University of Nebraska at Omaha University of Nebraska at Omaha DigitalCommons@UNO Student Work 8-1-1969 Protestantism and anomia: A social psychological study Protestantism and anomia: A social psychological study Joel Charles Snell University of Nebraska at Omaha Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork Please take our feedback survey at: https://unomaha.az1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/ SV_8cchtFmpDyGfBLE Recommended Citation Snell, Joel Charles, “Protestantism and anomia: A social psychological study” (1969). Student Work. 354. https://digitalcommons.unomaha.edu/studentwork/354 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UNO. It has been accepted for inclusion in Student Work by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UNO. For more information, please contact unodigitalcommons@unomaha.edu. PROTESTANTISM AND ANOMIAj A SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL STUDY A Thesis Presented to the Department of Sociology and the Faculty of the College of Graduate Studies University of Nebraska at Omaha In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Sociology by Joel Charles Snell August 1969 UMI Number: EP72992 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI EP72992 Published by ProQuest LLC (2015). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 Accepted for the faculty of the College of Graduate Studies of the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts. Chairman Graduate Committee Department ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Dr. George Barger for his valuable time in assisting me throughout the entire thesis. Patiently, he assisted and advised me on nearly every criticism. For this I want to acknow ledge a respectful thanks. To Elaine Hess, who like Dr. Barger was patient and willing to offer assistance, I express my thanks. Her advice in research methods as well as information and assistance early in the research project were particularly valuable. To other members of the department Dr. George Helling, Dr. Wayne Wheeler, Mr. Kenneth Root, Mr. Philip Vogt, Mr. Robert Simpson, I want to express my appreciation for their willingness to discuss the various aspects of the thesis and their aid to my understanding of the research project. I would also like to thank Linda Harder for her skill in the final typing of this manuscript. Finally, I want to thank ray wife, Jennifer, as she helped me through some minor crises. I hope to repay her in the years that lie ahead. TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I. THEORETICAL ORIENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ……………………….. …… Religion and Social Cohesion ………………….. Ascetic Protestantism and Social Disorganization . . . Anomie and Anomia…………………………… Protestantism and Anomia……………………… Protestantism, Urbanism and Anomia……………. PAGE 1 1 4 10 13 15 Statement of the Hypotheses 0 o . o o ………0 . 16 Summary……………………. II. III. IVo SAMPLE AND METHODS……………………………. The Sample………………….. Data Collection………………………. The Questionnaire………………………….. Summary…………… FINDINGS…………………………………….. Hypothesis I….Q…………….. Hypothesis I I ……………………………… Hypothesis H I …………………………… Hypothesis IV . ………………….. Summary .o……….o#.. SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION…………… Summary…………. Interpretation ……………………………… …………….. 18 19 19 21 22 28 29 29 36 39 40 . • 44 45 45 45 55 Conclusion V CHAPTER PAGE SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY……………………………………. 59 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SROLE ANOMIA SCALE …………………. 62 SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PROTESTANTISM, ANOMIE AND ANOMIA……..64 APPENDIX A ………………………….. 65 APPENDIX B ……………………………………………. 70 APPENDIX C ……… . . 72 APPENDIX D . . o ………………………………………. 74 * V LIST OF TABLES TABLE I. Hollingshead’s Index of Social Position and Percentage PAGE of Population • ••••..••••••••••«••• 24 II. Number of Respondents Comprising Religious Affiliation and Sexual Status .. •••••••• 29 III. Number of Roman Catholics and Protestants and the Occurrence of Anomic-Eunomic Responses •••.•••• 31 IV. Number of Protestants and Roman Catholics from 18-22 and the Occurrence of Anomic and Eunomic Cases • • • • 31 V. Number of Protestants and Roman Catholics in Social Classes III and IV and the Occurrences of Anomic and Eunomic Cases o*.**************** VI. Number of Male Protestants and Roman Catholics and the 32 Occurrences of Anomic and Eunomic Cases ……… • 33 VII. Number of Female Protestants and Roman Catholics and the Occurrences of Anomic and Eunomic Cases ..•••••• 33 VIII. Ascetic Protestants and Roman Catholics and Number of Anomic and Eunomic Cases •••.••••o…… IX. Ascetic Protestants and Protestants and Comparison of 35 the Number of Anomic Cases •••••••••••••• 37 X. Protestants and Roman Catholics and Number of Anomic Cases . 0 • • ••••••••••••• •••••••• 37 XI. Active and Inactive Protestants (Religious Involvement) and Number of Anomic and Eunomic Cases ………. 39 TABLE XII# XIII# XIV. XV. XVI. XVII. PAGE Active Protestants and Active Roman Catholics and Number of Anomic and Eunomic Cases…………. ……….. Median Scores Obtained from Protestants and Roman 40 Catholics by Dean and Srole Scales #••••###.• 42 Roman Catholics and Protestants and Number of Anomic Cases as Measured by Dean Scale………………… Protestants and Roman Catholics and Number of Anomic Cases as Measured by Srole Scale………………. Dean and Srole Scales and Number of Anon&c Protestants 42 43 and Roman Catholics……… « • o ……….. • • • • 43 Comparison of Religion and Anomia Studies •••••••• 47-48 CHAPTER I THEORETICAL ORIENTATION AND REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Religion and Social Cohesion According to Emile Durkheim, the French sociologist, religion promotes group cohesion. ”The idea of society,M he noted, Mis the soul of religion.fl^ Durkheim continues* There can be no society which does not feel the need of upholding and reaffirming at regular intervals the collective sentiments and the collective ideas which make its unity and its personality. Now this moral remaking cannot be achieved except by means of reunions, assemblies, and meetings where the individuals, being closely united with one another, reaffirm in common their common differences.2 Not only does religion bind man with his fellow man, but Durkheim also emphasizes that religious participation provides meaning and psycho logical stability to the individual’s existence. He continues* In fact, … the real function of religion is not to make us think, to enrich our knowledge, not to add to the conceptions which we owe to science, others of another origin and another character, but rather it is to make us act, to aid us to live. The believer who has com munication with God is not merely a man who sees new truths of which the unbeliever is ignorant; he is a man who is stronger0 He feels within him more force, either to endure the trials of existence or to conquer them.3 ^Emile Durkheim, Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans. by John W. Swain (Glencoe* Free Press, 19^7)»p. 419. 2Ibid.. p„ 42?. 3Ibld.. p. 416. 2 One can see, then, Durkheim contends that religion binds men together and gives the individual believer social psychological stability. Not everyone, however, agrees directly with his theme0 Specifically, Max Weber, an early twentieth century German sociologist, implied that Prot estant religious systems generally did not bind men together nor neces- sarily make the believers psychologically stable0 Instead, Weber con tended that Protestant members repeatedly had to prove that they were capable of industriousness, thrift, wise use of time, strict ascetism and material success.^ By displaying these characteristics, individual Prot estants were able to maintain their social religious standing. Weber saysj These qualities were constantly and continually bred in him. For, like his bliss in the beyond, his whole social existence in the here and now depended upon proving* himself. The Catholic confession of sins was, to repeat, by comparison, a means of relieving the person from the tremendous internal pressure under which the sect member in his conduct was constantly held* Elsewhere the reader finds this: “The premiums were placed upon proving oneself before God in the sense of attaining one*s salvation. * * and 7 proving oneself before men. . .“ k Ho H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, From Max Weber. Essays in Sociology (New York* Oxford Press, 19&0, p. 320. Weber makes no direct references to group anomie or individual anomia. Therefore, cautious wording such as “implies” or “indirectly contends” will often be used when sources are derived from Weber. For, at the base of things, Weber*s concern lies not in the examination of social disorganization and individual psychological distance of Protestantism, but with the “ethic” and the “spirit” of the group which gave rise to Capitalism. Note the inferences on the same page which would lend evidence to the Protestant’s feeling of anomia and to structural anomie0‘ 5Ibido 6Ibid. 3 In other words, Weber saw the Protestant religion as an element that tended to isolate the individual in his relations to others. Though both scholars were looking at religion, one should note that Durkheim was looking at religious systems in general while Weber was looking specifically at the Protestant denominations of the l600fs. Weber made a further distinction by looking specifically at “ascetic o Protestants.” These included Calvinists, Pietists, Methodists, and Baptists, in contrast to Lutherans and Anglicans whose beliefs were closer to those of the Roman church. The Church of Rome, the Anglicans, and Lutherans were different from the ascetic Protestants in their inter pretation of the supernatural1s commands to man and in how that command 9 should be fulfilled. Roughly speaking, Lutherans, Anglicans, and Cath olics abided by the “calling” of God. This command from the Lord was that each man should fulfill his position in life0 The “calling” was neutral in the eyes of God, and a low position in this world did not mean a low evaluation by the supernatural. The poor were counseled to accept the Lord’s challenge of maintaining one!s position. Doing so would ensure them an equal place with all others in the life after death. The “call ing” could be fulfilled by withdrawal and adherence to a monastic life; however, acceptance of one’s calling was the Catholic’s, Anglican’s, and Lutheran’s main emphasis.On the other hand, ascetic Protestants g Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, trans. by Talcott Parsons (Londons G, Allen Ltd. , 194877 P« 89• 9Ibld.. p. 85. k believed some were elected by the Lord for eternal salvation, and the others were damned to hell* Those who would receive salvation were pre destined by the Lord; but indication of that salvation was the individuals behavior on earth. Therefore, the Protestant’s calling from the Lord was to work in the world and not to withdraw into monasticism. The Lord called for hard work, thrift, wise use of time, and if the individual followed these requirements and material gain came from this, it was taken to indicate salvation. Therefore, ascetic Protestants could acquire material goods and were encouraged to do so. However, material gain was not necessarily a favorable element in the Catholic tradition.^ Weber contends that the Protestant “ethic11 of hard work, thrift, and supernat ural sanctification of material gave rise to a “spirito*1 This spirit 12 facilitated the rise and success of a capitalistic economic system. Ascetic Protestantism and Social disorganization In Weber’s analysis of ascetic Protestantism, he found contradic tions in the social structure which he believed led to social disorgani- 13 zation0 This author is using the term social disorganization in a narrow sense. Earlier in this chapter it was discussed that Weber viewed 11Ibido. p. 83. 12This is the crux of Weber’s Protestant Ethic and Spirit-vof Capitalism. 13Ibid., p. 320. 5 Protestantism as a factor which inhibited group cohesion. The term social disorganization will be used only in the sense of lack of social cohesion. It is not meant to be used in the traditional sociological usage which would include the study of such areas as divorce, alcoholism, prostitu tion, etc. Eventually, anomie will be introduced in the historical devel opment of the word and will replace the term social disorganization. According to Weber, one of the byproducts of the social structure of the Protestant church which led to social disorganization was the over lapping of the religious and laity roles and the authority attached to 14 these roles. Within the Protestant church, many adult laity were poten tially ministers. As Weber notes* No spiritual authority could assume the community1s joint responsi bility before God. The weight of the lay elders was very great. • • However, the Independents, and even more the Baptists, signified a struggle against the domination of the congregation by the theolo gians. In exact correspondence this struggle led naturally at the clericalization of the lay members, who now took over the functions of moral control through self government, admonition, and possible excommunication. ^ He further notes that* “The Quakers have adhered to the principle that in religious assemblies anyone could speak, but he alone should speak who was moved by the Spirit. Hence no professional minister exists at all.”^ On the other hand, the Roman church, which appears as a better representative of Durkheim*s criterion of religious and social cohesion, seemed to have a consistent religious hierarchy of control from Pope to 14Ibid. 15Ibid., p. 317 and p. 320. ~^Ibid.. p. 317. 6 laity, and the roles of both theologian and laity were clear cut and 17 unambiguous. This structuring in the Roman church provided clearer procedural rules for interaction and clearer normative patterns for the members. This system helped to insure a cohesive bond among the members* both laymen and clerics knew what to expect from the other. The behavior 18 patterns for both groups were consistent and patterned. Not only did Weber find contrasts in the organization of roles between the Roman and ascetic Protestant churches but he also found dis crepancies in their emphasis on mobility. He indirectly indicates that Protestants, in contrast to Roman Catholics, were both intergenerationally 19 and intragenerationally more socially mobile. The mobility on the part of the Protestant members brought them into new positions and interaction patterns for which they were not 17Ibld., p. 320. 18Ibid. Ibid., pp. 35-78 and footnotes five and eight on p. 188 and p. 189o See contemporary studies which affirm Weber1s original statements. See* .Albert J. Mayer and Harry Sharp, “Religious Preference and Worldly Success,” American Sociological Review. 27 (April, 1962), pp. 218-227# Gerhard Lenski, The Religious Factor* A Sociologists Inquiry, (Garden City, New York* Doubleday and Company, 1961), Norval Glenn and Ruth Hyland, “Reli gious Preference and Worldly Success* Some Evidence from National Surveys,” American Sociological Review, 32 (February, 1962), pp. 73-85# Bernard C. Rosen, “Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement Syndrome,” American Socio logical Review, Zh (April, 1962), pp. ^7-60, Elton Jackson and Harry J. Crockett, “Occupational Mobility in the United States,” Unpublished Paper Presented at the American Sociological Association Meetir^s, 1962. Harold N. Organic, “Religious Affiliation and Social Mobility in Contem porary American Society,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, the Univer sity of Michigan, 1963. Neil J. Weller, “Religion and Social Mobility in Industrial Society,” Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, The University of Michigan, i960. James W. Crowley, “Religious Preference and Worldly Success: A Comparison of Protestants and Catholics,” Unpublished Master*s Thesis, The University of Omaha, 1967o 7 properly socialized. 20 One who is socialized among the poor learns the ways of poverty. These ways do not necessarily help one to adapt to social patterns of the higher classes. That is, the individual is a marginal man with values of one class, but with a social position of another class© Though a person does get “ahead,” his new social positions are strange and unfamiliar to him. His relations with members of the adjacent class can be difficult for him if he is not prepared for those 21 relationships. Among Roman Catholic children, role models and social standing were clearly illustrated in their daily existence by their parents 22 who were occupying positions that the children would some day occupy. Stability studies are not conclusive on how social mobility affects the psychic health of the individual. Typical American common sense and the “ethos” of the “American Dream” say the obvious byproduct of success is happiness and some studies suggest this to be accurate. Srole in his Manhattan Study (Leo Srole, Mental Health in the Metropolis. New York: Basic Books Inc., Publishers, 195^)» found on the whole healthier adoles cents “tend to be more heavily drawn into the traffic of upward-moving adults,” p0 220. E. Douvain and Joseph Adelson, “The Psychodynamics of Social Mobility in Adolescent Boys.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psych ology. (January, 1958), PP« 31-*^p also suggest the same conclusion. But Robert K0 Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Free Press, 19^9)t pp. 125-133» suggests that “pecuniary success” is not always a good thing and that much of the population makes adaptation to reduce the psychic anxiety of continually pushing upward socially. Stouffer and his asso ciates found that a high rate of mobility leads to high hopes of promo tion and that men are more likely to feel frustrated in their present position and critical of their chances for promotion. S. A. Stouffer, et. al., The American Soldier. Adjustment During Army Life (Princeton, 19**9)« A. J0 Spector, “Expectations, Fulfillment, and Morale,” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958, 52, pp. 51-58, suggests the same results as Stouffer. Hollingshead and Redlich (A. B. Hollingshead and F. C. Redlich, Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study, Wiley, 1958), suggest that upwardly mobile skilled workers who are born into unskilled families and members of the nouveaux riche expressed more psychic anxiety than those who were more socially stable. 2?Weber, op. cit©, pp. 188-189 8 Though upward social mobility is often times portrayed by some contempor ary Americans as an element which is beneficial to the individual, Robert Merton, an American sociologist, contends that it can be stressful and that much of the population makes other than upwardly mobile adaptations 23 to reduce that stress. Besides differences in organization of roles and in emphasis on social mobility, a third factor that could be socially disorganizing is the rational orientation of the ascetic Protestant belief. Rationalism emphasized strict psychological control of one*s personality. As Weber writes: The Puritan-like very rational type of ascetism, tried to enable man to maintain and act upon his constant motives, especially those which taught him to control himself against the emotions. In this formal psychological sense of the term it tried to make him into a person ality • . . the most urgent task was the destruction of impulsive enjoyment *^4 Rationalism also demanded that one systematically make wise and accurate moral choices of behavior throughout his entire life. Weber notes that Roman Catholics lived ethically from “hand to mouth.” He says: “But beyond the minimum of duties his good works did not necessarily form a connected, or at least a rationalized, system of life, but rather remained 26 a succession of individual acts.” The rational character of Protestan tism demanded that the individual work, for salvation throughout his entire life. With Roman Catholicism, single good works were added together to 23 ^Merton, op. cit., pp. 125-133• 24Weber, op. cit., p. 119. See also Erich Fromm, Escape from Free dom (New York: Farrar and Rhinehart, 1949), p. 91. 25Ibid., p. 116. , p. 1,1.7. 9 determine if one’s ultimate reward was heaven or hell* Weber notest Calvinists or Protestants could not atone for hours of weakness or of thoughtlessness by increased good will at other times, as the Catho lic or even the Lutheran could* The God of Calvinism demanded of his believers not single good works, but a life of good deeds. There was no place for the very human Catholic cycle of sin, repentance, atone ment, release, followed by renewed sin0 Nor was there any balance of merit for a life as a whole which could be adjusted to temporal pun ishments or the Church’s means of grace. A fourth factor that differentiated the two systems was the inter action patterns of the respective religious communities. Roman Catholics were a community of believers rather than a community of competitors as 28 were Protestants. merely strengthened one’s membership. One was born into the Roman church and confirmation 29 On the other hand, ascetic Prot estant denominations were, like a business, voluntary associations into which one was not born but was elected. Weber notes3 “What is decisive is that one be admitted to membership by ’ballot* after an examination 30 and an ethical probation. . .” Membership in the ascetic Protestant church acted as a pedigree for successful associations with other industrious members. Burial insur 31 ance was offered in some denominations as in fraternal orders. The church then brought together affluent members whose interaction spurred them on toward more success. Unlike a guild, the church brought together competitors who were not restrained in attaining worldly success for 27Ibid. Gerth and Mills, op. cit,, p. 321o 29Ibid.. pp. 307-308. 3°Ibid. 31TMd. salvation* 32 Conversely, the Roman church emphasized a family community* All were brought together to be part of the mystical Body of Christ. Unlike the ascetic Protestant church, Roman Catholics acted as a family and salvation was a group phenomena. Where the ascetic Protestant church placed the individual in direct relation with the supernatural, the Roman church placed the individual with sanctified clergy who helped him to 33 atone and interpret his salvation. Anomie and Anomia In the same era that Weber was considering differences in the Roman Catholic and ascetic Protestant social and religious systems, Emile Durk heim also noted certain variances in the two systems. He discovered that Roman Catholics had a lower divorce rate as well as a lower suicide rate. He expLained the relationship between suicide and divorce by the concept 35 anomie, societal norraELessness0 egoistic suicide was more prevalent among Protestants0 He also noted that another concept 36 32#, Egoistic suicide 32Ibid. 33Ibid0 Emile Durkheim, Suicide (Glencoei Free Press, 1951)» PP* 258- 259» M. Bo Scott and R. Turner, “Weber and Anomie Theory of Deviance,*1 Sociological Quarterly, p. 37* Actually, both Weber and Durkheim can be considered theorists of anomie. Though Durkheim has long been considered to have started an interest in this concept, only recently has Weber been portrayed as a contributor to the concept of anomie. Scott and Turner attempt to show that contemporary contributors such as Robert King Merton*s “mode of adaptations” are readily close in form to Weber*s “types of social action;11 The authors also note the similarities in content between Merton’s anomic twentieth century Americans and Weber’s anomic nineteenth century ascetic Protestants0 35Ibid 11 is characterized by the individual’s lack of restraint from the group and 37 lack of emotional support. Much later, Gibbs contended that Durkheim*s concept of egoistic suicide and his concept of anomie were not entirely clear and could not be operationalized unless both of the concepts were combined. Durkheim* s distinction between the causes of anomie and egoistic suicide is by no means clear, and it is doubtful whether an ade quate distinction can be drawn even on the conceptual level, much less in strictly empirical terms.38 Recent research with Protestantism has taken Gibbs’ lead and has combined the concepts of egoism and anomie under another concept, the con 39 cept of anomia, the psychological component of anomie. Anomia is defined as “self-to-others alienation,” “an individual’s feeling that community leaders are detached from and indifferent to his needs, that the social order is fickle and unpredictable, that his lot is getting worse, that life has lost meaning, and that even close personal relations hO are unsupportive.” In an article in which anomia is defined, Leo Srole, a social psychologist, supports this concept as a useful tool of discovery and contends that interest in the area of alienated relationships should 37Ibid. J. Gibbs, “Suicide,” Editors R, Merton and R, Nlsbet in Contem- porary Social Problems. p, 255. 39D. Dean and J. Reeves, “Anomie: A Comparison of a Protestant and Roman Catholic Sample,” Sociometry, 25 (November, 1962), pp. 209-212? and W. Y. Wassef, “The Influence of Religion, Socio-Economic Status, and Education on Anomie,” Sociological Quarterly. 7 (Spring, 196?), p. 237. hoJ. M. Yinger, Toward a Field Theory of Behavior, Personality and Social Structure (New York: Houghton Mifflin & Co., 1965), p. 205. 12 not b© dominated just by the concept of anomie. Srole notes: Accordingly, individual eunomia-anomia is viewed as a variable contemporary condition having its origin in the complex inter action of social and personality factors, present and past. In short, the condition is regarded as a variable dependent on both sociological and psychological processes. As such, it warrants direct attack in the wide-ranging strategy of research. Opera tionally speaking, Robin Williams appears to take a dissenting position: HAnomie as a social condition has to be defined independently of the psychological states thought to accompany normlessness and normative conflict , . . The basic model for explanatory purposes is: normative situation—-> psychological state —> behavioral item or sequence.” But in an interesting footnote Williams adds: “Strictly speaking, of course, the arrows should be written^ > : the relations are reciprocal.” If the relations are reciprocal, as we concur, then the explana tory model is significantly altered. With such alteration, con siderations of operational efficiency, rather than of an unidirectional causal theory, may dictate to the investigator at what point his research should break into the chain. Clearly, verbalizable psychological states of individuals and their sit uational concomitants are more readily accessible to the instru ments of the researcher than is the operationally complicated cultural abstraction that Williams calls the “normative structure” and seems to predicate as the researcher*s necessary point of first attack.^ Both the concepts anomie and anomia have had a great deal of research. The concept of anomie has probably had more research because anomia, as Zj.? defined by Leo Srole, was not introduced until 1951* In that year, ZflLeo Srole, “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,” American Sociological Review, 21 (December, 1956), p. 711. l±2From Durkheim*s original contribution, one can see the tremen dous amount of work that his original work stimulated. From Durkheim* s first work to date there have been some 137 articles, books and papers. There have been 52 theoretically oriented works (29 sociological, 15 social-psychological and 8 psychological) and 95 methodological works (35 sociological, 47 social-psychological and 13 psychological). 13 Srole read a paper in a meeting of the American Sociological Society in which he discussed anomia. Srole hypothesized in his paper that an anomic state of affairs is one of the prime forces on the urban scene contri buting to social distance, discrimination and rejection of minorities. Srole developed a five item scale and administered this scale to a sample 43 of 901 bus riders in Springfield, Massachusetts. He sought in that study to validate his scale by criterion valida tion. In this procedure, the scale is administered along with another established scale to discover if there is a significant relationship 44 between the results of the established scale and the new scale. In this case, the correlation between the two scales was significant and these findings gave indirect support to Srole*s ’’anomia” scale. From the time of the creation of the scale until recently, the ,,anoraiafl scale has been correlated with many other psychological and sociological variables, 4 5 and other researchers have elaborated upon his scale. Protestantism and Anomia It would seem that on the basis of this writer’s observations, Protestantism and anomia have had little coverage in contemporary research, and seemingly the larger more general areas of anomie and religion also 43A. H. Roberts and M. Rokeach, lfAnomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice, A Replication,” American Journal of Sociology, 6l (December. 1956), p. 355. 44Bernard S. Phillips, Social Research, Strategy and Tactics (New York! MacMillan Co., 1964-), p. 160. 45 “oee selected bibliography on the Srole scale and anomia on page 62 of this thesis. 14 have been neglected. 46 Bell, in 1957, tried to find some structural determinants of anomie. Using four census tracts in San Francisco with interviews from 701 adult males, he found that socio-economic status, social participation, and socio-economic status of the neighborhood were inversely associated with anomia as measured by the Srole scale. Age was 4? directly associated with anomia and religion was unrelated to anomia. In the spring of 1962, Dean and Reeves did a study of Protestant and 48 Roman Catholic women of two different college institutions. The authors* hypothesis that Catholic College women would have lower nornilessness scores than Protestant women was retained. Dean and Reeves noted that the Prot estant *s father’s occupational rank was significantly higher and tended to minimize the differences between the Roman Catholic and Protestant groups. This minimization was due to some evidence suggested by Dean and Reeves 49 that lower socio-economic class is positively correlated with anomia. Wassef replicated the Dean and Reeves study but added controls for 50 social class and type of educational institution. Protestants were com pared with Roman Catholics at the same socio-economic level, and the 46See selected bibliography on Protestantism, anomie and anomia on page 64 of this thesis. 47 ‘Wendell Bell, *fAnomie, Social Isolation, and the Class Structure,” Sociometry, 20 (June, 1957), pp.. 105-116. 48D. Dean and J. A. Reeves, op. cit. ^Ibid. Wassef, op. cit., pp. 237-238. 15 <1 samples were drawn from similar coeducational institutions. His find ings supported the rejection of the nu.11 hypothesis that Protestant and Roman Catholic anomia scores were equal. The null hypothesis of equal scores for the same socio-economic class for both Protestants and Catholics 52 was also rejected. The studies by Dean and Reeves, and Wassef, and another by Bell are, apparently, the only studies dealing directly with Protestantism and anomia. It is upon these studies that this study is based. Part of this past evidence indicates a relationship between Protestantism and anomia. Other evidence by Bell does not indicate such a relationship. These con tradictory findings direct this study in attempts to find another variable or other variables that may resolve the contradictions of past research. Protestantism, Urbanism and Anomia One of the variables that has not previously been considered in other research is the urban setting. The urban setting in contrast to rural areas has been noted by some researchers as a milieu that fosters 53 anomia and anomie. Urbanism might foster anomia and anomie because the metropolitan city is less socially homogeneous and has less uniform social control than does the small town or farm areas. eh In most instances, ^Hollingshead and Redlich, op. cit., pp. 387-391* ^Wassef, op. cit. ^Clinard, op. cit., pp. 222-223. eh ^linger, op. cit., pp. 197-198. 16 normative deviations are higher per one thousand in the city than in rural and small areas. ^ Thus, if there is different life style patterns between rural and small town areas in comparison with metropolitan cities, per haps this variable may minimize the effect of Protestantism on the life of the urban individual. The reader may note that BeH*s Protestant and Roman Catholic samples came Trom metropolitan San Francisco. The samples were found to have no significant differences in the occurrence of anomia. Thus, the urban way of life may be important in reducing or neutralizing the effect of Protestant affiliation and individual anomia. This variable will be considered and discussed in the last chapter of this thesis. Statement of the Hypotheses In stating the hypotheses to test the relationship of anomia to religious affiliation, this researcher wants to utilize past research and also look into areas not covered by work in this area. Four hypotheses will be stated which cover not only past work but will also seriously look at religious involvement, and the final hypothesis will compare the sensitivity of two anomia scales. Researchers have established a relationship between Protestantism and anomia, but they have overlooked the degree that an individual becomes 56 personally involved in his church. The first hypothesis is concerned ^William F. Ogburn and Otis D. Duncan, “City Size as a Sociologi cal Variable,’* in Ernest W; Burgess and Donald J. Bogue, editors, Contri butions to Urban Sociology (Chicago and London* The University of Chicago Press, 19^0, p. 144. ^This idea of religious involvement is the contention of Glock and Stark. See* C. Y, Glock and R. Stark, Religion and Society in Tension (Chicago1 Rand McNally, 196o)f p, 21, 17 with religious affiliation, without degree of involvement, but the second and third hypotheses take this into account. Therefore, the first hypoth esis will deal with the classic problem and will look at all Catholics and Protestants in the sample. The second hypothesis will use the degree of religious involvement in assessing differences between active and inactive Protestants. This second hypotheses will try to highlight the Weberian contention that increased allegiance to Protestant norms will increase anomia of the individual Protestant. The third hypothesis will also use degree of involvement to compare active Protestants with active Catholics, Hypothesis Is Protestants and Roman Catholics are likely^? to have similar indexes of anomia. Secondly, the degree of involvement in the church must be compared first within the Protestant social system. Hypothesis II: Active Protestants and inactive Protestants are likely to have similar indexes of anomia. Thirdly, it is necessary to assess only active members in each social system to control for the bias of inactive members. This will also assess the influence of religiosity. Hypothesis III: Active Protestants and active Roman Catholics are likely to have similar indexes of anomia. Finally, contemporary research has revealed many psychological scales of anomia. Of these, scales, one by Dean and another by Srole, will be com pared for their sensitivity to assess anomia. Hypothesis IVs The Dean and Srole scales are not likely to differ in their measurement of anomia between Roman Catholics and Protestants. 57″Likely” is to mean that indexes of anomia will fall within .05 level of confidence. Summary Durkheim maintained that religions throughout the world were social organizations that brought men together. Religions acted as cohesive bonds and they provided the supernatural sanctions for the actions and values motivated by their memberships. Though Weber also concerned him self with religions throughout the world, he saw within the Protestant church elements that did not facilitate group cohesion. According to Weber, the ascetic Protestant church provided an environmental milieu that did not foster interaction patterns encouraging psychic relief and social support. Also the social structure of the church encouraged role strain for both the laity and the clergy. Contemporary researchers have developed the early observations of both Weber and Durkheim and have sought to find a relationship between Protestantism and anomia, a psychological component of anomie. In studies by Dean and Reeves, and another by Wassef, female member’s participation in the Protestant church was positively correlated with an anomic per ception of the world. In a study by Bell no relationship was noted be tween the two variables. This study will in part replicate the studies by Dean and Reeves, Wassef, and Bell. The next chapter will discuss the methods used to discover whether or not there is a relation between religious affiliation and anomia. The contents of the chapter will also include a discussion of the sample that was selected from a college population. CHAPTER II SAMPLE AND METHODS The Sample The sample for this study was drawn from a universe that included all students at the University of Nebraska at Omaha attending that •j institution in the spring of 1968. The population of the school at 2 that time was 8,149 students. The students* names were drawn from the University’s registration book which contained names of all full-time and part-time students. The subjects were chosen through use of a table of random numbers.** A sample was drawn of 600 potential respon dents, and this sample constituted .073 of the finite universe. The school at that time (second semester of the 1967-8 session) was legally and officially called the Municipal University of Omaha. This institution merged with the University of Nebraska on July 1, 1968. 2 This information was obtained from the University of Omaha’s school newspaper, Gateway, Vol. XLVII, February 9* 1968, p. 1. 3 The author was able to obtain these names through the cooper ation of the Registrar, Mr. Virgil Sharpe, and Mrs, Jan© Kempf. Those students who had dropped out during the semester were omitted from the book. 4Rand Corporation, A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates (Glencoe, 111.* Free Press, 1955)* The students were chosen on the basis of five digits. The first three numbers indicated the page number and the second two digits indicated the position on the page. 20 5 Six hundred questionnaires and introductory letters were sent to the respondents. Within ten days, two hundred and fifty (250) were 6 returned. A follow-up post card went to two hundred and fifty (250) respondents and a remaining one hundred (100) received phone calls from 7 the author and the graduate intern staff. From the encouragement of phone calls and post cards, another eighty (80) questionnaires were received. After this period, another two hundred and seventy letters 8 (270) were sent out to the remaining respondents. Of the two hundred and seventy (270) sent out, approximately one hundred were returnedo The total returned to the author was four hundred and twenty-nine (429) • Not all questionnaires were usable, however* The sample design called for unmarried, undergraduate, white, Prot estant or Roman Catholic respondents. With the application of the above criteria, twenty-seven respondents who stated a religious affiliation other than Protestant or Roman Catholic were eliminated. Eight respon dents were nonwhite and seven were divorced or had lost a mate and could not be included in the sample as unmarried. Five returned their question^ naires, but refused to complete them. Nine made clerical errors that invalidated their questionnaires and three were graduate students. c ^See Appendix A, p. 65© £ See Appendix B, p. 70. 7 My thanks to Richard Francis, Jane Moran, Max Krohn, Larry Myers, Judy Kessler, Marianne Hanson, Nancy Wilson, Roger Pearson, Vince Webb, and Richard Fielding. The phone messages were extremely brief. The message included the name of the person or the staff, his affiliation with the university and an encouragement to return the questionnaire. Q See Appendix C, p. 72. 21 The original return rate was 71 • 5 Per cent (429)F however, after sixty questionnaires were invalidated* 61.5 per cent (369) were consi dered usable* Therefore, the sample constituted males and females who were Protestant or Roman Catholic, single, white, and undergraduate stu dents who had attended the university in the spring of 1968. The majority 9 also lived in Omaha, Nebraska, as the university was a city college. Only twelve respondents came from Bellevue, Eikhorn, Papillion and other nearby small towns. The author was unable to control for the small per cent that come to the university from other parts of the nation. These are considered as unlikely to produce systematic bias so far as the emphasis of this study is concerned. Data Collection The information was collected by means of mailed questionnaires. A questionnaire was used rather than some other method primarily because of the researcher^ financial limitations. Though this method is less expensive, it does not necessarily mean that it is inferior to other methods, such as the interview. Crotty contends that a questionnaire can be considered valid if proper attention is given to seeing that the questionnaire is not laborious to complete, that the researcher Insures that an adequate pretest is given, and that there is a financial limita tion on the part of the researcher. In every instance, the researcher 9 J, Cass and M. Birribaum, Comparative Guide to American Colleges (New York: Harper and Row, 1964), p. 433* fulfilled these requirements.^ In the pretest, the questionnaire was given to approximately 75 students whose age ranges were from 17 to 55 and whose class level ran from freshman through senior. These students were from an introductory survey sociology course which is taken by stu dents during the course work at the university, Though they are not directly representative of the school, Zetterburg contends that non-random samples are permissable for the analysis of variables and for pretest work.^ After the questionnaire was given, the researcher asked for com ments and criticisms of the questionnaire. Only a few criticisms were noted, and those questions did not deal with the difficulty of taking the test but rather with some specific questions constructed by Srole and others. The researcher also noted that the questionnaire was completed by most students in about eight to ten minutes. The Questionnaire 12 The questionnaire contained four major sections: (1) statuses 13 i^ and abilities, (2) a religiosity index, (3) the Srole scale, and 10W. J. Crotty, “The Utilization of Mail Questionnaires and the Problem of Representative Return Rate,11 Western Political Quarterly (March, 1966), pp. 44-53* ^Hans Zetterburg, On Theory and Verification in Sociology, rev. ed., (Totowa, New Jersey: Badminister Press, 1963), pp. 5^55* 12See Appendix A, p. 65* 13Gerhard Lenski, The Religious Factor: A Sociologist1s Inquiry (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, 196l), p. 271. 14Leo Srole, “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,” American Sociological Review. 21 (December, 1956), p. 711* 23 (4) the Dean scale. The first set of questions asked the individual^ varying statuses and abilities including respondents questionnaire number, sex, age, fathers occupation, fatherS education, and the individuals religious affiliation. FatherS occupation and fatherS education formed the basis for the determination of the respondents social class. These two requirements are necessary for HollingsheadS Two Part Index of Social Position, which is composed of two seven-unit ordinal scales covering the respondents fatherS occupation and education.^ The two scales had a combined numerical range of 2 to 14 points. Classes I and II of the Hollingshead Two Part Index of Social Position are the two highest social classes. These classes were assigned numerical values of 2 through 4 points and made up 13 per cent of the sample. Classes III and IV, which may be considered the middle classes, were assigned numerical values of 5 through 9 points and composed 70 per cent of the sample. Class V is the lower social class with numerical values of 10 through 14 points and composed 17 per cent of the population. Respondents in social classes III and IV were used in the sample and the others omitted. (See Table I). The second set of questions assessed the individuals involvement in his religion. The items used in this context were obtained from a study of Protestants and Catholics in Detroit, Michigan, under the aus 17 pices of Gerhard Lenski. The Detroit study attempted to ascertain the ■^D* Dean and J* Reeves, !!Anomiei A Comparison of a Protestant and Roman Catholic Sample,u Sociometry, 25 (November, 1962), pp. 209-212. ^A. B. Hollingshead and F. C. Redlich, Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study (New York: Wiley, 1958)• ■^Lenski, c>p, cit. TABLE I HOLLINGSHEAD1S INDEX OF SOCIAL POSITION AND PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION Class I — Class II — Class III — Class IV — — — 13# 70# Class V —– 17# Range 2-14 points Total 100$ 25 social mobility of the two religious groups. The religiosity questions have been characterized by Glock and Stark as questions that assess five dimensions of religious commitments. Glock and Stark note: ’’There is no single piece of research in the literature which has looked at all five 10 dimensions simultaneously, with a few exceptions* • .” The five dimen sions assess the respondent’s beliefs, intelligence, emotional interest in his religion, church attendance, and his expectations of what others expect of him in the church. The above five dimensions of religion are covered by seven questions with ordinal properties and three with nominal properties in the question naire. This researcher used the Modified Lenski Religiosity Scale assess ing the five dimensions mentioned above which a range of 6 (relatively little or no religious commitraent) to 25 (relatively high religious com mitment). The median score of the sample was 12095 so that the median line of demarcation was drawn between 12 and 13 • There is some justifi cation in dividing the respondents at this point, for the ’’active” (those scoring above the median) as opposed to ’’inactive” (those scoring below the median) respondents appeared to also correlatively respond to two of the three nominal questions. Such a response indicated a high degree of religious commitment. (See Table XI in Chapter III.) The third area of the questionnaire encompassed the Srole scale 20 19 and the Dean scale. The Srole scale is assumed to have ordinal properties 18C. Y. Glock and R, Stark, Religion and Society in Tension (Chicago* Rand McNally and Co., 19^5)»P* 21. 19Srole, op. cit. ^Dean, op. cit. with a range of 5 points as a low to 10 as high’* 21 If a respondent did not complete all the questions, the entire scale is not used. This occurred in only a few instances. Miller and Butler contend that the 22 Srole scale can be dichotomized at the median. Miller and Butler, using two samples, note that using the Srole scale and analyzing it can have its problems. Primarily, previous research has analyzed results of Srolefs scale by Guttman scaling or factor analysis. Miller and Butler suggest analyzing by ’’latent class analysis” which was originally sug gested by Srole# They conclude: ’’Gradations of the Guttman scales type would appear to be central-individualized, and polarization would appear 23 to be more appropriate.” Polarization is the division of scores into anomia-eunomia, rather than a gradation of anomic to less anomic. A score of 7 or above was considered an occurrence of anomia; 6.16 was the overall median. The Dean ’’normLessness” scale comes from a study which this thesis, in part, attempts to replicate. 2k His six-item scale was originally drawn from a 139-item scale derived from the literature and interviews. The items were then evaluated by a seven-member panel of judges who div ided the items into three subscales and finally subsumed it into a six- item subscale# Dean mentions that in measuring the index of anomia in 21Srole, op. cit. 22C. R. Miller and E. W. Butler, ’’Anomie and Eunonda, A Methodo logical Evaluation of the Srole Anomia Scale,” American Sociological Review, 31 (June, 1966), pp. ^00-406. 23Ibid. 2kDean and Reeves, op. cit. 27 Protestants and Homan Catholics, he did not use the Srole scale because he feels that it is not a sensitive measure despite the fact that other researchers have used it. Dean notest In regard to the alienation-normlessness component, it is interesting to note that Keedy, using the Srole scale, found no anomie related to religious orthodoxy among Protestants. Bell, using the same scale but controlling for socio-economic status, found no correlation between anomie and being Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish* nor with frequency of attendance at church. It may be speculated that a norro- lessness scale clearly differentiating the purposelessness and con flict of directives subtype might prove more fruitful. Further investigation should be made in regard to the syndrome of alienation. In this connection, it may be noted that Srole*s scale could not be retained in our alienation scales because his items failed to meet our judging and item analysis criteria.2^ The Dean scale was operationalized by a weighting of 6 point score as low and 12 points as a high. Eight points or above was considered an occurrence of anomia j 7.5^ was the overall median. The test of significance used for the analysis of the data was the Chi-square. Chi-square tests whether findings that are obtained empir ically differ by greater than chance from the theoretically expected findings. This test of significance was chosen because it requires the assumption that the data is at least nominal, randomly and independently selected, and the theoretically expected frequencies of each cell of the 26 table achieved in 5 or more cases, but has no parametric assumptions involved. 25Dean, op* cit. 26John H. Mueller and Karl H. Schuessler, Statistical Reasoning in Sociology (Bostons Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961), p. z6z* Summary This chapter has discussed the methods used to discover if there is a relationship between religious affiliation and anomia. A pretest was given to discover if the questionnaire was understandable and could be completed by the respondent. The pretest was not used as a validating procedure for the scales of anomia and religiosity as they were pretested and established by other researchers. Rather, the pretest was used to assess the value of the questionnaire as a tool to gather information easily and correctly. Mailed questionnaires were used for gathering information. It con tained questions which covered some of the individual*s statuses, his ‘ abilities and his perception of the world as measured by the Dean and Srole scales. A religiosity scale was also used to measure the involvement of the individual in his religion. Characteristics of the sample were dis cussed and a discussion was also included on the test of significance that was used in the study. The next chapter will discuss the findings of this thesis. In many instances, tables will be provided in the chapter. CHAPTER III FINDINGS In this study* there were 3^9 Protestants and Roman Catholics. Of this total, 163 were Roman Catholics and 206 were Protestants. Parti tioned according to sex, 208 were male and 161 were female. TABLE II NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS COMPRISING RELIGIOUS AFFILIATION AND SEXUAL STATUS Male 208 Female 161 Roman Catholic Protestant 163 206 This total of 369 respondents represented a return rate of 61.5 per cent. Crotty considers this return rate to be above average.^ He notes that most mailed surveys have a 50 per cent return rate and that a signi 2 ficant minority of studies base their findings on a 25 per cent rate. Hypothesis I Hypothesis I predicts that* Protestants and Roman Catholics are likely to have similar indexes of anomia. “Hr. J. Crotty, “The Utilization of Mail Questionnaires and the Problem of Representative Return Rate,” Western Political Quarterly (March, 1966), pp. 44-53. ^Ibid# 30 Hypothesis I is concerned with the differences between Roman Cath olics and Protestants as derived from Weberian concepts. According to Weber, the two religious groups vary in their social structures, inter action patterns and collective consciences. Generally, these differences will be reflected by the two groups in their perception of society. As discussed in Chapter I, an extension of Weber’s ideas would lead us to expect Protestants to be more anomic than Roman Catholics. Table III shows that there is no significant difference at the .05 level of confidence between ’’all” Roman Catholics and Protestants in the sample. In this instance ‘’all11 still controls for marital status (single), race (Caucasian) and educational status (undergraduate). The findings 3 represented in Table III are not consistent with previous research. Both Dean and Reeves, and Wassef found significant differences in occurrences of anomia between Roman Catholics and Protestants when controlling for the variables of age, sex, and social class. These variables of age, sex and social class in reference to religious affiliation and anomia will be dis cussed in Chapter IV© Table IV considers the variable of age. No significant differences are found between the two religious groups when college students between the ages of 18 through 22 were controlled. Students falling into this category comprised 86,2 per cent of the sample. Dean and Reeves, and Wassef also controlled for age by using college age students but did not find significant differences between religious groups in anomia indices, 3 D. Dean and J, Reeves, “Anomiei A Comparison of a Protestant and Roman Catholic Sample,” Sociometry, 25 (November, 1962), pp. 209-212; and W. Y© Wassef, ”The Influence of Religion, Socio-Economic Status, and Education on Anomie,” 7 (Spring, 1967), p. 237. 31 TABLE III NUMBER OF ROMAN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS AND THE OCCURRENCE OF ANOMIC-EUNOMIC RESPONSES Individual Anomic** Eunomie Responses Anomic Responses Eunomie Responses Column Totals x2 =r 1.10 Religious Affiliation Protestants 107 88 195 Roman Catholics 80 82 162 d.fo = 1 TABLE IV NUMBER OF PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS FROM 18-22 AND THE OCCURRENCES OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Individual Anomic Eunomic Responses Religious Affiliation Protestants Roman Catholics Row Totals po n.s. 187 170 357 Row Totals Anomic Responses Eunomie Responses Column Totals x2 s 1.48 87 108 195 63 59 122 d.f. = 1 150 167 317 p. n.s. 32 Table V shows no significant difference at the .05 level when social class is controlled. Previous research has controlled this vari k able by using the Hollingshead Two Part Index of Social Position. In this study and in a study of Wassef, social class was operationalized by combining Hollingshead*s social classes III and IV of Roman Catholics and of Protestants. As previously noted, Wassef did find significant differ ences but this study did not0 TABLE V NUMBER OF PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS IN SOCIAL CLASSES III AND IV AND THE OCCURRENCES OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Individual Anoraic Eunoxrdc Responses Anomic Responses Eunomie Responses Column Totals X2 = A3 Religious Affiliation Protestants 80 80 160 Roman Catholics 43 51 94 d.f. = 1 Row Totals 123 131 254 p, n.s. Tables VI and VII uncover no significant differences when sex is the controlled variable. Dean and Reeves, and Wassef controlled sexual status by using only female respondents in their samples when comparing k A. B. Hollingshead and F. C. Redlich, Class and Mental Illness* A Community Study (New York* Wiley, 1958). The seeming differences between the studies will be discussed in Chapter IV. 33 TABLE VI NUMBER OF MALE PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE OCCURRENCES OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Religious Affiliation Anomic Cases Protestants Roman Catholics Row Totals Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x2 = .09 51 46 97 TABLE VII 57 47 104 d.f. = 1 108 93 201 p. n.s. NUMBER OF FEMALE PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AND THE OCCURRENCES OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Individual Anomic- Eunomic Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals Religious Affiliation Protestants 48 50 98 Roman Catholics 23 35 58 Row Totals 71 85 156 x2 = 1.29 d.f, i i V 0 n.s. ‘ ”4 *?* 3 * Roman Catholics and Protestants. This study also controlled for sex, but found no significant differences. An interesting theme indirectly related to the question of anomia among Protestants and Roman Catholics is anomia and ascetic Protestantism. Weber was concerned with this particular group of Protestants in hds work. According to his definition, ascetic Protestants were all Protestant denom inations with the exception of Anglicans and Lutherans. He excluded these two groups from the remaining Protestant denominations because he per ceived the Lutheran and Anglican socio-religious structure as being quite similar to that of the Roman Catholic church. Previous research in the area of anomia and religious affiliation has not taken this distinction into account. Tables VIII through X are concerned with the possibility that the distinction between ascetic Protestants and other Protestant denominations may influence the result. Table VIII shows no significant differences in the number of ind ividual anomic-eunomie cases between Roman Catholics and “ascetic Protes tants,” generally operationalized as Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, and small body Protestant denominations. No significant differences were observed between Roman Catholics and ascetic Protestants. The difference between Catholics and Episcopalians and Lutherans may not be due to the religious structure and values but may be due to other variables not controlled in this comparison, such as social class. All Roman Catholics were used in this comparison regardless of their social class. This was true also of the Episcopalians and Lutherans. However, Schneider and others have found that Roman Catholics, in contrast to other religious groups, are concentrated in the lower socio-economic 35 classes. c Furthermore, researchers have found a high correlation between lower class and the occurrence of anomia and anomie.^ A comparison between TABLE VIII ASCETIC PROTESTANTS * AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Individual Anomia Eunomic Responses Anomic Responses Eunomie Responses Column Totals x — *13 Religious Affiliation Protestants 51 58 109 Roman Catholics 80 82 162 d.f. — 1 Row Totals 131 140 271 p. n.s. ♦Includes Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, and all other small body Protestant denominations. Herbert Schneider, Religion In Twentieth Century America (Cambridge, Mass.* Harvard University Press, 1952), p. 228, and Bernard Lazerwitz, “A Comparison of Major United States Religious Groups,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56 (September, 1961), pp. 566-579• ^Anomia studies dealing with social class are: Alan H. Roberts and Milton Rokeach, “Anomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudices: A Replication,” American Journal of Sociology, 61 (December, 1961), pp. 355-358; Leo Srole, “Anomie and Authoritarianism, and Prejudice,”; and Milton Rokeach, “Rejoin der,” letters to the editor, American Journal of Sociology. 62 (March, 1962), pp. 63-67; Leo Srole, “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries,” American Sociological Review, 21 (December, 1956), pp. 709-716? Wendell Bell, “Anomie, Social Integration, and the Class Structure,” Sociometry, 20 (June, 1957)* pp. 103-116; Dorothy L. Mier and Wendell Bell, “Anomia and Differential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals,” American Sociological Review, 24 (May, 1959)* pp* 189-202;. Melvin Tumin and Ray C. Collins, “Status, Mobil ity, and Anomie,” British Journal of Sociology. 10 (May, 1959), pp. 253-267? Ephraim H. Mizruchi, “Social Structure and Anomia in a Small City,” American Sociological Review, 25 (May, i960), pp. 645-654; Edward L. McDill, “Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Socio-Economic Status: An Attempt at Clarification,” Social Forces, 39 (March, 1961), ppi 39-54; Lewis M. Kil lian and Charles M. Grigg, “Urbanism, Race, and Anomia,” American Journal of Sociology, 67 (April, 1962), pp. 661-665. 36 Roman Catholics and Lutherans and Anglicans in regard to their index of anomia may not be a fair comparison without the control of social class. Though we are comparing the two religious groups, it is quite possible that in the Roman Catholic sample there is a significantly higher percenr- tage of respondents who aro in the lower sooio-eoonomio class in contrast to Lutherans and Anglicans. Therefore, the results of the comparison of the two religious groups may have a social class bias. It may be a com parison of mainly lower class Roman Catholics with middle class Anglicans and Lutherans. If there is a social class bias, this bias as mentioned above would affect the findings of the index of anomia of the two groups. There are in this study no significant differences between ‘’ascetic Protestants*’ and Episcopalians and Lutherans as seen in Table IX. How ever, Table X shows a significant difference at the .20 level but not at the .05 level between Lutherans and Episcopalians when compared with Roman Catholics. Hypothesis II Hypothesis II predicts that: Active Protestants and inactive Protestants are likely to have similar indexes of anomia. Hypothesis I emphasized a Weberian contention. The researcher looked at Protestants and Roman Catholics controlling for age, sex, social class, t and ascetism. However, Hypothesis II has not only a Weberian consideration, but also a Durkheimian emphasis built into it. As noted early in Chapter I, Durkheim contends that religion regardless of its content facilitates: n (1) group cohesion and (2) individual psychic strength. One component 7 See Chapter I, pp. 1-2. 37 TABLE IX ASCETIC PROTESTANTS AND PROTESTANTS AND COMPARISON OF THE NUMBER OF ANOMIC CASES Anomic Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x2 — 1.35 Religious Affiliation Ascetic Protestants, 51 1 58 109 d.f. = 1 Protestants^ 3 6 50 86 Row Totals 87 108 195 P* n.s. +Methodists, Presbyterians, Baptists, Disciples of Christ, and small body denominations. ♦Episcopalians and Lutherans. TABLE X PROTESTANTS* AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC CASES Anomic Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x2 = 2.40 Religious Affiliation Protestants^ 36 50 86 Roman Catholics 80 82 162 d.f. = 1 Row Totals 116 132 248 P. n.s. ♦Lutherans and Episcopalians, 38 of the individuals psychic state is anomia, a psychological attitude. Therefore, active members would be less likely to be more anomic than inactive members. However, Weber saw the ascetic Protestants competing 8 against each other for material success. Success was an indicator of salvation. The value of competition for material success brought about anomie among the members. Therefore, one can infer from Weber that active members would tend to be more anomic than inactive members. The result of Table XI is quite different than one would expect. The reader may recall that Durkheim contended that religion binds men together. However, results seen in Table XI reveal that active and inac tive members have no significant differences in their responses© One would think that active members would be more cohesively bound to the group and, therefore, significantly less anomic than inactive members. On the other hand, Weber contended that active members would be more involved in a religious group whose basic values would enhance a more anomic perception of the world than less active members. Therefore, active members should be more anomic than inactive members. From both the perspectives of Durkheim and Weber, active and inac tive members should have significantly different responses. Though Weber and Durkheim appear to vary on why the responses should differ, they would probably agree that there should be a difference. If this finding holds up through future replications, and if both religiosity and anomia are measured accurately, this would lead us to think that perhaps there are other variables of which Weber and Durkheim did not consider. It is not g See Chapter I, pp. 2-3. 39 entirely clear to this author why there were little differences between the two groups. However, the next chapter will contain a discussion on the possibility of other variables and how they may affect the results listed in this chapter. TABLE XI ACTIVE AND INACTIVE PROTESTANTS (RELIGIOUS INVOLVEMENT) AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Religious Involvement Anomic Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x — 1.21 Active Protestants m 51 92 d.f. — 1 Inactive Protestants 54 49 103 Hypothesis III Hypothesis HI states: Row Totals 95 100 195 p. n.s. Active Protestants and active Roman Catholics are likely to have similar occurrences of anomia© This hypothesis attempts to control the bias of inactive membership. Inac tive members in contrast to active members may minimize the differences between the two religious systems. For inactive members are less likely to be involved in their religion and would be less likely to give responses to a questionnaire that would reflect their churches’ beliefs. Active members on the other hand are involved in the system and are quite likely 40 to reflect the values of their church* Both Weber’s and Durkheim*s consi derations are oriented toward religious involvement. For the Weberian contention, the emphasis is with Protestantism, and for Durkheimian con tention, the importance is controlling active membership in either reli gious system. Table XII indicates no significant differences at the .05 level of confidence. This is not surprising when the reader notes that in earlier hypotheses little differences between all Roman Catholics and Protestants or between Protestants controlling for ascetism and religious involvement were found. Thus, according to these findings, few differ ences appear to emerge in areas that we have looked at so far. TABLE XII ACTIVE PROTESTANTS AND ACTIVE ROMAN CATHOLICS AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC AND EUNOMIC CASES Individual Anomic Eunomie Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x2 = .07 Religious Involvement Active Protestants 34 58 92 d.f. = 1 Hypothesis IV Hypothesis IV predicts: Active Catholics 39 64 103 Row Totals p. n0s. 73 122 195 The Dean scale and Srole scale are not likely to differ in findings of the index of anomia between Roman Catholics and Protestants. 41 A comparison of the two scales shows little difference in ability to discriminate anomia. The two scales have slightly different properties. As the scales were discussed in the previous chapter, they both have ordinal discussion for measurement of an index of anomia. Each has been dichotomized at their median, Any score on either scale that is above the median is categorized as anomic, and any score below the median is categorized as eunomie; The questions are phrased so that agreement with a response is an affirmation of an anomic statement. Hypothesis IV seeks to ascertain if there are differences between the two scales; Table XIII indicates similarities in medians of both scales. Table XIV and Table XV indicate little difference in Chi-square values discriminating scores from respondents of both systems. Table XVI finds no significant differences in the two scales’ assessment and discrimination of anomia. It appears that findings from this study reveal no significant differences between the two scales; It can be concluded, at least in part, that the two scales must have similar properties and that the two reli gious groups under study reflect little difference in their responses to these two scales. The reader may note that in the majority of tables, the Chi-square value is quite low. In only one instance does the Chi-square value exceed o o20o In this study and in most studies, the acceptable value is .05 or less0 This value has been established by convention and is utilized in most contemporary research. 9See Table IX. “^John Ho Mueller and Karl H. Schuessler, Statistical Reasoning in Sociology (Boston* Houghton Mifflin Co., 1961), p. 2&. TABLE XIII MEDIAN SCORES OBTAINED FROM PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS BY DEAN AND SROLE SCALES Religious Affiliation Anomia Scales Dean Srole Protestants N 195* 194 Median 7.67 6.15 Roman Catholics N 162 162 Median 7.48 6.19 ♦Discrepancy in number of Protestants is due to the fact that one respondent did not complete the Srole anomia scale nor did he indicate which alternatives he would choose* TABLE XIV ROMAN CATHOLICS AND PROTESTANTS AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC CASES AS MEASURED BY DEAN SCALE Individual Anomic Eunomie Cases Anomia Eunomia Column Totals x2 = 1.10 Religious Affiliation Protestants 10? 88 Roman Catholics 80 82 162 d.f. = 1 Row Totals 187 170 357 p. n.s. TABLE XV PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC CASES AS MEASURED BY SROLE SCALE Individual Anomic Eunoirdc Cases Anoroia Eunonda Column Totals x^ = 1«83 Religious Affiliation Protestants 7k 120 19^ Roman Catholics 67 95 … ………_.. 162 d#f# = 1 TABLE XVI DEAN AND SROLE SCALES AND NUMBER OF ANOMIC PROTESTANTS AND ROMAN CATHOLICS Religious Affiliation Anomia Scale Dean Srole Column Totals x2 = .74 Protestants 107 7k 181 Roman Catholics ……. d.f. 1 1 H 80 67 147 Row Totals i4i 215 356 P» n#s« Totals 187 141 328 • n.s. Summary Chapter III has discussed the findings of four hypotheses, and these findings were incorporated into fifteen tables. In every instance, no statistical differences were found at the .05 level of significance. No difference at .05 were found between Roman Catholics and Protestants when ascetism, age, sex, social class, and religious involvement were controlled. However, the reader must look at the results with some cau tion. One must recall that .05 level is an arbitrary figure. Though significant differences were not found, one might expect that at another level, difference might occur. One would also anticipate that the expected direction of the differences would be a higher rate of anomia among Prot estants. Two scales were also analyzed in their ability to discriminate anomia and eunomia in respondents. The last chapter is a summary of the thesis and an interpretation of the results. CHAPTER IV SUMMARY AND INTERPRETATION Summary As noted in the previous chapter, this study has attempted to assess the differing indexes of anomia with Protestant and Roman Catholic respon dents* Sexual status, age, race, marital status, social class, residence, religious involvement, and ascetism vere controlled. Statistical differ ences in every instance of comparisons of the two groups were found not to be significant at the ,05 level of confidence. Religious involvement, comparing active and inactive members, also revealed no significant dif ferences at the ,05 level in the proportion of cases of anomia. This study also compared two anomia scales ia their ability to discriminate anomic and eunomic respondents and founc that there were no significant differ ences at the ,05 level of significance between the two scales. Interpretation In looking at the findings of the previous chapter, one can readily see that this study1 s finding? do not agree with past research,”1’ Results also differ when comparing the findings of the studies that have dealt with the relationship between religious affiliation and anomia. Bell, f 1 1 / D, Dean and J, Reeves, “Anomies A Comparison of a Protestant and Roman Catholic Sample,” Sociometry, 25 (November, 1962), pp, 209-212; and W, Y, Wassef, “The Influence of Religion, Socio-Economic Status, and Education on Anomie,” Sociological Quarterly, 7 (Spring, 1967), p. 237* kb Bell and Meier and this authorfs study found no significant differences between Catholics and Protestants in the index of anomia. 2 Dean and Reeves, and Wassef did find differences in the occurrence of anomia between the two groups. Wassef*s results were not as pronounced as those 3 of Dean and Reeves but they were similar.^ In explaining the discrepancy in results, several variables will be considered. Looking at Table XVII, the reader can see a comparison of these variables as found in each of the studies. This chapter will be divided into two major sections. The first section will consist of a discussion of variables that are less likely to affect the results of the study. The second section will deal with vari ables that the author feels may be pertinent to the discrepancy of results among the different studies. The reader may look first at variable #2 on Table XVII. This item on the table consists of the type of scale used in the study. The Dean scale and/or the Srole scale was used by all the researchers. Though Dean contends that his scale differs from the Srole scale, this author did not find evidence to support this, as was seen in Chapter III (see Hypothesis IV). In all instances, the two scales were quite similar. Their medians were similar and there were no significant differences in the number of anomic cases assessed by each scale. All the studies controlled for age (#4 on Table XVII) and none of the studies found significant differences between the religious groups when age ^Wendell Bell, ’’Anomie, Social Integration, and the Class Structure, Sociometry, 20 (June, 1957)» PPo 105-116; and Dorothy Meier and Wendell Bell, “Anomie and Differential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals,” American Sociological Review, 2*f (May, 1959), pp. 189-202. 3 Dean and Reeves, and Wassef, o£. cit. 47 00 NO NT\ c*~\ CM Shensky Urban Typo logy Center * s &Author* :> Classifi cation < Male & 1 Female Separate Married Non married u © On On > cr\^r\ o * * .. H O Q vO-p o 43 >» o e •H O Q Srole Bell Shensky ; Urban Typo logy Center*s &Author1: Classifi cation Male & Female Separate Married Non married u 0 ON ON > o »H ci «=a CM O _ NO !Dichot omy i Srole Bell and Meier i—■ — • i © 8 North Hatt Scale None A E? TJ -4-> •H TO E X rH © TO © rH & PM’-O O S3 j 1 s CM -H H £ o 53 ———– ollings head 2-part index 0 cy «n -p 0 TO W rH P» Females Single Females College age Rate ! Dean Dean and Reeves Females Single Females College Age 0 ‘to Dean I Wassef © TO TO H B ft TO 0 © ^ Em© Single males & females ZZ-6X Dichot omy Dean and Srole 2 X Snell (0 3 •P TO •P I (0 PM G E O o V) I £ *d t© 48 © £ o S5 SO rH-=t rH • • 3 “8 5 £ m S * O rH a in *H P None p a £ si o * o rH None • • +-> xi 8 B U P-, .TJ w 3 None fM W •y> dd I put? • Urban* Lutheran & Anglicar &other Prot. Prot. and Cath. SOi 00—- 1— J •H hD«s« •H rH a> SQ O txDH •HOP rH £* £ o cd 1 in P & ■P © tfl P P * 645-6j&t May, i960, Olsen, M. “Durkheimfs Two Concepts of Anomie,11 Sociological Quarterly, 5*37, Spring, 1965. Roberts, A, H,, and M, Rokeach, “Anomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice, A Replication,” American Journal of Sociology, 61:355* December, 1956, Rosen, Bernard C, “Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement Syndrome,” Ameri can Sociological Review, Zhi*47-60, April, 1962, Scott, M, B,, and R, Turner, “Weber and Anomie Theory of Deviance,” Sociological Quarterly, p. 37* Spector, A, J, “Expectations, Fulfillment, and Morale,” Journal of Abnor mal and Social Psychology, 52 s 51-56, 1956* Srole, Leo, “Anomie and Authoritarianism, and Prejudice,”; and Milton Rokeach, “Rejoinder,” letters to the editor, American Journal of Sociology, 62:63-67, March, 1962, o “Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,” American Sociological Review, 21:711* December, 1956, Tundn, Melvin, and Ray C, Collins, “Status, Mobility, and Anomie,” British Journal of Sociology, 10:253-267, May, 1959* Wassef, W, Y. “The Influence of Religion, Socio-Economic Status, and Edu cation on Anomie,” Sociological Quarterly, 7*237, Spring, 1967* C. UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS Crowley, James W, “Religious Preference and Worldly Success* A Comparison . of Protestants and Catholics,” Unpublished Master*s Thesis, The Uni versity of Nebraska at Omaha, 1967. Jackson, Elton, and Harry J, Crockett, “Occupational Mobility in the United States,” Unpublished paper presented at the American Socio logical Association Meetings, 1962, Organic, Harold N, “Religious Affiliation and Social Mobility in Contem porary American Society,” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, 1963* Weller, Neil J, “Religion and Social Mobility in Industrial Society,” Unpublished Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan, I960. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SROLE ANOMIA SCALE A. PERIODICALS Aiken, M,, and J. Hage. “Organizational Alienation: A Comparative Analysis,” American Sociological Review, 31:497-507, December, 1966. Angell, Robert C. “Preference for Moral Norms in Three Areas,” American Journal of Sociology, 67:650-660, May, 1962. Bell, Wendell. “Anomie, Social Integration, and the Class Structure,” Sociometry, 20:105-116, June, 1957* Bordura, D. J. “Juvenile Delinquency and fAnondef”, Social Problems, 6:230-238, May, 1958. Dean, Dwight G. “Alienation: Its Meaning and Measurement,” American Sociological Review, 26:753-758, December, 1961, Freeman, H. E., and 0. G. Simmons. “Wives and Mothers and the Post Hospital Mental Patients,” Social Forces, 37:153-159, January, 1958. Hajda, Jan. “Alienation and Integration of Intellectuals,” American Sociological Review, 26:758-777, October, 1961, Keedy, T. “Anomie and Religious Orthodoxy,” Sociology and Social Research, 43:34-37, June, 1958. Killian, Lewis M., and Charles M, Grigg. “Urbanism, Race, and Anomia,” American Journal of Sociology, 67:661-665, April, 1962. McClosky, H., and J, H. Schaar. “Psycological Dimensions of Anomy,” American Sociological Review, 30:15-40, January, 1965. McDill, Edward L. “Anomie, Authoritarianism, Prejudice, and Socio-Economic Status: An Attempt at Clarification,” Social Forces, 39:39-45, March, 1961. McDill, E., and J. C. Ridley. “Status, Anomia, Political Alienation, and Political Participation,” American Journal of Sociology, 68:205-213, April, 1962. McLeod, J., D. Ward, and K. Tancill, “Alienation and the Uses of Mass Media,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 42:503-595, April,,,. 1956. Meier, Dorothy, and Wendell Bell. “Anomie and Differential Access to the Achievement of Life Goals,” American Sociological Review, 24:189-202, May, 1959* 63 Middleton, Russell, ’’Alienation, Race, and Education,” American Socio logical Review, 28:973-977» December, 1963# Mizruchi, Ephraim H. ’’Social Structure and Anomia in a Small City,” American Sociological Review, 25* 645-65*+, May, I960, Net/tier, Gwyn. ”A Measure of Alienation,” American Sociological Review, 22:670-677, December, 1957. Pearlin, Leonard, ’’Alienation from Work: A Study of Student Personnel,” American Sociological Review, 27:31^-326, June, 1962, Photodias, J, D., and J, Biggar. ’’Religiousity, Education, and Ethnic Distance,” American Journal of Sociology, 67:666-672, August, 1962, Rhodes, A, L. ’’Anomia, Aspiration, and Status,” Social Forces, 42:434-440, June, 1964, Roberts, Alan H,, and Milton Rokeach, ’’Anomie, Authoritarianism, and Prejudice: A Replication,” American Journal of Sociology, 61:355-358, December, 1961. Rose, Arnold, ’’Attitudinal Correlates of Social Participation,” Social Forces, 1959, PP# 202-206, Seeman, Melvin, and John W, Evans, ’’Alienation and Learning in a Hospital Setting,” American Sociological Review, 27:772-782, December, 1962, Simmons, J, L, ’’Some Intercorrelations Among Alienation Measures,” Social Forces, 44:370-372, September, 1965. Simpson, R, L,, and H, Max Miller* ’’Social Status and Anomia,” Social Problems, 10:256-264, May, 1963. Srole, Leo, ’’Anomie and Authoritarianism, and Prejudice,”; and Milton Rokeach, ’’Rejoinder,” letters to the editor, American Journal of Sociology, 62:63-67, March, 1962, Srole, Leo, ’’Social Integration and Certain Corollaries: An Exploratory Study,” American Sociological Review, 21:709-716, December, 1956, Tumin, Melvin, and Ray C. Collins, ’’Status, Mobility, and Anomie,” British Journal of Sociology, 10:253-267, May, 1959. B. UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL Hamblin, R, L, ’’Causes of Hostility Toward Negroes and Jews,” working paper, Washington University, n, d. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PROTESTANTISM, ANOMIE AND ANOMIA A. BOOKS Kornhauser, A., H. L, Sheppard, and A, J. Mayer* When Labor Votes. New York: Harper and Row, 1956. B. PERIODICALS Angell, Robert C, “Preferences for Moral Norms in Three Areas,” American Journal of Sociology, 67:650-660, May, 1962. Keedy, T. C., Jr. ’’Anomie and Religious Orthodoxy,” Sociology and Social Research, 43:34-37, January, 1958* Mack, Raymond W., Raymond J. Murphy, and Seymour Yellin, ’’The Protestant Ethic, Level of Aspiration, and Social Mobility: An Empirical Test,” American Sociological Review, 21:295-300, April, 1956# Poblete, Renato, and Thomas F, O’Dea. ’’Anomie and the ’Quest for Commun ity*: The Formation of Sects Among the Puerto Ricans of New York,” American Catholic Sociological Review. 21:18-36, May, I960. Putney, Snell, and Russell Middleton, ’’Ethical Relativism and Anomie,” American Journal of Sociology. 67:430-438, March, 1962. Rosenthal, Celia Stopnicka, ’’Deviation and Social Change in the Jewish Community of a Small Polish Town,” American Journal of Sociology, 60:177-181, March, 195^. APPENDIX A M unicipal U niversity of O maha Omaha, Nebraska 68101 402 / 553-4700 Dear Fellow Students I am sending-this letter to ask you to assist in a legitimate sociological survey* I am working 011 my master’s thesis, and information from you would bo greatly approciated. I think you mil find the questionnaire interesting and it takos a little less than ten minutes to complete, (incidentally, the results of this study mil be available under my name in the library next year.) Once you have completed the form, please put it in the envelope provided and return it to either of these convenient locations: lo Administration building, Room I78 (campus mail room) or 2. Engineering Building, Room 220 (Sociology Department) ■ Please complete and return tomorrow or the next few days. Thank you very much for your cooperation and please remember that your in dividual information will be kept personal. Sincerely Uepartment or Sociology 13 Department of Sociology University of Omaha 67 Tlnis questionnaire is trying to assess some important needs of the students at the University of Omaha. This is an objective study» your name m s drawn from a random sample, and of course your identity will be kept confidential. Please return this questionnaire to in Room_______ by • Thank you for your assistance and be sure to complete this by the specified date# (Incidentally, the questionnaire usually takes about ten minutes to complete.) (You may also return this question naire in the envelope provided by campus mail to Administration Room 178.) ^ ^ s(e sjt s}i 1. Do you have a religious preference? That is, are you either Protestant_____ Other_____ >J4 j); (Please check one) Roman Catholic a. If you are Protestant, please specify the denomination_ 2. How often, if ever, have you attended religious services in the last year? (check one below) Once a week or more Two or three times a Month Once a month A few times a yr. or less Never 3. Even if you do or do not attend church, do you take part in any of the church organizations? yes_____ no______. (if yes, please list the organizations on the lines below). 1. 2. 3:——- b. 5. K k. Here are some statements people are likely to make. Please check if you agree or disagree. You don’t need to spend much time on them — just give your first reaction. a. The end often Justifies the means. b. People’s ideas change so much that I wonder if we’ll ever Agree Disagree _____ have anything to depend on.___________________________________ c. Everything is relative, and there Just aren’t any defi nite rules to live by. d. I wonder what the meaning of life really is. 68 Agree Disagree e. Children born today have a wonderful future to look forward to. f. The only thing that one can be sure of today is that he can be sure of nothing. g. With so many religions abroad, one doesn’t know which one to believe. 5- When you have decisions to make in your everyday life, do you ask yourself what God would want you to do— often, sometimes, or never? often_____________ Sometimes__ Never______ 6. What do you believe about Jesus? Do you believe that Jesus was God’s only son sent into the world to save sinful men, or do you believe he was simply a good man and teacher, or do you have some other belief? Jesus as God’s son___________ Jesus as a teacher and good man_______ Other______________ 7. Of the following Biblical men, how many would most likely be found in the New Testament? (The men are: Moses, Samuel, Peter, Barnabas, and Noah) Check the number that you think are in the New Testament. Be sure to count the number of men in the New Testament and check the total number. 1____ 2______ 3_____ u_____ 5_____* 8. How often have you read the Bible in the past year? Once a week or more_____ Once a month________ Two or three times a month___________ ______ A few times a year or less . Never_______ (just check one) 9. Here again are some statements that you may hear people make, and I’d like to find out how you feel about them. After each one you can tell me whether you agree with it or not. You’ll probably find you agree with some, and dis agree with others. In each case, just give me your first reaction— don’t spend any time on them. Agree Disagree a. These days a person doesn’t really know who he can count on. b. Most public officials are not really interested in the problems of the average man. c. Nowadays a person has to live pretty much for today and let tomorrow take care of itself. d. Its hardly fair to bring children into the world with the way things look for the future. e. In spite of what some people say, the lot of the average man is getting worse. 69 10. Which of the people or things listed below has had the greatest influence on your religious beliefs? (just check your first and second preference with a “1” and a M2”. Clergy ______ Parents_____ _ Tea chers^_____ Friends_______ Books_________ Radio or TV _______ 11. Which of the reasons is the main reason that you attend church? (Check only one) Because I’ve always gone _____ To meet my friends ______ _ Family or friends expect it Makes me feel better ________ To learn how to be a better person _____ To hear a sermon_______ God expects it________ To worship God ______ 12. All things considered, do you think you are more interested, about as interested, or less interested in your religious beliefs than you were ten years ago? (check one below) more interested _______ about as interested ________ less interested _____ 13. What year are you in school? ___________ 1U. What was your father’s occupation while you were growing up? (Please list the position rather than the company. That is, say ray father is a “tele phone lineman”, rather than “he works for the phone company”.) father’s occupation _________________________ 15. How much education does your father have? _______________ 16. Are you married? _______ Single?__________ Divorced?________ Widow?_________ ~ (Just check one) 17- What was your age on your last birthday?_ Once again thank-you very much for your help. Your effort and valuable time has helped us to gain insights in a very important area. Please return this question naire immediately, as we would like to know your opinions as soon as possible. Racial Background 1 Negro__________ White Oriental APPENDIX B 71 Dear ___________,* Please help us’ out and return the questionnaire that you received a few days ago. Seriously, ______ your reply will mean a great deal to all of us and will help us complete a most important project. Thanks a lot. Sincerely, Joe Snell Sociology Department *The message was sent on a five cent post card and was written in longhand to appear more personal. Each post card started with the respondent * s first name. APPENDIX C M unicipal U niversity of O maha Omaha, Nebraska 68101 402 / 553-4700 Dear Student, Now that finals are over, I am sending you another questionnaire. I realize the difficulty in getting things completed at the end of a school year, and I hope now that you would just spend about ten minutes and complete this questionnaire • It is very important to not only myself but others in the department who have spent a great deal of time contacting hundreds of people and processing some 900 questionnaires* This survey can be successful with your help, and the results of this survey will be available under my name in the library. Your individual information will, of course, be confidential. Please complete this questionnaire and do one of two things. 1. FILL OUT questionnaire and simply put the questionnaire in the return envelope and put it in the mail. OR 2. If you are out at 0. U., return to department secretary in Engineering building, room 220 Thank you for your cooperation. Incidentally, if due to clerical error you receive a questionnaire and you have already completed the first questionnaire, then disregard this letter and please accept my appreciation for your help. Thanks. Sincerely, Joe Snell Department of Sociology jb In about five or six days from now if we have not received your questionnaire, we will try to contact you as some questionnaires are lost in the mail. Thank you. APPENDIX D 75 IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY | wm m v* 828 or 6^$> live in cities of 100,000 or more. This is a higher proportion than would have been the case in 1962 because we became coeducational in 1965 and this change has resulted in a higher proportion of commuters than was the case in 1962 I hope that this information will be helpful to you. Sincerely yours, Sister Thomas Albert Corbett, O.P. Director of Institutional Research STA:mh f o r m e r ly C o l l e g e o f S t . M a r y o f th e S p r in g s