University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Cultural Continuity And Discontinuity In Adolescent Socialization

(USC Thesis Other)

Cultural Continuity And Discontinuity In Adolescent Socialization

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
75-1069
LOEB, R ita V entura, n .d .
C U LTU R A L CONTINUITY A N D DISCONTINUITY IN
ADOLESCENT SOCIALIZATION.
U n iv ersity o f Southern C a lifo rn ia , P h.D ., 1974
S ociology, general
Xerox University Microfilms , Ann Arbor, Michigan 4S106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
CULTURAL CONTINUITY AND DISCONTINUITY
IN ADOLESCENT SOCIALIZATION
by
R ita V entura Loeb
A D i s s e r t a t i o n P re se n te d to th e
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of th e
R equirem ents f o r th e Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(S o cio lo g y )
A ugust 1974
UNIVERSITY O F SO U T H E R N CALIFORNIA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, written by
................Rita^Vesitura^Loeb..........................................
under the direction of h.^L.. Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by all its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in partial fulfillment of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R OF P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
.TATION COMMI
Chairman
To my so n , David
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I hope t h i s r e s e a r c h d e s e rv e s th e g r e a t e f f o r t put i n to i t by
many p e o p le . Most o f a l l , I would l ik e to th an k Malcolm W. K le in ,
n o t only f o r h is encouragem ent, b u t a l s o f o r h is c r i t i q u e and e d i
t o r i a l comments; w ith o u t h is h e lp t h i s work would n o t have been
p o s s ib l e . I was f o r t u n a te t o have had th e a d v ic e and c o o p e ra tio n of
an o u ts ta n d in g d o c to r a l com m ittee and want to ta k e th e o p p o rtu n ity
h e re to th an k H. Edward R a n sfo rd , Solomon K obrin and Ruth Weg f o r
t h e i r many hours of p a t i e n t work w ith me. I a ls o want to th an k my
fa m ily , e s p e c i a l l y my son D avid, f o r t h e i r encouragem ent and h e lp ,
when needed. I a l s o want to th an k my many f r i e n d s a t th e U n iv e rs ity
of S o u thern C a l if o r n ia f o r t h e i r c o n tin u in g s u p p o rt. Thank you.
T his work was f a c i l i t a t e d by a N a tio n a l S cien ce F oun d atio n
G raduate F e llo w sh ip and s u p p o rte d by B iom edical S cien ces Support
G ran ts 53-4877-6662 and 53-4877-7263 from th e G eneral R esearch
S upport B ranch, D iv is io n of R esearch R eso u rce s, Bureau of H e a lth
P ro fe s s io n s E d u c a tio n and Manpower T r a in in g , N a tio n a l I n s t i t u t e of
H e a lth .
R ita Loeb
June 6, 1974
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
LIST OF TABLES........................................................................................... i i
I . P U R P O S E ........................................................................................................... 1
I I . BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES ........................................ 2
I I I . SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH....................................................... 11
IV. THE ADOLESCENT PEER G R O U P ................................................................ 16
V. PROJECT DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . ................................... 23
V I. THE INDEX OF NORMATIVE DISCONTINUITY AND DESCRIPTORS 55
V II. FINDINGS................................................................... 72
V I I I . SUMMARY.......................................................... 92
IX. CONCLUSIONS.................................................................................................. 105
BIBLIOGRAPHY................................................................................................ I l l
iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. ETHNIC DESCENT AND A G E .............................................................. 54
2. THE INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS ( r ) OF CONSTITUENT
VA RIABLES . 60
3. INFORMALITY AND RULES FOR DECISION M A K IN G ..........................62
4 . INFORMALITY AND PROPORTION OF CLOSE FRIENDS IN GROUP . . 64
5. INFORMALITY AND MOTIVES FOR JOINING A G R O U P .....................65
6. INFORMALITY AND EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT................................... . 66
7. INFORMALITY AND ACCEPTANCE INTO THE G R O U P ......................... 67
8. INFORMALITY AND PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING . . . . 68
9. INFORMALITY AND TYPE OF LEADERSHIP............................................. 70
10. DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY ............................... 73
11. NORMATIVE DISCONTINUITY AND TYPE OF PEER GROUP JOINED. . 76
12. DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY: 1. PARTIALLED
BY A G E .................................................................................................... 78
13. DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY: 2. PARTIALLED
BY S E X .................................................................................................... 79
14-A. DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY: 3 . PARTIALLED
BY FAMILY STRUCTURE ...................................................................................81
14-B. DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY: 3 . PARTIALLED
BY FAMILY STRUCTURE/BY A G E .................................................... 82
15. INFORMALITY AND NORMATIVE CONFORMITY..............................86
16. INFORMALITY AND PERCEPTION OF ILLEGALITY....................87
LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Table Page
17. INFORMALITY AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE ........................................ 89
18. INFORMALITY AND OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING.................................... 90
19. INFORMALITY AND TYPE OF OCCUPATION........................................ 91
20. INFORMALITY-FORMALITY: DESCRIPTORS....................................... 94
21. INFORMALITY-FORMALITY AND CULTURAL DISCONTINUITY:
PARTIALLED................................................................................................. 100
22. INFORMALITY-FORMALITY: PREDICTORS....................................... 103
vi
ABSTRACT
T his stu d y i n v e s t i g a t e s th e developm ent of a d o le s c e n ts a s , in
th e p ro c e ss of growing in to a d u lth o o d , th e y change t h e i r re f e re n c e
group from fa m ily to p eer group to an o r i e n t a t i o n encom passing
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a u t h o r i t y . The main f o c i of t h i s i n v e s t ig a t io n
a r e (1) th e p ro c e s s e s of i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s in v o lu n ta r y a s s o -
c i a t i o n a l g ro u p in g s o f a d o le s c e n ts and (2) th e e f f e c t upon th e s e
gro u p in g s of th e l a r g e r s o c i e t a l c o n te x t a s w e ll as (3) th e f u n c tio n
or d y s fu n c tio n t h a t th e s e groupings f u l f i l l in th e fo rm a tio n of a d u lt
p e r s o n a l i t y . The t h e o r e t i c a l framework i s E i s e n s t a d t 's h y p o th e sis
( s t a te d in From G e n e ra tio n to G e n e ra tio n , 1956) t h a t th e e x is te n c e
of youth c u lt u r e in t e c h n o lo g ic a lly complex s o c i e t i e s is due to c u l
t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . T his d i s c o n t in u i ty a r i s e s from th e c o n tr a d ic
to r y a d a p ta tio n of e a r l y c h ild h o o d s o c i a l i z a t i o n ( o r i e n ti n g i n d i
v id u a ls to c lo s e prim ary r e l a t i o n s ) and th e demands of l a t e r a d u lt
r o le perform ance ( c o n s is tin g to a la r g e e x te n t of secondary r e l a t i o n s
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of th e d i v is i o n of la b o r in a complex b u r e a u c r a tic
s o c i e t y ) . T his stu d y i s based on an o p p o rtu n ity sample of 429 ad o
l e s c e n t s , aged te n to e ig h te e n , and 31 young a d u lt s from th e g r e a t e r
Los A ngeles a r e a . The independent v a r i a b le i s an Index o f c u l t u r a l
(n o rm ativ e) d i s c o n t i n u i t y , measured by a cu m u la tiv e index c o n s is t in g
of f iv e v a r i a b l e s : s u b je c tiv e s o c i a l c l a s s , s u b je c t iv e d e g re e of
w e a lth , o c c u p a tio n a l ran k of p a r e n ts , r e l i g i o u s background, and
e t h n i c i t y (deg ree of A m e ric a n iz a tio n ). The m ajor h y p o th e s is i s t h a t
th e g r e a t e r th e no rm ativ e d i s c o n t in u i ty th e g r e a t e r th e a f f i l i a t i o n
w ith an in fo rm a l a d o le s c e n t p e e r group; th e s e l a t t e r can be c h a ra c
t e r i z e d in term s of s t r u c t u r a l and a t t i t u d i n a l d im e n sio n s. The
l a t t e r a re o p e r a tio n a liz e d in th e form of seven d e s c r i p t o r s , t h a t i s
c o n s t i t u e n t d im e n sio n s, of th e continuum of i n f o r m a l it y - f o r m a l it y .
A seco n d ary h y p o th e s is ho ld s t h a t the l e s s fo rm a lly s t r u c t u r e d p eer
groups a r e , (a) th e l e s s w i l l fo rm a liz e d no rm ativ e r u le s f o r b e h a v io r
have been i n t e r n a l i z e d , and (b) th e l e s s c l e a r l y w i l l th e s o c i e t a l
no rm ativ e o rd e r be d is c e r n e d . In a d d i t i o n , a t h i r d h y p o th e s is i s
d e riv e d w hich pro p o ses t h a t type of group membership i s r e l a t e d to
a d u l t s o c i e t a l and o c c u p a tio n a l a d ju stm e n t p o t e n t i a l , as e x p re sse d
by (a) g rad e s in s c h o o l and (b) p resen ce o r absence of o c c u p a tio n a l
t r a i n i n g . F in d in g s : A ll hypotheses t e s t e d a r e su p p o rte d by d a ta
(measured by gamma and c h i sq u a re ) w ith th e e x c e p tio n of th r e e
d e s c r i p t o r dim ensions o f th e in fo rm a l-fo rm a l group continuum .
I. PURPOSE
T h is s tu d y i n v e s t i g a t e s th e developm ent of a d o le s c e n ts a s , in
th e p ro c e ss of growing i n to a d u lth o o d , th e y change t h e i r r e f e r e n c e
group from fa m ily to p e e r group to an o r i e n t a t i o n encom passing i n s
t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a u t h o r i t y . The main f o c i of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a re
(1) th e p ro c e sse s o f i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s in v o lu n ta r y a s s o c i a -
t i o n a l g ro u p in g s of a d o le s c e n ts and (2) th e f u n c tio n or d y s fu n c tio n
t h a t th e s e groups f u l f i l l in th e fo rm a tio n of a d u lt s o c i e t a l and
o c c u p a tio n a l a d ju s tm e n t.
The t h e o r e t i c a l framework is E i s e n s t a d t 's (1956) h y p o th e s is ,
w hich s t a t e s t h a t th e e x is te n c e of youth c u l t u r e in te c h n o lo g ic a lly
advanced s o c i e t i e s i s due to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . T his d is c o n
t i n u i t y a r i s e s from th e c o n tr a d ic t o r y a d a p ta tio n o f e a r l y c h ild h o o d
s o c i a l i z a t i o n ( o r i e n ti n g in d iv id u a ls to c lo s e prim ary r e l a t i o n s ) and
th e demands o f l a t e r a d u lt r o le perform ance ( c o n s is tin g to a la r g e
e x te n t of seco n d ary r e l a t i o n s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f th e d i v i s i o n of la b o r
in a modern b u r e a u c r a t ic s o c i e t y ) .
1
I I . BACKGROUND LITERATURE AND HYPOTHESES
E is e n s ta d t (1956:37) says t h a t from th e p o in t of view of th e
s o c ie t y a g e - h e te ro g en eo u s groups a r e th e most b a s ic s in c e i t i s w ith
in th e s e t h a t th o se s o c i e t a l v a lu e s and b e h a v io r p a t t e r n s a r e le a rn e d
which a s s u r e c u l t u r a l and s o c i e t a l c o n t i n u i t y . In e v e ry s o c i e t y ,
however, some s o r t o f age-hom egeneous groups a ls o te n d to a r i s e .
A ccording to E is e n s t a d t (1956:36) th e problem i s to i n v e s t i g a t e what
c o n d itio n s of th e s o c i a l system fa v o r o r p re v e n t th e em ergence of
th e s e age-homogeneous groups and what t h e i r f u n c tio n w ith in th e s o
c i a l system i s . The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h i s concerned w ith y e t a n o th e r
a s p e c t of t h i s problem , nam ely, th e f u n c tio n d i f f e r e n t ty p e s of p eer
groups perform f o r th e m atu rin g a d o le s c e n t.
I f c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y c r e a te s th e need f o r a y o uth p e e r
group s u b c u ltu r e , as E i s e n s t a d t s u g g e s ts , th e n i s i t p r im a r ily th e
d i s c o n t i n u i t y b ro u g h t ab o u t by th e d i v i s i o n of la b o r in s o c i e t y , or
do o th e r ty p e s of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y , such as th o se su g g e ste d
by B e n e d ict (1938), Davis (1 9 4 0 ), P arsons (1942), Mannheim (1952)
or G o e rtz e l (1972), c r e a te a s i m i l a r s o c i o c u l t u r a l need and i s t h e i r
e f f e c t cu m u lativ e? E is e n s t a d t p o s i t s t h a t th e g r e a t e r th e d is c o n
t i n u i t y betw een e a r l y s o c i a l i z a t i o n and th e demands of a d u lt r o le
p erform ance, th e g r e a t e r th e need f o r y o uth c u l t u r e and y o uth move
ments ( E is e n s ta d t , 1962).
The p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h , however, does n o t encompass youth c u l t u r e
in g e n e r a l, b u t is lim ite d to adolescent'*' groupings which form a
p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t only of youth c u l t u r e in g e n e r a l. The fo llo w in g
l i n e s by E is e n s t a d t (1956) n e v e r th e le s s s t i l l a p p ly :
S p e c if ic c o n d itio n s surround th e emergence of a l l th e s e
y outh g ro u p s. In g e n e r a l, th ey a re a s s o c ia te d w ith a breakdown
of t r a d i t i o n a l s e t t i n g s , th e o n s e t of m o d e rn iz a tio n , u r b a n iz a
t i o n , s e c u l a r i z a t i o n , and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n " (1 9 5 6 :1 4 ).
"V arious ty p es of youth o r g a n iz a tio n s alw ays ten d to app ear
w ith th e t r a n s i t i o n from t r a d i t i o n a l o r fe u d a l s o c i e t i e s to
modern s o c i e t i e s , a lo n g w ith th e i n t e n s i f i e d p ro c e s s e s of
change, e s p e c i a l l y in p e rio d s of r a p id m o b ility , m ig ra tio n ,
u r b a n iz a tio n , and i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n . . .The emergence of th e p eer
group among im m igrant c h ild r e n i s a w e ll known phenomenon t h a t
u s u a lly a p p e ars in th e second g e n e r a tio n . I t occurs m ainly
becau se of th e r e l a t i v e breakdown of im m igrant fa m ily l i f e in
th e new c o u n t r y .. .Y o u th 's tendency t o c o a le s c e in such groups
is ro o te d in th e f a c t t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n in th e fa m ily became
i n s u f f i c i e n t f o r d e v e lo p in g f u l l i d e n t i t y or f u l l s o c i a l m atu
r i t y , and t h a t th e r o le s le a rn e d in th e fam ily d id n o t c o n s t i t u t e
an ad eq u ate b a s is f o r d e v e lo p in g such i d e n t i t y and p a r t i c i p a
t i o n . In th e y o u th groups th e a d o le s c e n t seek s some framework
f o r th e developm ent and c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n of i d e n t i t y , f o r a t t a i n
ment of p e rs o n a l autonomy, and f o r h is e f f e c t i v e t r a n s i t i o n in to
th e a d u l t w orld* (1956:9 )
From E i s e n s ta d t (1956, 1962) and r e l a t e d s ta te m e n ts by B en ed ict
(1938), Davis (1940), P arsons (1942, 1955, 1962), E rik so n (1950,
1959), E ld e r (1962, 1963, 1971), Matza (1966) and r e s e a r c h f in d in g s
and hyp o th eses by Dunphy (1963), K le in and Crawford (1967), K le in
(1964, 1969a, 1969b), Loeb (1973b), C lausen (1968), Ja e g e r
S e lz n ic k (1 9 6 8 ), G u tte n ta g (1970) and G o ttlie b (1970), s e v e r a l r e l a
tio n s h ip s were chosen f o r i n v e s t i g a t i o n :
4 h i s l i m i t a t i o n is based on t h i s s t u d y 's d e f i n i t i o n of ad o
le s c e n c e , a s fo llo w s : a d u lth o o d i s l e g a l l y ( t h a t i s , n o rm a tiv e ly ,
i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ) d e fin e d a s o c c u rrin g when a p e rso n re a c h e s h is or
h e r 18th b ir th d a y ( in C a l i f o r n i a ) ; a d o le s c e n c e , hence, i s d e fin e d
h e re a s t h a t tim e span which s t a r t s a p p ro x im a te ly w ith th e o n s e t of
p u b e rty and ends when th e p erso n i s l e g a l l y d e c la re d to be an a d u l t .
3
1. M ajor H y p o th e s is . The g r e a t e r th e norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y
(Loeb, 1973b) th e more spontaneous and l e s s fo rm a lly s tr u c tu r e d .r w ill
a d o le s c e n t groups o r s u b c u ltu re s te n d to b e ; c o n v e rs e ly , th e l e s s th e
norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y th e more c lo s e l y w i l l a d o le s c e n t s u b c u ltu re s
(o r g roups) be m odelled on a d u lt v o lu n ta r y a s s o c i a t i o n s .
2. The l e s s i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d and th e more in fo rm a l and spon
taneous a d o le s c e n t groups or s u b c u ltu r e s a r e , th e more w i l l th e y
depend on c lo s e i n te r p e r s o n a l t i e s and e m o tio n a l s e n tim e n ts as a
b a s is f o r group a f f i l i a t i o n - - t h e more w i l l th e y ten d to c o n s i s t of
( s in g le o r) in te r c o n n e c te d c lo s e f r i e n d s h i p g ro u p s, the l a t t e r form ing
th e b u ild in g b lo c k s f o r c l i q u e s , s t r e e t p lay g ro u p s, a d o le s c e n t
2
crow ds, gangs and gang c l u s t e r s .
3. The g r e a t e r th e n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y th e l e s s s tr o n g l y
w i l l fo rm a liz e d n orm ative r u l e s f o r b e h a v io r ( i . e . , law s) have been
i n t e r n a l i z e d and th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d o le s c e n t g ro u p -
r e l a t e d b e h a v io r w i l l , from th e fo rm al n o rm a tiv e ly e x p re sse d p o in t
of view of the s o c i e t y , be c o n s id e re d d e v ia n t or " d e lin q u e n t."
4 . The g r e a t e r th e n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y and th e g r e a t e r th e
in f o r m a lity of a d o le s c e n t p e e r group a f f i l i a t i o n , the l e s s s u c c e s s f u l
w i l l a d u lt s o c i e t a l and o c c u p a tio n a l a d ju stm e n t ten d to b e .
I t i s on t h i s b a s is t h a t K le in (1964:6) and K le in and Crawford
(1967:73) su g g e ste d p e rc e n ta g e o f c liq u e membership in gangs as one
of s e v e r a l o p e r a tio n a l m easures of gang c o h e siv e n e ss (gangs a re
d e s c rib e d by K le in and Crawford a s in fo rm a l g ro u p s ).
4
There a r e two ways of c o n s id e r in g an Index of an u n d e rly in g
continuum such as no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y : One i s a s e t of index
components each of which i s c o n c e p tu a lly r e l a t e d to each o th e r as
w e ll as to the u n d e rly in g continuum . The o th e r i s a s e t of index
components c o n c e p tu a lly r e l a t e d to th e u n d e rly in g continuum and t h e r e
f o r e h o p e fu lly r e l a t e d to e ach o th e r s t a t i s t i c a l l y . I t i s t h i s l a t t e r
meaning o f index t h a t w i l l be employed h e r e . Norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y
i s o p e r a tio n a liz e d in t h i s stu d y by means o f an index and s in c e t h i s
in d ex r e f e r e n c e p o in t i s th e n orm ative system o f th e s o c ie ty th e
3
in dex employed h e re i s an index of no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y . The
b a s is f o r the inde-' a t i n g r e f l e c t s th o se v a lu e s which a re norma-
t i v e l y d e s ir a b le • L.ne U nited S t a t e s , such a s , f o r i n s ta n c e , p a r
t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making and in d ep endence. D e c isio n making
and independence a r e fo rm a lly i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d in t h i s c u l t u r e 's
l e g a l code.
A ccording to th e r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e th e r e a re a number of
i n s t i t u t i o n a l sp h e re s ( e . g . , r e l i g i o n , economy, th e f a m ily , e t c . )
which ten d to in flu e n c e an i n d i v i d u a l 's developm ent. These i n s t i
t u t i o n a l s p h e re s a r e in te r d e p e n d e n t- - a s w i l l be shown—and c o n s is t
of v a rio u s ty p e s of a c t i v i t i e s ; th e l a t t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s
a re ranked in r e l a t i o n to no rm ativ e p re fe re n c e in th e s o c ie t y .
^ C u ltu r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y has two s u b ty p e s : Modal d i s c o n t i n u i t y
and norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y . The l a t t e r i s m easured in r e l a t i o n
to th e norm ative i d e a l of a c u lt u r e r a t h e r th an t h a t c u l t u r e 's mode
of b e h a v io r , which c o n s t i t u t e s modal d i s c o n t i n u i t y . See a ls o Loeb,
1973b, f o r a n o th e r f o rm u la tio n of t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n .
5
Thus s c a le d , one can sp eak of r e l a t i v e n orm ative c lo s e n e s s o r " n o r
m ativ e c e n t r a l i t y " ^ and r e l a t e p e o p le 's b e h a v io r p a tt e r n s to t h i s .
I t i s th u s assumed t h a t no rm ativ e c e n t r a l i t y i s r e l a t e d to l e v e l of
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in a s o c i e t y 's i n s t i t u t i o n a l sp h e re s and hence to
p a tt e r n s of b e h a v io r c o n s id e re d d e v ia n t (from a s o c i e t a l p o in t of
v ie w ) .
There i s a r e l a t i o n betw een p a r t i c i p a t i o n in ty p e s of groups
and th e o p p o rtu n ity to le a r n s o c i e t a l norm s. The l e s s fo rm a lly
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d th e groups a re in which an a d o le s c e n t p a r t i c i p a t e s
th e l e s s the o p p o rtu n ity to le a r n s o c i e t a l l y approved n orm ative b e
h a v io r . T h is p ro c e ss i s (a) c u m u la tiv e and (b) c i r c u l a r . T h at i s ,
th e f u r t h e r removed from th e n o rm ativ e o rd e r ( in a s t r u c t u r a l se n se )
th e l e s s th e p r o b a b i l i t y o f fo rm al group p a r t i c i p a t i o n and th e l e s s
th e o p p o rtu n ity of le a r n in g s o c i e t a l norms and th e g r e a t e r th e p ro b
a b i l i t y of b e in g c o n s id e re d d e v ia n t ( in a norm ative se n se ) an d , a l s o ,
th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t an a d o le s c e n t w i l l be e i t h e r s o
c i a l l y i s o l a te d or a p a r t i c i p a n t in an in fo rm a l ty p e of g ro u p . T hat
i s , th e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n , ig n o ran ce of
s o c i e t a l norm s, d ev ian ce and in fo rm a l group a s s o c i a t i o n . The
g r e a t e r th e d i s c o n t i n u i t y th e g r e a t e r th e i s o l a t i o n . In fo rm a l and
fo rm al groups th u s form a p a r t o f a continuum which i s r e l a t e d to
d e g re e s of norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y and hence to p a tt e r n s of d e v ia n t
o r conform ing b e h a v io r.
1 > 1 am in d eb te d to Solomon K obrin f o r s u g g e s tin g t h i s p h rase
which c r y s t a l l i z e s th e approach tak e n h e re .
6
The main f o c i of t h i s s tu d y th u s a r e : (1) th e d e s c r i p t i o n of
th e in fo rm a l c o n tin u u m 's (extrem e) p o la r ty p e s , namely in fo rm a l and
fo rm al g ro u p s; (2) th e r e l a t i o n of th e Index o f no rm ativ e d is c o n
t i n u i t y to deg ree of in f o r m a lity of g ro u p ; (3) th e r e l a t i o n of the
in fo rm a l-fo rm a l continuum to o u ts id e ( c r i t e r i o n ) v a r i a b l e s ; and
f i n a l l y (4) p r e d i c ti o n from type of group to f u tu r e a d u lt a d ju stm e n t
p o t e n t i a l .
S t a te of P re s e n t R esearch
G o e rtz e l (1972) s t a t e s t h a t th e s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l approach
to th e problem o f c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y in a d o le s c e n t s o c i a l i z a t i o n
has n o t been ta k e n up in any s i g n i f i c a n t m easure s in c e th e m ostly
t h o e r e t i c a l d is c u s s io n s of B e n e d ic t, D a v is, P arsons and E i s e n s t a d t.
G o e r tz e l s u g g e sts t h a t th e s c i e n t i f i c c o n tro v e rs y s u rro u n d in g th e
s o c i o l o g i c a l to p ic of d i s c o n t i n u i t y s t i l l c e n te r s around th e q u e s tio n
of w hether th e s t r u c t u r a l - f u n c t i o n a l o r th e h i s t o r ic a l- c o n s c i o u s n e s s
a p p ro ach i s more a p p r o p r i a t e . The pro p o n en t o f th e h i s t o r i c a l -
c o n sc io u sn e ss approach i s K a rl Mannheim (1 9 5 2 ). G o e rtz e l b e lie v e s
t h a t w h ile E i s e n s t a d t 's th e o ry " e x p la in s " and throw s l i g h t upon th e
p ro c e ss o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n of a d o le s c e n ts and on a s p e c ts o f p a r e n t-
y o u th c o n f l i c t , i t does n o t, w ith in i t s c o n te x t , g iv e an " e x p la n a tio n "
f o r th e p o l i t i c a l a c tiv is m of to d a y 's y o u th . G o e rtz e l p o in ts to
th e f a c t t h a t Mannheim's approach in d is c u s s in g th e problem of gen
e r a t i o n s in h i s t o r i c a l - p o l i t i c a l p e r s p e c ti v e , does however e x p la in
th e a c tiv is m e x p re sse d by t o d a y 's young. In f a c t , from G o e r tz e l's
a r t i c l e i t can be seen t h a t th e problem of a d o le s c e n c e has in th e
7
l a s t decade been view ed from a p o l i t i c a l - h i s t o r i c a l p e rs p e c tiv e
r a t h e r th a n from th e s ta n d p o in t of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y which
a r i s e s from th e s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f a s o c i e t y .
The problem which t h i s stu d y i s s e t t i n g o u t to pursue i s n o t
th e stu d y of a d o le s c e n c e in e i t h e r h i s t o r i c a l or p s y c h o lo g ic a l p e r s
p e c ti v e . R a th e r th e fo cu s i s on c u l t u r a l and s p e c i f i c a l l y norm ative
d i s c o n t i n u i t y in th e t r a n s i t i o n from c h ild h o o d to a d o le s c e n c e , u sin g
a s y m b o l i c - i n t e r a c t i o n i s t ( f o r " c u l t u r a l " ) and s t r u c t u r a l ap p ro a c h .
Thus k o h lb e rg and K ram er's (1969) p s y c h o lo g ic a l approach to c o n t i
n u i t i e s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s in ch ild h o o d and a d u lt m oral developm ent
i s n o t d i r e c t l y com parable, nor a r e th e s tu d i e s p r e s e n tly b e in g
pursued a t th e Langley P o r te r C l in ic under th e d i r e c t i o n of M a rjo rie
F . L ow enthal; th e s e l a t t e r n o t only do n o t fo cu s on th e t r a n s i t i o n a l
l i f e s ta g e of a d o le s c e n c e , b u t L o w e n th a l's approach i s pred o m in an tly
s o c i a l p s y c h o lo g ic a l.
R e se a rc h b e in g conducted p r e s e n tly a t th e Andrus G erontology
C e n te r under th e d i r e c t i o n of Vern Bengtson c e n te r s around th e
g e n e r a tio n a l d i f f e r e n c e s in th r e e - g e n e r a t io n f a m i l i e s . W ith in t h i s
c o n te x t, B e n g tso n 1s a t t e n t i o n is la r g e ly on th e problem o f y o uth
s o c i a l i z a t i o n , on fa m ily and fa m ily background a s th e s e t t i n g of
s o c i a l i z a t i o n , and a s a framework f o r i n t e r a c t i o n and th e le a r n in g
of v a lu e s and a t t i t u d e s . Thus th e r e i s a r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een
B e n g ts o n 's r e s e a r c h and th e proposed s t u d y 's f o c u s ; b o th of th e s e
s tu d i e s a re w ith in th e same i n s t i t u t i o n a l s e t t i n g .
A t r u l y s o c i o l o g i c a l s t r u c t u r a l approach to th e s tu d y of i n
fo rm a l a d o le s c e n t groups may be found in th e s t u d i e s o f j u v e n ile
d e lin q u e n c y . W hile th e focus of th e s e t h e o r e t i c a l and e m p ir ic a l
group s tu d i e s i s on d e v ia n t b e h a v io r ( e . g . , c liq u e s and f r ie n d s h ip
groups which c o n s t i t u t e th e b u ild in g b lo c k s of gangs and gang c l u s
t e r s , as K le in , 1971, has n o te d ) , th e s e do n o t a t t r i b u t e d e v ia n t
b e h a v io r to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y in a t h e o r e t i c a l s e n s e , b u t r a t h e r
t o c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y 's concom m ittant v a r i a b l e s . These s tu d ie s
have y ie ld e d v a lu a b le f in d in g s and i n s i g h t s in r e l a t i o n to the
s t r u c t u r a l a s p e c ts of a d o le s c e n t groups and th ey have s tr o n g ly i n
flu e n c e d th e p r e s e n t r e s e a rc h b o th in i t s approach a s w e ll as o p e r
a t i o n a l l y . R eferen ce i s made here p r i n c i p a l l y to th e s tu d i e s by
K le in (1964, 1968, 1969a, 1969b), K le in and Crawford (1967) and
K obrin e t a l . , (1967).
I t i s c l e a r from K l e in 's w r itin g s t h a t a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the
c o n cep t group as i t p e r t a in s to a d o le s c e n ts i s c a ll e d f o r . In h is
p a p e r, "On th e Group C ontext of D elinquency" (1969b), K le in n o te s
t h a t p eer groups tend to be confused w ith g an g s, gangs w ith c l i q u e s ,
th e l a t t e r w ith groups in g e n e r a l, o r w ith any c o l l e c t i v i t y of ado
l e s c e n t s . Says K le in : "One m ight approach th e problem by r a i s i n g
th e q u e s tio n n o t of d e lin q u e n c y , b u t of th e meaning of ' g ro u p ' as
a c o n te x t w ith in which j u v e n ile o ffe n s e s a re com m itted and d e te c te d ."
F u r th e r : "What d e f i n i t i o n s of group must be e n te r ta i n e d to encompass
v a rio u s j e v e n i le b e h a v io rs o f an i l l e g a l n a tu re as group in c id e n ts ? "
(K le in , 1 9 6 9 b :6 6 -6 7 ); " ...w e may be g e t t i n g a b i t slo p p y te r m in o lo -
g i c a l l y " (1 9 6 9 b :6 7 ), and " i t seems t h a t th e r e s o l u t i o n to th e problem
must come, n o t from th e o f f i c i a l a g e n c ie s o r from th e b o y s, b u t from
th e s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t " (1969b:6 7 -6 8 ).
9
S p e c i f i c a l l y in r e l a t i o n to gan g s, "group qua group g o a ls a re
u s u a lly m inim al. The m ost commonly e x p re sse d g o a l i s th e c o h e s io n ."
Thus p r o te c ti o n o f members a g a in s t r i v a l g a n g s. C le a rly t h i s f a l l s
under what we have term ed an e x te r n a l so u rc e of c o h e s io n . Thus "group
qua group norms a r e r e l a t i v e l y n o n e x is te n t" and " th e one norm t h a t
does seem to be sh a re d i s t h a t of a c c e p ta n c e of a wide v a r i e t y of
i l l e g a l a c t s . " A ls o , " le a d e r s h ip is u n s ta b le and te n d s to s h i f t
from one p e rso n to a n o th e r " (K lein and C raw ford, 1 9 6 7 :6 6 -6 7 ).
I t i s f u r t h e r n oted t h a t i n i t i a t i o n i n to gang c u lt u r e ta k e s p la c e
b e fo re a boy (o r a g i r l , r e s p e c ti v e ly ) has "an o p p o r tu n ity to make
an independent d e c is io n " (K lein and C raw ford, 1 9 6 7 :6 7 ).
The im portance of f r i e n d s h i p groups l i e s in th e f a c t t h a t in
th e gang
C liq u e members c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e f r i e n d s h i p groups
w ith in a l a r g e r and somewhat amorphous c o l l e c t i o n of i n d i v i
d u a ls . From a p r a c t i c a l v ie w p o in t, th e p r a t i t i o n e r concerned
w ith d e c re a s in g th e co h e siv e bonds of a j u v e n i le gang must
u n d e rs ta n d th e n a tu r e and i n t e n s i t y of th e s e bonds where th ey
a r e th e s t r o n g e s t , t h a t i s , w ith in n a t u r a l f r i e n d s h i p g r o u p s .
(K lein and C raw ford, 1967:73 )
The above c i t e d so u rc e s p lu s K l e in 's e m p ir ic a l o b s e rv a tio n s on
gangs gave r i s e t o th e c o n s id e r a tio n of th e gang as one type of
group on th e in fo rm a l-fo rm a l continuum a s in v e s t ig a t e d in t h i s s tu d y .
10
III. SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS RESEARCH
In o rd e r to a s s e s s th e s ig n i f ic a n c e of a s tu d y i n v e s t i g a t i n g
c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y i t m ight be a p p r o p r ia te to b e g in by a s k in g ;
what i s c u l t u r a l c o n t i n u i t y ? C u l t u r a l c o n ti n u it y i s s a id to e x i s t
(in t h i s stu d y ) when (1) in the c o u rse of human developm ent s o c i a l
le a r n in g is p red o m in an tly cu m u la tiv e and (2) when b o th the s ta g e s of
p h y s ic a l m a tu ra tio n and a g in g a s w e ll as the s u c c e s s iv e and j o i n t l y
held r o le s of an in d iv id u a l r e q u ir e a minimum of r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n ;
t h a t i s , when no d ee p ly i n t e r n a l i z e d a s p e c ts of th e p e r s o n a l it y need
r e s t r u c t u r i n g (on an in d iv id u a l l e v e l ) . When th e r e i s a schism b e
tween s ta g e s of human developm ent or j o i n t l y h e ld r o l e s , th e n th e r e
is c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . T his may be p r e s e n t a t any tim e d u rin g
th e l i f e sp a n . The d i s c o n t i n u i t y betw een th e a c ti v e p e rio d of m iddle
age and r e tir e m e n t may be a s d i s r u p t i v e as th e t r a n s i t i o n from c h i l d
hood to ad u lth o o d in our s o c i e t y . W hile t h i s stu d y i s concerned w ith
th e l a t t e r , fo c u s in g on a d o le s c e n c e , f in d in g s may a ls o be a p p lic a b le
to p e rio d s of d i s c o n t i n u i t y c h r a c t e r i z i n g o th e r m a tu r a tio n a l s ta g e s
of th e l i f e c y c le . R ile y (1971) c i t e s a number of s u p p o rtiv e s t a t e
m ents, a s fo llo w s :
11
Aging in d iv id u a ls must pass th ro u g h key t r a n s i t i o n p o in ts
in th e s o c ie ty - - f r o m in fa n c y to c h ild h o o d , f o r exam ple, from
one sc h o o l grade to th e n e x t, from a d o le sc en c e to a d u lth o o d ,
o r from work l i f e to r e tir e m e n t (C la u s e n ,1971). And the degree
of s t r a i n engendered by such t r a n s i t i o n depends upon d iv e r s e
s o c i a l c o n d itio n s - - u p o n th e c o n ti n u it y or d i s c o n t i n u i t y in the
r o l e sequences (B e n e d ic t, 1938); upon how f u l l y i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d
a p a r t i c u l a r r o l e may be (Donahue, O rbach, and P o lia k , 1969);
upon th e i n t e r n a l c o n s is te n c y of r o le e x p e c ta tio n s , f a c i l i t i e s
and s a n c t i o n s ; o r upon how e f f e c t i v e l y people a r e t r a i n e d or
s o c ia l iz e d a t e v ery s ta g e of l i f e • (Brim, 1968; Brim and W heeler,
1966 ) ;
R ile y , a s have o th e r s b e fo re (B e n e d ic t, 1938; E i s e n s t a d t, 1956;
Mannheim, 1952; P a rso n s, 1942), c o n s id e rs c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y to
be d y s f u n c tio n a l in r e l a t i o n to th e r e a l i z a t i o n o f th e g r e a t e s t human
p o t e n t i a l as w e ll a s to th e achievem ent of a hig h d eg ree of l i f e
s a t i s f a c t i o n . No i n v e s t i g a t i o n has e v e r c h a lle n g e d t h i s view .
One o f th e q u e s tio n s t h a t t h i s r e s e a r c h t r i e s to answer is
w h eth er c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s f u n c t i o n a l in some r e s p e c t s . W hile
c u l t u r a l c o n ti n u it y has tended to connote an id e a l of human m atura
tio n and developm ent, i t should be p o in te d o u t t h a t extrem e c u l t u r a l
c o n ti n u it y may r e s u l t in r i g i d i t y of o u tlo o k , narrow ness and p r e ju d ic e .
In o th e r w ords, does c u l t u r a l c o n ti n u it y d u rin g te e n age s o c i a l i z a t i o n
p re p a re th e in d iv i d u a l most e f f e c t i v e l y f o r s u c c e s s f u l ad u lth o o d in
B rew ster S m ith 's te rm s, t h a t i s , does i t f u r t h e r th e developm ent of
a "com petent s e l f " (Sm ith, 1 9 6 8:282). O r, does a c e r t a i n degree of
c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y c o n s t i t u t e th e b e s t b a s is f o r a w e ll rounded,
open minded and c r e a t i v e a d u lt p e r s o n a lity ? I t may be t h a t a c e r t a i n
d eg re e o f c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y a c ts to c o n tr i b u te to th e developm ent
of v e r s a t i l i t y and c r e a t i v i t y in in d iv i d u a l s . I f s o , th e r e may be a
s a t u r a t i o n p o in t beyond which d i s c o n t i n u i t y can no lo n g e r f r u i t f u l l y
12
be a s s i m i l a t e d . As d i s c o n t i n u i t y c u m u la tiv e ly in c r e a s e s beyond t h i s
p o in t i t may b e g in t o a c t as a d i s r u p t i v e in s te a d of a c r e a ti v e
f o r c e . T his le a d s to th e f o rm u la tio n ( h y p o th e tic a lly ) of a c u r v i
l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e continuum of c o n ti n u i t y - d i s c o n t i n u i t y
and th e developm ent of th e g r e a t e s t c r e a t i v e and f l e x i b l e p e r s o n a l it y
p o t e n t i a l .
I t was hoped t h a t th e proposed r e s e a r c h would h e lp to c l a r i f y
th e f u n c tio n p e e r groups f u l f i l l in a d o le s c e n t developm ent; to s p e c if y
th e c o n d itio n s under which a f f i l i a t i o n w ith a d o le s c e n t c u lt u r e a r i s e s ;
and to d e li n e a t e how membership in d i f f e r e n t ty p es of p eer groups is
r e l a t e d to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y .
The need f o r r e s e a r c h on t h i s s ta g e of human developm ent has
s tr o n g ly been a d v o c a te d , and th e need f o r com parative a n a ly s i s of
a d o le s c e n t s u b c u ltu r e s (such a s betw een and w ith in s o c i a l c la s s e s )
w ith in th e c o n te x t of th e e n t i r e s o c i e t a l s t r u c t u r e has been s t r e s s e d .
C lausen (1968) a lr e a d y n o ted t h a t th e r e i s such a need f o r a system
a t i c co m parative d a ta c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s . And, says G o ttlie b
(1970):
" . . . t h e r e is n o t to th e b e s t of ray knowledge any p la n w ith in
th e f e d e r a l governm ent where any s y s te m a tic a n a ly s i s i s made
o f contem porary y o u th — t h e i r b e h a v io r , t h e i r v a lu e s ; and t h e i r
a t t i t u d e s . Nor can one f in d any agency o r o f f i c e s e e k in g to
u n d e rsta n d th e consequences f o r s o c ie t y i f we do n o t somehow
re s o lv e c e r t a i n problem s of youth a l i e n a t i o n and g e n e r a tio n a l
c o n f r o n t a t i o n . . .we must b e g in to examine th e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e
tween the v e ry s t r u c t u r e o f our s o c i a l system and youth
b e h a v io r" ( G o t tl ie b , 1970:435).
What G o ttlie b here a d v o c a te s i s p a r t of what t h i s r e s e a r c h , in
th e form of an e x p lo r a to r y p i l o t s tu d y , has been a tte m p tin g to do.
13
One of th e p r i n c i p a l c o n tr ib u tio n s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h i s i t s
a tte m p t to observe and u n d e rsta n d c e r t a i n problem s and p a tt e r n s of
b e h a v io r of a d o le s c e n ts a s p e rc e iv e d by them in s u b je c t iv e answ ers
s o l i c i t e d from them in a s t r u c tu r e d q u e s ti o n n a ir e . A d o le sc e n t a s s o
c i a t i o n s can th u s be s tu d ie d l i k e o th e r c u l t u r e s or s u b c u ltu re s "from
th e i n s i d e o u t" as R e d fie ld (1953) has s u g g e s te d . T h is approach is
u n lik e m ost s tu d i e s o f te e n a g e r s ; th e l a t t e r ten d to a p p ly n o t only
a d u lt b u t most f r e q u e n tly a l s o m iddle c la s s s ta n d a rd s to th e i n t e r
p r e t a t i o n of o b s e rv a tio n and d a ta c o l l e c t i o n . But by s tu d y in g te e n
b e h a v io r from a more s u b je c t iv e s ta n c e i t i s hoped t h a t new in s i g h t s
may be g ain e d i n to th e growing up p ro c e ss of te e n a g e rs and new u n d e r
s ta n d in g g ain e d f o r c e r t a i n of t h e i r n e e d s.
I f we could b e t t e r u n d e rsta n d what th e s e needs a re t h a t so d e s-
p a r a t e l y ( o fte n ) must be f u l f i l l e d in a d o le sc e n c e and o f te n to th e
d e tr im e n t of th e s o c ie ty a t l a r g e , th e n maybe we co uld s e t o u t to
d e s ig n a l t e r n a t e ways of f u l f i l l i n g th e s e n e e d s, ways which would
prove f r u i t f u l and c r e a t i v e , " c o n s t r u c t i v e ," as th e upper m iddle c la s s
l i k e s to c a l l i t , from th e p o in t of view of b o th th e s o c ie t y and the
a d o le s c e n t .
T h is r e s e a rc h opens up new d i r e c t i o n s of r e s e a r c h in s e v e r a l
w ays: (a) The s u c c e s s f u l o p e r a tio n a l d e f i n i t i o n and a p p li c a t i o n of an
Index of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y has long been overdue and i s much
needed in th e u n d e rs ta n d in g of p ro c e sse s of s o c i a l i z a t i o n of b o th
th e a v e ra g e and th e d e lin q u e n t or m a la d ju ste d y o u th , (b) Success
in s o c i a l i z a t i o n in t h i s s tu d y i s n o t m easured in term s of hig h occu
p a t i o n a l a s p i r a t i o n s or c o lle g e p la n s , b u t , t r e a t i n g e v e ry o c c u p atio n
14
w ith e q u a l r e s p e c t , th e q u e s tio n i s a sk ed : how do d i f f e r e n t ty p es
o f p e e r groups c o n tr i b u te (or f a i l to do s o , r e s p e c ti v e ly ) to make
o u t of an a d o le s c e n t an in d e p e n d e n t, r e s p o n s ib le and ( s o c i e t a l l y )
p a r t i c i p a t i n g a d u lt ? This s tu d y th u s is v e ry d i f f e r e n t in approach
from th e many s tu d i e s conducted in th e l a s t d ecad e, which have p r i
m a rily been i n t e r e s t e d i n th e problem of a s p i r a t i o n s ( s e e , f o r
i n s t a n c e , Kandel and L e s s e r , 1969; Duncan, Featherm an and Duncan,
1968; M a rjo rib a n k s , 1972; H au ser, 1973). The p r e s e n t stu d y i s a
l o g i c a l n e x t s te p to th e s e fo re g o in g o n es, each c o n tr ib u tin g w ith in
t h e i r own s p h e re .
15
IV. THE ADOLESCENT PEER GROUP
What i s th e f u n c tio n of th e a d o le s c e n t p e e r g roup: what a re
th e a t t i t u d e s t h a t p r e v a i l in i t , why do young people e n t e r and why
do young people le a v e ; what a re th e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and s e n t i
ments t h a t hold th e p e e r group to g e th e r? These a r e some of th e
q u e s tio n s w hich u n d e r lie some of th e q u e s tio n s asked in r e l a t i o n to
th e Index of d i s c o n t i n u i t y and ty p e s of (in fo rm a l v e rs u s fo rm a l)
a d o le s c e n t g ro u p s.
The main u n i t of e m p ir ic a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n in t h i s r e s e a r c h i s
th e a d o le s c e n t p e e r g r o u p - - f r ie n d s h ip g ro u p in g s , c l i q u e s , gangs,
a d o le s c e n t crowds and form al a s s o c i a t i o n s —and i t s a t t i t u d e s toward
f a m ily , p e e r s , and a d u lt a u t h o r i t y . I t i s assumed h e re t h a t ado
l e s c e n t groups a r e f u n c t i o n a l in th e fo rm a tio n of a d u l t p e r s o n a l it y ,
p ro v id in g a fram e w ith in which to e x p lo re th e r e a l w orld and some
tim es th e on ly a c c e s s ib l e c o n te x t in which a s o c i e t a l i d e n t i t y and
s t a t u s can be e s t a b l i s h e d . Thus c e r t a i n of th e s e groups should be
c o n s id e re d f u n c t i o n a l from the p o in t of view of th e a d o le s c e n t 's
p e r s o n a l it y developm ent, even though th e s e v e ry groups may some
tim es be judged t o be d y s fu n c tio n a l from th e s o c i e t a l p o in t of view
a s w e l l, b e cau se th e a d u lt p ro d u ct may tu r n o u t to be a somewhat
a n t i - s o c i a l one.
16
The a d o le s c e n t p e e r group may be c o n s id e re d as a s u b c u ltu r e .
As i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f o th e r c u l t u r e s , members e n te r i t , le a r n i t s
r u le s and le a v e i t w h ile th e ( s u b ) c u ltu r e i t s e l f - - a system of i n t e r
r e l a t e d r u l e s and sym bols— p e r s i s t s . Youth p e e r c u lt u r e (or many
a s p e c ts of i t ) sh o u ld prove to be f u n c t i o n a l to a p a r t i c u l a r s ta g e
of human~development, o r i t would n o t c o n tin u e to e x i s t .
The s t r u c t u r e o f v a r io u s a d o le s c e n t groups and th e e n tr a n c e ,
p a r t i c i p a t i o n and e x i t o f members has been d e s c rib e d by Dunphy (1963),
K le in (1964, 1971), M ille r (1 9 5 8 ), S h o r t, e t a l . , (1965a), S u t t l e s
(1968) and Matza (1 9 6 4 ).
K le in (1 9 6 9 a), in s tu d y in g th e s t r u c t u r e of gangs, observed th e
e n tr a n c e and e x i t o f members. He n o te s t h a t a d o le s c e n ts ten d to e n te r
th e same sex p e e r group a t a b o u t age tw elve a t th e e a r l i e s t , lea v e
a t a b o u t age e ig h t e e n , peak membership b e in g a t age f i f t e e n and s i x
te e n . Thus, gangs b e in g one type of p eer group a s s o c i a t i o n , K l e in 's
(1971) lea d i s fo llo w e d in t h i s s tu d y , namely to stu d y c l i q u e s ,
gan g s, s in g le a s w e ll a s in te r c o n n e c te d f r i e n d s h i p groups and young
p e o p le 's fo rm al and in fo rm a l a s s o c i a ti o n s betw een th e ages of tw elve
and e ig h te e n . When o b s e rv in g th e i n d iv id u a l member's g o a ls and
a t t i t u d e s y e a r by y e a r , i t should r e f l e c t s ta g e s of developm ent t h a t
u n fo ld l i k e th e fram es which fo llo w each o th e r in a movie r e e l . ^ -
A second t a s k w hich t h i s stu d y s e t o u t to i n v e s t ig a t e was to stu d y
a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of a d o le s c e n t s , tw elve to e ig h te e n y e a rs o ld , and
^ H a v ig h u rst, e t a l . , (1962) to o k a s i m i l a r approach in t h e i r
s tu d y o f R iv e r C ity , b u t t h e i r fo cu s of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s v e ry d i f
f e r e n t from th e one ta k e n h e re .
17
to m easure t h e i r i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , t h e i r needs and a t t i t u d e s
in r e l a t i o n to th e p e e r g ro u p , th e f a m ily , s c h o o l, and a d u lt a u t h o r i t y ,
as th e s e a re changing in t h i s span o f tim e from y e a r to y e a r. (See
Diagram 1 ).
In c o n t r a s t to m ost s tu d i e s in t h i s f i e l d , t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n
does n o t only ta k e th e s o c ie t a l - n o r m a t i v e , b u t a ls o th e a d o le s c e n t 's
p o in t o f v iew , in a n a ly z in g th e f u n c t i o n a l i t y , th e a t t i t u d e s and
s t r u c t u r e of th e a d o le s c e n t group. Four b r i e f d e li n e a t i o n s of con
c e p t u a l i z a t i o n u n d e rly in g th e p a r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g y of i n v e s t ig a t io n
ta k e n h e re w i l l h e lp to e l u c i d a t e t h i s . These b r i e f c o n c e p tu a l v i g
n e t t e s form p a r t of th e c o n te x t in which h y p o th eses a re s t a t e d and in
which q u e s tio n s (th e q u e s tio n n a ir e is in clu d e d in pages
a r e to be a s k e d .
S ta g es o f P eer Group A s s o c ia tio n
The group a t f i r s t r e p r e s e n t s a c o n tin u a tio n of prim ary r e l a
t io n s t o th e e n te r in g i n d iv i d u a l . L acking o r b e in g suddenly d e p riv e d
o f prim ary r e l a t i o n s by th e tim e th ey a re tw e lv e --b e c a u se th e y can
now ta k e c a re of th em selv es and i t i s tim e f o r them to le a r n how to
be in d e p e n d e n t--y o u n g s te rs se e k c o n tin u a tio n o f t h i s e m o tio n a lly
s a t i s f y i n g r e l a t i o n in th e p e e r gro u p . E i s e n s t a d t (1956) n o te s t h a t
young i n d iv id u a ls c o n se q u e n tly s e e k i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s which
(a) e n a b le them to some e x te n t to r e t a i n th e em o tio n al s e c u r i t y
d e riv e d from prim ary r e l a t i o n s , and (b) w hich a re of a d i f f e r e n t and
w ider scope th a n th o se o f th e f a m ily . T hat i s , young people se ek an
e x te n s io n o f prim ary r e l a t i o n s w ith in th e sp h e re o f a l a r g e r , :more
parents
(reference grp.)
Age
*«
c
B
B
3
U
8 9 10 1 1
£
S
3
2:
primary rels.
predominate
vo
peer group
(reference grp.)
community, the job
(reference grp.)
secondary relations
predominate
Diagram 1. Adolescent Culture
hypothetical diagram
im p erso n al s o c i e t a l c o n te x t, th u s r e t a i n i n g e m o tio n a l s e c u r i t y .
W ithin th e c o n te x t o f a s o c ie t y dom inated by seco n d ary r e l a t i o n s ,
th ey se e k t o b elo n g to a n o n -k in p rim ary group and f in d t h i s in
f r i e n d s h i p and p eer group r e l a t i o n s ( E is e n s ta d t , 1 9 5 6 :4 5 ).
The View of S o c ie ty
I t i s a ssu m e d --ta k in g an a n th r o p o lo g ic a l p e r s p e c ti v e , a s R e d fie ld
(1953) has s u g g e s t e d - - t h a t from th e p o in t o f view of th e h ig h -
d i s c o n t i n u i t y a d o le s c e n t (a) s t r e e t group l i f e i s re w a rd in g , o c c a
s i o n a l l y e x c i t i n g , fun and c h a lle n g in g , and t h a t (b) " s o c ie ty " is
i n i t i a l l y c o n s id e re d to be n e i t h e r enemy n o r f r i e n d . Based on a
p r in c i p le of co m p lem en tarity ( d e lin e a te d by M alinow ski in Crime and
Custom in Savage S o c i e t y , 1926), th e a d o l e s c e n t 's p e rc e p tio n of
" s o c i e ty " c o n s t i t u t e s th e c o n te x tu a l o b je c t o r backdrop a g a in s t which
the d e v e lo p in g p e r s o n a l it y can e x p lo re p h y s ic a l and s o c i a l l i m i t a t i o n s
and p o t e n t i a l i t i e s —by to u c h in g , d o in g , a c ti n g a g a in s t i t , b e in g up
a g a i n s t i t , m eeting i t h e a d -o n . Through t h i s p r o c e s s , i t ( " s o c ie ty " )
i s comprehended and becomes a r e a l i t y . S i m i la r ly , a v a r i e t y of ty p e s
of p e o p le s , g ro u p s, r i v a l g ro u p s, o b j e c t s , i n s t i t u t i o n s , law s, law
e n fo rc e m e n t, a re e x p lo re d . T his ty p e o f le a r n in g r e q u ir e s th e i n t r o
d u c tio n of a p r i n c i p l e o f co m p lem entariness i n to th e s o c i a l s e t t i n g .
I t i s th ro u g h t h i s t h a t an o rd e r in s o c i a l r e a l i t y i s g rasp ed a lo n g
w ith o n e 's p la c e ( s t a t u s ) in i t and th e p la c e and r e l a t i o n s of o b je c ts
to p e o p le , to g ro u p s, to i n s t i t u t i o n s , to s o c i e t y . T his s ta n d s in
c o n t r a s t to th e v e rb a l-s y m b o lic le a r n in g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of low d i s
c o n ti n u it y a d o le s c e n ts .
A d o le sc e n t D e s ire f o r S ta tu s
When c o n s id e r in g th e d e f i n i t i o n o f s t a t u s , namely p o s it i o n or
p la c e in th e s o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , th en th e s e a r c h by a d o le s c e n ts f o r
s t a t u s may be se en a s a s e a rc h f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of (a) th e s t r u c t u r e
o f o n e ’s s o c ie t y and (b) o n e 's p la c e in i t , i . e . , an answ er to th e
q u e s tio n --w h e re am I? Maybe s e a rc h f o r s t a t u s sh o u ld n o t alw ays
a u to m a tic a lly be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean d e s ir e f o r h ig h s t a t u s . An
a d o l e s c e n t 's knowledge of h is s t a t u s h e lp s him to d e fin e n o t only h is
r e l a t i o n to h is im m ediate c lo s e p eer group (Broom and S e lz n ic k , 1968:
358) and h is f r i e n d s , b u t a l s o h e lp s him to a s c e r t a i n how h is p a r
t i c u l a r c liq u e e v a lu a te s o th e r s and how o th e r s in tu r n e v a lu a te him.
Thus p la c in g c l i q u e s , g ro u p s, i n s t i t u t i o n s , he i s a b le to p u t o rd e r
i n to h is s o c i a l w o rld . T h is p in p o in ts h is p la c e , h is r o l e and h is
e x p e c ta tio n s in r e l a t i o n to a l l o th e r s t r u c t u r a l components of the
s o c i e t y in w hich he l i v e s . T his i s q u i te d i f f e r e n t from Colem an's
(1961) view which i s concerned w ith a d o le s c e n t s ' s e a r c h f o r hig h
s t a t u s and t h e i r d e s ir e to i d e n t i f y w ith h ig h s t a t u s g ro u p s. I t
a l s o d i f f e r s s h a rp ly from view s f r e q u e n tl y e n c o u n te re d in d e lin q u e n cy
r e s e a r c h , f o r i n s t a n c e , th o se espoused by S h o rt and S tro d tb e c k (1965)
or K o b rin , P u n t il and P elu so (1967), who contend t h a t gangs and gang
l e a d e r s h ip a re l a r g e l y th e r e s u l t of a s e a rc h f o r h ig h s t a t u s .
W hile Coleman, S h o rt and S tro d tb e c k , and K o b rin , e t a l . . a l l a re n o t
wrong in t h e i r c o n c lu s io n s , i t sh o u ld be p o in te d o u t t h a t s e a r c h f o r
s t a t u s , a s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , need n o t alw ays imply s e a rc h f o r h ig h
s t a t u s . There a r e two ty p e s of s t a t u s s e e k in g . One, m o tiv a te d by a
s e a rc h f o r r e c o g n i ti o n , power, autonomy, and th e o th e r a s e a rc h f o r
c l a r i f i c a t i o n of o n e 's p o s i t i o n , s e c u r i t y , re d u c tio n of am bivalence
w ith in a netw ork of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The l a t t e r i s th e one
w hich i s p r im a r ily of i n t e r e s t in th e p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h .
D elinquency
How much and what a s p e c t o f ju v e n ile d elin q u e n cy a r e p a r t o r
m a tu r a tio n a l developm ent and what a s p e c ts of d elin q u e n cy a r e compar
a b le to a d u lt c r im in a l b e h a v io r? How i s v io le n c e , p e tty o r se v e re
c rim e, f u n c t i o n a l to p a r t i c u l a r youth s u b c u ltu r e s , e . g . , K le in
(1969a, 1969b, 1971) n o te s t h a t gang d e lin q u e n cy te n d s to in c r e a s e
w ith gang c o h e sio n . I f one were th u s to d is r e g a rd th e f a c t t h a t
d e lin q u e n cy i s p u n ish a b le in our s o c i e t y , t h a t i s , i f one were to
w ith h o ld m oral judgem ent f o r th e purpose of a n a l y t i c a l i n s i g h t , s e v
e r a l q u e s tio n s m ight be a s k e d . F i r s t , i s d e lin q u e n cy f u n c t i o n a l f o r
c e r t a i n y o uth s u b c u ltu r e s an d , seco n d , i s d elin q u en cy f u n c t i o n a l f o r
c e r t a i n members of th e s u b c u ltu r e ; t h i r d , can c e r t a i n ty p e s of
ju v e n i le d e lin q u e n c y be th o u g h t of as e x p lo r a tio n s i n to th e l i m i t s of
human en d u ra n c e , r e s p o n s e , a b i l i t y to in f lu e n c e , e x p lo r a tio n s i n to
th e l i m i t s of p h y s ic a l prowess and i n to th e a d o l e s c e n t 's own human
in g e n u ity ? W hile low d i s c o n t i n u i t y c h ild r e n a re ta u g h t th e l i m i t s
of t h e i r c a p a b i l i t i e s as w e ll a s th e s o c i a l re sp o n se s and consequences
to t h e i r a c t i o n s , a s s t a t e d above, th rough exposure to sym bolic
com m unication ( i . e . , c o n c e p tu a lly ) , hig h d i s c o n t i n u i t y c h il d r e n g a in
t h a t same knowledge th ro u g h t h e i r own e x p e rie n c e s and t h e i r own
a c t i o n s .
22
V. PROJECT DESIGN
The main p ro ce d u re s in t h i s s tu d y a r e : F i r s t , th e a tte m p t to
c o n s tr u c t an Index o f d i s c o n t i n u i t y , as d e s c rib e d e a r l i e r , and
s e c o n d ly , th e i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f membership in b o th in fo rm a l and f o r
mal a d o le s c e n t groups in r e l a t i o n to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . The
a n a ly s i s of d a ta p re s e n te d h e re th u s fo c u s e s on membership in i n
form al and fo rm al a d o le s c e n t groups in r e l a t i o n to d eg ree of c u l t u r a l
d i s c o n t i n u i t y .
The Index of d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s th e main in d ep en d en t v a r i a b l e in
t h i s s tu d y . The p ro ced u re f o r i t s c o n s tr u c tio n i s a s f o llo w s . Each
o f th e c u m u lativ e and i n t e r a c t i n g v a r i a b l e s (fa m ily s t r u c t u r e ,
e t h n i c i t y , s u b je c t iv e income, s u b je c tiv e s o c i a l c l a s s , r e l i g i o u s
a f f i l i a t i o n and o c c u p a tio n a l l e v e l of p a re n ts ) i s r a te d on a th r e e
o r fo u r p o in t s c a l e in r e l a t i o n to th e dom inant no rm ativ e s t r u c t u r e
of s o c i e t y . The r a t i n g i s based on p re v io u s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . In
r e l a t i o n t o fa m ily s t r u c t u r e (as e s ta b l is h e d from E l d e r 's 1962
q u e s ti o n s ) , f o r in s t a n c e , th e ig n o rin g type would be r a t e d as co n
t r i b u t i n g th r e e o r f o u r p o in ts to th e In d ex , a u t h o r i t a r i a n fa m ily
s t r u c t u r e two p o i n ts , and th e e q u a lita r ia n - d e m o c r a tic type (b ein g
most c lo s e l y r e l a t e d to th e Am erican i d e a l ) one p o i n t . S i m i la r ly ,
23
no r e l i g i o n , or r e l i g i o u s which te a c h p a s s iv e a c c e p ta n c e of th e w orld
and p e rs o n a lis m and w hich a r e based on s tr o n g e m o tio n a l a p p e a l, as
a re some S o u th ern B a p t is t or c e r t a i n o th e r e m o tio n a lly e x p re s s iv e
s e c t s (see f o r in s ta n c e L is to n P o p e 's , 1942, e s s a y on churches and
s e c t s , or Howard B e c k e r's 1932, d i s c u s s io n o f fo u r ty p es of r e l i
g io u s o r g a n iz a tio n ) would be r a t e d th r e e p o i n t s , w h ile w h ite
C a th o lic s and Negro P r o t e s t a n t s would be r a t e d two p o in ts e ach ,
w h ite P r o te s t a n t s and Jew s, b e in g h ig h e s t in achievem ent (L enski,
1961) would g e t a r a t i n g o f one p o in t each .^ - On th e b a s is o f t h i s
kin d o f r a t i n g , each in d iv i d u a l can be a s sig n e d a d i s c o n t i n u i t y s c o r e .
The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f th e a d o le s c e n t groups which were to be
in v e s t ig a t e d a re summarized in th e fo u r h y p o th ese s which were s t a t e d
a t th e o u t s e t of t h i s r e p o r t (p. 4 ) . The d ependent v a r i a b l e - - t y p e
of group m em bership—r e q u i r e s e s t a b l i s h i n g th e d i s t i n c t i o n betw een
in fo rm a l and fo rm al g ro u p s. These in tu r n le a d to p r e d ic tio n s con
c e rn in g i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s o f group members, t h e i r i n t e r n a l
i z a t i o n of s o c i a l and a n t i s o c i a l norm s, t h e i r g rad e p o in t a v e ra g e s ,
t h e i r o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g , t h e i r p a t t e r n o f d e c is io n making i n th e
g ro u p s, t h e i r d eg ree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n m aking, t h e i r
g r o u p 's type of le a d e r s h i p , and so on.
The Q u e s tio n n a ire
T his s e c t i o n p r e s e n ts a d e s c r i p t i o n of th e q u e s ti o n n a ir e , f o l
lowed by th e q u e s tio n n a ir e i t s e l f . The f i r s t few pages (pages 1 t o 4)
^These f in e d i s t i n c t i o n s were n o t c a r r i e d over i n to the a c t u a l
r a t i n g , b u t m ight have improved th e p r e s e n t m easure.
24
o f th e q u e s tio n n a ir e a re concerned m ainly w ith g e t t i n g th e n e c e s s a ry
d a ta f o r th e independent v a r i a b l e s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h ; th e main ones
b e in g th e Index o f n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y and a g e . I n th e pages
t h a t fo llo w (pages 5 to 14) e x te n t and ty p e of a d o le s c e n t group
a f f i l i a t i o n , in fo rm a l and fo rm a l, a re e s t a b l i s h e d . The q u e s tio n s
which a tte m p t to d e s c r ib e or to e v a lu a te th e e x te n t o f in fo r m a lity
(q u e s tio n s 37 to 59) and f o r m a lity (q u e s tio n s 60 to 82) o f g ro u p s,
r e s p e c t i v e l y , a r e n o t alw ays com parable s in c e some q u e s tio n s d i r e c te d
a t b o th groups would in some in s ta n c e s c o n s t i t u t e a d e f i n i t i o n a l
ta u to lo g y . Thus, f o r in s t a n c e , some c o n tin u a m easuring th e same th in g
( e . g . , i n t r i n s i c v e rs u s a c ti o n o r ie n te d re a s o n s f o r jo in i n g a group)
a re worded d i f f e r e n t l y when d i r e c te d a t e i t h e r in fo rm a l o r form al
g ro u p s .
Q u e stio n s 35 and 36 a r e d e sig n ed to t e s t h y p o th eses which r e l a t e
to th e i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n o f norms and th e p e rc e p tio n of norm s, r e s
p e c t i v e l y , b o th in a s o c i a l and a n t i s o c i a l way.
The f u l l q u e s tio n n a ir e a p p e a rs in th e fo llo w in g p a g e s.
25
ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH, U .S.C .
Dear S tu d e n t:
T h is q u e s tio n n a ir e i s p a r t of a stu d y now
b e in g conducted a t th e U n iv e rs ity of S o uthern
C a l i f o r n i a . The s tu d y t r i e s to u n d e rsta n d how
p eo p le g e t to be a d u lt s and what p a r t f r i e n d s h i p ,
p lay g ro u p s, c lu b s , and a s s o c i a ti o n s p lay in the
grow ing up p ro c e ss of a d o le s c e n ts . P le a s e answer
a l l q u e s tio n s as c o m p le te ly a s p o s s ib l e . Only the
s c i e n t i s t s doing r e s e a r c h w i l l see your a n sw e rs.
Thank you f o r your h e lp .
R i t a Loeb
D epartm ent of S ocio lo g y
U n iv e r s ity of S o u th e rn C a l if o r n ia
26
PART I : ABOUT YOU AND YOUR FAMILY
1. Are you: a boy _______
a g i r l _______
2. How old a r e you _______
When were you born ___________________________________
3. Where were you born___________________________________
Where was your m other born __________________________
Where was your f a t h e r born __________________________
4 . What language do your f a t h e r and m other u s u a ll y speak to
each o th e r ____________________________________________
What language do your p a re n ts l i k e t o sp eak w ith you _______________
5. There a r e people from many d i f f e r e n t p la c e s l i v i n g in our c o u n try ;
th ey a re o f te n c a ll e d s u b c u ltu r e s o r e th n ic g ro u p s. Below is
an a l p h a b e t i c a l l i s t i n g of a number of e th n ic g ro u p s. P le a se
in d ic a te which one of th e s e your fa m ily comes from .
M o th e r's fa m ily F a t h e r 's fam ily
_____ American In d ia n ______
American Jew ish ______
Am erican Negro ______
_____ Armenian _____
Arab ______
C hinese ______
E n g lis h ______
Eskimo ______
F o re ig n born Jew ish ______
German _____
Greek ______
From I n d ia ______
I r i s h ______
I t a l i a n ______
Jap an ese ______
L a tin Am erican ______
Mexican_________________________
27
5. (Continued)
M other’s fa m ily F a t h e r 's fam ily
P h ilip p in e ______
P o lis h ______
P o ly n e sia n ______
P u e rto R ican ______
_____ R u ssian _____
Sw edish-D utch_______________
_____________________ O ther (p le a s e s t a t e )_________________________
6.
a ) What i s or was your f a t h e r 's o c c u p a tio n ________________________
(be s p e c i f i c )
b) What i s or was your m o th e r's o c c u p a tio n ________________________
(be s p e c i f i c )
c ) What i s your own (chosen) o c c u p a tio n ________________________
(be s p e c i f i c )
7. I s your fa m ily :
v e ry poor (n o t enough even f o r n e c e s s i t i e s )
poor
g e t t i n g by a l r i g h t
av erage
p r e t t y w e ll o ff
c o n s id e re d w ealthy
8 . What i s your f a m i ly 's m onthly income (on which your p a re n ts
base t h e i r b u d g e t): _____________________
9. To w hich one of th e fo llo w in g s o c i a l c la s s e s do you th in k your
fa m ily (and you) b e lo n g :
low er c la s s
______ w orking c la s s
low er m iddle c la s s
m iddle c la s s
upper m iddle c la s s
upper c la s s
no c la s s
th e r e a re no c la s s e s
28
10. What i s y o u r:
F a t h e r 's r e l i g i o n __________ __________________
M o th e r's r e l i g i o n
Your own r e l i g i o u s p re fe re n c e _____________
Does your fa m ily b e lo n g to any church ______
11a. How many y e a rs d id your f a t h e r a tt e n d :
g rade sc h o o l
j u n io r h ig h school
h ig h sc h o o l
tr a d e sc h o o l
b u s in e s s sc h o o l
c o lle g e o r u n i v e r s i t y
g ra d u a te sc h o o l
what i s h is h ig h e s t d e g re e _________________
l i b . Are th e r e many k id s a b o u t your age in your neighborhood:
v e ry many
q u i te a few
j u s t a few
h a rd ly any
none
12. How many y e a rs d id your m other a t t e n d :
g rade sc h o o l
j u n io r hig h school
h ig h sc h o o l
tr a d e sc h o o l
b u s in e s s sch o o l
c o lle g e or u n i v e r s i t y
g ra d u a te sc h o o l
what i s h e r h ig h e s t d eg ree
13. How many y e a rs have you a tte n d e d :
g rad e sc h o o l
j u n i o r h ig h sc h o o l
h ig h sc h o o l
tr a d e sc h o o l
b u s in e s s sc h o o l
c o lle g e o r u n i v e r s it y
g ra d u a te sch o o l
____ what d e g re e do you have
14. Are you p r e s e n t ly going t o s c h o o l, c o ll e g e , or u n i v e r s i t y :
Yes
No
29
14. (Continued)
I f s o , what i s th e name of your sc h o o l __________________
I s t h i s a p r iv a t e sch o o l ___________________
What grade a re you in ________________________
How many c la s s e s or u n i ts a re you c a r r y in g :
15. What kin d of a s tu d e n t a re you:
c a n 't q u i te make i t
j u s t g e t t i n g by
. a v e ra g e (m ostly C 's )
good (m ostly B 's )
g e t m ostly A 's
16. How long have you been l i v i n g : In th e Los A ngeles a r e a
In your neighborhood _________
17. W ith whom a r e you l i v i n g a t p r e s e n t? P le a s e l i s t th e members
o f your household in the space below :
18. How many b r o th e r s ________ and s i s t e r s __________ do you have?
19. Are you: _____ th e o ld e s t
a m iddle c h ild
th e youngest
an on ly c h ild
20. P le a s e check th e s ta te m e n t which a p p li e s to you:
_ _ _ you a r e going ste a d y
you have gone s te a d y b e fo re
you a r e engaged
you a r e m arried
you have c h ild r e n
you a re d iv o rc e d or s e p a ra te d
21. What jo b t r a i n i n g do you h a v e :_____________________________________
Yes No
Are you p r e s e n tly working or making money in any way ___ ___
What i s your o c c u p a tio n : ____________________________________________
30
21. (Continued)
P le a s e d e s c r ib e your w ork;
22. How many hours a week do you work:
a t l e a s t 40 hours
20 hours
8 hours
i r r e g u l a r hours
none
23. How do you g e t p a id :
by th e hour
by th e day
by th e week
_____ by th e month
n ever
24. G e n e r a lly , who makes most; .of th e d e c is io n s in your fa m ily :
25. In g e n e r a l, how a r e most d e c is io n s made betw een you and your
f a t h e r : (check one)
my f a t h e r j u s t t e l l s me what to do
f a t h e r l i s t e n s to me b u t makes th e d e c is io n s h im s e lf
I have c o n s id e r a b le o p p o rtu n ity to make my own
d e c is i o n s , b u t my f a t h e r has th e f i n a l word
_____ my o p in io n s a re a s im p o rta n t as my f a t h e r 's in d e c id in g
what I should do
I can make my own d e c is io n s b u t my f a t h e r would l i k e f o r
me to c o n s id e r h is o p in io n
I can do what I want r e g a r d le s s of what my f a t h e r th in k s
my f a t h e r does n o t c a re what I do.
26. In g e n e r a l, how a r e most d e c is io n s made betw een you and your
m o th e r: (check one)
my m other j u s t t e l l s me what to do
my m other l i s t e n s to me b u t makes th e d e c is io n s h e r s e l f
31
26. (Continued)
I have c o n s id e r a b le o p p o r tu n ith to make my own d e c is i o n s ,
b u t my m other has th e f i n a l word
my o p in io n s a r e a s im p o rta n t a s my m o th e r's in d e c id in g
what 1 should do
I can make my own d e c is io n s b u t my m other would l i k e f o r
me to c o n s id e r h e r o p in io n
I can do what I want r e g a r d le s s o f what my m other th in k s
my m other does n o t c a re what I do
PART I I : ABOUT CLOSE FRIENDS
27. How many c lo s e f r i e n d s do you have a t p r e s e n t (a s id e from
your r e l a t i v e s ) ___________
28. Are any members of your fa m ily o r your r e l a t i v e s among your
c lo s e f r i e n d s ; Yes No
I f s o , p le a s e p la c e a check mark in f r o n t of the perso n who
i s now your c lo s e f r ie n d
Spouse _____ Aunt
M other _____Uncle
F a th e r _____ C ousin (m ale, fem ale)
B ro th e r_________ _____G ra n d fa th e r
S i s t e r __________ _____Grandmother
29. What i s a c lo s e f ir e n d s h ip ? P le a s e d e s c r ib e what you e x p e c t of
a c lo s e f r i e n d in th e space below .
30. How many of your c lo s e f r i e n d s a r e : boys _____, g i r l s
31. Of the c lo s e f r i e n d s you h ave, how many l i v e :
on th e same b lo c k a s you do
_____ w ith in 3 b lo c k s
p r e t t y f a r , b u t w alk in g d is ta n c e
to o f a r to w alk
32
32. How many o f th e c lo s e f r i e n d s you have ( o u ts id e of your fam ily )
a r e :
o ld e r th a n you a re
your own age
younger th a n you a re
33. How many of your c lo s e f r i e n d s b e lo n g to you neighborhood
crowd
34
a ) How many of your c lo s e f r i e n d s b e lo n g to th e same clu b s
and a s s o c i a t i o n s a s you do: ______
b) P le a s e name th e a s s o c i a ti o n s you b e lo n g t o : _____________
35. I f you were s u re t h a t no one would e v e r f in d o u t, would you
e v e r:
Yes No
a ) c h e a t on an e x a m .................................................................... ....... ......
b) t e l l a s e c r e t a f r i e n d t o ld you so someone e l s e ___ ___
c ) ta k e a co u p le of c a n d ie s from a candy c o u n te r ____ ___
d) ta k e a co u p le of d o l l a r s from som eone's purse ____ ___
e ) i f you found th e door u n lo ck ed , would you
e v e r go i n to som eone's house and ta k e o u t some
th in g o f v a lu e f o r y o u r s e l f . ............................................ ......
f ) pay back money to your f r i e n d , even though he
had f o r g e t t e n t h a t he l e n t i t to y o u .................... ....... ......
36. What do you th in k o f t h i s : Is t h i s fun I s t h i s Have you
i l l e g a l done t h i s
Yes No Yes No Yes No
a ) s k ip p in g sc h o o l
b) p a in t in g on w a lls
c ) r i n g i n g f i r e alarm s
d) s l i p p i n g i n to a movie
w ith o u t paying
e ) k id d in g s tr a n g e r s on th e
phone
f ) s e t t i n g o f f f i r e crack ers_
g) th ro w in g s to n e s a t c a rs
h) c r a s h in g somebody e l s e 's
p a r ty
i ) c lim b in g over th e fen ce
in o r d e r to p lay in the
c lo s e d sc h o o l yard
33
36. (Continued)
What do you t h in k of t h i s : I s t h i s fu n I s t h i s Have you
i l l e g a l done t h i s
Yes No Yes No Yes No
j ) h aving a few b e e rs a t
a p a rty _______________________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
k) having your group of
f r i e n d s f i g h t a n o th e r
group ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
1) w earing s p e c i a l c lo th e s
or h a ird o e s to i d e n t i f y
you a s a member o f your
group ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
m) popping p i l l s ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ __
PART I I I : ABOUT PLAY GROUPS, GANGS, CLIQUES
37. Do you b elong to a neighborhood crow d, a bunch o f neighborhood
k i d s , who spend a l o t of t h e i r f r e e tim e to g e th e r?
Yes No.
38. Do you f e e l a need to g e t to g e th e r in fo r m a lly , to p lay or hang
around w ith a group of o th e r young people who a re much l i k e
y o u r s e l f :
v e ry much so
a l i t t l e
n o t a t a l l
39. About how many y o u n g s te rs a re th e r e in t h i s in fo rm a l n e ig h b o r
hood p lay g ro u p , o r crowd?
(about)
40. How many of th e y o u n g ste rs in your p la y g ro u p , crowd or gang,
l i v e :
on th e same b lo c k
w ith in 3 b lo c k s
p r e t t y f a r , b u t w alking d is ta n c e
to o f a r to walk
41. How many y o u n g s te rs in your p la y group a r e :
b o y s, ___ g i r l s
34
4 2 . How many y o u n g s te rs in your p la y group a r e :
o ld e r th a n you
your own age
younger th a n you
43. How many of th e y o u n g s te rs in t h i s p lay group a re your c lo s e
f r i e n d s : ______
44a. Are th e r e o th e r c lo s e f r i e n s h i p groups b e s id e s yours in t h i s
crowd or p la y group:
Yes No
44b. About how many f r i e n d s h i p groups o r c l i q u e s , would you s a y , a re
th e r e in t h i s l a r g e r neighborhood group o r crowd:
(ab o u t)
4 5 . Does th e group you hang around w ith have a name:
Yes No
46. Is t h i s group c o n s id e re d to be a gang:
Yes No
I f s o , i s i t a p a r t of a l a r g e r gang:
Yes No
Why do you b elong to i t ; p le a s e e x p la in .
47. In th e g ro u p , th e neighborhood crowd you spend a l o t o f your
f r e e tim e w ith :
a ) Are th e r e any s p e c i a l p o s i t i o n s , or a re th e r e d u t ie s to
p erform :
Yes No
b) Are th e r e any s p e c i a l r u l e s , which everyone has to fo llo w
in o rd e r to p lay or hang around w ith your group
Yes No
c ) Who makes th e s e r u l e s ______________________________
d) Who e n fo rc e s th e s e r u l e s __________________________
e ) How many, would you s a y , fo llo w the r u l e s :
a l l o f them
most of them
some of them
none of them
35
47. (Continued)
f ) What a r e some o f th e s e r u l e s ; g iv e some exam ples
48. Which of th e fo llo w in g re a s o n s f o r g e t t i n g to g e th e r w ith your
neighborhood crowd a p p li e s to you: (check one)
you l i k e th e peo p le in i t
______ you and th e p eople in i t u n d e rsta n d e ach o th e r
you can c o n fid e in and t a l k to th e people in i t
f o r s e l f - p r o t e c t i o n
th e group o f f e r s c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s which you a re
i n t e r e s t e d i n .
49. In o rd e r t o be a c c e p te d in th e group you l i k e to spend f r e e
tim e w ith , does one need to have c e r t a i n p e rs o n a l q u a l i t i e s or
p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
Yes No
P le a se name some of th e p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
1) _________________ 2) 3)____________________
50. On the w hole, would you say t h a t you can r e a l l y be y o u r s e l f when
you a re w ith th e group you l i k e to spend your f r e e tim e w ith :
____ y e s , v e ry much so
most of th e tim e
sometimes I can
_____ h a rd ly e v e r
51. In g e n e r a l, do you g e t u p s e t, o r does i t b o th e r you, when a
member of th e group you l i k e to spend your f r e e tim e w ith ,
c r i t i c i z e s you:
v e ry much so
q u i te a b i t
a l i t t l e
n o t a t a l l
52. In g e n e r a l, what i s th e group you spend f r e e tim e w ith lik e ?
a)
Are th ey p r e t t y n o isy Yes ___ No
b) Do th ey laugh a l o t Yes No
c) Do th e y have some good f i g h t s Yes ___ No
d )
Do th e y l i k e each o th e r Yes No
e)
Do th ey t e l l each o th e r a l o t of s e c r e t s Yes No
f )
Do th ey te a s e e a ch o th e r ___ _ Yes No
g)
Do th ey s c a r e o th e r k id s Yes No
36
53.
54.
55.
56.
57a.
57b.
Does th e group you p la y w ith o r hang around w ith , g e t i n to a
l o t o f m is c h ie f :
y e s , v e ry o f te n
q u i te o f te n
e v e ry once in a w h ile
h a rd ly e v e r
never
What kind of l e a d e r s h ip i s th e r e in th e group o r crowd you
hang around w ith , th e one you spend a l o t of your f r e e tim e
w ith :
we have no le a d e r
we have one le a d e r
we have s e v e r a l le a d e rs
_____ everyone i s a le a d e r
In o rd e r to g e t to be a le a d e r in your g ro u p , which one of th e
fo llo w in g q u a l i t i e s i s most im p o rta n t: (check one)
a ) ___ b e in g a good a t h l e t e
b) ___ h aving good g rad e s
c) ___ b e in g v e ry s tr o n g
d) ___ keep in g s e c r e t s
f ) b e in g p o p u la r
g) b e in g sm art
h)____ _ o t h e r , p le a s e name:_ ______________ __________________________
On th e w hole, do you f e e l you l e a r n a n y th in g a t a l l - - f o r
i n s t a n c e , what th in g s a r e a l l a b o u t —by hanging around your
group o f f r i e n d s :
v e ry much so
q u i te a b i t
a l i t t l e
n o th in g a t a l l
In th e group you p la y w ith and spend much of your f r e e tim e
w ith , a r e d e c is io n s made a c c o rd in g to r u l e s :
y e s , alw ays
sometimes
no, h a rd ly e v e r
th e r e a re no r u l e s
In your crowd, w hich one o f th e fo llo w in g i s m ostly em phasized:
h e lp in g e ach o th e r
p la y in g or w orking to g e th e r a s a team
doing som ething to h e lp th e community
w orking on in d iv id u a l p r o je c ts
37
58. I f d e c is io n s have to be made in th e group you hang around w ith ,
who makes them: (check one)
i t i s hard to t e l l who makes th e d e c is io n s
one p e rso n makes th e d e c is io n s
s e v e r a l p e rso n s make th e d e c is io n s
a t l e a s t h a l f th e group ta k e s p a r t in making th e d e c is io n s
whoever i s p r e s e n t, th e whole group p a r t i c i p a t e s in making
d e c is io n s
59. How a r e d e c is io n s made in th e group t h a t you a r e d e s c r ib in g .
P le a s e in d ic a te which of th e fo llo w in g th r e e d e s c r i p ti o n s b e s t
a p p l i e s :
a ) we have s p e c i a l m eetings and a c e r t a i n p erso n i s in charge
who c a l l s f o r s u g g e s tio n s from t h e group; th e n a v o te is
u s u a lly ta k e n ;
b )___ when ev e ry o n e , o r some k id s in th e gro u p , f e e l l ik e doing
som ethind d i f f e r e n t , we o f te n s e t t l e th in g s by ta k in g a
v o te ;
c )___ u s u a lly someone j u s t makes a s u g g e s tio n and th o se who f e e l
l i k e i t do w hatever was s u g g e ste d ; th o se who do n o t th in k
t h a t i t was such a g r e a t id e a go t h e i r own way and do
som ething e l s e .
PART IV: ABOUT CLUBS AND ASSOCIATIONS
60. Here a re some exam ples of young p e o p le 's c lu b s and a s s o c i a ti o n s :
sc h o o l a t h l e t i c s , o r c h e s t r a , hobby g ro u p s, sc h o o l honor s o c i e t y ,
f r a t e r n i t y or s o r o r i t y , s o c i a l c lu b s , s e r v ic e c lu b s , f o o t b a l l ,
b a s k e t b a l l , b a s e b a l l team s, L i t t l e and Big League, Boy and G i r l
S c o u ts , Community C e n te r a c t i v i t y g ro u p s, language g ro u p s,
stamp or ro c k c o l l e c t i o n c lu b s , ch u rch g ro u p s, camping g ro u p s,
and many m ore. . . .
To how many c lu b s and a s s o c i a t i o n s do you b e lo n g :
P le a s e name each c lu b o r a s s o c i a t i o n you b elo n g t o :
1) Name of Group _________________________________________________ __
what i s your p o s it i o n in i t ? _____________ _____________________
a r e th e r e o th e r kin d s of p o s it i o n s in i t ? ___ ___
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n p erso n in charge of th e g ro u p Yes _ _ _ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n m eeting p la c e Yes __ _ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n tim e when you m eet? Yes ____ No
38
60. (C ontinued)
2) Name of Group ______________________________________________________
what i s your p o s i t i o n in i t ? ________________________________
a re th e r e any o th e r k in d s o f p o s it i o n s in i t ? . . . Yes____ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n p e rso n in charge of th e group?____ Yes___No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n m eeting p l a c e ? __________________ Yes___ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n tim e when you m e e t? __________ Yes___ No
3) Name of Group ________________________________________ _____________
what i s your p o s i t i o n in i t ? ________________________ _____________
a re th e r e any o th e r k in d s o f p o s itio n s in i t ? . . . Yes____ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n p e rso n in ch arg e o f th e group?____ Yes_ _ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n m eeting p l a c e ? __________________ Yes___ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n tim e when you m e e t? _____________ Yes___ No
4) Name o f Group ______________________________________________________
what is your p o s it i o n in i t ? _____________________________________
a re th e r e any o th e r k in d s of p o s it i o n s in i t ? . . . Yes____No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n p e rso n in ch arg e of th e group?_____Yes No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n m eeting p l a c e ? __________________ Yes___ No
i s th e r e a c e r t a i n tim e when you m e e t? ____________ Yes___ No
I f you do n o t b elong to any c lu b s o r a s s o c i a ti o n s p le a s e
c o n tin u e on page 4 3 .
61. How many of your c lo s e f r i e n d s b e lo n g to th e same c lu b s or
a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b e lo n g t o : ______
62. Do th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b elo n g t o have an
e x p l i c i t e l y s t a t e d p u rp o se :
a l l o f them do
most o f them do
some of them do
I don’ t know
63. In o rd e r to be a c c e p te d in any o f th e a s s o c i a ti o n s t h a t you
b e lo n g t o , does one need to have c e r t a i n s k i l l s , be a b le to do
c e r t a i n t h in g s :
Yes No
64. In any of th e a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b e lo n g t o :
a ) can you e a rn p r i z e s , m e r it b a d g e s, t r o p h i e s , s t a r s ?
Yes No
b) can you g e t promoted to a h ig h e r p o s it i o n in th e group?
Yes No
39
65. On th e w hole, in o rd e r to b e lo n g to any of th e a s s o c i a t i o n s and
c lu b s t h a t you b elong t o , does i t h e lp i f one has c e r t a i n p e r
s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i c s :
Yes No
I f s o , p le a s e name some of th e s e p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s :
1) _________________________ 2)_______________________ 3) _______________
66a. On th e w hole, would you say t h a t you can r e a l l y be y o u r s e l f in
th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b e lo n g to :
y e s , v e ry much so
most o f th e tim e
sometim es I can
h a rd ly e v e r
66b. In g e n e r a l, how would you d e s c r ib e th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a ti o n s
you belong to :
a ) Are th e y p r e t t y n o isy .................................... Yes______No
b) Do th e y la u g h t a l o t .................................. Yes______No
c ) Do th ey have some good f i g h t s ............ Yes______No
d) Do th ey l i k e each o t h e r ........................... Yes______No
e ) Do th ey t e l l each o th e r a l o t of s e c r e t s Yes_____No
f ) Do th ey te a s e each o t h e r ................................ _____ Yes No
g) Do th ey s c a r e each o t h e r ................................ Yes______No
67. In any of th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b e lo n g t o , do
you u s u a lly fo llo w r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s :
y e s , alw ays
most of th e tim e
f r e q u e n tly
sometimes
a lm o st never
68. In any of th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a t i o n s t h a t you b elong t o , a re
d e c is io n s made a c c o rd in g to r u l e s :
y e s , alw ays
sometimes
no, h a rd ly ev e r
69. P le a se i n d ic a te which of th e fo llo w in g th r e e d e s c r i p t i o n s b e s t
a p p lie s to how d e c is io n s a re m ostly made i n th e c lu b s and
a s s o c i a ti o n s t h a t you b e lo n g t o :
a) ______ we have m eetings and whoever p r e s id e s c a l l s f o r su g g e s
t io n s from th e g roup; th e n a v o te is u s u a lly ta k e n .
b) ______ when e v e ry o n e , o r some members of th e g ro u p , f e e l lik e
doing som ething d i f f e r e n t , we o f te n s e t t l e th in g s by
ta k in g a v o te ;
40
69. (Continued)
c ) u s u a lly someone j u s t makes a s u g g e s tio n and th o se who
f e e l l i k e i t do w hatever was s u g g e ste d ; th o se who do n o t
th in k t h a t i t was such a g r e a t id e a do som ething e l s e .
70. In g e n e r a l, do you f e e l t h a t you le a r n a l o t t h a t w i l l be
u s e f u l in l a t e r l i f e by b e in g in th e a s s o c i a ti o n s t h a t you
b elo n g t o :
v e ry much so
q u i te a b i t
a l i t t l e
n o t a t a l l
71. On th e w hole, in th e a s s o c i a ti o n s t h a t you b e lo n g t o , do you
g e t i n to a l o t of m is c h ie f:
y e s , v e ry o f te n
q u i te o f te n
e v ery once in a w hile
h a rd ly e v e r
n ev er
72. On th e w hole, do you g e t u p s e t, or does i t b o th e r you, when a
member of an a s s o c i a t i o n t h a t you b elo n g to c r i t i z e s you:
v e ry much so
q u i te a b i t
a l i t t l e
n o t a t a l l
73. Which one of th e c lu b s and a s s o c i a ti o n s you b elong to i s most
im p o rta n t to you:
(A ll q u e s tio n s which f o llo w , a re about t h i s one a s s o c i a ti o n )
74. In t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n , which you named above:
a) who makes th e r u le s
b) who e n fo r c e s th e r u le s
c) how many in th e gro u p , would you s a y , fo llo w th e r u l e s :
everyone
q u i te a few do
h a rd ly anyone
no one does
41
75. Why d id you j o i n t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n : (check one)
b e cau se a l l your f r i e n d s a r e in i t
b e c au se some of your f r i e n d s a r e in i t
b e cau se some of your f r i e n d s a r e in i t and you a r e a l l
i n t e r e s t e d in th e same th in g s
m ainly because of th e i n t e r e s t i n g a c t i v i t i e s
76. F o r w hich one of th e fo llo w in g re a s o n s d id you j o i n t h i s
a s s o c i a t i o n :
m ain ly because you l ik e th e p eo p le in i t
you h e lp each o th e r out
you l i k e to s h a re e x p e rie n c e s
i t g iv e s you an o p p o rtu n ity to t a l k to people
th e a s s o c i a t i o n o f f e r s c e r t a i n a c t i v i t i e s which you a re
i n t e r e s t e d in .
77. P le a s e l i s t your own re a s o n s f o r jo in i n g t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n :
1) ____________________ 2) _______________________ 3 )__________________
78. Which one o f th e fo llo w in g aims does t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n m ostly
em phasize:
h e lp in g each o th e r
p la y in g or working to g e th e r a s a team
d o ing som ething t o h e lp th e community
w orking on in d iv id u a l p r o je c ts
79. In the a s s o c i a t i o n , w hich i s most im p o rtan t to you, does
le a d e r s h ip c o n s i s t of one o r more fo rm a lly ag reed upon p o s i
t i o n s :
of one p o s it i o n (one perso n in c h a rg e )
s e v e r a l p o s itio n s ( s e v e r a l p e rso n s in c h a rg e )
th e r e i s no one in charge (no le a d e r )
80. Are t h e r e c e r t a i n r u le s a s t o how many people a re in ch arg e of
t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n
Yes No
81. In th e a s s o c i a t i o n which i s m ost im p o rta n t to you, a re d e c is io n s
made:
by one p erso n only
by s e v e r a l p ersons in th e group
by m ost of the group
by th e whole group
82. In th e a s s o c i a t i o n , which i s most im p o rta n t to you, by whom
sh o u ld d e c is io n s be made:
by a l l of us in th e group ta k in g a v o te
by some of us who a r e e le c te d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s , v o tin g
42
82. (Continued)
by a g o v ern in g c o u n c il, which c o n s is t s of some a d u lts and
by a g o v e rn in g c o u n c il, which c o n s is t s of some a d u lt s and
some e le c te d gtoup r e p r e s e n t a ti v e s
some a p p o in te d group r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s
by some a d u lt s in charge
PART V: W HAT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU
83. I f you had to c h o o se, which would you p ick ?
Which i s th e most im p o rta n t to you in each p a ir of o b je c ts or
v a lu e s l i s t e d below (p le a s e mark your c h o ic e w ith an "X ").
S c i e n c e ............................................OR . . . _____ S e c u rity
Your c o u n t r y ................................................... S e c u rity
D e m o c ra c y ............................................................. S e c u rity
G o d ........................................................................... S e c u rity
F r e e d o m .................................................................. S e c u rity
Money, m a t e r i a l goods ............................. S e c u rity
The in d iv id u a l p e r s o n ................................ S e c u rity
M a n k in d .................................................................. S e c u rity
F r i e n d s h i p ............................................................. S e c u rity
F a m ily ......................................................................._____ S e c u rity
L o v e ....................................................................... S e c u rity
S c i e n c e OR . . . Love
Your c o u n t r y ................................................... _____ Love
D e m o c ra c y ............................................................. Love
G o d ........................................................................... Love
F r e e d o m .................................................................. Love
Money, m a t e r i a l goods ............................. Love
The in d iv i d u a l perso n ............................. Love
M a n k in d .................................................................. Love
F r i e n d s h i p ........................................................ Love
F a m i l y .................................................................. Love
S c i e n c e OR . . . Fam ily
Your c o u n t r y ................................................... Fam ily
D e m o c ra c y ............................................................. Fam ily
G o d ............................................................................ Fam ily
F r e e d o m .................................................................. Fam ily
Money, m a t e r i a l g o o d s ................................ Fam ily
The in d iv id u a l p e r s o n ................................ Fam ily
M a n k in d .................................................................. Fam ily
F r i e n d s h i p ........................................................ Fam ily
43
83. (Continued)
S cien ce .................................. F rie n d s h ip
Your c o u n try .................... F r ie n d s h ip
Democracy ............................. F rie n d s h ip
G o d ............................................ F r ie n d s h ip
Freedom . . . . . . . . F rie n d s h ip
Money, m a t e r i a l goods . F r ie n d s h ip
The i n d iv id u a l p erso n . F r ie n d s h ip
Mankind .................................. F r ie n d s h ip
S c ien c e .................................. Mankind
Your c o u n try .................... Mankind
Democracy ............................. • • • • • Mankind
G o d ............................................ Mankind
Freedom . . . .................... Mankind
Money, m a t e r i a l goods . Mankind
The in d iv id u a l person . Mankind
S cien ce .................................. The in d iv id u a l perso n
Your c o u n try .................... The in d iv id u a l person
Democracy ............................. The in d iv id u a l perso n
God . . . . . . . . . . The in d iv id u a l perso n
Freedom .................................. The in d iv id u a l person
Money, m a t e r i a l goods . The in d iv id u a l perso n
S c i e n c e ....................................... OR . . M o ney. m a te r ia l goods
Your c o u n t r y Money, m a te r ia l goods
D e m o c ra c y Money, m a te r ia l goods
G o d ............................................... ._____Money, m a te r ia l goods
F r e e d o m Money, m a te r ia l goods
S c i e n c e ........................................OR . . .____ Freedom
Your c o u n t r y ............................................ .Freedom
D e m o c ra c y ...................................................... Freedom
G o d .................................................................... Freedom
S c i e n c e ........................................OR . . ._____God
Your c o u n try . . .................................. ......... God
D e m o c ra c y ............................................................... God
S c i e n c e ....................................... OR . . ._____Democracy
Your c o u n t r y ............................................ Democracy
S c i e n c e .......................................................... Your co u n try
44
84. In your o p in io n , how im p o rta n t i s each o f th e fo llo w in g q u a l i t i e s
in a c lo s e f r i e n d ? P le a s e check th e a p p r o p r ia te answ er:
Most e s - Very im- Im por- Of l i t t l e Unnec-
s e n t i a l p o r ta n t t a n t im portance e s s a r y
a) Being lo y a l ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
b) Being a p e rso n you
can t r u s t c o m p le te ly ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
c ) Being a p e rso n you
s i n c e r e l y l i k e _________ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
d) Being a p erso n who
adm ires you ____ ___ ___ ___ ___
e ) Being a p erso n you
adm ire
f ) Being a p e rso n you
can r e s p e c t
g) Being a p erso n who
r e s p e c ts you
h) U n d erstan d in g you
i ) A c cep tin g you f o r
what you a re
j ) Being a p e rso n you
e n jo y b e in g w ith
k) F e e lin g th e same as
you do a b o u t most
th in g s
1) T hinking th e same as
you do a b o u t e t h i c a l
v a lu e s
m) Having th e same s o
c i a l p o s i t i o n you
have
n) Having a h ig h s o
c i a l p o s it i o n
o) Showing i n t e r e s t in
th in g s in which you
a re i n t e r e s t e d
45
The Sample
As can be se en from th e fo re g o in g d e s c r i p t i o n of th e problem to
be i n v e s t i g a t e d , a sample c o m p risin g th e age span from ch ild h o o d to
2
a d u lth o o d , from a b o u t age tw elve to e ig h te e n , would b e s t se rv e th e
purpose of t h i s r e s e a r c h .
The s tu d y was o r i g i n a l l y to be based on two subsam ples:
(1) d e ta in e d y o u th s in J u v e n ile H a ll, ages tw elve to e ig h te e n , and
(2) a random sam ple of G r e a te r Los A ngeles a d o le s c e n ts , ages te n to
tw e n ty . The com parison of d e lin q u e n t youths w ith pred o m in an tly non
d e lin q u e n t y o u th s from d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c la s s e s and g e o g ra p h ic a l
a re a s of th e c i t y was to le a d to g r e a t e r i n s i g h t in to b o th th e fu n c
t i o n and d y s fu n c tio n of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y in r e l a t i o n to ado
l e s c e n t p e e r g ro u p s. F o r , as has been h y p o th esiz ed by Loeb (1973b),
i t may be assumed t h a t th o se f u r t h e s t removed from th e s o c i e t a l n o r
m ative o r d e r , t h a t i s , th o s e marked by g r e a t e s t degree of norm ative
d i s c o n t i n u i t y , would be th e ones to la c k knowledge of ( i n s t i t u t i o n
a l i z e d ) n o rm ativ e b e h a v io r and th u s be more l i k e l y to be d e v ia n t o r
d e lin q u e n t.
The a n a l y s i s of a sample of 100 d e ta in e d youths t h a t was con
s e q u e n tly o b ta in e d w ith th e h e lp of th e C a l if o r n ia Youth A u th o rity
2
T his age l i m i t a t i o n i s based on t h i s s t u d y 's d e f i n i t i o n of
a d o le s c e n c e , as f o llo w s : a d u lth o o d i s l e g a l l y ( t h a t i s , n o rm a tiv e ly ,
i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ) d e fin e d as o c c u rrin g when a p e rso n re a c h e s h is or
h e r 18th b ir t h d a y ( in C a l i f o r n i a ) ; a d o le s c e n c e , hence, i s d e fin e d
h e re a s t h a t tim e span w hich s t a r t s ap p ro x im ate ly w ith th e o n s e t of
p u b e rty and ends when th e p e rso n is l e g a l l y d e c la re d t o be an
a d u l t .
46
and th e Los A ngeles County P ro b a tio n D epartm ent w i l l n o t be d is c u s s e d
h e r e , s in c e i t s a n a ly s i s i s l a r g e l y based on th e f in d in g s o f t h i s
s t u d y - - i t th u s would c o n s t i t u t e a fo llo w -u p to t h i s r e s e a r c h , a
r e l a t e d b u t s e p a r a te i n v e s t i g a t i o n .
In th e s e l e c t i o n of a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sam ple of p redom inantly
n o n -d e lin q u e n t a d o le s c e n ts i t was assumed t h a t a random sam ple,
s t r a t i f i e d a c c o rd in g to age and s e x , would g iv e an adeq u ate r e p r e s e n
t a t i o n o f a d o le s c e n ts . One c r i t i c i s m t h a t can be made of many
s tu d i e s of a d o le s c e n ts i s t h a t th e y ten d to be b ia s e d in fa v o r of
c e r t a i n groups of re s p o n d e n ts . These f r e q u e n tly come from e i t h e r a
p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l c l a s s , an e th n ic m in o r ity , or a d e lin q u e n t group.
On t h i s b a s i s , one can n ev er a s s e s s th e com parative s ig n i f ic a n c e of
f i n d i n g s . A sample t h a t would in c lu d e r e p r e s e n t a ti v e s of a l l th e s e
and o th e r subsam ples would y i e l d th e most s i g n i f i c a n t and m eaningful
r e s u l t s . T h is kind o f sam pling would th e n a llo w th e i n t e r n a l com
p a ris o n of v a rio u s e th n ic and o th e r su b g ro u p s. I t was su g g e ste d
t h a t in o rd e r to p e rm it a p p r o p r ia te com parisons ( in which th e number
of c a se s in th e r e s p e c ti v e subgroups can be s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e l i a b l e ) ,
th e sam ple should com prise a minimum of 1000 c a s e s .
The sam ple, in o rd e r to be most in c lu s iv e o f a l l su b groups,
would have to com prise th e e n t i r e a r e a of g r e a t e r Los A n g eles; t h i s
in c lu d e s a b o u t 83 com m unities w ith in and around th e c i t y of Los
A n g e le s, r e p r e s e n tin g v a rio u s c u l t u r a l , e t h n i c , i n d u s t r i a l , economic
and p o p u la tio n d e n s ity a r e a s , a s w e ll a s some in te r s p e r s e d a g r i
c u l t u r a l s e t t i n g s . Most com m ercial su rv e y s in c lu d e t h i s e n t i r e a r e a
o f g r e a t e r Los A ngeles in t h e i r sam ples.
47
Three a l t e r n a t i v e sam pling p ro ce d u re s were c o n s id e re d :
(1) The c o l l e c t i o n of d a ta was d is c u s s e d w ith Dorothy Corey
R e se a rc h , I n c . , who su b m itte d an e s ti m a t e . I t was planned t h a t s u r
vey w orkers would lea v e q u e s tio n n a ir e s w ith re s p o n d e n ts to be f i l l e d
o u t over a p e rio d of an hour o r two; su rv e y w orkers would th e n c o l
l e c t th e com pleted q u e s ti o n n a ir e s . P r e t e s t i n g showed t h a t t h i s
m ethod, found to work w e ll w ith a d u l t s , was a ls o a p p lic a b le to
younger i n d iv i d u a l s .
(2) A nother sample d e s ig n was su b m itte d by LAMAS, th e Los
A ngeles M e tro p o lita n Area S urvey, a su rv e y r e s e a r c h o r g a n iz a tio n
a f f i l i a t e d w ith th e U n iv e r s ity of C a l if o r n ia a t Los A n g e le s. T h e ir
d e s ig n i s based on a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of 1000 Los A ngeles M etro
p o l i t a n households (C ity and C ounty), a m u lt is t a g e , s t r a t i f i e d
p r o b a b i l i t y sam ple, s e le c te d a c c o rd in g to th e method d e s c r ib e d in
L e s lie K ish (1 9 6 5 :3 9 6 -4 0 4 ). I t was LAMAS' p o lic y to c o n tr a c t s u r
veys from v a rio u s s c i e n t i f i c , com m ercial and governm ental so u rc e s an d ,
c h a rg in g on a p er q u e s tio n b a s i s , to ta k e th e su rv ey i n to th e f i e l d
tw i te a y e a r.
(3) An a l t e r n a t e sam ple could be c o l l e c t e d from s e v e r a l sc h o o ls
in th e Los A ngeles a r e a . W hile t h i s would be l e s s e x p e n siv e th a n a
r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sam ple, i t would be r e s t r i c t e d in age range and sub
c u l t u r a l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e n e s s . M oreover, Los A ngeles s c h o o l a u th o
r i t i e s have s t r i c t r u l e s in r e l a t i o n to q u e s tio n n a ir e su rv e y s in
t h e i r sc h o o ls and th e l a t t e r a r e only o b ta in e d w ith extrem e d i f f i
c u l t y .
48
Both sam ples from th e su rv e y r e s e a r c h companies ap p eared to be
of e q u a lly h ig h q u a l i t y ; th e l e s s e x p e n siv e o f th e two was g iv en
p re fe re n c e when a P ro p o sa l f o r a G ran t to Improve D o c to ra l D i s s e r t a
t i o n R esearch was su b m itte d to th e N a tio n a l S cien ce F o u n d a tio n in
Septem ber 1972. When th e g r a n t was n o t ap p ro v ed , sam ple d e s ig n num
b e r 3 , d e s c rib e d h e r e , was a d o p te d . Because of th e a t t i t u d e s tow ard
s o c i a l r e s e a r c h which p r e v a i l in th e Los A ngeles a r e a 's sc h o o l system ,
i t to o k e i g h t months to c o l l e c t a q u e s tio n n a ir e sample which upon
co m p letio n com prised 460 r e t u r n s .
The sample m ight b e s t be d e s c r ib e d a s th e r e s u l t o f a t h r e e -
s ta g e sam pling a p p ro a c h : (1) A d i v e r s i t y of q u e s tio n n a ir e s were
com pleted by means o f what may be b e s t d e s c r ib e d a s o p p o rtu n ity
s a m p lin g ; (2) a community s i t u a t e d e a s t o f Los A ngeles a g re e d , th ro u g h
th e h e lp of i t s p lan n in g d e p a rtm e n t, t o d i s t r i b u t e th e q u e s tio n n a ir e
in s e v e r a l of i t s h ig h sc h o o l c l a s s e s ; (3) a h ig h sc h o o l a re a prob
a b i l i t y sample was d e sig n e d and a sample of 100 re sp o n d e n ts th u s
s e c u re d . A d e s c r i p t i o n of each o f th e th r e e sam ples i s g iv en below .
(1) The o p p o r tu n ity sam ple (N i s 1 1 1 ): 19 prim ary lea d con
t a c t s were made w hich in t u r n le d to numerous o th e r c o n t a c t s . Of
th e 19 o r i g i n a l c o n ta c ts 15 were u n i v e r s i t y r e l a t e d , t h a t i s , made
th ro u g h th e i n s t i t u t i o n a t which t h i s r e s e a r c h was co n d u c te d . The
aim o f most o f th e s e le a d s was to p u t th e i n v e s t i g a t o r in to uch w ith
one o r more sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s in th e Los A ngeles a r e a (each i n c o r
p o ra te d community c o n s t i t u t i n g a s e p a r a te sc h o o l d i s t r i c t ) and to
recommend h e r as a p e rso n and i n v e s t i g a t o r . A ll sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s
c o n ta c te d re q u e s te d a t l e a s t one, f r e q u e n tl y s e v e r a l w r i t t e n p ro p o sa ls
49
of th e r e s e a r c h a s w e ll a s r e q u e s ts f o r s p e c i f i c a t i o n of what th e
proposed r e s e a r c h would do f o r th e y o u n g ste rs in t h e i r d i s t r i c t . A
p e rs o n a l in te r v ie w was a lm o st alw ays in clu d e d and alw ays ended w ith
th e s ta te m e n t t h a t th e p ro p o sa l would have to be su b m itte d to th e
s c h o o l d i s t r i c t ' s r e s e a r c h com m ittee. W ithout e x c e p tio n , th e r e
q u e s ts were d e n ie d . Reasons g iv e n in c lu d e d such argum ents as " th e
p r i n t i s to o s m a ll," " th e q u e s tio n s you a re a s k in g a r e to o p e rs o n a l"
(namely th e a d o l e s c e n t 's r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f ) o r , " i t i s to o d i f f i c u l t
to f i l l o u t f o r c h ild r e n t h e i r a g e " —y e t t h i s r e s e a r c h e r had no
d i f f i c u l t y in e i t h e r th e p r e - t e s t s ta g e nor l a t e r when she went to
s e v e r a l neighborhood a re a s (in c lu d in g th e beach and th e so u th w e st
Los A ngeles a re a ) in g e t t i n g a v a r i e t y o f a d o le s c e n ts to f i l l o u t
a b o u t 30 q u e s ti o n n a ir e s . S e v e ra l te a c h e rs known to t h i s r e s e a r c h e r
a s s i s t e d by d i s t r i b u t i n g q u e s tio n n a ir e s in t h e i r c la s s e s ( a f t e r
s e c u r in g th e p a r e n t s ' and th e p r i n c i p a l 's w r i t t e n p e rm is s io n ).
W ith th e h e lp of a u n i v e r s i t y r e l i g i o u s o r g a n iz a tio n and th e
h e lp of a j u n io r c o lle g e i n s t r u c t o r , a sample of 31 in d iv id u a ls of
c o lle g e age was se c u re d so t h a t a com parison o f answ ers betw een
a d o le s c e n ts and young a d u l t s could a t a f u tu r e d a te be made. The
q u e s ti o n n a ir e , how ever, was n o t to o s u c c e s s f u l in d i r e c t i n g q u e s tio n s
a t p o s t- a d o le s c e n ts and i t i s su g g e ste d t h a t i f t h i s type o f s tu d y
i s r e p l i c a t e d , p o s t- a d o le s c e n ts should be asked to com plete the q u e s
t i o n n a i r e in c e r t a i n p a r t s ( e . g . , group a f f i l i a t i o n ) in r e f e r e n c e to
t h e i r own a d o le s c e n t b e h a v io r; one c o u ld , f o r in s t a n c e , a s k "when
you were a b o u t age 16 d id you b elo n g to an in fo rm a l neighborhood
crow d," e t c .
(2) The h ig h sc h o o l c la s s sample (N i s 230): The above m entioned
u n i v e r s i t y c o n ta c ts l e t to th e f r u i t f u l c o o p e ra tio n betw een th e
p la n n in g commission of one of th e n earb y com m unities and t h i s r e
s e a r c h e r . W ith th e h e lp of th e p la n n in g commission the q u e s tio n n a ir e
was a d m in is te re d to s e v e r a l s e n io r and j u n io r high sc h o o l c l a s s e s .
These re sp o n se s com prise th e m ajor p a r t o f t h i s s t u d y 's sam ple.
(3) The h ig h sc h o o l a re a p r o b a b i l i t y sample (N i s 119): S ince
th e h ig h sc h o o l c la s s e s sampled (se e £ above) c o n s is te d m ostly of
a d o le s c e n ts above age 16, a n o th e r group of re sp o n d e n ts under age 16
had to be s e c u re d . The fo llo w in g sam ple was hence d e s ig n e d .
Los A ngeles sc h o o l a tte n d a n c e i s based on neighborhood d i s t r i c t s ,
t h a t i s , s tu d e n ts a re a s sig n e d to sc h o o ls in r e l a t i o n to r e s id e n c e
in s t r i c t g e o g ra p h ic a l b o u n d a rie s . These sc h o o l d i s t r i c t s have grown
w ith th e grow th of th e c i t y and may be c o n s id e re d to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e
o f the c i t y ' s s u b c u lt u r a l a r e a s .
A minimum of 100 q u e s tio n n a ir e s were n eeded. T h e re fo re an
a l p h a b e t i c a l l i s t i n g o f a l l h ig h sc h o o ls in th e Los A ngeles sc h o o l
d i s t r i c t was f i r s t o b ta in e d ; th e n , based on th e assum ption t h a t an
in te r v ie w e r would be a b le to f i l l a d a i l y q u o ta of 15 q u e s ti o n n a ir e s ,
th e c a l c u l a t i o n was made t h a t th e random sam pling of seven sc h o o ls
(o u t o f a t o t a l o f 55) would y i e l d a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sc h o o l a re a
sample of Los A ngeles a d o le s c e n ts . S t a r t i n g random ly from th e s i x t h
sc h o o l on th e l i s t , e v ery 9 th sc h o o l l i s t e d was s e le c te d and i n s t r u c
t io n s were g iv en to each of two in te r v ie w e r s to d r iv e to ^ th e d a y 's
d e s ig n a te d sc h o o l e n tr a n c e , th e n , moving in an e a s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n ,
t o g e t 3 q u e s tio n n a ir e s com pleted in th e f i r s t 2 b lo c k s , in th e 4 th
and 5 th b lo c k , th e 6 th and 7 th b lo c k , th e 8 th and 9 th b lo c k and th e
10th and 12th b lo c k each r e s p e c t i v e l y . T h is ty p e s o f sam pling i s one
o f th e m ost in e x p e n siv e ways of sam pling known to t h i s r e s e a r c h e r .
T his sam pling r e s u l t e d in a t o t a l of 460 r e s p o n d e n ts ; of th e s e ,
229 (29.8%) a r e fem ales and 231 (50.2%) a re m ale s. The t o t a l ad o
l e s c e n t sample p o p u la tio n may be d iv id e d a t th e y e a r of b i r t h mid
p o in t i n to a group bo rn in 1954 and 1955 (18 and 17 y e a r o ld s ) and
th o se b o rn in 1956 to 1963 (17 to 10 y e a r o l d s ) ; t h i s r e s u l t s in a
younger group t o t a l l i n g 211 (45.9%,) a d o le s c e n ts and an o ld e r group
c o m p risin g 220 (47.8%,) a d o le s c e n ts ; 29 (6.3%) i n d iv id u a ls a re young
a d u l t s , b o rn b e fo re 1954.
I f one d iv id e s th e t o t a l sample a t th e p o p u la tio n age m idpoint
i n t o a younger and o ld e r age group, two f e a t u r e s o f t h i s sample b e
come a p p a re n t. (1) T able 1 shows th e d i s t r i b u t i o n , of th e sample
a c c o rd in g to age (y ear o f b i r t h ) and e th n ic d e s c e n t; i t b r in g s o u t
th e f a c t t h a t i t i s o v e r- r e p r e s e n te d in M exican and Am erican In d ia n
d e s c e n t groups in th e o ld e r age c a te g o ry by a b o u t 10 p e r c e n t. The
o v ersam pling i s due m ostly to th e high sc h o o l c l a s s sam ple in th e
s m a ll community e a s t of Los A n g e le s, which t r a c e s i t s h e r i t a g e to
one of th e o r i g i n a l S p an ish lan d g r a n ts and whose In d ia n p o p u la tio n
p ro b ab ly c o n s i s t s o f th e d e sc e n d e n ts of t h i s s i t e ' s o r i g i n a l i n
h a b it a n ts .
(2) A rem arkable f e a t u r e of t h i s sam ple i s t h a t (a) on ly 56
p e rc e n t o f th e sam ple p o p u la tio n i s o f European d e s c e n t. The o th e r
h a l f com prises (b) American In d ia n and M exican, i n c l u s iv e of South
A m erican, d e s c e n t g ro u p s, a b o u t 27 p e r c e n t, (c) Am erican Negro d e s
c e n t g ro u p s, ab o u t 6 p e r c e n t, and (d) 5 p e rc e n t of the sample popu
l a t i o n d id n o t respond t o th e q u e s tio n of p a r e n t a l d e s c e n t (see
T able 1 ).
The c o l l e c t i o n o f th e sam ple was made p o s s ib l e , to a la rg e
e x t e n t , by two N1H B iom edical S c ie n c e s S upport G ran ts (numbers
53-4877-6662 and 53-4877-7263) to Malcolm W. K le in , p r i n c i p a l i n
v e s t i g a t o r and t h i s r e s e a r c h e r by th e U n iv e r s ity of S o u thern C a l i f o r
n i a . The g r a n ts paid f o r th e p r i n t i n g o f w e ll over a thousand q u e s
t i o n n a i r e s , as w e ll a s th e t r a n s l a t i o n and p r i n t i n g of th e q u e s tio n
n a ir e i n to S p a n ish . The g r a n ts a l s o p a id f o r IBM key punching and
o th e r sm a ll e x p e n se s.
53
TABLE 1
ETHNIC DESCENT AND AGE
E th n ic D escent** Younger
7 o
Age*
O lder
%
A d u lt
%
T o ta l
N 7 >
Negro 2 .3 0 .4 0 .9 (17) 3 .6
N egro/M exican 0 .2 0 .0 0 .0
( 1)
0 .2
Negro/Am. In d ia n 0 .7 0 .7 0 .0
( 6) 1.4
N egro/non-E uropean 0 .2 0 .0 0 .0
( 1)
0 ,2
M exican/M exican 2 .0 6 .3 0 .9 (42) 9 .1
Mexican/Am. In d ia n 0 .9 3 .5 0 .0 (20) 4 .4
M exican/European 2.2 1 .7 0 .0 (18) 3 .9
Mex. /non-E uropean 0.2 0 .2 0 .0 ( 2) 0 .4
Am. In d ia n (o n ly ) 0 .4 0 .7 0 .0 ( 5) 1 .1
Am. In d ia n /E u ro p e a n 2 .4 6 .1 0 .0 (39) 8 .5
Non-European (o n ly ) 3 .0 0 .9 0 .2 (19) 4 .1
N on-European/European 0 .7 1 .1 0 .0 ( 8) 1 .8
E uropean (only) 27.4 24.8 4 .4 (260) 5 6 .6
No answer 3 3 1.5 0 .0 (22) 4 .8
T o ta l 4 5 .9 4 7 .8 6 .3 (460) 100.0
* Age c a t e g o r i e s : a d u lt s - born 1953 and e a r l i e r
o ld e r - b o rn 1954, 1955 (17 & 18 y e a r o ld s )
y o u n g e r - b o r n 1956 to 1964 (17 t o 10 y e a r o ld s )
**E thnic d e s c e n t c a te g o r i e s : These a r e d e riv e d from answ ers to
q u e s tio n #5 which a s k s f o r f a t h e r 's and m o th e r's
d e s c e n t. E th n ic a f f i l i a t i o n t h e r e f o r e i s mixed
in most c a s e s , as i n d ic a te d .
54
V I. THE INDEX OF NORMATIVE DISCONTINUITY
AND DESCRIPTORS
Main r e s e a r c h h y p o th e s is : The g r e a t e r th e c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i
n u ity th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d o le s c e n ts w i l l ten d to jo in
in fo rm a l p e e r g ro u p s: c o n v e r s e ly , th e l e s s th e c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i
n u ity th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d o le s c e n ts w i l l tend to jo in
fo rm al g ro u p s . S ince t h i s h y p o th e s is depends on th e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a
t i o n of th e co n cep t of n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y , i t s method of measu
rem ent w i l l now be d is c u s s e d .
S o c i a l i z a t i o n ta k e s p la c e m ainly in th e fa m ily ; fa m ily background
v a r i a b l e s , hence, a re c r u c i a l in d e te rm in in g norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y .
I t f in d s e x p re s s io n in such v a r i a b l e s as (1) s u b je c tiv e s o c i a l c l a s s ,
(2) o c c u p a tio n a l ran k of p a r e n t s , (3) r e l i g i o u s background, (4) w e a lth
of p a r e n t s , s u b je c t iv e ly p e rc e iv e d , and (5) e t h n i c i t y (degree of
A m e ric a n iz a tio n ). I t was h y p o th e siz e d t h a t th e r e would be a s tr o n g
i n t e r r e l a t i o n betw een th e a fo re m e n tio n e d v a r i a b l e s and (6) type of
fa m ily s t r u c t u r e , a u t h o r i t a r i a n or e q u a l i t a r i a n .
The s i x v a r i a b l e s were each t o be r a t e d on a fo u r p o in t s c a le
on th e d e g re e to which e ach c o n tr i b u te s to n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y
(Loeb, 1973b). These r a t i n g s a re based on p re v io u s f in d in g s in th e
r e s e a r c h l i t e r a t u r e . A d i s c o n t i n u i t y s c o re can th u s be computed f o r
s in g l e in d iv id u a ls or g ro u p s. T his a llo w s one to speak of d e g re e s of
55
d i s c o n t i n u i t y o p e r a t io n a l ly and th u s to m easure how le v e l s of d i s
c o n ti n u it y a re r e l a t e d t o the v a r i a b l e s to be t e s t e d .^ -
In term s of in flu e n c in g fa m ily s t r u c t u r e and s o c i a l i z a t i o n
p ro c e s s e s th e i n t e r r e l a t i o n of th e s e s i x v a r i a b l e s may be s k e tc h e d
a s fo llo w s : L en sk i (1961) d e m o n stra te s t h a t th e r e i s a c o r r e l a t i o n
betw een o c c u p a tio n a l achievem ent and r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f . He d iv id e s
th e l a t t e r in to th r e e gro u p in g s of achievem ent o r i e n t a t i o n , namely
C a th o lic , P r o t e s t a n t , and Je w ish . Each of th e s e in t u r n i s in flu e n c e d
by e th n ic background. S u t t l e s (1968) d e s c r ib e s how fa m ily norms and
fa m ily c u l t u r e d i f f e r g r e a t l y betw een low er c l a s s Am ericans of
P u e rto R ic a n , Negro and I t a l i a n descent,w hom he d e s c r ib e s in a c l o s e -
k n i t Chicago neighborhood s e t t i n g . M arcia G u tte n ta g 's (1970) d i s
c u s s io n of e th n ic v a r i a t i o n in th e lower c la s s supplem ents S u t t l e s '
a c c o u n t, so to s a y , s in c e G u tte n ta g t r i e s t o convey th e f a c t t h a t
what i s g e n e r a lly l a b e l le d as low er c l a s s c u l t u r e i s n o t one s in g le
s u b c u ltu r e , b u t a s e r i e s o f u n r e l a te d , m ostly e t h n i c , s u b c u ltu r e s .
These s u b c u ltu re s p r i n c i p a l l y have one th in g in common: th ey a re
^ An example h e re would be a Negro a d o le s c e n t who i s p o o r,
low er c l a s s , has no r e l i g i o n or b e lo n g s to a church which i s based
on em o tio n a lism , and comes from an a u t h o r i t a r i a n o r ig n o rin g type of
fa m ily (as c l a s s i f i e d by E ld e r , 1962). There i s l i t t l e chance t h a t
such a y o u n g ste r would j o i n L i t t l e League o r th e Boy S couts where he
would have th e o p p o rtu n ity t o le a r n s o c i e t a l l y no rm ativ e r u le s and
to i n t e r n a l i z e no rm ativ e secondary r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t e r a c t i o n p a t t e r n s .
Such an a d o le s c e n t w i l l tend to grow up impeded in p ro s p e c ts of
g a in in g s o c i e t a l l y v a l i d a t e d s e lf - e s te e m in fo rm al i n s t i t u t i o n a l
r o l e s . As a consequence of h is p o s it i o n in th e s o c i a l and norm ative
s t r u c t u r e - - h i s c l a s s , e t h n i c i t y , and fa m ily ty p e —he w i l l te n d to
s u f f e r r e l a t i v e i n a b i l i t y to i n t e r a c t e f f e c t i v e l y in n o rm a tiv e ly
e s ta b l is h e d seco n d ary r e l a t i o n s h i p s (R an sfo rd , 1972), from Loeb
(1 9 7 3 b :1 5 ).
56
s t i l l l a r g e ly o u ts id e th e m ainstream o f American s o c i e t y . Thus b o th
G u tte n ta g and S u t t l e s d e m o n stra te th e i n t e r r e l a t e d n e s s of s o c i a l c la s s
and e th n ic background and how b o th of th e s e a re ( u n ) r e la te d to th e
dom inant v a lu e s and s t r u c t u r e of th e f a m ily . Kohn (1959, 1969) and
P e a r l i n and Kohn (1966) have made a s i m i l a r a n a ly s i s on a c r o s s -
c u l t u r a l r a t h e r th a n on a s u b c u lt u r a l l e v e l . B ro n fe n b re n n e r's (1958)
a n a l y s i s , on th e o th e r hand, compares fa m ily v a lu e s and fam ily s t r u c
tu re in r e l a t i o n to p a tt e r n s o f s o c i a l i z a t i o n in h i s t o r i c a l p e rs p e c
t i v e . He co n clu d es t h a t th e tre n d i s d e f i n i t e l y toward a p a t t e r n of
more e q u a l i t a r i a n and d em o cratic ty p e s of fa m ily r e l a t i o n s . E l d e r 's
(1962, 1963) r e s e a r c h i s o f p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t , because of h is
te c h n iq u e s of a s c e r t a i n i n g ty p e s of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e s ( a u t o c r a t i c ,
e q u a l i t a r i a n , and ig n o rin g ) and h is a tte m p t to r e l a t e th e s e to the
above named v a r i a b l e s . E l d e r 's (1962, 1963) m easure was used here
to d ete rm in e type of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e .
When th e Index of d i s c o n t i n u i t y was f i r s t d e s ig n e d , fa m ily
s t r u c t u r e ap p eared to be o f s p e c i a l im p o rta n c e . U sing E l d e r 's (1962)
m easure, however, i t s c o r r e l a t i o n w ith th e o th e r f i v e v a r i a b l e s proved
to be r e l a t i v e l y low; i t was hence n o t in c lu d e d in th e com putation
of th e f i n a l In d ex . T his does n o t mean n e c e s s a r i l y t h a t fam ily
s t r u c t u r e per se i s n o t a good p r e d i c to r of a d o le s c e n t p eer group
a s s o c i a t i o n a l ty p e , b u t r a t h e r t h a t th e p r e s e n t m easure i t s e l f needed
to be r e - o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , s p e c i f i c a l l y in th e w e ig h tin g o f answ ers
asked on th e b a s i s o f E l d e r 's (1962, 1963) a lr e a d y s u c c e s s f u l r e
s e a rc h w ith t h a t v e ry m easure. We w i l l r e t u r n to t h i s in a l a t e r
s e c tio n of t h i s r e p o r t .
57
i
1
The co m p u tatio n of th e Index i s based on c o n c e p tu a l c a te g o r ie s
w hich were e s ta b l is h e d in the fo llo w in g m anner: (1) The c a te g o r i e s
a s k in g f o r th e a d o l e s c e n t 's ( s u b j e c ti v e l y p e rc e iv e d ) s o c i a l c la s s
a f f i l i a t i o n ( q u e s tio n #9) a r e based on f in d in g s of a s tu d y (Loeb,
196 9), w hich (based on a random sample of Los A n geles) asked r e s
p ondents in a number of open-ended q u e s tio n s w hether th ey th o u g h t
t h a t th e r e were any s o c i a l c la s s e s in t h e i r c o u n try ; i f s o , to which
c l a s s th e y th o u g h t th ey b e lo n g e d ; and why. (2) The q u e s tio n of su b
j e c t i v e income ( q u e s tio n #7) was e x p e rim e n ta lly implem ented h e re f o r
the f i r s t tim e; th e r e s u l t s w a rra n t f u r t h e r work w ith t h i s type of
m easure. (3) O c c u p a tio n a l c a te g o r ie s were a l s o e s ta b l is h e d by open-
ended q u e s tio n s ( q u e s tio n # 6 , a , b ) ; o c c u p a tio n s were c a te g o riz e d
and ranked a c c o rd in g to th e NORC ra n k in g of o c c u p a tio n s (R e is s , 1961).
(4) R e lig io u s c a te g o r i e s were based on s e l f - r e p o r t e d r e l i g i o u s a f f i
l i a t i o n o f p a re n ts and s e l f (q u e s tio n # 1 0 ); a f t e r ra n k in g each of
th e s e on a 4 - p o in t s c a le a c c o rd in g to d eg re e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n
and d eg re e of la c k of e m o tio n a lism , th e th r e e re sp o n se s were a v e ra g e d .
(5) F am ily s t r u c t u r e was based on E l d e r 's (1962) s e t of seven q u e s
t io n s which e s t a b l i s h e s th e p a t t e r n of d e c is io n making betw een a
p a re n t and h is o r h e r c h i l d ; th e seven q u e s tio n s ran k from the impo
s i t i o n o f p a r e n t a l d e c is io n s to e q u a li ty (betw een p a re n t and c h il d )
in d e c is io n m aking, to com plete independence in d e c is io n making on
th e c h i l d 's p a r t . Based on th e assu m p tio n t h a t e q u a l i t y of d e c is io n
making i s n o rm ativ e in Am erican s o c i e t y , th e f o u r th q u e s tio n in th e
s e r i e s o f seven was r a te d as l e a s t d is c o n tin u o u s w ith th e extrem es
58
of th e s c a le a s most d is c o n tin u o u s . (6) E t h n ic i ty i s th e m ost com
p le x of th e s e m easures (q u e s tio n s 1 to 5 ) : I t c o n s i s t s of a ) deg ree
of A m e ric a n iz a tio n , b) m o th e r's d e s c e n t, c ) f a t h e r 's d e s c e n t.
Degree of A m e ric a n iz a tio n i s based on b o th p a r e n t s ' a s w e ll a s th e
r e s p o n d e n t's p la c e of b i r t h and language spoken a t home ( e . g . , p o in t
r a t i n g s range from a l l f o r e ig n born and a l l sp e ak in g a f o r e ig n l a n
guage a t h o m e --g re a te s t amount of d i s c o n t i n u i t y — t o a l l U .S. b o rn and
E n g lis h spoken a t home— l e a s t amount of d i s c o n t i n u i t y ) . E th n ic
d e s c e n t was a s sig n e d a v a lu e a c c o rd in g to B ogardus' (1968) ra n k in g
2
based on p r e ju d ic e e x p re sse d toward v a rio u s e th n ic groups in th e U.S.
B ogardus' t h i r t y ra n k -o rd e re d e th n ic groups were d iv id e d in to fo u r
e q u a l groups (8, 7, 7, 8 ) , a c c o rd in g to t h e i r ra n k , which th e n were
assumed to c o n s t i t u t e d e g re e s of d i s c o n t i n u i t y in r e l a t i o n to th e
no rm ativ e o r d e r .
The t a b l e of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s betw een th e s i x m easu res, shown
below , i n d ic a te s t h a t th e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n betw een a l l
o f them w ith th e e x c e p tio n of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e . The l a t t e r was con
s e q u e n tly o m itte d from th e com putation of th e f i n a l Index on th e
assu m p tio n t h a t i t s in c lu s io n would add l i t t l e t o th e p r e d i c ti v e
v a lu e o f th e Index (see T able 2 ).
o
D i f f e r e n t r a t i n g s of e th n ic su b g ro u p s, such a s , f o r in s t a n c e ,
R a n s f o rd 's (1974) su g g e ste d ra n k in g , m ight have been more pow erful
in d is c r im in a tin g d e g re e s of no rm ativ e p r e ju d ic e and a r e w orth i n
v e s t i g a t i n g .
59
TABLE 2
THE INDEX: INTERCORRELATIONS ( r)
OF CONSTITUENT VARIABLES*
E thn. Occup. W ealth Soc. C lass R e lig . Fam. S t r u c t
E t h n ic i ty 1.00 .26 .19 .21 .15 .01
O ccupation .26 1.00 .38 .41 .13 .06
W ealth .19 .38 1.00 .59 .14 .11
Soc. C la ss .21 .41 .59 1.00 .20 .07
R e lig io n .15 .13 .14 •
to
O
1.00 .09
Fam. S t r u c t . .01 .06 .11 .07
00
o
•
1 .00
*Any r sc o re above .09 i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .05 l e v e l
(N i s 4 6 0 ).
In a l a t e r a n a ly s i s of d a t a , however (See F i n d in g s , T able 14A,B),
a d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of th e fa m ily s t r u c t u r e s c a l e y ie ld e d
s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s in r e l a t i o n to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . On th e
b a s is o f b o th th e l a t t e r and th e form er c a te g o r i z a ti o n (see above)
i t i s hoped t h a t a b e t t e r m easure m ight in th e f u tu r e be worked o u t,
based on th e in c lu s io n of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e in the In d ex . Fam ily
s t r u c t u r e , d e fin e d as th e p a t t e r n of d e c is io n making betw een a p a re n t
and c h i l d , changes n o rm a tiv e ly a s th e c h il d grows to a d u lth o o d from
dependence to independence in d e c is io n m aking.
60
As was s t a t e d in th e b e g in n in g of t h i s s e c t i o n , th e main hypo
t h e s i s of t h i s r e s e a r c h ho ld s t h a t c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s p o s i
t i v e l y r e l a t e d to d e g re e of i n f o r m a lity of a d o le s c e n t gro u p . B efore
t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s e s t a b l i s h e d , however, th e d i s t i n c t i o n betw een
in fo rm a l and fo rm al groups m ust be c l a r i f i e d .
The fo llo w in g a n a ly s i s th u s e s t a b l i s h e s how th e two p o la r ty p e s ,
in fo rm a l and fo rm al groups can be compared and d e s c rib e d s t a t i s t i c a l l y
w ith what have h e re been term ed d e s c r i p t o r s , c o n s t i t u e n t dim ensions
whose m agnitude v a r i e s w ith th e p re v a le n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r type of
group ( th e s e d e s c r i p t o r s have a l s o been term ed a t t r i b u t e compounds in
s o c i o l o g i c a l th e o ry by L a z a r s f e ld and B a rto n , 1951). These d e s c r i p
t o r s sh o u ld v a l i d a t e and c l a r i f y th e d e f i n i t i o n of in fo rm a l and
fo rm al groups ta k e n a s a g iv e n in s o c io l o g ic a l th e o r y . The d e s c r i p
t i o n o f th e s e two ty p e s of g ro u p s, a s o p e r a tio n a liz e d by means of
seven d e s c r i p t o r s , is g iv e n below .
I t was e x p e cte d t h a t (a) th e g r e a t e r th e d e g re e o f in f o r m a lity
th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a_ p e e r group w i l l be in fo rm a lly
s t r u c t u r e d ( i . e . , t h a t i t w i l l la c k a s e t of p re v io u s ly a g re e d upon
r o l e s and p o s it i o n s a s w e ll a s a s e t o f e x p l i c i t s t a t e d group r u l e s .
T able 3 shows t h a t th e r e i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e betw een in fo rm a l
and fo rm a l groups in t h e i r p a t t e r n of r u l e m aking. W hile on ly e le v e n
p e rc e n t o f members of in fo rm a l groups s a id t h a t d e c is io n s were alw ays
made a c c o rd in g to r u l e s , s i x t y p e rc e n t of members of fo rm a l groups
s t a t e d t h a t d e c is io n s were so made in t h e i r group. C o n v e rse ly , s i x t y
se v en p e rc e n t of in fo rm a l group members as compared to te n p e rc e n t of
61
TABLE 3
INFORMALITY AND RULES FOR DECISION MAKING
"Are d e c is io n s made
Groups
a c c o rd in g
Always*
%
to r u le s " ;
Sometimes
%
H ardly Ever
o r Never
%
i
(N)
T o ta l1
%
In fo rm a l 10.5 2 2.8 66.6 (57) 99.9
In fo rm a l & Form al 12.0 15.0 73.0 (100) 100.0
Form al 5 9 .5 3 1 .0 9.5 (42) 100.0
T o ta l 21.6 20.6 5 7 .8 (199) 100.0
*Answers to th e two s e t s of q u e s tio n s d i r e c te d a t in fo rm a l and
fo rm al g ro u p s, r e s p e c t i v e l y , a re worded a s fo llo w s : in fo rm a l g ro u p s - -
" y e s , a lw a y s ," "so m etim es," "no, h a rd ly e v e r ," " th e r e a re no r u l e s " ;
fo rm a l g ro u p s —" y e s , a lw a y s," "so m etim es," "no, h a rd ly e v e r ." "There
a r e no r u le s " and "no, h a rd ly e v e r" of in fo rm a l group answ ers a re
h e re combined i n to one c a te g o ry even though fo rm al group answ ers la c k
th e " th e r e a r e no r u le s " c a te g o ry . In th e d e s ig n of th e s tu d y i t
seemed u n n e c e ssa ry to a sk a b o u t th e p rese n c e o r absence o f r u l e s in
fo rm al groups s in c e th e p rese n c e of r u le s appeared to be c o n ta in e d
in th e d e f i n i t i o n of fo rm al gro u p . The f a c t t h a t th e c a te g o ry " y e s ,
alw ays" d i f f e r s s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een th e two ty p es of groups and t h a t
th e o p p o s ite of t h i s continuum shows th e re v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p , i n d i-
c a t e s . t h a t th e two c o n tin u a , though worded d i f f e r e n t l y , a re compar
a b le .
(See q u e s tio n s no. 57a and 68) Gamma - .53 X p r o b . < .001.
T a b u la r Ns (number of c a se s in each c a te g o ry ) d i f f e r betw een
t a b l e s becau se a ) th e r e a r e a b o u t tw ice a s many re sp o n d e n ts who b elong
t o b o th in fo rm a l and form hl groups th an to e i t h e r one a lo n e ; b) n o t
a l l q u e s tio n s were answered by e v e ry re sp o n d e n t in e v e ry type o f gro u p .
62
fo rm al ones s a id t h a t r u le s in t h e i r group were n ever made a c c o rd in g
to r u l e s . In fo rm a l and fo rm al groups can t h e r e f o r e be d e s c rib e d in
term s of absence o r p resen ce o f r u l e s which g uide d e c is io n m aking.
I t was f u r t h e r e x p e cte d t h a t (b) th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity
th e more w i l l a d o le s c e n t p e e r groups be c h a r a c te r iz e d by prim ary r e l a
t io n s ( e . g . , s in g le o r in te r c o n n e c te d f r i e n d s h i p g ro u p s, th e l a t t e r
form ing th e b u ild in g b lo ck s f o r c l i q u e s , s t r e e t p lay g ro u p s, ado
l e s c e n t crow ds, o r g an g s, a s K le in (1971), has i l l u s t r a t e d ) ; c o n v e r
s e l y , th e g r e a t e r th e f o r m a li ty , th e more w i l l a s s o c i a t i o n a l t i e s
depend on secondary r e l a t i o n s ( c o n s t i t u t i n g p a r t of a b u r e a u c r a tic
s t r u c t u r e ) . T able 4 below , shows t h a t th e p ro p o rtio n of c lo s e f r i e n d s
w hich an a d o le s c e n t te n d s to have in b o th in fo rm a l and form al groups
does n o t d i f f e r a p p re c ia b ly ; i f a n y th in g , t h i s (c o lla p s e d ) t a b l e here
would ten d to in d ic a te t h a t th e h ig h e r the f o r m a lity of th e p e e r
group th e l a r g e r th e p ro p o rtio n o f c lo s e f r i e n d s an a d o le s c e n t w i l l
have in i t . The a n a ly s i s o f raw , o r i g i n a l c a te g o r i e s , however, shows
a Gamma of .07 and a n o n - s i g n i f i c a n t Chi sq u a re ( s i g n i f . .2 0 ) , which
te n d s to in d ic a te t h a t th e r e i s no r e l a t i o n betw een th e two c o n tin u a
w h a tso e v e r.
2
(From p re v io u s page, T able 3)
T h is r e s e a r c h e r assum es t h a t when two c o n tin u a a re compared,
i t i s n o t n e c e s s a ry t h a t th e e x a c t r e c i p r o c a l p o s itio n s be p in p o in te d .
T hus, i f two c o n tin u a which i d e a l l y ex te n d from z e ro to te n a re to be
compared e m p ir ic a lly by q u e s tio n s d e n o tin g v a rio u s p o in ts on th e
s c a l e s , q u e s tio n s p e r t a in i n g to continuum number 1 m ight ex te n d as
f o llo w s : 1 .5 , 3 .0 , 4 .5 , 6 .0 , 8 .0 ; w hile q u e s tio n s p e r t a in i n g to con
tinuum number 2 m ight have s c a le v a lu e s of 2 .0 , 3 .5 , 5 .0 , 6 .0 , 9 .0 .
I t i s im p o rta n t t h a t each of th e two c o n tin u a be conceived of as an
e n t i t y and t h a t th ey be compared a s su c h . W ith in such a p e r s p e c tiv e ,
v a r i a t i o n s in s c a le p o in t d is ta n c e s seem t o c a r r y r e l a t i v e l y l e s s
w e ig h t.
63
TABLE 4
INFORMALITY AND PROPORTION OF CLOSE FRIENDS IN GROUP
Groups
107o-30% 407o-607, 707o-1007o
7 o 7 o
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm a l 30.6 30.6 3 8 .8 (49) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 4 3 .6 16.8 3 9 .6 (101) 100.0
Form al 25.0 25.0 5 0 .0 (36) 100.0
T o ta l 36.6 22.0 4 1 .4 (186) 100.0
*Numbers in c e l l s in d ic a te th e p e rc e n ta g e of i n d iv id u a ls in
each s t a t i s t i c a l c a te g o ry who have th e in d ic a te d p r o p o r tio n of t h e i r
c lo s e f r i e n d s in th e group th ey b elo n g t o .
(See q u e s tio n s no . 43 and 6 1 );
2
Gamma .07 X p ro b . < . 20.
N ext, i t was e x p ected t h a t (c ) i n t r i n s i c v e rs u s a c ti o n and g o a l
o r ie n te d m otives f o r jo in i n g in fo rm a l and fo rm a l groups would d i s
tin g u i s h s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een th e two ty p e s o f g ro u p s. In o th e r
w ords, th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity of th e group th e more i n t r i n s i c
th e c r i t e r i a f o r ch oosing a s s o c i a t i o n a l t i e s and th e more fo rm al th e
group th e more a c ti o n and g o a l o r ie n te d th e c r i t e r i a f o r ch o osing
a s s o c i a t i o n a l t i e s w i l l ten d to b e . T able 5 shows t h a t in fo rm a l and
fo rm al groups can indeed be d e s c rib e d in term s of m o t i v e s - - i n t r i n s i c
TABLE 5
INFORMALITY AND MOTIVES FOR JOINING A GROUP
Groups
You l i k e
th e People
%
F or C e r ta in
A c t i v i t i e s
%
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm al 75.0 25.0 (32) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Formal 78.4 21.6 (51) 100.0
Form al 14.3 85.7 (28) 100.0
T o ta l 61.3 38.7 (111) 100.0
*This ta b le shows th e two extrem e c a te g o r i e s of i n t r i n s i c - 'a c tio n
and g o a l- o r ie n te d continuum ; th e extrem es a re com parable w h ile th e
c o m p a ra b ility of th e th r e e m iddle c a te g o r i e s (co m p risin g 42% of th e
in fo rm a l c a se s and 25% of th e fo rm al c a s e s ) has been c a ll e d in to
q u e s tio n , because of the two c o n ti n u a 's d i f f e r e n t w ording. T his
r e s e a r c h e r , however, con ten d s t h a t th e two c o n tin u a a re com parable,
namely on th e same grounds as th o se e x p re sse d in r e l a t i o n to T able 3.
2
(See q u e s tio n s n o .48 and 75 ); Gamme .64 X p ro b . < .001.
v e rs u s a c ti o n o rie n te d n e s s --w h ic h d i s t i n g u i s h t h e i r members' c r i t e r i a
f o r j o in in g t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r group.
I t a ls o was e x p e cte d t h a t (d) th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a l it y , th e
more e x p re s s iv e and based on e m o tio n a l i-uvolvement w i l l p eer groups
ten d to b e , and th e g r e a t e r th e f o r m a lity th e more g o a l and r o le
s p e c i f i c w i l l p eer groups ten d to b e . T his was e m p ir ic a lly t e s t e d
65
by o p e r a t io n a l iz i n g e m o tio n a l involvem ent by a s k in g resp o n d e n ts
w hether th e y can "be th em se lv e s" in th e group th ey b elong t o .
T able 6 shows t h a t , i f e m o tio n a l involvem ent i s d e fin e d a s "b ein g
y o u r s e l f ," t h e n d eg ree of in f o r m a lity i s n o t r e l a t e d to em o tio n a l
in v o lv e m e n t.
TABLE 6
INFORMALITY AND EMOTIONAL INVOLVEMENT
"Can you be y o u r s e l f " :
Very
Group Much
%
Most of
Time
%
Some
tim es
%
H ardly
Ever
7 o
T o ta l
(N) 7 o
In fo rm al 5 7 .1 32.1 5 .4 5 .4 (56) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 63.2 26.4 5 .7 4 .7 (106) 100.0
Form al 61.9 23.8 9.5 4 .8 (42) 100.0
T o ta l 61.3 27.5 6 .4 4 .9 (204) 100. o
(Se^ q u e s tio n s no. 50 and 6 6 a ) ; Gamma .04 X2 p ro b . < .95
I t f u t h e r was e x p e cte d t h a t (e) th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity
th e more w i l l a c c e p ta n c e i n to th e group depend on an a d o le s c e n t ’s
a s c r ib e d c r i t e r i a , i . e . , a g e , s e x , and p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ,
The fo llo w in g q u e s tio n was a sk e d : " In o rd e r to be a c c e p te d i n to th e
g ro u p , does one need to have c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ? "
66
Answers show t h a t th e r e i s only a s l i g h t tendency e x p re sse d by th e
p e rc e n ta g e d i s t r i b u t i o n in T able 7 to su p p o rt t h i s h y p o th e s is .
T h is tendency i s v e ry sm a ll a s i s e v id e n t from a Gamma of .07 and
n o t a t a l l s i g n i f i c a n t .
TABLE 7
INFORMALITY AND ACCEPTANCE INTO THE GROUP
" In o rd e r to be a c c e p te d in to th e g ro u p , does one need to have
c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s " :
Yes No T o ta l
Group % % (N) %
In fo rm al 4 1 .1 58.9 (56) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 37.5 62.5 (104) 100.0
Form al 25.9 64.1 (39) 100.0
T o ta l 38.2 61.8 (199) 100.0
2
(See q u e s tio n s # 49 and and 6 8 ); Gamma .07 X p r o b . ^ .9 0 .
I t was e x p e cte d t h a t ( f ) th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity th e l e s s
w i l l be p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making in th e g ro u p , an d , th e
g r e a t e r th e f o r m a lity th e g r e a t e r th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n
m aking—s in c e the n orm ative theme of th e U nited S t a te s a d v o c ate s
e q u a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making ( s e e , Loeb, 1973b, 1974).
67
A d o le sc e n ts were asked how d e c is io n s were made in t h e i r g ro u p , by
" u s u a lly " v o t in g , "som etim es" v o t in g , o r i n d i v i d u a l l y , i . e . , n o t as
a r e s u l t o f group d e c is io n (se e q u e s ti o n s - #59 and # 6 9 .) The r e s p o n s e s ;
ta b u la te d in T able 8 show t h a t th e g r e a t e r th e d e g re e of in f o r m a lity
o f th e group th e low er i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is i o n making and th e
more d e c is io n s ten d to be i n d iv i d u a l l y or a r b i t r a r i l y made ( t h a t i s ,
th e y w i l l n o t depend on group p a r t i c i p a t i o n ) . The l e s s th e in fo rm
a l i t y , on th e o th e r hand, th e g r e a t e r the d eg ree o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in
d e c is io n m aking. There i s a s tr o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e s e two
c o n tin u a ; i t i s s u p p o rte d by a Gamma of .57 and a d i s t r i b u t i o n of
c a se s which i s s i g n i f i c a n t a t th e .001 l e v e l , when t e s t e d by Chi
s q u a r e .
TABLE 8
INFORMALITY AND PARTICIPATION IN DECISION MAKING
"How a r e d e c is io n m ostly made in your gro u p ":
Group
U su a lly
Vote
%
Sometimes
Vote
%
Not a Group
D e c isio n
7 o
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm a l 17.6 9.8 72.5 (51) 99.9
In fo rm a l & Form al 15.1 24.7 60.2 (93) 100.0
Form al 6 4.7 26.5 8 .8 (34) 100.0
T o ta l 25.3 20.8 53.9 (178) 100.0
(See q u e s tio n s #59 and 6 9 ); Gamma - . 57 p ro b . ^ .0 0 1 .
68
R e la te d to group p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making i s th e exp ec
t a t i o n t h a t (g) th e g r e a t e r th e d eg re e of i n f o r m a lity in a group th e
more w i l l l e a d e r s h ip ten d to be a r b i t r a r i l y chosen o r im posed. a n d ,
th e g r e a t e r th e f o r m a lity th e more w i l l l e a d e r s h ip ten d to c o n s is t
of one o r more d e s ig n a te d and ag reed upon p o s i t i o n s . A continuum
w hich gave a d o le s c e n ts th e o p p o rtu n ity to choose betw een, f i r s t ,
"no l e a d e r ," s e c o n d ly , " o n e - l e a d e r ," and t h i r d , " s e v e r a l l e a d e r s ,"
i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of 3 ty p e s of le a d e r s h ip . F in d in g s , as ta b u la te d
in T able 9 below , show t h a t th e r e i s indeed a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n
s h ip betw een d eg ree of in f o r m a lity and type of l e a d e r s h ip , as fo llo w s
The g r e a t e r th e i n f o r m a lity of th e group th e more w i l l le a d e r s h ip
te n d to be a r b i t r a r i l y chosen (and u n d e fin e d ) and the l e s s w i l l i t
c o n s i s t of one or more fo rm a lly a g re e d upon p o s i t i o n s ; th e g r e a t e r
th e f o r m a lity on th e o th e r hand, th e more w i l l le a d e r s h ip approach
th e d em o cratic i d e a l .
On th e b a s is of th e fo re g o in g f in d i n g s , in fo rm a l and form al
groups can now be d e s c r ib e d in term s o f c e r t a i n d e s c r i p t o r s , or
c o n s t i t u e n t d im e n sio n s. The in fo rm a l group can be c h a r a c te r iz e d
as one in w hich 1) d e c is io n s a r e n o t made a c c o rd in g to r u l e s ;
2) re a s o n s f o r b e lo n g in g (o r jo in in g ) a re i n t r i n s i c ; 3) p a r t i c i p a
t io n in d e c is io n making in th e group i s low; and 4) le a d e r s h ip te n d s
to be a r b i t r a r i l y imposed or u n d e fin e d .
In c o n t r a s t to th e above, fo rm al groups a r e th o se in which
1) d e c is io n s a r e made a c c o rd in g t o a s e t of e x p l i c i t e l y s t a t e d group
r u l e s ; 2) re a so n s f o r b e lo n g in g (o r j o in in g ) a r e a c ti o n o r g o a l
o r ie n t e d ; 3) d e g re e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making in th e group
i s h ig h (one man/one v o t e ) ; and 4) type of le a d e r s h ip ten d s to be
d e m o c ra tic , i . e . , sh a re d by s e v e r a l e le c te d l e a d e r s .
TABLE 9
INFORMALITY AND TYPE OF LEADERSHIP
Group
No L eader
%
One Leader
7 =
S e v e ra l
L eaders
%
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm al 78.6 11.9 9.5 (42) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 66.2 9 .9 23.9 (71) 100.1
Form al 2 .9 4 2 .9 54.3 (35) 100.0
T o ta l 54.7 18.2 27.0 (148) 99.9
*The in fo rm a l group answ ers combine answ ers to two q u e s tio n ,
nam ely, "we have no le a d e r" and "everyone i s a l e a d e r " ; the form al
group q u e s tio n s lack ed th e l a t t e r c a te g o ry .
2
(See q u e s tio n s no. 54 and 7 9 ); Gamma .65 X p ro b . .001.
Three d e s c r i p t o r s f a i l e d to d is c r im in a te s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een
in fo rm a l and fo rm a l g ro u p s, a lth o u g h in two c a se s th e p e rc e n ta g e
d i s t r i b u t i o n s were in th e d i r e c t i o n su g g e ste d by co n c ep ts tak e n f o r
g ra n te d in s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . Q u e stio n a b le o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n
of th e c o n c e p ts and th e f a c t t h a t th e p e rc e n ta g e d if f e r e n c e s betw een
th e extrem e c a te g o r ie s a r e v e ry sm a ll (though in th e exp ected
70
d i r e c t i o n ) , s u g g e s ts some c a u tio n in th e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of th e s e
th r e e f i n d i n g s : 1) In b o th ty p e s of g ro u p s, a d o le s c e n ts tended to
have a s i m i l a r p ro p o rtio n o f c lo s e f r i e n d s —th e l a t t e r b e in g a
m easure of th e p re v a le n c e of prim ary r e l a t i o n s in e i t h e r type of
gro u p ; 2) in b o th ty p e s o f groups a s i m i l a r p ro p o rtio n of a d o le s c e n ts
s t a t e d t h a t th e y could o r c o u ld n o t be th e m s e lv e s — t h i s b e in g a mea
s u re of d e g re e of e x p re s s iv e n e s s and e m o tio n a l involvem ent in e i t h e r
g roup; 3) in b o th groups a s i m i l a r p r o p o rtio n of a d o le s c e n ts s t a t e d
t h a t c e r t a i n p e rs o n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were needed in o rd e r to be
a c c e p te d i n to th e gro u p — th e l a t t e r m easuring w hether th e p rese n c e
o r absence o f a s c r ib e d c r i t e r i a would d i f f e r e n t i a t e betw een th e two
ty p e s of g ro u p s.
The above d i f f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s betw een in fo rm a l and
fo rm al a d o le s c e n t groups s u g g e s t th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t s t r u c t u r a l
c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r th a n a t t i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s t i n g u i s h
betw een th e s e two ty p e s of g ro u p s. Thus one m ight i n t e r p r e t th e s e
d a ta to mean t h a t r u l e s , th e f o rm u la tio n o f law s, le a d e r s h ip and th e
p rese n c e o r absence of in d iv id u a l r i g h t s i s s t r u c t u r a l l y c h a r a c te
r i s t i c of fo rm al g ro u p s, b u t n o t of in fo rm a l g ro u p s; th e f in d i n g s ,
however, ten d to s u g g e s t t h a t human e x p e rie n c e ( i . e . , e x p re s iv e n e s s ,
e m o tio n a l in v o lv em en t, f r i e n d s h i p , a f f e c t , a c c e p ta n c e i n to th e gro u p ,
and so on) i s e q u a lly im p o rta n t in b o th ty p e s of g ro u p s.
71
VII. FINDINGS
T able 10 p r e s e n ts th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e Index of n o r
m ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y and d eg re e of in f o r m a lity of a d o le s c e n t group
jo in e d . In o th e r w ords, i t is e x p e cte d t h a t th o se s c o rin g h ig h on
norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y w i l l be more i s o l a te d from e x p e rie n c e s ,
r u l e s , and r o le s t h a t f a c i l i t a t e fo rm al group p a r t i c i p a t i o n . T his
r e l a t i o n , e x p re sse d by th e o r d in a l m easure of a s s o c i a t i o n , gamma,
is 0 .2 0 5 9 . The p r o b a b i l it y of such a d i s t r i b u t i o n o c c u rrin g by
chance is l e s s th an 5 p e rc e n t (c h i sq u a re i s 1 0 .7 6 , d f i s 4 ) . In
o rd e r to u n d e rsta n d th e meaning of d a ta p re s e n te d in T able 10, i t
sh o u ld be p o in te d out by what r a t i o n a l e th e c u t t i n g p o in ts on th e
continuum of no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y were e s t a b l i s h e d .
S e v e ra l avenues o f approach a re p o s s ib l e : (a) I d e a l l y , th e
Index of n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y in t h i s stu d y y i e l d s s c o re s which
extend from 5 .0 to 20.0 p o i n ts . S ince c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y is
assumed to be d i s t r i b u t e d n o rm ally in any p o p u la tio n , one would
e x p e c t a random sample to have th e l a r g e s t number of c a se s in th e
co n tin u u m 's m iddle range and few er c a se s a t th e e x tre m e s, t h a t i s ,
th e id e a l type p o le s ; th u s i f th e continuum were d iv id e d e v e n ly in to
th re e e q u a l p a r t s , th e sample p o p u la tio n in each o f th e s e ran g es
co uld be assumed to be r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of low, medium and hig h d i s
c o n t i n u i t y , r e s p e c t i v e l y ; however, th e number of c a se s would be
TABLE 10
DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY
Index In fo rm al
%
In fo rm a l
& Form al
%
Form al
% 0 0
T o ta l
%
Low* 17.1 58.5 24.4 (82) 100.0
Medium 26.9 46.2 26.9 (78) 100.0
High 39.2 40.5 20.3 (79) 100.0
T o tal 27.6 4 8 .5 23.9 (239) 100.0
*Low
Med ium
High
5 .0 - 8 .3
8 .4 -1 0 .5
1 0 .6 -1 8 .0
(N=82)
(N=78
(N=79)
1/3 of
1/3 of
1/3 of
t h i s sample
t h i s sample
t h i s sample
's sub
's su b
's su b -
p o p u la tio n
p o p u la tio n
p o p u la tio n
(See q u e s tio n s No. 37 and 6 0 ); Gamma = .2 1 ; X2 = 10.76 (Sign i f .< ^.05)
d i s p r o p o r ti o n a te ly la r g e in th e co n tin u u m 's m iddle ra n g e , (b) When
a s a m p le 's d i s c o n t i n u i t y s c o re s do n o t ex te n d over th e f u l l id e a l
ra n g e , th e n th e r e a l range m ight be d iv id e d i n to r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p a r ts
on th e same p r i n c i p l e a s above o r o th e rw is e , depending on th e r e
s e a r c h e r 's p re fe re n c e and th e d a t a 's f i t . (c) When a sample i s sm all
i t m ight be d e s ir a b le to d iv id e th e sample i t s e l f in such a manner
a s to have th e maximum number of c a se s in each s t a t i s t i c a l c a te g o ry ,
so t h a t th e r e w i l l be enough c a se s when th e d a ta l a t e r a r e p a r -
t i a l l e d by c o n tr o l v a r i a b l e s (such as a g e , s e x , e t h n i c i t y , e t c . ) .
73
In th e p r e s e n t stu d y th e l a t t e r approach was adopted and th e
sam ple s c o re s on d i s c o n t i n u i t y were d iv id e d i n t o th r e e e q u a l p a r t s .
W hile t h i s appro ach can be based on e i t h e r th e t o t a l sample o r any
su b -sa m p le , th e l a t t e r c a se was found a p p r o p r ia te h e r e . Because th e
number of c a se s com prised by th e p r e s e n t sub-sam ple i s only 239
(o u t of a p o s s ib le 460) c a s e s , t h i s p ro ced u re r e s u l t e d in a p p ro x i
m ate ly 80 c a se s in each norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y c a te g o ry .
F or th e r e a d e r i n t e r e s t e d in an a l t e r n a t i v e a p p ro a c h , T able 11
shows an ex ten d ed in fo rm a l continuum com p risin g a l l sam ple c a se s
( e f f e c t i v e N i s 3 8 1 ), based on a co m b in atio n of th e second and t h i r d
a p p ro a c h e s p re s e n te d h e r e . In t h i s p r e s e n t a t io n of c o n ti n u it y s c o r e s ,
th e r e l a t i o n of n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y to d eg ree of in f o r m a l it y ,
2
when e x p re s s e d by gamma, was found to be .3939 (X p r o b .< ^ .0 0 1 ).
However, a l l f u tu r e a n a ly s i s w i l l be based on th e s m a lle r sub-sam ple
o f 239 c a s e s .
Now t h a t th e m eaning o f c a te g o r i e s e s ta b l is h e d in T able 10,
" D is c o n tin u ity and Degree of I n f o r m a l it y ," has been c l a r i f i e d , the
t a b l e i t s e l f can more m ea n in g fu lly be d is c u s s e d . W hile n orm ative
d i s c o n t i n u i t y has a s tr o n g e f f e c t on in fo rm a l group m e m b e rsh ip ,it
has a weak e f f e c t on fo rm al a s s o c i a t i o n membership T h is r e l a t i o n i s
c o n s i s t e n t w ith th e h y p o th e s is t h a t fo rm al a s s o c i a t i o n s ten d to
s o c i a l i z e y o u n g s te rs in such a manner as to m inim ize norm ative d i s
c o n t i n u i t y . The t a b l e a ls o shows t h a t th e r e a r e tw ice as many ad o
l e s c e n ts who b e lo n g to b o th in fo rm a l and fo rm al groups th a n a r e found
in e i t h e r of th e s e groups a lo n e .
74
W hile T able 10 com prises only ab o u t h a lf of th e t o t a l sam ple,
T able 11 shows th e t o t a l sa m p le 's group a f f i l i a t i o n . Based on th e
d a ta c o n ta in e d in t h i s t a b l e , i t should be p o s s ib le a t a l a t e r d a te
to ex te n d th e in fo rm a l-fo rm a l continuum in such a manner as to i n
c lu d e th o se y o u n g ste rs who f a i l e d to answer th e q u e s tio n , "Do you
b e lo n g to a neighborhood crowd, a bunch of neighborhood k i d s , who
spend a l o t of t h e i r f r e e tim e to g e th e r? " w ith e i t h e r a "y es" or "no"
answ er. F or many in t h i s l a t t e r group went on to n e v e r th e le s s answer
th e whole s e t of q u e s tio n s e n t i t l e d , "About P lay G roups, Gangs,
C liq u e s ." T his p a r t i c u l a r g rouping of re sp o n d e n ts was l a t e r c a t e
g o riz e d under th e name of f r i e n d s h i p g ro u p . T his l a t t e r g ro uping
w i l l be a n a ly z e d in th e n e a r f u t u r e . In th e meantime th e d a ta p r e
se n te d in T able 11 su g g e st t h a t t h i s type of group m ight f i t on the
in fo rm a l p eer group continuum . M oreover, b e lo n g in g to no group a t
a l l ( i . e . , th o se a d o le s c e n ts who d id n o t p o s i t i v e l y i d e n t i f y w ith any
of th e above named c a te g o r ie s or g ro u p s) a p p e ars to f i t in a t the
extrem e end of th e in fo rm al continuum . The t h e o r e t i c a l im p lic a tio n s
of t h i s f in d in g in r e l a t i o n to the in fo rm a l-fo rm a l dichotom y rem ain
to be i n v e s t i g a t e d .
Looking a g a in now a t th e th re e groups in T able 10 on the con
tinuum o f n orm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y , th e q u e s tio n is asked how t h i s
r e l a t i o n is a f f e c te d by o th e r in flu e n c e s on c u ltu r a l- n o r m a tiv e d i s
c o n t i n u i t y , such as (1) a g e , (2) s e x , and (3) fa m ily s t r u c t u r e .
75
TABLE 11
NORMATIVE DISCONTINUITY AND TYPE OF PEER GROUP JOINED
Normat ive
D is c o n tin u ity
Index
No Group
At A ll
%
Inform al
Only
%
FS Group
Only
%
FS Group
& Formal
7 c
Form al &
Inform al
7 c
Formal
Only
7 c
T o ta l
(N) 7 c
Low 6 .2 11.3 9.3 14.4 37.6 21.1 (194) 99.9
Medium 6.7 22.5 15.7 24.7 21.3 9 .0 (89) 99.9
High 12.2 24.5 15.3 14.3 24.5 9.2 (98) 99.9
T o ta l 7.9 17.3 12.3 16.8 30.5 15.2 (381) 100.0
Gamma .39 p r o b . ^ .001
E x p la n a tio n of te rm s ;
Inform al G roup: Are th o se resp o n d e n ts who r e p lie d "yes" to th e q u e s tio n (#37) "Do you belong
to an in fo rm a l c ro w d .. . ? 1 1
FS Group, i . e . , F r ie n d s h ip group a re th o se resp o n d e n ts who r e p l i e d "no" to th e q u e s tio n (#37)
"Do you belong to an informal.crowd.. but who went on to f i l l out t h i s s e c tio n
of th e q u e s tio n n a ir e , in d ic a tin g number of f r i e n d s , e t c .
Formal Group: Are th o se resp o n d e n ts who in d ic a te d a s s o c i a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n in re p ly to th e
q u e s tio n (#60) "To how many c lu b s and a s s o c ia tio n s do you b e l o n g ...? "
Index of norm ative d i s c o n t in u i ty s c o r e s : Low 5 .2 to 9 .9
Medium 10.0 to 11.4
High 11.5 to 17.6
ON
(1) Age (see t a b l e 12 a and b ) . As d is c u s s e d above, th e
t o t a l sample was d iv id e d i n to an o ld e r and younger group based on
y e a r of b i r t h . I t was found t h a t s p e c i f i c a t i o n by age ten d s to
s tr e n g th e n th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e Index and d eg ree of in fo rm
a l i t y of p e e r group j o in e d . Both th e younger as w e ll a s th e o ld e r
age groups have s i m i l a r s c o re s of o r d in a l a s s o c i a t i o n , b o th t h e i r
gammas b e in g .26 (as compared to a gamma of .21 f o r th e t o t a l sample
s u b p o p u la tio n ) . T h is b r in g s o u t the f a c t t h a t s p e c i f i c a t i o n p e r se
does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y only h e lp to d i s t i n g u i s h betw een g ro u p s, b u t
t h a t i t may h e lp to s p e c if y under what c o n d itio n s of a n a ly s i s a
r e l a t i o n i s i n t e n s i f i e d . In t h i s c a se a y e a r by y e a r or s ta g e by
s ta g e d ev elopm ental a n a ly s i s a p p e a rs to b r in g f o r t h a s tr o n g e r a s s o
c i a t i o n th a n th e o r i g i n a l a s s o c i a t i o n d id .
(2) Sex (see T able 13 a and b ) . I t makes a d i f f e r e n c e w hether
a y o u n g s te r i s a boy o r a g i r l in r e l a t i o n to how he o r she w i l l be
a f f e c te d by c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y . In t h i s sample norm ative d i s
c o n ti n u it y has a much s tr o n g e r e f f e c t on b o y s ' c h o ic e of group
membership ( in r e l a t i o n to in f o r m a l it y , gamma i s .27) th a n on g i r l s '
c h o ic e of group membership ( in r e l a t i o n to in f o r m a l it y , gamma i s
.1 4 ) . T his means, f i r s t , t h a t among th o se s c o rin g h ig h e r in d i s
c o n t i n u i t y , more boys th a n g i r l s w i l l ten d to j o in in fo rm a l p e e r
g ro u p s; s e c o n d ly , t h a t th e t r a n s i t i o n from a b o y 's a d o le sc e n c e to
a d u lth o o d i s more s tr o n g l y marked by in fo rm a l p e e r group i n f lu e n c e s .
77
TABLE 12
DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY:
1. PARTIALLED BY AGE
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
%
T o ta l
(N) %
a . Younger Group*
Low 19.6 64.3 16.1 (56) 100.0
Med ium 29.7 54.1 16.2 (37) 100.0
High 38.9 52.8 8 .3 (36) 100.0
T o ta l 27.9 58.1 14.0 (129) 100.0
Gamma .26; X2 Prob •
A
•
• p-
o
b . O lder Group*'*
Index
In fo rm al
7 o
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
7 c
T o ta l
(N) %
Low 11.5 46.2 4 2.3 (26) 100.0
Med ium 24.4 39.0 36.6 (41) 100.0
High 3 9 .5 30.2 30.2 (43) 99.9
T o ta l 27.3 37.3 35.5 (110) 100.1
Gamma .26; X^prob.<^ .20
*Younger Age Group: By y e a r of b i r t h , born 1966 and l a t e r ,
co m prising 17 & 16 y e a r o ld s and younger.
**O lder Age Group: Born 1954/55, 17 and 18 y e a r o ld s .
78
TABLE 13
DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY:
2. PARTIALLED BY SEX
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
7 o
T o ta l
(N) 7 a
a . Male Group
...
Low 22.5 62.5 15.0 (40) 100. (
Med ium 28.9 51.1 20.0 (45) 100.(
High 52.4 33.3 14.3 (42) 100. (
T o ta l 34.7 4 8 .8 16.5 (127) 100. (
Gamma
2
.27; X p ro b . .0 5 .
b . Female Group
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm a l
& Form al
%
Form al
7 a
T o ta l
(N) 7 a
Low 11.9 54.8 33.3 (42) 100.0
Medium 24.2 39.4 36.4 (33) 100.0
High 24.3 4 8 .7 27.0 (37) 100.0
T o ta l 19.6 48.2 3 2.1 (112) 99.9
2
Gamma .1 4 ; X prob. < .5 0 .
(3) Fam ily S t r u c tu r e (T ables 14-A & 1 4 -B ). In th e o r i g i n a l
co m p u tatio n o f th e In d ex , th e im portance of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e as a
c o n s t i t u e n t d e te rm in in g v a r i a b l e of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y was
p o in te d o u t. E m p iric a l r e s u l t s , however, showed a low c o r r e l a t i o n
of t h i s m easure w ith th e o th e r f i v e c o n s t i t u e n t v a r i a b l e s . When
fa m ily s t r u c t u r e was dropped from th e co m p u ta tio n of th e In d ex , i t
was s u g g e ste d t h a t a d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i z a t i o n of t h a t same measure
m ight b r in g b e t t e r r e s u l t s . The c a t e g o r i z a t i o n p re s e n te d in th e
fo llo w in g t a b l e s i s based on th e assu m p tio n t h a t i t is our c u l t u r a l
id e a l to r a i s e y o u n g ste rs to be in d ep en d en t and to be a b le to p a r
t i c i p a t e in th e d e c is io n making p ro c e ss of any group th e y may belong
to w hether t h i s m ight be t h e i r own f a m ily , t h e i r p la c e of o c c u p a tio n ,
o r t h e i r community.
The fa m ily s t r u c t u r e measure employed h e re (E ld e r, 1962) con
s i s t i n g o f seven q u e s tio n s (ra n g in g from l e a s t to g r e a t e s t autonomy
in d e c is io n making betw een an a d o le s c e n t and h i s or- h e r p a re n t) was
c o n s e q u e n tly d iv id e d i n to a f a m i l i a l and d e m o c ra tic / in d ep en d en t
o r i e n t a t i o n . ^ T h is r e s u l t s in a s tr o n g in flu e n c e of c u l t u r a l d i s
c o n t i n u i t y in th e f a m i l i a l group (gamma .5 1 ) , b u t a v e ry weak i n
flu e n c e o f no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y in th e dem o/indep, group (gamma
.0 7 ) . The l a t t e r f a c t would ten d to c o n firm th e o r i g i n a l assum ption
th a t th e more s o c i e t a l l y norm ative b e h a v io r in any fa m ily r e s u l t s
in l e s s c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y .
^These a r e th e p r e s e n t a u t h o r 's d e s ig n a t io n s , n o t E l d e r 's
(1962, 1963).
80
TABLE 14-A
DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY:
3. PARTIALLED BY FAMILY STRUCTURE
Index
In fo rm a l
%
In fo rm a l
& Form al
%
Formal
%
T o ta l
F a m i l i s t i c *
Low 17.2 55.2 27.6 (29) 100.0
Med ium 16.7 62.5 20.8 (24) 100.0
High 53.9 4 2 .3 3 .9 (26) 100.1
T o ta l 29.1 53.2
17 *7
(79) 100.0
(See q u e s tio n s #25 and 26) Gamma
2
.5 1 ; X p r o b . ^ .02.
Democra t i c / Inde pendent**
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
%
T o ta l
(N) %
Low 18.9 58.5 22.6 (53) 100.0
Medium 26.0 4 2 .0 32.0 (50) 100.0
High 3 2 .1 39.6 28.3 (53) 100.0
T o ta l 25.6 4 6 .8 27.8 (156) 100.2
(See q u e s tio n s #25 & 26) Gamma .0 7 ; X2 ] prob. < . 50
* F a m il is t ic : C a te g o rie s 1 to 3 of q u e s tio n s #25 and #26
a v e ra g e d .
**D em o/lndep.: C a te g o rie s 4 to 7 of q u e s tio n s #25 and #26
a v e ra g e d .
81
TABLE 14-B
DISCONTINUITY AND DEGREE OF INFORMALITY:
3. PARTIALLED BY FAMILY STRUCTURE/BY AGE
( a . Younger Group)
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
%
T o ta l
(N) %
F a m i l i s t i c
Low 15.8 52.6 31.6 (19)
100.0
Med ium 22 ,2 66.7 11.1 (18) 100.0
High 4 6 .7 53.3 0 .0 (15) 100.0
T o ta l 26.9 57.7 15.4 (52) 100.0
Gamma .5 5 ; X2 p ro b . .0 5 .
D e m o c ra tic /in d e p ed e n t
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm al
& Form al
%
Form al
%
T o ta l
(N) %
Low 21.6 70.3 8 .1 (37) 100.0
Med ium 36.8 4 2 .1 21.1 (19) 100.0
High 33.3 52.4 14.3 (21) 100.0
T o ta l 28 6 5 8 .4 13.0 (77) 100.0
Gamma
2
.0 7 ; X p ro b . .30.
82
TABLE 14-B (C ontinued)
( b . O lder Group)
Index
In fo rm al
%
In fo rm a l
& Form al
%
Form al
7 o
T o ta l
(N) % .
F a m i l i s t i c
Low 25.0 25.0 50.0 (8) 100.0
Med ium 0 .0 5 0 .0 50.0 (6) 100.0
High 63.6 27.3 9.1
(11)
100.0
T o ta l 36.0 32.0 3 2 .0 (25) 100.0
Gamma .5 8 ; X2 p ro b . < .05
•
D em o cratic/In d ep en d en t
Index
In fo rm a l
%
In fo rm a l
& Form al
%
Form al
7 o
T o ta l
(N) 7,
Low 5 .6 55.6 38.9 (18) 100.1
Medium 28.6 37.2 34.3 (35) 100.1
High 31.3 31.3 37.5 (32) 100.1
T o ta l 24.7 38.8 36.5 (85) 100.0
Gamma .14
2
; X prob
o
V
•
•
83
The r e l a t i o n d e s c rib e d e a r l i e r betw een no rm ativ e d i s c o n t in u i ty
and in f o r m a lity of p e e r group jo in e d , p e r s i s t s when th e two c a t e
g o r ie s ( f a m i l i a l and dem o/indep. fa m ily s t r u c t u r e , r e s p e c ti v e ly ) a re
p a r t i a l l e d i n to a younger and o ld e r age g ro u p . The s c o re s f o r th e
d e g re e s of a s s o c i a t i o n a r e a s fo llo w s f o r th e younger age g ro u p :
f o r f a m i l i a l fa m ily s t r u c t u r e , gamma i s .5 5 ; f o r dem o/indep. fam ily
s t r u c t u r e , gamma i s 07. F or th e o ld e r age g ro u p : f o r f a m i l i a l
fa m ily s t r u c t u r e , gamma i s .5 8 ; f o r dem o/indep. fa m ily s t r u c t u r e ,
gamma i s .14 (see T able 14-B ).
The d a ta seem to in d ic a te t h a t when fa m ily s t r u c t u r e i s fa m i-
l i s t i c , th e r e l a t i o n betw een c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y and d eg ree of
in f o r m a lity of p eer group i s i n t e n s i f i e d a t b o th th e in fo rm a l as w e ll
a s th e fo rm al end of th e in fo rm a l continuum . When fam ily s t r u c t u r e
i s d e m o /in d e p ., however, t h i s r e l a t i o n betw een d i s c o n t i n u i t y and
ty p e of p e e r group a l l b u t d i s a p p e a r s . These f in d in g s hold b o th f o r
th e younger as w e ll as th e o ld e r age g ro u p . As p o in te d o u t p r e -
v i o s u l y , th e p o s s ib le confounding of e th n ic d e s c e n t and age in th e
o ld e r age c a te g o ry should be k e p t in mind.
T his s u g g e sts t h a t a dem o/indep. fa m ily s t r u c t u r e l a r g e ly ten d s
t o n u l l i f y th e e f f e c t s of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y which p r e v a ils in
our t e c h n o lo g ic a lly s o p h is t ic a te d s o c i e t y . T his co u ld f u r t h e r mean
t h a t fa m ily s t r u c t u r e could to a la r g e e x te n t b rid g e th e gap which
c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y p u ts betw een e a r l y c h ild h o o d r e l a t i o n s and
a d u l t o c c u p a t io n a l - s o c i e t a l a d ju stm e n t p o t e n t i a l . More r e s e a rc h
w ith th e in flu e n c e of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e on a d o le s c e n t developm ent
84
p o t e n t i a l , as su g g e ste d by th e s e f in d i n g s , rem ains t o be done in a
fo llo w -u p stu d y w ith th e same o r s im i la r d a ta .
Secondary H y p o th esis
Much as in th e d e s c r i p t i o n of an a t t i t u d e continuum , one should
be a b le to r e l a t e d eg re e of in f o r m a lity of group to an e x te r n a l
v a r i a b le whose p re se n c e th en v a r i e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y when r e l a t e d to th e
two p o la r extrem es of th e continuum . In t h i s in s ta n c e , f o r exam ple,
i n t e n t to conform t o s o c i e t a l norms as w e ll a s p e rc e p tio n of l e g a l i t y
of a n t i s o c i a l a c t s a r e h e re b e in g c o n sid e re d a s e x t e r n a l c r i t e r i o n
v a r i a b l e s , such as (a) d eg re e of i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s o c i e t a l norms,
and (b) p e rc e p tio n o f th e s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d norm ative
system .
(a) r t was e x p e cte d t h a t the g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity of th e p eer
group th e l e s s w i l l s o c i e t a l fo rm a liz e d norm ative r u l e s , i . e . , la w s ,
have been i n t e r n a l i z e d and th e more l i k e l y i s i t t h a t a d o le s c e n t
group r e l a t e d b e h a v io r (o r th e g r o u p 's r u l e s of c o n d u ct) w i l l be
c o n s id e re d d e li n q u e n t ; how ever, th e g r e a t e r th e f o r m a lity of the
p eer group th e more w i l l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d s o c i e t a l norms have been
i n t e r n a l i z e d (th e l a t t e r i s m a n ife s te d in th e membership of s o c ie -
t a l l y approved g ro u p s, t h a t i s , fo rm al a s s o c i a ti o n s and a d o le s c e n t s '
b e h a v io r in t h e s e ) .
T his h y p o th e s is was t e s t e d by a s k in g a d o le s c e n ts a b o u t t h e i r
i n t e n t i o n to b re a k s i x d i f f e r e n t ty p es o f s o c i e t a l norms (as shown
in q u e s tio n # 3 5 ). T able 15 shows how deg ree of i n f o r m a lity o f p e e r
group i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to number of s o c i e t a l norms in te n d e d
to be b ro k en .
85
TABLE 15
INFORMALITY AND NORMATIVE CONFORMITY
Number of norms in te n d e d to be broken:
0
%
1
%
2
%
3
%
4
%
5
%
6
%
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm a l 13.3 21.7 30.0 11.7 13.4 8.3 1 .7 (60) 100.1
In fo rm a l
& Form al 11.2 3 3 .6 29.9 16.8 3.7 3.7 0 .9 (107) 99.9
Form al 28.6 35.7 16.1 14.3 5 .4 0 .0 0 .0 (56) 100.1
T o ta l 16.2 31.0 26.5 14.8 6.7 4 .0 0 .9 (223) 100.1
(See q u e s tio n #35) Gamma = -
2
.2 7 ; X = 24.75 ( S i g n i f . < .02)
The f a c t t h a t ab o u t 65 p e rc e n t of fo rm al group members d id n o t
in te n d to b re a k any o r on ly one of th e s i x norms as compared to
a b o u t 35 p e rc e n t of in fo rm a l group members, and f u r t h e r th e f a c t t h a t
no a d o le s c e n t in fo rm al groups in te n d e d to b re a k as many as f iv e or
s i x norm s, a s compared to 10 p e rc e n t of in fo rm a l group members, i s
an i n d ic a ti o n t h a t h ig h in f o r m a lity of p e e r group te n d s to be c o r
r e l a t e d w ith low i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of s o c i e t a l norm s.
(b) P e rc e p tio n of th e s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d system was
o p e r a tio n a liz e d by a s k in g a d o le s c e n ts w hether th ey c o n s id e re d c e r t a i n
a n t i s o c i a l ( in v a rio u s d e g re e s ) a c ts i l l e g a l (see q u e s tio n #36 of the
86
q u e s t i o n n a i r e ) . I t a p p e a rs from th e f in d i n g s , a s shown in T able 16,
t h a t th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity of th e p eer group th e g r e a t e r th e
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t few er a n t i s o c i a l a c t s a r e p e rc e iv e d by a d o le s c e n ts
as i l l e g a l ; in o th e r w ords, th e more in fo rm a l th e gro u p , th e l a r g e r
th e number of a c t s judged n o t i l l e g a l . Members of fo rm al groups
jud ge more a n t i s o c i a l a c t s i l l e g a l th an members of in fo rm a l g ro u p s.
TABLE 16
INFORMALITY AND PERCEPTION OF ILLEGALITY
Number of a c ts judged n o t i l l e g a l :
1 - 4 5 - 9 1 0 - 1 3 T o ta l
% % % (N) %
In fo rm al 22.3 63.1 14.9 (54) 100.3
In fo rm a l & Form al 3 8 .8 50.6 10.6 (103) 100.0
Form al 6 0.8 39.2 0 .0 (46) 100.0
T o ta l 3 9 .4 51.2 9 .4 (203) 99.9
(See q u e s tio n #36)
2
Gamms = - .4 4 ; X = 18.43 (S ig n f •
A ,
•
o
h -1
87
D i s c o n ti n u it y , i n f o r m a l i t y , and a d u lt a d ju s tm e n t p o t e n t i a l
At th e o u t s e t of t h i s r e s e a r c h i t was h y p o th e siz e d (H ypothesis
# 4 , page 4) t h a t c e r t a i n ite m s (o r v a r i a b l e s ) could and would se rv e
as p r e d i c t o r s f o r a d u lt a d ju s tm e n t p o t e n t i a l ; among th e s e p r e d i c to r s
a re such item s as g rade p o in t a v e ra g e and p rese n c e or absence of
o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g . W hile th e l a t t e r do n o t m easure a d u lt a d j u s t
ment d i r e c t l y , t h e i r r e l a t i o n to a d u lt o c c u p a tio n a l su c c e ss has been
t e n t a t i v e l y e s ta b l is h e d by s o c i o l o g i c a l r e s e a r c h . Item s of t h i s
k in d , whose r e l a t i o n to a d u l t o c c u p a tio n a l perform ance has th u s been
t e n t a t i v e l y e s ta b l is h e d (se e H au ser, 1973, who summ arizes th e l i t e
r a t u r e on t h i s s u b j e c t ) , a r e h e re employed a s o p e r a t io n a l d e f i n i t i o n s
of a d u l t o c c u p a tio n a l and s o c i e t a l a d ju s tm e n t, e s p e c i a l l y i f one co n
s i d e r s or d e fin e s such item s a s g rade in sc h o o l as i n d ic a to r of
d e g re e of a d ju s tm e n t to s o c i e t a l norms.
A d u lt a d ju stm e n t p o t e n t i a l was th u s o p e r a t io n a l iz e d by a s k in g
a d o le s c e n ts (a) what t h e i r g rade p o in t a v e ra g e i s , and (b) w hether
th e y had o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g .
Grade p o in t a v e ra g e was found to be r e l a t e d to d eg ree of i n
f o r m a lity of p e e r group (gamma - . 3 8 ) ; th e g r e a t e r th e in f o r m a lity
o f th e p e e r group th e low er th e g rade p o in t a v e ra g e ; h ence, th e
g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d u l t s o c i e t a l a d ju s tm e n t w i l l be d i f
f i c u l t and the g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t upon le a v in g sc h o o l
th e r e m ight be a s tr u g g l e in th e d e f i n i t i o n of a d u l t g o a ls and d i r e c
t io n s and even d i f f i c u l t y in a d ju s tm e n t to s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d
a u t h o r i t y (se e T able 1 7 ).
88
TABLE 17
INFORMALITY AND GRADE POINT AVERAGE
What i s your a v erag e g ra d e :
A B
% %
C
%
D
%
F
%
T o ta l
(N) 7 o
In fo rm a l 7.7 38.5 29.2 21.5 3 .1 (65) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 24.8 38.9 28.3 7 .1 0 .9 (113) 100.0
Form al 27.6 5 3 .4 15.5 3 .4 0 .0 (58) 99.9
T o ta l 20.8 42.4 25.4 10.2 1.3 (236) 100.0
2
(See q u e s tio n #15) Gamma = .3 8 , X = 27.17 ( S ig n if . < .001)
A d u lt o c c u p a tio n a l su c c e ss p o t e n t i a l was m easured by a sk in g
a d o le s c e n ts to d e s c r ib e t h e i r o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g , t h e i r p r e s e n t
work, and t h e i r o c c u p a tio n . From answ ers to th e s e th r e e q u e s tio n s
i t was determ in ed w hether a resp o n d e n t had th e kin d of o c c u p a tio n a l
t r a i n i n g which would e n a b le him or h e r t o engage in s te a d y w h ite or
b lu e c o l l a r l a b o r . I t was ex p ected t h a t th e g r e a t e r th e in fo r m a lity
of th e p e e r group the l e s s the p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t f u tu r e o c c u p a tio n a l
perform ance would meet w ith s o c i e t a l l y approved s ta n d a r d s of b e
h a v io r . F in d in g s , a s shown in T able 18, s u g g e st t h a t th e g r e a t e r
th e d eg re e of in f o r m a lity of th e p e e r group th e l e s s th e o c c u p a tio n a l
89
TABLE 18
INFORMALITY AND OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING
Does a d o le s c e n t have o c c u p a tio n a l
Yes
%
t r a i n i n g :
No
%
T o ta l
(N) %
In fo rm a l 5 3 .4 4 6 .6 (58) 100.0
In fo rm a l & Form al 55.7 44.3 (88) 100.0
Form al 71.7 28.3 (53) 100.0
T o ta l 59.3 40.7 (199) 100.0
(See q u e s tio n #21) Gamma = - .2 3 ; X2 = 4 .6 8 ( S i g n i f y .10)
t r a i n i n g te n d s to b e ,a lth o u g h th e s ig n i f ic a n c e l e v e l of t h i s d i s
t r i b u t i o n o c c u rrin g by chance i s on ly .1 0 , gamma i s - .2 3 . Thus, i f
e a r l y o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g and perform ance a re c o n s id e re d as i n d i
c a to r s of l a t e r o c c u p a tio n a l su c c e ss and o c c u p a tio n a l a d ju s tm e n t, i t
may be p r o je c te d t h a t th e r e w i l l be a n e g a tiv e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een
d e g re e of i n f o r m a lity and l a t e r o c c u p a tio n a l a d ju s tm e n t.
However, i t should a g a in be s t r e s s e d t h a t t h i s s t u d y 's fo cu s in
d e f in in g a d u l t a d ju stm e n t is n o t (ty p e o f ) o c c u p a tio n a l s t a t u s a c h ie
vem ent, b u t competence and a b i l i t y of p erform ing and h o ld in g a jo b ,
independence of d e c is io n making and th e f u l f i l l m e n t of r e s p o n s ib
i l i t i e s .
Keeping t h i s in mind, when ty p e of o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g is
s p e c i f i e d , such a s b lu e v e rs u s w h ite c o l l a r t r a i n i n g , th e n th e
a s s o c i a t i o n betw een in f o r m a lity and o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g i s i n t e n
s i f i e d , namely to gamma .3 1 ; th e p r o b a b i l i t y o f such a d i s t r i b u t i o n
o c c u rrin g by chance rem ains .1 0 . T his l a t t e r a s s o c i a t i o n , shown in
T able 19, may now be i n t e r p r e t e d to mean t h a t th e more in fo rm a l th e
group th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l it y of an a d o le s c e n t engaging in some
k in d of b lu e c o l l a r jo b ; th e more fo rm al th e group th e g r e a t e r th e
p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t an a d o le s c e n t w i l l be engaging in some k in d of w hite
c o l l a r o r p r o f e s s io n a l type of jo b .
TABLE 19
INFORMALITY AND TYPE OF OCCUPATION
What i s your ( p re s e n t) o c c u p a tio n :
Blue C o lla r W hite C o lla r O ther T o ta l
U n s k ille d
%
S k ille d
7a
U n s k ille d
7 a
S k ille d
7 a
A r t i s t s
P ro fe s s
7 a (N) %
In fo rm a l 29.6 51.9 5 .6 11.1 1.9 (54) 100.0
In fo rm a l
& Form al
25.8 47.2 6 .7 16.9 3 .4 (89) 100.0
Form al 11.8 4 3 .1 5 .9 31.4 7 .8 (51) 100.0
T o ta l 22.2 4 7 .4 6 .2 19.1 4 .1 (194) 100.0
(See q u e s tio n #21) Gamma = .
2
31; X = 15.42 ( S ig n if . < .10)
91
VIII. SUMMARY
At t h i s p o in t i t m ight be w e ll to r e c a l l t h a t a c c o rd in g to
E i s e n s ta d t (1956), c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y p r e v a i ls in i n d u s t r i a l
s o c ie t y ; i t m a n ife sts; i t s e l f in such a way t h a t th e r e i s a gap b e
tween th e warmth and p e rs o n a ln e s s of prim ary r e l a t i o n s which c h a
r a c t e r i z e s o c i a l i z a t i o n in th e fa m ily and th e demands made l a t e r on
th e a d u lt i n d iv id u a l as a c i t i z e n and a breadw inner in an occupa
t i o n a l s e t t i n g ; th e l a t t e r i s c h a r a c te r iz e d by secondary r e l a t i o n s .
D uring th e t r a n s i t i o n from a f a m i l i a l to a s o c i e t a l s e t t i n g - - i . e . ,
d u rin g a d o le s c e n c e - - th e r e i s a tendency f o r y o u n g ste rs to a t t a i n
them selves to p e e r g ro u p s. The p eer group th en ta k e s over a la rg e
p a r t of th e s o c i a l i z a t i o n which fo rm e rly th e fa m ily (and sc h o o l)
a lo n e had perform ed.
The main h y p o th e s is s t a t e s t h a t th e g r e a t e r the c u l t u r a l d i s
c o n ti n u it y th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a d o le s c e n ts w i l l j o in
an in fo rm a l type of p e e r group; th e l e s s the d i s c o n t i n u i t y , on the
o th e r hand, th e g r e a t e r th e p r o b a b i l it y t h a t a d o le s c e n ts w i l l j o in
some form of fo rm al a s s o c i a t i o n . ( i t sh o u ld be n oted t h a t c u l t u r a l
d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s h e re employed in th e se n se of norm ative d i s c o n t i
n u ity ) . But b e fo re t h i s h y p o th e s is could be t e s t e d , th e two d ic h o -
tomous ty p e s , in fo rm a l and form al groups were compared and d e s c rib e d
s t a t i s t i c a l l y w ith what h e re has been term ed d e s c r i p t o r s ; th e l a t t e r
a re c o n s t i t u e n t type dim ensions whose m agnitude v a r i e s w ith the
p re v a le n c e of a p a r t i c u l a r type of g ro u p . The d e s c r i p t i o n of th e s e
dichotom ous ty p e s o f g ro u p s, a s o p e r a tio n a liz e d by means o f th e s e
sev en d e s c r i p t o r s , i s g iv en below .
F our d e s c r i p t i v e group dim ensions were found to d i s t i n g u i s h
s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een in fo rm a l and fo rm al g ro u p s. T h re e, however,
f a i l e d t o do s o . A ll o f th e l a t t e r th r e e have been ta k e n f o r g ra n te d
by p re v io u s i n v e s t i g a t o r s ( e . g . , R e d f ie ld , 1947; T o e n n is, 1887;
Weber, 1924) a s d i s t i n g u i s h i n g betw een th e two p o la r ( o r , r a t h e r ,
extrem e) ty p e s of g ro u p s.
On th e b a s is of th e fo re g o in g f in d i n g s , in fo rm a l and form al
groups can now be d e s c rib e d in term s of c e r t a i n d e s c r i p t o r s . T able 20
a llo w s a q u ic k overview o f th e f in d i n g s . The in fo rm a l type of group
can be c h a r a c te r iz e d as one in w hich: (1) d e c is io n s a re n o t made
a c c o rd in g to r u l e s ; (2) m otives f o r b e lo n g in g , or j o in i n g , a r e i n
t r i n s i c ; (3) p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making in the group i s low; (4)
le a d e r s h ip te n d s to be u n d e fin e d o r a r b i t r a r i l y imposed.
In c o n t r a s t to th e above, form al groups a r e th o se in which
(1) d e c is io n s a re made a c c o rd in g to a s e t of e x p l i c i t , s t a t e d group
r u l e s ; (2) m otives f o r b e lo n g in g , or j o i n i n g , a re a c t i o n o r g o a l
o r ie n t e d ; (3) d e g re e o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making i s high
93
TABLE 20
INFORMALITY-FORMALITY: DESCRIPTORS
D e s c rip to rs Gamma
2
X p ro b . N
The g r e a t e r th e i n f o r m a lity :
a . th e few er r u l e s f o r d e c is io n
making .53 .001 (199)
b . th e l a r g e r th e p r o p o rtio n of
c lo s e f r i e n d s in th e group .07 .20 (186)
c . the more i n t r i n s i c th e m otives
f o r b e lo n g in g o r jo in in g th e
group .64 .001
(111)
d . th e g r e a t e r th e e m o tio n a l i n
volvem ent in th e group (o r)
th e more can a p e rso n be him-
o r h e r s e l f in th e group
0
•
1
.95 (204)
e . th e more does one need to have
c e r t a i n p e r s o n a l it y c h a r a c t e r i s
t i c s in o rd e r to be a c c e p te d
i n to the group .07 .90 (199)
f . th e g r e a t e r th e p a r t i c i p a t i o n
in d e c is io n making in th e
group -.5 7 .001 (178)
g-
th e more w i l l le a d e r s h ip be
spontaneous and u n d efin ed .65 .001 (148)
94
( e . g . , one man/one v o t e ) ; (4) type of le a d e r s h ip te n d s to be demo
c r a t i c ^ , i . e . , sh a re d by s e v e r a l e le c te d l e a d e r s .
Three d e s c r i p t o r s f a i l e d to d is c r im in a te s i g n i f i c a n t l y betw een
in fo rm a l and fo rm al g ro u p s, a lth o u g h two of th e p e rc e n ta g e d i s t r i b u
t io n s were in th e d i r e c t i o n su g g e ste d by c o n c ep ts tak e n f o r g ra n te d
in s o c io l o g ic a l l i t e r a t u r e . Q u e s tio n a b le o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the
co n c ep ts and th e f a c t t h a t th e number of c a se s i s r e l a t i v e l y s m a ll,
s u g g e s ts some c a u tio n in i n t e r p r e t i n g th e s e th re e f in d i n g s : (1) in
b o th ty p e s o f g ro u p s, a d o le s c e n ts tended to have a s i m i l a r p r o p o rtio n
o f c lo s e f r i e n d s — th e l a t t e r b e in g a measure of th e p re v a le n c e of
prim ary r e l a t i o n s in e i t h e r type of group; (2) in b o th ty p e s of
groups a s im i la r p r o p o rtio n of a d o le s c e n ts s t a t e d t h a t th e y c o u ld o r
co uld n o t be th e m s e lv e s — t h i s b e in g a measure of deg ree of e x p r e s s iv e
n e ss and e m o tio n a l involvem ent in e i t h e r group; (3) in b o th groups a
s i m i l a r p r o p o rtio n o f a d o le s c e n ts s t a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n p e rs o n a l c h a
r a c t e r i s t i c s were needed in o rd e r to be a c c e p te d in to th e gro u p — th e
l a t t e r m easuring w hether th e p rese n c e o r absence of a s c r ib e d c r i t e r i a
would d i f f e r e n t i a t e betw een th e two ty p e s of g ro u p s. The above d i f
f e r e n c e s and s i m i l a r i t i e s betw een in fo rm a l and fo rm al a d o le s c e n t
groups s u g g e s t th e c o n c lu s io n t h a t s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r
^Since t h i s s tu d y ta k e s p laced w ith in th e c o n te x t of U nited
S t a te s c u l t u r e and c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y has h e re been d e fin e d in
term s of no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y , i t may be assumed t h a t g r e a t e s t
p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c is io n making i s c o r r e la t e d w ith la r g e numbers of
e le c te d le a d e r s ( i . e . , d e m o c ratic l e a d e r s h i p ) . A d i f f e r e n t n o rm a tiv e -
c u l t u r a l c o n te x t would a c c o rd in g ly c a l l f o r a d i f f e r e n t norm ative
i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
95
th a n a t t i t u d i n a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s d i s t i n g u i s h betw een th e s e two ty p es
o f g ro u p s.
Based on th e s e f in d in g s i t may be g e n e ra liz e d t h a t r u l e s , the
fo rm u la tio n o f law s, l e a d e r s h ip and th e p rese n c e o r absence of i n d i
v i d u a l r i g h t s is s t r u c t u r a l l y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of fo rm al g ro u p s, b u t
n o t o f in fo rm a l g ro u p s; th e f in d i n g s , however, tend to s u g g e st t h a t
human e x p e rie n c e ( i . e . , e x p re s s iv e n e s s , em o tio n a l involvem ent, f r i e n d
s h ip , a c c e p ta n c e i n to th e g ro u p , and so on) a re e q u a lly im p o rta n t
in b o th ty p es of g ro u p s. T his f in d in g s u g g e sts t h a t f o r m a lity of
group does n o t e x c lu d e e m o tio n a l involvem ent and t h a t th e o c c u rre n ce
of c lo s e i n te r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s w ith in th e c o n te x t of t h i s type of
group w i l l tend t o be h ig h ly s t r u c t u r e d .
The n e x t s e c t i o n of t h i s r e p o r t summarizes th e o p e r a t i o n a l i z a
t i o n o f th e Index o f n o rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y . T his Index com prises
some p e r t i n e n t in f lu e n c e s on ch ild h o o d s o c i a l i z a t i o n which ta k e
p la c e p re v io u s to e n tr a n c e i n to and involvem ent in p e e r g ro u p s, a
s ta g e w hich marks a f i r s t b re a k w ith fa m ily dependency. As a f i r s t
s te p i t was su g g e ste d t h a t th e fo llo w in g s i x fa m ily background
v a r i a b l e s would be of d e c is i v e in f lu e n c e : 1. e t h n i c i t y ( th a t i s ,
d eg ree of A m e ric a n iz a tio n ); 2. o c c u p a tio n a l s t a t u s of p a r e n ts ;
3 . r e l i g i o u s b e l i e f (ranked on d e g re e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n )
4 . s u b je c t iv e s o c i a l c l a s s ; 5 . s u b j e c t i v e l y ranked w e a lth of fa m ily ;
6 . ty p e o f fa m ily s t r u c t u r e ( i . e . , d e g re e of autonomy in d e c is io n
m ak in g ).
96
An i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n a l a n a ly s i s of th e s e s ix Index item s re v e a le d
a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p among th e f i r s t f i v e . The c o r r e l a t i o n of
fa m ily s t r u c t u r e w ith th e o th e r f iv e v a r i a b l e s , however, y ie ld e d a
low r e l a t i o n s h i p (Table 2 ) . Fam ily s t r u c t u r e was t h e r e f o r e excluded
from th e f i n a l In d ex . When th e same m easure was l a t e r r e o p e r a ti o n
a l i z e d , namely in ac co rd w ith a r e d e f i n i t i o n of th e c u l t u r a l norm, a
s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith d i s c o n t i n u i t y was found to e x i s t . I t
i s l i k e l y t h a t t h i s new m easure, in ac co rd w ith a r e d e f i n i t i o n of
th e c u l t u r a l norm, w i l l prove o f p r e d i c ti v e v a lu e in r e l a t i o n to
d e g re e of in f o r m a lity as w e ll as to degree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n in d e c i
s io n m aking. I f t h i s should be th e c a s e , t h i s measure should a ls o
be s i g n i f i c a n t l y c o r r e l a t e d w ith th e o th e r f iv e Index v a r i a b l e s .
The n e x t s ta g e o f a n a ly s i s was to e x p lo re how th e Index of
no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y is r e l a t e d to degree of in f o r m a lity of group
(see main h y p o th e s is , page 7 2).
T h is r e l a t i o n s h i p i s p re s e n te d in T able 10. The Index of d i s
c o n t i n u i t y 's a s s o c i a t i o n w ith th e continuum of in f o r m a l it y , when
2
e x p re s s e d by gamma, i s .21 (X p r o b . < .0 5 ) . T his i s a m oderate to
f a i r l y s tr o n g r e l a t i o n s h i p and i t a llo w s one to make th e g e n e r a li z a
t i o n t h a t th e r e i s an a s s o c i a t i o n betw een an a d o le s c e n t 's s o c i a l -
f a m i l i a l background and th e p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t he o r she w i l l j o i n a
c e r t a i n ty p e o f a d o le s c e n t g ro u p .
A marked f e a t u r e o f t h i s d i s t r i b u t i o n i s th e f a c t t h a t the
l a r g e s t p r o p o r tio n , a b o u t one h a l f of a l l a d o le s c e n ts in the sam ple,
b e lo n g t o b o th an in fo rm a l and a fo rm al group w h ile only a b o u t one
97
! f o u r t h b elong to an in fo rm a l and one f o u r th to a fo rm al g ro u p . Among
I
! th e a d o le s c e n ts in in fo rm a l groups th e r e a r e p r o p o r tio n a te ly more
th a n tw ice as many w ith h ig h d i s c o n t i n u i t y s c o re s th an w ith low
s o c r e s . T his d isc re p a n c y beween d i s c o n t i n u i t y s c o re s i s , as s t a t e d ,
l e s s pronounced among th o se a d o le s c e n ts who b elo n g to b o th form al and
in fo rm a l groups and i t is l e a s t pronounced in form al group a s s o c i a
t i o n m em bership.
The fo llo w in g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of d a ta in t h i s t a b l e seems re a s o n
a b l e . C u ltu r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y has a s tr o n g e f f e c t on p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t
th e in fo rm a l end b u t only a s l i g h t e f f e c t on p a r t i c i p a t i o n a t the
fo rm al end; f u r t h e r , th e e f f e c t of d i s c o n t i n u i t y on mixed ty p e s i s
f a i r l y s tr o n g . T his s u g g e s ts t h a t th e "low s" in d i s c o n t i n u i t y d o n 't
swing a l l th e way over to fo rm al p a r t i c i p a t i o n and tend to be members
o f in fo rm a l groups a s w e ll a s fo rm al g ro u p s. T hat i s , th ey add f o r
mal p a r t i c i p a t i o n on to an in fo rm a l b a s e .
I t may be p o in te d o u t t h a t when o th e r c u t t i n g p o in ts ( e . g . ,
q u a r t i l e s ) on th e continuum of c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y a re used to
e s t a b l i s h th e r e l a t i o n betw een th e Index and d eg re e of i n f o r m a l a l i t y ,
th e In d e x ' r e l a t i o n s h i p w ith form al groups i s on ly sometimes p ro
nounced or s tr o n g . The same a p p lie s f o r mixed ty p e s .
T h is s u g g e sts t h a t , becau se d i s c o n t i n u i t y has th e g r e a t e s t , most
d e l e t e r i o u s e f f e c t (from th e norm ative p o in t o f view of s o c ie t y ) a t
th e in fo rm a l end of th e continuum of in f o r m a lity and b e cau se i t i s
i
l e a s t e f f e c t i v e a t th e fo rm al end, th o se t h a t b elo n g to fo rm al groups
w i l l , by d e f i n i t i o n , be th e l e a s t d is c o n tin u o u s (o r b e s t a d ju s te d ? )
98
a d o le s c e n ts . However, i t i s su g g e ste d h e re t h a t w h ile to o much
d i s c o n t i n u i t y may lea d to i n d iv id u a l d i s o r g a n iz a ti o n , " to o l i t t l e "
d i s c o n t i n u i t y may lea d to narrow ness o f o u tlo o k and r i g i d i t y . A
c e r t a i n amoung of d i s c o n t i n u i t y ( e . g . , medium) may, in f a c t , be
b e n e f i c i a l , le a d in g to g r e a t e r c r e a t i v i t y and f l e x i b i l i t y .
An overview o f th e group a f f i l i a t i o n of th e t o t a l sam ple is
g iv en in T able 11. Two c a te g o r i e s a re o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t h e re and
th e y rem ain to be a n a ly z e d ; th e s e a r e : th e c a te g o ry of a d o le s c e n ts
com prised under th e name of f r i e n d s h i p group t o t a l l i n g 29 p e rc e n t of
the e n t i r e sample and th o se a d o le s c e n ts com prised under th e c a te g o ry
of no group a t a l l , t o t a l l i n g only 8 p e rc e n t of th e t o t a l sam ple.
Both o f th e s e c a te g o r ie s seem to f i t c o n c e p tu a lly and o p e r a t io n a l ly
on th e continuum of in f o r m a lity of p e e r group a s s o c i a t i o n . When
added to th e continuum , th e modes o f th e c o n s e c u tiv e groups form a
s t r a i g h t d ia g o n a l a c ro s s th e e n t i r e t a b u l a t i o n of p e e r groups co n
ta in e d in t h i s sam ple. However, the a n a ly s i s of d a ta c o n ta in e d in
t h i s r e p o r t com prises only th o se groups on th e in fo rm a l-fo rm a l con
tinuum which by t h e i r re sp o n se s u n e q u iv o c a lly could be s a id to b e
long to t h i s continuum , namely th o se answ ering "y e s" to q u e s tio n #37
o r to q u e s tio n #60, o r to b o th of t h e s e . These th r e e c a te g o r i e s of
re sp o n d e n ts to g e th e r com prise 62.2 p e rc e n t o f th e e n t i r e sam ple,
in c lu d in g young a d u l t s .
How a g e , s e x , and fa m ily s t r u c t u r e a f f e c t th e r e l a t i o n s betw een
th e Index and th e continuum of in f o r m a lity was th e n d is c u s s e d (see
T able 2 1 ).
99
TABLE 21
INFORMALITY-FORMALITY AND CULTURAL
DISCONTINUITY: PARTIALLED
P a r t i a l l e d by:
gamma prob. N
1 . Age
a . younger group
.26 .40 (129)
b . o ld e r group
.26 .20 (110)
2. Sex
a . fem ale group .14 .50 (127)
b . male group .27 .05 (112)
3A. Fam ily S tr u c tu r e
a . f a m i l i s t i c .51 .02
( 79)
b . dem o/indep. .07 .50 (156)
3B F am ily S t r u c tu r e and Age
Younger age group:
a . f a m i l i s t i c .55 .05 ( 52)
b . dem o/indep. .07 .3 0 ( 77)
O lder age group:
a . f a m i l i s t i c .58 .05 ( 25)
b . dem o/indep. .14 .30 ( 85)
4 . Zero o rd e r c o r r e l a t i o n .21 .05 (239)
100
D iv id in g th e sam ple i n to a younger and o ld e r age g ro u p , namely a
group aged 17 and younger and a n o th e r 17 and 18 (on th e b a s is of y e a r
o f b i r t h ) , i t was found t h a t th e b a s ic r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een th e two
c o n tin u a was n o t changed. I t w as,how ever, i n t e n s i f i e d y i e l d in g a
h ig h e r m easure of a s s o c i a t i o n th a n th e z e ro o rd e r c o r r e l a t i o n of
gamma .2 1 , namely a gamma of .26 f o r b o th age g ro u p s. However, b e
cause a la r g e p a r t of th e sam ple came from a p red o m in an tly M exican
American and Am erican In d ia n h ig h s c h o o l, th e r e s u l t s of p a r t i a l l i n g
by age have to be re a d w ith c a u tio n ; d a ta c o n c e rn in g th e o ld e r age
group m ight a c t u a l l y be th e r e s u l t of e th n ic a f f i l i a t i o n r a t h e r th an
of a g e .
When th e d a ta were c o n tr o l le d f o r s e x , i t was found t h a t boys
a r e more s tr o n g l y in flu e n c e d by c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y (gamma .27)
th an g i r l s (gamma .1 4 ) .
Of s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t was th e p a r t i a l l i n g o f th e d a ta by fa m ily
s t r u c t u r e s in c e th e l a t t e r had been assumed to be o f g r e a t in flu e n c e
in c u l t u r a l d i s t o n t i n u i t y . On t h i s b a s is i t had been in c lu d e d in the
f i r s t t e n t a t i v e c o m p u tatio n of th e In d ex , b u t i t was dropped when i t s
c o r r e l a t i o n w ith th e o th e r f iv e Index item s was found to be low
(see T able 2 ) . When th e norm of fa m ily s t r u c t u r e in Am erican s o
c i e t y was r e c o n c e p tu a liz e d so as to s t a t e t h a t c h il d r e n a re s o c ia l iz e d
to g r e a t e r and g r e a t e r independence ( in d e c is io n m aking), th e same
m easure used p r e v io u s ly (E ld e r , 1962) was r e - o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d . R e s u lts
o f p a r t i a l l i n g w ith t h i s new m easure, d iv id in g th e sam ple i n to a
f a m i l i a l and a dem o/indep. g ro u p , y i e l d a s tr o n g a s s o c i a t i o n w ith th e
101
| f i r s t (gamma .5 1 ) , b u t a weak a s s o c i a ti o n w ith th e l a t t e r (gamma .0 7 ) .
; T h is r e l a t i o n n o t only ho ld s up, b u t is i n t e n s i f i e d when c o n tr o l le d
f o r age (gamma .55 and .58 and gamma .07 and .1 4 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . I t
th u s fo llo w s t h a t when fa m ily s t r u c t u r e i s dem o/indep, i t te n d s to
m inim ize (o r a t l e a s t to le s s e n ) th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een c u l t u r a l
d i s c o n t i n u i t y and in f o r m a lity ; c o n v e rs e ly , when fa m ily s t r u c t u r e is
f a m i l i a l ( e . g . , a u t o c r a t i c or a u t h o r i t a r i a n in E l d e r 's 1962 s e n s e ) ,
i t a p p a re n tly te n d s to in c r e a s e th e r e l a t i o n s h i p betw een norm ative
d i s c o n t i n u i t y and i n f o r m a lity . The l a t t e r a ls o i n c r e a s in g ly c au ses
y o u n g s te rs to j o in in fo rm a l p eer g ro u p s.
Now t h a t th e in fo rm a l-fo rm a l continuum was d e s c rib e d (and th u s
r e d e f in e d ) a rd t h a t i t s r e l a t i o n to c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y had been
e s t a b l i s h e d , th e continuum of in f o r m a lity was n e x t c o n s id e re d to be
a s c a l e . As su c h , i t was assum ed, i t co uld be used to p r e d i c t to
o u ts id e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s ; th e s e were (1) number of s o c i e t a l norms
c o n s id e re d to be broken and (2) number of a n t i s o c i a l a c ts judged
i l l e g a l . Both of th e s e c r i t e r i o n v a r i a b l e s d is tin g u is h e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y
betw een th e two id e a l ty p es of g ro u p s; t h a t i s , i t was found t h a t
s i g n i f i c a n t l y more in fo rm a l group members would b re a k s o c i e t a l norms
th a n fo rm al group members (gamma .2 7 ) , and, t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more
in fo rm a l group members c o n s id e re d few er a c ts i l l e g a l th a n form al
group members (gamma .4 4 ) . In o th e r w ords, in fo rm a l group members n o t
only i n t e r n a l i z e s o c i e t a l norms l e s s s tr o n g l y , th e y a ls o have a more
l e n i e n t and p e rm issiv e a t t i t u d e toward what i s p e rm is s ib le (o r l e g a l ) - -
th e r e a r e few er " d o n t's " a tta c h e d in t h e i r minds in r e l a t i o n to th e
norm ative system (see T able 2 2 ).
102
TABLE 22
INFORMALITY-FORMALITY: PREDICTORS
P r e d ic to r s gamma
2
X p ro b . N
The g r e a t e r th e deg ree of i n f o r m a lity :
a . th e l a r g e r th e number of s o c i e t a l
norms to be broken .27 .02 (233)
b . th e l a r g e r th e number of a n t i
s o c i a l a c t s judged to be l e g a l .44 .01 (203)
c . th e low er th e g rad e s in sch o o l .38 .001 (236)
d . th e l e s s th e o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g .23 .10 (198)
N ext, th e q u e s tio n was asked how tee n a g e p e e r c u l t u r e i s r e l a t e d
to a d u l t p a tt e r n s of b e h a v io r and a d u l t s o c i e t a l a d ju s tm e n t p o te n
t i a l in th e o c c u p a tio n a l s p h e re . Both g rad e s in sc h o o l and occupa
t i o n a l t r a i n i n g d u rin g a d o le sc e n c e co uld s e rv e as i n d ic a to r s or
p r e d i c to r s h e r e . I t was assumed t h a t a d o le s c e n ts who a re p r im a rily
s o c ia l iz e d in in fo rm a l group c o n te x ts w i l l have d i f f i c u l t y in a c
q u irin g job o r ie n te d a t t i t u d e s and p a tt e r n s o f b e h a v io r . S o c i e t a l l y
i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d a d o le s c e n t g ro u p s, on th e o th e r hand, w i l l h e lp
a d o le s c e n ts in t h e i r a d ju stm e n t to l a t e r m ature o c c u p a tio n a l r o l e s ,
b ecau se th ey a c q u a in t th e a d o le s c e n t w ith th e s o c i e t y 's norms,
e s p e c i a l l y in im personal s e t t i n g s , and becau se th e y encourage
I
a d o le s c e n ts to p a r t i c i p a t e a c t i v e l y and e q u a lly in d e c is io n making
p r o c e s s e s . Both v a r i a b l e s , p rese n c e or absence of o c c u p a tio n a l
t r a i n i n g and g rad e s in s c h o o l, e s p e c i a l l y th e l a t t e r , were found
to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to type of p eer group m em bership, as
p r e d ic te d (gamma .38 and .2 3 , r e s p e c t i v e l y ) .
T his s tu d y th u s t e s t s th e p r o p o s itio n t h a t e a r l y background
v a r i a b l e s (as m easured by th e Index) a r e r e l a t e d to a d u lt a d ju stm e n t
p o t e n t i a l in v a rio u s ways. One of th e s e ways i s p e e r group a s s o c i a
t i o n d u rin g a d o le s c e n c e , th e tim e of t r a n s i t i o n betw een c h ilh o o d
dependence and a d u l t independence.
2
I t i s of c o u rse c o n c e iv a b le t h a t th e s e s i g n i f i c a n t s c o re s of
a s s o c i a ti o n (gammas) r e l a t i n g g rad e s and o c c u p a tio n a l t r a i n i n g to
group m em bership, a r e to a l a r g e r p a r t a consequence of norm ative
d i s c o n t i n u i t y . However, a gamma of .08 (X^prob. .20) f o r occupa
t i o n a l t r a i n i n g and .24 (X p ro b . .00) f o r g rad es and d i s c o n t i n u i t y ,
te n d s to i n d ic a te t h a t th e main h y p o th e s is of t h i s r e s e a rc h h o ld s ;
nam ely, t h a t norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y i s r e l a t e d to type of a d o le s c e n t
group p a r t i c i p a t i o n , th e l a t t e r in tu r n in flu e n c in g th e s o c i a l i z a t i o n
of members.
104
IX. CONCLUSIONS
There a re two main a s p e c ts of t h i s s tu d y which have im p lic a tio n s
f o r s o c io lo g y . F i r s t , t h i s i s a stu d y of a d o le s c e n t groups (th e
in fo rm a l-fo rm a l p e e r group continuum ) in r e l a t i o n to th e norm ative
system of s o c i e t y , norm ative d is ta n c e b e in g r e l a t e d to d e v ian ce and
norm ative c lo s e n e s s b e in g r e l a t e d to n orm ative c o n fo rm ity . Second,
t h i s is a s tu d y o f a t r a n s i t i o n a l s ta g e in th e l i f e c y c le , namely
a d o le s c e n c e ; f in d in g s a r e th u s a p p lic a b le to o th e r t r a n s i t i o n a l
s ta g e s of th e l i f e c y c le , such as th o se o c c u rrin g as i n d iv id u a ls ma
tu r e (see Loeb, 1973a).
The im petus f o r t h i s stu d y came a b o u t when t h i s r e s e a r c h e r ,
i n t e r e s t e d in human developm ent and f r i e n d s h i p a t t i t u d e s (Loeb, 1969),
came upon d e s c r i p ti o n s of a d o le s c e n t s t r e e t gangs by K le in (1971).
The s ta g e of a d o le sc e n c e i s a tim e f o r i n t e n s i f i e d p e e r group form a
t i o n , b o th in fo rm a l and fo rm a l; t h i s in c lu d e s gan g s. T h is s tu d y ,
i n v e s t ig a t in g in fo rm a l and fo rm al a d o le s c e n t p e e r g ro u p s, has led
to g r e a t e r i n s i g h t i n to th e s a l i e n t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of e ach o f th e s e
two ty p e s of g ro u p s.
F in d in g s seem to p o in t to th e f a c t t h a t w h ile f r i e n d s h i p g ro u p
ings may be a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of in fo rm a l g ro u p s, th e y may a ls o be
an in g r e d ie n t of fo rm al a s s o c i a t i o n s . The r e a l d i s t i n c t i o n —as
K le in and Crawford (1967) much e a r l i e r su g g e ste d w ith r e s p e c t to
105
gangs--m ay, in f a c t , l i e n o t so much w ith in th e s e n tim e n ts t h a t hold
a p e e r group to g e t h e r , as in c e r t a i n " o u ts id e " s t r u c t u r a l d e t e r
m in a n ts . T his stu d y i n d ic a te s t h a t th e l a t t e r may l a r g e ly c o n s i s t
o f th e n orm ative d is ta n c e of an a d o l e s c e n t 's fa m ily o f o r i g i n .
S ince in fo rm a l p e e r group a s s o c i a t i o n was found to be r e l a t e d
to p o t e n t i a l l y a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v io r, nam ely, l e s s s tr o n g i n t e r n a l i z a
t io n of s o c i e t a l norms and a l e s s f o rb id d in g p e rc e p tio n o f a n t i s o c i a l
a c t s , i t may be concluded t h a t th e d i f f e r e n c e betw een "norm al" con
form ing and la r g e ly d e v ia n t a d o le s c e n t b e h a v io r may l i e in c e r t a i n
s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s which in flu e n c e an a d o l e s c e n t 's type of p eer
group p a r t i c i p a t i o n and c o n se q u e n tly h is o r h e r a t t i t u d e s . How ad o
l e s c e n ts a re c u m u la tiv e ly s o c ia l iz e d in th e d i r e c t i o n of e i t h e r
" s u c c e s s f u l " s o c i e t a l a d ju s tm e n t o r d e v ia n t b e h a v io r i s a p p a re n t in
t h i s s t u d y 's d is c u s s io n of in fo rm a l and fo rm al groups in r e l a t i o n to
th e s o c i e t a l norm ative system . T his l a t t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p i s w orth
i n v e s t i g a t i n g more e x te n s i v e l y . ,
What needs to be done n e x t i s to compare concom m ittant a t t i
tu d e s and b e h a v io r p a tt e r n s of norm al and d e lin q u e n t a d o le s c e n ts in
r e l a t i o n to in fo rm a l and form al p e e r group m em bership. Here i s an
o p p o rtu n ity to stu d y a n t i s o c i a l or d e lin q u e n t b e h a v io r and a t t i t u d e
fo rm a tio n in com parison to s o - c a l le d "norm al" o r av e ra g e range b e
h a v io r . I t i s la r g e ly o u t of th e u n s tr u c tu r e d n e s s of th e in fo rm a l
group t h a t th e s e a n t i s o c i a l or conform ing p a tt e r n s of b e h a v io r and
a t t i t u d e s a r i s e , ta k e shape and p e rp e tu a te th e m se lv e s. Gangs, f o r
in s t a n c e , Loeb (1973b) has h y p o th e s iz e d , a r e an i n c i p i e n t i n s t i t u
t i o n a l i z a t i o n (and s t r u c t u r i n g ) of a n t i s o c i a l b e h a v io r.
106
W ith in th e c o n te x t of t h i s s t u d y 's f in d in g s i t may be se en how
th e s e g ro u p s, namely g an g s, f o r in s ta n c e , o r i g i n a t e , r o o tin g in the
in fo rm a l a d o le s c e n t gro u p . The l a t t e r c o n s t i t u t e s a framework w ith in
w hich c u m u lativ e d e v ia n t p a tt e r n s of b e h a v io r may a r i s e and cumu
l a t i v e l y p e rp e tu a te th e m s e lv e s . F or th e in fo rm a l a d o le s c e n t group
l a r g e ly c o n s is t s of f r i e n d s h i p and in fo rm a tio n exchange g ro u p s—
th e l a t t e r a re th e re a s o n why i s o l a t e d y o u n g ste rs o f te n j o i n —w hich
i n t e r a c t and recom bine, l a r g e ly to exchange in fo r m a tio n . Some of
th e s e f r i e n d s h i p and in fo rm a tio n exchange n u c le i th e n emerge to
f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e an i n c i p i e n t r o l e c o n f i g u r a t io n . T hat i s , th ey
encourage members to ta k e on p r o g r e s s iv e ly , o r r a t h e r c u m u la tiv e ly ,
more d e v ia n t r o l e s and th u s c r e a te th e b a s is f o r a c u m u la tiv e ly
d e v ia n t r o le c o n f i g u r a t i o n .
But r e g a r d le s s of w hether norm al or d e v ia n t a d o le s c e n t groups
a re s tu d i e d , th e f u n c tio n of th e p eer group seems to be to wean the
a d o le s c e n t from a s ta g e o f dependency in d e c is io n making to a s ta g e
when he is read y to make h is own in d ep en d en t d e c i s i o n s . P a r t of
th e f u n c tio n of th e p e e r group th u s i s to in flu e n c e th e young i n d i
v i d u a l 's a t t i t u d e tow ard s o c ie t y and to d e te rm in e to a la r g e deg ree
w hether he w i l l c o n s e q u e n tly ta k e a p r o s o c i a l, a n t i s o c i a l , d e v ia n t
o r d e lin q u e n t s ta n c e .
The stu d y of a d o le s c e n t g ro u p s, a s d is c u s s e d above, th u s
p r e s e n ts an o p p o r tu n ity to a n a ly z e a t c lo s e range one t r a n s i t i o n a l
s ta g e of human developm ent. The in flu e n c e of in fo rm a l v e rs u s fo rm al
peer group a f f i l i a t i o n observed a t t h i s s ta g e sh o u ld now a ls o be
107
a p p lic a b le to o th e r t r a n s i t i o n a l s ta g e s , su ch a s the t r a n s i t i o n from
m iddle age t c r e tir e m e n t o r o ld a g e . How in fo rm a l o r fo rm al group
a f f i l i a t i o n would be in s tr u m e n ta l in p re p a rin g th e i n d iv id u a l f o r
a s a t i s f y i n g l i f e d u rin g r e tir e m e n t may now be deduced. I n d iv i d u a ls ,
marked by hig h c u l t u r a l or no rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y , f o r i n s ta n c e ,
m ig h t be more c o m fo rta b le in more in fo rm a l s e t t i n g s w h ile in d iv - d u a ls
marked by low norm ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y m ight f in d g r e a t e s t s a t i s
f a c t i o n in c o n tin u in g o r g a n i z a t i o n a l and s o c i e t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .
However, th e f a c t sh o u ld be c o n s id e re d t h a t maximum a d u l t a d
ju stm e n t may n o t be c o r r e l a t e d w ith g r e a t e s t n o rm ativ e c o n t i n u i t y .
F o r , w h ile w r itin g s on c u l t u r a l d i s c o n t i n u i t y g e n e r a lly assume t h a t
d i s - c o n t i n u it y i s a n e g a tiv e c u l t u r a l a s p e c t , to be a v o id e d , th e
p rese n c e of some d i s c o n t i n u i t y may be somewhat b e n e f i c i a l . Too much
c o n ti n u it y a s found, f o r in s t a n c e , in a m iddle c l a s s sm a ll town
s e t t i n g or even a p r im itiv e s o c i e t y , may le a d to r i g i d i t y and narro w
n e ss of o u tlo o k ; th e p rese n c e of a c e r t a i n amount o f norm ative d i s
c o n ti n u it y , on th e o th e r hand, may be in s tr u m e n ta l in making a
perso n more c r e a t i v e , broad-m inded and, most o f a l l , f l e x i b l e . The
more d i s c o n t i n u i t y th e r e i s , th e l a r g e r w i l l be th e pool of con
t r a d i c t o r y in fo rm a tio n t h a t a p e rso n p o s s e s s e s and a tte m p ts to make
se n se o f . The d is c o n tin u o u s , g i f t e d p e rs o n , th e n g e ts to - be th e
problem s o lv e r , th e a r t i s t , the w r i t e r , c o n s ta n t t a l k e r and d i s
c u s s e r o f in n e r and o u te r problem s and c o n f l i c t s .
In th e t r a n s i t i o n from c h ild h o o d to a d u lth o o d a s w e ll a s o th e r
t r a n s i t i o n a l s ta g e s , a f f i l i a t i o n w ith in fo rm a l o r fo rm a l groups may
108
th u s have e i t h e r b e n e f i c i a l o r harm ful e f f e c t s . The l a t t e r w i l l
l a r g e l y depend on th e c o n te x t of an i n d i v i d u a l 's background in r e l a
t io n to th e no rm ativ e system o f s o c i e t y . Some people m ight be
loosened up by i n t e n s i f i e d in fo rm a l p eer group a s s o c i a t i o n w h ile
o th e r s m ight le a r n to d is c o v e r th e p le a s u r e s and s a t i s f a c t i o n of
form al s o c i e t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n th ey n e v e r b e fo re knew. New avenues
o f r e s o c i a l i z a t i o n mhy th u s be opened. F o r , w h ile a t th e b e g in n in g
of th e l i f e c y c le , th e c h o ic e of fa m ily background (as h e re d e s
c rib e d by n o rm ativ e d i s c o n t i n u i t y ) is n o t up t o i n d iv id u a l c h o ic e ,
an in d iv id u a l c a n , as he p ro g re s s e s th ro u g h l i f e , more and more
s p e c if y h is c h o ic e s , i f o p p o r tu n itie s a re a v a i l a b l e ; he may th en
c o n s c io u s ly d i r e c t h is developm ent by choosing p a r t i c i p a t i o n in an
in fo rm a l or form al type of group.
The in fo rm a l-fo rm a l continuum , d e s c rib e d in t h i s s tu d y by seven
d e s c r i p t o r v a r i a b l e s , was found to be d i f f e r e n t l y c o n s t i t u t e d th an
g e n e r a lly assumed to be th e c a se in t r a d i t i o n a l s o c io l o g ic a l th e o r y .
S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s were found t o d i s t i n g u i s h betw een th e s e two
ty p es o f groups w h ile v a r i a b l e s of e m o tio n a l a f f e c t , as measured
h e re , d id n o t d i s t i n g u i s h betw een in fo rm a l and fo rm al g ro u p s. T his
means t h a t f r i e n d s h i p , a f f e c t , e m o tio n a l in v o lv em en t, may. be found
to p r e v a i l in fo rm al a s s o c i a ti o n s a s w e ll a s in fo rm a l o n e s. T his
f in d i n g s , i f su p p o rte d by more r e s e a r c h , would c a l l f o r a r e th i n k in g
o f th e s t r u c t u r e and q u a l i t y o f e m o tio n a l involvem ent w hich p r e v a i ls
in fo rm al s e t t i n g s .
F i n a l l y , th e f a c t t h a t th e approach to th e c o n s tr u c tio n of a
c u m u lativ e Index of d i s c o n t i n u i t y proved to be s u c c e s s f u l im p lie s
109
t h a t alm o st anyone, s c i e n t i s t or p r a c t i t i o n e r , can l e a r n t o compute
such an index and use i t to s tu d y th e e f f e c t s of c u l t u r a l o r n o r
m ative d i s c o n t i n u i t y on s ta g e s of in d iv id u a l developm ent a s w e ll as
i-
upon ty p e s o f g r o u p s .
110
BIBLIOGRAPHY
B ecker, Howard
1932 "Four ty p e s of r e l i g i o u s o r g a n i z a t i o n s ." Pp. 624-628
in Leopold von Wiese and Howard Becker ( e d s .) ,
S y ste m a tic S o c io lo g y . New York: John W iley and Sons.
B endix, R einhard
1947 "B u reau cracy : The problem and i t s s e t t i n g . " American
S o c io lo g ic a l Review 12 (O c to b e r): 493-507.
B e n e d ic t, Ruth
1938 " C o n tin u itie s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s in c u l t u r a l c o n d it io n
in g ." P s y c h ia try 2 (May): 161-167.
B ogardus, Emory S .
1968 "Comparing s o c i a l d is ta n c e in E th ip h ia , South A f r ic a
and th e U nited S t a t e s . " S o cio lo g y and S o c ia l R esearch
52 ( J a n u a r y ) : 149-156.
Brim, O r v i ll e J r .
1968 "A dult s o c i a l i z a t i o n . " Pp. 182-226 in John A. C lausen
( e d . ) , S o c i a l i z a t i o n and S o c ie ty . B oston: L i t t l e
Brown and Co.
Brim, O r v i ll e J r . and S . W heeler
1966 S o c i a l i z a t i o n a f t e r C hildhood: Two E s s a y s. New York:
John W iley and Sons.
B ro n fe n b re n n e r, U rie
1958 " S o c i a l i z a t i o n and s o c i a l c l a s s th ro u g h tim e and s p a c e ."
Pp. 400-425 in E. E. Maccoby, T. Newcomb e t a l . ( e d s . ) ,
R eadings in S o c ia l P sychology. New York: H o lt, R in e h a rt
and W inston.
Broom, Leonard and P h i l i p S e lz n ic k
1968 S o c io lo g y . New York: H arper and Row.
C a rls o n , R. 0 .
1961 " V a r ia tio n and myth in th e s o c i a l s t a t u s of t e a c h e r s ."
J o u r n a l o f E d u c a tio n a l S o c io lo g y 35 (November):104-118.
Ill
C a rls s o n , G osta and K a ta rin a K arlso n
1970 "Age, c o h o rts and th e g e n e ra tio n of g e n e r a ti o n s ."
Am erican S o c io lo g ic a l Review 35 (A u g u st):710-718.
C lau sen , John A.
1968 S o c i a l i z a t i o n and S o c ie ty . B oston: L i t t l e , Brown and Co.
C lau sen , John A.
1971 "The l i f e c o u rse of i n d i v i d u a l s ." Pp. 457-514 in M. W.
R ile y , M. E. Jo h n so n , and A. F o n e r, Aging and S o c ie ty .
V ol. 3 . New Y ork: R u ssel Sage F o u n d a tio n .
Coleman, James S.
1961 The A d o le sce n t S o c ie ty . New York: The F re e P re ss of
G lencoe.
D ahlke, H. 0 .
1958 V alues in C u ltu re and C la ss Room: A Study in th e
S o cio lo g y of th e S c h o o l. New York;- H arper and Row.
D avis, K in g sle y
1940 "The s o c io lo g y of p a re n t-y o u th c o n f l i c t . " Am erican
S o c io lo g ic a l Review 5 (A u g u st):5 2 3 -5 3 5 .
1944 "A dolescence and th e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . " A nnals of th e
Am erican Academy of P o l i t i c a l and S o c ia l S cien ce 236
(Novem ber):3*17.
Donahue, W., H. L. Orbach and 0 . P o lia k
1960 " R e tire m e n t: The changing s o c i a l p a t t e r n . " Pp. 330-406
in C. T i b b i t t s ( e d . ) , Handbook of S o c ia l G e ro n to lo g y .
C hicago: U n iv e rs ity o f Chicago P r e s s .
Duncan, O tis Dudley, David L, Featherm an and B everly Duncan
1968 Socioeconom ic Background and E d u c a tio n a l A chievem ent.
F i n a l R eport S ubm itted to th e O ffic e of E d u c a tio n ,
Bureau of R e se a rc h . Ann A rbor: U n iv e rs ity of M ichigan.
Dunphy, D exter
1963 "The s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e o f urban a d o le s c e n t p eer g ro u p s ."
S ociom etry 26 ( J u n e ) :230-246.
E i s e n s t a d t , S. N.
1956 From G e n e ra tio n t o G e n e ra tio n . New York: The F re e P r e s s .
1962 " A rch e ty p a l p a tt e r n s of y o u th ." D aedalus ( W in te r):2 8 -4 6 .
112
E l d e r , G len J .
1962 " S t r u c t u r a l v a r i a t i o n in th e c h ild r e a r in g r e l a t i o n s h i p . "
Sociom etry 25 (S ep tem b er):241-262.
1963 " P a r e n ta l power l e g i ti m a t i o n and i t s e f f e c t on th e
a d o le s c e n t ." Sociom etry 26 (M arch):5 0 -6 5 .
1971 "A dult c o n tr o l in fa m ily and s c h o o l." Youth snd S o c ie ty
3 (S e p te m b er):5 -3 5 .
E rik s o n , E r ik H.
1950 C hildhood and S o c ie ty . New York: W. W. N orton and Co.
1959 " I d e n t i t y and th e l i f e c y c l e ." P s y c h o lo g ic a l Is s u e s 1,
No. 1 :1 -1 7 1 .
G o e r tz e l, Ted
1972 " G e n e ra tio n a l c o n f l i c t and s o c i a l c h a n g e ." Youth and
S o c ie ty 3 (M arch):327-352.
G o t t l i e b , David
1970 "The r i s e and f a l l of th e American te e n a g e r. Youth and
S o c ie ty 1 ( J u n e ) :420-436.
G u tte n ta g , M arcia
1970 "Group c o h e s iv e n e s s , e th n ic o r g a n iz a tio n , and p o v e rty ."
The J o u rn a l of S o c ia l Iss u e s 26 ( S p r in g ) :105-132.
H auser, R obert
1973 Socioeconom ic Background and E d u c a tio n a l A chievem ent.
W ashington, D .C .: American S o c io lo g ic a l A s s o c ia tio n ,
Rose Monograph S e r i e s .
H a v ig h u rs t, R obert J . , Paul H. Bowman, e t a l .
1962 Growing Up in R iv e r C ity . New York: John W iley and Sons.
H ess, R. D. and V ir g in ia Shipman
1967 "M aternal a t t i t u d e toward the sc h o o l and th e r o le of the
p u p il: some s o c i a l c la s s c o m p a riso n s." F i f t h World
Congress of C u rrif” »lum and Teaching in D epressed A re a s.
New York: Coluc. d i v e r s i t y T e a c h e r's C o lle g e .
H o llin g s h e a d , A ugust B.
1961 Elm tow n's Youth (The Im pact of S o c ia l C la s se s on Ado
l e s c e n ts ) .
K endel, D enise and G erald L e sse r
1969 " P a r e n ta l and p e e r in flu e n c e s on e d u c a tio n a l p la n s of
a d o le s c e n t s ." American S o c io lo g ic a l Review 34 ( A p r il) :
212- 222 .
113
K ish , L e s lie
1965 Survey Sam pling. New York: John W iley and Sons.
K le in , Malcolm W.
1964a I n t e r n a l S tr u c tu r e and Age D i s t r i b u t i o n in F our D e lin
q uent Negro Gangs. Los A n g eles: Youth S tu d ie s C e n te r,
U n iv e r s ity of S o u th e rn C a l i f o r n i a .
1966 , " F a c to rs r e l a t e d to j u v e n ile gang membership p a t t e r n s . "
S ocio lo g y and S o c ia l R esearch 31 (O c to b e r):4 9 -6 2 .
1968 " Im p re ssio n s of j u v e n i le gang m em bers." A dolescence 3
( S p rin g ):5 3 -7 8 .
1969a "Gang c o h e s iv e n e s s , d e lin q u e n c y , and a s tr e e t- w o r k
program ." J o u rn a l of R esearch in Crime and D elinquency
( J u l y ) : 135-166.
1969b "On th e group c o n te x t of d e lin q u e n c y ." S o cio lo g y and
S o c ia l R esearch 34 (O c to b e r):6 3 -7 1 .
1971 S t r e e t Gangs and S t r e e t W orkers. New York: P r e n tic e
H a ll, In c .
K le in , Malcolm W. and L ois Y.Craw ford
1967 "G roups, gangs and c o h e s iv e n e s s ." J o u rn a l o f R esearch
in Crime and D elinquency ( J a n u a r y ) :6 3 -7 5 .
K obrin, Solomon, Jo seph P u n t il and Emil P eluso
1967 " C r i t e r i a of s t a t u s among s t r e e t g ro u p s." J o u rn a l of
R esearch in Crime and D elinquency ( J a n u a r y ) :98-118.
K ohlberg, L. and R. Kramer
1969 " C o n tin u itie s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s in ch ild h o o d and a d u lt
m oral d ev elo p m en t." Human Development 12, No. 1 (no
m o n th ):93-120
Kohn, M e lv ille L.
1959 " S o c ia l c l a s s and p a r e n t a l v a lu e s ." American J o u rn a l of
S o c io lo g y 64 (Ja n u a ry ):3 3 7 -3 5 1 .
1969 C la ss and C onform ity. Georgetow n, O n t.: The Dorsey P re ss
Komarovsky, M irra
1962 Blue C o lla r M a rria g e . New York: Random House.
L a z a r f e ld , Paul and A lle n H. B arton
1951 " Q u a li t a t iv e m easurement in th e s o c i a l s c ie n c e s ."
Pp. 155-192 in D. L e rn er and H. D. L a ssw e ll ( e d s . ) , The
P o lic y S c ie n c e s . S ta n fo r d : S ta n fo rd U n iv e rs ity P r e s s .
114
Loeb, R ita
1969 F r ie n d s h ip A t t it u d e s and C u ltu r a l Conte . U npublished
monograph.
1973a "D isengagem ent, a c t i v i t y , o r m a tu r ity ? " S o cio lo g y and
S o c ia l R esearch 57 (A p ril):3 6 7 -3 8 2 .
1973b "A d o lescen t g ro u p s ." S ocio lo g y and S o c ia l R esearch 58
( O c to b e r):1 3 -2 2 .
1974 "Aging in open and c lo s e d s o c i e t i e s . " S ocio lo g y and
S o c ia l R esearch 5 8 (Ju ly );3 9 2 -3 9 8 .
M alinow ski, B ro n islaw
1926 Crime and Custom in Savage S o c ie ty . New York: H a rc o u rt,
B race,an d Company.
Mannheim, K arl
1952 "The problem of g e n e r a ti o n s ." In E ssays on the S o cio lo g y
of Knowledge. New York: Oxford U n iv e r s ity P r e s s .
Mar j o r ib a n k s , Kev in
1972 "E th n ic and e n v iro n m en ta l in flu e n c e s on m ental a b i l i t i e s . "
Am erican J o u rn a l of S ocio lo g y 78 (S e p tem b er):3 2 3 -3 3 7 .
M atza, David
1964 D elinquency and D r i f t . New York: John W iley and Sons.
1966 " P o v e rty and d i s r e p u t e ." Pp. 601-656 in R. K. M erton
and R. N is b e t ( e d s . ) , Contemporary S o c ia l Problem s.
New York: H a rc o u rt, Brace J a n o v ic h , In c .
M i l l e r , W a lter B.
1958 "Lower c la s s c u l t u r e as a g e n e r a tin g m ilie u of gang
d e lin q u e n c y ." J o u rn a l of S o c ia l Is s u e s 14 (no m onth):
5 -1 9 .
P a rso n s, T a l c o t t
1942 "Age and sex in the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e of th e U nited S t a t e s .
Am erican S o c io lo g ic a l Review 7 (O c to b e r): 604-616.
1955 "Fam ily s t r u c t u r e and s o c i a l i z a t i o n of th e c h i l d . " In
T. P arsons and R. F . B a le s , F am ily S o c i a l i z a t i o n and
I n t e r a c t i o n P ro c e s s . G lencoe, 111." The F re e P r e s s .
1962 "Youth in th e c o n te x t of American S o c ie ty ." D aedalus
( W in te r):97-123.
115
P e a r l i n , L. I . and M elvin L. Kohn
1966 " S o c ia l c l a s s , o c c u p a tio n a n d p a r e n t a l v a l u e s ." American
S o c io lo g ic a l Review 31 (A u g u st):4 6 6 -4 7 9 .
P ia g e t, Jean
1932 The M oral Judgement of th e C h ild . London: Kegan P a u l.
P ie fa y , E. F.
1952 "Boys c lu b s and t h e i r s o c i a l p a t t e r n . " B r i t i s h J o u rn a l
of D elinquency 2, No. 3.
Pope, L is to n
1942 " P a tte r n s of d e n o m in a tio n a l developm ent: Church and
s e c t . " Pp. 117-140 in M illh an d s and P re a c h e rs .
New Haven: Yale U n iv e r s ity P r e s s .
R a n sfo rd , H. Edward
1974 Race and C lass in Am erican S o c ie ty . New York:
Schenkman.
R e d f ie ld , R obert
1941 The F o lk C u ltu re o f Y u catan . C hicago: U n iv e r s ity of
Chicago P r e s s .
1947 "The f o lk s o c i e t y ." The American J o u rn a l of S ociology
52 ( J a n u a r y ) :293-308.
1953 The P r im itiv e World and I t s T ra n sfo rm a tio n . I th a c a , N.Y.
C o rn e ll U n iv e rs ity P re ss (C o rn e ll P a p e rb a c k s).
R e is s , A lb e rt J . J r .
1961 O ccupation and S o c ia l S t a t u s . New York: The F re e P re ss
o f G lencoe.
R ile y , M a tild a W. and M. E. Moore
1961 "A d o lescen t v a lu e s and th e Riesman ty p o lo g y : An em pi
r i c a l a n a l y s i s . " Pp. 370-386 in S. M. L ip s e t and
I . Lowenthal ( e d s . ) , C u ltu re and S o c ia l C h a r a c te r.
New York: The F re e P r e s s .
R ile y , M a tild a W.
1971 " S o c ia l g e ro n to lo g y and th e age s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of
s o c i e t y ." The G e r o n to lo g is t 2 (S p rin g ): P a r t 1 :7 9 -8 7 .
S e lz n ic k , G ertru d e J .
1968 " S o c i a l i z a t i o n ." Pp. 84-119 in Leonard Broom and P h ilip
S e lz n ic k , S o c io lo g y . New York: H arper and Row.
S h e r i f , M uzafer
1956 An O u tlin e of S o c ia l P sychology. New York: H arper and
Row.
116
S h o r t , James F . J r . , Ramon R iv e ra and Ray A. T enison
1965 " P e rc e iv e d o p p o r tu n ity , gang m em bership, and d e lin q u e n
c y ." Am erican S o c io lo g ic a l Review 30 (F e b ru a ry ): 56-67.
S h o r t, James F . J r . , and F re d L . S tro d tb e c k
1965 Group P ro c ess and Gang D elinquency. C hicago: U n iv e rs ity
of C hicago P r e s s .
Sm ith, M. B rew ster
1968 "Competence and s o c i a l i z a t i o n . " Pp. 270-320 in John A.
C la u sen , S o c i a l i z a t i o n and S o c ie ty . B oston: L i t t l e ,
Brown and Company.
S t e n d le r , C e lia B. and N. Young
1950 "The im pact o f th e b e g in n in g f i r s t grade upon s o c i a l
i z a t i o n a s r e p o r te d by m o th e rs ." C h ild Development 21
(M arch):2 4 1-260.
S u t t l e s , G erald D.
1968 The S o c ia l O rder of th e Slum. C hicago: U n iv e r s ity of
Chicago P r e s s .
T heodorson, George A.
1953 "A cceptance o f i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n and i t s a tte n d a n t con
sequences of th e s o c i a l p a t t e r n of n o n -w estern s o c i e t i e s . "
Am erican S o c io lo g ic a l Review 18 (O c to b e r):4 7 7 -4 8 3 .
Thomas, Darwin L ., and Andrew J . W eigert
1971 " S o c i a l i z a t i o n and a d o le s c e n t c o n fo rm ity to s i g n i f i c a n t
o t h e r s : A c r o s s - n a t i o n a l a n a l y s i s . " Am erican S o c io
l o g i c a l Review 36 (O c to b e r):835-846.
T o e n n is, F e rd in a n d
1940 G em einschaft und G e s e ll s c h a f t. T r a n s la te d and e d ite d
by C. P. Loomis a s Fundam ental C oncepts of S c o io lo g y .
New York: Am erican Book Company ( f i r s t p u b lish e d 1887).
Weber, Max
1947 The Theory of S o c ia l and Economic O rg a n iz a tio n . New York:
Oxford U n iv e r s ity P re ss ( f i r s t p u b lish e d 1924).
117

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Bam: An Innovative Change Model--Barriers Encountered In The Implementation Of A Classical Research Design To Modify The Behavior And Attitude Of Staff And Inmates In A Correctional Institution

PDF

An empirical test related to deviance theory through the use of dyadic interaction with the labelled retarded

PDF

Social Class And Attitudes Toward Sexually Oriented Materials

PDF

Social-Psychological Factors In Organizational Attachment

PDF

Political Skepticism And Alienation In A Sample Of Young Mexican Children

PDF

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

PDF

Organization, Conflict, And Change: A Test Of A Multivariate Model Within Two Types Of Simulated Social Systems

PDF

The Effects Of Generation, Religion, And Sex On The Relationship Of Family Vertical Solidarity And Mental Health In Lebanon

PDF

The Deterrent Effect Of Criminal Justice Agencies On Felony Offenses

PDF

Dying And Death Role-Expectation: A Comparative Analysis

PDF

Differences Between Cues In Effectiveness As Retrieval Aids

PDF

Anomy And Verbal Behavior In Task-Oriented Small Groups: An Exploratory Study

PDF

Incarceration And A Sense Of The Rules: Strategy Differences Among Juveniles

PDF

Class Consciousness And Social Mobility In A Mexican-American Community

PDF

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

PDF

The Selfish Self: A Social Psychological Study Of Social Character

PDF

Social Class Membership And Ethnic Prejudice In Cedar City

PDF

Social Changes In Selected Institutions Of The Ussr With Special Reference To The Family

PDF

Social Factors Related To Dentistry As A Career

PDF

A Typological Study Of Juvenile Correctional Organizations

Asset Metadata

Creator Loeb, Rita Ventura (author)

Core Title Cultural Continuity And Discontinuity In Adolescent Socialization

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Sociology

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,sociology, general

Language English

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Advisor Klein, Malcolm W. (committee chair), Kobrin, Solomon (committee member), Ransford, H. Edward (committee member), Weg, Ruth B. (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c18-746842

Unique identifier UC11356715

Identifier 7501069.pdf (filename),usctheses-c18-746842 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7501069.pdf

Dmrecord 746842

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Loeb, Rita Ventura

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