Value-Orientations, Socialization and Social Mobility: a Replication and Conceptual Extension of Kohn

Western Michigan University ScholarWorks at WMU

Master's Theses Graduate College

4-1991

Value-Orientations, Socialization and Social Mobility: A Replication and Conceptual Extension of Kohn

Eric O. Johnson

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses

Part of the Sociology Commons

Recommended Citation Johnson, Eric O., "Value-Orientations, Socialization and Social Mobility: A Replication and Conceptual Extension of Kohn" (1991). Master's Theses. 996. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/masters_theses/996

This Masters Thesis-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks at WMU. For more information, please contact [email protected]. VALUE-ORIENTATIONS, SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL MOBILITY: A REPLICATION AND CONCEPTUAL EXTENSION OF KOHN

Eric O. Johnson

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of The Graduate College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts Department of Sociology

Western Michigan University Kalamazoo, Michigan April 1991

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. VALUE-ORIENTATIONS, SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL MOBILITY: A REPLICATION AND CONCEPTUAL EXTENSION OF KOHN

Eric 0. Johnson, M.A.

Western Michigan University, 1991

This thesis replicates and extends Kohn and asso

ciates’ (Kohn, 1969; Kohn, Slomczynski, & Schoenbach, 1986)

research on the differing value orientations of the middle

and working classes, self direction and conformity to

authority, respectively. Using the findings that these

values are reflected in child socialization, investigation

was extended to those socially mobile from the working to

middle class. Since parental resocialization of the mobile

occurs over time, it is hypothesized that eldest children

of the mobile will be socialized to working class values

and successive children increasingly to middle class

values. Examination of this process also informs about the

class maintenance of the children of the mobile.

Questionnaire and telephone interviews were used to

gather data from a sample (N = 425) of Western Michigan

University (Kalamazoo) students and their families. Vari

ables were measured by variants of Kohn's instruments.

Data failed to support Kohn's original conclusions.

Descriptive differences among groups were found to support

the general thesis and suggest further avenues of research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness and sincerely

thank my advisor and committee chairperson Dr. Stanley S.

Robin for his guidance and willingness to work with me in

every phase of this research, which was instrumental in the

development and completion of this thesis. I also wish to

thank my committee members, Dr. Jim Petersen and Dr. Robert

Wait, for their advice and assistance.

Additionally, my thanks go out to Dr. Susan Crull, Dr.

Thomas VanValey and Ms. Julie Scott for their guidance in

the statistical and computer analyses. I also thank The

Graduate College for its partial funding of this research.

Finally, I wish to express my thanks and deepest

gratitude to my wife, Lesta, for her support and active

participation in the completion of this thesis.

Eric 0. Johnson

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. INFORMATION TO USERS

This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. U M I films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of computer printer.

The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.

In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.

Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced form at the back of the book.

Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order.

University Microfilms International A Bell & Howell Information Company 300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 USA 313/761-4700 800/521-0600

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Order Number 1343866

Value-orientations, socialization and social mobility: A replication and conceptual extension of Kohn

Johnson, Eric Otto, M.A. Western Michigan University, 1991

UMI 300 N. Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, MI 48106

THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT RECEIVED BY U.M.I. CONTAINED PAGES WITH SLANTED PRINT. PAGES WERE FILMED AS RECEIVED.

THIS REPRODUCTION IS THE BEST AVAILABLE COPY.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii

LIST OF TABLES ...... V

CHAPTER

I. A THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESOCIALIZATION PROCESS IN INTER-SUBCULTURAL MOBILITY ...... 1

Literature Review and Conceptual Development: Kohn's Research ...... 3

Socialization and Social Mobility ...... 6

Present Research ...... 11

Development of Hypotheses ...... 14

II. METHODS ...... 16

S a m p l e ...... 16

Variables and Measurement ...... 18

Independent Variables ...... 18

Dependent Variables ...... 22

Control variables ...... 25

Data Collection and Logistics ...... 26

Operational Hypotheses and Testing ...... 27

III. DATA C O L L E C T I O N...... 30

Method Actualization ...... 30

Sample ...... 31

IV. FINDINGS ...... 35

Hypotheses Testing ...... 35

V. DATA EX P LORATION...... 47

iii

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Table of Contents— Continued

CHAPTER

Presentation and Comparison of Selected Factor Analyses ...... 50

Identification of Differences Among Sample Subgroups 51

Possible Outcome 1: Isolation of F a c t o r s ...... 51

Possible Outcome 2: Substantive Analysis of F a c t o r s ...... 52

Possible Outcome 3: Common Factor Scale Analysis ...... 61

Summary of Exploratory Data Analysis ...... 66

VI. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ...... 69

Theory and Rationale ...... 69

Review of Findings 7 2

Discussion 7 3

Reflection on K o h n ...... 7 3

Conceptual Extension of K o h n ...... 75

Future Directions for Research ...... 77

Significance of This Line of R e s e a r c h ...... 78

APPENDICES ...... 80

A. Questionnaires...... 80

B. Complete Factor Analyses ...... 100

C. Approval Letter From the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board ...... 131

BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF TABLES

1. Sample Distribution ...... 31

2. Gender of Children and Parents interviewed ...... 32

3. Children Demographics ...... 32

4. Non-Selected, Infrequently and Frequently Selected Items by Sample Groupings ...... 37

5. Current Research's Mean Value Rank Comparison for All Children Subsample by Class ...... 44

6. Middle Class All Children "Most Desired" F a c t o r s ...... 53

7. Working Class All Children "Most Desired" Factors ...... 54

8. Middle Class All Children "Least Desired" F a c t o r s ...... 57

9. Working Class All Children "Least Desired" Factors 58

10. Entire Sample "Least" to "Most" Desired Continuum Factors ...... 65

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER I

A THEORETICAL CONSTRUCTION OP THE RESOCIALIZATION PROCESS IN INTER-SUBCULTURAL MOBILITY

This is a study of the changes in child socialization

within upwardly mobile families. it examines changes in

socialization content that appear to be directly relevant

to the maintenance of the socioeconomic stratification

system. I will compare selected values among siblings

whose primary socialization occurred when their parents

were at different points in the progression of upward

social mobility.

Since the beginning of recorded history people have

thought, theorized and written about how society is

hierarchically organized, how it ought to be organized, and

this hierarchical organization's effect on the individual

in society. Contemplations of this type seem to have

reached a fevered pitch in the Philosophes of the Enlight

enment (Rousseau, Montesque, Locke, etc.) and in the

romantic-conservative reactionaries (Saint-Simon, Spencer,

Hegel, Durkheim, etc.) from which was spawned the academic

discipline of sociology. Though hardly the only concern of

these and subsequent social theorists, they proposed the

socioeconomic stratification system as central both as a

topic in the discipline and as a major organizing force

within any society.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2

This is true for none more than Karl Marx. In fact,

most of the contemporary theory and research directly

concerning the social stratification system is deeply

influenced by Marx's writings: either by adoption,

opposition, modification, or extension of them. This

thesis is of the latter.

At a general conceptual level this research is

concerned with the maintenance of the status quo stratifi

cation of subcultures and corresponding subcultural

consciousnesses1 as it affects socially mobile families

through the process of socialization. I am proposing to

examine the socialization patterns of the upwardly socially

mobile. The intent is to examine the process of change in

class subcultural family socialization; the major focus is

upon the values that appear to have direct relevance to the

process of social mobility and status attainment.

For purposes of this research, the Marxian concept of

class is abandoned in favor of class subculture, in view of

its wider applicability to the U.S. stratification system

(Gans, 1962, pp. 243-244). Gans defines these subcultures

and their consciousnesses as:

The subcultural consciousnesses here mentioned are not to be confused with Marx's concept of class con sciousness. Rather, subcultural consciousnesses are mind sets developed from the experiential deprivations and opportunities specific to each stratification positions which allows a person in a particular stratification to function in that subculture (Gans, 1962).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 3

organized set[s] of related responses that [have] developed out of people's efforts to cope with the opportunities, incentives, and rewards, as well as the deprivations, prohibitions, and pressures which the natural environment and society— that complex of coexisting and compet ing subcultures— offer to them. The responses are the skills and attitudes they have learned as children, and the innovations they have developed for themselves in their own encounters with opportunity and deprivation. (Gans, 1962, p. 249)

In the remainder of this study when the term class appears,

the conception of subcultures as defined above is the

meaning intended.

Literature Review and Conceptual Development: Kohn's Research

One of the few cumulative and coherent lines of

research concerning the process of socializing class

subculturally specific values and/or consciousness is a

group of studies done by Melvin Kohn and his associates.

Kohn first published the book Class and Conformity: A Study

in Values in 1969 dealing with "understanding the nature of

the ties between social class and parent-child relation

ships" (Kohn, 1969, p. 7). Kohn states that:

The concept, "class," captures the reality that the intricate interplay of all these variables creates different basic conditions of life at different levels of the social order. Members of different social classes, by virtue of enjoying (or suffering) different conditions of life, come to see the world differently; to develop different conceptions of social reality, differ ent aspirations and hopes and fears, different conceptions of the desirable. The last is par ticularly important for present purposes, for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4

from people's conceptions of the desirable— especially of what characteristics are desirable in children— we can discern their objectives in childrearing. Thus, conceptions of the desirable--that is, values— become the key concept for this analysis, the bridge between position in the social structure and the behavior of the individual. (Kohn, 1969, p. 7)

Kohn reports three comparable studies completed

between 1956 and 1964 with Washington D.C., Turin, Italy

and U.S. national samples. In these studies, fathers and

mothers were interviewed. The families' socioeconomic

status (SES) was measured with the Hollingshead two factor

index and the parents were asked to select from a list of

characteristics those which they considered most desirable

for a child the same age and sex as their own child (Kohn,

cited in Gilbert & Kahl, 1987). The major findings of

these studies, collectively, were that there was consider

able variance in items chosen (i.e., values) among SES

groups on some of the desired characteristics:

an emphasis on consideration of other people, curiosity, responsibility, and self control increased at successively higher class levels, while emphasis on good manners, neatness, obedi ence, honesty, and being a good student in creased at lower class levels. (Kohn, cited in

2 Though absent in Kohn's discussion of socializa tion content, it is obvious that there are both intended or conscious as well as unintended or unconscious aspects of socialization. However, whether these aspects are conscious or unconscious is irrelevant since the behavior is nonetheless influenced by the norms of the specific class subculture. The difference between whether a socializing behavior of a parent is conscious or uncon scious is of general theoretical concern but inconse quential for this discussion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Gilbert & Kahl, 1987, p. 119)

These differences are grouped into two underlying patterns

of value preference for the behavior of children: self

direction (middle class) and conformity (working class).

Kohn subsequently reasons that people whose occupations

allow for or demand unsupervised creative behavior and

require decisions of consequence will be more likely to

value self direction than those whose occupations require

conformity to the rules of work behavior set down by

superiors, with little individual input. Thus he concludes

that "occupational experience gives rise to general value

orientations which in turn shape parental value preferences

for children" (Gilbert & Kahl, 1987, p. 121). Of course,

this pattern is also reciprocal in that people who acquire

certain general value orientations will likely have or get

certain jobs.

Kohn, then, turns to contemplate and eventually

research the extension of the above mentioned work on

social class and value orientations: the transmission of

these SES class and occupation type-specific value orienta

tions from parents to their children, thereby reproducing

and sustaining socioeconomic subculture differences. Kohn

began developing a conceptualization of these dynamics in

presented papers. Initially his conception was presented

in "On the Transmission of Values in the Family: A Prelimi

nary Formulation" (1983). He built upon that conception in

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6

the article "Social Stratification and the Transmission of

values in the Family: A Cross-National Assessment" in

which:

For both the U.S. and Poland, we developed measurement models of the family social-stratification position and of parents' and children's valuations of self-direction. We found that the relationship between parents' and children's values is much stronger than past studies had indicated. In both countries the family's stratification position has an impressive bear ing on the values of its adolescent and young- -adult offspring. Much of this impact is through social stratification affecting parents' values, and parents' values, in turn, affecting children's values. Social stratification af fects parental values primarily because of the impact of parent's occupational self-direction on their values. Although parents' and child ren's values may be reciprocally related, the predominant effects are from parents' to child ren's values. The one notable cross-national difference we find is in the relative roles of fathers and mothers in the intergenerational transmission of values: in the United States, fathers play at least as important a role as do mothers; in Poland, mothers play the predominant role. (Kohn, Slomczynski, and Schoenbach, 1986, P- 73).

Socialization and Social Mobility

Socialization, which functions to reproduce culture

3 In this research Kohn measured family social-stratification positions for both parents combined with the Hollingshead occupational index. The parents' valuation of self-direction was measured as in the 1969 studies but the children were asked what values they hold for them selves rather than those they would have for children in general. Additionally, the much stronger relationship between parents' and children's values are attributed to better methods in this study compared to previous ones.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. through the transmission of the values, customs, beliefs,

etc., of a given subculture and/or culture from one

generation to the next, is used in a wide variety of

theories, in some of which it is only implied. This

process of socialization involves a degree of social

control via role learning (i.e., an understanding of the

social structure and one's place in it [class subculture

consciousness]), (Goodman, 1985, pp. 75-76). The process

of socialization is a major focus of social psychological

research and is repeatedly redefined. Recently Norman

Goodman provided the following definition: "Socialization

is a lifelong process through which a human being becomes

and continues to be a more or less adequately functioning

and contributing member of a particular society (or any

social group)" (Goodman, 1985, p. 66). The differing

effects on the attaining and maintaining of different

positions or statuses within the social stratification

system through socialization is an important and telling

social psychological research topic. The central role

which the socioeconomic stratification system has in the

structuring of society makes this line of inquiry an

important linkage between sociology and social psychology.

People are socialized throughout the life cycle. The

socialization of children is influenced by their parents'

continuing socialization, while the children live within

their family of origin (Connell, 1972). However, a

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. cumulative limitation upon possible resocialization, known

as the primacy effect, has been found in both the political

(Dawson, Prewitt, & Dawson, 1977) and economic (Stacey,

1982) socialization literature. As expressed by Stryker

and Statham from a symbolic interaction perspective:

From this perspective socialization is a contin uous, life-long process (implied in the observa tion that every interaction is a socializing experience). However, early socialization takes on particular significance in these terms: Once a self is formed through the interaction pro cess, it will modify subsequent experience. (Stryker & Statham, 1985, p. 325)

This may be a partial explanation of the consistent

finding of the preponderance of short distance over long

distance social mobility. This consistent finding is

reasonable given the limited ability to change the Self and

the distinctive differences between the class subcultures,

which, in interaction with the individual gives rise to the

Self.

These conceptions of the stability and change in the

Self are brought together quite well by the Identity Theory

espoused by Stryker and Serpe (1983). Their position is

most succinctly put by Serpe, when he paraphrases Stryker's

forthcoming paper:

changes in the structure of self are related directly to the person's movement within the social structure, either by choice or by force of circumstances, including normal life course changes. Thus, the theory presumes both relative constancy in the structure of the self, given absence of movement within the social structure, and relative change in the structure of the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9

self, given such movement. (Serpe, 1987, p. 44)

According to this expression of Identity Theory,

change in the self takes place when two conditions are met

by the individual and his or her environment. The first of

these is structural opportunity defined as the possibility

of shifting ones' personal network relations to include

other types of people than previously comprised it, often

to the exclusion of former members. The second condition

is the choice (his term) of the individual to implement the

aforementioned structural opportunity. The willingness to

choose to implement a new or different social role is

defined by Serpe (1987) as a relatively low commitment to

present network relations.

This first condition is applicable to the upward

socially mobile, in that individuals who are (or are

becoming) upwardly socially mobile are actualizing an

opportunity to change personal networks to include people

of a higher status than had previously been included. The

second condition is met when upward social mobility is

conscious and desired. This conception of social mobility

jives quite well with the findings of Gans (1962, pp.

250-251) Gans addresses the acceptance of the resocializa

tion into a new class subculture by the upwardly mobile

because to move up is "good," whereas the downwardly mobile

reject the resocialization into a lower class subculture

because it is "bad." The upwardly mobile use the opportu

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10

nity to change their social networks while the downwardly

mobile try not to be forced into changing theirs.

To recapitulate the conceptual linkages before

applying them specifically to upwardly socially mobile

families: value-orientations are key conceptions in

constructing a nexus between the socioeconomic stratifica

tion system and the individual's experience and behavior.

The process of socialization is the mechanism that creates

a class subculturally relative Self which is in part

constituted of value orientation. Given the type and

extent of Kohn's findings of self-direction versus confor

mity value orientations in different socioeconomic strati

fication positions, his work provides a platform from which

to study how stratification positions via differential

socialization, influences and indeed changes those families

that are moving within the social stratification system.

While it is unlikely that these specific value-orien

tations are the sum total of variables affected by the

socioeconomic system among the mobile, confining this study

to these two value-orientations is reasonable, given the

exploratory nature of the research and the applicability of

the values of self-direction and conformity to the thought,

ways, and behaviors that are related to socioeconomic

positions and the maintenance of class differences.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11

Present Research

This thesis is both a replication and a conceptual

extension of Kohn's work. It is a replication in that the

different value-orientation of parents and children within

two stratification subcultures, middle and working classes,

are assessed and the "class" specific findings of Kohn

tested. It is an extension of Kohn by the examination of

hypothesized resocialization of upwardly socially mobile

parents and subsequent differing socialization among their

children. Specifically, if the occupational experiences

which are associated with value orientations used in child

socialization change as upwardly socially mobile parents

move in the stratification system, it is predicted that the

content of socialization will alter with mobility.

Movement from one class subculture (however conceived)

to another is rather rare by most accounts. However, even

parents who have significantly increased their income and

wealth, who have not been sufficiently mobile to transverse

class subcultures, often encourage their children be mobile

(Gans, 1962, pp. 251). This encouragement probably entails

socialization content that imparts those parents' concep

tion of the anticipated values, norms, and behaviors of the

"goal" class (anticipatory socialization). Their concep

tion is necessarily incomplete and unintentionally distort

ed because they have not actually experienced the "goal"

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12

class subculture. indeed, such a pattern was found by

O'Rand and Ellis (1974, pp. 54-58) where they found that:

(a) for the socially mobile anticipatory socialization of

class specific time perspectives did occur, and (b) this

anticipatory socialization was only partially effective.

The children of these parents, who are mobile within

a class subculture, combine the prerequisite significant

increase of parental income and behaviors based on the

partially accurate anticipatory socialization, to associate

increasingly with subcultural social networks of the class

to which they aspire. In this way they are being re

socialized to increasingly more accurate conceptions of and

actions based on appropriate class values, norms and

behaviors, to the extent of the opportunity to do so, and

a willingness and ability to accept them.

Parents who are subculturally upwardly socially mobile

are going through a process of resocialization to another

class subculture. Their values, behaviors and attitudes

change progressively, when each of their children are at

the most formative stage of their socialization, the

values, behaviors and attitudes of the parents, with which

the children are socialized, are likely to be successively

different for each child. Since the eldest child's most

formative period of socialization takes place when the

parents have experienced the least mobility and resociali

zation, the eldest will most likely reflect the values of

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13

the class subculture from which the parents have come.

Each subsequent child will be progressively more like the

"new" class subculture of the parent.4'5

This discussion supposes that child rearing is among

the more malleable values of the upwardly socially mobile.

The question of which values change initially and most

profoundly with social mobility has not been directly

addressed by the social mobility literature. However, if

one combines the idea of upward social mobility as a

process of resocialization with the differences in the

valuations of child characteristics among social classes,

this supposition is reasonable. If the phenomenon of

upward social mobility is begun by the grandparents of the

children in this research at least a generation before

subcultural upward social mobility occurs by the anticipa

4 However, this is not the case for both upwardly and downwardly mobile family units. As discussed by Herbert Gans: since "the movement from one class to another is a cultural change that requires not only access to the prerequisite opportunities [significant monetary gain], but the willingness and ability to accept them" (1962, p. 252), people who are upward socially mobile are likely to accept the transition to the "new" subcultural values, norms and behaviors whereas this would not be the case for those who are downwardly mo bile. Hence the predictions made here are limited to the upwardly mobile.

5An interesting tangent arising from this obser vation is that the extensive "birth order" literature, showing relatively greater success for first born should not pertain to the upwardly mobile. Indeed, for this segment of the population, if this thesis has merit, it is the youngest child who should achieve greatest "suc cess ."

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 14

tory socialization of the parents, then because of the

intense attention paid to these parents in an attempt to

instill in them the values seen as necessary for their

"success" or subcultural upward mobility, they are very

likely to be socialized in the direction of attentiveness

to child rearing by their parents' actions regardless of

how subculturally accurate or inaccurate the anticipatory

socialization.

Development of Hypotheses

This application of the socialization of subculturally

specific value orientations to the progressive resociali

zation of upwardly socially mobile families yields the

following conceptual hypotheses:

1. Middle class families will socialize their children

to be high on self direction and low on conformity; the

working class families will socialize their children to be

high on conformity and low on self direction.

2. For upwardly mobile families, the youngest siblings

will be in closest agreement with their parents' current

conception about the desired characteristics of children

relative to their older siblings.

3. For the subculturally upwardly mobile families, the

youngest siblings will exhibit the values of self direction

more strongly than their older siblings. For stable

families there will be no differences among desired child

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15

characteristics among siblings.

4. The level of valuation of self direction and birth

order will be strongly positively related for siblings of

extensively upwardly mobile family units, whereas no

relationship will exist for siblings of non-mobile family

units.

It must be noted that these hypothesis are sequential

ly developed. Were Hypothesis 1 not supported, Hypotheses

2 through 4 could not be meaningfully tested within the

Kohnian theoretical context. If Hypothesis 2 is not

supported, the meaning of Hypotheses 3 and 4 are obscured.

This is an inescapable consequence of hypotheses that

reflect the development of the theory from which they

arise.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER II

METHODS

Sample

Given the family unit orientation required of this

research, it will be necessary to gather data from parents

and their children. In accomplishing this it is most

convenient to begin by surveying Western Michigan Universi

ty (Kalamazoo) undergraduates in an array of sociology

courses (most of which are general education courses).

Once the initial data are collected (including parents'

names, addresses and telephone numbers) contact with

families is made possible. From the parental contact,

identification and subsequent contact with siblings will be

possible. Hence one member of the family will always be a

WMU student, parents will likely be residents of Michigan

and siblings, older and younger than the WMU students will

reside either with the parents or elsewhere in unknown

distribution. Though the selection of the family units is

substantially useful (a higher probability of upwardly

mobile families) it will be parochial. This constitutes a

limitation of the research.

The families included in the sample will have the

following characteristics: each family will have at least

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17

two children who are thirteen years of age or older and who

have two or more years difference between them. Thus the

children will be old enough to have been though the most

formative socialization periods and be cognitively able to

formulate and report value opinions. The age difference is

necessary so that the theorized differing socialization

content, can be adequately reflected in the valuations of

child characteristics by siblings in the same family. The

families will be divided into mobile and stable.

The studies on which this research is built identified

class differences only between the working and middle

classes. Because of this, the present study can only hope

to view part of the resocialization process: those

involved in social mobility in the transition from working

to middle class. Therefore, while the sample will include

working class children and stable families which are middle

class, all the families identified as subculturally mobile

will be newly middle class. Unfortunately, we do not have

comparable research to indicate the significant desired

child characteristics for "under" and upper classes.

Nonetheless studying this process of resocialization from

working to middle class will provide a reasonable basis

from which to reflect on the theory.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18

Variables and Measurement

independent Variables

One of the first things that needs to be set forth is

an operational definition of social mobility. Although

conceptual definitions can vary dramatically (Lorimer &

Frederick, 1934, Sibley, 1942, and Centers, 1948, cited in

Kahl 1965), the operational definitions reflected in Duncan

and Blau's work, The American Occupational Structure

(1967), (cited in Kerckhoff, 1984, p. 140) have taken a

difference in the socioeconomic status (primarily assessed

via ranked occupational category) of a son relative to that

of the SES of his father as evidence of social mobility.

However, this general definition will not suffice for this

research. Rather, the degree or extent of difference

between the grandparent's and the parent's SES level must

be considered, for they reveal the difference between types

of social mobility, intra subcultural versus inter

subcultural mobility.

To accommodate this, the extent (i.e., the amount of

difference between the SES of origin and the SES of

destination) dimension of upward social mobility will be

addressed. The extent of upward social mobility can be

categorized into small versus large extent. Social

mobility of small extent is considered "within" subculture

mobility. In this instance any parental resocialization is

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19

likely to be relatively small and not germane to this

study. On the other hand, upward social mobility of a

large extent is considered "between" subcultures mobility,

thus it is expected that the parental resocialization is

likely to be substantial. Accordingly, only those stu

dents' families of origination whose social class is

subculturally different from that of their previous

generation's will be considered socially mobile. Opera

tionally, those family units of the middle class whose

previous generation is working class will be considered

upwardly socially mobile.

Given that the value orientations with which this

study is concerned are presumed to arise from occupational

experience, (those experiences differing for different

class subcultures that Kohn's causal model indicates as the

primary source of stratification position) this study will

use occupation to indicate social class. Specifically a

occupational index developed by Mary Jackman will be used

to determine class position. The occupation variable is

ranked at twelve different SES levels and are as follows

(Jackman, 1979, p. 449):

(1) Corporation directors and presidents

(2) Doctors and lawyers

(3) Executives and managers

(4) Supervisors in offices and stores

(5) Small businessman

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20

(6) Schoolteachers and social workers

(7) Foreman in factories

(8) Plumbers and carpenters

(9) Workers in offices and stores

(10) Assembly-line workers

(11) Janitors

(12) Migrant farm workers

In assigning sample families to a particular category,

we will align them with the range of scores that correspond

to a class ranking from upper class to lower class as

follows:

Class Range of Scores

I 1-2

II 3

III 4-7

IV 8-11

V 12

In trying to remain as true to Kohn's original research as

possible I have grouped Jackman's range of occupational

categories in close approximation of the five class

categories of the Hollingshead two-factor index which Kohn

used.

However this occupational index use must be modified

for this study. Given the need to find cases of upwardly

socially mobile that are inter-class subculturally mobile,

the top three ranges will be collapsed into a middle class

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21

and the lowest two into a working class as did Kohn with

the Hollingshead two-factor index (1969, p. 12). Reasons

for dividing this continuous ranking of occupations between

the seventh and eighth are: First, Jackman found that

between categories six and nine there began the transition

from a middle class to a working class subjective evalua

tion of the occupations. Second, there is a significant

power distinction between a Foreman (7) and Plumbers or

carpenters (8). In the case of a foreman, he or she is in

charge of a group, making some decisions of consequence and

generally engaging in self directed behavior. With

plumbers and carpenters none of this is generally the case;

they are often on the receiving end of decisions and aren't

in charge of others.

An additional concern is which family member's or

members' occupation will be used through this index. Two

factors are of primary importance: (1) the representative

ness of the measure, and (2) the feasibility of obtaining

the measure. There is a greater possibility of interview

ing one parent rather than both. Averaging or weighting

both parents' occupations is liable to muddy crucial

distinctions between the working and middle class.

Is one parent's occupation more representative of the

family's stratification position and, if so, which parent

is the better used as the measure? Here Kohn's et al.

(1986) research is informative. Kohn et al. found that the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22

father's occupation contributes more to the family SES.

The fathers' beta weight for the relationship between

occupational position and the family stratification

position is .84 whereas the mothers' is .64. Therefore, we

use only the father's occupation to establish the family

stratification position. The exception to this is when the

father did not live with the rest of the family, in which

case the mother's occupation and responses are used.

Dependent Variables

The measurement of the variable of value-orientation

in socialization in this study relies upon the research on

which it is based. In Class and Conformity Kohn (1969)

uses a thirteen item question asking his subjects (parents

only) to choose the characteristic(s) that he or she saw as

most desirable in an eight to fifteen-year-old child. He

used the following items in this and subsequent work on the

t Kohn, 1969, p. 48):

(1 that he/she have good manners

(2 that he/she is honest

(3 that he/she is neat and clean

(4 that he/she has self control

(5 that he/she obeys his/her parents

(6 that he/she is responsible

(7 that he/she is considerate of others

(8 that he/she is interested in how and why things

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23

happen (curiosity)

(9) that he/she is a good student

(10) that he/she tries hard to succeed

(11) that he/she has good sense and sound judgement

(12) that he/she acts as a boy/girl should

(13) that he/she get along with other children

Of these thirteen items, Kohn found nine which were

significantly correlated with working class or middle class

statuses; four with the middle class status and five with

the working class status (Kohn, 1969, pp. 49-51). Those

values of the self direction of the middle class subculture

are: consideration of others (7), curiosity (8), responsi

bility (6), and self control (4). The desired values of

the conformity of the working class subculture are: good

manners (1), neatness and cleanliness (3), good student

(9), honest (2), and obedience (5). However, a note of

caution is needed. The correlations found by Kohn are

significant but they are not large, ranging from .20 to

.06. Thus his findings may be the result of his large

sample sizes. Nevertheless, since this study is in part a

replication it will use all thirteen items.

In this research the questions are asked to children

as if they were rearing their own children, which differs

from Kohn et al. (1986) in which they asked children for

their values for themselves. Asking for valuations for

their children rather than their beliefs/values for

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24

themselves is intended to allow the subject to express

his/her values with most relevance to the socialization of

children and to be more consistent in the question asked of

parent and child.

The subjects (parents and children) are asked to

choose the most desirable characteristic for a child, as

well as the second, third and fourth most desirable

attributes. The subjects are also be asked to rank their

four least desired characteristics. These responses of the

subject are indexed on a scale from one to eight based on

a ratio of Kohn's et al. most and least desirable charac

teristics as being representative of self direction or

conformity to authority.

Valuation Scale;

SD C SD C SD C SD C SD C SD C SD C SD C

4 most desirable 0-4 0-4 1-3 1-3 2-2 2-2 3-1 4-0

4 least desirable 4-0 3-1 3-1 2-2 2-2 1-3 1-3 0-4

12345678

This scale is implemented by taking the number (0-4)

of self direction and conformity to authority values

selected as the four most and four least desirable and

combining them in the above perscribed ratios. Thus for a

Valuation Scale Score of 1, the respondent chose 4 values

defined by Kohn as conforming to authority as most desired

and 4 values defined as self directed as least desired.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25

Consequently, this score of 1 indicates the strongest

valuation of conformity to authority over self direction.

Subsequent VS Scores are varying ratios of self direction

to conformity to authority, a VSS of 8 being the strongest

valuation of self direction over conformity to authority.

Control Variables

Since the differences among siblings is an independent

variable, there is the possibility that birth position,

spacing and number of children may be contribu

ting/confounding variables in the relationship between

upward subcultural mobility and socialization. However, to

match subculturally upwardly mobile and non-mobile families

on these variables would require large numbers of subjects

beyond the scope of this research. Therefore the popula

tion will be sampled without reckoning with these vari

ables. However, the variables of number and spacing of

children will be controlled statistically if they are

related to the independent or dependent variables.

Another factor that will be examined and, if neces

sary, controlled is the gender. Kohn examines gender

differences only in the valuations of child characteristics

by parents in "Class and Conformity" (1969, p. 59) where he

finds that: "Sex is significantly (but not greatly) related

to fathers' valuation of self-direction— which is more

highly valued for boys." The same pattern of class speci

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 26

ficness of valuation is evident for both genders but more

strongly for boys than girls (Kohn, 1969, p. 58). No

accounting for gender appears in Kohn et al. (1986). This

is unfortunate since it is the only research of Kohn's that

asks children for their valuations.

Data Collection and Logistics

The data were collected through a three phase quest

ionnaire interview procedure. The first phase of data

collection was done in the previously described undergradu

ate classes at Western Michigan University with the

cooperation of the faculty. The undergraduate classes were

selected, with instructor's permission, from the array of

100 to 300 level classes offered in the Sociology Depart

ment at WMU in the Winter Semester of 1989. Students in

eight classes were surveyed. Many of these classes are

general education requirements and thus provided a wide

range of academic majors. In these selected classes the

questionnaire devised for this thesis, Child Rearing

Questionnaire (CRQ), assessing value preferences and a

request for occupational data to be used as a preliminary

assessment of the upward mobility of the family were

distributed (Appendix A). The instrument also requests the

subject's parents' names, address and phone number. Those

students who participated filled out the questionnaire in

class, the questionnaires were collected upon completion.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27

In the second phase, a letter was sent to the parents

of the responding undergraduates, with appropriate informed

consent materials, to acquaint them with this research and

request their cooperation with a telephone interview and to

provide the parents with the list of the child characteris

tic preferences prior to the interview. This assisted in

the conduct of the interview, since ranking a list of

characteristics is difficult without visual presentation to

the subject.

During this interview the father's occupational

category was verified. The occupation of his father, the

grandfather of the children in this study, was also be

verified, included in the material sent to the parents was

a request for the names, addresses, and telephone numbers

of the primary subjects' (the student sample's) siblings.

In the third phase of data collection, self-addressed

and stamped return envelopes, letters, questionnaires,

paralleling the questionnaire responded to by the initial

subjects, were sent to each of the siblings meeting the age

and two years age difference criteria.

Operational Hypotheses and Testing

This application of the socialization of subculturally

specific value orientations to the resocialization of

subculturally upwardly mobile families results in the

following hypotheses in consideration of the instruments

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28

and variables detailed earlier:

1. As a group, the middle class valuations of child

characteristics will be higher on self direction and lower

on conformity; the working class valuations of child

characteristics, as a group, will be higher on conformity

and lower on self direction. This will be tested by

significantly different means of Valuation Scale Scores

between working and middle class children as tested by a

two sample Student's t-test of difference (a =.05)

2. For the upwardly mobile families, the youngest

siblings will be in closest agreement with their parents

about the desired characteristics of children. There will

be a significant positive correlation between the valuation

Scale scores of upwardly mobile parents and their youngest

children. There will be a significantly lower positive

correlation between the Valuation Scale scores of upwardly

mobile parents and those of the sample of other than their

youngest children. The difference between these correla

tions will be tested by the Z-test of significance between

two r's (a = .05).

3. For the subculturally upwardly mobile families, the

youngest, middle and oldest siblings will exhibit signifi

cantly different Valuation Scale scores. For stable

families there will be no differences among desired child

characteristics among youngest, middle and oldest siblings.

This will be tested by two separate Fisher's simple

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29

analysis of variance, one for the mobile and one for the

stable (a = .05). If birth position, spacing and number of

children turn out to be confounding variables these will be

controlled using a complex ANOVA technique.

4. Valuation Scale scores and birth order will be

strongly positively correlated for siblings of sub

culturally upwardly mobile families, whereas no such

relationship will exist for siblings of non-mobile family

units. These relationships will be tested by two separate

Jaspin's multiserial correlations (a - .05). If birth

position is a confounding variable, this hypothesis can not

be tested. However, if birth spacing or number of children

turnout to be confounding variable, these will be con

trolled using a dummy variable ANOVA technique.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER III

DATA COLLECTION

Method Actualization

In April and May of 1989, 697 questionnaires were

distributed to undergraduates at Western Michigan Universi

ty in eight undergraduate sociology courses. Of these

questionnaires 542 were returned (77.7%). Of those

returned 224 (41.3%), 32.1% of the 697 questionnaires

distributed, were filled out correctly and completely

(parents' names, addresses and telephone numbers; both of

which were necessary to begin the parent phase of data

collection) (Appendix A).

In June of 1989, information/request letters (included

in Appendix A), which included a list of the thirteen

characteristics to be chosen from, were sent out to 172

parents of the 224 students who supplied that information.

The 53 parents not sent letters were working class and thus

not needed to test any of the hypotheses. Computer

assisted telephone interviewing (using the Ci2 program

(Sawtooth Software, 1986-89)) of these parents was conduct

ed over the next two months. Of these parents 117 (68.0%)

completed interviews, including names, addresses, and phone

numbers of children (siblings).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. These parents supplied the names, addresses and phone

numbers of 136 siblings of the students initially surveyed.

After three mailings of the questionnaires (included in

Appendix A) 102 of the 136 siblings returned questionnaires

(75%). Of these returned surveys, 84 were correctly

completed (82.3%).

Sample

After cleaning the data and correcting some cases

initially given an incorrect SES value, the above data

process collection yielded a total sample of 425 cases and

broke down into the relevant sub-samples as follows:

Table 1

Sample Distribution • SES Parent All : Youngest Middle Oldest o GROUP Children

MIDDLE (225) 73 152 55 33 54 10

MOBILE (124) 34 90 37 18 27 8

WORKING (66) 6 61 20 8 18 15

DOWN MOB. (14) _4 _5 _2 _2 _1 _0

117 308 114 61 100 33

* those listed under the ? could not be identified as being youngest, middle or oldest

This sample includes 67 complete family units (defined as

one parent and at least two children at least 2 years apart

in age); 44 middle, 19 upwardly mobile, 3 working and 1

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32

downwardly mobile. Additionally, the sample includes 50

partial families— families with one parent and one child

who completed survey instruments; 29 middle, 15 upwardly

mobile, 3 working and 3 downwardly mobile.

The relevant sociodemographic characteristics are as

follows:

Table 2

Gender of Children and Parents Interviewed

All Children Respondents All Parent Respondents

Male 103 93

Female 167 23

Missing 38 1

Table 3

Children Demographics

Range Mean Median St Dev

Age of Children 13-35 21.0 20.0 3.83

# of Children per Family 2-8 3.1 3.0 1.33

Years between Siblings 2-12 3.0 3.0 1.92

As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, these sample

characteristics are appropriate to this research. The

roughly 21% difference of females in excess of males does

warrant a comparison of the valuation of child characteris

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33

tics by gender to see if there is a gender based difference

that could affect interpretation of the general sample.

This could be of particular importance given the next

sample characteristic— the gender of the interviewed

parent.

It will be recalled that for SES scaling and logisti

cal reasons it was decided that only one parent per family

would be interviewed (see pp. 23-24). Additionally, the

one parent that would be sought for the interview was the

father— given the proportionally larger role fathers play

in socialization relevant to SES position (see p. 24).

What was sought after, was by-and-large achieved; 79.5% of

the parents interviewed were fathers, 19.7% mothers and .9%

with gender identification missing. As a result the gender

of parents interviewed posses no particular problem other

than possible interpretive implications for possible gender

differences in valuation of child characteristics among

child subjects, which will be investigated.

Similarly, the age of the child subjects poses no

problems: it is convergent with theoretical requirements of

13 to 35 years of (see p. 17), a mean of 21.0, a median of

20.0 and standard deviation of 3.83. The number of

children in each family is not problematic: range 2-8, mean

3.1, median 3.0 and standard deviation 1.33.

The final demographic category, the number of years

between the ages of siblings, is also relatively appropri

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34

ate but of considerable import. The concern of this

research is to investigate a progression of resocialization

from working class values to those of the middle class for

upwardly subculturally mobile families. Since evidence of

this is looked for in differential valuation of child

characteristics by siblings affected by socialization

experienced at different points in parental resocializtion,

the greater the age difference between siblings the greater

the possible magnitude of parental resocialization and

child socialization content. Accordingly, it was decided

that for families to be included in this research there had

to be a two year age difference among responding siblings.

The sample does meet this criterion; range 2-12 yrs, mean

3.6, median 3.0 and standard deviation 1.92. Although the

mean and median exceed the criterion and there is some

dispersion noting the standard deviation, it is possible

that even this age interval may truncate the magnitude of

differences in valuations of child characteristics among

siblings. However, this does not hamper the ability to

test for the existence of the theorized relationships, just

the degree to which they may be found.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

Hypotheses Testing

in order to test hypothesis one (As a group, the

middle class valuations of child characteristics will be

high on self direction and low on conformity; the working

class families, as a group, valuations of child character

istics will be high on conformity and low on self direc

tion) in which the replication of Kohn's (1969) work was to

occur, it was first necessary to convert the raw ranking

scores to Valuation Scale scores (pp. 26-27). Then a t-

test of difference between the Valuation Scale score means

of middle class children and working class children was to

be performed.

However, when an SPSSX program (SPSS, 1988) to create

the VS scores and perform the t-test was run, the program

failed to perform the t-test. The reason this occurred was

that only 2 cases scored on the Valuation Scale (.0049%).

Thus 99.995% of this sample did not choose between Kohn's

categories as expected.

This was not the result of an improperly constructed

scale nor incorrectly calculated scores. The VS was

constructed based on Kohn's identification of particular

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. characteristics from the list of thirteen as indicating

self direction or conformity and that emphasis of one or

the other was dichotomously class specific. Thus the

scale's usefulness was dependent upon, and therefore

limited by, the sample conforming to the valuation dimen

sion specified by Kohn: self direction versus conformity

to authority. However, the sample members did not choose

characteristics in accord with Kohn's findings. Thus,

since the vs was based on these finding, it could not be

employed successfully to test hypothesis 1 as designed;

therefore, the reproduction of Kohn's valuation dimension

failed. Additionally this finding is a prima facie failure

to support hypothesis 1: though hypothesis 1 could not be

formally tested by a student's t-test of difference, it is

clear that the predicted differences do not exist for this

sample thus not supporting hypothesis 1.

The failed replication and apparent lack of support

for hypothesis 1 are more fully analyzed by comparing and

contrasting Kohn's findings with the pattern of character

istics frequently chosen, infrequently chosen or not chosen

by the sample and its subgroups as presented in Table 4.

However, comparisons of class specificity of non-chosen,

infrequently chosen and chosen characteristics are limited

by the size of the working class sample. Working class

children all is the only viable subgroup for the working

class due to the small number of cases. Were the working

Non-#a1octod, Infroquontly and Froquontly Soloctod Itoma by iampla Grouping#

*11 Mobil* (124) Paranta (34) *11 ChllOran (10) Toungaat (37) 37 Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. without prohibited reproduction Further owner. copyright the of permission with Reproduced

Self can flaaplbl* C om ritt In t*r*a t| Obiya Manner* Manaaty Meat Gatutfant| Trtaahd Geanand Gandaet Gatalang 38 Tho poreontagoa proaontod In thla tib li art of throo catagorlaif 1) Nen-aoloetod valuta - not aoloctod by any aubjoct In tha aamplt or oamplo aubgroup; 2) Infroquontly aolactod valuta - aoloetod by SX or fawar of tho oamplo or aamplt aubgroupj 3) Frequently aolactod valuaa - aolactod by moro than SOU of tho oamplo or aampl# aubgroup. Thoao eatogorloo moot u aofully llluotrato tho rolatlonahipa that aro of eencorn hart. 39

class sample disaggregated by sibling position or by

parents the "cell size" would simply be too small.6

Additionally, the comparisons derived from table 4 are

limited since Kohn's findings are reported in correlations

and these are categorical frequencies. Nevertheless, such

comparisons do illustrate a failure to replicate Kohn (see

Table 4).

As shown in Table 4, the first four characteristics

were designated by Kohn as self-directed/middle class; the

second five as conforming to authority/working class; the

last four not being identified as either.

Middle class/self-directed:

(1) that he/she has self-control SELFCON (2) that he/she is responsible - RESPIBLE (3) that he/she is considerate of others - CONSRATE (4) that he/she is interested in how and - INTEREST why things happen

Q The small size of the working class sample is the result of not needing working class parents or siblings of initial contacts to test the hypotheses as originally configured. In hypothesis 1 only the middle class and working class were to be compared by a comparison of children on their respective Valuation Scale scores. Thus responses from working class parents were not need ed. The working class sample was not needed, neither parents or children, to test hypotheses 2 through 4 at all. Therefore siblings responses were not collected. Given the failure of the sample to score on the Valuation Scale, subsequent analysis would have been aided if the working class sample were larger and more comprehensive but this was not possible at this point in the research. The six working class parents that are in the total sample are people who were originally misclassified as either middle class or mobile but upon data cleaning were reclassified.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40

Working class/conformity to authority:

(5) that he/she obeys his/her parents = OBEYS (6) that he/she have good manners - MANNERS (7) that he/she is honest = HONESTY (8) that he/she is neat and clean = NEAT (9) that he/she is a good student = GSTUDENT

Non-class specific:

(10) that he/she tries hard to succeed = TRIESHD (11) that he/she has good sense and = GSENSND sound judgement (12) that he/she acts like a boy/girl = GENDACT should (13) that he/she gets along well with - GETALONG other children

The desired or positively and the least desired or

negatively chosen categories of the last four characteris

tics converge with Kohn's findings. The variables, that

he/she tries hard to succeed, has good sense and sound

judgment, acts as a boy or girl should, and gets along well

with others, do not show any class specificity.

However, when analyzing the nine desired characteris

tics of or values for children which Kohn identifies as

class specific, the reason for the failure to replicate

Kohn can be seen.

When comparing positively selected characteristics for

the middle class and working class all children sample

subgroups, the pattern of non, infrequently and frequently

selected characteristics is very similar (see Table 4).

For positively chosen items, the middle class and working

class children all subgroups differ on only two infrequent

ly and two frequently chosen items: infrequent— that he/she

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41

is neat and a good student; frequent— that he/she is

considerate of others and has good sense and sound judge

ment. However, even for these items, no significant

differences were found using Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVAs;

Kruskal-Wallis ranged from H = 5.25 to 2.24, while all

failed to reach significance at a - .05.

The absence of class specificity in the selections of

least desirable characteristics for children is further

evidence of failing to support Kohn and Hypothesis l.7 The

pattern of infrequently chosen negative or least desired

characteristics for the middle class and working class all

children subgroups show some differences. The middle class

all children subgroup infrequently selected HONESTY

(Working class) and RESIPBLE (Middle class) and frequently

selected NEAT (Working) and GENDACT (Non-specified). The

working class all children subgroup infrequently or did not

select HONESTY (Working class), RESIBLE (Middle class) and

frequently selected NEAT (Working class), GENDACT (Non

specified) and GSTUDENT (Working class). This is a small

Though Kohn did not ask his subjects to rank those characteristics they found least desirable for all three studies reported in "Class and Conformity" (1969), he did so for the national study. In the national study Kohn combined the most desirable and the least desirable characteristics chosen into a five point index (Kohn 1969, pg. 48). However, for the present purposes the appearance of class specificity in the least desirable characteristic selections is as reasonable as finding them in positive selection. Thus this analysis is both necessary and profitable.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42

difference and does not follow the logic of Kohn's find

ings. One would expect the middle class to select predomi

nately "working class" characteristics as least desirable

while the working class would be expected to select

predominately "middle class" characteristics. The data do

not reflect this pattern. Additionally, for the difference

that does exist-GSTUDENT (W), there is no significant

difference indicated by a Kruskal-Wallis l-way ANOVA; H -

2.23, failed significance at a - .05.

This evidence is not an air-tight contradiction of

Kohn in and of itself since the sample subgroups available

from these data are children of different classes rather

than parents' data with which Kohn primarily worked; though

he and his associates did report that middle class children

did follow the same class specificity (Kohn, Slomczynski,

Schoenbach, 1986, pp. 98-99). However, this evidence is a

good indication of the problem and can be bolstered by

further comparisons.

As mentioned in Footnote 7, for the national study

included in "Class and Conformity" (Kohn, 1969), Kohn

created a five point index including most desired and least

desired characteristics (Kohn, 1969, p. 48):

5 = The most valued of all. 4 - One of the three most valued, but not the most valued. 3 = Neither one of the three most nor the three least valued. 2 - One of the three least valued, but not the least valued.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43

1 = The least valued of all.

Using this scale with the current study's data

provides a relatively direct comparison with Kohn's

findings. Table 5 is a replication of the table in which

Kohn reports the mean scores on the above index for each

characteristic by class (Kohn, 1969, p. 50), substituting

the data in this current research for Kohn's. The three

differences between Kohn's table and Table 5 are: (l) This

study's data are for the children subgroups rather than for

parents; (2) Kohn reconstitutes his sample back into the

five original Hollingshead two-factor class categories; and

(3) the mobile sample is included here.

In a direct comparison of working class and middle

class mean scores, three of four "middle class" values do

show the expected relationship mean scores: middle class

children mean scores are slightly higher than those of the

working class. However, the middle class children

subgroup also has slightly higher mean scores than the

working class children subgroup for three of the five

"working class" values. Additionally, it must be noted

that none of the differences in means for any of the values

is significant at a - .05, as tested by Kruskal-Wallis 1-

way ANOVA. Thus, once again, these data do not support

Kohn's findings.

To test the possibility that the gender differences

are confounding this analysis (discussed in Chapter III) a

Expactad Mtddla Clia* Expactad Working Claas Und1fla ran11 atad Salactlana Salactlona Salactlona 44 45

series of Kruskal-Wallis l-way ANOVAs were done. Gender of

subject was controlled by running Kruskal-Wallis 1-way

ANOVAs for male and female separately. Thus if gender were

confounding the search for class based differences in

valuation of child characteristics, class differences would

be found in the gender separate Kruskal-Wallis 1-way ANOVAs

that were not found in unseparated analyses. There were no

significant class differences controlling for gender at a

- .05. The greater number of female to male children

subjects (21%) does not alter this analysis.

Since the direct comparison between middle class and

working class children subgroups did not show: (a) any

class specificity in non-selected or infrequently selected

characteristics, let alone Kohn's predicted pattern (Table

4); nor did (b) the emulation of Kohn's comparison of

middle class and working class mean scores for each

value/characteristic with the current study's data show

class specificity or Kohn's predicted pattern (Table 5);

then only supportable conclusions are that Kohn's findings

are not replicated and that Hypothesis 1 is not supported.

Consequently, the valuation Scale could not be used to

test Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4 as developed in Chapter II.

Therefore, for further analysis, and in an attempt to test

some analog of Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4, exploratory analysis

was initiated.

Exploration is both possible and desirable. The

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46

underlying rationale for this research is that people who

are upwardly subculturally socially mobile go through a

process of resocialization that (among many other changes)

shapes changes in class specific values which parents

desire in their children and for which they socialize their

children. Their children reflect this process, children of

different ages in the same family experienced primary

socialization at different points in their parents'

resocialization and these children would be systematically

different in their preferred values. These are the

theoretical questions which this research is attempting to

address.

Even though Kohn's findings on class specific values

were not replicated here, and thus his concepts of class

specific valuations of conformity to authority and self-

direction can not be used as planned, the above rationale

can still be tested if other patterns of class specific

valuations can be found. This would allow for a post-hoc

analysis of altered versions of Hypotheses 2, 3 and 4.

While recognizing the limitations of Kohn's valuation

items, exploratory data analyses were performed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V

DATA EXPLORATION

In this chapter an attempt to examine the hypotheses

set forth in Chapter II is undertaken through further

analysis of the data. The findings Chapter IV direct the

attempt to rework the hypotheses. Each hypothesis is

reworked to excise the Kohnian aspects of them given the

lack of support for Kohn's self direction and conformity to

authority findings discussed in Chapter IV.

In order to recreate Hypothesis 1 in a post-hoc

manner, the valuations of most desired and least desired

child characteristics were subjected to a series of factor

analyses. I sought to determine if there are patterns of

selection and ranking of characteristics desired and least

desired for children that differ among working class and

middle class samples (Hypothesis 1). If factor differences

were, found a post-hoc analysis of Hypotheses 2 through 4

could be developed through which an analysis of upwardly

subculturally mobile families' resocialization compared to

nonmobile could occur. Thus, principal component-extrac- 0 tion, varimax-rotation, factor analyses were conducted for

O Principal component-extraction is a method of data reduction that successively pulls out of the covariance matrix representing a data set those principle axes

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48

the entire sample and all of the subgroups separately for

both desired and least desired characteristics of children.

To accommodate this factor analytic procedure, the

data were transformed from the original general form of

"most desired characteristic - the number of the chosen

characteristic" to a rank for each characteristic for each

subject. Each characteristic was given a weight of one of

the following:

4 = most desired characteristic 3 = second most desired characteristic 2 - third most desired characteristic 1 = fourth most desired characteristic 0 - not selected as one of the four most desired characteristic

The same procedure was used to transform the least desir

able characteristic variables into a form through which

factor analyses could be performed. It was necessary to

make these data transformations so that factor could be

isolated and loadings calculated for each characteristic.

In order to reduce distribution skew, items chosen by (variables with strong intercorrelations combined into factors) that account for the most variance. The reason for choosing this method of extraction is that it does not require the specification of a hypothetical model to represent a covariance structure. Thus principal compo nent extraction is ideal for exploratory data analysis such as this (Kim and Mueller, 1978b, pp. 12-21). Varimax rotation of the factors created by principle component extraction involves simplifying said factors by rotating the axes such that they remain orthoganal and maximizes the variance explained by each factor. Thus orthoganality of factors is maintained but the factor pattern is closest to the simplest possible structure, thereby increasing simplicity and interpretibility of factors (Kim and Mueller, 1978b, pp. 29-30).

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 49

5% or less of the sample or sample subgroups were eliminat

ed from the factor analysis for that sample. As mentioned

earlier, the four most desired characteristics and the four

least desired characteristics were analyzed separately for

the sample as a whole and the sample subgroups. Thus for

the "most desired" factor analyses, the data are confined

to the four most desired characteristics or relatively

"highly" desired characteristics. Likewise, within the

"least desired" factor analyses, the data are confined to

the four least desired characteristics or characteristics

of relatively "low" desirability. Although all heavily

loading characteristics for a factor are consistently

either characteristics of relatively high or low desirabil

ity, frequently there are positive and negative loadings in

the same factor. For the data this means that while all

characteristics in any single factor are of relative "high"

or "low" desirability, for positive loadings there is

consensus about the relative rank for that characteristic

within the high or low desirability factor analysis.

Conversely, for negative loadings there is dissensus about

the relative rank for that characteristic within the high

Q or low desirability factor analysis.

Q Although this consensus and descensus of relative rank of characteristics that load heavily on a factor is an interesting aspect of these factor analyses— and will be noted in the description of the factors— the deter- minance of conceptual meaning of a factor has been done with the absolute value of the characteristic loading.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50

To retest Hypothesis l differences among sample

subgroups could be identified by three possible factor

analytic outcomes:

1. The successful isolation of factors for some

subgroups but not others. This outcome would indicate that

the sample subgroups are different. Some subgroups would

show patterned preferences, while others would not.

2. Finding substantively different factors for

different subgroups. With this outcome descriptive

analysis of the content of factors for each subgroup would

be the basis from which to analyze class differences.

3. Finding significantly different means for common

factor scale scores for the different subgroups.10 This

factor analytic outcome would not only indicate class

differences on a common factor scale but would allow for

the testing of Hypothesis 2 through 4.

Presentation and Comparison of Selected Factor Analyses

In order to proceed through all the factor analyses of

relevance to post-hoc examination of hypotheses 1 through

This was done since the sign of the loading has signifi cance only as to the consensus or descensus the sample or sample subgroups have about the relative high rank or low rank of the characteristic.

10The third test of difference requires that factors common to all or some general subgroups create suffi ciently reliable scales. Cronbach's alpha will be used to test the scalability of such factors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51

4 in a orderly manner, this discussion will follow the

succession of the three possible factor analytic outcomes

indicating differences among sample groupings listed

earlier.

Identification of Differences Among Sample Subgroups

Possible Outcome 1: Isolation of Factors

Comparing subgroups for the successful isolation of

factors reveals factors generated for almost all groups.

When the twenty-eight factor analyses were run, all of the

analyses isolated factors except for the analysis of most

desired rankings for the sample as a whole. For this

sample the factor analysis failed to converge in 24

iterations: convergence - .00151. Although the sample as

a whole did not converge on factors for characteristics

ranked as most desired, each of the sample subgroups did.

This may indicate, for at least the characteristics ranked

as most desired, that the logic of this research is

supported. If working class, middle class and mobile

samples differ in their selection of desirable characteris

tics, then the failure to find a single set of factors for

these groups combined is consistent with the posited

heterogeneity. However, the factor analysis of the entire

sample least desired characteristics does not support this

logic since selections converged into factors. Subsequent

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52

analysis will shed more light on this issue.

Possible Outcome 2: Substantive Analysis of Factors

In this section substantively different factors for

different sample subgroups are examined. The factor

analyses' presentations and comparisons are divided. The

first analyses are for the characteristics ranked as most

desired and the second analyses are for the least desired

ones. Since the primary goal is to find substantive

differences in factors between socioeconomic classes

(middle and working classes) this discussion will center

around a comparison between the directly comparable sample

subgroups: children respondents.

Child Characteristics Most Desired

In Tables 6 and 7 the factors for the middle and

working class children all subgroups which have Eigen

values equal to or greater than 1.20 are presented.11 In

each factor only those child characteristics with factor

loadings equal to or greater than .40 are included (a

complete presentation of factors and loadings for all

groups is in Appendix B).

For the middle class children sample subgroup (irre-

’'Eigne values of 1.00 reflect absolute minimum fac tor coherency. Since factors are to be used as reliable scales, if found, an Eigen value of 1.20 was set as a basis for subsequent scale development.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. U l U) Factor Name Bright Stoic Conformer .594 .782 -.534 Desired" Factors - (n 152) Factor Loadings 6 Table Middle Class All Children "Most Eigen value = 1.78 Eigen value = 1.47 Eigen value = 1.33 Factor 2: Child Characteristics Factor 1: Factor 3: * only those factors with Eigen values of 1.20 or above are considered for analysis He/She has good sense and sound judgement He/She gets along well with others .639 He/She is considerate of others -.793 Conformity to He/She is honestHe/She obeys his/her parents He/She has good mannersHe/She is responsible -.615 -.738 Conformer He/She has self control .756 Others

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LH

the Intellectual Follower Exceptance Success Achieved Factor Name Importance of Success as Casual Social Honestly .796 .697 .710 .747 .718 .679 .814 -.658 -.435 -.727 Factor Loadings Table 7

Working Class All Children "Most Desired" Factors = (n 61) things happen Eigen value7 = 1.7 Eigen value = 1.99 Eigen values = 1.49 Eigen value = 1.28 Factor 1: Child Characteristics * * only those factors with Eigen values of 1.20 or above are considered for analysis Factor 2: He/She is interested in how and why Factor 3: He/She is a good student He/She has good sense and sound judgement Factor 4: He/She is neat and clean He/She gets along well with others He/She is responsible He/She obeys his/her parents He/She tries hard to succeed He/She has good manners He/She is honest

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55

spective of birth order) three factors met these criteria:

1. Bright conformer, which incorporates as "highly"

desired characteristics, getting along well with others and

having good sense and sound judgement as (consensus) as

well as being honest and obedience to parents (dissensus).

2. Stoic conformer, which incorporates as "highly"

desired characteristics, having good manners (consensus)

and being responsible (dissensus).

3. Conformity to Others, which incorporates as

"highly" desired characteristics, being considerate of

others (dissensus) and having self-control (consensus).

For the working class four factors met the specified

criteria:

1. Importance of the Intellectual, which incorporates

as "highly" desired characteristics, being interested in

how and why things happen and having good sense and sound

j udgement (consensus).

2. Success as Follower, which incorporates as "highly"

desired characteristics, obedience to parents and being a

good student (consensus) as well as being responsible

(dissensus).

3. Casual Social Acceptance, which incorporates as

"highly" desired characteristics, getting along well with

others and being neat and clean (consensus) as well as

having good manners (dissensus).

4. Honestly Achieved Success, which incorporates

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56

"highly" desired characteristics, trying hard to succeed

(consensus) and being honest (dissensus).

Clearly there are substantive differences between the

factors for the middle and working class children all

sample subgroups derived from their respective selec

tion/ranking of most desired child characteristics. In

fact, these two sample subgroups do not have a single

factor in common. Additionally, no two items within a

factor are common to both middle and working classes. This

finding supports Hypothesis 1 and the general thesis of

Kohn that there are class specific differences in the

valuation of child characteristics, but not the substance

of his specific findings.

Child Characteristics Least Desired

Tables 8 and 9 present the least desired characteris

tic factors and the item loadings for those factors for the

middle and working class children all sample subgroups

respectively.

The middle class all children sample subgroup produced

two such factors:

1. Divorced from Others and their Standards, which

incorporate the relative undesirableness of being a good

student (consensus) and getting along well with others

(dissensus).

2. Unimportance of Traditional Success, which incorpo-

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

Others and Standards Their Success Traditional Factor Name Divorcied from Unimportance of (n (n = 152) .775 .783 -.753 -.726 Factor Loadings Table 8

Middle Class All Children "Least Desired" Factors Eigen value3 = 1.2 Eigen value = 1.59 * * only those factors with Eigen values of 1.20 or above are considered for analysis Child Characteristics Factor 1: He/She is a good studentHe/She gets along well with others Factor 2: He/She is neat and clean He/She tries hard to succeed

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. (J1 CO

Intelletual the and Gender Roles Conforming Success Unimportance of Unimportance of (n (n = 61) .720 .699 .675 -.851 -.646 -.472 "Least Desired" Factors Table 9

Working Class All Children things happen Eigen value = 2.16 Eigen value = 1.66 * * only those factors with Eigen values of 1.20 or above are considered for analysis Child Characteristics Factor Loadings Factor Name Factor 2: He/She is interested in how and why Factor 1: He/She has good sense and sound judgement He/She is considerate He/Sheof otherstries hard to succeed He/She obeys his/her parents He/She acts as a boy or girl should

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59

rates the relative undesirableness of trying hard to

succeed (consensus) and being neat and clean (dissensus).

The working class all children sample subgroup's least

desired selection/ranking's produced two factor analyses

that met the above criteria:

1. Unimportance of the Intellectual and Gender Roles,

which incorporates the relative undesirableness of having

good sense and sound judgement and being interested in how

and why things happen (dissensus) as well as acting as a

boy or girl should (consensus).

2. Unimportance of Conforming Success, which incorpo

rates the relative undesirableness of obedience to parents

and being considerate of others (consensus) as well as

trying hard to succeed (dissensus).

As with the most desired factor analysis, the middle

and working class children sample subgroups analyses for

least desired characteristics do not share a single factor

nor a two item combination in any factor.

Considering what the most and least desired factor

analyses show, it is clear that there is some kind of

substantive class related difference in the ranking of

child characteristics. However, this analysis fails to

support Kohn's findings of the class specific differences

in the valuation of child characteristics: middle class

valuing self-direction and working class valuing conformity

to authority. The general content of the factors for the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 60

middle class children sample subgroup is that of varying

kinds of social conformity. The general content of working

class children sample subgroups' factors are more varied

but primarily oriented toward intellectual and success

characteristics with some social conformity not equivalent

to that of the middle class's.

It is of interest to note that these factor analyses

contain substantive anomalies. Some of the same items load

heavily on both the most and least desired factors within

each class grouping. For the middle class all children

sample subgroup this characteristic is he/she gets along

well with others. For the working class all children

sample subgroup these characteristics are: (a) he/she is

interested in how and why things happen, (b) he/she has

good sense and sound judgement, (c) he/she obeys his/her

parents, and (d) he/she tries hard to succeed. Since the

ranking of child characteristics as most and least desired

are mutually exclusive for any single subject, this

indicates that there are different clusters of subjects

within a class sample subgroup which very differently value

the same child characteristics. For the factors of each

group this means that the most and least desired character

istic analyses share conceptual or topical concern but that

these "topics" are different between the middle and working

classes.

Thus the factor analytic outcome of substantively

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61

different factors for middle and working class all children

subgroups has been found. These differences fail to

support Kohn's findings of the middle class highly valuing

self-direction and the working class highly valuing

conformity to authority. Additionally, there seems to be

a cleavage within each class, more so for the working than

the middle class, which indicates that there is at least

one variable affecting this sample that is not directly

related to class affects which influences the valuation of

child characteristics.

This result requires factor scale analysis to assess the

statistical significance of such substantive differences

and thereby allow for the testing of reconstructed Hypothe

ses 2 through 4. Therefore I now turn to common factor

scalability analysis.

Possible Outcome 3: Common Factor Scale Analysis

Having shown substantive class specificity of the

valuations of child characteristics, supporting the revised

Hypothesis 1, analysis of Hypotheses 2 through 4 can begin.

Revised Hypotheses 2 through 4 are as follows:

2. For the upwardly mobile families, the youngest

siblings will be in closest agreement with their parents

about the desired characteristics of children compared to

the middle and oldest children.

3. For the subculturally upwardly mobile families, the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 62

youngest, middle and oldest siblings will exhibit signifi

cantly different mean factor scale scores. For stable

families, there will be no differences among desired child

characteristics among youngest, middle and oldest siblings.

4. Factor Valuation Scale scores and birth order will

be strongly positively correlated for siblings of sub-

culturally upwardly mobile families, whereas no such

relationship will exist for siblings of non-mobile family

units.

However, as noted in footnote 10 (p. 51), factors of

the middle, working and mobile socioeconomic groups must be

found to constitute sufficiently reliable scales before

these hypotheses can be tested. To assess the scalability

of factors Cronbach's alpha is employed here.12

The scalability analysis was begun with the middle,

working and mobile all children sample subgroups. The

lack of scalability of the class specific factors quickly

became evident. Cronbach's alpha is calculated based on

either variance-covariance or correlation matrices. When

there are negative relationships in these matrices, alpha

12 Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency which provides a unique estimate of reliabil ity. It differs from Test-Retest and Split-Halves methods of testing reliability in that Cronbach's alpha requires only one administration of the proposed scale and does not require the splitting of the sample. Cronbach's alpha has a coefficient range of -1.0 to 1.0 as do corre lation coefficients (Carmines & Zeller, 1979, pp. 37-45). Thus Cronbach's alpha is the reliability test best suited for assessing the scalability of factors.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63

are negative relationships in these matrices, alpha is

always negative; it is clearly below the .70 minimum

criterion for the use of factors as scales. This posed

particular problems in the factor scalability analysis in

that all factors for the middle class all children sample

subgroup have at least one negative loading in them and all

but one of the factors for the working class all children

sample subgroup have a negative loading in them. These

negative loadings indicate that in the correlation matrices

there are negative relationship. Thus all but one of the

"class specific" factors are automatically rejected as

scales. The one class specific factor that had no negative

loadings also failed to form a reliable scale, a - .432.

To be assured that the factors' lack of reliability

was not an artifact of SPSSx (SPSS, 1988) which uses a

formula for Cronbach's alpha that is somewhat different

than is presented in Carmines and Zeller (1979, p. 44),

factor alphas were calculated by hand. Hand calculation

revealed the same lack of reliability. No reliable factor

scales were found with which to conduct common scale

analysis.

Consequently, the testing of revised hypotheses 2

through 4 could not proceed given the need for more than

descriptive differences between the middle and working

classes to assess the resocialization of socially mobile

families and individuals within them as prescribed in these

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64

Given that the preceding factor analytic strategy

failed to produce reliable factors from which scales could

be created and thereby test Hypotheses 2 through 4, one

additional factor analytic strategy was used. This

strategy was to tease out of the entire sample two dimen

sions of valuation from which reliable scales might be

formed.

For this analysis the most desired and least desired

valuations were combined into a nine point continuim.

Response 9 represented the most highly desired valuation,

response 1 represented the very least desired valuation,

and response 5 indicated the non-selection of an item. The

factors resulting from this analysis are shown in Table 10.

For the entire sample two factors were found:

1. Importance of Social Conformity versus the

Intellectual, which incorporates having good manners,

obeying parents, and being honesty (positive values) and

having good sense and sound judgment as well as being

interested in how and why things happen (negative values).

2. Friendliness versus Good Self-Control, which

incorporates being considerate of others and getting along

well with others (positive values) and having good self

control (negative value).

Due to the inclusion of both most and least desired

valuations, the signs of the factor loading are interpreted

differently than in previous factor analyses. Here

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OS <_n Intellectual Social v s . v sthe . Conformity vs. Good Self-Control Factor Name Friendliness .600 .487 .372 .652 .574 -.698 Importance of Factor Loadings Table 10 Entire Sample "Least" to "Most" Desired Continuum Factors (N = 425) things happen Eigen value = 1.68 Eigen value = 1.48 * * only those factors with Eigen values of 1.20 or above are considered for analysis Factor 1: Child Characteristics He/She has good manners Factor 2: He/She has good sense and sound judgment He/She is interested in how and why -.580 He/She Obeys his/her parents He/She is considerate of others He/She is honest He/She gets along well He/Shewith othershas good self-control -.430

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 66

positive and negative values are seen as competing concep

tions within a valuation dimension. For example, and most

interestingly, factor 1 above seems to be splitting along

the desired locus of behavioral motivation, external or

internal.

It was hoped that two, one concept dimensions (re

flected in two factors) would be found. However, this did

not occur given the positive and negative loadings in both

factors. Thus two, two concept dimensions were found.

Factor 1 is of particular interest in that the

valuation dimension it addresses is analogous to the

valuation differences Kohn found, conformity to authority

and self direction, between the working and middle classes

respectively. However, factor 1 did not comprise a

reliable scale (a » .478) nor was there a significant

difference between the sample subgroups on the combined

variables of factor 1 as tested with a Kruskal Wallis l-way

ANOVA; H - 1.76, failed significance at a ■ .05. Neither

did factor 2 form a reliable scale (a - .369) nor was there

a significant difference between the sample subgroups of

the combined variables of factor 2 as tested by a Kruskal

Wallis l-way ANOVA; H - 1.25, failed significance at a -

.05.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 67

Summary of Exploratory Data Analysis

This exploratory data analysis was undertaken with

goal and hope of finding significantly different patterns

of the valuation of child characteristics between middle

and working class. Then with these differences the

theorized resocialization of families that were upwardly

mobile between the working and middle classes could be

looked at through the testing of Hypotheses 2 through 4.

This analysis is another approach to testing Kohn's

findings generally (i.e., is there a class specific

difference in values?) and specifically (i.e., if found, is

the class specificity of values differentiated by valua

tions of conformity to authority versus self direction?).

However, this analysis was only partially successful.

The factor analysis of the selections/rankings of the

middle and working class all children sample subgroups did

show substantive differences in the factors isolated. The

general concern of the factors for the middle class all

children sample subgroup is that of varying kinds of social

conformity while the concern of the working class all

children sample subgroups is primarily oriented toward

intellectual and success characteristics with some social

conformity not equivalent to that of the middle class. As

in the primary analysis in Chapter IV, these findings do

not support Kohn's and indeed, going a step further, seem

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 68

conceptually reversed from the middle class— self direction

and working class— conformity to authority relationships.

Unfortunately, the lack of reliable factor derived scales

prevented the testing of Hypotheses 2 through 4.

The two dimension factor analytic strategy produced

one factor that was substantively similar to Kohn's

findings: The Importance of Social Conformity versus the

Intellectual. However, like the first factor analytic

strategy both factors produced by this strategy failed to

be reliable scales nor were significant differences between

sample subgroups found.

Thus though there are substantive differences in the

factors for the middle and working classes according to the

first factor analytic strategy and that a factor similar to

Kohn's value dimension was found by the second, there is no

statistically significant support for Kohn's findings and

descriptive assessments are substantively mixed. There

fore, lacking significant class specificity of values, the

resocialization of subculturally upwardly mobile families

could not be assessed through tests of hypotheses 2 through

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER V I

CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION

At its most general level this thesis studies the

interaction of the social structure and individuals within

it by analyzing the nexus between the socioeconomic

stratification system and the individual's position in that

system, experience and behavior; this nexus being value-

orientations. More specifically, this research is con

cerned with the role of socialization in the maintenance of

the status quo stratification of subcultures and corre

sponding subcultural consciousnesses as they effect

socially mobile. The intent was to examine the process of

change in class subcultural family socialization; the focus

is upon the values that appear to have direct relevance to

the process of social mobility and status attainment.

Theory and Rationale

The way in which this theoretical issue was approached

was through a replication and conceptual extension of

Melvin Kohn's work on class specific valuations of child

characteristics. Kohn and his co-authors have three

findings of great importance to this research. First, Kohn

(1969) found that the working class and middle class

emphasized conformity to authority or self direction

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 70

respectively as desired child characteristics which shows

a class difference in value-orientations. Second and

third, in research published in 1986, Kohn et al. found

that these class differences are, in large part, due to

differing natures of occupations at these two socioeconomic

levels, and that these emphases were inoculated into

children via socialization (Kohn, 1986, pp. 98-100). Given

Kohn's first finding of class differences, these dif

ferences' occupational origin (second finding) and their

transfer to children (third finding), it is reasonable to

theorize that those families who are upwardly socially

mobile from the working to the middle class go through a

process of resocialization from the working class subcul

ture to the middle class. It is also reasonable to assume

that the valuation of child characteristics is a part of

these subcultures.

However, to understand the resocialization of sub-

culturally upwardly mobile families, further theoretical

development is required. Parents who are subculturally

upwardly socially mobile are going through a process of

resocialization to another class subculture. Their values,

behaviors and attitudes change progressively. When each of

their children are at the most formative stage of their

socialization, the values, behaviors and attitudes of the

parents, with which the children are socialized, are likely

to be successively different for each child. Since the

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 71

eldest child's most formative period of socialization takes

place when the parents have experienced the least mobility

and resocialization, the eldest will most likely reflect

the values of the class subculture of parent origination,

the working class in this case. Each subsequent child will

be progressively more like the "new" class subculture of

the parent, the middle class.

Thus the following conceptual hypotheses were devel

oped :

1. Middle class families will socialize their children

to be high on self direction and low on conformity; the

working class families will socialize their children to be

high on conformity and low on self direction.

2. For upwardly mobile families, the youngest siblings

will be in closest agreement with their parents' current

conception about the desired characteristics of children:

conformity to authority for the working class subculture,

and self direction for the middle class.

3. For the subculturally upwardly mobile families, the

youngest siblings will exhibit the values of self direction

more strongly than their older siblings. For stable

families there will be no differences among desired child

characteristics among siblings.

4. The level of valuation of self direction and birth

order will be strongly positively related for siblings of

extensively upwardly mobile family units, whereas no

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 72

relationship will exist for siblings of non-mobile family

units.

Review of Findings

As reported in Chapter IV, since the direct comparison

between middle class and working class children subgroups

did not show any class specificity in non-selected or

infrequently selected characteristics (Table 4), and that

an emulation of Kohn's comparison of middle class and

working class mean scores for each value/characteristic

likewise showed no class specificity (Table 5), the only

supportable conclusions are that Kohn's findings were not

reproduced and that Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Thus

the Valuation Scale could not be used to test Hypotheses 2,

3 and 4 as developed in Chapter II.

However, since the underlying rationale for this

research requires a pattern of class specific differences

between the working and middle classes, not Kohn's pattern

specifically, an exploratory analysis was conducted. For

this exploration, factor analysis was used in an attempt to

find significant class difference in their respective

valuations of child characteristics and through which a

common factor scale analysis could test analogues of

Hypotheses 2 through 4.

The factor analyses did isolate factors for all sample

subgroups. Substantive factor differences were found

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 73

between the middle and working class children sample

subgroups, thus descriptively supporting revised Hypothesis

1. These findings were necessary before common factor

scale analysis would make sense. When the common factor

scale analysis was conducted all of the factors for the

middle and working class children sample subgroups failed

to form reliable scales. Thus hypotheses 2 through 4 could

not be reformulated and tested.

Discussion

There are two general and important points that need

to be address in this discussion. The first is the failure

to support Kohn's 1969 finding and this failure's ramifica

tions. Second is that my conceptual extension of Kohn,

hypotheses 2 through 4, were not adequately tested.

Reflection on Kohn

To restate this thesis' findings related to Kohn, the

non-selected or infrequently selected analysis indicated no

class specificity of valuation of child characteristics nor

did the emulation of Kohn's comparison of middle class and

working class mean scores for each value/characteristic.

Additionally, the first exploratory factor analysis

strategy found descriptive factor content differences

between the middle and working classes, but not differences

that support Kohn's substantive findings. Findings such as

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 74

these call into question Kohn's conclusions that the middle

class emphasize self direction and the working class,

conformity to authority, as highly desirable child charac

teristics .

There are several possible reasons why this thesis'

findings do not support Kohn. First, it is possible that

there is something unique about this sample that strongly

affects peoples' valuation of child characteristics. This

sample was created by initial contact with families through

surveying Western Michigan University students taking one

of eight 200 through 300 level sociology courses and then

contacting their families. This procedure resulted in a

sample which was primarily from southwest Michigan; this is

not a sample on the same scale as Kohn's. Additionally,

because the working class children in this sample were

almost all in college, they may not sufficiently represent

the working class nor the non-mobile working class. Thus

a note of caution is necessary before rejecting Kohn's

conclusions.

Second, in relation to the factor analyses, it is also

possible that there is a substantial difference between

assessing child valuations (as done here) and parent

valuations of child characteristics (as done by Kohn,

1969). However, Kohn, Slomczynski and Schoenbach (1986, p.

98) did find that middle class children highly value child

characteristics related to self-direction as did their

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 75

parents. Thus testing for class differences between

children should be as definitive as assessing them between

parents.

Third and more substantively, it is possible that the

character of middle and working class occupations, from

which Kohn (1969) says these class specific differences are

derived, have changed sufficiently during the years between

Kohn's research and this thesis to either have blurred or

completely changed valuation class differences. To assess

this possiblity, a longitudinal study charting the changes

in the characteristics of occupations and changes in values

would be necessary and probably prove quite interesting.

The Conceptual Extension of Kohn

Given the necessity of finding working class, middle

class differences in valuation of child characteristics

before assessing the resocialization of subculturally

upwardly mobile families from one subculture to another,

this theorized resocialization (hypotheses 2 through 4)

could not be adequately tested.

This is true for both the Kohnian and exploratory data

analyses. The Kohnian analysis failed to find any signifi

cant differences between working and middle classes'

valuations of child characteristics and in particular did

not find Kohn's pattern of difference (Chapter IV). The

Valuation Scale, which was to be used to test class

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 76

differences in valuations, relied on the respondence

conforming to the range of valuations specified by Kohn as

significantly correlated with class. This initial attempt

to test Hypothesis 1 was therefore limited by this require

ment of the scale. Consequently the failure to score on

the VS was an indication of a failure to conform completely

to the value dimension of self-direction versus conformity

to authority, not necessarily a lack of valuing some of the

characteristics related to this dimension nor class

specificity in those selection. However, this failure to

score on the Valuation Scale in combination with the non

selection and infrequent selection patterns found in Table

4, and the lack of class differences in mean valuations of

characteristics found in Table 5, do strongly indicate a

lack of support for Kohn's findings. Thus, given the

sample failure to conform to the value dimension specified

by Kohn, the Valuation Scale could not be used to assess

gradation of conformity to authority and self-direction for

the working and middle classes, let alone mobile family

members resocialization from the conformity (working class)

to self-direction (middle class) ends of the scale.

Although the exploratory factor analyses did find

substantively different patterns of factors between the

working and middle classes, none of these factors consti

tuted a reliable scale, nor did the factors generated

through the second factor analysis strategy. Therefore,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 77

common scale analyses could not be done, which again was

necessary in order to test the theorized pattern/process of

resocialization for the subculturally upwardly mobile

families (Hypotheses 2 through 4).

Future Directions for Research

The findings of this thesis make clear a program of

future research. First, Kohn's research needs to be fully

replicated with a larger sample assessing both value

orientations in regard to children and the source of these

value orientations. However, a larger number of child

characteristics expressing a wider variety of values needs

to be included, some directly related to socialization,

others not. This would provide a wider scope of value

assessments which would be more likely to show if a change

in class specific values had occurred or reveal stronger

indicators of class specific dimensions in values. An

example source of such values are found and have been

researched by Milton Rokeach (197 3, pp. 359-361). Addi

tionally, the relationship or correspondence between the

desirability of child characteristics and general value

orientation requires some analysis, not simply to be

assumed as done in Kohn's research and this thesis.

This kind of research would provide several types of

information. Kohn's original hypotheses would be retested,

the possibility of finding non-Kohnian class based differ

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 78

ences would be increased and, by assessing the origin of

class based differences (if found), change over time

analysis of valuation of child characteristics could be

performed. Second, given that this research neither

supported nor failed to support Hypotheses 2 through 4 and

therefore did not reflect on the theory of mobile resocial

ization proposed here, this theory still needs to be

tested. This could be done either by the research suggest

ed above or through other class-based differences signifi

cantly related to socialization.

Significance of This Line of Research

Although this thesis concludes somewhat unsatisfacto

rily, the importance of the theoretical issues initiated

here, their present research and future projects designed

to address them is not diminished. The theorized process

of resocialization as part of intersubcultural mobility is

informative and important on several levels of social

analysis.

The three particular levels addressed form a conceptu

al and, in all likelihood, socially "real" loop going from

macro to micro and back to macro levels of social reality.

The process and content of the "structure's" socialization

of an individual is addressed by research into the class

origins of some values. The socialization process and its

content at the micro level is better understood through

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 79

analysis of parent to child socialization, particularly as

the parent is resocialized by subcultural upward mobility.

Finally, our understanding of the maintenance of the social

structure by individuals, despite changes within it, is

greatly added to by analyzing how an "influx" of people

with different subcultural backgrounds (the subculturally

upwardly mobile) who change their position in the social

structure and become part of that position's subculture

without changing it. Thus this line of research can inform

us, as sociologist, in both particular and general theoret

ical ways about change and stability dynamics in American

society through its general relation to the socioeconomic

stratification system. This has particular relevance to a

Marxian analysis extended to the cultural aspects of the

modes of production and hoped for changes in them and their

relations to the general societal structure.

These aspects of this line of research strongly argue

for the expenditure of effort to overcome the difficulties

in this thesis in order to test the theory initiated here.

This would not only Increase our understanding of social

ization and social mobility, but also the interaction of

macro and micro levels of social reality in the context of

the socioeconomic stratification system which is central

both as a topic in the discipline of sociology and as a

major organizing force within any society.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix A

Questionnaires

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 81

Initial Contact Questionnaire

This questionnaire is concerned with children and family relationships. There are two short sections to this questionnaire. One concerns real or prospective children and the other concerns your family background. Please answer all questions. If you have any comments feel free to identify the question and write the comment on the back of this sheet.

Child Orientations

1. How many brothers and sisters do you have that have the same mother and father as you? ____

2. Are you currently married? YES NO

3. Have you ever been married? YES NO

A. Here is a list of some qualities that research shows some people want their children to have. Please choose those which you would find desirable for your children to have and those which you do not find desirable for your children to have. Please rank the four characteristics you find desirable by putting; a "1" next to the most desired, a "2" next to the second most desired, a M3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the left hand column, "Desirable Characteristics”. Then stop. Please indicate those characteristics which you find undesirable by putting; a "1" next to the least desired, a "2" next to the second most desired, a "3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the right hand column, "Undesirable Characteristics.

Desirable Undesirable Characteristics Characteristics

1. that he/she has good manners. __

2. that he/she is honest.

3. that he/she is neat and clean.

4. that he/she has self-control.

5. that he/she obeys his/her parents.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 82

6. that he/she is responsible. __

7. that he/she is considerate of others. __

8. that he/she is interested in how and __

why things happen.

9. that he/she is a good student. __

10. that he/she tries hard to succeed. __

11. that he/she has good sense and sound __

judgement.

12. that he/she acts like a boy/girl should. __

13. that he/she gets along well with other __

children.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 83

Family Relationships

5. List your brothers and sisters from oldest to youngest indicating their age and the difference between their ages to the nearest year, placing yourself in the proper place in the list. Please put a star next to your name. NAME AGE NUMBER OF YEARS BETWEEN 1 .

2 .

6a. What is the highest level of education your father completed? 1. less than 7 yrs. of school 5. Partial college training 2. Junior high school 6. College or university graduation 3. Partial high school 7. Graduate professional training 4. High school graduation

6b. . . . your mother? 1. less than 7 yrs. of school 5. Partial college training 2. Junior high school 6. College or university graduation 3. Partial high school 7. Graduate professional training 4. High school graduation

7a. In what type of occupation is your father currently employed? (if deceased or retired check his last occupation) 1. Corporation director orpresident __ 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer __ 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager __ 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an officeor store __ 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson __ 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker _ 12. Migrant farm worker 13. Unemployed 7b. . . . your mother? (if deceased or retired check his last occupation)

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 84

1. Corporation director orpresident __ 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer __ 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager __ 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an officeor store __ 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson __ 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker _ 12. Migrant farm worker 13. Unemployed

7c. . . . your grandfather on your father's side? (if deceased or retired check his last occupation) 1. Corporation director or president 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an office or store 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker 12. Migrant farm worker 13. Unemployed

Thank you very much for your help-one more request. Since we are studying families we'd like to get in touch by phone with yours for a very short phone interview. Ve'll contact them by letter first and of course if they don't want to be interviewed we will not bother them. Please give us your families phone number and address, including area and zip codes. All information is confidential but their interview will be just like this questionnaire and won't contain any personal or bothersome questions. Thank You.

Parents' Phone number: ( ) -______

Parents' Name and Mailing Address:

(First and Last Name)

(Street and Number)

(City, State and Zip Code)

THANK YOU

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 85

Parent Introduction Letter and List of Child Characteristics

Jan. , 1989

Dear ,

Recently your child ______was nice enough to complete a questionnaire at the Kercher Research Center here at WMU. Ve really appreciated this kindness. Since this is a study about the family, we need to conduct a brief telephone interview with some of the families of our students. We'd like to call you and ask for about ten minutes of your time. The enclosed sheet contains some of the questions we are going to ask you and will be helpful when we ask for your answers. In fact you could answer the questions now and simply read them back to us when we request your answers. We are going to give you a ring in about weeks. We'd really appreciate it if we could interview you. All materials are confidential. Thanks a lot.

Sincerely,

Eric 0. Johnson Research Director

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 86

Value Orientations;

Here is a list o£ some qualities that research shows some people want their children to have. Please choose those which you would find desirable for your children to have and those which you do not find desirable for your children to have. Elease rank the four characteristics you find desirable by putting; a "1" next to the most desired, a "2" next to the second most desired, a "3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the left hand column, "Desirable Characteristics". Then stop. Elease indicate those characteristics which you find undesirable by putting; a "1" next to the least desired, a "2" next to the second most desired, a "3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the right hand column, "Undesirable Characteristics.

Desirable Undesirable Characteristics Characteristics

1. that he/she has good manners.

2. that he/she is honest.

3. that he/she is neat and clean.

4. that he/she has self-control.

5. that he/she obeys his/her parents.

6. that he/she is responsible.

7. that he/she is considerate of others.

8. that he/she is interested in how and

why things happen.

9. that he/she is a good student.

10. that he/she tries hard to succeed.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 87

11. that he/she has good sense and sound __

judgement.

12. that he/she acts like a boy/girl should. __

13. that he/she gets along well with other __

children.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 88

Educational Categories;

What Is the highest level of education you completed? 1. less than 7 yrs. of school _ 5. Partial college training 2. Junior high school __ 6. College or Univ. graduation 3. Partial high school __ 7. Graduate professional training 4. High school graduation

.... your spouse? 1. less than 7 yrs. of school 5. Partial college training 2. Junior high school 6. College or Univ. graduation 3. Partial high school 7. Graduate professional training 4. High school graduation

Approximate Occupation Categories:

In what type of occupation is you currently employed? (if retired check your last occupation) 1. Corporation director or president 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an office or store 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker 12. Migrant farm worker 13. Unemployed

your spouse? (if retired or deceased check her or his last occupation) 1. Corporation director or president 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an office or store 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker 12. Migrant farm worker

your father? (if retired or deceased check his last occupation) 1. Corporation director or president _ 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer __ 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager __ 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an office or store __ 10. Factory worker 5. Small businessperson 11, Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker 12, Migrant farm worker

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 89

Parent Telephone Interview Questionnaire

Q# 2

Name

Q# 3 Phone #

Q# 4

Date & Time of Call

Q# 6

Hello, My name is and I am calling from Western Michigan University's Center for Social Research at Kalamazoo. Is **** Home?

1 Yes 2 No

Q0 7

We'd like very much to talk with **** . What day and time might we most likely find them at home ? Day & Time:

Q# 8

Thank you very much, We'll try again on **** Would you please tell **** 0f this call. Thanks.

press 1. (which exits)

W 10

If subject answers the phone skip paragraph 1 and go to 2

Hello, **** t My name is and I'm calling from Western Michigan University's Kercher Center for Social Research.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 90

A few weeks ago your son/daughter ______was kind enough to complete a questionnaire here at WMU. Recently we sent you a letter asking if we could interview you. Did you receive that letter?

1 Yes 2 No

Q# 11

Since this is a study about families, we need to conduct a brief telephone interview with the families of our student volunteers. We'd like to send you a letter describing this research and then call you back for an interview. We may have an incorrect address for you, could I get your correct mailing address?

1 Yes 2 No - (which skips to Q# 15)

Q# 12

Name Address City,State,Zip

Q0 15

Thank you, we'll call back in about a week at this time.

Press 3 (which exits)

Q# 18

As the letter indicated, since this is a study about the family we need to conduct a brief telephone interview with the families of our student volunteers. And of course both your answers and those of your children will be held in the strictest confidence.

Q0 24

Do you still have the sheet of questions that came with the letter?

1 Yes 2 No

Q0 25

We'd like to send you another letter, could you give me your mailing address?

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 91

Yes Press X If no press 1 and press no through subsequent frame until interview restart

Q# 26

Could you please find it and bring it back to the phone?

Q# 27

Please look at the second page of the letter under the title "Raising Children". Have you got it ?

1 Yes 2 No

Q0 28

(wait a few seconds and ask again. If they've lost the second sheet tell them we will send another and call them back.)

Q# 29

Have you already filled out your answers to the questions under "Raising Children" ?

1 Yes 2 No

Q0 30

Let me read the question to you. (If the subject wishes to read it for him or herself ask him/her to let you know when he/she is finished.)

Here is a list of some qualities that research shows some people want their children to have. Please choose those which you would find most desirable for your children to have and those which you do not find desirable or find least desireable for your children to have. Please rank the four characteristics you find desirable by putting a "1" next to the most desired, a "2” next to the second most desired, a "3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the left hand column,"Desirable Characteristics". Please indicate those characteristics which you find undesirable or least desirable by putting*, a "I" next to the least desired, a "2" next to the second least desired,

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 92

a "3" by the third and a "4" by the fourth in the right hand column "Undesirable Characteristics". No item should be marked as both desirable and undesirable.

Q# 31

Please take a couple of minutes,look over the characteristics listed below the child raising question and choose the four characteristics that you find most desirable for children. Let me know when you've finished.

Q# 32

What is the number of the characteristic you chose as being most desirable? ___

Q# 33

The number of your second most desirable one?

Q0 34

The number of your third roost desirable one?

Q0 35 The number of your fourth most desirable one? ___

Q0 36

If the subject has already filled the answers to the questions press 1, if not press 2.

Q# 37

Please take a couple of minutes, look over the characteristics listed below the child raising question and choose the four characteristics that you find most undesirable for children. Let roe know when you've finished.

Q# 38

What is the number of the characteristic you chose as being the very

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 93

least desirable? ___

Q# 39

The number o£ your second least desirable one?

Q# 40 The number of your third least desirable one?

Q# 41

The number of your fourth least desirable one?

Q# 42

Let me ask a couple of questions about you. Take a look at the educational levels included in the letter we sent you.

Which is the highest level of education you've completed? ___

1. less than 7 yrs. of school 5. Partial college 2. Junior high school 6. College or university graduate 3. Eartial high school 7. Graduate/professional training 4. High school graduate 8. No answer

Q0 43

If you are married, which level of education has your spouse completed? ___

If no answer press 8.

Q# 44

I have only a few more questions to ask.

Q0 45

Take a look at the occupational categories included in our letter. What type of occupation are you currently employed in? (if retired what was your last occupation?) ___ category number.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 94

1. Corporation director or president 7. Foreman in a factory 2. Doctor or lawyer 8. Plumber or carpenter 3. Executive or manager 9. Office or store worker 4. Supervisor in an o£fice or store 10. Factory worker 5. Small business person 11. Janitor 6. School teacher or social worker 12. Migrant farm worker 13. Unemployed 14. No answer

Qtf 46

What is the category number of the occupation your spouse is currently employed in? (if retired of deceased, what was their last occupation?) ___

If no answer enter 14.

Q0 47

What is the category number of the occupation your Father is employed in? (if retired or deceased what was hia last main occupation?) ___

If no answer enter 14.

Q0 48

I have jU3t one more question. When your son/daughter ______filled out the questionnaire for us he/she gave us a list of their brother(s) and/or sister(s) ____ , . Since this is a study about families, we'd like a brief interview with ______and just like this one. I'd appreciate it if you could give me his/her or their mailing address(es) and telephone number(s)

1 Yes 2 No - (which skips to Q0 57)

Q0 49

Name Area code-phone number Street address City,state,zip

Q0 53

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 95

------Name

Area code-phone number Street address City,state,zip

Q# 57

This is the end o£ the interview. Thanks for tour help in this research. We really appreciate the time you've given us. As I said before, all of this interview, as well as those of your children, will be kept in complete confidence. In fact your name, address and telephone number, as well as those of your child(ren) will be deleted from our files as soon as all the interviews for your family are completed. Thanks again. Goodbye.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 96

SiblinR Letters and Questionnaire

October 16, 1989

Dear

A few months ago your parents and your brother or sister at Western Michigan University answered a few questions for research conducted from Western Michigan University. This survey is part of a project associated with the Kercher Center for Social Research here at WMU.

Since this is a study about the family, we need your answers to a question that we've asked them also and would really appreciate it if you could give us about five minutes of your time.

Please read the directions and items carefully and fill in your answers where indicated on the second sheet of this letter. Then simply fold both sheets, place them in the pre-addressed and stamped envelope, also enclosed, and drop it in the mail as soon as possible.

We really need your answers to this question to complete this research and thank you for your time. If you have any questions feel free to call me collect at (616) 387-7906 after 5:30 p.m.. Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Eric 0. Johnson Research Director

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 97

September 20, 1989

Dear

Some weeks ago we sent you a letter about a survey in which your parents and your brother or sister at Western Michigan University, participated. This survey is part of a project associated with the Kercher Center for Social Research here at WMU.

Since this is a study about the family, we need your answers to a question that we've asked them also and would really appreciate it if you could give us about five minutes of your time.

We really need your help to complete this research and thank you for your time. If you have any questions feel free to call me collect at (616) 387-7906 after 5:30 p.m.. Thank you again.

Sincerely,

Eric 0. Johnson Research Director

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 98

Raising Children;

Here is a list of some qualities that research shows some people want their children to have. Elease choose and rank the four characteristics you find the most desirable for children to have. Also please choose and the four characteristics that you find least desirable for children to have. 1. that he/she has good manners.

2. that he/she is honest.

3. that he/she is neat and clean.

4. that he/she has self-control.

5. that he/she obeys his/her parents.

6. that he/she is responsible.

7. that he/she is considerate of others.

8. that he/she is interested in how and why things happen.

9. that he/she is a good student.

10. that he/she tries hard to succeed.

11. that he/she has good sense and sound judgement

12. that he/she acts like a boy/girl should.

13. that he/she gets along well with other children.

Your very most desired characteristic ___

Your second most desired one ___

Your third most desired one ___

Your fourth most desired one ___

Your very least desired characteristic ___

Your second least desired one ___

Your third least desired one

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 99 Your fourth least desired one

THANK YOU

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix B

Complete Factor Analyses

100

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.

101

»-•

o o 39.0 27.4 68.5 49.4 CUM PCT 9.1 11.6 10.0 59.4 1.27674 1.09493 1.00475 EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR ITERATIONS. CONVERGENCE = 3 1 1.62210 14.7 14.7 2 1.39406 12.7 6 4 1.14306 10.4 5 FACTOR Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Full Sample * it * * * * * * * * * * * .74932 .52133 .70904 .61854 .82551 .72992 .49461 .61760 .70037 .80701 .76241 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FAILED FOR TOEXTRACTION CONVERGE IN 1 IN 24 ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER NORMAI VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE HONESTY SELFCON MANNERS NEAT OBEYS CONSRATE GETALONG RESPIBLE TRIESHD GSENSND VARIMAX

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 102 ATIO! .10515 .92308 .02926 -.05789 -.19115 -.52902 -.02623 -.00362 -.04000 -.01913 FACTOR ! 31.9 17.5 55.8 65.8 45.0 NORMALIZ Class All .02599 .51723 -.09422 -.63003 -.01505 -.24786 1 1 - KAISER 13.1 .68262 .13708 -.08181 .25913 .68162 .09140 -.05000 -.02572 -.83314 -.10288 -.11568 1.745391.44681 17.5 14.5 1.00300 10.0 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • 1 2 3 1.30815 5 4 1.07737 10.8 .24531 .19607 .10271 .20635 .31817 .04466 -.05327 .31170 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.76872 .04984 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 * * it * * * it it it it it it Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Middle 14 .69503 .52111 .64408 .75991 .88893 .60459 .69124 .82139 .66464 .28980 .02859 .02803 .39220 -.69660 .56409 -.79268 -.22780 .15457 -.09236-.10126 .21802 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX CONVERGED IN INTEREST SELFCON VARIABLE MANNERS OBEYS HONESTY RESPIBLE CONSRATE TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG VARIMAX INTEREST ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: CONSRATE MANNERS -.07041 SELFCON OBEYS HONESTY RESPIBLE GSENSND GETALONG .47241 TRIESHD

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 103 .07954 .60343 .10828 .13788 .40594 -.09920 -.12258 -.78248 FACTOR 30.4 66.0 NORMALIZATIQ .48939 .34994 -.37440 -.05519 -.04045 -.15044 -.00084 FACTOR 4 13.2 13.011.9 43.4 3 55. " Middle" Class Parents .76618 .09719 .21489 .08721 .55727 -.04011 -.02540 -.03428 .01420 -.66013 .53369 .06194 -.11701 -.66791 -.08345 -.21329 -.08328 -.15003 FACTOR 3 1.890931.45239 .2 17 17.2 1.30942 1.42732 1.17866 10.7 1 1 INANALYSIS 1 - KAISER : : "Most Desired 3 1 2 4 5 .77800 .36517 .00407 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.85280 -.26481 Statistics ITERATIONS. * * * * A * * A * * * A A 18 Final .67978 .72088 .80666 .72948 .52651 .70464 .78783 .81026 .11615 .03418 .80320 .07621 -.14486 .05352 -.07097 -.18655 -.14211 -.19161 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION CONVERGED IN VARIMAX INTEREST SELFCON .72042 MANNERS .61974 VARIABLE OBEYS CONSRATE HONESTY NEAT .27032 RESPIBLE GSTUDENTTRIESHD GSENSND VARIMAX .69245 INTEREST SELFCON -.28487 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS .05518 .10188 HONESTY .24102 OBEYS CONSRATE -.37144 .16181 NEAT GSENSND RESPIBLE GSTUDENT TRIESHD

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 104 .00530 .93298 .23818 -.27037 -.30780 -.30915 -.09463 -.04161 -.18596 FACTOR i 32.5 17.8 57.0 67.5 45.9 Children All NORMALIZATIOl .21111 .21197 .22709 .08948 .11698 .16637 .22930 .05471 -.56241 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 17 .8 17 14.7 11.2 13.3 10.4 Middle Class .17606 .13075 .75675.07685 .20552 .09473 .08242 -.21414 -.79323 -.06815 -.84922 -.13866 FACTOR 3 1.78354 1.11616 1.47125 1.33358 1.04161 1 1 IN ANALYSIS "Most Desired" • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 2 1 4 5 .15605 .78240 .18182 FACTOR -.17490 -.73828 -.00183 -.04636 -.01143 ITERATIONS A A A A A A A Statistics: A A A A A Final .47394 .60140 .72926 .89095 .71536 .72620 .16523 -.04615 -.53436 .34316 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 7 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX INTEREST SELFCON .65222 HONESTY VARIABLE OBEYS TRIESHD RESPIBLECONSRATE .71833 MANNERS .75418 GSENSND GETALONG .48431 VARIMAX INTEREST -.03960 SELFCON .11371 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: RESPIBLE MANNERSHONESTYOBEYS CONSRATE -.08312 -.61534 TRIESHDGSENSND .00493 .59443 GETALONG .63991 .00481

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 105 36.8 22.2 62.4 50.5 NORMAI .10613 .08274 .16272 .35213 .09892 .07149 .26833 -.97514 -.01230 -.01182 F A C T O R 4 1 1 - KAISER 22.2 14.6 12.0 13.7 .41893 .59607 -.01319 -.06415 -.21149 FACTOR 3 2.22020 1.19564 1.45813 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1.36760 1 2 4 .80358 .35295 -.00917 .03235 FACTOR -.10158 .08760 -.08033 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 * * * * •k * * * * * * .50060 .65277 .78788 .23843 .68436 .42740 Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Middle Class Youngest Children .48283 .25592 -.19378 .65608 -.00144 -.60511 FACTOR 1 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX CONVERGED IN 6 SELFCON OBEYS INTEREST MANNERSHONESTY .65476 .96953 VARIABLECOMMUNALITY RESPIBLECONSRATE .64364 TRIESHDGSENSND .68219 GETALONG SELFCON INTEREST MANNERS VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: CONSRATE -.09747 -.61885 .52097 HONESTY -.02531 OBEYS RESPIBLE .23123 -.21343 -.71982 GSENSNDGETALONG .75699 -.17393 -.09527 TRIESHD -.78146 -.14725

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 106 29.1 45.3 59.5 70.0 NORMALIZATION, .00137 .19727 .08409 .94164 -.07917 -.23278 -.24825 -.20803 -.08222 -.31154 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 16.2 14.2 10.5 .35362 .38928 -.64430 -.02166 -.05916 -.77079 2.91425 29.1 1.04814 1.61869 • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 3 1.41792 2 4 .74197 .33634 FACTOR -.65038 -.12782 -.44840-.04112 .22587 -.10436 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 £ * * * * * * * * * * * 9 ITERATIONS Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Middle Class Middle Children .73785 .69409 .61933 .58209 .63679 .92802 .45536 .81467 .21267 .74770 -.09368 .81204 .03134 -.22357 -.17741 -.29542 .08278 .66685 -.57491 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS VARIMAX CONVERGED IN VARIABLE INTEREST HONESTY SELFCON MANNERS .72554 OBEYS NEAT TRIESHD GSENSND .80528 RESPIBLE CONSRATE VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: INTEREST MANNERS HONESTY -.28396 SELFCON OBEYS NEAT CONSRATE -.16412 RESPIBLE TRIESHD .85327 .27177 .07734 GSENSND

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 107 .05946 .80163 .31911 .04012 .23105 -.28719 -.42705 -.21210 -.14300 -.05858 FACTOR 20.0 49.9 NORMALIZATIO .08608 .04637 -.63674 -.22236 FACTOR 4 20.0 14.0 15.9 35.9 11.8 61.7 Middle Class Oldest Childr« PCT OF VAR CUM PCT .72583 -.07186 .22852 .31027 -.28929 -.69887 -.10975 .21855 1.39610 1.18018 1.04800 10.5 72.1 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER EIGENVALUE Most Desired" 3 12 1.99598 1.59380 4 5 FACTOR -.11360 .18715 -.02631 -.49823-.08697 .21981 .06122 -.17439 -.01879 -.09525 .85721 ITERATIONS. £ ii * * * * * * * * * * Statistics: " Final .73628 .75377 .67033 .59444 .71619 .80131 .70285 .76724 .76377 .70787 .75614 .85468.09431 .07056 .79733 -.15670 -.12565 -.13511 -.10591 -.07960 -.38145 -.17871 .73137 -.32082 -.06082 -.22661 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 22 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX SELFCON INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS HONESTY OBEYS CONSRATE TRIESHD RESPIBLE GSENSND GETALONG INTEREST VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON TRIESHD RESPIBLE CONSRATE MANNERS HONESTYOBEYS -.52067 GSENSND GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 108 .11592 .10578 .03631 .18451 .13491 .28488 -.06990 -.62490 -.08633 -.66183 -.04316 FACTOR 30.8 43.5 54.4 NORMALIZATIOl .04275 .03837 .32722 .19068 .75611 -.80906 -.29100 -.01994 -.00709 1 1 - KAISER 16.4 16.4 10.9 3 3 1.52535 12.7 1 1 1.96773 2 2 1.72907 14.4 5 5 1.15131 9.6 64.0 4 4 1.30910 .79166 .79166 -.31314 .22342 .22342 .17426 .05292 .65955 .20709 .08492 .02222 .02294 .02294 .71869 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.00903 -.00949 -.06064 -.10219 -.39206-.59758 -.21433 -.22979 .15167 -.05531 .64171 ITERATIONS. FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 k * k k * * k * k k k k k k Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Working Class All .57117 .79573 .53301 .76338 .74164 .47977 .56130 .70916 .57086 .67250 .73302 .55101 .09240 .79042 .15020 .17806 .69339 -.28656 -.29817 -.35714 -.13309-.17954 -.01195 .71125 -.46204 -.01680 -.04921 -.13877 .13011 -.27366 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 12 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS VARIMAX VARIABLE HONESTY OBEYS INTEREST SELFCON MANNERS NEAT RESPIBLE CONSRATE GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG HONESTY NEAT SELFCON OBEYS INTEREST VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS CONSRATE RESPIBLE GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 109 .63108 .06607 .67091 .04561 -.08200 -.17452 -.13330 -.31205 64.4 16.6 54.6 NORMALIZATIO; .03543.06024 .10745 .02821 .17919 -.26528 FACTOR 4 FACTOR ! 9.8 14.812.5 31.4 43.9 " Working" Children All .67941 .04235 -.72739.20203 -.14583 .00658 -.01940 .14526 .01522.71859 .81484 -.06387 .17468 -.23326 -.14622 -.62297 -.34898 -.25059 .33439 -.43521 -.27071 -.03894 1.77197 1.99781 16.6 1.28677 10.7 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER 1 3 1.49537 2 5 1.17942 4 .00363 .03115 .05210 .25292 .69763 .74741 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.07266 -.04644 -.10112 -.21722 ITERATIONS. FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 * 4c 4c * 4c 1c 4c 4: * 1c 4c * 4c 10 Final Statistics : "Most Desired .76908 .76045 .49186 .55588 .59632 .73210 .72467 .55181 .73077 .48439 .73993 .01792 .79669 .71085 -.26842 -.46343 -.33969 -.65882 -.22171 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX CONVERGED IN INTEREST VARIABLE SELFCON CONSRATE TRIESHD OBEYS MANNERS .59408 RESPIBLE HONESTY NEAT INTEREST GSTUDENT GSENSND GETALONG SELFCON .12367 -.07227 VARIMAX NEATOBEYS GSTUDENT -.13213 .12868 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS TRIESHD GETALONG .16299 HONESTY RESPIBLE GSENSND CONSRATE -.06372

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. OT I OT .23506 -.49013 -.03478 -.44386 -.04457 FACTOR 31.7 43.5 54.6 64.3 NORMALIZATION .05758 .06154 .08825 .85770 .23082 .51965 .14828 .52428 -.08393 -.10805 -.15682 .03282 -.80166 .07241 -.02406 -.10322 -.04688 FACTOR 4 9.7 1 1 - KAISER 11.8 11.1 17.414.3 17.4 .08500 .16698 .16147 .18773 .05785 .71840 -.23609 -.84918 -.04299 -.03826 -.13636 FACTOR 3 1.91632 1.56880 1.21992 1.07181 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT .08636 .76768 .78391 -.06511 -.06083 -.46411 -.16089 -.12484 FACTOR 2 Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Mobile All 1c * * * 2 * 4 5 * * * * * * 6 6 ITERATIONS .76200 .70829 * 3 1.30047 .75446 .73240 * 1 .70252 .60936 .39082 .64675 .80652 .83082 .00418 .11025 -.07731-.31463 -.05663 -.16222 -.08813 -.17286 -.23062 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY * FACTOR VARIMAX CONVERGED IN VARIABLE INTEREST SELFCON OBEYS .65370 HONESTY MANNERS CONSRATE NEAT RESPIBLE TRIESHDGSENSNDGETALONG .51929 .59772 VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTIONROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS SELFCON HONESTYNEAT -.10478 INTEREST CONSRATE -.05153 OBEYS .15026 RESPIBLE TRIESHD GETALONG GSENSND

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 111 38.0 19.7 67.6 55.0 NORMAI .56493 .82023 -.39005 -.36257 -.13533 -.09531 -.03563 -.11641 -.23058 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 19.7 18.3 12.6 17.0 .12510 .00382 .70785 .15410 .16492 .39562 -.20362 -.04334 FACTOR 3 1.77040 1.65059 1.52598 1.13605 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1 2 4 .19397 .00357 .79926 .15918 FACTOR -.07394 -.86332 A ic A A Final Statistics: "Most MobileDesired*’ Parents A A A A 6 ITERATIONS A A A .78636 .54057 .61623 .80716 .68094 .08096 .52016 -.59265 -.07243 -.02141 -.17443 -.09827 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN VARIMAX VARIABLE INTEREST SELFCON HONESTY NEAT .36631 OBEYS RESPIBLECONSRATE .76171 .79187 GSENSNDVARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION .73187 TRIESHD SELFCON -.11466 -.68674 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: INTEREST .83072 .24904 NEAT OBEYS GSENSND HONESTYRESPIBLE CONSRATE -.76220 TRIESHD .00837

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 112 .22969 .16843 .13336 .69376 .30330 -.07221 -.05863 -.00076 -.78546 -.09276 -.11188 FACTOR 34.7 19.6 57.9 68.5 46.8 NORMALIZATIO .15353 .15020 .75585 .06940 .06523 .14638 .02310 -.06767 -.02637 -.64239 -.57677 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 19.6 11.1 15.1 12.1 10.6 .12730 .06523 .04332 -.21780 -.88527 -.10013 -.04389 2.15250 1.22211 1.16188 • 3 1.32998 1 2 1.66596 5 4 .77287 .14456 .36028 .79848 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.05271 -.31954 -.22176 -.03554 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 7 Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Mobile Children All .79039 .66626 .65006 .73439 .68098 .87326 -.03143 -.30657 -.33242 .07817 -.09271 -.04814 -.08642 -.15117 -.16874 FACTOR 1 VARIMAX CONVERGED IN INTEREST .55886 VARIABLECOMMUNALITY SELFCON OBEYS NEAT MANNERS .78594 HONESTY .81732 RESPIBLECONSRATE .64104 TRIESHDGSENSND .57824 .62897 GETALONG VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS INTEREST SELFCON OBEYS .17273 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: HONESTYCONSRATE -.06179 MANNERSNEAT .85316 .02866 GETALONG RESPIBLE TRIESHDGSENSND .05373 -.33602 -.17093 .67587

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 113 .60150 .28504 .80200 -.08729 -.11823 -.09777 -.11205 -.18324 -.13683 -.35277 -.01754 -.42572 FACTOR 5 36.9 19.2 52.0 62.6 72.0 NORMALIZATIOl .66741 .04860 -.01234 -.23761 -.04532 -.78998 -.07079 -.03079 FACTOR 4 9.3 1 1 - KAISER 15.0 10.7 Mobile Youngest Children .17540 .10503 .70352 .10627 -.51832 -.11861 .05171 -.19201 .59737 -.22339 1.28109 • 3 1.80464 1 2.30295 19.2 2 2.12872 17.7 4 5 1.11857 .81380 -.23940 .06928 .88484 -.05407 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.59453 -.15544 -.00847 -.03417 -.16136 -.01740 -.15907 ITERATIONS * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Final :Statistics: "Most Desired" .80048 .73935 .70083 .83787 .79102 .67601 .63950 .76895 .79131 .66718 .54004 .89770 .86189 .17698 .15399 -.10855 .23321 .01139 -.09096 -.32109 -.12678 .77506 .12444 -.07184 -.07759 -.19047 -.05072 -.54930 -.16713 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS CONVERGED IN 10 VARIMAX INTEREST NEAT SELFCON VARIABLECOMMUNALITYMANNERS OBEYS HONESTY CONSRATE RESPIBLE GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG .68342 VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: INTEREST MANNERS HONESTY NEAT OBEYS SELFCON RESPIBLE CONSRATE GSTUDENT GSENSND GETALONG TRIESHD

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 114 27.5 42.8 NORMAI .27893 .53088 .81075 -.13494 -.23654 -.08436 .03362 -.63492 .01138 -.00135 -.42014 -.07674 -.04190 -.01585 -.53308 .00469 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 2.75126 27.5 1.33398 13.3 70.4 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 2 1.52756 15.3 3 1.42867 14.3 57.1 4 .69508 .14845 .91461 .09197 FACTOR -.04683 .86676 -.30869 -.04268 -.29434 -.08970 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 it * * * * * * * * * * Final Statistics: "Most Desired" Mobile Middle Children .79901 .62939 .79663 .77944 .78156 .79740 .45164 .47659 .86513 .66468 .24810 .42400 -.20697 .54054 .77441 .64646 .11422 -.57771 -.31648-.09943 -.21345 .05032 -.13941 -.81025 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 7 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION VARIMAX VARIABLE INTEREST MANNERS SELFCON HONESTY OBEYS RESPIBLE CONSRATE GETALONG VARIMAX TRIESHD GSENSND INTEREST ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON MANNERS HONESTY OBEYS TRIESHD RESPIBLE CONSRATE GSENSND GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 115 .04572 .05798 .21144 .00774 .94059 .06196 -.55822 -.12512 -.11623 22.4 56.6 68.5 NORMALIZATION .35597 .05244 .76868 -.04411 .07472 -.25800 -.82121 -.07750 FACTOR 4 FACTOR : 1 1 - KAISER 22.4 11.9 19.8 42.2 10.4 78.9 " Mobile" Oldest Children 3 3 1.44537 14.5 1 1 2.23626 2 2 1.98000 4 4 5 1.18620 1.03967 .23220 .23220 .03290 .25170 .06922 .07487 .07487 .88257 .72465 .72465 -.15621 .52070 .52070 -.66103 .03854 -.07194 .09092 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.73053 -.24234 -.39223 .45257 -.07822 .03031 .02473 -.07515 .07172 .12305 Statistics: "Most Desired ITERATIONS. FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 * a * * * * * * * * * * 10 Final .80289 .79841 .84480 .57323 .66436 .79721 .91323 .76517 .87578 .05081 .69446 .92051 -.42717 -.05826 -.03774 -.11625 -.22840 -.13282 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS VARIMAX SELFCON INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS HONESTY OBEYSRESPIBLE CONSRATE .85241 TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG VARIMAX INTEREST SELFCON CONSRATE TRIESHD OBEYS RESPIBLE HONESTY MANNERS GSENSND -.21832 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 116 35.8 18.3 49.9 62.5 NORMAI .92761 .02064 .02472 .09504 -.60738 -.13964 -.12273 -.03729 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 18.3 12.6 17.4 .08646 .04318 .71332 .12496 -.00579 .05466 .14120 .09009 -.65420 -.57680 FACTOR 3 1.64767 1.57000 1.27055 14.1 1.13741 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT .79128 .22200 .06569 -.00849 -.01151 -.83925 FACTOR 2 * * FACTOR * 1 * * * 2 * * * 3 * * 4 * * * * Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Middle Class Parents .62976 .56658 .72119 .03673 .67043 -.09026 .08564 -.17448 -.08867 -.10422 -.11190 .16993 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY VARIMAX CONVERGED IN 5 ITERATIONS INTEREST .84953 VARIABLE SELFCON NEAT MANNERS .89845 OBEYS .48011 GSTUDENTTRIESHDGENDACTGETALONG .45219 .38916 .63868 INTEREST -.64450 -.21285 VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON MANNERS NEAT OBEYS GSTUDENT GETALONG TRIESHD GENDACT .78924

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 117 .02201 .95342 -.39654 -.14729 -.06426 -.08581 -.01535 FACTOR .13436 -.06621 .10281 -.21167 -.10787 -.19554 -.04207 16.3 29.9 42.1 53.2 63.7 .21108 .04350 .81435 -.10963 .02090 .01302 -.05530 -.10616 -.67678 -.37296 FACTOR 4 FACTOR 5 10.1 73.8 16.3 11.2 10.5 Desired" Full Sample .80963 .11778 .16091 .14247 .11289 -.03065 .01027 .92419 -.02517 -.41268 -.17182 -.03071 -.07803 .04611 FACTOR 3 - -.57105- 1.62667 1.367401.21201 13.7 12.1 1.11622 1.05255 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER NORMALIZATION. • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1 2 5 4 6 1.00892 .41947 .84088 .03041 .03463 FACTOR -.00420 -.25119 -.18491 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 Final Statistics: "Least * * * * A A * A A A A A .77074 .77886 .92364 .67590 .46275 -.50682 .69796 -.13184 -.00219 -.14862 -.79845 FACTOR 1 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTIONCONVERGED IN 15 VARIMAX INTEREST MANNERS .72392 VARIABLECOMMUNALITY SELFCON .85607 INTEREST GETALONG .67430 OBEYS .71075 SELFCON -.01584 NEAT GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSNDGENDACTVARIMAX .53827 ROTATED .73131 FACTOR MATRIX: OBEYS -.06520 .12561 NEAT MANNERS .05729 GETALONG -.01646 -.23742 GSTUDENT GSENSND GENDACT TRIESHD -.05868

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8TI .05066 .86400 .15606 -.06783 -.11593 -.29363 -.02061 .02759.87573 .06654 .01742 .09590 -.51446 -.10413 -.59450 -.22169 .06104 FACTOR 5 FACTOR 39.0 14.9 68.8 49.9 59.6 Class All .08003 .04126 .52901 .64975 -.04044 -.72190 -.05858-.07539 -.06444 -.06542 -.02499 -.05840 -.08592 .01637 .05917 FACTOR 4 9.6 9.3 1 1 - KAISER NORMALIZATION. 14.9 12.3 27.2 11.8 10.9 .08382 .00646 .16900 .04040 .12680 .21008 .63689 -.04242 -.04520 -.12597 -.25297 -.83674 FACTOR 3 1.63774 1.35759 1.29998 1.02073 1.19470 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 3 2 6 5 1.06095 4 .08057 .04518 FACTOR -.22520 -.88271 ITERATIONS * A * * * * * * * * * * * 9 Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Middle .64716 .79459 .60750 .67472 .77164 .73044 .78874 .12653 .09577 .08426 .18553 .42426 .22128 -.25463 .68662 .23471 .24598 -.02694 .12752 -.03457 -.85523 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTIONCONVERGED IN VARIMAX INTEREST .68540 VARIABLECOMMUNALITY SELFCON .84347 GSTUDENT GETALONG MANNERS NEAT CONSRATE .51150 OBEYS TRIESHD GSENSNDGENDACT .51652 VARIMAX INTEREST SELFCON -.06405 .19360 GSENSND GENDACT GETALONG ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: TRIESHD -.12530 .29111 NEAT OBEYS CONSRATE GSTUDENT MANNERS

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 119 .18410 .05001 .85952 .28456 -.14925 -.45602 -.01609 -.12011 -.13406 -.03752 FACTOR .05861 .03083 .04753 .93803 -.10506 -.08659 -.52106 -.14496 -.06570 -.12989 FACTOR 5 16.0 28.6 63.5 73.8 Children All 40.9 52.9 .02900 .36833 .10695 .66828 .05453 -.77611 -.15406 -.04445 -.05967 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER NORMALIZATION. 16.0 12.6 12.3 Middle Class 12.0 10.3 .03162 .17623 .77561 .04314 .12259 .02172 -.13836 1.59936 1.19609 1.02941 • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 3 1.23206 2 1.26021 56 1.06258 10.6 4 .27797 .36482 .13553 .04378 .09086 FACTOR -.88679 -.04653 -.09441 -.07604 * a * * * * * * * * * * 16 ITERATIONS Final Statistics: "Least Desired" .69768 .77237 .74846 .64777 .77735 .63052 .92279 .62005 .10796 .14978 -.09062 .13805 -.15210 -.00769 -.23512 -.21681 -.07648 -.75359 -.04708 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 COMMUNALITY VARIMAX CONVERGED IN INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS SELFCON .80564 NEAT OBEYSGSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG VARIMAX .75709 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS GENDACT SELFCON INTEREST MANNERS ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: NEAT .23932 .37213 -.72606 OBEYS GENDACT GETALONG GSTUDENTGSENSND .78317 TRIESHD

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 120 .01836 .87865 .15882 .20182 -.03258 -.02194 -.04410 -.23338 -.30778 -.03997 -.53578 FACTOR 5 31.1 16.1 55.5 45.3 NORMALIZATION .72349 .79814 -.00156 -.09009 -.13429 -.03376 -.02311 -.19657 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 14.2 .26197 .29527 -.53461 -.05175 -.15244 -.11229 -.23265 -.02752 FACTOR 3 1.76803 16.1 1.13048 10.3 • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 3 1.55970 2 1.64988 15.0 4 5 1.06585 9.7 65.2 .01187 -.10631 -.27404 .02464 .73076 FACTOR -.10289 -.02614 .88282 -.02841 -.27172 -.17455 * * * * * * * * * * * * 8 ITERATIONS .61464 .48450 .83740 .78055 .68336 .65852 .67640 .76840 .76157 .45499 .45361 Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Middle Class Youngest Children .15310 .05599 .16134 .32486 .79077 .28497 .23165 .55290 .01910 .01205 -.79624 -.63057 -.57016 .00171 -.17858 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS CONVERGED IN VARIMAX INTEREST MANNERS SELFCON OBEYS CONSRATE GSTUDENT NEAT VARIABLE TRIESHD GSENSND GENDACT GETALONG VARIMAX INTEREST ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON -.00377 NEAT OBEYS CONSRATE MANNERS GSTUDENT TRIESHDGSENSND .04771 GETALONG GENDACT

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 121 .41177 .16120 .06428 .16211 .32689 .42547 -.05531 -.88982 -.04808 -.10161 -.11786 FACTOR 34.7 49.0 71.1 NORMALIZATION Middle Childi .14829 -.42887 -.03394 -.09248 -.06922 -.21587 FACTOR 4 17.0 14.3 " Middle" Class .00353 .80827 .22393 .78129 -.01192 -.10451 -.44031 .56955 -.07060-.00246 -.02968 -.65679 -.10371 -.37288 -.07774 FACTOR 3 1.94508 17.7.7 17 1.87478 1.56949 1.15199 10.5 1.28344 11.7 60.7 1 1 INANALYSIS 1 - KAISER Least Desired 1 3 2 4 5 .25848.74633 .46998 .87055 .00414 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.10456 -.31508 -.17494 -.00829 -.04026 -.36487 -.25900 FACTOR 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 ITERATIONS. Statistics: " Final .71446 .76505 .58813 .76789 .49903 .67885 .81495 .71112 .76917 .71291 .80322 .27070 .21161 .67603 .76111 -.00567 -.10135 -.13038 -.30017 -.11986 -.72229 FACTOR 1 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION CONVERGED IN VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLECOMMUNALITY SELFCON CONSRATE MANNERS NEAT OBEYS GSTUDENT GSENSND GENDACT GETALONG VARIMAX TRIESHD SELFCON INTEREST ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS OBEYS CONSRATE GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND NEAT -.18211 GENDACT GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 122 .91522 .06903 .15419 .09275 -.04330 FACTOR .31086.37420 -.15697 .15369.08585 -.03226 .03429 .10628 -.11204 FACTOR 5 32.0 77.2 44.5 56.6 NORMALIZATION. Oldest Children .08817 -.03088 .19371 .12700 -.83339 .24543 -.18132 -.04946 -.04240 13.2 12.4 12.1 18.8 18.8 11.3 67.9 " Middle" Class .00225 .77185 .00851 .69237 .74210 -.04335 -.13581 .16909 -.05496 .24835 -.21970 -.56887 -.06306-.45310 .00316 .09309 -.91961 -.03614 -.05464 -.14933 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 2.07156 1.02347 9.3 1.32860 1.24665 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER Least Desired 3 1.36927 1 2 1.45272 6 4 5 .00182 -.06527 .07447 .08617 .87850 FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT -.04209 -.23908 -.58973 -.26160 FACTOR 2 * * * * * * * * * * * * 10 ITERATIONS. Statistics: " Final .85592 .63835 .85317 .69592 .76580 .86225 .68641 .69735 .02067 .49425 .08372 -.03946 -.30792 -.06306 .14655 -.03301 -.02907 -.94403 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE SELFCON GSTUDENT .68411 INTEREST TRIESHD GSENSND GENDACTGETALONG .91194 .84104 OBEYS CONSRATE MANNERS NEAT VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERSNEAT SELFCON CONSRATE .10787 GSTUDENT .70678 .43997 GSENSND OBEYSTRIESHD .07622 GENDACT GETALONG

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 123

.06718 .22872 .19817 -.00878 -.22706 -.12966 -.04239 FACTOR 33.8 19.0 46.6 CUM PCT .23729 .06687 .20100 .19581 .80360 .14991 -.66751 .62328 .02947 -.09200 -.11578 -.03722 -.37367 -.80757 FACTOR 4 9.5 66.9 19.0 14.8 10.8 57.4 PCT OF VAR .18140 .07272 .12260 .27064 .20982 .20247 .13257 .42661 -.60762 -.04583 FACTOR 3 2.09052 1.62433 1.40718 12.8 1.18692 1.04878 3 1 2 4 5 .74897 FACTOREIGENVALUE -.08723 -.77757 -.26773 -.28530 -.00823 -.27608 £ * * * * ft * ft * * * * * Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Working Class All .48775 .81409 .70834 .56275 .81919 .24033 -.00315 .19661.06040 -.27622 .73422 .21075 .20635 -.10809 -.80199 .10015 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY VARIMAX CONVERGED IN 19 ITERATIONS. INTEREST .67676 VARIABLE MANNERS SELFCON NEAT .63463 OBEYS CONSRATE GSTUDENT .76614 INTEREST -.66246 GENDACT .61765 GSENSND GETALONGVARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION .74923 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER NORMALIZATION. ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS TRIESHD .52120 SELFCON GENDACT .65989 .31226 NEATOBEYSCONSRATE -.11774 GSENSND .24009 GSTUDENT GETALONG TRIESHD .19507

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 124 .00797 .83614 .05226 .13780 .22029 .22615 -.01789 -.26477 -.19041 -.61052 -.09212 FACTOR 34.8 19.7 48.0 58.7 68.5 NORMALIZATION .74094 .06698 .12161 .31100 -.01102 -.20371 -.14473 -.00470 -.13289 FACTOR 4 9.8 1 1 - KAISER 19.7 13.2 15.2 10.6 Workinq Class Children A] .30356 .14727 .06397 .48643 .40279 .20866 .10139 -.11154 -.85429 -.02891 -.35840 -.01005 -.77502 FACTOR 3 2.16573 1.66750 1.16784 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1.45115 1 2 4 5 1.07842 .00801 .03720 .32297 FACTOR -.33963 -.21820 FACTOR 2 ft * ft * ft ft ft ft * ft ft ft ft Statistics: Desired" '"Least 17 ITERATIONS Final .75871 .81859 .62180 .72619 .51018 .67197 .63990 .66922 .24544 .20114 .72041 .24207 .67565 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN VARIMAX SELFCON INTEREST GSTUDENT .78225 VARIABLE MANNERS OBEYS CONSRATE .50307 NEAT TRIESHD GSENSND .82877 GENDACT GETALONG VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION INTEREST -.64665 NEATSELFCONOBEYS .14725 .03581 -.26832 -.11185 MANNERS CONSRATE .10046 .69949 ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: GETALONG GSTUDENTTRIESHDGSENSNDGENDACT .19136 .09659 -.85199 -.47212 .10393

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 125 32.4 17.8 45. 3 45. 57.5 NORMALIZATION .71765 .72108 -.16148 -.16259 -.16587 -.02155 FACTOR 4 14.6 12.9 17.8 .10200 -.04202 .07192 -.32871 .24853 .65338 -.15798 -.23944 -.09295 -.18267 -.06629 FACTOR 3 1.45834 1.22398 12.2 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1.28554 2 1 1.78394 4 .04927 .34669 -.76541 .23771 .13066 .14847 .26278 .33727 .02090 FACTOR -.67705 -.75703 -.13352 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Mobile All A A A A A A * A A A A A 9 .51274 .58034 .64663 .62211 .64179 .48930 .55308 .63385 .03381 .13543 .62881 -.76335 -.17215 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY VARIMAX CONVERGED IN INTEREST SELFCON VARIABLE MANNERS NEAT OBEYS .57150 GSENSND GSTUDENTTRIESHD GENDACTGETALONG .73362 .40070 SELFCONINTEREST -.07453 VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERSNEAT .20534 OBEYS GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSNDGENDACT -.52818 GETALONG -.02494 .31715

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 126

.91841 .24200 .06874 -.11044 -.26778 -.27445 -.08502 FACTOR 5 36.4 19.2 65.1 51.8 76.5 NORMAI

CUM PCT

KAISER .01874 .05079 .19601 .04422 .17799 .47414 -.97002 FACTOR 4 15.4 17.1 13.3 11.4 PCT OF VAR

.03188 .24152 .69431 .10033 .21080 .02078 -.12763 FACTOR 3 1.73168 19.2 1.54245 1.38794 1.19991 1.02173 EIGENVALUE

1 3 4 2 5 .08453 .61688 .30547 .36530 FACTOR -.87434 -.27899 -.02467 ITERATIONS FACTOR 2 A £ A A A A A A A A A Final Statistics: "Least Desired" Mobile Parents

.85496 .49847 .78966 .69509 .79686 .74053 .72630 .94934 .83249 .02617 .26286 .12508 -.02745 -.73249 -.55127 -.01124 FACTOR 1 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 7 ROTATION 1 FOR EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE SELFCON MANNERS OBEYS GSTUDENT TRIESHD GENDACT NEAT GETALONG VARIMAX INTEREST ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON MANNERS NEAT OBEYS GSTUDENT TRIESHD

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission 127 .20879 .02666 .25939 .05549 .36957 .09046 .09776 -.05243 -.03510 -.95564 FACTOR 5 35.0 19.4 47.7 59.6 69.9 NORMALIZATION. .03159 .32528 .14201 .85246 -.01103 -.14684 -.24044 -.10880 -.06768 -.53878 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER 12.6 11.9 10.3 .72649 .72921 .02201 -.35440 -.05849 1.19407 1 1 IN ANALYSIS • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 3 1.26483 1 1.93660 19.4 2 1.56595 15.7 4 5 1.02955 .73159 .01823 .75841 FACTOR -.04054 -.04616 -.19202 -.44244 -.28677 -.10687 EXTRACTION Final Statistics; "Least Desired" Mobile Children All .59317 .71741 .61112 .60698 .82301 .57738 .94206 .58662 .77157 .04667 .75251 .10124 -.11015 -.11725 -.25738 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 COMMUNALITY VARIMAX CONVERGED IN 10 ITERATIONS VARIABLE SELFCON INTEREST MANNERS NEAT OBEYS GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GETALONG .76169 GENDACT INTEREST -.65374 -.39019 -.34394 SELFCON -.24269 VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: GSENSND MANNERS NEAT OBEYS GSTUDENT -.02377 -.14233 TRIESHD GENDACTGETALONG .67912 .04354 -.14961 .03420

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 128 .17932 .15492 .11535 .20829 .40322 -.07091 -.03887 -.92667 -.12109 -.12912 FACTOR 5 37.1 20.9 52.6 65.1 74.8 NORMALIZATION .16290 .73326 .70420 -.09925 -.02417 -.02905 -.56729 .37092 -.13361 -.32816 -.02218 FACTOR 4 1 1 - KAISER Mobile Youngest Children .00194 .20773 .35598 -.20307 .18149 .52092 .61063 -.09794 -.17059 2.29935 20.9 1.07001 9.7 1 1 INANALYSIS "Least Desired" • 1 2 1.78631 16.2 5 .16110 .85183 .75457 .10149 -.13868 -.57913 EXTRACTION Final Statistics: .59418 .71060 .62655 3 1.70336 15.5 .78771 4 1.36738 12.4 .83871 .82791 .78532 .89297 .89304 .58638 .68303 .18623 .47665 -.00945 -.24768 .10477 .12327 -.12776 -.04436 .18025 .15361 -.89687 .29631.43133 .23153 -.71381 -.81740-.09166 -.13411 -.15809 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 COMMUNALITY FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT ROTATION 1 FOR CONVERGED IN 11 ITERATIONS VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS NEAT SELFCON OBEYS RESPIBLE GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND INTEREST VARIMAX GENDACT SELFCON GETALONG ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: MANNERS NEAT OBEYS RESPIBLE GENDACT GSENSND GETALONG TRIESHD GSTUDENT

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 129 27.7 73.5 46.0 NORMALIZATION. .78234 .14382 .01574 -.72736 -.28204 -.02903 -.09409 1 1 - KAISER 27.7 18.3 .11171 .12958 .91450 .44541 .06202 -.16597 -.11358 -.26567 -.69738 1.23025 12.3 1.82766 • 1 2.76761 3 1.52372 15.2 61.2 2 4 .12426 -.02389 .26275 .25943 .41054 .32718.17994 .10010 .65827 .00101 -.68194-.13573 -.86149 -.32081 ITERATIONS EXTRACTION 1 IN ANALYSIS Final Statistics; "Least Desired" Mobile Middle Children .70160 .79483 .50960 .72208 .70654 .78589 .68779 .76783 .81337 .85971 .77678 .15215 -.27560 -.76540 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 FACTOR 3 FACTOR 4 COMMUNALITY FACTOR EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT CONVERGED IN 7 VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS NEAT SELFCON OBEYS GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND INTEREST -.34337 GENDACT VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: SELFCON .65158 MANNERS -.09877 OBEYS GETALONG NEAT GSTUDENTTRIESHD GSENSNDGENDACTGETALONG .42684 .00432 -.42167

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 130 .12474 .07837 .09056 -.09737 -.07237 -.16013 -.56914 -.37874 FACTOR 4 18.4 39.2 12.3 64.1 " Mobile" Oldest Children .03641 .81740 .03204 .27566 .21210 .88665 -.42154 -.10638 -.17952 -.17710 -.43851 .25479 FACTOR 3 2.07231 20.7 20.7 1.84383 1.23121 1.26498 12.6 51.8 1 1 IN ANALYSIS 1 - KAISER NORMALIZATION. • EIGENVALUE PCT OF VAR CUM PCT 1 3 2 4 .00520 .66383 .09487 .73453 .09553 FACTOR -.84464 -.04128 -.29704 ITERATIONS Statistics : "Least Desired EXTRACTION Final .44478 .73040 .66310 .49533 .56295 .54178 .78352 .57283 .81381 .80381 .50752 .61880 -.74437 -.05470 FACTOR 1 FACTOR 2 COMMUNALITY CONVERGED IN 8 VARIMAX INTEREST VARIABLE MANNERS NEAT SELFCON OBEYS VARIMAX ROTATION 1 FOR GSTUDENT TRIESHD GSENSND GENDACT GETALONG ROTATED FACTOR MATRIX: INTEREST OBEYS .65322 .14437 MANNERS GSTUDENT GSENSNDGENDACT -.45666 .13064 NEAT .02089 GETALONG -.01819 SELFCON TRIESHD -.31706 .11626

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Appendix C

Approval Letter From the Human Subjects Institutional Review Board

131

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Human Subjects Institutional Review Board V \ 1 ' \ : ; 1 j Kalamazoo. Michigan 49008-3899

132

WESTERN MICHIGAN UNIVERSITY

TO: Eric O. Johnson FROM: Ellen Page-Robin, Chair

RE: Research Protocol

DATE: March 1, 1989

This letter will serve as confirmation that your research protocol, "Value-orientations, Socialization, and Social Mobility: A Conceptual Replication and Extension of Kohn" has been approved at no more than minimal risk after expedited review by the HSIRB.

If you have any further questions, please call me at 387-2647.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Carmines, E.G. & Zeller, R.A. (1979). Reliability and validity assessment. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Connell, R.W. (1972). Political socialization and the american family: The evidence re-examined. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, 323-336.

Dawson, R.E., Prewitt, K., & Dawson, K.S. (1977). Political socialization. Boston: Little, Brown.

Gans, H.J. (1962). The urban villagers. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.

Gecas, V. (1979). The influence of social class on socialization. In W.R. Burr (Ed.) Contemporary theories about the family (Vol. 1, pp. 365-401). New York: Free Press.

Gilbert, D. & Kahl, J.A. (1987). The American class structure: A new synthesis'! Chicago: Dorsey Press.

Goodman, N. (1985). Socialization I: A sociological overview. In H.A. Farberman & R.S. Perinbanayagam (Ed .), Foundations of interpretive sociology: original essays in symbolic interaction, studies in symbolic interaction, supplement 1, 7 3~94. London: JAI Press.

Heer, D.M. (1985). Effects of sibling number on child outcome. Annual Review of Sociology, 11, 27-47.

Hollingshead, A.B. & Redlich, F.C. (1958). Social class and mental illness. New York: John wiley.

Jackman, M. (1979). The subjective meaning of social class identification in the United States. Public Opinion Quarterly, 43, 443-462.

Kahl, J.A. (1965). The American class structure. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Kerckhoff, A.C. (1984). The current state of social mobility research. The Sociological Quarterly, 25, 139-153.

133

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 134

Kim, Jae-On & Mueller, C.w. (1978a). Factor analysis: Statistical methods and practical issues, Beverly Hills: Sage.

Kim, Jae-On & Mueller, C.W. (1978b). Introduction to factor analysis: What it is and How to do it. Beverly Hills: Sage. —

Kohn, M.L. (1959). Social class and parental values. American Journal of Sociology, 64, 337-351.

Kohn, M.L. (1969). Class and conformity: A study in values. Homewood IL: Dorsey Press.

Kohn, M.L. (1983). On the transmission of values in the family: A preliminary formulation. In A.C. Kerckhoff (Ed.), Research in sociology of education and socialization (Vol. 4, pp. 3-12)7 Greenwich, CT: JAI Press,

Kohn, M.L., Slomczynski, K.M. & Schoenbach, C. (1986). Social stratification and the transmission of values in the family: A cross-national assessment. Sociological Forum, 1, 73-102.

O'Rand, A., & Ellis, R.A. (1974). Social class and social time perspective. Social Forces, 53(1), 53-62.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

Sawtooth Software Inc. (1986-89). C12 system. Ketchum, ID: Sawtooth Software Inc.

Serpe, R.T. (1987). Stability and change in self: A structural symbolic interactionist explanation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 44-55.

SPSS Inc. (1988). SPSSx. Chicago: SPSS inc.

Stacey, B.G. (1982). Economic socialization in the pre-adult years. British Journal of Social Psychology, 21, 159-173.

Stryker, S. S. Serpe, R.T. (1983). Toward a theory of family influence in the socialization of children. Research in Sociology of Education and Socialization, 4, 47-71.

Stryker, S. & Statham, A. (1985). Symbolic interaction and role theory. In G. Lindzey & E.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Aronson (Ed.)/ The handbook of social psychology (pp. 311-378). New York: Random House.

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.