Indices of Reciprocal Empathy in Adolescent Youth

Citation preview

WIZO

PUBDUE UNIVERSITY

TH IS IS TO CERTTFT THAT THE T H E SIS PR E PA R E D U N D E R MT SU P E R V IS IO N

BY___________ A le x ia M ich ael A n lk eeff ENTITLED

IRBIOES GW HBCIPROCAL EMFM^My m

ADOLBSgBKT TOOTH

COM PLIES WITH THE UNIVERSITY R EG ULA TIO NS O N GRADUATION T H E SE S

AN D IS APPRO VED B Y ME A S FU LFILLIN G TH IS PART O F TH E REQ UIREM ENTS

F O R TH E D E G R E E O F

Boetor o f Philosophy

^ .,.^ - ^ > > % » ^ ^ A ^ 4 t.> P R O F E S S O R IX C H A R G E O F T H E B IS

y ^H E A D O F S

chool or

D

epartm ent

TO TH E LIBRARIAN

m

TH IS T H E SIS IS NO T TO B E REG AR DED A S CONFIDENTIAL.

PS0F£690B

G B A D . S O K O O E F O R M 9 —3 - 4 9 —I M

L ésM ^^

E ff O H A B O B

amiCES OF HBCIPRGGAL EMPATHT m ADOLESCENT YOUTH A T h esis Submitted to th e F a c u lty of Purdue U n iv e rsity by A lexis M ichael A nikeeff In P a r t i a l F u lfillm e n t of th e Requirements f o r th e Degree of Doctor of Philosophy August, 1949

ProQuest Number: 27712186

All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is d e p e n d e n t upon the quality of the copy subm itted. In the unlikely e v e n t that the a u thor did not send a c o m p le te m anuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if m aterial had to be rem oved, a n o te will ind ica te the deletion.

uest ProQuest 27712186 Published by ProQuest LLO (2019). C opyright of the Dissertation is held by the Author. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States C o d e M icroform Edition © ProQuest LLO. ProQuest LLO. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.Q. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 4 8 1 0 6 - 1346

A0IN0WLEDGEMENT To P ro fesso r H* H. Remmers th e au th o r i s indebted f o r encouragement, guidance, use of th e Purdue Opinion P o ll machinery, b read th of v is io n on s o c ia l is s u e s , and an i n t r o ­ ductio n to a f r u i t f u l concept of empathy*

The p a tie n t and

generous advice on s t a t i s t i c a l problems given by P ro fe sso r !• W. Burr i s g r e a tly a p p re c ia te d .

The au th o r i s indebted

to P ro fesso rs J* H* T if f in , G* H* Lawshe, and R. W. F ie ld f o r serv in g on h is d o c to ra l committee and review ing t h i s t h e s is .

Although not o f f i c i a l l y a member of th e a u th o r’ s

committee. P ro fesso r E. J . Asher performed a l l r e q u is ite committee fu n c tio n s and f u l f i l l e d th e id e a ls on which th e committee system was founded.

The aid of P ro fe sso rs B. L*

Dodds and K. S. Davenport in review ing and e d itin g th e issu es used in th e q u e stio n n a ire proved very h e lp fu l.

For

in s tru c tio n in the use of I . B. M. equipment and f o r o th e r se rv ic e s th e author i s g r a te f u l to Mr, A. J . D rucker.

To

h is w ife, Josephine W. A nikeeff, th e author i s g r a te f u l f o r tra n s c rib in g i l l e g i b l e s c rib b lin g in to a read ab le th e s is , as w ell as f o r encouragement and genuine co o p eratio n through­ out h is graduate s tu d ie s .

ABSTRACT

T h irte e n thousand high school stu d e n ts answered ques­ tio n n a ir e s covering 20 s o c ia l iss u e s designed to d is c rim in a te between groups known o r assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith each o th e r.

From t h i s group a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample of 5300 s t u ­

dents was se le c te d f o r comprehensive study*

Areas of sex,

r e lig io n , ra c e , socio-economic s ta tu s and ru ra l-u rb a n r e s i ­ dence were chosen on which c o n f lic t between defined groups would occur. Each stu d en t placed him self in a defined group by an­ swering key q u estio n s in th e p erso n al d a ta s e c tio n of th e q u e stio n n a ire .

In th e follow ing s e c tio n th e stu d e n t p ro fe s s ­

ed h is a t titu d e on each issu e and ascrib ed th e a t titu d e s which he b eliev ed were held by members of both h is own group and those of a group known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith h is group.

This procedure p erm itted 15 comparisons of r e s ­

ponses to be made on each is s u e . computed f o r each comparison.

C r i t i c a l r a t i o s ( t) were

When th e c r i t i c a l r a t i o was

in s ig n ific a n t in th e tr a d i t i o n a l sense empathy was consid­ ered to occur.

I f both groups empathized w ith each o th e r

a s ta te of re c ip ro c a l empathy was assumed to e x i s t.

R ecip­

ro c a l empathy, here re p re s e n ts th e s ta te of optim al mutual understanding between groups. Four comparisons of th e 15 found on each issu e were se le c te d as being of major s ig n ific a n c e f o r th e m utual understanding between groups; (1) th e r e la tio n s h ip between

a c tu a l p ro fessed a t titu d e s of c o n f lic t groups, (2) th e r e la tio n s h ip between th e p ro fessed a t titu d e s of a group and those ascrib ed by th e opposing group, (3) th e r e la tio n s h ip between th e p ro fessed a t titu d e of a group and th e a t t i t u d e which i t a s c rib e s to i t s own group, (4) th e r e la tio n s h ip between the a t titu d e s ascrib ed by a group to i t s e l f and th o se ascrib ed to the group by th e o th e r group.

P earso n ian co ef­

f i c i e n t s of c o r r e la tio n s obtained f o r th e se fo u r r e la tio n ­ sh ip s ranged from .5 9 8 ± .098 to .964 ± .0 1 1 .

The f i r s t th re e

r e la tio n s h ip s were found not to be s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t from each o th e r.

The fo u rth r e la tio n s h ip was found s ig n i­

f ic a n tly d if f e r e n t and g r e a te r than the o th e r th re e th u s in d ic a tin g th e p o s s i b ilit y th a t both groups employ th e same ste re o ty p e . L i t t l e evidence was found of re c ip ro c a l empathy, a l ­ though se v e ra l in sta n c e s of in te r-g ro u p empathy were p re s e n t. D espite th e overwhelming number of s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e s between responses of c o n f lic t groups, th e se responses tend to vary c lo s e ly w ith each o th e r.

This fin d in g , when coupled

w ith th e n o n -sig n ifica n ce of th e a rith m e tic means and stan d ard d e v ia tio n s in each of the fo u r r e la tio n s h ip s , i s in te rp re te d to in d ic a te an ex isten c e of a g en eral c u ltu r a l u n ifo rm ity found in c o n f lic t groups.

Hence, although th e groups stu d ie d

are known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith each o th e r, th ey n e v e rth e le ss survive sid e by sid e in the same c u ltu r e .

TABLE OF CONTENTS P age

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM BACKGRODND OF THE PROBLEM AND A SURVEY OF THE LITERATURE..

1

H is to r ic a l D iscu ssio n .....................................................................

1

I n d u s tr ia l R esearch......................

3

P ro je c tiv e R esearch.........................................................................

6

M inority Group R esearch

............................................

7

.....................................................................

Ô

General R esearch...............................................................................

10

P ro sp ectu s............................................................................................

13

THE QUESTIONS, THE SAMPLE, THE POLLING MECHANISM...................

15

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN.....................................

19

EXPLANATION OF CONCEPTS.......................................................................

24

Empathie Base.....................................................................................

24

In te r-g ro u p Response

........................

25

....................................................................................

26

C lin ic a l R e se a rc h .

Empathy.

R eciprocal Empathy......................

27

........................................................

28

ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES...........................................................................

32

In tra -g ro u p Response

White v s . Negro......................................................................

34

P ro te s ta n t v s . C a th o lic ................................

46

Boys v s . G ir ls ...................................................................................

52

R ural v s. U rb an .

.........................................................................

66

Low v s . High Income.........................................................................

72

Summary.................................................................................................

80

Page

CORRELATION OF RELATIONSHIPS.........................................................

82

Empathie Base v s . Empathie B ase......................................

82

Empathie Base v s . In te r-g ro u p Response...............................

66

Empathie Base v s . In tra -g ro u p Response...............................

88

In te r-g ro u p v s . In tra -g ro u p Response..................................

90

Summary....................

95

SOMMART AND CONCLUSIONS...................................................................

97

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................

99

APPENDIX A.

THE QUESTIONNAIRE.....................................

102

APPENDIX B.

RESPONSES BY DEFINED GROUPS................................ 105

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE

Page

1.

Composition of S t r a t i f i e d Sample of High School Students Used in Making A n aly sis..................................

18

2.

Example; Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 56.............................................................

24

5*

Summary of Concepts..................................................................

30

4.

Continuum of U nderstanding

.......................................

31

5.

Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 45.................................................

34

6.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 45........................................................

35

7.

Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Question 5 1 . .............................................................

37

8.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 51.......................................................

38

9.

Yes Responses by R acial Groups to Question 52............................................................................

39

10.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R acial Groups to Q uestion 52..................

40

11.

Yes Responses by R acial Groups to Q uestion 54B..........................................................................

41

12.

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 54B...........................................

42

13.

Yes Responses by R e lig io u s Groups to Q uestion 54A........................................

44

14.

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 54A..............

45

15.

Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 3 9 ................................................................

46

16.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 39........................................................

47

17.

Yes Responses by R eligious Groups to Q uestion 55B...........................................................................

48

TABLE

P age

18.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R e lig io u s Groups to Q uestion 55B......................................................

49

19.

Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 53............

50

20.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R e lig io u s Groups to Q uestion 5 3 . ....................................

51

21.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 55A.................................

52

22.

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 55A......................................................

53

23.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 36.............................................

54

24.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 36..........

55

25.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 4 6 ........................................

56

26.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 4 6 . . , . .........................................

57

27.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Question 47.........................................................

58

28*

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 47........................

59

29.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 48........................

60

30.

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 4 8 . .....................................

61

51.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 49.............................................

62

32.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 49.........................................

63

33.

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 50............................

64

34.

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Question 50........................................................

65

TABIiE

35. Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion. .....................................................................

^age

«

66

36. S ig n ifiea n ce of Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 4 2 .......................

67

37. Yes Responses by Rural-U rban Groups to Q uestion 4 1 . ..............

63

38. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Rural-U rban Groups to Q uestion 41.......................................................

69

39. Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 4 0 . . ...............................................

70

40. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Rural-U rban Groups to Q uestion 40 ................

71

41. Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Question 4 4 . .........................................................................

72

42. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groupé:to Q uestion. 4 4 .......................................................

73

43. Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Q uestion 43...........................................

74

44. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Q uestion 43..........

75

45. Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Q uestion 3 8 . .............................................

76

46. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Q uestion 38.......................................

77

47. Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Question 3 7 . ......................................................................

78

48. S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Socio-economic Groups to Q uestion 3 7 . . . . ........................

79

49. Empathie Base v s. Empathie Base R e la tio n s h ip ................

83

50. One of T hirty-tw o P o ssib le R e latio n sh ip s Between Empathie Bases of A ll Tension Groups on A ll Tension Is s u e s ..........................

84

51. Summary of A ll R e la tio n sh ip s Found in T h e sis...............

87

TABLE

Page

52. Empathie Base rsr. In te r-g ro u p Response R e la tio n sh ip ...............................

88

55. Empathie Base v s . In tra -g ro u p Response R e la tio n sh ip ........................

89

54. In tra -g ro u p v s. In te r-g ro u p Response R e la tio n sh ip ...................................................

91

55. D ifferen ces Between C o rre la tio n s of R e la tio n s h ip s ...

92

56. U niform ity of R e la tio n sh ip s ; A rithm etic Means

95

57. U niform ity o f R e la tio n sh ip s ; Standard D e v ia tio n s ...

94

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM The problem under in v e s tig a tio n had as i t s major aim the id e n tif ic a tio n of fo rc e s which c re a te c o n f lic t.

More

s p e c if ic a lly th e purpose of th i s study was th e measurement of divergence between a ttitu d e s p ro fessed by a defined group and those of a group which i s known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith th e f i r s t group; e . g . , w h ites v s . Negroes, poor v s. w ealthy, C ath o lic v s . P ro te s ta n t, e tc .

In b r i e f ,

th e study i s one of th e kind and amount of empathy and/or p ro je c tio n of high school p u p ils on s p e c ifie d is s u e s .

BACiCGRODHD OF THE PROBIEM AND A SDRVET OF THE LITERATURE H is to r ic a l D iscussion The concept of empathy has found lim ite d prev alen ce in psychological re se a rc h .

From th e term ’s in c e p tio n in to psych­

o lo g ic a l l i t e r a t u r e in 1903, when empathy was tr a n s la te d ac­ cording to Boring (5) from Theodore L ip p s’ E infuhlung. to th e p resen t empathy has remained a concept whose meaning and u se ­ fu ln e s s depended in la rg e measure upon th e p r o c liv ity of th e p a r tic u la r in v e s tig a to r .

Remmers (26) plunged in to t h i s mael­

strom of semantic confusion to rescue empathy by d e fin in g i t o p e ra tio n a lly as a process o ccu rrin g when th e d iffe re n c e in a s u b je c t’s own score and h is estim ated group score i s not s t a ­ t i s t i c a l l y s ig n if ic a n t.

When t h i s d iffe re n c e i s s ig n if ic a n t

Remmers proposes th a t th e term p ro je c tio n be used.

As d efin ed

by Remmers, empathy prom ises to become a more f r u i t f u l con­ ce p t.

Empathy and p ro je c tio n when used in t h i s study are de­

fin ed in terms of Remmers’ o p e ra tio n a l d e f in itio n s . A llp o rt (1) re p o rts th a t some w rite r s have m aintained th a t our understanding of o th e r people d e riv e s p rim a rily from our cap acity to im ita te in some u s u a lly im p ercep tib le ways, th e behavior of the person we are try in g to understan d .

In

the simple form, A llp o rt suggests th a t th e d o c trin e of empathy i s merely a s p e c ia l case of th e in feren c e th e o ry ; namely, k in e s th e tic cues were o r ig in a lly a sso c ia te d w ith th e sub­ je c tiv e experience, hence when the cues re c u r in an im ita tiv e response th ey m erely r e in s t a te th e same o r ig in a l ex p erien ce.

As a r e s u l t , empathy becomes simply k in e s th e tic in fe re n c e . A llp o rt s tr e s s e s , however, th e f a c t th a t Theodore Lipps had a more complex view of th e n a tu re of empathy th an th e one d iscu ssed .

Although empathie meaning i s dependent upon our

own p a st ex p erien ces, i t has an e x c lu s iv e ly o b je c tiv e r e f e r ­ ence.

Furtherm ore, sin c e th e re i s no re c o g n itio n th a t th e

a c tiv ity i s lo cated in one’s body, i t should n o t be considered a merely im ita tiv e p ro cess. For Lipps th e re i s no d u a lity between th e s t r a i n , th e p rid e , th e sorrow or th e p la y fu ln e ss which an in d iv id u a l f e e ls em pathically and th e p e rs o n a lity of th e one whom th e in d iv id u a l is seeking to u n d erstan d .

In essence t h i s i s a

question of a u n ita ry o b je ct demanding a u n ita ry p e rc e p tio n . Unity i s n o t a sy n th e sis of a s so c ia tio n s in t h i s sen se, r a th e r i t i s something demanded by th e u n ity of th e o b je c t its e lf.

T h is, in b r ie f , i s A llp o r t’s in te r p r e ta tio n of L ipps.

Freud, according to A llp o r t, suggests t h a t empathy i s an a c tiv i ty which plays a p a rt only in th e u n derstanding of what i s e s s e n tia lly fo re ig n to one’s ego.

Hence, people who

have no p a r tic u la r em otional s ig n ific a n c e f o r us are under­ stood through empathy.

C onversely, those who are s im ila r to

o urselv es o r in some manner have em otional v alue f o r u s , are understood through a process more p ro p erly c a lle d i d e n t i f i ­ c a tio n .

Presumably empathy f o r Freud i s an i n t e l l e c t u a l -

i s t i c endeavor to understand by mimicry and in feren c e th o se a c t i v i t i e s which are not immediately i n t e l l i g i b l e , whereas id e n tif ic a tio n i s em otional and unconscious, and re q u ire s no

s p e c if ic mimicry. Baumgarten (8) holds th a t empathy, sympathy and under­ standin g are th re e forms of comprehending th e o th e r ego. I n tu itiv e comprehension w ithout previous ex perience i s th e a u th o r’s d e f in itio n of empathy.

Rosey (29) explaim s th e un­

canny mystery so lv in g a b i l i t y of a f i c t i o n a l d e te c tiv e c a lle d F a th e r Brown in term s of Brown’s a b i l i t y to put him self in th e ro le of th e p o ssib le m urderer.

M etcalf(19) u ses th e concept

of empathy to ex p lain the a c to r in a c tio n .

When a c tin g , th e

mind of th e a c to r i s c h a ra c te riz e d by a d u al consciousness. One p a rt of th e mind i s devoted to th e c h a ra c te r p o rtray ed Tidiile th e o th e r p a rt m ain tain s a c r i t i c a l a t titu d e on th e p a rt of th e a c to r ’s r e a l s e l f .

M etcalf claim s th a t th e a c to r

i s being him self w ith re fe re n c e to a r e a l s itu a tio n and i s sim ultaneously a c tin g as a f i c t i t i o u s c h a ra c te r w ith r e f e r ­ ence to an imaginary s itu a tio n .

Between th ese two s itu a tio n s

th e re i s a close r e la tio n s h ip and a c o n tin u a l in te rp la y . I n d u s tr ia l Research M ille r (20) ap p lied Remmers’ o p e ra tio n a l d e f in itio n of empathy to th e study of a t titu d e form ation and ste re o ty p in g in the in d u s tr ia l s itu a tio n .

The au th o r p o stu la te d th a t i f

ste re o ty p in g occurs in e ith e r or both in d u s t r ia l management and organized la b o r, a q u a n tita tiv e measure o f the amount of p ro je c tio n p resen t would lead to a more e a s ily f a c i l i t a t e d treatm en t of th e problems of in d u s t r ia l r e la tio n s .

An assump­

tio n was made th a t only by q u a n tita tiv e evidence of m easure-

ment could the problems of in d u s tr ia l s o c ie ty be o b je c tiv e ly handled.

Management was found not to ste re o ty p e la b o r le a d e rs

s ig n if ic a n tly .

Labor le a d e rs and la b o r rank and f i l e were

believed to be more a lik e by management, th an th e evidence showed management’s own a t titu d e s and management’ s p ro je c te d a t titu d e s to be.

In t h i s study th e s u b je c ts ’ responses to

F i l e ’s and Remmers’ t e s t of p sy c h o lo g ica lly e f f e c tiv e super­ v iso ry tech n iq u es, How S u p erv ise?, were a ls o compared w ith the r e s u lts found in th e fo llo w in g study. Remmers (88) in h er in v e s tig a tio n of la b o r le a d e r s ’ a ttitu d e s toward in d u s tr ia l su p e rv iso rs concluded th a t th e understanding of p sy c h o lo g ica lly b e s t su p erv iso ry methods in in d u stry i s g re a te r among la b o r le a d e rs than among in d u s t r ia l management, d e s p ite th e in d iv id u a l’s rank in th e m anagerial h ie ra rc h y .

Labor le a d e rs were found to score s ig n if ic a n tly

higher on How Supervise? when ta k in g th e t e s t as them selves than they score when p la c in g them selves in th e p o s itio n of management.

A d e f in ite tendency to ste re o ty p e management

was found on the p a r t of th e lab o r le a d e rs . Stagner (52) found th a t stu d e n ts who ra te d them selves p ro -la b o r saw th e ty p ic a l fa c to ry worker in a more p le a sa n t lig h t than those who ra te d them selves a n ti- la b o r . l i s t of twenty a d je c tiv e s was used.

A check­

In th e f i r s t column th e

student marked those a d je c tiv e s which he considered a p p lic a b le to fa c to ry w orkers.

In th e second column those a d je c tiv e s

were marked which were a p p lica b le to b u sin ess ex e cu tiv es. Those c h a r a c te r is tic s which were considered g e n e ra lly d e s i r -

ab le were marked in th e th ir d column.

In th e fo u rth column ,

th e su b je c t marked those a d je c tiv e s which he f e l t were ap p lica b le to h im self.

In g en eral s u b je c ts were found to

see them selves as resem bling th e group th ey p r e f e r , o r e ls e they appear to p ro je c t t h e i r own t r a i t s in to th e p re fe rre d group. Libo (18) in v e s tig a te d th e a t titu d e s of employees and in d u s tr ia l r e la tio n s men in which th e su b je c ts answered th e q u estio n n aire both as them selves and as members of th e oppos­ ing group.

Since in d u s t r ia l r e la tio n s men may be assumed to

understand t h e i r employees b e t te r th an o th e r in d iv id u a ls in the management h ie ra rc h y , th e r e s u lt s of t h i s study may p o ss­ ib ly p re se n t an inadequate estim ate of management’ s a t t i t u d e s . Proshansky (24) used th e Newcomb a ttitu d e sc a le to in v e s tig a te a ttitu d e s toward organized la b o r w ith th e assump­ tio n th a t extreme groups: i . e . , those in c lin in g toward stro n g ­ ly p ro -la b o r or a n ti- la b o r a t titu d e s , would re v e a l t h e i r s o c ia l o r ie n ta tio n through t h e i r manner of re p o rt upon p ic tu re s of s o c ia l c o n f lic t s itu a tio n s .

Three judges se le c te d p ic tu re s

from p e rio d ic a ls which were ambiguous in terms of v ic to ry or d e fe a t f o r th e cause of la b o r.

Seventeen a n ti- la b o r and

eighteen p ro -la b o r male co lleg e stu d e n ts took th e Newcomb a ttitu d e sc ale and th en subm itted them selves to a s e r ie s of p ro jec ted fiv e-seco n d p ic tu re s lid e exposures.

Follow ing

each exposure th e su b je c ts were in s tru c te d to w rite f o r two and a h a lf m inutes.

Proshansky claim s th a t t h i s method

p erm itted a r t i s t i c d is t o r ti o n a t th e tim e of th e o r ig in a l

6

p e rc e p tio n , or re tro s p e c tiv e f a l s i f i c a t i o n as a t titu d e began to work upon memory; or e la b o ra tio n of th e p ic tu re s* meaning by consciously going beyond anything th a t th e p ic tu re a c tu a lly o ffe re d .

The au thor found co n sid erab le agreement in d ic a te d

between Newcomb’s sc a le and th e p ic tu re resp o n ses as e v a lu a t­ ed by th re e judges.

This r e s u l t p erm itted Proshansky to con­

clude th a t the p e rc e p tio n and in te r p r e ta tio n of p ic tu re s serves adequately f o r group purposes as an in d ic a to r of a ttitu d e s which appear in th e Newcomb s c a le .

In t h i s connect­

ion i t may be p r o fita b le to co n sid er th e degree to which th e a t t i t u d i n a l f a c to rs dominate th e o r ig in a l p erce p tio n of the p ic tu re during exposure. P ro je c tiv e Research Walton (37) stu d ied th e r e la tio n s h ip between empathy and a r t i s t i c a b i l i t y in c h ild re n .

The au th o r p o stu la te d th a t

empathy i s re la te d to a r t i s t i c a b i l i t y sin ce the more a r t i s t ­ ic a ll y ta le n te d in d iv id u a l i s th e one who can more re a d ily and com pletely id e n tif y him self w ith th e o b je c t or s itu a tio n . L ines, co lo rs and f a c i a l ex p ressio n s were used to e l i c i t em­ p a th ie responses.

The empathie resp o n se, u s u a lly accompanied

w ith bodily re a c tio n s , was found to begin a t a very e a rly age. In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s in empathie responses appeared a t k in ­ d erg arte n age and were m anifest in a l l age-groups.

Walton

considers empathy a process of " fe e lin g o n eself in to " th e p e rc e p tu a l o b je c t.

Presumably p h y sio lo g ic a l p ro cesses, prob­

ably v is c e r a l and k in e s th e tic in n a tu re , take p la c e .

F a ilu r e

to recognize t h e i r p h y sio lo g ic a l c h a ra c te r causes i d e n t i f i ­ c a tio n of th e se empathie responses w ith th e o b je c t.

G u ilfo rd

(13) co n stru cted an a r t a p titu d e t e s t based on sco rin g lin e s drawn re p re s e n tin g v ario u s " f e e lin g s " .

S u b jec ts were re q u ire d

to in d ic a te which of a l i s t of " fe e lin g s " was most re p re s e n t­ a tiv e of each l i n e .

R esu lts were rep o rted to c o r r e la te r a th e r

highly w ith te a c h e r r a tin g s of s tu d e n ts. M inority Group Research D avidoff (8) found a p o s itiv e c o r r e la tio n between a ttitu d e s toward Negroes as expressed on an a t titu d e s t e s t and th e a ttitu d e s in d iv id u a ls a t t r i b u t e to o th e rs .

T his r e ­

la tio n s h ip remained unchanged d e s p ite th e f a m ilia r ity or non­ f a m ilia r ity of th e in d iv id u a ls whose a t titu d e s were judged. Of p a r tic u la r s ig n ific a n c e to th e p rese n t study i s Davidoff*s conclusion th a t empathy w ith Negroes i s p o s itiv e ly c o rre la te d w ith lack of p reju d ic e toward Negroes.

S appenfield (30) used

th e empathie approach in h is in v e s tig a tio n of a ttitu d e e s t i ­ mates of C a th o lic s, P ro te s ta n ts and Jews.

Q uestions on com­

munism, war, b ir th c o n tro l, conservatism and ra d ic a lis m served as th e stim ulus o b je c ts .

Statem ents were marked in

fo u r d if f e r e n t ways; according to th e respondent’ s own a t t i ­ tude and h is conception of P r o te s ta n ts ’ , C a th o lic s ’ and Jew ish a t titu d e s .

The stu d e n ts were found to b eliev e them selves more

l i b e r a l or r a d ic a l th an ty p ic a l members of t h e i r own r e lig io n . Jews were judged more r a d ic a l and more re c e p tiv e to communism th a n was a c tu a lly th e case.

In g en eral each respondent group

8

was found more lik e ly to id e n tif y i t s a t t i t u d e s w ith th a t of another r e lig io u s group th a n w ith th e ty p ic a l members of i t s own group.

Bayton (5) found th a t Negro co lleg e stu d e n ts

have r a c i a l ste re o ty p e s very s im ila r to th o se possessed by w hite co lleg e s tu d e n ts .

C h a ra c te ris tic s assigned to th e

" ty p ic a l Negro" were d if f e r e n t from those assigned by th e Negro stu d e n ts to them selves.

Bayton su g g ests th a t propa­

ganda i s more e f f e c tiv e in th e form ation of ste re o ty p e s th a n p erso n al c o n ta c ts , sin c e th e Negro accepts much of th e cha­ r a c t e r i s t i c s assigned to him by o th e r groups.

Katz (15, 16)

in v e stig a te d a t titu d e s of Seventh-Day A dventist high school c h ild re n towards th e Negro, as w ell a s , th e a ttitu d e s th e y ascribed to te a c h e rs , p a re n ts and classm ates concerning th e same is s u e .

More to le r a n t p u p ils g e n e ra lly p erceived a t t i ­

tudes of te a c h e rs and classm ates c o r r e c tly .

P a re n ta l i n f lu ­

ence was found to play th e g r e a te s t ro le in th e s u b je c ts ’ a t t i t u d i n a l p a tte r n s .

T his f a c to r becomes more noteworthy

when co n sid erin g th a t th e s u b je c ts ’ responses were le s s t o ­ le r a n t than th o se a ttr ib u te d to th e p a re n ts .

In g e n e ra l,

p u p ils underestim ated th e p a re n ts of t h e i r classm ates and overestim ated th e to le ra n c e of t h e i r te a c h e rs . C lin ic a l Research Tolman (54) d e sc rib e s th e use of empathy in p re d ic tin g su c cessfu l p ro b atio n ary p erio d s fo r female a p p lic a n ts b efo re a crim in al c o u rt.

F a ilu re to a sc rib e a c c u ra te ly th e a p p li­

c a n t’s a t titu d e toward p ro b atio n lowered co n sid erab ly th e

p re d ic tio n of su c cessfu l p ro b atio n ary a p p lic a n ts .

S ears (31)

te s te d th e hypothesis th a t any p e r s is te n tly m otivated h a b it o r a t titu d e may be p ro je c te d provided i t i s s u f f i c ie n tly rep reh en sib le to be refu sed re c o g n itio n by i t s p o sse sso r. S ubjects who lacked in s ig h t in to th e amount of a given t r a i t they them selves possessed ten d ed , on th e average to a t t r i b u t e a g re a te r amount of th a t t r a i t to o th e r in d iv id u a ls th a n d id those who possessed an equal amount of the t r a i t but had in ­ s ig h t in to t h e i r own p o ssessio n of th e t r a i t .

Those s u b je c ts

who lacked in s ig h t in to t h e i r own p o ssessio n of a t r a i t ra te d o th e rs more extrem ely on th a t t r a i t than did su b je c ts who possessed in s ig h t.

Lack of in s ig h t in flu en ced judgments on

c e rta in s p e c ific t r a i t s r a th e r th an on a l l t r a i t s .

S ears

evolved th e concept of c o n tra s t form ation to account f o r th e dynamic process re sp o n sib le fo r th e c o n s is te n tly n eg ativ e c o rre la tio n s found in th e in s ig h tf u l groups between amount of t r a i t possessed and th e amount a ttr ib u te d to o th e rs . Reichard (85) in a study of p re ju d ic e u sin g th e Rorshach p ro je c tiv e technique found s u b je c ts who were p reju d iced to be low in empathy and in s ig h t.

Wolf and Murray (39) in v e s­

tig a te d th e dynamics involved in judging p e r s o n a litie s .

In

r a tin g o th e r judges, a judge was u s u a lly found to r a te most a c c u ra te ly th e judge who resembled him most and ra te d le a s t ac cu rate ly th e judge who resembled him l e a s t .

As an explan­

a tio n f o r t h i s behavior th e authors suggest th a t an in d iv id u a l can only understand what he has alread y experienced.

Hence

w ithout empathy an in d iv id u a l i s not capable of making an

10

accu rate d iag n o sis and he can b e s t empathize w ith those whose responses resemble h is own. G eneral R esearch Wallen (56) in v e s tig a te d th e accuracy w ith which persons who liv e d in clo se d a ily co n tact w ith one an other could e s t i ­ mate th e a ttitu d e s of th e ir group, as w ell a s , th e degree o f p ro je c tio n involved.

Colledge stu d e n ts estim ated th e p e rc e n t­

age of stu d en ts in th e colledge who held c e r ta in opinions on war e n try , th e d r a f t , and th e S t. Lawrence Seaway. opinions were a lso in d ic a te d on th e same is s u e s .

T h eir own Wallen con­

cluded th a t a s ig n if ic a n t p ro p o rtio n of th e su b je c ts over­ estim ated in th e d ir e c tio n of t h e i r own o p in io n , although th e e rro r in one estim ate was not c lo se ly a sso c ia te d w ith th e e rro r in an o th er. Morgan and Morton (21) stu d ied th e d is t o r ti o n of s y llo g is tic reasoning produced by p erso n al co n v ictio n in 48 colleg e stu d e n ts. stim ulus o b je c ts .

Two s e ts of 15 syllogism s were used as

One s e t employed v i t a l c u rre n t iss u e s in ­

corporated in to s y ll o g is ti c form w hile th e o th e r s e t was p a r a lle l in form but replaced th e terms in th e prem ises w ith l e t t e r symbols.

P erso n al co n v ictio n s of th e respondent were

found to c o n trib u te about 35^ to the s e le c tio n of a conclu­ sion.

Presumably when an issu e i s embodied in a syllogism

th e respondent to such a syllogism b e lie v e s th a t he s e le c ts a conclusion based on lo g ic , a c tu a lly he i s being in flu en ced by

11

h is e o n ric tio n s , f e a r s or w ishes. Steinm etz (33) stu d ied th e a b i l i t y to p re d ic t t e s t responses of two a d u lt males and one a d u lt fem ale.

S tu d en ts

in an elem entary psychology c la s s took th e G u ilfo rd -M artin GAMIN t e s t and a s p e c ia lly co n stru cted r a tin g s c a le ; f i r s t , as they would answer th e item s, secondly as they b elieved the two males and th e female would answer.

The degree of

p ro je c tio n involved was found to vary markedly in both sexes w ith th e p a r tic u la r stim u lu s-su b je c t used.

Steinm etz con­

cluded th a t th e re e x is ts a r e l i a b l e tendency to r a te o n e se lf and o th ers h ig h er than one’s knowledge of o th e rs , as w ell as a tendency to r a te o th e rs as one r a te s h im self. Bordin (4) asked co lleg e stu d e n ts to sim ulate m edical, engineerin g , accounting, salesman and lawyer in te r e s t p a tte r n s on th e Strong V o cational I n te r e s t Blank.

Comparison w ith p re ­

sim ulated p a tte rn s revealed th a t a l l su b je c ts succeeded in sim ulating th e in te r e s t type re q u ire d .

In tro s p e c tiv e r e ­

p o rts gave evidence th a t each su b je c t answered in term s of h is im pression of what th e ty p ic a l member of the p a r tic u la r p ro fe ssio n a l group would say .

K elly , M iles and Terman (17)

using the Stanford M asculinity-F em ininity S cale found both men and women ab le to s h i f t t h e i r scores very s ig n if ic a n tly in the d esired d ir e c tio n . Grespi (6) used Lew Ayres, one tim e movie id o l, as an a ttitu d e o b je c t fo r g en eral opinions of the pu b lic toward co n scien tio u s o b je c to rs . c h e c k - lis t.

In a d d itio n , he gave 300 a d u lts a

The r e s u lt s of t h i s study revealed "what ev ery -

12

body believed** to be th e in te n s ity of p u b lic antagonism t o ­ ward co n scien tio u s o b je c to rs f a r in excess of a c tu a l f a c t s . A ll sub-groups of th e sample stu d ie d clung to t h i s in f la te d ste re o ty p e .

S p ecial in te r e s t groups r a th e r th an th e p u b lic

were re sp o n sib le f o r a c tiv e antagonism toward co n scien tio u s o b je c to rs according to G respi. T ravers (35) in v e stig a te d th e a ttitu d e s of co lleg e stu d en ts toward s o c ia l and economic is s u e s .

Each su b ject

completed a q u estio n n aire and a lso estim ated th e probable degree of agreement on th e issu e by th e group and th e n a tio n . E rro rs ranged from 0^ to 100^.

The judge tended to over­

estim ate th e percentage of th e group being judged who th in k s as he does.

The degree of f e e lin g by th e in d iv id u a l has

l i t t l e e f f e c t upon th e amount by which h is judgment of group opinion i s biased by h is own.

In g e n e ra l, th e e rro rs made

in judging a group on one issu e tended to c o rre la te w ith judgment upon o th e r is s u e s .

On th e average, e rro rs of in ­

d iv id u a l judgments of group opinion were found to be la rg e . As might be expected, th e mean of se v eral judgments was found b e t te r than any s in g le judgment.

Ho s ig n if ic a n t sex d i f f e r ­

ences were found in a b i l i t y to make group judgments.

Dub in

(9) asked su b je c ts to co n stru c t th e world as th ey saw i t w ith 80 to y s re p re se n tin g fo u r fu n c tio n a l groups; namely, war, p u b lic s e rv ic e -p ro te c tiv e , lab o r and l a s t l y , tr a v e l and en tertain m en t.

A fter studying d e s c rip tio n s of subjects*

e f f o r ts , judges p re d ic te d the in d iv id u a l s u b je c t's responses to Murphy and L ik e r t's Survey of Opinions which covered

15

economic and p o l i t i c a l view s.

The rank d iffe re n c e c o r r e l­

a tio n between a l l the judges* e stim a tes and a l l th e subjects* responses was .49.

In d iv id u a l d iffe re n c e s were found in th e

p re d ic tin g power of judges.

Some subjects* responses were

more re a d ily p re d ic te d than o th e rs .

This f a c t was e s p e c ia l­

ly evident f o r th o se s u b je c ts who revealed th e judges* p a r t­ ic u la r p o l i t i c a l p a tte r n of th in k in g . P rospectus Murphy (22) su g g ests th a t we need to emphasize in our in te rn a tio n a l r e la tio n s th e elem entary psychological method of p u ttin g o u rselv es in th e p laces of those whom we would understand.

Wiersma (38) propounds th e need of p a re n ts ,

te a c h e rs, p sy ch o lo g ists and p h y sician s to be able to em­ p a th iz e .

The p resen t study considers empathy to be th e crux

of th e problem of un d erstan d in g .

R eciprocal empathy i s con­

sid e re d to be th e s ta te of optim al mutual understanding.

No

claim s are made th a t re c ip ro c a l empathy or th e s ta te of optim al mutual understanding between c o n f lic t groups w ill of i t s e l f c re a te a world panacea.

At le a s t two o th er major

fa c to rs are involved before a semblance of a world harmony can be reached.

These fa c to rs are m otivation and a b i l i t y .

A fter th e c o n f lic t group i s understood, opposing group members must be m otivated to improve th e r e la tio n s which are understood to e x i s t.

Once th e m otivation to improve th e

r e la tio n s which are understood to e x is t i s engendered, th e re remains th e problem of having th e r e q u is ite a b i l i t y o r s k i l l

14

to oonsumate th e improvement. as v i t a l f o r world harmony:

Three f a c to r s are p o stu la te d mutual u n d erstan d in g , m o tiv atio n

to Improve the r e la tio n s which are understood to e x is t and th e a b i l i t y or s k i l l to c a rry out th e p lan of improvement. Primacy in t h i s study is given to the f i r s t f a c to r : understanding.

mutual

15

THE QUESTIONS, THE SAMPLE, THE POLLING MECHANISM The Purdue Opinion Panel (POP) served as th e prim ary mechanism f o r secu rin g d ata used in t h i s in v e s tig a tio n . Hemmers (27) and Gage (12) have ad equately d escrib ed the manner in which th e p o ll o p e ra te s, hence no f u r th e r elabo­ r a tio n w ill be made on t h i s s u b je c t.

POP i s fundam entally

a paper-and p e n c il p o llin g o rg a n iz a tio n which o p erates t r i annually in more than one hundred high schools in th e Middle West p rim a rily but ran g in g a lso from th e Dakotas to th e A tla n tic c o a st. THE QUESTIONS In th e Spring of 1949 th e twenty-second POP contained twenty q u estio n s se le c te d to d isc rim in a te between groups which were known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith each o th e r.

Areas of sex, r e lig io n , ra c e , socio-economic s ta tu s

and ru ra l-u rb a n resid en ce were chosen on which c o n f lic t was p o stu la te d to occur.

The o r ig in a l source of th e questions

was th e a u th o r’s im agination.

Prom a t o t a l of over one

hundred q u estio n s, twenty were se le c te d f o r a p r e - te s t a t a lo c a l high school.

Follow ing the p r e - te s t a committee of

fiv e judges d isc u sse d , re v ise d and f i n a l l y reached a unani­ mous d e c isio n f o r acceptance of each question before i t was included in th e f i n a l form.

The twenty q u estio n s f in a ll y

emerging were again reviewed by a committee of th re e d is ­ tin g u ish ed ed u c ato rs.

16 The Sample of P u p ils In a g en eral sense th e sample included in t h i s p o ll is **self-selected ” , since th e p o lle d p u p ils a tte n d schools which have subscribed to th e p o ll.

Two o th e r f a c to r s may p o ssib ly

introduce in d eterm in ate e f f e c ts ; namely, i n te r e s t in th e p o ll and a b i l i t y of th e high schools to pay f o r the s e rv ic e .

Con­

clu sio n s drawn from th e p rese n t study must be r e s tr ic te d to the pop u latio n rep rese n ted by the p a r tic u la r kind of sample used in th i s in v e s tig a tio n .

Evidence th a t t h i s lim ita tio n i s

not se rio u s f o r th e purposes of t h i s study is found in th e p ro p o rtio n s of p u p ils in th e sample who f a l l in to th e v ario u s breakdown c a te g o rie s as shown in Table 1.

From a t o t a l of

over 13,000 respondents a re p re s e n ta tiv e sample of approx­ im ately 5300 was se le c te d f o r d e ta ile d study.

This sample

complete w ith breakdowns i s shown in Table 1. The Mark-Sensing Technique Responses on t h i s p o ll were recorded on mark sensed I . B. M. ca rd s.

E lec tro g ra p h ic p e n c ils and I . B. M. ”b a l lo t”

cards were fu rn ish ed on which p u p ils marked th e i r responses to p o ll q u e stio n s.

The mark-sensed punch card is merely a

standard I . B. M. card on which marking spaces are provided. Each card co n tain s tw enty-seven marking columns w ith twelve marking spaces in each column.

When used fo r m ark-sensing

each card allow s 324 (27x12) marking spaces.

A unique

number is assigned to each of th ese spaces.

Answers in

17

a lte r n a tiv e form supplied f o r each q u estio n of opinion and p erso n al d a ta are numbered to correspond w ith s p e c if ic spaces on the card .

Each p u p il read s th e q u estio n , chooses th e most

ap p lica b le answer, n o tes the number of the a lte r n a tiv e , fin d s th e space w ith th a t number on th e card and f i n a l l y f i l l s th e space w ith a heavy black e le c tro g ra p h ic p e n c il mark.

An

I . B. M. reproducing punch co n v erts each f i l l e d spaced on

the card in to a punched h o le .

Punched cards can then be

so rte d , counted and ta b u la te d on the I . B. M. counting s o r te r a t a rep o rted speed of 400 cards per m inute, or i f the I . B. M. a lp h a b e tic ta b u la tin g machine is used th e same process can be accomplished a t the speed of 80 to 150 cards p er m inute.

18 TABLE 1

Composition of S t r a tif ie d Sample of High School S tudents Used in Making A nalysis Number of S tudents'

P ercen t

T o tal Sample

3292

100

Boys G irls

1575 1665

49 51

9th Grade IGth Grade n t h Grade 12th Grade

947 872 756 663

29 27 25 21

Vîhite Race Negro Race

2901

92 8

Democratic P arty Republican P a rty Some Other P arty No P arty

1683 1260

36 175

53 40 1 6

Low Income High Income

2442 771

76 24

E ast Midwest South Mt. P a c ific

814 1170 822 407

25 36 26 13

Under 2500 Over 2600

1522 1770

46 54

P ro te s ta n t C atholic Jewish Other-None

2124 554 198 416

65 17

1.

255

6

12

Since c l a s s i f ic a ti o n d ata were lack in g on some ca rd s, s li g h tly fewer th an 3292 cases were used in some groupings.

19

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN Procedure T h irtee n thousand high school stu d e n ts received ques­ tio n n a ire s covering s ig n if ic a n t s o c ia l is s u e s .

Each stu d en t

placed him self in a defined group by answering key q u estio n s. E s s e n tia lly th ese key q u estio n s served as c o n tro l f a c to r s . For th e purpose of c l a r i f i c a t i o n th e q u estio n s designed to e l i c i t inform ation concerning c o n tro l f a c to rs are given below. 5.

R elig io u s A f f ili a ti o n .

The breakdowns f o r t h i s

f a c to r were made in terms of answers to th e follow ing ques­ tio n ; Which r e lig io n do you p re fe r? P ro te s ta n t

Jew ish

C atholic

Some o th e r None____

Since very few p u p ils id e n tif ie d them selves as Jews, some o th e r, o r none, th e major comparison was made betv/een C a th o lics and P ro te s ta n ts .

D ifferen ces between C a th o lic s and P ro te s ta n ts

in m a tte rs of d is c ip lin e , r i t u a l , credo and dogma are known to e x i s t .

How w ell do C ath o lics and P ro te s ta n ts understand

each o th er?

T his i s one of th e q u estio n s which th e p resen t

study seeks to answer in p a r t. 6.

U rban-Rural R esidence.

obtained by asking:

Data on t h i s f a c to r were

20

Where do you liv e ? In th e country or town under 2500 p o p u la tio n ^ In a town or c ity between 2500 and 25,000 population^ In a c i ty of over 25,000 populat ion ____________ For th e purpose of t h i s study and in accordance w ith th e Ü. S. Census, p u p ils choosing th e f i r s t a lte r n a tiv e were c la s s if ie d as r u r a l , those who marked th e rem aining a l t e r ­ n a tiv e s were c la s s if ie d as urban.

T his study attem pts to

throw lig h t on th e q u estio n of how w ell in d iv id u a ls liv in g in urban communities understand th o se who liv e in r u r a l com­ m unities and v ic e v e rs a . 1.

Sex.

The q u estio n asked was:

Are you a boy o r a g ir l? G irl__

Boy_______________________ For th e purpose of t h i s study, th e degree of mutual understanding between sex groups was one of the im portant qu estio n s. 5.

Race.

Data f o r t h i s f a c to r were obtained from

th e question: %hat race are you? White

Some o th e r________

Negro____________ The major comparison in th is study was made between th e

21

w hite and th e Negro.

This in v e s tig a tio n was expected to

answer in p a r t th e q u estio n of how w ell w hites and Negroes understand each o th e r. 7.

Socio-economic S ta tu s .

Data f o r c la s s ify in g p u p ils

according to low or high socio-economic le v e ls were gathered from th e follow ing q u estio n : Does your fam ily have: a vacuum cleaner?

Yes

No

an e l e c t r i c or gas r e f r ig e r a to r ?

Yes

No

a h ath tub or shower w ith running w ater?

Yes

No

a telephone?

Yes

No

an automobile?

Yes

No

Have you had paid le sso n s in dancing, d ram atics, ex p ressio n , e lo c u tio n , a r t or music o u tsid e of school?

Yes

No

Did your f a th e r f in is h high school?

Yes

No

Now count th e number of ”Yes” answers you have checked above. -None -One -Two -Three

-Four -Five -S ix -Seven

Hobson (14) developed th e above m in iatu re economic sc a le f o r POP from item s of th e Kerr-Remmers American Home S cale.

V a lid a tio n of t h i s sc a le has been made by E lia s (11)

on the b a s is of home v i s i t s .

Above s ix ”Yes” answers in ­

22

d ic a te s high socio-economic s ta tu s fo r th e purpose of t h i s study.

S ix ”Yes” responses o r le s s in d ic a te s low so c io ­

economic s ta tu s .

This breakdown p la ces 24^ of our sample

in th e high socio-economic le v e l and 76^ in th e low.

In

terms of fam ily income th e lin e of dem arcation would f a l l approxim ately a t th e #3500 mark, before tax es were deducted. Socio-economic s ta tu s im plies more than mere m a te ria l income. The d o lla r fam ily income estim ate is presen ted here in order to give a more co n crete p ic tu re of th e 24^ - 76^ d iv is io n . Scoring of Responses A fter th e stu d en t placed him self in a defined group by ansv;ering th e key q u e stio n s, he in d ic ated h is opinion on each of twenty iss u e s in th e fo llow ing manner: 1.

Your answer?

Yes

No

2.

How would X*s answer?

Yes

No_

5.

How would Y*s answer?

Yes

No

Here 2 and Y re p re se n t opposing o r te n sio n groups w ith re sp e c t to a defined is s u e . Responses were scored dichotomously in ”Yes” and **No” c a te g o rie s.

Using th e I.B.M. s o rtin g machine, th e t o t a l

number of ”Yes” and "No” responses were determ ined f o r p u p ils in each defined group on each of the twenty q u estio n s.

The

t o t a l number of p u p ils who answered "Yes" to each sub-ques­ tio n was th en m u ltip lie d by th e re c ip ro c a l of th e t o t a l number who answered th e su b -q u estio n , both "Yes" and "No",

23

t o o b ta in th e p er cent of "Yes" resp o n ses.

Since th e sco rin g

was done dichotom ously, th e p er cent of "Yes" responses when su b trac ted from 100^ gave th e per cent of "No" resp o n ses.

In

th e a c tu a l o p eratio n a co n sid erab le number of "No" responses were c a lc u la te d u sin g th e method d escrib ed f o r c a lc u la tio n of "Yes" responses as a com putational check on a rith m e tic . Complete breakdowns f o r tw enty-four defined groups and th e t o t a l s f o r th e whole sample are given in term s of both "Yes" and "No" responses in Appendix B.

For th e sake of

convenience only th e "Yes" responses w ill be considered in t h i s study.

Since scoring i s dichotomous e i th e r "Yes" or

"No" responses could be used.

Using both "Yes" and "No"

responses would double th e la b o r and add nothing to the e ffe c tiv e n e ss or v alue of th e study.

In a d d itio n , since

t h i s in v e s tig a tio n i s concerned w ith the degree of mutual understanding which e x is ts between groups known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t, only th o se groups which meet th ese sp e c i­ f ic a tio n s w ill be used.

Issu e s se le c te d to d isc rim in a te be­

tween sex groups, f o r example, w ill consider only sex group responses.

The responses of o th e r groups, although i n t e r e s t ­

ing, are in a p p lic a b le .

24

EXPLANATION OF CONCEPTS Empathie Base The empathie base i s th e a c tu a l p ro fessed a t t i t u d l n a l response o f the defined group.

This base i s derived by sum­

mation of in d iv id u a l responses e l i c i t e d by th e "Your Answer?" sub-q u estio n according to th e group w ith which each respon­ dent id e n tif ie d him self in th e p erso n al d a ta se c tio n of th e q u e stio n n a ire . 56.

For Example:

Can a woman be as good a P re sid e n t of the Ü. S. as a man? TABLE 2 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 36 Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

50#

46#

15^

%

82#

79#

Response Symbol ^ Tes

G irls?

The empathie base i s in d ic a te d by response symbol "A" f o r one group and by "X" f o r th e group known or assumed to be in con­ f l i c t w ith th e f i r s t group.

In th e example, th e f i r s t group

i s boys and i s in d ic a te d as such by response symbol "A". The group which i s known or assumed to be in c o n f lic t w ith the boys* group is th e g irls * group and i s in d ic a te d by th e symbol "X".

By read in g th e percentages d ir e c tly under symbols

"A" and "X", th e empathie base f o r th e boys* group i s found to

25

be 50# w hile f o r th e g irls * group th e empathie base i s found to be 46#.

T his means th a t 30# of a l l respondents who id e n ­

t i f i e d them selves as boys in th e p erso n a l d a ta se c tio n of th e q u estio n n aire gave **Yes’* as t h e i r own p erso n al opinion to q u estio n 56.

Conversely, 46# of a l l respondents who iden­

t i f i e d them selves as g i r l s in th e p erso n al d a ta se c tio n of th e q u estio n n aire gave **Yes** as t h e i r own p erso n al opinion to question 36. study.

The empathie base i s a key concept in t h i s

In essence, th e empathie base re p re s e n ts th e **true

index** of a defined group *s opinion on a p a r tic u la r is s u e . When answering t h i s q u estio n no knowledge was a v a ila b le to the respondents th a t t h e i r answers to the **Your answer** sub­ questio n would be c la s s if ie d according to sex groups. In te r-g ro u p Response In ter-g ro u p i s th e term used in th i s study f o r des­ c rib in g re la tio n s h ip s which e x is t between c o n f lic t groups in terms of the p re d ic tio n s or estim a tes made by one group in referen ce to i t s opposing group.

In th e example, Table 2,

th e in te r-g ro u p response f o r th e boys* group i s found under response symbol "C**.

The in te r-g ro u p response f o r th e g irls *

group i s found under response symbol "Y**.

T his means th a t

82# (boys* in te r-g ro u p response) of th e respondents who id e n tif ie d them selves as boys in th e p erso n al d a ta s e c tio n of th e q u estio n n aire gave "Yes" as th e answer th ey expected the g i r l s to give on t h i s p a r tic u la r q u estio n .

Conversely,

5# (g irls * in te r-g ro u p response) of the respondents who

26

id e n tif ie d them selves as g i r l s in th e p erso n al d a ta se c tio n of th e q u estio n n aire gave "Yes" as th e answer they expected hoys to give f o r t h i s p a r tic u la r question* Empathy Empathy i s broadly considered in t h i s study as th e ab­ i l i t y of one group to p la ce i t s e l f a c c u ra te ly in th e same p o sitio n r e la tiv e to a p a r tic u la r s o c ia l issu e as th a t of another group. empathy i s used.

O p eratio n ally , Remmerg^ (26) d e f in itio n of Empathy i s o p eratin g when th e d iffe re n c e s

between responses of c o n f lic t groups i s such th a t th e n u ll hypothesis cannot be r e je c te d .

When th e n u ll hypothesis

can be re je c te d p ro je c tio n i s o p e ra tin g .

In o rd er to t e s t

whether th e boys* group in our example, Table 2, i s empath­ iz in g w ith th e g irls * group, a comparison i s made between the boys* in te r-g ro u p response (82#) and th e g irls * empathie base (46#).

I f th e d iffe re n c e between th ese responses i s

such th a t the n u ll hypothesis can be re je c te d , th e boys are p ro je c tin g upon the g i r l s on th i s p a r tic u la r is s u e .

I f th e

n u ll hypothesis cannot be r e je c te d , then the empathie process has taken p la c e .

In t h i s p a r tic u la r case th e d iffe re n c e be­

tween responses i s 56# w ith a c r i t i c a l r a t i o ( t) of 21.14. The n u ll hypothesis can be re je c te d a t a very high le v e l of confidence.

The empathie process is o p eratin g very im p erfect­

ly on th e p a rt of th e boys.

On t h i s issu e th e boys are

p rim a rily p ro je c tin g r a th e r than em pathizing.

£7

R ecip ro cal Empathy R ecip ro cal empathy i s empathy o p eratin g in both d ir e c ­ tio n s .

Both groups must a c c u ra te ly p re d ic t th e empathie base

of th e opposing group.

R ecip ro cal empathy re p re se n ts a s t a t e

of optim al mutual understanding between defined groups.

The

t e s t f o r re c ip ro c a l empathy involves f i r s t th e d eterm in atio n of whether empathy i s

p rese n t f o r one group and then f o r th e

o th e r.

wanting f o r th e f i r s t group te s te d , th en

I f empathy i s

obviously re c ip ro c a l empathy cannot be p re s e n t, since both groups must empathize w ith each o th e r in o rd er fo r re c ip ro c a l empathy to e x is t. I f

empathy i s p re se n t fo r th e f i r s t com­

p ariso n group, th en th e o th er group must a lso be te s te d f o r empathie response.

In order to t e s t fo r re c ip ro c a l empathy

in th e example. Table 2, a comparison i s made between th e boys* in te r-g ro u p response (82#) and th e g irls * empathie base (46#).

Secondly, a comparison i s made between th e g irls *

in te r-g ro u p response (5#) and th e boys* empathie base (30#). C r itic a l r a tio s are computed f o r both comparisons.

I f th e t

values are such th a t th e n u ll hypotheses cannot be re je c te d f o r both comparisons, re c ip ro c a l empathy i s p re s e n t.

Since

th e t value fo r th e f i r s t comparison i s 21.14 and the t v alue f o r th e second comparison i s 17.99, th e n u ll hypothesis must be r e je c te d .

R e la tiv e ly l i t t l e re c ip ro c a l empathy and con­

sid e ra b le p ro je c tio n i s p re se n t f o r th e two groups in th e example.

28

In tra -g ro u p Response In tra -g ro u p i s used in t h i s study f o r d escrib in g r e l a ­ tio n s h ip s and p re d ic tio n s made by respondents who id e n tif ie d them selves as members of a p a r tic u la r defined group in th e perso n al d a ta s e c tio n of th e q u estio n n aire and th e ir p r e d ic t­ ed response fo r th e group w ith which th ey had id e n tif ie d them selves.

In th e example. Table 2, the in tra -g ro u p response

fo r the boys’ group (15#) i s found under response symbol "B” . The g i r l s ’ in tra -g ro u p response (75#) i s found under response symbol "Z".

This response re p re s e n ts th e degree of under­

standing (empathy) which e x is ts among members of the same group.

In th e example, Table 2, 15# of th e respondents who

id e n tif ie d them selves as boys in th e p erso n al d a ta se c tio n of the q u estio n n aire se le c te d th e "Yes" a lte r n a tiv e as r e ­ p rese n tin g th e answer which boys would give to q u estio n 56. "Yes" was se le c te d by 75# of th e respondents who id e n tif ie d themselves as g i r l s f o r th e answer which g i r l s would give to questio n 56.

Reramers’ (26) o p e ra tio n a l d e f in itio n of

empathy,shows i t s f r u it f u ln e s s in being a p p lic a b le f o r th e comparison of a group w ith i t s e l f .

The popular d e f in itio n

of empathy, th a t of "being ab le to put o n eself in th e o th er perso n ’s shoes", i s c e rta in ly not ap p lica b le h e re .

The

problem would re q u ire one to "put him self in to h is own shoes". The r e s u lt of a l l t h i s shoe changing appears r a th e r p o in tle s s in term s of group se lf-u n d e rsta n d in g .

The t e s t f o r i n t r a ­

group understanding i s ap p lied by comparing th e empathie base

29

(30#) of th e boys w ith the boys’ in tra -g ro u p response (15#) in th e example, Table 2.

In t h i s case the d iffe re n c e i s

15# and th e c r i t i c a l r a t i o ( t) i s 9.60* can be co n fid e n tly r e je c te d .

The n u ll hypothesis

Hence, th e boys have shown

them selves r e la tiv e l y incapable of em pathizing w ith t h e i r own group.

A d iffe re n c e of 29# between th e g i r l s ’ empathie

base (46#) and th e g i r l s ’ in tra -g ro u p response (75#) w ith a c r i t i c a l r a tio o f 17.03 i s evidence th a t th e g i r l s have also f a ile d im pressively to empathize w ith t h e i r own group. In both cases much p ro je c tio n was p rese n t but empathy was la rg e ly la c k in g . Summary of Concepts In view of th e a b s tra c t concepts involved in t h i s study a d e ta ile d explan atio n of each concept and i t s re la tio n s h ip to th e problem of empathy has been p rese n ted .

An adequate

understanding of th ese concepts i s v i t a l in order to derive f u l l b e n e fit from t h i s study.

A d d itio n al examples, Tables 3

and 4 are presented to summarize in ta b u la r form the concepts which have already been explained in d e t a i l and to aid in th e in te r p r e ta tio n of r e s u l t s which fo llo w .

30

TABLE 5

Summary of Concepts How would Negroes answer?

Group Responding

Your answer?

Whites

Empathie Base f o r Whites

In te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r Whites

In tra -g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r Whites

Negroes

Empathie Base f o r Negroes

In tra -g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r Negroes

In te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r Negroes

Whites?

Empathy i s p resen t to th e e x te n t th a t th e EMPATHIC BASE f o r w hites corresponds^ w ith th e In te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r Negroes. or to th e e x ten t th a t th e empathie base f o r Negroes corresponds w ith th e in te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r w h ites. R eciprocal Empathy i s p resen t when both of th e above conditïo n s are p resen t : namely, to th e ex ten t th a t th e empathie base fo r w hites corresponds w ith th e in te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a r i ­ ab le f o r N e g ro e s .... and th e empathie base f o r Negroes a lso corresponds w ith th e in te r-g ro u p p re d ic tio n v a ria b le f o r w h ites.

1.

When th e d iffe re n c e between responses i s such th a t th e n u ll hypothesis cannot be r e je c te d .

31

TABLE 4

Continuum of U nderstanding Hone

Complete

G__________ A

Minimal Empathy or P ro je c tio n

100# B M arginal empathy or M arginal P ro je c tio n

0

Empathy D or Minimal Pro j ec t io n

AB = Minimal Empathy (P ro je c tio n ) ; The d iffe re n c e between responses of te n sio n groups i s s ig n if ic a n t a t 1# le v e l and above. U nderstanding of c o n f lic t groups or of own group i s of h ig h ly q u estio n ­ able p r a c tic a l value in terms of c o n trib u tio n to in te rgroup or in tra -g ro u p harmony. BG z M arginal Empathy (M arginal P ro je c tio n ) : The d iffe re n c e between responses of te n sio n groups is s ig n ific a n t a t th e 2# - 5# le v e ls of confidence. The understanding of c o n f lic t groups and of own group i s of m arginal value in term s of c o n trib u tio n to i n t r a ­ group or in te r-g ro u p harmony. GD = Empathy (Minimal P ro je c tio n ) : The d iffe re n c e between responses of te n sio n groups is not s ig n if ic a n t a t 5# le v e ls of confidence o r above^ The understanding of c o n f lic t groups and of own group i s a d e f in ite c o n trib u tio n to in tra -g ro u p or i n t e r ­ group harmony.

52 ANALYSIS OF RESPONSES

The a n a ly s is of responses i s performed according to th e groups w ith which each respondent id e n tif ie d h im self in th e p erso n al d a ta s e c tio n of th e q u e s tio n n a ire .

Groups which

are known o r are assumed to he in c o n f lic t w ith each o th e r on a p a r tic u la r issu e are compared in term s of th e responses given on th a t issue*

Four re la tio n s h ip s are considered of

major im portance: 1*

Empathie hase of one group v s . empathie base of i t s

c o n f lic t group;

This r e la tio n s h ip re p re se n ts th e a c tu a l pro­

fessed a ttitu d e s of c o n f lic t groups on th e p a r tic u la r is s u e . As such, i t may be considered a tru e index of e x is tin g a t t i ­ tudes of each group compared w ith i t s c o n f lic t group. 2.

Empathie base of one group v s . in te r-g ro u p response of

i t s c o n f lic t group;

T his re la tio n s h ip i s used to t e s t f o r

the presence of in te r-g ro u p empathy.

Using Remmers’ (26)

d e f in itio n in a m odified form p ro je c tio n i s p re se n t when th e d iffe re n c e between responses of c o n f lic t groups i s such th a t th e n u ll h ypothesis can be re je c te d a t th e 1# le v e l of con­ fid en c e.

When th e n u ll hy p o th esis can be re je c te d a t th e 5#

to th e 2# le v e ls of confidence m arginal empathy is p re se n t; namely, m arginal empathy i s p rese n t when th e c r i t i c a l r a t i o ( t) i s s ig n ific a n t a t th e 5# to 2# le v e ls of confidence. When the c r i t i c a l r a t i o i s s ig n if ic a n t below th e 5# le v e l of confidence, empathy i s p rese n t and p ro je c tio n i s o p eratin g a t a minimal degree.

In te r-g ro u p empathy re p re s e n ts th e

33

Optimum s ta te of understanding between c o n f lic t groups,

g in a l empathy re p re s e n ts a s ta te of b o rd e r-lin e un d erstan d in g ; namely, a c e r ta in undeniable degree of understanding e x is ts which i s sh o rt of complete u n d erstan d in g .

The d ir e c tio n

which th e se groups take may depend upon th e s o c ia l fo rc e s to which th ey are most re c e p tiv e .

R eciprocal empathy ope­

r a te s when both groups empathize w ith each o th e r. 5.

Empathie base of one group v s . In tra -g ro u p resp o n se:

This r e la tio n s h ip re p re s e n ts th e ex ten t to which members of a c o n flic t group understand t h e i r own group. 4.

In ter-g ro u p response of one group v s . In tra -g ro u p r e ­

sponse of i t s c o n f lic t group:

This r e la tio n s h ip re p re se n ts

the ex ten t to which th e understanding of one group agrees w ith the c o n f lic t group’s understanding of i t s e l f .

In cases

of close agreement t h i s may in d ic a te th a t both groups are responding to a ste re o ty p e of th e group in q u estio n .

When

the empathie base of one group v s . In tra -g ro u p response in ­ d ic a te s a la c k of th e p a r tic u la r group to empathize w ith i t ­ s e lf , then th e assumption of ste re o ty p in g may s a fe ly be made. For convenience in in te r p r e tin g th e r e s u l t s , s o c ia l is s u e s , or q u estio n s, are grouped according to f iv e c a te g o rie s: r e lig io n , ra c e , socio-economic le v e ls and ru ra l-u rb a n r e ­ sidence.

sex,

34

S o cia l Is su e s White v s . Negro 45$

Should w hite people g et b e tte r m edical a tte n tio n than Negroes? TABLE 5 Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 45

Your answer?

How would Negroes answer?

Whites?

White

Negro

White

Negro

White

Negro

A

X

B

Y

0

Z

10#

10#

8#

10#

44#

57#

N

2782

241

2687

213

2659

198

S .E .p l

.006

.020

.006

.021

.010

.036

Response Symbol # Yes

On t h i s qu estio n th e a ttitu d e s of both th e Negroes and th e w hites are in complete agreement.

Whites empathize

w ith Negroes, th a t i s , an optimum degree of understanding is p resen t on th e p a rt of th e w h ite.

But Negroes f a i l to

p re d ic t th e w hite re p ly by 47 percentage p o in ts .

I f we

take as our standard th e p re d ic tio n of w hites on how o th er w hites would answer (in tra -g ro u p resp o n se), th e Negro group p re d ic tio n i s o ff by 13#. 1$

An empathie process i s o p eratin g

The standard e rro rs of p ro p o rtio n s were derived from th e E dgerton-Paterson T ables (10).

35

TABLE 6

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 45 Response Comparison***

# D if f.

S. E.p D iff

C r iti c a l ,, R atio (t)

1# Level Lim its ^

5# Level Lim its 4

A v s. X

0#

2.09#

.00

5.37#

4.09#

A v s. Y

0#

2.18#

.00

5.61#

4.28#

A v s. Z

47#

3.65#

12.86**

9.38#

7.15#

A v s. C

34#

1.17#

29.15**

2.99#

2.28#

A v s. B

2#

.85#

2.56*

2.18#

1.66#

Z v s. Y

0#

2.90#

.00

7.45#

5.68#

Z v s. Z

47#

4.12#

11.41**

10.58#

8.07#

Z v s. C

34#

2.24#

15.21**

5.75#

4.38#

Z v s. B

2#

2.09#

*91

5.37#

4.09#

Y v s. Z

47#

4.17#

11.28**

10.71#

8^17#

Y v s. C

54#

2.55#

14.62**

5.98#

4. 56#

Y v s. B

2#

2.18#

.92

5.61#

4.28#

Z v s. C

13#

3.74#

3.48**

9.60#

7.32#

Z v s. B

49#

3.65#

13.45**

9.38#

7.15#

C v s. B

36#

1.17#

50.87**

2.99#

2. 28#

1. In th i s and subsequent Tables r e f e r to response symbol of Table which p recedes. 2. Converted to # value from: 5

* \/ô'p2 > 0^^

Yule (4 0 ).

3. In th is and subsequent T ables (*) in d ic a te s th e 5# le v e l of confidence, (**) th e 1# le v e l. t — pg}/ Gi d i f f .

S ‘I5 î :,S S ” " =

w

-

Pjj^ " Pg ^ (1.96) ( d i f f ^ * 5# le v e l.

36

o p eratin g a lso between th e whites* empathie base and th e Negro in tra -g ro u p resp o n se•

This in d ic a te s th a t the w hites

are not only in complete empathie agreement w ith th e " tr u e index" of Negroes* a ttitu d e s on t h i s is s u e , but are also in complete agreement w ith what th e Negro co n sid ers is the g n eral Negro a t titu d e .

W hites’ empathie base d if f e r s only

m arginally from th e i r p re d ic tio n of Negro response.

There is

an empathie re la tio n s h ip between th e Negro in tra -g ro u p r e ­ sponse and the w hite in te r-g ro u p group response which may in d ic ate th a t both groups are responding in terms of a stereoty p e of Negro opinion*

However, th e f a c t th a t Negroes

are em pathizing w ith t h e i r own group leav es some room fo r doubt concerning t h i s p o in t.

A pparently th e Negroes have

in t h is in stan ce responded more c lo se ly to th e w h ites’ p ro jected a ttitu d e on the su b je c t of m edical care r a th e r than to the w hites a c tu a l p ro fessed a t titu d e on the su b je c t. These r e s u lts add emphasis to th e u n fo rtu n ate f a c t th a t d e s p ite complete agreement of both groups on a s o c ia l is s u e , Negroes b e lie v e th a t alm ost 6 of every 10 w hites f e e l th a t w hites should g et b e t te r m edical a tte n tio n than Negroes, whereas only one w hite of every 10 a c tu a lly p ro fe sses to b eliev e so.

Whites add f u e l to th e f i r e when they consider

th a t w hites as a group are about fo u r and a h a lf tim es le s s to le r a n t th an th e f a c ts show them to be.

Since in d iv id u a ls

behave in term s of co n d itio n s as they b eliev e them to be r a th e r th an as they a re , th e qu estio n of whether white people should g et b e tte r m edical a tte n tio n than Negroes

37

i l l u s t r a t e s how a s o c ia l issu e may produce in te r-g ro u p te n sio n when th e re a c tu a lly is no te n sio n present* 51.

I s th e Negro a member of an in f e r io r race? TABLE 7 Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q,uestion 51

Your answer?

How would Negroes answer?

Whites?

White

Negro

White

Negro

White

Negro

A

X

B

Y

G

Z

29#

28#

19#

28#

58#

54#

N

2668

218

2547

208

2540

188

S*E. —

.009

.051

♦008

.052

.010

.055

Response Symbol # Yes

Both Negroes and w hites are empathiea lly agreed in terms of a c tu a l pro fessed a ttitu d e s *

U nlike th e previous

questio n both groups f a i l s ig n if ic a n tly in terms of i n t e r ­ group empathy.

The w hites assume th a t 9^ or roughly one-

th ird le s s Negroes would p ro fe ss th a t they are members of an in f e r io r race than the number which a c tu a lly do*

The

Negroes say they b e lie v e th a t more than tw ice as many w hites consider Negroes to be members of an in f e r io r race than th e number which a c tu a lly p ro fe ss th i s view.

In terms of i n t r a ­

group te n sio n , the Negroes, as in th e previous q u estio n , again p re d ic t em pathiea l ly how Negroes would answer th e question*

The w hites again f a i l to p re d ic t how w hites

38

TABLE 8

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by R acial Groups to Question 51 Response Comparison

# D if f .

A v s. X

S* E. D iff.

C ritic a l R atio (t)

5.23#

1# Level Lim its

5# Level Lim its

.31

8.29#

6.33#

A v s. Y

Ifo

3.52#

.50

8.54#

6.51#

A vs* Z

35^

3.61#

9.69**

9.29#

7.08#

A v s. 0

29^

1.55#

21.55**

3.46#

2.64#

A v s. B

1055

1.20#

8.50**

3.09#

2.36#

X vs* Y

0^

4.46#

.00

11.45#

8.73#

X vs* Z

36^

4.68#

7.70**

12.18#

9.16#

X v s. C

30^

5.26#

9.21**

8.37#

6.38#

X v s. B

9^

3.20#

2.81*

8.23#

6.27#

Y vs* Z

36^

4.74#

7.59**

12.19#

9.29#

Y v s. 0

30^

3.55#

6.95**

8.62#

6.57#

Y v s. B

9^

3.50#

2.75*

6.48#

6*46#

Z v s. C

655

3.64#

1.65

9.35#

7.15#

Z v s. B

45#

3.59#

12.53**

9.23#

7.04#

C v s. B

39#

1.28#

50.45**

5.29#

2.51#

39

would answer by assuming th a t w hites are tw ice as in to l e r ­ ant as they a c tu a lly p ro fe ss to be.

T his i s probably in ­

d ic a tiv e of a r a th e r high degree of in tra -g ro u p te n sio n on th e p a rt of th e w h ites.

A s ig n if ic a n t f ê l â t ionahip ex i§ ts

between the whites* a c tu a l a ttitu d e and what Negroes con­ s id e r to be th e Negro a t titu d e , as w ell as between what the Negro co n sid ers i s th e whites* a t titu d e and what th e w hites consider is th e ir own a t titu d e . 52.

Do you th in k th a t Negroes can c o n trib u te as much to so c ie ty as o th e r groups? TABLE 9 Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 52 Your answer?

How would Negroes answer?

Whites?

White

Negro

White

Negro

White

Negro

A

2

B

Y

C

Z

68#

83#

86#

86#

57#

40#

N

2681

210

2584

202

2544

183

S.E .p

.010

.026

.007

.025

.010

.057

Response symbol # Yes

A s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e in th e professed a ttitu d e s of both groups e x is ts .

A tren d which appeared to have begun in

previous q u estio n s follow s in terms of empathy.

The w hites

again empathize w ith Negroes* professed a ttitu d e s .

The

Negroes continue to p ro je c t t h e i r a ttitu d e s upon w hites. In terms of in tra -g ro u p te n sio n the Negroes again p re d ic t

40

TABLE 10

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 52 # D iff.

8. E. D if f.

C ritic a l R atio ( t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level L im its

A v s. Z

15#

2.79#

5.38**

7.16#

5.46#

A v s. Y

13#

2.69#

6.68**

6.92#

5.28#

A v s. Z

28#

3 .8 5 #

7.51**

9.85#

7.51#

A v s. c

31#

1.41#

21.92**

5.63#

2.77#

A v s. B

18#

1.22#

14.75**

3.14#

2.59#

2 v s. Y

3#

3.61#

.85

9.27#

7.07#

Z v s. Z

43#

4.52#

9.51**

1 1 .6 2 #

8.86#

Z v s. C

46#

2 .7 9 #

16.51**

7 .1 6 #

5.46#

Z v s. B

5#

2.69#

1.11

6.92#

5.28#

Y v s. Z

46#

4 .4 7 #

10.30**

11.48#

8 .7 5 #

Y v s. 0

49#

2.69#

14.48**

6.92#

5 .2 8 #

Y v s. B

0#

2.60#

.00

6.67#

5.09#

Z v s. C

3#

3.83#

.78

9.85#

7 .5 1 #

Z v s. B

46#

3.77#

12.22**

9.68#

7.58#

C v s. B

49#

1.22#

40.14**

5.14#

2.59#

Response Comparison

41

empathie a l ly how Negroes as a group would answer.

The

w hites continue to co n sid er t h e i r group about tw ice as in to le r a n t as they a c tu a lly p ro fe ss to be.

As in p rev io u s

questions each group p r e d ic ts i t s own group more a c c u ra te ly than i t p re d ic ts th e o th e r.

U n fo rtu n ately the use of i n t r a ­

group r e s u lt s as a c r ite r i o n would r e s u lt in a grievous e rro r which i s c le a r ly ev id en t from th e whites* in s is te n c e on th in k in g of th e ir being tw ice as in to le r a n t as they a c tu a lly in d iv id u a lly p ro fe ss to be.

Both groups are in

empathie agreement w ith th e opposing group*s estim ate of its 54B.

own a ttitu d e s on t h i s iss u e . Do you th in k some r a c i a l o r r e lig io u s groups should be prevented from liv in g in c e r ta in se c tio n s of c i tie s ? TABLE 11

Yes Responses by R a cia l Groups to Q uestion 54B Your answer? Non-Jew Negro Response 8y$bol

How would Negroes answer? Non-Jew Negro

Non-Jew? Non-Jew Negro

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

54#

16#

21#

17#

49#

48#

N

2858

219

2746

217

2529

174

S.E .p

.009

.025

.008

.026

.010

.058

# Yes

As in th e previous q u estio n . th e re i s a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e between th e professed a t titu d e s of Negroes and w h ite s.

Non-Jews empathize w ith Negroes on t h i s q u estio n .

42

TABLE 12

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R acial Groups to Q uestion 54B

fo D iff.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio (t)

1# Level L im its

5% L evel L im its

A v s. X

18%

2.66%

6.56**

6.83%

5.21%

A v s. Y

17%

2.75%

6.18**

7.07%

5.59%

A v s. z

14%

3,91%

3.59**

10.04%

7.65%

A v s. c

15%

1.35%

11.15**

3.46%

2.64%

A v s. B

13%

1.20%

10.80**

3.09%

2.36%

Z vs. Y

1%

3.61%

.28

9.27%

7.07%

X v s. Z

52%

4.55%

7.04**

11.69%

8.91%

X v s. C

33%

2.70%

12.26**

6.92%

5.28%

X v s. B

5%

2.62%

1.52

6.75%

5.14%

Y v s. Z

51%

4.60%

6.73**

11.83%

9.02%

Y v s. C

32%

2.79%

11.45**

7.16%

5.46%

Y v s. B

4%

2.72%

1.47

6.99%

5.35%

Z v s. C

1%

3.93%

.2 5

10.10%

7.70%

Z v s. B

27%

3.88%

6.95**

9.96%

7.61%

C v s. B

28%

1.28%

21.86**

3.29%

2.51%

Response Comparison

43

An optimum degree of understanding i s p re se n t on the p o in t of non-Jews reg ard in g th e Negroes a c tu a l a t t i t u d e s .

The non-

Jews a lso empathize w ith th e Negroes* in tra -g ro u p response. Negroes empathize w ith t h e i r own group and w ith th e non-Jews* opinion of th e non-Jew a t titu d e on t h i s q u estio n . tren d now appears c le a r .

The g en eral

In term s of in te r-g ro u p empathy th e

w hites c le a r ly dem onstrate th a t as a group they do b e tte r than the Negroes.

Whites come more c lo se ly to p re d ic tin g

the professed a t titu d e s of w h ites.

This f a c t does not mean

th a t no s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e e x is ts between th e a t titu d e s professed by Negroes and those ascrib ed to Negroes by th e w hites on a l l is s u e s .

E qually c le a r i s the tren d which

shows Negro s u p e rio rity in p re d ic tin g Negro resp o n ses. a d d itio n a l tren d i s noteworthy:

One

namely, both groups p re d ic t

w ith t h e i r g r e a te s t accuracy f o r th e ir own group.

The f a lla c y

of using in tra -g ro u p r e s u lt s as th e c r ite r io n has been p re ­ v io u sly d isc u sse d .

However, by p o stu la tin g th a t both groups

use th e opposing in tra -g ro u p fig u re s as c r i t e r i a , what appears to be th e whites* s u p e rio r ity in th e realm of in te r-g ro u p empathy may tu rn out to be a fu n c tio n of th e unusual accu­ racy w ith which th e Negro group empathizes w ith i t s own group. Perhaps in te r-g ro u p empathy i s re la te d in some measure to th e opposing group’s s u p e rio rity in in tra -g ro u p p re d ic tio n .

44

54A.

Do you th in k some r a c i a l or r e lig io u s groups should be prevented from liv in g in c e r ta in se c tio n s of c itie s ?

TABLE 13 Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 54A.

Your answer?

How would Jews answer?

Non-Jew?

Non-Jew

Jew

Non-Jew Jew

Non-Jew Jew

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

54#

17#

22#

12#

49#

58#

N

2838

179

2545

173

2529

166

S.E .p

.009

.029

.009

.025

.010

.039

Response Symbol # Yes

On t h i s q u estio n non-Jews empathize w ith Jews.

An

optimum degree of understanding e x is ts on th e p a rt of th e non-Jews reg ard in g th e Jew ish group’s a c tu a l a ttitu d e on t h is is s u e .

Jews empathize m arg in ally w ith th e non-Jews*

opinion of non-Jew a t t i t u d e s . th e ir own group.

Jews also empathize w ith

No re c ip ro c a l empathy i s p resen t sin ce

Jews do not empathize w ith the non-Jews* a c tu a l p rofessed a t titu d e .

45

TABLE 14

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 54A

# D if f.

S. E. D if f.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level L im its

A vs# X

17#

3.04#

5.60**

7.80#

5.95#

A vs* Y

22#

2.66#

8.25**

6.83#

5.21#

A v s. Z

24#

4.00#

5.99**

10.29#

7.84#

A v s. 0

15#

1.55#

11.15**

5.46#

2.64#

A vs. B

12#

1.27#

9.43**

3.27#

2.49#

X v s. Y

5#

3.83#

1.50

9.84#

7.50#

X v s. Z

41#

4.86#

8.44**

12.49#

9.52#

X v s. 0

32#

5.07#

10.45**

7.88#

6.01#

X v s. B

5#

5.04#

1.65

7.80#

5.95#

Y v s. Z

46#

4.63#

9.93**

11.91#

9.08#

Y v s. 0

37#

2.69#

13.74**

6.92#

5.28#

Y v s. B

10#

2.66#

5.38**

6.83#

5.21#

Z v s. 0

9#

4.05#

2.24*

10.35#

7.89#

Z vs. B

36#

4.00#

8.99**

10.29#

7.84#

C v s. B

27#

1.35#

20.07**

5.46#

2.64#

Response Comparison

46

P ro te s ta n t v s . C atholic 59.

Should p a ro c h ia l school c h ild re n rid e fre e on busses paid f o r by tax es? TABLE 15 Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 59

Tour answer?

How would Oath. answer?

P rot?

P ro t.

Oath.

P ro t.

Gath.

P ro t.

Gath

A

X

B

Y

G

Z

55#

76#

76#

82#

49#

44#

H

1993

529

1852

522

1675

452

S .E .p

.012

.019

.010

.017

.015

.024

Response Symbol # Yes

There i s a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e between th e p rofessed a t titu d e s of P ro te s ta n ts and C a th o lics on t h i s q u estio n . The p ro te s ta n ts empathized but C ath o lics f a ile d to r e c i ­ p ro c a te .

H en ce,P ro testan t in te r-g ro u p empathy i s p rese n t

but re c ip ro c a l empathy i s la c k in g .

C a th o lics do, however,

empathize w ith th e P r o te s ta n t’s estim ate of P ro te s ta n t a t titu d e .

Both P ro te s ta n ts and C a th o lics empathize mar­

g in a lly w ith t h e i r own groups.

47

TABLE 16

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 39

# D if f.

S. E. D if f.

C ritic a l R atio (t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level L im its

A vs. X

23#

2.25#

10.23**

5.77#

4.40#

A vs. Y

29#

2.08#

15.94**

5.35#

4.08#

A v s. Z

9#

2.68#

3.35**

6.89#

5.26#

A v s. C

4#

1.77#

2.26*

4.55#

3.47#

A v s. B

23#

1.56#

14.72**

4.01#

3.06#

X vs. Y

6#

2.55#

2.55*

6.55#

4.98#

X v s. Z

32#

5.06#

10.45**

7.86#

5.99#

X vs. 0

27#

2.30#

11.73**

5.92#

4.51#

X v s. B

0#

2.15#

.00

5.52#

4.21#

Y v s. C

55#

2.14#

15.32**

5.49#

4.19#

Y v s. Z

38#

2.94#

12.92**

7.56#

5.76#

Y v s. B

6#

1.97#

3.04**

5.07#

3.86#

Z v s. C

5#

2.75#

1.83

7.01#

5.35#

Z v s. B

32#

2.60#

11.92**

6.68#

5.10#

C vs. B

27#

1.64#

16.46**

4.21#

3.21#

Response Comparison

48

55B.

Do you th in k d iv o rce should be granted only by the church? TABIE 17 Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 55B

Your answer?

How would Cath. answer?

P ro t?

P ro t.

Gath.

P ro t.

Cath.

P ro t.

Cat]

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

87#

61#

78#

72#

28%

35#

H

1918

460

1798

450

1788

408

S.E .p

.010

.085

.010

.081

,011

.024

Response Symbol # Yes

On t h i s q u estio n a h ig h ly s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e in professed a t titu d e e x is ts between C a th o lics and P r o te s ta n ts . I t i s noteworthy th a t a degree of agreement i s found between th e C a th o lic s ’ in tra -g ro u p fig u re s and the P ro te s ta n ts ’ p re d ic tio n .

This re p re se n ts a d ir e c t r e v e rs a l of r e s u lts

found in th e previous q u estio n .

P ro te s ta n ts empathize w ith

t h e i r own group and w ith th e C a th o lic s’ estim ate of P ro te s ta n t a ttitu d e s i s m arginally in agreement w ith the P r o te s ta n ts ’ estim ate of P ro te s ta n t a t titu d e s .

49

TABLE 18

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Question 55B

# D if f.

S, E# D if f.

C ritic a l R atio (t)

1% Level L im its

5% Level L im its

A v s. X

54%

2.51%

15.55**

6.45%

4.91%

A v s. Y

50%

2.51%

21.68**

5.95%

4.51%

A vs. Z

8%

2.60%

2.65**

6.68%

5.09%

A v s. 0

1%

1.49%

.67

3.82%

2.91%

A v s. B

51%

1.41%

36.06**

3.65%

2.77%

X v s. Y

16%

5.11%

5.14**

8.00%

6.10%

X vs. Z

26%

3.53%

7.82**

8.54%

6.51%

X v s. C

35%

2.55%

12.90**

6.55%

4.99%

X vs. B

17%

2.51%

2.39*

6.44%

4.91%

Y vs. Z

42%

3.19%

15.17**

8.19%

6.25%

Y v s. C

49%

2.37%

20.57**

6.09%

4.65%

Y v s. B

1%

2.35%

.43

5.98%

4.56%

Z v s. G

7%

2.64%

2.27*

6.78%

5.17%

Response Comparison

Z v s. B

4^

2.60%

16.54**

6.68%

5.09%

C vs. B

50%

1.49%

53.65**

3.82%

2.91%

50

55#

I t makes no d iffe re n c e what re lig io n yon fo llo w as long as you lead a good l i f e . TABLE 19 Yes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 53

Your answer?

How would Cath. answer?

Prot?

P ro t.

Cath.

P ro t.

C ath.

P ro t.

Cath

A

X

B

Y

C

2

81#

71#

46#

59#

75#

75#

H

2030

512

1874

495

1901

474

S .E .p

.009

.021

.012

.023

.010

.020

Response Symbol # Yes

C ath o lics have a m arginal understanding of the Protest* ants* a c tu a l p ro fessed a ttitu d e s on th is q u estio n .

The

a t titu d e which C a th o lics a sc rib e to P ro te s ta n ts i s not s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t from t h e i r own a t titu d e .

Moreover,

C atholics are em pathically agreed w ith th e P ro testan ts* estim ate of P ro te s ta n t a t titu d e s .

An empathie process i s

o p eratin g between th e C atholics* p re d ic tio n of P ro te s ta n t a ttitu d e s and th e P ro te sta n ts* estim ate of P ro te s ta n t a t titu d e s .

51

TABLE 20

S ig n ifica n ce of Tes Responses by R elig io u s Groups to Q uestion 53

# D if f.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio (t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level L im its

A vs. X

10#

2.29#

4.38**

5.87#

4.48#

A vs. Y

22#

2.47#

8.91**

6.35#

4.84#

A v s. Z

6#

2.19#

2.23*

5.64#

4.30#

A v s. C

6#

1.35#

4.45**

5.46#

2.64#

A v s. B

35#

1.50#

23.35**

3.85#

2.94#

X v s. Y

12#

3.11#

3.86**

7.99#

6.09#

X vs. Z

4#

2.90#

1.36

7.45#

5.68#

X v s. C

4#

2.33#

1.72

5.99#

4.56#

X v s. B

25#

2.42#

10.34**

6.22#

4.74#

Y v s. Z

16#

3.05#

5.25**

7.84#

5.97#

Y vs. 0

16#

2.51#

6.34**

6.45#

4.91#

Y v s. B

13#

2.59#

5.19**

6.66#

5.07#

Z v s. C

0#

2.24#

.00

3.15#

4.38#

Z v s. B

29#

2.33#

12.39**

5.99#

4.57#

C vs. B

29#

1.56#

18.57**

4.01#

3.06#

Response Comparison

52

Boys v s . G irls 55A.

Do you th in k divorce should be granted only by the church? TABLE 21 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 55A Your answer?

How would G irls answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

52#

51#

29#

24#

31#

27#

N

1598

1481

1332

1382

1301

1390

S.E.-n

.015

.015

.013

.012

.013

.012

Response Symbol # Yes

Boys?

On t h i s q u estio n an empathie agreement e x is ts between th e professed a ttitu d e s of boys and g i r l s .

The boys* pro­

fessed a t titu d e s do n o t d i f f e r s ig n if ic a n tly from those they a sc rib e to th e g i r l s .

The same re la tio n s h ip holds

f o r the g i r l s who a t tr i b u te a ttitu d e s to boys which are in m arginal agreement w ith t h e i r own.

Girls* professed a t t i ­

tudes are in empathie agreement w ith the boys* estim ate of t h e ir own group*s a t titu d e s . t h i s is s u e .

Boys empathize w ith g i r l s on

There i s an optimum degree of understanding

of g irls * professed a ttitu d e s by boys.

The g irls * estim ate

o f t h e i r own group *s a t titu d e is not s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t from the a t titu d e which they a sc rib e to boys.

A m arginal

degree of empathy e x is ts between the g irls * in tra -g ro u p

53

TABLE 22

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 55A Response Comparison

# D if f.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio (t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level L im its

A vs. X

1#

1.84#

.54

4.73#

3.60#

A vs. Y

8#

1.77#

4.52**

4.55#

3.45#

A v s. Z

5#

1.77#

2.83**

4.55#

3.45#

A v s. C

4#

1.70#

2.35*

4.39#

5.34#

A vs. B

5#

1.84#

1.63

4.73#

3.60#

X vs. Y

7#

1.77#

5.96**

4.55#

5.45#

X vs. Z

4#

1.77#

2.26*

4.55#

3.45#

X vs. C

5#

1.70#

1.76

4.39#

3.34#

X v s. B

2#

1.84#

1.09

4.73#

5.60#

Y vs. Z

5#

1.70#

1.77

4.36#

3.33#

Y v s. C

4#

1.63#

2.46*

4.19#

3.19#

Y v s. B

5#

1.77#

2.83**

4.55#

3.45#

Z v s. C

1#

1.65#

.61

4.19#

5.19#

Z vs. B

2#

1.77#

1.13

4.55#

3.45#

C v s. B

1#

1.70#

.56

4.39#

3.54#

54

group response and th e boys* in tra -g ro u p e s tim a te .

The

a t titu d e which g i r l s a sc rib e to boys does not d i f f e r s ig n i­ f ic a n tly from th a t which th e boys a sc rib e to t h e i r own group o r to th e one which th e boys a sc rib e to g i r l s .

The a t titu d e

ascrib ed to g i r l s is not s ig n if ic a n tly d if f e r e n t from th e one boys ascrib e to them selves. 36.

Can a woman be as good a P re sid e n t of th e U nited S ta te s as a man? TABLE 25 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 56

Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

30#

46#

15#

5#

82#

75#

N

1461

1534

1436

1542

1369

1554

S .E .p

.012

.013

.010

.007

.011

.011

Response Symbol # Yes

G irls?

A la rg e d iffe re n c e e x is ts between th e professed a ttitu d e s of g i r l s and boys on th i s q u estio n .

I t i s s ig ­

n if ic a n t to note t h a t , although boys b eliev e th a t more than 4 of every 5 g i r l s th in k a woman can be as good a P re sid en t of the U nited S ta te s as a man, a c tu a lly more than h a lf of th e g i r l s p ro fe ss them selves to b eliev e th e o p p o site.

No empathie r e la tio n s h ip of any kind i s p resen t

on t h i s iss u e .

55

TABLE 24

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 36

# D if f.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio (t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level Lim its

A v s. X

16#

1.77#

9.04**

4.55#

5.47#

A v s. Y

25#

1.39#

17.99**

3.57#

2.72#

A vs. Z

45#

1.63#

27.64**

4.18#

3.19#

A v s. C

52#

1.63#

51.94**

4.18#

3.19#

A v s. B

15#

1.56#

9.60**

4.01#

3.06#

X v s. Y

41#

1.48#

27.77**

3.79#

2.89#

X v s. Z

29#

1.70#

17.03**

4.38#

3.34#

X vs. C

36#

1.70#

21.14**

4.38#

3.34#

X v s. B

51#

1.64#

18.90**

4.21#

3.21#

Y v s. Z

70#

1.50#

53.69**

5.55#

2.55#

Y v s. C

77#

1.50#

59.06**

3.35#

2.55#

Y v s. B

10#

1.22#

8.19**

3.14#

2.39#

Z v s. C

7#

1.56#

4.50**

5.99#

3.05#

Z v s. B

60#

1.49#

40.36**

3.82#

2.91#

C v s. B

67#

1.49#

45.07**

3.82#

2.91#

Response Comparison

56

46.

Do you th in k th a t a woman’s p lace i s in th e home? TABLE 25 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 46

Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

80#

67#

86%

89#

52#

45#

N

1472

1588

1420

1511

1407

1516

S«S#p

.011

.012

.010

.009

.013

.013

Response Symbol # Yes

G irls?

The c lo s e s t p re d ic tio n on t h i s question i s th e g ir ls * im pression of how boys would answer compared w ith th e boys* in tra-g ro u p f ig u re s .

Could i t be th a t g i r l s understand

boys b e t te r than they understand members of t h e i r own group? D efin ite evidence of th e absence of in te r-g ro u p empathy is p re se n t.

M arginal empathy between th e g irls * in te r-g ro u p

responses and the boys* in tra -g ro u p response e x is ts on t h i s iss u e .

57

TABLE 26

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 46

% D if f .

8.E . D if f.

C ritic a l R atio ( t)

1% Level L im its

5% Level Lim its

A v s. X

13%

1.83%

7.99**

4.18%

3.19%

A vs. Y

9%

1.42%

6.33**

3.65%

2.78%

A vs. Z

35%

1.70%

20.55**

4.36%

3.34%

A vs. 0

48%

1.70%

28.19**

4.36%

3.34%

A v s. B

6%

1.49%

4.04**

3.80%

2.91%

X v s. Y

22%

1.50%

14.67**

3.85%

2.94%

X vs. Z

22%

1.77%

12.43**

4.52%

3.47%

X vs. G

35%

1.77%

19.78**

4.52%

3.47%

X v s. B

19%

1.56%

12.16**

4.01%

3.06%

Y v s. Z

44%

1.58%

27.83**

4.06%

3.09%

Y v s. C

57%

1.58%

36.05**

4.06%

3.09%

Y vs. B

3%

1 .3 ^

2.23*

3.44%

2.64%

Z vs. G

13%

1.84%

7.07**

4.73%

3.60%

Z v s. B

41%

1.64%

24.99**

4.21%

3.21%

C vs. B

54%

1.64%

32.92**

4.21%

3.21%

Response Comparison

58

47*

Should women w ith home r e s p o n s i b ilit ie s p a r tic ip a te in c iv ic and b u sin ess a c t i v i t i e s ? TABLE 27 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 47 Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

G

Z

49#

61#

53#

22#

75%

74#

N

1478

1567

1397

1484

1391

1479

S.E.p

.014

.015

.015

.011

.012

.012

Response Symbol # Yes

G irls?

There i s a s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e between th e professed a ttitu d e s of boys and g i r l s .

The c lo s e s t p re d ic tio n r e s u lts

from comparing the a ttitu d e s ascrib ed to g i r l s by boys w ith th e g irls * in tra -g ro u p resp o n ses.

This i s a re v e rs a l of th e

r e s u lts on th e previous q u estio n .

The evidence on i n t e r -

group empathy i s th e same as b e fo re .

However empathie agree­

ment is found between the a t titu d e s ascrib ed to g i r l s by boys and those which th e g i r l s a s c rib e to th e ir own group.

59

TABLE 28

S ig n ific a n c e of Tes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 47 Response Con^arison

% D iff.

S. £ . D if f.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1% Level L im its

5% Level L im its

A v s. X

18%

1.19%

6.28**

4.91%

5.74#

A vs. T

27%

1.78%

15.16**

4.57%

3.49#

A vs. Z

25%

1.84%

13.56**

4.73%

3.61#

A vs. C

26%

1.84%

14.10**

4.73%

5.61#

A vs. B

16%

1.91%

8.37**

4.91%

3.74#

X vs. T

39%

1.70%

22.90**

4.37%

3.34#

X vs. Z

15%

1.77%

7.35**

4.55%

5.47#

X v s. C

14%

1.77%

7.91**

4.55%

3.47#

X vs. B

28%

1.64%

15.23**

4.73%

5.60#

T v s. Z

52%

1.63%

31.94**

4.19%

3.19#

T vs. 0

53%

1.63%

32.56**

4.19%

5.19#

T v s. B

11%

1.70%

6.46**

4.37%

5 . 34#

Z v s. C

1%

1.70%

.59

4.36%

3.33#

Z vs. B

41%

1.77%

23,17**

4.55%

5.47#

C v s. B

42%

1.77%

23.74**

4.55%

5.47#

60

48.

Are women m entally l a z i e r th an men? TABLE 29

Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 48

Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

23#

9#

52#

73#

12#

7#

N

1431

1535

1369

1455

1348

1466

S.E .p

.012

.008

.014

.012

.009

.007

Response Symbol # Yes

G irls?

A la rg e d iffe re n c e again e x is ts between th e professed a ttitu d e s of boys and g i r l s on th i s q u estio n .

The ex ten t

of th i s d iffe re n c e i s emphasized by an e rro r of 50# on th e p a rt of th e g i r l s when they attem pt to p re d ic t th e boys* re p ly to t h i s q u estio n .

Conversely, th e boys empathize

m arginally w ith the g i r l s .

For th is question i t can be

said th a t th e boys appear to understand g i r l s b e tte r than th e g i r l s understand th e boys.

The in tra -g ro u p p re d ic tio n

of th e g i r l s proves unquestionably su p e rio r, since they empathize w ith t h e i r own group.

Boys assume th a t t h e i r

group is more than tw ice as in to le r a n t as th e a c tu a l response w arra n ts.

61

TABLE 30

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses By Sex Groups to Q uestion 48

# D if f .

S. 2* D if f.

C ritic a l R atio (t)

1% Level Lim its

5% Level L im its

A vs. X

14#

1.44%

9.70**

3.70%

2.83%

A v s. Y

50#

1.70%

29.46**

4.36%

5.33%

A vs. Z

16%

1.39%

11.52**

5.57%

2.72%

A vs. C

11%

1.50%

7.35**

3.85%

2.94%

A v s. B

29%

1.84%

15.73**

4.75%

3.61%

X vs. Y

64%

1.44%

44.38**

3.70%

2.85%

X vs. Z

2%

1.06%

1.88

2.72%

2.08%

X v s. C

3%

1.20%

2.49*

3.08%

2.36%

X vs. B

45%

1.61%

26.69**

4.14%

3.16%

Y v s. Z

66%

1.39%

47.51**

3.57%

2.72%

Y vs. C

61%

1.50%

40.67**

3.85%

2.94%

Y vs. B

21%

1.84%

11.39**

4.73%

3.61%

Z v s. C

5%

1.14%

4.39**

2.93%

2.23%

Z v s. B

45%

1.57%

28.75**

4.02%

3.07%

C vs. B

40%

1.66%

24.05**

4.28%

3.26%

Response Comparison

68

49*

I s a woman’s in tu itio n b e t te r than a man’s in te llig e n c e ? TABIiE 31

Tes Responses by 8ez Groups to Q uestion 49

Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

X

B

Y

G

Z

20#

41#

12#

11#

72#

66#

H

1218

1549

1375

1490

1360

1484

S.E.p

.012

.013

.009

.009

*013

.013

Response Symbol # Yes

G irls?

Here again d iffe re n c e between th e professed a t t i t i of boys and g i r l s ex ists*

The b e s t p re d ic tio n on th is

question i s made by th e g i r l s when they asc rib e boys’ a t t i ­ tudes according to th e boys in tra -g ro u p response.

In th e

in tra -g ro u p response the boys misjudge th e ir own group by 8^ while th e g i r l s f a i l to p re d ic t a c cu rate ly the response of g i r l s by 25#.

There is evident a 3 to 1 s u p e rio rity

favoring boys on t h i s q u estio n f o r in tra -g ro u p p re d ic tio n . Evidence of anything lik e in te r-g ro u p empathy is again lack in g .

But th e g i r l s ’ estim ate of th e boys’ a ttitu d e

i s in empathie agreement w ith th e a ttitu d e which boys a sc rib e to th e ir own group.

63

TABLE S B

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 49 Response Comparison

# D iff.

S. E. D if f.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level Lim its

A v s. X

21#

1.77#

11.87**

4.55#

3.47#

A v s. Y

9^

1.50#

6.00**

3.85#

2.94#

A v s. Z

46^

1.77#

26.00**

4.55#

3.47#

1.77#

29.39**

4.55#

3.47#

A v s. C A vs. B

8^

1.60#

6.53**

3.85#

2.94#

X v s. Y

30^

1.58#

18.97**

4.06#

3.09#

X v s. Z

25^

1.84#

13.60**

4.73#

3.60#

X v s. G

Zl%

1.83#

16.86**

4.73#

3.60#

X v s. B

29^

1.58#

18.34**

4.06#

3.09#

Y v s. Z

55^

1.58#

34.79**

4.06#

3.09#

Y v s. G

61^

1.58#

38.58**

4.06#

3.09#

Y vs. B

1%

1.27#

.79

3.26#

2.49#

Z vs. G

6%

1.84#

3.26**

4.73#

3.60#

Z v s. B

54^

1.58#

34.15**

4.06#

3.09#

C v s. B

60^

1.58#

37.95**

4.06#

3.09#

64

50.

Should th e male members of th e fam ily tak e t h e i r tu r n doing dishes? TABLE 33 Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 50 Your answer?

How would Boys answer?

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

Boys

G irls

A

Z

B

Y

0

Z

43^

62#

17#

a#

88#

82#

N

1428

1567

1372

1488

1363

1485

S.E.p

.014

.013

.011

.007

.009

.010

Response Symbol % Yes

G irls?

An. unquestionably s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e between th e professed a ttitu d e s of boys and g i r l s e x is ts on th i s is s u e . The c lo s e s t agreement i s th a t between boys and on th e g i r l s in tra-g ro u p response.

The g i r l s have misjudged th e ir own

group by 20^ and the boys misjudged th e ir own group by 26^. There appears th e re fo re evidence of considerable misunder­ standing between boys and g i r l s and w ith in th e ir own groups on th is iss u e .

Ho empathy of any kind i s found.

65

TABLE 34

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Sex Groups to Q uestion 50

# D if f.

S. E. D if f.

C ritic a l R atio ( t)

1# Level L im its

5# Level Lim its

A vs. Z

19#

1.91#

9.95**

4.91#

3.74^

A v s. Y

55#

1.56#

22.41**

4.01#

5.06#

A v s. Z

39#

1.72#

22.67**

4.42#

3.37#

A v s. G

45#

1.66#

27.04**

4.28#

3.26#

A v s. B

26#

1.78#

14.60**

4.57#

3.49#

Z v s. Y

54#

1.48#

36.57**

3.79#

2.89#

Z v s. Z

20#

1.64#

12.44**

4.21#

3.21#

Z vs. C

26#

1.53#

16.44**

4.06#

3.09#

Z v s. B

45#

1.70#

26.42**

4.38#

3.34#

Y v s. Z

74#

1.22#

60.62**

3.14#

2.39#

Y v s. G

80#

1.14#

70.16**

2.93#

2.23#

Y v s. B

9#

1.30#

6.90**

3.35#

2.55#

Z v s. C

6#

1.35#

4.46**

3.46#

2.64#

Z v s. B

65#

1.49#

45.72**

3.82#

2.91#

C v s. B

71#

1.42#

49.95**

3.65#

2.78#

Response Comparison

66

R ural T s. Urban 42.

Do th e more I n te ll ig e n t persons leav e th e farm f o r the c ity ? TABLE 35

Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 42

Your answer?

How would Farmers ans?

C ity Persons?

R ural

Urban

R ural

Urban

Rural

Urban

A

Z

6

Y

C

Z

37#

40#

27#

23#

68#

64#

H

1390

1611

1522

1557

1303

1543

S.E. p

.013

.013

.013

.011

.013

.013

Response Symbol # Yes

Although th e pro fessed a ttitu d e s of r u r a l and urban groups are in empathie agreement, both groups in d io a te th a t they th in k the d iffe re n c e i s a siz e a b le one.

This r e s u lt

lends emphasis to the theory th a t in d iv id u a ls re a c t not on the b a s is of co n d itio n s as they a re , but r a th e r as they are believed to e x i s t.

Both groups are agreed on th is q u estio n ,

but n e ith e r group i s aware of t h i s f a c t .

Each group apparent­

ly uses th e ste re o ty p e of th e o th e r one on which to base i t s a t t i t u d i n a l p re d ic tio n s . in th is re s p e c t.

Both groups empathize m arginally

67

TABLE 36

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 42 Response Comparison

# D if f.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level Lim its

A v s. X

3#

1.84#

1.65

4.72#

5.60#

A vs. Y

14#

1.70#

8.22**

4.38#

5.34#

A v s. Z

.27#

1.84#

14.69**

4.72#

3.60#

A vs. C

31#

1.84#

16.86**

4.72#

3.60#

A v s. B

10#

1.84#

5.44**

4.72#

3.60#

X vs. Y

17#

1.70#

9.98**

4.58#

3.54#

X v s. Z

24#

1.84#

13.05**

4.72#

3.60#

X vs. C

28#

1.84#

15.23**

4.72#

3.60#

X vs. B

13#

1.84#

7.07**

4.72#

3.60#

Y vs. Z

41#

1.70#

24.07**

4.58#

3.34#

Y v s. C

45#

1.70#

26.43**

4.38#

3.34#

Y vs. B

4#

1.70#

2.35*

4.38#

3.34#

Z v s. C

4#

1.84#

2.17*

4.72#

3.60#

Z vs. B

57#

1.84#

20.13**

4.72#

3.60#

0 v s. B

41#

1.84#

22.50**

4.72#

3.60#

68

41.

Does a farm er c o n trib u te more to the c ity worker than th e c ity worker c o n trib u te s to th e farmer? TABLE 37 Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 41

Response Symbol

Your answer?

How would Farmers ans?

C ity Persons

R ural Urban

R ural

Urban

Rural Urban

A

X

B

Y

0

Z

69#

54#

84#

78#

22#

26#

H

1431

1659

1335

1581

1525

1561

S.E .p

.015

.013

.011

.011

.012

.012

# Yes

A la rg e d iffe re n c e e x is ts between th e professed a t t i ­ tudes of r u r a l and urban groups on th i s question.

However

i t i s noteworthy th a t th e m ajo rity opinion of both groups favors th e farm er.

Although th e b asic d iffe re n c e between

th e r u r a l and urban groups i s only 15 percentage p o in ts , both groups b eliev e th a t th i s d iffe re n c e i s more th an 50 percentage p o in ts .

The in tra-g ro u p p re d ic tio n i s in

favor of th e r u r a l group who misjudged t h e ir own group response by 15 percentage p o in ts , whereas the urban group misjudged i t s group response by 18 percentage p o in ts and in the "wrong” d ir e c tio n .

M arginal empathy e x is ts between th e

r u r a l group?à p re d ic tio n of th e urban a ttitu d e and th e urban group?é estim ate of i t s own group’s a ttitu d e .

69

TABLE 38

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Question 41 Response Comparison

# D if f.

S. E. D iff.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level L im its

A vs. X

15#

1.84#

8.16**

4.72#

3.60#

A v s. Y

9#

1.70#

5.29**

4.38#

3.34#

A vs. Z

43#

1.77#

24.50**

4.55#

5.47#

A vs . G

47#

1.77#

26.57**

4.55#

3.47#

A vs. B

15#

1.70#

8.81**

4.58#

3.34#

X vs. Y

24#

1.70#

14.09**

4.38#

5.34#

X vs. Z

28#

1.77#

15.83**

4.55#

3.47#

X v s. C

52#

1.77#

18.09**

4.55#

3.47#

X vs. B

30#

1.70#

17.62**

4.58#

5.34#

Y vs. Z

52#

1.65#

31.94**

4.18#

3.19#

Y v s. C

56#

1.63#

34.40**

4.18#

3,19#

Y vs. B

6#

1.56#

3.86**

3.99#

5.05#

Z v s. C

4#

1.70#

2.56*

4.36#

5.35#

Z v s. B

58#

1.65#

35.63**

4.18#

3.19#

C v s. B

62#

1.63#

58.09**

4.18#

3.19#

70

40.

Since th e farm er i s guaranteed p ric e support fo r h is produce, should not th e government a lso guarantee a minimum wage f o r th e c i t y worker? TABLE 39 Yes Responses by EurdrUrban Groups to Q uestion 40

Your answer?

How would Farmers ans?

C ity Persons?

R ural

Urban

R ural

Urban

R ural

Urban

A

Ï

B

Y

C

Z

72#

76#

51#

52#

33#

84#

H

1450

1650

1388

1582

1354

1590

S.E .p

♦012

♦O il

.014

♦013

♦O il

.010

Response Symbol # Yes

The d iffe re n c e between both groups in professed a t t i ­ tudes is only 4#.

M arginal empathy is p rese n t between pro­

fessed a ttitu d e s of both groups.

However, both groups

believe th a t a divergence in response to th is question i s as la rg e as 3G#.

The response to t h i s issue is another

i l l u s t r a t i o n of in te r-g ro u p te n s io n exaggeration.

I f the

in tra-g ro u p response is used as th e c r ite r io n in stead of th e a c tu a l pro fessed group response, a s tr ik in g s im ila rity is ev id en t, sin ce th e re i s re c ip ro c a l empathie agreement. U nfortunately a s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e e x is ts between the a c tu a l professed a t titu d e s and th e in tra-g ro u p response of each group. Responses to th e issu e s which d ea l w ith R ural v s. Urban d iffe re n c e s s u b s ta n tia te the tren d which runs through th e

71

TABLE 40

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Rural-Urban Groups to Q uestion 40 Response Comparison

% D iff.

S. E. D if f.

C ritic a l R atio ( t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level Lim its

A v s. X

4^

1.63#

2.46*

4.18#

5.19#

A v s. Y

20^

1.77#

11.30**

4.55#

3.47#

A v s. Z

12^

1.56#

7.68**

4.01#

3.06#

A v s. 0

11^

1.63#

6.76**

4.18#

5.19#

A v s. B

21#

1.84#

11.59**

4.74#

3.61#

X v s. Y

24#

1.70#

16.14**

4.58#

3.54#

X vs. Z

8#

1.49#

5.58**

5.82#

2.91#

X v s. 0

7#

1.56#

4.50**

4.00#

3.05#

X v s. B

25#

1.78#

14.04**

4.57#

5.49#

Y v s. Z

52#

1.64#

19.51**

4.21#

S'.lKl#

Y v s. C

51#

1.70#

18.20**

4.58#

3.34#

Y v s. B

1#

1.91#

.52

4.91#

5.74#

Z v s. 0

1#

1.49#

.67

3.82#

2.91#

Z v s. B

53#

1.72#

19.18**

4.42#

5.37#

Q v s. B

3^

1.78#

17.97**

4.57#

5.49#

72

whole survey.

L i t t l e evidence of re c ip ro c a l empathy or of

marked m utual understanding e x is ts .

Groups g e n e ra lly do no

b e t te r in understanding th e ir own groups than they do in understanding groups which are presumably in c o n f lic t w ith t h e i r own group.

P re d ic tio n of the c o n f lic t group’s response

approaches more c lo s e ly th e misjudged and misunderstood i n t r a ­ group response of th e c o n f lic t group than the a c tu a l p ro fe ss­ ed response. Low v s . High Income 44.

Should w ealthy c h ild re n g et b e tte r m edical a tte n tio n than poor ch ild ren ? TABLE 41 Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Q uestion 44 Your answer?

How would th e Poor ans?

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

Wealthy?

Response Symbol

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

# Yes

5#

7#

7#

8#

58#

47#

N

2554

720

2195

707

2185

691

S.E.p

.005

.010

.006

.011

.011

.019

No s ig n if ic a n t d iffe re n c e e x is ts between the professed a ttitu d e s on t h i s is s u e between th e high and low income groups.

Both groups are in empathie agreement.

D espite

the mere two p o in t d iffe re n c e , the low income group presumably

75

TABLE 42

S ig n ifiea n ce of Yes Responses by Socio-Economi© Groups to Q uestion 44 Response Comparison

1# D iff.

S. E. D if f.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level Lim its

A v s. X

2#

1.18#

1.69

3.03#

2.31#

A vs. Y

5#

1.21#

2.48*

3.10#

2.37#

A vs. Z

42#

1.96#

21.38**

5.05#

3.85#

A v s. 0

53#

1.21#

43.86**

3.10#

2.37#

A vs. B

2#

.78#

2.56**

2.01#

1.53#

X v s. Y

1#

1.49#

.67

3.82#

2.91#

X vs. Z

36#

2.19#

16.77**

5.52#

4.21#

X vs. C

51#

1.49#

54.31**

3.82#

2.91#

X v s. B

0#

1.17#

.00

2.99#

2.88#

Y v s. Z

35#

2.20#

15.94**

5.64#

4.30#

Y v s. 0

50#

1.56#

52.14**

3.99#

5.05#

1.25#

.80

5.22#

2.45#

Y v s. B Z v s. C

15#

2.20#

6.83**

5.64#

4.30#

Z v s. B

36#

1.99#

16.07**

5.12#

3.90#

C v s. B

51#

1.25#

40.71**

5.22#

2.45#

74

b e lie v e s th a t a d iffe re n c e of 51# e x is ts .

The high income

group exaggerates th e two p e r cent a c tu a l d iffe re n c e u n t i l i t becomes 59#.

On t h i s q u estio n th e low income group appears

to understand i t s own group b e t te r th an the high income group understands i t s e l f .

However, the high income group proves

d e f in ite ly su p e rio r to th e low income group in p re d ic tin g th e c o n flic tin g group’s a c tu a l pro fessed response, since i t em­ p a th iz e s m arg in ally ♦ A ttitu d e s which th e high income group asc rib e s to the low income do not d i f f e r s ig n ific a n tly from those which th e low group a s c rib e s to i t s e l f .

Hor do they

d i f f e r s ig n if ic a n tly from th e professed a ttitu d e s of the high group.

There i s an empathie agreement between th e a ttitu d e s

professed by the high group those which th e low group as­ c rib e s to i t s e l f . 43.

Do you fav o r fe d e r a l aid to education even i f th is means higher tax es? TABLE 43 Tes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Q uestion 45

Your answer?

How would the Poor ans?

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

63#

64#

40#

46^

57#

53#

H

2535

712

2169

694

2151

700

S.E.p

.010

.019

.011

.019

.011

.019

Response Symbol # Yes

Wealthy?

75

TABLE 44

S ig n ifica n ce o f Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Q uestion 43 Response Comparison

# D if f.

S. E. D if f.

C r iti c a l R atio ( t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level L im its

A v s. X

1#

2.15#

.47

5.52#

4.21#

A v s. Y

17#

2.15#

7.92**

5.52#

4.21#

A v s. Z

10#

2.15#

4.66**

5.52#

4.21#

A vs. C

6#

1.49#

4.04**

3.82#

2.91#

A vs. B

25#

1.49#

15.47**

3.82#

2.91#

X v s. Y

18#

2.69#

6.70**

6.91#

5.27#

X v s. Z

11#

2.70#

4.09**

6.91#

5.27#

X v s. C

7#

2.20#

3.19**

5.64#

4.30#

X vs. B

24#

2.20#

10.93**

5.64#

4.30#

Y v s. Z

7#

1.65#

4.24**

4.24#

3.25#

Y v s. 0

11#

1.60#

6.86**

4.12#

3.14#

Y v s. B

6#

1.60#

3.74**

4.12#

3.14#

Z v s. B

15#

2.20#

5.47**

5.64#

4.50#

Z v s. C

4#

2.20#

1.82

5.64#

4.30#

C v s. B

17#

1.56#

10.93**

3.99#

3.05#

76

Both groups agree empathie a lly on t h i s issu e in terms of a c tu a l professed a t titu d e s .

The low income group not

only m isjudges and m isunderstands i t s own group on t h i s q u estio n , but also exaggerates th e one p o in t in ter-g ro u p d iffe re n c e by 17#.

I t i s noteworthy th a t the low income

group’s in tra -g ro u p response i s p r a c tic a lly d ia m e tric a lly opposite i t s a c tu a l p ro fessed a t t i t u d i n a l response!

On t h i s

issu e the low income group understands i t s c o n flic t group b e tte r th an i t understands i t s e l f .

Empathie agreement i s

p resen t between th e a ttitu d e s which the low group asc rib e s to the high group and those which the high group a sc rib e s to its e lf. 38.

Do you th in k th a t te a c h e rs favor th e ric h child? TABLE 45

Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Q uestion 58 Your answer? Poor Response Symbol

Rich

How would th e Poor an sf

Wealthy?

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

36#

21#

74#

76#

19#

16#

N

2290

757

2225

706

2183

704

S.E .p

.011

.016

.010

.017

.009

.014

# Yes

A genuine d iffe re n c e between professed a ttitu d e s e x is ts on t h i s iss u e .

The 15# a c tu a l d iffe re n c e i s exaggerated by 55#

77

TABLE 46

S ig n ifica n ce of Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Question 50 Response Comparison

% D iff.

8* E. D iff.

C r itic a l R atio (t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level L im its

A v s. X

15#

1.94#

7.72**

4.99#

3.80#

A vs. Y

40#

2.05#

19.75**

5.20#

5.97#

A vs. Z

20#

1.78#

11.25**

4.57#

3.49#

A v s. G

17#

1 .4 ^

11.96**

3.65#

2.78#

A v s. B

30#

1.49#

25.56**

5.82#

2.91#

X vs. Y

55#

2.55#

24.56**

5.99#

4.57#

X v s. Z

5#

2.15#

2.55*

5.46#

4.17#

X vs. 0

2#

1.84#

1.09

4.72#

5.60#

X v s. B

55#

1.89#

28.09**

4.85#

5.70#

Y v s. Z

60#

2.20#

27.24**

5.66#

4.52#

Y v s. C

57#

1.92#

29.63**

4.94#

5.77#

Y vs. B

2#

1.97#

1.01

5.07#

5.86#

Z vs. C

5#

1.66#

1.80

4.28#

5.26#

Z v s. B

58#

1.72#

53.71**

4.42#

3.37#

C v s. B

55#

1.55#

40.88**

5.46#

2.64#

78

by th e low income group and by 60# by th e high income group. The low income group has again f a ile d to understand i t s own group, but has succeeded in em pathizing w ith i t s c o n flic t group.

I t i s noteworthy th a t th e low income group does

l i t t l e b e t te r in p re d ic tin g i t s own response than th e high income group does in th e p re d ic tin g of th e low group response. The high income group empathizes m arginally w ith i t s own group.

Both groups empathize w ith a ttitu d e s ascribed by th e

opposing group to i t s e l f . 37.

Should a fam ily re c e iv e an income of le s s than $25.00 a week? TABLE 47 Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Q uestion 57 Your answer?

How would th e Poor ans?

Poor

Poor

Rich

Poor

Rich

Rich

Wealthy?

Response Symbol

A

X

B

Y

C

Z

# Yes

7#

6#

13#

11#

33#

22#

H

2544

745

2246

725

2197

734

S .E .p

.006

.009

.006

.012

.011

.016

Both groups are In empathie agreement in term s of professed a t titu d e s .

There i s only one percentage point of

d iffe re n c e between th e low and th e high income groups in a c tu a l p rofessed a t titu d e s .

This d iffe re n c e is, exaggerated

by 22 percentage p o in ts by th e high group.

The la rg e s t

79

TABLE 48

S ig n ifican ce of Yes Responses by Socio-Economic Groups to Question 57

% D iff.

S. E. D iff.

A v s. X

¥

1.08#

A vs. Y

4#

A v s. Z

Response Comparison

C r itic a l R atio (t)

1# Level Lim its

5# Level L im its

.92

2.78#

2.12#

1.54#

2.98**

5.45#

2.63#

15#

1.71#

8.78**

4.59#

5.55#

A vs. C

26#

1.54#

19.58**

3.45#

2.65#

A v s. B

6#

1.00#

6.00**

2.57#

1.96#

X v s. Y

6#

1.50#

4.00**

5.85#

2.94#

X v s. Z

16#

1.84#

8.72**

4.72#

5.59#

X v s. 0

27#

1 .4 ^

18.99**

3.65#

2.78#

X v s. B

7#

1.20#

5.81**

5.09#

2.36#

Y vs. 2

11#

2.00#

5.50**

5.14#

3.92#

Y v s. C

22#

1.63#

15.51**

4.18#

3.19#

Y vs. B

2#

1.44#

1.39

5.71#

2.85#

Z v s. C

11#

1.94#

5.67**

4.99#

3.80#

Z vs. B

9#

1.79#

5.03**

4.59#

3.51#

C vs. B

20#

1.56#

14.70**

5.49#

2.66#

80

divergence i s found between th e responses ascrib ed to th e high income group by th e low group and th e a c tu a l professed a t titu d e of th e high group.

On t h i s issu e th e high group

understands th e low group b e t te r th an i t understood i t s own group.

A ttitu d e s which the high income group a sc rib e s to

the low income group are in empathie agreement w ith those which th e low income group a s c rib e s to i t s e l f . Summary 1.

C o n flic t groups vary in th e ir a c tu a l professed a t t i t u d i ­ n a l responses from complete agreement to divergence which ranges as high as 34 percentage p o in ts .

The ex ten t

of divergence th u s appears to be a fu n ctio n of th e s o c ia l issu e involved. 2.

Grodps agree more c lo s e ly in t h e i r p re d ic tio n w ith the c o n flic t group’s a c tu a l professed a t titu d i n a l response,

3.

The group’s p re d ic tio n of i t s own group response v a rie s from ex actin g accuracy to b iz a rre re v e rs a ls and p re ­ d ic tio n f a i l u r e s ranging as high as 50 percentage p o in ts .

4.

Accuracy in p re d ic tin g in tra-g ro u p response bears no apparent re la tio n s h ip to the accuracy of p re d ic tin g th e c o n f lic t group’s empathie b ase.

5.

R e la tiv e ly l i t t l e evidence of re c ip ro c a l empathy was found, although se v e ra l in sta n c e s of in te r-g ro u p empathy were p re se n t.

E s s e n tia lly t h i s in d ic a te s th a t th e optimum

81

degree of mutual understanding between groups was la rg e ly a b se n t.

In those cases where one group gave evidence of

optim ally understanding i t s c o n f lic t group, th e c o n f lic t group did not re c ip ro c a te w ith a sim ila r degree of under­ stan d in g .

82 CORRELATION OF RELATIONSHIPS

Four major r e la tio n s h ip s v i t a l to th e problem of under­ standin g between c o n f lic t groups were id e n tif ie d and ex­ p lain ed in an e a r l i e r s e c tio n of t h i s t h e s i s .

I s th e re any

re la tio n s h ip between th e se fo u r re la tio n s h ip s ? Empathie Base v s . Empathie Base This re la tio n s h ip re p re s e n ts th e a c tu a l professed a t t i ­ tudes of c o n f lic t groups on a p a r tic u la r is s u e .

Although

the issu e s may d i f f e r and th e names of c o n flic t groups change, th e re la tio n s h ip remains th e same.

Since th i s is th e

case, i t i s p la u s ib le to c o r r e la te a l l groups w ith th e ir re sp e c tiv e c o n f lic t groups on each of the iss u e s in which the c o n f lic t r e la tio n s h ip i s found.

By r e f e r r in g to Table

50, i t is evident th a t on q u estio n 46 th e empathie base f o r one group was 80# w hile f o r i t s c o n f lic t group on th e same question th e empathie base was 67#*

On q u estio n 47 th e

empathie base f o r th e f i r s t group was 49# w hile f o r i t s c o n f lic t group on th e same iss u e the empathie base was 61#. So long as th e empathie base of a p a r tic u la r group i s p lo t­ ted on th e same a x is , e ith e r X o r Y, th e assumptions of c o rre la tio n theory are th e o r e tic a lly f u l f i l l e d .

However,

since th e re are f iv e c o n f lic t a re a s ; namely, sex, r e lig io n , ra c e , socio-economic s ta tu s and r u r a l urban re sid e n c e , each of which has two c o n f lic t groups in th i s study, no defense could be made f o r o rd erin g any p a r tic u la r f iv e groups under the X v a r ia b le r a th e r th an under th e Y.

85 For example:

TABLE 49

Empathie Base v s . Empathie Base I

Ï Boy P ro te s ta n t Negro High Income R ural

G irl C ath o lic White Low Income Urban

No defense could be made f o r p la c in g th e boys’ group under th e X and th e g i r l s ’ group under th e Y v a r ia b le .

The same

s itu a tio n i s tru e f o r any o f th e o th er fo u r c o n f lic t group p a ir s .

T his dilemma was reso lv ed by c a lc u la tin g a se p arate

c o rre la tio n c o e f f ic ie n t f o r each of th e 32 p o ssib le combin­ a tio n s .

In t h i s manner a range or r ’s from .814 to .831

was o btain ed .

However, sin ce th e number of item s (cases)

was sm all (22) an r which c o rre c ts fo r th e number of cases r ^ ts r^ (N - 1) - 1 H — 2

(r) suggested by Croxton and Cowden (7) was used.

ranged from .803 to .822.

The newly obtained r ’s

The average (a rith m e tic mean) r

(.811) was se le c te d as th e b est estim ate of th e empathie base v s . empathie base r e la tio n s h ip . t

(H - 2 ) ^ “

F is h e r ’ s form ula

f o r te s tin g th e sig n ific a n c e of r w ith a sm all number of cases described in P e te rs

and van, T oorhis (23) was used to determ ine whether i t i s reasonable to assume th a t th e observed r i s from a random sample from a p o p u latio n in which th e tru e r i s zero . th e uncorrected r is used in t h i s form ula.(num ber 8 6 ).

The

84

TABLE 50

One of T hirty-tw o P o ssib le R e la tio n sh ip s Between Empathie Bases of a l l Tension Groups on a l l Tension Issu e s Yes Responses Tension Iss u e s (Q uestions)

Group A

Group B

No.

X

Y

46 47 48 49 50 56 55A

80# 49 25 20 45 30 52

67# 61 9 41 62 46 31

55B 53 59 54A

61# 71 76 17

27# 81 55 34

54B 51 52 45

16# 28 83 10

54# 29 68 10

Poor (X) v s . Rich (Y)

45 44 57 38

65# 5 7 56

64# 7 6 21

Urban (X) v s . R ural (Y)

40 41 42

76# 54 40

72# 69 37

Sex Boys (X) v s. G irls (Y)

R elig io n Gath. (X) v s . P ro te (Y) Race Negro (X) v s . White (Y) Socio-Economic

Range of 52 r ’s Mean S.D.

.805 - .822 .811 *0057

85

Since a t v alue of 6.45 was o b ta in ed , th e n u ll hy p o th esis was rejected, and the r obtained was assumed to be very s ig n if ic a n tly non-zero. The P earsonian r was c a lc u la te d a f t e r s c a t t e r diagrams were made of th e empathie base v s. empathie base r e la tio n ­ ship f o r f iv e c o n f lic t a re a s combined and f o r each area se p a ra te ly .

When p o in ts were p lo tte d on th e s c a tte r d ia ­

grams th e p a tte r n which was formed in d ic ated a d e f in ite lin e a r tre n d .

For the sake of com pleteness T*s were p lo tte d

f o r each c o n f lic t a re a ; th a t i s , sex, ra c e , r e lig io n , so c io ­ economic s ta tu s and ru ra l-u rb a n resid en ce as i l l u s t r a t e d in Table 51.

The number of cases ( item s) involved in each a re a

i s so sm all th a t re g a rd le s s of th e r o b tain ed , th e v alue of th e c a lc u la tio n would be q u estio n ab le.

Table 51 con tain s

the obtained r ’s and th e t value f o r th e s ig n ific a n c e of each r .

The methods used to o b ta in r and th e t - t e s t f o r

the sig n ific a n c e of r were p rev io u sly d escrib ed .

I f th e

r ’s obtained serve no o th e r purpose, they w ill a t le a s t d escrib e th e s tr a ig h t lin e curve which would be f i t t e d i f s c a tte r diagrams were p lo tte d .

Since t h i s i s an ex p lo ra­

to ry study, every conceivable type of r e la tio n s h ip i s ex p lo ited to th e utmost f o r p o ssib le laws or p rin c ip le s which may as y e t be undiscovered.

In w ell defined area s of

rese arch th e p lo ttin g of c o rre la tio n s w ith so few cases (item s) would border on th e lin e of s c i e n t i f i c a b s u rd ity . However, when d e a lin g w ith undefined, ill - s t r u c tu r e d a re a s, where s c i e n t i f i c a l l y speaking, the rese arch i s n o n -e x is te n t.

86

even th e seemingly p o in tle s s r e s u l t s when lin k ed w ith fu tu re fin d in g s may lead to an ev en tu al f r u i t f u l development. Empathie Base v s . In te r-g ro u p Response T his r e la tio n s h ip i s used to t e s t f o r th e presence of in te r-g ro u p empathy.

In te r-g ro u p empathy re p re s e n ts th e

optimum s ta te of understanding between c o n f lic t groups* Conversely, each degree w ith which c o n f lic t groups f a i l to approach in te r-g ro u p empathy re p re se n ts a decrement in th e understanding of opposing groups.

The s ig n ific a n c e of th i s

re la tio n s h ip to th e problem of mutual understanding between c o n f lic t groups i s c r u c ia l.

S c a tte r diagrams of th i s r e ­

la tio n s h ip in d ic a te d a d e f in ite lin e a r tre n d .

Hence, as

f o r the previous r e la tio n s h ip th e Pearsonian r was ca lcu ­ la te d .

However, th e empathie base of one group and the in te r-

group response of i t s opposing group are v a ria b le s which can be d e f in ite ly assigned e ith e r to th e X or th e Y v a r ia b le . In no case i s theae p o s s i b ilit y of any o th e r combination as was found in th e empathie base v s . empathie base r e la tio n ­ ship in which th irty -tw o p o ssib le combinations were found. The empathie base was ordered on the X a x is and th e i n t e r group response of the opposing group was ordered on th e Y a x is .

Two of th e se r e la tio n s h ip s are found on each issu e

and su b -issu e (B p a rts of two q u e stio n s).

The t o t a l number

of such re la tio n s h ip s i s fo rty - f o u r. For example, in q u estio n 46, Table 25, th e empathie base fo r boys (80#) i s p lo tte d on th e X a x is .

The i n t e r -

87 TABLE 51

Suiomary of a l l R e la tio n sh ip s Found, in T hesis

I.

Responses

Humber of Oases

Coef, C orr.

Empathie Base v s . Empathie Base

H

r

7 4 4 4 S 22

.671 .277 .841 .977 .641 .811

2.45 .89 2.87 7.95** 1.55 6.45**

14 8 6 8 6 44

.370 .727 .556 .169 .775 .598

2.0 9 8

1.75 2.97* 1.96 1.56 2.90* 3.92**

14 8 8 8 6 44

.716 .898 .626 .475 .453 .732

2.071

5.83** 5.49** 2.35 1.74 1.51 4.80**

14 8 8 8 6 44

.965 .942 .965 .980 .988 .964

2,011

12.99** 7.46** 9.82** 13.18** 14.41** 6.32**

A* B. 0. D. E. F. II.

Sex R elig io n Race Soeio-economie Rural-Urban A ll Groups

Empathie Base v s . In tra -g ro u p A. B. 0. D. E. F.

IV.

G r i t .' R atio

Empathie Base v s . In te r-g ro u p A. B. 0. D. E. F.

III.

Sex R elig io n Race Soeio-economie Rural-Urban A ll Groups

S.E. Oorr,

Sex R elig io n Race Socio-economic Rural-Urban A ll Groups

In te r-g ro u p v s . Tension Group In tra -g ro u p A. Sex B. R elig io n C. Race B. Socio-economic E. Rural-Urban F . A ll Groups

1. Cases s r e la tio n s h ip s 2. Where thO

(v cm H - 4

çv

cm c\j

cm N

33^^

S3

33^^^

O SO ^ o o t>

G* :4 0 0

cm c m - 4 nû cm

^-NO

£>-nOo-flo

o rCMCM

I ®

w cm gCjN ocm im 4 0\ o C7^ o

cm g O O

n} w4 M Q) cq

-imvO H

0 0 H

c-O C ^ ^ s H

«0 im C^OrHJA H CNi- r4 CMCMCM

H C~- O cmON(M On-4 CMCM CM(Mcm CM H CM

rHcmcmH (M CMCM(M

•Hooisu

çMirv TOC-

cm O ONim TO TO c- c-

ONcm C-CN-

H NO TOC-

ONc- [N. ON o cm C—C-C-t— TOC-

OnHHO

h cm

r-t

g:^H >-l

O

'

c\ v OO «0

w

9P

^

3:9

F lîSgS

(2 3 §

ro S

«H O +3 a o XI •H CO

c A tS Q tSH^--V

%

EÏ^

CJ'

o-Cn* r - m cm

or-H to TOC-nOO-

33

^

3333

cm -4

h

O

cm N cm cm

3

c m ON -4 ON cm ON cM

cm

^

w CMNO o r4 CMCMCM

CM CM

çm«o- 4 0 TO C- C- TO

co j>.

O TO -4 O

o

U

PL, flj

1

o^

TO

to

d

c^*

© C X> d C

TO

S^ C^O M ^

ON

UNUN

TO

ON ON ON

rHONONQ iH

ONTO

O

0 0 0 g T O O

O n CTn

Hg

H CMTOTO

OnTO

O Q O Q

OnQ

OnTOcM-4

O

n

H i H H C M H

iH

OO

On O n TO TO

p

H

t

O n CJ n

O T O

O Q H

H

H

ON ON

O CM TO O

iH

pH

H

r

-

i

i

H

0 -4 C- CCS

TO o H TO LTSTOTOTO

cmH cvHCOcv o cm h c o h c n sOim vOnOvOnO O'O \0 o xOu\ vOvû

vm oocrn U\\0 t>VÛ

O TO cm 4

CMg ONCM -4 4 cm cm

r-O cm-4

UAOOC^ -4 -4 cm cm

UNcm C-TO lA vo (H fH

C- CMTO cm 4 [—lATO (JNTO t—TO

o

^

o ^4

G

d d e co d d •

a

im im

co

d ü n • 0 TO ^ cm -P

(N. si s H d b MO g © CjO H H C OM N

I II

ODOCViCO cmcm cmcm

H cm ^ Q o in ir\ • c o 'S c m r Cr^CM 4 ) CM H CM r-HiH

o r-4 cm

© HT iH

-P

TO^

CM

-P

g3 "d

1 &%

CO*H cm u

0 C5 M3

O ü

I

ON

cm CM cm CM

I

.3 S w mg

Si

ÔN H rH

.9

I

III

n p:; O

I

la

ü

Ig il

I

107

-fri u o

I_ g § k -p -P TO

© O O ^ % Al

•H P k ^ -P

i



o Ti

>&

§

© PU © O

C— C— e s

LA

lt \ cA

Al

Al

A -e s r - r -

JS H e s TO

TO e s (A A l a - a - t o is

CO 4 es es

[ — 4 CO A l c— e s c - e s

es s

4 LA cm LA Al A l Al A l

(A O N Al (A

4 Al

Al TO Al Al

CATO A l CO A l Al Al Al

4 lA Al Al

ON A l iH A i

TO A l iH Al

ON O CO O rH Al rH Al

CO A l rH Al

TO LA

LA

(A e s CO Al (A Al

O 4 LA TO co e s e s e s

TO

O TO LA 4 A l Al A l Al

4 Al

TO LA

t—

S

ü

O

■p !h ©

•H

U

P

•P C 0 ÜP •H u O © G © u d -P

«H

(N . Q ©o o Pi K CM ©

ON ON rH rH

ON o o I S rH A l Al rH

©o d ©o A SH CM

c~l rH TOTO

co

TO S S*

TO S

O n On O n H rH iH iH A I

TO c ^ CO S

câ S

TO ^

TO

^

S

O O S O Al Al rH iH

TO TO 3

TO

(S rH

TO

cPi ©

C

d d jd wp ©

s o Pi Pt Q ©© G Pi P» rH o d 4 IS «H

Is TO ©O O C Z CM d

Pi © 4 P ©o O M CM

ON O

CA4

H O

TO TO CA A! CA (A 4 4 4

CM S C O

ON TO CA (A

0 \ ON (A 4 CA CA CM 4

rH CM

rH rH S

^

rH TO CA 4

ONTO S (A CA CA l a CA

S TO CA 4

iH 4

C^N 4

rH CM CA S

CA CM

ONTO 4 O lA LATO TO

to la TO TO 4TO

nO nO

TO T O L A LA

TO NO

NO S rH iH

TO S iH rH

TO LA rH CM

ST O T O S rH rH iH iH

STO rH rH

TO ON rH rH rH rH

4 CA TO T O

CM CA CAS CO T OT O T O

4

C A 44C A TO TO TO TO

CA 4 TO TO

4 rH ONTO TO TO TO S

NO O 4 LA

S 4

ONTO

O

4 O LA A

CA ON LA O LA 4 LA NO

nO l a

NO TO 4

TO TO S

TO LA

A | TO O 4 CA 4

On cA H

TO

ft C

Vh

J

P

p. U d

a & P4 d o

w (0 (N. c1—1 © © © d P, C ©O o 4 © O On •H p

U

A ©

Pi Pi S s

H

a

TO ©W © p, >» © (7N © © P P S i rH P > •H •H c: o Ü O bO © u d © P x : +3 CN. L-3 bOp Pi © O O n © p O Pi a H •H g «H © © ©M Pi © T O hOd © ON SH A S rH

S CA iH CM

&

3

- t ■ O O

LA CA

£>•£>

NO ^d — d “d

nO

CM nO i > I> [N_ CN . nO

CA H £>- £>-

JN- (N_ jv . nO

- d CA CA CA CM CM CA

I > ON CM CM

N OO to H to CM CM CM CA CM

S

35dd

LA -d

LA LA LA

JV - C A N O N O

LA LA

O *d NO NO

L A CM U N L A NÛ NO LA NO

O NO

LA t o

nO

< t nO £>-

LA UN

CO f t CD CA N CM

UN - d C v Cv

-J"N Û->dCA CN- £>-

- d CA O O

UN CA UN LA l> t>- t>

Q CA CM

Cv t o NO Cv

fiESgigi

CA -3" £ > nO

CN- Cn- LA C^-

O CA CM

CA CM CA CM

to 4

CA CM

< t CA

UNUNlAlA

H t o CA

ON CM CM CM uj- CM

H

-d

o

o-

CJn n O

CM CM

C ^ nO

to

cv c -

NO UN NO ON

-d -d" CA ^

- d LA H UN UN NO UN

NO - d LA UN

O

Cv LA

nO

CA CM t o LA - d UN LA

3

JV . C v JV . £n.

- d CA CM CA

LA LA LA LA

CM

Cv

iH

h4 C'* O CM 01 S CM

Q On LA CM to LA 'O LANOnO

nO

la

tl

•H mid S "

3

O - d

H

UN to

- d CA CA

fM ON CM

NO NO UN

LA NO

O ON H t o v d CA v d CM

(A - d

UN CA

O

CM Cv H

n O nO

. o - d

Cv n D

cm C A ON C A CM C A

- d CA

LA LA

CA CA > d CA

3-

8

a

a an a.

I i II I

f§ S >4

O 01 Q jG +)

a)

ia I

nO on

Cv -

to to

to ■

in â

8j

%S’

LA NO O 8

R

8N

i>4 CM

H H

Cv

nO

to

CM CM CA CM

CM CM

LA - d O CA c v C v JV c v

d

H to

CA CM H rH CM

a

{v-tO ON OJ to to [V ON

S3

UN LA LA C v

CM CM

d

- d

u d

Cv Cv Cv Cv

P

« 01 r—i

CP O

On I—I

M

a ■H ft CD s

NÛ to

CM CM CM CM

O a •H cd o 0) O P

C7N O N H to to to

Cv n O N O n O

CA > a

aadd

a

S Ü a CD Q a o a CftD ft p oa Q ft o s

- d

CM

t v C v UN C v

O n f v to to

CJN N O to to

UN CM CM CA

to

C v CA CM CM A! CM (A

NO CM

O nO

Cv Cv CvnO

JV _

I I

g d: p4 'S )

Hi

H

I

109

to

d CM (A

O -C v iA t» CM (M (A (A

H O CACA

CM NO O* vO

(A Cv

tO ON to c o

^ rH » ~ IH

o

CM CA CA CA d cA

O CM CACA

H l > < 0 ÇA CA CM d CA

0 \ [v CM CA

d - (M CM CA - v û

v O tÛ N O d Cv NÛ nO nQ

^ nO H ÇM tO C O O O .

çS Q tû to

t û Onn O tO 00 ON t o

Cd O COON

Ç A tO O ^ CO 00 ON @

tO H coo.

ÇO 0> ÇA ÇA t o CO t o t o

d d H H

H O H CM

CM H d H H

CAO H H

H C M O nO H H H H

CM O H

CM H H CA H rn rn H

CA u \ CM Cv vO NÛ

H CA

O

nO

ÏH CM

ÇQg; m o

g ON t o LA

nO

O H CM d

NO O t o CM (A CA CM CA

1a

CO s

«3 ft

H C O fc d CM Cv c b o c A H

P

H

,H C N 'O C A OT g CM

^ o

m

C B a i

P ^

0)

a

CO M CD (A

MOI

a

0) 53 k O CA

O CM t o O C vnO

t o Cv

H ON o H H

to

CA H

CM LA Cv LTV

t o CM p v CM NO Cv t o Cv

nO

CO CM Cv

O C>dC 3N Cv n O O O nO

CNnO nO Cv

nO

Cÿ CM H CA C v I> C v

O Cv

t o LA CM d

CMt o CA t o (A CM H CM

CM tO CA CM

O CAnO H CA CA H (A

H d CA N

CA tO On t v CA CM CM CM

O CA

a a ss

a

O tO

tO O O H H H

CA

nO CA CA d

CA H C v n O CA d CA CA

tO

d

0

SS5 s s i g s i

MCM

I H cij p

CM

d

ONtO

saasi ONtO H

s is a ? ? s a

O tO Cv CA H CM

O O H

tO H tO N O H H

hcA H nO CA CA d d

to o

CA d

NO ON CM tM CA (A U \ d '

CA CM CA d

CM CA LA Cv

ON Cv ON d NO NO LA LA

CM Q NO NO

d H tO tO NO NO d LA

Cv tO NO LA

d

Cv H Cv ON

l a c M cA C v to to to to

dLA dN O t o t o Cv t o

d LA to to

vO C M dN O t o t o t o Cv

d

CM

On to

l A tO t o Cv

vO U \ CA lA CA CA d CA u \ H LA L A nO

nO nO

H

Cv

nO L A

d LA to to

qn CA d nQ L A nO nO

ddvO C M W to to to

CA CM

nO

d to

td a

(D (A a H CM

CA ON CM

CD

LA t o Cv (A H H H H

LA CM. HCM

(DO o a ft

NO LAND d H H C M H

o a H «3 Ü P «3 •H .a . .H. o a o a CD a CD 8 O

ft o ft a f tf t ft

nQ L A H H

d tO N Û d H H H ^

NÛ LA H H

P H

Q aCD pO

P M H

H C

_ ft 0

O ft

ocaaft_

NÛ NO d H H H

p to

tO H

NO H

H % O CÜ

o ft ft

II *iii it nil li lill 3t Ills « g

a 0 •H a 0 w ft

NO O

0

LA NO

LA

> -i C M

d tO O iH

LA LA LA NO

to d

LA NO

. HLAOCv nO

LA LA LA

to to

LA LA

to C-N-dtM

to

( A LA NO g

to

LA LA LA NO

LA LA

vO

LA LA NO NO

LA

H

On cA Cv to

to to

to

5533

3

g

(N,

O

w o PLA o g At

a 0 ft a 0 a

11%

On O Cv CO

FÜ8

ON Cv H d Cv Cv CO to

H CM Cv

to

^195®

ON H d CM Cv to c v to

.tO H Cv to

to to to

O O (A cv

SÎ2ÎÏ5S

35

5R 3R -

to

O O

H CM CO d

O la

Cv

Cv

Cv

Cv

35

d

C^NO Q Cv to

O

cd

o a

ft

0 g

0

0

^

p

0 H H LA

m f t

LA

CDa r-t

ft (N. 0 Ü cd

§ a H CM

c^- f t 0 g

cd H

H a

cd P o CV 0 0 0 a ft 0 0 •H

H d CM

0 0 H

ft

0 "^ ft a , ©

a

35

ON (A

HCM Cv

Cv

to

LA o

O

Cv n O

n

Cv

Cv

-C V n O

C v f v ^ j - r ^ Cv Cv l a O

Cv

H Cv

3535 53 3533 33 5333 35 5535 5

a a 0 a ft 0 p p H a H ■H 0

ft ft P CO 0 X 0

LA p

CM to H H

NO CANO NO H H H H

d ON H H

NO CM CA d H H cA H

Cv d H H

H H H H

to CM to to

d ç v d d

NO H

d to to to

to to

ca n o

L A dC vcA

(A

0 g H

CM

to to to to

NO NO ON

o

to

ON

to to to

Cv H

to

d d H Q H H H H

Cv

to

NO

o

CQ 0

ft

o

H

O C v n O C v

a

H

0 O

At

O N CA NO C v

ON

to to

to AI to to

CVNO NO to

to C v to to

LA NO

to to

CM to CM CA LA CM H H H H cA H

lan

Q la ON to

OCACv

to to to to

t O Cv H O to to to ON

OLT, CM(A CA O H H H H H H

nO H H H

d

on

to to

d d N O NO H H H H

Np NO d

d

LA H

la

to to to to

to

On cA to to

O n n O O n Çv

jv .

H Cv H H

H d r4 CA H H H H

CA H

tO

Cv

to to to to

to

C^

C-.

a

0

ft ft d 0 g CM â cd 0 O a d CM

ao

0

to d

ON nO d d

LA CA

d

CA CM dN O

LA LA LA LA

£0

d C M H d

Cv On d CA

CA cA cA nO d d LA d

CM (A LA d

nO O d C A d LA LA

CA H LA NO

H C v jv d

t o Cv

d

LA LA d

d

LA LA LA d

00 o O

a p •H f t ft g g

Ü H P cd a. o Q

LA

LA

|o

a

cd o ■H .H. ft a 3 0 0 A ft a o 0 p « ft o g

o ft a a 0

O NO Cv

HH aa 0

0

p Hf t CD 0 o 0 a

CD H

O On

lA

LACA

d

la O

d

LA d

d

lAIA 'feA'^^A 'b^. tA OCM

O H

la la

ca

LA NO

LA

LA

li

oÜ ft

CD f t

l A LA LA

pCD

a o

(8

0 ft p

II Æ Î i t IÎII li l l l i l l 111^ 1 0

a ft a

0

ft ft

1X0

i

O-

c

o



-H

0

bd(M

•H *H

a ft 0 ft 'S 0 0 ft i l

w

I [email protected] I

CM

m 0

H

cv

0

lAvO

nO

LA d Cv rv

d HL A C O Cv Cv Cv Cv

CM CM

CA LT\ CM CM CM CM CM

Cv o

rH CA

CM CM CA CM

O CA CA CM

A A CM Cv CM CM CM CA

Cv C v\û [V

d

35

A

NÛ NÛ d

d

to

NÛ CM

CM

O O nO

A

to

to O

CM CM

cv A

CA

Cv Cv Cv NÛ

LA d

CM CM

ON d to d d LA lA la

CA O A d

d

nO

LAdLA

UA CO NO A LA d d d

■ c oto d LA

rH NÛ CM NÛ LA d d d

Cv rH d LA

NÛ ON ÛN to d LA d d

O

o CM CM CM

O CA O CM CM CM CM CM

H O CM CM

CM O d O . CM CM CM rH

A to CM rH

ON ON A CA I—I CM rH CM

CMH

to Cv

O CO

g £ v g to to Cv co Cv



to o NÛ r-H Cv to Cv to

(N O A 0 g CM ©

H A NÛ NÛ

to A

0 g ft © A g H CM

On a

CM

'A

g S£^ â§> 85 e0 I ^ !w

CM

CA

to

Cv Cv Cvn O

LA CM d l a lA LA l a

O g

CA LA Cv CM CM CM CM CA

rH rH CM A d A A



CM d cv

Cv CM CA rH d la A A la

Ad

CA

to cv ÛN

to

A

d

d

d

d

O

CN.

X

o

0 g a

0

gi

(A O

LA «H

I

CM

0 d © nO ^1 CM

rH rH A

Cv

to Cv to Cv

nO

H

rH Cv CM CM CM CM

rH CM

d

ON CA to

ON Cv

to Cv cv Cv

d)

It

ft

ü C" 0

"0 ft2 0

0

g ft 0 g

L ft P O

p 0

i: ■ gi ft O

p •H

A* 0 © O

o g

A)

CA CA

A CM

A CA rH rH

a 0 ft ft © © A g >4 CM

to to

A

Cv

nû nO A nû NÛ nO

CM A d d d CA CA CA

d A

CA o nO

A

o

d (ANÛ A NÛ NÛ A nû

CA rH



NÛ NÛ

Cv n O

cv g CA d

A O CA d

Cv O CM CA

H

NÛ CA

d

rH iH rH CM

d Aï to CA rH r*l rH f t

AC



to CM C v to to to to



CM ON CA CM

rH NÛ CA CA CM CM L/N CM

CA

to H

O n d Cv Cv Cv Cv d Cv

I—I I—I

CA CA

r-t CA O

to to Cv to

^ Cv

d Cv to to

NÛ ON Cv o

Cv rH NÛ CA CM CA CA CA

CM C V CA 1—1

d O - ON £ v CA CM A CM

CA O CA CA

d A O rH CA CM CM CA

to CA to

NÛ NÛ

to

A nû Cv n û

A cA nO ca I—I rH CM rH

' û NÛ

to

Cv Cv

to o d o

CA CA

NÛ t o

O t o Np A

Cv to to to



Cv d CA CA d



LT\ CA

CA CA NÛ

to tû to to

CM O NÛ O d d CM d

to

•H ü

P

0

II CM 0

A

0

C-.

I

I

CM

A to CA CM

CA ON d

8 3

H

C vnO

CM

Cv

N Û NÛ



CA Cv

ft

d

CA £>■

CV O NÛ C v

NÛ NÛ

A O

Cv

to

ON NÛ

o

§ 0

II

mo

li

il

©

II

ll

Q g o



ft

0

I

a ©

ft

■g p pL. o A) o

S o a o p H

CV

m NÛ

ü 'É

ü

o a ft ü M

ft ft

Q •r|

ft g

p 0

p ï 0

ft

"d

Ï•iHh ü

pH cd

g

£v cA nO LA A A d d

g CM

A O-

H CM A A

33

Ad

3333

ON O A On

d

d

A

A

o o o A Cv to A to

%R3% 3 3

A CM cv to

% S 3 i£

CM CM A H

N H

CM CM

5583

S3 5 8 % 3

58

On A Cv to

H &m ©NO 83 5 5 3 5 M CM

55 5 3 3 5

_ ft g CM

wg ÎH CM

to

cv ON cv

Q 'ifi Cv 'iP Cv to to

81Fj

p-i

m ©

W

r-t o

WC5 A A?

A

d

s

A

SSP5

g:

CM CM d O N t o Cv [ V

to

g

58

to

53 5535

CM H

3355 5

to Cv

Cv cv to Cv

NO NO NO NÛ

to A A d NÛ nO A Cv

nO nO

nO nO

A to A d to Cv

ON d NO NÛ

Cvn O A Cv

H A d A A A A A

CM A A nO A A dCM

CM A A A

A CM Cv n O A A H CM

A A

H nO

tq H cM no CM A d CM

O n Cv n O C v

êcM

o

Cv A

CM On

to d

Ü

ü •H

-lis

QN I—I I—I H

I

1

0

I1 i

© © p

« « o

ü

t Ph o

■ë 5“ 11 l-l

i

I ll

0“ g CM

I wg ra © Cv

M CM

H NÛ

Cv Cv



O CO d d C vnO O- Cv

CM A cv Cv

O CMNO NO A A CM CM

CM CM

H On to to

A A

A to O NO Cv A to Cv

CM CM cv cv

O CM CM A C v cv Cv cv

5

Cv

o ON to CM A A CM

Cv CM O d CM d CM CM

to to CM CM

o to to A A CM CM CM

to CM

A d A A

Cv Cv d to C v u \ to c v

d ANO Cv Cv Cv cv Cv

5

NO NO

CM CM

533 8

NO cv d A CM CM CM CM

ON ON CM CM

ONOn nONO

CM A O n A Cv n O n O A

NOCv

nO

to A rH A CM A A d

CM to A CM

CM O A ON A A A CM

A O H CM

C v C v nO C v

Cv NO Cv [V.

Cv Cv

Cv Cv Cv Cv

5588

A Cv CM CM

CM CM CM CM

1-4 CM C v Cv

ft

I

Ü © ft P

0M ft Aj 5 5

NO H

3a

ON A ON CM

A

nd

A

A

to CM

to O O - H

NO C v

NO NO NO C v

d ctn A CM

H A r4 to A A A CM

A A

O jv

1-4 f t to to A A d CM

rH r-4

nOO CM 1-4

NO d H to CM CM CM H

81oA

A CM o CM CM CM CM CM

NO O

CM CM

CM A tO CM CM CM r 4 A

53

C^ to

d N O ON CM Cv Cv Cv to

to O

Cv Cv

CvtO o to Cv Cv to cv



to Cv CM to Cv Cv to nO

58

nO

Cv o

nO nO

ON to

NO t o CO A

NO n O A

Cv

Cv n O Cv

0

©

0 C5 tH OM

A A

1— 4 A

1 ©

ft

3

I © Ü

0 H f t CM

O?

On to d

Cv {V Cv Cv

Cv Cv

a

I

tj

X

ft p

I

o o A A

to On

a 0O tH ft OÏ

NÛ n O

NO n O Cv n O

A to O to

to A NO C v

to On CM A N O N Oto C v

NO C v

A On CM ON C v A to Cv

CM rH A A

cv CM O CM A A A A

A CM

CM rH to Cv A A rH CM

A O A A

Cv H to i—j CM nO H CM

0

©

:î^

li

■0i 'Hi

0 O

© ft a

© o

& ill g R

P=i O

I

1 1

NONONOCv

d CM ^ A A A A CM

rH A

II o u

P

l-l

©ft R P § p

w a COg

-g Eh

YTÏA Name: Date of B irth : P lace of B irth : E ducation:

A lexis M ichael A nikeeff August 85, 1917 Odessa, R ussia C lip p e rt Elem entary School, Hunger In term ed iate School,' Ghadsey High School, U n iv e rsity of Michigan, Bachelor of A rts, Sociology M aster of A rts, Psychology

Experience :

D e tr o it, Mich. D e tr o it, Mich. D e tr o it, Mich. Ann Arbor, Mich. 1940 1947

Graduate A s s is ta n t, Department of Psychology, U n iv e rsity of Michigan March - September, 1946. Research A s s is ta n t, Laboratory of Abnormal Animal B ehavior, U n iv ersity of Michigan September, 1946 - August, 1948

Clubs and S o c ie tie s :

American P sychological A ssociation. Sigma Z i.