University Microfilms, a XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan a TEST of the VALUE CONCEPT S the RELATIONSHIPS
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
70-26,356 RUSHTON, Willard Travis, 1934- A TEST OF THE VALUE CONCEPT: THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VALUE COMMITMENTS AND POLITICAL PRE FERENCE. The Ohio State University, Ph.D., 1970 Sociology, general University Microfilms, A XEROX Company, Ann Arbor, Michigan A TEST OF THE VALUE CONCEPT s THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VALUE COMMITMENTS AND POLITICAL PREFERENCE DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Willard Travis Rush ton B.S., Mo Sc. ****** The Ohio State University 1970 Approved by Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author would like to recognize the following individuals for their contribution to the present study® First, a debt of gratitude is owed to Dr® A® R. Mangus for his guidance and support through most of the author's graduate study® To Dr® G® Howard Phillips, Chairman, and Drs® Raymond Sletto and Russell Dynes, members of the author's reading and examing committees, the author wishes to acknowledge helpful comments and criticisms® To M s s Madelin Olds, Friend and colleague, the author wishes to express his thanks for help in the collection of the data used in the study® And finally, the author wishes to express publicly his apprecia tion and thanks to his wife and children who endured® ii VITA Nov* 13s 1931* 0000 B o m - Ashtabula* Ohio I960 * * * «' « o 0 * B.S*» Th© Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas* College Station* Texas 196k e © « * ® © « * M» Ses* The Ohio State University* Columbus* Ohio 196^ © 0 0 ©' ©' o © * Research Assistant* Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University* Columbus* Ohio 1965 © o: o’ ®‘ o 0 a # Assistant Instructor* Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology* Th© Ohio State University* Columbus* Ohio 1965 ©oooooao Instructor* Department of Agricultural Eoonomics and Rural Sociology* Th© Ohio State University* Columbus* Ohio 1966 © * * • • , * © Teaching Assistant* Department of Sociology and Anthropology* The Ohio State University* Columbus* Ohio 1966 - 1969 Instructor* Department of Psychology* Sociology* and Education* Del Mar College* Corpus Christl* Texas 1969 « 1970 « © ©' © © Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology, Sociology* and Education* Del Mar College* Corpus Christ!* Texas iii PUBLICATIONS "A Systematic Conceptualization of "Farm Management," i-rith. E® T® Shaudys® Journal of P a m Economics,, Vol® **9® No® 1, Part I, February, 1967® FIELDS OF STUDY Major Fields Rural Sooiology Studies in Rural Sociology® Professors A® R® Mangus and Everett Rogers Studies in Research Methods and Statistics® Professors Robert Bullock and Kent Sofredrlan Studies in Social Psychology® Professors Enrico Quarantelli, Leon Warshay, and A® R® Mangus Studies in Sociological Theory® Professors Rosooe Hinkle and Leon Warshay Studies in Sociological Organization® Professors Eugene Haas, Christen Jonassen, and Dean Knudsen iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS VITA .............................. LIST OF TABLES . ............ ................. LIST OF FIGURES................................. Chapter I* INTRODUCTION.................. Statement of the Problem Assumptions and Definitions Specifics of th® Study Organization of the Study II o THE CONCEPT OF VALUE IN SOCIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS . 0 „ Concepts in General Philosophies of Soience Identifying Values The Value Concept Summary i n . METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES AND THE IDENTIFICATION OF VALUE CLUSTERS ....... .......... Collection of Opinion Statements Collection of Final Data Identification of Attitude Clusters Identification of Value Clusters Summary IV. VALUE COMMITMENTS AND POLITICAL PREFERENCE . Review of Literature Hypotheses and Findings Analysis of the Findings Summary Chapter Page V. SUMMARY* EVALUATION, AND CONCLUSIONS........... 105 Summary Evaluation Conclusions APPENDIX I* 113 II* W-6 III•••••••••••••••••••••••••«•• 160 WORKS CITED •••»••••••«*•«•••**••••• 169 vi LIST OF TABLES Table Pag© 1® Implications of Viewing Values as Objects of Orientation and as Internalised Standards a®®®®®®®®®®®® 22 2® Number of Returned Preliminary Questionnaires „ by Ethnic Group .s®®®®.®...........• ® ® « ® ® 30 3® Sample Characteristics ........ 34 4. Concern for Humanity Factors Relevant Data . ® • ® ® ® ® J6 5® Political and Economic Conservatism Factors Relevant Data o e ® o ® o ® ® ® . ® ® ® o ® ® 0 o o e ® ® ® ® ® 3? 6 ® Concern About Authority Factors Relevant Data • ® « ® ® 39 7® Authoritarian Conservatism Factors Relevant Data ® ® ® ® 41 8 ® Political Non-Intervention Factors Relevant Data ® • , • 4-3 9® Moral-Religious Factors Relevant Data oe®®®®®®® 44 10® Concern For Society Factors Relevant Data ® • ® • • ® • 46 11® Puritan Ethic Factors Relevant Data e®.®®.®.®® 47 12® Original Factor 9 and 10s Relevant Data ®®e®®®®® 48 13® Anti-Communisms Relevant Data e®*®*®®®®®®®® 49 14® Analysis of Three Value Factors s Relevant Data • • ® • . 51 15® Coefficients of Correlation Between th© Three Value Factors • • ......... 53 16® Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Value Factors® Total Sample and by Presidential Preference ® ® ® « • • 69 17® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Conservatism Scores by Presidential Preference •®®®»®»®®®® 70 vii Table Pag® 18. Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Concern for Society Scores by Presidential Preference . ® . ® . 0 71 19® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Political Mon® Intervention Scores by Presidential Preference ® ® ® 0 72 20o Parameters of the Original Humphrey Sample and the Random Sub-Sample on Three Values oo®.....®.® 76 21o Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Value Factors of Configuration Sample by Presidential Preference ® « ® • 77 22. Cumulative Predictive Accuracy of Conservatisms Concern for Society* and Political Non-Intervention Values • . 81 23® Frequenoy and Percentage Distributions of Nixon and Humphrey Supporters in th® Most Predictive Sub-set of Selected Predictive Factors ..e0eo. ........ 82 2^-0 Frequency and Percentage Distributions of Nixon and Humphrey Supporters Within the Democratic Party in the Most Predictive Sub-set of Selected Predictive Factors ® « « • ® . ......... 83 25® Cumulative Predictive Accuracy of Non-Value Factors ® ® ® 85 26® Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of Value Factors by Political Party Affiliation.................... 87 27® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Conservatism Scores by Political Party Affiliation ........ 88 28® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Concern for Society Scores by Political Party Affiliation . • • • 89 29® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Political Non- Intervention Scores by Political Party Affiliation ® • 90 30® Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Conservatism Scores of Individuals Indicating Candidate Philosophy as Most Important Criteria* by Presidential Preference 9^ 31 o Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Conservatism Scores of Individuals With at Least Some College Education* by Presidential Preference......... 96 viii Table Page 32. Mean Scores and Standard Deviations of the Conservatism Value Factor by Ethnicity and Presidential Preference 98 330 Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Anglo-American Conservatism Scores by Presidential Preference ® * 0 99 3^a Frequency and Percentage Distribution of Negro and Mexican American Conservatism Saores by Presidential Preference............. 100 350 Significance of the Differences Between Mean Conservatism Scores of Ethnic and Minority Groups and by Presidential Preference 101 36. Items in the Conservatism Value Factor . a . 161 37o Items in the Political Non-Intervention Value Factor o 16^ 38 a Items in th® Concern for Society Value Factor a a a « • 165 ix LIST OF FIGURES Figure Pag® 1. Location of the Twelve Selected Preoincts in Corpus Christi9 Texas ...................... 32 2 0 Schematic of Factors Impinging on Candidate Preference 53 3« Predictive Configurations of Presidential Preference Using Value Commitment Scores as Criteria . • • • • 78 4» Predictive Configurations of Presidential Preference Using Non-Value Factors as Criteria ........... 84 x CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Statement of th© Problem A recent article by Blake and Davis has called into question th© adequacy of value as an explanatory concept In sociology* They have suggested that values should be 11» • * abandoned as causal agents* * •" in sociology and that 0 ® should "* * * recognize them frankly as sheer constructs by -which wo attempt to fill in the subjective linkages in th® analysis of social causation*" They have also stated that "Insofar as an Investigator uses norms or values as explanatory principles for concrete behavior,, he therefore tends to b© explaining the known by th© unknown* th© specific by the unspecific o1'^ Kolb* on the other hand* has stated that the "interpretative" sociologist who is interested in explaining and understanding* * * o is willing to let the concept [of value ] stand or fall on the proposition that it does help in explaining and under- standing social action* and that proof of this lies in the fact that certain testable predictions concerning action « can be mad© by means of it that cannot be made without it* Judith Blake and Kingsley Davis* "Norms* Values* and Sanctions*" in Handbook of Modern Sociology« ed* by Robert E* L* Faris (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company* 196*0 * pp«> 46lJf63* ^William L* Kolb* "The Changing Prominence of Values in Modem Sociological Theory*" in Mod e m Sociological Theory in Continuity