measurement of the pattern variables

Measurement of the Pattern VariablesAuthor(s): Peter ParkSource: Sociometry, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Jun., 1967), pp. 187-198Published by: American Sociological AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786226 .

Accessed: 28/06/2014 12:37

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Sociological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toSociometry.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 92.63.107.96 on Sat, 28 Jun 2014 12:37:24 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asa

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2786226?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Measurement of the Pattern Variables* PETER PARK

University of Massachusetts

The pattern variables are briefly explicated, and it is shown how personality and social role, both defined as aggregations of concrete acts, can be meaningfully tied together by means of the pattern variables. Responses to hypothetical situations constructed to reflect action alternatives of four pattern variables are factor analyzed. The factors so isolated define the pattern variable dimensions of personality, by and large, in terms of the expected hypothetical situations. The more salient of the hypothetical situations making up each pattern variable factor form a satisfactory Guttman scale. The validity of the resulting pattern variable scales is tested to a limited extent by relating them to questionnaire items reflecting the individual's behavioral orientations.

The concepts of the pattern variables occupy a central position in Parsons' theory of action.' They are the key concepts which analytically link together personality, role, social system, and culture. In particular, personality and social role are defined to be made up of concrete behaviors of individuals, a behavior itself being decomposed into pattern variables. This formulation promises to provide a potentially fruitful approach for the study of inter- relationships between personality and social role, provided that pattern variables can be meaningfully measured. The purpose of this paper is to explore methods of measuring the pattern variables.

PATTERN VARIABLES IN THE THEORY OF ACTION

An action in Parsons' frame of reference acquires meaning for the actor when he adopts a set of relevant orientations about the situation. Every situation, in Parsons' view, presents five pairs of "meaning" alternatives, and the actor's choice of one alternative from each pair determines his orientations. Parsons refers to these pairs of alternatives as the pattern variables.

* This paper in part reports the results of reanalyzing a portion of the data utilized in the author's thesis. See Peter Park, Problem Drinking and Social Orientation, an Un- published Ph.D. Thesis, Yale University, 1958, pp. 196-236.

1 The theoretical discussion on the pattern variables principally draws on: Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils eds., Toward A General Theory of Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1952, especially Part 2, and Talcott Parsons, Robert F. Bales and Edward A. Shils, Working Papers in the Theory of Action, Glencoe: Fress Press, 1953.

187



188 SOCIOMETRY

At the risk of oversimplification, the pattern variables may be analytically defined as follows: 2 The pattern variable of affectivity-neutrality consists of the alternatives of "accepting an opportunity for gratification without regard for its consequences, on the one hand, and evaluating it with regard to its consequences (and inhibiting gratification), on the other." 3 Particularism- universalism involves the alternatives of viewing the object of an action in light of the particular relationship in which he (actor) stands to it, on the one hand, and treating the object as a member of a general class to which it belongs according to the standards universally applicable to every member of the class, on the other. Diffuseness-specificity has to do with whether or not the actor is willing to involve himself with the object of action in a broadly defined network of relationships. In a social situation (that is, one which involves another person as the object of action), the actor may consider all facets of the other person (social object) as relevant sources of his interest and concern; or he may restrict his attention to a set of specific aspects of the potential relationships. Fourth, and last for the present purpose, is the pattern variable of quality-performance. The quality orientation refers to the actor's attaching significance to the attribute of a social object such as mem- bership or ownership; the performance orientation signifies the actor's placing importance on the social object's performance, whether already realized or potential.4

Any action, according to Parsons, can be described in terms of a particular combination of the pattern variable alternatives chosen by the actor. It can readily be seen that this descriptive procedure lends itself to a system of classification consisting of action types denoted by combinations of pattern variable alternatives.5

2 More explicit definitions of the pattern variables are to be found in Talcott Parsons and Edward A. Shils, "Values, Motives and Systems of Action," in Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 48 and pp. 80-88.

3 Ibid., p. 48. 4 There is still another pair of action alternatives referred to as self-collectivity, which

has to do with the actor's point of reference. This pattern variable, however, is regarded as occupying a special position in the theory of action and has been omitted from more recent systematic treatments of the pattern variables. For this reason, it will not be considered further in this paper. See: ibid., p. 94 and p. 96; Parsons, Bales and Shils, op. cit., pp. 52-53 and pp. 66-67; and Talcott Parsons and Neil J. Smelser, Economy and Society, Glencoe: Free Press, 1956, p. 36; Robert Dubin, "Parsons' Actor: Continuities in Social Theory," American Sociological Review, 25 (August, 1960), pp. 457-466; and Talcott Parsons, "Pattern Variables Revisited: A Response to Robert Dubin," American Sociological Review, 25 (August, 1960), pp. 467-483.

5 For typologies of "acts" involving the pattern variables, see Dubin, op. cit., and Parsons, op. cit.



MEASUREMENT OF THE PATTERN VARIABLES 189

In the theory of action, personality is viewed as a constellation of concrete actions committed by the individual, and as such it can be described by summary characteristics of the aggregated actions.6 It is thus possible, as Parsons sees it, to speak of a person's tendencies towards affectivity, particularism, diffuseness, or quality orientations The terminology employed in this context indicates that the pattern variable alternatives are to be construed as polar concepts denoting extreme points of what must be considered dimensions of variation, inasmuch as tendencies admit of variations in degree.

Parsons also defines social roles in terms of concrete actions and thus em- ploys the pattern variables for analysis of role structure. He conceives of a role as the behavior expected of the incumbent, the expectation supposedly arising from and prescribing the habits of persons playing the role. In a concrete situation, there are only four pairs of action alternatives, as Parsons postulates, and thus the role expectation dictates the four alternatives to be selected. Since institutionalized roles subsume actions generalized over a plurality of situations, however, the role expectations are to be regarded as prescribing the norms, or central tendencies, of choosing certain pattern variable alternatives.9 The role of a task leader, for example, may be said to be universalistic, neutral, specific, and performance-oriented in the sense that the leader is expected to choose these alternatives in a significant proportion of the situations which he encounters.10

The above framework presents a unified conceptual scheme which makes it possible to relate meaningfully personality and social role and to formulate fruitful hypotheses. For instance, assuming that the occupational role of a male adult is essentially that of a task leader in structure, it is reasonable to suppose that a man's success or failure in this role can be gauged in terms of his relative tendencies towards, or away from, the component pattern variable orientations.1'

I Parsons sometimes refers to these aggregates of actions at the personality level as "habits." See Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 89.

7 Ibid., p. 79. In addition to "tendencies," Parsons also uses the words "consistency of choosing," (ibid., p. 92) "predispositions," and "expectations" (ibid., p. 79). These terms, of course, occur often elsewhere in the work cited.

8 The analytical link between the pattern variables and role structure is explicitly stated in, Parsons and Shils, op. cit., pp. 80-84, pp. 90-98, and pp. 190-191. For an analysis of more familiar roles in terms of the pattern variables, see Harry M. Johnson, Sociology: A Systematic Introduction, New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1960, pp. 135-142.

9 Cf. Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 20 and p. 78. 10 Cf. Parsons, Bales and Shils, op. cit., Ch. 3 and pp. 146-160. 11 Cf. ibid., pp. 245-268.



190 SOCIOMETRY

METHODS OF MEASUREMENT

Stouffer and Toby 12 have proposed to measure the pattern variable of particularism-universalism as a personality dimension by the Guttman method of scale analysis. Their procedure was to construct four hypothetical situations and to determine, by means of a questionnaire, whether the respondents' action choices formed a scalable pattern. The respondents were asked (1) whether or not they recognized a degree of obligation to act particularistically, and (2) whether or not they were willing to act particularistically. Action choices, in each situation, were considered either particularistic or universalistic depending on the responses to these two questions which were combined to form a contrived dichotomous item. They showed that the hypothetical situations of contrived dichotomies were scalable on a sample of undergraduates. This result was successfully replicated by Mishler,13 Scarr,14 and Zurcher, Jr., Meadows and Zurcher.15

The present study seeks to measure all four pattern variables employing 24 hypothetical situations of the Stouffer-Toby model containing dichotomous alternatives of the "willingness to act" variety alone.'6 First, a factor analysis is carried out on the 24 items to obtain a factorial definition of the pattern variables. Secondly, a separate Guttman scale analysis is performed on each of the relevant sets of items thus defining the pattern variables. Since, according to the theory of action, any concrete situation contains action alternatives representing all of the pattern variables, whether or not a given pattern variable dominates a particular set of situations is a matter for an empirical investigation. Factor analysis is one technique which allows such a test. Factor analysis also makes it possible to determine the relationships among the pattern variables, an advantageous feature which is, of course, lacking in the unidimensional Guttman analysis.17

12 Samuel A. Stouffer and Jackson Toby, "Role Conflict and Personality," American Journal of Sociology, 56 (March, 1951), pp. 395-406.

13 Elliot G. Mishler, "Personality Characteristics and the Resolution of Role Conflicts," Public Opinion Quarterly, 17 (Spring, 1952), pp. 115-134.

14Harry A. Scarr, "Measure of Particularism," Sociometry, 27 (December, 1964), pp. 413-432.

15 Louis A. Zurcher, Jr., Arnold Meadow, and Susan L. Zurcher, "Value Orientation, Role Conflict, and Alienation from Work: A Cross-Cultural Study," American Sociological Review, 30 (November, 1965), pp. 539-548.

16 A full description of these hypothetical situations can be obtained from Park, op. cit., Appendix B (p. 327) together with Footnote 1 on p. 196.

17 Lingoes' Multiple Scalogram Analysis makes it possible to extract multiple scales, but even in this method the relationship among the scales is not determined. See James C. Lingoes, "Multiple Scalogram Analysis: A Set Theoretic Model for Analyzing Dichotomous Items," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 23 (Autumn, 1963), pp. 501-524.




Six of these hypothetical situations (#1 through #6 in Table 1) are constructed to reflect the particularism-universalism dimension of behavior. In each of these, the respondent, as the hypothetical actor, is given the choice of upholding a general rule at the friend's expense (universalism) or of making an exception to the rule because of friendship (particularism). In situation #1, which together with #2 and #3 are taken with minor modifications from Stouffer and Toby,18 the respondent is asked whether or not he would testify in court as the sole eye witness to a car accident that his friend drove through a stop sign. The others in this group are modeled after this example. The second relevant group is designed to draw forth the affective or affectively neutral pattern of action. In situation # 7, for instance, which is the prototype of this set, the respondent is asked whether he would accept friends' invitation to go to a good movie if he were in the middle of studying for an assignment due the next morning. He is asked in effect, whether he would ratify more immediate desires when confronted with circumstances requiring degrees of discipline. Items #13 through #17 are intended to evolve around diffuseness- specificity alternatives. Situation #13, for instance, involves the relationship between roommates, and #16 one between the student and the maintenance personnel of his dormitory. In #17, the student is asked to choose between two potential roommates, one presumably diffusely oriented and the other specifically. The last group is designed to deal with the problem of how the actor defines the social object in establishing a role relationship or in allocat- ing roles. The question asked of him is whether he places importance on alter's qualifications which are derivable from his achievements and are directly relevant for the requirements of the role in question, or on other qualities which are comparatively irrelevant; that is, whether he is performance or quality oriented. This is typified by situation #18, in which the respondent is asked whether as a hypothetical casting director for a play he would give an important role to a friend or to the best qualified; #19 refers to the same situation with the only difference that the rival is a publicly better known figure. Similar choices of action are given in admitting students to college (in #21 and #22) and in voting for class secretary (#23). Situation #24 involves a choice between two potential roommates, one a loyal friend and the other an achiever with a promise of future.

If pattern variables have been correctly interpreted by these hypothetical situations, items #1 through #6 are expected to define a factor (particularism-universalism), #7 through #12 another (affectivity-neutrality), #13 through # 17 a third (diffuseness-specificity), and #18 through #24 the last (quality-performance).

18 Stouffer and Toby, loc. cit.



192 SOCIOMETRY

RESULTS The data for the present analysis were obtained from a random sample of

1,047 male undergraduates from a New England university who responded to a questionnaire containing the items presented in Table 1. Treating these items as continuous variables of dichotomous form, responses indicating particularism, affectivity, diffuseness, and quality orientation were coded positively. The tetrachoric correlation was calculated between every pair of variables, and the resulting correlation matrix was factored by the method of principal-axes with l's in the diagonal. The first five factors accounted for 52.12 per cent of the total variance, the fifth factor alone with the eigenvalue of 1.54 being responsible for 6.42 per cent. These were rotated by John Carrol's analytical biquartimin criterion.'9 The resulting reference structure, which helps to identify the primary factors, is given in Table 1.20 For the purpose of identifying and interpreting the factors, it is convenient to focus on the loadings equal to or greater than .40 in absolute value more or less arbitrarily. These values are given in bold type for the first four factors in Table 1.

The first factor contains four of the six situations which were constructed to reflect action alternatives of particularism-universalism (#1 through #6). Items #3 and #5 do not appear significant. The second factor is defined by all the items which were intended for affectivity-neutrality (#7 through #12) and no other. The third factor is saturated with the entire cluster of items designed to reflect the pattern variable of diffuseness-specificity (#13 through #17) minus one (#17). The fourth factor is characterized by four (#18, #19, #21, and #22) out of seven situations (#18 through #24) which were framed to bring out the quality-performance conflict. Items #23 and #24 do not appear here contrary to the expectation. (The fifth factor is extraneous to the present purpose of defining the pattern variable dimensions and affords no meaningful interpretation.) 21 Thus, with only minor deviations from the theoretical expectation, it appears that the hypothetical

19 On the biquartimin criterion and the associated computer technique, see ibid., pp. 324-334, and Kenneth J. Jones, Multivariate Statistical Analyzer, mimeograph, Cam- bridge: Harvard Cooperative, 1964.

20 The result of graphically rotating centroid factors obtained from the same data was reported in Park, op. cit., pp. 196-236 and briefly summarized in Park, "Problem Drinking and Role Deviation," in Charles R. Snyder and David J. Pittman (eds.), Society, Culture, and Drinking Patterns, New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962, pp. 431- 454. The resulting factorial measures of the pattern variables were used as independent variables for explaining deviant behavior in the works cited. The present analysis, which completely does away with the subjective element in rotation, yields a much more clear-cut, and hence more satisfactory, factor structure.

21 It was retained solely for purposes of rotation.




TABLE 1 Oblique Pattern Variable Factors

Factors

Situations I II III IV V

1 stop sign .80 .03 -.17 -.16 .15 2 speeding .81 -.10 -.09 -.12 -.04 3 grading .33 .14 .07 .16 -.04 4 attendance monitor .49 .22 .20 -.06 -.19 5 reserve book .23 -.01 .06 .28 -.27 6 exam collection .50 .06 .08 .03 .00 7 movie/assignment -.00 .72 .04 .00 -.24 8 movie/quiz -.06 .91 .05 -.02 .07 9 date/quiz -.04 .86 -.01 -.16 -.24 10 date/exam .20 .73 -.17 .00 .09 11 bull session/quiz .02 .72 -.02 .10 .15 12 bull session/exam .17 .58 .07 .10 .35 13 helping roommate .07 .04 .68 -.05 .06 14 teacher to student -.02 .00 .51 -.01 .10 15 student to teacher -.01 -.13 .62 -.06 -.10 16 college guard -.09 -.02 .56 -.03 .03 17 roommate choice (1) .26 .18 .29 -.00 .17 18 casting/friend -.07 .00 -.14 .87 -.08 19 casting/better rival -.14 .03 -.07 .79 .16 20 friendship vs. opportunity -.03 .05 .21 .12 .48 21 admitting friend's son .39 .04 .03 .45 -.45 22 admitting alumnus' son .34 -.03 -.05 .47 -.51 23 class election .26 .05 -.14 .18 .12 24 roommate choice (2) .13 -.20 -.01 -.02 .74

NOTE: This matrix constitutes the reference structure.

situations define four reasonably clear and distinct factors reflecting the four pattern variables. For practical purposes, then, the relevant hypothetical situations for the four pattern variable factors are: #1, #2, #4, and #6 (Factor I, particularism-universalism); #7 through #12 (Factor II, affectivity-neutrality); #13 through #16 (Factor III, diffuseness-specificity); and #18, #19, #21, and #22 (Factor IV, quality-performance).

A Guttman scale analysis was carried out on each of the above sets of hypothetical situations defining pattern variables. The results of the analyses are summarized in Table 2. The sets for particularism-universalism and affectivity-neutrality scale satisfactorily. The diffuseness-specificity set falls somewhat short of the customary reproducibility coefficient of .90, but it displays a respectable minimum marginal reproducibility. The quality-performance items, though showing a relatively high coefficient of reproducibility, can be seen to suffer from poor item marginals as reflected in the high minimum



194 SOCIOMETRY

TABLE 2 A Summary of Guttman Scale Analyses

Coefficient of Minimum No. of Pattern Reproduc- Marginal

Items Items N Variable ibility Reproducibility

1, 2, 4, 6 4 948 Part.-Univ. 93.5 67.7 7-12 6 995 Aff.-Neut. 93.5 74.6 13-16 4 999 Diff.-Spec. 89.5 65.2 18, 19, 21, 22 4 983 Qual.-Perf. 94.0 80.5

marginal reproducibility. The scales are each formed of only four items, except for that of affectivity-neutrality which consists of six. The small number of scale items, however, is not a very crucial weakness in this instance, since the linkage among the items is established by a criterion independent of scalabil- ity, namely, factor analysis. On the balance, then, it appears that the scalabil- ity of each hypothesized pattern variable dimension is reasonably good.

The correlations among the pattern variable factors are presented in Table 3. The largest correlation (.25) obtains between Factors I and IV which correspond to the hypothesized dimensions of particularism-universalism and quality-performance. This is a reflection of the fact that some of the hypothetical situations are relevant for both factors. The next largest correlation (.20) is observed between Factors I and II. Neither of these correlations is sizeable and the rest are really negligible. An orthogonal rotation of the prin- ciple factors resulted in a factor pattern which is identical with the oblique structure in all important details with the exception of two hypothetical situations (#21 and #22) which show significant loadings on both the quality- performance and particularism-universalism factors.

DISCUSSION

A factor analysis of 24 hypothetical situations which were constructed to provide empirical interpretations for the pattern variables resulted in four distinct factors, each of which was essentially characterized by the situations hypothesized. This result, though providing a measure of internal validity,

TABLE 3 Matrix of Correlations Between the Oblique Pattern Variable Factors

Factors 1 II III IV V

I 1.00 - -

II .20 1.00 - III .02 .08 1.00 - -

IV .25 .14 .00 1.00 V -.05 .01 .01 .03 1.00




does not, of course, guarantee that the dimensions underlying the factors are indeed the assumed pattern variables. For instance, the fact that all of the situations supposedly reflecting the affectivity-neutrality conflict involve studying as a common denominator might have brought these situations together in one factor; other artifacts of similar nature might be responsible for the other factors as well. No such extraneous influences, however, assert themselves to the extent of entirely vitiating the interpretation of the factors as pattern variables. Nevertheless, if the pattern variables are to be empirically defined by a factor analysis of conflict situations of the type considered here, it is clear that more extensive and varied batteries-including real life situations-must be experimented with before a factorial definition of the pattern variables can be accepted with any degree of confidence.

It is noteworthy that one of the two most important items in terms of item marginals (and factor loadings) in the particularism-universalism scale, the "speeding" situation (#3), figures prominently in the Stouffer-Toby scale of the same pattern variable 22 and the other (#1) has essentially the same ingredients of conflict only with speeding changed to going through a stop sign. The remaining items in the scale are also closely modeled after the prototype, as noted earlier.

It is also interesting to note here the results which Scarr 23 obtained from a factor analysis of hypothetical situations involving particularism-universalism. He treated the aspect of obligation recognition separately from that of willingness to act and came up with a general factor indicating willingness to recognize particularistic obligation and distinct factors for willingness to act particularistically in specific situations-one for the situation involving paper grading, another for the reserve-book room, etc. The particularism-universalism dimension which emerges from the present analysis is, of course, mani- festly defined in terms of willingness to act rather than willingness to recognize obligation. The findings presented here thus tend to temper the impression created by Scarr's work that the pattern variable of particularism-universalism can be operationally defined as a general dimension of behavior only in terms of obligation recognition in hypothetical situations.

A unidimensional scale analysis of hypothetical situations presumably per- taining to the particularism-universalism conflict, even when successful, does not preclude the interpretation that the underlying continuum represents a combined personality disposition of, say, particularism-affectivity-diffuseness- quality orientation, as Stouffer and Toby justly pointed out; 24 for any concrete situation embodies action alternatives in all of the pattern variable

22 Stouffer and Toby, Ilc. cit. 23 Scarr, loc. cit. 24 Stouffer and Toby, loc. cit.



196 SOCIOMETRY

dimensions, some of which may be more prominent than others. The multidimensional method of factor analysis was employed to cull out these domi- nant components and to define them as separate pattern variable dimensions. Since the complexity of the hypothetical situations in the factor structure by and large approaches unity-that is, each hypothetical situation is loaded on one and only one factor, ignoring small factor loadings-it may be assumed that the factors defined by the hypothetical situations delineate distinct pattern variables rather than some combinations of them.

Parsons has suggested that the pattern variables at the personality level are independent of one another.25 The measures of the pattern variables presented here pertain to personality, and seem reasonably independent of one another in terms of statistical correlations among the relevant oblique factors. As a matter of fact, the factors were also successfully rotated to an orthogonal (independent) structure without changing the interpreted pattern variable content of the factors, although this increases the complexity of at least two situations to two.

The validity of the pattern variable scales obtained in this study was tested by a limited number of independent criteria. For this purpose, each scale was scored by the simple method of weighting positive responses to the scale items uniformly with 1 and then was dichotomized as close to the median as possible.26 The relationship between the dichotomized pattern variables and the criteria variables was investigated by contingency table analysis. This phase of the inquiry was based on the data from a random sample of 160 taken from among the students participating in the main study.

The students were asked: A. "What is your usual study pattern?" (1- Usually abreast of work from day to day. 2-Tend to be somewhat behind work. 3-Let work pile up.) On the assumption that a steady work habit is an aspect of successful adaptive role playing of which universalistic orientation is an important component,27 it was expected that this question treated as a variable would be positively related to particularistic orientation as measured by the Guttman scale. The contingency table formed for the purpose is statistically significant (p<.05) as expected.

Affectivity-neutrality, another relevant component of the adaptive role 28 should also be associated with this question; i.e., greater proportions of affec-

25 Parsons and Shils, op. cit., p. 89. 26 The four scales are dichotomized as follows: universalism=[0, 1, 21 (51.1%),

particularism=[3, 4] (48.9%); neutrality=[O, 1, 2] (42.1%), affectivity=[3, 4, 5, 6] (57.9%); specifidty=[O, 1, 2] (46.2%), diffuseness=[3, 4] (53.8%); performance=[O] (57.7%), quality=[1, 2, 3, 41 (42.3%).

27 Cf. Parsons, Bales and Shils, op. cit., Ch. 5. 28Ibid.




tively oriented students should be found on the higher end of this variable. The actual relationship obtainable from the contingency table supports this sypothesis (p<.01). Where the affectivity orientation is concerned, however, the following question is more germane: B. "Do you ever oversleep so that you miss morning class?" (1-Never. 2-Seldom. 3-Occasionally. 4-Fre- quently.) Once again a positive relationship was hypothesized, which is statistically borne out (p<.01).

The following two questions were thought to be relevant to the pattern variables of diffuseness-specificity and quality-performance: C. "Before you make an important decision, do you talk it over with (1) at least one of your friends, (2) your family?" And, D. "Do you feel free to talk about your personal problems with (1) at least one of your close friends, (2) your family?" Each question was accompanied by five answer categories indicating degrees of interaction, separately for friends and family.

An anlysis of the relevant contingency tables reveal that, as expected, diffusely oriented students tend to consult their friends before making important decisions (p<.05), and quality oriented students tend to feel free to talk about their personal problems with their families (p<.05). But, contrary to the speculation, consulting the family about important decisions is not significantly related to diffuseness, nor is feeling free to talk to close friends about personal problems to quality.

It may be conjectured that important decisions of the college student, in his station of life, often implicate family considerations which are more or less independent of his orientation toward his family, whereas it presupposes a special kind of attitude (i.e., diffuseness) for him to discuss them with friends. On the other hand, personal problems of the student, who is on the threshhold of adulthood and away from home would be discussed with friends almost as a matter of course, while it would require a special attachment (i.e., quality) for him to take these problems to his own family.

CONCLUSION

The pattern variables invite measurement attempts because of their potential usefulness as elementary concepts in social psychology and sociology. They are measured in this study as personality dimensions by means of responses to hypothetical situations modeled after the Stouffer-Toby prototype. In departing significantly from the initial attempts by Stouffer and Toby and others, which have been concerned exclusively with the pattern variable of particularism-universalism, this study seeks to measure all four pattern variables, and hence the hypothetical situations are constructed to reflect action alternatives of four different pattern variables. Factor analysis is used to isolate the pattern variables as separate components of the hypo-



198 SOCIOMETRY

thetical situations, and each pattern variable dimension thus defined is measured by Guttman scale analysis. The multidimensional method of factor analysis affords a kind of internal validity to the extent that the pattern variables are defined factorially in terms of the specific hypothetical situations. There is also limited evidence that the pattern variable measures ef- fected are consistent with independent indicators of these concepts, which provides a degree of external validity. In sum, it appears that a meaningful measurement of the pattern variables has been obtained. The findings of this study, however, are based on a sample of students from a single university and on a limited range of behavior-mainly hypothetical-all centering around student life. Both factor analysis and Guttman scale analysis are sensitive to the effect of selecting variables and populations, and the problems associated with the use of hypothetical behavior are, of course, classical in social psychology. Much more empirical work, therefore, is needed to stabilize, refine, and further validate the pattern variable measures obtained in this study.



measurement of the pattern variables

Documents