ALIEîIATTON Aîffi POLITICAL APATHY

DISSERTATION

FT-esented in Partial Fullillj.ient of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of the Ohio State University

By DV/IGHT GANTZ DEAN, A.3., B.D., L'.A,

The Ohio State University 19S6

Approved by:

Adviser Department of Sociology and Anthropology ACKNOWLEDGEîïiEîJT

I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness to the many people whose stimulationf guidance and encouragement made this work possible: The Reverend and !,!rs, Edgar 3. Dean, who inspired me to enter a profession of service; îiîiss Josephine C. Hirsch, formerly of Richmondale High School, who by example instilled an appreciation of teaching as a most rewarding occupation;

Di'. Lîurray H. Le if far of Garrett Biblical Institute who emphasized the contribution of Sociology to understanding human behavior.

I ani indebted, more specifically, to the Professors and graduate students in the Department of Sociology at the Ohio

State University. Among these, I wish to thank Dr. Raymond F.

Sletto for underscoring the importance of research; Dr. Kelvin

Seeman for making theory "come alive"; Dr. John F. Cuber and

Dr. Christen Jonassen, whose advice and encouragement have been most helpful.

Last, but not least, I wish to express gratitude to my wife, Ruth, who not only administered the home most efficiently as a "dissertation widow", but who has helped in every con­ ceivable way in the studies leading up to this dissertation.

ii TABLE 01-' CONTENTS

Chanter Page 'I, INTRODUCTION ...... 1

II. SURVEY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE ...... 7

III. PROCEDURES...... 36

IV. FINDINGS: TESTS 01' THE HYPOTHESES...... ?6

V. FINDINGS: AM ANALYSIS BY W A R D S ...... 86

VI. SUIilARY Aim INTERPRETATION...... 91

APPENDIXES...... Ill

BIBLIOGRAPHY...... 1[j 3

ill LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Score Distribution on Interest Apathy Scale ...... 38

2. Score Distribution on Influence Apathy Scale .... 39

3. Score Distribution on Behavior Apathy Scale .. I4O

h • Score Distribution on Voting Apathy Scale ..... lil

9 . Score Distribution on Po%erlessncss Scale ...... U8

6. Score Distribution on Normlessness S c a l e .... It9

7 . Score Distribution on Social Isolation Scale .... 50

8. Score Distribution on Alienation Scale ...... 51

9. Intercorrelations Among the Alienation Scale and Its Sub-Scales, for a College Pre-Test Samnle and a Ilnal Columbus Sample ...... 52

10. Population Statistics in 1950, Votes by V.'ards in 1950, and Voting Ratios for.Greater Columbus Wards .... 55

11. Total Number of Questionnaires Mailed and Returned, by IVard and P r e c i n c t ...... 63

12. Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward 1 on Education, Income, and Age ...... 66

1 3 . Census Data and Samnle Data Compared for Ward li on Educati.cn, Income, and Age ...... 6?

lU. Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward 11 on Education, Income, and A g e ...... 68

1 5 . Census Data and Sample Data Ccmpared for Vr'ard 12 on Education, Income, and A g e ...... 69

1 6 . Mean Voting Apathy Score of Respondents and Non- Respondents, by W a r d ...... 71

iv ..Table Page

17. A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Total Samcle ...... 72

^ 18, A Comparison of Respondents and Non—Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Ward 1 ...... 72

19. A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Ward I4 ...... 73

20. A Comparison of Resoondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Ana thy Score for Ward 11 73

21. A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score .for TiVa-rd 1 2 ...... ?lj

22. Partial Correlations Between Poiverlessness and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled ...... 77

2 3 . Partial Correlations Between Normlessness and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled ...... 80

2li. Partial Correlations Between Social Isolation and the Various Political Apathy Scales, 'With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled ...... 81

25 . Partial Correlations Between Alienation and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled .... 82

2 6 . Correlations Between Five Background Variables and the Alienation and Political Apathy Scales ...... 8h

2 7 . Comparison of Wards on Four Background Variables . . . 88

26 , Comparison of V/ards on Rean Alienation Scores .... 89

2 9 . Comparison of Wards on Near. Political Apathy Scores . 90

3 0 . Correlations Between the Alienation Scales and the Political Apathy Scales, by 'Ward and for the Total Sample . . , . 92

31. Partial Correlations Between the Alienation Scales and the Political Apathy Scales with Age Controlled (Wards 1 and U ) ...... 93 Table Page

3 2 , Partial Correlations Between Powerlessness and Interest Apathy, With theEffect of Five Socio­ economic Factors Controlled (Wards 1 and h ) . . . , 9li

3 3 . Correlations Between M.ve Socioeconomic Variables, the Alienation and the Political Apathy Scales (Wards 1 and li ) ...... 95

vi CliAPTBR I

INTRODUCTION

1. Statement of the Problem.

Political apathy la frequently viewed as a social problem. One example of this concern may be noted in a standard text, where the author deplores the fact that "The average election rarely brings out more than $0 per cent of the possible vote."^ Such a situation, in a democracy, is an anomaly.

In the last six Presidential elections (1932 through

1952 ), the percentage of the estimated civilian population of voting age which actually voted has varied from 9l«h per cent to 62,2 per cent,^ The incidence of active involvement in political life certainly must be lower. Indeed, when a recent investigator attempted to scale political behavior, he found that only 27 per cent engaged in any participation more than voting.^ So low is the average citizen's level of activity

^Elmer Kennedy, "The Democratic Process," Chapter 3h in An Introduction to Social Science, Volume II, edited by George C, Atteberry et al. (New York: The Kacmillan Company, 19h7), p. 257.

^The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 195ij. (New York: New York 'Yorld-Telegram and The Sun), p. 259*

^Angus Campbell et al., The Votsr Decides (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Ccmipanj', 195^U), p. Jl*

- 1- -2- that John W. Lederle once remarked: “Judged by the standard of ability to induce the average citizen to reach into his pocket- book for a contribution (an action he follows almost evei-y day for other groups and causes), the political party occupies the lowest place in the citizen's scale of values."^

Social science is commonly termed a “young" science, and scientific interest in the social problem of non-voting lies within the lifetime of present graduate students. Charles E,

Morriam may well be regarded as the pioneer. In his presidential address to the American Political Science Association, he stated:

“Government, after all, is not made up merely of documents con­ taining laws and rules, or of structures of a particular form, but is fundamentally based upon patterns of actions in types of situations,”^ Merriam, with Harold F. Gosnell, published in 1925 the first extensive research in the area of non-voting,^ In that work, he estimated that “lilt.3 per cent of the absentees abstained through indifference or inertia.More recently, Lazarsfeld

^John W. Lederle, “Party Finance in a Presidential El­ ection Year," The Annals of the American Acadeiw of Political and Social Science, GCLIX (September, 19Ud), pp. dj-75»

^Charles E. Merriam, "Progress in Political Research," American Political Science Review, XX (February, 1926), p. 7.

^Charles E. Merriam and Harold F. Gosnell, Non-Voting: Its Causes and Methods of Control (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1925),

7Ibid., p. 158. -3- has stated: "... two out of three cases of non-voting were intentional and premeditated . . .

It is the purpose of this study to further the explana­ tion of this indifference. Research has established age, sex, rural or urban residence, party preference, religion, income, education, and social class as the major independent variables correlated with voting or non-voting.

Is there a common factor aimong voters or non-voters that is observable even when the above factors are controlled? Can a theoretical concept be located which may serve to cut across these independent variables?

A possible explanatory concept— amd one which needs empirical research in its own right— is that of Alienation. We have not yet seen a systematic empirical exploration of this concept, although there are numerous instances in the literature of ideas related to this concept. Indeed, as Nisbet has observed:

At the present time, in all the social sciences the various synonyms of alienation have a foremost place in studies of human relations. Investigations of the "unattached," the "marginal," the "obsessive," the "normless," and the "isolated" individual all testify to the central place occupied by the hypothesis of alisnation in contemporary social science. . . . It has become nearly as prevalent as the doctrine of enlightened self-interest was two generations ago. It is more than a hypothesis; it is a perspective.^

8Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Bernard Berelson, and Hazel Gaudet, The People's Choice (New York: Duell, Sloan and Pearce, 19iili), p. U$.

Robert A. Nisbet, % e Quest for Ccronmnity (New York: Oxford University Press, 19^3), p. 15* -u-

Nisbet says, further, that in the nineteenth century:

. . . the age of individualism and rationalism, such words as individual, change, progress, reason, and freedom were notable not merely for their wide use as linguistic tools in books, essays, and lectures but for their symbolic value in the convictions of immense numbers of raen.^^

However, in contrast to this.

Today, a different set of words and symbols dominâtes the intellectual and moral scene. It is impossible to overlook, in modern lexicons, the importance of such words as disorganization, disintegration, decline, insecurity, breakdown, instability, and the like.^^

Seeman has discussed the ccmicept in a paper on leader­ ship, He remarks:

But it is our further thesis that the unclarity of the concept itself, and more importantly, the minimum effort which has been expended in gathering empirically adequate support for the concept, constitute a threat . . . to usefulness. . . . The popularity of the con­ cept, the confusion with regard to it, and the threat from inadequate documentation are all touched upon /jji his thesis/", ^

Such testimony, which could be multiplied at length, regarding the importance of the concept, underscores the urgent necessity for an attempt to explore the issue systematically and develop some means of measurement.

In the most general sense, we define the concept of

Alienation to include; (a) a sense of Powerlessnessj (b) a sense of Normlessness; and (c) a sense of Social Isolation.

^°Ibid., p. I.

^^Ibid., p. 7. X2 Melvin Seeman, unpublished manuscript. -5-

The implication of this concept for the problem of political passivity is that one who feels powerless will not participate in political life because *»what's the use?*’; that one who is

"normless”— who does not have clear-cut standards of conduct— will not participate; and that one who feels socially isolated will be too concerned about his own problems to worry about those of the larger society,

2. Hypotheses,

Formally stated, we hypothesize that there is a positive correlation between Powerlessness, Normlessness, Social Isolation

Total Alienation and the several types of Political Apathy,

Political Apathy is measured by scales dealing with Interest

Apathy, Influence Apathy (these two forming the Behavior Apathy scale), and Voting Apathy,

The inter-relatior.3 of these measures, and their associ­ ation with five socioeconomic background variables (Occupational

Prestige, Community Size, Education, Income and Age) are the object of Investigation in this study. The specific-hypotheses regarding these inter-relations are presented at the appropriate point in the analysis of data,

3, General Plan of the Study,

To determine the relationships between the various com­ ponents of Alienation and Political Apathy, it was necessary to:

A, Define and develop scales to measure the various components of Political Apathy (which we have titled Interest — 6^

Apathy, Influence Apathy, Behavior Apathj'^, and Voting Ana thy. )

3. Define and develop scales to measxrre the three sug­ gested ccsnponents of Alienation (Powerlessness, Normlessness, and Social Isolation.)

C, Pretest these scales for validity and reliability.

D, Apply these scales to a population chosen to represent various socioeconomic strata,

E, Analyze the data, chiefly through linear correlation coefficients, to determine whether the concept of Alienation is amenable to measurement and if so, whether it is useful in explaining political indifference. If ary of these goals— the measurement of various types of apathy; the scaling of the components of Alienation; the exploration of possible relation­ ships between Alienation and Political Apathy; and the dis­ covery of the extent to which Alienation may be a function of socioeconomic factors— if ary of these goals is accomplished, the effort will be well expended, considering the central place of the concept of Alienation in contemporary social science• CHAPTER II

SURVEY OF RELEVANT LITERATURE

1, Political Apathy.

A. The definition of political apathy. Political apathy

or its converse, political participation, has generally been

defined simply as voting or non-voting. Most of the generali­

zations which have been advanced are based on studies using

this single criterion.

A number of social background factors have been found in various studies to be related to voting. The most significant

ones are: having high income; having high education; being in

••white collar** and professional occupations; being Jewish or

Protestant rather than Catholic; being white, male, middle-aged

and an old resident of the community; and being in a critical

-7- -8—

social situation.^

Recently there have been attempts to relate personality 2 to political participation. Janowitz and Marvick , using

Adomo's F scale for measuring ‘''Authoritarianism,** found that authoritarianism is directly related to feelings of political ineffectiveness, and that those who scored high on this scale did not vote as frequently as the rest of the population. Lane^ found that personality differences (as measured by four items from the F scale) were significant at the .Oî? level of confidence, but that this difference disappeared when a social class breakdown

^Typical of these studies are: Gordon M. Connelly and Harry N, Field, "The Non-Voter: V/ho He Is, Vvhat He Thinks,** Public Opinion Quarterly, VIII (Summer, 19LL), pp. 175-87. Harold F. Gosnell, **Does Campaigning Make a Difference?**, Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (Fall, 1951), pp. hl5-lO. ______, **Mobilizing the Electorate,** Annals of the Americy Academy of Political and S.ocial Science, CCLIX (September, l9l.i8), pp. 9B-105. George V/. Hartmann, **A Field Experiment on the Canpara- tive Effectiveness of 'Ehiotional* and ’Rational* Political Leaflets in Determining Election Results,** Journal of Abnormal and Social Psycholo^, XJCXI (April-June, 1956), pp. 99-llU. AÏlce S. klut and David B. Gleicher, "Determinants of Voting Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (Fall, 1951), pp. 393-U12. Eirwin L. Linn, "The Influence of Liberalism and Con­ servatism on Voting Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIII (Sxunmar, 1951), pp. 299-309. Mongo Miller, "The Waukegan Stucfy of Voter Turnout Prediction," Public Ooinion Quarterly, XVI (Fall, 1952), po. 381— 98.

^Morris Janowitz and Dwaine Marvick, "Authoritarianism and Political Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (Summer, 1953), 185-201.

^Robert E. Lane, "Political Personality and Electoral Choice," The American Political Science Review, XLIX (March, 1955), pp. 173-90. -9- was made. Lipset et al,^ have presented nn excellent and compre­ hensive survey of the literature, in v.hich thej- attempt to explain the differential participation by means of: (l) the degree to which interests are involved in government noircies;

(2) acce to information about th.e relevance of government policiesj and (3) group pressures to vote.

It should be noted that ."C arc, in this study, interested only in the continuum of activity from extensive participation to extreme apath;/. Con :eouently, we have ignored many studies which relate so-ia], characteristics to the direction of voting, i.e., “leftist” or “rirrio- st" tendencies^. except where hints were given as to variability in political participation,

3. liirther definitions of political apathy. Several investigators have attempted to refine the simple r’istinction betwetni voter and non-voter. Campbell, Gurin, and flillcr, in Tiie Voter Decides^', used the follovidng trichotomy in defli.lng participation: (1) icters-plus— those wtiose activity included more than simply voting, such as at:ending a politic:! rally:

^Seymour V. Lips et et al., “The F.w/chologyr of Voting: An Analysis of Political Behavior,” in Handbook of Social Psychology, Volumo : I, edited by Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addis on-We s1ey Company, 19?h). v! -'See for example, Er.vin L. Linn, “The Influence' of Liberalism and Conservatism on Voting Behavior,” Public Opinion Quarterly, XIII (Summer, 19h9), pp. 299-309.

^Angus Campbell, Gerald Gurin, and Warren E. Miller, The Voter Decides (Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Company, 1 9 ^ T T -10- (2) Voters— those who voted, but rngngcd in no further activity; and (3) the non-voters. With this categorization, they found that high narticipation v.-as more characteristic of (1) Eisenhower voters, (2) those who follovv the campaign through a greater number of mass media, (3) those who have a high self-rating on interest, and (h) those who show a high degree of concern about the oubco];ie of the elections, etc. Lazarsfeld et al., in the classic Erie County Study, claimed that the respondent’s self-rating was the best index of his interest.f Kducational level made no difference in voting, Q once the interest level vras kent constant. A sin.ilar picture was obtained for reople on different socioeconomic status levels, for those with different residences, and for different age and religious groups. Sex differences alone, among' the personal 9 characteristics, affected non-voting independently of interest.

Using Lazarsfeld's data, , S. Rcbinson^^ has argued that "interest” is not uni-dimensional, but multi-dimensional.

He concluded that "self-rating correlates positively with citizen-interest armi "'artisan-intercst, but effectively zero with spectator-interest The scores on the Lhree "dimen­ sions” are positively correlated. He also found that "there

’’Lazarsfeld, op. cit., p. IiO.

^Ibid., chart 15, o. h7.

^Ibld., chart 16, p. US, 3. Robinson, "The Motivational Structure of Poli­ tical Participation,” American Sociological Review, XVII (April, 1552), 151-56. —Il­ ls a tendency toweird -wholesale participation in all 12 of the activities which were used to define interest denotatively."^^

The twelve items which he utilized for factor analysis were:

1. The respondent's self-rating on interest. 2. Voting. 3. listening to the Democratic Convention on the radio. Il. Listening to the Republican Convention on the radio. 5. Reading about the Democratic Convention in the newspaper. 6. Reading about the Republican Convention in the newspaper. 7. Knowing who Henry A. Wallace is. 0, Knowing who Vi'endell Vfillkie is, 9. Listening to political speeches on the radio. 10. Trying to convince someone about a political issue, 11. Having one's advice asked about candidates or issues, 12. Doing active political work.

Morris Showel^^ has attempted to measure several dimen­ sions of participation. He developed scales to measure Information,

Awareness, and Participation. His Information scale consisted of the following items:

1. Do the people of Washington have the legal right to use the initiative? (Correctly answered by 89.7 per cent of his sample.) 2, Which of these three primary systems (blanket, open, closed) is used in Washington? (Correctly answered by 75.7 per cent.) 3. How often does the state legislature meet in regular session? (Correctly ansv/ered by 32.6 per cent.)

^^Ibid.

^^Morris Showel, "Political Consciousness and Attitudes in the State of Yfashington, " Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (Fall, 1953), pp. 39U-UOO. -12- ii. For how long a term are senators to the state legislature elected? (Correctly answered by 21.L per cent.) 5. For how long a term are representatives to the state legislature elected? (Correctly answered by 2ii,l per cent.)

His Awareness scale consisted of the following items:

1. Will you briefly name and describe any law adopted through the initiative in recent years? (Correctly answered by 60,Ii per cent of his sample.) 2. V/liich party controlled the lower house of the state legislature at its last session? (Correctly answered by LI.2 per cent. 3. Can you name and describe anything proposed or adopted at the last session of the state legis­ lature? (Correctly answered by Ll.9 per cent.) U. ?/hich party controlled the upper house of the state legislature at the last session? (Correctly answered by 27.L per cent.) 5. Wliat are the names of the members of the state legislature lYom your district? (Correctly answered by 22,^ per cent.)

His Participation scale consisted of the following items:

1. Do you follow the newspaper reports of political action in the state daily or once in a while? (”Yes" answers, 85.2 per cent.) 2. Did you vote in the S^ate of Washington in the last nresidential election? ("Yes” answers, 71.3 ner cent.) 3. Did you vote for candidates to the state legis­ lature in the last general election? ("Yes" ansvrers, 6L.8 per cent.) L. Did you vote in the last primary election held in this state? ("Yes" answers, $6.1 per cent.) 5* Tell me the organizations that you or your husband belong to or take an active interest in. (More than one organization, 9.5 per cent.) 6. Have you written or have you advised someone to write to a member of the Legislature within the past two years concerning some political issue? ("Yes" answers, 9.5 per cent.) 7. Have you done any active work to secure signatures for an initiative petition, or worked for the adoption of any law proposed by initiative? ("Yes" answers, 6,8 per cent.) -13-

8. Have you done any work for a political party within the last few years, such as distribute leaflets, call upon voters,, serve as poll watcher, etc.? ("Yes" ansivers, 5.0 per cent.)

He found a significant (.05 level) relationship between each of the three scales.

Heard^ and his associates at the University of North

Carolina have attempted to develop a Guttman scale of political participation. Using samples in two counties, they atteiiLoted to test 13 specific behavior patterns apparently related to the concept "participation in the political p r o c e s s . "^5 in the firstcounty, 5 of the 13 behaviors constituted a scale with

It of the behaviors dichotomized and 1 trichotomized. His scale barely meets the minimum of reproducibility established by

Guttman, and only 5 out of 11 behaviors scaled. They were:

(1) Campaign activity; (2) Attendance at party meetings; (3)

Contacting public officers and other political leaders;

(li ) Activity in politically-oriented— but not strictly political— groups; and (5) Voting,

However, this scale did not hold up in the second county.

Heard believes this shows serious limitations in the use of such a general concept as "citizen participation,"

It should be noted that although there have been several attempts to develop a scale to measure political apathy which

Alexander Heard et al,, "A Study of Political Parti­ cipation in Two North Carolina Counties," Research Previews, III (February, 1955), pp. 1-8,

^^Ibid,, p. 2. -11- go beyond the simple criterion of voting, no one except Lanel^ has utilized another's scale in subsequent research. Perhaps

Heard is correct in challenging the fruitfulness of the concept

"citizen participation," Evidently a great deal of research must yet be done before an empirically adequate scale of political apathy— and one which will be suitable for replication— can be

developed.

Even before' there is consensus on the measurement of political apathy, however. Riesman and Glazer^" have challenged

the use of conventional activities as adequate measures of political apathy. They cite four diCficulties in equating apathy with inactivity, and in equating involvement with activity.

These are:^^

1. An index based on activity does not help us to distinguish cases in which that activity is carried on for apolitical purposes, (For example, neurosis and internal conflicts may be projected onto the political scene.)

2. A possible class bias of observation: stamping certain things the middle class does, or does more easily, as "activity."

3. A possible bias in favor of the more tem|>eranient- ally energetic.

k* The difficulty of inferring purpose, which gives changing meaning to the activity, from the index alone.

^^Ijane, op. cit.

David Riesman and Nathan Glaser, "Criteria for Political Apathy," in Studies in Leadership, edited by Alvin W, Gouldner (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), pp. 5o5-59*

iGlbid, pp. 531f - 15" They give an interesting account of their attonpt to discover more meaningful criteria in their analysis of l50 interviews— an approach largely exploratory in nature. They suggest "competence" and "affect" as possible criteria. Further 19 criteria are suggested:

1, Concern with human ends is less apathetic than concern vrith institutional means,

2, Concern with what has been,or potentially can be, personally experienced is less apathetic than concern with remote items, access to which is gained through impersonal agencies of infor­ mation diffusion] likewise, the ability to personalize and concretize distant events is less apathetic than the ability to report them,

3, Concern with the welfare of self-and-others is less apathetic than concern exclusively with the self or exclusively with others,

h. Concern with trends and elements that are not in the focus of attention of the mass media is less apathetic than exclusive concern with what is in their momentary focus,

5, Ability to take a critical or independent view of authority— its assertions of fact, and claims to special treatment or consideration— is less apathetic than unquestioning acceptance or rejection of these assertions and claims because of the authoritative source.

Thus, Riesman and Glazor are challenging us to further refinements in the measurement of apathy. In a sense, their suggestions may be said to refer to the quality of participa­ tion, while the voting studies cited earlier, including

Robinson's, Showel's, and Heard's attempts to develop scales,

^^Ibid,, p, 5h8, —16— may be said to concern themselves vdth the quantity of political participation.

Our solution to this problem lies largely on the quanti­ tative side, Vfe have taken a position -nhich vievs apathy as more than simply not voting; and attempted to develop scales measuring these apathetic characteristics of the respondent.

Operationally sneaking, v,'e have four indices of the presence

of marked apathy (the scales to be described in detail in

Chapter III):

1, A high score on the Behavior Apathy scale,

2, A high score on the Influence Apathy scale,

3, A high score on the Political Apathy scale (Tfhich

is a combination of the first two scores,)

h, A high score on the Voting Anathy scale (whose

values are in inverse order to the respondent’s

actual voting record on 12 elections.)

2. Alienation,

The increasing and divergent usages of the construct of

Alienation warrant a thorough investigation of the literature,

and an attempt to develop scales to measure it. Further, in

regard to our concern with political apathy, this concept

seems most promising as an explanatory device. It was hoped

that it might *cut across” the usual variables of occupational

prestige, education, income, etc,, which are known to correlate

with political apathy or participation. -17-

The references to Alienation are scattered, cnsystematized, and, more often than not, implicit rather than explicit. The concept is used differently by various -writers, and sometimes even the same writer shifts from one meaning to another -without warning, fany other scliolars, describing essentially the same phenomena, use differing vocabularies. Hoivever, it seems clear that the various uses— implicit and explicit— can be conveniently and profitably subsumed under three major headings; Powerless­ ness; Normlessness; and Social Isolation. For the sake of clarity in presentation, we have organized the literature in relation to these three components, regardless of historical development.

Powerlessness. The cascading literature of foreboding and doom cited by Nisbet 20 has its headwaters in the -writings of

Hegel. Of him Marcuse reports: 21

The institution of property, Hegel , . , related to the fact -that man had come to live in a world -that, though molded by his own knowledge and labor, was no longer his, but rather stood opposed to his inner needs— a strange world governed by inexorable laws, a "dead” world in which human life is frustrated. The Theologische Jugendschriften present in these terms the earliest formulation of the concept of "Alienation" . . .

And, later on, he summarizes Marx's contribution; 22

The social division of labor is not carried out with any consideration for the talents of indi-viduals

^^Nisbet, op. cit., p. 3.

^^Herbert Marcuse, Reason and Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 19bl), p.

^^Ibid., p. 273. —18—

and the interest of the vAiole, but rather takes place entirely according to the laws of capitalist commodity production. Under these laws, the product of labor, the commodity, seems to determine the nature and end of human activity. In other words, the materials that should serve life come to rule over its content and goal, and the consciousness of man is completely made victim to the relationships of material production.

Here, then, is one basic component of the idea of

Alienation— that of powerlessness, of separation from effective

control over one's destiny, of helplessness, of being used for

purooses other than one's own,

Weber, according to Gerth and Mills, applied the term pi in a generic sense:

Marx's emphasis upon the wage worker as being "separated" frcan the means of production becomes, in Weber's perspective, merely one special case of a universal trend. The modern soldier is equally "separated" from the means of violence^ the scientist from the means of enquirj'’^ and the civil servant from the means of administration, Weber thus tries to rela­ tivise Marx's work by placing it into a more general­ ized context and showing that Marx's conclusions rest upon observations drawn from a dramatized "special case" which is better seen as one case in a broad series of similar cases. The series as a whole exemplifies the comprehensive underlying trend in bureaucratization.

The feeling of helplessness may have many sources in

addition to the economic alienation of wliich Marx spoke.

For example, DeOrazia^ has argued that the child's gradual

^%ans H, Gerth and C, Wright Mills, I-hcm Weber; Essays in Sociology (New York: 0:anxiety among many citizens upon the death of irrtportant earthly rulers, such as King George V, II Duce

ÎAissolini, Der Führer Hitler, and Roosevelt,

Gouldner has forcefully expressed this central concept of Powerlessness .25;

By "alienation" is meant that men pursue goals, and use means in their nursuit, determined either by social entities with which they do not feel intimately identified or by forces wiiich they may be unable to recognize at all. Thus no man •hvants" war, yet two are fought on a world-wide scale witiiin a quarter- century. Practically everyone desires economic security, yet our society "encountered its most devastating depression during the thirties, and fears still another. These are but two dramatic indications that social forces are abroad which most men little understand, to say nothing of master. The growth of alienation implies that the range of choice open to the ordinary individual, the area of discretion available to him, is declining, 2 ^ In a similar vein, Kris and Leites have written:

Individuals in the mass societies of the twentieth century are to an ever-increasing extent involved in public affairs; it becomes increasingly difficult to Ignore them. But "ordinary" individuals have ever less the feeling that they can understand or influence the verj’ events upon which their life and happiness is known to depend,

og “■"Alvin W. Gouldner (ed.). Studies in Leadership (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 86,

^^Srnst Kris and Nathan Leites, "Trends in Twentieth Century Propaganda," in Reader in Poblic Opinion and Cccmunlca- tion, edited by Bernard Berelson' and ïéorris Janowitz (Glencoe, lUînois : The Free Press, 1950), p, 233. (Italics are authors*,) -20-

They suggest that the result is distrust and "privati­

zation”— the latter concept being very close in meaning to the 27 more usual term of regression. '

Numerous further illustrations could be given of this

central idea of powerlessness. Among the more prominent ones which stress the sense of being overwhelmed is Fromm's characteri­

zation, He notes the parallel fact that Protestantism demands

that the individual make many more decisions and accept more O C* individual responsibility

Ihe difficulty of categorizing the descriptions of

Alienation is well illustrated by a quotation from ?>'erton. In 29 speaking of "The Context of Distrust,” he says:

. . . to her audience, ^ateT" Smith’s sincerity and integrity stood in marked contrast to the pretenses, deceptions, and dissembling which they observe in their daily experience. On every side, they feel them­ selves the object of manipulation. This gives ex­ pression to the psychological effects of a society which, focused on capital and the market, tends to instrumentalize human relationships. In such a society, as ilarx long since indicated, and as Durkheim and Simmel came to see, there are few dependable ties between each man and others . . .

Note how in this description "instrumentalization,” which the individual is helpless to canbat, leads to doubt in

regard to the dependability of the social order (Normlessness)

^'^Ibid., p. 288. pp. Erich Fromm, Escape from Freedom (New York: Farrar and Rinehart, I9I4I),

^%obert lierton. Mass Persuasion (New York: Harper and Brothers, 19U7), p. lG31 —21— and a view of others as cold, impersonal and distant (Social

Isolation). As will be indicated later, the three components as measured by our scales are highly intercorrelated,

MiJ-ls has remarked on the same phenomenon of instrument­ al izat ion: "In the normal course of her work, because her personality becomes the instrument of an alien purpose, the salesgirl becomes 'seli’-alienated'

Fromm, in a recent work, has described the concept largely in terns of self-alienation;31

By alienation is meant a mode of experience in which the person experiences himself as an a].ien. He has become, one might say, estranged from himself. He does not experience himself as the center of his world, as the ci*eator of his ovm acts— but his acts and their consequences have become his masters, whom he obeys, or whom he may worship.

Fromm, incidentally, goes on to point out that the concept is much older than Hegel or Marx, and likens it to the idolatiy which was condemned by the Old Testament prophets.32

Karen Homey develops the concept of Alienation along remarkably similar lines:

3®C. Wright Mills, Vfhite Collar (New York: Oxford University Press, IpSl), p. lUlp.

3^Erich Fromm, The Sane Society (New York; Rinehart and Company, 1$SS)s P» 120.

32Ibid., p. 121. -22-

In terms of the devil's pact, the abandoning of self corresponds to the selling of one's soul. . . . term is/^ applied chiefly to those extreme conditions in -which people lose their feeling of identity, as in amnesias and depersonalizations, etc.

That these conceptions of powerlessness might lead to a disinterest in political life -was seen by Adorno. He specifi­ cally introduces the concept of Alienation as a possible answer to the question of why so many of his subjects were extremely ignorant of political and economic matters

The objectification of social processes, their obedience to intrinsic supra-individual laws, seems to result in an intellectual alienation of the individual from society. This alienation is experi­ enced by the individual as disorientation, -with con­ comitant fears and uncertainty. As -will be seen, political stereotypy and personalization can be understood as devices for overcoming this uncomfort­ able state of affairs. Images of the politician and of the bureaucrat can be understood as signposts of orientation and as projections of the fears created by disorientation.

Rosenberg^^ has also stated that the sense of powerless­ ness leads to political apathy:

Politics is avoided because of feelings of psycho­ logical inadequacy or weakness. . . . Other factors in the world -view of the indi-vidual which discourage political action are powerlessness and fatalism. In our complex urban mass society, individuals devote

33Karen Horney, Neurosis and Human Growth (Nev/ York: W. W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1^50), p. 155^

3^Theodor W. Adorno et al., The Authoritarian Personali­ ty (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. élB. ™

35Morris Rosenberg, "The Meaning of Politics in Mass Society," Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Spring, 1951), pp. 5-15. —23—

themselves to minute, specialized tasks woven into the complex fabric of our econortr,'-. The great economic, and power blocs, typified by giaiît corporations and unions, thrust the individual about with pressures too great to resist. As a consequence, the individual is likely to feel oveiwdielmed and powerless. Given this feeling, the idea that his puny strength can match the giants is absurd, and he feels that a lonely individual can do nothing to change the way the world is run. Raising his weak voice against the massive roar of the mass media and the political giants is futile. For this reason, many people with political convictions do nothing but vote, convinced that, they can have no substantial effect on any event.

Riesman and Glazer have suggested that "the degree to which people feel impotent will depend on their class position, as well as their other group affiliations,"^6 g point which we 37 take up in testing our hypotheses. They further observe;

Among people in the lov;er social strata, the belief persists today that the political world is a manageable one— but not by them: the "insiders,** the "sixty families," or just plain "they," are in easy control of events. . . . This impotence among the masses, hovæver, is not matched by feelings of potency in the supposedly ruling groups: as the former feel mastered by vague personages, the latter feel mastered by vague events. . . .

To sum up: our definition of the concept of the Power­ lessness component of Alienation has as its primary element the perceived inability of the individual to maintain effective control over his life and destiny. The core element which is involved in this aspect of Alienation is the notion of power­ lessness, of being ovenvhelmed. Two allied ideas vhich seem

^^kiesman and Glazer, op. cit., n . 51?.

37lbid., p. 5lii. -2l|- to reflect such a sense are; (l) Instrumentalisation and

(2) Complexity. Instrumentalisation refers to the individual’s sense of being used as a function rather than as a person, and of his inability to change this situation. Complexity is the perception of the world as being so incredibly involved that one can't make enough sense of the situation to operate effect­

ively. This component of Alienation may be visualized along a continuum;

LOW POiYEKUSSoMESS < ------> HIGH POTfEdLESSHESS

Sense of power Overwhelming complexity Sense of adequacy Lack of control over Understanding one's destiny Confidence Instrumentalisation Feelings of control Incomprehensibility over one's destiny

Noralessness. It will be recalled that NisWt, in his comment on the pervasiveness of the Alienation literature, remarked;

Investigations of the "unattached," the "marginal," the "obsessive," the "normless," and the "isolated" individual all testify to the central place occupied by the hypothesis of alienation in contemporai’y social science, . . .3b

Long ago Durkheim pointed out that sudden economic losses or gains result in situations where previous scales cannot remain

unchanged, the "calibration is tui'ned topsy-turvey . . . yet no new graduation can be qi ickl.y improvised. "39

3®Nisbet, op. cit., p. l5.

3^DeCrazia, op. cit., p. 5. -25-

Diirkheiiii, DeGrazia points out, explicitly conceptualized anomie to explain the differential rates of suicide vi'hich he found in his researches. DeGrazia searches Tor clues to the meaning this has for the individual

Tlie specific v.-ords and phrases in French that Durkheim repeatedly used— un perpetual etat de me- contentment, tourments, deceptions repetees, inutilitie, desorientee, inquietu3e douloureuse, malaise, sterilitie, intolerable, /desenchantement, douloureaux— help create the composite picture of anomie as it affects the individual. It becomes apparent that anomie as Durkheim conceived it in the subjective sense had three character­ istics: a painful uneasiness or anxiety, a feeling of separation from the group or of isolation from group standards, a feeling of pointlessness or that no certain goals exist.

In more recent times, Kaclver in The Ramparts We Guard has discussed "anomy. Although he mentions three types, we feel that his characterizations (with the exception of the last sentence) could be encompassed vrithin the comoonent we have called Normlessness:

1. There are those who, having lost altogether, or in great measure, any system of values that might give purpose or direction to their lives, having lost the compass that points their course into the future, abandon themselves to the present, but a present emptied of significance.

2, Those who, having lost their ethical goals, having no longer any intrinsic and socialized values to which they can harness their drive to action, transfer this drive to extrinsic values Instead, to the pursuit of means instead of to the pursuit of ends beyond them, and particularly to the pursuit of power, so far as that lies within their reach.

^*^Ibid., p. 5.

^ ^Robert L'. Ma elver. The Ramparts We Guard (New York: The Macmillan Ccxnpany, 1950), pp. 8L-&7. - 2 & -

3. Third, we may distinguish a type of anomy that is characterized above all by a fundamental and tragic in­ security, something that cuts deeper than the anxieties and dreads that beset other men. It is the insecurity of the hopelessly disoriented. Usually it happens when they have lost also their former environment, their former connections, their social place, their economic support. . . , There is, for example, the social alienation of those who feel themselves rejected and become the victims of a persecution complex..

Green has described some conditions which lead to this type of Normlessness;*^

Freud's primary quarrel vfith Christianity as a working ethic was very much to the point— that the doctrine of brotherly love ill prepares the young for the savage aggressions and exploitations they will in all probability c:cperience with advancing age in con­ temporary society. Anyone v/hc has watched youngsters from a rural, fundamentalist, sheltered home environ­ ment siviftly develop a bewildered, juvenile cynicism as they join the rootless, mobile, success-oriented millions in a teeming, modern metropolis must have reached a similar conclusion.

An illustration-in-reverse— i.e., a group whose activities bear striking testimony of the effectiveness of purpose— would be the plrysicians among the Polish Jews in the Ghetto in the uprising against the Nazis. V/hen defeat became obvious, tirese men combatted utter hopelessness and resignation by continuing to carry on medical research on their starving compatriots until the very end.^^

^^ilrnold W. Green, "Social Values and Psychotherapy," Journal of Personality, XP7 (March, 19Ü6), pp. 199-228.

^^Martin Gumpert, "The Physicians of Tfarsaw, " The American Scholar, XVIII, pp. 285-90. Reprinted in Joseph B. Gittier. Social Eynamics (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Cannany, 1952). -27-

Bettelheim^^ has described his own reaction to the loss of standards that characterized the Nazi concentration camp in which he was imprisoned. Ke attributes his survival as a sane being to the fact that he had determined ahead of time that he would preserve his oerscnality by forcing his experiences to yield insights into behavior under extreme conditions. His orientation to research furnished a "norm" which held him steady while community and civil life all around him decayed.

In addition to the above-described type of Normlessness

(i.e., the loss of standards, criteria, goals, norms for behavior), we believe it essential to include in the definition the matter of conflict of norms. V/hile there is no unanimity on this matter, there are many descriptions of ancsnie, such as DeGrazia ' s, which seem to include ver}'" specifically the idea of conflict of norms.

DeGrazia describes at some length the contemporary conflict between the "Cooperative and the Competitive Directives" and between the

"Activist and the Quietist Directives".

In a similar vein, Karen Horney has described the diffi­ culties of a person who incorporates in his personality conflict­ ing norms— the neurotic is a person who cannot reconcile the con­ flicting directives of our culture— such as Christianity versus the success imperative, the stimulation toward a high material

^^Bruno Eettelheim, ^Individual and ”ass Behavior in Extreme Situations," Journal of Abnormal Ps^'chology, XXXVII (October, 19h3)j pp. LÏ7-526.

^^DeGrazia, op. cit.. Chapter III, "Conflict Between Belief ^sterns," pp. Ii7-72. —26— standard of living versus the practical denial of that standard for many people, and the alleged freedom of the individual versus his factual limitations.^"*^

Reusch, in sneaking of social mobility, combines elements of Normlessness and Social Isolation, Speaking of the socially

I 7 mobile person, he saysr

The individual remains unaware that many of the social techniques that he learned in his childhood became obsolete when he changed from one class to another. He forgets and is unaware that the roles and the cues that he knows can be inanpronriate in a different social environment. Pie forgets that climbing brings about social isolation, leaving behind the security enjoyed in the old group while trying to grovf roots in a new and different class of people.

In like manner, Peterson has described the difficulties of the upwardly-mobile individual

And there is also a price to be paid by the successful. Even if a person is able to climb the social ladder so fast that he catches up vn.th his aspirations, this does not mean that in general he is content, for changing one's class means chang­ ing one's way of life. The son of a worker who becomes a laTc,^er has only begun the move that the shift in occupation imnlies. . . . Ke is of course gratified by his success, but he may feel too anxious to be very happy. He may become a prime examole of that modern species, the marginal man, on the edge of several groups without belonging to any.

^^aren Horney, "Cultuu'e and Neurosis,'* in Sociological Analysis, edited by Logan Y^ilson and Yiilliam L. Kolb {New York : Harcourt Brace and Company, 19h?), pp. 2Li5-fl.

Jurgen Ruesch, "Social Technique, Social Status, and Social Change in Illness," in Personality in Nature, Society and Culture, edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. Hurray (Neiv York: Alfred A. Knopf, 195t)), p. 12$. ^^Villiara Peterson, "Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?", Commentary, VI (November, 1953)j pp. li77-66. -29-

Hiesinan’s discussion of the “tradition-directed" and

"other-directed" personalities may be related to this category

The tradition-directed person is not normless, since he has definite orinciples to live by. The inner-directed individual is also not alienated, since he can adant to changed conditions.

But the other-directed person is apparently so insecure, so uncertain of the proper standards and suitable norms, that he will observe almost any code, so long as this brings the approval of his confreres.

Lazarsfeld^ has directly tied in the phenomena of con­ flict with non—voting, for he has shown that "cross—pressures"

(between the "predisposing" factors of religious affiliation, economic status, and place of residence) tend to delay and reduce the incidence of voting. Further,

When people desire and shun a course of action in about equal degree, they often do not decide for or against it but rather change the subject or avoid the matter altogether. For mapy- clashes of interest, the easy way out of the uncomfortable situation is shnply to discount Its importance and to give up the conflict as not worth the bother 92 Lube11" has suggested this same possibility in regard to voting, mentioning that non-voting is not always due to apathy,

^^^David Riesman, with the assistance of Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd (New Haven: Yale Univer­ sity, 1950).

^OLazarsfeld, op. cit., p. 53»

^^Ibid., p. 62.

52Samuel Lubell, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper and Brothers^, 1952), -30- but that it may be a result of the voter's inability to decide.

In brief, Normlessness seen^ to be composed of "anomie” in Durkheim's classical sense, and the conflict of norms described by more recent writers. This component involves behavior criteria— i.e., the lack of norms, uncertainty or

"fogginess" of standards, or conflict among them. The behavior may be visualized as polar opposites, as follows:

LO',ï N0P21LESSNESS f ^ HIGH NORWLEHSNESS

Purpose Normlessness (lack of norms) Sense ofdirection Loss of "calibration” Goals Conflict of directives In t rinsic, sacred values Social order is ficHe Dependability of social Unpredictable, orderless world order Lack of perspective (lives Definite standards of in present) conduct

Social Isolation. DeGrazia, in explaining Durkheim’s

concept of "anomie," mentions "a feeling of separation from the group

or of isolation from group standards.-’-^ The first phrase of this

sentence is what we are concerned with here. The studies on

suicide since Durkheim seem to indicate that this phenomenon

is associated with feelings of social isolation, of having lost

^3DeGrazia, op. cit., p. 5. -31- cT effective contact Trith significant and supporting groups.'

There seems, also, to be some evidence that social isolation is related to certain mental diseases, such as schizophrenia.

Jaco has shoivn that residential areas w-ith the highest schizo­ phrenic rates are those characterized by anonjnnity, spatial mobility, a smaller percentage of voting, low social participa­ tion, greater unemployment, less membership in lodges and fraternal organizations and mere job turnover, fewer visits with friends, etc.-'^ Halmos found an inverse relation between the number of friends of his subjects and their anxiety scores.'^ Kollingshead 07 et al., relate social mobility to psychoneurosis and schizophrenia.'

^^Ruth S. Cavan, Suicide (Chicago: University of Chicago Pr*ess, 1928), Louis I. Dublin and Bessie Bunzel, To Be or Not to Be (New York: Harrison Smith and Robert Haas, l933). Andrew F. Henry and James F. Short, Jr., Suicide and Homicide (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 195h). Ernest R. Mowrer, Disorganization: Personal and Social (Chicago; J. B. Lippincott Conpany, 19^5)» Austin L. Porterfield and Robert ''T. Talbert, Crime, Suicide and Social Well-Being in Your State and City (Fort V/'orth: L, Potishman Foundation," Calvin F. Schmidt, Suicides in Seattle, 192U to 1925î An Ecological and Behavioristic Study" "(Seattle : University of V/ashinpton Publications in the Social Sciences, October, 1923) V.

Gartly Jaco, "The Social Isolation Hypothesis and Schizophrenia," American Sociological Review, XIX (October, 19SL), pp. 567-77.

5^aul Halmos, Solitude and Privacy (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1551).

'^August Hollingshead et al., "Social Mobility and Mental Illness," American Sociological Revievf, XC( (October, 195L), on. 577- 8ii. —32—

Kohn and Clausen traced the relationship between social isolation and mental disease. They interpreted their findings in terms

of rejection by one's peers, rather than unavailability of

childhood playmates.

On the other hand, lazarsfeld has shown that the individual who is not isolated is more likely to participate in political

affairs. He comments that:'

. . , personal contacts can get a voter to the polls without affecting at all his comprehension of the issues of the elections— something the formal media can rarely do.

Again, he indicates that peoole who in our definition would

be normless may have their problems solved for them through con- tO tact with others.

, , . the party changers— relatively, the neoole wiiose votes still remained to be definitely determined during the last stages of the campaign, the people who could swing an election during those last days— were, so to speak, available to the person who saw them last before Election Day, The notion that the people who switch parties during the campaign are mainly the reasoned, thoughtful, conscientious people who were convinced by the issues of the election is just plain wrong. Actually, they were mainly just the opposite.

In short, the basic element of this component is that of

feeling rejected, deserted, alone, unwanted. This individual

'^Melvin L, Kohn and John A, Clausen, "Social Isolation and Schizophrenia,” American Sociological Review, XX (June, 1955), pp. 265-73,

^^Lazarsfeld, op. cit,, p. 157,

^Lazarsfeld et al,, "Formation of Public Opinion," in Reader in Public Opinion and C

He sees people as cold, selfish, impersonal, and unconcerned with ego's welfare. TTne polar opposite maj’- be thought of as an individual who feels a warm, friendly, supportive, dependable atmosphere in which he feels wanted and secure in his personal relationships. This component may be visualized as follows:

LOT/ SOCIAL ISOLATION ^ ^ HIGH SOCIAL ISOLATION

Warm, friendly, personal Aloneness relations Loneliness Secure relationships Rejection Supportive relationships Impersonality Community identifications Confidence in dependability of one's acquaintances

Alienation. We have treated the literature under the three subtypes mentioned earlier— Povverlessness, Normlessness, and Social Isolation. The intercorrelations among the scales developed to measure these aspects are of such order that they show the w'isdcm of treating the components separately, although they are, of course, intercorrelated at considerably more than the .01 level of confidence.

The three types of Alienation we have described— Power­ lessness, Normlessness, and Social Isolation— are, we surmise, mere prevalent in societies in transition from the Sacred to the Secular type. The swift developments in industrialization in greater geographical and social mobility, in mass communication, in economic interdependence, tend to make men factually more powerless to control their own destinies, to induce changes in 'J

”3U- old standards and values (or bring differing values into conflict) and lead to social isolation. IRhile these three components are not conceptually identical (as our intercorrelations in Chapter II suggest), it would seem that one might expect a close relation­ ship among the three factors— that is, one whio feels socially isolated will also tend to feel incompetent (powerless) and perhaps confused or in conflict as to his standards.

Hypothetically speaking, there are mapy possible types of reactions which individuals can make when caught in the alienation situation. Suicide may be thought of as the most drastic solu­ tion, but there are many less drastic methods. Automaton conform- 61 ity helps to lessen the anxiety of social isolation. Personali- zation^2 makes the incredibly complex political world meaningful again. Regresaion^^ is probably a very frequent type of reaction,

Fromm^ suggests that schizophrenia is another type of adjustment.

Kris and Leites^’^ suggest that "privatization" is another result— the constriction of one's interest to immediate, personal goals, such as sports.

We present below a tentative schematic analysis of possible antecedents, indices, and consequences of Alienation.

^Fromm, Escape From lYeedcm, op. cit., p. 193.

Adorno et al., op. cit., p. 618.

^^Kalmos, op. cit.; Jaco, op. cit.; Kohn and Clausen, op. cit.

^Frcrnn, The Sane Society, op. cit., p. 206f,

^^Kris and Leites, op. cit. -35-

Antecedents Components Consequences_____

Social Change Powerlessness Apathy Cultural Diffusion Incorcprehensibleness mobility : Instrumentalization Authoritarianism Horizontal Meaninglessness (Adorno, Srole) Vertical Sacred-Secular Trend: Normlessness Conformity Industrialization Lack of sense of (l'Yomm, Riesman) Imp er s on a 1 i ty direction, goals Anonymity Old values aband­ Cynicism oned, new ones (Merton) not established Conflict of norms Hyperactivity (Riesman) Social Isolation "Lost" Personalization "Alone" (Adorno) lALninium of warm friendly, support­ Prejudice ing relationships (Adorno)

Privatization (Kris-Leites)

Regression (Fromm et al.)

Suicide (Durkheim et al.)

Much remains to be done in clarifying the import and vali­ dity of such a scheme. We intend here simply to suggest that the literature on alienation is often confused on the question of antecedents, components, and consequencesj and that this work must be viewed as one empirical effort within a broad area of social scientific concern. CHAPTSR III

PROCEDURES

1. Development of the Political Apathy Scales,

It vd.ll be recalled that several scholars have attempted to develop political participation scales by making use of behaviors other than voting. As we have already pointed out, we visualized Behavior Apathy as having three components:

Interest Apathy (personal involvement); Information Apathy; and Influence Apatliy (lack of interest in influencing others).

A separate score was developed for Voting Apathy. Hence, our term Behavior Aoathy refers to a combination of Interest

Apathy and Influence Apathy scales. (The Information Apathy scale was eliminated because of unsatisfactory' reliability.)

In tiie Spring of 1953, the writer distributed 175 questionnaires to members of the church he attends and to a group of Suinmer-school students (adults only) at Capital Univer­ sity in Columbus, Ohio. We received IJ4O useable returns. The questionnaire consisted of 33 items which were gleaned from the literature and from interviews vrith a group of Columbus adults.

Some of the items used were taken from the researches cited in

Chapter II. (See Appendix B for this complete preliminary scale.)

-36- -37-

A Likert-type weighting was used in scoring, and the sample was split into equal halves on the basis of total score. Of the

33 items, 20 shOived noticeable differences between the high

scorers and the loiv scorers— not less than .5 and up to 2.08

difference in average score on a five-point scale.

The Interest Apathy Scale, Among the items v/ritten for

the Interest Apathy scale, the following met the above test:

1, Did you vote in the last primary election? (In Columbusthis was the Sensenbrenner-Jones- Spears contest,)

2, Have you attended any political meetings, rallies, dinners, etc.? Have you gone to a public meeting to hear a Presidential or Congressional candidate speak?

3, 7'hen you are concerned about something especially important, do you write or telephone your Con­ gressman?

h. In regard to Presidential elections, do you vote?

5^. Do you consult the findings of some organization before you vote? (Such as League of Wrmen Voters, labor union, farm organization, Chamber of Commerce, church.)

6. Do you listen to radio or TV when it is announced that the President is going to speak?

7. Did you vote in the last Congressional election?

8. Concerning the so-called "off-year elections" (wiien only U, S. Senators and Representatives — not a President— are elected), do you vote?

All of the items, with the exception of item 1, had

five alternatives ranging from high to lev; activity. These items were intenrJLxed with the Influence scale an attempted

Information scale, the latter having so low a "split-half" —38” correlation that the items were eventually discarded.

Reliability of this sub-scale was tested by the "split- half” method. On the pretest, the correlation coefficient using the 8 indicated items, was .79 (N - ILO) when corrected by the

Spearman-Brown prophecy formula.^ On the final sample, we again tested for reliability, and found a corrected "split-half" correlation of .85 (N = 38h). The frequency distribution of scores on Interest Apathy, as obtained in the final sample are given in Table 1.

Table 1. Score Distribution on Interest Aoathy Scale = 36h)

Coded Value Scale Score Freqtxency

7 20 to 31 20 6 28 to 27 26 5 20 to 23 32 h 16 to 19 58 3 12 to 15 97 2 8 to 11 97 1 8 to 7 51 0 0 to 3 7

The Influence Apathy Scale. The Influence Apathy scale contained the following items, selected on the basis described for the preceding Interest Apathy scale:

The formula was taken from Joy F, Guilford,'Fundamental Statistics in F^chology and Education (New York: IfcGraw-Hill Book Company, 19u2 ), p . 275. -39-

1, Do you sometimes try to influence people's opinions in political matters?

2, Do people ask you your opinion on current national affairs ?

3, Have you given money, bought tickets or anything to help the campaign for a certain party or candidate?

L . Do you ever work actively for the election of ary candidate for public office?

5. Thinking of three or four of your closest friends, can you say %-hether or not th^’" vote?

6. Have you signed a netition on behalf of any issue before the people?

7. Have you signed a petition for a candidate for public office?

Reliability was tested by the "split-half method. On the pretest, the reliability was .35 (N = lliO) viien corrected by the Snearman-Brovm formula. On the final sample, the reliability coefficient was .81 (N - 381: ). The distribution of scores on this scale are given in Table 2»

Table 2, Score Distribution on Influence Aoathy Scale Cm * 381: )

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 27 to 29 1 8 2h to 26 38 7 21 to 23 73 6 18 to 20 93 5 19 to 17 65 I 12 to Dj 51 3 9 to 11 31 2 6 to 8 16- 1 3 to 9 12 0 0 to 2 2 -JjO -

The Behavior Apathy Scale» We surmned the score on the

Interest Apathy scale and the Influence Apathy scale,to obtain a total score on Behavior Apathy. Tlie "split-half" correlation for the pretest was .3ti (N = litO) ivhen corrected. On the final sample, the corrected correlation was .81 (îî = 38Ii). The distribution of scores on the final sample was as folloTfS:

Table 3» Score Distribution on Behavior Apathy Scale (N = 36h)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 63 to 69 15 8 56 to 62 30 7 U9 to 55 U9 6 U2 to L8 60 5 35 to ai 90 h 28 to 3h 63 3 21 to 27 51 2 lU to 20 20 1 7 to 13 5 0 0 to 6 1

The Voting Apathy Scale. Finally, we went to the Franklin

County Court House and obtained the voting records of our selected wards and precincts. We then recorded each occasion on which the

1108 people selected in our final sample had voted. It should bo noted here that the Board of Elections removes and destroys the record of anyone who does not vote at any time during a period of

two years. Our recording was made during the latter half of - i i l -

August, 1955* The records, thus, go back only to August, 1553.

In other words, if any individual voted in the Fall of 1953, the Spring of 195L, the Fall of 195U, or the Spring of 1955, or if he had registered at any time during that period, his name and record were obtainable. It is conceivable that an undeter­ mined number of people may have voted in the Eisenhower-Stevenson election (November, 1952), and yet their names would not be found on these records, llc.vever, since 195L was a comparatively

"good* year for voting, it is plausible— though by no means certain— that most voters would have some record of activity.

At any rate, v.-hatever bias may be introduced by this factor— i.e., unavailable records— it would presumably be present in all four of the selected wards, and in all precincts selected for the sample.

The Voting Apathy score was simply a coded reverse of the voting record. For example, an individual voting 12 times since

1950 would receive a score of 0, indicating low voting apathy.

Table h. Score Distribution on Voting Apathy Scale (n = 38L)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

7 No record 132 6 Registered— no voting 5 5 1-2 19 U 3-h hi 3 5-6 18 2 7-8 hh 1 9-10 50 0 11-12 39 -L2-

The obtained correlations between Voting Apathy and the other

Apathy scales for the total responses of 3Qh were as follows :

Voting Apathy and Interest Apathy .5? Voting Apathy and Influence Apathy .37 Voting Apathy and Behavior Apathy .50

■While these correlations are far above the .01 level of signifi­ cance (.13), they are sufficiently low to indicate the vri-sdom of developing the three sub-types of apathy.

2. The Development of Scales to Measure Alienation.

To the best of our knowledge, the first attemot to measure empirically any aspect of the concept of Alienation was that by p Srole.' He used five items to test for five components of

"Anomie," wiilch he defined as follows:

1. The individual's sense of the unresponsiveness to his lot and to his needs shown by community leadership. ( Item : "There's little use vrriting to public officials because often they aren't really interested in the problems of the average man,")

2. The individual's perception of the social order as essentially fickle, unpredictable and orderless. (Item: "Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself,")

3. The individual's loss of faith in the doctrine of progress as applied to the self. (Item; "In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average man is getting worse, not better.")

h. The individual's loss of meaning of internalized group norms, values, and goals. (Item: "It's hardly fair to bring children into the world with the way things look for the future,")

2 Leo Srole, "Social lysfunction. Personality, and Social Distance Attitudes," Paper read before the American Sociological Society (Chicago, 1951). Mimeographed. -U3~

5. The individual's sense that the framework of immediate personal relationships (is) no longer predictive or supportive. (Item: "These days a. person doesn't really knosv whom he can count on.") ?/e related Srole's first item to our Povverlessness com­ ponent; items 2 through Ij to Normlessness; and the last one to social Isolation. However, when these five items were subjected to the judging procedure described below and to item analysis, they all failed to survive.

The Srole work has been replicated by Roberts and Rokeach.^

They found, in contrast to Srole, a correlation between Adorno's

Authoritarianism scale and prejudice, with anomie held constant, of ,53» The correlation between anomie and nrejudice, with authoritarianism held constant, was .37. Mention should also be made of a series of articles by Anthony Davids^, although his material came to our attention after our data were collected and analyzed. He defines the

"Alienation ^udroms" as consisting of five components:, ego- centricity, distrust, pessimism, anxiety and resentment. The bibliography in his publication does not include any reference

^Alan H. Roberts and Lilton Rokeach, "Anomie, Authoritari­ anism, and Prejudice: A Replication," The American Journal of Sociology, LXI (January, 19^6), pp. 355-5

^Anthony Davids, "Alienation, Social Apperception, and Ego Structure," Journal of Consulting Psychology, IX (February, 1955), op. 21-27.

, "Generality and Consistency of Relations Between the Alienation' Syndrome and Cognitive Processes," Tlie Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, LI (Julyr, 1955), p p . 6l-6?. _ ,_"Comparison of Three Methods of Person­ ality Assessment:__Direct, Indirect, and Projective," Journal of Personality, XXIII (June, 1955), pp. Ii23-h0, -lîll- to the literature which we have cited in the discussion of alienation in Chapter II.

Our own construction of the Alienation scales came about

after extensive reading, discussions with colleagues in the

field, and "open-end" inteiuriews Tfith over 100 individuals from

low-, middle- and upper-income areas of the city, A total of

139 proposed items on Alienation were collected in this way.

These were carefully edited, then typed on 3 x 5 cards. Three

complete sets of 139 cards were made. Six competent judges

(instructors and assistants in the Department of Sociology of

The Ohio State University) were requested to judge each statement

as to its applicability or non-applicability to each one of the

three components of Alienation. Judges were requested to judge

all of the 139 items for each component indenendently. (Full

instructions to the judges may be found in Appendix D.)

A condensed version of the descriptions of each component

Tfhich the judges used is given below:

1. Fowerlessness. The core element is the respondent’s definition of his situation as one in which he is powerless to control the outcome. Two allied ideas are: Instrumentalization and Complexity.

2. Normlessness. This component refers to the clarity and dependability of standards for behavior (i.e., to the per­ ceived lack of noirnis, uncertainty or "fogginess" of standards, or conflict among them.)

3. Social Isolation. This component refers to behavior or sentiments which reflect the individual’s degree of involve­ ment in close, warm, friendly personal relationships. “Ii5“ The judges were instructed to go through one set of 139 cards, judging (for examolej only for the For,ericssness component, and to divide the cards into three stacks indicating:

A. This item DEFINITELY belongs to this category, B. This itemDEFINITELY DOES NOl’ belong to this category. C. This item in some sense might possibly be measuring the specified component, but it is not CLSARIY %-ithin the category as described. In other words, each judge read through all 139 items three timesHaving judged all items with reference to the Pcwerless- ness component alone, he then laid the first set of cards complete­ ly aside. Each judge then went through the same process to judge for the Normlessness component, then nlaced this set of cards aside. Finally, he used the third set of cards for judging the items in regard to the Social Isolation component.

There were, originally, 56 items T^iich the wTiter con­ sidered related to the Pcuverlessness component. Of these, 17 were retained because of the unanimity or near-unanimity of the judges' decisions,*^ Fifty items had been written to certain to the

Normlessness component, of which 8 met the consensus test. There were 33 items written to measure Social Isolation, of which 15 wei'e judged to be acceptable,

^This method was adapted from John K. Hemphill and Charles M. 7/estie, "The Measurement of Group Dimensions," in The Language of Social Research, edited by Paul Lazarsfeld et al. (Glencoe, Illinois : Thë~Trêe Prc-'s, 1^55), '’’p. 325f* ^The item was considered a consensual measure of the parti­ cular category when 5 of the 6 judges marked it "Definitely belongs in this category," with no one marking that oarticular item in another component "definitely," In a very few instances, items having the approval of only U judges were utilized. However, in each case, the inter-correlation between the item and the particular scale was at least ,70. -ii6 -

Because the academic year was nearing a close (May, 1955) and it seemed probable that the process of judging would not be conçleted in time to allow tte final test to be administered to a sizeable group such as is readily available in the college situation, a scale using all of the original 139 Alienation items, plus 29 items from Adorno’s " F ’’ (Authoritarianism) scale? was submitted to a random sample of 100 Capital University students. Of the 100 questionnaires mailed, 73 useable responses were obtained.

Vfhen the judging process was completed, we scored all of the 73 useable responses, using only those items which met the

’’validity" test for each sub-scale of Alienation (even though the respondents had answered all 139 items).

For example, a total score was obtained for the Powerless­ ness component, using the 17 items judged as relevant. A rough item analysis was then made by comparing the average score per item of the 25 highest scorers with the 25 lowest scorers. We retained only those showing a high differentiating power— an average of at least one point out of a six-point range.

The Powerlessness Scale. On the basis just described— and after eliminating the poorer items so that the Powerlessness scale would be of about the same length as the other scales— we finally retained 9 items for this sub-scale, as follows:

1. I worry about the future facing today's children,

'Adorno, op. cit. -L?-

2. Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using me.

3. It is frightening to be responsible for the development of a little child.

b. There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing a major "shooting* war.

5. There are so mapy decisions that have to be made today that sometimes I could just "blow up*.

6. The future looks very dismal,

7« Y/e are just so many cogs in the machinery of life.

8, Yfe're so regimented today that there’s not much room for choice, even in personal matters,

9. There is little chance for promotion on the job unless a man gets a break.

Reliability of the sub-scale was tested by the "split- half" technique. On the college pre-test, the "split-half" correlation of the Powerleasness scale, when corrected by the

Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, was .82 (N = 73). On the final Columbus sample the "split-half" reliability, when corrected, was .78 (N = 38b). The distribution of scores obtained for the final sample is given in Table 5* -18-

Table 5» Score Distribution on Powerlessness Scale (N = 38k)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 27 to 29 17 8 2k to 26 16 7 21 to 23 kl 6 18 to 20 k3 5 15 to 17 61 k 12 to Ik 77 3 9 to 11 76 2 6 to 8 33 1 3 to 5 16 0 0 to 2 k

The Normlessness Scale. The same procedure was followed to determine which items showed the highest discriminatory power for the Normlessness scale, based on the high and low scores obtained from the 8 items approved by the judges. We retained

6 items for the final scale:

1. The end often justifies the means.

2. People’s ideas change so much that I wonder if w e ’ll ever have anything to depend on.

3. Everything is relative, and there just aren’t any definite rules to live by.

k. I often wonder what the meaning of life really is,

5. The only thing one can be sure of today is that he can be sure of nothing.

6. With so many religions abroad, one doesn’t really know which to believe. “Ii9“

On the Normlessness scale, the "split-half® reliability on the pre-test was .76 (N = 73) when corrected. On the Columbus sample, the reliability was .73 (N “ 3&Ü) when corrected. The frequency distribution of the Normlessness scores for the total sample was as follows:

Table 6. Score Distrioution on Normlessness Scale (N = 38U)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 27 to 29 0 8 2h to 25 2 7 21 to 23 2 6 18 to 20 13 S 15 to 17 27 h 12 to 52 3 9 to 11 88 2 6 to 8 92 1 3 to 5 78 0 0 to 2 30

The Social Isolation Scale. By the same method, we selected 9 items for the Social Isolation scale,

1. Scmetimes I feel all alone in the world.

2. I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd really like.

3. Most people seldan feel lonely.

U. Real friends are as easy to find as ever.

5. One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly.

6. The world we live in is basically a friendly place. -50-

7, There are few dependable ties between people any more,

8, I don't get to visit friends as often as I'd really like,

9, People are jiist naturally friendly and helpful.

For the Social Isolation sub-scale, we obtained a "^lit- half" reliability on the pre-test of ,78 (N ■ 73) when corrected.

The final sample gave a reliability of ,83 (N - 38L) when corrected. The score distribution on the Social Isolation scale is given in Table 7»

Table 7, Score Disti'ibution on Social Isolation Scale (M = 38U)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 27 to 29 1 8 2k to 26 11 7 21 to 23 17 6 18 to 20 35 5 15 to 17 70 h 12 to 111 83 3 9 to 11 93 2 6 to 8 li8 1 3 to 5 21 0 0 to 2 5

The Alienation Scale, The three sub-scales— Powerlessness,

Normlessness, and Social Isolation— were ccoibined to make up the

Alienation scale which consists of 2h items. The items frcsn each of the sub-scales were rotated in order to minimize the possibility of halo effect. -51“ The total Alienation scale had a reliability of ,81

(N = 73), "When corrected, on the college pre-test. On the final sample, the Alienation scale had a reliability of .78 (N “ 38U) when corrected. On the Alienation scale, the score distribution on the final sample was as follows:

Table 8, Score Distribution on.Alienation Scale CN - 38b)

Coded Value Scale Score Frequency

9 63 to 69 19 8 56 to 62 15 7 U9 to 55 38 6 U2 to 18 ii6 5 35 to U1 79 h 28 to 3ii 93 3 21 to 27 Ui 2 Hi to 20 38 1 7 to 13 10 0 0 to 6 2

It was very important for our purposes to know whether

Alienation must be considered a general syndrome, or whether the various components— Powerlessness, Normlessness, Social Isolation- are sanewhat discrete and unrelated. The correlations in Table 9 are all considerably above the .01 level of significance (.13 required for an N of 38U), suggesting that it is quite feasible to consider the sub-scales as belonging to a general concept.

However, there appears to be enough independence among the sub-scales (particularly for the Normlessness correlations of -52-

.29 and ,Ul) to warrant their independent examination in our data,

The intercorrelations are given in Table 9.

Table 9. Intercorrelations Among the Alienation Scale and Its Sub-Scales, for a College Pre-Test Sample and a Final Columbus Sample

Social Total Normlessness Isolation Alienation Components Pre-test Final Pre-test Final Pre-test Final N-73 N=38h N=73 N=38h N=73 N“38k

Powerlessness .77 .67 .56 .51 ,89 .90

Normlessness .29 .kl .75 .80

Social Isolation .76 .75

Alienation and Authoritarianism, In addition to the above, we desired to determine the relationship of our scales measuring

Alienation to Adorno’s Authoritarianism scale. A low intercor­ relation would lead one to believe that the scales we are develop­ ing measure something other than Authoritarianism, and are not simply another way of scaling the same variable. The correlation coefficients between the various components of Alienation and

Adorno’s ”F“ scale (for our college sample) were as follows:

Powerlessness and Authoritarianism .37 Normlessness and Authoritarianism ,33 Isolation and Authoritarianism ,23 Alienation and Authoritarianism ,26

For an X of 73, a correlation of .23 is necessary to establish a

relationship at the ,05 level of confidence, and a correlation —53*" of .30 is necessaiy for the .01 per cent level of ccaifidence.

It se ans) then, that there is a reliable relation between the two measures, as one would expect; but there need not be concern that the Alienation scales we have developed are simply interchangeable measures of the Authoritarian phencmena.

3 . Sampling.

"When it was decided to use actual voting records as one criterion for Political Apathy, it became necessary to sample in such a way that the voting records could be conveniently obtained at the Franklin County Court House. The only feasible way to achieve this was through area sampling, with the various wards of Columbus being considered as areas. There are 19 wards in

Columbus.

There were several criteria fhich guided our choice of wards. These were: (1) the voting percentage should be approxi­ mately equal among the wards; (2) the voting ratio should not represent the extremes of voting or non-voting, since this would lead to difficulty in getting a normal range of scores on any political apathy scale; (3) the wards should be distributed among the social classes, as determined by median income and median education reported in the 1950 Census; and (U) at least two wards should be approximately equal on the above criteria

(voting percentage and socioeconomic status) so that the study might have "built-in** replication. For this purpose, two -5Ii- middle-incoine wards were chosen on the assumption that intruding variables might thus cancel out.

The Selection of Wards. We chose the 1950 election as the basis for computing comparative voting ratios, since this year was the general election year nearest to the time that the census data were gathered. It will be recalled that this was the year of the Taft-Ferguson senatorial contest and the Lausche-

Sbright gubernatorial election in Qiio. Our figures are based on the reports for the former returns, partly because the interest of this study is primarily in national politics, and partly because in most instances the vote in the senatorial struggle was larger than in the gubernatorial one.

To arrive at a voting ratio, we first outlined the ward and census tract boundaries on a map furnished us by the Franklin

County Regional Planning Commission, When the wards and census tracts were not coterminous, we apportioned the census population data to the respective wards on the basis of the number of city blocks in the respective wards.

The census data are reported for the total white population and the total non-Mmhite population. We added these two to obtain the total population within each census tract, in order to deter­ mine the relative percentage of the non-white population. We also obtained the figures for the population ”21 years of age and over,** which are not separated on the basis of race. We divided the latter figure into the number of votes cast to obtain the “voting ratio" shown in Table 10, Table 10. Population Statistics in 1950, Votes by VTards in 1950, and Voting Ratios for Greater Columbus Wards

Non- Population Votes Voting Ward Census Tracts White White Total Over 21 Cast* Ratio 1 --- ■58; 60," a " ...... “ 20,300 983 21,283 lb,238 6,767 .b8 2 52, 57, p56** 16,676 305 16,981 11,685 6,205 .53 3 P56, 55, 59 15,696 133 15,829 11,307 7,577 .67 I 38, 53 Hi,200 1,860 15,360 11,188 6,236 .56 5 27, 37, 51i 21,368 396 2b,76b 17,6bO 9,75b .55 6 2ii, 25, 26, 26 9,685 8,500 18,185 12,266 7,175 .59 7 29, 36 911 11,883 12,79b 8,992 b,222 .b7 Ô 39, liO Hi,503 3,133 17,936 12,127 b,927 .bl 9 Ul, 12, 51 Hi,li60 217 lb, 667 8,733 5,735 .66 10 h3, liii, pl7, pL8, li9,5Ü 27,932 2,120 30,352 21,63b 7,139 .33 11 li5, ii6, pli7, pli8 21,309 975 22,28b I5,bl6 10,266 .67 12 16, 17, 21, 22, 31, 3Ü 20,251 2,276 22,530 16,270 5,750 .35 I '-TV 13 23, 30, 35 li,li68 7,752 12,260 8,713 b,5l6 .52 Hi 19, SO, 32 13,935 183 Hi,l68 10,005 7,Ob2 .70 15 11, 18 17,113 151 17,267 12,370 6,b73 .52 16 10, 12, 13 17,618 Sk 17,672 12,922 6,238 .b8 17 3, 7, 8, 9, Hi, 15 35,060 1,029 35,606 23,611 13,195 .56 18 pii, 5, 6 Hi,370 16b Hi,b3b 10,622 8,722 .82 19 1, 2, pli 18,593 38 18,631 13,bli9 10,365 .77 Bexley BXÔ9, 90, 91 12,189 189 12,378 8,653 6,5b9 .76 Grandview GfiSh, 65 7,637 22 7,659 5,236 3,81b .73 Upper Arlington UA6h, 65, 66 8,976 as 9,02b 6^288 5,b9b .87

^Voting data were taken frcm The Columbus Dispatch, Wednesday, November 5, 1950, p. Bl5, col. 2. indicates '^partially** within indicated census tract} pro-rated on the basis of the number of blocks in each ward. Census data were taken from the 1950 Census, Columbus, Chio, Population Characteristics, PD-115, Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. -*56“

Fran Table 10, it -will be noted that Wards 6, 7, 8 and

13 have a rather large proportion of non-Tïhite population, "pra-

siunably nearly all Negro, Since it is known that Negroes have a lower voting turnout than whites, these wards were eliminated fran further consideration.

By the voting ratio criterion (i.e., neitner too h i ^ nor too low voting "percentages"), the following wards were

eliminated:

Ward Voting Ratio — --- 9 .66 10 .33 lii .70 18 .82 19 .77 Bexley .76 Grandview ,73 Upper Arlington ,87

There remained the following wards from which to select for the

study:

Ward Voting Ratio ^ --- 2 .53 b .56 5 .55 11 .67 12 .35 15 .52 16 ,)iO 17 .56

At this point, it was decided to eliminate wards which spread over a considerable geographical area, on the assumption that the average of various socioeconomic indices would be more likely to conceal wide variances than would be true of a rela­ tively smaller geographical area. On this basis. Ward 17 was -57-

eliminated.

Wards 15 and 16 surround (Siio State University on three

sides. It was felt that to retain these wards would entail a

goodly number of student responses. Students are, of course,

80 highly mobile that they might not have the legal qualification

to vote, even if they were old enough.

Thus only Wards 1, 2, U, 5, 11 and 12 remained. Wards 1,

2, and L are contiguous, Ward 2 being in the middle. Wards 1 and

li were selected and Ward 2 eliminated.

Tliere were, then four wards roughly representative of the

socioeconomic areas of Columbus chosen for the area samplings

Ward Voting Ratio

— — li .56 11 .67 12 .35

The range of median income for the census tracts within these

respective wards was: T/ard 1, $3,016 to $3,631; Ward h, $2,965

to $3,Oh2; Ward 11, $3,251 to $h,5h6; and Ward 12, $2,053 to

$3,00h.

A map of Columbus (Figure 1) is provided which shows all wards. The wards finally selected are shaded. Figure 1, Votirg Wards of Columbus and Environs

UPPER

69 I 66 s Mi I ARLINGTON

26 ,

20

90 h e ig h t s 291 28 27

BEX LEY 35 37; 43 44 40

54 89 [47Î 52 55i 57i 59

CENSUS TRACTS IN NUMBf-lîS IN the co rn e r0 ^ ' 'TRACTS ARE CE NUMBERS OF Th e Bu r e a u O? -nc CENS. COLU M BUS.OHIO, 1950 -2 9 -

Selection of Pigclncts. Each precinct within each ward was listed separately on uniform pieces of paper and placed in a box. The writer was then blindfolded, and drew one slip of paper after another from the box, until all precincts in each ward had been selected (the box being shaken between each draw­ ing), Precincts were utilized in the order selected for sampling on a random basis until the number of individuals selected for each ward approximated 300. îfen only were used in this study because men generally exhibit a higher voter turnout than women and one variable could thus be controlled.

The following deviations from chance order were made:

(l) If a precinct was contiguous with another already drawn, it was eliminated from further consideration and we proceeded to the next precinct drawn; (2) Precincts with only a few men were eliminated, and we proceeded to the next precinct drawn; (3)

Precincts having more than one or two families of Negroes were eliminated, and we then proceeded to the next precinct drawn.

The writer and his family personally toured every street of every precinct of each ward in order to determine whether there were any

Negro families on each street. The final sample was drawn from the following wards and precincts:

Ward 1 Precincts C, K, Ü

Ward it Precincts B, E, R, X, Z — 60—

Ward 11 Precincts FF, J, 0, U®

Ward 12 Precincts E, G, L, 0, Q

Selection of Individuals. The 195U City Directory was utilized to obtain names for this study. To facilitate accuracy, cards were typed showing which streets fell within the precinct, whether odd or even house numbers were to be used, and exactly at what point or intersection the precinct ended. Every third name was taken, except when the householder listed was a woman, in which case we proceeded to the next name without counting her. All letters were addressed to the man of the house, A total of 1200 names was selected,

U. Collecting the Data.

Mailing the Questionnaires. The covering letter (see

Appendix F) was multilithed in order to look as much like a personally-typewritten letter as possible; and the name and address of the recipient was individually typed, using a carefully matched typewriter ribbon. The date on the letter in each case was the same date as that of mailing. All 1200 letters in the sample were personally signed by the writer, and were written on

Capital University stationery in the hope that this would maximize responses, Bach envelope was personally addressed. The return

®At the time we inquired, the 1953 map of Boundaries of Wards and Precincts was the latest available at the Franklin County Board of Elections, When we began to check the voting records, so many voters in this Ward could not be found that we became suspicious. It was found that many precinct boundaries had been changed*,. We finally were able to account for eadi individual separately. -61-

address was individually typed in order to avoid the appearance

of advertising matter. The self-addressed, stamped envelope,

however, was mimeographed,

Bien receipts began to fall off— about 10 days after the

first returns— we began our first follow-up procedure. (See

Appendix G.)

We utilized three follow-up methods simultaneously.

Taking the cards of the non-respondents^, we personally telephoned

a third, personally interviewed a third, and sent a mimeographed postal card to a third. Despite the common view that ’•personal

contact is best,”^^ we found virtually no difference in stimu­

lation pOffer among the three methods. After eight days had

elapsed, a count showed that of 95 questionnaires received since

the follow-up procedure was initiated, 32 had been contacted by postal card, 28 by telephone, 21 by personal interview, and lli had not been contacted by any follow-up method.

At this point, we mimeographed a different message on

postal cards (see Appendix H), and sent them to all people #io

had not responded. After a lapse of 20 days, we composed and

% e had worked out a system of identification for each questionnaire before mailing. This was necessary in order to match the respondents' scores on the Alienation and Political Apathy scales with the Voting Apathy score. The latter score, as we have indicated, was assigned on the basis of actual voting records obtained from the Franklin County Court House, This method, of course, enabled us to know fdio had responded,

^^^Mildred B. Part en, Surveys, Polls and Samples (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950), p. 3 % 1 —62— mimeographed another "covering” letter (See Appendix I) and

enclosed another copy of the questionnaire. Only 9 responded out

of 100 selected at random for this final appeal from the original

list who had not ansv/ered up to that time.

Since there v/ere now U33 responses out of 1108 who pre­

sumably had received the questionnaire (1200 individuals less

92 whose letters were returned by the post office with the

notation "gone— left no address”), it was decided that the point

of diminishing returns had been reached, and that further follow-

up efforts would be unavailing if not irritating to the public. ,

Thus we obtained a return of 38.8 per cent.

Table 11 analyzes the "returns” situation in regard to

each ward and precinct. It may be noted that Wards 1 and U, which we selected for comparative purposes, show a nearly

identical proportion of responses— 3l|.3 per cent and 35.? per cent,

respectively. In Ward 11, L6.7 per cent of the individuals sampled

returned the questionnaire, while 31.9 per cent in Ward 12 did so. —63“

Table 11, Total Nimber of Questionnaires Mailed and Returned, by Ward and Precinct

Pre­ Number Returned No Not Ward cinct Sent “Gone" Iftianswered Response Useable Used

1 C 22 h 3 9 0 6 K 92 3 2 57 2 28 R 62 5 0 3U k 19 U I g - 7 1 69 5 33 Total 19 6 169 11 86

U B 68 9 2 29 6 22 E 66 7 2 35 3 19 R 66 3 2 39 1 21 X 52 2 2 29 2 17 Z uo 5 0 26 1 8 Total 292 26 8 158 13 87

11 FP 83 2 0 U3 1 37 J 63 3 0 26 1 33 0 60 k 0 3h 1 21 Ü 119 2 3 60 3 51 Total ’ 11 3 163 6

12 E h3 9 1 18 3 12 G 60 8 2 3h I 12 L 69 7 L 29 6 23 0 79 8 2 52 a 13 0 q , Ul, U 26 2 9 Total 292 9 159 l9

Grand Total 1200 92 26 6Ü9 U9 3Sh

The percentages of returns were: Ward 1, 3U»3j Ward U,

35«5j Ward 11, U6.75 Yfard 12, 31*9. These percentages were cal­ culated by dividing the total number of returns (vdiether useable or not) by the number of questionnaires sent less the number returned marked “gone— left no address," -6k~

Representativeness of the Sample. As in all research, we were concerned about the adequacy and accuracy of our sample.

On the whole, our respondents were distributed approximately the same as is the total population in the census tracts conoemed.

It must, of course, be kept in mind that the census data were fran the 1950 Population Census, so that one can reasonably expect a larger annual income and such changes as might be affected by mobility in a 5“year time period. For comparison, we used only those census tracts within tdiich our chosen precincts are found»

"Where boundary lines were overlapping, we apportioned the data according to the number of blocks of the census tract which lay within the precinct.

"We have not assembled this material in one table because it would not be very meaningful. It will be recalled that four or five precincts out of twenty to forty in a ward were selected.

Sometimes there was more than one precinct in a census tract, in which case the census data were weighted in proportion. In other cases the precinct was in more than one census tract. In this situation we pro-rated the census population data in proportion to the number of city blocks of the census tract Triiich lay within the precinct. Thus it can readily be seen that the census data were not necessarily representative of the ward as a whole.

A table is presented for each ward, showing the fre­ quencies, percentage distribution, and median for the social back­ ground variables of education, income and age. Data for the —6$— general population as well as the respondents are presented.

In Ward 1, our respondents had a hi^er educational level than the general population within the ward. The distortion here is largely reflected in a disproportionate sample in the “high school* bracket. In regard to income, the census and the sample correspond reasonably well. The same is true in regard to age.

In Ward U, those Trtio returned questionnaires had some­ what more education, had more income than the general population, and were somewhat older.

In Ward 11, those who responded to our questionnaire and the general population had virtually the same educational level.

The median income was higher than that of the general population.

(We must keep in mind the fact that the Census data were for 19ii9 income.) In regard to age, the census and the sample show only a very slight difference.

In Ward 12, our data again followed the usual pattern of a somewhat biased response in sampling. Those who responded had a higher median education, an incone considerably above that of the general population, and were some 3 years older. —66-

Table 12. Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward 1 on Education, Income, and Age

Census Sample Variable N Per Cent N Per Cent

Education:

College, It years 550 2.79 3 3.k8 College, 1-3 years 1,550 7.86 9 10.k6 High School Graduate It, 690 23.77 36 kl.86 High School, 1-3 years it, 515 22.86 20 23.26 8th Grade or less 6,it25 k2.70 18 20.93 Total J 9 , 1 W ~ loO.oo 86 9 9 .9 9

Median education : 9.95 12.25 Income:

$7000 and over 1,015 10.77 7 8.1k $6000 to S999 1,020 10.51 8 9.30 15000 to 5999 1,605 16.5k 15 17 .kk $it000 to 1999 2,105 21.69 27 31.kO $3000 to 3999 1,605 16.5k 16 18.60 $2000 to 2999 865 8.91 5 5.61 $1000 to 1999 675 6^96 5 5.81 $ 0 to 999 785 8.09 3 3.k9 Total &,705 100.01 86 " 9 9 ,9 9

Median income: $U,lt38 $k,5l8

Age:*

65 and over 1,529 13.93 6 6.98 60-61t 767 6.99 3 3.k9 55-59 866 7.89 5 5.81 5o-5lt 916 8.3k 7 8.1k U5”it9 1,015 9.25 13 15.12 Uo-Ult 1,017 9.26 15 17 .kk 35-39 1,151 10.k9 13 15.12 30-31 1,132 10.31 9 10.k7 25-29 1,238 11.28 10 11.63 20-2lt 1,3k 6 12.26 .. 5.81 Total l0,977 100.00 100.oi

Median age; 37 .86 38.00

^Because the legal qualifications for voting includes a minimum age of 21 years, our intervals were 21-25 , 26-30, etc. -67-

Table 13. Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward h on Education, Inc one, and Age

Census ' Sample Variable N Per Cent N Per Cent

Education:

College, U years 1,550 5.68 7 6.05 College, 1-3 years 2,675 9.79 8 9.20 High School Graduate 7,080 25.93 33 37.93 High School, 1-3 years 5,560 20.36 23 26.iti4 8th Grade or less 10 Mo 38.23 16 18.39 Total 27,305 99.99 87 100.01

Median education : 10.17 12 .lit

Income:

#7000 and over 1,050 6.85 11 1 2 .dt #6000 to 6999 180 3.13 10 II.I49 $SOOO to $999 1,1145 7 .I7 15 17.2it $LOOO to U999 1,920 12.52 19 21.oit $3000 to 3999 2,980 19.11 21 2it.lit #2000 to 2999 3,165 20.65 6 . 9.20 $1000 to 1999 1,985 12.95 2 2.30 $ 0 to 999 2,605 16.99 1 1.15 Total 15,356 100.00 87 iod.oo

Median income: $2,976 lit, 605

Age* 66 and over 1,926 13.61 13 lit.9it 6O-6L 860 6.03 it It.60 S5-59 1,016 7.39 6 6.90 1,021 7.21 6 6.90 U$~h9 1,152 a.m 9 10.3lt hO-hh 1,216 8.59 12 13.80 35-39 1,502 10. a 19 21.8lt 30-31 1,539 10.07 11 12.dt 25-29 2,111 lit.91 it it.60 20-2U 1.783 12.60 3 3.it5 Total IO6 .OÏ 87 loo.ol

Median age: iiO.58 it3.71 -6Q-

Table iLi, Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward 11 on Education, Income, and Age

Census Samole Variable N Per Cent N Per Cent

Education :

College, h years 1,570 9.08 20 Ik .08 College, 1-3 years 2,855 16.50 15 10.56 High School Graduate 5,310 30.69 5k 38.03 High School, 1-3 years 3,lhO 18.15 3k 23.9k 3th Grade or less ü,l25 25.58 19 13.38 Total 17,300 100.00 lk2 99.99

Median education: 12. 20 12 .3k

Income :

v7000 and over 1,135 13.82 28 19.72 $'6000 to 6999 870 10.15 18 12.68 $5Ü00 to 5999 1,120 13.06 39 2 7 .k6 &LOOO to 1,999 1,635 19.07 23 16.20 $3000 to 3999 i,U50 16.91 26 16.31 $2000 to 2999 1,110 12.9k 8 5.63 $1000 to 1999 530 6,18 0 0.00 $ 0 to 999 675 7.87 0 0.00 Total 8,575 100.00 lk2 100.00

Median income : $h, 313 $5 ,359 Age:

65 and over 862 9.2k 9 6 .3 k 60-61, 5U3 5.82 8 5.63 55-59 716 7.68 17 11.97 50-51 989 10.60 9 6.3k L5-Ü9 1,123 12.0k 21 Ik.79 iiO-liU 1,185 12.71 2k 16.90 35-39 1,069 11.1,6 16 11.27 30 -3I1 1,022 10.96 2k 16.90 25-29 950 10.10 Ik 9.86 20-21, 868 9.31 0 0.00 Total 9,327 loo.01 lk2 100.00

Median age: 38. 2k 39.5k —69 -

Table 15. Census Data and Sample Data Compared for Ward 12 on Education, Income, and Age

Cen sus Sample Variable N Per Cent N Per Cent

Education:

College, U years 592 5.32 11 15.98 College, 1-3 years 1,078 9.70 8 11.59 High School Graduate 2,195 22.88 19 27.53 High School, 1-3 years 2,513 22.60 17 28.68 uth Grade or less L,LLo 39.98 18 20.29 Total 11,118 100.00 69 99.99

Median education: 10 .38 12 .18

Income :

t'7000 and over 268 3.63 5 7.25 $6000 to 6999 168 2.27 5 7.25 $5000 to 5999 353 8.78 18 20.29 $1(000 to 1999 837 11.33 13 18.88 $3 0 0 0 to 3999 1,1457 19.72 3.8 26.09 $2000 to 2999 1,830 28.77 8 11.59 $1000 to 1999 1,1U8 15.58 8 5.80 $ 0 to 999 1,328 17.97 2 2.90 Total 7,389 IÔ0 .0 I 69 loo.ol

Median Income: 02, 666 $8 ,192 Age :

65 and over 7h3 11.08 9 13.08 60— £t.( h n 6.22 8 5.80 55-59 836 6.50 8 5.80 50-5U 500 7.86 6 8.70 L5-19 587 8.76 7 10.18 hO-iih 530 7.91 8 11.59 35-39 638 9.52 8 11.59 30-3li 760 11.38 11 15.98 25-29 1,087 16.21 7 10.18 20-2Ü 1,006 ' 15.01 5 7.25 Total 6,708 100.01 69 99.99

Median age : 38. 91 83 .20 -70-

We must bear in mind that our comparison between sample and census data is necessarily a rough approximatior^ due to the fact that the census tracts and wards are not coterminous and that the census data are over ’seven years old. This would be most likely to affect the income data. If we look at the other

two variables— education and age— we have a more adequate basis for comparison. As usual in this kind of sampling, there is a

sli^t upward bias in favor of those who responded.

A Compariscn of Respondents and ^on-Respondents on the

Basis of Voting Apathy Score. It is commonly observed that people who respond to questionnaires differ frcsn those vho do not

respond.Are the individuals who did not respond to tiie

questionnaire more "apathetic" politically than those who did

respond? We took care to provide a means of answering this

question.

It will be recalled that we had worked out a method of

identifying each questionnaire. We made a list of respondents and non-respondents fcr each separate ward and precinct sampled. We

then copied each individual's voting history as officially re­

corded at the Franklin County Court House. The record contains

all elections from the Spring of 1950 through the Spring of 1955.

Counting special elections there were twelve possible times a person could have voted.

^^See, for example, lîildred B* Parten, op. cit., pp. 391- I4O2 . -71-

The following table presents the comparative Voting

Aoathy score for the total sample, and also for each Ward separate­

ly. As will be noted, for the total sample (N = 1106), the

critical ratio was 6.22, far more than the 2.58 needed for the

.01 level of significance.

Table 16. Mean Voting Apathy Score of Respondents and Non-Respondents, by Ward

Respondents Non-Resp end ent s Standard Standard Critical Sample N Mean Deviation N Mean Deviation Ratio

Total hl2 3.9SL 2.559 696 Ü.912 2.h25 6.22**

Ward 1 91 3.857 2.638 182 h.231 2.Ji92 1.1Ü2

Ward l( 99 3.898 3.317 157 5.hS9 2.192 h.508**

Ward 11 lh5 3.63h 2.175 175 h.31l 2 M S 2.1,55*

Ward 12 77 L.7hO 2.393 182 5.698 2.173 3.133*

Significant at the .05 level. **Signifleant at the .01 level.

Thus, it is true that those individuals who responded to

the questionnaire differ in their behavior (at least as determined by the Voting Apathy score) from those who failed to respond.

Fortunately, by our method, we were able to determine how much

and in vhat direction they differ on the behaviorable variable

in which we were most interested.

A series of five tables follow, which present the situation for the total sample and for each individual ward. Here, we include

the percentage in each coded interval, as well as the distribution. -72-

?able 17. A Canparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on voting Apathy Score for Total Sample

Respondents Non-Resoondent s Score Frequmcy Per Cent Frequency Per Cent

7 lUo 33.98 361 SI.67 6 8 1.91 12 1 .7 2 5 18 I4.37 2h 3.US h 52 12.62 66 9.U6 3 51 12.38 92 13.22 2 50 12.Ih 62 8.91 1 SO 12.IL 36 5.17 0 U3 lO.Ijli U3 6.18

I1I2* 100.01 696 100.00

■«The N of U12 differs frcra the N used throughout this dissertation (38I4) because here we have included a number of respondents whose questionnaires could not be used because of various factors, such as failure to fill in the entire questionnaire (particularly socioeconomic information), women answering for their husbands, etc* The N of hl2 also disagrees with the h33 returns indicated in Table 11, because the latter number includes returns from families of deceased individuals, returns received after process­ ing had begun, and the like.

Table 18, A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondent s on Voting Apathy Score for Ward 1

Resoondents Non-^esoondents Score Frequency Per Cent Frequency Per Cent

7 32 35.16 70 3 8 .U6 6 1 1.10 1 . s s 5 2 2.20 8 U.Uo U 11 12.09 22 12.09 3 11 12.09 30 I6 .U6 2 12 1 3 . 1 9 22 1 2.0 9 1 10 10.99 12 6.S9 0 12 13.19 17 9.3U

91 100.01 182 100.00 -73-

Table 19. A Ccanparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Ward L

Respondents Non-Respondents Score Frequency Per Cent Frequency Per Cent

7 33 33.33 96 61.15 6 2 2.02 h 2.55 s 5 5.05 6 3.82 h 13 13.13 16 10.10 3 13 13.13 16 10.19 2 6 6.06 7 h.L6 1 15 15.15 < 3.18 0 12 12.12 7 h .).i6

99 99.99 157 100.00

Table 20, A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Ward 11

Respondent s Non-Respondents Score ïVequency Per Cpnt Frequency Per Cent

7 39 26.90 65 37. Hi 6 U 2.76 6 3.L3 5 8 5.52 10 5.71 h 15 10.3h 20 11.Ü3 3 23 15.86 25 Hi.29 2 20 13.79 2U 13.71 1 21 lli.LB 11 6.29 0 15 10.3h Hi 8.00

lh5 99.99 175 100.00 -71-

Table 21. A Comparison of Respondents and Non-Respondents on Voting Apathy Score for Ward 12

Respondent s Non-Respondents Score Frequency Per Cent Frequency Per Cent

7 36 !i6.75 130 71.13 6 1 1.30 1 .55 5 3 3.90 0 .00 h 13 16.88 8 h.39 3 h 5.20 21 11.5L 2 12 15.56 9 L.95 1 li 5.20 8 L.39 0 h 5.20 5 2.75

77 100.01 182 100.00

To the extent th at we have a biased sample , qualifications must be made in. regar­I to all conclusions drawn. If we elijïîi- nate the non-voters among our respondents— those who received a score of 7— the distortion between respondents and non-respond­ ents is considerably reduced. It is apparently— and expectedly— the large difference between these two groups in failure to vote at all, along with fai.lure to return the questionnaire, which is the basic difference between them, Ccmparisons based on the discriminations between score point 0 and 6 are probably most generalizable.

It is interesting to note that the mean Voting Apathy score of respondents is 3.86 for Ward 1 and 3#90 for Ward h, the two wards selected for comparison pui-poses. However, there are some other noticeable differences. Ip_ Ward 1, 35.2 per cent of those -75'- who responded received a Voting Apathy score of 7, -while 33,5

per cent of those who did not respond received this score.

In contrast, however, 33.3 per cent of the respondents in Ward h

received a ”7” Voting Apathy score, ishile 61.2 per cent of the

non-respondents received this score. This adversely affected

comparative data for these two wards. Further discussion of

these two wards will be found in Chap-ber V, CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS: TESTS OF THE HYPOTHESES

Briefly stated, we hypothesised that positive correlations would be found betv/een Alienation and/or its various sub-scales and Political Apathy and/or its various sxto-scales. It will be recalled that Alienation is defined as having the components of

Powerlcssness, Normlessness and Social Isolation (which scores are combined to form the Alienation scale). The Interest Apatliy and the Influence Apathy scales are combined to foi'm the Behavior

Apathy scale. ITie Voting Apathy scale is a separate Apathy score based on the actual voting record of the respondmt.

Powerlessness and the various PplitAcal Apathy scales.

Generally speaking, the hypotheses regarding Powerlessness and the various Political Apathy scales may be accepted, since the obtained correlations, while small, were statistically signifi­ cant in three of the four cases. The obtained correlations between

Powerlessness and the four Apathy scores were : Interest Apathy,

,10; Information Apathy, ,13; Behavior Apathy, ,13; and Voting

Apathy, ,03. The most notable thing here, however, is that these correlations account for only a minor amount of the total variance in Apathy scores,

-76- -77-

The same correlations were computed as partial correla­ tions, controlling successively on the five major background variables: (1) occupational prestige (as measured by the North-

Hatt scale); (2) size of canraunity in which respondent spent his youth; (3) educational attainment; (L) income; and (5) age. The results are given in Table 22,

Table 22. Partial Ccrrelations Between Powerlessness and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled (N - 381)

Variable Interest Influence Behavior Voting Controlled Apathy Apathy Apathy Apathy

Occupational prestige .09 .11* .10* .02 Community Size .09 .13** .12* .02 Education .08 .12* ,11* .02 Income .09 ,09 ,10* .0? Age .l8->«- .18** ,20** ,cL

*Slgnifleant at the ,0^ level of confidence, gnificant at the ,01 level of confidence.

The virtually zero correlations between Powerlessness and

Voting Apathy (for both zero order and partial correlations) is » most amazing. In lig^t of our discussion, in the previous chapter, of possible sources of error in the voting records, and our dis­ cussion of respondent versus non-respondent differences, we decided to attempt a further analysis.

The mean Powerlessness score of individuals viio received

Voting Apathy scores of 0 to 6 (i.e., were registered, or had -78— voted up to 12 times) was ccmputed and compared wLih the mean

Poft-erlessness score of those Wio scored 7 (i.e., those Tfiho, according to Court House records, had not voted in 12 elections).

The first group had a mean score of 10,65; and the second a nearly identical score of 10,68. Thus, our .*^unch” that the correlation was being depressed by those individuals vho received a score of "7" proved to be incorrect. There simply was no relationship between Powerlessness and Voting Apathy— or little relationship to any of the other Apathy scales either.

We also computed a correlation coefficient between Povrer- lessness and Voting Apathy, considering only those individuals for whom we had records. This time, the correlation was only

,01 (N = 252), These findings compel rejection of Rosenberg’s^ and our own hypothesis of a significant, positive relationship between Powerlessness and Political (especially Voting) Apathy,

If, however, Adorno^ is right in suggesting that the alienated individual "personalizes” politics, such a result as obtained would be expected. That is to say, if the alienated person sees complex political and socioeconomic issues in terms of “good" or

"bad", "strong" cr “weak" leaders, he might well be an active participant in politics. Until further research develops a scale of “personalization of politics," and correlates that with our scale of Powerlessne5s, one can only speculate,

1Rosenberg, op. cit. 9 “^Adorno, op. cit. -79-

Mention may also be made of the Riesman-GlazeP contention that activity may be for apolitical pirrposes. "While vre believed that a high degree of Powerlessness would lead to political apathy, it might, according to them, lead instead to “frantic political activity, as an escape from the selfOur findings would be consistent with such an interpretation, though of coui’se they do not give direct evidence of such relationships.

Narmlessness and the various Political Apathy scales.

We smticipated a positive correlation between Normlessness and the

Apathy scales. This anticipation was generally sustained, inas­ much as three of the four correlations here were significant at the ,01 per cent level of confidence— the exception being Voting

Apathy, Normlessness correlated .16 with Interest Apathy; ,15 with Influence Apathy; .19 with Behavior Apathy; and .05 with

Voting Apathy.

The partial correlations are presented in Table 23:

3Riesman and Glazer, op. cit., p. 532.

^Ibid. —80-

Table 23» Partial Correlations Between Normlessness and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled (N - 381)

Variable Interest Influence Behavior Voting Controlled Apathy Apa-fchy Apathy Apa-thy

Occupational prestige ,15^-^ .12* ,17** ,0l4 Community Size .15** .13** ,18** ,oL Education ,1U** .11* .18** .oh Income ,15^ ,12* ,18-** .oh Age .19* ,26** .10*

•«Significant at the ,05 level of confidence, «•«Significant at the ,01 level of confidence.

This seems to give scnie credence, though indirectly, to the suggestion of Lazarsfeld^ and Lubell^ that people who are in doubt as to -vhat course to take, or who are "normless" beca-use "they are subjected to “cross-pressures” are less likely to participate in political activity. However, the low correlations, particularly with Voting Apathy, do not allow confident acceptance of -their hypotheses, either. It may well be, of course, that a generalized scale such as this one has little application to conflict of issues such as they were describing.

Further, because we were surprised at the extremely low correlation between the Normlessness measure and Voting Apathy, we exsimined the mean Normlessness scores of the voters and non­ registrants and found them to be 7,50 and 7.89, respectively,

^Lazarsfeld, op. cit, ^ubell, op. cit, —81—

The critical ratio was .80, and therefore not significant. We also ran a correlation between Normlessness and Voting Apathy, excluding non-registrants, and found it to be .0$ (N = 252).

Social Isolation and the various Political Apathy scales.

Generally speaking, the hypotheses regarding Social Isolation and the various Political Apathy scales may tentatively be accepted, since the obtained correlations, while small, were statistically significant in three of the four instances. The correlation of

Social Isolation with Interest Apathy was .17; with Influence

Apathy, .17; with Behavior Apathy, .18; and with Voting Apathy,

.Hi.

IWien the effects of five background variables were partialled out, the correlations obtained were as shown in Table 2U,

Table 2ii. Partial Correlations Between Social Isolation and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled (N - 38U)

Variable Interest Influenc e Behavior Voting Controlled Apathy .. Apathy Apathy Apathy

Occupational prestige .16*4*- .17** .17** .111** Community Size .16** .17** .16** .11** Education .16** .16** .17** .m** Income .16** .16** .17** .Hi** Age .18** .18** .20** .13** iH*significant at the .01 level of confidence. —82—

Total Alienation and the various Political Apathy scales.

It was anticipated that a positive correlation would be found between total Alienation (the score of which is the suin of scores on Powerlessness, Normlessness and Social Isolation) and the

Political Apathy scales. These hypotheses may be regarded as sustained, for although the correlations are low, they are generally significant at the .01 level of confidence. Table 25 gives the results.

Table 25. Partial Correlations Between Alienation and the Various Political Apathy Scales, With the Effect of Five Background Variables Controlled (N = 381i)

Variable Interest Influence Beha^vior Voting Controlled Apathy Apathy Apathy Apathy

Occupational prestige . 1 3 ^ .15** .15** .07 Community Size .lh-«* .15** .17** .06 Education .12* .ih** .16** ,06 Income ,lh** .11* .15** .06 Age ,23** .19** ,2h** .11*

•«Significant at the .05 level of confidence. •«Significant at the ,01 level of confidence,

The mean Alienation score of the “voters" was 33.89; while for those who scored "7" on the Voting Apathy scale, it was 32,19,

The critical ratio was 1.59. The correlation between Total

Alienation and Voting Apathy, using only “voters" was only .Oh.

In conclusion, we may say that the hypotheses which predi­ cated a positive correlation between Ppwerlessness, Normlessness, —83-

Social Isolation, and total Alienation on the one hand, and the

Interest Apathy, Influence Apathy, and Behavior Apathy scales on the other, may tentatively be regarded as sustained, although the predictability yielded by the total Alienation measures is low indeed. The hypotheses regarding total Alienation and Voting

Apathy must be rejected; and these are, in a way, the most crucial test of the applicability of the Alienation concept to political apathj'’. None of the total Alienation scores tells us much about actual voting tendencies, when we deal with the total sample and : when we control for the possible influence of background variables on the relationship.

Alienation and Political Apathy in relation to five social background factors. Table 26 presents the correlations between the five socioeconomic factors utilized in this study and

Alienation and Political Apathy, It will be noted that these are as large or larger than the key correlations we have already reviewed (between Alienation and Political Apathy). -8L-

Table 26. Correlations Between Five Background Variables and the Alienation and Political Apathy Scales Ck = 381;)

Occu­ Cctn- Edu­ In ­ Variable p a tio n m unity c a t io n come Age

Powerlessness -.2CH*-* -.10* -.22** -.26** .15** Normlessness -.21*# -.10* -.18* -.li;** .13** Social Isolation -.07 -.06 -.11* -.13* — .02 A lie n a t io n -.19*# -.10* -.21** -.23** .12

Interest Apathy — .09 -.09 -.13** -.06 -.liO * * influence Apathy -.12* -.11;^* -.09 -.19** -.20** Behavior Apathy -.li;*# -.11* -.10* -.13** -.39** Voting Apathy -.03 -.11* -.06 — .05 -.38**

^«Significant at the ,05 level, ^!-*Sl gnif leant at the ,01 level.

For example, the significant negative correlations between

Powerlessness and Occupational Prestige (-.20), Education (-.22), and Income (-.26) seem to support Riesman and Glazer's^ assertion that the lower classes feel more powerless than the upper classes.

However, the low correlations seem to be in harmony with their remark that the middle and upper classes are also alienated; i.e., the feeling of powerlessness among the lovfer classes is not matched by attitudes of competence among the ruling classes. Normlessness likewise is correlated significantly (at or above the .05 level) with Occupational Prestige, Community Size, Education and Income.

Social Isolation, however, exhibits almost zero correlation with

7 Riesman and Glazer, op. cit., p. 517. -05-

the social background factors, except for Education (-.11) and

Income (-.13). The measure used for Education and for Income

is a static one; hence the data neither confirm nor dispute the

contention of Reusch^ and Peterson^ that the socially mobile

individual is more susceptible to feelings of isolation.

In brief, the hypothesized relationships between the

Alienation scales and the various sub-types of Political Apathy

were found to be correlated at points ranging from about ,10 to

about .?0, with the exception of Voting Apathy v/hich ranged from

about .05 to about ,15. These correlations barely met the minimum

for significance at the .05 to .01 level and so one may tentatively

regard the hypotheses as being sustained. In the practical sense,

however, neither Alienation nor the components of Powerlessness,

Normlessness or Social Isolation seem to account for very much of

the political apathy of our subjects.

Such results naturally raise questions as to the validity

of the Alienation scales. This problem, as well as certain other related problems, is treated more fully in Chapter VI. CHAPTER V

FINDINGS: AN ANALYSIS BY WARDS

This study was designed so that It might have "built-

in" replication, in the sense that we would have available

evidence from two comparable samples. It was intended that

V/ards 1 and ij should serve this pui’pose, since their voting

ratios and socioeconomic indices were generally the closest of

any two wards in the city. Critical ratios between the scores

on all background indices except age and on all test scores for

these two wards failed to reach the .05 level of significance.

We are reporting in this chapter, however, data for

all four wards, since by including Wards 11 and 12, we are able

to make some interesting observations on the manner in which

the key correlations vary from ward to ward.

It was thought desirable to determine the means of the

four wards in regard to the socioeconomic indices and each of

the test scores. The significance of variance among all wards was determined by an F testj while a critical ratio test was

used to detennine whether Wards 1 and h (the ones selected for

comparison purposes) differed significantly.

Table 2? indicates that the four selected wards differ

significantly in Occupational Prestige, Income and Ap-e. The

— 36— '" -37- dlfferences, however, are not so great as might have been expected, for these wards were selected to represent high-, medium-, and low- socioeconomic areas. It is quite possible that there was more bias in the returns from Wards 11 and 12 than from Wards 1 and li, and this fact may minimize the differences between wards. Yfard 11 was selected as the "uppei— middle” class ward, while Ward 12 was chosen as the "lower” class area. Our data (Tables Ih and 15, above) indicate that the education and income of respondents and non- respondents in Ward 11 were approximately equal. Respondents in

Ward 12 had noticeably more education and income than non-respond­ ents for that area.

It should also be mentioned that in eliminating the wards in Upper Arlington, Grandview Heights, and Bexley because of their high voting ratios (.75 and over), we automatically eliminated the extremes in Occupational Prestige, Education, and Income.

Thus, the fact that the mean scores on these indices do not differ a great deal is not too surprising. - 5 6 -

Table 27» Comparison of Wards on Four Background Variables

Critical Ratio standard F Between Variable T/ard'^' Mean Deviation Ratio Wards 1 and

Occupational '■ Prestige 1 61.31 3.11 .176 l4 ^,92 e.sh 11 67.91 7.38 12 65.61 9.83 3.736*

Community Size 1 3.)i9 2.h2 .277 I 3.39 2.28 11 3.30 2.25 12 2,68 2.25 1.866

Inc one 1 $1,233 15.38 .25 u 1,335 22.59 11 Ii,972 17.08 12 3,312 17.39 7.690**

Age 1 liO.hli 12.5U 2.86C'* li Ii6.l6 12.92 11 Ü5.85 11.55 12 liU.52 111 .05 L.0Ü6**

^Significant at the .05 level. *»Signifleant at the ,01 level.

#The N's for each analysis were as folloivs: V/ard 1 = 66; Ward h 67; Ward 11 = ll2; Ward 12 = 69,

critical ratio of 1.976 is required for the .05 level of significance; and 2,609 for the .01 level of significance.

In regard to Wards 1 and li, we found that they did not differ significantly from each other on any socioeconomdc index except Age. May it, then, be assumed that their Alienation scores were also similar? As shown in Table 28, this seems to be the case. -89- since none of the four critical ratios testing the significance of the mean difference for 7/ards 1 and Is approaches the .05 level of confidence. Note, however, that for all four wards, the F ratio indicates that there were significant differences in

Alienation scores, three of these F ratios being significant at the .01 level of confidence.

Table 28. Ccsnparison of Y,'ards on Mean Alienation Scores

Critical Ratio Standard F Between Variable Ward'^ Mean Deviation Ratio Wards 1 and h ^

Powerlessness 1 13.95 5.71 .70h ii „ 11.58 6.26 11 12.3U 5.h6 12 124.83 6.85 h.181««

Normlessness 1 7.67 h.70 1.368 h 6.62 h.h3 11 6.hi h.hh 12 8.91 5.Ü5 5.328«*

Social 1 11.13 h.71 l.h 9 Isolation h 12.2it 5.19 11 11.07 h.73 12 13. Oh 5.68 3.206*

Total 1 33. Oh 12.h3 .70 Alienation h 3h.Sh 13.88 11 30.56 12.36 12 36.72 15.05 h.170**

«Significant at the .05 level. ««Significant at the .01 level.

#The N's for each analysis were as follows: Ward 1 " 86; Ward h = 87; Ward 11 = 1^2; Ward 12 = 69*

##A critical ratio of 1.976 is required for the .05 level of significance; and 2.609 for the .01 level of significance. -90-

?fe turn next to a ccmparison of the wards on mean

Political Apatl-iy scores. ",Yards 1 and h are again quite conpar- ablej in no case does the critical ratio indicate a significant mean difference between these two wards. It should be noted that the F ratio for the four wards reaches the required level for statistical significance only in the case of Voting Apathy.

Table 29 gives a comparison of wards on mean Political Apathy

scores.

Table 29. Comparison of tVards on Mean Political Apathy Scores

Critical Ratio Standard F Between Variable Ward^ Mean Deviation Ratio Wards 1 and li"'

Interest 1 12.09 7.58 1.171 Apathy h 13.39 7.02 11 11.66 5.63 12 13.26 7.22 1.720

Influence 1 16.36 5.83 .lOh Apathj' h 16.L5 5.57 11 15.38 5.L9 12 16.1)3 5.17 1.102

Behavior 1 36.5U 13.60 .511 Apathy li 37.65 13.27 11 3li.ll 11.75 12 37.1ili 13.h3 1.938

Voting 1 3.81 2.66 .103 Apathy li 3.85 2.56 11 3.68 2.51 12 li.86 2.36 3.760*

^Significant at the .05 level. mThe N's for each analysis were as follov/s: VJard 1 = 56: Ward h = 87; Ward 11 = lii2; Ward 12 = 69. critical ratio of 1.976 is required for the ,05 level of significance; and 2,609 for the .01 level of significance. -91-

The correlations between the Alienation scales and the various Political Apathy scales, by ward and for the total sample, are presented in Table 30. It is intriguing to note that in many instances, the “spread” between certain correlations in the two wards which were chosen for ccsnparison purposes

(Wards 1 and h) is actually greater than the “spread" between

correlations for the same variables in V.'ards 11 and 12, Note,

for example, the reported correlation between Powerlessness and

Interest Apathy. We should also like to note a rather consistent pattern in Table 30. In nearly every instance, the correlations between Alienation and Apathy (of Whatever form) were lower for

Wards 11 and 12 (the "highest" and "lov/est" respectively in

socioeconomic status), and these results appear to depress the

correlations reported in the previous chapter. For example,

the correlation for Normless and Interest Apathy was .10; but

the correlation for the two replicated wards were .23 (Ward 1)

and ,2li (Ward h), in contrast to the lower correlations for

Wards 11 and 12» It is interesting to note, too, that Ward L,

in nearly every instance, exhibits the highest correlation between

the Alienation scales and the Political Apathy scales. -Q2-

Table 30. Correlations Between the Alienation Scales and the Political Apathy Scales, by 7fard and for the Total Sample

Interest Influence Behavior Voting Variable Hard- Apathy Apathy Apathy'- Apathy

Powerlessness 1 -.02 .02 .11 . .03 k ,32-** ,Ui .22* .111 11 -,02 ,12 .06 -.06 12 .03 ,11 .07 — .Go Total .10* ,13*-* .13** .03

Normlessness 1 ,23* ,oU .33** .111 h ,2li* ,lh .22* .07 11 .05 .09 .06 -.11 12 .11 .13 .15 .03 Total .10* .15** .19** .05

Social 1 .15 .05 .26* .23* Isolation h .35<* .21* .21* .18 11 ,19* .lia .19* -.03 12 -.02 .05 -.05 .06 Total .17** .17** .18** .111**

Total 1 .13 .Ola ,23* .11 Alienation h .23** .16 ,2la* .13 11 ,08 .12 .11 -.05 12 ,Ola .13 ,08 .01 Total ,15** .16** ,17^^ .07

-^Significant at the ,05 level, ■M-t'‘Significant at the ,01 level,

,'?The N's for each analysis were as follovcs : Ward 1 ® 66j Ward Ii = 87; Ward 11 = 11,2; Ward 12 = 69.

Now let us return to the question of why Wards 1 and la frequently differ in the level of correlations they exhibit between the Alienation scales and the Political Apathy' scales. It will be recalled that, exempt for Age, there was no significant difference between the two wards on the socioeconomic indices. It should be -93- fxirther recalled that gone of the highest correlations of all occurred lieunreen Age and the Political Apathy scales (see Table 26).

Does this perhaps aid in explaining Y.t.y these two wards, selected because of suppose.'.! similarity, failed in many instances to have correlations as similar as T'ards 11 and. 12? To determine vThcther this might be true, we partialled out the effect of Age on each correlation between the major variables. Table 31 presents the results :

Tabic 31. Partial Correlations Between the Alienation Scales and the Political Aoathy Scales with Age Controlled (Ytards 1 and ij)

Interest Influence Behavior Voting Variable Ward^ Apatliy Apathy Apathy Apathy

Pcrwerlessnes s 1 .02 .06 .16 .05 h .10 .17 .28 .20

Normlessness 1 .29 .08 M 2 .16 h. .31 .17 .28 .12

Social 1 .12 .01 .25 .21 Isolation h .37 .31 .25 .18

Alienation 1 .18 .08 .31 .13 ii .3h .18 .28 .17

;fThe N's for each analysis were as follovi's: 7/ard 1 “ 86; ■Ward h = 37.

It will be noted from Table 31 that elimination of the fact­ or of Ape does not significantly alter the correlations between the various Alienation scales and the several Political Apathy scales. - 914-

In an effort to explore the matter further, we partialled out every other social background factor also. The results are given in Table 32.

Table 32. Partial Correlations Between Powerlessness and Interest Apathy, with the Effect of Five Socioeconomic Factors Controlled (Wards 1 and ü)

Ward 1 Ward L Controlled Variable' (N = 36) (T = 67)

Occupational Prestige -.06 .32

Community Size -.02 .33

Education .06 .26

Income -.lii .31

Age .02 .ItC

^The zero-order correlation was -.02 in Ward 1, and .32 in Wai'd h.

However, it is true that the correlation between Powerless­ ness and Interest Apathy is the only one where the difference of correlations reached the ,05 level of significance. In other words, in 15 of the 16 correlations presented in Table 30, the difference could possibly have occurred by chance. The second largest difference (Table 30, Social Isolation and Interest Anathy ) was .20; the critical ratio was 1.23, which was considerably less than the 1.96 required for .05 significance.

With regard to the socioeconomic variables, it is intrigulrg to note that the correlations between the background variables and - 9 5 - the Alienation and Political Apathy scales tend to be as high or higher than the correlations between those directly concerned with the main hypotheses. Of further interest is the considerable variance among the correlations as is shov,n in Table 33»

Table 33. Correlations Between F iv e Socioeconomic Variables, the Alienation and the Political Apathy Scales (Wards 1 and ij )

Occu­ Com- Edu­ V a r ia b le Ward^ p a t io n t.: un i t y c a t i o n I n c o n e Age

Powerlcssncss 1 -.33 -.2li -.17 — .06 .06 It -.07 -.01 -.2lt -.23 .08

Normleasness 1 -.28 -.02 -.23 -.02 .01 It -.09 -.02 -.15 -.12 .08

Social Isolation 1 -.21 -.11 -.lit -.19 -.09 It -.02 -.08 -.lit -.1)4 -.Oh

Total Alienation 1 -.36 -.10 -.23 — .10 .07 h -.07 -.02 ■ -.22 -.21 .06

Interest Apathy 1 -.13 -.01 -.23 -.01 -.h7 It -.10 -.20 — .21 -.12 -.hh

Influence Apathy 1 -.02 -.01 -.02 -.01 -.h6 It -.17 -.20 -.19 -.29 -.29

Behavior Apathy 1 -.19 -.01 -.11 -.Oh — .50 It -.10 -.21 -.17 -.22 -.ho

Voting Apathy 1 -.01 -.09 -.01 -.Oh -.21 It -.08 -.27 -.07 -.Oh -.h3

^The N ’s for each analysis were as follows: Y/ard 1 = 66; Ward ü 87. -96-

We cannot leave this discussion •without noting the remark­ able consistency which Wards 11 and 12— the ^highest" and the

"lowest"" socioeconcmically— approximated each other in the correlations cited in Table 30. With the exceptions of the cor­ relations between Social Isolation and Interest Apathy and the correlations between Social Isolation and Political Apathy, they were very close together. V/hy these t-wo "differing" -wards should have in so many instances correlations closer together than the tv/o "similar" wards, we do not know. However, in only one instance out of 32 possibilities did the difference between cor­ relations reach the ,05 level of significance. Thus, for the

"replication" wards as well as for the total sample, the correla­ tions between the various forms of Alienation and the several forms of Political Apathy were uniformly low. The fact that the cor­ relations between variables ran from zero to .32, gives some indication that the scales we have constructed are not simply artifacts, but are apparently measuring genuine differences. CHAPTER VI

SU&mRY AND INTERPRETATION

1. Summary.

The goals of this research, as set forth in Chapter I, were: (A) to survey the literature on **alienation**, and attempt a systematic conceptualization of wtiat is now an amorphous and non-empirical construct; (H) to develop scales for the measure­ ment of alienation; (C) to develop scales for the measurement of political apathy; (D) to apply the alienation scales to a metropolitan sample in order to ascertain to what extent aliena­ tion and political apathy are related; and (E) to discover to what extent alienation might be a function of socioeconomic variables.

The Alienation concept. The literature led us to view

Alienation in terms of three components: Powerlessness (stressed particularly by Marx and Weber), Normlessness (including both

Durkheim’s concept of anomie, and the more recent notion of the conflict of norms), and Social Isolation (as reflected, for example, in the studies by Jaco and Hollingshead). Tfe noted that writers dealing with the concept of alienation frequently shift their meaning without warning. However, the basic meaning

-97- — 98— embodied in our three components, represent the substance of these various usages.

The Alienation Scales. In this research, we have for the first time (with the exception of a 5“item scale developed by Srole to measure "anomie”) attempted to develop scales for the concept of alienation. The intercorrelations among our three sub-scales (N = 38U) ranged from .lil for Normlessness and

Social Isolation to ,6? for Powerlessness and Normlessness.

Thus, these three components are, as one would expect, signifi­ cantly related to each other, but they seem nevertheless to be measuring discriminably different phenomena. We also checked to see hovf these scales were related to Adorno's ”F" scale, and found the correlations to vary from ,23 to .37. Thus we may plausibly assume that our alienation scales are measuring scxne- thing other than authoritarianism.

The Political Apathy Scales, In most studies of political apathy, the respondent's claim of having voted in a particular election has been the single criterion utilized to measure apathy or participation. We developed a scale, called Voting Apathy, • which we based not on one election, but on a series of twelve elections over a six-year period.

We also attempted to develop scales to measure an Inter­ est dimension (e.g., "Do you listen to radio or TV when it is announced that the President is going to speak?", an Information dimension (e.g., "TJho at the present time are the U. S, Senators -99- frorn Qiio?“ ), and an Influence dimension (e.g., “Have you ever signed a petition for an issue before the public?"). The

Information scale failed to yield a satisfactory reliability and was eliminated. The Interest and Influence scales were summed to give the score on Behavior Apathy. The Voting Apathy scale correlated ,57 with Interest Apathy, ,37 with Influence Apathy, and .50 with Behavior Apathy. Thus, it proved wise (as some have recently argued, e.g., Showel, Robinson) to have conceived of political apathy as having more than the single dimension of voting•

Gathering the Data. The sample was drawn from Columbus,

Ohio. Wards 1, h , 11 and 12 were chosen on the basis of the following criteria: (l) the wards should be distributed among the social classes; and (2) the voting ratio should not represent the extremes of voting or non-voting. Within each ward, random sampling was used to select the precincts and the individuals.

A total of 1108 individuals presumably received the questionnaire sent, of which h33, or 38.8 per cent responded. Comparisons between respondents and the general population (as reported in the 1950

Census) indicated that our respondents had slightly more education, somewhat larger Income, and were somewhat older than the general population. The same picture was presented when respondents and non-respondents in our sample were compared, A comparison of the respondents and non-respondents on their Voting Apathy scores indicated that except for Ward Li, the respondents had a signifi­ cantly lower Apathy score (i.e., tended to vote more) than did the —IOC— non-respondents. However, when the non-voters (i.e., those who had received a score of 7 on otir Voting Apathy scale) were eliminated from both the respondents and non-respondents, the percentage distribution on the remaining intervals of the Voting

Apathy scale corresponded very well. It appears, therefc.e,

that the major difference between the two groups lies in the

relatively greater number of non-respondents who did not vote at all, and who did not return the questionnaire either I

Alienation and Political Apathy. It was hypothesized

that each component of Alienation (Powerlessness, Normlessness,

and Social Isolation), as well as the total Alienation scale, would correlate positively with Voting Apathy, Interest Apathy,

Influence Apathy, and Behavior Apathy. The obtained correlations were generally low, barely reaching statistical significance in

most instances (.098 being required for the ,05 level of con­

f i d e n c e ) .

Since Age proved to have the highest correlation with

the various Apathy scales (about-whO), we partialled out the

factor of Age to see what relationships might then be obtained

between Alienation and Political Apathy. This operation increased

the size of the correlations from the average of ,15 to about ,20,

Total Alienation and Five Socioeconomic Variables, The

correlations between Powerlessness and the five socioeconomic

variables varied from -.26 for Income to ,15 for Age. The

correlations between Normlessness and the socioeconomic factors were of a similar order. The correlations between Social Isolation -101-

and the socioeconomic factors consistently approximated zero, the highest of these correlations being those vi-ith Education and

Income -vvhich -r.'-ere -.11 and -.13, respectively. The correlations between Total Alienation and the five socioeconomic variables were, as vfould be expected, of similar direction and magnitude.

All of the correlations reported above were obtained using the

total sample (irrespective of Ward) as the basis for comoutation.

The data were also analyzed on a ward basis. An analysis

of variance was computed to test for mean differences among the

four wards on the socioeconomic indices and the Alienation and

Political Apathy scores. The differences reached the ,05 level

of significance (or greater) for Occupational Prestige, Income,

and Age, even though we had eliminated the ^highest” and "lowest"

wards, socioeconomically, when væ restricted the choice of wards

to those who had reasonably similar voting ratios. In nearly

every instance, %'ard 11 exhibited the most favorable socioeconomic

indices, Ward 12 the poorest, with the other two (chosen for

comparison purposes) in between, A significant difference among

the vrards, at the ,05 level, was found on all Alienation scales.

For the Political Apathy scales, only the Voting Apathy scores

reached the .05 level of significance, with Ward 11 being the

"best", etc., as was true for the socioeconomic indices.

Wards 1 and li were originally chosen for comparative

purposes— i.e., as replicative wards selected for their presumed

similarity in socioeconomic characteristics. Only on Age, of all -102- the variables and scales measured, did the difference between

Wards 1 and li reach the .05 level of significance. Wards 1 and

Il were then assumed to be nearly enough alike that they might be used for "replicative** purposes (Age being partialled out of all significant correlations).

The correlations between the Alienation scales and the various Political Apathy scales for the two wards were th^n compared, here, as for the total samnle, the correlations were uniformly of l o ’.v magnitude. The largest difference wag the correlation between Powerlessness and Interest Apathy. In Ward 1 the correlation was -.02, while in Ward Ij it wag ,32. A differ­ ence of this magnitude is significant at greater than the ,01 level of confidence.

It is interesting to note, however, that the second largest difference (Table 30, Social Isolation and Interest

Apathy) was ,20; the critical ratio was 1.23, considerably less than the 1,96 required for ,05 significance. In other words, in 15 of the 16 correlations presented in comparing Wards 1 and li, only one attained the .05 level of significance, and the rest could have occurred by chance. However, we are unable to explain why, in so many instances, the difference between correlations of any two variables is so much less for Wards 11 and 12, the "high­ est" and "lowest", socioeconomically, than for the two comparative wards. - 103-

2. Interpretation.

Perhaps the most crucial findings in this research were the very low correlations between Alienation in its various forms and the Political Apathy scales. To the extent that we may assume the Powerlessness. Normlessness and Social Isolation scales to be valid, these results lend little credence to the hypothesis of Rosenberg that a sense of Powerlessness is "the cause" of non-voting; nor do they tend to support the oblique suggestions of Lazarsfeld and Lidjell that wiiat we have termed

Normlessness is related to oolitical apathy, and the suggestion of Lazarsfeld that Social Isolation is highly related to non­ voting

Perhaps the lo^v correlations between the Alienation scales, especially Powerlessness, and the Political Apathy scales may be explained by Adorno's suggestion that when the individual feels ovenvhelmed, he "personalizes" politics. That is, one who feels powerless may project power onto some father figure.

As mentioned in Chapter IV, until a scale is developed to measure

"personalization of politics", one can only speculate. Paradoxi­ cal as it may seem at first glance, then, the highly-alienated individual may not vote at all, or he may simplify complex political issues by a "personalized solution" for his sense of inadequacy and powerlessness. A follow-up research might indicate

^F'Or a fuller discussion of relevant literature, see Chapter II. -lo L - whether this combination of responses to powerlessness might provide an explanation of the low correlation between our

Poværlessness and Political Apathy scales.

In regard to the Normlessness component, it will be recalled that Riesman and Glazer^ suggest that the highly alienated individuals may frantically indulge in politics for apolitical motivations such as conformity, or use it as a "phobic sector" for psychopathoiogical needs. Our scales do not provide infor­ mation on which to base an opinion on this possibility. ’.Ve can only speculate as to the extent to wiiich "highly-alienated" individuals are "apathetic" and do not participate in politics, or the extent to which "highly-alienated" persons personalize and project psychopathological needs by participating. Certainly further research is imperative; and our own results perhaps high­ light the fact that the more subtle criteria for political apathy described by Riesman and Glazer would be most appropriate in such research.

The low correlations between the Alienation scales and the Voting Apathy scales raise once more the ancient controversy in regard to "attitudes" and "behavior". Since the time of

LaPiere's^ discovery of the wi.de variance between answers to questionnaires and behavior, the question has been a debatable

2 Riesman and Glazex', op. cit., pp. 505-59 •

^Richard T. LaPiere, "Attitudes Versus Actions," Social Forces, XV (December, 193il)> pp. 230-37. — 105“ issue. Except for the Voting Anathy scale, the various Political

Apathy scales are no niore "behavioral’* than the Alienation scales.

YAiich, th e r e fo r e , are more **valid'*— the s c a le s develooed to measure

Alienation (in a sense, an "attitude"), or the scales develooed to measure Political Aoathy (in a sense, "reported behavior")?

Since the various researchers mentioned above have not systemati­ cally exploited one another's work, and since validity has not been e s ta b lis h e d e ith e r in th e ir research or oui'S, i t cannot be conclusively argued that the Political Aoathy scales are more

"valid" than the Alienation ones. Heard is the only one who alternated to develop a Guttman scale— and his scale did not hold up in a second stucy. He believes that this fact "reveals serious limitations in the use o!‘ general concepts such as 'citizen participation'

Another question one must raise is whether Alienation is a generic trait. For example, Chapin^ lias remarked that indivi­ duals v/lio need aid from, social agencies are those v.tio "fall between" institutions—that is, those who are unable to maintain satisfy'-ing and viable relationships in their home lil’e, their church life, their occupational field, or "the government". In view of the fact that social psychology has been moving away from

"trait" analysis, it is in one sense not surprising that a generalized Alienation scale does not seem to predict political behavior very; well. In other words, perhaps "alienation" is

^Head’d, op. c it., p. 8,

^Francis Stuart Chapin, Contemporary American Institutions (New York: Harper and B rothers, 1 9 3 5 ). ' - 1 0 6 - situational, either in regard to institutional areas, or in regard to time. If this v.ere true, a scale such as Campbell's

“Sense of Political Efficacy” might exhibit a high correlation between "political alienation", rather than generalized alienation, and political apathy.

To elaborate further: Campbell defines "Sense of Political

Efficacy" as:

. . . the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process, i.e., that it is worth while to perform one’s civic duties. It is the feeling that political and social change is possible, and that the individual citizen can play a part in bringing about this change.-'

He developed four items which met the standard of reproducibility required for a satisfactory Guttman scale:

1, I don't think public officials care much what people like me think.

2, Voting is the only way that peoole like me can have any say about how the government imns things.

3, People like me don’t have anj/- say about mliat the goveimiment does.

L . Sometimes politics and government seem so compli­ cated that a person like me can’t really understand vhat ' 3 going on.

liVs included these items in our nretest, relating them all to the Powerlessness canponent. The judges' consensus would have allowed their retention. However, as indicated in Chapter

III, all items relating to political behavior per se were dropped from our scales to avoid spuriously high correlations.

Campbell, op. cit. -107-

The remark by ulbb, in his discussion of leadership, might very irell characterize the situation also in regard to

Alienation:'^

It may be that eventually seme . . , basic core of personal qualifications for leaders'nin rrlll be identi­ fied, but present indications are that leadership is not truly unitary, that there is no common trait that is always present to account for leadership in all spheres.

V,nether considered as a "trait" or as "definition of

the situation", alienation seems to hold a fascination for many modern social theorists (see Chapter II), and should be empiri­

cally investigated before the popularity of the concent outruns

its usefulness. As with many new "miracle drugs," ti.oue seoms

to be a tendency to arpjy ! ho new "prescription" indircriininatoly, without investigating the conditions under which it may be

effective v/ithout doing violence to tlic nat.-.cral order of things.

3. Suggestions for further Research.

As frequently happens in scl.’r^ific research, this study has raised more questions than it has ans^vered. The suggestions

for further research may conveniently be grouped under two headings: (a) Improving the Alienation and the Political Apathy

scales; and (b) Further applications of these concerts and scales.

Improvement of the scales developed here might be achieved either by lengthening them, or by determining if some other com­ ponents of Alienation or dimensions of Political Apathy might be

*^Cecil A. Gibb, "Leadership," in Handbook of Social Psychology, edited by Gardner Lindzey (Cambridge, Massachusetts : Addison-Vfesley Publishing Company, 195Ù), p. 911i. -1 0 8 — as yet undiscovered. Just such a possibility is suggested by

the fact that Srolescale could not be retained in our

Alienation scale because his items failed to meet our judging

and item analysis criteria. Yet his scale has been used by

Roberts and Rokeach^, who found that it was useful to a certain

extent in explaining authoritarianism and prejudice. We cor­ related Srole's "anomie" scale and our Normlessness scale, using the pre-test questionnaires, and found the correlations

to be .31. This is barely significant at the .01 level (N = 73)■

It T.lll be recalled that his five items, in our thinking and in

the thinking of our judges, did not center in one category, but were distributed in all three categories of Alienation. Jiirther

explorations of these relationships might prove rewarding.

As discussed above, it is important to discover whether

the Alienation scales we have constructed might be applied (or whether new ones might be developed to apply) to specific areas,

such as the work situation, the religious aspect of life, the family relationship, and other institutional areas. It is plausible that sane individuals may rank high in alienation with regard to one of these areas but low in another. For example, if institutional alienation scales were developed, an individual might have a "high alienation" score on the Political

Alienation aspect, but might have a "low alienation" score on

^Srole, op. cit. ^Roberts and Rokeach, op. cit. -109- iteins related to, say, religion. Thus, the adherents of Neo-

Orthodoxy in Protestantism, or the "cre-millenialists” among

Fundamentalists might very well be politically apathetic because they believe that international crises cannot be solved by man, but that the world can only be "saved" by the direct and personal intervention of God,

If the scales as developed in this investigation are used, there are several areas for possible research that come to mind. The faot that Social Isolation, as a concept, has been repeatedly exploited as an analytical tool regarding mental health should suggest that our Social Isolation scale might serve a useful function in that area. It may be surmised, too, that the Powerlessness and Normlessness aspects correlate positively with mental illness.

Another interesting research project would be the ex­ ploration of possible relationships between Normlessness and neuroticism. We have defln." Normlessness as the state of being hazy about one's values or being in conflict over tliem. The neurotic is characterized as one who can't make up his mind, who expends his energy in a profitless tug-of-war between con­ flicting desires. If such an investigation were undertaken, it might be possible to predict the future neurotic, and perhaps predict which individuals need counseling before their problems beccxne too severe. - 1 1 0 -

There are many other hypothesized ”consequences" which have been suggested by various writers, each in itself worthy of empirical research: for example, authoritarianism, conl’ormity, cynicism, political hyperactivity or apathy, personalization of politics, prejudice, privatization and suicide are reactions which writers have frequently assumed to be the result of

Alienation.

We have succeeded, here, in collating to some degree the amorphous literature on alienation, and in clarifying the concept sufficiently to allow the construction of scales for the measure­ ment of thi'ee components of alienation. When these scales were applied empirically to a phenomenon— namely, political apathy— which many writers hypothesized as being correlated with Alienation, the results appeared to argue against the significance of Aliena­ tion as a factor in political behavior. This raises serious questions as to the validity of the concept and of scales purport­ ing to measure Alienation, as well as the concept of, and the scales regarding. Political Apathy, Certainly much needs to be

done before the theoretical writings referred to in this work can be empirically substantiated or rejected as analytical tools for

"the science of society". APPENDIX A

Letter Requesting Interview

CAPITAL UNIVERSITY Department of Sociology

Columbus, Ohio

December 2, 19

Dear

We are making a survey of how people participate in public affairs. Your name has been selected by a scientific sampling process which, if every person responds, will guarantee that all segments of the population— rich and poor, men and women, grade school-oducated and college-educated— will be represented in proportion. No other one can take your place, for this would destroy the basis for saying our findings would mirror what the Columbus people as a whole think.

Shortly I shall telephone you to request the privilege of a 30-minute interview, at your convenience. Since anything you say will be held in strictest confidence, I am hopeful that you will say exactly what you think about a number of public issues.

Yours very truly,

Dwight G. Dean Instructor in Sociology

-1 1 1 - -1 1 2 -

APPENDIX B

Political Apathy Pretest

CITIZENSHIP SURVEY

Department of Sociology Capital University

Dear Friend:

We are making a survey of the various -ways people take part in the government of our nation. Would you help us under­ stand our democracy better, by taking 5 or 6 minutes to fill in the questionnaire belo?»? We would be very pleased if you wish to write in any comironts or questions,

B# 1, »fliat office does John Foster Dulles presently hold in the United States Government?

C 2, Have you ever run for public office? Yes__ ; No____ .

G* 3* Have you given money, bought tickets or anything to help the campaign for a certain party or candidate? Numerous times; Several tines; A few times; Once or tw ice; Mover.

A* i|. Do you like to read about the lives of candidates for public office? Very much so; Good deal; Moderate; Some Little.

A 5. Do you listen to radio or TV when it is announced that the President is going to speak? Always; Frequently; Sometimes ; Rarely; Never.

*(A}, (B)j, or (C) indicates items were written for the Interest, Information, or Influence Apathy scales, respectively,

* Items adapted from Campbell, et. al,, op, cit. -113-

C** 6, Do you sometimes try to influence people's opinions in political matters? Very frequently: Frequently; Sometimes; Rarely; Never,

A 7» In regard to Presidential elections, do you vote: Every time; Almost every time; Usually; ^Occasionally; Never.

C* 8. Do you ever work actively for the election of ary candidate for public office? Nearly always; Frequently; Sometimes; Seldom; Never have.

A 9, How frequently do you read in your newspaper editorials in regard to political happenings? Always; Frequently; Sometimis; Seldom; Never.

A# 10, Have you attended any political meetings, rallies, dinners, etc? Have you gone to a public meeting to hear a Presidential or Congressional candidate speak? Numerous timt^s; Several times; A few times; Rarely; Never.

A-^Hfr 11, How interested would you say you are in the affairs of our national government? Very much; Good deal; __ Moderately; A little; Hardly at- all.

G 12. Have you ever been appointed to a public office? Yes; No.

A 13. Did you vote in this year's May primary in Ohio? Yes; No.

B lii. \Vlio are at this time the U. S. Senators from Ohio?

A 1$. Do you intend to vote in the Congressional elections this year? Yes; No.

0-JH} l6. Do people ask you your opinion on current national affairs? Very frequently; Frequently; Sometimes Rarely; Never.

if-w-Items adapted from Lazarsfeld et. al., The People 's Choice, op. cit, -llh-

17* Do you cori.'ïulb I ho fLndlnca of aorno on^canizatloa before you v o U j? (Such an I^oanen of V/otwin '/obéra, labor union, fann orgarriy-abion, Chamber of Coimaerce, church).

Al,vnyu; __ Generally; S o i w î LI t o u i ; ^Onco or twJ.co; Never have.

lO. Al)oub how m,'my atrxeulincriba would you n n y have Ivjun made to our Un I bed S baben Conabibubion? At)oub L)0; About. 3'j] About 20; About 10 Mono.

19. Could you f'l vo un bhn name of your preclncbn capta bin? Republican j ______Democ ra b A c :

C 20. Do you think people nliouLd u r ib lc l« e j'overnmonb o f f c ia lo ? Critic I,%e any ti.wj; Criticize oiriy npocific actn; Should not criticize.

A 2 i . Yd ten you are concerned about fieme bli.l np e n fie c ia ijy lmjx)rtHnt, do you wri te or loiophone your Conf’ronruiwn? lju ite f njqiinntly ; Freijuontiy; ____ Someb imen ; If a re 1 y ; Never have,

13 22. Can you name our lfef>niMontat 1 ve In Conprosa?

A 23» If you worn nr pm a ted by the Gnvernmnnb to aorvo (in a c iv ilia n ca[>aciliy) in lino with your a b ilitlo B , would you accept? ____yon; iVo!ild conn 1 dor; No,

Aif 2)t. Thinkinp of three or four of your clou on t frlonda, can you nay whet nor or not they vote? Ai way n ; __Near'l>'' a iwayn ; U a u n l i y ; _____ Jdometimon ; ^Seldom if over.

B ?b. Who at the prone ni, tbiio in Spealcer of the U. S. Ilou.'io of hop t\ ! n n n t n 1 1 vo a ?

26, Co nourn in;/ the a o -c a liu d " o ff-y e a r o le c t i o no " when only U.S. Senator;) and ho|'ruoontativua— not a j'reuident—are elected), do you vote* bvury tiino ;______Almoat every tJuie; U sually Ocean tonally; Hardly over. -1 1 s -

C 27• Have you signed a petition for a candidate for public office? Numerous times ; __ Several times j Occasionally; Once or twice; ^Never. I 3 28. A bill to amend the Constitution of the United States must pass both Houses of Congress by: ___60%; ___67%; ___75%; ___8o%.

B 29. Do you like to listen to radio commentators speak on social issues? Yes; No.

C 30. Have you signed a petition on behalf of any issue before the people? Numerous times; Several times; Occasionally; Once or twice; Never.

A 31. Do you remember any time when a public office holder was of help to you or someone you know? Numerous times; Quite a few times; A few times; Once or twice; Never.

B 32. If the good pe0;)le took more interest in government, we could soon straighten out our problems. Strongly agree; Agree; Uncertain; Disagree; Strongly disagree.

B 33. Following are popular abbreviations of some Federal Government Agencies. Identify all you can. (For example, FTC refers to Federal Trade Commission.)

SEC HOLC FHA OPA GSA ______CAA ______^______FCC •______USDA ______FDIC ______FBI -116-

APPEiraiX C

Pretest of Alienation Scale

POTLIC OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

The following statements refer to opinions regarding a number of social issues about which some people agree and othei*s disagree. Please mark each statement in the left-hand margin according to your agreement or disagreensnt, as follor;s

1. slight support, agreement -1. slight opposition, disagreement 2. moderate support, " -2. moderate opposition, *' 3. strong support, " -3. strong opposition, "

N// l.'JHi- It is hardly fair to bring children into the world, the way things look for the future.

N 2, People's ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll ever have anything to dej)end on.

I 3» I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd really lilte.

P li.-JHf- There's really little use writing to public officials because often they aren't really interested in the problems of the average man,

N In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average man is getting worse, not better.

N 6. It is difficult to know what qualifications to demand in a person seeking public office.

N 7. One should never be required to do things which offend his taste.

■«■This pretest scale was scored in this manner so that it would agree exactly with the F (Authoritarian) Scale of Adorno, op. cit., p. 21.

■îHJThese items are taken from Srole's work (Chapter III, p. 39 above).

#P, N, and I indicate items written originally to apply to the Powerlessness, Normlessness, or Social Isolation scales. -117-

P 8. We have the know-how to prevent another major depression.

N 9. There is no point now in inquiring why China went Red.

N 10. Everything is relative, and there just aren’t any definite rules to live by.

I 11. One should hold his tongue about what he believes is right, rather than risk losing friends.

N 12. Most politicians sincerely try to keep their promises.

P 13» There is little chance for a promotion on the job uni.ess a man gets a broak.

N lii. People often sacrifice themselves for causes that aren’t really worthy.

I l5. Sometimes I feel all alone in the world.

P l6. The officials of our government just don’t— or can't— get close enough to the people to know their real problems.

P 17. Life is just one worrj'- after another.

N 18. I have trouble in deciding which man is best qualified for public office.

P 19. Life would be black indeed if it were proved tliat there is no personal, loving God.

P 20. Since they control the men in both parties anyhow, it doesn't make much difference whether I vote or not.

N 21. Sometimes I think the newspapers play up the stories of crippled children, etc., just to build up their cir­ culation.

N 22. It doesn’t matter so much what one believes, so long as he is sincere.

23. I think public officials care a good deal what people lil

N 21;. It is much more important to pay attention to today’s problems than to waste time studying history.

^ These items adapted from Ganpbell et. al., op. cit, -1 1 6 -

I 2^, Too many people take advantage of one if given half a chance. py/# 26. Voting is the only '«ay that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things.

P 27. I think we should leave decisions such as trade and tariffs, etc., to professional experts.

P 28. Too many people keep wishing for the simpler days.

P 2 9 . It's the little people who have final say about what the government does.

N 3 0 . The end often justifies the means.

I 3 1 . One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly.

P 3 2 . There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing a major "shooting" war.

P## 33» Politics and government are so complicated that most people can't really understand what's going on,

I 3U» It is easier to decide what is right when one is among friends.

P 3 5 . Sometimes I think that I would have been really a suc­ cess had I gotten the breaks that others get.

I 3 6 . Sometimes I associate with people whom I don't wholly approve of, because I do enjoy their company,

37* Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

P 3 6 . Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using me.

N 39 * Today, the achievement of certain goals is less im­ portant than the ability to get along with people.

N I4O. Scientists seem to get new ideas so fast that one wonders if they really know what they're talking about.

P id. I worry about the future facing today's children.

P h2. There isn't much we can do to stop Communism. -119- N U3« I think we should concentrate on our problems now, and let the future take care of itself.

I-JHt UU, In these days, a person doesn’t really know whom he can count on,

I ii5« I feel that I am more popular than most people.

N i|6. If people would only do what they know is right, we could straighten out our world in short order.

P L?. We could find the answer to oui' problems if we would but pray.

P U8. There's too much power in the hands of a few men in this country.

N 1)9. If you're going to the top, you can't spend much time worrying about others.

I So. I don't get to visit friends as often as I’d really like.

I 5l. Most people seldom feel lonel}'-,

N 52. I often wonder what the meaning of life really is.

P 53» I am confident our President will be able to avoid war.

N It is better to spend some money and enjoy life today, rather than save too much for the future, since we don't know what's going to happen.

P 55» We need experts today more than ever before.

I 56. Real friends are as easy to find as ever.

I 57* People are too suspicious any more.

N 58. The only certainty in today's world is uncertaintj’-.

P 59. The common people don't seem to count much nowadays.

P 60. I am confident our President will be able to avoid a depression.

N 61. It's hard to get ahead on the job without hurting others.

I 62. Most people can be trusted. - 120 - P 63. Careful planning -will assure success.

N 61|. The only thing one can be sui'e of today is that he can be sure of nothing.

I 65. Living would be lots more fun if people weren't so impersonal.

I 66. I like to spend much time alone.

N 67, It's hard to decide which is better— work to get ahead in one's job, or to spend more time helping others.

P 68. The future looks very dismal.

P 65. Life is just a series of disappointments,

N 70. I'm really not much worried about what may happen to­ morrow .

N 71. People are getting better all the time.

P 72. People in authority are generally fair to those be­ neath them

P 73. America seldom has been guilty of wrongdoing.

P 7U» There are so many decisions that have to be made today that sometimes I could just "blow up."

P 75. The American democratic form of government is the final and ideal form of government.

I 76. People are just too stupid to know what's good for them.

P 77. We are just so many cogs in the machinery of life.

I 78» tty" family doesn't understand me.

N 79* With so many religions abroad, one doesn't really know which to believe,

P 6 0 , God has a plan for each human life.

I 8 1 . There are more arguments in our family than in most families,

P 82 . iÎDSt of the noliticians are honest. -1 2 1 -

P 8 3 . I can't believe there is a personal, loving God looking after me.

P 8L. It is frightening to be responsible for the develop­ ment of a little child.

P 8$. People are just puppets on the stage of life.

I 86. There aren't many nice places to meet interesting friends any more.

N 8 7 . I would be more religious if I could only know God's will,

P 88. Our founding fathers wrote a wonderful Constitution, arid we shouldn't meddle with it.

I 8 9 . Kîany individuals are too selfish to make a success of their family living.

I 9 0 . No one cares what happens to me.

P 91* »'/hen we elect public officials, it's their job— not ours— to worry about civil defense.

P 9 2 . I sometimes doubt that prayer is very effective.

P 93» It would be better if we just voted for Governor, and let him appoint all state officers,

P 9U. If the price is high enough, most politicians will sell out to special interests, rather than voting for the people's interests.

I 9$ • The more people one I o i o ï j s , the richer one's life is,

I 96 , Our family life is as happy as that of most families.

P 9 7 . I just couldn't go on if our country ever ceased to exist as a nation.

I 9 8 . Lending is a good way to lose a friend.

P 9 9 . I believe that God is working out His great plan for the world.

N 100. One can't count too much on seniority for job security, since any company may go out of business in a few years. —122-*

I 101. The world we live in is basically a friendl}^ place.

I 102. Most people are concerned about the welfare of others around them.

P 103. Other things being equal, most people would rather work for a well-known company rather than for a locally- owned one.

P I0J4. There isn't much opportunity for me to advance fur­ ther on my job.

I 105. People criticize because they like to be cruel.

P 106. We're so regimented today that there's not much room for choice, even in personal matters.

I 107. It is soiretimes better to keep quiet about one's beliefs than to seem disagreeable.

N lOG. It's hard to tell what the boss wants most— people who really work or people who get along well with others.

I 1 0 9 » People are just naturally friendly and helpful.

P 110. I seldom w o n y about losing my job.

I 111. In ordinary social relations there is little sym^xithy and understanding.

P 112. 1 don't get much say as to how rry job at the plant is to be done.

N 113. It really is hard to decide whether to allow wire­ tapping by the FBI to catch subversives (and also run the risk of political snooping) .

1 III4.. Involvement in the affairs of others is a nuisance.

N 115. The average family today is in better position than was true 50 years ago.

N 116. There's no question about it— security considerations must have preference over our own doubts as to whether our defenses are adequate.

I 117. Beneath superficial callousness, people are generally sympathetic. -123- P U 8 . If a person is reallj>- capable, he shouldn't vorry about losing his job, for good people can always find work.

N 119. People like to buy merchandise that they know— goods that are advertised in the best magazines.

P 120. Our company doesn't care for its employeesj their only question is how much work they can get out of you.

P 121. We have the know-how to maintain peace— if people would only use what they knov;.

N 122. It's debatable whether it's better to go in debt for v;hat one needs, or take a lower standard of living and be debt-free.

N 123. It doesn't matter so much what one believes, so long as he is sincere.

I I2L. There are few dependable ties between people any more,

P 125. America will always be the greatest land of opportunity.

N 126« The children of today will have far better opportunities than we ever had.

I 127. Most people are more concerned about our country's welfare than about their own private gain.

I 12b, Most people get a real kick out of helping others.

P 129. Vfe can never understand the basic meaning of life in this universe.

N 130. Most people try to practice the fundamental prin­ doles that made this country great.

P 131. Even with skilled and devoted leaders, it is question­ able whether our own country can continue to survive as we have known it.

N 132. Most people have little trouble in finding their place in life.

P 133. There are few jobs in wliich a man is his own boss. -1 2 h - N 13b. There is no basic disagreement among Aiisricans re­ garding the things we stand for.

N 13$. Many politicians hide behind supposed "public opinion" rather than do what they know is right.

N 136 . Despite all changes, the tried and true principles are conscientiously observed by most people.

P 137. Most of the important decisions affecting the future of our country are made by a veiy few men.

N 1 3 6 . Most people have their minds pretty definitely made up as to what they want out of life.

N 1 3 9 . Despite our problems, it is more fun to be living today than in "the good old days." -125-

APPEMDLX D

Instructions for Judging Items for Alienation Scale

The object of this judging procedure is to verify or to modify the 'writer’s own judgment concerning the applicability of certain items to the concept of "Alienation. ’’

As vfe have conceived it, the concept of Alienation con­ sists essentially of three categories or sub-meanings. Those three meanings are covered by the notions of: (l) Powerless­ ness; (2 ) formlessness; and (3 ) Social Isolation. Each of these three components of Alienation is carefully defined below.

IVhat the judges are asked to do is to go through all of the items on the attached cards and indicate to which, if any, of these three components of Alienation thé item applies.

In order to do this most effectively, it seems wise to taka the categories one at a time, go through all of the items (Pack One), and indicate a judgment as to the clarity with which it belongs to the particular category under consideration.

We suiipest that you read the description of all three components before proceeding to judge, in order to get the entire concept clearly in mind. However, please keep in front of you only the sheet describing the category which you are judging at that particular time.

Each definition is followed by two items illustrating a positive- and a negative-type item which in our judgment does apply to that category in question. ("Positive" here læans an item which, if agreed to by the respondent, would indicate high Alienation; "Negative" means that it is an item which, if agreed to by the respondent, would indicate a low degree of Alienation.) —126— Please place the cards in three stacks, as follows;

Stack A indicating that you believe this item definitely belongs in the specified category.

Stack B indicating that you believe the item definitely DOES NOT belong in the specified category.

Stack C indicating that the item in some sense might possibly be measuring the specified component, but it is not clearly within the category as described. -127-

ALIE NATION

COMPONENT ONE - P0WERLSS5NESS

Component One refers essentially to the respondent's definition of his situation as one in which he is powerless to control the outcome. Marx first used the term ’’alienation” t% indicate the worker's separation from the tools of pro­ duction. y/eber extended the concept in his discussion of ''bureaucratization''— i.e., nearly all workers are "alienated” in his sense, from effective control over their work. Thus the core element which is involved refers to this notion of powerlessness, of the inability to effectively'’ control the outcome of events.

Two allied ideas which seem to reflect such a sense of lack of control are; (l) Ini’strumentalization and (2) Conyilex- iby. Instrurnentalization refers to the individual's sense of being used as a function rather than as a person, and of his inability to change this situation. Complexity is, so to speak, to say: "Things are so terribly complex that I can't really ma Ice enough sense of them to operate effectively." One may be overwhelmed by the sense of frustration because of the perceived inadequacy of resources commcnsui'ats with the task(s) at hand.

This component of Alienation may be visualized along this continuum:

LOIV POWERLESSNESS ^ ------^ H U H POWERLESSNESS

Sense of power Overwhelming complexity Sense of adequacy Lack of control over Confidence one's destiny Understanding Instrumental ization Competency Incomprehensibility Feelings of control over destiny -1 2 8 - PLEASE; Have only that page in front of you -nhile judging for Component One-Powerlessness, (You may read the descriptions of the other categories, but return to the preceding page, and have only that page in front of you iféiile judging for Component One). Judge every item— dropping the card in its proper stack— for its applicability for this Component before proceeding to the second category.

Positive: There’s no use to v#orr}' about the H-bomb, for one can’t do much about it.

Negative: Our nation has adequate means to prevent run-away inflation. - 129-

ALIE NATION

COMPONENT TWO - NORiaÆISSNESS

The second aspect of Alienation v#as first developed by Durlmeim in his studies of suicide. Anomie (which we consider as equivalent to this component of Alienation) results when there is sudden change in the social order— such as sudden economic loss or prosperity— in which previous scales cannot remain unchanged, the ’’calibration is turned topsy-turvy.. .yet... no new graduation can be qi ickly improvised.”

This aspect involves L^ehavior criteria (i.e., the lack of norms, uncertainty or "fogginess" of standards, or conflict among them). DeGraaia has dealt with the "conflict of directives" in our culture, such as coinpotition versus cooperation. Horney and others have spoken of conflicts in our "schizoid" culture. Maclver has described this as the "state of mind of one who has been pulled up from his moral I'oots, who no longer has any standardards but only disconnected urges, who no longer has any sense of continuity, of folk, of oblq;ation." These people have lost their sense of direction (both in the sense of "goals" and in the sense of time— they live only for the present).

The polar opposite would 1x3 a sense of putq^ose, of pro­ ceeding in a definite direction, of confidence and clarity in the given values of the social order, of a "compass" that points a course into the future. This involves a sense of order, of dependability in the social scene, of some kind of puroose (progress?) in the universe. There is certainty in the meaning­ ful ness of the individual's life.

The polar tyixes may be visualized like this:

LO'vY NOdMLESSTTEoG <------> HIGH N0RMLESSNE5S

Purpose Lack of norms Sense of direction Loss of "calibration" Goals Conflict of directives Intrinsic, sacred values Social order is fickle Dependability in social order Social order orderless, Sense of Destiny unpredictable "Progress" Lack of perspective (lives Definite standards of conduct in present only)

PLEASE; HAVE ONLY THIS SHEET IN FRONT OF YOU ,YHEN JUDGING FOR GOl.iPONENT TsYO. - 130 -

A L lÉNATION

COMPONENT THREE - SOCIAL ISOLATION

The basic element of this component is that of feeling rejected, deserted, alone, unwanted. This individual feels little obligation toward his family, friends, community. He sees people as cold, selfish, impersonal, and unconcerned with ego's welfare.

The polar opposite may be thought of as an Individual who feels a warm, friendly, supportive, dependable atmosphere in which he feels wanted and secure in his personal relation­ ships. This component may be visualized as follows:

LQN SOCIAL ISOLATION ------> HIGH SOCIAL ISOLATION

Warm, friendly, personal relations Aloneness Secure relationships Loneliness Supportive relationships Rejection Community identification Impersonality Confidence in dependability of one's acquaintances

PLEASE: HAVE ONLT THIS SHEET IN FRONT OF YOU WHEN JUDGING FCR COMPONENT THREE. - 1 3 1 -

APPEKDIX E

Final Questionnaire

PUBLIC OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE

Below are some statements regarding public issues, with which some people agree and others disagree. Please give us your own opinion about these items, i.e., viiether you agree or disagree with the items as they stand.

Please check in the aopropriate blank, as follows:

A (strongly Agree) ~a (Agree) _U (Uncertain) _d (Disagree) D (strongly Disagree)

I-*^ 1, Sonetimes I feel all alone in the world. A a U d D

P 2, I worry about the future facing today's children. A a U d D

I 3. I don't get invited out by friends as often as I'd really like. __ A a U d D

N I4. The endoften justifies the means. A a U d D

I 5 . Most people seldom feel lonely. A a U d D

P 6. Sometimes I have the feeling that other people are using me. A a __ II d D

N 7. People's ideas change so much that I wonder if we'll ever have anything to depend on. A a U d D

*(P), (N), and (I) indicate items written originally to apply to the concepts of Powerlessness, Narmlessness, or Social Isolation, respectively. -132-

P 8. Voting is the only way that people like me can have any say about how the government runs things. A a U d D

P 9. It is frightening to be responsible for the development of a little child, A __ a U d D

N 10. Everything is relative, and there just aren't any definite rules to live by. A a U d D

I 11. One can always find friends if he shows himself friendly. A a U d D

N 12, I often wonder what the meaning of life really is. A a U d D

P 1 3 . There is little or nothing I can do towards preventing a major "shooting" war. A __ a U d D

I IJ4. The world we live in is basically a friendly place. A a U d D

P 15 . Ihere are so many decisions that have to be made today that sanetimes I could just "blow up". A a U d D

N 16. The only thing one can be sure of today is that he can be sure of nothing, A __ a __ Ü ___d ___D

I 1 7 . There are few dependable ties between people apy more. A a U d D

P 1 8 . There is little chance for promotion on the job unless a man gets a break, A __ a U d D

N 19, With so many religions abroad, one doesn't really know which to believe. __ A __ a U d D

P 20. We're so regimented today that there's not much rocsn for choice, even in personal matters. *’ A____a ____U d D

P 21. We are just so many cogs in the machinery of life. A a U d n

I 22. People are just naturally friendly and helpful. A a U d D

P 23. The future looks very dismal. A a U d D -133-

I 2U. I don't get to visit friends as often as I'd really like, A a U d D

Following are a few questions as to how people participate in the affairs of our government. Please check the appropriate a n sw er.

25. Did you vote in the last primary election? (in Columbus this was the Sensenbrenner-Jones-Spears election.) Yes; No.

26. Do you sometimes try to influence people's opinions in D olitical matters? Very frequently; Frequently; Sometimes: Rarely; Never.

27 . Have you attended an^y political meetings, rallies, dinners, etc.? Have you gone to a public meeting to hear a President­ ial candidate or Congressional candidate speak? Numerous times; Several times; A few tim e s; R a r e l y ; ____ N ev er.

23. Do people ask you your opinion on current national affairs? Very frequently;Frequently; Sometimes: Rarely; Never.

29. Do you consult the findings of some organization before you vote? (Such as League of IVomen Voters, labor union, farm organization. Chamber of Commerce, church.) Always; Generally; Sometimes ; Once or twice; Never have.

30. Have you given money, bought tickets or anything to help the campaign for a certain party or candidate? Numerous times; Several times; A few times; Once or twice; Never.

31. In regard to Presidential elections, do you vote? Every time; Almost every time ; Usually; Occasionally; Never,

32, Do you ever work actively for the election of any candidate for public office? Nearly always; Frequently; Sometimes; Seldom; Never have,

33. Do you listen to radio or TV when it is announced that the President is going to speak? Always ; Frequently; ^Sometimes; Seldom; Never. -13h-

3U. Thinking of three or four of your closest friends, can you say whether or not they vote? Always; Nearly always; Usually; Sometimes; Seldom if ever.

35. Did you vote in the last Congressional elections? Yes; No,

36. Have you signed a netition for acandidate for public office? Numerous times; Several times; Occasionally; Once or tvd.ce; Never.

37. Concerning the so-called "off-year elections" (when only U. S. Senators and Representatives— not a President— ' are elected), do you vote: Every time; Almost every time; Usually; Occasionally; Hardly ever.

38. Have you signed a petition on behalf of any issue before the people? Numerous times; Several times; Occasionally; Once or twice ; Never.

39. IVhen you are concerned about something especially import­ ant, do you write or telephone your Congressman? Quite frequently; Frequently; Sometimes; Rarely; Never have.

UO, Are you, at the present time, a registered voter? Yes, but in another state; in Ohio, but not in Franklin County; in if’anklin County; no. I’m not registered now,

111. How long have you lived at your present address? Over 3 years; from 1 to 3 years; less than a year,

h2. What is your occupation—i.e ., vhat kind of work do you do?

U3. Were you brought up m o stly : _____ on a farm; in a small town; in a small city (2,500 to 25 , 000 ); in a city of 25,000 to 50,000; in a city of 50,000 tôT00,0O0; in a city of 100, OOv) to 250,000; in a city of 250,000 or m ore,

UU. Please check here if: Male; Female. -135“ li5» How many grades of school did you finisli? 1,2,3,L,$, 6,7,9,9,10,11,12; College: 1,2,3,L. Other (please specify), li6. V/ith which of the folloiving groups would your incane at tlie present time be found? less than $20 per week $100 to $119 per week $20 to $39 per week $120 to $139 per week $Lt0 to $59 per week $11(0 to $159 per week $60 to $79 per week $160 Or more per week $80 to $99 per week li7. In which of the following periods were you born?

1875-1679 1095-1899 1915-1919 1380-188L 1900-19QL 1920-192U 1685-1369 1905-1909 1925-1929 1890-1891 1910-191Ü 1930-193lt li8, Do you usually vote: Republican; Democratic ; Other (specify).

Ü9. Race: V/hite; Negro; Oriental, —136—

APPENDIX F

Covering Letter

CAPITAL UNIVERSITY D epartm ent o f S o c io lo g y

Col-unt)US, Ohio

One of the best ways for preserving our American way of life is by trying to understand it better. For this purpose, we are collecting data on the attitudes people have toward certain topics and the various ways they participate in public affairs. Will you please help us by taking 15 to 20 minutes to fill out the enclosed questionnaire? (You need not sign your name unless you w i s h .)

How did we come to ask you to take part in this study? First, we selected several typical areas of this city; then we chose a few names at random from the City Directoiy. In effect, each person chosen represents several hundred people. Thus, your cooperation means a great deal for the adequacy cf our findings.

We would particularly appreciate it if you ■n’ould return this questionnaire within the next day or two. A stajttped addressed envelope is enclosed for your convenience.

Yours very truly, :

Dwight G. Dean Acting Chairman Department of Sociology -137-

APPENDIX G

Follow-up Postal Card on Final Questionnaire

WON'T YOU

take just a few minutes to fill in the Public Opinion Questionnaire we mailed you a few days ago? Your opinions, as we indicated previously, are considered representative of several hundred people. It would be extremely helpful if you would take just a few minutes to give us your opinions. You need not sign your name unless you wish to do so.

Thank you.

Dwight G. Dean Department of Sociology Capital University -138-

APPEKDIX H

Second Follow—up Postal Card on Final Queotionnaire

PLEASE

If you have not answered the Public Opinion Questionnaire we sent you a few days ago, won't you please do so now? Although it mij^t seem that your reply could not be missed, believe me, it is very important for the completion of this study.

If you have any questions, you may 'phone me at DO 8709. (if you have already returned the Questionnaire— thanks I We have no record of who has answered, since they are anonymous.)

Dwight G. Dean Department of Sociology Capital University -139-

APPENDH I

Second Covering Letter (Second Copy of Questionna1rs Attached)

CAPITAL U N i m s i T Y Department of Sociology

Columbus, Ohio

June 17 , 1955

Dear Friend:

Some time ago væ mailed out a Public Opinion Questionnaire. To date about UOO people have been gracious enough to fill in the questionnaire and return it to us, Hoivever, in response to our follorr-up postal card, a number of people called to say they had not received our original letter and questionnaire. For this reason, we have taken 100 names at random, and are sending another copy of the questionnaire in the hope thatif the first one was lost in the mail or misplaced, many of you will help us at this time by responding.

The purpose of this inquiry is purely scientific. "T/e just want the facts.” Won't you please take about 15 minutes to fill it in? Remember, DO NOT SIGN YOUR NAME— but your opinions are very important for the results of this study.

Thank you so very much for your cooperation.

Yours very truly,

Dwight G. Dean Acting Chairman Department of Sociology Capital University -iJiO—

APPENDIX J

Summary of Correlations

Correlations for Variable Ward 1 Ward h Ward 11 Ward 12 Total

Occupational Pres­ tige and Community Size .Oh .10 .111 .16 .07 EduCati on .h3 .29 .37 .53 .ill Income .25 .h6 .31 .39 .38 Age .10 .01 .06 -.09 .00 Pov/erlessness -.33 -.07 -.16 -.20 -.20 Normlessness -.28 -.09 -.13 — . 28 -.21 Social Isolation -.21 — .02 -.07 -.03 -.07 Total Alienation -.36 -.07 -.13 -.17 -.19 Interest Apathy -.13 -.02 -.03 -.15 : -.09 Influence Apathy -.02 -.17 -.32 -.17 -.12 Behavior Apathy -.19 -.10 -.Oil -.22 -.111 Voting Apathy -.01 -.08 -.06 -.10 -.03

Community Size and E d u c a tio n .13 .02 .Oh JJi .05 Income .15 .08 .06 .02 .09 Age -.12 -.08 -.lit .02 -.06 Powerlessness -.2h -.01 -.18 -.12 -.10 Normlessness -.02 -.02 -.19 -.05 -.10 Social Isolation -.11 -.08 -.Oil -.05 -.06 Total Alienation -.10 -.02 -.06 .07 -.10 Interest Apathy -.01 -.20 -.11 .03 .09 Influence Apathy -.01 -.20 .09 .30 .15 Behavior Apathy -.01 — .21 -.07 -.17 -.11 Voting Apathy .09 .27 .Oh .00 -.11

Education and Income .12 .22 .17 .ijO .23 Afee -.15 -.22 -.39 -.30 -.28 Powerlessness -.17 -.2ii -.12 -.37 .22 Normlessness -.23 -.15 -.15 -.22 .18 Social Isolation -.lit -.lit -.02 -.16 -.11 Total Alienation -.23 -.22 -.lit -.29 .21 Interest Apathy -.23 -.21 -.02 -.22 -.13 Influence Apathy -.02 -.19 -.09 -.]6 .09 Behavior Apathy -.11 -.17 -.05 .23 .10 Voting Apathy -.01 .07 .lit .03 -.06 -Ill-

Correlations for Variable Y/ard 1 Y/ard 1 Ward 11 Ward 12 Total

Income and Age “ •15 -.01 .Où .38 .11 Powerlessness -.06 -.23 — .20 -.22 -.26 Normlessness -.02 -.12 — .08 -.25 -.lù Social Isolation -.19 -. lU -.05 -.05 -.13 Total Alienation -.18 -.21 -.19 -.21 -.23 Interest Apathy -.01 -.12 — .11 — .10 -.06 Influence Apathy -.00 -.29 -.27 -.02 -.19 Behavior Apathy -.01 -.22 -.19 -.02 -.13 Voting Apathy -.01 -• .où -.09 -. 10 -.05

Age and Powerlessness .06 .00 .11 .35 .lù Normlessness ,06 .08 .07 .3ù .13 Social Isolation -.09 — .OÙ -.02 ,03 -.02 Total Alienation .07 .06 .Ou .29 .12 Interest Apathy -.17 -.ùù -.30 -.ùù -.ÙO Influence Apathy - .16 -.29 — .21 -.28 -.26 Behavior Apathy -.19 -.ÙO -.3ù -.37 -.39 Voting Apathy -.21 -.Ù3 -.30 -.35 -.31 Powerlessness and Normlessness .57 .71 .75 . 66 .67 Social Isolation .19 .63 .ù9 .56 .5Î4 Total Alienation .83 .91 .91 .90 .89 Interest Apathy -.02 .32 -.02 .03 .10 Influence Apathy .02 .lù .12 .11 .13 Behavior Apathy .11 .22 .06 .07 .13 Voting Apathy .03 .lù -.06 -.03 .03 Normlessness and Social Isolation .37 .ùù •Il 2 .3ù .Ù1 Total Alienation .75 .79 .82 .79 .50 Interest Apathy .23 .2Ù .05 .11 .10 Influence Apathy .01 .lù .09 .13 .15 Behavior Apathy .33 .22 .06 .15 .19 Voting Apathy .11 .07 -.11 .03 .05 Social Isolation and Total Alienaticai .73 .78 .72 .73 .75 Interest Apathy .15 .35 .19 -.02 .17 Influence Apathy .05 .21 .lù .05 .17 Behavior Apathy .26 .2Ù .19 -.05 .18 Voting Apatiiy .23 .10 -.03 .06 .lù • u ? -

______Correlations for______Variable Ward 1 WardTi Ward 11 Ward 12 Total"

Total iVlienation and Interest Apathy ,13 ,20 ,0o ,0i. .15 Influence Apathy .C); ,?6 .]/! .13 .16 Behavior Apathy .13 ,2)\ .11 .03 ,17 Voting Apathy .11 3 -.05 .01 .07

Interest Apathy and Influence Apathy .56 .57 .61 .61 .58 Behavior Apathy .87 .91 .86 .88 .85 Voting Apathy ,50 .57 .18 .31 .57

Influence Apathy and Behavior Apatriy .81 .82 ,80 .82 .81 Voting Apathy .31 .5ii .28 .11 .37

Behavior Apathy and Voting Apathy .18 ,U9 .I4O .25 .50 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adorno, Theodor W. et al. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Brothers,~19S0,

Alper, Thelma G. "Task-Qrientation vs. Ego-Orlentation in Learning and Retention,” American Journal of Psychology, L3IC (April, 19Ü6), 236-J;8.

Arne son, Ben Albert. "Non-Voting J.n a 'fypioal Ohio Community,” AiTieriean Political Science Review, XIX (1925), 816-25.

Bakke, E. Y'ight. Citizens Without Work . New Haven: Yale University Press, l9)'C.

Bavelas, Alox end Kurt Lewin. "Training in Democraiic Leader­ ship," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXVII (January, 19ii2), 115-1/. oerelson, Bernard end IJorris Janowitz (editors). Reader in Public Opinion. Glencoe, Illinois: The h'ree Prec3^~Ti7557~'

______and Paul P. Lazarsfeld, **^Aomen : A ?>'ajor K'ololem for the FAC," Public Opinion Quarterly, DC (Spring, 19!t5), 79-82. ------

______, Paul F. Lazarsfelo and Viilliam N. McPhee, Voting :_A Stuciy of Opinion f ormation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Fv¥ss7~195H.

Bettelheim, Bruno. "Individual and Wass Behavior in Eictreme Situations," Journal of Abnormal Psj’chology, XXx .in (October, 19lt3), 1417-52'^

Blake, Robert R. "Social Standards and Individual Conduct," Southwest Social Science Quarterly, XXXV (June, 1958), 11-28.

Boisen, Anton T, The Exploration of the Inner Y/orld, Chicago: T/illett, Clark, 193?%

Religious Crisis and Customs : A Social and Psychological Study. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1955.

-183- BroTvn, Snory J. ”The Self as Related to Formal Participation in Three Pennsylvania Rural Ccaninunities,” Rural Sociology, XVIII (December, 19S3), 313-20,

Butler, David. “Voting Behavior and Its StU(^/ in Britain," British Journal of Sociology, VI (June, 1555)> 53-103.

Campbell, Angus, Gerald Gurin, and Waz-ren E. Miller. The Voter Decides. Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson and Gcmpany, 195ît•

______and Robert L. Kahn. The People Elect a President. Ann Arbor : University of Michigan, Survey Research Center Series, Publications IX, 1552.

Gantril, Hadley. Guaging Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 19m 7.

. The Invasion frcm Mars. Princeton: Princeton University Tress, 19hO.

______. The Psychology of Social Movements. New York: J. Yfiley and Sons, 19Ü1.

(ed.) Public Opinion. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951.

______and John Harding;. "The 15l2 Election: A Case Study in Political Psychology," Public Opinion Quarterly, VII (Summer, 19l3), 222-iil.

Cavan, Ruth S, Suicide. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1928.

Chapin, Francis Stuart. Contemporary American Institutions. New York: Harper and Brothers, 193^.

______Experimental Designs in Sociological Research. New lork: Harper and Brothers, 1917.

Cohen, Samuel E. and Benjamin lip stein. ‘^Response Errors in the Collection of Wage Statistics by Mail Questionnaire," Journal of the American Statistical Association, IVIX (June, W^T,~'èW-W. ------

Connelly, Gordon ÎÎ. and Harry N. Field. "The Non-Voter— VJho He is. What He Thinks," Public Ooinicn Quarterly, VIII (Summer, 1511), 1 7 5 - 8 7 . ------'------— Iii5“

Crutchfield, Richard S, "Conformity and Character," American Psychology, X (May, 1955), 191-98.

Davids, Anthony. "Alirnation. Social Apperception and Ego Structure, " Journal of Consulting Psychology, XIX (Pebiniary, 1955), 21-27. _ . "Comparison of Three '-ethods of Personality Assessment : oTrect, Indirect and Projective," Journal of Personality, XX.III (June, 1955), h23-UO,

. "Generality and Consistency of Relations Between the ATienation Syndrome and Cognitive Processes," Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps^-chology, LI (July, 1955) 61-7«

DeGi*azia, Alfred. The 7,'estern Px^blic, 1952 anci Beyond. Stanford, California; Stariford tiniversity Press, 1^5h.

DeGraaia, Sebastian. The Political Conununity : A Stu^' of Ancanie . Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 191:6.

Dinerman, Helen. "19ho Votes and the Making of a Preview," Public Uninion Quarterly, XII (Winter, 1986), 585-98.

Doby, John T. et al. An Introduction to Social Research. Harrisburg (Pennsylvania)! The"Stackpole " Cc*ipany7 Ï95L •

Bollard, John. Caste and Class in a Southern Town. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1937.

Dotson, Floyd, "Patterns of Voluntary Association Among Urban Working-Class Families," American Sociological Reviev/, XVI (October, 1951), 687-92,

Dozer, Donald M, "The Gap Between Government and the People," Public Opinion Quarterly, IX (Spring, 1985), 70-8,

Dublin, Louis I . and Bessie Dunzel. To Be Or Not To B e. Nev: York: Plarrison Smith and Robert Haas, 1933.

Durkheim, Ehiile. Suicide: A Study in Sociology. Glencoe, Illinois: The Fi^ec""P^€ss'^ ' 1951 •

Edwards, Allen L. Statisti c ^ Analysis far Students in Pgychology and Education. New York : Rinehart and Company, Inc .', 1958

]%rsenck, Hans J. ThePsychology of Politics. New York: Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., 1955• fUtch, Robert E. "The Fears of the Intelligentsia," Commentary, IV (October, 1951), 328-35.

îoskett, John M, "The Referent of the Concept 'Social Partici­ pation'," Research Studies SC?/, XXIII (June, 1955), 13o-Iili.

______. "Social Structure and Social Participation," American Sociological Review, XX (August, 1955), L31-3G.

Freeman, Howard E, "A Note on the Prediction of Vho Votes," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (Summer, 1953), 268-92.

and Morris Shov/el. "Differential Political Influence of Voluntary Associations," Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Spring, 1951), 703-lb.

Fromm, Erich, Escape From Freedas. New York: Farrar and Rine­ hart, 19bl.

"The Present Human Condition," The American Scholar, X:\V (Winter, 1 9 5 5 - 5 6 ) , 29-36.

The Sane Society. Nerr York: Rinehart and Corncanv» m r . ------

Gallup, George H. "They Want to be Good Citizens," National Municipal Review, XXXVI (January, 19b7), 26-31. Reprinted as "IMiat &!akes Us So Ignorant?" Reader's Digest, LII (March, 19b8), 119-21. “ '

Garrett, Henry E. Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, l9b8,

Gerth, Hans and C. Wright Mills. From Max Vfeber: Essays in Sociology. New York: Oxford University Press, l9b6.

Gibb, Cecil A. "Leadership," in Handbook of Social Psychology'', Edited by Gardner Lindzey., Cambridge, Massachusettsj Addison- Wesley Publishing Company, 195b), 91b,

Glazer, Nathan. "New Light on the Authoritarian Personality," Commentary, XVII (March, 195b), 289-97.

. "The 'Alienation' of Modern Man," Corrmentary III (April, 195b), 289-97.

Goldhamer, Herbert. "Voluntary Associations in the United States," Reader in Urban Sociology. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J. Reiss, Jr. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1951. Goode, William J. and Paul K. Hatt. Methods in Social Research» Nevr York: McGra-w-Hill Book Company, 19^2, '

Gosnell, Harold F. "Mobilizing the Electorate," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLIX (September, l^liS), 98-103*

______. "Does Campaigning Make a Difference^” Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (Fall, 1950), L13-18.

Gouldner, Alvin W. (ed.) Studies in Leadership. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.

Green, Arnold W. "Duolicity," Psychiatry, VI (November, 19Ü3), hJl-2h.

« "The Middle Class Male Child and Neui’osis," in Sociological Analysis. Edited by Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Ccanpany, 19h9.

______. "Social Values and Psychotherapy," Journal of Personality, XIV (March, 19)46), 199-226.

Greenwood, Ernest. Experimental Sociology: A Study in Method. Morningside Heights (Ner/ York): King’s Crown Press, 19L5.

Guilford, Joy Paul. Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education. New York: McGraw-Hill and Company, Inc ., I9u21

Gumpert, Martin. "The Physicians of Warsav/, " in American Scholar, XVIII, 205-90. Reprinted- in Joseph B. Gittler. Social Dynamics. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1952.

Helm03, Paul. Solitude and Privacy. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 195Ï1

Hartmann, George W. "A Field Experiment on the Comparative Effectiveness of 'Emotional’ Political Leaflets in Determining Election Results," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, X:ai (April-June, 1936), $9-llL.

Heard, Alexander et al. "A Study of Political Participation in Two North Carolina Counties," Research Previews, III (February, 1955), 1-8 .

Heberle, Rudolph, George Hillery Jr. and Frank Lovrich. "Con­ tinuity and Change in Voting Behavior in the 1952 Primaries in Louisiana," Southwest Social Science Quarterly, XXXIII (March, 1953), 32S-hT. -1Ü8-

Hemphill, John K, and Charles M. vrestie. "The Measurement of Group Dimensions," in The ^nguage of Social Research. Edited by Paul F. Lazarsfeld et al. ~Glencoe, Illinois: Thé îree Press, 1955. J- Henry, Andre-vr and James F. Short, Jr. Suicide and Hgr.icide. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 195C1

Hollingshead, August B ., Robert Ellis and E. Kirby. "Social Mobility and Mental Illness," American Sociological Review, XDC (October, 1951), 577-61. “

Korney, Karen. "Cul.tiurT and Neurosis," in Sociological Analysis. Edited by Logan Wilson and William L. Kolb. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 19L9.

Neurosis and Human Growth. New York: W. Vf. Norton and Company, Inc., 1950.

"Social Theory of Neurotic Conflict," in Psycho- logieal Iheor}'-: Contemporary Readings. Edited by Melvin H. Marx, New York: The Macmillan Carapany, 1951.

Howe, Irving. "This Age of Conformity," Partisan Review, XXI (January-February, 195Îi), 7-33.

Hyman, Herbert H. et al. Interviewing in Social Research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 19%.

Jaco, E. Gartly. "The Social Isolation Hynothesis and Schizo- ohrenia," American Sociological Review, XIX (October, 1953), 567-77.

Janowitz, Morris and Dwaine Marvick. "Authoritarianism and Political Behavior," Public Ooinion Quarterly, XVII (Summer, 1953), 165-201.

Jones, Vf. H. Morris. "In Defense of Ana thy, " Political Studies, II (February, 195ii), 25-37.

Kahl, Joseph A. and James A. Davis. "A Comparison of Indexes of Socio-Economic Status," American Sociological Review, XXIX (June, 1955), 317-25.

Kennedy, Elmer, "The Democratic Process," Chapter-3ù in An Introduction to Social Science, Volume II. Edited by George G. 1 Atteberr^'- et al. (New York: The Macmillan Company, 19h7).

Kitt, Alice S. and David 3, Gleicher. "Determinants of Voting Behavior," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (Fall, 1950), 393-hl2. - 119-

Knox, John B. "Llaximizlng the Reaiionae to Mail Questionnaires : A New Technique,** Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Suinmer, 1951), 366-67.

Kohn, Melvin L. and John A. Clausen, "oocial Isolation and Schizophrenia,** Amei-ican Sociological Review, XX (June, 1955), 266-73.

Kris, Ernst and Nathan Loites. "Trends in Twentieth Century Propaganda, '* in Reader in Ihibllc Opinion and Concnunlcati on. Edited by Bernard BereTs'on and Morris Janowitz. Glencoe, Illinois: The tree Press, 1950.

LaPirre, Rictard T. "Attitudes Versus Actions," Social Porces, XV (December, 193h), 230-37.

Lasswell, Harold I). "The Selective Effect of l^eracnality on Political Participation," in The Authoritarian I'er.sonality: Continuities in Social Research. ELÜted by Richard Christie and Marie Jah'oda. Gl encoe, ÎTTinois: The Pree Pr-css, 195L.

lac. arsfeld, I'Viul P., Bernard her el con and Hazel Gaudet, The People * s Choi ce. Nev/ York: Due 11, Sloan and Pearce, lyWi.

______and Morris Rosenberg (editors). The Language of Soci al Research. Glencoe, Illinois: The lYee Press, 1 % 5.

______and Raymond Pranzen. "Prediction of Political Behavior in America," American Sociolo('ic;il Reviev/, X (Anril, 19h5), 2(xl-73.

Lodcrle, John \V. "Party Finance in a IVcsidential Election Year," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLiX” (September," 191*8)', ^4-731

Lewin, Kurt. "Time Porai.ectivo and Morale," in Civilian .V or al e. Edited by George V/at:;on. Boston: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 191,2.

Linn, tlrvdn I... "I’he Influence of Liberalism and Conservatism on Voting Behavior," Public Gninion Quarterly, XI] 1 (Summer, 191,9), 299-309.

Lipset, Seymour M, et al. "The Psychology of Voting: An Analysis of Political behavior," in Handbook of Social Psychology, Volume II. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Addison- Vi'egley Company, 1951,.

Loomis, Cliarles P.-and J . Allan Deegle. Rural Social Systems. Mew York: lYentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. - 150-

Lowith, Karl. *t*an*s Self-Alienation in the Early Writings of Marx,'** Social Research, XX.I (Summer, 155b), 20I4-3O.

Lubell, Samuel, The Future of American Politics. New York : Harper and Brothers, 155$.

Lundberg, George A. Social Research; A Stuc^ in Methods of Gathering Data. New York: Longmans, Green and Company, 1551.

Maccoby, Eleanor E. et al. *Youth and Political C h a n g e , Public Opinion Quarterly, XVIII (Spring, 195b), 23-3?»

______. "Pitfalls in the Analysis of Panel Data: A Research Note on Some Technical Aspects of Voting," American Journal of Sociology, LXI (January', 1956), 35'^'“62.

Maelver, Robert P. The Ramparts Vte Guard. New York: The Macmillan Company, 195o.

MacRae, Duncan, Jr. "Occupations and the Congressional Vote, 19b0-1950," American Sociological Review, XX (June, 1955) 332-bO.

Mann, Peter H. "The Concept of Neighborliness," American Journal of Sociology, LX (September, 195b), 163-66,

Mannheim, Karl. Diagnosis of Our Time. London: Kegan Paul Trench Trubner and Company, l9b3 »

Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction. New York: Hareourt, Brace and Comnany, 19bl.

Marx, Karl. Capital. Translated by S. Moore, E. Aveling, and E. Untermann. Chicago: Charles H. Kerr and Comcany, 190b.

Iniarx, Melvin H. (ed.) Psychological Theory: Contemporary Read­ ings. New York: The Macmillan Compaivr, 19Ml.

Ma3ling, Josenh M. "Hov/ Neurotic is the Authoritarian?" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, IVIX (April, 195b), 316-18.

McCormick^ I’horcas C, and J, Richard Wahl. "Predicting Election Turnout: A Test of the Behavioral Hypothesis," American Journal of Sociology, LXI (July, 1555), 39-8?'.

îvIcKean, David Dayton. "Political Machines and National Elections," The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLIX (September, 19b8), b6-52.

McNemar, Quinn. Psychological Statistics. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., l9'b?'. -151-

Mead, Margaret. "Cultural Discontinuities and Personality Trans­ formation, " Journal of Social Issues, VIII (195L), 3-16,

Meier, Norman C. and Harold W. Saun 1ers (editors). The Polls and Public in ion. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 19ii9.

Meresko, Robert et al. "Rigidity of Attitudes Regarding Personal Habits and Its I'deological Correlates," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXilX (January, l?5h^, 89-9L.

Merriam, Charles E. and Harold F. Gosnell. Non-Voting: Its Causes and Methods of Control. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19^5.

______. "Progress In Political Research," American Political Science Review, XX (February, 1526), 1-15.

Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 19li9.

______. Mass Persuasion. Neiv York: Harper and Brothers, 19147. ______"Patterns of Influence: A Stud;'/ of Inter- Personal Influence and of Communications Beliavior in a Local Community," in Gcmuimnications Research. Edited by Paul Lazarsfeld and Frank N. Stanton. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19h9.

______et al. (editors). Reader in Bureaucracy. Glencoe, Illinois : The Free Press, 1952.

Miller, Mongo. "The Waukegan Study of Voter Turnout Prediction," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (Fall, 1952), 381-98.

Mills, C. Wright. V/hite Collar. New York : Oxford Uni-versity Press, 1951.

Montague, Joel B, Jr. "Anxiety Among English and American Boys," American Sociologie al Review, XX (December, 1955)j 665-39.

Montague, M. F. Ashley. The Direction of Human Development. New York : Harper and Brothers, 1955.

Moos, Malcolm and Bertram Koslin, "Political Leadership Reexamined," Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (Fall, 1951), 563-7li.

______. "Prestige Suggestion and Political Leadership," Public Ooinion Quarterly, XVI (Soring, 1952), 77-93. -152-

Mouton, Jane S.^ Robert R. Blake and Benjamin JVuchter. "The Reliability of Sociometric Measures," Sociometry, XVIII (Feb­ ruary, 1955), 7-L8.

Mowrer, Ernest B. Disorganization; Personal and Social. Chicago: J. B. Llppincott Company, l9h21

Lÿrdall, Gunnar. An American Dilemma. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19LL.

Nisbet, Robert A, Quest for Community. Nerr York: Oxford University ïhress, 19531

North, Cecil C. and Paul K. Hatt, "Jobis and Occuoations: A Popular Evaluation," in Sociological Analysis» Edited by Logan Wilson and William Kolb. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 19h9.

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. Glencoe, Illinois. ITie Free Press, 1951.

Parten, Mildred B. Surveys, Polls and Samples. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.

Peterson, William. "Is America Still the Land of Ooportunity?" Commentary, VI (November, 1953), ij77-66,

Porterfield, Austin L. and Robert W. Talbert. Crime, Suicide and Social Well-Being in Your State and City. Ft. Worth, Texas: Potishman Foundation, Ï9J18.

Rice, Stuart A. "Farmers and Workers in American Politics," Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, CXIII (192b), 7 = T r r . ------— ------

Riesman, David. Irrd 1 vidua 11 sm Reconsidered. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1953.

______and Nathan Glazer. "Criteria for Political Apatliy," in Studies in Leadership. Edited ’y/ Alvin Ward Gouldner. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1950.

, Nathan Glazer and Reuel Denney, The Lonely Crowd. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1950.

______and Reuel Denney. "Do the Mass Media ’Escape’ from Politics?" in Reader in Public Opinion and Communication. Edited by Bernard Berelson and Morris jWiowitz. Glencoe, Illinois: Tiie Free Press, 1950. -153“

Roberts, Allan H. and Milton Rokeach. "Anomie, Authoritarianism and Prejudice: A Replication," American Journal of Soci ol op;/, LVI (January, 1956), 355-58.

Robin non, "(V. 3. "The Motivational Structure of Political Parti­ cipation," American Sociological Review, XVII (Anril, 1952), 151-56. '

Rosenberg, Morris. "Some Determinants of Political Apathy," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVIII (Winter, 195h-55)> 3Ü9-66,

_ , "ITie Moaning of Politics in Mass Society," Kiblic Opinion Quarterly, XV (Spring, 1951), 5-35.

Ruesch, Jurgen. "Social Technique, Social Status, 'ind Social Change in Illness," in Personality in Mature, Society and Culture. Edited by Clyde Kluckhohn and Henry A. tirrray. N ew fork : Alfred A. Pnoof, 1950.

Schnidt, Calvin F, "Suicides in Seattle, 192)4 to 1925: An Ecological ar'’ dchovioristic Study," University of Washington Publications in the Social Sciences, V (October, 1 9 .

Sheri-f, Muzafer. The Psychology of Social Norms. Mew York: Harper and brothers, 193o.

___ and Hadley Cantril. The Psychology of Ego- !îrvvcTvëment s,"Social Attitudes and Ident if ica tTons . New York : John Wiley and sons, Inc., TyJiC.

Showel, Morris. "Political Consciousness and Attitudes in tlie State of Washington," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (Fall, 1953), 391a- ) 4 00.

Slocum, Walter I-. et al. "Increasing Response to Questionnaires and Structured Interviews," American Sociological Review, XXI (April, 1956), 221-25. ' "

Sjnith, Charles W. Jr. "Measurement of Mie Voter," The /uinals of the American Academy' of Political and Social Science, CCLXXXIIl (September, 15’5-T,' lL6-55.

Smith, George Hoi’sliy and Richard P. Davis. "Do the Votons Want the Parties Changed?" Public Opinion Quarter 1}', XI (Summer, 19Ù7), 236-L!i.

Social Science Research Council* "Research in Political Behavior: Interuniversitj' Seminar on Political Behavior," American Political Science Reviev;, ]?LV (December, 1952), 1' 03-12. -15U-

Srole, Leo. "Social Dysfunction, Personality and Social Distance Attitudes," Paper read before the American Sociological Society, Chicago, 1951. iiimeographed.

Starr, Shirley A. and helen i.acGill Hughes. "Tîeport on Educa­ tional Campaign: The Cincinnati Plan for the United Nations," in Principles of Sociology. Edited by Ronald Freedman et al. New" York : Harper and brothers, 19^L.

Stoetzel, Jean. "Voting Behavior in France," British Journal of Sociology, VI (1955), 10h-2C.

Suchman, Edward Allen, "Socio-Psychological Factors Affecting Prediction of Elections," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (Fall, 1952), L36-38.

The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 195h. New York: New York V/orId-Telegram and The Sun.

Wallace, David. "A Case for-and Against Eail Questionnaires," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVIII (Spring, 19Sh), hO~52.

Wardwell, Walter J. "The Reduction of Strain in a Marginal Social Role," American Journal of Sociology, LXI (July, 1955) 16-27.

Wechsler, Irving R. "Problems in the Use of Indirect Methods of Attitude Measurement," Public Ooinion Quarterly, XV (Spring, 1951), 133-38.

Williams, Benjamin H. "Public Opinion in a World of Power Politics," Public Opinion Quarterly, XI (Fall, 19!.i7), 361-67.

Zeisel, Hans. Sav it With Figures. New York: Harper and Brothers, 19h7.

Zentner, Henry. "Primary Group Affiliation and Institutional Group Morale," Dissertation Abstracts, XTJJ (1953), 900-05.

Zimmer, Basil G. "Participation of Migrants in Urban Structures," American Sociological Review, XX (April, 1955), 218-2L',. AUTÛEIOCKAPHY

I, Dvright Gantz Dean, -was b o m near Crooks ville, Chio,

December 9, 1918. I graduated from Richmondale ^igh School in 1936 . Vy undergraduate training was obtained at Capital

University, Columbus, Ohio, from viiich I received the degree

Bachelor of Arts in 19ij3. tiom Garrett Biblical Institute,

Evansten, Illinois, I received the Bachelor of Divinity degree in 19lt6. Yfhile there I served a pastorate in Chicago. From

Northv/esteni University I received the degree ’.'aster of Arts in

19li7. After several years as Instructor' in Sociolojjy at tire

Chicago City Junior College, I came to tire Ohio State University in 1951 » For two years I held an assistantship there while specializing in the Department of Sociology. In 1953, I was appointed Instructor in Sociology at Capital University,

Columbus, Ohio, and have continued in this appointment while completing the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy.

-155“