discrimination are socially induced and reinforced by certain features of our system of stratifi cation.10^ The caste system in the South is a clear-cut structural device for the deliberate subordination of an Janowltz, "Ethnic Tolerance: A Function of Social and Per sonal Control," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LV {September, 19**9T> PP- 137-145- 106jyjorton Deutsch and Mary Evans Collins, "The Effects of Public Policy in Housing Projects Upon Inter racial Attitudes," in Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952), p. 592. I07cf. Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944);Allison Davis, ^aste, Economy, and Violence," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LI (July, 195*0, PP- 7-15; Carey Williams"^ "Does Social Discrimina tion Really Matter?," Commentary. Vol. VII (November, 1947), PP. **-08-415; H. H. Harlan, "Some Factors Affecting Attitude Toward Jews," American Sociological Review. Vol. VII (December, 19**2), pp. 816-827; B. bT Gardner and Mary R. Gardner, Deep South ^Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19**-1). 60 ethnic grouping, and certainly there can be no very appreciable improvement in the over-all status of Negroes unless desegregation is here to stay and the "White South" will accept it as a fact and make peace with the idea. Less overt but more pervasive and subtle is the discrimin ation structurally induced and widely practiced in our society with reference to certain other ethnic groupings. Prom time to time, all minorities have been stigmatized, including practically all Americans not of Anglo-Saxon ancestry and Protestant affiliation. The "Old Americans," who were in the main the first North American settlers, and their descendants, as well as later arrivals of the same ethnic stock, still constitute a numerical majority of the population. Their temporal and numerical advan tages enabled them to establish their own criteria of stratification. Hence, it is not altogether surprising that later arrivals, possessing different cultural and social backgrounds, should have been regarded and treated as inferiors. SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION Prom the above discussion and for the purpose of this review, the inclination is to accept the following: An individual must have a feeling of ldentificaticn with a particular group. A person must feel that he belongs to 61 the "Jones'1 class, looks up to It, or Is in contra to It. Imbedded In that Identification, however, are the objec tive criteria. The Individual must be able to differen tiate his Identification by a set of objective criteria, by means of which he identifies himself with one or the other class. A person cannot simply "feel" that he belongs to a certain group without possessing similar attributes, income, education, or a set of value orienta tions. The above is called class and all other differen tiation will constitute the general term stratification. It is contended here that prejudice is a behavior pattern, positive or negative, imbedded in the interaction of most groups. This behavior pattern has strong indica tions stemming from a "traditional" acceptance of the stratification structure. CHAPTER III AN EVALUATION OP THE CONCEPT CLASS Prom the review of the literature, It is seen that a definite disagreement prevails among students of strati fication not only concerning the term class and what It connotes, but also in the denotative aspect of the term. The argument runs the gamut of such applications of the class concept denoting status, prestige, esteem, style of life, occupation, power, and influence. DENOTATIVE ASPECTS OF THE CLASS CONCEPT Most of the "denotative" aspects of class in them selves need to be interpreted as to what they do denote. For example: Maclver defines social class in terms of status. He states: We shall then mean by a social class any por tion of a community which is marked off from the rest, not by limitations arising out of language, locality, function, or specializa tion, but primarily by social status. Maclver then "explains" this definition in a somewhat con tradictory manner when he adds: 108r ^ , Maclver, Society (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., 1937)# p. 166. 63 Such a subjective factor Involves also, as a rule, objective differences, income levels, occupational distinctions, distinctions of birth, race, culture, and so forth, within the society. But these differences, apart from a recognized order of superiority and of inferio rity, would not establish cohesive groups. It is in the sense of status, sustained by economic, political, or ecclesiastical power and by dis tinctive modes of life and cultural expressions corresponding to them, which draws class apart from class, gives cohesion to each, and strati fies a whole society.109 The question may be posed: How is language, which to Maclver does not distinguish class, different from cul tural expressions which, to him, are a necessary ingre dient for setting class apart from class? Or, what is the distinction between "locality" and "economic . . . or . . . modes of life?" Kingsley Davis drew a distinction between prestige and esteem. According to him, prestige denotes an "invidious value" attached to a given position, which is "a place in given social structure," and "esteem" denotes the invidious value in which a person performs his role in this position. Prestige and esteem need not necessarily be complementary; they do not always co-exist. "A person may hold a position of high prestige, and yet, by virtue 109ibid.. p. 167. 64 of his behavior in that position, enjoy little esteem. Maclver, on the other hand, used the term "prestige" in the opposite sense than Davis. While Maclver distinguished between "status" and "prestige," he denoted the term prestige to mean a personal quality which is dependent upon specific contribution or achievement distinct from the status or evaluated place in an established hierarchy.111 Prestige, even when a distinction between prestige and esteem is taken into account, can only apply to people in a relatively small community and to individuals who are known to all the members of that community, and the deference of prestige and/or esteem accorded a particular individual would be comparable to another individual of higher or lower prestige rank in the same community. Even in the small community setting there is no prescribed "protocol" to measure such prestige and deference which a person is accorded. When the townspeople of locale "X," for instance, see or talk to individual "Y," how do they "talk" to, or "approach" him differently than when they ■^ORingsley Davis, "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratification," American Sociological Review. Vol. VII (June, 1942), pp. 309-313, passim; see also Kingsley Davis, Human Society (New York; The MacMillan Co., 1949), esp. Chapter XIV, Xaste, Class, and Stratification." UlCf. R. M. Maclver. The Web of Government (New York: The MacMillan Co., 1947TT~PP. 11^-115. 65 talk to, or approach, prestige individual "Z?" Or, con sider the denotation of power by the concept class. Now, what is meant by "power?" Is this power under considera tion or observation of the formal type? If so, the average policeman has quite a bit of "power" In that an officer of the law can arrest anyone who appears to him to be a suspicious character; therefore, according to this concept, he should be placed in the upper bracket of the social ladder due to this power. Those who apply the concept "status" to the term "class" are "lost" altogether because status per se cannot 1 I O be defined, as was seen from the foregoing discussion. ±£Z Style of life, on the other hand, can easily be miscon strued in the application of the concept class because here the measure pertains to the ability of the indivi dual's economic status. The concept then, as used, is not a valid measure for the meaning these students try to convey under this term. CONNOTATIONS OF THE CLASS CONCEPT The concept class is, and must be, different from the historical concept. In the historical sense, "class" Is not class. In the past, the term class had the conno- l-^See R. m . Maclver, Notes 108 and 109, supra. 66 tation of caste and/or estate. In that system, the lines were drawn quite strongly, and upward, or even downward, mobility was not easy to achieve. In contemporary soci ety, "class" must convey an altogether different meaning. American society Is considered to be an "open" society and upward or downward mobility is theoretically possible, depending upon a person's own aspiration and ability. Therefore, it must be realized that the concept class In contemporary times conveys something of a status position which does not necessarily have to be recognized or articulated by the average individual. In the main, however, the class concept serves society, and particularly the individual, in that the individual generally behaves in the manner in which he believes his class members, or class types, behave. THE UTILITY OF THE CLASS CONCEPT In view of the preceding contention, the class concept can be thought of as a real phenomenon, not an euphoric device of the scientist, and thus serves a definite function in our society. Not in spite of, but rather because the United States is an "open class" society, it should be Indicated that this class function is more pronounced. It may give the individual that extra "drive" to raise his 3tatus. 67 It Is therefore advisable to discard all notions of rigidity of class lines. The notion of "rigidity" stems from the historical perspective; and that, It Is main tained here, Is not clas3 as It Is perceived today by the sociologist, or which Is perceived by the general public. To some, class may be a vague and Indefinable term, or concept, because they wish to have a concept amenable to strict measurements. Even though it Is contended that class Is amenable to measurement, It must remain within the psychological realm. This is sufficient to the class concept. The Individual may or may not readily be able to distinguish or articulate what class is or how to define it; nevertheless, when an Individual "thinks" he belongs to the middle class, the upper class, or the working class, he belongs there in reality and will behave accordingly. Prom the evidence presented, the concept class cannot have a clear-cut definition which "must" be recog nized by everyone. The class concept, rather, must remain in the flexible realm. A person who now belongs to the middle class because he "feels" he belongs there, theo retically, will act and behave as the middle class group behaves. If the question arises as to how the middle class behaves, it Is not necessary to pigeonhole objective criteria of the "behavior of the middle class." In this 68 sense, Herbert Blumer's contention that contemporary sociological concepts are "sensitizing concepts,"11^ can be accepted. It could be said that people "sense" the behavior patterns of the classes and they designate themselves as belonging to a certain class according to their behavior and how they believe such behavior is conducted by the class with which they claim identification. It is therefore concluded here that "class" is a definite concept, but can only be defined through behavior. However, the class concept is by now so well- defined through objective and subjective criteria already extant, that the scientist may accept any of the known criteria of Holllngshead or even the North-Hatt scale and be within the ninety-five per cent confidence limit of the true class. The above statement is derived from the present study in which it was found that a high correla tion exists between the many approaches of defining the class concept. Other studies,11** notably the Kahl and Davis H^Herbert Blumer, "Sociological Analysis and the Variable," American Sociological Review, Vol. XXI (December, 1956), p. 683. H^For a discussion and critique on social class indexes, see G. A. Lundberg and P. Friedman, "A Comparison of Three Measures of Socio-Economic Status," Rural Socio logy (April, 19^3), pp. 227-236; Genevieve Knupfer, 69 study,attempted to validate some of the standard measurement tools for the variability of the class phenomenon. However, these attempts failed to point out the cogency of the indexes which would be amenable to application of all types of populations. It is also suggested that probably the best single criterion for determination of social class is the variable of "occupation." It is contended that the class concept, regardless of its "traditional meaning," is significant insofar as it leads to prognostication of behavior. Every social group has a formal or informal code of ethics, or behavior pat terns, to which the group expects its members to conform. These group norms, in turn, must conform within bounds to the general over-all norms or behavior patterns of society at large. Therefore, if it is assumed that there are classes of people which consist of larger aggregates than the social groups and smaller aggregates than the whole, limited differential behavior within the bounds of Indices of Socio-Economic Status . . ., Ph.D. Dissertation (New York: Columbia University, 19^6); Richard Centers, "Toward an Articulation of Two Approaches to Social Class Phenomena," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Parts I and II (1950), pp. ^99-514, and (1951), pp. 159-178. H5cf. J. A. Kahl and A. J. Davis, "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," American Sociological Review, Vol. XX (December, 1955), pp. 317-325. 70 approximate behavior expectations of society Is anticipated. In view of the preceding contention, It makes little difference that a certain individual Identifies himself with the class to which he believes he belongs, as long as he bases his feeling of identification on a cri terion or criteria. Whether or not an individual identi fies himself with a particular class by virtue of income, education, possession, or style of life is actually of little importance, as long as such identification motiv ates the individual to certain behavior patterns. In evaluating contemporary class studies, it Is found that an awareness of this type of thinking among sociologists exists. Weber, In his evaluation of the class phenomenon, saw the difficulties involved in the uni-dimensional approach of Marx and postulated a break down in types of structure. He therefore proposed a multi-dimensional theory of stratification in a three-fold manner: (l) the economic order (classes); (2) social order (status structure); and (3) the legal order (power structure). Warner and his school, on the other hand, saw a class structure based on a status hierarchy. Centers saw a class structure based entirely on the psychological feeling of identification. 71 CRITICISMS OP SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT Many of the criticisms leveled at the Warner school in regard to status criteria seem to be unreasonable. However, the criticism against Warner's establishing a class criterion from the Yankee City studies and applying these "established’ 1 classes to any community in the United States,is merited. This evaluation is based upon the present definition of class. Inasmuch as class identifi cation Is subject to individual feeling of Identification, findings In one particular locale may not apply to another. The criticism of Centers' study is directed not against his definition of class, but against his procedure in obtaining his data. While Centers started with the contention that class Is purely psychological, his data are based upon an acceptance of the assumption that classes do exist in American society. This assumption is based upon the Fortune magazine survey. However, the Fortune magazine survey is contrary to the contention of the class concept, as postulated elsewhere in this study. Centers states: It was considered unnecessary to repeat the exploratory work of the Fortune survey, which had asked an open-answer type of question, . . , and Fortune's question, 'What word do you use ll^See W. Lloyd Warner, ,et jil, Note 44, supra. 72 t° name the class (Italics added) In America you belong to?,' had gained the Information neces sary for the formulation of a question designed to more rigidly structure the Identification into a system.I1? Centers then formed his own question for the gathering of his data, taking the foregoing for granted, in the fol lowing manner: Members of the cross section were asked: ’If you were asked to use one of these four names for your social class, which would you say you belonged in: the middle class, lower class, working class or upper class?,liy This procedure Is inadequate from many viewpoints. First of all, it does not conform with his own statement that class is psychological, as pointed out above. Secondly, in neither of the surveys (Fortune’s or Centers') were there phrased the most important questions in accord ance with his own frame of reference, as follows: In your opinion, is there a class structure in your community (or, in American society)? In which class do you belong?, etc. ^9 And finally, Centers phrased his own question in an hypothetical manner. It is contended that this type of question, phrased in an hypothetical manner, does not reveal the true attitude of the respondent. The subject H^Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes. op. clt.. p. 76. H^Loc. clt. H^See Questionnaire in Appendix A. 73 may remain unaffected personally by such a question and answer in a detached manner. According to the definition in this study, the dis crepancies in the findings of the number of classes that appear to exist in different communities, would not con stitute any threat to the general theory of class. It is possible, and even feasible, to find a different number of classes in different communities. Therefore, although Useems and Tangent found three distinct classes, Centers found four, Hollingshead found five, and Warner found six, it may not per se be contradictory in scope. The chaos, however, exists in the fact that all of these studies are based upon different criteria and upon the subjective determining in advance by the observer of the number of classes fitting the subjects into their "proper" classes. The general results may thus be predetermined by the investigator. PROPOSED APPROACH FOR CLASS STUDIES It is proposed that in order to determine whether or not there are distinct social classes on the community level, and in the United States as a whole, the studies must be based on a theoretical consensus of what the con cept class constitutes. It is maintained that generally, there seems to be a swing to such a consensus in the 74 general direction of the definition of class in this study. The difference between the above direction and the definition in the present study seems to hinge only on the investigator’s assumption of the existence or non existence of class in American society, and the pre- arrangement of the number and types of social classes. It is contended that if the respondent is presented with the so-called "fact” of a number of existent classes and they are named (e.g., high, middle, working, low, etc.), the respondent places himself generally in one of the classes arbitrarily. It is therefore proposed that Inasmuch as class identification is psychological, the respondent should name his own class, if any, and the criteria by which he so designates himself should also be his own. Whether or not the respondent defines his identification on a set of status criteria, economic, income, education, power, and/or any other values, will in the final analysis be of little importance. Based on this proposition, the utility of the social class study may present trie student of stratification with an insight into behavior prognosti cation. If so, regardless of the manner in which an individual identifies himself with a particular class, his response reflects the answer to his acceptance of the type of behavior which is expected in a given class. It is conceivable that in a complex society such as 75 the United States with its great number of people of diverse origins and ethnic affiliations, a greater number than even six or seven classes may be seen. However, since behavior of all classes in the whole of society also has its bounds and general accepted norms, too great a number of classes may not actually be the result. It is also conceivable that classes will be seen only in com munity studies but not on a national scale. This, how ever, is unlikely, as it is feasible to expect classes on the national level to emerge based on somewhat more indis tinct lines, but almost on the same criteria; that is: the respondent may actively Identify himself with a class in the community and in a remote way, as a member of the same class, in the society nationally. If, on the other hand, It Is found that respondents do make Identification only on the community level, but not on the national level, It should be concluded that action and behavior on the part of the American public is geared only toward goals In the community of which the individual is a member. The community then will be class conscious and the nation will be stratification or differ entiation conscious. That the views In this review may at least have some merit and consideration for further investigation can be supported by Kornhauser's statement: 76 In American Life, published earlier this year, Warner writes: 1 . . . community studies give only part of the evidence about the vast superstructure of American life. The greatly extended economic and political hierarchies, for example, whose cen ters of decision are in New York and Washington, can only be partly understood by these studies.' He also states that 'social class in America is not the same as economic class.' Whether these remarks will be taken to mean that Warner's views and those of his critics may be drawing closer, or whether only augur a re-focusing of the issues In dispute, remains to be seen in future discussions of the many problems attending the study of the complex subject of social stratification.120 In view of the preceding definition and contentions, the remarks on Warner's part are not necessary. Prom the foregoing discussion, it is concluded that to the degree American society views the existence of classes and individuals identifying themselves with one or another class on the basi3 of a set of criteria, either on the community or national level, classes In America exist. SUMIARY In restating the proposition of this study, the class concept, in view of the definition expounded, may contain an element of both the historical concept of either antagonism or cooperation and also of the contem porary nature which may or may not elicit either of the above; or, the concept may be only a guide to class beha- -*-20puth Rosner Kornhauser, "The ’ Warner Approach to Social Stratification," in Reinhard Dendix and Seymour Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power, op. clt., p. 2p5. 77 vior within the general norm of society as a whole. The student of social stratification should be aware of the fact of social change which, in turn, influences the cri teria of social class identification on the subjective psychological side and the value orientation of a parti cular society in time and 3pace. CHAPTER IV CEDAR CITY Cedar City, a fictitious name, is comprised of twin cities whose borders zigzag about the main thoroughfare, and is probably distinguishable only to the mail carriers who deliver the mails from their respective United States Post Offices. Eor all practical purposes, then, these twin cities will be treated as one locale. POPULATION, LOCATION, AND TOPOGRAPHY Cedar City is a suburb of Los Angeles, estimated in 1953 to comprise about 35,000 inhabitants. The City is located at the fringe of Los Angeles and is included in its City limits. However, due to the geographical loca tion, it is somewhat isolated from the rest of Los Angeles. The topography is of a rugged, mountainous type. Cedar City is located in the foothills and is actually sur rounded by mountains. Access to and from the Los Angeles downtown area is inconvenient inasmuch as the bus service, though available, is inadequate. In a sense, therefore, Cedar City is self-contained though, officially, it is part of the metropolis. This locale is situated approxi mately twenty miles from downtown Los Angeles. There are 79 two United States Post Offices, a Fire Department, a Police Department, a local City Hall, a Library, and two public parks. The elevation ranges from l,3J +0 to 1,9^0 feet with the adjacent mountains rising to about 5,000 feet. ORGANIZATIONS Cedar City enjoys all the facilities of a small town: a local newspaper whose editor and publisher is a staunch Republican. There are twenty-five churches in its confines, the largest of which, in terms of membership, is the Catholic Church. Cedar City has several banks, eight grade schools, including one parochial school (Catholic), a new junior high school, and a high school. There are a fairly large number of organisations (sixty-three), Including the Kiwanis, Masonic Temple, the Elks Club, Chamber of Commerce, Coordinating Council, and Boy Scouts of America, whose members rank high among the population in the above-mentioned order. THE NEIGHBORHOOD The neighborhood composition Is diffused. There Is no "other side of the tracks." Beautiful, or elaborate, private dwelling places are located side by side with "poor" appearing houses. There are a few dispersed streets which are considered to be the "better" neighbor hood, but there are no distinct cleavages between streets or neighborhoods. DEVELOPMENT AND POPULATION COMPOSITION Cedar City was developed largely within the last fifteen years, within which time the population almost quadrupled Itself due to the influx from other areas. The population is comprised of people from all regions of the United States, most of whom came from urban centers. The majority of the population commute for work or business to the downtown Los Angeles area and other parts of the metropolis, by means of private conveyance. There are, however, many shops, restaurants, motels, and business districts located largely along the main tho roughfare of Cedar City, and in this sense, the locale is self-contained. There are no heavy industries within Its limits and a controversy over enlargement of a gravel pit for commercial purposes has been raging for the past five years. HOME OWNERS The majority of the population own their homes. The sample in this study, derived from Information con tained in the City Directory, shows that 34.7 per cent of the families own their homes and 13-3 per cent are resi dents on a rental basis. This phenomenon cuts across class lines in Cedar City. However, no attempt was made in this study to measure values and/or beauty of the home or its furnishings in regard to different social classes in the sample. Cedar City can be established as a typical suburban town with general urban attitudes and style of life. CHAPTER V METHODOLOGY The methods employed In this study were selected for the purpose of deriving maximum information and variability. SYSTEMATIC RANDOM SAMPLE A twenty per cent systematic random sample was chosen from the City Directory of Cedar City, California. This Directory includes all known addresses for the year regardless of whether or not the subject has a telephone. Included in this Directory are data concerning the occupa tion of the head of the household, or husband and wife If both are professionals, or if the husband is a laborer and the wife is a professional, as the case may be. Also Included in the directory are data concerning whether the subject owns his home or is a tenant on a rental basis, as well as whether the subject is single or married. The latter is derived from the fact that if husband and wife are living together, both given names appear in the list ing. Included in the directory are also businesses and students who list their telephone numbers even though the household telephone number is already listed under the 83 name of the head of the household. In the event that the selection (every fifth name) in the sampling occurred at the address of a business, the next name was taken for the subject. In case the selection in the sampling was that of a student, the name of the head of the household was used. This study is not concerned with the individual but rather with the family, as it Is contended that class affiliation is a matter of family rather than individual belonging. THE HAILED QUESTIONNAIRE A codedH^ questionnaire designed by the researcher was mailed to the respondents of the above selected sample. The envelope contained the questionnaire and a stamped, self-addressed return envelope to the Sociology Department, University of Southern California, with an 119phe coding was done in the following manner: At the end of the questionnaire, the word "Form" was typed and four digits followed. The digits, however, were smudged (illegible), and a number (from 1 to 2,H( J7) was written in Its place. It was assumed that the respondent would think this questionnaire to be one of many forms mailed by the "Tri-State Planning Survey," and the form number was necessary to Identify the form rather than the respondent. Only five per cent either destroyed com pletely the Ink-inserted number, or cut it off entirely. The coding was necessary for obvious reasons: to enable the Investigator to select the correct proportion of the subjects who did answer the questionnaire and of those who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 84 Introduction and instructions for answering the question naire. A pseudonym was used in order to avoid the possi bility of deterring a subject from answering, or "coloring” the answers to the questionnaire, in view of the ethnic-sounding name of the researcher. Upon receipt of the answered questionnaires, an approximate ten per cent sub-sample of the perfect random style was selected^ 0 from the subjects who answered the questionnaire and from those who did not answer the questionnaire. Tables I and II give the number and per cent of the foregoing sample and sub-sample. TESTING THE QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire was pretested by sixty-seven graduate students at the University of Southern California enrolled in advanced classes of social stratification and race relations. The researcher received a ninety-six per cent consensus as to degrees of the prejudice scale. The 120The manner in which this randomization was done is as follows: Small pieces of paper, one inch by one Inch square, were cut on which numbers 1 to 2,497 were written. There were seventy-four numbers eliminated, as they corresponded to the questionnaires returned by the Post Office unopened because addressee moved without leav ing a forwarding address. The corresponding numbers of the questionnaire of subjects who did answer the mailed questionnaire and those who did not answer the mailed questionnaire were then placed in separate containers. Drawing of the numbers was performed by a blindfolded per son and the slips of paper were constantly tossed. 85 THE SAMPLE OF TABLE I THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE Mailed Returned Total Not Received Incomplete Total Data Unopened1 Mailed Received (l)Minus(2) ( 1 ) (2) (3) w (5) ( 6 ) (7 ) 2497 74 2423 1262 1161 44 1117 PER CENT 1 00.0 3 .0 100.0 52.1 4 7 .9 1 .8 4 6 .1 ■^Returned unopened because addressee moved without leaving a forwarding address. 86 TABLE II THE SAMPLE OP THE INTERVIEWS Interview 1^ Interview 11^ Total Number Per C en t^ Number Per Cent^ Number Per Cent 122 10.5 137 10.-1 259 10.7 ^-Interview I = Designation of Interviews conducted with subjects who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^Interview II = Designation of interviews conducted with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 3per Cent = Number of interviews in proportion to the mailed questionnaire. 37 questionnaire was also matched with a previous study by the researcher^''- and subjected to the "split-half" tech nique, realizing a Pearsonian correlation coefficient of .9^, which can be considered very high. The trial ques tionnaire was also subjected to "the man in the street" for the purpose of establishing the fact as to whether or not the questions were understood by the average layman and his judgment as to the intensity of prejudiced atti tudes. Of these, fifty-three subjects were selected at random and ninety-three per cent stated that the question naire was clearly understood by them: ninety-eight per cent of these "judges" concurred with the intensity of prejudiced attitudes in the questionnaire. SCALES A scale purporting to reveal attitudes and inten sity of prejudice was formed from the scores given to the subjects according to their answers to question numbers 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 of the mailed questionnaire122 which reads as follows: 11. Do you believe it is better for Negro child ren to have their own schools and not be 121Cf. Abraham L. Rosenblum, "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," ojd. clt. 1^2See Appendix A. 88 m ix e d w i t h w h i t e s ? Y es No U n c e r t a i n 12. Do you believe that in order to avoid trouble (group friction) it is better for each minority group to live in separate sections of the city? Yes No Uncertain . 13. If a Negro family moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors Protest against them verbally Nave nothing to do with thorn (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends___ Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 14. If a Jewish family moved next door to you, would you: Hove away Accept them as neighbors___ Protest against them verbally ____ Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends___ Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything___. 15. If a Catholic family moved next door to you, would you: Hove away Accept them as neighbors___ Protest against them verbally Nave nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of 83 becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 16. If any other family which does not belong to your own group either by race or religion moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing any thing___. 17. Do you believe that THE INTEGRATION PROCESS in the South: Concerns you personally and should be enforced Concerns you personally and should not be enforced Is a Southern White problem Should not take place at the present time Is a Negro problem only . A scale of prejudice, some prejudice, and no prejudice was constructed from the above questions. Respondents with total scores of 7 to 19 were con sidered as not prejudiced; those with scores of 20 to 36 were considered as having some prejudiced attitudes; those with scores of 37 to 48 were considered as prejudiced; and those scoring 49 to 123 were considered as displaying very prejudiced and/or extremely prejudiced attitudes. 90 Charts I and II present a summary construction of these scales. Consideration is here given to the combined weights of the answers to questions 11, 12, 13* 1^, 15» 16, and 17 of the mailed questionnaire, or the corresponding ques tions of the structured Interview,rather than to the answers of any specific question. This consideration was taken into account inasmuch as the emphasis in this study was placed upon the over-all prejudiced attitudes of the respondents, rather than upon the attitudes toward any specific ethnic or religious group. A scale of religiosity was developed which included church attendance and attitudes toward the purpose of the church's function. According to the scores obtained from their answers to question 7 of the mailed questionnaire122* or corresponding question 11 of the structured interview12^ respondents were placed in either the reli gious or the non-religious column. The question reads as follows: 11. How often do you attend church (synagogue)? Every week Twice a month Once a month 12^See Appendix B. 12^See Appendix A. 125see Appendix B. 91 CHART I DEGREES OF PREJUDICE SCALE: WEIGHTS APPLIED TO ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1 1 -1 7 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE No P r e ju d ic e Some Very P r e ju d ic e d P r e ju d ic e Q u e stio n Very No Number L ib e r a l P r e ju d ic e 1 1. N=1 ? -3 1 2. N=1 ? -3 13. V -l A=2 F -3 14. V -l A-2 F =3 15. V=1 k-2 F -3 1 6 . V -l A-2 F -3 17. SE-1 SW-3 P r e ju d ic e d Very Extreme P r e ju d ic e d P r e ju d ic e Y-6 Y-6 H-4 P=5 M-6 H-4 P-5 M-6 H-4 P-5 M-6 H-4 P-5 M=6 SN=4 NT-5 SNE=6 CHART I-Continued. 92 N = No. ? = Uncertain. Y r Yes. V = Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends. A = Accept them as neighbors. F = Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything. H = Have nothing to do with them (ignore them). P = Protest against them verbally. M ■ Move away. SE z Concerns you personally and should be enforced. SW = Is a Southern White problem. SN = Is a Negro problem only. NT = Should not take place at the present time. SNE = Concerns you personally and should not be enforced. 93 CHART IX SCORES OF PREJUDICE SCALE: SUM OF WEIGHTS OF ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 1 1 -1 7 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE No Prejudice Some Very Prejudiced Prejudice Question Very No Prejudiced Very Extreme Number Liberal Prejudice Prejudiced Prejudice 7 3 - 1 9 20-36 37-43 4 9 -7 3 7 4 -1 2 3 11. N -l ? -4 Y=10 12. N=1 ?«4 Y-10 13. V - l A -3 ?*6 H-10 P=15 M=21 14. V -l A-3 F-6 H-10 P-15 M-21 15. V -l A=3 F*6 H-10 P -15 M=21 1 6 . V -l A-3 F-6 H = 10 P-15 M-21 17. SE = 1 SW=4 SN= 3 NT = 13 SNE-19 94 CHART II-Continued. N - No. ? = Uncertain. Y = Yes. V = Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends. A = Accept them as neighbors. F = Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything. H = Have nothing to do with them (ignore them). P = Protest against them verbally. M - Move away. SE « Concerns you personally and should be enforced. SW : Is a Southern White problem. SN = Is a Negro problem only. NT = Should not take place at the present time. SNE ■ Concerns you personally and should not be enforced. 95 CHART II-Continued. This part is simply an arithmetic addition of the weights described in Chart I above. For instance: If a person answers, ’ ’ find out what kind of people they are before doing anything," which gives him a score of 3; and to question 17 he answers, "concerns you personally and should not be enforced," which gives him a score of 6, the additions of these two questions would be: to question 13, 142+3=6; and to question 17, 1+3+4+5+6=19. The total score of all these answers comprises his prejudice score. 96 Less than once a month Once a year Never . If the respondent answered that he attends church every week, twice a month, or once a month, he was considered religious. If his answer was that he attends church twice a year, once a year, or occasionally, he was defined as non-religious. In addition to church attendance, the 1 of variable of attitudes toward the purpose of the churchiCU was also considered, according to the answers of respon dents to question 9 of the questionnaire or the corres ponding question 13 of the structured interview, which reads as follows: 9. (Instruction: Please number each of the answers to this question, 1, 2, 3, etc., in order of importance to you. Put number 1 for most important, number 2 for next to the most important, etc.) In your opinion, the purpose of the church is: To meet friends To learn how to worship God properly To learn how to be a good person To give charity For Abraham L. Rosenblum, "A Study of the Rela tionship Between the Knowledge of the Bible on the Part of Three Hundred and Nineteen High School Seniors in the Public Schools of Terre Haute, Indiana, in 19^, and Their Social Adjustment" (Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Indiana State Teachers College, Terre Haute, Indiana, 1944). 97 praying collectively To listen to the preacher's sermon Any other reason . A respondent who answered in a positive manner the pos sible answers to this question: to learn how to worship God properly, to learn how to be a good person, for praying collectively, and/or when he gave a proper answer of his own, was considered religious; otherwise, he was considered non-religious. A scale of religiosity was thus constructed for this purpose. Charts III and IV present the above dichotomous scales. THE FIELD RESEARCH A group of Interviewers, all college students and graduates, were chosen to conduct the field research. These Interviewers were Intensively instructed by the researcher. No prompting to answers of any questions occurred and the respondent was able to express his views on any and all questions in the questionnaire. It should be noted that in line with the hypothesis in this study that there are no statistically significant differences between data received from a mailed question naire and from a structured interview, the key questions in both approaches were identical. A month elapsed from the time the questionnaires were mailed to the first Interview. The interviewing 98 CHART III WEIGHTS APPLIED TO ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 7 AND 9 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE FORMING A DICHOTOMOUS SCALE OF THE RELIGIOSITY SCORES Question Number J J 1 . . 1 ■ ■ . . ■ » Weights Not Religious Religious 7. N a1 OY-2 LMa3 OM-4 TM-5 EW-6 9. MF-1 GCa2 LP=3 GP=4 PC-5 WG=6 N * Never. OY S Once a year. LM - Less than once a month. OM - Once a month. TM • Twice a month. EW S Every week. MF m To meet friends. GC * To give charity. LP » To listen to the preacher's sermon. GP * To learn how to be a good person. PC • For praying collectively. WG a To learn how to worship God properly. 99 CHART IV SCORES OP RELIGIOSITY SCALE: SUM OP WEIGHTS OP ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 7 AND 9 OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE The Scale Question Number Not Religious Religious 7. N-l OY-3 LM-6 0M-10 TM*15 EW-21 9. MF = 1 GC -3 LP =6 GP *10 PC-15 WG-21 Scores 2 3-8 9-20 21-40 41-70 71-112 N - Never. OY = Once a year. LM ■ Less than once a month. OM ■ Once a month. TM - Twice a month. EW = Every week. MF - To meet friends. GC - To give charity. LP - To listen to the preacher's sermon. GP = To learn how to be a good person. 100 CHART IV-Continued. PC = For p r a y i n g c o l l e c t i v e l y . W G = To l e a r n how t o w o r s h ip God p r o p e r l y . The r e a d i n g o f t h i s c h a r t I s a s f o l l o w s : The w e i g h t s g i v e n to th e d i f f e r e n t a n sw e r s t o q u e s t i o n s 7 and 9 a r e added i n a p r o g r e s s i v e manner. For exam p le: A p e r s o n whose an sw er t o q u e s t i o n 7 i s t h a t he a t t e n d s c h u r c h l e s s than o n ce a month r e c e i v e s a v a l u e o f 6 ; and, a c c o r d i n g t o h i s a t t i t u d e , i f h i s com bined s c o r e i s 21 or m ore, he i s p u t i n th e r e l i g i o u s colum n. 101 p r o c e d u r e consumed two m on th s' t im e . The c o l l e c t i n g o f th e e n t i r e d a t a , t h e m a i l i n g o f th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e s , and th e i n t e r v i e w i n g o c c u r r e d b etw een O c to b e r 1, 1 9 5 8 , and December 3 1» 1958- D ata w ere s u b j e c t e d t o c h i s q u a r e a n a l y s e s and th e rank o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n , u s i n g K e n d a l l ' s fo r m u la f o r rho ( r ') . CHAPTER VI PRESENTATION AND ANALYSES OP THE DATA The p r i n c i p a l f a c t s and f i n d i n g s o f t h i s s tu d y are p r e s e n t e d in th e f o l l o w i n g d i s c u s s i o n : 1 . Prom th e d a ta i t i s d i s c l o s e d t h a t th e p o p u l a t i o n o f Cedar C i t y i s p r e d o m in a n t ly composed o f th e m id d le c l a s s . The p e r c e n t a g e o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s to th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e shows th e f o l l o w i n g : upper c l a s s : 4 . 7 per c e n t o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s p l a c e t h e m s e l v e s In this c a t e g o r y ; m id d le c l a s s : 60.2 p er c e n t ; lo w er c l a s s : 26.9 p er c e n t ; 12? and 8.6 p er c e n t are In th e "no c l a s s " c a t e g o r y . I n c lu d e d in th e "no c l a s s " c a t e g o r y are r e s p o n d e n t s who e i t h e r o b j e c t e d to th e term " c l a s s , " answ ered "I d o n ' t know," or d id n o t answer the q u e s t i o n of class. Table III sum m arizes th e f o r e g o i n g . 2 . The e x i s t e n c e o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , or th e o r d e r - 12? I t s h o u ld be n o te d t h a t th e term "low er c l a s s " i n t h i s s tu d y com b in es a n sw ers o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s to both q u e s t i o n s : "working" and " lo w e r ." The c o m b in a tio n o f th e two term s I n t o one and a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e term "lower" was u se d by th e r e s e a r c h e r f o r th e p u rp o se o f s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . I t i s a l s o f a i r l y a c c e p t a b l e t o d a y , In the f i e l d o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , t o u se th e term "lower" f o r th e w orking c l a s s . In a c t u a l i t y , how ever, a s m a ll p r o p o r t i o n o f th e p o p u l a t i o n , 2 .9 p e r c e n t , d e s i g n a t e d t h e m s e l v e s s p e c i f i c a l l y as "low er c l a s s . " 103 TABLE I I I NUMBER AND PER CENT OP RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELONGING TO DIFFERENT SOCIAL STRATA ACCORDING TO C SI1 C l a s s Number P er C ent Upper 93 6 . 7 M id d le 672 6 0 . 2 Lower^ 296 26.3 No C la s s ^ 96 8 . 6 T o t a l 1117 1 - 0 . 0 l-CSI ■ C l a s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ^The term "'lower" I s c o m p rised o f both term s: w o rk in g and lo w e r . A c tu a l s e l f d e s i g n a t i o n as lo w er c l a s s was answ ered by 2 .9 p e r c e n t o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s . ^No C l a s s * R e s p o n d e n t s who e i t h e r o b j e c t e d to c l a s s e s , g ave "I d o n ’t know" a n s w e r s , or d i d n o t answ er t h i s q u e s t i o n . 104 l n g o f p e o p l e In h i g h e r and lo w e r p o s i t i o n s on th e s o c i a l l a d d e r , i s ack n o w led g ed by a lm o s t a l l ( 98.7 p e r c e n t ) o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s . T h is r e c o g n i t i o n i s ta k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n e v e n though 8.6 p er c e n t o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s a r e t r e a t e d i n t h i s s tu d y u n d er th e "no c l a s s " c a t e g o r y . Most r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y , n e v e r t h e l e s s , a l s o e x p r e s s e d t h e m s e l v e s , a t one p o i n t o r a n o t h e r In th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e , a s b e i n g aware o f i t s e x i s t e n c e . In th e t r e a t m e n t o f th e s t a t i s t i c s , h o w ev er, a l l o f th e 8.6 p e r c e n t had t o be i n c l u d e d in th e "no c l a s s " c a t e g o r y . 3. For a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s , th e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e can be d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : u p p e r , m id d l e , and lo w e r (w h ich i n c l u d e s th e term " w o r k in g " ). T h is c o n c l u s i o n i s d e r i v e d from th e f o l l o w i n g f a c t s : The g r e a t e s t m a j o r i t y o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s e x p r e s s e d a b e l i e f In th e e x i s t e n c e o f a t h r e e c l a s s d i v i s i o n . ^ J Those who d e c l a r e d a f o u r c l a s s d i v i s i o n s im p ly added "working c l a s s " a s th e f o u r t h d i v i s i o n . The r e s p o n d e n t s who d e c l a r e d a f i v e c l a s s breakdown s t a t e d i t in term s o f u p p e r , u p p e r - m i d d l e , l o w e r - m i d d l e , w o r k in g , and lo w e r ; o r , u p p e r , u p p e r - m i d d l e , m id d l e , w o r k in g , and l o w e r . The s i x c l a s s d i v i s i o n as e x p r e s s e d by some r e s p o n d e n t s i n c l u d e d 128rphe g r e a t e s t m a j o r i t y e x p r e s s e d t h i s in term s o f u p p e r , m id d l e , lo w e r ; o t h e r s a t t r i b u t e d v a r i o u s nam es, such as h i g h , medium, and low; th e r i c h , th e c o m f o r t a b l e , th e w o r k in g ; h o n e s t , God f e a r i n g , d r i f t e r s ; e t c . 105 u p p er A and B, m id d le A and B, and lo w e r A and B, or In v a r i o u s o t h e r e x p l a n a t i o n s . In th e s e v e n c l a s s d i v i s i o n , th e s im p le term "middle" was g e n e r a l l y added by t h e r e s p o n d e n ts t o u p p e r - m id d le and l o w e r - m i d d l e . In t h e n in e c l a s s d i v i s i o n , u p p e r , m id d l e , and lo w e r were d i v i d e d i n t o t h r e e s u b - d i v i s i o n s e a c h . The f a c t o f a t h r e e c l a s s d i v i s i o n i s e v i d e n c e d by b o th t y p e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s : t h o s e who answ ered th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and th e r e s p o n d e n t s o f th e i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e . Combining th e e x p r e s s i o n s f o r c l a s s e s 3, > j > and 6 o f b o th th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and i n t e r v i e w e d r e s p o n d e n t s (w h ic h , as e x p l a i n e d a b o v e , do n o t v a r y g r e a t l y ) , a m a j o r i t y o f 9 6 .3 p e r c e n t and 9 7 . 9 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s o f b o th t y p e s was o b t a i n e d , who e x p r e s s e d t h e m s e l v e s f o r a c o n s e n s u s o f th e number o f c l a s s e s i n term s o f th e p r e c e d i n g c o n t e n t i o n . In th e f i n a l a n a l y s i s , th e f a c t t h a t th e r e s p o n d e n t s in t h i s s tu d y p e r c e i v e d a t h r e e c l a s s d i v i s i o n w it h v e r y m inor s u b - d i v i s i o n s must be a c c e n t u a t e d . T a b le IV shows t h i s p e r c e p t i o n and p e r c e n t a g e c o m b in a t io n s o f b o th t y p e s o f r e s p o n d e n t s . RELATIONSHIP OP CLASS TO RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICE b. The r e l a t i o n s h i p b etw een s o c i a l c l a s s , r e l i g i o u s a t t i t u d e s , and ch u rch a t t e n d a n c e d o es n o t v a ry 106 TABLE IV NUMBER OF CLASSES PERCEIVED BY RESPONDENTS AND PER CENT OF TOTAL From Q u e s t i o n n a i r e Number o f Per Cent C l a s s e s From Number o f C l a s s e s I n t e r v i e w s P er Cent 2 . o 2 . 3 n \ 3 6 . 3 ) 3) 63 . 3 ) 7) 17.3 1 3 . 1 ) J 5 9 6 . 3 ) ) 9 7 . 9 5 j 2 1 . 1 ) 5) 1 5 . 3 6 ) 2 . 1 ) 6 ) 1 . 2 ) 7 .7 9 .3 3 .3 13 .1 No C l a s s 1 1 . 3 No C l a s s 1 .9 T o t a l 100.0 T o t a l 100 .0 ^Thls d e s i g n a t i o n i s d i f f e r e n t than in th e o t h e r t a b l e s . I t i n c l u d e s o n l y th e r e s p o n d e n t s t o q u e s t i o n 10 o f th e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e o r q u e s t i o n 22 o f th e s t r u c tu r e d i n t e r v i e w who e i t h e r c h e c k e d th e words "no" or " u n c e r t a i n ," 107 significantly. Religious attitudes and church attendance are almost equally divided among the different social strata. There is a slight Increase in religious attitudes in proportion to social strata going down the ladder from upper to lower, which is not statistically significant. The p e r c e n t a g e s o f r e l i g i o s i t y ran ge from 5 0 . 9 p e r c e n t t o 5 3 . 4 p er c e n t ; 5 5 . 4 p e r c e n t , and 58.3 p e r c e n t f o r u p p e r , m i d d l e , lo w e r , and "no c l a s s " d e s i g n a t i o n , r e s p e c t i v e l y . The c h i s q u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e e q u a l s 2 . 1 5 ; w i t h t h r e e d e g r e e s o f freed o m .05 = 7 . 8 2 . T h e r e f o r e , t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s b e tw e e n s o c i a l c l a s s a f f i l i a t i o n and r e l i g i o s i t y c a n n o t be r e j e c t e d . T a b le V sum m arizes t h e p r o p o r t i o n o f s o c i a l c l a s s and r e l i g i o s i t y m e n tio n e d i n th e f o r e g o i n g . 5. Religiosity is inversely related to the pheno mena of prejudiced attitudes. Of the religious respon dents, as presented in Table VI, 50.6 per cent, and only 12.7 p e r c e n t o f t h e n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . f o r th e c a t e g o r y "some p r e j u d i c e , " 39.8 per cent of the religious persons and 18.7 per cent of the non-religious persons display this attitude. For the "very prejudiced" category, only 9.6 per cent of the religious persons, and 68.2 per cent of the non-religious respondents display extremely prejudiced attitudes. The chi square for this table is 419.20, and with two degrees TABLE V 108 NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELONGING TO CERTAIN SOCIAL CLASSES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH RELIGIOSITY ACCORDING TO CSI1 C la s s R e l i g i o u s Number Per Cent N o n -R e lig io u s Number Per Cent T o ta l Number Per Cent Upper 27 5 0 .9 26 4 9 .1 53 4 . 7 Middle 357 53.4 315 46 .6 672 60.2 Lower 164 55 .4 132 4 4 .6 296 26.5 No C lass^ 57 3 8 .3 39 4 1 .7 96 8.6 T o t a ls 605 512 1117 100.0 Per Cent 5 4 .2 9 5 .3 100.0 X2 = 2.1 5; D. F. = 3; < - ■ > .05 = 7.82 (s t a t i s t i c a l l y not s i g n i f l e a n t ). ^ S I = C la s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c . a t i o n . % o ’ C la ss = Respondents who ex p r e sse d d i s b e l i e f in c l a s s e s or d id not answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . 109 TABLE VI NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDES No Some Very Total Prejudice Prejudice Prejudiced C ategory Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 306 50.6 241 3 9.3 58 9.6 605 5 4 .2 N o n -R e lig io u s 66 12. 9 07 1 8 .9 349 6 3 .2 512 4 5 .3 T o t a ls 372 333 407 1117 100.0 Per Cent 3 3 .3 3 0 .3 36.4 100.0 X2 = 419.20; D. F. -2; P =<.001. 110 of freedom, these findings are reliable at the .001 level of significance and beyond. Viewing the relationship between prejudice and religiosity from another perspective, it is found that an even greater negative relationship between the two vari ables can be seen. The more religious a person is, the less prejudiced attitudes he displays. Of the non prejudiced respondents, 82.2 per cent are religious and 17.8 per cent are not religious; of the respondents who expressed some prejudiced attitudes, 71.3 per* cent are religious and 28.7 per cent are not religious; and of the respondents who display very prejudiced attitudes, only 14. 3 per cent are religious and 35.7 per cent are not religious. The foregoing is summarized in Table VII. The chi square for this table Is 419.20, being the same as in Table VI, Inasmuch as these statistics are derived from the same data. 6. Assuming a dichotomous scale of "no prejudice" and "prejudice," taking into the "no prejudice" side of the scale weight number 3* which is otherwise considered as "some prejudice," the same trend prevails. The majority of the religious respondents display no prejudice attitudes, 90.4 per cent, while only 9.6 per cent display prejudiced attitudes. Of the non-religious respondents, only 31.3 per cent are not prejudiced, while 68.2 per cent Ill TABLE VII Category NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OP RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREJUDICED ATTITUDES AND RELIGIOSITY R e l i g i o u s Number Per Cent N o n -R e lig io u s Number Per Cent T o ta l Number Per Cent no P r e ju d ic e Some P r e ju d ic e Very P r eju d iced 306 271 3 2.2 71.3 17 .3 06 97 379 17.3 23.7 35.7 372 333 707 33.3 30.3 36.7 T o ta ls S05 1 ' ' O ^ 512 100.0 1117 100.0 Per Cent 57.2 7 5 .3 X2 = 7 1 9 .2 0 ; D. F . - 2; F = < . 0 0 1 . 100.0 112 have p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . T a b le V I I I shows t h i s t r e n d . The c h i s q u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e i s 4 1 0 . 9 2 . With one d e g r e e o f fr e e d o m , t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s a r e s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .001 p e r c e n t l e v e l and b ey o n d . 7 . S o c i a l c l a s s i s d e f i n i t e l y r e l a t e d t o a t t i t u d e s o f p r e j u d i c e . The h i g h e r th e s o c i a l c l a s s o f th e i n d i v i d u a l , t h e more l i k e l y he t e n d s t o be p r e j u d i c e d . Of th e u p p er c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l s , o n l y 17 p e r c e n t a r e n o t p r e j u d i c e d , 30.2 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y some p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , and 52.8 p e r c e n t e x p r e s s maximum p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . The m id d le c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y 2 1 . 4 p er c e n t o f no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , 4 1 . 7 p e r c e n t some p r e j u d i c e , and 3 6 . 9 p e r c e n t a r e v e r y p r e j u d i c e d . The lo w e r c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y th e h i g h e s t n e g a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n w i t h 63.5 p e r c e n t show in g no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s ; 11.5 p e r c e n t show in g some p r e j u d i c e ; and o n ly 2 . •.1 p er c e n t d i s p l a y i n g v e r y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . Of th e r e s p o n d e n t s u n d er the "no c l a s s " d e s i g n a t i o n , 3 2 . 4 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s ; some p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s a re d i s p l a y e d by 3 . 3 p e r c e n t o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s ; and 59.3 p e r c e n t o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y v e r y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . These f i n d i n g s a r e summarized i n T a b le IX. The c h i sq u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e i s 2 6 7 .4 0 and w i t h s i x d e g r e e s o f fr e e d o m , t h i s s t a t i s t i c i s r e l i a b l e a t th e .001 p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e and b ey o n d . 113 TABLE VIII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH RELIGIOSITY AND A DICHOTOMY OF PREJUDICE AND NO PREJUDICE ACCORDING TO CSll No P reju d ice^ (1, 2, 3) Prej (4, u diced 5, 6 ) T o ta l Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 547 90.4 33 9.6 605 100.0 N o n -R e lig io u s 163 31.3 34y 68.2 512 100.0 T o t a ls 710 410 1117 Per Cent 63.6 36.4 100.0 X2 - 4 1 0 .0 2 ; D. F. = 1; P = < . 0 0 1 . ■'■C SI = C la ss S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 2ln t h i s t a b l e , w e ig h ts 1, 2, and 3 (w eight number 3 i s o th e r w ise co n sid e r e d as b e lo n g in g on the p r e ju d ic e d s id e o f the s c a l e ) o f the p r e ju d ic e d s c a l e are taken to mean "no p r e j u d ic e ." 114 TABLE IX NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELONGING TO CERTAIN SOCIAL CLASSES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH ATTITUDES OF PREJUDICE ACCORDING TO CSll No Pre ju d ic e Some P r e ju d ic e Very P r eju d iced T o ta l C la ss Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Upper 9 17.0 16 30.2 28 52.8 53 9 .7 Middle 144 2 1 .4 230 4 1 .7 248 3 6 .9 672 60.2 Lower 138 8 3 .5 34 11 .5 74 2 5 .0 296 26.5 No C l a s s 2 31 32.4 O 3 . 3 57 5 9 .3 96 3 .6 T o t a ls 372 333 407 1117 100.0 Per Cent 3 3 .3 3 0 .3 36.4 100.0 X2 = 2 6 7 .4 0 ; D. F. =6; P = < . 0 0 1 . ■kJSI = C la s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 2No C la s s = Respondents who e x p r e s se d d i s b e l i e f in c l a s s e s or did not answer t h i s q u e s t io n . 115 8 . W hile th e p r e j u d i c e phenomenon f o l l o w s s o c i a l c l a s s from l e s s p r e j u d i c e on th e p a r t o f th e lo w e r c l a s s t o more p r e j u d i c e on th e p a r t o f th e upper c l a s s , I f o n l y th e d e g r e e s o f p r e j u d i c e are c o n s i d e r e d , l e a v i n g o u t th e no p r e j u d i c e colum n, a U -sh a p ed d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r th e "very p r e j u d ic e d " column and th e normal b e l l - s h a p e c u r v e f o r th e "some p r e j u d i c e " column i s r e a l i z e d . The U -sh a p e d d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r th e " very p r e j u d ic e d " column i s s e e n in th e f o l l o w i n g manner: Each end o f th e s o c i a l c l a s s c a t e g o r i e s , upper and lo w e r , i s h ig h in th e "very p r e j u d ic e d " colum n, 63.3 p e r c e n t and 68.3 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , w h i l e th e m id d le c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y a lo w e r p r o p o r t i o n o f th e "very p r e j u d ic e d " a t t i t u d e than e i t h e r o f th e two c l a s s e s a b o v e , n am ely, o n l y 4 7 . 0 p er c e n t . The normal b e l l - s h a p e d d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r "some p r e j u d i c e , " i s e v i d en ced by th e f a c t t h a t the m id d le c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s s c o r e d h i g h e r in t h i s colum n, 33. h p er c e n t , than e i t h e r the u p per c l a s s , w i t h 36.2 p er c e n t d i s p l a y i n g a t t i t u d e s o f some p r e j u d i c e , o r th e lo w er c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s w it h 3 1 . 3 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y i n g t h i s a t t i t u d e . T hese f i n d i n g s a r e summarized i n T a b le X. The c h i sq u a re c o n c e r n i n g "some p r e j u d i c e " and "very p r e j u d ic e d " i n r e l a t i o n t o s o c i a l c l a s s membership i s 19 . 8 8 , and w i t h two d e g r e e s o f freedom t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s are r e l i a b l e a t th e one p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . 116 TABLE X NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE CF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE BELONGING TO DIFFERENT SOCIAL CLASSES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE INTENSITY OF PREJUDICE ACCORDING TO CSI1 Some Pre ju d ic e Very Pre ju d iced T o ta l C la ss Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Upper 16 36.2 23 63.8 44 100.0 Middle 230 5 3.0 243 4 7 .0 528 100.0 Lower 34 3 1 .5 74 6 3 .5 103 100.0 T o t a l s 2 330 350 680 Per Cent 4 3 .5 5 1 .5 100.0 X2 - I).id; D. F. = 2; P = <.01 = 9.21. ^CSI = Class Self Identification. 2Total number for this table is 660; columns 1 and 2 of the prejudiced scale are not included here, nor is the , ! no class” designation included. 117 9 . For t h e m id d le c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l , t h e r e seem s t o be an a m b i v a l e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n t h a t on t h e one hand, t h e m id d le c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l i s s o c i a l l y m o b i l e 1^ wh i c h s u g g e s t s an a t t i t u d e o f t e n s e n e s s and p r e j u d i c e , and on th e o t h e r h a n d , he i s more k e e n l y imbued w i t h t h e i d e a l o f e q u a l i t y and d e m o c r a c y .-*30 From t h e s e f i n d i n g s i t i s i n f e r r e d t h a t th e m id d le c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t , th o u g h c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a s o c i a l l y m o b i l e p e r s o n , t e n d s t o d e v e l o p a d e g r e e o f p r e j u d i c e o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t he may f e e l t h e group i s b l o c k i n g h i s way tow ard g o a l s o f upward m o b i l i t y and h i g h a s p i r a t i o n s t o be a c h i e v e d ; and w h i l e he i s a l s o more e q u a l i t a r i a n than e i t h e r th e u p p er c l a s s or lo w e r c l a s s i n d i v i d u a l s , t h e m id d le c l a s s s u b j e c t d i s p l a y s a l e s s e r d e g r e e o f e x tr e m e p r e j u d i c e . The m id d le c l a s s r e s p o n d e n t s have th e h i g h e s t p e r c e n t a g e o f "some p r e j u d i c e , " 4 1 . 7 p e r c e n t , and a r e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y lo w e r i n e i t h e r th e d i r e c t i o n o f "no p r e j u d i c e , " 21.1 p e r c e n t , 1 2 9 c f . J o s e p h A. K a h l, The A m erican C l a s s S t r u e t u r e (New York: R i n e h a r t and C o . , I n c . , 1 9 5 7 ) ” , pp. 254 f f . ; N a t a l i e R o g o f f , "R ecen t T r e n d s i n Urban O c c u p a t i o n a l M o b i l i t y , " i n R e in h a r d B e n d ix and Seymour M. L i p s e t , C l a s s . S t a t u s and P o w e r , o p . c i t . , p p . 4 4 2 - 4 5 6 ; Seymour M. L i p s e t and N a t a l i e R o g o f f , " C la s s and O p p o r t u n i t y i n Europe and i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , " Commentary (D ecem ber, 1 9 5 * 0 , PP. 556- 569 ; Abraham L. R o se n b lu m , T S o c i a l C l a s s and M o b i l i t y A s p i r a t i o n , " U n p u b l i s h e d P a p er ( U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a , J u l y , 1 9 5 7 ) . Abraham L. R o sen b lu m , " E th n ic P r e j u d i c e a s R e l a t e d to S o c i a l C l a s s and R e l i g i o s i t y , " op., c i t . llO or "very p r e j u d i c e d , " 3 6 . 9 p e r c e n t . S ee T a b l e s IX and X a b o v e . ROMAN CATHOLIC AND LUTHERAN GROUPS 1 0. As t o th e r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h i s s tu d y as a w h o le , p r e j u d i c e i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d to r e l i g i o s i t y , i . e . , th e r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n i s l e s s l i k e l y to be p r e j u d i c e d . The o p p o s i t e t r e n d seem s to be th e c a s e w i t h r e s p o n d e n ts o f th e C a t h o l i c and L u th era n d e n o m i n a t i o n s , th e two f a i t h s b e i n g th e l a r g e s t s i n g l e g r o u p s in t h i s s t u d y . The r e l a t i o n s h i p b etw een r e l i g i o s i t y and p r e j u d i c e f o r t h e s e two g r o u p s ru n s p a r a l l e l in an a lm o s t s t r a i g h t , p o s i t i v e l i n e . The d a ta show t h a t th e more r e l i g i o u s a C a t h o l i c or L u th eran r e s p o n d e n t i s , th e more l i k e l y he t e n d s t o be p r e j u d i c e d . Of th e C a t h o l i c r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s , 36.9 p e r c e n t have no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , and 6 3 . I p e r c e n t do d i s p l a y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , w h i l e o f t h e C a t h o l i c n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s , 6 1 . 9 p e r c e n t have no p r e j u d i c e and o n l y 3 3 . 9 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s .^31 See summary i n T a b le X I. The c h i sq u a r e I s 6 . 98 . With one d e g r e e o f fr e e d o m , th e r e s u l t o f a c h i s q u a r e as h ig h as 6.98 i s r e l i a b l e a t th e one p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e . s h o u ld be p o i n t e d o u t h e r e t h a t th e term , " n o n - r e l i g i o u s ," f o r th e C a t h o l i c r e s p o n d e n t s f o l l o w s th e sajr.e s c a l e c r i t e r i o n as f o r a l l th e r e s p o n d e n t s i n t h i s 119 TABLE XI NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF CATHOLIC RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDES No P r e ju d ic e P r e ju d ic e T otal Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 59 3 6 .9 96 63.1 155 79.9 Non- R e l i g i o u s 24 61.5 15 33.5 39 20.1 T o ta ls^ S3 111 194 Per Cent 4 2 .3 5 7 .2 100.0 X2 * t .93; D. F. * 1; P = < . 0 1 * 6 . 6 4 . ^■Total number o f resp o n d e n ts o f the C a th o lic denomination in t h i s study. 120 1 1 . I t can be s e e n from T a b le X II t h a t th e L u th e r a n group f o l l o w s i n a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h a t o f t h e C a t h o l i c r e s p o n d e n t s w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n r e l i g i o s i t y and p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , and t h a t i s in a p a r a l l e l , p o s i t i v e m anner. The more r e l i g i o u s a L u th e r a n r e s p o n d e n t i s , th e more l i k e l y he t e n d s to be p r e j u d i c e d . Of t h e L u th e r a n r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s , 36 .9 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s and 6 3 . I p e r c e n t a r e p r e j u d i c e d . Of t h e n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s , 6 8 .0 p e r c e n t a r e n o t p r e j u d i c e d , w h i l e o n l y 3 8 .O p e r c e n t d i s p l a y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . The c h i s q u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e i s 7 - 5 8 . W ith one d e g r e e o f f r e e dom, t h i s s t a t i s t i c i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e .01 p e r c e n t l e v e l . The h y p o t h e s i s i n r e g a r d to r e l i g i o u s a t t i t u d e s i s s t u d y w h ic h d e s i g n a t i o n i s b a s e d on th e s u b j e c t s ' a n s w e r s t o th e a p p r o p r i a t e q u e s t i o n s i n th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Doubt c o u l d be r a i s e d by some C a t h o l i c c le r g y m e n as t o w h e t h e r o r n o t an i n d i v i d u a l who I s term ed h e r e a s ''non- r e l i g i o u s , " i s c o n s i d e r e d by t h e Church t o be a C a t h o l i c e n t i t l e d t o a l l r i g h t s and p r i v i l e g e s g r a n t e d by th e C h urch. N e v e r t h e l e s s , f o r t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h i s s t u d y , i n asmuch a s th e r e s p o n d e n t d e s i g n a t e d h i m s e l f a s C a t h o l i c , he I s c o n s i d e r e d C a t h o l i c f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l p u r p o s e s t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r d e n o m i n a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n s . R e g a r d l e s s o f w h e th e r o r n o t th e n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t i s c o n s i d e r e d by th e Church a s C a t h o l i c , t h e c o n v e r s e i s t r u e In t h a t t h e C a t h o l i c r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y a h i g h e r p r o p o r t i o n , 6 3 .1 p e r c e n t o f p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s v i s a v i s t h e t o t a l r e l i g i o u s p o p u l a t i o n , a s i s e v i d e n c e d by t h e d a t a i n t h i s s t u d y . S e e T a b l e s VI and V I I , s u p r a . 121 TABLE XII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF LUTHERAN RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDES No P r e ju d ic e P r e ju d ic e T o ta l Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 31 3 6 .9 53 63 .I 84 77 .1 Non- R e l i g i o u s 17 6 3 .0 0 32.0 25 2 2 .9 Totals-*- 43 6l 109 Per Cent 4 4 .0 56.0 100.0 X2 =7.5-3; D. F . = 1; P = < .01 = 6 . 6 4 . ^Total number o f re sp o n d e n ts o f the Lutheran denom ination in t h i s study. 122 th e n p a r t l y s u b s t a n t i a t e d by th e f i n d i n g s o f t h e s e two g r o u p s . T h i s phenomenon i s i n t e r p r e t e d i n th e f o l l o w i n g manner: W hile in g e n e r a l t h e r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n i s l e s s p r e j u d i c e d , i f a p e r s o n r e c e i v e s and f o l l o w s a s t r i c t o r t h o d o x i n d o c t r i n a t i o n , i . e . , C a t h o l i c , L u th e r a n , Greek o r t h o d o x and J e w is h o r t h o d o x 1 ^ s u c h a p e r s o n w i l l te n d to be p r e j u d i c e d t o a l l o t h e r o u t - g r o u p s . 1 2 . In t h i s s t u d y , a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f th e r e s p o n d e n t s a r e d e s i g n a t e d a s r e l i g i o u s r a t h e r than n o n r e l i g i o u s : 5^.2 p e r c e n t and 4 ‘ j . d p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h i s d o e s n o t mean t h a t a l l o f th e d e s i g n a t e d r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s a t t e n d c h u rch or te m p le r e g u l a r l y . As was p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r , a r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n i s d e s i g n a t e d by t h e two v a r i a b l e s in th e s c a l e o f r e l i g i o s i t y , n a m ely , c h u r c h a t t e n d a n c e and th e a t t i t u d e toward th e c h u r c h ' s f u n c t i o n . See th e f o l l o w i n g T a b le X I I I , and C h a r ts I I I and IV, a b o v e . 132rphe i n f e r e n c e t o G reek and J e w i s h o r th o d o x y I s b a se d on th e f i n d i n g s from th e C a t h o l i c and L u th era n g r o u p s . The G reek O rthodox group r e p r e s e n t e d In t h i s s t u d y was t o o s m a ll f o r s e p a r a t e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . As f a r as t h e J e w is h group I s c o n c e r n e d , i n th e f i r s t p l a c e , th e r e s p o n d e n t s w ere r e l a t i v e l y t o o few f o r s e p a r a t e s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , and s e c o n d l y , no r e s p o n d e n t o f th e J e w i s h f a i t h s p e c i f i e d w hich o f th e t h r e e l i n e s o f th o u g h t he f o l l o w e d : O rth o d o x , C o n s e r v a t i v e , or R eform . The i n f e r e n c e th en to t h e two o r th o d o x g r o u p s o f Greek and J e w i s h I s n o t b a se d upon s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s In t h i s s t u d y . 123 TABLE X I I I NUMBER AND PER GENT OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE DESIGNATED AS RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS . L - l I 1 1 ■ I ■■ ■ - — j, , . ■ ■ ...... . ■ ■ ■ ■ — - I ■ 1 . n ■_ ±11 1L_ 1 ■ -- C a t e g o r y Number P er C ent R e l i g i o u s 605 r j>4.2 N o n - R e l i g i o u s 312 ■ ! [■. ' Totals 1117 ID/) 124 THE THREE CLASS DIVISION 1 3. A g e n e r a l c l a s s d i v i s i o n o f u p p e r , m id d l e , and lo w e r , i n w h ich th e w o rk in g c l a s s d e s i g n a t i o n i s I n c lu d e d i n t h e term " lo w e r ," can be assum ed. In b o th g r o u p s o f d a t a - - th e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e s t r u c t u r e d I n t e r v i e w - - a h ig h c o r r e l a t i o n o f t h e s e d i v i s i o n s i s fo u n d . As e v i d e n c e d by th e f o r e g o i n g , th e t h r e e s o c i a l c l a s s d i v i s i o n s seem to be f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h e d i n th e minds o f th e p e o p l e . Any s l i g h t d e v i a t i o n from t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n can s t i l l be e x p l a i n e d i n term s o f th e t h r e e c l a s s d i v i s i o n . Now, when a c o m b in a t io n o f H o l l i n g s h e a d ' s f i v e c l a s s categories-*-33 i n t o a t h r e e c l a s s d i v i s i o n i s d e s i r e d , i t I s l o g i c a l to d i v i d e them i n t h i s manner: Class I as upper, Classes II and III as upper-middle and lower-middle, or in the present study's general term of middle, and Classes IV and V as working and lower, or in the present study's general term of lower. The same procedural division could follow in the modified Centers' class designation: Upper as upper, upper-middle, and lower-middle, which could be applied to conform with the present study's general term of middle, and the designa tions of working and lower Into the general term of lower, ^ S H c l l I n g s h e a d d o e s n o t a s s i g n a d e s c r i p t i v e name t o e a c h o f th e c l a s s e s . T h is can be done i f t h e y a re c l a s s i f i e d o b j e c t i v e l y . In th e p s y c h o l o g i c a l s u b j e c t i v e s e n s e , h o w ev er, t h e y a r e named. 125 a s u s e d In t h i s s t u d y . Prom b o t h g r o u p s o f d a t a , th e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and th e s t r u c t u r e d I n t e r v i e w , a v e r y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n b etw een a l l o f t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s i s r e a l i z e d . T a b l e s IV and XIV summarize th e f o r e g o i n g . The rank o r d e r c o r r e l a t i o n b etw een C l a s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t l o n 1^*- ancj H o l l i n g s h e a d ' o In d e x o f S o c i a l P o s i t i o n - 1 - ^ ps moJ; between C l a s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and th e m o d i f i e d C e n t e r s ' S e l f C l a s s D e s i g n a t i o n , th e c o r r e l a t i o n i s .9 6 ; and t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e tw e e n H o l l i n g s h e a d ' s I n d e x of S o c i a l Position and th e m o d i f i e d C e n t e r s ' Self C l a s s D e s i g n a t i o n i s .93* as shown i n T a b le XIV. T h e se d a t a , t h e n , show t h a t a l l o f t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s b e tw e e n th e d i f f e r e n t a p p r o a c h e s to th e c l a s s phenomenon a r e v e r y h ig h and, t h e r e f o r e , no m a t t e r which of th e s e l e c t e d criteria a student of stratification adopts, a similar perspective of social class emerges. 3 The d i s t i n c t i o n b etw een " C la ss S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t io n " and th e m o d i f i e d C e n t e r s ' a p p roach l i e s i n th e f a c t t h a t th e form er was d e r i v e d from an o p e n -e n d e d q u e s t i o n w h i l e in th e l a t t e r , a d e s c r i p t i v e name was a s s i g n e d to th e q u e s t i o n and th e r e s p o n d e n t c h o s e one o f th e c l a s s d e s i g n a t i o n s . 135/\Ug US-j: p ^ H o l l i n g s h e a d , "Index o f S o c i a l P o s i t i o n - S ev en S o c io -E c o n o m ic S c a l e P o s i t i o n s , " Mimeographed (Y a le U n i v e r s i t y ) . 126 TABLE XIV NUMBER AND PER CENT OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING TO CSI, 1 ISP, 2 AND CSD3 CSI ISP C la s s Number Per Cent C la s s Number Per Cent CSD C la s s Number Per Cent Upper 53 5-2 h9 4 .8 Upper 52 5 .1 Middle 672 I I ) 283' ) III) 379) 662 64.3 Upper*) M id d le ( Lower-' M iddle) 293; 373! 666 65.3 Lower 296 29.0 223) Working) 291) ) 310 30.4 ) ) 303 29-6 I) 87) Lower ) 12) T o t a l s 4 1021 100. 0 1021 100.0 1021 100.0 TABLE XlV-C o n tin u e d . ^CSI = C la ss S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ^ISP = H o l l i n g s h e a d 1s Index o f S o c i a l P o s i t i o n . 3cSD = M odified C e n t e r s ’ C la s s S e l f D e s ig n a tio n . ^ T o ta ls s T o t a ls ex clu d e the "no c l a s s " c a te g o r y , r ' between CSI and ISP = .3-). r ’ between CSI and CSD = . 96. r ' between ISP and CSD = .93* 123 COMPARISONS OF THE APPROACHES 1 4 . The f i n d i n g s I n t h i s s t u d y a r e o f u t m o s t i m p o r t a n c e i n r e g a r d t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d a t a c o l l e c t e d from t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and d a t a c o l l e c t e d from t h e s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s . The r e s u l t s o f t h e s e d a t a show t h a t t h e r e a r e no s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s o f c l a s s s e l f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b e tw e e n t h e r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h o s e o f th e i n t e r v i e w e d r e s p o n d e n t s . 1 ^ s q u a r e f o r t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s , a s shown i n T a b le XV, i s 4 . 3 3 . W ith t h r e e d e g r e e s o f fr e e d o m , t h e c h i s q u a r e i s n o t r e l i a b l e e v e n a t t h e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e , and t h e r e f o r e t h e s e s t a t i s t i c s f a i l t o r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . I t c o u l d s a f e l y be c o n c l u d e d , t h e n , t h a t no m a t t e r w h ic h m eth o d s t u d e n t s o f s t r a t i f i c a t i o n u s e t o a r r i v e a t th e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e , t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e a p p r o a c h o r t h e I n t e r v i e w m e th o d , th e r e s u l t s a r e t h e same i n a lm o s t a l l r e s p e c t s . 1 3 . The f i n d i n g s i n t h i s s t u d y a r e a l s o o f u t m o s t im p o r t a n c e i n r e g a r d t o t h e d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n d a t a 1 3 6 in a sm u c h a s i t was shown In t h e f o r e g o i n g t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a h i g h c o r r e l a t i o n b e tw e e n t h e d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a o f t h e c l a s s phen om enon , t h e r e w o u ld be no d i f f e r e n c e b e tw e e n c l a s s s e l f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a n d / o r any o t h e r d e s i g n a t i o n , and t h e o v e r - a l l term o f c l a s s a f f i l i a t i o n ca n be a p p l i e d . T h e s e s t a t i s t i c s , h o w e v e r , w ere com p u ted from t h e c l a s s s e l f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n a p p r o a c h . 129 TABLE XV NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE1 AND RESPONDENTS OF THE INTERVIEWS2 AND THEIR CLASS AFFILIATION ACCORDING TO CSI3 Q u e s t io n n a ir e I n t e r v ie w s T o ta l C la s s Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Upper 53 9 . 7 17 6 . 5 70 5 .1 M iddle 672 6 : . 2 166 6 9 .2 333 6 0 . 9 Lower 296 26.9 C 2 3 .2 356 2 5 .9 No C l a s s 1 * 96 .0 16 6 . 1 112 3 . 1 T o t a l s 1117 1 / 0 . 0 259 1 ^ 0 X W v w ' * \ J 1376 100.0 X2 = 4 .3 5 ; D. *1 • ■ 3; * = ^ .Op = 7 .3 2 ( s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ) . TABLE XV-Continued. 130 ■'■Questionnaire = R esp o n d e n ts who answ ered th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . i n t e r v i e w s * I n c lu d e th e p r o p o r t io n s o f i n t e r v i e w s o f b oth s u b j e c t s : t h o s e who answ ered th e q u e s t i o n n a i r e and th o s e who d id n o t . i s i » C la s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . 4No C la s s = R esp o n d en ts who e x p r e s s e d d i s b e l i e f in c l a s s e s or d id n o t answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . 131 c o l l e c t e d from m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e s and from r e s p o n d e n t s o f t h e I n t e r v i e w a p p r o a c h , r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r o r n o t s u c h s u b j e c t s a n sw e r e d t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The f i n d i n g s show t h a t t h e r e a r e no s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and r e s p o n d e n t s t o b o t h t y p e s o f t h e i n t e r v i e w - - t h e p e r s o n s who a n sw e r e d t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h e s u b j e c t s who d i d n o t a n sw e r t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e - - and t h e i r c l a s s a f f i l i a t i o n a c c o r d i n g t o t h e c l a s s s e l f i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ^ 3 7 T a b le XVI su m m a r iz e s t h i s f i n d i n g . The c h i s q u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e i s 3 . 9 3 . W ith s i x d e g r e e s o f fr e e d o m , t h e r e s u l t o f t h e c h i s q u a r e i s n o t r e l i a b l e e v e n a t t h e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l o f s i g n i f i c a n c e ; t h e r e f o r e , t h i s s t a t i s t i c f a i l s t o r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . The r e s u l t s o f t h e f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s e s e s t a b l i s h t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e a s a u s e f u l t o o l f o r r e s e a r c h , t h e r e b y s a v i n g tim e and f i n a n c i a l r e s o u r c e s i n o b t a i n i n g s u f f i c i e n t and r e l i a b l e d a t a . 1 6 . The d a t a show v e r y c l o s e r e s u l t s w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e l i g i o u s a t t i t u d e s on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o e i t h e r t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e a n d / o r t h e s t r u c t u r e d i n t e r v i e w s . In a l l t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t s a r e p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y a l m o s t e v e n l y d i v i d e d i n t o t h e d ic h o t o m o u s -*-37se e N o te 1 3 6 , s u p r a . 132 TABLE XVI NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND RESPONDENTS TO THE INTERVIEWS AND THEIR CLASS AFFILIATION ACCORDING TO CSI1 Q u e s t lo n n a ir e I n t e r v ie w s T o t a l Respondents2 Non-Respondents3 Class Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent; Number Per Cent Upper 33 4.7 3 6.6 9 6.6 70 5.1 Middle 672 60.2 79 64.8 87 63.5 838 60.9 Lower 296 26.5 28 22.9 32 23.3 336 25.9 No Class1 * 96 8.6 7 3.7 9 6.6 112 8.1 Totals 1117 100.0 122 100.0 137 100.0 1376 100.0 X2 = 3.93; VO it 1 1 C l, I Q. p ->.05 - 12.59 (statistically not significant) * 133 TABLE XVI-C o n tin u e d . ICSI = C la s s S e l f I d e n t i f i c a t i o n . ^ In te r v ie w R esp o n d e n ts = I n t e r v i e w s con d u cted w ith r e s p o n d e n ts who answ ered th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . ^ In te r v ie w N on-R espondents ■ I n t e r v ie w s co n d u cted w ith r e s p o n d e n ts who d id n ot answ er th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . ^No C la s s = R esp o n d en ts who e x p r e s s e d d i s b e l i e f in c l a s s e s or d id n o t answer t h i s q u e s t i o n . 134 s c a l e o f r e l i g i o s i t y . C om paring t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e p r o p o r t i o n a l s p r e a d o f t h e t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s , i . e . , t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h r e s p o n d e n t s who a n sw e r e d t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and t h e s u b j e c t s who d id n o t a n sw e r t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e r e s u l t s a r e a s f o l lo w s : Of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 5 4 . 2 p e r c e n t a r e r e l i g i o u s and 4 5 . 8 p e r c e n t a r e n o t r e l i g i o u s ; o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e i n t e r v i e w who a n sw e r e d t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , 56.5 p e r c e n t a r e r e l i g i o u s and 4 3 . 5 p e r c e n t a r e n o t r e l i g i o u s ; s u b j e c t s o f th e i n t e r v i e w who d i d n o t a n sw er t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e a r e d i v i d e d i n t o 5 4 . 8 p e r c e n t a s r e l i g i o u s and 4 5 . 2 p e r c e n t a s n o t r e l i g i o u s . The v e r y c l o s e r e s u l t s o f th e p r o p o r t i o n s w i t h r e s p e c t t o r e l i g i o s i t y on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n e i t h e r o f t h e t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s s t r e n g t h e n th e p o s s i b i l i t y o f c o n c l u d i n g t h a t th e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e can be e s t a b l i s h e d a s a m o st v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r r e s e a r c h . S e e and com pare T a b l e s X I I I , X V II, and X V I I I . To r e i t e r a t e , i t i s fo u n d t h a t 8 4 . 2 p e r c e n t , 56.5 p e r c e n t , and 5 4 . 8 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s a r e r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , t h e i n t e r v i e w w i t h r e s p o n d e n t s who a n sw e r e d t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and i n t h e I n t e r v i e w w i t h s u b j e c t s who d id n o t a n sw e r t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . N o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s c o m p r is e 135 TABLE XVII NUMBER AND PER CENT OF RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW ll C a t e g o r y Number P e r C en t R e l i g i o u s 69 5 6 . 5 N o n - R e l i g i o u s 53 ^ 3 .5 T o t a l s 122 100.0 l l n t e r v i e w I d e n t s who a n sw e r e d ss I n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d w it h t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . r e spun — 136 TABLE XVIII NUMBER AND PER CENT OP RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW I I 1 DESIGNATED AS RELIGIOUS AND NON-RELIGIOUS C a t e g o r y Number P e r C en t R e l i g i o u s 75 5 4 . 3 N o n - R e l i g i o u s 62 4 5 . 2 T o t a l s 137 100 .0 l l n t e r v i e w who d id n o t a n sw er I I = I n t e r v i e w s c o n d u c t e d w i t h th e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . s u b j e c t s 137 4 5 . 8 p e r c e n t , 4 3 . 5 p e r c e n t , and 4 5 . 2 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y , o f t h e f o r e g o i n g a p p r o a c h e s . I n T a b le XIX t h e c o m p a r is o n and c l o s e n e s s o f t h e p e r c e n t a g e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e t h r e e a p p r o a c h e s i s show n. The c h i s q u a r e f o r t h i s t a b l e i s . 30 , and w i t h two d e g r e e s o f f r e e d o m , t h i s s t a t i s t i c i s n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t e v e n t h e f i v e p e r c e n t l e v e l o f p r o b a b i l i t y , t h e r e b y f a i l i n g t o r e j e c t t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . 1 7 . The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n r e l i g i o s i t y and p r e j u d i c e on t h e p a r t o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e i n t e r v i e w who a n s w e r e d t h e m a i l e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o l l o w s t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n r e l i g i o s i t y and p r e j u d i c e o f t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o t h e m a il e d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The r e l a t i o n s h i p b e tw e e n r e l i g i o s i t y and p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s on t h e p a r t of the interviewed res pondents who answered the mailed questionnaire is as f o l l o w s : Of the religious respondents, 0 0.7 per cent d i s p l a y no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s ; some prejudice i s d i s p l a y e d by 37.7 per c e n t ; and only 11.6 p e r c e n t of the r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y v e r y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . Of t h e n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s , o n l y 1 1 . 3 p e r c e n t d i s p l a y no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s ; 18.9 p e r c e n t h a v e some p r e j u d i c e ; and a f u l l 69.8 p e r c e n t o f t h e n o n - r e l i g i o u s r e s p o n d e n t s d i s p l a y v e r y p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . The f o r e g o i n g a n a l y s i s i s su m m a rized i n T a b le XX. The c h i s q u a r e 138 TABLE XIX NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, INTERVIEW 1,1 AND INTERVIEW II,2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS TO EACH OTHER IN THE DESIGNATION OF RELIGIOSITY R esp o n d e n ts to R esp o n d e n ts t o R esp o n d e n ts to Grand T o t a l Q u e s t io n n a ir e I n t e r v ie w I I n t e r v ie w I I C a te g o r y Number Per Cent Number Per C ent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 605 5 4 .2 69 5 6 .5 75 5 4 .8 749 54.4 Non- R e l i g i o u s 512 4 5 .3 53 4 3 .5 62 4 5 .2 627 45.6 T o t a l s 1117 1 0 0 .0 122 1 0 0 .0 137 1 0 0 .0 1376 1 0 0 .0 X2 = .3 0 ; D. F. - 2; F * ^ . 0 5 ■ 5 .9 9 ( s t a t i s t i c a l l y n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ) . ^ In te r v ie w I = I n t e r v i e w s co n d u cted w ith r e s p o n d e n t s who answ ered th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . ^ I n t e r v ie w I I = I n t e r v ie w s co n d u cted w ith r e s p o n d e n ts who d id n o t answ er th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 139 TABLE XX NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW I1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICE ATTITUDES No P r e ju d ic e Some P r e ju d ic e Very P r e ju d ic e d T o ta l C a teg o ry Number P er Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 35 5 9 .7 26 3 7 .7 8 1 1 .6 69 5 6 .5 N o n - R e lig io u s 6 1 1 .3 10 1 3 .9 37 6 9 .8 53 4 3 .5 T o t a l s 41 36 45 122 1 0 0 .0 P er Cent 3 3 .6 2 9 .5 3 6 .9 1 0 0 .0 X2 * 4-3.21; D. F. = 2; P = < .01 « 9 .2 1 . l l n t e r v i e w I = i n t e r v i e w s con d u cted w ith r e s p o n d e n ts who answ ered th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . for this table Is 45.21, and with two degrees of freedom, the statistics are significant at the .01 level and beyond. 18. In viewing these relationships from the per spective of the manner in which the mailed questionnaires were analyzed, a sharpening of the negative relation between religiosity and prejudice can again be seen. In the category of no prejudice, as presented in Table XXI, 85.4 per cent of the religious respondents and 14.6 per cent of the non-religious respondents are represented; some prejudice is expressed by 72.2 per cent of the reli gious respondents, and 27.8 per cent of the non-religious respondents, while only 17.8 per cent of maximum preju diced attitudes is expressed by the religious respondents and 82.2 per cent of the non-religious respondents expres this attitude. The chi square for this table is .21, which is the same as for Table XX, Inasmuch as the same statistics apply. With two degrees of freedom, these statistics are reliable at the one per cent level of significance and beyond. 19. The results of the Interviews with respondent who did not answer the mailed questionnaire show the same proportional trend as the results of the Interviews with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire with respect to the relationship between religiosity and the 141 TABLE XXI NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OP RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW I1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREJUDICED ATTITUDES AND RELIGIOSITY Religious Non-Religious Total Category Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent No Prejudice 35 3 5 .4 r O 1 4 .6 41 33.6 Some Prejudice 26 7 2 .2 11 27.8 36 29 . 5 Very Prejudiced 3 1 7 .3 37 82.2 45 36 . 9 Totals 69 1 0 0 .0 53 1 0 0 .0 122 100.0 Per Cent 5 6 .5 4 3 .5 1 0 0 .0 X2 - 45.21; D. P. = 2; P = ^.01 - 9.21. ■'■Interview I = Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. 142 prejudice phenomenon. Of the religious respondents, 48.0 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 40.0 per cent have some prejudice; and only 12.0 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. Of the non-religious respondents, only 12.9 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 21.0 per cent display some prejudice; and a total of 66.1 per cent of the non-religious respondents display very preju diced attitudes. Table XXII summarizes these findings. The chi square for this table is 43.90, and with two degrees of freedom, the chi square is significant at the one per cent level and beyond. 20. Here again, to view the data analyses from a different perspective, as was done in the foregoing, a sharpening of the inverse relationship between religiosity and prejudice can be seen. Of the non-prejudiced respon dents of the interview who did not answer the mailed questionnaire, 61.8 per cent are religious and 13.2 per cent are not religious; some prejudice Is expressed by 69.3 per cent of the religious respondents and by 30.2 per cent of the non-religious respondents; and of the very prejudiced respondents, only 18.0 per cent are religious and 82.0 per cent are not religious. The foregoing analyses are summarized in Table XXIII. The chi square for this table is 43.90, which is the same as in Table XXII. With two degrees of freedom, this statistic Is 143 TABLE XXII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW II1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDES No Some Very T o t a l P r e j u d ic e P r e j u d ic e P r e ju d ic e d C a teg o ry Number P er Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent R e l i g i o u s 36 4 3 .0 30 0 0 9 1 2 .0 75 5 4 .8 N o n - R e lig io u s 3 1 2 .9 13 2 1 .0 41 6 6 .1 62 4 5 .2 T o t a l s 44 43 50 137 1 0 0 .0 Per Cent 3 2 .1 3 1 .4 3 6 .5 1 0 0 .0 X2 « 4 3 .9 0 ; D. F. = 2; P « < .01 = 9 . 2 1 . ^-Interview I I = I n t e r v i e w s c o n d u cted w ith s u b j e c t s who d id n o t answ er th e m a ile d q u e s t i o n n a i r e . 144 TABLE XXIII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW II1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREJUDICED ATTITUDES AND RELIGIOSITY Category Religious Number Per Cent Non-Religious Total Number Per Cent Number Per Cent No Prejudice Some Prejudice Very Prejudiced Totals Per Cent 36 30 9 75 54.8 31.8 69.8 13.0 100.0 8 13 41 63 45.2 18.2 30.2 82.0 130.0 44 43 50 137 100.0 32.1 31.4 36.5 100.0 X2 = 43 . 90; D. F. =2; P = <.01 = 9.21. ^Interview II = Interviews conducted with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 14^ reliable at the one per cent level of significance and beyond. 21. In comparing the results of the three methods of approach to one another, namely, the mailed question naire, the interview with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire, and the interview with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire, it can be seen that the results of these approaches follow the same pat tern and close proportional proximity. Of the religious respondents to the mailed questionnaire, 30.6 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 33.6 per cent have some prejudice; and only 9.6 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. Of the religious respondents to the interview who answered the mailed questionnaire, 50.7 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 37-7 per cent display some prejudiced attitudes; and 11.5 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. The same trend of prejudice in relation to religiosity follows concerning the respondents of the Interview who did not answer the mailed question naire. Of the religious respondents, 48.0 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 40.0 per cent display some prejudice; and 12.0 per cent display extremely preju diced attitudes. All three approaches follow a positive direction with regard to their relationship to the preju dice phenomenon. Of the non-religious respondents to the mailed questionnaire, 12.9 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 18.9 per cent display some prejudiced attitudes and the major portion, 68.2 per cent, display extreme attitudes of prejudice. Of the non-religious respondents to the interview who answered the mailed questionnaire, 11.3 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 18.9 per cent have some prejudiced attitudes; and 69.8 per cent express extremely prejudiced attitudes. The subjects of the interview who did not answer the mailed questionnaire follow the same direction and percentage proximity. Of the non-religious respondents, 12.9 per cent have no prejudiced attitudes; 21.0 per cent express some preju diced attitudes; and 66.1 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. See comparison Table XXIV. 22. In comparing again the results of all throe methods of approach from the different perspective as viewed earlier in this study, separately for the mailed questionnaire and the two types of interviews, the proxi mity of the findings can be seen. In the no prejudice category as presented in Table XXV, 82.2 per cent of the respondents to the questionnaire, 85.4 per cent of the subjects of Interview I138 and 81.8 of the subjects of 1^interview 1 refers to Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. 147 TABLE XXIV PER CENT COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS TO THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE, INTERVIEW I,1 AND INTERVIEW II,2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICED ATTITUDES Per Cent No Prejudice Per Cent Some Prejudice Per Cent Very Prejudiced Per Cent of Total 6 Category MQ3 InJ. Int. Il5 MQ3 Int. I* Int. 115 mq3 Int. 1^ Int. 115 MQ3 Int. I* Int. 115 Religious 50.6 50.7 48.0 39.8 37.7 40.0 9.6 11.6 12.0 54.2 56.5 54.8 Non- Religious 12.9 11.3 12.9 13.9 18.9 21.0 68.2 69.8 66.1 45.8 43.5 45.2 Per CenV of Total5 33.3 33.6 32.1 30.3 29.5 31.4 36.4 39.9 36.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 148 TABLE XXIV-Contlnued. ^■Interview I - Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^Interview II = Interviews conducted with respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. ^MQ = Mailed Questionnaire. ^Int. I = Interview I. 5lnt. II * Interview II. ^Per Cent of Total = Per cent of total of column and/or row for either reli gious or non-religious respondents; and the per cent of total for either no prejudice, some prejudice, and/or very prejudiced column of the respective data collection methods. 149 TABLE XXV PER CENT COMPARISON OF RESPONDENTS TO THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE, INTERVIEW 1,1 AND INTERVIEW 11,2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREJUDICED ATTITUDES AND RELIGIOSITY Per Cent Per Cent Per Cent, Religious Non-Religious of Totalb Category Mq3 int. Int. Mq3 int. Int. MQ^ int. l4 Il5 14 ix5 l4 No Prejudice 82.2 85.4 31.3 17.8 14.6 18.2 33.3 33.6 Some Prejudice 71.3 72.2 69.8 28.7 27.-3 30.2 30.3 29.5 Very Prejudiced 14.3 17.3 18.0 35.7 82.8 82.0 36.4 36.9 Per Cent, of Totalb 54.2 56.5 54.3 45.3 43.5 45.2 100.0 100.0 Int. Il5 32.1 31.4 36.5 100.0 TABLE XXV-Continued. -^-Interview I = Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^Interview II = Interviews conducted with respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 3mQ = Mailed Questionnaire. ^Int. I = Interview I. 5lnt. II * Interview II. ^Per Cent of Total = Per cent of total of column and/or row for either religious or non-religious respondents; and the per cent of total for either no prejudice, some prejudice, and/or very prejudiced column of the respective data collection methods. 151 Interview 11^39 are In the "religious" column, and 17.8 per cent, 14.6 per cent, and 18.2 per cent of the respon dents, respectively, are not religious. Some prejudice is displayed by 71.3 per cent, 72.2 per cent, and 69.8 per cent of the religious respondents to the mailed questionnaire, Interview I and Interview II, respectively; and 28.7 per cent, 27.8 per cent, and 30.2 per cent, respectively, by the non-religious respondents. Extremely prejudiced attitudes are expressed by only 14.3 per cent, 17.8 per cent, and 18.0 per cent of the religious respondents to the mailed questionnaire, Interview I, and Interview II, respectively; while 85.7 per cent, 82.2 per cent, and 82.0 per cent of the non- religious respondents, respectively, expressed extremely prejudiced attitudes. The comparisons between these three procedures of data collection, and the revelation of such close percent age distribution of the relationship between religious attitudes and the prejudice phenomenon is further evidence of the value of the mailed questionnaire as a most potent tool for research. Regardless of which method the re searcher applies, the findings are approximately the same. - 1 -39interview II refers to interviews conducted with respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 152 Prom the data analysis of the combined three procedures into a single table, the relationship between religiosity and prejudiced attitudes is realized in approximately the same proportions as for the separate analyses of the dif ferent approaches. These findings are presented in Tables XXVI and XXVII. The chi square for these tables is 508.45 and with eight degrees of freedom, these statistics are reliable at the .001 level of significance and beyond. These two tables are presented here from different pers pectives, although the same data applies. Therefore, the mailed questionnaire may be preferred, thereby conserving time, effort, and expense. 23. In analyzing the relationship between the variables of prejudice and social class phenomenon!^ Qf the subjects of the interview approach who answered the mailed questionnaire, the following results are found: Only 12.5 per cent of the upper class subjects display no prejudiced attitudes; 25.0 per cent display some preju dice; and 62.5 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. Of the middle class subjects, 22.8 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 40.5 per cent display some preju diced attitudes; and 36.7 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. The lower class subjects display 71-4 per cent l 4 0 c lass is defined here according to self identi fication in the open-ended question. 153 TABLE XXVI NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF THE COMBINED APPROACHES OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, INTERVIEW I,1 AND INTERVIEW II,2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELIGIOSITY AND PREJUDICE u o bO No Prejudice Some Prejudice Very- Prejudiced Total Grand Total Q > -P O mq3 Int. x4 Int. 115 mq3 Int. 1^ Int. Il5 mq3 Int. I* Int. Il5 mq3 Int. Int. Il5 Num ber Per Cent R6 306 35 36 241 26 30 58 8 9 605 69 75 749 54.4 NR? 66 6 8 97 10 13 349 37 41 512 53 62 627 45.6 t8 372 41 44 338 36 43 407 45 50 1117 122 137 1376 100.0 PC 9 33-3 33.6 32.1 30.3 29.5 31.4 36.4 36.9 36.5 100.0 100.0 100.0 X2 * 503.^5; D. F. = 8; P = <.001. TABLE XXVI-Continued. 154 ^Interview I = Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^Interview II = Interviews conducted with respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 3mQ = Mailed Questionnaire. ^Int. I * Interview I. 5int. II = Interview II. 6r s Religious. ?NR = Non-Religious. * Totals. 9pc = Per Cent. 155 TABLE XXVII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF THE COMBINED APPROACHES OF RESPONDENTS TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE, INTERVIEW I,1 AND INTERVIEW II,2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PREJUDICE AND RELIGIOSITY Religious Non-Religious Total Grand Total Category mq3 InJ. Int. Il5 mq3 Int. 1^ Int. Il5 MQ3 Int. l4 Int. Il5 Num ber Per Cent No Prejudice 306 35 36 66 S' 0 8 372 41 44 457 33.1 Some Prejudice 241 26 30 97 10 13 338 36 43 417 30.4 Very Prejudiced 58 8 9 349 37 41 407 45 50 502 36.5 Total 605 69 75 512 53 63 1117 122 137 1376 100 .0 Per Cent 54.2 56.5 54.8 45.3 43.5 45.2 100.0 10 0.0 100 .0 X2 = 503.45; D. F. = 3 ; P - <C.001. TABLE XXVII-Continued. 156 ^Interview I : Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. interview II = Interviews conducted with respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. 3mq = Mailed Questionnaire. ^Int. I = Interview I. 5int. II * Interview II. 157 of no prejudiced attitudes; 3.6 per cent of some preju diced attitudes; and 25.0 per cent of very prejudiced attitudes. Of the "no class" category, ^ 1 the upper class respondents display 28.6 per cent of no prejudiced atti tudes; 14.3 per cent display the attitude of some preju dice; and 57.1 per cent display very prejudiced attitudes. The summary of this analysis can be seen in Table XXVIII. The chi square for this table is 29.40. With six degrees of freedom, this statistic is valid at the one per cent level of s i g n i f i c a n c e . - * - ^ l^It should be noted that the category, "no class," as designated here, applies only to the specific question in the questionnaire regarding the belief in class existence in American society. If the respondent expressed negation to this question or answered "I don’t know," this person was placed in the "no class" category. However, the respondent who is in the "no class" category also placed himself in one of the three classes In a suc ceeding question. Hence, the statement: "Of the ’no class’ category, the upper class respondents ..." All respondents in the "no class" category of both types of interviews: the respondents of the interview who answered the mailed questionnaire, and those who did not answer same, Identified themselves with some social class, even though they were negative or did not answer the specific question of social class existence. 1^2while it would be unwise to make sweeping generalizations derived from percentages of such a small N, especially from the percentages of such small sub classes with an n as large as the one presented here, the present study Is different in this respect. Conclusions from this relatively small N and smaller n’s can be safely drawn inasmuch as the interview procedure supplemented the larger N of the mailed questionnaire. A comparison between the two approaches reveals the close similarity of the findings. 153 TABLE XXVIII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OP RESPONDENTS CP INTERVIEW I1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CSI2 AND PREJUDICE No Prejudice Some Prejudice Very Prejudiced Total Class Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Upper 1 12.5 2 25.0 5 62.5 8 6.6 Middle 13 22.3 32 40.5 29 36.7 79 64.8 Lower 20 71.4 1 3.6 7 25.O 28 22.9 No Class^ 2 28.6 1 14.3 4 57.1 7 5.7 Totals 41 36 122 100.0 Per Cent 33.6 29.5 36.9 100.0 X2 = 20.40; D. F. = 6; P = < .01 = l6.8l. 159 TABLE XXVIII-Continued. ^-Interview I r Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^CSI = Class Self Identification. ^No Class = Respondents who expressed disbelief in classes or did not answer this question. 160 24. The analysis of the interview with subjects who did not originally answer the mailed questionnaire and the interrelationship between social class affiliation and prejudiced attitudes follows the general trend of the res pondents of the interview who answered the mailed question naire. Of the upper class12* 3 respondents, 11.1 per cent display no prejudiced attitudes; 33.3 per cent display some prejudiced attitudes; and 55.6 per cent display strong prejudiced attitudes. Of the middle class respon dents, 21.9 per cent have no prejudice; 42.5 per cent display some prejudiced attitudes; and 35.6 per cent of the respondents display very prejudiced attitudes. Of the lower class individuals, 65.6 per cent show no prejudice; 6.3 per cent display some prejudiced attitudes; and 23.1 per cent have very prejudiced attitudes. For the "no class" designation1^1 * of respondents, the upper class display 33.3 per cent of no prejudiced attitudes; 11.1 per cent have some prejudice; and 55-6 per cent display very prejudicd attitudes. Table XXIX shows the summary of this analysis. The chi square for this table is 30.17* and with six degrees of freedom, it is significant at the one l43Class designation according to self assertion of the open-ended question. l44por an explanation of the "no class" category, and the seemingly contradictory statements which follow, see Note l4l, supra. TABLE XXIX NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW II1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CSI2 AND PREJUDICE No Prejudice Some Prejudice Very Prejudiced Total Class Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Number Per Cent Upper 1 11.1 3 33.3 5 55.6 9 6.6 Middle 19 21.9 37 42.5 31 35.6 37 63.5 Lower 21 63.6 2 6.3 9 28.1 32 23.3 No Class^ 3 33.3 1 11.1 5 55.6 9 6.6 Totals 44 43 50 137 100.0 Per Cent 32.1 31.4 36.5 100.0 X2 = 30.17; D. F. = 6; P = <.01 * l6.8l. 162 TABLE XXIX-Continued. ^-Interview II = Interviews conducted with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. ^CSI = Class Self Identification. 3No Class = Respondents who expressed disbelief in classes or did not answer this question. 163 per cent level. ^5 25. Approaching the analyses of the interviews in the same way as was done with the mailed questionnaire in regard to the social class phenomenon, and comparing the different approaches to social class affiliation or its designation, the trend prevailing throughout is found. In the interview with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire, it is found that if a combination of Hollingshead's Index of Social Position and the modified Centers' Class Self Designation is made in the same manner as was done with the mailed questionnaire, the correla tions between the approaches are very high. Hollingshead's five class categories1^ are divided into the general three class division of upper, middle, and lower (which term includes "working"), as follows: Class I is equal to the designation "upper" in this study; Classes II and III are equal to the designations, "upper-middle" and "lower- middle," respectively, or, in terms of the present study, simply as "middle;" and Classes IV and V are equal to the designations "working" and "lower," respectively, or as in the term of the present study, "lower." This type of 1^5por an explanation in regard to conclusions from small n, see Note 142, supra. ■^^Hollingshead does not assign a descriptive name to each of these class categories. 164 division seems to be most reasonable and feasible. It should be noted that here as well as in Centers’ designa tion, the "no class" category is eliminated from statis tical computations, inasmuch as this category cannot be matched with any designation of the different approaches. 26. In the same manner as above, a division of the modified Centers’ type of class designation was accom plished as follows: upper as "upper" in the self class Identification of the open-ended question, which is one of the main approaches in this study; upper-middle and lower- middle as a logical combination of the general term "middle" in this study; and working and lower as the designation "lower" which Includes the term "working" in this study. Table XXX summarizes the above explanation. The total number of respondents for this table is 115, inasmuch as seven respondents of the "no class" designa tion have been eliminated from these statistics. The rank order correlations between the three approaches of Hollingshead, Centers, and the open-ended question in this study, respectively, are as follows: Between Class Self Identification and Hollingshead’s Index of Social Position, a correlation of .92 was realized; between Class Self Identification and the modified Centers' Class Self Designation, a correlation of .94 was realized; and between Hollingshead’s Index of Social Position and 165 TABLE XXX NUMBER AND PER CENT OF RESPONDENTS OF INTERVIEW I1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH CSI,2 ISP,3 AND CSD^ CSD ISP Class Number Per Cent Class Number Per Cent CSD Class Number Per Cent Upper 8 7.0 7 6.1 Upper 8 7.0 Middle 79 68.7 II III 33; 47! 80 69.6 Upper-, Middle( Lower-, Middle 32; 46’ 73 67. Lower 28 24.3 IV 20 V) 3) 28 24.3 Working) 28 ) ) 29 Lower ) 1) 25.2 Totals5 115 10C.0 115 100.0 115 100.0 166 TABLE XXX-Continued. ^Interview I 3 8 Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. ^CSI « Class Self Identification. 3lSP - Hollingshead's Index of Social Position. ^CSD = Modified Centers' Class Self Designation. ^Totals * Totals exclude the "no class" category. rr between CSI and ISP * .92. r' between CSI and CSD = .9^. r1 between ISP and CSD = .39. 167 the modified Centers' Class Self Designation, a correla tion of .89 was realized. 27. The reasons and explanations for the data arrived at from the respondents to the interview who answered the mailed questionnaire also hold true for the respondents of the second type, namely, the subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. As can be seen from Table XXXI, the total number of the statistical considerations is 128, eliminating nine respondents of the "no class" designation. The rank order correlation be tween Class Self Identification and Hollingshead's Index of Social Position is .97; the correlation between Class Self Identification and the modified Centers' Class Self Designation is .88; and a correlation of .90 was realized between Hollingshead's Index of Social Position and the modified Centers" Class Self Designation. 28. In evaluating the respondents of both types of interviews as a whole, according to their class self designation, It is also found that there are no statisti cally significant differences between them. Table XXXII reveals that 6.6 per cent of the respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire placed themselves in the upper class designation, and 6.6 per cent of the subjects of the interview who did not answer the mailed questionnaire placed themselves in this category. In the middle class 168 TABLE XXXI NUMBER AND PER CENT OP RESPONDENTS OP INTERVIEW II1 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH CSI,2 ISP,3 AND CSD2 * CSI ISP CSD Class Number Per Cent Class Number Per Cent Class Number Per Cent Upper 7 .0 9 7.0 Upper 8 6.3 Middle 37 68.0 I I) 37; 88 68.7 I I I ) 51, Upper-' Middle( Lower-( Middle’ 34, 52! 86 67.2 Lower 32 25.0 IV V) 21 10) 31 2^.3 Working) 33) ) 5 34 Lower ) l) 26.5 Totals5 128 100.0 128 100.0 128 100.0 TABLE XXXI-Continued. ^-Interview II s Interviews conducted with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. ^CSI = Class Self Identification. 3lSP = Hollingshead's Index of Social Position. ^CSD = Modified Centers' Class Self Designation. totals = Totals exclude the "no class" category. r' between CSI and ISP = .97. r' between CSI and CSD « .88. r' between ISP and CSD = .90. 170 TABLE XXXII NUMBER, PER CENT, AND CHI SQUARE OF RESPONDENTS TO BOTH CATEGORIES OF THE INTERVIEWS: THOSE WHO DID ANSWER THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THOSE WHO DID NOT ANSWER IT AND THEIR CLASS DESIGNATION ACCORDING TO CSI1 Class Respondents2 Number Per Cent Non-Respondents^ Number Per Cent Number Total Per Cent Upper 8 6.6 9 6.6 17 6.5 Middle 79 64.8 87 63.5 166 64.2 Lower 28 22.9 32 23.3 6o 23.2 No Class1 ^ 7 5.7 9 6.6 16 6.1 Totals 122 100.0 137 100.0 259 100.0 X2 = .14; D. F. * 3; P “^.05 = 7.82 (statistically not significant). TABLE XXXII-Continued. 171 ^CSI * Class Self Identification. ^Respondents = Subjects who answered the mailed questionnaire. 3non-Respondents = Subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. ^No Class s Respondents who expressed disbelief in classes or did not answer this question. 172 category, 64.8 per cent of the respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire designated themselves as middle class, and 63.5 per cent of the respondents who did not answer the mailed questionnaire, placed themselves in this category. In the lower class designation (which includes the term "working"), there are 22.9 per cent and 23.3 per cent, respectively, and in the "no class" category, 5.7 per cent of the respondents who answered the mailed ques tionnaire and 6.6 per cent of the subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire are in this category. The chi square for this table is .14, and with three degrees of freedom, these statistics fail to satisfy the minimum requirements of significance at the five per cent level. Therefore, the null hypothesis, in this respect, cannot be rejected. The conclusion from these findings is that there are no differences between subjects who respond to the mailed questionnaire and those who do not respond to it, for the purpose of collecting this type of data. 29. In examining the respondents to both types of interviews as a whole (those who answered the mailed ques tionnaire and those who did not) and their relationship to the different class designations and/or assignment, the same trend prevails as that of the respondents to the mailed questionnaire, and the results of the two inter view categories separately. In combining Hollingshead1s 173 categories in the same manner as previously stated and the modified Centers' approach, the following is found: In class self identification, there are 7.0 per cent, 68.3 per cent, and 24.7 per cent for upper, middle, and lower class, respectively. Hollingshead's Index of Social Posi tion is divided into 6.6 per cent, 69.1 per cent, and 24.3 per cent for the upper, middle, and lower class cate gories, respectively. The modified Centers' Class Self Designation is divided into 6.6 per cent, 67.5 per cent, and 25.9 per cent for the upper, middle, and lower class designations, respectively. The rank order correlation between Class Self Identification and Hollingshead1s Index of Social Position is .96; between Class Self Identification and the modified Centers' Class Self Designation, the correlation is .92; and between Hollingshead's Index of Social Position and the modified Centers' Class Self Designation, the correla tion is .87. All of these correlations are very high and significant, pointing to a strong relationship between all of the approaches to the social class phenomenon. Table XXXIII summarizes these findings. - * - ^ 7 l47The foregoing findings are again a case in point for establishing the mailed questionnaire as a most valu able and preferred tool for research. See analysis 11. Regarding the validity of the relatively small H and n's in both types of interviews, see Note l42, supra. TABLE XXXIII NUMBER AND PER CENT OP RESPONDENTS OF THE INTERVIEW OF BOTH CATEGORIES, I1 AND II2 AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH CSI,3 ISP, 4 AND CSD5 Class CSI Number Per Cent Class ISP Number Per Cent Class CSD Number Per Cent Upper 17 7.0 I 16 6.6 Upper 16 6.6 Middle 166 68.3 II) III) so 0 0 o 1 —1 c r , 00 69.1 Upper-) Middle) Lower-) Middle) 66) 164 98) 67.5 Lower 60 24.7 IV) V) 4!) ) 59 18) 24.3 Working) Lower ) 61) 63 2) 25.9 Totals^ 243 100.0 243 100.0 243 100.0 175 TABLE XXXIII-Continued. ^■Interview I = Interviews conducted with respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire. interview II = Interviews conducted with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. ^CSI = Class Self Identification. ^ISP = Hollingshead!s Index of Social Position. 5c SD ■ Modified Centers' Class Self Designation. ^Totals = Totals exclude the "no class” category. r* between CSI and ISP = .96. r1 between CSI and CSD = .92. r' between ISP and CSD = .87. 176 SOCIAL CLASS AND POLITICAL BEHAVIOR 30. The data pertaining to the political behavior of the respondents in this study were not considered in the analyses. The reasons for this omission are: The data do not show varied differences between social class affiliation and political behavior. The majority of the respondents, regardless of their class identification, declared themselves to be independent voters. Those who designated themselves as "Republicans" or "Democrats" were almost evenly divided among all social class strata. If the data were to be Interpreted In the light of these findings with regard to social class affiliation and political behavior, these analyses would refute Centers' contention that political behavior varies with class mem bership.1^ However, in view of the fact that the col lection of data for this study took place right after elections {November 4th), and a major reversal of party power in the State of California and nationally was realized, it was considered unwise to offer sweeping generalizations and to assess particular significance to this phase of the study. It is probable that the res pondents were "bewildered" with the results of the elec tion (in which major issues, such as "the right to work" l^&Cf. Richard Centers, The Psychology of Social Classes, op. clt. 177 issue, were determined), and therefore answered the ques tions pertaining to voting behavior in a manner of indifference. ^9 1 9pn this election, intra as well as inter party differences in issues were raging, and the individual voter could not assess a clear-cut party affiliation for himself or for others parading under the banner of one or another party arguing pro and con for the same issue. CHAPTER VII SUMMARY AND FINDINGS SUMMARY In this study, an attempt was made to determine the extent of social class knowledge, or awareness, on the part of the general population of Cedar City. It Is also the purpose of this study to establish or discredit the mailed questionnaire as a valid method for collecting data. To date, no real attempts have been made to deter mine the extent of bias with which the mailed question naire procedure is charged. The mailed questionnaire approach is usually thought to be non-representative and/or selective.1^0 Although there is an absence of data to enable a comparison of respondents with non-respondents to the ■^^See for example H. Sharp, "The Mailed Question naire as a Supplement to the Personal Interview," American Sociological Review, Vol. XX (December, 1955), P. 718; D. S. Longsworth, ^Use of a Mall Questionnaire, ' American Sociological Review. Vol. XVIII (June, 1953), pp. 310-313; Mildred Parten, Surveys, Polls, and Samples: Practical Procedures (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 99 ff.; Lawrence E. Benson, Mail Surveys Can be Valuable," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. X (Summer, 1946), pp. 235-239; Richard F. Larson and William R. Catton, Jr., "Can the Mail-Back Bias Contribute to a Study's Validity?," American Sociological Review, Vol. XXIV (April, 1959), PP. 243-245. 179 mailed questionnaire, studies have "demonstrated" by- various means important differences between them.-1^! on the other hand, Lundborg and Larsen maintain that respon dents and non-respondents of the interview procedure do not appear to differ markedly. -*-52 For the purpose of ascertaining the extent of dif ferences between respondents and non-respondents to the mailed questionnaire, and also to compare differences, if any, between the mailed questionnaire and the structured interview procedure, the research design adopted included the following three types of data collection: (l) by means of a mailed questionnaire to a twenty per cent systematic random sample selected from the Cedar City Directory, (2) from an approximate ten per cent structured interview procedure selected in the perfect random manner l^lcf. C. F. Reuss, "Differences Between Persons Responding and not Responding to Mail Questionnaires," American Sociological Review, Vol. VIII (August, 1943)* pp. 433-438; F. K. Shuttleworth, "Sampling Errors Involved in Incomplete Returns to Mailed Questionnaires." Psycholo gical Bulletin, Vol. XXXVII (July, 1940), pp. 437-439; H. A. Edgerton, S. H. Britt, and R. D. Norman, "Objective Differences Among Various Types of Respondents to a Mailed Questionnaire." American Sociological Review. Vol. XII (August, 1947), pp. 435-444; Edward A. Suchman and Boyd McCandless, "Who Answers Questionnaires?," Journal of Ap plied Psychology. Vol. XXIV (December, 194o), pp. 75^-7o9. George A. Lundberg and Otto N. Larsen, "Characteristics of Hard-to-Reach Individuals in Field Surveys." Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XIII (Fall, 1949), pp. 487-49in------- 130 of the above mailed questionnaire. The interviews were conducted with two types of subjects: (a) those who answered the mailed questionnaire and (b) those who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. In order to make comparisons and to ascertain dif ferences between these three approaches to collecting data, the key questions in the mailed questionnaire and those of the structured interview procedure were Identical in scope and phraseology. The Interview schedule con tained a few more "prodding" questions to reveal the respondents’ motives in answering certain questions. An attempt was also made to work toward a codifica tion of the social class phenomenon. To date, no consen sus has been reached In regard to the number of existing classes or the names ascribed to them. It is contended here that the differences do not lie in kind, but in dif ferent perspectives, or the way of viewing and approaching the social class concept. A most important factor of the class phenomenon Is the differential behavior pattern of the different strata in society. If not for the ability to distinguish dif ferential behavior on the part of different strata in society, the phenomenon of social class as a concept for study would be totally pointless. In this study, there fore, an attempt was made to verify differential behavior, 181 or attitudes of behavior, by testing the variables of prejudiced attitudes toward ethnic out-groups and religiosity. THE CONCEPTS The major concepts used in this study are as follows: Social Class. The concept of social class was operationally determined in the following three ways: (l) by means of an open-ended question, (2) by means of a modified Centers' type question, and (3) by means of Hollingshead's Index of Social Position. Religiosity. This concept was operationally defined by means of the frequency of church attendance, and by means of the respondents' attitudes toward the institution of the church. Prejudice. Attitudes of prejudice were derived from the respondents1 answers to certain questions in the questionnaire formed by the researcher with the view in mind to reveal differential attitudes toward ethnic groups. PROCEDURE The procedure for obtaining data was by means of a twenty per cent systematic random sample and by interviews. The respondents selected for interviews were chosen in the perfect random fashion from subjects of the questionnaire. 182 The mailed questionnaire was coded for that purpose and an approximate ten per cent perfect random sample was selected for the Interviews, from the respondents who answered the mailed questionnaire, and the subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire. The structured interviews were conducted by graduate students of social phenomena. The interviewers were carefully instructed by the researcher and were given detailed information as to their approach and conduct of the interview procedure. The mailed questionnaire contained a self-addressed stamped envelope, addressed to the Department of Sociology, University of Southern California. The researcher assumed a pseudonym. The questionnaire was pretested in the light of (l) an exploratory study previously conducted by the research er, 153 (2) by means of 67 "judges" comprised of graduate students in the field of social phenomena, (3) by the split-half technique and realizing a high Pearsonian correlation coefficient of .9^, and (4) the questionnaire was also subjected to the judgment of "the man on the street," selected at random, for the purpose of deter mining the understandability of the questions in the questionnaire. 153cf. Abraham L. Rosenblum, "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," ojd. clt. 133 Scales amenable to measurement degrees of prejudice and scales of religiosity were also constructed by the researcher. Data were subjected to rank order correlation and chi square analyses. All of the correlations are very high, in the .90's, and all the chi square analyses are reliable at the .01 and .001 levels of significance. FINDINGS The following findings were drawn from the analyses of data collected: 1. The results of the findings concerning the methodology used is of major importance. In viewing these data from several perspectives and correlating the approaches to collecting data by means of the mailed ques tionnaire and through the method of structured Interviews, it appears that there are no significant statistical dif ferences between them. The mailed questionnaire can, therefore, be considered as a dependable research tool for collecting data of the type approached in the present study. 2. There is a definite awareness of the existence of the social class structure In American society. Although it might be presumptuous to generalize the popu lation of the United States as a whole from a community 184 study in view of the criticisms leveled at the Warner e^t al studies in this respect, which are well-known, this study seems to be quite different. Cedar City may appear to be another setting for a community study, but such is not the case. The population composition of Cedar City comprises many types of people gathered from the length and breadth of the United States. 3. The overwhelming majority of the respondents in all three approaches: the mailed questionnaire, the inter view with respondents who answered the mailed question naire and the interview with subjects who did not answer the mailed questionnaire, expressed an awareness of the stratification system and declared generally a three class division in the class phenomenon. These respondents designated the social classes as upper, middle, and lower,and placed themselves in one of these three class divisions. 4. The data show no statistically significant dif ferences between the mailed questionnaire and the struc tured interview with respect to all identical questions. 154Fphe term "lower" includes the term "working class." This term is arbitrarily designated by the researcher. See Note 127, supra. l^There were minor variations in the number and ascription of the classes. See p. 106, Table IV, and note 128, supra. 185 It Is therefore concluded that the mailed questionnaire can be established as a valuable tool for research at least in this type of study. The mailed questionnaire, then, may be preferred over other data collecting methods, inasmuch as the former Is amenable to the collection of reliable data and still saves valuable time, effort, and financial burdens. However, the researcher realizes that for depth probing of attitudes the Interview method com bined with projective and diagnostic tests may be preferred over the simple mailed questionnaire. 5. There are no statistically significant differ ences between social class affiliation and religious adherence and attitudes toward the institution of the church. Religiosity Is almost evenly divided among the social strata. 6. The data reveal a high correlation between self class Identification, Centers' modified type of social class identification, and Hollingshead's objective cri teria of the Index of Social Position, using the variables of education and occupation. It is therefore concluded that regardless of which of the three approaches a researcher chooses to apply in examining the proportion of the social strata in a certain locale, he will be within the general scope and limitation of factual, scientific truth regarding the stratification phenomenon. 186 7 - R e l i g i o s i t y , i n g e n e r a l , i s i n v e r s e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e p r e j u d i c e p h en o m en o n . The g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n o f r e l i g i o u s p e r s o n s t e n d t o h a v e no p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s , or a r e l e s s p r e j u d i c e d , th a n t h e n o n - r e l i g i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s . E x c e p t i o n s t o t h e s e c o n c l u s i o n s a r e t h e Roman C a t h o l i c and L u t h e r a n g r o u p s , w h ic h show t h e r e v e r s e a t t i t u d e s , i . e . , t h e l e s s r e l i g i o u s , t h e l e s s l i k e l y t h e s e two g r o u p s t e n d t o be p r e j u d i c e d . The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from t h e s e f i n d i n g s a r e , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e I n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e l i g i o s i t y t o p r e j u d i c e d e p e n d s upon t h e t y p e o f r e l i g i o u s a d h e r e n c e . The s t r i c t o r t h o d o x t y p e o f r e l i g i o u s a d h e r e n c e se e m s c o n d u c i v e t o s t r o n g e r p r e j u d i c e d a t t i t u d e s . 8. Social clas3 affiliation is definitely related to prejudiced attitudes in an almost direct manner. The higher the social class of the individual, the more preju diced he tends to be. These findings apply only in a trichotomous sense, where the prejudice scale is divided into "no prejudice," "some prejudice," and "very prejudiced." In eliminating the column of "no prejudice," thereby leaving a dichotomous scale of "some prejudice" and "very prejudiced,” the results are different. In the dichotomous scale, the form takes on a U-shaped distribu tion, the upper and lower classes being high on the "very prejudiced" side, while the middle class individuals rate lower in extreme prejudiced attitudes. 137 The conclusions drawn from these findings are: Prejudiced attitudes are phenomena dependent upon indoc trination and/or the urge toward social mobility aspira tions. The upper class individuals desire to keep their group free from infiltration, and therefore express strong prejudiced attitudes to all "undesirable" out-groups. Of the lower class individuals, those who are prejudiced are strongly so because, as it appears to them, they are "denied their life chances" by society. The middle class individuals have a moderate amount of prejudice to the extent that they feel hindered in ascending the social ladder, otherwise the middle class individual tends to have an equalitarian disposition. 9. The relationships between social class affilia tion, religiosity, prejudiced attitudes, and/or political behavior are not analyzed in the present study. The reasons for not presenting these findings here are: (l) The greatest majority of the respondents declared them selves as independents; and (2) the respondents who stated specific political party affiliation are almost evenly divided regardless of social class affiliation. If these findings were to be interpreted, it would have to be concluded that political party affiliation cuts across social class lines. However, the researcher is aware of the fact that these data were collected right after elec- 188 tlon time and therefore, the answers of the respondents to the questions of political affiliation may have been answered in a manner of indifference.1^ SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Throughout the phases of the study and its analyses, the researcher was aware of many problems and suggestions which were not directly the concern of the present report. The more important ones, as seen from the researcher's perspective, are presented here: 1. It is suggested that in order to establish the mailed questionnaire as a dependabl tool for research, more of the same research designs need to be undertaken, supplementing the mailed questionnaire with Interviews of the same general sample, in different areas of research and locales. 2. It is also suggested that an approach to the same study on a stratified sample basis would either sub stantiate or refute some of the hypotheses and/or findings in this study. The stratified sample might shed greater light on the findings of the prejudiced attitudes of the Catholic and Lutheran groups. 3. Still another suggestion of importance should be mentioned here. In order to verify or refute the con- i ^ S e e a n a l y s e s 30 and N o te 1^9* s u p r a . 189 tentlon in this study regarding the generalization of the class structure in Cedar City as representing American society, a study of even greater scope should be under taken conducted by random sampling comprising both levels of the urban and community setting. Such a study seems to be conspicuous by its absence. 4. In order to establish a codification of the class phenomenon, a consensus of all students of stratifi cation in the United States should be undertaken which consensus should be so geared as to lend itself to the codification, within limits, of the social class phenome non, In respect to Its ascriptive terms, and differential behavior patterns. 5. In order to balance such an undertaking, a study should be made of the differences, if any, between ascriptions of the social class phenomenon in the United States and those in other countries, as it is conceivable that the concepts used on the American scene may not con vey either the denotative or the connotative aspects in the terminology of Europe and other countries. 6 . It is also suggested that in order to further verify and establish the mailed questionnaire as a valu able tool for research, a study should be undertaken to supplement the mailed questionnaire with depth interviews of the same sample and note the differences, If any, 190 between these approaches. If such an approach would prove significant, the mailed questionnaire could be established as a valuable research instrument for a variety of data collection. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY A. BOOKS Ackerman, N. W., and Marie Jahoda, Anti-Semitism and Emotional Disorder. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Adorno, T. W., Else Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford, The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950. Allport, Gordon W., The Nature of Prejudice, Garden City: Doubleday Anchor Books, 195^7 Anderson, Elln L., We Americans A Study of Cleavage in an American City. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 193^ Barber, Bernard, Social Stratification. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1957. Barnes, Harry Elmer, and Oreen M. Ruedi, The American Way of Life: An Introduction to the Study of Contem porary Society. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. Barnett, H. G., Innovation: The Basis of Cultural Change, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953. Bendix, Reinhard, and Seymour M. Lipset, Class. Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953. Bentwich, Norman (ed.), A New Way of Life, London: Shindler and Golomb, 19^9. Blankenship, Albert B., Consumer and Opinion Research: The Questionnaire Technique, New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^3. Blumenthal, Albert, A Sociological Study of a Small Town, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1932. Carr, L. J., and J. E. Sterner, Willow Run, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952. 193 C e n t e r s , R i c h a r d , The P s y c h o l o g y o f S o c i a l C l a s s e s , P r i n c e t o n : P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 4 9 . C h a p in , F . S t u a r t , E x p e r i m e n t a l D e s i g n s i n S o c i o l o g i c a l R e s e a r c h . New Y ork: H a r p e r and B r o t h e r s , 1 9 ^ 7 . Cohen, M. R., and E. Nagel, An Introduction to Logic and Scientific Method. New York: Harcourt, Brace and C omp any, 193^. C o o l e y , C h a r l e s H o r t o n , Human N a t u r e and t h e S o c i a l O r d e r . New Y ork: C h a r l e s S c r i b n e r ’ s S o n s , 1 9 2 2 . Cooley, Charles Horton, R. C. Angell, and L. J. Carr, Introductory Sociology. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1933- Davis, Allison, Burleigh B. Gardner, and Mary R. Gardner, Deep South, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, T9?l. Davis, Kingsley, Human Society, New York: The MacMillan Company, 19^9. Demlng, William Edwards, Some Theory of Sampling, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1950. Dollard, John, Caste and Class in a Southern Town, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1937. Dorfman, Joseph, Thorstein Veblen and His America, New York: The Viking Press, 193^ Gardner, Burleigh B., and Mary R. Gardner, Deep South. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19^1. Gee, Wilson, Social Science Research Methods. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1950. Gerth, H. H., and C. Wright Mills (eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, 19^^"! G i l l i n , John L e w is , The D u n k e r s: A S o c i o l o g i c a l I n t e r p r e t a t i o n . New Y ork: C o lu m b ia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1 9 0 6 . Goode, William J., and Paul K. Hatt, Methods in Social Research, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1952. 194 Gordon, Milton M., Social Class In American Sociology. Durham: Duke University Press’ ^ 195$. Hartley, Eugene L., Problems in Prejudice. New York: King’s Crown Press, 194F. Hiller, E. T., Principles of Sociology, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1933. ________ , Houseboat and River-bottoms People. Urbana, Illinois: The University of Illinois Press, 1939. ________ , Social Relations and Structures: A Study in Principles of Sociology. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^7. Hollingshead, August B., Elmtown1s Youth: The Impact of Social Classes on Adolescents, New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1949. Jahoda, Marie, Research Methods in Social Relations, Part I, New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. Jahoda, Marie, and Richard Christie, Studies in the Scope and Methods of 'The Authoritarian Personality♦, esp. Edward A. Shils"i "Authoritarianism: ’Right' and 'Left,'" Glencoe: The Free Press, 1954. Jahoda, Marie, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart V/. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations, Appendix B, New York: The Dryden Press, 1955. Kahl, Joseph A., The American Class Structure, New York: Rinehart and Company, Inc., 1957. Knupfer, Genevieve, Indices of Socio-Economic Status. Ph. D. Dissertation, New York: Columbia University, 1946. Leahy, Alice M., The Measurement of Urban Home Environ ment: Validation and Standardization of the Minnesota Home Status Index, Minneapolis: The University of Minnesota Press, 1936. Linton, Ralph, The Study of Man: An Introduction. New York: D. Appleton-Century Co., Inc., 1937. L u n d b e r g , G e o r g e A., F o u n d a t i o n s o f S o c i o l o g y , New Y ork: The M a c M illa n Company, 1939. 195 Lundberg, George A., Social Research: A Study in Methods of Gathering Data. New York: Longmans, Green and C ompany, 1946. Lynd, Robert Staughton, and Helen Merrell Lynd, Middletown: A Study In Contemporary American Culture. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1929. ________ , Middletown in Transition: A Study in Cultural Conflicts, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1937. Maclver, R. M., Society. New York: Farrar and Rinehart, Inc., 1937. ________ , The Web of Government, New York: The MacMillan Company, 19^7. Marshall, T. H#, Citizenship and Social Class, Cambridge, England: The University Press, 1950. McConnell, John W., The Evolution of Social Classes. Washington, D. C.: American Council on Public Affairs, 1942. Merton, Robert K., Social Theory and Social Structure, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949. ________ , Social Theory and Social Action, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951. Merton, Robert K., and P. E. Lazarsfeld (eds.), Studies in the Scope and Methods of the American Soldier. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1 9 5 9 . Merton, Robert K., Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959. Mills, C. Wright, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, New York: Oxford University Press, 1951- Myrdal, Gunnar, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1944. Page, Charles Hunt, Class and American Sociology: From Ward to Ross. New York: The Dial Press, 1940. 196 Parsons, Talcott, The Structure of Social Action: A Study in Social Theory with Special Reference to cl Group of Recent European Writers, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1937. ________ , Essays in Sociological Theory Pure and Applied, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1949. Parsons, Talcott, and Edward A. Shils, Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1952. Parten, Mildred, Surveys. Polls. and Samples: Practical Procedures, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950- Powdermaker, Hortense, After Freedom: A Cultural Study in the Deep South, New York: The Viking Press, 1939. Reuter, Edward Byron, Handbook of Sociology, New York: The Dryden Press, 1941'. Rose, Arnold, Studies In the Reduction of Prejudice, Chicago: American Council on Race Relations, 1947. Sanford, Fillmore H., Authoritarianism and Leadership, Philadelphia: Stephenson Brothers, 1950. Sorokin, Pitirim, Social Mobility, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1927. ________, Society, Culture and Personality, New York: Harper and Brothers, 1 94 -. Veblen, Thorstein, The Theory of the Leisure Class: An Economic Study of Institutions, New York: Vanguard Press, 192B". Warner, W. Lloyd, The Status System of a Modern Community, New Haven: Yale University Press, 194-2”. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Paul S. Lunt, The Social Life of a Modern Community, New Haven: Yale University Press, m r . -------------- Warner, W. Lloyd, and J. 0. Low, The Social System of the Modern Factory, New Haven: Yale University Press, 19^2. 197 Warner, W. Lloyd, Robert J. Havighurst, and Martin B. Loeb, Who Shall be Educated: The Challenge of Unequal Opportunities, New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^4. Warner, W. Lloyd, and Leo Srole, The Social Systems of American Ethnic Groups, New Haven: Yale University Press, 19^5• Warner, W. Lloyd, et al, Democracy in Jonesville, New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^9. Warner, W. Lloyd, Marchia Meeker, and Kenneth Eells, Social Class in America: A Manual of Procedure for the Measurement of Social Status, Chicago: Science Research Associates, Inc., 19^9. Weber, Max, The Theory of Social and Economic Organiza tion . translated by A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons, New York: Oxford University Press, 19^7- West, James (pseud., Carl Withers), Plalnville. U.S.A.. New York: Columbia University Press, 19^5. Wheeler, Wayne, Social Stratification in a Plains Com munity » Minneapolis: Wayne Wheeler, 19^9. Williams, Robin M., Jr., American Society. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951. Wilson, Logan, and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 19^9. Zeisel, Hans, Say It With Figures. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19^7. Zorbaugh, Harvey W., The Gold Coast and the Slum, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. B. ARTICLES AND PERIODICALS Allen, P. J., "The Leadership Pattern," American Sociolo gical Review, Vol. XVII (February" 1952), pp. 93-96. Anderson, W. A., "The Occupational Attitudes of College Men," Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. V (May, 1934),“iFrT35'I 1 f65. 198 Anonymous, "Soviet Society: From the Dacha Set Down," Fortune, Vol. XLVII (February, 1953), p. 726+. Aron, R., "Social Structure and the Ruling Class," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Class. Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953, pp . " 567^5^8. Barnard, Chester I., "The Functions of Status Systems," in Robert K. Merton, et al, Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1952, pp. 242-254. Bell, Earl H., "Social Stratification in a Small Com munity," Scientific Monthly. Vol. XXXVIII (February"!! 1934), pp. 157-164. Bendix, Reinhard, "Social Stratification and Political Power," American Political Science Review. Vol. XLVI (June, 1952), pp. 357-375. Benson, Lawrence E., "Mail Surveys Can be Valuable," Public Opinion Quarterly. Vol. X (Summer, 19^6), pp. 235-239. Bettelheim, Bruno, "Ethnic Tolerance: A Function of Social and Personal Control," in Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952, pp. 503-611. B e t t e l h e i m , B r u n o , and M o r r is J a n o w i t z , " E th n ic T o l e r a n c e : A F u n c t i o n o f S o c i a l and P e r s o n a l C o n t r o l , " A m erica n J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y . V o l . LV ( S e p te m b e r , 19^9), pp. 137-1^5. Blumer, Herbert, "Social Structure and Power Conflict," in Arthur Kornhauser, Robert Dubin, and Arthur M. Ross (eds.), Industrial Conflict, New York: McGraw- Hill Book Co., Inc., 195^, PP. 232-239. ________ , "Sociological Analysis and the Variable," American Sociological Review, Vol. XXI (December, 1958), pp. 683-690. Bogardus, Emory S., "Occupational Distance," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XIII (September-October, 1928, pp. 73-81. Bogardus, Emory S., "Stereotypes Versus Sociotypes," Sociology and Social Research. Vol. XXXIV (March- April, 1950J7 pp. 296-291. Bogue, Donald J., "The Quantative Study of Social Dynamic and Social Change," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (May, 1952)7 pp. 565-568. Broom, Leonard, "The Social Differentiation in Jamaica," American Sociological Review. Vol. XIX (April, 1954), PP. 115-125. ________ , "Social Differentiation and Stratification," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19571 pp. 429-441. Brown, James Stephen, "Social Class, Intermarriage, and Church Membership in a Kentucky Community," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (November, 1951), PP. 232-242. Bushnell, Charles J., "Social Aspects of the Chicago Stock Yards, " American Journal of Sociology. Vol. VII (September, 1901). pp. 145-170, 289-330 (March, 1902), pp. 433-474, 687-702. Cattell, Raymond B., "The Concept of Social Status,” Journal of Social Psychology. Vol. XV (March, 1942), pp. 293-308. Centers, Richard, "The American Class Structure: A Psycho logical Analysis," in Guy E. Swanson. Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley (eds.), Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1947, pp. 481-493. ________ , "Nominal Variation and Class Identification: The Working and the Laboring Classes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. Vol. XLV (April, 1950), pp. 195-215. ________ , "Toward an Articulation of Two Approaches to Social Class Phenomena," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Part I (1950),pp. 499-514, and Part II (1951)7 PP• 159-173. 200 Chapin, F. Stuart, "The Measurement of Sociability and Socio-Economic Status," Sociology and Social Research. Vol. XII (January-February, 1920), pp. 208-217. ________, "A Quantitative Scale for Rating the Home and Social Environment of Middle Class Families in an Urban Community," Journal of Educational Psycho logy. Vol. XIX (October, 1928), pp. 99-111. ________, "Socio-Economic Status: Some Preliminary Results of Measurement," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXVII (January, 1932), pp." 5HT-5BT! _______ , "Class Structure," in Henry Pratt Fairchild (~ed.), Dictionary of Sociology. New York: Philo sophical Library, 19475 Chappie, E. 33., and Donald Gordon, Jr., "A Method for Evaluating Supervisory Personnel," Harvard Business Review (Winter, 1946), pp. 197-214. Chein, Isadora, "Some Considerations In Combating Inter group Prejudice," Journal of Educational Sociology. Vol. XIX (May, 1946), pp. 712-419. Christie, Richard, and J. Garcia, "Subcultural Variation in Authoritarian Personality," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. XLVI (November*! 1951) > pp. 457-469. Cochran, U. G., "Relative Accuracy of Systematic and Stratified Random Samples for a Certain Class of Populations, " Annals of Mathematical Statistics, Vol. XVII (1946), pp. 164-177. Counts, George S., "The Social Status of Occupations: A Problem in Vocational Guidance," School Review, Vol. XXXIII (January, 1925), pp. 16-27. Coutu, V/alter, "The Relative Prestige of Twenty Profes sions as Judged by Three Groups of Professional Students," Social Forces. Vol. XIV (May, 1936), pp. 522-529. Davis, Allison, "Caste, Economy, and Violence," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LI (July, 19547"! pp'. 7-16. 201 Davis, Jerome, "Testing the Social Attitudes of Children in the Government Schools in Russia," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XXXII (May, 1927), pp. 947-952. Davis, Kingsley, "A Conceptual Analysis of Stratifica tion," American Sociological Review, Vol. VII (June, 19^2), pp. 309-321. Davis, Kingsley, and Wilbert E. Moore, "Some Principles of Stratification." American Sociological Review, Vol. X (April, 1945), pp. 242-2W. DeGre, Gerard, "Freedom and Social Structure," in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949, pp. 521-529. Deutsch, Morton, and Mary Evans Collins, "The Effects of Public Policy in Housing Projects Upon Interracial Attitudes," in Guy E. Swanson, Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings in Social Psycho logy, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952, pp. 591-596. Edgerton, H. A., S. H. Britt, and R. D. Norman, "Objective Differences Among Various Types of Respondents to a Mailed Questionnaire," American Sociological Review, Vol. XII (August, 1947), pp. 435-444. E d w a rd s, A. L . , and F . P. K i l p a t r i c k , "A T e c h n iq u e f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n o f A t t i t u d e S c a l e s , " J o u r n a l o f A p p l i e d P s y c h o l o g y . V o l . XXXII (May! 1948), pp. 374-3^'4. Form, William H., "Status Stratification in a Planned Com munity," American Sociological Review, Vol. X (October, 1945),pp. 605-613. Glock, Charles Y., "The Sociology of Religion," In Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959, pp. 153-177. Gold, Ray, "Janitors Versus Tenants: A Status Dilemma," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (March, 1952J, pp. 486-493. 202 Goldschmidt, Walter R., "Class Denominationalism in Rural California Churches," American Journal of Socio logy Vol. XLIX (January, 1944), pp. 3*+B^355. Gordon, Milton M., "Social Class in American Sociology," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LV (November, 19*+9), PP. 262-26BT Gross, Llewellyn, "The Use of Class Concepts in Socio logical Research," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LIV (March, 19^9), pp. 409-421. Guttman, Louis, "A Review of Chapin's Social Status Scale," American Sociological Review. Vol. VIII (June, 19^3), pp. 362-369. Hall, C. W., "Social Prestige Values of a Selected Group of Occupations," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. XXXV (1938), pp. 695-701. Harlan, H. H., "Some Factors Affecting Attitude Toward Jews," American Sociological Review, Vol. VII (December, 19*+2)^ pp. 616-627. H artm ann, G. W., "The P r e s t i g e o f O c c u p a t i o n s ," 1e r s o n n e l J o u r n a l . V o l . X I I I (M arch, 1 9 3 * 0 , p p . l*+*+-152. Hatt, Paul K., "Stratification in the Mass Society," American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (April, 1950), pp. 216-222. ________ , "Occupation and Social Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVI (May, 1950), pp. 53cT-5T3 • Hill, Mozell C., and Bevode C. McCall, "Social Stratifi cation in 'Georgia Town, '" American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (December, 1950), pp. 721-729. Hoffer, Eric, "The Progress of Change," Reporter (March, 195*+), PP. 33-37. Hollingshead, August B., "Ecological Theory Re-examined," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XXXI (January- February, 19*+7), PP. 19*+-204. ________ , "Selected Characteristics of Classes in a Middle Western Community," American Sociological Review, Vol. XII (August, 19*+7), pp. 384-3957 203 Hollingshead, August B., "Class and Kinship in a Middle Western Community," American Sociological Review, Vol. XIV (August, 19^9), pp. 469-4757 Hollingshead, August B., and Frederick C. Redlich, "Social Stratification and Psychiatric Disorders," American Sociological Review, Vol. XVIII (April, 1953), pp. I63-169T ________ , "Social Stratification and Schizophrenia," American Sociological Review, Vol. XIX (August, 1954), PP. 302-306' . Hull, Clark L., "The Hypothetico-Deductive Method," in Melvin H. Marx, Psychological Theory, New York: The MacMillan Company, 1951, PP- 218-232. Inkeles, Alex, "Social Stratification and Mobility in the Soviet Union: 1940-1950," American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (June, 1950), pp. 456-479. Kahl, Joseph A., and A. J. Davis, "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," American Sociological Review, Vol. XX (June, 1955), PP. 317-325. Kluckhohn, Clyde, "Values and Value-Orientation in the Theory of Action: An Exploration in Definition and Classification," In Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (eds.), Toward a General Theory of Action, Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1952, pp. 338-433. Kornhauser, Arthur, "Analysis of Class Structure of Contemporary American Society," In George W. Hartmann and Theodore M. Newcomb (eds.), Industrial Conflict, New York: The Condon Company, 1939, pp. 195-218. , "The Negro Union Official: A Study of Sponsor ship and Control," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (November^ 1952), PP- 443-4*53. Kornhauser, Ruth Rosner, "The Warner Approach to Social Stratification," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Class, Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953, pp. 224-255. 204 Larson, Richard P., and William R. Catton, Jr., "Can the Mail-Back Bias Contribute to a Study's Validity?," American Sociological Review, Vol. XXIJ (April, 1950), pp. 243-245. Lasswell, Thomas E., "A Study of Social Stratification Using an Area Sample of Raters," American Socio logical Review. Vol. XIX (June, 1954'), pp. 310-313. Lastrucci, Carlo L., "The Status of Occupational Research," American Sociological Review, Vol. XI (February, 1946), pp." " 78-84T Lazarsfeld, Paul P., "Problems in Methodology," In Robert K. Merton. Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.], Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 19595 ,"pip." "39-73”--- Lee, Alfred McClung, "Techniques of Social Reform," In Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949, pp. 312-327. Lee, Alfred McClung, and Oscar 'Neslev, "Social Status," In Henry Pratt Fairchild (ed.J, Dictionary of Sociology, New York: Philosophical Library, 1944. Lehman, H. C., and Paul Witty, "Further Study of the Social Status of Occupations," Journal of Educa tional Sociology, Vol. V (October, 1931T7 pp. 101-112. Lenski, Gerhard E., "American Social Classes: Statistical Strata or Social Groups?," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (September, 1952), pp. 139-144. Lewin, Kurt, R. Lippit, and R. K. White, "Patterns of Aggressive Behavior in Experimentally Created 'Social Climates,Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. X (March, 1939)* pp. 271-299. Lipset, Seymour M., and Reinhard Bendix, "Social Mobility and Occupational Career Patterns," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (March, 1952), pp ."""'494-504. Lipset, Seymour M., and Natalie Rogoff, "Class and Oppor tunity in Europe and In the United States," Commentary, Vol. XIV (December, 1954), pp. 556-569- 205 Locke, Harvey J., "Are Volunteer Interviewees Representa tive?.” Social Problems. Vol. I (April, 1954), pp. 143-146. Loewy, Karl, "Kibbutzim," The Modern Review. (January, 195^5, PP. 36-39. Longsworth, D. S., "Use of a Mall Questionnaire," American Sociological Review, Vol. XVII (June, 1953), pp. 310-313. Lundberg, George A., "Measurement of Socio-Economic Status, American Sociological Review, Vol. V (October, 1940), pp. 29-39. Lundberg, George A., and P. Friedman, "A Comparison of Three Measures of Socio-Economic Status," Rural Sociology, Vol. VIII (May, 1943), pp. 227-236. Lundberg, George A., and Otto N. Larsen, "Characteristics of Hard-to-Reach Individuals in Field Surveys," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. XIII (Fall, 1949), ppTW-W ' ' Mack, Raymond W., "Housing as an Index of Social Class," Social Forces, Vol. XXIX (May, 1951), pp. 391-400. M acK innon, W illia m J . , and R ic h a r d C e n t e r s , " A u t h o r i t a r i a n i s m and Urban S t r a t i f i c a t i o n , " A m erican J o u r n a l o f S o c i o l o g y , V o l . LXI (May, 1 9 5 6 ) , p p . 610-620. M a r s h a l l , T. H ., " S o c i a l C l a s s : A P r e l i m i n a r y A n a l y s i s , " The Sociological Review, V o l . XXVI (January, 1934), pp. 55-70. ________, "The Nature of Class Conflict," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset (eds.), Class, Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953), PP. BT737. McGuire, Carson, "Social Stratification and Mobility Pat terns," American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (April, 1950), pp. 195-204. McKee, James B., "Status and Power In the Industrial Com munity: A Comment on Drucker»s Thesis," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (November, 1953), p p . 3 6 8 - 3 7 3 . 206 Mendelsohn, Harold, "Toward Systematic Analyses of Com munity Research Data," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XXXVI (September-October, 1951), PP. 36-39. Merton, Robert K., "Notes on Problem-Finding in Socio logy, " in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today, New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1959, PP. 9-34. Merton, Robert K.. and Patricia L. Kendall, "The Focused Interview, ' American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LI (May, 1946), pp. 541-557. Mills, C. Wright, "The Social Life of a Modern Community," American Sociological Review, Vol. VII (April, 1942), pp. 263-271. Mombert, Paul, "Class." Kncyclopaedla of the Social Sciences (1934) III ed., pp. 531-935' . Montague, Joel B., Jr., "Research Related to Social Class In England," American Sociological Review, Vol. XVII (April, 1952), pp. 192-196. Morris, Richard T., "Social Stratification," in Leonard Broom and Philip Selznick, Sociology, Evanston: Row, Peterson and Company, 1955, pp. 167-192. Morris, Richard T., and Raymond J. Murphy, "The Situs Dimension In Occupational Structure,” American Sociological Review, Vol. XXIV (Anril, 1959), pp. 231-239. Mueller-Freienfels, Richard, "The Mechanization and Standardization of American Life," in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949), pp. 146-151. Myrdal, Cunnar, "Theoretical Critique of the Concept Mores," in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Socio logical Analysis, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1949, pp. 3o-o3. North, Cecil C., "Social Classes," in Joseph S. Roucek (ed.), Social Control, New York: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1 pp. 149-lub. 207 North, Cecil C., and P. K. Hatt, "Jobs and Occupations: A Popular Evaluation," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Sociological Analysis, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953# pp. 411-426. Osgood, C. E., and R. Stagner, "Analysis of a Prestige Frame of Reference by a Gradient Technique," Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol. XXV (March, 1941), pp. 275-290. Parsons, Talcott, "An Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," American Journal of Socio logy . Vol. LXV (May, 1940), pp. 451-962. ________ , "Social Classes and Class Conflict in the Light of Recent Sociological Theory," American Economic Review, Vol. XXXIX (May, 1949), pp. 16-26. ________, " A Revised Analytical Approach to the Theory of Social Stratification," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Class. Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953# PP. 92-123. Pfautz, Harold W., "The Current Literature on n^clal Stratification," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVIII (January, 1953), pp. 391-413. Pfautz, Harold W., and Otis Dudley Duncan, "A Critical Evaluation of Warner’s Work in Community Stratifi cation," American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (April, 1950)# pp. 205-215. Power, E. R. Roper, "The Social Structure of an English County Town," The Sociological Review, Vol. XXIX (October, 1937T# PP^ 391-413. Reuss, C. F., "Differences Between Persons Responding and not Responding to Mail Questionnaires," American Sociological Review, Vol. VIII (August, 1943)# PP. 433-43B" Riesman, David, "Who Has the Power?," In Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Class, Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953, pp. 154-162. Riessman, Leonard, "Class, Leisure, and Social Participa tion," American Sociological Review, Vol. XIX (February, 1954)1 pp. 76-84. Riessman, Leonard, "Life Careers, Power and the Profes sions," American Sociological Review. Vol. XXI (April, 1956), pp. 215-221. Roberts, A. H., and M. Rokeach, "Anomie, Authoritarianism and Prejudice," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LXVI (November, 1955), pp. 355-359. Robinson, D., and S. Rhode, "A Public Opinion Study of Anti-Semitism in New York City," American Socio logical Review, Vol. X (April, 194 5), pp. 511-515. Logoff, Natalie, "Recent Trends in Urban Occupational Mobility," in Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, Class, Status and Power, Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953, pp~ 442-456. Rosenblum, Abraham L., "Ethnic Prejudice as Related to Social Class and Religiosity," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XLIII (March-April, 1959), pp. 272-276“ Rosenfeld, Eva, "Social Stratification in a 'Classless Society,American Sociological Review, Vol. XVI (December, 1951), PP~ 766-77^. Schmid, C. F., "Basic Statistical Concepts and Techniques, in Pauline V. Young (ed.), Scientific Social Surveys and Research, New York: Prentice-IIall, 1949 Schmid, Robert, "Deep South," American Sociological Review, Vol. VII (April, 1942), pp.' 261-263- Schneider, Joseph, "Class Origin and Fame: Eminent English Women," American Sociological Review, Vol. V (October") 1940), pp. 700-712. Schuler, Edgar A., "Social and Economic Status In a Louisiana Rills Community," Rural Sociology. Vol. V (March, 1940), pp. 69-35. Schulze, R. 0., and L. U. Blumberg, "The Determination of Local Power Elites," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LXIII (November, 1957), pp. 290-297. Scodel, Alvin, and P. Mussen, "Social Perceptions of A u t h o r i t a r i a n s and N o n - A u t h o r i t a r i a n s , 1 1 J o u r n a l o f Abnorm al and S o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y . V o l . XLVII ( S e p t e m b e r , 1 9 5 3 ) , p p . l 3 l - l o 4 . 209 Seidler, M. B., and M. J. Ravitz, "A Jewish Peer Group," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. DXI (July, 1955), PP. 11-16. Seton-Watson, Hugh, "The Social Contradiction of Stalinism," The Fortnightly. Vol. 178 (December, 1952), pp. 371-377. Sewell, William H., "Field Techniques in Social Psycho logical Study in a Rural Community," American Sociological Review. Vol. XIV (December, 1949), pp. 718-726. Sharp, H., "The Mailed Questionnaire as a Supplement to the Personal Interview," American Sociological Review. Vol. XX (December, 1955), PP. 717-722. Shuttleworth, F. K., "Sampling Errors Involved In Incom plete Returns to Mailed Questionnaires," Psycho logical Bulletin. Vol. XXXVII (July, 1940), pp. 437-^39. Sibley, Elbridge, "Some Demographic Clues to Stratifica tion," American Sociological Review. Vol. VII (June, 19^2), pp. 322-330. Simpson, George, "Class Analysis: What Class Is Not," American Sociological Review. Vol. IV (December, 1939), PP. 827-835. Sjoberg, Gideon, "Are Social Classes In America Becoming More Rigid?," American Sociological Review. Vol. XVI (December, 194l),pp. 774-779. Sleto, R. F., "Pretesting of Questionnaires," American Sociological Review. Vol. V (April, 1940), ppT" 193-200. Smith, Mapheus, "Proposals for Making a Scale of Occupa tional Status," Sociology and Social Research. Vol. XX (September-October, 1935), pp. 40-49. ________, "An Empirical Scale of Prestige Status of Occu pations," American Sociological Review, Vol. VIII (April, 1943), pp. 185-1927 Smogorzewski, K. M. "Nothing New from Moscow," The Fort nightly. Vol. 178 (November, 1952), pp. 320-326. 210 Smythe, Hugh H., "The Eta: A Marginal Japanese Caste," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (September, 1 9 5 2 ) , pp. 1 9 5 - 2 0 1 . Sorokin, Pitirim A., "What Is a Social Class?," In Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, Class. Status and Power. Glencoe: The Free Press, 1953* pp. 86-91. Speier, Hans, "Social Stratification in the Urban Com munity," American Sociological Review. Vol. I (April, 1 9 3 6 ) , pp. 1 9 2 - 2 0 2 . Stouffer, Samuel A., "Some Observations on Study Design," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LV (January, 1950)7 pp. 355-361. Suchman, Edward A., and Boyd McCandless, "Who Answers Questionnaires?," Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. XXIV (December, 19^0), pp. 756-769. Tolman, Edward C., "Value Standards, Pattern Variables, Social Roles, Personality, in Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils (eds.), Toward A General Theory of Action, Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1952, Part III, pp. 3^3-35^. Useem, John, Pierre Tangent, and Ruth Useem, "Stratifica tion in a Prairie Town," American Sociological Review. Vol. VII (June, 19^2), pp. 331-372. Vidich, Arthur J., and Gilbert Shapiro, "A Comparison of Participant Observation and Survey Data," American Sociological Review, Vol. XX (February, 1955), PP. 23-33. Warner, W. Lloyd, "American Caste and Class,” American Journal of Sociology. Vol. XLII (September, 1936), pp. 23^-237. White, J. E., "Theory and Method for Research in Community Leadership," American Sociological Review, Vol. XV (February, 1950), PP• 50-60. White, R. Clyde, "Low Income Classes," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. XLVII (May, 19^2)7 PP. 913-926. Wllkenson, F., "Social Distance Between Occupations," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. XIII (January, 1929), pp. 23^-2^. 211 Wilks, S. S., "Representative Sampling and Poll Reli ability," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. IV (June, 19^0), pp. 261-269. _________, "Confidence Limits and Critical Differences Between Percentages," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. IV (June, 1940), pp. 322-332. Williams, Carey, "Does Social Discrimination Really Matter?," Commentary, Vol. VII (November, 1947)» pp. 4Jo-417. Wright, David McCord, "The Economics of a Classless Society," American Economic Review, Vol. XXXIX (May, 1 )4 ) ) " , ' PP. 27-30. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Ellis, Robert A., "Class Awareness In a Jamaican Market Town," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale University, 1937- Hollingshead, August B., "Index of Social Position - Seven Socio-Economic Scale Positions, Yale University, n.d. (Mimeographed). Lasswell, Thomas Ely, "Status Stratification In a Selected Community," Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation University of Southern California, 1)33. Rosenblum, Abraham L., "A Study of the Relationship Between the Knowledge of the Bible on the Part of Three Hundred and Nineteen High School Seniors in the Public Schools of Terre Haute, Indiana, in 1)44, and Their Social Adjustment," Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Indiana State Teachers College, Terre Haute, Indiana, 1)44. _________ , "Social Class and Mobility Aspiration," Unpub lished Paper, University of Southern California, July, 1957- , "Comparison of Standard Social Class Indexes," Unpublished Paper, University of Southern California, August, 1)37. 212 D. OTHER SOURCES Chapin, P. Stuart, "Democracy and Class Relations," The Problem of Democracy: Papers and Proceedings. Fourteenth Annual Meeting. American Sociological Society. December 29-31. 1919. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1920, pp. 100-112. ________ , Scale for Rating Living Room Equipment, Insti tute of Child Welfare Circular No. 3, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, January, 1930. Poote, Nelson N., et al. "Alternative Assumptions in Stratification Research," Transaction of the Second World Congress of Sociology. Vol. II International Sociological Association, 1954, pp. 378-390. Mayer, Kurt, "The Theory of Social Classes," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology. Vol. II International Sociological Association, 1954, PP• 321-335. Miller, Andreas, "The Problem of Class Boundaries and its Significance for Research into Class Structure," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Socio logy, Vol. II International Sociological Associa tion, 195^, pp. 343-352. Pfautz, Harold V/., "Social Stratification and Sociology," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Socio logy . Vol. II International Sociological Associa tion, 1954, pp. 311-320. Schelsky, H. von, "Die Bedeutung des Schichtungsbegriffes fur die Analyse der Gegenwartigen Deutschen Gesell- schaft," Transactions of the Second World Congress of Sociology, Vol. II International Sociological Association, 1954, pp. 358-363. Sewell, William H., "The Construction and Standardization of a Scale for the Measurement of the Socio- Economic Status of Oklahoma Farm Families," Technical Bulletin No. 9, Stillwater: Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, 1940. United Nations Series on Community: Organization and Development, Monograph No. 13, Israel, 1954. 213 Williams, Robin M., Jr., The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions, New York: Social Science Research Council, Bulletin No. 57* 19^7. APPENDIX A THE MAILED QUESTIONNAIRE TRI-STATE PLANNING SURVEY It will be greatly appreciated if you would devote a few minutes of your time In answering this questionnaire. We are collecting information for use by the Planning Committee. Your answers to this questionnaire will be tallied along with thousands of others and passed along to help civic and government leaders serve your wishes better. You will not be identified in this questionnaire. The survey Is completely anonymous. You are not being asked to sign your name or identify yourself in any way. All we desire is to solicit your honest opinions as a con tribution to the American principle of serving the wishes of the majority of the people. Please use the enclosed, self-addressed, stamped envelope in returning your survey. Thank you for your kind cooperation with this scientific effort. Appreciatively yours, C. Talcott Montgomery, Jr. Survey Section Chairman Graduate Student, Department of Sociology University of Southern California P.S. Your early response will facilitate our work and will be extremely appreciated. Thank you. C.T.M. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 216 PLEASE ANSWER ALL QUESTIONS. PUT A CHECK (X) MARK ON THE PROPER LINE. KINDLY BE SPECIFIC IN ALL YOUR ANSWERS. 1. Sex: Male Female . 2. Age last birthday___ . 3. Race:__Caucasian (white) _ Negroid Mongoloid______ . 4. Occupation: (Kindly be specific. If housewife, give that of your husband. State type of work, e.g., electrical engineer, tool maker, dressmaker, auto mechanic, etc.)__________ . 5. Employed In a firm of: Less than 25 employees 25- 100 employees More than 100 employees Or, self' employed . 6. Religious preference (Denomination. Be specific)___ 7. How often do you attend church (synagogue)? Every week Twice a month Once a month Less than once a month Once a year Never . 3 . In your opinion, In order for a person to be a good individual, is it necessary for him to be religious? Yes No Undecided_. 9. (instruction: Please number each of the answers to this question, number 1, 2, 3, etc., in order of Importance to you. Put number 1 for most Important, number 2 for next Important, etc.) In your opinion, the purpose of the church is: To meet friends To learn how to worship God properly To learn how to be a good person To give charity For praying collectively To listen to the preacher’s sermon Any other reason . 10. How many years of formal schooling did you complete? (Circle year completed) Grade School: 12 3^5^78 High School: 9 10 11 12 College: 12 3^ Graduate: 5 6 7. 11. Do you believe it is better for Negro children to have their own schools and not be mixed with whites? Yes No Uncertain . 1 2 . Do you b e l i e v e t h a t i n o r d e r t o a v o i d t r o u b l e (g r o u p f r i c t i o n ) I t i s b e t t e r f o r e a c h m i n o r i t y g r o u p t o l i v e i n s e p a r a t e s e c t i o n s o f t h e c i t y ? Y e s No____ U n c e r t a i n . 217 13. If a Negro family moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors _ Protest against them verbally____ Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becom ing good friends__ Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything , 14. If a Jewish family moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors _ Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit_them for the purpose of becom ing good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 13. If a Catholic family moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit_them for the purpose of becom ing good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 16. If any other family which does not belong to your own group either by race or religion moved next door to you, would you: Move away Accept them as neighbors Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them)___ Visit them for the pur pose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 17. Do you believe that THE INTEGRATION PROCESS In the South: Concerns you personally and should be enforced Concerns you personally and should not be en forced Is a Southern White problem Should not take place at the present time___ Is a Negro problem only . 13. In your opinion, do social classes exist in our society? Yes No Uncertain . 19. If so, how many social classes can you distinguish?: 2___ 3___ 4__ 5___ 6___ 7___ Any other number . 20. How would you name the social classes you specified above____________ . 21. In which social class do you belong? __________ . 22. On the basis of which factors do you think that you belong in the class you specified? __________ . 218 23. Think of three friends with whom you spend more time than with others (your family excluded). What are their occupations? 1. 2. 3.___________ . 24. (Instructions: Place a number after each occupation in accordance with your answer to question 19 above. Put number 1 for the highest, number 2 for the next highest, etc. Numbers can be duplicated.) In your opinion, in which social class do the follow ing belong?: Head of a chain store Minister___ Supreme Court Justice Lawyer Machinist___ President of local bank Physician (MD) Un skilled laborer College professor Mail carrier Drugstore clerk Garbage collector Insurance agent Head of a million dollar concern Small grocery owner Auto mechanic. 25. Some people in the United States designate themselves as belonging to these social classes: Upper, Upper middle, Lower middle, Working, and Lower. On the basis of this designation, in which social class do you belong? Upper Upper middle Lower middle Working Lower Any other__________ . 26. At election time, you vote: A straight Republican ticket A straight Democratic ticket For the candidate regardless of party Depends on the effectiveness of the campaign Don’t vote even though eligible Other__________ . 27. In American political life, you are active in behalf of the following party: Republican Democratic___ Other (specify)__________ Not active___. 28. Comments on the whole questionnaire or any portion; or give reason for answering a question in the manner you did. (Optional — use reverse side of paper if additional space is needed.) Form 1475 APPENDIX B THE STRUCTURED INTERVIEW Date of Interview Interviewer Time_________________________ Length______ THI-STATE PLANNING SURVEY In order to plan intelligently for future legisla tion, it is necessary to obtain information on the attitudes and thinking of our citizens. This in terview is being conducted for this purpose. Your name has been selected in a random fashion. We hope that you will answer the questions that are to be asked in as frank a manner as possible. Your replies will remain strictly confidential, our Interest being in how people in general answer these questions rather than in how any particular individual answers these questions. Thank you for your kind cooperation with this scientific effort. Appreciatively yours, C. Talcott Montgomery, Jr. Survey Section Chairman Graduate Student, Department of Sociology University of Southern California * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 1. Name (Last) (First) (Middle) 2. Sex: Male Female . 3- Age last birthday . 4. Place of Birth_________. 3- How long In this area 6. Race: Caucasian (white) _ Negroid Mongoloid . 7. Occupation: (Kindly be specific. If housewife, give that of husband.)__________ . 3. How long in this occupation__________ . 9. Employed in a firm of: Less than 25 employees 25- 100 employees^ More than 100 employees Self- employed . 221 10. Religious preference (Denomination. Be specific). 11. How often do you attend church (synagogue)? Every week Twice a month Once a month Less than once a month_ Once a year_____ Never . 12. Do you think that in order for a person to be a good individual, it is necessary for him to be religious? Yes No Undecided Other 13. (instruction: Put "MI" for most important, "LI" for least important and "NI" for not important.) In your opinion, the purpose of the church is: To meet friends To learn how to worship God properly To learn how to be a good person To give charity For praying collectively To listen to the preacher's sermon Any other reason___________. 14. How many years of formal schooling did you complete?: (Circle year completed) Grade School: 123^ 56 78 High School: 9 10 11 12 College: 12 3^ Graduate: 5 6 7. 15. Do you believe it is better for Negro children to have their own schools and not be mixed with whites? Yes No Uncertain____ Other_____ . 16. Do you believe that in order to avoid possible trouble (group friction) it is better for each minor ity group to live in separate sections of the city? Yes No Uncertain Other . 1 7. If a Negro family moved next door to you, which of the following would you do? Move away Accept them as neighbors_____ Protest a g a i n s t them verbally_ Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 18. If a Jewish family moved next door to you, which of the following would you do? Move away Accept them as neighbors_____ Protest against them verbally_ Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 19. If a Catholic family moved next door to you, which of the following would you do? Move away Accept them 222 as neighbors Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are before doing anything . 20. If any other family which does not belong to your own group either by race or religion moved next door to you, which of the following would you do? Move away Accept them as neighbors Protest against them verbally Have nothing to do with them (ignore them) Visit them for the purpose of becoming good friends Find out what kind of people they are be fore doing anything . 21. Do you believe that THE INTEGRATION PROCESS in the South: Concerns you personally and should be enforced Concerns you personally and should not be en forced Is a Southern White problem Should not take place at the present time Is a Negro problem only Is a Southern Negro and White problem only 2 2 . In y o u r o p i n i o n , do s o c i a l c l a s s e s e x i s t i n ou r s o c i e t y ? Y e s No U n c e r t a i n . 2 3 . I f s o , how many s o c i a l c l a s s e s can you d i s t i n g u i s h ? : 2____ 3_____ 4___ 5____ 6____ 7____ Any o t h e r number . 24. How would you name the social classes you specified above?__________ . 21. In which social class do you belong?____________. 26. On the basis of which factors do you think that you belong in the class you specified?__________ . 2?. Think of three friends with whom you spend more time than with others (your family excluded). What are their occupations? 1.__________ 2.______________ 3._______________• 28. (Instruction: Place a number after each occupation in accordance with your answer to question 23 above. Put number 1 for the highest, number 2 for the next highest, etc. Numbers can be duplicated.) In your opinion, in which social class do the follow ing belong?: Head of chain store Minister___ Supreme Court Justice Lawyer Machinist___ President of local bank Physician (MD)___ 223 Unskilled laborer College professor Mall carrier Drugstore clerk Garbage collector___ Insurance agent Head of a million dollar concern Small grocery owner Auto mechanic . 29- Some people In the United States designate themselves as belonging in these social classes: Upper, Upper middle, Lower middle, Working, and Lower. On the basis of this designation, in which social class do you belong? Upper Upper middle Lower middle Working Lower Any other . 3 ). At election time, you vote: A straight Republican ticket A straight Democratic ticket For the candidate regardless of party Depends on the effectiveness of the campaign Don't vote even though eligible Other . 31. In American political life, you are active in behalf of the following party: Republican Democratic___ Other (specify)___________ Not active___________ . 32. Can you qualify your ansivers to questions lr' and In? 33. Please qualify your answers to questions 17, 1 , 19, and 20_______________ . 3J 1. Please qualify your answer to question 21 __________ Additional Comments: APPENDIX C A PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN FOR 3TRATIFICATIOH A PROPOSED RESEARCH DESIGN FOR STRATIFICATION "The purpose of research," says Marie Jahoda, e_t al, "is to discover answers to meaningful questions through t’ ne application of scientific procedures . " ? Lazarsfeld states: The construction of scales, sampling and avoidance of interviewer bias are not aspects of methodology . . . The implications of a specific techn Lque^.-however, are the methodologist's concern ’ ; The paramount importance of a research study lies in the application of its scientific procedure in obtain ing data, or the research design. After a problem Is formed from existing t'neory in Topical sequence, trie researcher should embark on his des'nn to obtain data. 1 n suci: a way that after data are collected, he will be able to manipulate such data and put them to analyses and Interpretation. This involves number of considerations: Ln the first place, i.t poses the question, what kind of data should be collected? in ■^-^^Marie Jahoda, Morton Deutsch, and Stuart W. Cook, Research Methods in Social Relations (New York: Th Dryden Press, 1 Trt), p. 2. ^5°Paul f . Lazarsfeld, "Problems in Methodology," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Saciology Today (New Yorlc: Basic Books, Inc., 195G), p. ^1. 226 this consideration, the problems involved are: (l) representativeness, (2) validity, and (3) reliability. The difficulty of representativeness lies in the fact of non-available funds and the time element. When a small grant is available, the researcher is expected to "produce" a wealth of information in a short time and also to supply the "remedies" for the "ills" of society. This is probably the reason for what Stouffer laments, "a few facts and lots of interpretation.nl59 x t could be said that the demands for "social remedies" far surpass the willingness of expenditure. Of this dilemma, and in order to fulfill these demands and pressures, arises all kinds of interpretations and sweeping generalizations by the researcher who, in turn, meets with "righteous indignation" in the form of a barrage of criticism from his fellow scientists. Nevertheless, the demands of research in the field of social science are great and the student feels "compelled" to report sweeping generalizations while his limited data can probably, for the most part, furnish only an lota of suggestions and point out the need for further research in the particular field, or the specified problem. 159samuel A. Stouffer, "Some Observations on Study Design," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LV (January, 1 9 5 0 ) , pp3 3 5 5 - 3 6 1 , passim. TYPES OP RESEARCH DESIGN The more "ideal type" of research design would be one in which the following steps are Included: In the first place, the sample should be selected in such a manner as to be representative of the universe of discourse. If, for example, the study is undertaken to ascertain the extent of prejudice in the community, urban or national, a random sample of such universe must be obtained. This randomization would disregard the effect of stratification; or, in perfect randomization, it would be assumed that the stratification variable is at the same time controlled. On the other hand, if the study purports to represent the degree of prejudice of the different strata in the community, a stratified random sample would be more representative. In this case, many features In the research design must be taken into account. To be truly representative, the researcher must first determine how the people in the community are stratified, what cri terion they use for the different strata, what their criterion is for social class, and whether the criterion is based upon a prestige level or social distance attitudes. The Ideal research design should contain one or more control groups and one or more experimental groups. In such a design, careful matching Is involved, and the variable or variables selected should be subject to "treatment" or manipulation over time. After careful con sideration, and being fairly sure that a certain social class group is being dealt with, the sample should be divided into two or more groups, carefully matched. One group should constitute the control group; the experi mental group should be subjected to certain treatments. After treatment, results should be noticed. This design would reveal whether or not the prejudice phenomenon is subject to change under different conditions or stimuli. The graphic presentation of such a design could be portrayed in the Stouffer style,1^1 as illustrated in Graph I. Subjects available for such an experiment, however, would be extremely limited. Furthermore, those subjects available would be of the voluntary type, which i6°it is maintained that prestige and social dis tance are different criteria; not, as some believe, that the social class phenomenon is based on a social distance attitude. It is contended that prestige is a positive attitude, whereas social distance is a negative attitude. The two criteria may be related in some manner, but they are not synonymous. 1^1Cf. Samuel A. Stouffer, 0£. clt.. passim. 229 GRAPH I SUGGESTED RESEARCH DESIGN SAMPLE Treatment In Time Sequence Treatment A d' Treatment B d' Treatment C d’ Control Group I Before After No Before After No Before After No Control Group II Yes No No Control Group III No Yes No Control Group IV No No Yes Experimental Group I Yes Yes Yes 230 GRAPH I-Continued. Treatment in Time Sequence Treatment A d' Treatment B d r Treatment C d' Experimental Group II Before After Yes Before After Yes Before After Yes Experimental Group III Yes Yes Yes Experimental Group IV Yes Yes Yes 231 could immediately cast a reflection on the representative ness of the s a m p l e . -*-^2 An attempt to construct a research design in the foregoing style for the social class phenomenon would be almost impossible and, in reality, of little scientific value. The class phenomenon depends solely upon differen tial behavior on the part of society. In this case, It would be valueless to Induce "clinical" treatment over a period of time, inasmuch as the action of society cannot be affected by such treatment. It is therefore suggested that In order to determine the differences of societal behavior attitudes in time sequence, such attitudes should be reconstructed from the viewpoints of the subjects under investigation. The graphic presentation of such a design is thus Illustrated in Graph II. This type of design will not depend on treatment and analyses of differences in time sequence, but on the attitudes of the respondents and their views of time sequence. It is maintained that in the stratification phenomenon, attitudes of society affect differential behavior; therefore, from an expression of their attitudes, the researcher could arrive at a true •^^See for example: Harvey J. Locke, "Are Volunteer Interviewees Representative?," Social Problems, Vol. I (April, 195*0, PP- 143-146. 232 GRAPH II QUESTIONS POSED TO SUBJECTS REVEALING CHANGE OP ATTITUDES OVER TIME What was What Is What ought to be Control Group I Yes No No Control Group II No Yes No Control Group III No No Yes Experimental Group I Yes Yes Yes Experimental Group II Yes Yes Yes Experimental Group III Yes Yes Yes 233 picture of the structure of society and, possibly, the direction in which it is being shaped for the future. The main problem in good research design would then be the posing of proper questions. Merton points out the importance and difficulties In posing proper questions when he says, in part: . . . In science, the questions that matter are of a particular kind. They are questions so formulated that the answers to them will confirm, amplify, or variously revise some part of what Is currently taken as knowledge in the field. In short, although every problem in a science in volves a question, or series of questions, not every question qualifies as a scientific problem.163 The essence of this viewpoint lies In structuring meaning ful questions which would supply the researcher with accurate data. It is maintained that whereas the concept of stra tification Is of a static nature,164 values attached to the class system are of a changing nature, dependent upon time and space, thereby affecting the denotative as well as the connotative aspect of the concept. l63Robert K. Merton, "Notes on Problem-Finding In Sociology," in Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr. (eds.), Sociology Today, op. cit.. p. 10, e_t passim. l64This contention was brought out in this study from the review of the literature, and especially can be seen In the behavior of "classless" societies where the class structure is nevertheless pronounced. 23^ In order to clarify this theoretical contention, and to present a suggested questionnaire, a discussion of change and value orientation follows. SOCIAL CHANGE The now famous pronouncement of Heraclitus -- that all things are in a state of flux — has Induced many students to consider and understand why and how change occurs In the social actions of men. Questions about change seem to be posed more often by members of societies that experience some degree of change. The very fact of change, with the effects produced upon the social order, the consequent dislocation of persons in social space, make men curious about change. Primitive peoples, the ethnologists indicate, devote little attention to the phenomenon of change, Inasmuch as the relative immobility of their social order, their restricted horizons, make unnecessary such speculation. In their case, change is so slow as to be imperceptible In a lifetime. No society is completely static; nevertheless, change can occur so slowly that It does not arouse curiosity. However, when change in behavior and social forms is rapid and frequent, as at present, attention is devoted to it by the majority of students of social phenomenon. That continuous social change exists seems to be agreed upon by all sociologists considering the subject. 235 The lack: of clarity seems to lie In the fact that there Is no fixed criterion for the definition of change. The study of social change is vast and can be viewed from a number of perspectives. As Lowell J. Carr says, 11. . .it is not too much to hope that some day we may succeed in developing a real metakinology, or science of change."1^5 One way of classifying social change is on the basis of causal events, the factors which contribute to a change from one existing mode of life to another. Change in this sense occurs by deviation from the "normal" events in nature, such as drought, flood, or tornado. In the same sense, dysequilibrlum occurs when a new invention is introduced or when drastic economic crises occur. This type of change is classified as cultural or functional. There are other changes. Migrations and distribution of people constitute an important class of social change. Myrdal points to the ongoing processes of change in American society. Similar Influences work upon all indi viduals in a society and result in continuous changes in "public opinion." Changes In social opinion, according to Myrdal, may occur suddenly in a revolutionary fashion, or In an evolutionary fashion. Essentially, these changes are the same, the difference being only in magnitude. ^^Lowell J. Carr and J. E. Sterner, Willow Run (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1952), p. 11. 236 Social change is influenced by material forces in environ ment, such as changes in the technique of production, com munication, and consumption. It is also greatly, possibly even more, influenced by ideas. "Ideas have a momentum of their own; they are partly primary causes in the social process."166 These changes occur through the dynamics of social valuations. Although the element of social statics exists, there is also the conflict of valuation. It Is not the statics of folkways and mores that are observed in modern "stable" society. "There is instability at bottom, a balancing of forces In conflict with each other, and there is continuously the possibility of rapid, and even In duced, change, the direction of which is not altogether predetermined by trends and natural forces."167 Change, according to Hoffer, makes for Instability and revolution. Drastic change without enough room for expansion is dangerous; change In Itself gives the indivi dual a feeling of insecurity. Dostoyevsky puts it as "taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people l66GUnnar Myrdal, "Theoretical Critique of the Concept Mores," In Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company,1949), p. 62. l67ibid. 237 fear most."168 It seems possible in this sense to support the fol lowing generalizations: People resist changes that appear to threaten basic securities; they resist proposed changes which they do not understand; they resist being forced to change. Barnett, in discussing acceptance of innovation or change, says that it does not necessarily follow that the unsatisfied will readily accept all types of innovation or change. True, in every acceptance of change there is the element of dissatisfaction, even among the satisfied indi viduals; but dissatisfaction is not a predisposition to acceptance of change. The unsatisfied individual is not an absolutely indiscriminate acceptor. "He, too, is influenced by the auspices of the novelty and by its meanings and values as he sees them."16^ That change involves elements of strain is also pointed out by Merton. The strains and stresses in a social structure which accumulate as dysfunctional conse quences of existing elements and are not confined by appropriate social planning, will in due course lead to an l68Eric Hoffer, "The Progress of Change," Reporter (March 2, 195^), p. 3^. l6%. G. Barnett, Innovation: The Basis of Cul tural Change (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1953), p. 410. 238 institutional breakdown and basic social change. "When J_such7 change has passed beyond a given and not easily identifiable point, it is customary to say that a new social system has emerged."170 His approach to the problem is from the functional analytic viewpoint: Though functional analysis has often focused on the statics of the social structure rather than the dynamics of social change, this is not intrin sic to that system of analysis. By focusing on dysfunctions as well as on functions, this approach can assess not only the basis of social stability but the potential sources of social change. The phrase 'historically developed forms' may be a useful reminder that social structures are typically undergoing discernable change.171 On the other hand, even though it is possible to think of change as an ongoing process, the elements of statics in society must also be recognized, and vice versa. "Recog nizing . . . that social structures are forever changing, functional analysis must nevertheless explore the inter dependent and often mutually supporting elements of social structure."172 Bogue maintains that at the present time, statisti cal observations are predominantly static or based upon 170RObert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Action (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1951), p. ^3. !71rbid. 172ftobert K. Merton, loc. cit. 239 data which refers to behavior at some instant of time. He suggests that mobility data should also be used side by side with the static question, i.e., "what is this per son's occupation?," which should be supplemented with the question "what was this person's occupation last year?" He also suggests that data should show: (1) what type of persons participate in a change; (2) what institutions appear to motivate a change; (3) what the rate of change is at its peak intensity or exactly when and where the peak intensity is attained, and (4) whether or not the net change is accomplished by a single type of behavior or by a great variety of different types whose resultant is the observed change.^-73 Prom this analysis of social change, it seems that the best way to approach the problem is the functional analytical view, even though in its more empirically ori ented and analytically precise forms, functional analysis is often regarded with suspicion by those who consider a given social structure eternally fixed and beyond change. This more exacting form of functional analysis includes not only a study of functions of existing social struc ture, but also a study of their dysfunctions for diversely 1?3cf. Donald J. Bogue, "The Quantitative Study of Social Dynamics and Social Change," American Journal of Sociology, Vol. LVII (May, 1952), pp. 565-568. 240 situated individuals, sub-groups, or social strata, and the more inclusive society, . . . when the net balance of the aggregate of consequences of an existing social structure is clearly dysfunctional, there develops a strong and insistent pressure for change. It is pos sible, though this remains to be established, that beyond a given point, this pressure will Inevitably result in more or less predetermined directions of social change.174 The connection of social change to, and its influence upon, the stratification phenomenon is a strong contention in this study, inasmuch as it is maintained that the value of class differentiation is, in turn, totally affected by change. SUGGESTED CRITERIA OF CLASS Despite the rapid development of social class analysis within the past twenty-five years in American sociology, it Is concluded from the examined literature that there is little agreement among sociologists regard ing the variables that should be used for delineating class structure in a society. The writer therefore posits three criteria of stratification which may be all-inclusive, to be used as a kind of common denominator of the subject treated. These are the Indices of power, leisure, and value. With these !7^Robert k . Merton, ojc. clt. , p. 41. 2^1 criteria, the class structure in all societies could be distinguished, inasmuch as ultimately any criterion can be reduced to the foregoing and also be included in them. Power can be viewed from many different perspec tives. There are two main types of power: (1) that of formal authority and (2) that of influence. In the former instance, power can be achieved by force, election, or appointment to formal office; in the latter, power will be viewed as having informal influence upon others, and may spring from wealth, education, occupation, or charisma. Regardless of the underlying factors involved, the power structure would enable the researcher to class an indivi dual according to the extent of his influence on others. For example, the actor, the movie "star," may be classed in a higher category in contemporary society not for his Income but because of his influence upon the masses. This may actually correlate with the change in value regarding the actor. When the actor had only a narrow avenue of influence, he was considered in a low class, but with the advent of motion picture production, his status has been raised considerably. When class is considered, It immediately leads to the concept of power or rule. In ancient days, the ruling class was a restricted class, or a caste, and It was hereditary. With the Impact of the industrial revolution, 242 people In possession of money became the holders of power. Money, however, did not give the absolute security of transmission of power to offspring, inasmuch as money could be lost and with It, power. A shift In power took place In the last few decades. Until the late 1920's, the businessmen's control, although at times restrained by the agrarian block and small trade union movement, was never seriously endangered. The Great Depression and the advent of welfare government led to severe Inroads Into areas once considered their personal domain. Noticeably, two groups have emerged as competi tors of the business elite: the bureaucrats and the labor leaders. These changes have great implications for American class structure. Union members no longer look to the "older" group for counsel, nor do they show them their former deference; instead, they have turned to the emer gent competing elite. The breakdown of the older elite in the United States has also facilitated social mobility. Labor leaders emerge even from the lower class, which represents a new avenue of achieving positions of power and prestige. Bendix^-75 maintains that studies of political power 175cf. Reinhard Bendix, "Social Stratification and Political Power," American Political Science Review, Vol. LXVI (June, 1952), pp. 357-375. 243 have often been based on the belief that the major deter minants in the struggle for power may be ascertained by analyzing the social stratification of a society. This belief is supported by the following assumptions: The ideas and actions of men art: generally conditioned by their social and economic position In society. When a large number of individuals occupy a comparable social position, they may be expected to think and act alike. They are likely to share social and economic Interests which are promoted — in competition or conflict with other social groups -- through political organization and interest-representatj n. Hence, a study of politics should be concerned with the social composition of the members and leaders of different political organizations; this kind of knowledge will provide clues to the power which such organizations can exert and to the political goals which their leaders are likely to pursue. Blumer implies that stratification may hinge on power. "The dynamic changes in our economy open new areas for exploitation and thus for Increased encroachment of group on group."176 He maintains that the main aim of the struggle in the industrial conflict is power. "Power l^Herbert Blumer, "Social Structure and Power Conflict," in Arthur Kornhauser, et al (eds.), Industrial Conflict (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1954), P. 233. relations seem to be one of the basic forms of relation ship between human beings and of human groups."177 The s e c o n d c r i t e r i o n , l e i s u r e , i s u s e d h e r e t o d e s i g n a t e a term w h ic h s h o u ld i n c l u d e o c c u p a t i o n . ''Leisure" as used here, does not mean that a person is "idling" his time. On the contrary, it should specific ally include the idea of productivity. The writer has chosen the term "leisure" as against occupation because it is contended that the former sheds greater light upon stratification than the latter term.-*-7® Leisure time has been envied in all societies, however, it must be dis tinguished from "loafing." The hobo may be considered to have the greatest amount of leisure; yet would be excluded from the interpretation of the term "leisure". An unem ployed person may be thought of as having leisure, "having nothing to do." This type is also excluded, Inasmuch as it is not enviable except perhaps to the hobo. The type of leisure considered here is that which springs from and enhances power. 177lbld., p. 234. 178fteference is here made to the studies which were presented in this paper: cf. Paul K. Hatt, "Occupation and Social Stratification, " ojd. clt. ; Seymour M. Lipset and Reinhard Bendix, ojd. clt. ; Ray Gold, ojd. cit. The vari ables of occupation and income can certainly not be used for stratification in a "classless" society such as the Kibbutz inasmuch as the members of a Kibbutz settlement are not pecuniarily remunerated. 2^5 The m anner i n w h ic h p ow er and l e i s u r e a r e ju d g e d w i l l d ep en d upon t h e p r e v a i l i n g s o c i a l v a l u e s . I f t h e e m p h a s is i s on in c o m e , p e o p l e w i l l d e r i v e p ow er and l e i s u r e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r bank a c c o u n t s . I f a s o c i e t y h o l d s e d u c a t i o n a s t h e h i g h e s t g o o d , t h e p r o f e s s o r w i l l r e c e i v e t h e h i g h e s t r a n k , e t c . The i d e a o f v a l u e - o r i e n t a t i o n may a c c o u n t f o r th e f a c t t h a t ( a s i s b r o u g h t o u t i n s t u d i e s ) i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , c l a s s I s s o d i f f u s e d a s t o be a l m o s t I n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e . The d o m in a n t v a l u e - o r i e n t a t i o n o f A m erican s o c i e t y may be c o n s i d e r e d i n g e n e r a l te r m s a s p r a g m a tis m . As s u c h , s o c i e t y t e n d s t o v a l u e a l l t h i n g s , n o t i n th em s e l v e s , b u t f o r w h at t h e y a r e w o r th a s m e a n s. The e d u c a t o r s i n s u c h a s y s t e m may be v ie w e d s im p l y a s th e m eans t o an end and t h e r e f o r e c a n n o t be r a t e d the v e r y h i g h e s t .^79 The p h y s i c i a n , on the other hand, inasmuch as h e i s i n p o s s e s s i o n o f a pow er v a l u e d v e r y h i g h l y in A m erica n s o c i e t y , i s r a n k e d a t t h e t o p . The b a n k e r may be n e x t , in a sm u c h a s h e I s v ie w e d a s h a v in g t h e pow er t o p u r c h a s e " p ow er," and s o on down t h e l i n e . The t h i r d c r i t e r i o n , v a l u e , i s m eant t o d e s i g n a t e t h e f o c u s - o r i e n t a t i o n o f s o c i e t y , l a r g e o r s m a l l , i n tim e p r o f e s s o r i n s t i l l b e i n g r a n k e d i n th e h i g h e s t c l a s s , h o w e v e r , by v i r t u e o f h a v i n g t h e pow er o f i n f l u e n c e and l e i s u r e , a s s e e n In t h i s c o n t e x t , w h ic h i s h i g h l y v a l u e d I n A m erican s o c i e t y . 246 and space. For example, In a totalitarian society, it would be expected that primacy of value would be given to authoritative power. Hence, in this society, the highest rank would be accorded to officials in government and the military. In a democratic society, government officials and the military would not rank as the highest. In regard to the definition of the concept value, Kluckhohn points out that there are a variety of defini tions. However, there is general agreement that values have to do with the normative aspect. "The only general agreement is that values somehow have to do with normative as opposed to existential propositions." It can be seen from the instance of the Eta group in Japan that society's value orientation may give auto matic disapproval to a group of people on the basis of occupation. Even though formal '.screes have made them equal to all other citizens, in the absence of mobility or intermarriage, their status has remained approximately the same for a number of centuries. It may be unique that in view of social change In Japan, class (at least the Eta class) has not changed In the eyes of the rest of Japanese society. "Even where the Eta have achieved lSOjiyde Kluckhohn, "Values and Value-Orientation in the Theory of Action," in Talcott Parsons, jet al, Toward a General Theory of Action (Cambridge: The Harvard University Press, 1952J, p. 390. 247 e c o n o m ic s u c c e s s and p o l i t i c a l a c c e p t a n c e , m a r r ia g e i n t o t h e m a j o r i t y g ro u p i s s t i l l r i g i d l y t a b o o . " l 8 l In t h e same s e n s e , K lu ck h o h n m a i n t a i n s , Human l i f e . . . / i s / a m o r a l l i f e p r e c i s e l y b e c a u s e i t i s a s o c i a l l i f e . . . In common- s e n s e t e r m s , m o r a l s a r e s o c i a l l y a g r e e d upon v a l u e s r e l a t i n g t o c o n d u c t . To t h i s d e g r e e m o r a ls - - and a l l g r o u p v a l u e s — a r e t h e p r o d u c t s o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a s em b o d ied i n c u l t u r e . l o 2 S p e a k in g o f t h e c l a s h b e tw e e n t h e b u r e a u c r a t i c p o l i c y - m a k e r s and t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s , M erton p o i n t s o u t t h e d i f f e r e n t v a l u e s i n v o l v e d . He c i t e s o p i n i o n s o f p e o p l e i n t h e b u s i n e s s w o r ld w h ic h r e f l e c t th e v a l u e s in A m erican s o c i e t y , and s a y s : " I t p r o b a b l y u n d e r l i e s an o u t b u r s t s u c h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g by a p o l i c y - m a k e r who h a s r e t u r n e d t o h i s jo b a s an a d v e r t i s i n g e x e c u t i v e : 'The p r o f e s s o r i a l m in d , i n my o p i n i o n , I s one o f t h e m o st d a n g e r o u s f a c t o r s in o u r g o v e r n m e n t t o d a y . I n s t e a d o f t h e b r o a d v ie w t h a t I s t h e o r e t i c a l l y p r o m is e d , t h e i r t h i n k i n g u n d er t h e u n a c c u sto m e d g lo w o f a u t h o r i t y t a k e s w in g s and s o a r s th r o u g h t h e c l o u d s u n im p ed ed by f a c t s and u n h in d e r e d by a c t u a l i t y . . . 'T hey d o n ' t w an t th e a d v i c e o f p e o p l e who a r e e x p e r i e n c e d . T h e i r b o o k -b o u n d , d r e a m - r ib b e d , c l a s s - r o o m m in d s d e f i n i t e l y h a v e no d o o r s o r w indow s l e a d i n g in.'"^°3 l^Hugh H. Smythe, "The Eta: A Marginal Japanese Caste," American Journal of Sociology. Vol. LVII (September, 1952), p. 196. Kluckhohn, ojc. clt. , p. 388. l83Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure. op. cit., p. 173. 248 I t i s a b a t t l e o f m o res among t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l s and t h e b u s i n e s s c l a s s . On t h e on e h a n d , t h e b u s i n e s s w o r ld d e s i r e s th e i n t e l l e c t u a l s t o a d o p t t h e i r s t a n d a r d s ; i f t h i s i s n o t a c c o m p l i s h e d , i t c a s t s r e f l e c t i o n upon t h e i n t e l l e c t u a l and t r i e s t o d i s c r e d i t him and q u e s t i o n t h e i n t e g r i t y o f h i s m o r e s . T h u s, i n t e l l e c t u a l s a r e h e l d to be s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r p u r s u i t o f k n o w le d g e . I t i s v ie w e d a s "m e r e ly an e f f o r t t o im p r o v e t h e i r p o s i t i o n . . . / s i s e v i d e n c e d b y the/* d e f i n i t i o n o f 'a p r o f e s s o r b o o k 1 : an impractical book written by a professor, largely, the reader feels, because the profes sor must get his name affixed to a publication."184 I t can r e a d i l y be i n f e r r e d from t h e s e i n s t a n c e s t h a t i n s m a l l a s In l a r g e s c a l e s o c i e t i e s , t h e v a l u e o f a p a r t i c u l a r t r a i t o r p r o f e s s i o n may be a r e f l e c t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l v a l u e s s u p p o r t e d by t h e m ores p r e v a l e n t i n a g i v e n s o c i e t y . In o t h e r w o r d s , t h e s t a t u s o f an i n d i v i d u a l or g ro u p w i l l be i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h an e v a l u a t i o n i n te r m s o f a c c e p t e d v a l u e s In a g i v e n s o c i e t y . T h i s i s p r o b a b l y th e r e a s o n s o many s t u d e n t s o f c l a s s t a k e t h e v a r i a b l e s o f o c c u p a t i o n and in co m e a s t h e c r i t e r i a f o r d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n modern W e ste r n s o c i e t i e s . T h i s may a l s o be a n o t h e r r e a s o n f o r f i n d i n g s s h o w in g c l a s s In A m erican s o c i e t y t o l84Ibid.. p. 175. 24 9 be diffused. Mueller points to the differences in value- orientation of societies in America and Europe. In America, largeness, for example, is valued while in Europe, smallness has a greater value. The whole of American thinking is a rationalization of the practical, the useful, and the efficient. "It is pure practicality, embodied rationality. According to Mueller, American society has been reduced to a dead-level of equality. It has its advan tages, but It deprives life of much that is desirable, of the perception of personal quality. The American does not discriminate between the professions, church, or political views. While there is no class distinction in America, according to him, there Is definitely class distinction and discrimination in Europe. In accordance with the foregoing definitions, the variables of power, leisure, and value-orientation, will be amenable to empirical test in all types of societies and in every place. These definitions would explain the reason that distinct hierarchical classes are found In a lSbRichard Mueller-Freienfels, "The Mechanization and Standardization of American Life," in Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb, Sociological Analysis (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company") 19^ 9) 7 P . 1^9. l ^ Ibldt f pp> 146-151, passim. 250 s o - c a l l e d " c l a s s l e s s " s o c i e t y su c h a s t h e S o v i e t U n io n and t h e K i b b u t z . I t w i l l be assu m ed t h a t in a sm u c h a s " c l a s s i s i n h e r e n t i n any s o c i e t y , " t h e v a l u e - o r i e n t a t i o n o f a g i v e n s o c i e t y i s t o be a s c e r t a i n e d and a s c a l e f o r t h e h i e r a r c h i e s c o n s t r u c t e d a c c o r d i n g l y . In t h e S o v i e t U n io n , t h e e x i s t e n c e o f c l a s s In m in in g p r o d u c t i o n c o u l d p r o b a b l y be e x p l a i n e d by t h e e m p h a s is on t h e i r g o a l o f a c h i e v i n g t o t a l s e l f - s u f f i c i e n c y i n I n d u s t r i a l e n t e r p r i s e , p l u s t h e s t r o n g e m p h a s is on s t r i c t t o t a l i t a r i a n g o v e r n m e n t. The c h a n g e t h e r e t o o k p l a c e i n t h e s h i f t i n g o f a u t h o r i t y upon a d i f f e r e n t s e t o f i n d i v i d u a l s and t h e i r e m p h a s is on t h e g o a l . I n t h e K ib b u t z , c h a n g e t o o k p l a c e o u t o f n e c e s s i t y . W hereas t h e b e g i n n i n g s w ere g e a r e d tow ard a c l a s s l e s s s o c i e t y (w h ic h i n I t s e l f was a r a p i d c h a n g e from f o r m e r l y e x i s t i n g I d e o l o g i e s ) , t h e n eed f o r e x p e r i e n c e d m a n a g e r i a l p e r s o n n e l w i t h e m p h a s is on s u c c e s s o f th e e x p e r im e n t h a s b r o u g h t a b o u t a c l a s s s t r u c t u r e . a c a p i t a l i s t i c s o c i e t y , in co m e I s c o n s i d e r e d a f a c t o r In s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . H ow ever, i n a communal s o c i e t y , t h i s e l e m e n t i s a b s e n t ; y e t t h e same t y p e o f c l a s s s t r u c t u r e b a s e d on s o m e t h in g e l s e , i s f o u n d . In v i e w i n g " s o m e th in g e l s e " a s p o w e r , t h e s i m i l a r i t y i n b o th s y s t e m s e m e r g e s . Incom e r i v e s a man pow er t o buy w hat he w a n t s , "power" t h a t i s g r e a t e r th a n t h a t o f th e n e x t p e r s o n . In 251 a communal s o c i e t y , p o w er i n h i s p o s i t i o n g i v e s a man t h e same a d v a n t a g e o v e r o t h e r s . T h i s pow er o v e r o t h e r s , no m a t t e r how i t I s e m p lo y e d , I s c r u c i a l I n s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . The s o c i a l c h a n g e and t h e c l a s s s t r u c t u r e may be a n a l y z e d and d e s c r i b e d i n e v e r y p e r i o d o f h i s t o r y o f any g i v e n s o c i e t y w i t h t h e s e t h r e e I n d i c e s . The e m p h a s is on t h e d e s i r a b i l i t y o f pow er and l e i s u r e may r e m a in s t a t i c i n a l l p l a c e s , i . e . , i n a l l s o c i e t i e s and I n any g i v e n p e r i o d i n h i s t o r y , In a sm u ch a s pow er and l e i s u r e a r e s o u g h t a f t e r and e n v i e d by e v e r y o n e . The d e f i n i t i o n o f t h e k in d o f pow er and l e i s u r e s o u g h t a f t e r , h o w e v e r , w i l l v a r y w it h ne v a l u e - o r i e n t a t i o n o f a s o c i e t y i n tim e and s p a c e . F o r e x a m p le : The p o l i t i c a l p ow er r e s t e d w i t h t h e m onarchy i n t h e l a s t c e n t u r y . In v i e w i n g t h e p ow er s t r u c t u r e i n a R e p u b l i c a n n a t i o n , t h e o r i g i n a l pow er I d e a i s t h e sam e, b u t I t r e s t s w i t h an e l e c t e d I n d i v i d u a l I n a c o n t r o l l e d m a n n er, w h ich w ould be t r u e In t h e p r o f e s s i o n s . The a t t r i b u t e o f t h e m e d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n t o d a y r e s t s i n t h e f a c t t h a t i t I s , i n P a r s o n s ' w o r d s , "one o f a u t h o r i t y . " The c h a n g e t o o k p l a c e when t h e m a s s e s a c c e p t e d t h e a u t h o r i t a t i v e p o w e r s o f t h e p h y s i c i a n . I t i s n o t o n l y b e c a u s e t h e p h y s i c i a n I s im bued w i t h k n o w le d g e , b u t know l e d g e c o u p l e d w i t h l e i s u r e and t h e s h i f t i n g o f v a l u e i n r e g a r d t o t h e r a p y . 252 C l a s s s t r u c t u r e w i l l t h e r e f o r e d ep e n d n o t on Incom e a l o n e , i . e . , a j a n i t o r w h ose in co m e i s h i g h w i l l s t i l l be r e g a r d e d i n t h e low s o c i a l s t r a t u m . I t w i l l n o t d ep en d on e d u c a t i o n a l o n e , i . e . , p r o f e s s o r s a r e n o t r e c o g n i z e d by t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c a s b e i n g t h e h i g h e s t c l a s s o f s o c i e t y . I t w i l l d ep en d on t h e v a l u e a t t a c h e d t o t h e o c c u p a t i o n s . T h i s v a l u e w i l l u l t i m a t e l y h a v e th e c r i t e r i o n o f p ow er In a g i v e n s p h e r e I n s o c i e t y . I t I s n a t u r a l l y u n d e r s t o o d t h a t pow er w i l l be s e e n i n s u b - s t r u c t u r e s o f s o c i e t i e s . H o w ev er, t h e same c r i t e r i a w i l l a p p ly t o a l l s u b - g r o u p s . I t I s n o t c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e s e t h r e e v a r i a b l e s i s an i n n o v a t i o n w i t h r e g a r d t o s o c i a l c h a n g e and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n ; I t i s , h o w e v e r , c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e y may be v ie w e d a s p o i n t s o f a r t i c u l a t i o n I n d e f i n i n g c h a n g e and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . I t I s p r o p o s e d t h a t t h e s e c r i t e r i a may be v ie w e d a s p o i n t s o f a r t i c u l a t i o n , a common d e n o m in a t o r f o r t h e c r i t e r i a o f c h a n g e and s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . SUMMARY I t h a s b e e n p o i n t e d o u t t h a t c h a n g e i s t r e a t e d In many w a y s . S o c i a l c h a n g e c a n be s t u d i e d from t h e h i s t o r i c p e r s p e c t i v e , from t h e p o i n t o f v ie w o f a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t t im e ; from I t s c a u s a t i v e f a c t o r s , and from t h e v i e w p o i n t o f t h e I n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f m a t e r i a l c h a n g e and t h e f u n c t i o n a l a p p r o a c h . 253 An analysis of the social class concept was made and showed that stratification has been treated using varying criteria, and that two distinct schools of thought exist. One school of thought emphasizes the subjective approach to class structure, whereas the other uses objective criteria to arrive at class differentiation. The inadequacy of the treatment and the non-clarity of criteria or indices used for the subject at hand was pointed out. The point was made that such diversity of treatment may lead to confusion for the student of social phenomena. Therefore, the writer has posited three criteria: power, leisure, and value-orientation. It is maintained that such criteria are all-inclusive and can ultimately contri bute to the codification of the social change processes and one of the crucial factors In such change, the rela tive class structure. Social change can be established from the value- orientation variable. This variable would be a kind of "check1 ' on the other two. By utilizing a questionnaire in such a fashion as to reveal an individual's value- orientation, the researcher can arrive at the class struc ture and change. It is contended that change and strati fication are Interdependent phenomena. In the present study, It was not possible to embark 25^ on the "ideal type" of research design as described above; nevertheless, the contribution to research, supplementing the mailed questionnaire with the structured Interview approach in the manner applied should prove helpful to further research. The writer submits in Appendix D a proposed sample questionnaire. The questionnaire should be geared so that the respondent would reveal his conformity, his acceptance of present values, and his conflict with such acceptance. It should also show the element of change within a genera tion or a period of crisis in his lifetime. The questions, when posed as "was," "is," and "ought," should reveal the attitude of the respondent toward change and stratification. APPENDIX D PROPOSED QUESTIONNAIRE What, in your opinion, is the highest good in our society today? Rank as it Rank as it Rank as it was is ought to be a. Education _____ _____ _____ b. Income _____ _____ _____ c. Morality__________________ _____ _____ d. Riches _____ e. Political Power _____ _____ _____ f. Hygiene______________ _____ _____ _____ g. Industry _____ _____ h. Commerce _____ _____ _____ i. Unionism _____ _____ _____ . Cooperation _____ _____ _____ k. Force _____ _____ _____ 1. Influence _____ _____ _____ m, Leisure _____ _____ n. Skilled work (specialization) _____ o. Profession, e t c . _____ _____ List number 1, 2, 3, etc., in order of importance, under column "Rank as it is." What, In your opinion, ought to be the highest good in our society today? A., b., c., etc. List number 1, 2, 3, etc., In order of importance, under column "Rank as It ought to be." What, In your opinion, would have been your father's enumeration of the above, in order of importance (or to Mr. X, or before the war, etc.). List number 1, 2, 3, etc., in order of Importance, under column "Rank as it was." 258 II 1. Is there a class structure In American ..■'ciety? Yes . No . Check proper answer. 2. Was there a class structure In American society in your father’s time? Yes . No . In your grandfather's time? Yes . No__ Before World War I? Yes . No In the last century? Yes____ . No__. 3. In your opinion, ought there to be a class structure in American society? Yes____ . Mo__. H. If your answer to question number 1 Is In the affir mative, how many classes can you distinguish? Two three____, four__, etc. 5. If your answer to question 2 is in the affirmative, how many classes were there? Two , three , four , etc . 6. If your answer to question 3 is in the affirmative, how many classes ought to be distinguishable? Two___ three____, four__, etc . 7 . I f y o u r a n sw e r t o any o f t h e a b o v e q u e s t i o n s 1 , 2 , a n d / o r 3 , I s i n t h e a f f i r m a t i v e , whom w o u ld you p l a c e i n t h e h i g h e s t c l a s s ? A. In the first class: Is Was Ought a. Banker __ ____ 259 Is Was Ought b. Worker c. Professional d. Property owner e. Wealthy person f. Educator g. Labor leader h. Manager I. Other L i s t number 1 , 2 , 3, i n o r d e r o f i m p o r t a n c e . Whom w ou ld you p l a c e i n t h e s e c o n d c l a s s ? I s Was Ought a . B a n k e r _______ _____ _______ b . W orker ______ _______ _____ ___ c . P r o f e s s i o n a l _______ _______ _______ d. Property o w n e r ___ _____ _ ______ e . O th e r s List number 1, 2, 3, in order of Importance. C. Whom would you place in the third class? D. In the fourth class? E. In the lowest class? F. Etc.? 260 III 1. Does Mr. X exercise any power over his associates, or other people? Yes . No___. 2. If so, how much power does Mr. X exercise? Very much , much__, medium little___, very little__. 3. Does Mr. X have influence upon other people, or his associates? Yes . No 4. If so, how great is his influence? Very much , much__, medium , little , very little H. Is Mr. X’s power that of official authority, or is it a kind of influence upon others? Authority___, influence . 6. If it Is influential, by what virtue, in your opinion, has Mr. X this power? a. He is rich . b. He Is educated . c. He is a good orator____. d. He has political pull . e. He is religious . f. He is honest . g. He belongs to many societies . h. He Is a good "mixer"____. I. He is charitable . j. He is a fearful man____. k. He is tall, dark, and handsome . 261 1. He is a property owner . m. He has an important job___. n. He is "soft spoken" . o. He is an old man . p. Other . List number 1, 2, 3> in order of importance. 7. Did Mr. X have the same power or influence all his life?___, for the past 25 years?____, for the past 10 years?___, for the past 5 years?___, etc. In y o u r o p i n i o n , w h at i s t h e v a l u e o f l e i s u r e ? Good , bad , i n d i f f e r e n t ____. How d i d y o u r f a t h e r v a l u e l e i s u r e ? Good , bad , i n d i f f e r e n t , I do n o t know . I f you v a l u e l e i s u r e , how much o f I t w o u ld you l i k e to h a v e? E v e r y day , f i v e d a y s a w eek_____ , f o u r d a y s , e t c . How many h o u r s o f l e i s u r e e v e r y d a y , a s e n u m e r a te d In q u e s t i o n 3» w o u ld you l i k e t o have? 12____ , 10____ , 8 , 6____ , et c. I f you h a v e , o r w o u ld l i k e t o h a v e l e i s u r e , how do y o u , o r how w o u ld y o u , sp e n d s u c h l e i s u r e ? Have Would l i k e Has Had t o h a v e a . S tu d y ________________________ _______ _______ _______ b . I n d u l g e i n s p o r t s ____________________________________ _______ c . A c t i v e I n c i v i c o r g a n i z a t i o n _______ ______________________ ___________ d . Do t h i n g s a b o u t t h e h o u s e _____________________ _______ _______ e . A t t e n d c h u r c h _____________________ _______ _______ f . A t t e n d c o n c e r t s _______ _ _ _ _ _ g . Take up a hobby _____ ______________ _______ _______ 1. Stay at home directing the behavior of the children j. Play cards k. Drink with friends 1. Don 11 know m. Other 263 Have Would like Has Had to have List number 1, 2, 3, in order of importance. 6. How does Mr. X spend his leisure, if any? 7. How did your father spend his leisure, or how would he have spent his leisure, were he to have it?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Perception Of The Power Structure By Social Class In A California Community

PDF

Interpersonal Relations In Ethnically Mixed Small Work Groups

PDF

Role Expectations Of American Undergraduate College Women In A Western Coeducational Institution

PDF

Reference Group Theory, Selection, And The Images Of Professions

PDF

Normative values of selected law enforcement officers and adult male offenders

PDF

Attitudes Of Ministers And Lay Leaders Of The American Baptist Conventionof The State Of Washington On Selected Social Issues

PDF

Personality And Interpersonal Factors Associated With The Duration Of Marriage Counseling

PDF

Consensus Of Role Perceptions In A Welfare Planning Council

PDF

The Career Business Executive As A Definitive Occupational Type

PDF

Sex-Role Preferences Of Early Adolescents In Relation To Adjustment

PDF

A Study Of Relationships Between Occupational And Marital Roles And Marital Adjustment

PDF

Class Consciousness And Social Mobility In A Mexican-American Community

PDF

Some Social Factors Affecting The Power Structure And Status Of A Professional Association In Reference To Social Work

PDF

Social Factors Related To Dentistry As A Career

PDF

Middle-Class Marital Roles - Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Adjustment In Marriage

PDF

A Psychosociological Study Of Fertile And Infertile Marriages

PDF

The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character

PDF

An analytical study of attorneys' occupational values and satisfaction

PDF

Familism, Suburbanization, And Residential Mobility In A Metropolis

PDF

Personality Characteristics: Ideal And Perceived In Relation To Mate Selection

Asset Metadata

Creator Rosenblum, Abraham L. (author)

Core Title Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, ethnic and racial studies

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor McDonagh, Edward C. (committee chair), Seward, Georgene H. (committee member), Vincent, Melvin J. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-45615

Unique identifier UC11357541

Identifier 5904399.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-45615 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 5904399.pdf

Dmrecord 45615

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Rosenblum, Abraham L.

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