vrntkum IN SOTGROU? VAUJI ORXMISFFLM am

GOOBKISS OP FIT WISB BCMUIANS CUI.T8R1

APPROVED;

( ) U ,

Major Frol«»»or '

Minor

pmmmtoiiociology Director o'i

F R / F R A A J /UG I cMsJl Beat of the (fctdvafe School

nmmnm m wmrnm vmm mmwmmm §m

teowmss m m mm mmmm amms

H U B

Pre.tented to &* Graduate Council ©f the

Sosth f & m State tteiw*«lty is Partial

fulfil hmmt of ttte K*.quir<ai*ut8

For ttwi O*t?roe of

NABOB m scusgr

sy

3* Daniel Karriaon,

Vemm, ff-TMu

196 f

imm m mmism

%Mt Of MSttf . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , v

mt m • n

CSbflfcjpfc&Y

i, mamcum . . i

scat»<i«t of th« Psobic® fsaaw of EeC«t®ei? Hypothec 1$ $Q6ffi3$gy Chap&ei BlMtetXfiptif

a . mvsas&w&i a s

{toaplu Pretest SaaviiQii XntcrvtEWere •Sfeati»ite«l httbods of Aoftlyais Swwary Chapter Blbliogcaphy

m . mmm® sm w i s s m n c B 9 s m 46

Kithia Gre/vp ic-gwiartfeles

8uneuu.y of Eerolts ©I tigo s t a t i s t i c# ! Au&lyecs of Baft® frota the Megrc Sanplc

Sumncy ol tfeb Results* a£ the Sta t is t ica l Jswiiy#«« of Date free fii« white §a«g>l©

SMWRSff of oi At Statistical Analyse® fro* tis« fsfcbi«trlie«l4y p$£x«4 Suspl^

Sumaary of Keauit* of fcha Sta t is t ica l ioalyaes from the S»p«ix«l Snap I#

BetHfeea Group Differences

Secwc&a Gvoup Differences aa A«*iya«4 by the Graphic Method; I tea hy I tea

B^tvocn-Group Differences as Analysed fey the Graphic Method; Cosopaaite Craphe

i i i

*•%*

t&K- ABOiyB-fB of VcrtlJORtf tSHl ttftatolftlQti Uy Ori«nt*tioo

llMattry of th': Aneiyutt; of Varlimcc

e c w c a i s M * • . . . . 33

&PJIM&f€B8

A* Kluckfcobn*a Value Oric-atttion Jjaatruraont: . . 87

B» Modified Value Qr ien ta t ioa Xneuiswat . . . . . . . . . . 103

C. Ac U»8m?r Twenty ~®id Xtac Screening Znd«x of

fiifrMisf&ie 8f»|sfce®t U5

®* letter* to Pveapo®d«at® H i

E. l e t t e r s of Xntroduetloo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

S B U t t U W , 122

lv

u s ? m s u m s

Tgble Page

1% Set fmdtf tsMmgi Visits nftei Eum&Sim* f-m

teltet# of Callus Public Housing . * . . . . « 26

11. Geamts 0n«« m f«wsi©«* fweta 102 «*! 103 ,1© P«ll«9 . , . . 2?

III . DisfcrUmtioa; S ^ l e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2d

XV« Diafcrlbatioa fi;t¥e«t«g» of Jteapies and ttelwvsea . « • * 29

V. ISiitasiMta® (it t*stt&e,lV& S Is®* &l oa tib® S«l«t40»tti IwSesc, W«U I tea • 33

W. Csrspariaon #1 Ec«ul&« ca* AeiUtiosial Value Oritfatetioa

for Zntwrvlcw&rs A «Ki S . . . . . . . . 34

VII. Calculation of £ XSM® 14-20s Sepr© Dafc* . * • . 42

f i l l * Qaleulatioa of Analyst* of Vcci»«e Eel«clo&*l Index; .

Jtegr# fosi#t A &3

IX. U * ScbcOulct ifceas® 49

X* BatWRCm-Grouy Hlffereaiseii ## fry tfa« Het&ed of of Vtttia&ee . . . . . . . 72

u s t m xxjuiszKAxturn

Wigrnm Page

t» Cradle Display of I lsiiMa§# of tturct AltstsMtivast

Hcgro Ksspoxtfcnts , 3fc

2» Crap&ic Analysts nff Vi«fcitt«6vcui? Sceuieritics: Bt-fccc . « . . , 51

% Reauits « ! tbc A m i j m » of the Sfc£ra Beta §2

4* Cxapbic Awlygts of Witkic-Crou;> legsl«ltit'sj White S4

5* R#a*ifc« of Ac itaees&iii An&ly»e» of ffe» Uhite Bat* 55

#. Graphic Analysis of Witfaia-Cvroup iU atarifciiMU 8alap«ired ©TOttp %&

7. Keaiiit* of th# Hi&omial Analyse* of Uniafwired Group ©tten . » » 5#

S. Graphic Analysis of fcejMlaritieej Impaired

Croup SI

S* Ie#«IW of tfec Biaowiai Asiily®«>3 -ef the X»ptti*e<i feowf? Sat* • . &

10. Graphic Aaalyeic of tbc iatsw»^mif E©l«fel«ai 0riea«#tioa • . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

it* 6*«|?feic tottlytif of Ii:ti#eeo-Gs-3t%> ?<atporal Orieotatioo . . . » , . ##

12, Graphic JatlyMs of 3£>iffetr«ae«6t Ha»~H«tu?e Orinataticm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

13* Graphic Analysts of Differencest tetlvlty ocicBtatiss « it

14* Sraphic Aaalytti* of fcttwoeft-Group Difference** CoNposit** Graph# . . * • . . , , . 70

15. Valued taatatioci Profile* 80

Wi

aaApym %

wmmtmim

Statement &£ tfa® frefrl«a

9M purpoaa of thie mm*mt* M m tav»atl§iat# certain. vain® oriea-

tatioaa of adult m e n ©« to® aocto-ecoooo»ie atatua ia Ml%m$ tmm,

Ceatral to Cite approach to value* relied upoe la this waeateb project

mm a coaoara for cultural lategratiea and dting#, ©f iatereat waa «

partial d«Mxlptlm of the degree of cultural lattgMtion and a partial

deecrlpttoa of g trains that aviat within Hit social ty#t*»» wwier analy-

tic: a group of 50 Begro tmea and a group of 50 whit* M O M .

Kluckhcfea** theoretical ftranavorfc wm chosen because of it« dynamic

aatvre ia contrast to the aore static, descriptive, polor types (e.g.,

&a*iaachaft*€eeellecheft) oft*® used in discussions of cultural values*

With Kluct&oha's theory it via possible to approach any culture sod com*

p«re it vith aqy other or to approach say part of a particular culture

aad eoaipara it with aaother part, the reason irtiy thia ia possible ia

that bar theory maintains that ktmm problems axe afallar T r e v e s etey

are found. Xt alao aalataina that iter© are only a lisstted ountet of

aolotlwM to the#© problearn ma tha t ail of than arc «®«flife!* t» #«efe

cul ture (aasi subculture). U » aim. of 14MS theory la to feel? place is m»

4af the dooiaaat and variant values of cultures or parta of a culture,

this dynastic relationship betweea the dominant and variant value erieata*

tloaa (not oaly acceptable hut at tiae* required by the system) provide*

the flexibility aad special usefulness of thia theory. W i l l i m Caudill

I

has said that Kluckhohn's theory of variation in value orientations

" . . . may help to bring greater clarity to the problem of culture

change by avoiding the trap of either-or propositions while still allow-

ing for systematic and empirical treatment of data" (3, p. 54).

the major concerns of interest in the present research project were

1) to determine the dominant and variant value-orientation profiles of

lower class Negro and white women and of persons who are mentally healthy,

from each group, and persons who are mentally impaired from each; 2) to

determine differences that exist in the value profiles of these four

groups; 3) to analyse the relative goodness of fit of these four groups'

rank ordering of value orientations with that of the dominant culture;

and 4) to discuss the relationship that exists between lack of fit and

psychiatric impairment. Other concerns of interest were as follows:

1) to find out if the Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck instrument, developed for

use in rural or folk cultures, could be used in an urban setting; and

2) to determine whether Kluckhohn's assertion that the instrument will

differentiate between subcultures was true.

This study was partially replicative in that it was based on the

theoretical framework developed by Florence Kluckhohn (1) in years of re-

search and theory construction, and culminating in the book Variations in

Value Orientations* jointly written by Fred Strodtbeck. ! M s book is a

concise formulation of Kluckhohn*s theory of variation in value

orientations, and includes a statement placing this theory in context.*

Incorporated in it are findings from comparisons of the value orienta-

tions of five "Rimrock" cultures in northern New Mexico. The value

orientation interview instrument** used in the present project was de-

veloped for the Rimrock research, and was slightly modified for present

purposes.

This study was not replicative of the Kluckhohn-Strodtbeck work in

several respects, however. The concern here was with different universes;

i.e., subgroups (Negro and white lower class, mentally impaired and men-

tally unimpaired) rather than with five rather distinct cultures.

Slight modifications were made in the value orientation research instru-

ment in order to deal effectively with these subgroups. A very clear

departure from Kluckhohn and Strodtbeck's research was the subgroup dif-

ferentiation regarding mental health. The present research project

compared the value orientations of persons who are mentally impaired and

persons who are mentally healthy. The Langner Twenty*Two Item Screening

Index of Psychiatric Symptoms Indicating Impairment*** (2) was used.

Frame of Reference

In order to make the nature of the theoretical framework explicit,

it would be useful to review briefly Kluckhohn's (1, pp. 1-2) formulation.

*While it would be been desirable to have seen Kluckhohn*s theory in the context of other work in this area, and to have dealt with the areas of comparison and contrast that exist between these various theor-ists' works, this could well be sufficient material for at least one other thesis. However, Kluckhohn does present the theory of variation in value orientations in terms of other theoretically related work. For this present study, Kluckhohn's theory will be briefly presented because it is the framework upon which the study is based.

**See Appendices A and B.

***See Appendix C.

%m this theory of value orientations, I t i® reaaonad tiut a "systear of

*eaniage'v or 'baeic values" exists in each culture. Shis "gpstea of

mattings" wks called fey others ' uaconecious canons of choice1* (Beaedkt),

"integrative theaee" (Opter), sad 'ethos* (Redfield). t* w» p»esuR«d

that theee values ««« patterned, aa* that the value tystas of on® cul-

ture varied An mi ordered fashion fro« the eyeten of any other culture.

Wm ®s|er concept ia lUuafefaolm** ttMMjr ia Wl»> flcJa**ifcft«MU

glucfehohn defines mlm orientations as

. * , eaaplex but definitely patterned (rsah-ordered) principles, resulting fro* the transactional latttplijr of three diatineuishafele eUawate of the evaluative process — the cognitive, the affective, and the directive clenenta »- ufeiah give order Mil 4ixmUm to Hm everflo ing stream of huoea acts earl thou§hts as these relate to

solution of «onm human problene (3, p. 4).

Hie emphasis I s upon patterned intraHsultural regular i ty mmI lMac«enlta>*

ral variation. Xlucfehohn (3, p. 5) oakea clear that her theory places

these principles on a continuue of degrees of awareness, with no lees

enphaaie tip on the emmimm tkm the uaccascious or ientat ions.

Hw evaluative protest is a process tifetou^i tlae and not m static

s true twee* It includes the cognitive eleaent (existential presdses of

«h«t people believe to be true), the affeeftiv# element (aor»tlve a$mmp+

timm as t» what is tight smd proper), and ite directive elanent (princi-

ples sAlcfe guide or ctnttwl behavior). KlucUtalia say# fwrtN* that

. . . 4« appears an irrefutehle fact that nhat a people believe to fee true (axiatantial presiises) is strongly influenced by their norm-ative jMdpwata aneS that conttar fcfiae the noraative aaaiMptiaaa as to what is ritfbt and proper are never truly separable from the exis* feeatial premises (3, p. 9).

f® RlvMohhohn (3, pp. 6*9) the directive eleswat is wore crucial to the

value orientation theory then either the cognitive or the affective ele-

stents. Kluekhobn suggests that it ie from the cognitive and affective

elewnta md their lnt«ml«ttoo«hipa that a group's value system d«ci«ci

it® content, in both existential preaises and sonwtlw assumptions. lie

eo^dtivi and affective eletuents of the «vtl««tiw process sake truly

Iimmui. behavior possible. fh© directive element of the evaluative

orders and system tines the value system* ftlf directive eleaent w t

only |lvci continuity to the uhole m l m eyste* but mlm aakes possible

the selection snong value iy<twM, »irmtimmm milm® for the develop*

vent of unity between the cognitive *nd affective elewenta of tbe process.

Kluekhohn amplifies this relationship by ><yls| that

sssy given value system of traaan being* ha© feotb a content and a direction ihiiii derive from biologically given capacities and pre* dispositions but em not instinct bound, but it is the directive aspect sJhicfc is the noat ct«ci»l for fcto understanding of the integration of the total value syste® awl its continuity through tiaw. (3, p. 9>*

Kluekhohn (3, p. f) suggests the* she integration of overt behavior

la theaatic. At vnluea held by ttc persons in a culture influence all

social behavior in varying degrees. Patterns of thotgbt and action in a

culture generally give expression to all of the value eUnseats ainultan*

eoualy <3, p. 342). though it is only very aeldoa that a behavior

pattern la not isfInamead by <me or ©or# values, the degree of influence

of a particular value is at present indeterminable.

the continuity of culture over tins is posaible because "Mea#' or

"teohni<(ues,,> whether invented, borrowed or fcsposed, are nore often

adapted to the current value ®y®Km or wayt of behaving th*8» destructive

of that aysfcen. When television enters a culture, for exanple, it is

absorbed. It dees not change basic values, but provides mm ways of ex-

pressing titan, which is not to inply that cultures do w l change in their

bssic values <3, pp. 9*10).

the process of evtlttiliae the eon tent and direction of v#JU#e orien*

tattoos of mltwnei U difficult, but not iapoiilbU. tbe MttnptiaM

underlying this assertion are that there is order in mltwml life and

that it is observable. Another saeunption if that order cxtiti in die

evaluative processes of htMnsu liwIMte fetter asserts i&tefc "the

eaecptles of ordered variation in value orientations is eimtlti if lit

are to steer a safe course between the k y l U of ineluctability and the

Charybdia of ranpant relntivianf* (3, p* 10).

Xaportant for the classification of value orientations are three

further assumptions. Hie first aestmpticn ie that #11 societies at all

tinea oust find solutions to • . . limited Mother of coaetoa human

probieae . » #** (3, p. 10)» Ifeis it the universal aspect of value orien-

tations already alluded to, the second aseunpticn ia that the variety of

possible eolutiose to tibiae prdblews ©re liadted sad not raflMto** Hie

third aasunptlaa ia that uhile each society theoretically hne access to

all of the possible solutions to these problems, they are differentially

preferredt mi a historical experience t*i*to any nay even preclude aware*

ness of another. Ihia third aaausiptlon ia the key to the analytic of

wari«£lo» of value orientations. KlmMbota <3, p. 3) ttnggatt* each

society haa not only a set of ' dontnant' value preferences, hut alao a

set, or profile, of "variant" or "substitute" values. Both the dominant

value profile and the variant profile are generally ranked in a hierarchy

of iaportanee, accord ins t© Kluckhofcn (3» p. 342).

Kluckhohn <3, p. 10) has tentatively chosen four problesHr* m m

to #11 tew gr®ttpe» Us e a © general problem mem cm be identified in

the for* of questions. After each question Kluettofaa'i title to the

problem area is given, md will he uses! hereafter in the discussion to

reference to the total range of variations to these four value orientations*

"Hhafc is the relation of mm t<s »at*®e (aad aupernature)f

Bature (3> p* 11)* The alternative* in this diaenaioa are

derived f w * history and philosophy and iaclu&i #wb jugation-to-nafcure,

harsioay nvith-nafcure» and swsfceryK r-iiafcttre. If, for example, a person

conceives of hiaself aa being at harmony -with-nature, aa aanag t he IMmfeo

Xndiaaa, than there i* no real ##pas?atiaft of m m , tmtaasre and wfernitswe*

for Chia person. One aape«t of tho trichotoay ia «r<atly realiaad a*

m extension of the ofchssr for this person ami m conception of eanplata*

naaa or irtwlanaaa ia realised froa their unit/ <3, p. 13)* To the Navaho

ohild there i« no essential difference or discontinuity b«(»iw bisself,

the land on which he Uvea, and the spirit world. Ha does not feci sub-

jugated, nor does he try to master his enviroiiaMmt.

"Hbat ia the teoporal focus of buwm life? (Tiae orientation)'4

<3, p. 11). Ota possible range of variation in thia orientation ia past,

preaant and future, each of which »»§* he dealt with by every society*

Each society way have a different rank-order preference of the three*

Kluckhohn <1, pp. 13-13) aays that tweh can be understood shout a society

®r e m a part of a society, and «neh e m he predict** about tiba direction

*fwe other problem «r««s are mmtma-d hy KtacUMlia (hwm-fM&ura and space), one of which (bunsn-nature) is discussed at aos» length. Bo questions as® included to the instrument to explore either of ttese proh» 1m areas.

8

of change, through m understanding of the rank-order preference pieced

by a group m these parts of £he temporal iimmimm.

"Vhat i« tb Modality of hunan aetlvlt}1! (totMtjr orUstitlaa)"

<3, p. 11). tbe range of alternative choices la the solution to tbis

problec includes teeing, beisg-in becoraing, end doing. Kluckfretm

(3, pp. 15-17) suggests Cb«t this (!»•••««; dUtioatloa Is In m my*

like Charles Mertii' classification of personality mmpmmtm ttt "Wo-

syitn" * a *# . . raleiM and indulgence of txlitiag desires"

(3, p. IS) • would b® enconpassed by tbe being ovltBtttiotti the "Appolioa*

ienM - . .the personality is given to containment cud control of de-

sires by mans of neditation end attachment" <3, p. IS) • a component of

the being-in-becoming orieutetioa; and the "Srowiethean" * described as

"active" end ''striving" * would fall under tins doing; alternative. fhe

being orientation is not concerned with tihat can be aeeowplished hut ra-

ther with «Sm« a person is. U*e beiag-in-beeeisittfi orientation shwm

titia enphasis en what « person is but also includes stress on the kind of

activity which is directed toward tin development of eelf as an integrated

whole. Muckhohn sups that «te® doing orientation 4mmi& activity which

results to aecosapIielwaenc Which earn be mmm&A by €»fc©ra®l societal

standards (3, p. 17).

"What is t§w» nodality of «a»*s relationship to other «sn? (Relational

orientation)" (3, p. 11). This value orientation baa three subdivisions!

tbe lineal, the collateral, aad the individualistic. Kluctthohn (1, p. 11)

was influenced, «h« developing the relational alternative, by the way

diefcotoaoa® ideal-typical concepts fr»» both anthropology and sociology

(for exaaple, Ceneinachaft-Gesellsebaft, by Sonnies), each witfe an

eophasis upos either £be indivUiwllctlc or the col lect ivis t ic systea.

Ecil i i isg that n i l societies and subgroups ere cogttisant of *11 dire* of

the relational ptltuiple«, Kluckholm aseerte that the purpose &t these

concepts i s to smfoe . . Hue distinctions feotih within and mmm ayt-

t«w . • ." (3, p. 17) rather than to generalise about gross inter-systew

differences. Klucfefcoha (3, p. 18) says that laost of tfta ''polor-types1

are too "dtMripl iw" and too "stat ic" to be uaed in studying the dyaaaic

relational social order.

If fa a pcrticolar society the iodivl<i<i«liitle principle were eapti**

niaei, the goals of the individual would take primacy ©wt eh®®# of

specific collateral or lineal groups. Ibis doee not wean free license

for the individual but * • that each individuals responsibility to

the total society and tits place i s i t am defined in «#**» of goals (and

rol«*) wtiieti ere attraetuvcd as «t!l(WWW| to tl*e mme of being i®iepead-

eat of lineal and collateral groupings" (1, p. IS), the wan in American

business l i f e , for cxaspie, ia expected to cooperate with others «ith

who® be mtk» who, like fete, are interested to staking wmiy and gaining

prestige. Mill* the individual ia interested in Making ooacy, he la sup-

posed to hem a potft&ve atti tude toward the organisation unt i l he i s

offered more snoey or greater prestige (3, pp. 16*19). M euapU front

the Kluckhobct instrument of die person who places higher value on the

collateral or the i t e a l m U fee Me siw dbweta to divide ijtterlteti

land e<fuaily anoeg siblings sad let each do as he sees f i t with his own

segnent. the collateral choice would cal l for the oaiutenanee of the

land aa a whole and the choosing ©f one person, not necessarily the oldest

person, to wattage the group property. the lineal principle would ca l l for

10

tlie oldest sibling to asnage the land m * unit for the u>le group.

Other tssmfIm can fee mm la «ha mmrnnk iawcnaamt.

A culture ititoti e»pb«0lM0 colleterelity «*P»i*n* of it# wotett a

«ar*aft« deference to the "laterally extended group," 8*»©b as siblings or

etfay kinanen, both la teres of goals and Wtwwtoir* Hit® collateraUty

produce© a degree of independence of on© group fro® similar ones

(3# p. 19)» Hi® kind el social group uhich depends on laterally extended

relationships to the mat tmrnAUm of all groups to tine and iipw®.

In Addition to the Individual and the collateral dtaisniions, each

society wet teste into necownfc the fact that the tatftoidMt* la the. to-

etoty are related to each other biologically and culturally through timu

Kluckhohn says "that there to . • « always a Uaeal principle in rela-

tioMhlps wbidh «r* dcrlwt* fro® b&tii the biological glmm &t #§« rnd

generational and frost the fact of continuity"

<3» P« I®). *ftw» thto ftimipU to given preference in a society, not

only are group goale given priority over individual goale* but continuity

tte group through ete mi ©wf#ri»§ positional metaste in t§i« group

fceeaw crucial issues. the lagltob relational orientation, for esasple,

etaphestoee Hne lineal by placing particular to^rtance upon die «rtots©»

cracy <3, p, 18). the United State* leans toward the other end of the

contimusb, having *» aristocracy, stmalsg individual goals in life end

urging its children «* leave Immm a»s§ becraae mtmtyHtaA* Xm lineally

oriented snetottoa Ch« system is niHwitf baaed ap«a o««»<s such as prtae*

geniture or it to oriented to a kinship structure.

Kluekhohn <3( p. 341) saye that the following theoretical fonaula-

tiona be deduced in part from At bailie aasuHptiona underlying tfa

11

theory of velm orientation*, sad #im to part frm the cles«iflca£iati

schema which sfe® developed coaeernliig fete conceptual of the

theory. Piret and «®#f laportaafe secortling to RlueJthoha (3, p. $42) ID

the proposition that tfet wuUtlou in value orientations of a culture

«re an interlocking network of dodMae «mi ver£«Kife value oirieofca&JUats©.

"flse second tanjot proposition is tfeat 4iff«r»M«s that appear he.tmm «fe@

value«or ien tatto® systems ia two culture* (or tubtultwei) art not abso-

lute. t«dk of theee propositions i« clarified ia tike (ollowliig

paragraphs.

la a gives culture certain value orientation* nqr be cither per-

Bitted or retired hy the lyitm. An individual in the United States,

for awMpla, mm vfooom to teec®®® «a academic intellectual, rtww#s this

is not the typical choice. This variation, while permitted to the ladi-

vidual, is required hy the social system, for sane ecadeaic intellectuals

are essential to the stability of the ays teat and therefore each genera* t

tioa wit recruit eon* for this sphere (3, p. 31). tteae no**typical or

variant are mt sisply idlospiwrafeic 4ejN®rt**«s ftm «t«®i«

nmt values* but are theaselves patterned and always gain their owter

fro® the tedbswt orientation*.

Aeve ia # fa^taey to ®rcl eoasi8fe«cy within a systm uhieh i©

. a prevailing i«fluattee of owe typ« of risk aedterlag upon variant

ordering* nfeiito have the sane ccwponent parts" <l» p. 342). for exaraple,

if nost persona in a culture prefer lineal over collateral and individual

patterns* then thia «J«8ia«nt rank ordering «w»M iallwtc© the fmraea ifeo

night chooae to rearrange theee elenents of the relational value-orienta-

tion wales. Bane***, m wafter ton variant or doKtamt a peraon's value

orl«atatit» appears to fee, •when the mm%m is fete complete social syefceta

bit values Ave sever completely w i n k or coaplefcely dooiaamt.

Kluckhoha (3, p. 31) «gr« tb«t ©««§» p«rm'« pcriuMUty iaeludto « oer-

u l a raak ordering of wine orienttkiflM, and tbls profile evtdaaeee

itself la a parson's l i fe ftvMgh variable allocation of tiae and iatw*

eat in activities fro» several bebavior iphevei* aad in variable bebavior

within tftaaa apfceres, So tenriem fwiaasftsm, for aaanple, apearfa a l l

of bia tine ia business activities. Imimmmm a l l participate* at one

time m another to wee degree, te a l l other spheres as vail*

fcludkboha (1, pp. 31-32) sees this shifting Area sphere to sphere ee

a couplex variable sotlvatioul ifctttetw® as well as a vartattea ia m

individual** value mimi&ttm* Imm though tfeaaa variant value orienta-

tions are I s f t a M i and pattmed by the dewinant value

their prlaary function is syste* uaiatenance* For if everyoae conformed

by ordering bis values ia accord with the douiaant value profile, then

fuaetloas necessary for syetea a«riAfe»»aiicn yete w l consistent with fctie

doninaat v«lue*«rimutlaB profile wsuld go unperformed and there would

be a© ssaiieiews m sead©»ie Intellectuals.

(3^ p, 43) nafces a distinction between changes in the sye»

mu ibieb are elaborations of dominant t mud Changes

which aaee «o41flealtifiWi ia the wmf mmm of value ordering® thetaaelves.

A "potential" for change is not the "cause** and therefore

*8eh*vior sphere, as used by Klneg&otin* caay be though of as wore or less well differentiated kinds of activities that are essential to lite successful functioning • society. Behavior sphere i® used la place of die wore cowaoaiy used tern, social institution. In Kluckhotm's inetru-aent» uaed ia !#*© present research, four bebavior spheres are used: the econo«ie»oe*upetiooal» religious, tbe xecreational, aad the int«llee~ t^l«^aatiMMti«*

* * . only very rarely is a basic change is a culture solely eke product of either tfee evolution - the unfolding - of the vnUtiont or the lapact of m external fores . . • T but 3 . • » is t*a«*lly» if oot always, the result of the interplay of internal vn-riatleas and external force* vfeiefe are tewlvet variable <3, P. 43).

Hw? second najor deductive preposition Is that differences which

«#pe«t to exist between tito i»lwe-o*ieofeiti«« By&tmm to W e cultures,

or m m k » « ®«grae»i® coexisting in culture, ate not absolute*

These apparent differences are representative of posaifelit rank erdariags

of value-orientation conponente that exist to ail calfcuses at *11 tines

(3» p. 342). If for exoaple one culture iaBk>or4ct< the teaperal orien-

tation m pest >*pre*ent >future end soother ranks it as present future 7

past, these differences are *imply different ranking* of prefereoees that

exist in all cultures.

KlucUboha (J, pp. 342»3) singled out «s» types of societal 4iffom*

tlation which appear la all societies: "subgroup" end "behavior sphere"

differentiation. Bxaaplea of subgroup differentiation are regional eth-

nic, and class differences between M. . . fairly veil Marked out social

units" 93, p. 342). Behavior sphere differentiation includes differences

in such categories of nativities as the economic-occupational, the reli-

gious, the latellecutal-aesthetic > nod the recreational behnvior spheres,

often called social institutions. KJLucbhohn says that behavior sphere

differentiation is . . differentiation of the broad category of acti-

vities which me essential Cas defined by each culture3 to the ftawfclaa*

iag of scqr society" <3, p. 342). From culture to culture the variety and

washer of subgroups differ, but they are present la all cultures. Ibis

ie also true of the degree and kind ©f differentiation of behavior spheres.

* w > w is used to t»eaa "preferred to.M

In tows w f i i e t i t i the extent of d i f ferent ia t ion i s so g»c«t that the

behavior sphere interrelationships aa*« tmmm* In nany others, and la

tanst pre l i tera te societ ies , two m sssore of tins## spheres mm f u n d fe»

tho agfcant ttwfc the dist inctions betide® then ®r© destroyed. XlneMtatai

says that " . . . hammx exttem . • * these tendencies ssajr bis, tfea

cluos for an analytic defceraioation ©f Mbiwi®»-S|i*e«e diatlMfctOBs and

i a t m v l i t i o M h i p a are always presant" <3, p» 342). I t i s always posaibl*

m distinguish the m&t behavior or sphere® in a eultur#.

Hit® 1# aceoap lishigd ttewigh otwwrving tite comparative prntmm elahora-

tioo of one sphere « compared to others.

Of m the use of a vaiue«orI*nt»t*«i theory ie knowledge

of b#awter«s^h«f® di f ferent ia t ion • both the nutahar of t ^ t e i and the

relat ive l ^o rUMC of each • because behavior-sphere di f ferent ia t ion

sesm to be aaaoeiatad with va Uwor tea tat too prof i le variation* for

taap^te, in the miM4U e l mm ta tit* united States there 4# an aaaoctattaa

hetwaan Hw Mtaiftfc vaiws oricntatione of , . Xftdlvlduaiiaa, tufcw©

tt»e» Mastery «over«*iiatur e, Doing, Evil (ot Good'and-Evil) v and notable

hunac. aalaacts* Willi a w e t extensive elaboration of 4a tfe®

sconoaiotedno logical behavior sphere" (3, f . 343). Another exiwpi* i s

the tradit ional Spaniah-Anerican society (one of gut Risnrock cultures)

4ascribed by Kluekhofen, which i» dosdnsntly oriented . . townrd Lineal*

i ty , timet* S«fejwg«tie«i*to-S«t:w«J# Being, and. CkKritam£«4Btril Mtatoie

h«—"» nature • . .M (3, p. 343). Ihia Spani*h«Anerieaa valuatorlentation

q n t a i haa, la contrast to the Middle claaa ia d » United States, a pro-

nouaced laaphasl# upon the fusion of two Mwwlmnil th» religious

and tbt s e c m t t o t t l .

15

A specific: example of the interrelat ionship betneea subgroup dif»

(nciUttioQ in a culture, and behavior-sphere differentiation to Che

M culture, my be seen in th« um by an of the re*

creational sphere (« second-order Muivlor sphere ia Middle class

iMiks} as a path to occupational «weca» (* first-order middle clam

ItKrieo value) <3, p. 343)« Klucfehohn Mjrt that B. . . If the Ittlitt

is to become a th«oti®h*«#&$®t ntddle-elaee African In hi* basic values,

lie wist move fesaa bis sm* first order sarefaicenen* to «h«t teas Iim III

the f«t his tfctrd order en* least favored value choices" <2, p. 70).

Kluckhotm goes ok to say that this type of a ©inmga to value preferences

U wry difficult for anyone to sake and that atteapts to oake

such a ebift m % productive of problem. She stoat difficult of ell

changes in that fro* a value position that mm leaat favored to that of

the nost favored* Host sdLddle class Americans do not use the recreational

aptunra as a Mans to occupational success. Bontwr« the Ifcaliaa-A£»sric«fta

place «acli greater enphaeis upon the recreational sphere, a legitteate

first choice for theat.

Kiucfcfcotm'a ftHNwy of value mimt&timm- km tmm «t>§i»6to«wt «m»

pirically la the Rlaroek research. Hie results of thia research are, to

Kluct&oim** worda M. . . sufficiently conclusive to vwrront according

the vaLue-orientation theory aa independent status to studio* of human

behavior" (3, p. 363). IS* ate of this theory ia to enable the ordering

of dominant and variant values on at least two levels* the cultural and

the eufecultural. Kluet&obn <3, p. 363) claias that the value-ortontation

theory is not United to its cultural application alone. Utile an inter*

relationship and m interdependence exists feeween cultural toterpr««ai-

tions, social structure, sod personal behavior, yet these tfcree

sty

phenomenological lewis are wot integrated. Ihe vaiue-orientation

theory can fee used to study all three* However, the existence of cul-

ture can only be seen In as touch as the individual's behavior, attitudes,

values, motives, and perception of reality become evident in interaction

systems developed by the individuals, m well as in the products of human

behavior. There is no part of human behavior which is not influenced by

culture, and basic values are particularly influential. Kluckhohn says

. , . the possibility of understanding the interrelationships be-tween the systems increases in accord with the degree to which the analytic distinctions between them are recognised, thus, when speaking of the use of the value-orientation theory as a tool in the analysis of social and personality systems, the only elate we make is that value-orientations strongly influence aspects of both. However, we do contend that for an analysis of the degree ami kind of Influence exerted by basic values the theory of variation we have elaborated and put to a fairly severe corse-cultural test is a far better tool than theories which treat oaly dowlnant value orien-tations of a culture (3, p. 364).

The value-orientation theory makes possible a more complete under-

standing of such widely used concepts as differentiation and the conform-

ity-deviation dichotomy. Differentiation, an important concept central

to many societal analyse®, can be mote fully understood when the value

system to which it is related and by which it is influenced is understood

as a set of dominant and variant values, rather than as a system of domi-

nant values alone, the conforalty-deviation dichotomy can be strengthened

by the variation theory. Although the fact of variation is quite often

recognised by those using such concepts as deviation and conformity, the

theoretical In contrast to the empirical Importance of variations in

values is generally ignored. Consequently the concept deviation (whether

in reference to a process or a personality) often subsumes both persons

defying acceptable norms, and wmy other persons whose behavior leads to

17

the acceptance lad adoption of ml«#». tt«f« values, uhile wot: dominant

In the culture, nay be quite eecepfca&le « a t leaet tolerated to i m i t t y .

fieviatioa, as I t is often used, really only c*p«w@f the. "going

part of fete social process. ffee variation tiwwsiry suggest® that the

"going toward" aspect of Hi® process is pact of the nocwel operation of

Sanely, A i t variation i t #tn®ps present in both total cul-

tured md subcultures. fhe Itallan<xAciieric«® ntioned alwve* in soaking

the A l f t la value ^nl«teftc«i fro* Itellaa-Asanrlcsn to middle class

temtlGm* mm mt ttsviag toward a value tyifcwi nfetalk la totally alien to

m different fro* their owt. Conversely, as they hmmm deviants from

their Xtalian*Anerieatt value system, they are not completely alienated

fran that system either <3, pp. 364»S).

Utile differentiation exists in a l l cultures nad while deviation can

he constructive aa well aa destructive to the ayeten, cad vhile these luto

indicate a place lor the study of vsariationa in individual personalities,

behindi these special applications of the variation fcfaeery to tli« "central

is&uis," t&e atwty of cultural iategr ntewi «id change. ElweMwtei states

this strongly by ©tying

Unless we i m the nature of the integration end tew also tie araaa of s t r a i n within tfe© 8y«tes «faieh bring about tints- of much of the variation ia else system, fche« ia m $ mmh fftteh can be fvcdiatad about tfe© influence of the vaiwe-cfieafcetioa 8j®t«» upoa either the Social structure or the personalities of individuals <3, p. 3«>.

the thrust of tCluci&oha aid StiecKltbeck' s SJaamek research, sad of

the present study as well, is directed toward understanding the decree o£

integration, and the strains that exist within the system ( i . e . , the cul-

ture in tlm tterock ae«4y, and subculture in the preaant «c«««eh). Wm

valtte«N3*ient&ti«» theory asguet that a value ayafteaa Includes an

U

interlocking mtw&xk of doadoaat aad vc r i» t win® potitton®, sfeicfe di t-

to only in that tiiqr are a different ordering of tbe s m » S of value-

orientation t l t e m t i v e t . Variations la tfca dominant orderisga are

neceaaarily both pexwitted and required to allovlabi atrtiaa in dw #ys«

tarn, Xbeae f lxt iM are produced by the preeaure exerted by the dominant

Ofteatatt©** upon categories of individuate let the «y»fce» to confess® fee

tfce 4o«iaa»fe wins ayste®. Variations la tfee mim*®*: iea&atioa rankings

4a&tibi potential* for etumga la the ®y@fee% alttwugis these w l ® 6 i «

are not the Major aonrce of Amg# la tiuawlvet. individuals nho play

variant roles « e tmre eaeeeptifele to mttmwml tmilwmm «St®» pereaas

vicfe the ta»t»aiK& orientation, playing doMfaaxtt ret«*» ^erefore, baaic

efcangea ia a eultvrc (!•««» changes in the veiue«o*ientatioae and not

merely further elaboration* in febe tnwe value®) mMm mem* TH>e» b««ie

clmngcs do eaawr, they aire eaueed fey tfcc wmu&h* iafpaet upon that ays*

t w of a l o m or {om>, external to the system of values. this la*3a

to A t interplay of t3» ftarae and the internal variation* fis®

question of the degree of influence mti tite kind of astataal ftarea

to bear in a ehange that ic basic 1® too largo a question for conaidera*

fttm* in this thmiti.

9m importance of Kluefchetui's tfeaory i« that i t auffUMa«t» etfear

theories. Kltwkhflfat <3, p. 366) sMfcae abundantly el».«r that tite theory

of val«e«©r4*mt*t40»® ia not to be thought of a» s»re deterMiaietie tfeaa

• another theory. With the variation to val«»-oiri#stttt-i« theory i t is

possible to establish syatev relationships at other leva la of aaalyeie

thaa the highly abstract "general-aysteas" theory of taleott Pm$mm (5),

19

tor example. the vmimim Amry cm help to differeotiate vbat Should

t»« Included la git© ge»eral-ay»fcea« typ® of attalyais. Hm variation to

mte-ariaafcafctoo theory la but one way of amktmg gmt of the aolutioa

to the pKrt»le» of tfc« of systems.

lawtiwp theory which aeeks thie goal, on * lover level of ebft*ac-

tion than the gemml-wymmm tfceorfM* ia John SpUgtl'o (6). Hie

tikmtry viavs the w l « s H M la she greater eoeial iyaiwsi as com*

poisest parts of m "tsmsmtlcw-l field." Hii« theory weald swgpt#fe «fe«t

She different eye terns my well km* conum properties, tswfc they mlm hem

particularistic propertiee. Hie fact that each i j i t e s baa p*qpa*ttM

particular to that qr«t«i denaada individual conelderation of that ayaten.

Concern far clenenta camtm to *11 sy®«f»» i« preeent Is tfei® approach

hat to • Utwr degree te tint required by the approach

(3, P. » 7 ) ,

Hit variation in valu@-orleatafcioa theory i s quite «4tl»

Spiegel*e traaaactioaal field approach at mil* Ktact&ota iadlaatea

tfea.lt » isapmpm* concern ia the d#*etepnant: of the

theory wan Unit of

. , . m reeoaceptualiaiag feb© theoriea of baelc mlma, cultural titanta, mrnmeUm canons of ehote©* thai: tfeey eoutd fee wx&e mm mmmfel® m m articulation with ftfeeovia* cme®xm4 with lite amp other factora which influence fatnas behavior C3# P* 567).

ByiKJfcliesis

the pretest research project ia a study of the doalaaat and variant

value orientationa of four groupa on the «d>group level of differentia-

tion, iacludiag the following diviaiona: tmtn$ including m Iegr» aosf a

vfeite group, and mrnml health, l w taking aa iapairwd grotp a»f an

uelapaired grew?»«* the persons included la the waste! health iwtsWowa

are ftb© saoe m in the rteitl, including «it asewtaiiy legv#«s

and whitea in one group mad ail impaired persona fro» either racial group

In the- otter,

there 4s no atteftpt «ade lft thie study to test Cluettboim'i theory

directly. *fl» «gw®8«t; that ther® are regularities la avfrggiHip wine

ordering* and that tkrc mm b«tve«a the rank ordering of

mwwml m&gsroupe, will be fceetei la that ifeft ttwij? M e w its«U wiH*

at&Srotipa mi their values. la order to illwai«Rt« data gathered with

l&aekholm'* value-ori«ae»feio» instrument, i & M itself wm developed eo

teat her theory, and la order to explain the eottatime of this study de*

ve loped ffoa Kluekfcohn'a theory, tile theory net briefly spelled ova:,

4 elear depart!*®# fro® XXis»Mtota*e ftlsKoefc wgeareij ie division

l«tMa person© ufao art taen tally healthy and persons who ere tepaired.

Klucbbohn <3,pp. 342-4) has indicated that, while «irid>l« behavior end

vieifitt valued help ta sustain the $y®tm % euMliiofttag H» *t**£tta within

it* these variant value ocderings contain Hi# eeede of change* *ereona

playing w U U roles ate more susceptible to external influence Him

those playing dominant roles. Ktual&elia (3, p. 43) has iaplied that a

fairly sustained impact of one or mm mMtml forces upon the system

<a*l therefore apm the individual) ie likely to lead to basic changes in

values. Iluckfcotm nays fchat

&*fSs« wan of tint M m awbgrowp ia regard to fete ssetsfcal health fereafe* 4mm let for leek of a batter tem. Groups of persons *ho are Mentally iap«t**d or wmttaily healthy «r« mt nw>lt wirked mife serial wsles" but for the purpoee of this leeseareh ttsey will fee i«b#tef fecMURtse they are parts of a tartar unit.

21

without denying tfeat there is actual conflict of this and other Mnis C externally laposed 1 , w that nucb ®* «bat looks like conflict i s often just m expression la b ^ t d o r of the lodt< vidunl's vnriettMi ia value ofUst i t ioni . Moreover If dur« is serious conflict f t is m indication Hum; the value-orimfeeti«m structure of the individual cither 4# mt ordered or 4# constituted of or to iags ibieb conflict vlth each other (3, p. 32).

b p l U i t ia t&ia theory i s the idM tb«t aantally impaired persons

«kif i wlya® love change*? (if they have Itewt ted variant value

profiles and b«ve played variant: rotes prior to sustaining the iiap&ct of

an cxtacatl force. If *» the present study i t i s found Hut there i s a

patterning of the m lue-orientations of She aentally impaired |?ro«p»

KlacUMla,« theory would suggest that because forces external to the ays-

tan interacted with the? variant person's value syafc©», the person's

value orientation < l s p j . Another possible interpretation is that the

so-called tepairee group i t stofe impaired but that their behavior i s

sinply evidence of a variant value-orientation profile. Conversely, if

there i s no patternins in the value orientations of the Repaired group,

then no pattern has developed end perhaps the causative forces w « too

diver*« in each toltvMwil's case to j«r©#»ee value ordering* that care

patterned. An ««Sfflpl« of a petmm subjected to externally iisp.o©e«l con-

f l i c t which wight be productive of tiapairsMsnt would be the ebild of the

taeigrMt «fe© is socialised within the tastily sttmm&s ia «e»»d with %

mlm orieatation, swf who Ia school and by other m m (mass

media) is taught a widdle class American value orientation (3, p. 32).

She hypothesis be-ins tested In this research project is thm the

aseiwilation process of subgroups into a dominant culture will vary in

accord with the degree of goodness of f i t of their value-orientation pro-

f i l e and that of the doninant culture. She suggestion is that the closer

22

Ifee value*o?ieatati®a p r o f i l e o f «&e swfegwwp €«se» to matebiag tfeafc « f

the doniaaet group the maimt w i l l be l i te aeaimi lat ion pvoceaa o f Hint

group teto tfea do&lnaat cu l tu re .

b order to t e * t t h i n fcypotheaia i t wm to l « « m tt»« value

o r lm f t t t i ena o f fete dooiaant cu l ture ( t o tibls £*«.•» a idd le claas Asserte©)

a«^ the fo»r tufepmifMi mules' considerat ion. to i t t f e rea t i a i ^ p i o M b to

t h i i problem uas iKfeeaptad ba«aMae of the d i f f i c u l t y I n deteraia ios o p l r *

i c a l l y Hie ra te o f M t i a l U i t i o a aod/or the r e l a t i v e d i f f i c u l t y faced by

Una lour groups. Hwtt i e i f fete hypothesia atated ufcove i f fowl to fe#

<M«r«te , die subgroup w i t h the clo®t#t f i t v i U be the teciCbkitt M *

swais®• t&afc mental i t a t ieasfe « e t&at « group has

encountered d i f f i c u l t y u a i R t l « t i « g i a t o the doetamt cu l tu re (2 , p . 69).

Sumvmry

l a tills e$u$>f&¥ the problem urnier #«aly®l« h m stated m be t$»

teat iag o f t iM hypeti tMlf l that the closer the v»UM>or i«8t«t to i p r o f i l e

of a nbgeovp i t to d t i t o f the dotxtaeat euifcwa tix laaa d i f f i c u l t i e

i t e proe«M of aee ia i l a t i oa . S»e Kluekhobft theory o f v s r i a t i o a i n value

o r ien ta t ion i t @pelle4 out i n order to f a c i l i t a t e she- *«#3«r#@ wader-

stendiag o f the re la t ionsh ip be twees the s»robla» asxi a t t e s t e d aaeneir.

B r i e f l y , Hut theory m p i l g tiuik there are a l i a i t e d o f taatit

problem® t© l i i i f i * a l l peoplea a t a l l t inea a n t f i a d eolut ions, md t l i a t

th®*?# are a i t e i t e l aissfeer of uitiv®r sa l l y avai lable mlmtrnm to ttotum

prablaaw* ®t© profeltwut dea l t w i th ta t h i s reaearch ata mm*® mlafetaft*

ship tee nature er eus«niafcur<s» b i t teaporal focus, feta wwialifcy o f

a e t i v i t y , wA his re la t ionsh ip to etfeer turn* fee w i I w ^ r t e B t a t i w pro*

f i l a a o f the four aubgreupa uader caalyale ere coopered v i t h the p r o f i l e

23

of the 4cmlmm, tot» siiiiefe it is mmxmi tfenfc thmm w&gtaotpa

«re sttMffiag to mQimitettG. If th<t hf§Q&m®k® la torn## the® Hi# a«b-

gsoufi with elotett f i t wi l l btt «£te he«ltfele«t acri tii# m&grmtp t»,®t;

different fro® stie 4©a »«ttfc group will be fch« ©out te^sired, dsewis i

Uut *ent«i Aitwws one iaj>*lr*c»t i s m Indication of dif f iculty .

j>» %IS> -IwJl) <»

1, CftudiU, Willtae mi Barry §mm* "Mpmmm fain® Orientations «od Culture CSaMg*," gf^»e|gf,y.« I, t (1962)» S3-tl»

2» Klwitato, fknreece llosiMDod, "Vanity BtagaesftM 1# flKiatiMUi la ibe l*sic falwftt of FoBiiy Systcai/' fe^Aitl <^«*wrfe» S K S (1956), 6»-?2.

tot J s a M , ad (kmmm* II

3* KltMldbobo, Flor«ao# « 4 fted l», Strcdtbeck, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Oricm)Eaf>ioa®» Evan*ton, 111., Sew# Peterson «nd

4, fengae*, Himm» S. t "A ?w*f«ty»tt*o Item gomaslag Score of Psychiatric Sy®pfc<®0 Indicating Xng«lr»c-at," Jotorasl of Ig|&& M I M S I f t o t o r , m , A <!#«>» 269-76.

5. ?«r9oos, I*i«ott «ad Edward A* Sfeils, editor®, Wmat6 gtefgy Asifclafa mmmtm* III«» Harper Mi M PtMieters* l f § f T

6. Spiegel* Joha P., ,fA Wodel for &ei*tlccal*lp« Jwag Sy«t«M,w ttWSfl a mifi<ri ttwa» 6jf H a y Mtoy^r* edited fry Roy su Oriidter, W f « £ C f t t C T < ! « ) » 2»

24

aiAwmi tt

*ffl@EK8Wt

tass^le

A t preaeat etudy m® 1MHM4 m interview data collected fro® 100

saapaaMta wmMim 4a tt» lower class public iiowin® project** Fi f ty

of tfca r*»iswf»i«gi«# live Sa "Vaabiagton Place," ntwwt population i t

«hM*et**ia«tMaiy vbit*, and f i f t y live in "Boaelaad Heaiee," a Hogro

dewlofmestfc*

Originally i t had few® decided that Hi® housing projects to tm

suwled for Hit® f e s e m l would be wo titoaa bcwadirlM eolswsMa perfectly

wteb cc^suu tvatta 102 «ai 103 in Baila® County* f k U mmU 1mm aoablrt

the vm of wag**# la ta to describe fts« population* from lAiefe Sh# saasies

WMm taken. m fete- #ivi«s of t t e *11## lowing Authority, kmmmt9 i t

W» decided tlutt i t noul4 be better to work i a a d i f f t r m part of tow*

Boaee, i t «w not poaeibie to describe vi tb exactitude tfce larger popu-

lation* of uiiich tfee boas tog project* ure e pert . But aadi jwojiwfe w

ooBpoeeti of people wry aneb like those la tract* 102 and 103 respectively.

Ifee 99*73 per ea»t «bite group in t ract 103* mM the 95.93 per cent aoo*

*Hite group ia t ract 102, reflected, if not uodere»ti»at*d## the

* H m Ammmimm m&tt «hiie in Soaeland WasMiagtcm i t would «t«® ttuit tins 4.04 per c©at whit© figure for the tfegro project ia quite out of order* M the vbite projeet i t becawt apparent that there mm mm persons of Sdstia American daaeant* Hie of the project ©aid &w& there net# 12 families out of 34?, uhicfe i s 3.4 per ceac. So l a t in As»rie«as were iaterviaaiaS because their wNfca* mm wmll md there m e al to language, time ao& aaway prehlawi that p«*t*il*i«»i>J tfasif

26

homogeneity due exists within Del U s Public Housing projects 0)*

In Dallas Housing Pevelopswnts, including 6,372 fasil; units

in 12 projects (I), the m m finally imam for 1965 m§ $2,100. 9m

mitzimm allowable mt Mmtly Incmm titer exeoptlons (See Table I> i@

set ofi a scsile depend log upon the nuaiier of children in tfee faRiiy. The

rent paid by a resident increases vith increased income. If a family

«sra8 beyond the mkImb, they are a®fce«J to leave. Hi® mean family wit

rent per softth paid in 1965 was $34, including all utilities (6). there*

fore, residence in Dallas Public Housing indicated vith reasonable clarity

owe1# financial statu# md was « convenient mmm® of a peraon'e social

class (6).

TMU: I

mi fMihx ixom UMfs MM& tmmti&u f o r mmwares m mm&b m u c boosxkg

Nuaber of SfeiMr#® Helta .Continued 0«*»*ip«ncy

1 or a $3,000 $3,750

3 or 4 3,900 4,125

5 plus 3,600 4,500

Xn splta of the ccoaeuic homogeneity in each housing' developawrnt,

there was great divergence apparent in the life styles of persons living

in Bellas Public Housing. For example* one how nay have had fine furni-

ture in excellent condition, and easy other objective indicators of a

<slddle*claes style of life, but the apartaent next door nay have been

sparsely furnished with old a»d pieces of furniture.

27

Reason* given for residing in this type of housing alto differed

from am household to the next. Lose of breadwiaaer, serious eickness,

rctirawmt, etbale statue, newly married persona who mm seobers of the

lower class, uaeaploysKtit, aa well aa inability to get a better job, were

a«86 of the reasons that were offered the interviewer*, iesgtibt of class

naaibarakip probably £ofi^nce-d tfea w l m held by respomelesits, antl shua a

person life® had jMt s«v«i into the hew# tug few<ea«»# of gone par*

aonal tragedy could hardly fee expected to have had strongly established

lower class values.

lb® decision «w mode to use only feaale respeacleftts hennas© of the

high percentage of hooes ia which no sale adult was living. (See fable

I I . )

VMM IX

a m m m m rn^m 102 sm im m msMs <5)

Per Cent of Population Female 14 or Over

Per Cent Fe«ale 1© Labor ferae

Single Harried Widowed Separated & divorced

leg»« lf.fi 44.9 9.4 24.0

Utilise 10.1 §S»S 12.6 11.6 21.5

The two howling projects chosen for this research vary in sine*

Roseland Rones, the Kegro project, had 650 apart»eats» while Washington

Place, the white project, had 347 faoily units (1). On® hundred adult

femle heads vf families were chosen, f i f t y froe each project, using a

2»

fmm tMpUag prac*** (!•«., orc &a tiNUrsOTi awi ®n® to aava&t

TSs# actually inmtvimmd (Mm faMe HI) tart t§w folloviat

etifsraefcerltticei Of ffe®. {lltir wmnrltti l i p warns fro® I©a«i«ai laws*

p«r m m wmm dmtmtUm mi tkir^-lnr p«y aaat 4id ant

work out of the te. lUm raaaaiiiiag thirty-eight per ee»« h©!4 a irasie p

of otfetr occupation. %wm& Ae whites* flfl7*«t||it p«* *>«»t were hmi*e»

wiw® md ttie raMlniag forty taw pm eeat mm in « wi«tf of

teimmt categories. Only oae whit® person could t»® included la the

<S<sae®fte occupation©! group.

fiytic fix

Occupetlonai IfagM mim

•grmips *»fc«r aflle#*

pm&mtM ftreewfcuge of iSfc _juw, •ggA .MrtjL .jjWj.,# I'lir iiHii iteii iiiiii

Mt{>0Ma>C8

Number cfRe®» {HMMUMktf

Hf&wh jjUte-AMifa-, uaiJlL.itMM, Jfep" •***»•'^ I'mfrtn W

8«®t-prole8«icm*t 2 4 1 3 **

Siipawisery md MsEWBs rteS L 2 1 2

6lwl«il & falea 2 4 4 6

fkillad 2 4 4 $

S«®:l-8kili©d § IS 4 ®

WMkllUri 3 * 4 §

14 u 1 2

Houi^iw# 17 M at S®

fltataplayed 0 0 0 §

fotaie 90 100 I 50 1» X

29

tfe* «g« diatrlfcutloa <6«c Table XV) Mm the f i f t y Bogroes i«

sample- it range Stom eighties to eeveaty-sts y«<uce and « s » s

«g« of ferty«e*». For the A i t e s , tft* ran$« was t»eittyt«K> to eifihty~

8tep with a aeaa of f If ty«* three. l i gh t Nogroea, or ®$M%mm par e«at ,

w?» or ovor tfcile eighteen or th i r ty*s i* pei ces t i

mte, ntxty-itm or above.

XJ&LE f f

MB DismiBunos « « a « OF m m m m mrnrmmm

Ago Range

Hegro m i t e

Ago Range Sanple Senple W&lmtm Ago Range

*** X 8 % » % H

16 to 44 72 3i S3* 2 1,451 40 20 64.9 *48

45 to 64 12 6 12.2 212 24 12 22.1 a w

65 pin® 16 8 4.6 00 36 IS 13.0 169

Totals . ~ IQ0& 90 DOOR 1,743 100& 50 100% 1,305

*pniverMa re fe r to faaale popuUtio* of ©#11#® County Cmmm t rac t* 102 (Sfegro) ant 103 for 1M0 (5).

**P«rc«*tage of

of Respondents

Hmss range of ages jftd the aeatt ag®, in both 8a»p|*i®# wit# not Blgmt*

f l cas t ly d i f f e ren t f ro* the pat ters for age in the census t r ac t s with

t*hicfe th#®# samples «ere feeing eotap®re«l.

30

fmtmb

the to«truuene used by HwclfcoSiB wm developed for use in

t t t t l or folk aulturcs. there was »oe» concern about tbe u t i l i t y of

tibia instrument In an urban setting. therefore i t was decided that the

instrusttut should be protected. I t was reasoned that if a group of 00*

c tally heterogenous college students could understand and readily i-eaet

to fct»e i tests on the instrument, the Iteiw could be «oa«M«»d relevant

to an urban group*

First i t was administered to thirty-two student* io an introductory

sociology claas a t Boirth Texas $mm Staivorslty. thia group included

about one-half woaen, half of wtw« had lived in tite e«*»fe*y cm ymm or

w r e . Ibe occupations of the fast*#*® of this group vasrfest f w » tokmm

to airl ine pilot* there Here three Hegroee is t&ls group of thirty-two*

Having used taoJall*® B s t a t i s t i c , i t wm concluded that a l l possible s

preference orders m m not equally preferred by this group on a l l but ,

one item Qfusfeer fi); ik r«fore a group preference was evident and the !

instrument wm mmtngiul.

Before beginning to interview the aetnal ampina i t was 4mM@& to

taafe the instrwasot m fegre wewea irm m® of the how®teg projects.

3fce cue interviewers* each interviewed one Itogr® wmm with the other

interviewer gveaatie. Mmr e*dt Interview efe© instrument was dtaauasad

with the interviewee and further fs<e#ti«is were astee4 regarding fiwtra*

aent content. On the basis of these two pretests, one la the elassroen

and one in the hem, it «r#» decided to Mke awn® ©loot revisions to film

*The interviewers were Mr. Andrew Conrad (4) ^ the author (B).

31

inetrunent Appendices A use! 1) buc to go sheet! vitb the actual re-

search project la Rose land end Having ton.

Sampling

A fust# aanple was mmi la tfeia study. 3tu total nuisf of ag*c*

aents i» e«eh housing project vas divided by fifty 350/50 « 7)

«hk$ therefore ©a* apartment in seven Wis user ted en « «ap* ftie tola inter*

view*® m e #f#S®aed to every other ©p-arttteot that w m chosen m a pmt

#f tbe East* Js&arviewer »®te oeveral ai&ea&t* to aee the tonal#

teed of mmh hum* I f there was m cm tmm (or no ©*» <&»•# fie mumme

Hit door) then a iecn Utter ma Imit ($** Apjwialt* ®> to Us# * i i to

to tnfoxa the reeident tfent the interviewer would be back. After two

uaatsecaaeful attewpta fco r«ae)i thie person, the aaae proceea mm followed

em ®&# seKtHtoor «parfa*aitt to she left . On worn oeeasto**® i t w*a *»«««*

eary to replace ne>re than once, thue moving two apartments to the left of

the original target.

Another tool used to gain entry was a letter (8M Appendix E> per-

sonalised for each later vl«w*r, fro® firef#®®* Uonard l u a w la die

Department of Sociology at Horth Texaa State University. tbia Utter

explained the purpose of the project in a very general « « t «od asked the

proepfttttive help. to mm i t becane naeetsiKy In

an attempt to preserve the original eanple to aasociate the project with

"Southweetern Medionl School at Parkland Hospital."

Xattawifiwers

Toward the end of the period in which the interviewing we* <te*»e i t

«IS decided that in order to complete Hie project in 8§m? awaiiod»l* ftlana

i t would fee neceaaary for one of the interviewer* to conduct wwm*I of

the tatervtews originally to Iwm- beeo done by the other. therefore,

on* interviewer (4) ccwpiet®! forty*»five toteCTtow «hile Hit other (B)

completed fifty-ltve.

In an atteapt to determine the re liability of the data gathered by

o«eb of the interviewers, e cowparieon of the information gathered w@«

aede m two eeneitiv© 1 teste: the percentage of etdi Interviewer*a group

who were claaeific*! m p8ychiatrieally impaired, and the difference* ia

the value oriUmfcsfciow of the two interviewee §TO«f« m tba Relational

Sa&eau

Comparing the percentage of persona to each immtwimmt*» group, la*

cli**in& both Sogro mA white, Wfa« had « indtas ©ewe of four or greater

on the Im&mt ts&m of Psychiatric X®paimeot» i t wes found that there

was iitt l« difference between the «wo group#. Interviewer A'» group in*

•laded aavaMtyM&xae par «««£ %fe© were iapaftxw4* e®lttg langM*** mggaatad

cut off point, utiile in group 1, seventy-one per cent mm Iap«j£e4»

Becauae of the length of the interview schedule, i t waa decided that

a coapariaon would be aade only m the rather settiitiw Relational section

of stws value-orientatIon infest* fha reapondente tmk ««!#»# posaihl*

choice# o» the mwi relational ifceiss Indicting the order of pv*fac«ae»

for the three eleaents (lineal, collateral and individual) on that part

of the value-orieatatloct index. (See table V.)

33

oumuaam w mmm.H g imi His muntmh 33fl9EX» WttJL I I *

Ee©p0sfteist l t g » f&ifee

Lis. Coll. »* tel. e»

T»1H» A

Coll. 1

XwS« C

rT1.)r7 , r„,f..,.frr

1 2 3 4 5

3 3 2 2.5 3

1 1 3 1 2

2 2 I 2.5 i

3 2 3 1 3

2 1 1 2.5 2

1 3 2 2.5 1

# • # # * • # # * # # « » * » ... « # *

# * #

48 49 90

* • *

2 3 1

*. # *

3 2 2.5

• » •

i i 2.5

... 3 2 3

... 2 I i

... i 3 2

CtosriNKi Hi!® 127.0 78.5 94.5 124.5 06.5 St,©

l&tp#e6#<3 In® 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Expected !«««

Gfe«er(red - 27.0 21.5 5.5 - 24.5 13.5 n . o

fun Squared 1221.5 903.5

*CoGiputiBg cbccki A • B + C » 0.

For die purpose of t s t t i a s the l i a t U c i t ? between the two iator~

viewers' 4 i i i , the following «cthod vau employed. Caia® 4#fe« fr«o tiw

relation*! index, tibe respondents were grouped according to vbich of tfee

thro« tlucaatlvei they ranked first* ftey vert grouped ae veil by

ia««rvlav»r. Sta® parceottngea of Its# t»«l amsbcrs of group A and S* isfao

ehose elmmmt* A CUu«l). 1 (Collateral), «ad C (Sa lvidu«l) were can*

f«r#ci end no significant difference wm found. (See ftfela fl.)

t&MM ft

60t®i®l®f8t Ci t£MV£$ m xKtATrimAi. mtMl imwt was. ww&vtEwms a sm b

First Wzetmmme. €he>ic0 A (lineal) 1 (Collateral) c (individual)

A 1 1 4 S

Itim 8w&ex

m 4 3 22 m 19 24

15 IS 22 8 t 22 24

16 6 11 12 14 IS » 17 t 12 23 22 11 29

(i«DK)

13 28 24 i l§ f IS

19 1' ? 16 If 38 30

» 1 12 11 It 33 25

Totftla *5 91 102 128 136 165

fw Cent mi t&ud 21.3 23.7 33.4 33.3 45.3 43.0

mm » s m •

21.3 23.7

33.4 S3.3

45.3 43.0

*Iot«rviewi A is Conrad end I is the author.

35

Statistical Methods of Analysis

Use wajor concern of this research project was to eonparc certain

v«lw orientations of Megroee and tAiites, and of psych iatr leal ly ix~

paired and psychiatrioally uniapeired persona. Because of the caoplexity

of she value aystea of any culture and the lack of refined tool# avail-

libit to profce ti»<« value*, no me statistical tool sasnad adequate or

appropriate for the task of anat*eri»g the statistical problems uhich

were confronted in this project. KlucS&tohn and Strodtheck have devel-

oped & «H»feinft£l6«t of mmmml statistical tool® Aisfe n41i be aacd in

the analysis of the present; data* Four ^weirftioa# shqt aetw to indicate

file explore |» tM# study in order to cooparison of lite

subgroup profiles with the dominant Aacrlcsn profile of values*. I) What

ia the total ite» patterning? 2) lime is the patterning?

3) Uhat to feofesl ori^atntiott patterning? 4) Whet a » tite b&tsmm group

differences? Each of these questions la explained in a paragraph ntiich

follow.

Total ltaa patterning refers to the configuration of responses to

say oms Hon on the tufcuu After tfafca were gathered let #11 tins oesfters

of a ft©ttp on m e item, this pattern of retpooan* wfta mi^k A&t

which would have occurred if there were no preferences for one ranking

pattern rather than another* This null hypothesis w m tested by using

Mm&mll*® 8 atneiatJUt for ss©#««§ra»t of eimgenww. ItaiapaniAeiit*

rank ordered the possible choices on the seven Relational items isdi-

eating the order of preference for the throe eleaunts (lineal* collateral

and tedividyal) on £&«£ part of the v*lue~orientation ittta. {See

36

Table ¥»> l i t& throe cotapoeents (eleoent#), there »m ten poeeihle em*

tegotlam that emM develop: 0 « Don't know (DK), I * JflC, 2 «* AGB, 3 «*

J M , 4 » M6 t S * WGk, § * I K * ? Bs CAB, # «* CM, 9 * CBK. For exjwple,

Hegro respondent ons guv® the following preference* oa tea# fourteen of

the relational isdest collateral first* individual second, and lineal

lost. the f irat preference woe given • ecore of one, the second t»o,

end Ait third th ree . ©ft my of the rankings *toere no second dtelce imm»

G*de, the second acid tMri r«kt were mf&ul together end half of the*

aetount «w given m «®ch for i t s rank. Sheee t w e e « nuaertcal i-aaks

m m put into colusaas A# 8, end C. these coiuuoe w t e added for each

item* Kendall's 8 wee calculated by subtracting theee columi totale

(the observed sum) freer th* Mspeetwl mm (ti x 2), end adding the e<piared

difference scores. She sua of equaree ecore, or Kendall'e 3, was adjudged

significant or not with the uee of e table of Kendall'* « statist ic

<3, p« 126), for tiu neaeurenent of consensus* If the sun of eifuerce

ecore that wee calculated for in ite» was greater than or equal to the

tabled ecore for the level of eignificancc chosen, the null hypoplasia

was rejected (3, pp. 114*21?),

taotfeer technique wu used la order to graphically display tiiwt re-

sult* obtained by using Kendall's S. A l s technique woe f irs t toed in

the aooial sciences by tmmm <3, p. I l l ) , the difference scorse (the

ofetetved owe minus the «pecfc«S swso) were divided by A e square soot

of ihe s«ib«£ of reepondents. 8iU> theee mneric ecoree end their res-

pective eigne, i t « t i possible to plot on a graph (See Figure I) the

relative positions of each group on each item (3, pp. 127-9).

•2?.5 -27.5 W W e ««««— m m 3,01®

50 7,071

21.5 21.5

7.071

5.5 ' 5.5 m#mmm* m

50 7.071

Confuting checks

3.041

.777®

0.

37

3-5

Step 2: Dr«» a perpend icxtlar ® to * at / 3.04.

Step It Draw a perpandiculav to A a t *3.82.

Chacfct D**r « C. perpendicular

to C at .778.

I l lus t ra t ive Data*. ttam 14 (St)« ftell Arraogeaeate ( U a c t l m )

(Coliaterallty)

C>8>ft S>C>A

(Xodivldualien)

A B C legfo ®> -3.81B 3.041 ,778 Witt* (M) »3*4§4 1*909 1.551

f i g . l«~Graphic display of B ra&ktags e l three alternatives: Hegr© Bespoodicaits.

m

Xntxb-ltem patterning refers to tifcu relative popularity between

two alternatives which represent two different valuc-cr lentation posi-

tion®. Juvt how likely is lie pattern of responses if the scaber* of

the group in (kir responses to en item do not prefer one particular al«

tentative to * second alternative?

the null hypothesis vis tested by wing * binomial analysis of al-

ternative preference within gtosip#. If the general null hypothesis

AHR»C is rejected, nb|t other tefosttitioa do the three ware specific

hypotheses (A»9T AFC, B*C) yield? The ntmber of ttees each Alternative

was preferred to the other (within each pair) was counted. "Preferred

to" mm defined a§ followst regarding a pair of alternatives A and B, A

wee preferred to B if: I) A wa© assigned a rank of 1, S rank 21 or 2) A

mm assigned rank I, B tusk 3| or 3) A was assigned rank 2, 1 rank 3.

IS the M O T of ties, A*A preference to B was assigned 1/2 and B's to A

was 1/2. In order to determine the probability that these frequencies

wigfrt have arisen by chance, if che null hypothesis w e true, they were

evaluated again at the ttotawl*aur*e approximation to a binomial dialer Urn-

tic®. the fonwl null hypothesis w s that the observed proportion in

any instance of preference between two alternatives does net differ, at

the .05 level of significance, frow .50. Hie autber of persona, out of

the total nusfcer in any group, that «uot prefer ows alternative to ano*

ther in order to allow rejection of this hypothesis, was then determined

using the following equatiom

40

ia>b-i. (£&>b)-.50 ft * " " " " "

s » a unit stosrsal deviate, tm b *» Sfee observed frequency of peraooa preferring 4 to B, *>) » the eotsHecscd fre^icocy of person® prefer*teg A to I*

f*a b «* the expo«ted proportion of persona preferring A to B» # c • the expected proportion of paranaa preferring 8 to A» «td

ft • tim wmbet of person® I® the wmple*

She aquation is solved fey setting the a-1.96 tot the .05 level of signi~

flessee, tmr*mllad teet, test filling In the untcaoone. For example, 4a

the «*** M (El) (hivtog to 4o vith well arrangements) , ®#teg

the dtove foraula, it w m deterained that Vegroea prefer A ovex » (Un-

e*l over individual) and 4 over C (tintal over individual) at tfec .05

lav* I of significance, but they prefer BiadC equally well (3, » • 130-1).

She notation fer internal preference patterns used to describe

*b« of anciy&le will be defined by example# following Kluckhohn**

description. A?B?C «esns that all the preferences (A over B, A over

C» and B over C) hold at the .05 level of etcnifieeoee or better,

8 >C «saas that only A over C and B over C hold at the .OS level, even

though A preferred to 8 is xwre frequent « response than S preferred to

A, the fre<gue«cy doee not reach the required .05 level of significance.

A? 8 >C neana that only A ever S n d i over C bold at the .05 level »

ev«» ttioogli i ia prefcrra* to C f#se« often than C la preferred to B.

A>B>€* swans that only fh® A over C preference reaches the .05 level

of significance. And A >-8 mm» that none of the preference frequen~

ciea wtlfeto tfce pairs WMKSIKI# the .05 level. If tibe fMVMawiea ttttMMMi

Us» preferences are exactly equal between fttw alternative* the sign

i» «aed irltij its usual naaning (3, pp. 131-8).

4

total orientation patterning (that i a , n i l of the reaponae* fc> each

of A# itami mi eaehof fehe four « r l « e t i e t e » relat ional , aaa«NU9iicn,

fclaa* m l act ivi ty) refer* to the tcaeral prafaitaaeea of a group based

on the configuration of the A** tMpcviet to a l l ttie v t l w orientation

Item* Bat only w»# it of in teres t m determine the confirmation, fewt

#l«» to t i l t for I t s *ignlfleanc«. Shut l a t i s I t l ikely tiiat she con-

figuration <wld have occurred in the abaence of «ome underlying prefer-

ence pattarn? In to ha able to chaffacterlae a gftmp es being of

A# tefeavio* *ptt«r« aaatplai by the tfeems to a aerie*, t to frHtetfc wae

a f f i l ed to determine tfce relat ive popularity of one alternative ( l ineal

to col lateral or paat to future) to aaother (3, pp. 132.3). All of the

information about one value orientation (relational) for a l l peraone in

« group vaa averaged. With tferna pairs of alternative* A and B ( l ineal ,

collateral)* A and C ( l inea l , individual), B and C (col la tera l , Individ-

ual) available for my one oriantation, are there • ignl f icmc preference*

f»®s»«a my Iwo v i&ua^ lMta t fov poaltlona?

If there w e no overall preference* for one alternative over the

other, w*y peraon should have preferred Acd B on half of the iteaw in

(calling A and B any two al teraat lvea) . "Preference" in thia

context «a* defined a* i t waa ia aection two. If for exaople (fee Sable

VU) thie proeeaa were applied to che three palra of alternative* in the

relat ional aarlea for a l l tfegro reapondent*, threa acorea would be coca-

ptttnd for then: 1) the ma&er of ttoea the lineal al ternative vna pre-

i « r « S to the col la tera l a l ternat ive; 2) the nuaber of tinea l ineal waa

preferred to individual; and 3) the nmfccrof time* col lateral n u pre*

farrad to individual. Each of thaaa (ferae #©*«## «®y vary fro® aero m

sewn sine« fibers are sew» i tem to the relational series. If a paracn

did not prafer aft* reaponae to *tt&t&#r» « score of fibrtt, aod oae-tmlf

m& given tine ( 1 / 2 % ?} . the i iffertcs©## tM»t*eca tlm observed m m «s*i

tftta mms mm aataaaad by m&ma of the t-tesfc (3, pp# 133*4) •

®H1® ?1I

fit t I S M 14-20; HH&6 a im

Ofeaexved X&peatad MB

TreqoMtcj Standard

Error te A

Litteal to Collateral 4.33 3.5 .2203 $sm

itioaal Preferred to Individual 4.22 3.5 .2093 3.4390

Collateral Preferred to Zadividual 3.4# 3.5 .2297 - .1741

•She @4g» of jt indicates the alternative which i s the » r « popular. A pittv ®4®b |adie«e«a the alternative iUted f i r at to A s t®lwm i s pre-* iferrad aad tbe ©isms #f$s indicates that the #«««# alternative i s preferred.

Betweea-cuiture (or s#>ctiltwre) mim to the cosigtariao*

of lit* diffaraacea tfeae « i ® t to value-ar i&nz®ktm pmttJtarof Hw f e w

groupa being atudiiad to tfeis rcaearch project. A f t * profiles mm ob»

m$m4 few ot t ie gtwsp## fee* liJ®ly would tfetis particular pafttaraa

of response® fro® each group ht» i f th«s ines&er* of the culture <4M net

prefer ana response fwtftMl to another? Bach of 'th# groups tested w«*

placed vifthia oach «f tan dineoeiooa in ordar to carry out tfci* aaalyaie.

43

Mmb of Wamm itemMimm ftindividual, mllmmml)*, (individual* Uaasi),

(«oll*ter*i, ItuMi), (p««tc pretottt), (piiafc, future),

(subjugated, with), (»ul»j«g»ta<l, over), (with, over), (dole*, Sefeag)]

of tm |«S«r g^&ttest derivtd fircw cte Mom

series, tfeeac dfaneasione caa man fro© coop let® preference *f A met S to

«<P«rt pmftONttft So* bo til, through eoopWt* psetaroM of 1 ovetr A*

Queseloa Spur v m with If fesftfug mm w&m* Mm mA

®» «*••* ton distensions and tmitiag tfoar wriatfo* &S

& sig»iftca»t aa&»*«ud«» Sit© m m referred to Imnw *k* g» Mae «»

tfcote coepueed for qweafcioo three. Ste differences awwig the m a * to

ftis case wtftt ail e«asi4©r«4 m eaee. A aae giy mwiysis of w l « « «

«a« w§#4 to m4m e© tetmniiat «tw«h«K tie vartsftion «xi»ta team*

fpo«pt W "$Ofc«#t" •*»«£h. (3*6 W W ® TOO

msur, fin

€it«jaw « mm$M m mmm mmmmm wmut m m ® a m , a>«

gowr©e of Variation

Btm of •VMM*

Mpttms of Vtmdm

YairtaBe* Bsttoatc ' 1* fcwtl

Between 1.C9Q0 1, 1.6900 .seal

VI thin 206.4100 »• 2.104a * # #

Total £01,1400 #§» * # a « a •

«#si,ag Table ? fas® Do«at« a»d Umth, la»t« Statistical lew ftwfe tiarpox & letterst fttbiiahare, I®1™ w S I S fS'

;,'<# t» fee eteaifleant «t the ,05 level, it «u»t b« 3*94 or greater.

A4

fot«aey of Iwtwnem group variation « i e«i l4ey^ i» t®

vwcifteioa vttfeift H* 8*MP*» eadblfctft a «f itoetber <*£«•*-

mm* MM* tl«M mm* mm autUOai l ly rteKUiMt.

Sismsry

ft® p i l i mm *• ««!<« ot.wiy I# tiki* *eM«r«li of 100 M»

taea, f i f ty of whoa mm »«gJ?« md f i f ty nfeittf MMiMy-ftm 0# «bo* « r e

aeataily Squired and ewmty^eigfat; Healthy. Eaeh in A® aanpl*

KM # Mafci# of £be tarns *3*m to D*U4*»

Use SluelM* IwftMMftt wis pvetMted 09 « *tr«tl6r«ptiftMUy .Mar*

og©»&us group of MlMMlty stu^MM «ifcfe sneisfactoaQF result©.

' t o p«r®c»s ifet «im teWKvUvtee* ®e 4iS» obtained fey, m * mm

•oaporisd mi no «|pitfiMMkt differences mm fowi.

mtfeia-gsrottp MglftlNittM aw! be«Mtft*srotip diffwMM# MM s»a-

if*sst fey mitus mmm* toolts. SwtoU'• i,» Mwof#! m»%ftii*

fe»M*fc» mA #n®stj*i# of vasismca. Wstog d«t» from Ilk# relational ori«tt-

tatta** «s#et* of ibsM statistic* wm iwpialinwt w$S tiwir mUMy

c w j ? m mwxwmm

fmPtKj&jti**» Xt raa , 3*1 l i a # Homing A o t b » r i t f t IS55*

2. ULiuckkobn, ? lov.ace S-ockwc;^ «nd Fred &• i->tr*«itWck t Va r l a t i oas l a fmlm Qvientt&toWt Svattstca, E l i , », low* ?et* r«<» md Coavaay.

S» l^ani£aer, Tb' R«js S . , "A IWeoty-Hra I t c a Screening Score o f Psych ia t r i c S ^ » t e » totftoifeiag Xapft inornt ," J m a m J o f l en l t fe *gd fitaaga a t tanr io r , H I , 4 (1562), 2«9-76.

4* SU»i,«anft&, U>nwu<5t Cla*# l a Aa»*icca Society* Clet»eo«, I I I * , fiw? Fcrc ?rmm o f Glencoe* l U l i t o i s , 193$, l l 3 -«5»

5 . H*o&»% U w i s » § Mnrtoo Kia$, } * % & » g<ralig<j«g Bp<foook; MMtft* M l l a t i T«> juste, Um Brban $ t i i l e 5 f i o j S t W of Socio logy , SntstiKrm ffafelisKlti® Qb£v&r«l ty t i§#t»

I k Jaws & L , Soctr«t«y and rao<uittv« D i r ec to r o f f t » a«§sieg A u t h o r i t y c,f t b r C i t y vM Dul ler , , Texts, Fersowi l I n te rv iew*

4S

46

f i ; |

n m my mmmmmm op mm

Sa course a t i fe l* dupce t th# f ladings $m ptmmted i n eh# « -

m t m m m ky M» * * < * * & * • m v u t m t t » Qm»m» » • * m o f

Hit# cfc«pee* m m m m Him# t m m k m s i ) Am f§s t» i ? * a « ^ t t $ « a i n n i t o

o r taa t f t t l aM v l t b i f t oach # f & « fmw p i f i a s t e sewfiyf Ax* H u m

4 t f f « r « M * * l u veluc or ientat ions M w m m Mtt .fewr groupi units' fttttdyt

J) j y » M m t * t m » ch* *tfci* 'ar iMfia«ft«tt p t » * o » t « f tu«se

f«na gswt## ami tfett of the i m r U m m U m m

*# mmlytm «t i ^ t i » r i i $ « # m mm <teae*ii»*i mi

m i * U o «4a» l«w l m g r * A » . H » U m M « t «ftf»

« t f I m m * mm Mm*Hf»* m % * t « * ©a the m m punt . «(& «fe» t M t m

g*«g>H®. tocapiwiyisag each g r i ^h i s « eafet® ubieti fftMMMW « * MMMtte

©I m» iMtXytfci «m4 to mm Mm umtpum $9m%mmmt 4.0#*

«®Htt4«S she c w l t t t i * pofK*i**iisjr o f o n A lMwan t tw* <•»* . , M m n I <m*

f o U n w i l ) yfomi 4 i t f t t M t mSm oxtmrntim. jwwrtfcimm* X»*

•Stria* i n «M« talfca U s mmmm • * M » ^#ta « each 8 f « ^ % c r i s t a -

t l « « amwpl** Mw a»*na*y v f t l l f w w & i A # <I«seeip*4c«i o f « t'lroup

m feeing immllf m or iented. f i l l s e i M t y 4# Mw * * ! « • •

e*lMl«Sfcl«il p ro l i l® ca d>* f#«r or testat ions t M t a d . t o a id tba w m t m *

tha ^ M a t t M i 43TMHM Ǥat ta t a a a t t t * timim resu l ts lo

j & > i >6 (A mm 1» 4 « w t C# and » awar e* n i t «fa* .OS | « v * l # f ei^ai f icencc or I w t t i r . )

A ^ S 7 G fQMijr A Ofwr 1 M B «mr C boM * t . tfi® #f$ l «v« l , 4 i f f#«tewife3 to B iHit m t - t i .ftS %mnl«>

4?

k7%y/C (A o m B «*£ A <rr«* 6 botfc hold a t tb« .05 level* I i* p ^ l m s d t# C Iwt not a t t t» ,05 IhanhU)

k7/%7/&i (Cteiy «fe§ pf#fw«fe t of A over C i*

k yBm C (A i s fwtt&wxttg fco B a t $he .#5 l«f®I twtfe 'A® ot&s* twt 0m ztpmlly preferred.)

A^B?C (lime of fit® fvoqueacletii of preference feeOHMm pate© iWipMUl reaches t$t« ,05 level.)

7/Q <0ttljr t&e prefevense of 4 ow»r 1 in signlf

Hug a«st ®©t of mmlta t» to ps?©»cated ©o»«i®is« of «fc® 41ffee«E»«a

la «fc|wi atrlMMfeiiMi shut «si*t fectween sfae four grcwips «ad®r analytic,

ft* 4m» i» tfcia «r* am; *homi la g j ^ h e . f i t # t Hmmni

mm penis## «•# £nr • * * i te» In tft« l««Mrvt*r (Mkwlil** « b i W # t t »

itMwrtiwI fmsmm fees* aa®h s*mr «*© * * * *

iii-iex tfeere are seven graplie m %&ieh twv points mm plmtM M «***

m JtetfAsttai vtmml «< p m tfc* ic«t»

level, v i* . , S t m t m m ® Uwmm Bfcgtoe© and Mr *•«»«» the p«y

«feittrl*«Ujr lap*ir«J md wfeft lMtf g«ottpi. For Ami «*tfe«i£gr oKlMfti*

t i m , staple peteaafeaia d i f f m m m a m i d i ^ I i ^ i feeeaa#® *§«» «r* only

wm pMNItfel* tflfc $fcrf*fe *ttl befog fWfca* then three (U«Ml f

«tva ladirtMM}* «§ in «fe# M»e «* #«elt «4 tint ^rnm ttara*

orfcMftiM** *wr «NMpla» *tw p«r a n * of pN*t« Ann *m& «f «h» « »

group®, M m 9 ^ u t m * cat* to ptocft®d oa « «oftttows w*8fc toiag «t ##»

end ««a lie ife# « * m * *m« m A of «i* mmmmm U

pUttf** for ef co^wlscm. If «M* ®f

^3PO«# Chose M t t Mrn» « |W«* W f « £ a®

tfepl pw oetit poiaft mm®&t «l» io i i ^ of I te

m

fta Mxe mt of gs*ph« displays * eoaposlte of «t»e s ^ m i i to th*

in §d& &&eh rf ieh& tout' UMI T&®«*

poftse outdo fcy «|1 ttfcfHM# on «U of the ite«?s in tfan relational series

|§. plotted on « graph, M A * it«fcl«r phsttm p&imt im fifes other tlir e

gro ipi# I» $$4)1 $ ***1 ff it ngg m&mt&tm&d that f&ft IHtei^iii

^b|.A iBise 'fed ISiSfe iMftf&MMt MMg mtm not to h& ftMAt ## && s&Wm

IwttH therefore, the statistical signif icance ©* composite 4a ta is aot

o >€irai#

Hi# d««* fint Ite naaiyeis at imieiaac®, iMUb is Cfee lit*

ffiijMf JjLifrfr .-likfry*y *jfm|- fojftffljifft ~iHliiltli"'iiiVll'' rfjfiMfM'ft nr ji&flP tfftf Mill Iilffll faflhte.4»B MM ilil itt> M If if 'W J$&Ufe&» iffttilifar '•«"• Vs-»»•*»•• ••-«- ai-„. ^ w-y, ,fni.

I W » fpPiti? iWiWty# #K# #lUKli*4pW* «8m WM Wmm ii#i iHt $p# iMi' |N10fc

»Mh tbt «8»ly8i» of wwIwm* feable If « M l «f continuum graphs. On

tfees© ge«®>faa art it^KgM tf*® trelneive poeifclons of e#st* ol the four

©roup® « thft tieem mt of pomlbU 4b®lm® (e.g., lineal, «oilitf»sai

4ism*isi| w s As umiH *1

#1#* For mwtl«v if Ifc® v«riAti@a &m gro«t® on llsme.1,

eO-llMt#i:a-l dih itili B, is %»in# Amm A# itifaB- 4»

0ti lysi§ cliiipl yed MI s sSEHtSiE* n|,| q£

at W Cfid jsmd collotcirel at the (itber. t£, 'ttt vas;ier.ee l*«t e-an She two

p ^ f is significajit, M i |pt Will B?p«' r^«P^iC6Uy on die contlrjir ;. Ifi ##A 0£ igirfii bfA #M..«i.f.ii» itefen Miiilg# Am tttmtfvttmm« Tpp*» WWm " W - W V J S I 1 ^ 8 " '1W*^ ^ ^ ^ B S P r ^ P W P i Wfi " r ®x

SWfcSM- £%-$&& frl>- scheduir; are tihft MilM

#f iNlMMfitld i m f«r »wa^to# sfc fimt it« m Umi r«i«ttei»i

ia %ifaik& aii€5*iiav i&slys4s. n# 4-AS«Etttiw* \Jlvfifcl*i<;r gte alfferene c teiaiti i « M gsrowps Cgegro tt:®, «-tc.) Hi ; eet «amiBf»» relative sso v#rt«fcio«ui Wttlittt tins groups,

b«t tfeo diffesrew s fee£w« tte p?.«tp® lam stg&ifIcusfe.

4#

Ixtitot t& Murled &l, for tfe© ccavmtem1 #f Iter swaticr* ftt&c&jtl* I M »

jsre tg#>i#§ aioag with s«i»edule m& tPm mtlm wm^m*

mmM tK

«pp. f^ni

SilSSS^Wl Xt^Mi Activity OrSeattEios Iff*

SidhsSuSs Sst1#S VMlMMr

iterfe IttU «f Stm

Wmfam-. Itel till*

t ii ? 12 i ii f m it m i# m if m

WmMJL Itelp tit Faraily fterlt ft*" Ciiolce «f Delegate «?a§e tforis; I#ic;si:0csfe fafyi $^^SSSWSS 0

is tl

AI

A2

A3 M |3 AG

J # Chalet 0wm point «l Vtttf of eemld'seel

w t * w j r

j&& ftestt ^ t ^ w r • ^ f ^ w j I w W W ^ I f c v ^

point «| vta* «tf

»Sf0 Of Livi^, €««© #f f l*M»

jffep!* iBlSW^lSSw XtWWp

4 «

10 w It

ica Ifff m

wm

flyiag 3 n faeiBg €teliti<m:s » ft Use #f fl«id« Belief la Cuatsol II t»

of Uftt m m

m ts

j f t W f c l r J & " A j j l r - r t - ' f ' - ^ h ^ i B f l f r 4 t - M T

XKIMMMMfciMkf ilNNit

Philosophy |4S§

«•*» Aii«e«ci»

Alao teeti^ed in At* cfciipta* i* * tvfel* on which ie tfltt

pmtftlMi of the four sytopmip© and «&« daoftMn*

50

Mtfci® ®xwp Regularities

Bmrnmw of iǤnlti of t;he Sfcgfclafcleal Analyse*;

of l&iita few * g

Sipe© mUrnimml wtmmMim Attn permitted dm of ift*

««U feppotibMt* tin* U M t f N w U m r a S H ^ lo ftN «f th<? mmm

ttma m m® mtimt M a r t t a * U9 m9 BS» M mA «?. iXi 9$ tUmm

imm nmmM U*» .01 nigaifieaaee level trteb t te essetpfeioa of RS «M4k

hod rns .05. Site bias®**! anclyoie of tbc»e fJUre i l w indicated that

tfew* were atanifiaaat m m she totflibla «Utva**fcf»

chelee®. ife# smmsy «uslysi® mi eke Mm m fife© r@l«elc*iiil orientation

f*r (ft* I@p?# iadi8m»d aft «n»«U maMm p u t t m of mU*|hk*1

m w M I i M i i I « 4 liosai afc Uni M U m l e£ ni®ilftoi»®e| j M n i J i a r t

xe#efel**g the .08 U m l , «o)dlMM|l wes psre.fes*«d individual (toil***

•B*l > ind ivifiu^l > i t o « l ) .

In m» t&m orientation for Ms#, Uegxoec, £h<? mill bypotheai« that

P*M • pKMMOt » f»et«e i m r©j*e«©4 in low of ilie 14m iftetas, lueiud-

lag f l v « , *3 ma m , oach M «t» .01 level of «§®

felnmial aaalyaia of «*«»© Jndtaatad Am tftese « n t clear ftpfef^MW

mom H» atetaaa cm tteee same fo«* Ummi« 9m m$mmm of

H» data fmn €bc*e tfews tfeat shit gsowp of Hagroeo pt«teir«d

pveamt mm imaum md past, m mil m fiilw« owr pa#fe# 4 H at tk&

.05 level of sipsifteaaee or better < re®e»t: > future > pa*t)»

5 1

t © l « 6 i « a a i Item

i-i*

OhArC.

4ffi?Cv6\ -4

**•" 1

5

" Z \ /

w •>*}*$ I

1 y at X I j f t .

X * 4 ,

* 1 . J

V V . * s ^

•R7

*V • 4

0TC»fl <-$ e>S»f l t

w ;

frnpuml Itww

Jtmfi f\?C7®

CrfirG

e*8>A Wrnmm-rn

GolUmt$XiW 'frtyrtAmiUx?

*7fot m a*C7& *4 3 r?N X

3 uni X.* «*s 3

* *MA/« 1 GrfiiQ Qvfi? C

0>*rrf (-=)

I i 0 r 0 j a m y ^ w i t i i ^ 0 t u r e

* t e . a •*<* © r s p t i i e a n a l y s i s ® f w i t & t o « g r t > u p * @ g u l « i r i t : l e ® ; S t e g i f o

ttm Urn*

X* Coll* ^ I* Mu, ^Coll. ) . tart. ^Coil.>I»i». 4, CoU.>I«S. >M*. 5. *M».>eoU.*I»S. i . Goll^Xad. >i&a. 7. lad* Coll. ? t t* .

CoU.^Xad. 7i te .

I* =0v«r^rttii f«H3* ffith >Qvmv ©ver WlHi 7Mhi. l id i sWfej* Sufcj. > Over = Willi

gukj.^ffith tnic*

tew ***». ? f w t fni* ? F m . 7 twit PCM* *fW*. ? iMt wmm« y fm% >Wm* ww,%»>/WtmyWem*

fm$t 7 wm* •? Pa#t

Acimss: 1MB

i .

tofeW >»0ti ?

Doing > mim

Flg» 3 •«* feoultfl of tfoe bUKHUd aaalyiwe of Hub Megto 4«te®»

Sb itib® tt*Bwiww« «rt«et$6t#i# i t *»§• poiwf&t# m tite mil

h^pothmeiB $%m& ®at>jug«t«<! * ov« « with ta four ®f llw Hm £t@©« to

tbi» acrt««« lilt £fe«at tint* «UtiM04 rejeetioa of feh« m i l lifp#il*«#&t

m e W t# Iff f # JWf 3« *art Ml 4 t e*8t> at tl* *01 tawl of alsiriUhUseee*

Utile tike is©® % f cm Mwaotal. -aualysi© if#*®*!*! tSiafc elwaeo «wr# algal*

Sicmt pteim9*m«m immsb of eh© four 1«««k» tfeft wmbwjt of Umi <3<iiMt iiMi

ttefse four Item <§©#» aot indieae© ®l^££ie®tt: ftsimemm by the entire

S3

lit Us* aefcltfitar oriefitfitioB, af Jim jtfjtU feypoifecei® that

doivgrfHtiae «§§ possible only m cbcee of Umi #$® iteass, Al, A2, and AS#,

«Mk At A© .01 level of Mg ftcaa©®. 3itioalal mmlprts indicated a

signifies®* p»@f©?reae# «Ue5m«£tve choirs. Ite iMki^ ©f

ffiNEfr toclic^^te'd |ji#f tfoe ptif jcHis in fit#

doing tfWW Wing «fc fctie *91 %tml of sigatfioime® or tottor (dolag >

bflnt).

tow^gjlM#>

fte null hfp&t3Mm» t&afc m $m **!•»

%|^yt f^f^f fof kijfc dMpS# W0 rejeeted to Ufa #€ se¥c?n $4M9Mt#

i»«ludiag itKM* lit E2» %l» If* If mi t?« Ml ttf eJwsse except if W

«ftj««e«d *t ti» *01 U-vel of alg&tft«a»iisej if ve.fs fVjMtfdl #f the; ,Q§

Iw&lr# Uta# nf -f:hai0 &i& ilMMt llMft IkjMft

VMM significant preferences araottg the available ftlMMtiW «f 4k0jta»*

toifuly'Si,# of liftoff! tlM4$ IftWMtt Ifllfff if f 0f4f

omtfill of iatfivtfcMA owr eollttml #fft lineal «« fcho ,03

level for the tsfciet MPflu (i»divt4«al 7 collateral"? IttMwl).

14

Itms

U m t U t r

e>A»c. C*k-,Q

ColUit*r«iifejr Individuality

SMa MmI l i w

I«#t

-TH

WMMHt

/h>6-> c W fr»c>6^ -i • t

3 X A X

4 J • ^yV J X

(•

^ i

-n* 2.-' -T3. * t T3 J-

\e?e>a *•

<b> e ><?>/) /

«

C?fl70]

XfeeM

•i&Jttgtt t fcm» tKHfetttre A?0»C. A>0-><3

C At0

* +

C>S7A H«rrrionY-t^ith-!l^t:urr>

m$* 4 — ©»*pii*« wUy*!* «i mmrnuimt *rnm.

If

bets

I. X*i.>eoU.7U». a* Ami# 14a. >C©U.* 3. ? &l*. 4. 0»U* X»l*>XA». 5. lift* 7" t»<3, 6»U * 4. 1#4» Coll* "7Ub« I# Xni. 7C»U* 7/Ua.

I*S,>Coll. Un.

Hiy tiMit TOhrayg

%tm

INK* l« ftret "7t?ifch 2. S«fcj.=lt4ifc 70*©r 3. *M»>Vttfe7Slfti* 4. i* •**»$.;* ®wr =mm

mh$* 7-0v«v?1fitb

hhpobax, «MBW.

t%«»

I* 2* s. 4* $.

ttf®§# > tut# y/tm% flit* ~7/t*»# |5MM# Tim. Nit fws»* 7f»tt Fufc. ~?Wm* -rfstttfi

mtm* ? Fat. 7 fast

AUTWsntsr xsoMcc |T|f

felH*# l* Bein£>BolJig I* Doings 3c tac 3. Being Coi* 4, Beiag ?&®iag 3. MM* ?Mftf #• ftotat 2-MNS

SotflftloftlS

Fig. i — Bwmltt #1 H* I>t»0!»i8l analyse# of tl>e whit* dstiu

Hit t$&£ ffgfi* In 1rti# f#w» for His iMpI# Sl

1<nm$ ios 1$m rejectios of tfc© well lspotibe®lf» two iMw (f2 and IS) lit

tfe* .Of 1ml Ml sipilfieiate, mui cferee Item (¥1* © and #t *h« .01

tnw-l, She reeulte of fclaeotlcl iMktffti# iaaicated tfMt there- «re

pcvftoMMM* <b«t yore djpftffeiftfc mem #»* eltcrnative «hotcM oo &oeii

of sfees* ttiw. »• mummy 0mm 0tmmS- * *GS Umi gMN*

of pree«at mm $mm® mm pmt (p&uumt ? future > pmt).

m

tt* acta frosa tha sample t l M of amll hjrjo*

thesis ia fo«r o«t of five turn l» tM m n M m * mvIm* Ifcese fmue

0HI» MSI* M i M i MB&) &W»» ***» #11 m J M M «« tfe» .OX lm*& «f rtt*

nifiemc®. <&• fejaetatai of tfcta* lt«w? 4a4t«*t«<l tSuttt iAmm

were significant p n t n m M i , StMi t*y it.era, a m i tih* l l M M i W I

available. *41® significant preferencoE app«l*l **»* *JF ftt«% th« «**

niftry of the 4fte* in tills seriPG o£ i tem indicant! « uonsignific^S: y#sik

order ( m b l u v M ^ ^ o w ^ v t t h ) •

X* <fc« miMtey mlmmUm f«r the vhitw t h t ? M i l ftqppwiiM*

• i t is®# get seji«to3 m iHgr ot tite Kmmi to tfe# Mf tMi $m*&£amt

bimmUl mmlfrt* 4hmd «*ly awidfertf ictftt «»0$>* I t m fey lum p f t l t *

«MMMift wMto lift overall orientation of 4«i«i «mr Mta«i 9&a»

set

Vbift Hw Bop* §8^1# unci the *§j£f» cranio «r« vine** lndlvtdually,

a | H « m f t prcfesrcnces becoiaes spporcnu for each. Whcfl the Ifegro end

wiUte empics w f t «Np«*«d, mm ftpy£ftili®ife

If t&is group of m i lnmteedl pmmm ( f i f t y Htgre©® and f i f t y

whites) nurt dtvMed m motto* ImsiM, &wh m mmtml toaitfc, would ttar»

s t i l l fee MMmmmm m l *»*M a pt t tem of m§pmma 4emUp mcfete Cte

two girowpsl Ifca to this R a t i o n Ht Hm eufeatjK*e<: «tf sis© o«C

tesl-A ^NnWy $nd f fn

f&fijftl SMltt M£ n-ff SS$bB #iKt§t#iiitifI hW t&mmt &t « fjmrnm

* r « ^vett£y»tw re0poo<leai:« ^»o W t 4®p«.tr«4 mni twmt&»®t$cit «Im» w r e

«w«Mi% hmltSiy*

*ktm A£S mjMtm.- ^ H ft# i|^| SSSEfctoe

57

si MmM & asM ism mwm.^m*JmlM mmrnlrn& Hm.I#

She wniopaired sasaple data on the relational orientation permitted

rejection of lit® null hypothesis that lineal«coUat*r«l»indlvidual la

three items (Rl, 1# and E7) at the .01 level of significance aid one item

aft the #65 level, the binomial analysis ©I these items, one at a tine,,

Indicated significant preferences among the possible alternative choices.

Hi® awwaatfy data indicated an overall group preference of collateral over

individual and lineal at the .01 level of significance, with a nonsigni-

ficant preference of eollateral over lineal (collateral individual

collateral).

Four of the five item® <m the time orientation for the unimpaired

grow? allowed rejection at the .01 level of significance of tlie hypothe*

Slued null that past-present«*f uture. Itiese iteraa were Tl# f2, T3 and 14.

the item by ite® btewsiai analysis of preference* @aong alternative

choices for this group on this orientation indicated that there were

clear preferences evident in each of theee four item. th* auamary of

these data indicated that the unimpaired group preferred, at the .0$

level of significance or better, the present alternative ova* the future

m& the paat, She present me preferred over Mm future alternative but

not at the .05 level (present^future ?paet)«

On the ®an»nature orientation for this group, the results m only

three of the five items (HSl, W t and MB3) allowed rejection of the null

hypothesis that auhJugated"H>vsravith> ail at the *01 level of slgnifi-

cance. the binomial analyses indicated significant preferences among

alternative choices on these items, the summary of these data indicated

s a

R & L f i t i i o E t d l W>j? TMT wSf -w pf ' jPjp1 vw* 'j/i*(#-w(j"

U M l U t j r

( p 7 * > C

^ / v * c > a \ -4

i

J-1&

> • 1

» « * **

\

/ i

. t > v z x

3

* 4 *3. •R-t

w 1<1 • \ v

w y

# l ^ p P p

f i t t

fc>c»a

C»A»0

c > f l w ® * * » A 9 B M N t t V M k M r f t

l l M M t t t t r a M I t w > §

S t t b j u g i t i o a ^ f e s w S a t o r e

M f f l s t c r y - o v K r - ^ t u r e

Pr>«-?S

PiNl-

B?C>A 6-J O,<j>A / R a m o ^ w i t J i - ^ a t a j r e

f t ® . # * • G n g f e i c a n a i y e i o o f w t t f e i n - g s r o t t p w l f l r e d

If

m i

lee®

ftwmt

I*

2. U a # 7/1*A+ Coll. toll. -fyAt-pMB*

4, C o t i . ^ S ^ . ^ U n ^ S* tin, >Golt« >X«d« f* © r t W t A d . ^ t t x u * 7.

iScMUIt* 7 W ® »

ffjffwfljlllMliB TOMBf

Itm

l*v»

1. 0m*7/$&}.'*n&* 2.

3» 0m»;MlilB7MI>J* 4. 1fttfe>9td»j* 7 0 W 5.

fMyaftr

ttm

hem

U 9K**« 7tv**? 9*0* t* Wv*.7/tK**»7t*at 3* ttm,7/ £««» 7 »##% 4* f i r e s # > F » t . 7 / F a # t f • rttt#>fftv«, = W m t

AOflWCinMRf JSflDKJt

feet®

I* Being >B®*ilg 1* ). Being Seiiig 4. Boiug =B©iag $• Doinji^Eeiog #* ytimiMi

S w m M y Boing

Fig* 7 -- R^eulta tfe« ts$na®»iat smItsc* of tmiapeirca group A m * ,

tet fchis g»mf> ff^mfmrnd m m ®» «i£fe sss4 9il|t it pt*f«r*«d id swlijuga*

te&, m o m m tli« #05 M i l of sigBifieanc© (ower ^cubjusafcnd).

te £$*«, uslsmsired » a » oa %f># aetivits' artentuftion. tfc# niiilu

on o d y two i m m (All II til* .«> level of l i ^ i M m t rnd M m «ft* .01

ltvil) *llc«*d rejee fcion *f tfc? mli hy?ot!teslc- tfett dolng^inc., Ht®

b l o f M i i a l i r idle^. tecl a i i m i f i ^ a a l * - p f i t e M t t iW^fiii m i

itema. ftm #f tSin## $Mttl #01* lim wtep#iir#.<3 gtoup

igttd £tl&£ ttfttlfti A <HNM(*IA II# 00tog

<0

at the *05 level of algnifieanee (doing?being).

13BBEZ si Stain, M si IMS JSjlgSg jffflf,.

tteiika the data for nay of the other group* rftMtiM, At data lor

the impaired group the rejection at ttui .01 ltwl of th« null

Itjrpotliii* that lineal*eolUtortl'ladlvidul on oil of ttw eeven llama* *

Binocdal aoaiysts of ifte® fey it*© alternative ©hoi©e« M l d i M that

Chert list# significant preferences preaent on each. • When considering the

•stire group on #11 neven item, die potter* that developed evtdenaad

aignifleant (.01))* preference of individual over collateral m r lineal

(individual ? > lineal) •

the «»11 hyp©Wi«si0 that: paet^reeentpfttture m m rejected on each

of the five itwa m £t*@ tte IMm for tfca impaired group, iteau» fl*

Y2# f3 and 14, at the .01 level, and T5 at the .05 Uval of eigniflcaace,

The hinoninl anelyet® of tikm® data Moated that there were aignifleant

preference* on «nh of the itene in the aeriee» Hia «i—t) of A m w

data for the lapaired indicated that the dwtMtt orientation «na

present over future met pnatf ea«h preference §» fete© group m » *«. fth®

,i$ level of eignlficeac* or hotter (preeent? future? peet).

la the mm»mrnm orientation for the Impaired group, fel» data <»

four of the five itena allowed the rejection of the null hypotbneia tk«t

aubJ *te4«ov<»rwwitii, each of theee 0®1» HH2, M 3 and 101ft) at the .©1

level of eigaifioanee. Although the feinewtial analyaie of the## Sew

items indicated significant preferences smug alternative choices, the

gunnery did not indicate preferenaee that e»« aignifieant for the entire

group (eufejugatad vith^over).

•" >" reverta to mmml neanitig*

61

SU»l*tioOfti ItM

Lia»«it*y

Q-rKvB

?&rA

fmpmml Xfcm

fait

T *

TJ

ftemnz

r £ 7 0 ? e c-v) h ? c * 6 y

- 4

- 3

. "3 J-X a . - i * sL ' y ^ a ,

KT 1

i y x X l

3 X 1- x . r W 2- .Ti 3

4 .

V f r c ^ T 5 * * G?6?kj

0.3*7 G\

fttfelif#

Collaterality In<Uvidu«lity

Sub ju&ation- t-gfttstge

nmmty»met<meLm*e

fHOQ

f\N2-

C

fig* I «•* Oravfe&e mmlfBM nl n&lmsttUm

62

EEUTIOHAL INDEX

Item Hum-bert

1. Coll.^ Ind.7 Lin. 2. Ind.> Lin. 7 Coll. 3. Ind.7 Coll.;? lad. 4. Coll.;* Ind.7 Lin. 5. Lin. 7 Ind. 7-Coll. 6* X«d.7CoU.7Un. 7. Ind. ? Coll. > Ua.

Sianrnary Ind. 7 Coil.7 Lin.

MAN-NATURE IKDIX

Item Nusi-bere

1. Overhaul* J. 7 With 2. Subj.?/ Wlth7 over 3. Over? With 7Sui»j. 4. ®«J»j.?Wit!h7©vw 5. Subj. With >Over

ItJMMHf Subj. j.^WithT'Over

XEMPOBAI. u n a

Item Num-bers

1. 2. Fttfe. ^Pres. 7-Paat 3. Pres.^ Put. 7 Past 4. Pr es. 7/ Pas t Fut. # 5. P«f f Past*

Summary itifcj, > Wlth> Over

A O T I R INDEX

Item 8u** bers

1. Being Boing 2. ©oing^Being 3. Beings Doing 4. Being? Doing 3. Doings Being 6. Doings Being

Doings Being

data. Fig. 9 Results of the binomial analyses of the impaired group

In the activity orientation, the impaired group data allowed

rejection of the malt hypothesis that doing»bei«g on only one I test. But

significance level on that item reached the ,01 level, and significant

preference was evident in the binomial analysis ©f that item. While

only on® item permitted rejection of the null, the overall suwaary for

the impaired group indicated a significant group preference of do tog

over being at the #05 level (doing > being).

63

Between Gmup MMimmtm

M m m n @xwm Differcncce as Jwrtyod to the

In till* ®cction tweaty-three graphs «ra used to d&apWgr the choice

«p$# by ««eti group white, amtaXly tmprntxea mi Mtiwlty mim*

paired) m each of tfe* iteias la «twt isi6«rvl«fr Wm mum+Ui, m

each graph ere iisft!«fnd the plotted positions of each of H» ferns gro»p«

ott oae schedule itm. tbi* mi«» of graphs p«*»U« MftfrltiB #1 ffcM*

four groupe1 responses to «ay am of ttoe »Ae<M» items 1st lb® val»e«

w l o m i o a iAtot. ftm i«a«M im SMtodUit chit «*i« of inn** It •»*

to 4«elv« «molv#io»» fro* fib* itellaritiM of 4illin«e«i that i^uti

fewt to fch# reader to gate « etar look «t the low# of M M of

the difference a anil fl*4U*itU» tittt 4e¥el#f» *&«« comport son If mM of

coa osite data, *U.» the awtswary of «fafcj» on t!*«#e twenty-three gf«pH*»

Ceaposlte 4«t* m * f»e««at«4 la th# next Metftoa.

m m m m + G m m Differences oe Analyst^ 1gr £ £

^ ' teSiii fpfegis ftwpoMti 0fj®»M»

In tills section Chore «re feu* prnfr*, mm lot t«Nfc win* orienta-

tion (nUtiowUt a®a-oiit»re, tin» «tut activity) ©a ieli 1# plot*** Slie

relative pm&t&m of emk of the four group* under &tudy (ie§xro#«tt vfaifee*

s&ataily jUn «lre<S «fti «ei*tallf unlispalr@4). For o® the »!#•

tloMl gcagtti tismxm is * point plotted for til® iefjre £,roup to fMdULIJM*

cf58 «ri80B of the value of tfei® ftcmp witto the *tfwv three.

CoRpailt* <tata «oMt»ta of ea average of & • #•£• I m indlvtMt Unm*

In aaoh of tfc* lit the taet s««tte U dl»play«4 tfea too-

pemm of eaeh of the group* on eech Unm* I« the relational orientation

*

ttm Ml (Well

iineellty

$>*?

Itm E2 (Help ia Mletetmt)

Utility

ColUtorilltjr \e,c>A

ividmllm

Coll*e«rality

a&tvMmlim

Itm 13 (Family Work Relations)

LinealIty

Individualism CoUatarallty \a>c>*

fig, 10 •• Graphic analytic of dlffartaeats relational orientation.

AS W*#

Item E4 of delegate)

Li&callty

CoU«t*r«lltj

I t«a# R5 (Mage Work)

Lineality

Ivldulici

Coilatarallty

A 7/S»,e

npQ

a«ltvidwali«ta

X£e» Rfi (Uveatock Inhsrifcance)

Lla*«llty

*

Collateral!*?

•*#

-5

' 2 x

7 i 'i X 3 1 Vr *• / #

/ X

3 i. 1 i X ^ 2-u. <i

f<* s i

w£

\ 4 \Z?Cyf\ (LrBvfr /

Q>fhrQ

Item 1? (Land Inheritance)

UaMlity

taudlviduallaa

Collatarality £V/3>A i v U w I i M

**«• 10 -- aaffifaaiMBl'

JUL

Ite® XI (Child nr«taiag)

Fast

ttm T2 (Expectations About Change)

f m t

CVA>fl

VittMMi

A"?&>c A>e>o

Future Present

It» *3 (IfaUttopfay of U«t) ti»t

Present Iteia $4 (Ceremonial Innovation)

?«8t

C>fi»

Future

Itwffl fS (Water Allocation) fWRt

W.Mi

% 8 > Cw M C-rQ>Q

Future

C*> AyC-rQ -+q

<3>/5re |

8?C*A <c-> C >aA affile aft AfcM iM-AMat iW)Hg

Present

fig. 11 •« Graphic analysis of l*tiiM*>gsa*p differences: tmamml orientation.

67

I tem M l (yLvesfcock Dying)

Sub jugs t i o«» to*H«t£yre

I tem m 2 (Facing Condi t ions)

Subjugat ion- to-Nf i ture

Mftstespy owr^tetnap

67^ /-C.

Msstitify" ov©s>Ka

Baraooy-v i t h - X a t u r e

I t * IPS (»ae o f F ie lda)

Sub1y^|ionw|o-«S|fcuge

c*f»t

a** Harmoay-wi th*Bature

Mastery over-Sat:'

I tem J®4 (Be l i e f l a Co&tro l ) Sul)jt%AtiosaCOall8ti)ce

0?Ofl Haniiony-wifeh-Nature

f\'CrQ

CrfirB

Q>Brf)

I tem m $ (Length o f L i f a ) SMbjitgafcioo-fco^Mature

/*?»>« l»

Maiteery*" over-Natwfe

Mastery HaraKJay- over* l fatur

w i th -Nature

(srOrQ

*<*

44-Hatsaoi^-

v i t h * ] f « t v r a

Fig» 12 — Graphic ana lys i s o f &efew©eii«growp d i f f a r r a c a a t saa-nature o r i e n t a t i o n . •

Itm M (Job Ckotm:

M d y M U W U m p o i a i t )

Itm 4 2

0 o % C h o i c e :

E m p l o y e e s V i e w p o t a t )

i S w A S

( K « r » o f

U v i f i f )

\oo o l©<» o 1 6d o

7$"- - _ U

- N „N Ww

7-f - - -

S* - - r - w

5*4 -- X - w St —

~U

- r

- * r ~ - a r - - - j L r - - -

e lo a 10© l<>4

B e i n g « * t a t

I t e m A 4

C 6 « r n o f f i e l d # )

I t e m A $

( B o t t s t w o r k )

I t e m | #

( i c r a s w a r k i a g f l a s

# 0 O c> 1«« o f * a 6

I f - - 7 s r — -

N : u "X

I f — -- U

* 0 ~ -O - N4U) "X

<5T> — " w

sr* -

- I "t4

«tr — -2.5- A f

lo* * fe* o f * *

fig, is mimtRttm.

Being Being

Graphic MuljrelA of b*twe«»*grou|» wtirttp

m

there m% smm it&m* Una®© smm are avowed and ttw t#«

•mitt' «# ptmttd m 0m mmi&mim $tn#it*

m Hm flstioml mtmrntim. tbr following 4l£te*

emus «fjp««*©4 iteen comparing four group®, fche gtgiro®#, til® the

wmmllf Impaired audi tfee wmtally A * differences tibafc

appeared IW« tetans* tto ftfegt* m& tfee Aite S**«|n» end between the im-

paired m i the mton&Mtvw& groafta* Ail* diflit«flMi« existed between Aft

two sirimps <s*Msta»e;r they «®s« divided fey race m hf mental fttatna, tfe*

S»tro atirnvtuAlm m t.enk or4ar i«a(t««8w of taUatmral^ individual 7

liaeal mis lite that e»l the tmiapairad gro«f>, both Is tamaa of rattk m $ m

mi l#vel of aigatfieaace, a#<3 ttoe *l*it@ orientation (individual 7©oH«-

dfr -lii-n jfYrt' nitfftT Tff iff-Mtifa Ifftr to Tr tI W )M itti* HTill iB I fftilri AiK AtoTttte-iA-id iff 'iYfflttiTifthi riK fff >•***••• 'ikt.-A teltrfiii

CttEtM / XlXMt&X/ WWP 1MM» 8B0 UpNRS&tttf

Sliii s*iss£tes »jgiA of tfem texmor^Ll MftiiiiJ&ijflfe Amrn £%mz&

mm very little diffarcaaa between tfet orietttatimw of tfere® of til© few*

grmpil ite Hegro, tt*« «hit« «xii th« iwp&txei groups $11 have $*«*««* >

fyteTO/^pMt Mfllte fXNtanf thi- alternative #1ipb*SS' fife fliff

temporal 0*i<mtafci<m» ««% r*acfcis$ «J*« .05 1 m l el aigftlfi*

(Mm. Hist iraak ©*<§« p*ef«ra«Ge im the mija®t&m& %swp, i ile memtly

litem BifsS<ti6sfiy6s #y #y Ifoif tifes sidhtisir tibifss K ®BSS* n PwfWW1' "STWWwit jpP' j P WrtifW 5pfp--R' f1' JSrJPfUnr flH?- SrrW™ W1 fffwf EI1™ rtfv *^&g!r Hw ^W' 9&F p¥™W

Eifleant preference o# pmmmt mm future Cpr«Mftt^£mr« .

In mm«M<mm mtmmt&m iliimmm® scisted &eta#e a «&@ gro

<si j« c««d vl.tli>«v«!r> iM»i Ite nfetfee orientation ( « u b w r >

«i«b)v wl mil m lN8feWB«B th@ ia «ir@4 <over witto " J«g«i:«4) Ml Am

imis alxed J^a£e4^wifeli>ov®r) fro«p»* ori«fe«tl«ai0. «m»

of )tea» mm BtAtUttmlly <±« ®*re«e®#t 4®gree

#1 dlffcrenfclatloa teMM «h« four px#a|># to thf wMMKilttt#

70

Composite Seven - Q uesfc ion Average* of Relational Itmm

Linsality

/}?©> <1

&>ArC

Canpo*it» Five • Question Average of Temporal Xtmtt

Unguilty

Coliatarality todlvidoiUsB

C3,a^ / Present

CW»W?

Future

Coapoaita Fiva » Qwitlos Avetmp of Maa-Katur® Items*

Subjugafcioa-to-llafcttre

Ktesfe»f7*»wr*S#«»r® \<frc>a H Harmony-wl ftb«H«twee

Cowpoaita Six « Quaatioa Avaraga of Activity Xtam

Boittg

o

xu) U (i

/©«

« ©6

; i , S* 1$

» i 1 IS o

B«i»g

Fig. 14 *» Graphic «»l]«i« of fcataHMKii'gvottp dilfcmoeai canpoilu gsafhs.

n

orlentation. $be few gvovpa which agre# m 6&e *«# or4#si»g of tliese

eleraeafcs *e* «t»e Begro a»4 th« isjpaia?©4 groufis. While Utetm of tb« f«mt

groups, iaeitultttg «$t« Kt-gr®* ifeifee m& 2ap«i*ad» pUmd # f i r s t m&m

V^b feeing. *« sub juration *fco«jwi ture * tto® tmis$aitr«<I group pe©*

MmwwA i t |«4MK maA pl«ee4 wnstexy-over-swituif# to flrac place*

HMH BisfcsSii^EE coatiiititim of tfi# wSiBls*

tiiws ravaalad fchate Stef r#®fc oiaSar preference variea ttoe fmir

gnwpt «sly *&& rasgMWt *0 ttw (ignifUMMW laval of etui p*afara«#a af

doing <w©r fcetag. I4te tfea ml&timml mlemtat1#mt thm eig©ili©«ace

level of the Negro mim-mm mm similar m fchst of Uta unifiif.aii-ed

group <.05). H» otbac *«© groupa «&it>ifce4 a (similar ton* nonsigiiifi-

eaae praftraa** of <§#i«§ w*r feeiag.

Jjg|

RELATIONAL orleatatlan, Owt #f i&# A I M IIKMUNMI (eoUafcaral*

l lMi l , imUvidual-litiejil, iisiivM»al«e<»li«f«»l) generate te fcfee

tf latioael osiaatatfcm,, only the l&dividaai~«ellataral 41a«Mtoft 4ia«ri-

i M M i immmm the lt§fir«i ami «lrtta irwyt* * to ifclt ca»# Ufa® Vagihmm

j»t#g®ff<wt equally well tit* individual a»4 tim collateral mUsmmU «f

this <!tension, iitjila «te vbitee M M to prefer Hi® individual ova*

*tt* fallawlqg Bectloa ©» the m*lf*i* of visciasice i«Wili a fstatie-fcieal M p d M feefewssi* «fae Segre sr<@»p aad A t «fcit® g«cw»f» «a»<3i Iwwim

Mstallf istg»air«Mt ©roup ao«3 tibe wiii^aiired §»©«?>. Ifee *«iafeiv© p@ai* fcisas on a eontlSHiw of tA« fmar 8*owp« «r# al«« ©oi^ared. Hi® va*ii»ee data darivad from dMdlut the g to^ of 100 pm'#mm raaially ia pvaaaotad #H9W tike Mi t te iw g r i ^ imd M l 4«rivcd fro® a divUioa relatiag m wmt*l hmllfa ia f»re»*ol8«# fetiew liie gtiflfc*

72

tfce «alUt**«l. F«t A # oth*r M iiMuiktti (eolUm*l»lia*«i and

"iMividml* i teal), the 1* scwsss tedicat@d «fe*t ehere mtxm m tl|nill*

d i f f e r e n c e k i M i fch® Segto mm! tike white groups. This hhmi

p w a s ©sfeiMte*! is fci*® itta o» the % n i n d a»$ unimpaired fere«k*>

down. Mine is, ttie only diaeosioa diseriiataitiiig between the two groups

w«w» tfe« tiitvtAi|l*«oil»WaL | <«t fchi# iissMfta A t tejsaired group

fe«tide«i to prefer this individual over «3mi ©tele® (fttifce lite

£|ii» $til£& lASSs til# iiriipsiirt'd. gfxwtp 'til# fn® SIW^SS

equally well.

twpwil ortoafec&toiiu As in relational orientation, «h# 4if-

£tffrfettfflM flMMStift&lttd tMrtMMHfr tihBSS #SM WMBS 4ft mkry&pm? w w " w - w w W V P P * 8 ^ ^ w w w ' W w ^ P 5 w w w » i f r w s r i f w ^ w p p

m n gMkUU Him ffe# t te## tfiiMM^toMI fu twa^pni t : MS

f«tu*®-pre®i»«:) of the temporal orieet^eie® dlMftetaltwi betmm ife®

»#gf® and ifoito groups. Only «he future-past dimension dlfiar«ft*t«te4

t-hte jtmrl grOUp-S. Wliie tHMll 0$ tllMNMI 0WS^S

f'etui i sS'Esd §b^ fltf* ittSi^sSs^) mfcy nnd of itiessSs wi

i S S A p&INMHi tiff Jftitw# 0ll&xr |MMt1» iM .f||f giroup

StoSW %# ffl^ 0$ |Am| #h.fm i*hm 4MM|£

iiuife t»kjfc fg l tgn MSldtaBlttM Iflift JNttflttfeift fUC tfafi fm.

botii Ute p x » m n m * ^ m % m & KImi of «&@ tsw^orai

erlMBfiitim* imm gwwpa wese tadistiaguisbable. Ifee e»ly M i l i U «

tl©^id iM *sfe4ji 1WB A i C?r ,a»f r UliiMd Ml ^1#

future e»i #1 fell# fatM»««p*®fc c m t U m m by tfc® u»i®piire«i grou^i tite

other three groups m m «li&e m t%mf m m m each of otlifcx two

jtamioni.

#§«« dvtfmax St f«nr tiui toivsiltn mi tib* f •

H

A

S I 6

t

^ r -

2-

c #

« n

" H

s p # » * »

f * w »

* t

• «Mg

• • s « ! <#•?

I 0 r«t

«Nf a < — H

• c » • »

#*# # *

«*? * 5

O * « M • * *

1*1 ! "*

%&

I

#»t

t f %

M &

•if|

? . z-

n

_ M

F d

W

»*#

O

H •

$4 #

t s ft

1

« * 4 .*

# #

& #*t * * * m #

g s s # * #

m ©

v » » m a» m u _

Jm b <|i Cy ^ U « _ Hi

I o

0$ O i H © a «m o

m U M ** ® '

> e hi *M ** Q to f*4

1

u

113 i *• «t *1 S (*t

* -

5;-

t fHf *4 a V *2 s

««

«n

CM

«o

# *i » 3

f V

|S ftft

H to N

m *«

*a

»i 3

s« it j»

m u

4 •*

f*t Ov CO * * <* <M *4

m m

m m m m o to

* * 2

1 M 3 aifis

1 M

r-*™ a

i $**

V <*•*

a I

a id *

in <*• - • •

m cm

iii *4" 09

mm m -a a

HI °*B v? v m • # a, t© w 0

p % S " . •S 8 8 O M « *W *4

HtJiM 2 3 0 111 IW W (4 II* •w O«-» 09 « f» » H

B h IS M *M 0

n-

ve%

X-

<N

.i

-H

I

44 I 5

m

t

* A, * m u 0*

m m M $4 •» 44 ft &*

# to ftl A 44

I

i

*"«t fn > 3

• • a . . * •HI # •

* • : g . .

•

*•4 • •

i i 1 i , «*t ««t «« P* ia

m m • • • **1 iPf#

•

*«4 • 0 5S

» • *

01 <**4 •

o » §

n |£

^ CO "S t

*

If # § • • i 1 S «5r ^ m m

csi <n Mf% m m r% t-n o iA in ««*l 1*4

*>4 m *m Or* r% * • * c*i o m in m W *«4

^ 1 m

is U *vi ; I a : S > '

I 1 1 1 i s ®

f

Ij 0 r-4

!i 1 .ig B

m o V

£ <y

3

f

44

£

m

>—

m

n

Wl

&

t

4* $

Wt

A

4#

3 I

A %*C **i * * •**# *

|

S 8 3 # * #

#(Q {M

it *

<8 "t

*€jf "sp

J J W^w ™w"#

4* tft

3? r*» <61 if%

75

f*

* -*-

t / \ m m

* - * t *»4

'0

01 * •

#»# *

« # *

•"ff

s s * • # * *4 O •**

I 1 1 i f I

XV

#

m m f*Hi 1*®T

ilZ i s i O

> m

a

if If

? —

—

m

— d

5 T *

t A

f

!

tp—a

i A

• * f

*4 t *

S B f* ® * # • * * u u

|Hi]

• *

* • 04

g %

33 3 • # •

m

**% **%

i & i

76

T 1

iwi

* J* — kl 4 - f *1 #% IN

I#* * * * *

*

#

A# « m |

K <* •#

3 £

N #*£ 0%

t% m o f « #

• 4t 1

t

# S A,

J'

8 # 4 * *

#»f * * l#l *t

• *

s a

*s in

4 9 *

i

?_ I—

f » A.

—-M

*«4

m »

8

& a w *»

Ǥ r *#

3 St'

• U* 0 s i

t a

! i

! «

if*

5-*-**i — M •N"*

**

©

T I H A i

i &

??

! a A

i

t # 0% * *

# • *

I®1* # « « «

w4 ##f *

s s

38 8 • * #

""3 3

1 3 S§ I

!S *4 * •

» »

8R 8

m m * m

* *

ft* * *

ip* m

1t

m n pw *4

s : ' g* # #

# * *

88 S«

*k

8* * •

I M 1*2 IS *

78

| . I t mm not powibl# to d l l f e r n t U t e W

Hfwn say of tlie few groups on «tty of tlM tbre« 4is»ta®ioas

w i t b - s ^ j w p ^ m& i i iHHom>. Aoniysi# of « * ! « » * £»ifoiimt

«fe«t on «acl» dtmmmim they n i l eoaleoce ccwaevhcre near $ti*g Mtuter of

* • eoatiwra*, with mly mtnm M t r n t t l n g l f t UmWmrn

<l« f . t i t ) kmI f lMilar d i f f i c u l t y diffeireatiafciBg h®tmm tl* iim cul-

tures to tib» Rtnroefc » « H 0 r ^ using tfeeee three cUetrmGtotis.

I t S f e l f g M t m M S t e f r «****• * • *>«** t t e « o r l M t a t i « i « *Nir»

<fc«r» were tfix«« 4 t e w t e 8 p&tentmiy mimmumm *«tmm gronpa,

m th® ac t iv i t y orieofcetton t b m mm only one, the doing-feeing. « * * •

was m i ? 0m bBewm sImjm m m m l y m> a l t e rna t ives , r a t t e r tkm Ukam

ttefc eoiiW l u m tod l i n t prcfaranea, U»l» d i f fus ion was net p r* .

in d i f f e r en t i a t i ng lmta*e#8 the gagso «m? tfie wtiit® group* bofcli # |

«i>i#l4 wer© located m IIm side of efe# eeafce* of tha continuum tAt t plmm$

fmm enpfcasia upoa M u g tha-a cm feeing. While the mm of doing

*N* being was a w * in tba mm of botti the tepaired and eh© *mis»i»air«Kl

tli® unftnpntead pl*m4 s ign i f ican t ly a s t e enf&aitia upon doing

***«» *k® teg«ite«f group, She tepate«d group »!*«•* clraest muml ctanhasie

*t sfeA&fr, j^&£i JM,

lipWi 0M6fl*

®»*<H*gb tfce use of tfee several stiwsatiaing s ta t i s t ic® anggaatad by

Huelshota mi Strodtfeadt, value-orieatat ioa mm developed f w

6k® t o w ai&groupa under atwty in th i s reaoarok. to eotsparing tfeaae > » #

f i l a t wilii Urn* of tlws 4«§iw»% Asw*ie«ii wmtm*mtmrnmm | t o l i U » i t

w dwft tint nliite p w f ? e m » f i t t t a g ct» doodMMt

AMriAW oe«iarriBiE in n iv t tob in f i r s t and

79

%mmtI o»!cs pmimmm® m the temporal m& eh® mmt-mtm®

tb«? isfeit© group plmml a greater o ^ w i t m the pxmmt t te» Vbt futmrc,

and on INS tag s»&ja§«£©^ fee Ewsfeur® r«tfeer ttax having ps»* over nu tum

lutesr^etingiy, t&t viltie profile of tfcte i tgr# group aM t te uttisi*

paired gtwp almost metered, a© was em# of die utiifee and fchc Impaired

gwwipi*

While i t n t MWMd tittt tfil< group of WO permm*, lAatita* Aitto,

White, or iml«pair«d, wev* a l l trying to «««M 6h« values o£

the- dontaant: culture, e««b group lurf a significant ©rieaeafcioa tmrntti

tlse ratbar «N» 4m <#•»*• or pass, tritfc Hut ««Mpfclwi «f t&»

usatliapalred group «b©se preference of p*est*t over ivtwn M* f*#t «1bb1-

f iaaat . 3&e f&ifee group end the impaired gro»p slightly prefcxrcu &

doing aefcfortiy cKte&fefttiftft* vfaareaa fcfee »®g» ««§• tmtepaimi frowpf

pr«£«rr#d tfea doing ovar fiwt being m « f tartlittMfc level.

3t«aery of tlte AMtlyaaa of Variance

An overview of t$m data derived Mtm th« w t e mmtywm iMlmMd

tfeefc certain 4t£§mmm§ mist between di* feu* troupe uader etudy, Iwfc

that t&eae difference# are no* great In mmtntr or i s «1m> If wee nftlf

poeaifcle Co differentiate aatftiagiaUy l i l i M ) tfea Hugs?© md tit# ^ l t ©

growp «* eh« dteessio® of t t e index,

»#i»f A t preaenfc 4ms* Ke&ro«« preferred the collateral over <$» iadi-

md iA4«aa Hi# todtirMwi w w lis® collateral . 0» a l l tint «>t>teJr

nine diaeaalone, differeacee between tbeee t m gwwpt nere not

Sire# ©f tins con distensions developed to differentiate bet««a groups

Wf« in ttaking t&istimtimn bvtmm t&© tof>*ir®d «ad fciie

00

NEGRO (H-50)

Col la ted 7Lin

ft®8 7 Fttfc 7f®st

Subj y/Vitix -7/torex

Doing 7Being

TttrrMPATSKB >

Coll^Ind 7%iia

7vea;??ttt;7J»aat

Over^lj i th^Subj

Dotage l©iag

M S (»"30)

lad 7 Coil 7 Lin

Pre a 7 f u t 7 Fast

Sab Over

Bo ing^ Being

ICBttMl. CMS8 JjfgEIOIjf <l» p. m

Jnd 7Coll 7-U»

Futf y f r m / Fast

Over 7S«bj 7With

Doing 7Being

lad 7Coll "7 W»

S*m7'Wm~7fast

gubJ^With-^Over

Doing^Being

te«en4: Relational index: Individual, Collateral end t inea l . Temporal index: Present, Fast and Future. Ean~Hatura index* Subjugated, Over and With. Activity index: Doing and Being.

Fig. 15 — Value -or irritation profiles*

unisapaired groups. I&ere was one diser ininating diiaension in three of

the four value-orientations, including the indivldual-eollateral in the

re la t ional orientat ion, the future-paat in the temporal or ientat ion, and

81

the 4oing*betac ia th« act iv i ty orimttt ia ik In ©a# case it significant

ma mde b*mm® mo 4Utm«m t*ok ordering®, «b&t* I* the

other itm b®tmm the iapoired md «te

group** t&e differences oesrarrcd oaiy to ti*e degree of *Mpfe*»

t l s pUead fcy the two group* m Me oHtarlftg* fleeof tfee rajor d i l l cc«w«i

was that t&e $msmUw& group preferred die laltwftditfcl option m t til® col -

ieteral , while t&* u»i®pftir€d group t&e mllmtrntil. 10m other

4tt£memmM t$*®t appeared fro* tiw vroimett m i y M t cr« fcp^et of ©«*

phssis fee tweet* til© t**e groups oa Che m m renfe ordering#. fliet i®* tbe

unimpaired group preferred m « stroagiy the tettt over tiie post sad

tfee doing mm tibe being tfeen does the impaired group.

Hi®a empmiims the four tftrttgroup* vttb the doodUumt group i t Immmini

evident A i t tbi v&ite pmmm I® thiaonpie c«se closest to f i t t i n g t te

nl (M profi le of its# 4.m&nmz. culture, «nt yet they ««r# €fee west to*

p«Ar«l ^®3rehi*t-riG#lly« H » Hep?© ®*«p t titiiie th# taut c U m to tins

m l m profi le in It* m l m preference** M i tfat lMf€ iieg»fite<J of t&©

e » groups, therefore, td&ether A# group of 10® if®# i i ir i te i o» fefee b«*i«

of race or oa Hie fcasio of pcjnc&tetrie is^airsast, the Magr© group M i

tbe unimpaired grrnip f i e l«saet well but reflect#*! i m pre&lc®® te tlM

pvoeese of Mttal l i t iRS la te dontoant eoeiety.

c u m & axauoe&Am

t , Ktaekbotm, Floreoce Euckwcxxi, "tfaaiiy Diagnosis; I . Variations to the Basic Value lyetcas**1 ^oeS#l faateflwgiu XSXtX (19SS), 63«?2.

82

ouupm t?

omcuksgb

this thesis hm presented value-orientation data on 100 lower class

warna frora Dallas, f«a» who reside In public bousing. Fifty respondents

mm mgm and fifty mm white. Dividing the group la taras of mental

hrn&im, there were seventy-two who were iapaired and twenty-eight who

were not.

theoretical fraaework sad the instrument used I® this study to

determine the value orientation of these four group* were developed by

Florence Klucldtohn. ?bc instruaeat, while developed to toe used cross*

culturally oa rural or folk cultures, was found to be attenuate for use

a w S p®rmm *fco were urban residents. Xt was found that the instru-

ment could be used to differentiate between subgroups or subcultures as

Hell as between cultures* Kluckbotw's theory of variation in value

orientation enabled description of ecwe of the vslues of each of the four

groups, sod differentiated between the® in an orderly fashion in terns of

variation maong a United but not random group of possible alternatives

available to ell Hie groups.

Dovfct was raised ecAeamlag Klackholw'e assertion that die etener

the value-orientation profile of a group is to that of the larger cul-

ture, the easier and faster the assimilation process. Xt was found that

the Most impaired group la the sample feat? the closest fit viHi that of

the dominant atiddle class culture. It was assure} that psychiatric te-

pairaent is at least one evidence that a group is experiencing assimilative

83

84

difficulty. Kluekhohn (1, p. 70) suggests that movement fro® one value

orientation position to another Is difficult and productive of problem.

One possible extenuation for this negative finding was that the amplitude

of the differences which appeared to txilt between the subgroups in this

sample were not actually very great. Ferhapg the sample sise was too

aaall to reflect an accurate picture.

Aasunlng that each of the groups was studied to the process of

change, one possible explanation for the fact that the Hegro group was

even less paired than the white group, both lower class, via that they

had sow mesas of coping vlth their circusastancas as their values mm

changing. Kluckhohn (lt p. 70), in a study of several Ismigrant group

values, found that in the families there was evidence of a breakdown in

the collateral ties} these people did not understand nor were they ready

for the individually oriented relational system in the United States,

which was necessary for nuclear family existence* Kluckhohn said that

these "sickM fseniles seemed to he stranded, confused and alsost In a

void. Ate breakdown is collateral family ties had inhibited eosNsunica*

tioii within the family. Tension that developed was denied by these

persons and in souse cases projected to the outside world* the healthy

families maintained strong collateral ties which helped to cushion the

changes they were experiencing, enabling a wore realistic conception of

goal® and means to these goals, this mis possible, Kluckhohn suggests,

because of high levels of effective communication within the tastily*

Interestingly, the nes&ers of the Negro and unimpaired groups retained

collateral tits, ftis is in fact the najor difference between the im-

paired and unimpaired groups. It was true that the negro, uniapaired

if

p r c t o M u «K8 not a significant w statistically, but the In*

paired preference of individual mm collateral was eignlf leant.

ffe® unimpaired group s^mcd to tm uncertain about let preference ©f

present tine aver future time, unlike da# ottoss* three groups utiititt steantd

a «ipdL{l«»t preference of present owr future. this tendency indicated

that thif group una looking acaeubat ttm tottard the («twr«, paralleling

the pattern fotnd to ebt middle 9%m»* All of the groups placed the paet

in third order or laMt desirable position, vttlcfc reflected a rather u#l-

versa! diaenehsntaent with p«»t«

While it wm tvm thmt all Smx of tfcws subgroups were uncertain

itanit their rititimAlp to nature, m reflected by their wiwtMUjr

insignificant pnfsctMtt, it was interesting that only the unimpaired

group placed tito o*«t nature category first, aa in th* niddle classes*

Hie ©their iter#* subgroups, including the Vegro group, felt that they were

subject to ft*# attitude that taw la subjugated to nature Is

productive of a m$k*w ffctalistic approach to life. Mum the ample v*s

divided in t m m of health, She unlffif>aired group put M ntttt**

first:, in eoo^retioji with nature second m i In subjugation to nature to

die least preferred position, therefore ref lee ting « apparently healthy

attitude toward life and ite vicissitudes*

CM the activity orientation, all of the group* hm& tfea Middle class

preference of doing over being, the Rcgro aad unimpaired groups* prefer*

M e e wtri significant statistically, lite «t*it# group mi the

unimpaired groups* preferences were not. this auggeeted that the latter

two $rmp& tmk m univalent stance en thia ©rJUsstatlott.

Another finding of iatereat ia that not only did a pattern develop

ie ite values of the groups uhea they mm® divided ia t i « of VMt&ai

N

fcc*itb, Utt ttiifi tfiviiioa *emmd to fe# ova* woro produetlw tfeft* the

rwelti vtkifitk is tm c&mmmly we4» IMs £ lading Mil*

tiott to *am additional qaeatloaat I) At vfeftt poiat its tk« atianga ptocMt

4m« a person I m m i li^iired piydiiitr tMt Ijrt 2) Hqr we® the wmml

Iwaitb diatiaetion «or« productive than tin racial or ctbaUf 3) So*

tigii ome without |HFtiN&tt&Sxi$ lllMMwY 4$ fiblitr cap tug

um b# ttaed to leeaen the ehaacae of iqps in t t t aad i u MwcttjrT

Xtt S I M U ^ I Elttclthttte' © w i i t i s n lit VIIIM© orientation theory ml

her a u l y t i a l taatnaamt ware «a«f«t and productive ift differeatiatias

batMPeaa Mfegfoiff mA i s 4®fe#f»tates sens© of fit© value o r t e t n t t e p*#»

fereae** is AMrfMB oocioty. Uaiag index of payabiatrie

iapairneat to dtfferMttiitc iMtwen healthy aad tick peraoaa, Kl«ckMtt,«

i i u R w n t v*e capable «# 4Uf«na t i« t i s | e(f««Uwly the n l w ptefUct

of tbeae two group*.

mmmn a

&W6WL{XM*B VAUJE M 3 M K

i . JOB aiOICE activity! Itmm At mA A2

k mm neeiied a job and had « ebauee to work for two taea. lb« two

boaaea m « d l f f t r t n t . Liatas to wbat thay were l i t e and mjt vhich you

think would be the beat one to work fo r .

A tee boea was * f a i r enough man, «ttd fee gave §wmmh&% higbcy

(Doing) f»ay than ttoet «m» but h© M the kind of feose wto instated

tiut nana work hard, s t ick on ib« Job» Be did not l i t e i t a t

i l l when <t wntImc eoatetiaoe Juat knocked off work for a while

to go on a t r i p or t# have a day or «o of fttn* and b«

i t wm right not to take such a worker back cm the job.

1 ' the othar paid Juat average wagea but fee wae not ao ffcra* He

(Being) underatood that a worker wo»M aowsstiiaea juat not turn up •

would be off m a t r i p or itavtag a l i t t l e fun for a day or

two. Mhus hia mm did th ie be would take then ba#k without

seying too ®jcb»

(Fart one)

Ubieh of theae nan do you believe that i t would be bet tar to work for in

®08t ©«®#et

$hieh of filtaae would isost other think i t bet ter to work

for i

(Fart two)

tfttich kind of boaa do yaw believe that i t ia bat ter to be i s noat eaaea?

Hitch kind of bo»® m i l stoat other think i t bet ter to be?

a?

m

2. WELL MliAmim®m relation^!* ism u

then a corawnity h*a to nuke arrangement* for water, such a* drill a

nell, tiurt are three 4 if fez eat ways they can d«sMe Co «rir«ig@ things

lite location, and «tu» ia going to <§© tine work.

4 there are acne eownmitiee «hei< it is minly the site or

(Lin) recognised leaders of the important fjnilieg «bo decide the

pleas. Ewejon# usually «c#®pta t&at they say without wueb

discus* ion since they are the ones mho me vmd to deeidtag

euch thing* and the one* idbo have had the stoat experience.

B There are sosae cooNaltiei where ooat people in the group hove

(Coll) « part ia soaking the plana. Lota of different people talk,

but nothing is done until ah»o*t everyone e«#t-« to n§«® m

to nhat la beat; to be dene,

C there nre sews eowwttities «twte ©wiry©*!® hold* to hi® own

(Sad) opinion, and they Amt&e the aattexy by vote. they do vbat

tiwe largeat wnber want even though there are a till « m y

great atany people «ho disagree aadobjeet to the action.

Hiifefa way do you think u* usually beat in. mufti ease*}

Hhtch of the other two way* do you think ia better?

Which way of «11 three **ya do you think «oat other peraona in . t

would uaually think la beat?

3. mm mamm tum itm n

Som people were talking about the my children ahould be brought up.

Here are ttoct different ideas.

A Bmm people any that children ahouid always be taught well the

(Fast) tradition* of the paat (the way* of At old people), they

St

believe tfeu» old ways are heat, and that it I® when children

do not follow then too touch that thing* go wrong.

B Sooe people « j thee children should 'IN® taught sows of th« old

(free) traditions (Myt of the old people)» hut it is wrong to iaeiet

that they stink to these ways. These people believe tiut it

is ««®8«ry for children always to l « « about ® M eato «*

whatever of the saw ways will best help th*» get along I n A #

world of today*

C Soee people do not believe children should be taugfct nueh shout

(Put) past traditions <che ways of the old peo{fe) at all exeept as

«n interesting s tory o f utmt hm gone before# 1lM#e people

believe that the world goes along best «feea children are

taught £fe.e thing® that will wake thee want to find ewifc for

theaselvea mm ways of doing thine* to replace the old.

tittich #f ttese people had the teat idee about hot? children should b«

t ihlch of the other two people had the better idea?

Considering again all three ideas, which would west other persons in

say had the better idea?

4, U W f O Q K 0YIUG Item M i

One tlw a wan had a lot of livestock. Most of the» died off in

different ways. People talked about this and said different things*

4 Sow® people m$d you just can't bias® a stats whea tfelaga like

(SubJ) this happen, there are so wany things that can and do happeot

a»d a a*n <saa do alcsoet nothing to p t e e t t t mah losses, when

they e w . We all have to learn to take the bad with the good.

90

1 Some people mM that i t ma probably the mm*» m fault that

{0wr) te loat eo taany. He probably didn't Is Is head to prevent

the loaaea. They «aid that I t ia usually the caae vhen meet

keep up on new ways of doiag ffeiufs, and really set thca*

aalvaa to i t , ala»«t alvay* find a way to fcaep out of such

€ Seme pe©fie aaid that it vas probably beeauae the am had not

(With) lived his l i fe right - had not dose things la the tight vay

to keep harraooy between hind*If sad the forces of nature ( i . e . ,

the ways of nature like the rate, wind a, isov, t i e , ) .

Uhich of thaae reason* do you think is most uaually true?

Which of the 0titer wo reasons do y«sw thiafe i t sore true?

Vhi«h of a i l three reasons would moat other persons ia thlok

is usually true?

9. m w e m s c w m m amm timi item n

<*. 20*40 A|e Group)

Ste«« y©«»g people were talkinfi about vfcat thay thought their $mi*

li#® vould h«v« one c!i*f es conpared with fheir fathera an* mtfca*#. ffcay

each said different things.

C fitrat said: I expect sgr faaily to bo batter off la the

<*»*) than the family of «y falser and wother or relatives

if we w«k hard and plan right, thiaga in thia country

ttittfilly get b a t ^ r for people uho really try,

® Hm second ©ae said: X don't kww Aether «$r family will h*

Ctre#) batter off , the m m , car worse off than the fanily of ay

father ond vrnthm m relatives. Iking* always go m> trnc 4mm

fl

mm if people do voxk h«rd. So one emu aaver really tail

bow thinge will be.

4 Hut third e m m M t I expect ay fasily to be about the &mm m

0ml) the family of ay father aod Bother or relative*. Hun beet

way i s to vork hard and plan waya to keep tip things as they

have baaa in the peat.

Vhleh &£ tiiaae paop1© da yav think ted the best idea?

fthieh ol Itoe other t*» ptir®®®® h«d ftfee bet&ar fe§«s?

Which ©I these three people would aoat other ]kn» age think

teacs tte beat Mm?

<b. 40-up Age Group)

three older people m m talking about what iky thought thair child*

tea vould have ttoen they m « grown. Hare ia what each one aaid*

C One said; z really expect sy children to have wwe than i have

(Flit) had If tfeef wwrk hard «*d plea right*. Hitre mm ilvqn good

chances for people who try*

1 Si® second mm. said: I don't know lAether ay children will be

(Prat) fcetta* off# nurae off, ©* Jest the saw©. things aliwps up

apj down ewa If on® Hosts® hard, a# we can't really tell*

A Xfee iikl one aaid; X expect ay children to have Just about ih®

(Past) #*b» as X have tad or brine things back ae tshay onea were.

Xt ia their Job to work hard and find ways to ka«p thiaga go-

ing as they have bean ia the past*

Shish of thaaa people do you think hod the beat Idea?

Mhich of the other two persons had the better idea?

Hitch of Urn## Hwen people would wont otter . ... yousr a§© fthtek

had the beat idea?

f a

*. mem emmmmm m-msm*

there w t d i f ferent w ; « of thinking about; how Cod (the g#d#> Is

Cure) related to tManwi to w a l l e r and a i l o t ter natural conditions

iAt£c$t ®»ke A® crops m i enteais live or die* Bera are #!*•*

ways.

e Cod (the goda) and people a i l work together a l l the ttawi Wt»«»

( 8 ^ ) ^ condition* which make the cropa aad anionla grow as*

good or ted &®pes®&® upea whether j»o§»l« ttwusselw#® do a l l A t

proper things to keep HMMnetvtt in tang with their God

(gait) and with the force# of nature*

I Cod (the soda) tee# (do) not direct ly use hla ( their) power to

(over) control a l l the condition* which a f fec t the growth of «ropa or

aniaala. It i» up to the people i m e i m to figure out the

wu« condition* change a*? to try hard to find the wnya of

controlling

A Juat hew God (the goda) wil l us© hla ( their) power ever a l l th t

conditions which affec t the growth of eropa and aniamla cannot

b» known to awn* But i t i s uaalesa for people to t&i&k they

c«a change conditions w**y wneh for vary Ions* tt® beat: wwy

i t to tatee conditions aa tfeoy cmm and c'o a@ nul l ae one am,

Wbi«h ©f these waye of looking at things do you think ia beat?

Whiah of the oilier t m wgtys do you think ia better?

®bieh of the three ways of looking at things would w»et other people ia

. , thtefe la beat?

7. Htt* « m&mmm veUtimmlt Itm m

A wan had a crop f a i lu re , or , le t ua say, had loat noat of hia abeep

m

or eattle* Be and hi* fanily bad to have help from iMMeaiwt if they were

®ei»g to get through the vioter. There are different ways ©f getting

help. Mhich of these three would be best?

S Ifould it l>e beat if he depended Mostly » bit fevottwre and

(Coll) ii«te» or other relative* ell to help bin out me wuteh m nacfe

cm could?

C tfould it fee test for fete fee try to mim tkm mmy jgj hi® mm

(twl) • Quz$im the eowaunity (his own people) ten people «tu> art

smithm relativee wot eepiefe*#?

4 Would it be test for lite to go to a faos© ©y to aa & M m taper*

(Uai) ta&t relative **fo» is oaecl t© aKMgiitg things la hie group,

and ttk hi® to help out until things get better?

Which way o f getting th« help do you think would uaually he beet?

Vhieh «ur of setting the help do ym think i« next best?

Vhich way do you think you youreel* would really follow?

Vhieh «njr do you dtisk ssoate other people in would think beet?

a. FJKUY MttK ftEttX10«$ relational; Xtea 83

l'» going to tell you about three different ways fasti lie* can arrange

vmk* A*®® imllim are related and they live clone together*

C Xn #km* granpa (ot euwwiiKl#®) it t# ueually enacted ifeafc eseb

(Xnd) of tiw aaparate faniliee (by vhich we sua juet hatband, wife,

mi children) will look after it® fe**®i»»« aeparate fro*

all others and not be teapoasible for th© others.

1 I m m growpf (or eooaunitios) it ia uaually «peet«d that the

(Coll) cloee relative* in the faodlies will work together and talk

over m g themselves the way to take w a of nhatever problem

m

ce«e up, Hfeest a tel® is needed ti»y uimally choose (get) a *

person, set tt®C0®®®fily the oldest able person, to assuage

things*

4 1» aowe groups (o* coonmities) it is usually «spteft«S that ffe

(Ua) fsBilies vbicb are elosely related to each other will work §©•

gether Mi have the oldest able perso® (beanaano nayet et

father) be responsible for awi take ciw« of wost 4*e*tiM

things.

*l*b o« these ways do you think in usually best la west cases?

tfhicb of Oe other two wtys 4# you think is better?

tSbiefo at -all fcfe© wayss <3# ymi think was® other persona is

w m M think is usually best?

t* CHOICE W "&WMG&W telafcianalt flam 14

A RTou? like yours (coenunity lite yours) is ft® send « delegate * a

representative - to a Netting «ngr froo here (this cm be any sort of

imfting)» flw will this delegate be choeen?

* £® It *>«•* that a be ceiled and everyone discuss

(Coll) thing© until mrntjam agrees so that lit®® a wt» i«

Ssfssn almost nil paopla would toe ngr«e<I on the m m peraoa?

A 1« it best that the older, important* leaders take the aain

(U®) responsibility for deciding who should represent the people

alxtee tfcey are the ones ute have turf titan lm& I®

such natters?

5 Xs it best that a seating be called. Beans be put up, ® vote

<$®d) be Mfcan, ttum ®e«ii gin mm wtie §<?» the saajority of vote®

«v« if there are nany people vho are still against this stan?

«ti<A of these ways of choosing i s usually best la otses l i fe this?

t&iefe of the other two ways i s usually better?

ffeicfe would w>st other persons in . say t® usually beat?

10* BSE W f i l ing .S&1SBSS5 Iee® W3

Itara were th*#@ M i ?sh© had fields with crop® (wore faroers). $fae

!&*»# «e« bad quit* different ways of planting and taking oar* of crop*. c 0 6 6 ix» bis crops, w W hard, «sd also ##t hinself to

living ia right awl proper wys* He f a i t that i t i s tfc» way

a H i worfe# and til®® to keep himself ia harmony wtgfe Hie

forces of nature that has idle aost affect on conditions and

the ©Ay crops teuaa out*

A te® 1*1 put to M» ©top#, Alteracrdi lie norlsed ®a theta

Cfw&J) eiaatly but did not do i»®e than v u ttecMary to fe#«|» then

• going llos$f Be felt that i t s&ai&ly dafMMMtedl on weather eon*

iitioa® bm they would turn out, sad that no&hiRg egt?a tfett

fxeofle do aoa Id sfeange tilings sweh.

* Ok • » P«t in his crops mid than worked a* than & lot ©I

fQvwr) tine Md «ade use of #11 the m scientific ideas he could

find out about* l® f e l t that fey d©la® this he would i» mmt

W W prevent wany of «h« effects of bad conditions*

Sfeiefe of these «®or® *1® 3»w baUatn is waotlly fctatT

IWcb o< tih® other two ways do you believe i s better?

Which of the Am# ways mmU most other pmmm I® thlufe is

best?

H. reitoSOKY <* MCT i f e . I W . I 3

People ofcett have wry different ideas about what has gone bafore anc

m

utwfe m can expaet la life. Ewe arc three my® of thb^ing about these

things.

1 Sane fMtopie believe if best to give aoet attention to «$i»fe ft

(Fr«) happening mm &» feh« present. fhey any tiutt the past hc«

gone and tli« future ti web too uncertain to ootmt on, things

do citmge, tee it is m @ l t e s for tike better sad sosuettees

for t&e m v m $ m t» tfie long urns it i# about ilie ssxae. Uteie

l>eopfe bfsli<we the heat way to iiv« is to Itowp Hkem ®£ ftw

p14 way© i&afc m e «an * or Asfe ooe lite# - but to be ready

to accept the i m ways «hidh will help to make lift easier and

better m n» live froa year to yur*

4 i w fwopl# thiak that th® ways of the f>#st (way® of the old

<P«ot) people or traditional waye) i»*e the aoet tight and fih« best,

anct as changes cow things get these people think the

best way to livft is to votk hard m fewsp w the oM wsf® «f»4

try m bring ttatt beck ttmn they are last.

C Sk»e people believe that it ia «la»et alw^i the wtya of the

(Fut) , faewtt - the wye are etill to eoae - idikb will be b«»t,

and they eet that even though there are ©aaetims mmU #tt»

backs, change brings inproveoents ia the long stm, Sbeee

people think the beat way to live ia to look • long tim *~

head, work hard, ani .give up smug? things a«w m tint lb®

future will be better*

Which of these ways of looking at life do you think ia beet?

ffeieh of tibe otter wo mm do ymi fchlafe bad the better idea?

Hhich of tike three nen do yo* think jaost other per eons in . . .. L

wmM thi&k had the best idea?

97

14,- aasmm&L m m M s i m xt«»

Sow people in 0 coewunity like your own ®as? ftbitt tfo* religious cere~

aooie® {the church ecrvleee) were c£uHigi»$ from «fe«t tibef used to be,

C Som people were really pleaded because of lis# ehongea In

(Put) relifiloue ceresmics. they felt time new way® ere wnmlly

better fchsa old ones# «nd tfeey like to tetep everything - m m

cereaonics - Moving ahead*

A Bos* people were unhappy beeaaae of the change* they leit

(p«tt) tbat religious ceremonies ahmild be kept exactly - to ©wry

my * «e tfhey had been tn the paat*

ft Son® people felt thm tim old ways for raligioue e®*i«©iiie8

{Free) mm best but ywu Just can't tang <m to fctw*. It aefcea life

eoter jutt to accept m k changes a® £feey ««»§ aloes*

Hitch of tiutM three mM mm mutely utefe you wauM b$Mm® ia right?

ISiiefe of the other t»© io yon thiafe i# »r« tight?

mt&h of the eiweii would w>at other say was met right?

IS# HUTS OF W activity; Ifea A3

flteir© vera &m people talking about how they liked to live, Xhey had

different Men#*

A One ««Ui What X care about *oat ia aeeoopliafefog thiaga -

0oin8) getting thing* done Juat aa well or better than other people

do the®. X lite to see reaulte end think they are worth

working for.

» tbe other aaidi What X care m>at about ia to be left alone to

{Being) fchisk unci e©£ in the wey« that beat suit «&# way X really «u

If X don'g always get moll done but can enjoy life aa X go

along, that ia the beat wny.

m

Which of these tm peraeaa 4® you thlak ha* the bettac my of t&teMagf

Which of the two do you thlok you are mm likel

Uhiah 4o you think *oat o t e wmli @ay bad tiie bttttr of

living?

1*. MWSfOOI Waitt» Item &§

S«t aona tesgtotsw feav« baaa i«ft ««e IAw®ta«h. (atta*? m m>%«

tl«) fey a father or mriftar A # iuui «ttei* All thaae teas# and daughtera

« « grow tip, iwi ufaey live «««r «®«fe other* flMun arv sfer«« M M m m t

w*y« they can run the llv&afsoek*

A & aoae group* of peopU, it i# usually fiatpatitwd that the old-

<Ua) «#e porsoo (soo m dau^ter, hecnjno> mm&si will take

t&ssg© of, or ataoagc, #11 titae stock he 14 by hinusU §mi d*

other sous «ad daughter*, • •

C • In aowe group# of paople it i» usually **p»ct«d titefc eassb of

(!»}) ' tfee *om and daughters will pref« ft© tdse bit or tier @M

ritotv al th» otock and run hia or her own bualneaa coop lately

from all Hie otSfc&ra#

B In ae@© gtowpa of p«opk- it It mmtlf that #11 f&a

soae awl d«ught«re will tawp fill their cattle i»t rt»#p to-

gettecr m4 iwxfe to&eth*r m& imMe m a m throw* lire© wfo© 4*

beat able to take charge *f thiaga, s»t necaaaarily tfe# old-

6«t, ftum a tew ia ae*d«d.

Hitch ««; do y w tbiak la the beat let coat caaee?

Ihldt ©I th# other two «aya 4© you think it better?

Hki^ ftf all three waya do you think awat other peraooa to

would thiak Is uaually beat?

If

i?, um gputicttftit itc* if

Sew t vent to ask a »taller <picstl38 concerning fnrxa ant? £raain$ %

laatcad of iivaatoclt*

Hunt sons aad daughter# ha*/c biea I', f t wwse fans awit graving l » i by

(i father or w t e tihe tee dies. All three mm ««S daughters arc grow*

m i live near caeh other, Shcre are fchrwc %mys ttoy em handle the

property.

A I» #<*» group* of people It is usually ©sptetei that ttoe oM-

(Lin) tat afcla person vi l l take caxt of or «aa«g« the land for

aelf and all <$* other «mui and daughtava, efett if tbay all

§te» it#

C la earn group* of ptopie i t ia uatially expected tiwc each aoo

(lad) «t»d daughter will take hia asm thmr® oi tf» lam! and do with

i t «Autt ha w t s * aeparatc fxroa all tfea othera.

1 In aoae groups of people i t la usually cxpectsad that all the

(Coll) u©»@ and daughters will wfee uae of tins land Hhatt

a hosa is aaadad* tbey all get together aad agraa to dtaoae

aaaeoae of the group, not aeaeaaarily tiM ©I4#at# to take

eharge of ^stegu.

Which of thaae toys do you think ia usually boat In wm% eaaea?

tlbftali of ffee o t e «s® «aya 4& ym tfelnfe ia better!

Which of all three waya do ysni think as&t fc other peraooa ia m..,.,rrr,.r._.,.

would think ia uauaily beat?

i a . care m mm® .ae^yi&i, t tm A4

Ihera were two won, both farmers (eca with fields). they liwd

differently.

,160

1 da® mm kept the crop* growing a l l right but ritdo't work m

{Being) tfecn m&m Him fee had to . R#- tM&ted to h*v<? «xtra tlwe to

via i t with fr iends, go on tvipe, «od @njoy U f c . This w®»

the w«y he liked beat.

A Oa© s w liked to mark. with i t s f ie lds tad w«» «lv«y» pwttias

(Betag) in «Kttt» fin® toepliig t te» #l«iw of whmhI® *ad la f t ee

t too. lec»is« lie- did thie «$«$?« vork, he 4id sot have omeh

tfese l e f t to k with frlewia, go on t r ipe , or to enjoy fate-

aelf la otfeey «&ye, Bat th is was the vny he really liters

betfi.

Hiirfi kind of sura do ywa feelism tt i« feefcteer to twit

(for ass only)t Vbleh kind of a m ere you rceily m e t like?

Wbich klod of w would woet other . . ... think i t hotter to he?

19* m m m m o n mpgk*mMm t#«® w s

Hh?«s atn weye t&lMfig dboat «fe®tt*eF people ^ws«Iw®f ««* #© aayfcbing

to siflfo tite Uvei of m mA t m w tmimt. Imm, ie lints m&h Mid,

I ' (tee swlii I t i t ftlnitdy tew that peaple like doctors and

{Over) qUmv* «r© f t a i f ag the nay tea add map y«ar» to H« lives of

«mm mm by discovering {fladit»£} «ew axiieiaes, fey geadyfeg

foode, aad doing other atwb thisgs as wec i s ik iMt . If peo»

pic v i l l jwgy to a l l theae turn titlnei they wil l

ftlaoftf ato&ya live lci*g«#

A aecood i»Mi X real ly ia »ot belitve that these i s auch

(Swfej) twain feeia@« AwMlve i can do to mIm tin- l ives of w unst

noma loader. I t i s ®y feelief that every pereon km 4 test-

e ta ! to l ive , mtS vtseii t&iMt fetets eeme i t Juat ««»©*•#

m

C Bit; chirc' qoc said: 1 believe that tfcer* l« « ?lm fee life

(With) which voxka to keep all living; thing* ftwtag together f ««J if

• wea will lewma to live hia vhole life lit accord with that

p l * a , life w l l 1 l i v t l o n g e r t h e n nchex «ew»

t&icfc of the** t h r e e a * l d w o s t ne«urly what you would t h i n k is r i g h t ?

Utileh of tibe ether two ways Is more right?

tibi&ib of th« t$mm mmM i»st e&h»r pet©aws to •, . ,-. **y w^ts. menst

tUfctl

Mi m m Msmmm ttmt t&m n

®J» gevenwftnc 4s g o i a g t o h e l p a c c a n u a i t y l t i w y o u r * to g e t m t e

w m m % w d f l l l l a g a * ? c l o a n i n g a e c m n s t t l t y * 1 1 o«*ft» $h* g « w » w w « t •

@«§j|«8® tha i : t h e e o w M l t y s h o u l d tew m p i a » f o r d i v i d i n g Hi®

« x t s * * » * # * # h u t d o o # t e a y v h a t k i a d of p l a a * 3 l a c e fch* «wo«at of estta

w t e r t h a t a a y co«a» l a is n o t known, p e o p l e f ® e l d i f f e r e n t l y a b o u t

plssBins*

A S o * * « y t h a t w h a t e v e r w a t e r c o o e s to s h o u l d h« d i v U « 4 j u s t

( f a s t ) a b o u t l i k e m i t e s l a t h e f m t m» a l w e y * d i v i d e d ,

G O t h e r s v a s t t o work o a t a r e a l l y good p l a n ahead of t i a e £m

( P u t ) d i v i d i n g i & a t e v e r Wttm eosse® l a *

§ 8 t i l l o t h e r s w a n t to $mt w a i t u n t i l t h e w a t e r c o n e * l a b e f o r e

( P r e * ) d e c i d i n g on how i t v l l l b e d i v i d e d .

Which o f t h e s e way* d o you t h i n k 1 * u s u a l l y b e a t i n &mm l i l s e t h i s ?

Which o f t h e o t h e r two way* d o y o u t h i n k i s h o t t e r ?

I & i e h o f t h « t h r e e way* d o y o u t h i n k s o a t o t h e r porDoas i n . r ^ ...

w o u l d t h i n k b e s t ?

2 1 . SOtfHBKXUC a c t i v i t y * I t e m AS

I h e r e w e r e two v o a e n t a l k i n g a b o u t ttu» way t h e y l i k e d t o l i v e .

192

i Cm© mM fcbsfc «t*e we will teg, to v&tk aa feacd aa tfe# average,

(Being) but that: abc didn't like to epcwl « lot of time doing the

feted of esfcea things la her tone# * taking «p extra thing*

oucaide A Use- » Instead ekn iik©4 to few® ttm. fsm to

enjoy visiting with people - to go on tori?* » m to Jjuat talk

with whoever <ma arowJ,

A fhe oAs® «twa »aii aha lifced heat af all fee £i»d cute® tiiiap

CDoitfi) to wfe act vhieh would internet her » £m aaunple* •

ft*® #sM tfee *mb twjipfcst; «i«i kept fe««w and was getftteg lot;®

dona*

Vtlch ef tibetc vaya do yoti think it ia a&oalljr betta* for « m to live?

(Fat? twatsa only); Which wotaan are ymi really «®« 14%#?

t&icti way of life would ao«t other ... . think ie beet?

as. mmmnrn mm mtm&wt mm m

We mm epend tfeels- tim la <$iff&teafe way# «tum they Ii»e se work to

i#* (this m m m *toe® they as?® not actually on j^.)

A tine «an «f»®S® aoat of tM® tiwe or 6xyia& out thin a

(Doing) which will help hi» in hie work.

S flue m «p«d» n&at: of tfet* fte talking, telling etories,

(Being sioilat;, and aoaa with hia frieode*

tlhiefc of s&eee a w has the better wey of living?

9hi«h of titoae *wa do yaw lintels. jsm me mm iikef

iteieh ef tA»#e mm would »?ot othor tfeiSfc had the better

of livlag?

appendix 1

MODIFIED mm mmmmmi

5. mnetmm mm omiwb tsmi ttm n <«• 2©*40 Aee Cvoup)

young peeple i«ev» talltttig teue utiat tep ttenigbt titeiir #«»f*

lies wactW tmm w l f U e««p*e«d vlcb teix fater* md water*, tey

e«ei» #*td 4iffew.Be. thicks*

c fteet Mid; i mpmt vxy fmily too be tetter off 4» the

(Fut) ftttwar® thm sfe» f«stl.y of toy fatter end ttateE or relative*

if we wwrt hard md plm right. Iblttg* t» tfei* fiwwtxy «*u-

AljJff get better gm peo l« ti» v<4iiy try*

1 Uic- ss-couw em mUi 1 itm'fc tan* 1fc#A« «p family will be

(**«*} b»n«* off* te mbc, OK tta*«e off titan A® fmtly of wy tm-

Awt tffedl wilii or fefafcifes. Thing* alwgy* ®& up aad 40m

Jf WW* bard. »o qm ««i m w m really tell

htm tfel«g« will be.

A tte «M*«i ®nMs 1 eispaefc ay fussily t» b« about sbe §iw© «

Cwt) th<? fsKtiy o£ ay fatiie? aed aotfeer or raiative*. ?fe* be«t tmy

i» to w l bant 1®# pt« la®1® to k*ep up Ustagii «» tt»y fcnw

Utm in the paa«»

H&efe of t&asa pecf-le do you M h&& t$M? best M#«l

WWch of Hie other two pm«mm ImkS tfee better M m f

<b» 40-up Ag« Group)

ttrw a M « paople «er€ tutting afroufc ®h«fc etoey thought Aefc

tm mmia have «fe«a they wn* ijrowau lew is what *acb ooe aoftdu

103

104

C One oalu» 1 xmllf *5Xpoct sgr to lit*#; ware than I have

(put) ImkI i f A®J wcwfte b«B«i and plan right. ?fcr« me mhwy# good

cbMc«$ for people who try*

1 Hie second mm mMt i don't toaow nfecttnti: ay wi l l b#

{?!«») fcetfcer o f f , twrse o f f , or jest the nmc. thls&a ahieye go up

and down evea If one tiorlw bard, m «c co i ' t really tell*

A ft* third oe# mMi t e«peet «y tihildtta* to have Jwt about

<P«ec) Aft mm? m t hm& tw#s or bring Ala®# bmk m t&ay mm mm•

I t Its their job to work hard aat find way» to keep eMn§®

g®t®® as they twm? fen®a to Shu past*

Which of Hunan people 4o you thiak had t&e beat ideal

Hi lA of tkft otter Wo person# 1*1 the better idea?

«• wmm cemtxtms itm mz

there are different vi^t of chinking about How God i» re luted to tmx

and fee nmtiteK end *11 other natural condition* ifcieb mit* the crop* and

saimaia live or di#« Bare are three pojHitble my®,

€ Cod an<? people ni l wtfe together a l l fche tiae; whether tM

(With) condition* Which sattei the crops m l aniiaals gsew « » good or

tad depends nfsa vbether people t&aniNfrlvee do a l l tlte proper

thlttga to Ueep thoaaelvc* til hmemmf with t&efcr to# «bk> trith

the forces of oatnrc*

3 <jod <1©## not directly use his pows* to control a l l the condi-

(Owr) tiooa ufcich affect the growth of crop# or mimla, I t i s »t>

to tile people thenarlv«» to figure out the ways ©«a44ti««

change « d to try hard to flats! the waya of controlling then.

MS

£k Just ium &xs Will wse bia poutsv over a l l the couditivtu f4ti«h

(Subj) affect fch* growth o£ « o f i «®o aafcaals ««w»f ha fcaowit by

watt. But i t t» 4»«le#s let uvopie to thiuk they um. «h«9g«

ccoditloas msy such foe vesy best way is to tafca

iwiH^itioas as they cane sou do m mil m mm «uwu

Vhicti of |3t»«« «®ys ol looking at chinas do yea thtefe i s bsst?

Vbi.dk ef the cthor two way® Jo you chick i s feeftcar?

7. t » ® MUMME ttm m

& mam mm la itomRtoX tat«ai»lt* Si© mid fee* faoily bad to twte

help froe seasons U thsy wrc going to get through the- wiater*

m m different toys of getting fealp* ihisfe of the** wy* w«W be fca*tt

3 Hmjisl i t be beet if she gapeBtto^ aG«tly ott her r«iativ«« #11

CeoU) Co help b i ' out m a » b as <i*ch oott could?

€ ftoald I t be best for her to try to raise A© w w y jg| ggg, am

Clwl) from pe&ple nim m* uttttew relatives aor

4 tfould at be best for tor to go to # boss sad *ak til® to h«if

(Us) oat uati i things &*t better?

rhich way of getting the helf da y«u thiak would usually b« best?

Which way ©f ipttte® the help J& you think is wmt bestf

Hhich way 4# you thiak you yourself would realty follow?

3. XMSDUF m BELmeSS tt«ft 13

A group ©f faniiies ate related md lim clase togstftst1* there are

different ways they can arrange their work.

C Itt soon groups (or coHnuaities} i t i s usually ejtpsat&d that

(Ind) «*ch of idte #ep«afe«' families (by which we uean just husband,

wife, g*i children) will look after i te onm b«ela<*s» separate

10*

frora a l l o t h e r s «a<? n e t be r«?o?;CTieible f o r the o t h e r s .

1 I s scat* groups (or cctteMoitl.es) I t i s u s u a l l y expected t h ^ t Che

(Co l l ) Klosf %el$ztmM i n the f a m i l i e s w i l l work togeefcea «a£ talfc

over s w i g themselves tb& wsy t o take mm o f nhi tevcir pvefe*

tem cijm- up. Vbcn s boss i s oeeced tbey u s u a l l y choose (g« t )

o«« p c r s o a , s o t tkrc< s s a r i i y the o l d e s t A l e p e r s o n t o sasasg^

t h i n g s .

A I n Bowe group# (or co t touni t iea) i t i s u s u a l l y expected t h a t the

( U n ) f a m i l i e s t ^ i c b or* c l ® » l y re la te*! to each o t h e r w i l l work t o -

ge the r sod have the o l d e s t a b l e fwrsoci be respootsible f o r m i

t a k e e « m of wast. important. t h i n g s .

Miieto of t iwae ways do yon t&isit i s a e a a l l y b e s t i » wmt c a s e s !

Vbich of f&e o t twr two ways do you thixik ts totter?

§ . « t $ Of 9 i i » « y .UBt io—lt Xte» 84

A ecarautiity lifer yours f r a s t h e bousing p r o j e c t i * t o send a d e l e -

g a t e - a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e - t o 6 e e e t i n g away from fseirt ( t h i s em be any

s o r t of »(«*£*ig)* Sh®t would be the b e s t tag? t o eh©OB® efs« delo&ats?

1 %» i t bee t t h a t a o e e t i n g be € t l W sort everyone d i s c u e s t h i n g s

(Co l l ) u n t i l a lmost a l l people would be w . t & c saw? pessoe?

A Is i t b e s t t h a t t h e oltSa** important* l e a d s r s t a h e t h e wain

( l l a ) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r dec id ing ®hG t t e w l i r e p r e s e n t the people

s i n c e tbey sare t h e ones «fea Imm hmt s&e i«ag i a

»«eh asfefceMf

C l a i t b e e t t h a t a a c e t i c b« c a l l e d , a w s be p u t up , a vet*« be

( & d ) then send the person who g e t s fit© w a j o r i t y of v o t e s

even i f t h e r e «r« »*ay people wbo a r e s t i l l a g a i n s t ( M s jKncsont

107

i®it«§s of V«y» of et»«rr>ain£ is tissue I ly boat In ca*«s ilkt this?

Utiefa #f tfe« atfecv two waj'fl le usually Inr-fet r?

10. Q8E «? m x * s assrasjas^1 * t e ® 1 8 8 3

l t«vt were tbrce oeo «ho ifere faxmers, the tht«» awn h«d <juit« 4U*>

forent «ey0 «f pianfcioe «a& fertktog ear* of craps.

C Qn» «•» put in hie crops, worked turd* «od «l«o w t himrelf to

(ttttfe) l iving l a rigbt §nd proper Be f # i t l$«t i t i» tfte way

8 mm m t e art tr ies to fce#t> it&mealf ia bsoaoay n i A tfee

forced o* wtwre ftmt luw the wooe # f « « t m sooditiocw «nd

sb® «ogr C*OPB faaca o*»®*

A One mm put to bin ccop*. Aftsruaitfa It* wartasf « ifem «uf-

l i e lent ly Iwfc 44S not do aore t&MU! w«« oe«*sM*y t® testp itic*

gof*$ Be f « l t th«* i t m l a l y dtpttdtd «* cm*

4 i t locc tow # » y wmld twr» mt9 md ttwft nothing ectra that

paople 4o eould AnBge Iking© much.

® @m mm put In M i crops *n£ then wmlmS m ttow* a tot of fclm*

(0v«r) «nrf s*i« ms. of a l l <&e mm e e i ent i f i c idea* be coald Iiw3

«wft dfcrat, 1# felt that by doing thi« h* would in *®*t ye«*»

prevent SBtfiy of A© of bm eoadlt iom.

tfcicfc of thca« usya 4© you beliav* l§ usually t»#r^

Hkkh of tfae otto* two wtjra do you believe i i bettert

u. W M r m urn: *$m* ttm n

topic often k m very dtfftraa* Men# *bo«»t Ants fag# gone feefoJe#

•ad what we a m m m i t la l i f e , acre are tbi©* iMtys of thinking about

tbeae tfeings.

tm

Q WiUvi . it b*»t to fctvc. ao«t Attention to what ia

( h e « ) happening oow in dit> present. Xbey say that the past has $&m

axu> the future i s ouch too uncertain to count on. Ullage do

change* but it is sotsotittcs* fui the bettor and soae tines for

th* worse, so la *h« Ions run it ia atwut the nam, fhest>

people believe th* best way to live i s to keep those of the

old ways that om. con *» or that oa* likes - but to be r#a4y

to accept the aew ways which will help to aako lift easier and

better as we live fro« year to yeas.

A S«se people think thit the vays of the p*sz (vays of the old

(fast) people or traditional ways) were the moat tight and the beat,

and as changes com things get worse. These people think flit

beat way to live ia to work hard to keep . up the old ways tad

try to bring: the»> back when they ate loft*

C . So®® people believe that it is a loos t always the ways of the

(fat) future • Use ways which arc- still to cone • which will be

beat, md they say that even though there are soaetisiee aaall

setbacks, change brings iaprov.- lacafe* ia th* long run. These

people thiak the best way to live ia to look a long tint ®-

h«ad, work hard» and give up ragaty tilings a w so that fclse

future will be better.

Which of these ways of looking at life do you thiak is best?

Which of the other two ways do you think is better?

12. VACS WORK relationali Xtcm IS

There are three ways woaen *ay work.

109

C Go# way i» working on ww'i own aa aa individual. la Chi*

(Xnd) case a wonan is pretty wwcfe lie* own boss. She decides west

things ketMlf, and bow she get* aloof U bar m a business.

8he only )um to take e«r* of herself tad A » doesn't «*pect

others to look out for bar.

I One «*; is working to a group of vanea Where all the mmm work

(Coll) together without&«r* being on* oain boss* Every waaum ttaa

MMthl&t to say la the decisions that are M<e» sad all the

voaea can count on each other.

A One way is voiklag for an owner, a big boss, or a nun who baa

(U») bean running thing* for a long fim>« la tibia caae, the *»©»

do not take part te deciding bow the business will b« m t

but they know they cea depend m the boas to help theta out in

ifcich of these ways is usually beat for a vcnn who does not hire others?

Ufcieb of the other two ways is batter for a wonan who deea not bir«

etthnrat

13. m w mmm S t o # **

Thxe< wsmm fvm different areas were talking about the things that

control th« weather and other conditions. Here is what they each said.

A One wonaa satdi My people haw never control lad the rain,

(ftubj) wind, and other natural conditions and probably never will.

Shere hiw always feaan good feasrs mid bad fhaft 4e A s

v»y it is, and if you ate wiae you will take it a* it cornea

mA do the bent ym can*

uo

B stcnjuJ uataaa jalU: My b&lieve Chat it is mm* 3

COver) to find ways t»-* overcsmr> weach-sr and ether conditions just aa

they IJifa overcome m aany things. 2hey bsliave they will one

day succeed in doing this sad «ay * yen overcow drought and

floods.

C 2h* third vooaa said: Hjr people help conditions and keep thing*

(With) going by working to keep in clone touch with all ttie forces

which ssate the- rala, the saow, awi other conditions* Xt i«

•wfitm we do th« right things « live In the proper v«y - and

keep &.11 that we haw - the land* the stock, and ft» water «

in good condition, that all goea along wall.

Which of the a* m&m do ywi tibial* had the best ideaT

Which of the other two vonm do yon tbtsk had the hatter idea?

14. ceremokxal mm&tim timi xt«* »

8cm people in a comnlty like your usua em Chat fSi« church serviM

wer#» changing fr©» wfitat they used to

C Sooe people were really pleased becauae of the changes In re-

(Fut) ligioua services. Ifeey felt that new waya arc oeually better

than old ones, Mad they like to keep everything - even eere-

nontee * noving ahead*

A Scase people vese unhappy because of the change* Ikey felt that

(Faat) religious services should be kapt exactly - in every way - aa

they ba£ been in the paat«

B Son* people felt that the old vaya for religious services were

(Pres) beat but you juat can't on to tiheau It sake# life eaaler

just to asseept ®««e changes as they e«*e along*

i l l

Which of cb«t&: tfrree mM » « nearly uhat you would believe i s right?

Khich of she ozhsx two do ym tfciok la ®o*« right?

15. «&IS CP 1X91m . activity* Xtea A3

there were $m> people talking about how titejp liked to Uva» Ihey had

d i f fe ren t ideas.

A Cms Mid: Wmt I emm &hmt m»at i s ecec«|5tligfeia|- things -

(Being) p i t t ing things J««e H9 well or bet ter t tak oti^y people

• do th«m. t l ike t» 'see resu l t s and tlitek they ar» worth

for .

B tt* other eaidi tthat I care «ost about i s to tee l e f t alone 60

(Being) think at*? act k the n^ts that beet sui t (the my X real ly

an* I f I don' t always get ouch done N t em enjoy l i f e a# 1

go ala®® that i s fee test;

VJbicfc' of these. w o pet m m you think has die bet ter way of thinking?

Dhicb of the two do you think you are aore like?

M. UVEfitOCK m i w re la t ional ! t«*W M

Some son* and daughters have bee® l e f t nam aa t t l e by thei r

patents who haws died. All theae soft® and daughters * » grown up* #*3

they live aear each other* there are three d i f fe ren t ways they eat run

the livestock*

4 Xa eocn groups of people i t i s usually expected that the old-

(UA) eet able person (sen or daughter) v i l l t i l e charge o f , or

nanagc, a l l the stock held by himself and the other eons sod

d$il£!ilfe&3?|l e

C In soe» groups of people i t i s usually expected that each of

(Jnd) t&c sons and A«u®fet«s wi l l prefer to take hia or he* mm

ill

iter® of tiie laod md do witfe I t «fc«t he- mrntf • s©p#»st» f r ®

all tbn others•

1 la ««K! growp« of people It is usually «xpecfeei that *11 the

(Coil) none ssui 3#ughters trill ismte use «f the Imi together. H w b

a ho$w» is no®de«i, they will all get ta§etls#i: m d acre* to

choo*e soaeeoe of the gsr^ # noe aeeosMsily tiM oldoet, to

tak« chergc of things.

Uhioh of these ways do you think i s wwatlf fee** la vest e m m t

ttlsb of A # other two wtps do y©» think i s hette* ?

uu cm, m Fums activity 5 it® m

1b«r* «er« two fawers who lived differently*

8 One mm kept the crops growing « l i r ight hut ditto' t wm% m

CSflag} then oore than h* had to. He inmted to h«w ©xtsui time to

» i# i t with f r iends, g© en t r i p s , and enjoy l i f e , t h i s «w

the wiy he liked heat.

A ®m n*n liked to work vi th hit field® eft* vm tlwgrt patting

(Doing) to mtm tim keeping tfe«9» clean of mwid# sik! la flat?

t ion. 9e$«use he did this eitx* work, he did not htve amieh

tisw l e f t to l»® vith fr iends, to go « t r i p s , m to enjoy

himself tii other ways. t u t thi* mm the wey he real ly liked

boat.

Uhieh kiwi of person yon belie** i t i s bet ter to be?

Mhich kind of pccsoo *re yon real ly Most like?

i f . W 8 m vm ttm

three persons mm talking »i*r**fc tfcether psopl® theswelves cm <1®

anything to w#te the l is»s of m i nntf wmm tmmgm* Here i s idist meb

113

B Une &&M*. It tv true that lilu> dtxCur* anu #•*

COw**} Outre mm flawing the way to sdd may ymms to the li*n of

«*>#t wen, "fey lag (flatting) a*** w*dlcii»8» by studying

foods, aaa idiog othfeir ftudti Cain** a® vaiwiaationiu XI' people

will j**y attention to all these mm thing* they wilt al«oet.

alvaya live i»g«.

4 the aeeond on* Mid} I really do not believe that there ia

(ftafej) amah turna beloge ftfeewwslv#® cm «i© fto arifet Hie lives of m®

and voma longer. It is ay belief tbftt every person hue a m%

time m live, mi whan that tl*w> ®we® It Just ccoe*.

C the third one saidt I believe ttomt there it e plan to life

(With) wt*i«$i mrla to keep all living tiling® moving together,, sad if

a mm vill learn to live his uhole life in aeoerd with Hteft

pl«at be will live longer than other own.

liiish of Hmhm» tfcvat m U «©«t nearly what yw» «hiak ie rights?

libli of Che otkcv tore «v« it mm right?

20. m m amm«ii§ turn* i«w *s

She p m M t is going ft© help « country eoBMSsifcy Co p*«. a>re <wftfeer

by redrilling and eloaning out a cowauaity wall. Sit government olfifttiti

MSgMtc that fcfe# eafiiawaity sh©»M fesve « pUw I®* fating tin© esstr® t»-

tcc, but Sen* ft *«y tifiiltei of plan. Since the suwnt of extra water ti

not Sm»( pwip It feel differently about pUnaiAg.

4 tew «y timis water emmn $m sbentd b® divided juat

(r«*c) about like water in the past mm always divided.

C Others want to work out a really good plan ahead of tin* for

£?««) dividing vtotevet wstar ee»« is.

114

1 Still other* wmt tu, just wait w i l l the vttet cornea to before

(Trea) deciding oa bov i t vlll be divided,

f&ieh of tbew weye do you fcfitek ia umielly beet in ceeee like this?

Uhich &£ the other two wyv do you think 4® better?

21. WBSIJMRK atttofcftH tmm AS

there «**« two « m « talk tag «bo<ufc tkc way £fe«2? liked to live.

1 Qm said H«£ sfe« was vi i l lag to work m imxd m the avesmja:?*

(SeUig) Wt tfcet she dida't l i t e the epead « lot of tine doing the

kind of extr* things ia her hooec or taking up extra thiage

outsit, Xaetead ah* liked to have tlae free to enjoy vltit*

fug iritb people - to go oo tripe » or to jiuet talk vitfe nfeoever

wtt aroia.d,

A Uife other M M ea!4 eke liked beet of all to find eattxa

(Ooiag) thiags to work oa uhieh would (atei«it kes« 8he eairf ehe m

happiest vifeesi kept busy iaad imc getting lot® 4cm*

iiblAh of these n®f« 4© yea think i t i* wwelly fcettet fog wcaisse s® lin-ov

(For wosmh «aiy): Ihidt m m m are you really anre lUtef

at* W » W m s activity; Xtwa A§

too immm epcad tb«ir tiwe ia dlffereat waye tte they have «« work

to <lo» (Hit® mm» i t e they we mt actually m fit# Job*)

A Ok# womb spends ooet mi chie %im leaning m trying out

(Doing) thiage «foich will help her ia her work*

8 CM woraaa spewl# »st of the tlxse tsifeiag, tell tag stories,

(Beiftf,) etai&iag» met bo cm with her trfteoda.

liiicts of thee® M l tea the better t?ay of living?

Hhich of theee wooaa do you think you ere sore like?

tfRraxs c

m t tjMararoa; JSBJ | W &g 9MWSM116 awraws tmiPJ««K WA$8l®re

i* .i# you feel weifc «ll over wmk oI t&c tiae? ye»* no

2* Sjrvt fwa feed pe«iod» of days, weeks, or MOirt* <#«* yet* cafe*

care of tiling* because you couldn*t "get solas"? ye*# m

3* 1ft %mtM pm ©«y that oo*t of tkm you are i® high

^ imxf goes!) iptriti, good low spirit*, m mty 1®# spiritiat

4« Swarf so often do you suddenly imt hot all over? yes, «ko

S* & m you m m b««t bothered fey your heart twa&tisg hard? tfould you

myi often, sometiaea, or ©ever?

6« Vould yem itf your appetite Is poor, fair, good or too good?

f. io you have periods of mmit gwa® vmtlmmmm tfcet you eaaoot wife

long in a ekitr {mmmn. sit still wry long)? yes, no

8, At*# yott At wriryiii§ type (® worrier)? yes, w

9. Sap® y©*» «v«r feetfeevad fey ehortaees of fcceatfe t&tsft y«* «NHte not

eseralslag or fotkine hardT Vould you say: efte*, sos«tl»os, or

wmmt

t0« Are you ever bothered toy nervousoese (initd>U« fidgety, l««e)t

Wmiid yoa aagr neves*, a few tines, m «s*e titan « few tteee?

11. Bam you ever had ooyftdailsg spells (lost consciousness)? Would

yrn say* sever, s few tfs»s, or were than a few tlwest

12. ®a you ever Imm my trouble in getting to sleep or staying aaleep?

fc'ould you my often, tcwettefs, or never!

13. Are you bothered by asid (sour) etceuKfa several tiaes * weefcT yes, no

IB

IIS

!•*» £<'fcS s a c i y saesa to in, a i l night (g3o«5)f yea, a©

15. B«vc you cvtr bees bothereu by 'cnld .'treats"? So«M you say; o f ten ,

saaetlaea or « w r ?

16# Do yaw tustcls &v«t- trouble onoujih to bother you? Would ycm iMsy;

ofteii, oust t iacs or nev*r?

17# Boe® Chore * e « Ca bo n (ei^SgittE) it* yum h«iiS or www

ssach of the tisaet yea, no

IS# Do you have pgsticnal worries that get yoa down physical ly (oaka f m

phyaiaaily 111)? y«3» no

19. ©o you fe« l sc®§«(feat apart ev$n gsaeng fx lends (apart, laoleted,

alone)? yce, no

20* ®o you f«el that nothing ever turns cut for ycu the way you want i t

to (turns out, b a s n e t ecwta about, i . e . , your wiahee aren ' t Sat-

f|.ll«iS)f y««;a n&

21* Am yew* mes fe#«8*1#$ with h&adachee or paitwi la the head? SteutM

you aay; often, socaetlttes a* aewt':

22# You soaetlae* can ' t belp vondar&n^ If any thins i s north «toli# any*

more* yet* no

face jght»t %mms

1*

2. Occupation

3. SolbiDd's occupation

4. Mother*» occupation

5. Father 's occupation

i . Age of chlldrent oldaat - youngeak

7. l-:a3g bam yc<i limt iu tifais city:

3. Saw? you avcx iivrd I» «bc cvuusryf

f» lew leegl

Ikt# s*iy yvers of s&bouiU>& feove ye*

II* ttbBl£ *«fe«s®k%! K OMMMII

APratBIX D

a m i s to m m

Borth tmm StAtfc UolVer»ity Mi S0»t$!Wfe«tes« Medical Scfecwl

Ssmmy if€ft

Helie:

1 »topped «£ your hone tod«y «d you «sr« not in* I «n Andrew

ComM md 1 «* workta* m a coop******* project teemm Sortfe ta

**•«« 0alvor»4fcy aw! SmtAmnrnm Medteal SNsiwol «ad«v fcfe© dira«tlc» of

Deniei Harrison.

X will return to your tone e&aln end 1 would ft if X

eettld mk Hie tody of the houoo #ews four eoosw*«fcta«» In

tfe» qp*stte«* will costs ib»te to on* «Mdwtt«ndiag of aoolety

*a£ will eleo I® of tonpfit fed tts® coaauBiiy.

Hiasik you,

totals

north tmm 8t*t« tteiver fifty »d Medicet §©tw»l

Jaomry l%6

Be Ho:

1 #«©i»pn1 at yoosr tow today and fm mm aot in. 1 em asstei

Esrsrisoa a srese&reii fellow la the De?ert»cn£ of Sociology «fe Soreb ?«»«#.

1 «k directing e empmvmttm mmmA project witfc SotttSHMetern Medicnl Sciiool.

lie

m

% wilt rucura t > yxm: hosu? awl t would appreciate it; Si I

could ask the lady of the houao some Sou* cooperation i a

MmsreriBg t t e question® wil l coaCffllm&g ta our under stand log ©f «so,icty

aad wi l l alaa be of benefi t to tfee eoowuaifcy.

vsma* « wwMmvum

Worth texw State Vntv«tr»i*y

Pent©®, femm

pi Smmmj ?t It##

f© niton I t «wy «««€«*?

t b i i i s fee intxv&w* Kr. BaaJtel li*rTlsoo, nbo U « r e w v ^ fellow

in the ifepartwrnt of Sociology « t Itartb % * » Stat* flhivtrslty.

Se t« «§£wseti»t a rc-search project i s ymar ift&efe m

tk$xM i t ©asteisiifcif wortiwkile.

Your mmpmrnim in «a8t*<rifig tiis§ qm®*Amm wil l «a»tril»t» to otur

uad«r»t:«tt£lttg of #oeiety *ari v i l l &lm be «f keaelU to lb* ooawsity,

He «pprect*fce your help very a r t .

fiSKwrfif,

G. Wmmm. f r e f e i s w of femtefogj'

Worth Tex«« State M v e r i l q r

&eaton„ taw

D«p«rtmrat of Sociology Jmmxy 7# 1966

fte *tM» i t BMgr C«S#WJ

Bit# fc* to l i M i w t f® you S t . Jdftfew Soarai. 1<& i* «otkt% m •

rottearefe ps-ssjeefc wsifsst th» direction of Mr. Sa»t«i Easrrisois, Is «

12D

121

temmtsk fallow in th& 8u»*xia#Mt of Sociology ae 'iexasi Scat* Ua&»

wilier, fe think tfea project Is emiaeaULy mwstisfelle#

Your ia Etutwcrtag bis qtt*«tio»s will can tribute to our

uadeistaadtsis of society and will also lie of benefit: to the ccaoBwalcy.

Ife «pwect«te your feel? mxy ouch.

Sincerely*

heumasd 6* fltea&oa Profe«#or of Sociology

vmrnmrnm

B©€»fcs

KlttiditobA, yiorancc Roelwood and Fiftd L» Strodt&eak, fjgslitfelea® to f«|««t gteltii&«fefeft»« &rmmta&t III., t«w# mi. <jmf^ 9 if*!,

I M w i A, Alia, cditec^ f g y i 1 ttwwCT M M&tim* mwrntm. III.* Harper and Roir fs^lSSw# tl

tciaasun, Leonard, cUftt to Aasricaa Society. Glcacoc, XU*, She fra* f»#* ef aUneoft/ttU££*nB»« ' '

ttod««» Uarf* ®«§ ttsctsoa Cte»# m t m l m i m M m A m k t I960* Dallas, ®mm»> tb« firtw gtudlea Project of the »rp«rt»eat of Sociology, § m & m m Ifetbodiet: Saivccclty, If62*

Join P»t "A Hotel lor Itelatioaahlpa Aswtig Jyataaa,0 Irmmd «

n l l M a 0| tena paw****. caiewl fey Roy i. etiriaClev lil» Iwte i M b f m

Articles

Geudiil, William a»d Harry te, "Japaoea* Value Grleataciooa aad «ui» t*ar* Change," gf&ooloCT. I» I (1962), 53-91.

Kiuckfcofao, rlorcoc* E©eto®©4# "Stally BiagnoaU: I, VtrUfcioat to tfea ttolft Value* of Fanlly 8y«t«,» 9o$m OTX* <WS), 63-72,

% P « f Sbcawa 8., "A Twenty-two It«* Scrying S«or« of Paycfclatxlc Spap&ws Xrtlcatla* 3e^»»JL <& m l Inyi Bigg-lor. HX S 4 C»S2), 269-76. ®™»» ™ * ~

Keporta

Itfaf«rJU»!» &all«s» toMM* Dalia* Bomtug Authority, l$§5*

$e*reo«ial Interview

Sttpbeaaon, J«kc« !»«*. 3<tc**ti*ry aod Exacutlve Director of lab# Sowitog totboyity of th« City ©f Milan, texae.

122