This dissortation has boen

microfilmod exactly as received 69-16,656

KEIM, Willard Dennis, 1932-ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY AND DISOWNINGPROJECTION: TIIEIR RELATION TOADVOCACY Of<' CIIANGE AND POLITICALSUCCESS.

University of lIawaii, Ph.D., 1969Political Science, general

University Microfilms. Inc.. Ann Arbor, Michigan

ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY AND DISOWNING PROJECTION:

THEIR RELATION TO ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

AND POLITICAL SUCCESS

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THEUNIVERSITY OF HAWAII IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT

OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN POLITICAL SCIENCE

JANUARY 1969

ByI

Willard D~'Keim

Dissertation Committee:

Marshall N. Goldstein, ChairmanMichael J. ShapiroYasumasa KurodaRobert B. StaufferMilton Bloombaum

PLEASE NOTE: Appendix paHcsare not original copy. Printis indistinct on many pages.Filmed in the best possibleway.

UNIVERSITY MICROFILMS.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this research was to determine the

relationship of role-taking accuracy, assumed similarity,

~ctual similarity, and disowning projection to other

political variables, of which the most important for the

study were advocacy of change and political success.

Success was measured by scores on self-assessed influence

and having held office in an organization.

A questionnaire was sent to all legislators, house of

representatives and senate, of the State of Hawaii. From

the results of this questionnaire, 35 "agree-disagree"

items were derived on which there was substantial con­

sensus among the legislators. In addition, six items

on which legislators indicated a preferred response to a

hypothetical situation showed consensus.

Legislators' consensus responses were built into

another questionnaire in which the "agree-disagree" items

were to be answered by respondents from two voluntary po­

litical organizations (1) for thems-elves and (2) again as

if they were legislators. Matching these scores against

the legislators' own responses gave a behavior score, the

sum of correct guesses by respondents on situation

questions; an actual similarity score, the respondents

answers for himself on the "agree-disagree" items matched

iii

against the legislators responses; an assumed similarity

score, on which the respondents own answers were matched

with his guesses for legislators; and a role-taking ac­

curacy score, on which the respondents guesses for a

legislators' responses were matched against the legis­

lators' answers.

These five variables were used together with 31

other variables and attributes of political content in a

number of analyses. First, the groups from which re­

spondents were drawn were compared in several one-way

analyses of variance. No differences between groups on

the role-taking variables were discovered.

Second, a series of cross-tabulations were analyzed

between the variables most pertinent to this analysis and

the remaining variables and attributes. This analysis

merged with a factor analysis of the entire 36X36 matrix.

An initial orthogonal varimax solution was rotated to a

biquartimin oblique solution in order to attain the best

simple structure. Factors emerging from this analysis

were named (in order of variance explained): Left-radical,

Real efficacy, Role-taking, Political empathy, Change, Age,

and Group success.

Third, regression equations predicting to advocacy

of change and political success indicated the variables

from among eleven that explained the most variance in

advocacy of change and political success. On the level of

iv

analysis with the whole group of respondents, the role­

taking variables were not strikingly associated with

political success or advocacy of change.

Finally, an empirical method of grouping the re­

spondents isolated eight political-role types. The

profiles of each type over 24 variables were compared.

On this level of analysis, the role-taking variables were

related in several subgroups in accordance with the

hypotheses relating role-taking accuracy to political

success and disowning projection to advocacy of change.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT ...

LIST OF TABLES

LIST OF -FIGURES.

ii

. vii

xii

CHAPTER I. THE PROBLEM -_ ~

1.1 Why This Problem?1.2 A Brief Survey of the

Science LiteraturePolitical

1

3

41

3234

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

DEFINITIONS, DESIGN, AND HYPOTHESES2.1 Defin~tio~s and Operation-

al~zat~ons . . . . . . . . .. 102.2 Some Measuring Techniques

Rejected . . . . . .. ... 202.3 The Research Technique. . . . 232.4 Hypotheses. . . . . . . 27

LEGISLATIVE CONSENSUS3.1 The Choice of the Political-

Other. . . . . . . . . .3.2 The Criterion of Consensus.3.3 Representativeness of the

Legislative Respondents.

THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSE GROUPS4.1 The Choice of Respondents. 454.2 Description of Group A. . . . 484.3 Description of Group B. . . . .. 634.4 Between Groups Differences. . 67

. 122

CHAPTER V. PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE ROLE-TAKINGAND DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND CROSS­TABULATIONS

5.1 Scales. . . . . . . .. . ..5.2 Evidence on Role-Taking from

Cross-tabulation . .5.3 Hint~ toward the Factor

b."~alysi~ '. . . . . . . .

73

77

CHAPTER VI. POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF ROLE-TAKING6.1 The Orthogonal Factor Analysis .. 1256.2 Oblique factors of Political

Role-Taking. . . . . . . . . . 139

vi

CHAPTER VII. THE BEST PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS ANDADVOCACY OF CHANGE AND A POLITICAL-ROLETYPOLOGY

7.1 Regression Equations.. . .. 1477.2 Political Profiles. . . 156

CHAPTER VIII.

APPENDICES .

BIBLIOGRAPHY

CONCLUSIONS8.1 Reconsiderations of the

Hypotheses .8.2 Suggestions for Further

Research

175

. . . . 183

. . 188

. . 224

_...

TABLE

LIST OF TABLES

PAGE

3.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE LEGISLATIVE QUESTIONNAIRESHOWING CONSENSUS. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36

4.1

4.2

DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS, GROUPS A AND

ROLE QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR SELF BYGROUPS A AND B . . . . . . . . . . .

B • • 51

59

4.3 ROLE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AS "LEGISLATORS" BYGROUPS A AND B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 61

4.4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,PARTICIPATION INDEX. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 69

4.5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,ADVOCACY OF CHANGE . . . .. 70

4.6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE INDEX. . . . . . . . . .. 71

5.1

5.2

5.3

5.4

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/ACQLEG.

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/POSOFF.

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/ISSACT.

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/SOCIAL.

80

80

81

81

5.5 CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/PARTIC. . .. 82

5.6

5.7

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/INFSEL.

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/POLINT.

. . .

. . .82

83

5.8 CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/POLKNO. . .. 83

5.10 CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/PROJEC.

5.11 CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/ASPGAP.

5.9 CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE HELOFF/BSCORE. 84

84

85

5.12 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/ACQLEG. 90

5.13 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/POSOFF. 90

viii

TABLE PAGE

5.14 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/ISSACT. 91

5.15 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/SEX . . 91

5.16 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/ELDONL. 92

5.17 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/EGOSTG. 92

5.18 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/POLCYN. 93

5.19 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/POLEFF. 93

5.20 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/PARTIC. 94

5.21 CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF INFSEL/POLINT. 94

5.22 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/POSOFF 95

5.23 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/ISSACT 96

5.24 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/EMPJOB 96

5.25 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/RADICAL 97

5.26 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/EQUAL. 97

5.27 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/INNOUT 98

5.28 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/HUMANE 98

5.29 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/POLEFF 99

5.30 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/PARTIC 99

5.31 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/INFGRP 100

5.32 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/FINDEX 100

5.33 CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE CHANGE/APOLIT 101

5.34 CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/ACQLEG 105

5.35 CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/ISSACT 105

5.36 CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/RADICL 106

5.37 CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/FAITHP 106

ix

PAGE

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/EQUAL 107

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/SOCIAL 107

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/POLEFF 108

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/ACTUAL 108

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY ASSUME/PROJEC 109

TABLE

5.38

5.39

5.40

5.41

5.42

5.43 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/POSOFF .

5.44 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/ISSACT .

5.45 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/POLEFF .

5.46 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/ASSUME .

5.47 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/ACTUAL. . . . . . . . . . . .

5.48 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/PROJEC .

5.49 CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACYROLEAC/FINDEX. . . . . . . . . . .

5.50 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/ISSACT. . . . . . . . . .

5.51 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/FLEXBL. . . . . . . . . .

5.52 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/SOCIAL. . . . . . . . . . .

5.53 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/ROLEAC .

5.54 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/ASSUME. . . . . . . . . .

5.55 CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCOREBSCORE/PROJEC .

110

110

111

111

112

112

113

114

114

115

115

116

116

TABLE

5.56 CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVEPROJECTION PROJEC/ISSACT . . . . . .

5.57 CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVEPROJECTION PROJEC/RADICL . . . . . .

5.58 CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVEPROJECTION PROJEC/SOCIAL . . . . . .

5.59 CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVEPROJECTION PROJEC/POLINT . . . . . .

5.60 CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVEPROJECTION PROJEC/FINDEX . . . . . .

x

PAGE

117

118

118

119

119

6.1 VARIABLES ENTERING BUT SLIGHTLY INTO THECOMMON FACTOR SPACE, AS INDICATED BY LOWCOMMUNALITIES. . . . . . . . . . . 126

6.2 FACTOR I: LEFT-RADICAL (Reflected) 127

6.3 FACTOR II: REAL EFFICACY.

6.5 FACTOR IV: POLITICAL EMPATHY

6.6 FACTOR V: CHANGE.

6.4

6.7

FACTOR III: ROLE-TAKING ...

FACTOR VI: AGE .

131

132

133

135

136

6.8 FACTOR VII: GROUP SUCCESS (Reflected). . 137

6.9 PATTERN MATRIX OF OBLIQUE BIQUARTIMINFACTORS FOR POLITICAL-ROLE VARIABLES . 141

6.10 CORRELATIONS AMONG OBLIQUE FACTORS FORPOLITICAL-ROLE VARIABLES . . . . . . . . 143

7.1 LOADINGS ON ELEVEN ORTHOGONAL FACTORS BYINDEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR THE REGRESSIONEQUATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

7.2 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORES TOHELOFF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 150

TABLE

7.3 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORESINFSEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7.4 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORESCI-IANGE . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . .

xi

PAGE

TO. . . 152

TO. . . 153

7.5 STANDARD DEVIATION OF FACTOR SCORES FORSEVEN FACTORS FROM A COMMON FACTOR ANALYSISOF A PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION MATRIX . .. 158

FIGURE

LIST OF FIGURES

PAGE

2.1 A SCORING PARADIGM FOR THE STUDY OF POLITICALROLE-TAKING ACCURACY . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17

5.2 RELATIONSHIPS EXCEEDING A CHI-SQUARE OF 3.84AND A PHI OF .2325 AMONG THE VARIABLES ANDATTRIBUTES USED IN THE STUDY OF THEPOLITICAL-ROLE SPACE . . . . . . . . . . . 124

5.1

7.1

7.2

CURVE REPRESENTING FREQUENCIES OF PHI-COEFFICIENT SIZES .

EIGHT POLITICAL-ROLE PROFILES .....

EIGHT POLITICAL-ROLE TYPES FOUND IN TWOVOLUNTARY POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS .'..... . .

122

163

172

_....

CHAPTER I

THE PROBLEM

1.1 WHY THIS PROBLEM?

Along with other political resources, there are certain

psychological traits and skills that may be essential for

success in a given political system. For example, one

possible base for political success might be ego strength.

An important skill would seem to be empathy, or, as it will

be called in this study, role-taking accuracy.

To operate effectively in a given political system,

it intuitively would appear useful to be able to predict the

roles of relevant "others," as these roles are defined by

attitudes and behavior. This ability is evidence of a

mental process, for the accurate role-taker does not actually

imitate the other, although he can predict his reactions.

Among the innumerable problems of nations in transition,

one is the inability of certain large groups of people to

imagine themselves in the role of a political actor. It is

possible that political apathy may be in part the result

of the difficulty people have in adjusting quickly to new

roles.

It may also be the case that community development

projects falter because they are staffed with people who

2

are inaccurate role-takers. Persons who cannot predict the

attitudes of villagers may be less successful than they

might be in attempting to modernize village life.

In the United States, there is reason to be concerned

with the results of the poverty programs and attempts to

induct slum dwellers into the polity. Among white, middle­

class Americans, including many of the decision-makers, it

is unusual to find one who can understand or predict the

attitude of slum dwellers to the legal apparatus. Inability

to understand how problems affect others results in the

introduction of well-intentioned but irrelevant measures

designed to alleviate these problems.

Are some persons, therefore, better (more accurate)

role-takers than others? Is this role-taking accuracy

pertinent in a study of politics? For example, are there

some people who are more successful in their political

goal attainment because they can perceive the attitudes of

those who are already successful political actors?

On the other hand, there is another type of person

who might be called a projector. The projector does not

construct the others' role on the basis of reality but on

the basis of his own needs, goals, and motives. If the

projectors' own attitudes differ greatly from present

occupants of a political role, then it might be assumed

that they would be a force for change whenever they

entered the political arena. Are these persons successful

3

in a given political system? Do they tend to advocate

greate~~litical change than others do?

One surmise might be that projectors who tend to dis­

own certain qualities of self and attribute these to

political role-holders might be persons who advocate

relatively large changes in the political system, while

those who tend to liken political role-holders to themselves

would be less likely to be advocates of large political

changes.

As a step toward analyzing these two major types of

individuals, the accurate role-takers and the projectors

(disowning and assimilative), this dissertation will first

provide a method of measuring the differences. If this

method is fruitful in contributing to an analysis of the

styles of politically active persons in Honolulu, then its

improvement and application in other countries and situations

may be recommended, and some vital facets of political life

may be made more clear.

1.2 A BRIEF SURVEY OF THE POLITICAL SCIENCE LITERATURE.

A complete survey of all the literature pertinent to

the subject of role-taking would comprise a book, without

advancing directly the research to be conducted. The

bibliography will list background literature for the

dissertation, and particular citation will be made as these

works illuminate specific problems. However, some justifi­

cation is necessary in order to establish the relevance of

4

role-taking to political science concerns. This literature

is not very extensive.

The concept of role-taking was implicit in Gabriel

Almond's The Appeals of Communism. 1 In his concentric

model of Communist organization, he suggested that those

who reached the center councils of the party lost their

ability to interact with non-Communists, leaving the

proselytization work to members of the party who were still

on the organizational periphery.

The nature of the respondents as a sample of Communist

party members made it difficult for Almond to support this

model except qualitatively. His research and results are

nevertheless suggestive for further research into the role­

taking variables.

In the field of game theory and bargaining, Thomas C.

Schelling encounters a number of typical role-taking

situations. He notes, "People can often concert their

intentions or expectations with others if each knows that

the o~~er is trying to do the same." 2 This suggests that

in politics the person capable of guessing what the other

person is going to do is likely to be more successful than

an inaccurate guesser.

1princeton, N.J., 1954.

2The Strategy of Conflict, New York, 1963, p. 57.Chapters 3 and 4 are especially pertinent to a ro1e­taking concept.

5

While Schelling does not have people explicitly guess

the attitudes of others, some of the games he presents have

people guessing numbers in common or points of rendezvous

on a map, which might entail some knowledge of the attitudes

of other people.

Role-taking is a concept used in public administration,

which has generally relied on results of studies by social

psychologists. A recent publication that treats extensively

of empathic responses is Empathy and Ideology: Aspects of

Administrative Innovation. 3 The essays in this collection

treat empathy as one of the important behavioral dimensions

of administrative success. None of the research reported,

however, empirically substantiates the importance of role­

taking accuracy for persons operating in the political

arena. For example, predicting a political-other is not

necessarily the same skill as predicting such others as

marital partners, and persons skillful in predicting some

others may be unsuccessful when presented with political

actors. It is therefore necessary that role-taking and its

associated concepts be studied in connection with distinctly

political roles.

In the field of political development, one of the most

interesting attempts to apply the concept of empathy to the

3Charles Press and Alan Arian, editors, Chicago, 1966.

6

study of the developing nations is Daniel Lerner's The

Passing of Traditional Society.4 Unfortunately, the con­

cept is there used in a fashion that greatly diminishes the

value of the findings. By using the term as a shorthand

for several very different mechanisms, the results Lerner

obtains may be greatly contaminated. Projection, "assigning

to the object certain preferred attributes of the self,"

distantiation or negative identification, which "results

when one projects onto others certain disliked attributes

of the self," and introjection, which enlarges identity by

attributing to self certain desirable attributes of objects,

all are included in empathy as measured by Lerner. He

defends his operationalization as "a pragmatic, not theoretic,

intent," and states that his interview data "does not permit

systematic discrimination between introjective and projective

mechanisms. ,,5

As a possible result of using the concept of empathy

in this way, some of Lerner's findings are subject to

question. For example, his Table 6, "Empathy to Modern

Press Standards,,,6 shows that modern types for five middle

4Glencoe, Ill., 1958.

5Ibid ., p. 49. But, since Ralph D. Norman and PatriciaAinswo'rt'El;" "The Relationships Among Projection, Empathy,Reality, and Adjustment, Operationally Defined," Journal ofConsulting pstchology , 18 (1954), 54-55, find empathy andreaI~ty posit vely related, projection and reality negativelyrelated, there is little doubt that the two concepts shouldbe distinguished.

6Ibid ., p. 97.

7

eastern nations appear to be less empathetic to press

standards~-than transitionals. This result is disconcerting

if it is assumed that empathy characterizes modern society

as contrasted with traditional society. Moderns should be

expected to rank at least as high as transitionals on an

empathy measure.

Table 3, Appendix C, "Complete Latent St~cture of

Item Patterns," also indicates a spread of the empathy

variable among moderns, traditionals, and transitionals. In

fact, two of the largest groupings of traditional item

patterns are characterized by positive empathy.7 This sub­

stantiates the comments of R. M. Marsh, from whose theses

much of the theory on empathy was taken, "The Index of

Empathy is more sensitive to the demographic and media

behavior characteristic of the low educated and the low

(and sometimes middle) SES groups than to the high educated

and high SES groups.,,8 Among the moderns there appeared to

be a fairly even distribution of Empathy Index types.

It is clear that more work is necessary before empathic

concepts can be shown to be fruitful for political scien­

tists. In this research, role-taking accuracy will replace

Lerner's empathy concept. Lerner enumerated responses to

nine projective questions, considering a high total as

7Lerner, p. 442.

8Ibid ., p. 435.

indicative of empathy, whereas our measure will give a

score for each individual according to his accuracy in

predicting others' attitudes. Role-taking accuracy is

operationally different from Lerner's empathy concept,

and it may well tap a different trait.

Furthermore, an attempt will be made to break up

Lerner's broad pragmatic usage of empathy into a number of

possibly distinct components. A more discriminating

measurement device will be developed to reveal empathic

differences in already modern societies. Presumably, if

role-taking and associated concepts are found to make a

8

difference in political success and other political

variables, it ought to be possible to distinguish political

actors within an already modern polity.

This research is not a replication of Lerner's study.

The concepts used are not necessarily attached to the same

personality mechanisms as the broad concept of empathy used

by Lerner.

Lerner has made the most use of the empathy concept,

but it is alluded to elsewhere in the political science

literature. Robert Chin holds that ". the single most

important improvement the change-agent can help a c1ient­

system to achieve is to increase its diagnostic sensitivity

to the effects of its own actions upon others.,,9 He

9"The Utility of System Models and DevelopmentalModels," in Jason L. Finkle and Richard W. Gable, editors,Political Development and Social Change, New York, 1966,p. 12.

suggests that such concepts as role-taking and projection

can pertain to individuals, groups, governments, and

nations. Other studies have suggested the use of ro1e­

taking accuracy to tap perceptions persons have of other

nations. Hadley Cantril-and William Buchanan and Bruce

Russett have gone furthest in connecting such a concept

to empirical data. lO

This bibliographic section shows that empathy con-

9

cepts are not foreign to interests of political scientists.

However, the concept has not usually received a0~quate

empirical treatment. It is too easy to suggest the ob-

vious notion that to perceive others accurately is an

important political attribute leading to possible con-

sequences such as success in achieving goals. This

common-sense proposition, however, is open to question

until it is verified empirically. Finally, it was shown

that the most important application of the empathy concept

in political research had some serious shortcomings that

this dissertation will attempt to overcome.

lOCantril and Buchanan, How Nations See Each Other,Urbana, Ill., 1953; Russett, Community and Contention,Cambridge, Mass., 1963.

CHAPTER II

DEFINITIONS, DESIGN, AND HYPOTHESES

2.1 DEFINITIONS AND OPERATIONALIZATIONS

Levinson provides three defini~ion~~hat have oriented

role research in socio10gy.1 A role may be defined as the

structurally given demands (norms, expectations, taboos, and

responsibilities) associated with a given social position.

In the case of a political role, such as that of legislator,

a role might be determined by the state constitution and

the laws that prescribe certain activities and prohibit

others. Other structural pressures, such as those from

voters and the governor, would also channel a legislator's

behavior. Political knowledge from books on government or

personal occupancy of similar positions as that of legis­

lators would inform a person of a role in this sense.

A second definition of role is the orientation or

conception of it by the members playing a part in an

organization. This is the inner definition of what a

person in a particular social position is supposed to think

1Danie1 J. Levinson, "Role, Personality, and SocialStructure in the Organizational Setting," The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 58 (1959), 172.

11

and do. Finally, a role may be taken as the actions of

individual members of a position, even if these actions are

violations of the organizational norms.

The meaning of role in this dissertation is closest

to the second definition. Although questions regarding

behavior in particular situations were asked the legis-

lators, it must be recognized that responses to question­

naire items are probably closest to a role-holder's

conception of how he ought to behave. It was not determined

empirically, although it would be interesting to have done

so, whether questionnaire responses were accurate indicators

of role in the other two definitions.

Respondents in this research were asked to judge the

qualities occupants of a particular political position might

be expected to say they have. Care was taken to have the

respondent predict questionnaire items as though he were a

legislator responding to items on a questionnaire. These

distinctions must be borne in mind so that the conclusions

are actually in keeping with the task presented to role­

takers.

The concept of empathy has been defined in a number of

ways. For example, Katz holds that "when we empathize, we

lose ourselves in the new identity we have temporarily

assumed. ,,2 This is similar to the original meaning of the

2Robert L. Katz, Empathy: Its Nature and Uses, Glencoe,

Ill., 1963, p. 9.

12

term as it was used by Theodor Lipps, for whom Einfuehlung

(empathy) implied the loss of self-awareness on the part

of an observer, as when he confronted a painting or a piece

of sculpture and "fused" with the object that absorbed his

attention. This deep~r emotional experience is not to be

expected during performance of the task of answering a

questionnaire, and since the term empathy ought to be

reserved for its original meaning, the term role-taking

accuracy will hereafter be used to refer to the skill

analyzed in the succeeding research. Empathy certainly

does not refer to accuracy. It may well refer to assumed

similarity,3 another concept used in this analysis, but it

is more appropriate to regard empathy as one of the

emotions, best left, for the time being, to the field of

psychology. No assumption about the internal emotional

state of role-takers will be made, making unnecessary the

term empathy.

Role-taking accuracy refers to the accuracy with which

a person (or group) predicts how another person (or group)

responds to a set of items, as on a questionnaire. 4 This

3As in Henry Clay Smith, Sensitivity to People, NewYork, 1966, p. 22.

4This is called stereotype accuracy by Victor B. Clineand James M. Richards, "Components of Accuracy of Inter­personal Perception Scores and the Clinical and StatisticalPrediction Controversy," The Psychological Record, 12, 1962,pp. 373-381. The same operat~onal technique is usea-forempathf by H. H. Remmers, "A Quantitative Index of Social­Psycho ogical Empathy," American Journal of Orthopsychiatry,

13

role-taking aptitude involves "the skill in shifting

perspective from one's own position to that of the other,

in vicariously oscillating between self and role. More

specifically, it is the ability of the person to behave,

with or without observable enactment, as if he were in a

social position other than the one he is actually occupying. 1I5

To an extent, the position will be taken that role-taking

. . d k' 6~s att~tu e-ta ~ng.

Role-taking is not role-playing, for the former is a

mental or cognitive process, while the latter is a concept

that refers to a social function which persons in a

particular position or status are expected to perform in

overt conduct. 7 Only in a very loose sense might

20 (1950), 161-165.

5Theodore R. Sarbin and Donal S. Jones, "An Ex­perimental Analysis of Role Behavior," in Eleanor E. Maccoby,Theodore M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings inSocial psycholog~, New York, 1958, pp. 465-472. It is un­fortunate that t e terms empathy, insight, social sensitiv­ity, and role-taking have been used for the same operationalprocedures. The most careful distinction is maintained bySheldon Stryker, "Conditions of Accurate Role-taking: ATest of Mead's Theory," in Arnold M. Rose, Human Behavior andSocial Processes, Boston, 1962, pp. 41-62.

6See Stanley Stark, "Role-Taking, Empathic Imagination,and Rorschach Human Movement Responses: A Review of TwoLiteratures," Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23 (1966), 247.

7See the distinctions in Walter Coutu, "Role-playingvs. Role-taking: An Appeal for Clarification," AmericanSociological Review, 16 (1951), 180-187.

14

respondents be said to engage in role-playing when

responding to a questionnaire as though they were legis­

lators. To role-play, they might be asked to deliver a

speech before a mock legislature.

Projection will also be analyzed. The projector might

construct a role as he would if he himself with all his

present attitudes were in the situation. Or, he might

project (disown) negative values and attitudes onto the

role. Thus, the identity of the other to be predicted is

irrelevant to the role content since the subject simply

imputes his own role conceptions to the other. 8

Projection in the psychoanalytic literature does not

mean that we project our own feelings on to the other in

the sense of mentally transforming ourselves into another

person. Projection is viewed as a defense against anxiety,

and, as such, the projector is actually deficient in the

capacity to project into himself the identity of another

person. 9

If projectors are actually deficient in perceiving

what others are like, then, taking the psychological

evidence as given in the case of this concept, it follows

that they will be less accurate in role-taking. Low

8Ra1ph H. Turner, "Role-taking: Process VersusConformity," in Rose, Human Behavior, p. 318.

9Katz , Empathy, p. 42.

15

role-taking scores will therefore be evidence of the

propensity to project. Thus, the measure of role-taking

accuracy also provides a measure of projection, for

projectors will fall into the range of low scores. 10

To provide further information on projection, beyond

its being the low end of the scale for role-taking accuracy,

it may be useful to distinguish two forms of projection,

assimilative projection and disowning projection. The first

is the tendency to assume without valid supporting evidence

that others are like oneself. Disowning projection implies

that the person attributes unjustifiably to others that

which is actually his own while at the same time disclaiming

it for himself. ll

Two additional important variables are actual

similarity and assumed similarity. If a respondent answers

items on a questionnaire as his own responses, actual

similarity between him and an other may be scored as those

responses which are the same as the responses of an other,

who has answered the same items. The respondent's assumed

lOThe psychological evidence supports the logic of thiscontention. Ideally, low-scoring role-takers ought to havebeen located and tested by means of another measure, suchas the Rorschach. Such evidence was obtained by RosalindDYmond, "A Preliminary Investigation of the Relation ofInsight and Empathy," Journal of Consultin Ps cholo ,12(1948), 228-233. Respon ents n t 1S stu y, owever, coUIdnot be retraced (see Chapter 4).

llNorman Cameron, The Psychology of Behavior Disorders,New York, 1947, pp. 166-168.

16

similarity score is the number of items he answers when he

guesses an other's responses in the same way as he has

responded himself. 12

In addition to these role-taking scores, another set

of questions calls on a respondent to choose from among

several behavior resp~nses to hypothetical situations. This

behavior score furnishes an internal validity check for the

attitude type responses a respondent makes as if he were a

legislator. It is also possible that behavior scores may

vary independently with other variables than does the

attitude-type role-taking score.

These, then, are operationalizations of the concepts

role-taking accuracy, actual similarity, assumed similarity,

assimilative projection, and disowning projection. The

scoring procedure is set forth in Figure 2.1. This figure

shows the scoring for the two types of response a respondent

makes against the single response of the other.

Figure 2.1 indicates how ~hese concepts will be

operationalized by means of a questionnaire technique. It

will be noted that these concepts overlap. Some indicator

problems are avoided, since it is role-taking accuracy, a

skill, and not empathy, an emotion, which is being tapped.

A person who assumes similarity in cases in which this

l2Henry Clay Smith, Sensitivity to People, New York,1966, pp. 95-96.

17

FIGURE 2.1 A SCORING PARADIGM FOR THE STUDY OF POLITICALROLE-TAKING ACCURACya

Judge's Judge's Others'sResponseb Guess for Actualfor Self Others's Response Response Variables

XC X X Role-takingaccuracy, actualsimilarity, assumedsimilarity

y X X Role-takingaccuracy

X X y Assimilativeprojection, assumedsimilarity

X y X Disowningprojection, actualsimilarity

aThis fiRure is adaptl·d from Bernard Spilka and MarvinLewis, 'Empathy, Ass _milative Projection, and DisowningProjection," The PSfichological Record, 9 (1959~, 99-102.In their paradigm, owever, the series "agree, I "dis­agree," "agree" was termed error. It is entirely inkeeping with Cameron's formulat10n of disowning projection,nevertheless, to score this series as such. For example,when a person regards himself as, say, open-minded, healso disowns the quality of dogmatism, which he mayattribute to others. Once the scores are altered, thefigure can be abbreviated to four distinctions, as pre­sented above.

bThe responses referred to are responses to role questionson the questionnaire in Appendix II.

cAccording to the questionnaire items, X may be either an"agree" or a "disagree" response.

18

similarity exists is going to be in such instances an

accurate role-taker. But the problem of overlap cannot be

ignored.

For example, taken separately, real similarity and

assumed similarity are not by definition correlated with

role-taking accuracy, nor is assumed similarity of necessity

correlated with our measure of the assimilative-disowning

dimension of projection. In the former case, a person may

be similar to members of a group and obtain a distinctly

low accuracy score unless he also assumes similarity. In

the latter case, he may assume similarity correctly and

any errors may be the result either of disowning or as­

similative projection.

However, on anyone item, with each series of two

variables, the third can be predicted. That is, given

actual similarity and accuracy on a single item, assumed

similarity follows necessarily. If a group has very high

actual similarity, it follows that high assumed similarity

will be correlated in their case with high accuracy.

Another group, in which there is marked lack of real

similarity, will, if their assumed similarity is high, be

markedly inaccurate.

The attempts to control for one or another of these

variables--to reduce the effect of actual or assumed

similarity on accuracy--have been unsuccessful. Redefining

the terms has not eliminated the necessary artefactual

19- .- ~

relationships between variables. 13 On each item, they are

simply linearly dependent.

The Figur~, however, shows that none of the concepts

is completely defined by the others. To an extent, they

must vary together, but their remaining variance may be

independent of the others. Thus, a factor analysis in-

eluding these variables would show a necessary dimension

in which they are all related, a dimension descriptive of

the group (or persons) being analyzed. But other factors

might be pulled out of the common factor space, on which

the variables were related to other variables independently.

One means of resolving the problem of linearity among the

role-taking concepts, therefore, is factor analysis.

It can be left to empirical research to reveal whether

accuracy, assumed similarity or actual similarity are con-

sistently associated with the same non-role-taking variables.

But a conclusion such as "accuracy is highly positively

associated with assumed similarity" will be specific for

each group (or persons) being analyzed and will depend on

the actual similarity of the judges to the judged.

13The effort to produce refined empathy scores was afailure. See A. H. Hastorf, I.E. Bender, and D.J. Weintraub,"The Influence of Response Patterns on the 'Refined EmpathyScore, '" The Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps cholo ,51(1955), 3 . e 1na 1ty 0 t e so-ca e re 1ned-­empathy score to solve the problem is shown by Bernard I.Murstein, "Some Comments on the Measurement of Projectionand Empathy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21 (1957),81-82. --

20

That these variables are impure, because of overlap

among them, is a not uncommon event in analysis of this

nature. It is by no means a difficulty that ought to

paralyze research:

It is seldom necessary . . . to measure anyof these variable quantities absolutely. It usuallysuffices to achieve merely relative comparisons onsuch variables, for our propositions most often spec­ify only that a difference in one variable is relatedto a difference in another variable. Given suchrelative measurement, a good many powerful researchdesigns and statistical techniques are at ourdisposal.14

In a sense, the search for "refined" and uncontaminated

measures is unnecessary. The "refinements" sought may be

construed as stages along a continuum. The measures used

in this research are more refined than those employed by

Lerner, but they are nonetheless "impure."lS

2.2 SOME MEASURING TECHNIQUES REJECTED.

A decision to adopt a research design is also a decision

to reject alternative ways of studying role-taking accuracy.

l4George J. McCall and J. L. Simmons, Identities andInteractions, New York, 1966, p. 269.

lSMoreover some correlations are not spurious.L. L. Thurstone, Multiple Factor Analysis, Chicago andLondon, 1947, p. 458, makes the point that correlationbetween stature and intelligence shown by factoranalysis represents reality quite well when thecorrelations occur among children of different ages. Theresearcher, however, needs to be careful about interpreta­tions based on selections of cases.

21

The Kerr-Speroff Empathy Test is a commercial test designed

to measure empathy.16 However, this test in several in-

vestigations has not correlated highly if at all with

other tests that supposedly measure the same skill. 17 For

this reason, it is given a negative review in the Mental

Measurement Yearbook. 18 A further disadvantage is that

it does not tap attitudes in the political realm. The

assumption that role-taking accuracy is general over

several realms of experience is not made in this analysis,

which is concerned solely with the political realm. l9

Therefore, the Kerr-Speroff Empathy Test was rejected.

16W. A. Kerr and B. J. Speroff, The Empathy Test,Chicago, 1954.

17"The failure of the Kerr-Speroff Empathy Test tocorrelate with variables with which it might be expected tocorrelate raises a serious question as to whether it is atest of empathy," according to C. H. Patterson, "A Note onthe Construct Validity of the Concept of Empathy," ThePersonnel and Guidance Journal, 40 (1962), 803-806.---

l80scar Krisen Buros, Editor, The Fifth Mental Measure­ment Yearbook, Highland Park, N.J., 1959, pp. 120-121.The reviewer Robert L. Thorndike concludes, " ... thistest [the Kerr-Speroff] cannot be recommended as either auseful practical device or a contribution to the descriptionand understanding of an individual.

19The evidence on this point is contradictory, WaymanJ. Grow and Kenneth R. Hammond, "The Generality' of Accuracyand Response Sets in Interpersonal Perception, ' The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 54 (1957), 384-390,conclude that ~nterpersona1 role-taKing accuracy is notgeneralizable. See also Henry Clay Smith, Sensitivityto People, New York, 1966, pp. 10-11.

22

A movie would provide a stimulus with which persons

could mentally interact. There are a number of studies in

which judges were shown brief films of the people whom they

were called upon to predict. This technique appears to be

especially applicable when people are called upon to judge

other individuals, that is, in testing for sensitivity to

individual differences. The technique has not been applied

to judgements, about generalized others, although there is

no reason why this cannot be done. The filming of a session

of the Hawaiian legislature was beyond the means of this

researcher, however. Moreover, such a technique places

restrictions on the means of obtaining respondents, although,

since voluntary political groups provided respondents, this

limitation is not insurmountable providing the movie is

entertaining enough.

There are a number of projective techniques that

suggest themselves for an exploration of empathic responses.

Two of the most often used are the Rorschach and the

Thematic Apperception Test (TAT). The latter, which would

seem to be most interesting for role-taking purposes, has

an unfortunately low reliability.20 To tap the political

realm, a new set of TAT pictures should probably be de­

veloped. Indeed, this technique, in spite of problems of

20See Raymond B. Cattell, The Scientific Analysis ofPersonality, Baltimore, Md., 1965, p. 128.

23

reliability, offers a fine opportunity for validation of

the measures of role-taking accuracy. Using voluntary

political organizations to obtain respondents, however,

made necessary a mailed questionnaire, and the names of

respondents were not known to the researcher.

Finally, there is the psychodrama technique, in which

persons would be called upon to stage a brief performance of

a situation in which they played, in this case, the role of

a legislator, a campaign orator, or a voter. Such a

technique would place great limitations on the selection of

a suitable and willing sample. Again, the rating technique

used in scoring such experiments as these suffers from the

same unreliability as the projective techniques. Cattell

regards the questionnaire as better than a rating technique

for this reason. 21 However, the psychodrama offers an

opportunity to test the socialization of children into

political role-taking accuracy. Such a research aim would

make it highly appropriate.

These are among the chief alternatives to the question-

naire technique used in this study, and in one way or

another they appear less appropriate in the research

questions posed in this project. For that reason, the

procedure in the next section was adopted.

21catte11, Scientific Analysis of Personality, p. 137.Cattell complains about the use of ratings by panels as ameans to validate questionnaire results. Such a validationprocedure is indeed made use of in several of the empathy

24

2.3 THE RESEARCH TECHNIQUE.

The first step of the research was to test the political-

other whose role persons were to predict. A salient

political-other had to be chosen, a person (or group) who

was visible to the respondents and from whom completed

questionnaires could be obtained. It seemed best to tap a

group of persons for a consensus of attitudes rather than

to rely on a single respondent who could not be grantee

anonymity. The state legislators met these criteria of

accessibility and saliency. Their attitudes were obtained

by a questionnaire, a step that will be discussed in detail

in Chapter III. From this questionnaire, items on which

there was consensus among the legislators were cOMpiled.

These items were used in the second portion of the

research to construct a questionnaire combining them with

other political attitude and behavior measurements. The

scores on the role-taking items and on the variables of

interest to this study were derived from these question-

naires, which were mailed to persons in two voluntary

political organizations in Honolulu.

The ensuing analysis proceeded on three levels.

Through a one-way analysis of variance, an effort was made

experiments. It is highly questionable, especially inview of the low scores often attained by "skilled" observerson predictive questionnaires.

25

to ascertain relevant differences between the two groups

as a whole. On what variables did the two groups vary

significantly from each other, ignoring for the moment

the within-groups variance?

The analysis then continued to search for differences

among the individuals without respect to their group des­

ignation. In this analysis, the concern was with the

relationships of the role-taking variables to political

variables among a group of politically-aware respondents.

No statistical inference can be made, of course, to the

population of the politically-aware of Hawaii, but the

implications of role-taking relationships extend to this

population.

In the analysis at this second level, the first stage

of data reduction was a Guttman-scaling of the scale

questions in the questionnaires returned by the role-taking22respondents. The scale scores and the other items on the

questionnaire, including the role-taking variables, were

dichotomized and a correlation matrix was obtained.

22Factor analysis was an alternative at this stage, andit was llsed later. It was decided that the Guttman scalesincorporated traditional and readily-identifiable scales thathave been used in many other studies of political attitudes.For a comparison of Guttman scales and a factor analysis ofthe same items, see Jeanne E. Gu11ahorn, MultivariateAtProaches in Survey Data processin¥: Comearisons of Factor,Custer and Guttman Anal ses and 0 Mult~ Ie Re ress~onan anon ca orre at~on et 0 s, Fort Wort, exas,Society of MUltivariate Experimental Psychology, 1967.Also see Jeanne E. Gu11ahorn and John T. Gu11ahorn, "TheUtility of APtP1ying Both Guttman and Factor Analysis toSurvey Data,' Sociometry, 31 (1968), 213-218.

26

Significant interrelationships were noted among the

variables included in the study. This process was a simple

cross-tabulation procedure in which all individuals from

both groups entered the computation. 23

The pattern of relationships in the common factor

space was obtained for all the dichotomized variables. This

was done with the highest row correlations in the principal

diagonal of the matrix to be factored. Rotation was

carried out first to an orthogonal solution. This solution

was then rotated to a biquartimin oblique factor solution

to determine whether a better simple structure was possible.

Multiple regression and correlation was used to

predict to the dependent variables of the study from in­

dependent dimensions of the attitude, behavior, and role­

taking space to ascertain which of these variables gave a

better prediction. (The raw scores of the role-taking

variables were used in this step.) This was the final

step in the search for relationships among the variables

on the level of the entire group of politically-aware in­

dividuals.

Finally, a process combining a distance program with

a subsequent factoring of the distance matrix produced

23These 2X2 tables can be quite revealing. Theyvide information not obtained from any of the othertechniques in this research. See Fred N. Kerlinger,Foundations of Behavioral Research, New York, 1964,espec~a11y Chapter 12.

pro-

27

subgroups from among the politically-aware respondents of

the study. This empirical classification technique yielded

information on relationships among the role-taking and

political variables within subgroups representing different

styles or patterns of political activity.

Thus, the analysis proceeded through three different

levels: comparisons between the two groups, comparisons

among the respondents as a whole, and comparisons among a

number of subgroups empirically derived from among the

respondents. Caution must therefore be exercised through­

out the discussion, so that conclusions reached during the

analysis at one level are not assumed to hold for another

level. This is the ecological fallacy, and its reverse,

the individualistic fallacy, that must be constantly

avoided during the course of the investigation. 24

2.4 HYPOTHESES.

There are two major hypotheses which will be con­

sidered: 25

24The ecological fallacy is discussed in an initialarticle by William S. Robinson, "Ecolo~ical Correlationsand the Behavior of Individuals," Amer~can SociologicalReview, 15 (1957), 351-57. The problem is well-discussedand explained in Erwin K. Scheuch, "Cross-National Com­parisons Using Aggregate Data: Some Substantive andMethodological Problems," Richard L. Merritt and SteinRokkan, editors, Comparing Nations, New Haven and London,1966, pp. 131-167.

2SThe nature of the respondents is such that there isno random sample of any delimitable population. Inferenceto any population, such as "members of voluntary political

28

1. Accurate role-takers will accept the politicalsystem enough to want to work within it as itis presently constituted. Disowning projectorswill tend to be Qersons advocating relativelydrastic changes. Zb Thus, we expect to findthat disowning projection is highly correlatedwith advocacy of change. Accurate role-takerswill not be expected to advocate major changein the political system.

2. Role-taking accuracy is positively related topolitical success as measured subjectively(according to the subject's own assessment)and objectively (as measured according to anoutside criterion). Disowning projectors willhave little feeling of political success andlittle objective political success in com­parison. 27

These major hypotheses are formulated according to

results obtained from many non-political studies. "Those

who accept the system work within it and gain experience

organizations in Hawaii," may be made only at the reader'srisk. Since the questionnaires studied are only thosereturned by certain of the members of two political groups,inference cannot be made even to these groups. Statisticalsignificance indicates only relationships that hold amongthe respondents in this particular study.

26"people who anchor themselves at extremes tend to seeothers as more unlike them," according to Leonard Berkowitz,"The Judgmental Process in Personality Functioning,"Psychological Review, ~ (1960), 134.

27See David A. Rogers "Personality Correlates ofSuccessful Role Behavior,~ The Journal of Social Ps~cho1ogy,46 (1957~, 115; Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., and Rosa11nd F.Dymond, 'The Empathic Responses, A Neglected Field ofResearch," Psychiatry, 12 (1949), 358. Note however thatespecially in po11tics,~ere may be an alternative com­peting hypothesis: " ... it will be contended that muchof the most efficient collective action occurs . . . undercircumstances which make accurate social perceptionrelatively unimportant," according to Ivan D. Steiner,"Interpersonal Behavior as Influenced by Accuracy of SocialPerception," Psychological Review, 62 (1955), 270.

29

--it pays off to role-take.,,28 This might be a surrnnation

of the results hypothesized above.

In addition to the major hypotheses, there are a

number of secondary results that are predicted. The

citations that follow them provide support for the

propositions:

a.

b.

c.

d.

e.

f.

Persons who have interacted with politicians willhave higher role-taking accuracy.29

Members of the "socializin& professions" will bemore accurate role-takers (salesmen, for example)than members of more "introspective professions"(engineers, for instance).

Role-taking accuracy increases with age. Theyoung tend to project, perhaps in the directionof disowning projection.

Long-time residents of Hawaii among the political­ly active will be better able to take the roleof Hawaii's legislators.

Younger children of families with more than onechild will have greater role-taking accuracy(when adults), while the only and eldest childrenwill tend to be projectors. 3D

Motivated persons will be better role-takers thanthose with less motivation. Presumably, motivation

28Thomas J. Scheff, "Toward a Sociological Model ofConsensus," American Sociological Review, 32 (1967), 45.

29Ronald Taft, '~ccuracy of Empathic Judgments ofAcquaintances and Strangers," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 1 (1966), 603.

30suggested by Ezra Stotland and Robert E. Dunn,"Empathy, Self-Esteem, and Birth-Order," The Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (1963), 532, 539.

30

compels us to learn more about others. Thismay hold, however, only for the moderatelymotivated. 31

g.

h.

i.

j .

Men will be more accurate than women as politicalrole-takers.

The politically cynical will be high on disowningprojection, low on role-taking accuracy.

Role-taking accuracy will be positively relatedto equalitarianism and faith in people. 32

Role-taking accuracy will be positively relatedto ego strength.33

k. Accuracy on the two types of prediction questions(attitudes and behavior) will be positively related.

These hypotheses are the result of a study of the

literature, none of it dealing directly, however, with

taking the role of a political-other. Since role-taking

accuracy may be specific to particular groups, it is

necessary that these hypotheses be tested for political

variables and with political others to be predicted. 34

Because multivariate techniques are used in the analysis,

31David E. Berlew, "Interpersonal Sensitivity andMotive Strength," The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, ~ (1961), 393.

32Rosalind F. Dymond, "Personality and Empathy,"Journal of Consulting pShchology~ 14 (1950), ~49,.foundthe highs on empathy to e trust~ng and equal~tar~an.

33Smith, Sensitivity to People, p. 178.

34I bid., p. 139.

there will be other relationships of interest discovered

during the course of the investigation. The power of

multivariate analysis as opposed to bivariate analysis

techniques ought to be amply demonstrated.

31

.- CHAPTER III

LEGISLATIVE CONSENSUS

3.1 THE CHOICE OF THE POLITICAL-OTHER.

In order to determine whether or not political groups

in Hawaii are able to take the role of the political-other,

it was necessary to define the role of some political

other. This might have been done by defining the po1itica1­

other in a number of ways. The other might have been the

governor, the President of the United States, the Congress,

or the Republican Party of the State of Hawaii.

The criteria of choice were salience to the respondents

and access to a questionnaire survey. For Hawaiian volun­

tary political organizations, the legislature meets these

criteria. While potential respondents might not be able

to distinguish individuals among the legislators, they

might be expected to have formed an image of the group as

a whole, a role-image. While the governor might be un­

willing to submit to a questionnaire on attitudes, the

legislators would be more likely to return such a question­

naire, provided anonymity was granted and the results would

characterize the entire legislature rather than individuals

in it. It must be kept in mind, however, that respondents

were tested for sensitivity to generalized others rather

33

than to individua1s,1 and role-taking accuracy with regard

to groups is not necessarily generalizable to accuracy with

regard to individuals.

No single legislator determines the role of legislator,

but together they agree on certain definitions of a common

role. It was necessary to determine the consensus of the

legislators on what comprised certain attitudinal and

behavioral aspects of their ro1e. 2 Moreover, it seemed

undesirable to include items that called for a special

knowledge of state laws or parliamentary procedure.

Presumably, institutional role-taking of this nature would

quite simply be correlated with political experience,

knowledge of politics, and education. To tap role-taking

accuracy in the second sense of role (see Chapter II,

page 11), attitudinal and behavioral items were necessary.

The literature proved rather sparse for the purpose

of framing items for a legislative-consensus questionnaire.

A number of sources provided attitudinal statements, how­

ever, and clues from these allowed a choice from among

1For elaboration on these distinctions, see UrieBronfenbrenner, John Harding, and Mary Ga11wey, "TheMeasurement of Skill in Social Perception," in DavidE. McClelland, et a1., Talent and Society, Princeton,N.J., 1958, p. 17.--

2Thus , Erving Goffman, Encounters, Indianapolis,Ind., 1961, p. 93, defines role as Ii ••• the typicalresponse of individuals in a particular position." Hegoes on to distinguish the typical role from the actualperformance of a concrete individual. It might be said thatthe consensus sought is itself the typical response, or role.

34

other commonly-used political attitude items. 3

A three-part questionnaire with a total of 66 questions

and six semantic differential concepts with ten scales each

was mailed to all the current members of the Hawaiian State

legislature, Senate and House (as of November, 1967).4 Of

75 questionnaires mailed,S 45, or 60 per cent, were re-

turned.

3.2 THE CRITERION OF CONSENSUS.

The criterion of consensus used to select the items

to be included in the final questionnaire was 30 or more

responses on either side of the Likert scale on the

consensus questionnaire and 30 or more responses on any

3Useful sources included John B. McConaughy, "CertainPersonality Factors of State Legislators in South carolina,"The American Political Science Review, 44 (1950), 897-903;Donald R. Matthews, "The FolkWays of theUnited StatesSenate~ Conformity to Group Norms and Legislative Effective­ness," The American political Science Review, 53 (1959),1064-1089, and u.s. Senators and The~r World, university ofNorth Carolina, 1960; Robert K. Merton, "BureaucraticStructure and Personality," Social Forces, 18 (1940),560-568; Clem Miller, Member of the House, New York, 1962;Thomas Vernon Smith, The Legislative Way of Life, Chicago,1940; Duane Lockard, "The Tribulations of a State Senator,"in John C. Wahlke and Heinz Eulau, editors, LegislativeBehavior, Glencoe, Ill., 1959, pp. 294-298; Leonard b.Wh~te and Thomas Vernon Smith, Politics and Public Service,New York, 1939.

4The questionnaire, except for the semanticdifferential portion, is reproduced in Appendix I.

Sane House member had just resigned to run for acounty office and was not included.

35

single item of the first nine situation questions. This

figure was derived from the confidence interval of the

percentage using the most conservative ca1cu1ation,6 which

gave + 14.6% at p < .05. Thus, a 50 per cent split would

be at 23 cases. Fifteen per cent of the cases would be

seven. Any split at 30-15 might safely be said to occur

by chance only about five per cent of the time. The

division seemed appropriate for a definition of legislative

consensus.

By this criterion, there were six of the situation

questions that qualified for the final questionnaire, while

39 questions qualified for Likert-type items. This pro-

vided sufficient items for the second role-taking question­

naire. The complete questionnaire for the legislators is

reproduced in Appendix I. To avoid problems of level on

the role-taking responses, the Likert items were dichoto­

mized, and consensus was defined by "agree-disagree"

disregarding neutral choices. These dichotomized items

and the responses of the legislators are shown in

Table 3.1. As noted in footnote (b), items 13, 23, and

43 were dropped on the final role-taking questionnaire

when a pilot study showed them inadequate in distinguishing

accurate from inaccurate role-takers.

6Hubert M. Blalock, Social Statistics, New York,1960, p. 164.

36

TABLE 3.1 QUESTIONS FROM THE LEGISLATIVEQUESTIONNAIRE SHOWING CONSENSUS

(Only consensual results are shown)

PART I: BEHAVIOR-TYPE QUESTIONSNumber of

Choices

1. I have made a campaign promise to support acertain bill. This won quite a few votes forme. When the bill comes before the legis­lature, my political party is very much opposedto its passage. I will

d. tell the members of my party about mycampaign commitment and then vote infavor of the bill. 42

2. I have won my first electionlegislature, and the sessionA bill is up for discussion.an expert on the bill, but Iknowledge and support it. I

to the Hawaiihas just opened.

I am by no meanshave a littlewill . . .

d. keep quiet and vote for the bill.

3. At a private dinner party, I find that I havebeen seated next to a long-time politicalenemy with whom I have been feuding recently.I will . . .

d. sit next to my political enemy and usethe occasion to get on good terms withhim.

4. A letter comes into my office written inpencil and in very bad grammar. It requestsinformation that will take some time tocollect. I will . . .

34

34

b. have my secretary obtain the informationand write a full reply. 35

5. Mr. Jones is a lobbyist with whom I am friendlyand who has helped me a few times in the past.He argues in favor of a bill, but he doesn'tconvince me of its worth. I will . . .

a. tell Mr. Jones how I intend to vote and why. 42

37

Table 3.1 (continued)

PART I: BEHAVIOR-TYPE QUESTIONSNumber ofChoices

6. A bill of mine is before a committee of whichI am a member. I can foresee that it willprobably lack several votes of being approved.Before the day of the vote, a member of theopposition on the committee suggests that Iaccept an amendment to the bill. This amend­ment will make the bill less effective but willprobably allow it to pass. I will ...

b. discuss his amendment with other interestedgroups and accept it if most of the othersgo along. 34

PART II: CONSENSUAL LIKERT ITEMS (Dichotomized)

Agree Neutral Disagree

2. A civil service exam would bea better way than an electioncampaign for choosing ourlegislators. 2 1 32

4. Elections are too heated formy taste. 2 43

5. It is quite natural to getopposing opinions from thesame set of facts. 40 5

6. You cannot really be surewhether an opinion is trueor not unless people are freeto argue against it. 39 2 4

9. I feel uncomfortable beinglaughed at. 34 11

11. A man who won't compromiseisn't a good citizen 6 6 33

38

Table 3.1 (continued)

PART II: CONSENSUAL LIKERT ITEMS (Dichotomized)

Agree Neutral Disagree

12. It's better to settle issuessomehow than to get themsettled absolutely correctly.

13. I like praise from others. b

31

39

3

2

11

3

15. It is self-defeating toembarrass a political opponentneedlessly. 43

17. People ought to make clear tolegislators how they want themto vote. 30

20. Most of those who disagree withmy political views are simplyuninformed. 7

21. It is good to be popular evenwith opponents, because they maybe on my side later. 38

22. Private and informal discussionsometimes clears up difficultproblems that public debatewould not solve. 45

23. The essence of good politics isteamwork. b 40

24. I'm almost never impolite topeople. 30

26. Special interests are usuallyagainst the public interest. 11

27. In a better age, we will beable to do without politicians. 6

28. A person who hides behind thelaws when he is questionedabout his activities doesn'tdeserve much consideration. a 14

29. I enjoy political arguments. 34

1

3

2

2

1

4

3

1

1

5

1

12

36

5

4

11

31

38

30

3

39

Table 3.1 (continued)

PART II: CONSENSUAL LIKERT ITEMS (Dichotomized)

Agree Neutral Disagree

31. If all my friends were univer­sity graduates, I would hidp thefact that I was a commonlaborer. 4 41

32. Sometimes I supportprinciples I don't entirelyagree with.

33. I don't mind a politician'smethods if he gets the rightthings done.

34. It's good politics to praiseyour opponents when you can.

35. Most politicians are inpolitics to be of "publicservice."

36. I like to be able to plan aset routine for my dailywork.

37. All elections ought to benonpartisan.

38. I get along with personsfrom all levels of society.

40. When I get home from work, Ilike to forget my job andrelax

43. I'm glad to live in theseexciting times. b

45. If I really wanted a lawpassed, it would be cowardlyto accept a watered-downversion of it.

47. It's wrong for people to putpressure on legislators to votetheir way.

33

12

32

32

32

5

41

39

45

8

4

1

1

6

3

1

2

1

1

11

31

7

10

13

38

2

6

36

40

40

Table 3.1 (continued)

PART II: CONSENSUAL LIKERT ITEMS (Dichotomized)

Agree Neutral Disagree

48. Those people who hate our wayof life should have a chanceto speak and be heard.

49. In politics, it's every manfor himself.

50. Politicians are usually"bitterly attacking" or"reacting violently."

51. All major interests in ournation are equally worthy ofconsideration.

53. I'd rather stand off and lookat events from a distance

54. The major aim of governmentis efficiency.

40

12

3

38

5

13

1

1

4

2

4

1

3

32

38

5

36

31

55. The records of legislators aretoo little known to the public. 43 2

56. Politics are dull in comparisonwith sports. 6 1 38

aThis question was dropped as a result of the checkfor the mode of a respondent runs-group. See Chapter III,p. 43.

bThese questions were dropped on the final question­naire when a pilot study showed that they did little todistinguish accurate from inaccurate role-takers. Item23 is an interesting case. Respondents in a pilot studyanswered this "agree" both for themselves and forlegislators even though many of them had agreed that "Inpolitics, it's every man for himself"! Item 23 is justthe type of question that elicits acquiescence.

41

No argument is advanced that legislators following

a consensus most closely in their own attitudes are more

successful than maverick legislators. It may be more

important that a legislator knows when his own attitudes

are consensual or not. Nor can an argument be supported

that the responses given on the questionnaire are what the

typical legislator really feels or would do in a situation.

For this reason respondents were later instructed to

respond to a series of questions as if they were typical

legislators answering a questionnaire.

3.3 REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THE LEGISLATIVE RESPONDENTS.

Since 30 legislators did not return questionnaires, it

was advisable to check whether there were significant dif­

ferences between the respondents and the non-respondents.

Information on the non-respondents was obtained from

Who's Who in Government, State of Hawaii, published for the

current (1967) legislative session by the Hawaii Chamber of

Commerce.

The non-respondents were distinguishable because the

questionnaires were numbered and the names marked off as

they were returned. Two identifying numbers, however, were

marked out by the respondents, although the questions had

been answered. Since these two legislators were uniden­

tifiable, they were counted necessarily as non-respondents.

The two groups, respondents and non-respondents, were

divided for differences on the following: political party,

42

members from Oahu versus members from the Outer Islands,

Oriental versus non-Oriental, length of service (service

with territorial legislature versus newer members), and

age. On none of these divisions was there a statistically

significant chi-square (p < .10) between the respondents

and non-respondents. Age, however, approached significance

(p < .20).

A Wa1d-Wolfowitz runs test, which is addressed to any

sort of difference between groups, including central

tendency, skewness, and variability, showed a z-score of

-1.71 for the age attribute, which is significant for a

one-tail test at p < .05. The apparent difficulty was a

run in non-respondent birth dates from 1894 to 1906 (six

non-respondents) and two runs in the respondents from 1911

to 1915 (six respondents) and from 1916 to 1920 (11

respondents).

Since two of the larger runs were respondents, they

could be checked against the questions chosen on the

consensus criterion. On no item with the exception of

Question 28 was the mode of the split of this runs-group

on the side opposite to the consensual answer. Question 28

(as numbered on the complete questionnaire, Appendix I)

showed a dissensus of nine (out of 17) from the runs-group,

and it was therefore dropped from the consensus questions. 7

7Question 11 showed a dissensus of seven, Questions 24and 35 showed a dissensus of six each, and Question 36 had

43

One of the schisms in a legislature might well be that

of political partisanship. There were 13 Republicans among

those returning their questionnaire (a proportion reflect­

ing quite accurately the proportion in the legislature as a

whole). Since there were so few Republicans, however, dif­

ferences resulting from partisan splits would appear as a

consensus with our criterion. It would be fallacious to

argue, however, that partisan attitudes necessarily re-

fleeted a consensus on the role of the legislator as such.

Therefore, the distribution of Republicans on the questions

was examined.

On none of the consensus questions did a Republican

mode appear to differ from that of the Democrats. None of

the questions, therefore, were dropped because they tapped

a partisan attitude or behavior. 8 The foregoing arguments

appear sufficient to defend the criterion of consensus which

defined the questions used on the final questionnaire for

role-taking respondents.

It might still be argued that the really crucial

difference between respondents and non-respondents was that

five dissenters from this runs-group. These questionswere retained.

8Since the decision was made to drop the semantic dif­ferential questions in the final questionnaire, no more willbe said about them. However, the concept Governor was oneon which there was"an obvious party split. In spite ofclear instructions on the abstract nature of the concepts,the legislators were not able to avoid regarding the con­cept Governor as synonymous with the present incumbent.

44

the latter had not returned their questionnaire and that

had they been tested on the questionnaire their answers

might have differed significantly from those of the

respondents. However, since the responding group was

larger than the non-responding one, it may be argued that

no change would be likely on those questions chosen on the

basis of a criterion of consensus. In fact, the consensus

of the legislature seemed to be that one returns a question­

naire of the type mailed them.

CHAPTER IV

THE NATURE OF THE RESPONSE GROUPS

4.1 THE CHOICE OF RESPONDENTS.

The major hypotheses with which this research is con­

cerned made it desirable to obtain respondents for whom

the legislature would be part of their perceptual domain. 1

It seemed proper to seek respondents, therefore, from

political organizations which they had joined voluntarily,

presumably to accomplish some political aim. A union, as

an example of one organization that partakes in politics,

would not have been appropriate for the reason that many

of its members join because they have to and not because

they happen to be politically active. Although it would

be interesting to obtain union respondents on these ro1e­

taking variables, they might not be expected to be as

politically aware as members of other groups. Legislators

mayor may not be significant others for them.

Therefore, organizations were sought whose membership

was more likely to be active in the political arena. An

example of such a group might be the NAACP, which persons

1She1don Stryker, "Role-Taking Accuracy and Adjustment,"Sociometry, 20 (1957), 287, states categorically that ro1e­taking requires that the predictor and other be mutuallyimplicated in an ongoing social situation.

join in order to accomplish the aim of extending civil

rights to all races. People in such a group are likely

to regard the legislature as a part of their political

domain, because it is the legislature, state or federal,

that passes or refuses to pass civil rights 1egis1ation. 2

Among groups of this nature, it was necessary in

order to test the hypothesis regarding advocacy of change

that respondents be obtained ranging from those who ad­

vocated considerable change in the political system to

those who were relatively satisfied with the system as it

was. Ideally, these respondents should range across the

political spectrum from the extreme left, through the

center, and to the extreme right. The two groups from

which respondents were drawn did cover a wide portion of

the spectrum from left to right. Not a few of them ex-

pressed a desire for a maximum of political change on3Questions 2.13 and 2.14.

46

2The NAACP was not tapped for respondents in thisstudy. No group names will be used, and they will bediscussed only in general terms. Some respondents ex­pressed the fear that their responses would be taken forthe position of the group.

3A11 question numbers will refer to the numbering asit appeared on the questionnaire, which is reproduced inAppendix II. Appendix III provides a definition of allthe variables that were used in the analysis. Hereafter,all questions will be referred to by pafte and number, as2.13, '\V'hich reads "page 2, ques tion 13. I

47

It proved impossible, however, to cover the political

spectrum completely. Many voluntary organizations prohibit

in their by-laws the distribution of questionnaires. Al-

though respondents were guaranteed individual anonYmity,

experience showed the desirability of granting anonYmity

to the organization as well; respondents did not want their

answers to represent the official stand of the organization

to which they belonged. The latter guarantee ought to have

been made explicitly in the introduction to the question­

naire, and it was conveyed to Group B in the form of a

cover letter. 4 Naturally, the same anonYmity was extended

to the first group. In spite of these precautions, however,

the ideal purpose of selection was not achieved. S

4Reproduced in Appendix II.

SAlthough enough respondents among the politicallyaware were tapped for the purpose of this research, themethod of reaching respondents cannot be recommended toany researcher whose access to such organizations must befrom the outside. Some lesson might be salvaged from thisexperience, however. A possible approach to a voluntarypolitical organization's membership might be through aninitial letter to all the members explaining the nature ofthe research, assuring anonYmity for the individual and theorganization, and requesting those who are interested inreceiving such a questionnaire to return an addressed cardto the researcher. A questionnaire would then be mailedto those requesting one.

This approach ought to eliminate criticism frompersons who do not wish to receive a questionnaire in themails under any circumstances. Unfortunately, the techniqueeliminates anonYmity for some, and the objection oforganizations to the distribution, in effect, of even aportion of their mailing list through the addressed requestsremains a problem.

It is also unfortunate that no statistical inferencesmay be made either to the group or to the population of the

48

4.2 DESCRIPTION OF GROUP A.

Eighty-five questionnaires were mailed to members of

Group A. Ultimately, 47 of these, or 54 per cent, were

completed and returned. Since not all the members were sent

a questionnaire, approximately every third or fourth name

was chosen from the mailing list. In cases where both the

husband and wife held a joint membership, the selection of

respondent was left to chance. Mailing lists of voluntary

political organizations are not given to non-members, and

reliance had to be placed on secretarial help within the

organization to mail the questionnaires, cover letters, and

return envelope. This lack of control over the question­

naires is a distinct disadvantage to the researcher. It is

not possible, for example, for a follow-up study in order

to make a validity check on certain of the questions.

However, the questionnaire had been prepared for self­

administration, and a pilot study showed that students in

a beginning political science course had no difficulty in

following the directions. Presumably, the respondents from

voluntary organizations had no difficulty either, and an

indication of their sophistication can be seen from the

responses to Question 13.2 (Education), among others in

Table 4.1.

politically-aware. This may still offer a group ofrespondents preferable for many reasons to the usual sampleof college students. For, even if a random sample isobtained of a beginning political science class inferencemay go no further than that class.

49

Group A was tapped in order to reach respondents who

would generally range from moderately to further left

politically. An indication of the validity of this surmise

is given by the answers to Question 3.19. Some of the

issues mentioned do not place the individuals politically;

the l8-year-old vote, constitutional convention, laws on

alcoholism, taxes, education, air pollution, and model

cities are issues that enlist all sections of the political

spectrum. Civil rights and the civic ethics commission do

not offer a criterion for placement. However, the issue

most often mentioned was opposition to American partici-

pation in the war in Vietnam, followed by draft resistance,

and support for Senator Eugene McCarthy's campaign for the

Democratic nomination to the presidency. In the political

climate of 1968, these issues mark this group as left of

center. Other suggestive issues supporting this conclusion

were the open housing bill, disarmament, poverty, and the

Dr. Oliver Lee case. 6

The results presented in Table 4.1 provide a charac­

terization of the respondents of Group A. (By Group A

hereafter will be meant respondents from Group A.) Of

course, no inference about the entire organization may

6The last-named case concerned questions of freespeech, academic freedom, and due process with regard togranting and taking away tenure. Those involved in thecase were not necessarily from the political left, but amajority of them probably were.

50

be reliably drawn from these figures, since a mailed

questionnaire is necessarily subject to bias. These re­

sults show that the respondents were indeed a highly­

sophisticated group politically. This is shown not only

by the sociological variables but by the participation and

political knowledge indices as well. Yet, except possibly

for the knowledge index, there are enough respondents from

the lower ranges for contrast. If important distinctions

among them are forthcoming from the role-taking variables,

then it may be surmised that these distinctions might be

even greater among both these respondents and those of a

broader portion of the population.

Although the mean of role-taking accuracy is high,

there are also individuals among the lower range of

accuracy, as indicated by the range and the standard de­

viation. The same is true of the other role-taking variables.

The mean for advocacy of change is somewhat higher than

expected for Group A, but there are those who fall into the

range of more moderate change and a few in the lower levels

of desire for change. It may be concluded that Group A

provided the type of respondents that were desired for a

test of the hypotheses.

It would not be surprising to discover in a relatively

stable and mature political society that political groups

with pretensions to successful operations in the extant

political system are similar in their attitudes to the

Frequency of responseGroup A Group B

(N=47) (N=24)

TABLE 4. 1 DESCRIPTION OF RES PONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B

PART I. FREQUENCIES a

Questionnaire Itemb Variable namec and responses

1.7 HELOFF10 1437 10

33 1414 10

112 623 11

2 19 6

15 420 1311 7- -1

INFSEL

ACQLEG

YesNo

YesNo

A lotMore than most peopleAbout averageLess than most peopleAlmost none

POLINT

1.8

1.9

2.10A lotMore than most peopleAbout averageLess than most peopleAlmost none

aCne Group A respondent omitted the questions on page 13 of the questionnaire.

bRead 1.7 as page 1, question 7.

cVariable names are abbreviated in all tables and figures.Appendix III ~vill give the full description and names of all variables and attributes.

U1t--'

TABLE 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B (continued)

PART I. FREQUENCIES

Questionnaire Item Variable name and responsesFrequency of response

Group A Group B(N=47) (N=24)

2.11

2.12

2.14

ASPIREA lot moreMore than I have nowAbout as much as I have nm.;Don't really care

INFGRPA lotMore than most other political groupsAbout the same as most other political

groupsLess than most other political groupsAlmost none

CNGVRBA great dealA lot, but not too muchA moderate amountMore than a littleVery littleI like things as they are now

102410

3

214

1811

221110

22

514

41

22

1541

64

1022

U1N

TABLE 4. 1 DESCRIPTION OF RES PONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B (con t inued)

PART I. FREQUENCIES

Questionnaire Item Variable name and responsesFrequency of response

Group A Group B(N=47) (N=24)

2.15

2.16

3.17

3.18

SUCSELA good deal of successSome successPossibly a little successAlmost no success

SUCGRPA good deal of successSome successPossibly a little successAlmost no success

POSOFFYesNo

ISSACTYesNo

~

21224

8

72612

1928

2522

14

109

28

104

915

717

V1VJ

TABLE 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B (continued)

PART I. FREQUENCIES

Frequency of responseQuestionnaire Item Variable name and responses Group A Group B

(N=47) (N=24)

3.20-26 POLKNO7 18 66 10 45 9 3

Number correct: 4 6 53 3 42 1 210

11-12.1-6 BSCORE6 2 55 15 64 6 4

Number correct: 3 11 32 6 31 5 30 2

13.1 SEXMale 34 13Female 12 11

13.2 EDUCATHigh school and below 1 3Above high school 45 21

VI+:'-

TABLE 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B (continued)

PART I. FREQUENCIES

Questionnaire Item Variable name and responsesFrequency of response

Group A Group B(N=47) (N=24)

13.3

13.4

13.5-6

13.7

RESIDETen years or lessOver ten years

EMPJOBEmpathicNonempathic

ELDONLEldest and only childYounger child

AGE20-3031-4041-5051-6061+

2224

1333

3016

81411

76

1113

915

168

1572

V1V1

TABLE 4.1 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS, GROUPS A AND B,

PART II. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS a

Variab1eb Group A (N=45) Group B (N=23)Range Range

name Mean S.D. Max Min Mean S.D. Max Min

PARTIC 8.49 3.46 15 1 6.48 3.85 13 0INFSEL 2.82 1. 07 5 1 2.65 1.11 4 1POLINT 4.02 0.89 5 1 3.87 0.69 5 3ASPIRE 2.84 0.82 4 1 3.00 0.74 4 1INFGRP 3.02 1.08 5 1 3.04 0.88 5 1CHANGE 7.36 2.42 10 1 5.74 1.91 9 1SUCSEL 2.13 0.84 4 1 1.83 0.83 4 1SUCGRP 2.76 0.88 4 1 2.39 0.84 4 1POLKNO 5.69 1.35 7 2 4.87 1.74 7 2BSCORE 3.40 1.63 6 0 3.83 1.70 6 1ROLEAC 26.82 3.77 34 17 27.00 3.79 33 19ASSUME 25.24 5.25 34 19 25.39 4.62 33 18ACTUAL 27.91 3.77 33 20 28.13 2.24 33 25PROJEC 13.60 5.01 25 1 14.87 4.51 26 7

aTwo cases for Group A and one case for Group B are omitted.

bSee Appendix III for the full names and definitions of variables.

U1(j\

57

legislators. A separate analysis of the role-questions of

the two groups of respondents shows this to be true.

As can be seen from Table 4.2, Group A is similar to

the legislators as shown by the responses on the role

questions for "self." Only on Questions 11, 14, 22, 25,

and 31 do the respondents in Group A not fall significantly

on the same side of the agree-disagree dichotomy as the

legislators. 7 In no case, is the mode of the respondents

significantly (statistically) on a side opposite to the

legislators.

The questions on which the respondents deviate the

most from the legislators' consensus are:

_.11. It is good to be popular even with

opponents, because they may be on myside later.

14. Special interests are usually againstthe public interest.

22. I like to be able to plan a set routinefor my daily work.

25. When I get home from work, I like toforget my job and relax.

31. All major interests in our nation areequally worthy of consideration.

Group A is a relatively issue-oriented group. It is

possible that the popularity indicated in Question 11 is not

as consonant with issue-activity as it is with garnering

7Question 5 was a borderline case.

58

votes. A measure of combativeness against "interest"

groups is also apparent. As close as these respondents are

to the legislators, their situation differs. It is less

important to placate all interests when the group is en­

gaged in issue tactics. The remainiug questions are more

indicative of possible personality differences between

legislators, who may be more jealous of what leisure they

have, and persons who engage in issue activity for its own

sake.

It may be seen from the "self" answers for Group A

that the assimilative projector will be more successful

in accurate role-taking than will the disowning projector.

In a factor analysis, it is predictable that accurate role­

taking will load positively on the same factor as assumed

similarity, while the measure of disowning projection will

load on the same factor, but negatively. It remains for

that analysis to indicate with what other variables these

may vary independently of one another.

It does not follow, however, that a group close to

the legislators in their attitudes should of necessity be

accurate role-takers. In case they are not, they will

then be necessarily high as disowning projectors.

In fact, Group A respondents were able as a group to

clearly designate the correct responses of the legislators

on 29 attitude questions. On six other questions, the mode

of the respondents was not significantly the same as that

59

TABLE 4.2 ROLE QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR SELF BY GROUPS A AND B

Questiona Group A Group B Legis1atorsb

number Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

1 5 42 1 23 0 X2 4 43 1 23 0 X3 42 5 23 1 X 04 40 7 19 5 X 05 29 18 19 5 X 06 7 40 2 22 0 X7+ 34 13 8 16 X 08 39 8 23 1 X 09 46 1 24 X 0

10 9 38 24 0 X11·k 23 24 17 7 X 012 45 2 22 2 X 013 33 14 20 4 X 014·k 27 20 7 17 0 X15 6 41 3 21 0 X16 39 8 19 5 X 017 3 44 1 23 0 X18 32 15 15 9 X 019 6 41 4 20 0 X20 40 7 17 7 X 021 32 15 13 11 X 022·k 19 28 16 8 X 023 5 42 3 21 0 X24 46 1 21 3 X 025 24 23 19 5 X 026 12 35 8 16 0 X27 4 43 1 23 0 X28 46 1 22 2 X 029 7 40 11 13 0 X30 2 45 3 21 0 X31 26 21 14 10 X 032 13 34 4 20 0 X33 4 43 3 21 0 X34 34 8 18 6 X 035 4 43 3 21 0 X

aThese are the 35 questions, pages 10-11 of the question-naire, Appendix II, as they were answered for the self inthe scale portion of the questionnaire, Part II, pp. 4-9.

bThe mode (consensus) is indicated by an "X."*On these ~uestions Group A differed in mode from the

answers 0 the legislators.+On these ~uestions Group B differed in mode from theanswers 0 the legislators.

60

of the legislators, and on one of these questions, Question

6, the mode of response was significantly inaccurate.

Table 4.3 gives these totals.

The following questions were most difficult for role­

takers in Group A:

6. A man who won't compromise isn't a goodcitizen.

10. Most of those who disagree with my politicalviews are simply uninformed.

19. I don't mind a politician's methods if hegets the right things done.

25. When I get home from work, I like to forgetmy job and relax.

29. In politics, it's every man for himself.

31. All major interests in our nation areequally worthy of consideration.

The errors appeared to be evident in questions in which

some measure of political toughness was attributed to

legislators, Questions 19 and 29, which they did not say

they had. Question 6 may indicate an idea of legislators

as being more prone to compromise than they are. On

Questions 25 and 31, there may have been a larger measure

of projection onto the legislators of attitudes on which

the respondents differed most from them (see Table 4.2).

Five questions were chosen from the responses of the

legislators as examples of a lack of consensus within the

legislature. On all five of the questions the respondents

of Group A were as a group significantly convinced that the

TABLE 4.3 ROLE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AS "LEGISLATORS" BY GROUPS A AND B

Questiona Group A Group B Legislatorsnumber Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

1 2 45 - 24 0 X2 6 41 2 22 0 X3 41 6 22 2 X 04 35 12 21 3 X 05+ 31 16 11 13 X 06* 31 15 9 15 0 X7 45 2 18 6 X 08 37 10 16 8 X 09 41 6 23 1 X 0

10 23 24 9 15 0 X11 41 6 21 3 X 012 45 2 24 - X 013 41 5 20 4 X 014 14 33 3 20 0 X15 2 45 - 24 0 X16 44 3 21 3 X 017 14 33 7 17 0 X18 41 5 21 3 X 019* 28 19 12 12 0 X20 40 7 14 9 X 021 42 5 19 5 X 0

aThese are the answers respondents gave as if they were legislators, Part III, pages10-11 of the questionnaire. The last five of the questions were non-census questionsaccording to the legislators' own responses. See Appendix for the questions in full.

*This indicates a wrong mode for the guesses of Group A+This indicates a wrong mode for the guesses of Group B

'"r-'

Table 4.3 Role Questions Answered as "Legislators" by Groups A and B (continued)

Question Group A Group B Legislatorsnumber Agree Disagree Agree Disagree Agree Disagree

22 31 15 22 2 X 023 1 46 4 20 0 X24 46 1 24 - X 025+* 19 28 9 15 X 026 6 41 9 15 0 X27 13 34 8 16 0 X28 33 14 18 6 X 029+* 24 23 13 11 0 X30 7 40 1 23 0 X31 25 22 19 5 X 032 10 37 2 22 0 X

33 13 34 8 16 0 X34+ 32 15 11 13 X 035 3 44 1 23 0 X

(36) 41 6 23 1 NC NC(37) 42 5 21 3 NC NC(38) 40 7 20 4 NC NC(39) 40 7 16 7 NC NC(40) 44 1 20 2 NC NC

*This indicates a wrong mode for the guesses of Group A.+This indicates a ~vrong mode for the guesses of Group B.

0'\N

63

correct guess for consensus in all cases was "agree."

This is a clue as to the nature of role-taking in predicting

the generalized-other. It is akin to stereotype accuracy,

in which the individual's assessments are made in broad

terms of experience rather than on an emotional feeling­

himself-into-the-others'-shoes that would be evidence of

empathy.

This result indicates that a more searching question­

naire would have offered three choices for the respondents;

besides the "agree-disagree" choices offered on the role­

taking questions, there ought to have been a "no consensus"

choice. The questionnaire might then have been a somewhat

better test of accuracy. Such a response choice ought to

be part of any replication of this research project. Care

must be taken, of course, to select only those questions

dividing the role-others equally.

4.3 DESCRIPTION OF GROUP B.

One-hundred-and-five questionnaires were provided for

distribution among members of Group B. Ultimately, 24 of

these, or somewhat less than 23 per cent, were completed and

returned. Group B was chosen in order to tap the moderate

right-wing, and as this section of the political spectrum

is less demonstrative and active than the left wing, given

the present political climate, it is possible that this is

the explanation for the reduced percentage of returns.

64

The issues mentioned by the respondents of Group B

included 18-year-01d voting, Diamond Head and a Ka1akaua

mall (both urban conservation issues), removal of the

four-per-cent tax on food and drugs, and foreign travel

tax. These issues indicate, if anything, that the group

includes the moderate right. Omitted are the issues of

greatest interest to the generally left-wing respondents

of Group A. It is interesting that respondents from

Group B did not mention as an "issue" working for the

nomination of any political candidates. The moderate

left, on the other hand, regarded support and work for

Senator McCarthy's candidature as an "issue."

Table 4.1 presents a characterization of the

respondents from Group B. The general conclusion is that

this group, like Group A, is politically sophisticated.

Group B does not emerge as issue active as the first group,

nor does it appear so high in political knowledge or

political participation. Respondents do not differ in

sociological variables such as profession and education.

Table 4.2 shows that Group B respondents are quite

similar in their responses on the attitude-type questions

to the legislators. Possible differences might be discerned

from Questions 7, 21, 29, and 31. In Question 7 the

respondents in Group B fall in a mode on the opposite side

from both the legislators and Group A.

65

The questions on which Group B diverged most from the

legislators included:

7. It's better to settle issues somehowthan to get them settled absolutelycorrectly.

21. Most politicians are in politics to be ofpublic service.

29. In politics, it's every man for himself.

31. All major interests in our nation areequally worthy of consideration.

Questions 7 and 31 indicate a greater degree of attachment

to principle than to political expediency than is apparent

among law-makers, who must make deals as a normal part of

their task if they are to pass bills. On the other hand,

Question 14 concerning "special interests" did not cause

a perceptible divergence from the legislators. It is

possible that "special interests" were construed as economic

lobbies, the normal operation of which ought not to perturb

the moderate right, which is generally friendly to business.

Questions 21 and 29 indicate an amount of cynicism with

regard to the political motives of politicians. The dif-

ference indicated on the last question was also remarked

for Group A.

Like respondents of Group A, those of Group B were

fairly accurate as a group in their answers as simulators

of the legislative role. Questions 5, 25, 29, and 34 show

most of the respondents falling into a mode on the inaccurate

side of the answers, while the group divides evenly on

Question 19.

66

These questions were:

5. I feel uncomfortable being laughed at.

25. When I get home from work, I like toforget my job and relax.

29. In politics, it's every man for himself.

34. The records of legislators are too littleknown to the public.

Questions 5 and 34 show Group B differing from both the

legislators and the guesses of Group A. The first question

may indicate an idea that legislators are more thick-

skinned than they really are, while Questions 29 and 34 may

indicate some amount of political cynicism, which was

possibly present in some self-attitudes, as was shown. Both

Groups A and B differed from the legislators on Questions

25 and 29. On the first, there may be an image of the

politician as hyperactive, while the second question may

suggest a belief that politics is even more competitive

than it appears to legislators. The respondents may be

conceiving of politics as a struggle for issues and

elections, while the legislators may have had in mind the

teamwork necessary to win political offices.

Both Groups A and B emerge as very accurate role­

takers, and this concurs with the expectations that led to

the choice of respondents from this portion of the political

population. The groups are not entirely similar, however,

as the next section will show. The picture of role-taking

shows a large consensus in the United States on general

67

principles and political style, at least on the broad

portion of the political spectrum tapped. This sub­

stantiates the results reported by Gabriel A. Almond and

Sidney Verba, of course. 8 It remains to be seen whether

within this particularly active group of respondents there

exist relationships such as those hypothesized between the

role and the other variables.

4.4 BE~~EN GROUPS DIFFERENCES.

The respondents from the two groups were compared for

differences by a one-way analysis of variance. Role

accuracy, assumed similarity, actual similarity, and dis­

owning projection were not significantly different between

the two groups. The variance of the role variables is con­

tained not in the between-groups variance but in the within­

groups variance.

The groups did have differences, however, and the major

one was advocacy of change, as shown in Table 4.5. The

commonsense notion that it is the left-wing which advocates

the greatest amount of change in the present system is

vindicated, not unexpectedly.

In addition, Group A was significantly higher on the

participation index and on the knowledge index as well.

8The Civic Culture, Princeton, N.J., 1963.

68

Group A was more than the other group oriented toward issue

activity, as can be seen from Table 4.1. Issue activity

indicates motives that find outlet in greater participation.

In addition, the very nature of Group A as more change­

oriented than Group B makes it probable that individuals

would be plunged into more types of participation and with

more intensity than individuals in the less change-oriented

group. When one wants to change the system in a major way,

he expects to work harder at it than those that want to

preserve most aspects of the system.

The knowledge index indicated that on the whole the

individuals from both groups were politically aware to a

far greater degree than is reported from surveys of a

cross section of the population. The questions asked were

not intended to be difficult, and it was necessary to be

stringent in talleying the score; for example, all of

Hawaii's representatives had to be named for a point to be

given on Question 3.23.

The difference on the knowledge index may be part of

the issue-activity and change-orientation of members of

Group A, for whom it is important to know the answers to

the knowledge questions. The desire for change offers a

strong motivation to keep up to date on the news, and most

members of Group A were aware of the recent change that

occurred in the Department of Defense, to which a new

secretary had just been appointed. It is also possible

TABLE 4.4 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,

PARTICIPATION INDEX (NA = 47, NB = 23)a

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean squarevariation squares freedom variance

Total 936.28 69

Between groups 52.33 1 52.33

Within groups 883.95 68 12.999

F ratio = 4.03 p £....05

aCne respondent in Group B was not included in this analysis.

0'\0

TABLE 4.5 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,

ADVOCACY OF CHANGE (NA = 47, NB = 23)

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean squarevariation squares freedom variance

Total 380.58 69

Between groups 39.59 1 39.59

Within groups 240.99 68 5.01

F ratio = 7.90 p L... .01

-...Jo

TABLE 4.6 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN GROUPS A AND B,

POLITICAL KNOWLEDGE INDEX ( NA = 47, NB = 23 )

Source of Sum of Degrees of Mean squarevariation squares freedom variance

Total 164.80 69

Between groups 9.64 1 9.64

Within groups 155.16 68 2.28

F ratio = 4.22 p <:... .05

-...J.....

72

that some of the difference between groups on political

knowledge was the result of a number of newcomers to

Hawaii in Group B, who had not yet learned the details

of local politics for Questions 3.21-23.

The role variables, however, on the group level did

not distinguish Group A from Group B. If role variables

are related to other variables and attributes of political

interest, it is evidently not on the level tested for in

this section. The search for the correlates to role

accuracy and disowning projection must proceed on another

level in order to tap the within-groups variance. This

search will be pursued in the next chapter.

CHAPTER V

PRELIMINARY COMMENTS ON THE ROLE-TAKING AND

DEPENDENT VARIABLES AND CROSS-TABULATIONS

5.1 SCALES.

The limited number of respondents in this study made

appropriate some technique other than factor analysis to

produce attitudinal dimensions. Besides the 35 questions

for which the respondent answered the role questions for

himself, there were 82 other attitudinal items on pages

four through nine of the questionnaire. These questions

were selected as politically pertinent from a variety of

sources in which they had been shown to scale according to

Guttman's technique for testing for unidimensional scales.

Other items, as for the radicalism scale, were original.

Just as with factor analysis, however, scaling depends not

only on the items to be scaled, but on the group selected

as respondents as well. As observed in the Appendix III,

certain of the scales do not have ideal marginals, for the

respondents ranked too high or too low in general on cer­

tain attitudes. On at least two groups of questions,

scales were not possible, and indexes were formed for

authoritarianism and apolitical tendencies.

The Guttman technique also made a positive contri­

bution. Items on the questionnaire have been used on many

74

occasions in studies of political behavior and attitudes,

and researchers are familiar with the scales derived from

them, such as political efficacy, flexibility, and se1f­

society. On the other hand, a factor analysis is likely

to produce factors loaded with items that might not be

comparable in other studies. This state of affairs need

not be irremediable, of course, for just as Raymond Cattell

has identified 16 or more dimensions of personality, so

might political scientists isolate the dimensions of

political behavior. l

Thus, rep1icabi1ity is another argument for using the

more common Guttman scaling technique. The process of data

reduction was accomplished using the BMDOSS Guttman Scale

Number 1. 2 The items on the questionnaire were entered as

dichotomous agree-disagree items, and those with a marked

unanimity of response were dropped. The minimum co-

efficient of reproducibility accepted was 0.89, and the

minimum number of items for each scale was four.

An attempt to experiment with a program using Lingoes'

empirical technique for scaling the entire set of 82 (and

1Raymond B. Cattell, The Scientific Analysis ofPersonality. Baltimore, Md., 1965.

2This program assigns proper weights to the data,ranks respondents from most favorable to least favorable,and assigns a Guttman scale score to each respondent.

75

more) items met with failure. Further experimcuts using

subsets of items known to contain scales and reducing the

stringency of the Multiple Scalogram Analysis criteria

gave evidence of the nature of the difficulty. The MSA

program used as a criterion for retaining items the phi

coefficient (of minimum .80) from 2X2 tables of scale items.

However, the nature of a proper scale is to have one cell of

the four virtually empty, and the phi coefficient for such

a table is much reduced below, say, a tetrachoric r under

such a condition. If the items had met the usual criteria

for scalability, they would have been discarded by the

program.

For example, the cross tabulation between INFSEL and

ACQLEG produces a table that shows perfect scalibility

between the two items: All 19 persons high in their assess­

ment of political influence also are acquainted with

legislators. Yet, this table produced a phi coefficient of

only .43. It was no wonder that the MSA program generated

so many one-item scales. 3

Scales were formed for the following sets of items,

and these scales are fully presented in Appendix III:

Ego strengthInnovativenessPolitical efficacy

3For a discussion of this quality of the phi coefficient,see J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology andEducation, New York, 1965, pp. 335-336.

76

EqualitySociabilityHumanitarianismRadicalismFlexibilityFaith-in-peoplePolitical cynicism

Eight items from among the authoritarianism set scaled

with reproducibility of 0.89, but this scale was dropped

because it was not sufficiently discriminatory. Most

respondents were nonauthoritarian, and none of the items

were split near the 50-50 division and below. It was re­

tained, with apolitical tendency, as an index. If these

indexes fail to discriminate adequately, the error will be

in the lack of correlation between them and the other

variables.

The self-society items produced a scale with a high

reproducibility, but on two of the five items in this

scale, the response was nearly unanimous. There was near

unanimous acquiescence for the following questions:

I~ person does not need to worry about otherpeople if only he looks after himself."(Reflected)

"Even if some minority groups are treatedbadly, it is no business of mine."(Reflected)

Respondents were drawn from too narrow a spectrum of

society to provide contrast on the above items. Minorities

are too popular a cause among the politically aware.

People who are as politically active as the respondents in

this study are also quite aware of the existence of

77

minorities who have not achieved the full practical content

of their constitutional rights, and they are also aware of

what their attitude toward these minorities ought to be.

The division between the moderate left and the moderate

right on such attitudes as self-society can only be found

in such behavior as issue activity, where the left puts its

attitudes into active practice more readily than the right.

Judging from studies on political attitudes, these ten

scales tap a large portion of politically relevant attitudes.

The Cornell scores of persons on each scale provided a

criterion for a cutting point dividing the respondents into

roughly equal halves of high and low for each scale. The

undichomized Cornell scores were also used in portions of

the following analysis, particularly in the regression

predictions, and this will be noted where appropriate.

5.2 EVIDENCE ON ROLE-TAKING FROM CROSS-TABULATION.

Cross-tabulation of the dichotomized variables pro-

vides some evidence regarding the associations between them.

There is much to be learned from the simple 2X2 table that

is not always evident from other more sophisticated data

analysis techniques. 4 In this chapter single relationships

4For example, a relationship in which both the issue­active and those not issue-active believe the group is veryinfluencial will not be statistically significant, but itmay be suggestive for other reasons. In a case in which atrend is shown among the high in assumed similarity thatdoes not exist among low scorers, the table may not besignificant, but it may be important in a search forpossible controls.

78

among the variables will be discussed, while the patterns

that emerge through factor analysis will be covered in the

next chapter. The two chapters nevertheless overlap, and

an attempt will be made to avoid redundance in the two

discussions. Cross-tabulation was performed between the

three "dependent" and four role variables and all the other

variables and attributes of the study. In addition, the

interested reader may refer to the information in Figure

5.2.

Controls have been experimented with but the results

with respect to the role-taking variables were not en­

couraging. S Moreover, some of the background variables

were constant in any case, because the respondents were

taken from among the more politically active. The choice

of voluntary political organizations from which to tap

respondents assured that income, education, and professional

status were almost uniformly high.

The dependent variables of the study will be dealt

with first, but briefly, since many results of the cross­

tabulations may be reviewed in the next chapter on factor

SRole-taking was cross-tabulated with self-assessedinfluence and success in alterring a law, with controlsfor holding office, participation, and issue-activity.Advocacy of change was cross-tabulated with self-assessedinfluence, projection, and assumed similarity, controllingfor issue activity, projection, and ego strength. None ofthe results were significant or indicative of trends.

79

analysis. These included a measure of objective success,

for which having held an office was chosen; a measure of

subjective success assessment, for which self-assessed in­

fluence was chosen; and an indicator of advocacy of change,

for which the ladder item provided a value. Ideally, out­

siders' appraisals of a person's political success would

probably provide the soundest criterion of actual political

success, but such a measure was not possible in this study,

for the respondents were assured anonYmity. However, those

who have held a political office of some kind have pre­

sumably been assessed by their fellows. It was possible,

of course, that a person's personal appraisal of his own

political success would also be an appropriate indicator of

real success, when correlated with the objective criterion.

Indeed, having held office (HELOFF) appears to be part

of a political success pattern. Those who have held some

office are acquainted with legislators (ACQLEG), consider

political office-seeking a distinct possibility for them­

selves (POSOFF) , are issue active (ISSACT), are high in

political knowledge (POLKNO), regard themselves as more

influential (INFSEL), and are more interested in politics

(POLINT) than those who have held no office. These asso­

ciations are shown in the accompanying tables.

Having held office demarcates politically active

individuals who are most willing to engage the system in

seeking its offices and working to influence issues.

ACQLEG

80

TABLE 5.1

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/ACQLEGa

HELOFF

Yes

No

No

25

22

Yes

22

2

Total

47

24

Total

h. b

C l.-square =

47 24

10.51, p « .01, Phi =

71

.38

aAll definitions and full names of these attributes andbvariables may be found in Appendix III.

These chi-squares may not be used to infer to thepopulations from which the respondents came. Only hy­potheses which relate specifically to the 71 respondentsare being tested.

TABLE 5.2

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/POSOFF

POSOFF HELOFF

No Yes Total

Yes 12 16 28

No 35 8 43

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 11. 26, p « .001, Phi = .40

TABLE 5.3

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/ISSACT

ISSACT HELOFF

No Yes Total

Yes 15 17 32

No 32 7 39

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 9.72, p <. .01, Phi = .37

TABLE 5.4

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF / SOC IAL

SOCIAL HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 19 14 33

Low 28 10 38

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 2.05, NS, Phi = .17

81

TABLE 5.5

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/PARTIC

PARTIC HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 20 15 35

Low 27 9 36-Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 2.53, NS, Phi = .19

TABLE 5.6

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/INFSEL

INFSEL HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 6 13 19

Low 41 11 52

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 13.89, p < .001, Phi = .44

82

TABLE 5.7

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/POLINT

POLINT HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 7 12 19

Low 40 12 52

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 9.99, p < .01, Phi = .38

TABLE 5.8

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/POLKNO

POLKNO HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 21 17 38

Low 26 7 33

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 4.37, p < .05, Phi = ,25

83

TABLE 5.9

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/BSCORE

BSCORE HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 22 16 38

Low 25 8 33

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 2.52, NS, Phi = .19

TABLE 5.10

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF/PROJEC

PROJEC HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 27 8 35

Low 20 16 36

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 3.70, p < .10, Phi = -.23

84

85

TABLE 5.11

CORRELATES OF HELD OFFICE

HELOFF / AS PGAP

ASPGAP HELOFF

No Yes Total

High 19 3 22

Low 28 21 49

Total 47 24 71

Chi-square = 5.79, p <: .02, Phi = -.29

Explanations for a few possible anomalies do not dispel

this interpretation. For example, the results indicate that

the persons who have held office also tend to feel polit­

icalYy' efficacious (POLEFF), which is in keeping with the

greater tendency for them to be among those high in pol it-

ical influence. However, this table was not statistically

significant because the persons who have held no office also

tend to feel politically efficacious. For the same reason,

the aspirations (ASPIRE) of office holders are not distin­

guished from the aspirations of other politically-aware

individuals .....

It is interesting that the cross-tabulation with self-

success in alterring a law (SUCSEL) shows that the office

holders fall in the same direction as the non-office

.~.

86

holders; that is, they do not assume that they will be

successful in engaging the political system as individuals.

Experience has taught these persons that the individual is

not often effective by himself, and the question seems to

have been taken in this sense. Given teamwork and organi­

zation, however, the persons with experience in office are

able to exercise what they consider to be their political

influence (Table 5.6). And, they, like the non-office

holders, assume that the group to which they belong will

have more success than not in influencing a political

decision.

The office holders are not more accurate role-takers

than others, although their behavior score (BSCORE)

approaches significance (p <. .10), but they have less

tendency toward disowning projection (PROJEC--Tab1e 5.10).

Having held office themselves, they error less than others

by assuming a difference between themselves and fellow

politicos when predicting the attitudes of legislators. Of

some interest is the tendency of office holders to rate

higher in sociability (SOCIAL). These are persons who put

themselves forward in social situations, as can be seen

from the nature of the questions in this scale.

A second dependent variable attempted to tap political

success; the first choice for this was Question 2.15, the

87

perception of success of self in alterring a law. 6 In one

sense, it might be anticipated that this variable would

correlate highly with the objective measure, but this did

not prove to be the case. Those who have held office showed

no more tendency than others to attribute success to self.

There has already been a hint that the reason for this may

lie in the interpretation of the question as indicating

what the individual is capable of doing in politics without

organization and the aid of others. It therefore tapped an

entirely different context than did the attribute of having

held office.

For example, the results indicate that self-success

distinguishes among individuals who regard seeking political

office as a possibility. Such individuals are nevertheless

no more active in issues than others. These persons are

also high in political efficacy, which is no surprise, since

this attitude is a similar self-assessment of success.

These individuals also fall into the low category of polit­

ical cynicism--they are sure of their powers. They tend to

attribute influence (INFGRP) and success (SUCGRP) to the

groups to which they belong as well. Finally, they are

high in actual similarity to the attitudes of the legis-

lators on consensual items. That is, their answers on

6What follows is based on cross-tabulations on 57cases. A later calculation on the entire 71 cases did notalter the conclusions.

88

these items for self tended to be the same as the legis­

lators' own answers, but this did not make them better

role-takers. 7

An anomaly somewhat difficult to explain is why among

persons who regard themselves as potentially successful in

alterring a law is there no significant difference between

them and others on influence, self-assessed? The explana­

tion may lie in the nature of the success question, which

does not ask a person to assess what success he actually

has enjoyed, but the success he might have if he were to

try to change a law. While success of this kind is poten­

tial, influence is real, and, although these persons feel

they would be successful if they tried, they are honest in

assessing their real influence. That this interpretation is

probable is borne out by the results of political participa­

tion (PARTIe) and issue activity, which show that these

persons do not engage in political activity any more than

do others who feel less potentially successful. Indeed, it

is among these individuals that we distinguish those who

feel that the group to which they belong is themost in­

fluencial--this is probably perceived as real. And they are

almost unanimous in attributing success to the group.8

7No tables have been included for this variable, butFigure 5.2 supports these statements.

8This was. a result of the 57-case analysis.

89

The cross-tabulations with self-success in alterring

a law have indicated a more accurate subjective assessment

of success to be self-assessed influence. An exploration

of cross-tabulations with self-assessed influence substan­

tiates this.

Individuals who assess themselves as high in political

influence are those who have held office, are acquainted

with legislators, consider seeking a political office a

possibility, are high in ego strength (EGOSTG), political

efficacy, political interest, and participation. The en­

tire context of "influence" appears to be more tangible

than the "success" tapped by SUCSEL.

The high influentials also tend to be male, one of the

few significant correlations with the sex attribute. More­

over, they also tend to be the eldest or only children of

families. Although it is not the purpose of this research

to follow this subsidiary line of inquiry, it is possible

that eldest or only children are placed early in situations

calling for responsibility.

Self-assessed influence does not correlate significant­

ly with the feeling of possible success nor with political

knowledge. It is not highly correlated with the ladder­

value of advocacy of change, and none of the role variables

appear to be associated with it directly. Because this

variable is more tangibly related with other accoutrements

of success, it will be regarded as the best subjective

indicator of that feeling among the measures used here.

TABLE 5.12

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/ACQLEG

ACQLEG INFSEL

Low High Total

Yes 28 19 47

No 24 24

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 13.25, p<::' .001, Phi = .43

TABLE 5.13

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/POSOFF

POSOFF INFSEL

Low High Total

Yes 15 13 28

No 37 6 43

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 9.12, p < . 01, Phi = .36

90

TABLE 5.14

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/ISSACT

ISSACT INFSEL

Low High Total

Yes 17 15 32

No 35 4 39

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 12.03, p < .001, Phi = .41

TABLE 5.15

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/SEX

SEX INFSEL

Low High Total

Men 30 17 47

Women 21 2 23

Total 51 19 70

Chi-square = 5.89, p < .02, Phi = .21

91

TABLE 5.16

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/ELDONL

ELDONL INFSEL

Low High Total

Yes 29 17 46

No 22 2 24

Total 51 19 70

Chi-square = 6.53, p < .05, Phi = .23

TABLE 5.17

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/EGOSTG

EGOSTG INFSEL

Low High Total

High 18 15 33

Low 34 4 38

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 10.99, p < .001, Phi = .39

92 ..

TABLE 5.18

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/POLCYN

POLCYN INFSEL

Low High Total

High 24 9 33

Low 28 10 38

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = .008, NS, Phi = .01

TABLE 5.19

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/POLEFF

POLEFF INFSEL

Low High Total

High 20 15 35

Low 32 4 36

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 9.13, p < .02, Phi = .36

93

TABLE 5.20

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/PARTIC

PARTIC INFSEL

Low High Total

High 21 14 35

Low 31 5 36

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 6.17, p < .02, Phi = .29

TABLE 5.21

CORRELATES OF INFLUENCE OF SELF

INFSEL/POLINT

POLINT INFSEL

Low High Total

High 11 8 19

Low 41 11 52

Total 52 19 71

Chi-square = 3.12, p < .10, Phi = .21

94

95

The third dependent variable is advocacy of change

(CHANGE).9 The advocates of greatest change are, quite

naturally, those who appear most issue active. The de­

sire for change appears as a major motivation for political

activity of this kind among these respondents; apparently,

there are other motives for other kinds of political

act~'ity, such as seeking office, with which attribute the

change-oriented correlate negatively. The change-oriented

are also among the high in political participation and tend

to be higher (but not significantly) in political interest,

although they do not rank higher in political knowledge.

TABLE 5.22

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/POSOFF

POSOFF

Yes

No

Total

Low

18

19

37

CHANGE

High

10

24

34

Total

28

43

71

Chi-square = 2.75, p < .10, Phi = -.20

9CHANGE means the ladder-value. The verbal criterion,Question 2.14 had a product-moment correlation with thisvalue .74 and was dropped from the analysis.

TABLE 5.23

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/ISSACT

ISSACT CHANGE

Low High Total

Yes 13 19 32

No 24 IS 39

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 3.08, p < .10, Phi = .21

TABLE 5.24

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/EMPJOB

EMPJOB CHANGE

Low High Total

Yes 16 6 22

No 20 28 48

Total 36 34 70

Chi-square = 5.83, p < .05, Phi = -.30

96

TABLE 5.25

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/RADICAL

RADICAL CHANGE

Low High Total

Left 13 23 36

Right 24 11 35

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 7.49, p <: .01, Phi = .32

TABLE 5.26

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/EQUAL

EQUAL CHANGE

Low High Total

High 20 26 46

Low 17 8 25

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 3.90, p< .05, Phi = .23

97

TABLE 5.27

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/INNOUT

INNOUT CHANGE

Low High Total

High 14 25 39

Low 23 9 32

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 9.12, p < .01, Phi = .36

TABLE 5.28

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/HUMANE

HUMANE CHANGE

LoW High Total

High 21 27 48

Low 16 7 23

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 4.15, p < .05, Phi = .24

98

TABLE 5.29

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/POLEFF

POLEFF CHANGE

Low High Total

High 14 21 35

Low 23 13 36

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 4.06, p <. .05, Phi = .24

TABLE 5.30

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/PARTIC

PARTIC CHANGE

Low High Total

High 14 21 35

Low 23 13 36

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 4.06, p < .05, Phi = .24

99

TABLE 5.31

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/INFGRP

INFGRP CHANGE

Low High Total

High 7 15 22

Low 30 19 49

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 5.26, p « .05, Phi = .27

TABLE 5.32

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/FINDEX

FINDEX CHANGE

Low High Total

High 22 11 33

Low 15 23 38

Total 37 34 71

Chi-square = 5.23, p .( .05, Phi = -.27

100

101

TABLE 5.33

CORRELATES OF ADVOCACY OF CHANGE

CHANGE/APOLIT

APOLIT

Low

CHANGE

High Total

High 19

Low 18

Total 37

Chi-square = 1.95, NS, Phi =

23

11

34

.17

42

29

71

The change-oriented are engaging the system rather

than ignoring the channels open for changing it. This

does not prevent the advocates of change, however, from

being high on political cynicism (POLCYN). It is in­

teresting to see an association that allies political

efficacy and political cynicism in the same context.

The advocates of change tend to be high in attitudes

of equality (EQUAL), humanitarianism (HUMANE), radicalism

(RADICL), and innovativeness (INNOVT). The last two at­

titudes are obvious relationships and help to explain the

tendencies on the first two. Along the political spectrum

from which these respondents corne, it is the left that

seeks the greatest change, a finding that is shown by the

analysis of variance between the groups. The list of

issues engaged in by these change-oriented individuals is

102

strong in civil rights and peace orientations, areas tapped

by the scales EQUAL and HUMANE. Implicated in this group

of relationships is the negative correlation with the

change-oriented and the authoritarian index (FINDEX).

This may be regarded as a sort of moderate left-wing

pattern, given the present political environment in the

United States. This pattern was verified in the factor

analysis presented in the next chapter.

In passing, it is interesting to note that flexibility

(FLEXBL) does not distinguish the change advocates from

others. It appears to be tapping variance distinct from

innovativeness and radicalism, which might be assumed to

be more closely related to it. Also, the change-oriented,

although they have high political aspirations are not dis­

tinguished on this variable from persons not so change­

oriented. Once more, political aspiration is associated

with other aims than changing one's environment.

The role-taking variables do not indicate distinctions

between advocates of great change and others in these cross­

tabulations. Moreover, the change-oriented are not more

prone to disowning projection than others. It cannot be

assumed that a strong motivation for change in the respon­

dents tapped in this study has a direct effect in causing

them either to project their own self-images into the role

of political-other or to project negative images into them.

It is quite likely that these persons, formidable socially

103

and politically, are not frustrated enough in their hopes

for accomplishing their aims to be high on PROJEC, in

spite of the tendency toward political cynicism. In

general, the perception of reality is not impaired by the

fairly high intensity of desire for change among the change­

oriented as a whole.

In dealing with the role variables, it is necessary to

treat first of their interrelationships (see Tables 5.41,

5.42, 5.46, 5.47, 5.48, and 5.53-55). Not surprisingly,

the behavior score is found to be strongly associated with

role accuracy (ROLEAC). The latter is strongly associated

with assumed similarity (ASSUME) and less strongly with

actual similarity (ACTUAL). The linearity between these

variables, although reduced as a result of the procedure

of dichotomization, still shows up strongly.

Projection, of course, as an artefact of scoring and

of the nature of the respondent group (as shown in Chapter

IV), shows a strong negative relationship to role accuracy

and assumed similarity. However, the relationships of the

behavior score with projection indicate that these relation­

ships are not entirely artefactua1 (see Table 5.40). Not

only were projectors inaccurate role-takers, which might be

explained on the basis of the scoring procedure, but they

also were strongly related negatively to the behavior score,

which is positively related to assumed similarity (p < .02).

Thus, the interrelationships among the role variables

104

received an internal validation through the behavior score.

Assumed similarity, the variable probably most closely

associated with empathy, had the richest associations be­

yond the role variables. Acquaintance with a legislator

approached a significance of .10. Faith-in-people (FAITHP)

was strongly associated with assumed similarity, while, as

the tables show, both radicalism and equality related strong­

ly in the negative direction. Here is an indication that

those associated with a desire for change, as radicals, do

not assume their own attitudes match the legislators. Per­

sons high on assumed similarity are also high in sociability

and tend to be somewhat higher in political efficacy. It

is also possible that if one assumes similarity with a

holder of moderate power such as a legislator, he will also

tend to regard himself as so much less a cornmon man, hence

the tendency for the negative relationship with equality.

This tendency was also evident in the pilot study, although

among those student respondents it did not reach statistical

significance (taken as p < .10).

Oddly, role accuracy is not enhanced by having held

political office; in fact, assumed similarity is apparently

not associated, as might be thought, with having held

office. The possibility of running for public office, how­

ever, not only is associated with assumed similarity but

with role accuracy as well. This, even more than acquaint­

ance with a legislator, may elicit from an aspirant to

TABLE 5.34

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/ACQLEG

ACQLEG ASSUME

Low High Total

Yes 18 29 47

No 14 10 24

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 2.58, N. S . , Phi = .19

TABLE 5.35

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/ISSACT

ISSACT ASSUME

Low High Total

Yes 11 21 32

No 21 18 39

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 2.69, Almost p .(..., .10, Phi = .19

105

TABLE 5.36

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/RADICL

RADICL ASSUME

Low High Total

High 20 16 36

Low 12 23 35

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 3.24, p <- .10, Phi = -.21

TABLE 5.37

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/FAITHP

FAITHP ASSUME

Low High Total

High 9 28 37

Low 23 11 34

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 13.43, p< .001, Phi = .44

106

TABLE 5.38

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/EQUAL

EQUAL ASSUME

Low High Total

High 28 18 46

Low 4 21 25

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 13.17 , p < .001, Phi = -.43

TABLE 5.39

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/SOCIAL

SOCIAL ASSUME

Low High Total

High 10 23 33

Low 22 16 38

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 5.43, p < .02, Phi = .28

107

TABLE 5.40

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/POLEFF

POLEFF ASSUME

Low High Total

High 12 23 35

Low 20 16 36

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 3.24, p< .10, Phi = .21

TABLE 5.41

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/ACTUAL

ACTUAL ASSUME

Low High Total

High 12 30 42

Low 20 9 29

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 11.31, p < .001, Phi = .40

108

109

TABLE 5.42

CORRELATES OF ASSUMED SIMILARITY

ASSUME/PROJEC

PROJEC ASSUME

Low High Total

High 26 9 35

Low 6 30 36

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 23.80, p <: .001, Phi = -.58

public office more consideration as to just how well he

might fit into the role. A socializing influence may also

be at work here to draw into active office-seeking those

among the politically aware whose attitudes are already

most like encumbents. Issue activity also may stimulate

study of legislators attitudes, for the legislators must

often be influenced in the course of pursuing goals. The

implication is that rather than preceding political ex­

perience as a general skill, role accuracy appears here to

be the outgrowth of certain motivations that cause persons

to become more accurate role-takers in the political realm.

TABLE 5.43

CORRElATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/POSOFF

POSOFF ROLEAC

Low High Total

Yes 9 19 28

No 23 20 43

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 3.12, p ~ .10, Phi = .21

TABLE 5.44

CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/ISSACT

ISSACT ROLEAC

Low High Total

Yes 10 22 32

No 22 17 39

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 4.49, p < .05, Phi = .25

110

TABLE 5.45

CORRELAT£S OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/POLEFF

POLEFF ROLEAC

Low High Total

High 12 23 35

Low 20 16 36

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 3.24, p < .10, Phi = .21

TABLE 5.46

CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/ASSUME

ASSUME ROLEAC

Low High Total

High 8 31 39

Low 24 8 32

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 21.08, p <: .001, Phi = .54

111

TABLE 5.47

CORRElATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/ACTUAL

ACTUAL ROLEAC

Low High Total

High 15 27 42

Low 17 12 29

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 3.64, p < .10, Phi = .23

TABLE 5.48

CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/PROJEC

PROJEC ROLEAC

Low High Total

High 23 12 35

Low 9 27 36

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 11.88, p< .001, Phi = -.41

112

113

TABLE 5.49 ­

CORRELATES OF ROLE-TAKING ACCURACY

ROLEAC/FINDEX

FINDEX ROLEAC

Low High Total

High 18 15 33

Low 14 24 38

Total 32 39 71

Chi-square = 2.24, NS, Phi = -.18

These are the only non-role associations with role

accuracy. There is apparently no direct relationship be­

tween it and many of the other attitude factors presumed

to be so related. Thus, equality, faith-in-peop1e,

sociability, and humanitarianism show no relationship,

while the authoritarianism index indicates a slight negative

but not a significant trend.

The behavior score, like role accuracy is related to

issue activity. It is negatively related to flexibility,

perhaps because these respondents were too flexible in de­

parting from what the less flexible found to be more

obvious answers to the situation questions. Considering the

nature of the items in the sociability scale, it is hearten­

ing that its relationship to the behavior score at least

114

approaches significance (p < .10). But, with none of the

other variables, oddly, is the behavior score related.

TABLE 5.50

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/ISSACT

ISSACT BSCORE

Low High Total

Yes 11 21 32

No 22 17 39

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 3.43, p < .10, Phi = .22

TABLE 5.51

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/FLEXBL

FLEXBL BSCORE

Low High Total

High 20 15 35

Low 13 23 36

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 3.16, p < .10, Phi = -.21

TABLE 5.52

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/SOCIAL

SOCIAL BSCORE

Low High Total

High 12 21 33

Low 21 17 38

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 2.54, NS, Phi = .19

TABLE 5.53

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/ROLEAC

ROLEAC BSCORE

Low High Total

High 13 26 39

Low 20 12 32

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 6.01, p <: .02, Phi = .29

115

TABLE 5.54

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/ASSUME

ASSUME BSCORE

Low High Total

High 13 26 39

Low 20 12 32

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 6.01, p < .02, Phi = .29

TABLE 5.55

CORRELATES OF THE BEHAVIOR SCORE

BSCORE/PROJEC

PROJEC BSCORE

Low High Total

High 24 11 35

Low 9 27 36

Total 33 38 71

Chi-square = 13.54, p< .001, Phi =: -.44

116

117

The projection score enjoys but one non-role relation-

ship, a negative correlation with political interest. No

relationship is apparent here with advocacy of change.

Interestingly, the authoritarianism index, although an un-

certain indicator, is not related to projection as might

be anticipated. If authoritarians do engage in a measure

of disowning projection, as some sources have shown, this

projection and role inaccuracy is not apparent with the

mild authoritarians among these respondents, who, if they

tend to disowning projection at all, do not seem to choose

legislators as targets. lO

TABLE 5.56

CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVE PROJECTION

PROJEC/ISSACT

ISSACT PROJEC

Low High Total

Yes 21 11 32

No 15 24 39

Total 36 35 71

Chi-square = 5.19, p <: .05, Phi = -.27

10A1vin Scode1 and Paul Mussen, "Social Perceptions ofAuthoritarians and Non-Authoritarians," The Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, ~ (1953), 181-184, haveshown authoritarians to project onto other individuals incertain situations. The situation in the research_..on.political role-taking may not be comparable.

TABLE 5.57

CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVE PROJECTION

PROJEC/RADICL

RADICL PROJEC

Low High Total

High 14 22 36

Low 22 13 35

Total 36 35 71

Chi-square = 4.08, p < .05, Phi = .24

TABLE 5.58

CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVE PROJECTION

PROJEC / SDC IAL

SOCIAL PROJEC

Low High Total

High 22 11 33

Low 14 24 38

Total 36 35 71

Chi-square = 6.29, p < .02, Phi = -.30

118

TABLE 5.59

CORRELATES OF DISOWNING-ASSIMILATIVE PROJECTION

PROJEC/POLINT

POLINT PROJEC

Low High Total

High 13 6 19

Low 23 29 52

Total 36 35 71

Chi-square = 3.26, p <: .10, Phi = -.21

TABLE 5.60

CORRELATES OF DIWOWNING-ASSIMILATIVE PROJECTION

PROJEC/FINDEX

FINDEX PROJEC

Low High Total

High 17 16 33

Low 19 19 38

Total 36 35 71

Chi-square = 0.02, NS, Phi = -.02

119

120

It remains to say a few words on four variables that

might have been possible controls for the role-taking and

related dependent variables, sex (SEX), age (AGE), empathic

professions (EMPJOB), and eldest or only child (ELDONL).

Sex appears in the political environment of the United

St t t b . d' .. . 11 d' h d .a es 0 e qU1te un 1scr1m1nat1ng, an 1n t e oma1n

of this study it turned out to be related to almost nothing

else, although there was a tendency, not statistically

significant, for males to be high in disowning projection

compared to females; this tendency was present (p .10)

among the student respondents of the pilot study. Although

females appeared to be as active, interested, and aware in

politics among these respondents, they did not feel as in­

fluencial, as we have seen. There is still a psychological

gap apparent in their complete political emancipation. This

is supported by the factor analysis in the next chapter.

Age did not become a variable of interest in this

study. There was some reason to believe that with age,

one's ability to assess the attitudes of others might

improve, but it is possible that these changes in role­

taking accuracy occur mainly among the very young.

11Although women are generally found to be lessknowledgeable on all class levels than men on foreignaffairs, as in Alfred O. Hero, Americans in World Affairs,Boston, The World Peace Foundations, 1955, pp. 83-85.

121

The division of professions into empathic and non-

empathic turned up no relationships to the role-taking

variables. This was not altogether anticipated, but it is

quite in keeping with innumerable results from social

psychological studies that consistently fail to reveal dif­

ferences between those whose profession calls upon them to

make attitude and personality assessments and those who be­

long to less empathic professions. 12 There was a relation­

ship between change and empathic profession because of the

tendency for the change-oriented to be in non-empathic

professions as they were defined here. It is also possible

that the operationalization of this attribute was faulty.

The attribute ELDONL showed only one relationship of

interest. The tendency for the eldest or only children is

to fall into the high self-assessed influence category.

Again, while cognizant of the need for replication when a

single significant relationship among many appears,13 it

would be interesting to speculate on the possible reasons

l2Henry Clay Smith, sensitivitt to People, New York,1966, p. 102, and Robert t. Katz,mpathy: Its Nature andUses, Glencoe, Ill., 1963, p. 172.

l3In cases in which there are a great number ofcorrelated variables, as in these cross-tabulations, andfew are significant, as was the case with a number ofvariables, it is unsafe to assume that a single significantresult merits attention. Its significance is also a functionof the number of correlations. In this case, however, thereis some evidence of the result from the pilot study as well.For a discussion on this sometimes neglected aspect ofcross-tabulation and correlation studies, see Hanan C. Selvin,

122

for this. It is possible that eldest and only children

enjoy in a middle-class family a real position of influence

and responsibility not accorded to the younger members.

They may be prone to seek out such positions in maturity

as a result.

5.3 HINTS TOWARD THE FACTOR ANALYSIS.

The cross-tabulation study does not allow an opti­

mistic appraisal of the importance of the role-taking

variables in a political study. It is possible, however,

that they may appear on dimensions with other political

variables, even though the cross-tabulation relationships

with other variables may not be very high.

150

Frequencies

o80

Phi correlation

FIGURE 5.1 CURVE REPRESENTING FREQUENCIES OFPHI-COEFFICIENT SIZES

"A Critique of Tests of Significance in Survey Research,"American Sociological Review, 22 (1957), p. 526.

123

A prediction of the results in the next chapter is

given by Figure 5.1, which shows the frequencies of size

among the correlations of all pairs of variables in the

study.14 Although the phi-coefficients, which were used

for the cross-tabulations and for this figure, are gen­

erally low, it is the shape of the curve that indicates

the possible result of a factor analysis. The high

frequency of low correlations indicates a group of vari­

ables that belong to many different dimensions. It is

unlikely that the factor analysis will turn up many

interesting relationships not found in the cross-tabula-

tions for the role-taking variables.

Figure 5.2 is an illustration of the interrelatedness

of the variables. The role variables have been depicted

by heavier lines. Here too, it can be seen that the

strongest relationships do not occur between the role

variables and the political and attitude variables.

l4See Johan Galtung, Theor~ and Methods of SocialResearch, New York, 1967, pp. 03-30S.

5

1/

/2. 13 9

8

I

3'1

33

124

Key to numbers (for complete description of variables seeAppendix III):1 HELOFF2 ACQLEG3 POSOFF4 ISSACT5 SEX6 RESIDE7 ELDONL8 IMPJOB9 EGOSTG

FIGURE 5.2

10 RADICL 19 PARTIC 28 BSCORE11 FLEXBL 20 INFSEL 29 ROLEAC12 FAITHP 21 POLINT 30 ASSUME13 EQUAL 22 ASPIRE 31 ACTUAL14 SOCIAL 23 INFGRP 32 PROJEC15 INNOVT 24 CHANGE 33 AGE16 HUMANE 25 SUCSEL 34 ASPGAP17 POLCYN 26 SUCGRP 35 FINDEX18 POLEFF 27 POLKNO 36 APOLIT

RELATIONSHIPS EXCEEDING A CHI-SQUARE OF 3.84AND A PHI OF .2325 AMONG THE VARIABLES ANDATTRIBUTES USED IN THE STUDY OF THE POLITICAL­ROLE SPACE (Role-taking variables areindicated by heavier lines)

CHAPTER VI

POLITICAL DIMENSIONS OF ROLE-TAKING

6.1 THE ORTHOGONAL FACTOR ANALYSIS.

A phi-correlation matrix was entered into a factor

analysis program to determine the orthogonal dimensions of

common variance among the 36 variables discussed in the

last chapter. 1 The highest row correlations furnished the

communalities for the matrix. Factoring was accomplished

with the Mesa I program on a 7040 computer. 2 Factors above

a minimum eigenvalue of 0.95 only were extracted and ro­

tated to an orthogonal varimax solution. This gave seven

factors descriptive of the common variance among the 36

attributes and variables.

~uch criticism has been directed against the phi co­efficient to provide correlations as input into a factoranalysis. Ultimately, no correlation coefficient is ideal.The case against the use of phi and phi-over-phi-max isably presented by John B. Carroll, "The Nature of the Data,or How to Choose a Correlation Coefficient," Psychometrika,26 (1961), 347-372. Unfortunately, computer programs avai1­ao1e to this researcher used a cosine-pi approximation to thetetrachoric correlation coefficient, which can only be usedwhen variables are dichotomized near their medians. There­fore, the argument presented in Andrew L. Comrey and EdwardLevonian, '~ Comparison of Three Point Coefficients inFactor Analyses of MMPI Items," Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, XVIII (1958), 739-755, was accepted. ~s thediscussion will show, the tetrachoric matrix was comparedwith the factor results from the phi, and the latter showedthe same structure on the orthogonal results without theproblems of communalities exceeding 1.00, which is commonwith the tetrachoric.

2This program was prepared at the University ofChicago by Florence Bradford.

126

A number of variables participated but little in the

common variance, and a hint as to this result could be

obtained from the cross-tabulation results. Table 6.1

gives a list of variables that generally partook in a

single dimension only in the political role-taking space

together with their communalities. These communalities

show the amount of variance in common with the other

variables that was explained over the seven dimensions of

the common factor space.

TABLE 6.1 VARIABLES ENTERING BUT SLIGHTLYINTO THE COMMON FACTOR SPACE,

AS INDICATED BY LOW COMMUNALITIES

Variable name

SEXELDONLEMPJOBFLEXBLSOCIALPOLCYNPOLINTINFGRPCHANGESUCSELSUCGRPPOLKNOBSCOREACTUALASPGAPAPOLIT

Communality

.14

.13

.24

.32

.25

.32

.39

.31

.38

.27

.39

.28

.38

.36

.38

.35

Factor one (see Table 6.2) has been suggested in the

cross-tabulation discussion; it appears to be a pattern of

variables descriptive of a left-wing moderate political

outlook. The variable loading most highly on this factor

127

is equality, followed by the authoritarian index with

opposite sign and radicalism with the same sign. The

correlation between radicalism and equality on the phi­

matrix being positive, it is apparent that leftism is

here associated with its correlated attitudes, such as

flexibility, innovativeness, and humanitarianism; and

..

sociability and authoritarianism correlate negatively.

In addition, there are small loadings by political interest

and assumed similarity. The dimension seems to describe

the outlook of left-wing moderates in the present political

situation. The causes they espouse are motivated by at­

titudes of humanitarianism and equality, and the outlook

they adopt tends to create some feeling of distance from

encumbents of the present political system as indicated by

the negative loading of assumed similarity.

TABLE 6.2 FACTOR I: LEFT-RADICAL (Reflected)(29.5 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

EQUALFINDEXRADICLINNOVTFLEXBLHUMANEASSUMEPOLINT

Loading

.71-.68

.63

.60

.46

.39-.38

.32

128

A previous factor analysis of 57 cases,3 more biased

by the selection of left-wing respondents, associated change

and issue activity with the variables on this factor. In

the present analysis 14 cases have been added from right­

wing respondents, and the change orientations have broken

off to form another orthogonal dimension, which will be

discussed later. Interestingly, one dimension of the seven

obtained in the analysis of the pilot study respondents

using a comparable selection of 29 variables also turned up

a pattern associating the left-wing with attitudes such as

humanitarianism, issue activity, and change-orientation.

In the pilot study, there were also moderate loadings

with role-taking accuracy and disowning projection, both in

the same direction! This may be interpreted with regard to

the student respondents in the following manner: Among

students the chief form of political activity is associated

with issues. Although the radical students tend to dis-

associate themselves to a degree from the political system

as it stands, which is evidenced by the projection variable

loading on the factor, they also are, relative to other

students, more knowledgeable about legislators. The same

conditions do not hold when the entire group of respondents

is politically aware.

3The pilot study, it will be recalled, was an ex­ploratory analysis using 69 student respondents. The 57­case analysis was done prior to the receipt of 14additional questionnaires from conservative respondents.

129

In the present selection of respondents, there are

other motives than issues that enlist the interest of

political participants. For example, these respondents

are possible candidates for public office. They are more

influencial than students in the election of other can-

didates for office, which mayor may not be associated with

issues. Thus, with motivations toward other ends than

issue activity, there does not appear to be a positive

association between role-taking accuracy and radicalism

a~ong the respondents of the final study.4 Moreover, the

lack of assumed similarity is notable among the relation-

ships produced by this group of politically-aware individ­

uals on the left-radical dimension.

It might be argued, considering the results of the

57-case factor analysis, the pilot study, and the final 71-

case analysis that these factors are simply an artefact of

the groups included. It is true that selection plays an

important part in any factor study, not only selection with

regard to the variables studied but selection with regard

to the respondents as well. Nevertheless, the respondents

of the final study came from a fairly broad portion of the

political spectrum, and the result fits with qualitative

assessments of the present political climate of the United

4Indeed, the oblique factor analysis revealed just theopposite.

130

States. Left-wing moderates are associated with the array

of attitudes and attributes that appear on this factor.

Moreover, the factors emerging from the three results do

not appear to be widely divergent, in spite of differences.

All the analyses yielded seven dimensions, for example, and

some of the factors were recognizably ana1ogous. 5

Factor two (see Table 6.3) might be called an efficacy

dimension, characterized by the variable that loaded most

highly on it, self-assessed influence. The cross­

tabulations indicated that assessment of influence was a

more active quality than the assessment of success in al­

tering a law. Success appeared to convey a sense of

potentiality, as opposed to influence, which was inter­

preted as an indication of a tangible and more active

relationship with the political world. This interpretation

seems to be borne out on this dimension, on which the

possibility of seeking office, having held office, political

efficacy, acquaintance with a legislator, issue activity,

and ego strength also load. In addition, the factor shows

a negative relation with the gap between actual se1f-

assessed influence and the desire for influence. There is

5Future replications using the same variables mightprofit from a factor comparison technique.

131

also a small loading by the sex attribute, slightly asso-

ciating males with efficacy actual and perceived. This is

the only loading above .30 by the sex attribute on the

seven dimensions.

TABLE 6.3 FACTOR II: REAL EFFICACY(21.2 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

INFSELACQLEGASPGAPHELOFFISSACTPOSOFFEGOSTGPOLEFFSEX

Loading

.77

.61-.55

.51

.43

.43

.39

.34

.34

Factor three (see Table 6.4) might be called a role-

taking factor, since all the role-taking variables, with

the exception of the indicator of passive actual similarity,

load highly on it. Their interrelationships are much

stronger than any relationships with non-role variables.

A number of the political attributes and indicators do

load together with them, however, including having held

office, issue activity, political interest, and sociability.

These loadings, although small, tend to substantiate a

number of predicted associations with the role-taking

variables. Although simply being acquainted with a legis­

lator does no~ appear to make a person a more accurate role­

taker, at least among these respondents, having held office

132

TABLE 6.4 FACTOR III: ROLE-TAKING(12.7 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

PROJECROLEACBSCOREASSUMEPOLINTHELOFFISSACTSOCIAL

Loading

-.69.59.59.49.37.36.36.30

and engaging in issue activity seems to motivate persons to

be more accurate in role-taking. Perhaps having held of-

fice allows a person to assume that he is more similar to

a fellow office holder such as a legislator. Some of these

associations have already been discussed in the cross­

tabulation results, although there it was noted that the

possibility of seeking a public office was associated

significantly with role-taking accuracy, whereas in the

factor analysis this association was too slight for in­

clusion.

The name chosen for the factor explaining the next

largest portion of the common variance is presented

tentatively: political empathy (see Table 6.5). No argu­

ment is made that these names, all of them judgmental

interpretations of the associations indicated on the

1336factors, are "correct" or "best." Nevertheless, this

fourth dimension taps a certain euphoric sense of personal

potential for success. The discussion of the cross­

tabulations with success in altering a law and other

variables may be recalled here. This dimension allies it

with faith-in-peop1e, political efficacy, and, negatively,

political cynicism and the index of apolitical tendencies.

Associated with this pattern of related variables is actual

and assumed similarity. Subjectively, this factor de-

scribes persons who feel personally effective in the

political realm, but they have not subjected themselves to

tangible tests of their potential powers by engaging in

issue activity or office seeking. Perhaps it is this lack

of real experience that explains the lack of role-taking

accuracy or an associated loading with the behavior score.

TABLE 6.5 FACTOR IV: POLITICAL EMPATHY(10.8 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

FAITHPACTUALAPOLITASSUMESUCSELPOLCYNPOLEFF

Loading

.61

.55-.54

.51

.43-.36

.35

6en the naming of factors, see Chapter 18, mimeographof draft, April, 1966, Rudolph J. Rummel, Applied FactorAnalysis, forthcominfi. The subject is also treated byRaYmond B. Cattell, 'The Dimensions of Culture Patterns ofFactorization of National Characters," Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, 44 (1949), 443-469.

134

This dimension has possibly tapped an aspect of

voluntary political organizations which draw in not only

the active, but those persons whose political activity is

largely subjective and who adopt an otherwise passive re­

lationship to politics. It is somewhat interesting to find

that this political dimension is not associated with sex.

This dispels another possible common-sense assumption about

the feminine psyche.

In the 7l-case factor analysis, the change factor has

separated from the more simple relationship with other

radical variables that appeared in the 57-case study.7 In

factor five (see Table 6.6) radicalism is related not only

to variables of outlook or attitude, but to activity vari­

ables as well. Thus, participation loads most highly on

this factor, and associated with it are issue activity,

radicalism, innovativeness, humanitarianism, and advocacy

of change. Unlike factor one, which was a group of

associated passive variables, this factor, which also in-

dicates a left-wing pattern, is an active factor, combining

not only attitude variables, but acti.vity indicators as

well. Is it accidental, therefore, that it is on this factor

rather than on the more passive dimension that political

cynicism loads?

7From Table 6.10, however, it can be seen that theoblique factors, left-radical and change, are correlated.22, which is a moderate relationship.

135

TABLE 6.6 FACTOR V: CHANGE(9.9 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

PARTICHUMANERADICLCHANGEPOLCYNISSACTEMPJOB

Loading

.62

.50

.49

.47

.40

.36-.31

Evidently, political cynicism is no barrier to a very

active stance with regard to attitudes such as humanitarian-

ism. In spite of it, persons can combine issue activity,

innovativeness, and concrete participation. Yet, when the

individual's desire for change runs high, he is bound to

find the political system a block to his plans for a better

society, and the apparent opportunism of the establishment,

which makes compromises that slow the aims of the change­

oriented, may make him somewhat cynical about politics.

But this cynicism does not stultify involvement. It seems

to be an outgrowth of confrontation.

It is on this factor, that the hypotheses presented

in Chapter II lead us to expect a loading by disowning

projection. But disowning projection is absent from the

change factor, nor is the loading of role-taking accuracy

(-.26) high enough for extended comment. The desire for

extensive change and activities to that end have not

perceptibly diminished the ability of the change-oriented

136

as a group to correctly assess the attitudes and behavior

of legislators. At least, this is the conclusion based on

the orthogonal factors.

Factor six (see Table 6.7) is an age factor, on which

age loads most highly together with residence in Hawaii.

Considering that the division for residence was made at

ten years, this is no surprise, for many of the members of

active voluntary organizations are former mainlanders, and

those who have lived in Hawaii for at least ten years are

naturally older. With age, aspirations in politics also

appear to diminish, and there is a substantial negative

loading for political aspirations.

TABLE 6.7 FACTOR VI: AGE(8.9 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

AGERESIDEASPIRE

Loading

.72

.66-.48

The seventh factor (see Table 6.8) has been named the

group success factor. The variables associated on this

factor include the assessment of the success of the group,

the influence of the group, and, negatively, political

knowledge. There are low associations with ego strength

and political efficacy. It is possible that this factor

has tapped yet another motive for association with a

voluntary political organization. Whereas factor four

137

indicated a feeling of potential power for oneself, this

factor seems to be composed of those variables that show a

vicarious psychological participation in the powers of the

organization. The negative association with political

knowledge and the lack of any activity variables or at-

tributes indicates that for some persons the major end

involved in joining a political organization is to partake

in the influence enjoyed by the organization itself. No

role-taking variables are associated with this dimension.

TABLE 6.8 FACTOR VII: GROUP SUCCESS (Reflected)(7.0 per cent of common variance)

Variable name

SUCGRPINFGRPPOLKNOEGOSTGPOLEFF

Loading

.55

.48-.42

.35

.32

It is evident from the results of the orthogonal

factor analysis that a number of hypothesized associations

between the role-taking and other attributes and variables

have not appeared in the orthogonal factor analysis of the

entire group of politically-aware respondents. Although

the left-radical factor shows assumed similarity loading

negatively, which is in keeping with the results expected,

this has not affected role-taking accuracy. Moreover,

disowning projection has failed to appear on any factor

with the exception of the role factor itself.

138

Among the student respondents of the pilot study, dis-

owning projection loaded, as hypothesized, with advocacy of

change and radicalism. Among these older respondents, how­

ever, the place of projection may have been taken by

political cynicism, and the ability to assess the attitudes

and behavior of legislators has not been impaired by a

strong desire for change. The easiest explanation for this

is that continued political activity and consequent maturity

has made these older respondents more accurate role-takers

and less apt to mistake the nature of role-encumbents tested

for here.

It was disappointing to find that the role-accuracy or

behavior score were not loaded with the efficacy factor,

which the hypotheses of Chapter II indicated. In fact, the

associations of these two correlated variables were

singularly arid.

Because of the nature of the results, the 57-case

study was refactored using another correlation coefficient.

The problems of the phi coefficient are well-known. In

the 2X2 table where one cell is empty, the phi coefficient

tends to give low correlations in the neighborhood of .30

to .53, whereas a correlation coefficient such as the, .

tetrachor~c will provide a higher correlation. If the

differences tapped by the role-taking variables are only

differences distinguished by either high or low scores on

these measures, then the phi coefficient would give

139

consistently low and possibly misleading correlations.

Thus, it might be possible that whereas low role-taking

accuracy may not distinguish respondents on an attribute,

there may be a drastic effect among respondents with high

role-taking accuracy. Under these circumstances, another

correlation coefficient might bring out such associations

more clearly.

Thus, although the cross-tabulations did not indicate

the foregoing as a major result, the tetrachoric correla­

tion coefficient was chosen to compute another 33X33 matrix

(for the 57-case study) to input into the factor analysis

program. Although the loadings of the variables were con­

sistently higher in the tetrachoric results, the pattern of

the factors was unchanged. No differences in interpreta­

tion would have been necessary if the tetrachoric-matrix

had furnished the factors obtained with the phi-matrix in

the 57-case study. This attested to the stability of the

factors. Since this result was presumed to hold for the

same variables over the 7l-case matrix, the experiment was

not repeated for the final analysis.

6.2 OBLIQUE FACTORS OF POLITICAL ROLE-TAKING.

It is often the case, especially when work is done

with attitude scales and psychological variables, that the

factors extracted in an orthogonal analysis do not give the

best representation of the factor structure and pattern.

140

Since many of these factors are likely to be oblique, it

is best to seek the preferred simple structure in an oblique

rotation. The results of the seven-factor orthogonal study

were therefore entered into an oblique factor routine. 8

Table 6.9 presents the results of this oblique factor

rotation. It can be seen that while the loadings on some

variables increased or decreased slightly, the factor

pattern and structure were not altered very much. It is

proper to interpret the orthogonal results, which are

similar to the oblique rotation; in fact, the descriptive

names of the variables do not have to be changed. For the

analysis of the role-taking variables, however, the oblique

analysis is somewhat preferable, as the discussion will

show.

The intercorrelations among the seven oblique factors

are generally low. However, two of the highest inter­

correlations between factors include the role factor. The

role factor correlates .40 with the factor that has been

called political empathy. Thus, there would appear to be

a moderate association between the two oblique factors that

somewhat vindicates the use of the term "empathy" in

describing factor four.

8The Oblimin program by John Carroll. A biquartiminsolution was derived, using 30 cycles and 50 iterations.The total of 10,500 iterations were used in deriving theresults, which are probably accurate to the two decimalplaces required.

141

TABLE 6.9 PATTERN MATRIX OF OBLIQUE BIQUARTIMIN FACTORSFOR POLITICAL-ROLE VARIABLES

(Only loadings greater than .30 are shown)a

Factors

Variables

HELOFFACQLEGPOSOFFISSACTSEXRESIDEELDONLEMPJOBEGOSTGRADICLFLEXBLFAITHPEQUALSOCIALINNOVTHUMANEPOLCYNPOLEFFPARTICINFSELPOLINTASPIREINFGRPCHANGESUCSELSUCGRPPOLKNOBSCOREROLEACASSUMEACTUALPROJECAGEASPGAPFINDEXAPOLIT

IRealEfficacy

4758383834

31

43

78

-56

IILeft­Radical

6048

75-36

5836

-52

32

-66

IIIPoliticalEmpathy

67

-36

42

5558

-60

aFactor loadings are present without decimals. The numberof the factors does not correspond with the numbers givenon the orthogonal factors, but the factor names are thesame.

Table 6.9 Pattern Matrix of Oblique Biquartimin Factorsfor political-Role Variables (continued)

Factors

IV V VI VIIRo1e- Group

Variables taking Success Change Age

HELOFF 42ACQLEGPOSOFF 30ISSACT 35SEXRESIDE 67ELDONLEMPJOB -30EGOSTG -34 31RADICL 43FLEXBLFAITHPEQUALSOCIALINNOVTHUMANE 48POLCYN 42POLEFF 33PARTIC 62INFSELPOLINT 41ASPIRE -47INFGRP 48CHANGE 43SUCSELSUCGRP 56POLKNO -42BSCORE 62ROLEAC 63 -39ASSUME 32ACTUALPROJEC -66AGE 73ASPGAPFINDEXAPOLIT

142

TABLE 6.10 CORRELATIONS AMONG OBLIQUE FACTORS FOR POLITICAL-ROLE VARIABLES a

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

1 Real efficacy2 Left-radical 063 Political empathy 23 194 Role-taking 12 09 405 Group success 00 -04 03 056 Change 12 22 07 31 037 Age -08 09 -09 -01 -01 05

aThe factor numbers here correspondent to the numbering of the oblique factorson Table 6.9. These are the correlations among the primary factors of the patternmatrix given by TIT.

J-'+='VJ

144

The next largest correlation between factors is .31,

which relates the role factor to the change factor. This is

an interesting result with relation to the hypotheses which

introduced the analysis, for role-taking accuracy has ap­

peared on the oblique change factor negatively associated

with the variables and attributes descriptive of change.

Disowning projection still plays no part in these associa­

tions of active change variables, but it does playa small

part in the passive change variables associated on the

left-radical factor.

The conclusion that may be drawn from the factor

analysis is not entirely negative with regard to the hypoth­

eses presented. The role-taking dimension does appear re­

lated to some other political dimensions, including

variables found on the efficacy dimension, although the

loadings of these variables and attributes are rather low

when they appear on the oblique role-taking dimension. And

some role-taking variables appear on the change factor and

on the political empathy and left-radical factors. The

oblique factor matrix would seem to be more revealing than

the orthogonal analysis, and the role-taking associations

are more easily distinguished.

While the conclusions as to the importance of the

role-taking variables and their influence on the politically

aware ought not to be too sanguine as a result of the moder­

ate associations shown on the oblique factor analysis, the

145

relationships are nevertheless present to a greater degree

than often characterizes comparable variables brought into

the political realm from other disciplines.

The results shown here for a matrix of 36 variables are

at least encouraging. To an extent, the results depend on

how well the political domain has been covered by the choice

of variables entered with the role-taking variables into

the factor analysis. If the domain of variables and at­

tributes is fairly complete, then the associations shown in

the oblique factor analysis will tend to reappear with com­

parable studies of the politically aware elsewhere in the

political culture of the United States. In any case, the

associations will not be diminished by the addition of new

variables to future analyses, for this will turn up new

dimensions and new associations. The common variance of

the variables will increase.

The conclusions derived from the factoring will be

returned to in the last chapter. In the next chapter, the

analysis of the entire group will be continued in a search

for the best predictors of advocacy of change and the two

success indicators. This will be done on the same level of

analysis as the factoring and cross-tabulations, using the

entire group of respondents. This section will be supple­

mented with the results of a typology of political styles,

in which the search for associations of the role-taking

variables will be conduced on another level of analysis,

the level of subgroups or types among the respondents.

146

CHAPTER VII

THE BEST PREDICTORS OF SUCCESS AND ADVOCACY

OF CHANGE AND A POLITICAL-ROLE TYPOLOGY

7.1 REGRESSION EQUATIONS.

In order to determine those independent variables,

which would give the best prediction of the dependent vari-

ables, success and advocacy of change, a series of re-

gressions were carried out. This procedure provided an

exact test of how well the dependent variables of the study

were predicted to by disowning projection and role-taking

accuracy and at the same time revealed those variables that

might be better predictors. In order to assure the in­

dependence of the eleven variables from which the predictions

were made, the variables were entered into the Mesa I

program to derive orthogonal dimensions. l

As a result, the following eleven independent

dimensions were obtained (see Table 7.1). All variables

entered into the program produced orthogonal dimensions

relatively uncontaminated with loadings from other variables.

lIn this step, the undichotomized raw data, includingthe Cornell scores for the attitude scales, were entered, aproduct moment correlation matrix was obtained with l's inthe principal diagonal, and a component analysis wascarried out.

148

The independent variables thus obtained are listed in

Table 7.1, together with the loadings on their orthogonal

factor:

TABLE 7.1 LOADINGS ON ELEVEN ORTHOGONAL FACTORSBY INDEPENDENT VARIABLES FOR THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS

Next highest loadingVariable name Loading on orthogonal factor

PROJEC 90 28 (ROLEAC)SOCIAL 97 -17 rUMANE

)PARTIC 96 -15 EGOSTG)POLKNO 99 11 PARTIC)POLCYN 98 10 EQUAL)BSCORE 97 -26 (PROJEC)POLINT 97 -12 ~PROJEClEGOSTG 97 -16 PARTICEQUAL 96 15 ROLEAC,

HUMANE)HUMANE 96 15 ~EQUAL)ROLEAC 94 32 PROJEC)

Standardized factor scores were obtained for the 71

cases over the eleven orthogonal dimensions of the indepen-

dent variables, and these were entered into a regression

program2 as predictors of advocacy of change (CHANGE),

subjective feeling of success (INFSEL), and objective

success (HELOFF). Held office was a dichotomized attribute,

but it is not inappropriate to predict to a dichotomous

dependent variable, although the results will not be as

reliable. The purpose of the~e regressions was not to in­

fer from the results to a population, but to obtain infor­

mation on which were the best predictors for this particular

2The BIMD 29, Dec. 1, 1961.

149

group of politically-aware individuals. Independent vari­

ables were chosen so as not to be simply tautological. It

is obvious, but uninteresting, that one can predict to

advocacy of change quite well from the verbal-change item.,

No argument is advanced that the independent variables in

the equations precede in time variables and attributes

predicted to. The meaning of prediction is much broader

than that.

The greatest amount of the variance in the attribute

of holding office, the measure of objective success in

politics, was explained by participation, political interest,

sociability, political knowledge, and equality, as can be

seen in Table 7.2. These variables together explain some

34 per cent of the variance. The remainder of independent

predictors explain only six per cent of the remaining

variance. Among the first five variables are none of the

role-taking variables.

Although the 57-case study was not intended to be

compared to the final 71-case analysis, there was a dif­

ference in the regression to having held office that

demands explanation, for in the former study role-taking

accuracy was among the first four variables, explaining some

five per cent of the variance. In the 57-case run, assumed

similarity was entered into the factor analysis to obtain

independent dimensions with ten other variables, including

TABLE 7.2 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORES TO HELOFFa

(N=7l)

Regression Computed Partial F-value Cmnulated Proportion of2Variable coefficient T-value Cor. coef. each term F-value variance (R )

PARTIC .17 3.66 .43 10.93 10.93 .14POLINT .15 3.19 .38 9.27 10.75 .. 24SOCIAL .09 1. 92 .24 3.50 8.60 .28POLKNO .08 1. 71 .22 2.83 7.33 .31EQUAL -.08 -1.64 -.21 2.67 6.55 .34BSCORE .08 1.60 .20 2.61 6.03 .36HUMANE -.07 -1.41 -.18 2.06 5.55 .38POLCYN -.03 -.71 -.09 .51 4.88 .39EGOSTG .03 .66 .09 .44 4.35 .39PROJEC -.03 -.61 -.08 .37 3.91 .39ROLEAC .03 .57 .07 .32 3.55 .40

aThe results are given complete together with the statistical tests. These testsindicate only the risk involved in accepting the results for this particular group ofpolitically-aware respondents. Where the predictability is very low, the significancetests mean only that the signs of such small figures are beyond statistical guarantees.Signs were alterred in the results according to the direction of scoring of the rawdata and the factor scores of the Mesa I program from which the independent variableswere derived. In these associations, the independent variables can be predicted fromthe dependent variables as well, and no causal sequence is attached to their independentdesignation.

t-"V1o

151

role-taking accuracy. It loaded .55 on the factor with

role-taking accuracy, and, since it did not form an

orthogonal factor of its own but contaminated a number of

other variables. the decision was made to drop it from the

7l-case regression analysis. The effect of such a con­

taminated variable, together with 14 additional conservative

respondents, may have alterred the results obtained between

the two computer runs.

In predicting to the second criterion of political

success, self-assessed influence, three variables, partic­

ipation, political interest, and ego strength, explain

together some 41 per cent of the variance. The remaining

eight variables add only six per cent of the variance. One

role-taking variable appears fifth in the amount of variance

that it predicts, although the statistical test is in­

significant. However, were role-taking accuracy removed,

the explanation for only some two per cent of the variance

would be lost. It is certainly not a very important pre­

dictor.

Five predictors explain some 41 per;cent of the

variance in advocacy of change. These are equality, partic­

ipation, sociability, political cynicism, and political

interest. None of the role-taking variables appear important

in explaining the variance in advocacy of change, refuting,

on this level of analysis, the hypotheses advanced concerning

them.

TABLE 7.3 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORES TO INFSEL (N=71)

Variable Regression Computed Partial F-va1ue Cumulated Proportion of 2name coefficient T-va1ue Cor. coef. each term F-va1ue variance (R )

PARTIC .52 5.28 .57 21.40 21.40 .24

POLINT .39 3.89 .45 13.69 19.51 .36

EGOSTG .24 2.38 .30 5.48 15.69 .41

SOCIAL .16 1.66 .21 2.73 12.75 .44

ROLEAC .16 1.61 .20 2.62 10.98 .46

HUMANE .15 1.55 .20 2.49 9.77 .48

POLCYN -.11 -1.07 -.14 1.19 8.57 .49

EQUAL .07 .75 .10 .59 7.52 .49

PROJEC .07 .73 .09 .55 6.70 .50

BSCORE .06 .57 .07 .33 5.99 .50

POLKNO -.01 -.11 -.01 .01 5.36 .50

I-'VIN

TABLE 7.4 REGRESSION FROM SELECTED FACTOR SCORES TO CHANGE (N=71)

Variable Regression Computed Partial F-va1ue Cumulated Proportion of 2name coefficient T-va1ue cor. coef. each term F-va1ue variance (R )

EQUAL 1.09 4.89 .54 19.50 19.50 .22

PARTIC .63 2.82 .35 7.09 14.16 .29

SOCIAL .52 2.34 .29 5.14 11.73 .34I

POLCYN .43 1.94 .24 3.69 10.07 .38

POLINT .42 1.90 .24 3.68 9.12 .41

BSCORE -.26 -1. 20 -.15 1.48 7.90 .43

HUMANE .26 1.17 .15 1.40 7.02 .44

PROJEC -.25 -1.11 -.14 1.28 6.33 .45

EGOSTG .13 .60 .08 .36 5.61 .45

POLKNO .13 .57 .07 .34 5.02 .46

ROLEAC -.03 -.13 -.02 .02 4.49 .46

r-'VlW

154

Rather than the role-taking variables, it appears that

other more common political variables are far better pre­

dictors of the dependent variables. These best predictors

turn out to be participation, political interest, sociabil­

ity, political knowledge, ego strength, political cynicism,

and equality. Role-taking accuracy and the behavior score

do not appear to contribute much to an explanation of po­

litical success, either subjective or objective.

Projection does not contribute much to the prediction

to advocacy of change, but it may be argued that its place

has been taken by political cynicism instead. In fact,

this is not entirely inimical to the hypothesis that dis­

owning projection would relate highly to advocacy of

change, for advocates of change do attribute negative

aspects to the system they intend to alter. But this at­

tribution finds expression in political cynicism rather

than a tendency to project.

These results are indicative of the variables that

ought to be used, rather than the role-taking variables, to

predict to success and advocacy of change. While no

attempt was made to put variables together into a causal

sequence, it is possible to suggest a few plausible re­

lationships among the dependent and the independent

variables that turned out to be good predictors.

155

It would seem likely that participation and political

interest preceded holding office in time. Persons who put

themselves forward, as evidenced by the importance of

sociability in predicting to this attribute of success,

would be most likely to be eventually chosen for some

political office or another. Persons who make it a point

to participate, which indicates putting themselves forward

(sociability again), and who evince interest in politics

would seem eventually to appear to others to be appropriate

candidates for offices within an organization. The po­

litical knowledge may precede or follow holding an office.

Participation and political interest are most likely

to precede in time self-assessed influence as well, for that

dependent variable was apparently based on tangible evi­

dences of success. These tangible evidences appear to

precede influence, for it was success in alterring a law

that was the variable unattached to tangible activity.

Influence see~ed to represent accomplished fact, while

success was a measurement of an individual's potential.

Ego strength might precede or follow influence in time;

possibly, like some of- the attitudinal variables, it both

feeds and is fed by political successes.

Advocacy of change is a most interesting case. Here

it would seem that a major incentive for advocating change

is the espousal of certain of one's attitudes, such as

equality. This plunges a person into political activity,

156

into participation as such, but it does not necessarily

cause him to want to become part of the system, as witness

the negative connection between equality and having held

an office. The political cynicism might well follow the

results of advocating great change in a political system

that is quite often adverse to changes. The establishment

espouses equality but successfully prevents many measures

toward real equality among all Americans from reaching

fruition.

In these sequences, unfortunately, the role-taking

variables cannot be said to play even a minor role. What­

ever skill is tapped by role-taking accuracy and the

behavior score does not distinguish among the po1itica11y­

aware in general. The role-taking variables certainly do

not enter into the ability to predict the variance in the

dependent variables of this study when the entire group is

analyzed.

7.2 POLITICAL PROFILES.

In the final search for the possible influences of

the role-taking variables, the level of analysis was

changed once more, and a set of political-role profiles

was empirically derived from the 71 respondents. The

process by which this was done was somewhat more involved

than the preceding analyses have been.

The dichotomized variables that had provided the phi­

matrix and the factor results of Chapter VI were entered

157

into the Mesa I program, and a product-moment correlation

matrix was obtained. Although the phi-coefficient is an

approximation to the product-moment coefficient for

dichotomous data, the matrix, generally the same as the

original phi-matrix, was not exactly the same. 3 The

criteria for the common factor analysis was the same as

for the phi-matrix, all factors with eigenvalues above 0.95

being rotated to a varimax solution. This provided seven

orthogonal factors that were almost identical to those for

the original phi-matrix, which clearly vindicated the use

of this result to obtain factor scores for the 71 cases

over the seven orthogonal political-role factors. 4

A word of caution must be entered concerning the

factor scores. The factor scores obtained from a com-

ponent factor analysis, in which there are as many factors

as variables, are exact estimates according to the equation

A = FS,

where A is the data matrix, F is the factor matrix, and S,

the factor score matrix obtained by algebraic calculations.

3A subroutine to read in the phi-matrix into the Mesa Iprogram (or any other correlation matrix) so that factorscores might be derived on the basis of that matrix was notcompleted and tested in time for this analysis.

4These factor scores in a common factor analysis arenot standardized in the Mesa I program. However, they werestandardized in the subsequent Revised Distance Program.

158

But the common factor analysis produces fewer factors

than variables. The factor scores are therefore estimates

of the true scores. Harman shows that the standard de-

viation of the estimated factor scores is equal to the

multiple correlation of the estimated scores with the

variables of the data matrix. 5 The standard deviations

of the seven factor scores from the product-moment cor­

relation matrix input are shown in Table 7.5.

TABLE 7.5 STANDARD DEVIATION OF FACTOR SCORES FORSEVEN FACTORS FROM A COMMON FACTOR ANALYSIS

OF A PRODUCT-MOMENT CORRELATION MATRIX

Factor name

RoleLeft-radicalReal efficacyAgePolitical empathyGroup successChange

Standard deviationof factor scores

.865

.909

.899

.878

.881

.867

.869

Since the communality estimates in the principal

diagonal produced a non-Gramian matrix, negative eigen­

values were produced with the result that the factor score

estimates were deflated, and the standard deviations under­

estimate the multiple correlation between the estimates for

5See Harry H. Harman, Modern Factor Analysis, Chicagoand London, 1967, pp. 353-354.

159

the factor scores and the variables of the raw data. This

fact gives the following discussion a conservative bias.

A further problem is that the factor estimates are not

unique for the correlation and factor loading estimates.

The minimum correlations between alternative factor score

matrices depends on the multiple correlation of the re­

gression estimates in the original data. The equation

2r m = 2R1 - 1,

in which r m is the minimum correlation possible between

alternative factor score matrices and R1 is the multiple

correlation of regression of the factor score estimates

on the m variables of the data matrix (provided by the

standard deviation of the factor scores).

Solving the equation for the lowest value in Table 7.5

gives

r m = 2(.865)2 - 1 = .496

Thus, these factor scores are correlated at least 50 per

cent with a maximally different possible set of factor scores

from the same factors. The use of the highest row corre­

lation as the communality estimate has given factor score

estimates that are neither exact nor unique. 6 In the

succeeding analysis, however, where no statistical in­

ferences are made, these scores are adequate in the opinion

6The foregoing discussion has been adapted fromRudolph J. Rummel, Ap~lied Factor Ana1~sis, Honolulu,Hawaii, mimeographed raft, i.pr11, 196 , Chapter 16.

160

of this researcher. It is important, however, that un­

warranted conclusions are avoided by knowing exactly what

assumptions have gone into the analysis.

These factor scores for 71 cases over seven political­

role factors were entered into a program that calculated

the distances between cases by means of the standard dis­

tance formula. 7 The raw distance matrix obtained was

tran~formed so that all the values ranged between a minimum

value of 0, indicating the greatest possible distance be-

tween cases, and a maximum value of 1, indicating the

maximum similarity between cases. 8 Since a case is max-

imally similar to itself, this placed l's in the principal

diagonal of the matrix, now a "similarities matrix."

The similarities matrix was entered into the Mesa I

program, and all factors with eigenvalues above 0.95 were

extracted and rotated to a varimax solution. This provided

7The general distance formula is Dil = (~di12)1/2,

where D is the linear distance between the cases i and 1 ina seven-dimensional space and dil is the algebraic dif-

ference between the factor scores of i and 1 on the samedimension; summation is over k dimensions.

8 m•.By the equation n iJ· = 1 - M~] , where m·· is a raw-

L ~J

distance matrix element, ML is the maximum raw distance

element in the matrix and nij is a similarity. Thus, for

an element with the greatest distance, mij = ~, nij = 0,while for an element describing minimum distance, adiagonal element, nij = 1. The computer program for this

161

eight factors on which cases were grouped according to the

distances between them on the original seven factors of

the political-role space. 9

Groups on the eight factors extracted from the distance

(similarities) matrix were designated as those cases with

loadings equal to or above .40 on the same factor. This

held the number of cases appearing on more than a single

factor to a minimum, but there were a number of cases that

did appear on two, rarely more, factors. This is not ad­

verse to the analysis of the political-role types, however,

since it is quite possible that a single individual may

1 Ii I , '1 10span severa persona ty or po ~t~ca types,

step was the Revised Distance Program, Carol Hopkins,August 6, 1965.

9These eight groups were clearly demarcated. Theeighth factor rotated had an eigenvalue of 2.735, while thenext highest eigenvalue was 0.543. The eight groups werealso clear in the 57-case analysis; moreover, the formeranalysis provided profiles most of which were similar tothe eight profiles coming from the complete 7l-case analysis.This line of analysis was not pursued in the pilot study.

lOIn the 57-case analysis, groups were first formedby choosing all cases above .30 on a factor. Profiles wereobtained and compared with profiles obtained from groupingsof all cases loading above .45 on each factor. The pro­files did not change in pattern, but they were more clearlydelineated in the latter case, where extremes appeared onthe same variables but accentuated.

162

The differences between these groups were hidden in

the abstract analytic realm of mathematical manipulations.

One way to discover how these eight groups differed from

each other was through a computer program that provided a

plot of the means and standard deviations of each empir­

ically derived group over either the original seven

orthogonal factors or over certain of the original vari­

ables used in the study.ll The latter profile was the one

obtained for the purpose of the analysis in this section,

for the reason that differences between groups differing

on the role-taking variables could be more easily seen and

interpreted.

Figure 7.1 diagrams the eight political-role profiles

on 24 selected variables (none dichotomous). Each profile

depicts a political type, a subgroup that exists among the

entire group of politically-aware respondents from two

organizations in Hawaii. The profiles are drawn according

to the deviations of each subgroup from the mean of the

entire group, which is shown by the straight lines in

Figure 7.1. In only two cases, humanitarianism for Sub-

group VI and participation for Subgroup VII, do the

deviations from the mean of the entire group exceed one

lIThe profile program was devised by Dennis R. Hall.See Research Report No. 14, The Dimensionality of NationsProject, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1968.

PARTIC

IHFSEL

POLINT

ASPlNF

lNFGRP

CHANGE1/ I 1 / \ 1

I-tjH

(f I If , I SUCSEL......... C)

~~~I) " I \ I I SUCGRP~

'-I '-I.~ JI II 11 ~ POLKNOZ

N

" tr1~H / I J 1\ II BSCCREVIC).. ::t:~

Z J I r I II II ROLEACW ""d

" 0~tool.j::--H ( I \ I U 1\ ASSUME.. ~

HZCJ

.j::--,,~ \..1 \. 1 11 1 J ACTUALt-' IVI:;t)~o

I'" I') ( 1 (I PROJECtooltr1

""d 1 J ~ I l. 1\ EGOSTG:;t)0I-tjH I I " 1 ,,/ I RADlCLtooltr1(J) .. - . - ~

FLEXBL

FAlTHP

EQUAL

SOCIAL

lNNOVT

HUl·:ANE

POLCYN

£91 /(\ \ I I POLEFFH H<: H 1-4• . •

PARTIC

INFSEL

POLIN'r

ASPIUF

INFGRP.. IF \ I I It-xjH

-G1 I \ rl \ I \I CHANGE\JlZ ~

1Itr:l..... I J \1 J I 1\ SUCSEL00-.....1. .

.....II f\ , I IIZ SUCGRP

0'\1Itr:l

..... HoG1 I ) ( I { I 1'\ POLKNO

'" ::J::H

Z/' I " f\ I \ BSCORE-.....It"'d

II 0..... L4+,-H

1. JI I \ I J'" H ROLEACH

Z(')

ooll~ q ( I I ) I , ASSUHE\D I"""':;0

0I '\ \. /1 I )L4 ACTUAL

tr:l

t"'dI / I \ l I ("I PROJEC:;0

0t-xjHL4 I i f I P l\ EGOSTGtr:lCJ). I I ~I / I

"(')

RADICL0

~ I } I') \. I 1\ FLEXBLH

~Ir 'l /1 V

FAITHPa

EQUAL

SOCIAL

INNOVT

ntJHANE

\\ I

" I '" I POLCYN

"791 \I I' I' POLEFF<:H <: <: <:H H H .H H •.

165

standard deviation. The tendencies distinguishing groups

are made apparent by differences in patterns rather than

levels of activity. Moreover, since these are subgroups

from among a rather small number of respondents, the N's

are small, and no argument is advanced in the speculation

that follows concerning the generalizability of the pro­

files to the politically-aware of the United States or even

of Hawaii. The results are dependent on replication, and

if similar profiles emerge from a number of studies of

politically-active groups, more faith can be placed in

the results.

The most striking result for the purpose of the re­

search here is the emergence of two groups, II and IV,

that accentuate the advocacy of change variable. It is in

Subgroup IV that the pattern hypothesized between advocacy

of change and projection is substantiated. Here a high

tendency to advocate change is associated with one of the

highest tendencies to engage in disowning projection. More­

over, this subgroup has the lowest tendency to assume

similarity and is deficient in role-taking accuracy. The

behavior score is also low.

These characteristics are associated in Subgroup IV

with relatively high participation and a political knowl­

edge score that does not seem deficient with relation to

the entire group. It is this subgroup that is also

particularly high in political cynicism, which substantiates

166

the suggestion offered in the regression analysis that this

scale variable may be associated with the tendency to dis­

owning projection and may replace it in politically ex­

perienced groups as evidence of frustration.

Subgroups V and VI are distinguished by a higher than

average accuracy in role-taking, and in Subgroup V this ac­

curacy is apparent also in the behavior score. In keeping

with the hypothesis concerning the association between ro1e­

taking accuracy and success, Subgroup V is also notably high

in self-assessed influence. This association is not so

marked in Subgroup VI. Role-taking accuracy is associated

in Subgroup V with higher than average participation, an

advocacy of change that does not depart from the mean of

the entire group, low projection, low political cynicism,

and few other noteworthy characteristics.

Subgroup VI tends to hover near the mean, although

the success variable is slightly higher than average.

Striking, however, is the low tendency to project, the

conservatism of the subgroup, the tendency to sociability,

and the extremely low rank for humanitarian attitude. It

may be said that both of these subgroups, V and VI,

represent the relatively conservative tendency to work

within the system, learning the political style that

exists about them, and, consequently, achieving a measure

of real success, success probably not closely connected to

issue activity. These are the accurate role-takers, and

167

they look rather similar to what the hypotheses advanced

in Chapter II suggested.

Although these subgroups tend to afford a measure

of evidence in favor of the major hypotheses advanced at

the beginning of this research, a number of subsidiary

hypotheses are not too well substantiated. It was opined,

for instance, that such variables as humanitarianism,

faith-in-people, flexibility, ego strength, and equality

might characterize the more accurate role-takers. But

humanitarianism and equality were found to be attitudes

motivating persons to advocate change, and they are not

found within these subgroups to be associated with accurate

role-taking. In fact, in Subgroup VI, they are found to be

disassociated with role-taking accuracy.

It is among the styles that combine advocacy of change

with low role-taking accuracy or a fairly low behavior

score in which strong tendencies are found for high

humanitarianism and egalitarianism. This is notable in

patterns II, III, and VIII.

Profile I appears to depict a type of conservative

style, in which participation and personal success as well

as the perception of the success and influence of the

group are all low. In the political milieu of the United

States, this profile might represent a moderate and rel­

atively inactive conservatism. Perhaps many moderate

conservatives can be placed in such a category, in which

168

assumed similarity, ego strength, faith-in-peop1e, and

sociability are somewhat high, while political cynicism

and efficacy are rather low (but not extremely), and the

radical-left motivations for advocating change, equality

and humanitarianism, are below the mean for the whole group.

This moderate conservative group has not been forced

into a very active defense of the system, in which it ad­

vocates relatively few changes, and persons with such a

political style can more or less take things as they are.

It is possible that persons exhibiting such a political

style are not more accurate role-takers than they are

simply because they have not been strongly motivated to

plunge very deeply into the political arena.

Profile II is descriptive of one form of radical

style, to judge from the high tendency to advocate change.

These individuals do not stress their personal success or

influence, tend to participate somewhat more than average

in politics, rate fairly high in political interest, and

espouse causes consonant with the attitudes of humanitarian­

ism and egalitarianism. They tend to be somewhat cynical

about politics, although this does not cause them to be

below the average in a feeling of political efficacy.

Notably, their espousal of change has not impaired either

their ability to take the attitudes of the legislator or

their prediction of his behavior in a situation. Their

tendency to project is fairly low. These would appear to

169

be radicals, who, while advocating large change, neverthe­

less have accepted the system and are working within it to

bring about change.

It is somewhat anomalous to find a profile such as III

among the politically active individuals of this study, and

it must be kept in mind that all tendencies are relative to

the group being studied. Relative to the entire group of

respondents, therefore, Subgroup III does not participate

much, has little feeling of personal or group success, and

is quite bad in predicting attitudes, although the behavior

score is not below the mean. Among these individuals may be

discerned some evidence that sociability and ego strength

must also be present if one is to put himself forward

enough to learn about the attitudes of others. Thus,

members of Subgroup III may be relatively retiring persons,

whose membership in a political organization may be the re­

sult of a mild interest in some causes concerning equality

and humanitarianism.

Subgroup IV has already been delineated. These are

the radical change advocates high in disowtling projection

and political cynicism who disavow the system enough to

suffer impairment of the ability to accurately role-take

or to predict adequately in the behavior area. Quite

possibly, these are the persons more issue-oriented than

concerned with other political values, such as seeking

office. Subgroup V may be deemed the real politicos among

170

the respondents in this study. These are persons ranking

quite high in participation and personal influence and

efficacy. They are not cynical about politics, nor do they

tend to advocate great change. They rate among the highest

in political knowledge, and the amalgam of political

strengths is buttressed by high rank on the role-taking

variables.

Persons who participate least of all among these

respondents compose Subgroup VII. Rather conservative

among the other respondents, these persons do not assess

their personal efficacy and influence very high, but they

are somewhat more sanguine about the success and influence

of the group to which they belong. In spite of their own

rather low efficacy, they are not politically cynical. It

has been suggested previously in the results from the factor

analysis, that there may be some individuals whose own

relative lack of political experience and feeling of strength

in politics may be compensated by joining some organization

in order to participate vicariously in the importance and

success of the organization. These characteristics are

found associated here with a very low tendency to socia?i~-,

ity and ego strength. Such individuals are too shy to put

themselves forward in politics. They may comprise the

followers within the group.

Finally, another moderately radical group completes

the series of political styles derived by the empirical

171

search for groups. Profile VIII unites a role-accuracy

score at the mean with a very low score on predicting

behavior. Moreover, the disowning projection score is

rather high, although the subgroup is not particularly high

on advocacy of change. This group is one of the highest in

political participation, and the very high tendency toward

humanitarianism may explain the moderate radical motivation

for the political activity of these persons.

It can be seen that Group A and Group B include a

variety of political styles, among which appear the re­

lationships sought for in this research. They did not

appear in the cross-tabulations, although the pilot study,

where disowning projection appears distinctly associated

with advocacy of change, may have tapped more salient ex­

amples of Subgroup IV, nor prominently in the factor

analysis, for the reason that they were hidden among groups

with other political styles. Although each of the groups

tapped, Group A and Group B, may have a profile describing

the entire group, it is not necessary that such a profile

represents any more than a composite of several distinct

subgroups.

Figure 7.2 illustrates the extent to which these

empirically derived subgroups of the entire group of

respondents can be found scattered within the separate

groups. While Subgroups II and VIII are generally confined

to membership in Group A, and Subgroup I is a conservative

I-

GROUP A GROUP B

FIGURE 7.2 EIGHT POLITICAL-ROLE TYPES FOUND IN TWO VOLUNTARY POLITICALORGANIZATIONS (For a description of types, see profiles inFigure 7.1)

......"-JN

173

prototype, the other subgroups bring together members with

the same political style from both groups in approximately

equal proportions. The divisions of the two groups in

Figure 7.2 are intended to present an idea of the pro­

portional size of each of the subgroups.

It is quite possible that Figure 7.2 describes at

least some of the political realities of a mature political

system, where conflicts are not so acute that political

types are confined to either one group or another but over­

lap. In any case, it is quite evident why the hypotheses

concerning the role-taking variables and associations could

not be clarified until the level of analysis reached the

subgroups.

Although there is much in the foregoing analysis that

supported the hypotheses presented in Chapter II, caution

must be used in accepting any of the rather imaginative

interpretations without further replications. The slight

differences indicated in Figure 7.1 indicated patterns that

distinguish groups on the basis of a mathematical distance

formula. In only a few instances, do these differences in

pattern exceed a single standard deviation from the mean.

In some instances, the patterns derived appeared to clarify

results obtained from the cross-tabulations and the factor

analysis, while in other cases there may appear to be a

contradiction between the profiles and results obtained,

especially from the regression analysis, which was based on

the entire group of respondents.

174

Nevertheless, allowing some faith in the efficacy of

the empirical technique that isolated the eight groups, it

seems that among these political styles are several that

lend support to the theory that tied the role-taking vari­

ables to the political realm. While this is gratifying

and indicative of possible directions for the future,

preferably with the use of larger and more broadly-based

groups of respondents, it does not fully establish the

importance of the role-taking variables for political

analysis. More will be said on this subject in the con­

cluding chapter.

CHAPTER VIII

CONCLUSIONS

8.1 RECONSIDERATIONS OF THE HYPOTHESES.

Two major hypotheses stimulated the research on the

role-taking variables. The first, as set out in Chapter II,

related disowning projection to high advocacy of change.

Neither role variable was significantly related to the

variables tapping advocacy of change directly or indirect­

lyon the analytic level of the entire group. The factor

analyses provided some moderate associations between the

role variables and some of the political variables. More­

over, the oblique factor analysis turned up moderate

correlations between the role factor and the political

empathy and change factors.

It may be argued that the change tapped in this re­

search was not extreme enough to merit a test of a prop­

osition that had to do with disaffectation from the system.

However, many more respondents than expected responded to

the change item by indicating level 10 as descriptive of

the amount of change they would like to see in the system.

This was in some measure unanticipated, and a review of the

question prior to distributing the questionnaires raised

some doubt as to whether anyone would be motivated to re­

spond to the 10-step on the change level, so extreme did

176

the wording of the question appear. But respondents used

the extreme value easily enough. If any difficulty is

apparent, it could only be the lack of respondents from

the radical right-wing of the political spectrum. It is

possible that none of the eight political-role profiles

here would be appropriate for the profiles of such re­

spondents.

The pilot study of 67 student respondents had shown a

slight correlation between disowning projection and the

change variable, which in that study was a verbal question

similar to 2.14 in the present questionnaire; and the

factor analysis, a tetrachoric matrix input into the Mesa I

program, showed that disowning projection did indeed load

on the change dimension. It is possible that the effect

predicted by the hypothesis is brought out more strongly

among persons who feel a need for a change and who are too

young to have been issue-active or to have engaged the

system enough to have learned much about its role-encumbents.

Among such persons, there may indeed be a tendency for dis­

owning projection, but this tendency did not hold in gen­

eral for the politically-aware individual in the final

study, although it was traced to one of the radical sub­

groups.

This result indicates the dangers inherent in

selecting respondents from among students only, as is often

done for studies of this type. Generalization beyond the

1771group tested is net warranted, and no conclusion may be

derived concerning even the student group after it has

entered the political arena "for real." In the case of

political variables, students may very well be different

than persons even a few years their senior.

The second major hypothesis related role-taking ac­

curacy with both objective and subjective political success.

Disowning projection was to predict to a lack of success.

This hypothesis was also not substantiated by the research

on the between-groups level and when within-groups variance

was studied for the whole group of respondents. The holding

of office, issue activity, and political interest associated

with the role dimension on the factor analysis were moder-

ately low and tended to discourage much speculation that

the role variables might be a vital factor in politicalI

success. The regression analysis made this assessment

quite clear.

Comments on the remaining hypotheses have been made

throughout the course of the discussions on cross-tabulation,

the factor analyses, and the profiles. It is interesting,

that having interacted with politicians, such as legis­

lators, appears to have made no difference in one's

IThe same warning holds for the respondents in thisstudy as well, but they are nevertheless closer to thepopulation of adult politically-aware activists than asample of students would have been.

178

role-taking accuracy. Nevertheless, having held office

does load moderately in the positive direction with role­

accuracy and assumed similarity. Moreover, at the level of

subgroups, at least one group was isolated in which role­

taking accuracy may have been vital enough to have been a

contributor to real success. The empathetic professions,

a variable that may merit more measurement experimentation,

showed no more ability than others in accuracy, although

this is in keeping with social psychological findings.

There was an interesting relationship in the factor

analysis showing actual similarity to load on the political

empathy factor, but this did not contribute to making these

people higher in role-taking accuracy. Motivation appeared

to be related to role-taking accuracy through the small

loading of issue activity and having held office. It also

appeared to have influenced at least one change-oriented

profile to more accurate role-taking in spite of a high

advocacy of change. Obviously, persons may be motivated

to participate in issues, but this motivation does not lead

them necessarily to become better role predictors. It may

also be suggested that it might lead them to be better

behavior predictors, but that variable was even less dis­

criminating than role-accuracy.

In general, the hypothesized relationships between the

role variables and political attitudes did not hold when

the entire group was analyzed. The hypothesis suggesting

179

that men would be somewhat better than women in ro1e­

accuracy--proposed for the reason that persons were pre­

dicting to the attitudes of males (mainly) in an arena

that has traditionally been mascu1ine--fai1ed to hold.

Sex emerged as generally unrelated to role-taking dif­

ferences.

The profile analysis uncovered many of the patterns

that had originally been predicted, and they were some­

times clearly evident. Even here, equality and human­

itarianism in the political context proved to be inimical

to role-taking accuracy. It must be kept in mind that the

research was conducted, first, on group differences and,

second, on politically-aware individuals as an entire

response group. The subgroups on which the profiles were

established are an empirical clustering of individuals who

were not shown in this study to act as political units.

While it may be of interest in describing various political

personalities to attempt to replicate these patterns among

other selections of the politically-aware, it is question­

able whether knowledge about these patterns will aid in

political predictions. The political profiles isolated

here apparently operate as within-group distinctions, and

they may perhaps be found in all voluntary groups without

characterizing the activity of the group as a whole.

In studies replicating the search for political-role

profiles, it would be illuminating to produce within-group

180

sociometric diagrams to uncover whether persons of a

particular political type tend to associate more with

others of the same type, especially with regard to voting

and decision-making. Thereby, these profiles of political

style will be made pertinent to the political scientist in

studying pressures on decisions. When this has been done,

the influence of role-accuracy and disowning projection

will be even clearer in their political effects. No

evidence can be presented in this research that political

types within a political organization act in concert.

With qualifications, it may be concluded that role­

taking accuracy may be one of the skills cultivated by

certain of the politically successful, especially among the

moderate conservative element. However, there is no evi­

dence that disowning projection, an attribute of certain

of the radical subgroups and related to role-taking in­

accuracy in these cases, is necessarily conducive to

failure. There would seem to be a decided preoccupation

among such subgroups, however, with the "issues," as opposed

to other political aims.

Besides the positive results from the profiles, there

are at least two other possible qualifications to the con­

servative conclusions on the importance of the role-taking

variable array. The first concerns operationalization.

When variables as subtle as the role variables are oper­

ationalized, there will always be some question as to

181

whether projection or role sensitivity are really being

tapped. One response to this question is that what is

tapped is defined by the operation used in tapping it.

That is, role-accuracy is the variation tapped by the

respondents' answers to the 35 questions put forth here as

a test of role-accuracy, while disowning projection is the

score manipulation used here. This extreme operationalism

is not intellectually satisfying, however, for the reason

that if role-accuracy exists in the sense in which the

researcher has hypothesized it, then it will be related to

the variables to which it is by theory supposed to be re­

lated. If not, then either the operationalization was

inadequately sensitive, or else, the role-variables are

unimportant in the political realm in which they are being

tested.

The question of a possible lack of sensitivity has

been touched on previously, when it was suggested that the

questionnaire might present three response choices: "agree,"

"disagree," and "no consensus." The five nonconsensual

items presented the respondents (see Chapter IV) gave a

firm indication that this would indeed make for a more

sensitive questionnaire. The results of the analysis have

at least been encouraging enough to justify the attempt to

strive toward a more sensitive measure of role-taking ac­

curacy.

182

A second qualification arises in the nature of the

two groups tested. There is no doubt that the variables

underwent a stringent examination in this research for the

reason that almost all the respondents were high in polit­

ical knowledge, political interest and class. By being in

political organizations in the first place, they were cer­

tainly at a high level of political participation.

The reason for conducting a test of the variables at

this level was to determine whether they would be sensitive

to political success and advocacy of change among persons

who might be very difficult to distinguish on the basis of

other attributes.

There are many variables that serve to differentiate

between the politically inactive and uneducated and the

politically active and well-educated. There would be very

little contribution made by the addition of several more

distinguishing variables to the array already available to

study groups far from one another in income, interest,

participation, and so forth. It would be especially

irrelevant when consideration is given to the added effort

required to adequately tap role-taking accuracy differences.

If the variables can provide no important distinctions on a

level on which individuals are otherwise on a par, then

there is relatively little reason to make use of them to

distinguish among groups with large differences.

183

While the regression analysis has suggested the

propriety of adherring to the common measures of political

participation, knowledge, and interest, it also revealed the

importance of attitudes as motivations for political activ­

ity. Equality and humanitarianism emerged as vital pre­

dictors of advocacy of change, while sociability appeared

a fair predictor of real success in politics. The role­

taking variables, however, did not appear viable predictors

on the level of the entire group. It is on this level, and

on the between groups level, that the traditional political

predictors revealed their importance. On the level of

political subgroups, however, the role-taking array came

into its own.

8.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH.

The suggestions made in the first section of this

chapter indicate that among large groups and organizations,

it is the variables traditionally put to use in political

science that are the most revealing. The regression

analysis intended to provide alternative courses to the

role-taking variables for the prediction of success and

advocacy of change among whole organizations. It ought to

be a principle of research that the measures used be no more

complicated to use than is needed for maximum predictability.

In such contexts, the role-taking variables fail.

However, the role-taking variables appeared more clear­

ly in the profile analysis to provide possible indicators

184

of political activity. In effect, this was the level of

analysis on which such varia9les emerged into importance

among the politically-aware of the Hawaiian political

culture.

At this level, further research is indicated. A

beginning might be to ascertain, as was previously sug­

gested, whether or not persons of similar political-role

type associated more with one another within political

organizations. If so, are these subgroup movements

influential in directing the decisions of the entire group?

This may provide important conclusions about the study of

group decision-making and clarify the tactics of political

organizations. Regression predictions within separate sub­

groups may reveal that the role-taking variables do become

important.

Comparable studies of groups within underdeveloped

nations might reveal whether, for example, there are small

coteries of leaders with similar profiles from group to

group, with followers having profiles marked by low partic­

ipation and role-taking accuracy. Do the political profiles

of leaders, as were some profiles uncovered among the more

radical group in this analysis, lead to change or are they

more conservatively oriented toward other styles of role­

accuracy?

A further and important step in analysis of this type

would be the reinterviewing of respondents with particular

185

profiles. Since the respondents in this study were

anonymous, there was no opportunity to recontact those with

profiles of interest to this study, although some additional

knowledge about them may be gleaned from a closer study of

their questionnaires. Most important is the opportunity

offered by a reinterview to validate the measures of role­

taking accuracy, disowning projection, and assumed similar­

ity used in this research. The behavior variable was used

for this purpose, but, as the profiles and factor analysis

revealed, probably tapped a somewhat different dimension

than the attitude measure.

The problem of linearity, although not crucial in some

respects (for instance, the product-moment component factor

analysis revealed a Gramian matrix) demands attention. If

the results of other analyses do prove fruitful for political

prediction on the basis of the subgroups, it would be best

to provide a measure of assumed similarity that was not

part of a scoring procedure to extract other variables.

The same would be true of the measure of disowning pro­

jection, although the behavior score did reveal that not

all of the negative association between PROJEC and role­

taking accuracy need necessarily be attributed to scoring

artefact.

In the study of legislatures, the process of obtaining

the consensual items for the further testing of role-taking

accuracy leaves much to be desired. If research is to be

186

conducted on the importance of projection and role-taking

accuracy within the legislature itself, a questionnaire

should be used that not only calls for the attitudes of

the legislator, but determines his guess as to whether or

not his own attitudes are held by most of his fellows. It

is possible that it is not a legislator's attitudes as such,

but his knowledge about how they fit in the context of the

legislative body that is important for political success in

the legislature. Such success should be measured in a

number of ways--a subjective measure, an objective measure,

such as the number of bills sponsored and passed, and

another objective measure, such as the assessment of his

success by his fellow legislators. The present research

did not purport to be a study of the legislature, but the

research indicated in Chapter III can be extended and

intensified.

Finally, the ultimate purpose of this research was to

ascertain how the role-taking variables fit into the

political realm. Of what use is it to tie projection,

role-taking accuracy, and assumed similarity to the po­

litical context? From the point of view of the philosophy

of research, such research fills the void often left between

political acts and such background variables as education,

income, and profession. It provides a more subtle picture

for the explanation of political activities. It is very

well, and it is an important first step, to be able to

187

predict, for instance, a person's voting behavior on the

basis of the way in which he voted in the last few elec­

tions. It is important to discover the association between

class and political participation. But these pictures of

political reality need to be elaborated for modern political

cultures. It is possible that some of the most ardent ad­

vocates of change are not the deprived, but, as the research

here revealed are found among political profiles accentuating

equality and humanitarianism. And the political activity

stimulated by such ideals is further modified by disowning

projection and role-taking accuracy patterns.

Ultimately, of course, the test of the study of role­

taking variables and their effect on political subgroups

rests on the question that all new research directions

must heed: Does the study of the role-taking variables in

the political context enable the social scientist to pre­

dict behavior more accurately? Although it was the intent

of this study to go beyond the exploratory stage, it cannot

be claimed that this question has received an appropriate

answer. Nevertheless, a foundation for further study and

replication has been laid. -

APPENDIX I

COPY OF COVER LETTER SENT TO LEGISLATORS WITH FIRSTCONSENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE

COPY OF COVER LETTER SENT TO LEGISLATORS WITH DUPLICATECONSENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE IN SECOND ATTEMPT TO OBTAINRESPONSES

COPY OF LEGISLATORS' CONSENSUS QUESTIONNAIRE, MINUS THESEMANTIC DIFFERENTIAL SECTION

UNIVERSITY OF' HAWAII. HONOLULU. HAWAII 96822

OI""'''TMIHT 0,. "OLITICAL .CIIHCI

Dear

Thio is a requeot for your cooperation 1n e research ~roject.

I am a student and an inatructor at the University of Hawaii and amworking toward my doctorate in ~olitical science. The firat phaeeof my dissertation project ~p.kes it neco30ary for me to discoverhow legioletors in Haweii view politics. In order to eccomolishtr.i9, : have ~rep&red the enclosed questionnaire. If you will com­?lete the questionnaire for me, a taak th~t will take about 45 min­uteD, y~ur coo~eration will be greatly a?preciated.

When you have completed the quest:onnaire, plesse enclose it inthe stamocd, self-addressed envelooe aoc return it to me with thisletter. All returns will be handl~d confidentially by me, and 011individual queationnaireo will remain anonymous. The questionnaireswill be used to obtain figures thbt pertein to the leeislature ofHawaii ss a wholo. The return of this letter with the question­naire is requested so thut I can keep 8 record of the question­nairee thp.t have been returned, after which the letter will beseparated from the q~estionnaire.

If :'ou hflve inquiries rocording this oroject, you ere welcometo contact me at ~J home (phones 511-776) or at my office at theUniversity of Hawaii (e:<teneions t16T~). When the disgertotiorJio com,lete end accepted, it will be filed at the Univer~ity libraryand in the Dep~rtrnent of Politicol Science. My corr.~ittee chair-mon for the disaertation ie Profe3aor Marshall N. Goldstein.

I am awere that the job of legislator io time-consuminC. Th~re­

fore, I thank you 1n advance for :/our kind a~n1at8nce in this 'Jroject.

Sincerely yours,

lli. llR rd D. Ke i III

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAIIDrp:ut/lll'llt of Politi(~al Hdl'llcP

28 Seotember lc67

Dear

In the field of political science, there is 8 new effort to study politicsby meane of empirical evidence, a major source of which io ~ot6rial gatheredthrough questionnaires. This new direction in the studv of Dolitics i8 calledthe -behavioral approach.· Among tho universitie8 eneaged in research of thisnature, tr.e University of Hawaii is among the foremoet. In fect, 80 6 etudontworking toward my Ph.D., 8 reoearch aoaiatent, and a former inntructor in theCollege of General Studies here, I foresee the ti~e when tho University of Hawaiiwill be among the best in the nation in the field of political ocience. Hawaiican well be oroud of the growth of ito univerolty, a growth thet has been trulyphenomenal even in the five years that 1 have been a reoident here.

My own research is 0100 an attempt to ta;> certain sourceD of empiricalevidence. You may recoll a questionnaire thet I mailed to you recently(August 17, 1067). This questionnaire wae an attemot to survey certain attitudesheld by the legiolature of Hawaii AD a whole. If you decided against comolet­ing the questionnaire at thnt time, may I request that you reconsider yourdecision! The aocuracy of such a study depends on ae complete a sample aspossible. If you have miolald the former questionnaire, I have enclooed aduplicate.

Naturally, in research of this nature, the resoondent is assured that hisreply will be entirely ccnfidential. 1 em not tntereoted in individual reo11esao such, but my research will concern only tho legislature as a ~hole. If youhave any question concerning the nature of this research, please feel free tocontact me at my home (telephonel 511-776).

If you have already returned a queotionnaire, plenee ignore thio letter andaccept my aopreciation fo': your cooperation in thiB project. The percente.geof returns of thene questionnaires hae been very impressive.

Sincerely yo~rD,

W11le rd D. Ke im

2;#) Call1plls RrJlUI· Honolulu, Hawaii 00822

PART ONE: DIRS"CT::::2~:.3. The followine; itet:s ~resent sit'.l3tions that might ariseduring a political career. ?or each of these hypothetical situations,there are given a nu~b~r of possible actions thut ~ight be t8ke~.

Please circle t~e letter for that action which 6?peals to you as thebest choice under the circuostances.

1. I have cade a cac?aign ?rocise to su?~ort e certain bill. This has probablywon quite a few votes for ~e. V~en the bill coces before the legislature,my political party is very cuch opposed to its passage. I will .••

a. keep quiet cnd vote with cy party.b. speak DOre or less in favor of the bill, but vote for a party a~end~ent

that cripples the bill.c. stay away fro~ the legislature on the day of the vote.d. tell the ~e=bers of cy party about cry ca~paign coc~itoent end then vote

in fevor of the bill.e. work vigorously within ~: party to change their stand on the bill and

then, if they decide to vote against it, go along with thee.

2. I have won my first election to the P.a~aii legislature, and the session hasjust opened. A bill is u? for discussion. I 9~ by no means an expert onthe bill, but I have e little ~nowledge and support it. I will

I-'\.0I-'

?rivate dinner ?arty, I find that I have been seated n€xt to a long­political ene~y with who~ I have been feucir.~ rece~tly. r will •

gain the floor end deliver a s~eech favoring the bill.offer en amendcent inte~ded to strengthen the bill.infcrcally sug~est to oth~r supporters ttet I might not vote for thebill so the: ca:r be encouraged to offer me socething in return for mysupport.keep quiet and vote for the bill.

B.b.c.

d.

3. At atice

a. qUietly recu~st the hostess to seet ce elsewhere.

page 2

6. A bill of r::ine is before o· COt:i~littee of "r;hicb I ao [:. ';:-;r·:ber. I can foreseethat it ~ill 9robably luck several votes of bein5 8o;roved. 3efore the deyof the vote, a m3~ber of the 09?os:ti0n on the co~~ittee sugge8ts that Iacce?t en aoend~~~t to th~ bill. This e~end~ent will cake the bill lesseffective but will probably allow it to 98SS. I ~i11 •••

a. turn do~n his su~gestion.

b. discuss his amend cent ~ith ot~er interested grou?s end ecc€?t it if mostof the ot~ers go along.

c. accuse ~ie of tr:ring to ~ake t~e bill ineffective.d. acce?t his offer.e. find out what he eight in return for this favor; if I agree, accept his

a~end~ent.

7. !'!y office is being picketed by a voter'!) grou? oec8u:Je I intend to voteagainst a bill they faver. I hapgen to ~now that they heve never given ~e

any support, and so=e of their signs are ?retty in3ulting. I will •••

a.b.c.d.

e.

8. III

a.b.

c.

ignore thee.call the police to see whether they can be legally reooved.call a s~okescen fro~ t~e group into oy offic~ end talk over the ~atter.

tell t~ec they had better cease ?icketin~ or r'11 never sup?ort any oftheir bills in the future.tell t~ec t~ey can ?icket, but they had better re~ove the ~re insultingsigns.

have been in an euto~obi1e accident end a= still wearing band~Jes. Althoughcan get cround with no dan~er, I ee still in sooe pain. In this condition,receive en invitation to s?ea~ before a club. I will

decline the invitation ~ecause of ~y conditi~n.

suggest that I could ~re?ere s 9?~ech for the club to be given by oneof ~y assistants.~rovide the ns=es of sev~ral cth~r s?es~ers who =ight be able to ?resent

~

...0N

......,. -._; .... + _.t:'_".; .n,._,

page 3

Strongly Unde- Stronglyi1grec Agree cidcd Disagr<;e Disagree

3· There is nothin6 ~rong ~ith

conformity g~nerelly• / I i I L/ I I L/. 4. Elections ere too heatedfor my taste. LI L/ LI / / LJ5· It is quite natural to g~t

o~?osing o?inions fro~ the su~e setof facts. 1/ LI LJ LI Li6. You cannot really be sure

whether en opiniQn is true or notunless ?eople are free to argue

LJagainst it. LJ / I / I 17

7. A politician should behighlyeducat-;d. /7 Cl 1/ L/ / /

p. The legisletcr invents-.solutions for ?olitical proble~s. /f r7 / / 17 /-.

---- L-./

~. I feel unco~fortable beinglaughed at. . 1 I LJ C7 Cl" / /

10. It's e good thing that peo?lecan recove their l~gislators even

I I L/ LJ CJ L/for the wrong reasons. ~

\0UJ

11. A ~an ~ho won't co=?ro=iseisn't a good citizen. / I / ! ~ Cl CJL12. It's better to settle issues

page 4

Strongl?Agree A;ree

Unde-cidod Disagree

22. PrivEte ond infor~al discus­sion so~etioes clears uo difficult

.proble=s that ~ublic debate wouldnot solve. I I / I I / LJ

Stron~l~r

Disagree

LI23. The essence of good politicsis t€e~work. I I 17 LI / / / I24. Il~ al~ost nevsr i~oolite topeo~l€. . I I 17 Cl 11 1125. Socati~€s I choose friends inorder to incr~E3e cy influence. I I 17 17 17 11

26. S06cial interests are usuallyagainst the ?~blic interest. / I 17 f7 /l CJ27. In a better age, ~e will beable to do witr.out ~oliticians. I I f/ f/ 11 11

1/

" I

1/

L:JII

I ,I

C7LJ

LI

1/8rE;u:::ents.I enjoy ~olitical

2g. A cerson who hides b~hind th~

laws ~h~n he is c~e3tion~d sbout hisactivities doesn1t deserve ouchconsideration.

29.

30. A good ~ey to vot~ when indoubt is to :'0110'" the ?art~· hb.~l.11 1/ I I L:J fI

~

\.0~

31. If all =y fri~nds ~ere u~iver­

sity graduates, I houlc hide the

42. The general ~ublic is justnot qualified to vote on ~ost oftoday's coo?lex issues.

43. I'e glad to live in t~eseexciting times.

Stron~ly

Agreo

LJ

L/

Agree

oLJ

Unde­cided

L/

/7

~~se 5

Di se.gree

II

CJ

5~rongly

Disagree

CJ

/7

44. I enjoy being in larg~ groupsof ~eople. / 7

45. If I really wanted a law passed,it would be cowarcly to accept 8 _~8tered-down version of it. L--/

46. The ~olitician is constantlylooking f~r oublicit:'. • /7

47. It's wrong for oeo?l~ to putoressure on le~i9letors to votetheir way. - / 745. Those ~eo?le who hate our wayof life should have a chance tos?eak and be heard. /7

4~. In politics, it's every ~an

for himself. /7

50. Politicians are usuallydbitterly 6ttacking~ or rtreactingViolently. ~

"l_ All mp-\/"l" ~nto,.""t" in nil.,.

C7

L:J

/7

LJ

Cl

CJ

CJ

II

/ /

Cl

1/

1/

1/

f7

CJ

L:J

r7

r7

1/

f7

;=1

CJ

Cl

r7

r7

r7

I /

1/

~

\.0U1

APPENDIX II

COpy OF COVER LETTER SENT WITH ROLE-TAKING QUESTIONNAIRETO GROUP A

COPY OF COVER LETTER SENT WITH ROLE-TAKING QUESTIONNAIRETO GROUP B

COPY OF ROLE-TAKING QUESTIONNAIRE

1407 Kewalo Street, Apt. 9Honolulu, Hawaii 968229 May 1968

Dear Sir or Madam:

The purpose of the enclosed questionnaire is to determine the politicaloutlooks of persons belonging to certain voluntary organizations in Honolulu.

The results from returned questionnaires will be seen and analyzed onlyby l~self, and they will be presented in a general f~shion as part of aPh.D. dissertation at the University of Hawaii.

In research of this nature, it is necessary that I obtain as manyreturned questionnaires as possible, or else the results will not bereliable. Therefore, I would appreciate your cooperation in thisresearch project.

Thank you for the time spent in answering this questionnaire.

Willard D. Keirn

1407 Kewalo Street, Apt. 9Honolulu, Hawaii 9682228 Hay 1968

Dear Sir or ~mdam:

The purpose of the enclosed questionnaire is to determine the politicaloutlooks of persons belonging to voluntary organizations in Honolulu.

The results from returned questionnaires will be seen and analyzed onlyby myself, and they will be presented in a general fashion as part of aPh.D. dissertation at the University of Hawaii. The opinions of individualswill not be attributed to the organizations to which the respondents belong.In tho text of the dissertation, organizations will be referred to by

letters (A,B,C) or symbols only.

In research of this nature, it is necessary that I obtain as manyreturned que3tionnaires as possible, or else the results will not bereliable. Therefore, I would appreciate your cooperation in this researchproject.

Thank you for the time spent in answering this questionnaire.

Yours sincerely, )

CA-J JJ'(JS~0k~.--Willard D. Keim

Z~~h of the brief questions in thispossible answers. Host of these answersIt is your opinions I am interested in.for the answer that comes closest to how

(This number identifies the questionnaire, notthe respondent.)

INTRODUCTION

This questionnaire has been desi£ncd to determine public opinionon a number of political issues and attitud8S. The results ~lill beanalyzed and used in a doctoral dissertation at the University of lIawaii.

.All returncd qucstionnaircs will be kept in strict confidencc. It is

not nccessary to put your naMe on this questionnaire.

DIRECTlmlS

questionnaire has a number ofarc neithcr "right" nor "wrong."Please place an "X" in the spaceyou feel abou~ the question.

I am interested in your first impressions, so don't bother to spendmuch time on your anS\olers. Try to answer all the ques tions. There areabout 'a half dozen 'qucstions on political knowledge. Host of us can'tanswer all of them, so if you don't know, just guess and go on to thenext questions.

The questionnaire usually takes from 20 to 45 minutes to complete.

I greatly appreciate your cooperation in this research project.

W: KeirnPhone: 511-776

Page 1

PART I. The following questions are about your involvement inpolitics.

1. Have you ever written a letter to the editor of a newspaper or magazinegiving your political opinions?

__________Yes, very often.Yes, a few times.------______Once.

______No, never.

2. Have you ever ~~itten to any public officials giving them your opinionabout something that should be done?

__________Yes, often.Yes, a few tioes.

------Once.________~No, never.

3. Do you associate with any political party officials or people who docampaign work in a political party?

Yes, often.-----~Yes, sometimes.------Seldon.------No, never.------

4. How often do you meet an discuss coonunity affairs with community leaders?

Often.--------Sooetimes.----------Seldom.-----------_____N-cver.

5. How often do you c~ct nnd discuss politic~l affairs with city orcounty officials?

_1* ...... __

Noo

Page 2

10. How much interest would you say you have in political affairs?

A lot.----~_______~More than most people.________...-.;About average.________Less than most people.

Almost none.------..;11. Row much political influence would you like to have?

_____..-:A lot more.More than I have now.----------'About as much as I have now.

------~_______~Don't really care.

12. Row much political influence would you say the ___has?--_._----------

A lot.------~__________More than most other political groups._______~About the same as most other political groups.

Less than most other political groups.------Almost none.------13. Political change may mean either going back to the !lgood old days!l

or moving more rapidly !linto the future." Regardless of your definitionof change, what amount of change would you like to see in the presentpolitical situation in the United States? Suppose the bottom of thescale below (0) indicates no change at all, while the top (10)is the greatest amount of political change you can imagine. Place an"X" at the amount of change you desire:

.,. _~9_.J.. -_.~-_. --j---.a. _

7.._---- ..

NoI-'

PLlge 3

17. Have you ever considered the possibility of running for public officeyourself?

Yes.----~

No.-----Have you been active in any political issue in the past year?

Yes.------:No.

19. Hhat issue (5) was this?

20. HOy1 many Senators are there in the Hawaiian State Legislature?

21. Does the Lieutenant Governor of Hawaii h~ve to be of the same politicalparty as the Governor?

Yes.------;No.-----

22. \~at is the term of office for members of the State House of Repre­sentatives?

23. What are the names of Hawaii's representatives in the U.S. Congress(House end Senate)?

NoN

Page 4

PART II. This section contains a number of statements aboutpolitics, people, or yourself. Please place an "X"in the box that comes closest to your agreement ordisagreement. Please don't omit any of the statements,even if your agreement or disagreement is only slight.

Agree DisagreeStrongly A~ree Disagree Strongly

1. I usually maintain my ow~ opinionseven though many other people have adifferent point of view. / /

2. A civil service exam would be a betterway than an election campaign forchoosing our legislators. 1 1

3. The CIA is a very necess3ry agency __of our national gr"V'~'.·:lment. _/ /

4. When I'm in an argument, I usually __get my way. _1 /

5. I often become 50 wrapped up insomething I am doing that I find itdifficult to turn my attention to other __matters. _1 1

6. The businessman and the manufacturerare much more important to society __than the artist and the professor. _/ /

7. Elections are too heat£d for my taste. 1----1

1 /

1 1

1 1

1 I

1 1

/ 1

I I

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 /

/ /

1 I

1 /

1 I·

1 /

1 1

1 1

/ /

1 1

NoVJ

8. A good rule to follow is never totrust anyone compl~tely. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Page 5

Agree DisagreeStrongly Agree Disagree Strongly

19. I am often the last one to give uptrying to do a thing. / /

20. A man ~ho does not believe in somegr~at cause does not have a meaninsfullife. / /

21. The government in l~ashington ought tosee to it that everyone who wants a job __can find work. _/ /

22. In a social conversation. I frequentlyhave a definite idea and try to convi~ce

others. / /

23. You cannot really be sure whether anopinion is true or not unl~ss people are __free to argue against it. _/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

I /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ / .

/ /

24. I feel uncomfortable being laughedat. / / / / / / / /

25. Those who oppose the draft in theU:lited States should be prosecuted to thelinit of the law. / /

26. People who can't get others to likethem, don't understand how to get alongwith others. / /

27. If you start trying to change things __very much, you usually make them worse. _/ /

28. What the youth needs is strict

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ j

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

No~

Page 6

Agree DisagreeStrongly A~r~e Disagree Strongly

38. Most of our politicians in theco~unity are probably core interested inget".ing known than in serving the needsof ;heir constituents. 1 1

39. It is only human nature to bereluctant about cooperating with others. 1 I

40. ~~·life has generally worked out the __way I wanted it to. _1 1

41. Most people who don't get ahead just __don't have enough will-power. _1 1

1 I

1 /

1 /

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

/ /

/ I

I /

/ /'

42. One of the important lessons of lifeis that people put their own interestsfirst.

43. People like ~e don't have any sayabout what the govcrncent does.

44. It is self-defeating to eobarrassa political opponent needlessly.

45. People ought to cake clear tolegislators how they want the~ to vote.

46. ~ost of those who disagree with mypolitical views are sicply uninfo~ed.

1 1

1 1

1 1

I

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 /

/ 1

/ I

1 /

/ /

/ /

/ 1

1 /

I /

/ I

/ /

/ /

I I

/ / NoVl

47. Even if sooe oinority groups are __treated badly, it is no business of Dine. _1 1

----,- -- .....

1 / / / I . /

Page 7

Agree DisagreeStrongly Agre8 DisQgree Strongly

58. I dislike chancing oy plans in themidst of an undertaking. / / / / / / / /

59. People can be divided into two distinctclasses: the weak and the strong. / /

60. The findings of science may so~~dayshow that many of our most cherished beliefsare wrong. / /

61. I'm almost nev~r impolite to p~ople. / /

/ /

/ /

/ /

/ /

I /

/ /

/ /

/ /

I /

62. Special interests are usuallyagainst the public interest. / / / / / / / /

63. ~fucn a person has a proble~ or worry,it is best for hin not to think about it,but to keep busy with core cheerful things./ /

64. On the whole, I usually like to beby myself rather than with other people. / /

65. The most ~portant things to ~e aremy duties to my fellcw oan and oy job. /----/

66. In a better age, we will be able todo without politicians. / /

67. A person who hides behind the lawswhen he is questioned about his ~ctivities

doesn't deserve much consideration. / I

68. In order to get noninated, cost..... .... _- r ,':_.1 __ ' _.&:~.f,...n h"':":l'1'.' t-n

/ 7

/ /

/ /

/ /

I I

/ /

/ /

1 /

/ j

I I

/ /

/ /

/ /

/---r

I /

No0'

•

Page 8

Agr~e DisagreeStrongly Af.rce Disagree Strongly-

80. I don't mina 2 pOlitician's m~thods

if he get's the right things done. f 1

81. It's good politics to praise youropponents when you can. 1 1

82. In a discussion I often find itnecessary to r~peat nyself several timesto make sure I am being understood. 1 1

83. It is hard for oe to find anythingto talk about when I oect a n~w person. 1 1

84. On a numb~r of local d2cisions, Ihave exerted some influence. 1 1

85. Most politicians are in politicsto be of public service. 1 1

86. I believe that pronptn~ss is a ver.yimportant personality ch~ractcristic. / 1

87. Occupation by a foreign power isbetter than war. 1 1

8S. If you trust people and l~t themknow it, they will very seldom disappoint __you. _1 1

1 /

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

/ 1

1 /

/ /

/ /

1 1

1 1

1 1

I I

1 1

I-=-,I

I j

j I

I 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1 •

1 I

1 1

1 1

1 I

I INo'-J

89. I like to be able to plan a setroutine for oy daily wark.

L: __ .. \...._

1 1 I I I -' I. I

Page 9

Agre~ Dis~gree

Strongly Agree Disagree Strongly

100. If w~ could only uncover thee, wewculd find th~re are quite a f~w Co~~u-

nip'.s in th~ national governr.lcnt. I I

101. I don't think public officials caremuch about what people like m~ think. I I

102. It's wrong for people to put pres-sure on legislators to vote their way. I I

103. Those people who hate our way of lifeshould have a chance to speak and be heard.1 I

104. If a local problee that interestedma arose, I would try to influence the .decision. / I

105. In politics, it's every nan forhimself. I I

106. Politicians are usually "bitterlyattacking" or "reacting violently." I I

1 I

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 "

1 _I

I /

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

/ /

1 1

I 1

/ I·

1 1

I 1

1 I

107. If it were possible, societyreally ~ould be better off to abolishindustrialization and return to smallto~~s and sinEle-family fares.

108. All ~jor interests in our nationare equally worthy of consideration.

109. The rich deserve to hav~ what they~- '---------- .t... ......... .- •• ..."" .. ., 'h.~,,_"') M1"'\'r";:) ~hi'it.v

I I

1 1

1- 1

1 1

/ 1

1 1

1 1

/ 1

NoO:l

Page 10

PART III. In this section, assuoe for the moment that you are a typicellegislator of the State of Hawaii, a member of the StateSenate or House of Repres~ntatives. You should disregardyour own fe~lin8s, t~npor~rily, and answer these questionsas you assume a typical legislator would. The point of thesequestions is to see whether citizens understand how thetypical legislator sees things.

How do you think a legislator would answer the followingquestions if he were giv~n a questionnaire like this one?

Agree Disagrea

1. A civil service exao would be a b~tter way than anelection campaign for choosing our legislators.

2. Elections are too heated for ey taste.

/ /

/ /

1 /

/ /

3. It is quite natural to get opposing opinions from thesame set of facts. / / I /

4. You cannot really ,be sure whether an opinion is true ornot unless people are free to argue against it. /----/

5. I feel uncomfortable being laughed at.

6. A man who won't compromise isn't a good citizen.

/ /

j /

/ /

/ /

/ /

7. It's better to settle issues somehow than to get theesettled absolutely correctly. / / / /

8. It is self-defeating to embarrass a political oppon­ent needlessly.

9. People ought to make clear to legislators how theywant them to vote.

/--,

/ /

/ /

/ /

No\.0

Page 11

Agree Disagree

31. All major interests in our nation are equally worthyof consideration. / /

22. I like to be able to plnn n sct routine for my dailywork. 1 1

26. If I really wanted a law passed, it would be cowardlyto accept a watered-do.vu version of it. 1 1

30. Politicians arc usually "bitterly attacklng ll orlireacting violently." 1 /

1 /

1 1

1 /

/ /

/ 1

1 1

1 1

/ /

/ /

1 /

N

/ /t-->0

/ 1

. .

1 1

1 1

1 1

/ /

1 /

23. All elections ought to be nonpartisan.

24. I get along with persons from all levels of society.

25. l~en I get home from work, I like to forget my job and __relax. _1 /

27. It's wrong for people to put pressure on legislators __to vote their way. _1 1

28. Those people who hate our way of life should have a __chance to spc3k and be heard. ~

tancc.

29. In politics, it's every man for hioself.

~b Th~ T~rnTn~ of le~islators are too little known to the

32. I'd rather stand off and look at events froe a dis-

33. The oajor aio of government is efficiency.

Page 12

2. I have won ny first election to the Hawaii legislature, and the session hasjust opened. A bill is up for discussion. I aD by no neans an expert on thebill, but I have a little knowledge and support it. I will ••

a. gain the floor and deliver a speech favoring the bill.b. offer an aDendment intended to strengthen the bill.c. info~ally suggest to other supporters that I might not vote for

the bill so they ~y be encouraged to offer me something in returnfor ny support.

d. keep quiet and vote for the bill.

3. At a private dinner party, I find that I have been seated next to a longtime political enemy with whom I have been feuding recently. I will ••.•

a. quietly request the hostess to seat me elsewhere.b. sit next to my political enemy and be polite but cold.c. sit elsewhere "by mistake. 1I

d. sit next to my political enemy and use the occasion to get ongood terms with him.

e. sit next to oy political enemy and use the occasion to embarrasshio.

4. A letter comes into my office written in pencil and in very bad graornar.It requests information that will take some ti~e to collect. I will ••••

a. have my secretary return a form letter directing the writer toanother source.

b. have ny secretary obtain the infornation and write a full reply.c. ignore the letter, unless I happen to knotl the person who wrote it.d. put the letter aside; if more come in on the same subject, it

will be worth the time to send out the information all at once.e. forward the letter to the proper government bureau and ask them

to handle it.

5. Mr. Jones is a lobbyist with whom I am friendly ::md tvho has helped me a few

t

""

Nt-'t-'

Page 13

THANK YOU FOR ACTING OUT THE PART OF A TYPICAL LEGISLATOR. Not-l JUSTA FEW QUESTIONS j\BOUT YOURSELF.

1. Hale.Female.----"

. 2. Please indicate the category of education that applies to you.

______Less than high school.____~High school._______College, but not a graduate._______College graduate.

3. How many years have you lived in Hawaii?

4. What is your r~gu1ar occupation? (Please be specific, as insurancesalesman, engin~er, housewife, and so forth.)

5. Haw many brother and sisters were (are) there in your family?

6. Were (are) you the oldest?

Yes.----No.----7. In what age category do you belong?

______20-30 (or below 20)______31-40

t..1-r:;n

Nto-'N

APPENDIX III

VARIABLE AND ATTRIBUTE DEFINITIONS

The following definitions explain the variables andattributes that have been obtained from coding the question­naires. These definitions cover all the usages in the text.Abbreviations are used in tables and figures and are givenin capitals following the longer variable name.

1. Held office in political organization (HELOFF).Question 1.7.

2. Acquainted with legislator (ACQLEG). Question 1.8.

3. Possibility of running for office (POSOFF).Question 3.17.

4. Issue active (ISSACT). Question 3.18. 1 The numberof issues were not counted for this score, whichwas dichotomous.

5. Sex (SEX). Question 13.1.

6. Years lived in Hawaii (RESIDE). The first computerrun with the respondents was made with the break atthree years and below and over three years, but this

_did not divide the respondents evenly. The finaldivision was less than ten years and ten years ormore.

7. Eldest or only child (ELDONL). This attribute wastaken from Quest~ons 13.5-6.

8. Empathic job (EMPJOB). The occupation question, 13.4,prov~ded no distinctions among the respondents whenit was scored to provide a measure of class distinction.Nearly all the respondents were either professionals,college students, or housewives (often with highereducation). Therefore, the occupations were categorizedby the researcher on the basis of his intuitive notion

1By an error, this question was not numbered on the

questionnaire, but this did not appear to affect theanswers of respondents.

214

as to whether they were "socializing" professions orjobs that dealt in the main with things or ideas. Theformer were called empathic professions. The follow­ing list shows the distinctions that were made.Some of the choices may not be happy ones, and thisvariable ought to be experimented with:

Empathic occupations = 1

SecretaryAdministrationNurseAttorneySalesman, customer representative,

representative of a companyPsychiatristSocial workPhysician

Nonempathic occupations = 0

UnemployedDraftsmanEditorStudentProfessorLibrarianInvestment officerTeacherHousewifeEngineerArchitectPharmacistGovernment employeePublisherUnion office workerAccountantFinance company managerBusinessmanAdvertising

9. Ego strength (EGOSTG).

4. When I'm in an argument, I usuallyget my own way.

22. In a social conversation, Ifrequently have a definite ideaand try to convince others.

32 agrees

47

110.

74.

116.

I'd rather stand off and look atevents from a distance. (Reflected)2

I enjoy political arguments.

I'm the kind of person who getshis share of good luck.

53

57

60

215

CR (Coefficient of Reproducibility) = .90MMR (Minimum marginal reproducibility) = .73

10. Radicalism, left (RADICL).

69. I admire Fidel Castro.

10. The United States ought to withdrawimmediately from Vietnam.

20 agrees

31

3. The CIA is a very necessary agencyof our national government. (Reflecte~ 33

90. Socialism might be good for theUnited States. 34

36. A guaranteed annual income for everyfamily in the United States would bea worthwhile experiment. 42

25. Those who oppose the draft in theUnited States should be prosecutedto the limit of the law. (Reflected) 54

100. If we could only uncover them, wewould find there are quite a fewCommunists in the national govern-ment. (Reflected) 55

107. If it were possible, society reallywould be better off to abolish in­dustrialization and return to smalltowns and single-family farms.(Reflected) 61

CR = .92MMR = .67

2That is, the reverse of the ~uestion was enteredinto the scale, so that "disagrees' were actually talleyedas "agrees"; in other words, a "disagree" indicated "egostrength."

216

11. Flexibility (FLEXBL).

86. I believe that promptness is a veryimportant personality characteristic.(Reflected) 20 agrees

89. I like to be able to plan a setroutine for my daily work.(Reflected) 36

31. I usually check more than once tobe sure that I have locked a door,put out the light, or something ofthat sort. (Reflected) 46

76. Sometimes I support principles Idon't entirely agree with. 47

73. There is usually only one best wayto solve most problems. (Reflected) 60

CR = .89MMR = .68

12. Faith-in-people (FAITHP).

49. Very few people are dishonest. 33 agrees

85. Most politicians are in politicsto be of public service. 44

88. If you trust people and let themknow it, they will very seldomdisappoint you. 48

17. Even though people are not alwaysable to help you, most of them meanto be helpful. 58

77. The world just would not work withouttrust. 61

CR = .89MMR = .71

13. Equality (EQUAL).

55. There should be no restriction exceptone's own ability upon the amount ofmoney one may honestly acquire.(Reflected) 22 agrees

217

13. Equality (EQUAL). (continued)

21. The government in Washington oughtto see to it that everyone whowants a job can find work

37. The trouble with democracy is thatmost people don't really know whatis best for them. (Reflected)

109. The rich deserve to have what theydo because they usually have moreability than poor people.(Reflected)

33. If a person is poor in thiscountry it is usually his ownfault. (Reflected)

13. Wealth in the United States isdistributed about as equally asit should be. (Reflected)

CR = .90MMR = .75

14. Sociability (SOCIAL).

93. No matter how hard you try, somepeople just don't like you.

- (Reflected)

46 agrees

48

53

59

62

10 agrees

79. In a group I usually take theresponsibility for getting peopleintroduced. 31

64. On the whole, I usually like to beby myself rather than with otherpeople. (Reflec ted) 54

83. It is hard for me to find anythingto talk about when I meet a newperson. (Reflected) 58

CR = .94MMR = .75

15. Innovativeness (INNOVT).

36. A guaranteed annual income for everyfamily in the United States would bea worthwhile experiment. 42 agrees

15. Innovativeness (INNOVT). (continued)

29. I'd want to know that somethingwould really work before I'd bewilling to take a chance on it.(Reflected)

27. If you start trying to change thingsvery much, you usually make themworse. (Reflected)

32. It is better to stick by what youhave than to be trying new thingsyou really don't know about.(Reflected)

CR = .94MMR = .80

16. Humanitarianism (HUMANE).

87. Occupation by a foreign power isbetter than war.

56. One way to deter men from crime isto make them suffer for theircrime. (Reflected)

71. Compulsory military training inpeacetime is essential for thesurvival of this country.(Reflected)

70. The death penalty is barbaric, andit should be abolished where itstill exists.

CR = .90MMR = .65

218

57 agrees

61

63

16 agrees

36

45

46

17. Political cynicism (POLCYN).

80. I don't mind a politician's methodsif he gets the right things done 10 agrees

85. Most politicians are in politicsto be of public service. (Reflected) 26

30. Money is the most important influenceon public affairs. 28

17. Political cynicism (POLCYN). (continued)

72. The people who really run thiscountry are not even known to thevoters.

-6~ In order to get nominated, most

candidates for political officehave to make basic compromises andundesirable commitments.

CR = .89MMR = .64

18. Political efficacy (POLEFF).

84. On a number of local decisions, Ihave exerted some influence.

9. Sometimes politics and governmentseem so com~licated that a personlike me can t really understandwhat's going on. (Reflected)

101. I don't think public officials caremuch about what people like methink. (Reflected)

11. Voting is the only way people likeme can have any say about how thegovernment runs things. (Reflected)

CR = .91MMR = .72

219

30 agrees

39

35 agrees

52

55

59

19.

20.

8.7.

Participation index ~PARTIC). Questions 1.1-1.6 werescored zero, "never,' to three, "Yes, very often," andthe sum formed a participation index. Scores of 8+3were "high" (=1), those below were "low" (=0) for thedichotomized variable.

Political influencet self (INFSEL). Question 1.9 wasscored from one, "a most none," to five, "a lot." Thedichotomous variable was divided 4+ "high" and below,"low."

3The 8+ means response "8" and responses larger thanThe "low" would then be responses ranging from 0 through

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

220

Interest in political affairs (POLINT). Question 2.10was scored from one, "almost none," to five, "a lot."The dichotomy was formed by dividing the respondentsat 5+, "high," and below 5, "low."

Political influence one would like (ASPIRE). Question2.11 was scored from one, "don't really care," to four,"a lot more." The dichotomy was formed by dividingrespondents at 3+, "high," and below 3, "low."

Influence of the Hroup (INFGRP~. Question 2.12 wasscored from one, almost none, ' to five, "a lot."For the dichotomous variable, 4+ was "high," below4 was "low."

Advocacy of chan~ (CHANGE). Question 2.13 was scoredtrom zero, "no change," to ten, "the greatest amount ofpolitical change you can imagine." The dichotomousvariable was divided at the integer nearest the mean ofthe combined groups. Scores of 8+ became "high," scoresbelow 8 became "low." Question 2.14 was added in orderto provide a check on the ladder value. Since it wasfound to correlate .73 with Question 2.13, the laddervalue was regarded as having accurately tapped thedegree of change indicated by the verbal question,and the latter was dropped in the further analysis asredundant.

Success-you would have (SUCSEL). Question 2.15 wasscored trom one, "almost no success," to four, "agood deal of success." The dichotomy was formed at3+, "high," below 3, "low."

26. Success group would have (SUCGRP). Question 2.16was scored trom one, "almost no success," to four,"a good deal of success." The dichotomy was formedat 3+, "high," and below 3, "low."

27. Political knowledge index (POLKNO). Questions 3.20­3.26 were scored one for each completely correctanswer and summed to give a political knowledgescore. The dichotomous variable was formed at 6+,"high," below 6, "low."

28. Behavior-in-situation score (BSCORE). Questions11.1-12.6 were scored correct if the respondentcorrectly indicated the same behavior in the situationthat had been determined by the consensus of thelegislators. The dichotomous variable was formed at4+, "high," and below 4, "low."

29.

30.

31.

32.

221

Ro1e-takin~ accurac~ (ROLEAC). Questions 10.1-11.35were summe for eac respondent according to the numberof res~onses he checked that coincided with the legis­lators consensus. The dichotomous variable wasformed by dividing the entire group of respondentsnear the mean: 28+, "high," below 28, "low."

Assumed simi1arita (ASSUME). Questions 10.1-11.35were also include among the scale questions, pages4-9 of the questionnaire, where they were answeredby the respondent for himself. The sum of theanswers for the scale-located questions that matchedthe answers the respondent gave as if he were thelegislator became the assumed similarity score. Thedichotomous variable was formed by dividing the entiregroup of respondents near the mean: 27+, "high,"below 27, "low."

Actual similarity (ACTUAL). The scale-located rolequestions that were answered in the same direction asthe legislators' own consensual responses were summedto give an actual similarity score. The dichotomousvariable was formed by dividing the group near themean: 28+, "high," below 28, "low."

Disownin -assimilative ro·ection score (PROJEC).T e ro e-ta ~ng ~tems t at were ~ncorrect were recordedfor each respondent. Wrong guesses in which therespondent indicated similarity between himself and thelegislator were scored as assimilative projection,while those in which the respondent indicated a dif­ference between himself and the legislator were scoredas disowning ?rojection. A projection score wasobtained by subtracting the assimilative projectionscore from the disowning projection score and adding12 in order to provide positive scores for all in­dividuals. The dichotomous variable was formed bydividing the scores at the integer nearest the mean:14+, "high," below 14, "low."

The following example of the scoring should makethe procedure clear:

222

Respondent X

AccuracyAssumed similarityActual similarity

231521

Incorrectguesses

Similar toLegislator

Different fromLegislator

Item 456

101719202527293334

Total:

1

11

3

111111

1

11

9

33.

34.

35.

Disowning projection 9Assimilative projection 3

Final PROJEC score: 9 - 3 = 6; 6 + 12 = 18.

tge (AGE). ~uestion 13.7. The dichotomy was formedy age 41+, 'high," below 41, "low," or young.

resent influence and desire for influencePG P. T e raw score or uest~on . , present

political influence, was subtracted from Question 2.11,desire for political influence, and if the remainderwas a positive integer, ASPGAP was "high," while anegative integer or zero was "low."

Index for authoritarianism (FINDEX). The items forauthoritarianism scaled for the pilot study, but therespondents for the final study were simply notauthoritarian enough to provide an appropriate Guttmanscale, even though CR = .89 and MMR = .77. Therefore,respondents who agreed with two or more items of eight(Questionnaire items 14, 28, 41, 50, 51, 67, 23­reflected, and 25-reflected) were scored "high," those

223

agreeing with one or none of the items were scored"low" in authoritarianism.

36. Index for apolitical tendency (APOLIT). In an attemptto scale some of the items among the role questionstogether, two tentative scales were formed, APOLIT andtwo others which were called "political toughness" and"political flexibility." High CR's were obtained be­cause of the large consensus among respondents forthese items. Therefore, two tentative scales weredropped, and the items of APOLIT (Questionnaire items66, 74-reflected, 76-reflected, and 110) were scoredfor each respondent. Any respondent with a singleagree was scored "high" for APOLIT.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almond, Gabriel A., The Appeals of Communism, Princeton,N. J., Princeton University Press, 1954.

and Sidney Verba, The Civic Culture, Princeton,N. J., Princeton University Press, 1963.

Anikeeff, Alexis M., "Reciprocal Empathy: Mutual Under­standing among Conflict Groups," Studies in HigherEducation, Purdue University, Division of EducationalReference, No. LXXVII (August 1951), 1-48.

Astin, Helen S., "Assessment of Empathic Ability by Meansof a Situational Test," Journal of Counselin~Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 1 (January 1967), 5 -60.

Bates, Frederick L., "Position, Role, and Status: AReformulation of Concepts," Social Forces, Vol. 34,No.4 (May 1956), 313-321.

Bell, Graham B. and Harry E. Hall, Jr., "The Relationshipbetween Leadership and Empathy," The Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 49, No. 1 (January1954), 156-157.

and Rhoda Stolper, "An Attempt at Va1idati.on of---"""th"-e- Empathy test," The Journal of ApE1ied Psychology,

Vol. 39, No.6 (December 1955), 442-443.

Bender, I. E. and A. H. Hastorf, "On Measuring GeneralizedEmpathic Ability (Social Sensitivity)," The Journal ofAbnormal and Social pstcho10gy , Vol. 48, No. 4(October 1953), 503-50 .

and , "The Perception of Persons: Fore-casting Another Person's Responses on ThreePersonality Scales," The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 45, No. 3 (July 1950), 556-561.

Berkowitz, Leonard, "The Judgmental Process in PersonalityFunctioning," Psnchologica1 Review, Vol. 67, No.2(March 1960), 13 -142.

Ber1ew, David E., "Interpersonal Sensitivity and MotiveStrength," The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 63, No. 2 (September 1961), 390-394.

225

Bieri, James, "Cognitive Complexity--Simplicity andPredictive Behavior," The Journal of Abnormal andSocial Psychology, Vol. 51, No. 2 (November 1955),263-268.

Blalock, Hubert M., Social Statistics, New York, McGraw­Hill, 1960.

Blanchard, William A., "Assimilation and Contrast in Inter­personal prediction with control for the interactionof real similarity and differential accuracy," Journalof personalit~ and Social Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 5(May 1966), 5 7-573.

Bronfenbrenner, Urie, John Harding and Mary Gallwey,"The Measurement of Skill in Social Perception,"David C. McClelland, Alfred L. Baldwin, UrieBronfenbrenner, and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Talent andSociety, Princeton, N. J., D. Van Nostrand Company,1958, pp. 29-111.

Brmvn, James C., "An Experiment in Role-taking," AmericanSociological Review, Vol. 17, No.5 (October 1952),581-597.

Buchheihler, Arnold, "The Development of Ideas AboutEmpathy," Journal of Counseling Psychology, Vol. 10,No.1 (Spr1ng 1963), 61-70.

Buros, Oscar Krisen, The Fifth Mental Measurements Yearbook,Highland Park, N. J., 1959.

Cameron, Norman, The Psychology of Behavior Disorders,Boston, New York, Chicago, ballas, Atlanta, SanFrancisco, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1947.

Campbell, Donald T., "An Error in some Demonstrations ofthe Superior Social Perceptiveness of Leaders," TheJournal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. ~No. 3 (November 1955), 694-695.

Cantril, Hadley and William Buchanan, How Nations See EachOther, Urbana, Ill., University of Illinois Press,1953. 443-469.

Cattell, Raymond B., "The Dimensions of Cultural Patternsby Factorization of National Characters," The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 44, No. 4(October 1949).

_____~__, The Scientific Analysis of Personality, Baltimore,Md., Penguin Books, 1965.

226

Chamber of Commerce, Hawaii, Who's Who in Government,State of Hawaii, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1967.

Chance, June E. and Wilson Meaders, "Needs and Inter­personal Perception," Journal of Personality, Vol. 28,No.2 (June 1960), 200-209.

Chin, Robert, "The Utility of System Models and Develop­mental Models," Jason L. Finkle and Richard W. Gable,Political Development and Social Change, New York,John ~iley and Sons, 1966, pp. 7-18.

Cline, Victor B., and James M. Richards, Jr., "Accuracyof Interpersonal Perception--a General Trait?"Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 60,No. 1 (January 1960), 1-7.

and , "Components of Accuracy of Inter-personal Perception Scores and the Clinical andStatistical Prediction Controversy," The Ps~chological

Record, Vol. 12, No.4 (October 1962), 373- 81.

Cohent

Edwin, liThe Methodology of Notcutt and Silva'sKnowledge of other People': A Critique," The Journal

of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 1(January 1953), 155.

Comrey, Andrew L. and Edward Levonian, "A Comparison ofThree Point Coefficients in Factor Analyses of MMPItems," Educational and Ps!chological Measurement,Vol. XVllI, No. 4 (Winter 958), 739-755.

Cottrell, Leonard S., Jr., and Rosalind F. Dymond, "TheEmpathic Responses, A Neglected Field of Research,"Psychiatry, Vol. 12, No.4 (November 1949), 355-359.

Couch, Carl J., "Self-Attitudes and Degree of Agreementwith Immediate Others," The American Journal ofSociology, Vol. LXIII, No. 5 (March 1958), 491-496.

Coutu, Walter, "Role-playing vs. Role-taking: an Appeal forClarification," American Sociological Review, Vol. 16,No.2 (April 1951), 180-187.

Cowden, Richard C., "Empathy or Projection?" Journal ofClinical Psychology, Vol. XI, No.2 (April 1955),188-190.

Crockett, W. H., and Meidinger, Thomas, "Authoritarianismand Interpersonal Perception," The Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 3 (November 1956),378-380.

227

Cronbach, Lee J., "Processes Affecting Scores on 'Under­standing of Others' and 'Assumed Similarity, '"Ps~chological Bulletin, Vol. 52, No.3 (May 1955),17 -193.

and Goldine C. GIeser, "Assessing Similaritybetween Profiles," The Pst:chological Bulletin, Vol. 50,No.6 (November 1953), 45 -473.

Crow, Wayman J. and Kenneth R. Hanunond, "The Generalityof Accuracy and Response Sets in InterpersonalPerception," The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 54, No. 3 (May 1957), 384-390.

Daane, Calvin J. and Louis G. Schmidt, "Empathy andPersonality Variables," Journal of EducationalResearch, Vol. 51, No.2 (October 1957), 129-135.

Dymond, Rosalind F., ,~ Preliminary Investigation of theRelation of Insight and Empathy," Journal of Con­sUltin~ Psychology, Vol. XII, No. 4 (july-August 1948),228-23 .

, "A Scale for the Measurement of Empathic Ability,"----~j-ou-rnal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 13, No.2

(April 1949), 127-133.

, "Personality and Empathy," Journal of Consulting----~P~sy-chology, Vol. 14, No.5 (October 1950), 343-350.

, Anne S. Hughes, and Virfiinia L. Raabe, "Measurable-----=Ch~a-nges in Empathy with Age, I Journal of Consulting

Psychology, Vol. 15, No.3 (June 1952), 202-206.

Edwards, Allen L., "Four Dimensions in Political Stereotypes,"The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 35,No. 4 (October 1940), 566-572.

Festinger, Leon, "A Theory of Social Comparison Processes,"Human Relations, Vol. VII, No.2 (1954), 117-140.

Fiedler, Fred E., "The Psychological-Distance Dimension inInterpersonal Relations," Journal of Personality,Vol. 22, No.1 (September 1953), 142-150.

228

Fleishman, Edwin A., and James A. Salter, "Relationbetween the Leader's Behavior and his Empathy towardSubordinates," Journal of Industrial Psychology,Vol. 1, No.3 (September 1963), 79-84.

Foa, Uriel G., "Empathy or Behavioral Transparency?"The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.56, No. 1 (January 1958), 62-66.

Friedman, C. Jack, and John W. Gladden, "ObjectiveMeasurement of Social Role Concepts via The SemanticDifferential," Ps~cholo~ical Reports, Vol. 14, No.1(February 1964), 39-24.

Gage, N. L., "Explorations in the Understanding of Others,"Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 13,No. 1 (Spring, 1953), 14-26.

and Lee J. Cronbach, "Conceptual and Methodological--.....P~r~o-.blems in Interpersonal Perception," Psychological

Review, Vol. 62, No.6 (November 1955), 411-422.

, George S. Leavitt, and George C. Stone, "The-----=I-n~termediarr. Key in the Analysis of Interpersonal

Perception, ' Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 53, No.3(May 1956), 258-266.

Galtung, Johan, Theorl and Methods of Social Research,New York, Co1umb~a University Press, 1967.

Goffman, Erving, Encounters, Indianapolis, Ind., The Bobbs­Merrill Company, 1961.

Gornpertz, Kenneth, "The Relation of Empathy to EffectiveCorranunication," Journalism Quarterly, Vol. 37, No.4(Autumn 1960), 533-546.

229

Gullahorn, Jeanne E. and John T. Gullahorn, "The Utilityof Applying both Guttman and Factor Analysis toSurvey Data," Sociometry, Vol. 31, N(J. 2 (June 1968),213-218.

Hall, Dennis R., Research Report No. 14, The Dimensionalityof Nations Project, Honolulu, Hawaii, 1968.

Halpern, Howard W'i

"Empathy, Similarity, and Self­Satisfaction, ' Journal of Consulting Psychology,Vol. 19, No.6 (December 1955), 449-452.

Harman, Harry H., Modern Factor Analysis, Chicago andLondon, University of Chicago Press, 1967.

Hastorf, A. H. and I. E. Bender, "A Caution Respectingthe Measurement of Empathic Ability," The Journal ofAbnormal and Social Ps3cholo,t' Vol. 4/, No. 2(Supplement) (April 19 2), 5 ~-576.

, , and D. J. Weintraub, "The Influence---o""£'""":Response Patterns on the 'Refined Empathy Score, '"

The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 51.,(September 1955), 341-343.

Hawkes, Glenn R. and Robert L. Egbert, "Personal Valuesand the Empathic Response: Their Inter-relationships,"The Journal of Educational ps~chology, Vol. 45,No. 7 (November 1954), 469-47 .

Hero, Alfred 0., Americans in World Affairs, Boston,The World Peace Foundations, 1955.

Hobart, Charles W. and Nancy Fahlberg, "The Measurementof Empathy," The American Journal of Sociology,Vol. LXV, No. 5 (March 1965), 595-603.

Howard, Kenneth I., and Hermann I. Diesenhaus, "Directionof Measurement and Profile Similarity," MultivariateBehavioral Research, Vol. 2, No.2 (April 1967),225-237.

Hyman, Herbert, Survey Design and Analysis, New York,The Free Press, 1955.

230

Katz, Robert L., Empathy: Its Nature and Uses, Glencoe,Ill., The Free Press of Glencoe, 1963.

Kerlinger, Fred N., Foundations of Behavioral Research,New York, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1964.

Kerr, W. A. and B. J. Speroff, The Em~athY Test, Chicago,Ill., Psychometric Affiliates, 1 54.

Lerner, Daniel, The Passing of Traditional societ~,

Glencoe, Ill., Collier-Macmillan Lim~ted, 19 8.

Leventhal, Howardt

"Cognitive Processes and InterpersonalPredictions, ' The Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, Vol. 55, No. 2 (September 1957), 176-180.

Levinson, Daniel J., "Role, Personality, and SocialStructure in the Organizational Setting," The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 58, No. 2(March 1959), 170-180.

Lindesmith, Alfred R., and Anselm L. Strauss, SocialPsychology, New York, The Dryden Press, 1956.

Lindgren, Henry Clay and Jacqueline Robinson, "AnEvaluation of Dymond's Test of Insight and Empathy,"Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 17, No.2(April 1953), 172-17 .

Longsbaugh, Richard, "The Structure of InterpersonalBehavior," Sociometry, Vol. 29, No.4 (December 1966),441-460.

McCall, George J. and J. L. Simmons, Identities andInteractions, New York, The Free Press, 1966.

McClelland, William A., "A Preliminary Test of Role­Playing Ability," Journal of Consulting Psychology,Vol. 15, No.2 (April 1951), 102-108.

McClosky, Herbert, "Consensus and Ideology in AmericanPolitics," The American Political Science Review,Vol. LVIII, No. 2 (June 1964), 361-382.

McConaughy, John B., "Certain Personality Factors ofState Legislators in South Carolina," The AmericanPolitical Science Review, Vol. XLIV, No. 4(December 1950), 897-903.

231

Mahoney, Stanley C. and Charles A. Auston, "The EmpathyTest and Self-Awareness of Kuder Interest Pattern,"Ps~cho1o~ica1 Reports, Vol. 4, No. 3 (September19 8), 4 2.

Marwe11, Gerald, "Problems of Operational Definitions of'Empathy,' 'Identification, r and Related Concepts,"The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 63, FirstHalf (June 1964), 87-102.

Matthews, Donald R., "The Folkways of the United StatesSenate: Conformity to Group Norms and LegislativeEffectiveness," The American Political ScienceReview, Vol. LIII, No. 4 (December 1959), 1064-1089.

, U.S. Senators and Their World, Chapel Hill,----~Un~iversity of North Carolina Press, 1960.

Mead, George H., Mind, Self, and Society, ed. by CharlesW. Morris, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press,1934.

Merton, Robert K., "Bureaucratic Structure and Personality,"Social Forces, Vol. 18, No.4 (May 1940), 560-568.

Miller, Clem, Member of the Housel edited by John W.Baker, New York, Charles Scr1bner's Sons, i962.

Murstein, Bernard I., "Some Cormnents on the Measurementof Projection and Empathy," Journal of ConsultingPsychology, Vol. 21, No.1 (February 1957), 81-82.

Newcomb, Theodore M. Personality and Social Change,New York, Dryden Press, 1943.

________ , Social Psychology, New York, Dryden Press, 1950.

Norman, Ralph D., "The Interrelationships among Acceptance­Rejection, Self-other Identity, Insight into Self,and Realistic Perception of Others," The Journal ofSocial Psychology, Vol. 37, Second Half (May 1953),205-235.

and Patricia Ainsworth, "The Relationships amongProjection, Empathy, Reality, and Adjustment,Operationally Defined," Journal of consu1tin~Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1 (February 1954),3-54.

232

Norman, Ralph D., and Wa1deman C. Leiding, "Relation­ship between Measures of Individual and MassEmpathy," Journal of Consulting Psychology, Vol. 20,No. I (February 1956), 79-82.

Notcutt, R. and A. L. M. Silva, "Knowledge of OtherPeople," The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,Vol. 46, No. 1 (January 1951), 30-37.

Pace, C. Robert, "A Situations Test to Measure Socia1­Political-Economic Attitudes," The Journal of SocialPsychology, Vol. 10, No.3 (August 1939), 331-344.

Patterson, C. H., "A Note on the Construct Validity ofthe Concept of Empathy," The Personnel and GuidanceJournal, Vol. XL, No.9 (May 1962), 803-806.

Powell, Reed M. and Associates, "An Experimental Studyof Role-taking, Group Status, and Group Formation,"Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 40, No. 3(January-February 1956), 159-165.

Empathy andInnovation,

Remmers, H. H., nA Quantitative Index of Social­Psychological Empathy," American Journal of Ortho­psychiatry, Vol. XX, No. 1 (January 1950), 161-165.

________, Introduction to Opinion and Attitude Measure­ment, New York, Harper and Brothers, 1954.

Robinson, William S., "Ecological Correlations and theBehavior of Individuals," American SociologicalReview, Vol. 15, No.3 (June 1950), 351-357.

Rodgers, David A., "Personality Correlates of SuccessfulRole Behavior," The Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. 46, first half (August 1957), 111-117.

Rogers, David A., "Relationship between Real Similarityand Assumed Similarity with Favorability Controlled,"The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol.59, No. 3 (November 1959), 431-433.

Rokeach, Milton, The Open and Closed Mind, New York,Basic Books, Inc., 1960.

233

Rosander, A. C., "An Attitude Scale Based upon BehaviorSituations," The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol.8, No.1 (February 1937), 3-15.

Rose, Arnold M., Human Behavior and Social Processes,Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962.

Rummel, Rudolph J., Applied Factor Analysis (forthcoming,1969).

Russett, Bruce M., Community and Contention: Britain andAmerica in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge, Mass.,M.l.T. Press, 1963.

Sarbin, Theodore R., "Role Theory," in Gardner Lindzey(editor), Handbook of Social Psychology, Reading,Mass., Addison-Wesley PUblishing Company, 1954,Vol. I, pp. 223-258.

---v;o........ ' "The Concept of Role-taking," Sociometry,Vol. VI, No.3 (August 1943), 273-285.

, and Donal S. Jones, "An Experimental Analysis---o""f-'Role Behavior," Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore

M. Newcomb, and Eugene L. Hartley, Readings in SocialPsychology, New York, Henry Holt and Company, 1958,pp. 465-lf:72.

Scheff, Thomas J., "Toward a Sociological Model ofConsensus," American Sociological Review, Vol. 32,No.1 (February 1967), 32-46.

Schelling, Thomas C., The Strateg~ of Conflict, New York,Oxford University Press, 19 .

Scheuch, Erwin K., "Cross-National Comparisons UsingAggregate Data: Some Substantive and MethodologicalProblems," Richard L. Merritt and Stein Rokkan,editors, Comearing Nations, New Haven and London,Yale Univers1ty Press, 1966, pp. 131-167.

Scode1, Alvin and Paul Mussen, "Social Perceptions ofAuthoritarians and Non-authoritarians," The Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol. 48, No. 2(April 1953), 181-184.

Selvin, Hanan C., "A Critique of Tests of Significancein Survey Research," American Socio10,ica1 Review,Vol. 22, No.5 (October 1957), 519-52 .

234

Siegel, Arthur I., "An Experimental Evaluation of theSensitivity of the Empathy Test," The Journal ofA~~lied Psychology, Vol. 38, No.4 (June 1954),2 -223.

Smith, Henry Clay, Sensitivity to People, New York,McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1966.

Smith, Thomas Vernor, The Legislative wa~ of Life,Chicago, The University of Chicago ress, 1940.

Smouse, Albert D., Morris Aderman, and Charles Van'Buskirk, "Three Empathy Measures as Correlates ofTest and Rating Criteria," Psr;chological Reports,Vol. 12, No.3 (June 1963), 8 3-809.

Spilka, Bernard and Marvin Lewis, "Empathy, AssimilativeProjection, and Disowning Projection," The ps~cholog­

ical Record, Vol. 9, No.3 (July 1959), 99-10 .

Stark, Stanley, "Role-taking, Empathic Imagination, andRorschach Human Movement Responses: A Review of TwoLiteratures," Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 23,No.1 (August 1966), 243-256.

Steiner, Ivan D., "Interpersonal Behavior as Influencedby Accuracy of Social Perception," PSlichologicalReview, Vol. 62, No.4 (July 1955), 2 8-273.

Stewart, David A., Preface to Empathy, New York,Philosophical Library, 1956.

Stone, G. C., N. L. Gage, and G. S. Leavitt, "Two Kindsof Accuracy in Predicting Another's Responses,"The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 45, SecondHalf (May 1957), 245-254.

Stotland, Ezra, and Robert E. Dunn, "Empathy, Self­Esteem, and Birth-order," The Journal of Abnormaland Social Psychology, Vol. 66, No. 6 (May 1963),532-540.

Stryker, Sheldon, "Conditions of Accurate Role-Taking:A Test of Mead's Theory," in Arnold M. Rose, HumanBehavior and Social Processes t Boston, HoughtonMifflin Company, 1962, pp. 41-62.

, "Role-taking Accuracy and Adjustment,"-----S~oc-iometry, Vol. 20, No.4 (December 1957), 286-296.

235

Taft, Ronald, "Accuracy of Empathic Judgments ofAcquaintances and Strangers," Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, Vol. 3, No. 5 (May 1966),600-604.

__-=........ ' "The Ability to Judge People," PsychologicalBulletin, Vol. 52, No.1 (January 1955), 1-23. .

Thurstone, L. L., Multiple-Factor Analysis, Chicago andLondon, The University of Chicago Press, 1947.

and E. J. Chave, The Measurement of Attitude,Chicago, Ill., The university of Chicago Press,1929.

Turner, Ralph H., "Role-Taking: Process Versus Conformity,"Arnold M. Ross, Human Behavior and Social Processes,Boston, Houghton M~ff1in Company, 1962, pp. 20-40.

, "Role-Taking, Role Standpoint, and Reference---G'='r-o-up Behavior," The American Journal of Sociology,

Vol. LXI, No.4 (January 1956), 316-328.

Vinacke, W. Edgar, The PSyChOlO,y of Thinking, New York,McGraw-Hill Book Company, nc., 1952.

Wahlke, John C and Heinz Eulau, editors, Le~islative

Behavior, The Free Press of Glencoe, I 1., 1959,pp. 294-298.

Wallen, Richard, "Individuals' Estimates of GroupOpinion," The Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 17,Second Half (May 1943), 269-274.

Wang, Charles R. A., "sug*ested Criteria for WritingAttitude Statements, ' The Journal of Social Psychology,Vol. III, No.3 (August 1932), 367-373.

Warren, Roland L., "Cultural, Personal, and SituationalRoles," Sociology and Social Research, Vol. 34,No.2 (Nov - Dec 1949), 104-111.

White, Leonard and Thomas Vernor Smith, Politics and PublicService, New York, Harper and Brothers publishers, 1939.

Yinger, J. Milton, Toward a Field Theory of Behavior,New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1965.