PARTICIPATION IN VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS AND STATUS INCONSISTENCY by JOSEPH MATHIJS PETER KNAPEN Candidaat, University of Tilburg, 1967 Doctorandus, University of Tilburg, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October 1981 (c) Joseph Mathijs Peter Knapen, 1981 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Anthropology and Sociology The University of British Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 Date November 28, 1981 nF-fi 17/19) i i ABSTRACT While it is an established fact that participation in voluntary organizations varies directly with social status, the more complex issue of the relationship between the pattern of individuals' rank positions in several status hierarchies and participation still remains unsettled. The purpose of this study is to reexamine Lenski's proposition that status inconsistency is an obstacle to participation in voluntary organizations. The reasoning behind this proposition is that people who have inconsistent, or unequally evaluated, statuses are often exposed to disturbing experiences in social interaction. They react to those experiences with a tendency to avoid or withdraw from certain forms of social intercourse, such as participation in voluntary organizations. It is therefore hypothesized that persons with inconsistent statuses have fewer memberships and are less likely to hold office in voluntary organizations than individuals whose statuses are consistent. The hypotheses are tested in a secondary analysis of survey data for samples of employed adults in two Canadian cities. The status dimensions are education, occupation, and income. Several status inconsistency variables are used, each defined in terms of different combinations of ranks on a pair of status dimensions. The analysis is guided by the assumption that a status inconsistency effect may be conceived as due to statistical interaction between the constituent status variables. Such effects might be present when an additive model of the relationships between two status variables and a given participation variable proves to fit the data inadequately. The analyses, using a dummy-variable multiple regression format, reveal that differences between observed values on the participation variables and the values predicted by a model of additive status effects are generally small and do not show the patterns expected under the hypotheses. Moreover, a nonadditive model, which includes a status inconsistency variable in addition to the two status variables from which it is formed, fails to explain even a moderate amount more variance in the dependent variables than the corresponding additive model. These results suggest that inconsistency between achieved socioeconomic statuses has no appreciable effect on membership or office-holding, over and above the effects of the status variables themselves. The conclusion is that the proposition of a negative association between status inconsistency and participation in voluntary organizations is not supported by the data of this research. It is suggested that these negative findings may be explained in part by dubious assumptions in the status inconsistency argument so far as it relates to participation and by methodological problems associated with identifying status inconsistency effects. However, the idea that frustrating and unpleasant social experiences may adversely affect participation in voluntary organizations is^ sensible and deserves further investigation. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ii LIST OF TABLES vii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS x INTRODUCTION 1 The Research Problem 1 Purpose and Scope of the Study 3 Synopsis of the Thesis 5 CHAPTER 1 VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS: FUNCTIONS AND PARTICIPATION 7 Voluntary Organizations Defined 8 Voluntary Organizations and Social Structure 12 The Mass Society Perspective 13 The Pluralist View 16 Personal Consequences of Participation for Members 19 Voluntary Organizations in Modern Urban Society: An Appraisal 21 Extent of Membership ." 21 Active Involvement 24 Internal Operation of Organizations ,26 Concluding Remarks 27 V Page CHAPTER 2 THEORETICAL ARGUMENTS 31 Determinants and Conditions of Participation in Voluntary Organizations 31 Status Inconsistency and Participation 37 The Concept of Status Inconsistency 37 Effects of Status Inconsistency: Findings from Previous Research 47 The Hypotheses 52 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY 55 Data Sources and Samples 55 Measurement of the Variables 59 Dependent Variables 60 Independent Variables 69 Methods of Analysis 74 The Core Problem: Isolating the Effects of Status Inconsistency 74 Status Inconsistency Effects as Statistical Interaction 81 General Strategy in Data Analysis 85 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS OF THE ANALYSES 89 Status Inconsistency and Membership in Voluntary Organizations 90 The Port Alberni Sample 90 The Vancouver Sample: Men 105 The Vancouver Sample: Employed Women 116 Summary 122 vi Page Status Inconsistency and Holding Office in Voluntary Organizations 125 Findings for the Three Samples 126 Summary 141 CHAPTER 5 CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 143 Conclusions 143 Some Reasons Why the Anticipated Effects of Status Inconsistency Were Not Found 147 Problems in Defining Status Inconsistency ..... 148 The Unknown Factor: Experience of Stress 152 Withdrawal Only as a Last Resort 158 Methodological Retrospection 162 Analysis Model Appropriate? 162 The Problem of Multicollinearity 167 The Effects of Socioeconomic Status on Participation 173 Conditions of Participation: A Concluding Note 178 LIST OF REFERENCES 186 APPENDIX 197 vi i LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Memberships in Voluntary Organizations for Port Alberni and Vancouver Samples (Percentages and Summary Statistics) 63 2. Number of Offices Held in Voluntary Organizations for Port Alberni and Vancouver Samples (Percentages and Summary Statistics) 68 3. Dummy-Variable Regression Analyses of the Number of Memberships in Voluntary Organizations on Education and Occupation: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Port Alberni Sample) 94 4. Observed Mean Number of Memberships and Deviations from Means Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Educational and Occupational Status (Port Alberni Sample) 96 5. Summary of the Effect of Education-Occupation Status Inconsistency on Membership (Port Alberni Sample) . 100 6. Dummy-Variable Regression Analyses of Number of Memberships on Pairs of Status Variables: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Vancouver Sample: Men) .... 107 7. Observed Mean Number of Memberships and Deviations from Means Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Pairs of Status Variables (Vancouver Sample: Men) 108 8. Summary of the Effects of Three Types of Status Inconsistency on Membership (Vancouver Sample: Men) 113 9. Dummy-Variable • Regression Analyses of Number of Memberships on Education and Occupation: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 120 vi i i Table Page 10. Observed Mean Number of Memberships and Deviations from Means Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Educational and Occupational Status (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 121 11. Summary of the Effect of Education-Occupation Status Inconsistency on Membership (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 121 12. Dummy-Variable Regression Analyses of the Proportion of Respondents Holding Office in Voluntary Organizations on Education and Occupation: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Port Alberni Sample) 133 13. Observed Proportions Office-Holders and Deviations from Proportions Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Educational and Occupational Status (Port Alberni Sample) 134 14. Summary of the Effect of Education-Occupation Status Inconsistency on Office-Holding (Port Alberni Sample) 134 15. Dummy-Variable Regression Analyses of the Proportion Office-Holders on Pairs of Status Variables: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Vancouver Sample: Men) 135 16. Observed Proportions Office-Holders and Deviations from Proportions Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Pairs of Status Variables (Vancouver Sample: Men) 136 17. Summary of the Effects of Three Types of Status Inconsistency on Office-Holding (Vancouver Sample: Men) 138 18. Dummy-Variable Regression Analyses of the Proportion Office-Holders on Education and Occupation: Additive and Nonadditive Models (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 139 ix Table Page 19. Observed Proportions Office-Holders and Deviations from Proportions Predicted Under Model of Additive Status Effects, by Educational and Occupational Status (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 140 20. Summary of the Effect of Education-Occupation Status Inconsistency on Office-Holding (Vancouver Sample: Employed Women) 140 21. Associations Between Measures of Socioeconomic Status and Participation in Voluntary Organizations for Port Alberni and Vancouver Samples 198 22. Associations Among