UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Status inconsistencies in an educational setting : an application of rank balance theory Clark, Susan M. 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A1 C53_9.pdf [ 9.97MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100039.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100039-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100039-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100039-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100039-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100039-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100039-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100039-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100039.ris

Full Text

STATUS INCONSISTENCIES IN AN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGi AN APPLICATION OF RANK BALANCE THEORY toy SUSAN M. CLARK B.A., L i v e r p o o l U n i v e r s i t y , 1966 M.A., McMaster U n i v e r s i t y , 1971 A Thesis Submitted i n P a r t i a l F u l f i l l m e n t of the Requirements f o r the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy i n the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA August, 1975 In presenting th i s thes is in pa r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Un ivers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L ibrary sha l l make it f ree ly ava i l ab le for reference and study. I fur ther agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thes is for scho lar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representat ives. It is understood that copying or pub l i ca t ion of th is thes is for f i nanc ia l gain sha l l not be allowed without my writ ten permission. Department of The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia 2075 Wesbrook Place Vancouver, Canada V6T 1W5 i ABSTRACT This research i s concerned with a theory of rank balance as an approach to understanding s t r a t i f i e d s o c i a l systems. Despite a long h i s t o r y of i n t e r e s t i n the problem, i t was not u n t i l r e c e n t l y t h a t an attempt was made to develop a theory which i n t e g r a t e s rank balance w i t h i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . This p r o j e c t c r i t i c a l l y examines the theory developed by Z e l d i t c h and Anderson. One hundred and ninety-two students i n a u n i v e r s i t y residence were interviewed i n order to c o l l e c t data d i r e c t e d to answering three problems. The f i r s t problem i n v e s t i g a t e d i s a p r e c o n d i t i o n to the theory and i s concerned w i t h the way i n which a s o c i a l system i s s t r a t i f i e d . I t i s maintained that a person has an o v e r a l l rank i n a system which i s determined by h i s / h e r ranks on r e l e v a n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a weighted according to t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance. The data showed strong support f o r t h i s p a r t of the theory. The second problem was to study the extent to which the students had balanced or imbalanced ranks under three d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n s of balance. The r e s u l t s show that the percentage of balanced and imbalanced persons v a r i e s according to the p r e c i s e d e f i n i t i o n used, although under a l l three c o n d i t i o n s a m a j o r i t y of the students were imbalanced. Such f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e that the usefulness of rank balance as an explanatory system may be l i m i t e d i f there i s no agreement on which people are balanced or imbalanced. The t h i r d problem stu d i e d was to i n v e s t i g a t e i f people who have imbalanced ranks behave d i f f e r e n t l y from those whose ranks are balanced. One response t o imbalance was s t u d i e d . This was the d e s i r e f o r rank m o b i l i t y as expressed through preferences f o r changes i n ranks on the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . Contrary to the p r e d i c t i o n s of the theory, students g e n e r a l l y d i d not appear to be concerned with rank balance. P o s s i b l e reasons f o r t h i s l a c k of concern may be found i n the p e c u l i a -r i t i e s of the student residences as a s o c i a l system, i n the type of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a important to the students, or i n the nature of the comparison processes the members make between themselves. Evidence from t h i s research i n d i c a t e s that the scope of the theory has to be l i m i t e d since i t i s not l i k e l y to be a p p l i c a b l e to a l l s o c i a l systems. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT i TABLE OF CONTENTS i i LIST OF TABLES i i i LIST OF FIGURES v i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v i i CHAPTER I. THE RESEARCH PROBLEM 1 I I . THE RESEARCH DESIGN 3 7 I I I . THE DETERMINANTS OF STATUS d • • • 62 IV. THE PROCESSES OF BALANCE AND THE RESPONSE TO IMBALANCE 101 V. CONCLUSIONS 1 3 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY 163 APPENDIX A THE QUESTIONNAIRES 171 APPENDIX B THE QUESTIONNAIRE CODES 181 *«*«*«* i i i LIST GF TABLES TABLE PAGE I. Interviewer Re l i a b i l i t y , Distribution of Choices Which Were the Same, Omitted or New Between the Original L i s t of Evaluative Criteria and the Li s t Given i n the Re l i a b i l i t y Test, by Interviewer . 50 II. Distribution of Students, Number of Interviews, and Number of Useable Interviews, by Bay • 58 III. Consensus on Rankings on General Status, Distribution of the Interquartile Range of Ranks and Kendall's W, by Bay 64 IV, Percentage Distribution of High Consensus Students on General Status by Status Position and Sex • • 69 V. Percentage Distribution of Friends in the Top Third of Ranks on General Status, by Sex ?4 VI. Percentage Distribution of Friends Ranked in the Top Three Positions on General Status, by Sex 75 VII. The Frequency and Percentage Distribution of the Evaluative Criteria, by Sex 77 VIII. Evaluative Criteria Seen to be Identical by at Least Ten Students in the Supplementary Survey • 81 IX. Kendall's W for A l l Evaluative Criteria Used at Least Twice within a Bay, by Bay . • 92 X. Percentage Distribution of High Consensus Students on Academic and Athletic A b i l i t i e s by Status Position and Sex 9^ XI. Variation Accounted for by the General Status Equation, Males and Females . . . . . 97 iv TABLE PAGE XII. Beta Weights for the Regression Equations for Men and Women . . . 99 XIII. Percentage Distribution of Others' Rankings Under Three Conditions of Balance, by Sex . . . I l l XIV. Percentage Distribution of Others' Rankings Under Three Rank Definition of Balance, by Sex 112 XV. Percentage Distribution of Self-Rankings Under Three Conditions of Balance, by Sex . . . . . . 115 XVI. Percentage Distribution of Self-Rankings Under The Shree Rank Definition of Balance, by Sex. . 115 XVII. First Question on Mobilityj Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks Under the All-Rank Definition of Balance, by Sex 120 XVIII. Fi r s t Question on Mobilityj Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks Under the Three-Rank Definition of Balance, for Men . . . 122 XIX. F i r s t Question on Mobilityi Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Two-Rank Definition of Balance, for Men . . . . 123 XX. First Question on Mobility i Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks Under the Two-Rank Definition of Balance, for Wmen . . . 123 XXI. Fi r s t Question on Mobility! Percentage-Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Three-Rank Definition of Balance, for Women . . 124 XXII. Fi r s t Question on Mobility! Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Two-Rank Definition of Balance, by Sex . . . . 124 XXIII. Second Question on Mobility i Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the All-Rank Definition of Balance, by Sex . . . . 126 XXIV. Second Question on Mobility! Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Three-Rank Definition of Balance, for Men . . • 127 V TABLE PAGE. XXV. Second Question on Mobility i Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Three-Rank Definition of Balance, for Women . . 1 2 7 XXVI. Second Question on Mobilityt Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Two-Rank Definition of Balance, for Men . . . . 128 XXVII. Second Question on Mobility i Percentage Distribution of Preferred Ranks under the Two-Rank Definition of Balance, for Women . . .128 *«**«*« v i LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE P A G E 1. A Balanced Three Person M a t r i x 18 v i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I should like to express my indebtedness to my research supervisor. Dr. Y. Chang, and to the members of my dissertation committee. Dr. B. Alfred, Dr. M. Foschi, Dr. Ratner and Dr. R. Wong, for the help and encouragement they gave to me throughout this project. I am grateful to King's College University administration and students for their willingness to cooperate in the research, to Elizabeth Pacey and Guy Masland for their help with the interviewing, to Wita Schliewen and Barry De V i l l e for their assistance with the computer programming, and to (Mrs. N.) Florence Levy for the typing of the f i n a l manuscript. I would like to thank the Canada Council for providing financial assistance i n the form of Doctoral Fellowships for the period, 1970 to 1972. 1 CHAPTER I THE RESEARCH PROBLEM The research reported i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters i s concerned w i t h an area of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n c a l l e d rank balance.''" Although one can tra c e the development of t h i s approach from the work of e a r l y s o c i o l o g i s t s , i t has not been u n t i l comparatively r e c e n t l y t h a t considerable a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d towards t h i s f i e l d of research. Indeed, i t i s not u n t i l 1966 t h a t one gets a systematic and more complete development of an a c t u a l theory of rank balance as opposed to 2 a general approach to p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . As a r e s u l t of the developments i n the approach being so rec e n t , there has been no systematic t e s t i n g of the theory i n an attempt to e s t a b l i s h i t s v a l i d i t i y . This p r o j e c t was designed to t e s t c e r t a i n of the p r e c o n d i t i o n s , assumptions and hypotheses of the theory suggested by Z e l d i t c h and Anderson i n an attempt t o begin the processedf e s t a b l i s h i n g i t s usefulness i n e x p l a i n i n g some aspects of s o c i a l behaviour. Recent i n t e r e s t i n the rank balance approach dates from 1954 when L e n s k i published an a r t i c l e e n t i t l e d "Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n ! A N o n - V e r t i c a l Dimension of S o c i a l Status."-^ In t h i s a r t i c l e L e n s k i presents the ideas which are b a s i c to the approach and which have been adopted, i n whole or i n p a r t , by l a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s . Rank balance d i f f e r s from other 2 approaches w i t h i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i n th a t i t i s concerned w i t h a " n o n - v e r t i c a l s t a t u s dimension." Instead of a t t e n t i o n being d i r e c t e d t o the consequences of people being ranked r e l a t i v e to one another on c e r t a i n h i e r a r c h i e s of s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the rank balance approach seeks to e x p l a i n behaviour by studying the extent to which a person's rank on one h i e r a r c h y i s of the same order as h i s / h e r rank on d i f f e r e n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . Thus the concern i s wi t h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the ranks each i n d i v i d u a l has on various h i e r a r c h i e s r a t h e r than the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s on the same c r i t e r i o n . Using t h i s approach, i t i s maintained t h a t a person w i t h i n a s o c i a l system i s evaluated on va r i o u s status c r i t e r i a r e l e v a n t to tha t system. Such evaluations determine whether the ranks to which a person i s assigned are of the same l e v e l . I f they are, then a person i s s a i d t o have balanced ranks, other-wise they are imbalanced. When a person has imbalanced ranks i t i s assumed t h a t he or she i s under some s o r t of s t r e s s or t e n s i o n which a person w i t h balanced ranks does not experience. For example, a person who has high occupational p r e s t i g e and high educational attainment w i l l not experience the s t r e s s which a person w i t h low occupational p r e s t i g e but high educa-t i o n a l attainment would f e e l . Consequently, i t i s suggested th a t people w i t h imbalanced ranks w i l l s t r i v e to e l i m i n a t e the s t r e s s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h i s s t a t e . The reasons why such 3 s t r e s s a r i s e s are not f u l l y understood but one p o s s i b i l i t y i s t h a t people encounter d i f f i c u l t i e s i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n as others' expectations f o r t h e i r behaviour w i l l depend on t o which rank they respond. This may r e s u l t i n there being c o n f l i c t i n g expectations about the behaviour which, i n t u r n , may make i t d i f f i c u l t f o r people w i t h d i s c r e p a n t ranks to have s a t i s f a c t o r y s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . Compensatory behaviour which a r i s e s from attempts to a l l e v i a t e the s t r e s s connected with imbalanced ranks has been seen to take many d i f f e r e n t f o r m s , p a g i n g by the reported r e s e a r c h . Those with imbalanced ranks have been reported as being both more l i b e r a l i n t h e i r p o l i t i c a l and economic views^ and more c o n s e r v a t i v e ^ than people whose ranks are balanced. E q u a l l y they are seen t o be more predisposed to j o i n s o c i a l 7 8 movements' or r e t r e a t i n t o i s o l a t i o n , t o seek a r e d i s t r i b u -9 t i o n of power w i t h i n s o c i e t y ^ or to have higher incidence of psychosomatic d i s o r d e r s , 1 0 The p o s s i b l e forms which the compensatory behaviour can take are divergent and i n some cases c o n t r a d i c t o r y i n nature. To t h i s extent, the research u s i n g t h i s approach has presented many p e r p l e x i n g problems. Indeed, one i s l e d to question the v i a b i l i t y of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r f i e l d of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . Some of the problems have undoubtedly a r i s e n because researchers were u s i n g an approach which has not been 4 w e l l systematized. Consequently, some of the b a s i c theore-t i c a l problems and methodological i s s u e s were u n r e s o l v e d . 1 * Many of these t h e o r e t i c a l and methodological i s s u e s are not s p e c i f i c to L e n s k i and l a t e r r e s e a r c h e r s , but can be found t o be problems since the beginning of the work i n s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . Thus one c o n t i n u a l l y f i n d s a l a c k of a c l e a r l y defined r e l a t i o n s h i p between the various s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s , problems i n measuring b a s i c concepts such as s o c i a l s t a t u s , and disagreement on what are the important e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i e t y . Researchers u s i n g multidimensional approaches t o s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n assume t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t e v a l u a t i o n s of people are made on more than one e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i o n . I n view of the complexity of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s such an assumption seems warranted although i t would be i n c o r r e c t t o assume t h a t there are m u l t i p l e bases of e v a l u a t i o n i n a l l types of s o c i e t i e s and a l l s o c i a l systems. W i t h i n t h i s general o r i e n t a -t i o n t o s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , rank balance i s one approach and i n common w i t h t h i s wider f i e l d has i t s foundations i n the 12 work of Weber. Weber, however, r a i s e s , but does not g i v e a s a t i s f a c t o r y answer, to the very b a s i c question of the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between the three e v a l u a t i v e dimensions he d i s c u s s e s — namely, a person's c l a s s or economic p o s i t i o n , s t a t u s and power. I n h i s response to what he termed as Marx's 'untenable monocausal t h e o r y ' 1 ^ Weber maintained t h a t one would have a 5 b e t t e r understanding of people's s o c i a l a c t i o n s i f one considered various separate dimensions ofr e v a l u a t i o n . Marx assumes th a t one's economic p o s i t i o n c o i n c i d e s w i t h one's p o s i t i o n on other r e l e v a n t dimensions, f o r example, power, or p r e s t i g e . Although Weber regards economic f a c t o r s as important i n determining a person's s o c i a l rank, he maintains that the eva l u a t i o n s on the three s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s w i l l not n e c e s s a r i l y be of the same order. Weber, n e v e r t h e l e s s , incom-p l e t e l y s p e c i f i e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the f a c t o r s he di s c u s s e s . At one i n s t a n c e , he w r i t e s that c l a s s and s t a t u s are d i s t i n c t i n t h a t " ' s t a t u s groups' hinder the s t r i c t c a r r y i n g through of the sheer market p r i n c i p l e , " 1 - ' and yet he a l s o maintains t h a t "property as such i s not always recog-n i z e d as a st a t u s q u a l i f i c a t i o n , but i n the long run i t i s f l 6 /recognized as such/ w i t h an e x t r a o r d i n a r y r e g u l a r i t y . " I n r e l a t i o n t o the concept of power, he gives no c l e a r i n d i c a t i o n as t o how t h i s i s r e l a t e d t o the other concepts. I t would be d i f f i c u l t to overestimate the importance of Weber's work i n the area of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n d e s p i t e i t s obvious problems. L a t e r researchers have not improved markedly on Weber's id e a s , however, and the problems i n Weber's work rec u r i n more recent research. Thus i n the community st u d i e s of the 1920s to 1940s i n the U.S.A.,1'' one f i n d s t h a t a major concern i s with the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p s of various s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s but t h a t the t h e o r e t i c a l understanding of the iss u e has progressed h a r d l y at a l l beyond Weber's i n i t i a l i d e a s . 6 However, i t can be argued t h a t w h i l s t these s t u d i e s d i d not f u r t h e r the t h e o r e t i c a l development of the f i e l d , they d i d give considerable a t t e n t i o n to the methodological problems encountered i n measuring concepts such as s o c i a l c l a s s , s t a t u s or power. Weber Tpays l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to these concerns; but i n the work of Warner and h i s a s s o c i a t e s , f o r i n s t a n c e , one 1 8 f i n d s a d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the measurement of the concepts. Although Warner's work can be seen to be an improvement over previous research i n t h i s regard, c r i t i c s have commented tha t h i s measurement procedures are not f u l l y explained and that the concept of s o c i a l c l a s s used by Warner and h i s a s s o c i a t e s shows a fundamental a m b i g u i t y . 1 ^ I t i s even unclear i n some instances whether s o c i a l c l a s s i s a multidimensional or unidimensional 2 0 concept. That such a question i s r a i s e d again i l l u s t r a t e s the f a c t t h a t the s t a t u s dimensions and t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s have not been p r e c i s e l y s p e c i f i e d . Warner him s e l f argues th a t s t a t u s , power and economic p o s i t i o n are d i f f e r e n t and separate 21 dimensions but h i s research l a c k s a systematic and more exhaustive d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i r i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s and of the consequences of having various combinations of ranks on the h i e r a r c h i e s of e v a l u a t i o n . Indeed, one could maintain t h a t h i s major concern i s not w i t h the e f f e c t s of s p e c i f i c combinations of s t a t u s v a r i a b l e s but r a t h e r w i t h developing a s i n g l e measure of s o c i a l s t a t u s from the evaluations made on s p e c i f i c evalua-t i v e c r i t e r i a . I f i n the e a r l y 19^0s, one had assessed the progress made by those who can now be seen as the forerunners of the rank balance approach, one could have concluded that the s i g n i f i c a n t problems had been r a i s e d but t h a t l i t t l e agreement had been reached on the s o l u t i o n s t o the i s s u e s . Thus, m u l t i p l e dimensions of e v a l u a t i o n were widely accepted as c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the s t r a t i f i e d s o c i a l systems being s t u d i e d , but the nature of the dimensions, t h e i r measurement and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s were s t i l l questions without adequate answers. In 1 9 ^ , however, two a r t i c l e s were published which d e a l t s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s of st a t u s dimensions and w i t h the consequences of having unequal ranks on various 22 e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . The a r t i c l e s , by Hughes and Benoit Smullyan, are q u i t e d i s s i m i l a r i n o r i e n t a t i o n . Hughes i s concerned w i t h the problems some people encounter i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n as a r e s u l t of having d i f f e r e n t ranks on e v a l u a t i v e h i e r a r c h i e s . Benoit-Smullyan's a r t i c l e i s more t h e o r e t i c a l i n that he discusses the p r o b a b i l i t y of. people having statuses which are of l i k e order and the consequences f o r both the i n d i v i d u a l and the s o c i e t y , which may a r i s e when t h i s e q u i l i -b r a t i o n of s t a t u s e s does not occur. Demerath, i n h i s account of the development of the rank balance approach, t r a c e s a h i s t o r y i n which Benoit-Smullyan's ideas are i n c o n s e q u e n t i a l but i n which Hughes' ideas are important. 8 The d i f f e r e n t emphasis he places on the two a r t i c l e s may a r i s e because he sees a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between t h e o r i s t s who have discussed these ideas i n r e l a t i o n to s o c i e t a l concerns and those who are concerned w i t h i n d i v i d u a l s ' responses. Benoit-Smullyan's a r t i c l e i s bypassed as being too c l e a r l y i n the Weberian t r a d i t i o n and consequently, from Demerath's p o i n t of view, not as s i g n i f i c a n t as Hughes* work. W h i l s t r e c o g n i z i n g the i n i t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n of Weber's i d e a s , Demerath maintains t h a t i t was Simmel who a c t i v a t e d the i n t e r e s t i n the concept of rank balance. For Demerath, the l i n e of development moves from Weber to Simmel, with the l a t t e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n "the i n s t a b i -l i t i e s of s i t u a t i o n s r a t h e r than t h e i r m o n o l i t h i c s t r u c t u r e s " J and h i s i n f l u e n c e on the Chicago School and i t s concern w i t h the marginal man. I t i s t h i s concept of marginal man which i s of importance i n Hughes' a r t i c l e and f o r Demerath, Hughes "resumes 26 the development of s t a t u s discrepancy per se." Hughes describes the d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r a person and those with whom© one i n t e r a c t s i f c e r t a i n s t a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not i n l i n e w i t h the norm. His examples are those of the Negro doctor and the female s c i e n t i s t , Hughes discusses the p o s s i b l e c o n f l i c t which may a r i s e from such discrepant statuses as people may r e a c t to the doctor i n terms of h i s race r a t h e r than i n terms of h i s occupation. Such problems may a f f e c t both the d o c t o r - p a t i e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p and r e l a t i o n -ships between colleagues and l e a d t o s i t u a t i o n s where the 9 p o t e n t i a l c o n f l i c t i s minimized by p u t t i n g the doctor, f o r i n s t a n c e , i n jobs where he w i l l not meet the p u b l i c . Hughes' a r t i c l e i s an i n s i g h t f u l d i s c u s s i o n of p a r t i c u l a r s t a t u s dilemmas but the t h e o r e t i c a l side of h i s work i s undeveloped. For i n s t a n c e , there i s l i t t l e d i s c u s s i o n of the types of s t a t u s d i s c r e p a n c i e s which would lead t o the problems he suggests nor are the p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s f o r the i n d i v i d u a l w i t h discrepant s t a t u s e s discussed i n aasystematic manner. I n c o n t r a s t , Benoit-Smullyan*s a r t i c l e i s t h e o r e t i c a l i n o r i e n t a t i o n . This a r t i c l e , i n d e a l i n g w i t h a person's ranks on d i f f e r e n t dimensions and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , i s e s s e n t i a l l y a reworking of Weber's id e a s , although there are some a d d i t i o n a l important i n s i g h t s . For example, Benoit-Smullyan uses the same three dimensions as Weber d i d to develop the d i f f e r e n t h i e r a r c h i e s of s t a t u s , but he proceeds to suggest the idea of s t a t u s e q u i l i b r a t i o n . S o c i a l s t a t u s he d e f i n e s as the s t a t u s which would e x i s t i f a person had per-f e c t l y e q u i l i b r a t e d s t a t u s e s . He suggests there would be p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between people's ranks on the three dimensions and that where such an e q u i l i b r a t i o n process does not develop, f o r example, through the movement of ranks on the h i e r a r c h i e s , then the r e s u l t i n g s o c i a l tensions could produce intense c o n f l i c t — e v e n to the p o i n t of r e v o l u t i o n . Benoit-Smullyan a l s o w r i t e s of p o s s i b l e ways to measure t h i s e q u i l i b r a t i n g tendency e i t h e r by t a k i n g a simple average of the separate p o l i t i c a l , economic and p r e s t i g e statuses f o r 10 each i n d i v i d u a l or by weighting the dimensions according t o t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance and then u s i n g a weighted r a n k i n g to d e f i n e the o v e r a l l s o c i a l s t a t u s . I t i s t h i s l a t t e r procedure which Benoit-Smullyan maintains would give a b e t t e r approximation of the s o c i a l s t a t u s of a person. Such an approach has not, however, been implemented w i t h i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n . Although both of these a r t i c l e s were published i n 1944 there does not appear to have been any great i n t e r e s t i n the ideas r a i s e d i n the a r t i c l e s at the time they were w r i t t e n . Indeed, i t i s almost ten years l a t e r before one again f i n d s reference t o these issues i n the e m p i r i c a l work of Homans 2and Adams. Homans does not e x p l i c i t l y r e f e r to s t a t u s d i s c r e -pancy, or any such concept, but i n h i s a n a l y s i s of why one group of c l e r k s i s l e s s contented w i t h t h e i r job than another group he discusses the f a c t t h a t high p r e s t i g e i n terms of job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s not a s s o c i a t e d w i t h correspondingly high: economic rewards. Adams' research was concerned w i t h a i r c r a f t crew behaviour. He s t u d i e d the e f f e c t s on group e f f i c i e n c y of i n d i v i d u a l s i n the group a l l having the same s t a t u s or of some having h i g h s t a t u s and others low s t a t u s . Adams co n s t r u c t s an index of s t a t u s congruence f o r the group by i n c l u d i n g such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as age, rank, amount of f l i g h t time and l e n g t h of s e r v i c e . His research i s somewhat d i f f e r e n t from l a t e r reserach i n that he i s studying the e f f e c t s of s t a t u s con-gruence of a group r a t h e r than of each of the i n d i v i d u a l s . 11 Consequently, he does not d i s c u s s whether each i n d i v i d u a l has a congruent s t a t u s but whether one group i s more or l e s s congruent than another group. Nevertheless, the concept of group congruence he uses bears a d i s t i n c t r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the concept of rank balance used by other s o c i o l o g i s t s i n work p r i o r to and f o l l o w i n g Adam's r e p o r t . The problems which have been discussed as charac-t e r i s t i c of the e a r l i e r research i n s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n do not cease t o be problems w i t h the p u b l i c a t i o n of Lenski's research i n 195^» L e n s k i argues t h a t people w i t h low s t a t u s c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n are more l i k e l y t o hold l i b e r a l p o l i t i c a l views, measured by v o t i n g f o r the Democratic P a r t y , than are people wi t h high s t a t u s c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n . The major s i g n i f i c a n c e of h i s i n i t i a l c o n t r i b u t i o n l i e s i n the f a c t that he deals ex-p l i c i t l y w i t h the concept of s t a t u s c r y s t a l l i z a t i o n , i t s t h e o r e t i c a l j u s t i f i c a t i o n , o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n and a p p l i c a t i o n t o a p a r t i c u l a r research problem; but i t i s apparent from the a r t i c l e and from the problems faced by subsequent researchers who used h i s approach, that the d i s c u s s i o n of one p a r t i c u l a r problem, p o l i t i c a l preferences, does not provide an adequate t h e o r e t i c a l base f o r the study of other s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y r e l a t e d behaviour. The choice of the e v a l u a t i v e h i e r a r c h i e s , the a c t u a l nature of imbalance and whether a l l forms are equ a l l y d i s t u r b i n g , and the question of under what c o n d i t i o n s people may e x h i b i t p a r t i c u l a r forms of compensatory behaviour are a l l questions which are d e a l t w i t h inadequately. 12 I t i s perhaps the inadequacy of the theory found i n the research u s i n g rank balance which l e d some s o c i o l o g i s t s t o suggest that the whole approach could be best subsumed under already e x i s t i n g t h e o r i e s and i n p a r t i c u l a r the theory of cog-29 30 31 n i t i v e dissonance. 7 Geschwender^ and Sampson-^ both take t h i s approach but Sampson a l s o suggests t h a t i t i s the concept of expectancy congruence which i s common to both t h e o r i e s . Con-sequently, he maintains t h a t a tendency towards s t a t u s e q u i l i -b r a t i o n w i l l not occur w i t h any and a l l s t a t u s r * di s c r e p a n c i e s but only when d i s c r e p a n c i e s i n rank imply i n c o n s i s t e n t expecta-t i o n s f o r the behaviour of the person who occupies those ranks. Under such circumstances both the person who occupies t h i s i n c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n and people w i t h whom i n t e r a c t i o n takes place are i n a s i t u a t i o n where i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o a n t i c i p a t e each other's behaviour. The incumbent of the p o s i t i o n i s l i k e l y to f e e l s t r e s s and t e n s i o n and other people may exert pressure on a person i n an i n c o n s i s t e n t p o s i t i o n t o t r y t o b r i n g about an e q u i l i b r a t i n g process and render h i s / h e r behaviour more p r e d i c t a b l e . I n a study conducted by Brandon, she compares Sampson's model of rank imbalance w i t h that of L e n s k i where i t i s assumed that; t a l l forms of imbalance w i l l be e q u a l l y d i s t u r b i n g . - ^ 2 She presents ;data which i n d i c a t e s that Sampson's model i s g e n e r a l l y s u p e r i o r to t h a t of L e n s k i , although n e i t h e r of them was e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y i n e x p l a i n i n g the observed behaviour. The major problem which 13 remains unanswered i n Sampson's work i s tha t of being able t o st a t e which combination of imbalanced ranks w i l l lead t o i n -c o n s i s t e n t expectations. Unless t h i s can be answered before-hand, the explanatory and p r e d i c t i v e a b i l i t y of t h i s approach i s l i m i t e d . The absence of a s a t i s f a c t o r y development of the t h e o r e t i c a l bases of rank balance has been a severe hindrance i n the research u s i n g t h i s approach. Thus i t i s questionable as to what extent researchers have progressed beyond an i n t u i t i v e understanding t h a t s p e c i f i c combinations of ranks held by people do i n f l u e n c e some vaguely s p e c i f i e d forms of behaviour. Although some of these problems are due to a l a c k of concern with an a c t u a l theory of rank balance, i t i s a l s o the case t h a t there i s a very fundamental problem i n the development of such a theory which seems to have no adequate s o l u t i o n . This i s s u e has been discussed by M i t c h e l l , D e m e r a t h , ^ Hyrnan-^ and i n p a r t i c u l a r by B l a l o c k . - ^ The i s s u e they r a i s e i s what B l a l o c k l a b e l s the i d e n t i -f i c a t i o n problem and w h i l s t t h i s i s not p e c u l i a r j u s t t o t h i s p a r t i c u l a r theory i t i s of c r u c i a l importance i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . The problem a r i s e s i n maintaining the independence of s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y and v e r t i c a l s o c i a l s t a t u s since the former concept i s defined i n terms of the l a t t e r . Consequently, i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the behavioural e f f e c t s of s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y may be r e d u c i b l e t o simple d i f f e r e n c e s i n v e r t i c a l s o c i a l 14 status. Indeed, empirical studies indicate that behaviour characteristic of people with low status crystallization i s also characteristic of those with low social status. In both instances people have been described as p o l i t i c a l l y r a d i c a l , ^ as having low rates of participation in voluntary organiza-tions^® and high levels of mental disorders. Researchers, starting with Lenski i n 1954, have attempted to develop procedures which would allow for a more rigorous control of the effects of vertical status in order that one might conclude that behaviour which i s attributed to rank imbalance really i s a consequence of that and not simply the effect of high or low status by i t s e l f . None of the procedures developed have been entirely satisfactory. In some cases vertical social status has not been effectively con-trolled whilst in others i t cannot be determined that the effects attributed to rank imbalance are due to that phenomenon and not to some other interactive effect between the status 40 hierarchies. Blalock characterizes the problem as the general one of identifying coefficients i n simultaneous equa-tions and comments that there are no purely empirical means of 41 identifying the coefficients. He, too, suggests alternative solutions to the problems but i s s t i l l forced to conclude that none of them are l i k e l y to give completely satisfactory results. The issue i s to be able to put restrictions on the model of status inconsistency which would allow one to differentiate the effects i t predicts from those of alternative 15 e x p l a n a t i o n s . Although i n d i c a t i n g some o f the a l t e r n a t i v e models of i n c o n s i s t e n c y which can be generated i f c e r t a i n assumptions are made, ( f o r i n s t a n c e , s t a t u s i n c o n s i s t e n c y w i l l have an e f f e c t i r r e s p e c t i v e of the d i r e c t i o n of incon-s i s t e n c y ) , B l a l o c k maintains t h a t inadequate t h e o r e t i c a l c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n a l s o hinders the job of determining the v i a b i l i t y of the theory. I n order t o progress i n t h i s d i r e c t i o n he suggests that* I t w i l l , t h e r e f o r e , probably be necessary to apply two d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s simultaneously. We s h a l l have to explore the i m p l i c a t i o n s of a l t e r n a t i v e mathematical f o r m u l a t i o n s , but i t w i l l a l s o be necessary to formulate v e r b a l t h e o r i e s t h a t s p e c i f y more c l e a r l y the co n d i -t i o n s under which i n c o n s i s t e n c y e f f e c t s can be expected t o be more or l e s s , pronounced, or t o be patterned i n given ways.^ 2 I t i s to t h i s l a t t e r question t h a t Z e l d i t c h and Anderson address t h e i r a r t i c l e , J T h e i r s can be seen as the f i r s t attempt to develop an e x p l i c i t theory of rank balance. I n t h e i r work they de a l s y s t e m a t i c a l l y w i t h the assumptions they see t o be common to the research which has used t h i s approach, the p r e c o n d i t i o n s of the theory, the d e f i n i t i o n s of terms and concepts and with the behaviour which w i l l be e x h i b i t e d by people w i t h imbalanced ranks. I n the i n t r o d u c -t i o n to the p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e i r theory Z e l d i t c h and Anderson w r i t e i Despite a long h i s t o r y of great i n t e r e s t i n the problem the a v a i l a b l e evidence only weakly confirms the c e n t r a l assumption t h a t imbalanced ranks generate s t r a i n and e f f o r t s t o r e s t o r e 16 balance. C o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s have been obtained, supposedly p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s are sometimes q u i t e i n c o n c l u s i v e and i t i s of t e n necessary to invent ad hoc p r i n c i p l e s t o e x p l a i n p e c u l i a r r e s u l t s i n p a r t i c u l a r cases. This i s due l e s s to the f a c t t h a t the balance assumption i s f a l s e than to the incomplete and very vague f o r m u l a t i o n of the theory. I t s assumptions have not been made e x p l i c i t , the scope of the theory has not been c l e a r l y d e f i n e d , s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t processes have used the same name, and many p o r t i o n s of the t h e o r y — s u c h as the p o s s i b l e response processes—have not been thought out at a l l . ^ U n l i k e some of the researchers mentioned p r e v i o u s l y , Z e l d i t c h and Anderson t r e a t the theory of rank balance i n i t s own r i g h t and not as part of a more general theory of psycho-l o g i c a l d i s p o s i t i o n s . They place the theory w i t h i n the f i e l d of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n and argue t h a t multidimensional ev a l u a t i o n s w i t h i n a s o c i a l system are c l e a r l y a p r e c o n d i t i o n to t h e i r theory. I t i s maintained t h a t the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of a s o c i a l system can be understood i n terms of each person i n the system having a general or o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n . Each person's o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n i s determined by the combination of a set of weighted ranks on st a t u s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a used by people w i t h i n a given s o c i a l system. The weights attached to the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a i n d i c a t e the r e l a t i v e importance of each c r i t e r i o n and thereby determine the r e l a t i v e c o n t r i b u t i o n each rank makes to a person's o v e r a l l s t a t u s . On the assumption that the statu s equation i s a l i n e a r f u n c t i o n of the ranks on the weighted c r i t e r i a , then the general standing a person has can be expressed i n the f o l l o w i n g way* 17 w l r l i + w2 r 2 i f " " + W k r k i - R i ^ where i s the o v e r a l l s t anding i n the s o c i a l system, r ^ , r 2 i ~ ~ " r f c i a r e " t h e ranks on s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a and w^  w 2 i n wfc are the weights attabhed to the st a t u s c r i t e r i a . I f a person's o v e r a l l s t a t u s i s not determined i n the manner they suggest then the theory Z e l d i t c h and Anderson subsequently develop o b v i o u s l y would not apply. The nature of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a used w i t h i n a s p e c i f i c s o c i a l system, the weights or r e l a t i v e importance of the c r i t e r i a and people's ranks on the c r i t e r i a are c l e a r l y e m p i r i c a l questions. Z e l d i t c h and Anderson suggest t h a t i n order to s i m p l i f y the i n i t i a l theory and rese a r c h , i t could be assumed that a l l people w i t h i n the system agree on the r e l a t i v e importance of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . They see such an assumption not being necessary once the theory has been more f u l l y developed and, indeed, i t may be the case t h a t rank imbalance i t s e l f leads to an increase i n the disagreement over which e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a are important. I f one f o l l o w s Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's example of d e p i c t i n g a s o c i a l system i n terms of a matrix then rank balance can be defined w i t h reference t o the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n m a t r i x . The matrix below represents a three person s o c i a l system i n which people are evaluated on three s t a t u s c r i t e r i a . 18 E v a l u a t i v e C r i t e r i a Members Academic A t h l e t i c F r i e n d l i n e s s  a b i l i t y a b i l i t y MacDonald 1 1 1 B b u t i l i e r 2 2 2 McPhee 3 3 3 FIGURE 1 A Balanced Three Person M a t r i x Each person i s represented by one row i n the matrix and a person's rank on the c r i t e r i o n i s entered i n a c e l l of the matrix. A person can then be s a i d to have balanced ranks ' i f and only i f every entry i n the i t h row i s greater than, every entry i s the same as, or every entry i s l e s s than each c o r r e s -4 6 ponding entry i n any other row.' I n the above example i t can be seen t h a t the three people a l l have balanced ranks. A l l research u s i n g rank balance as an explanatory approach p r e d i c t s t h a t people w i t h imbalanced ranks w i l l behave d i f f e r e n t l y from those whose ranks are balanced. The d i f f e r e n c e i n behaviour a r i s e s because of the i n s t a b i l i t y of the ranks which are not balanced and through the t e n s i o n people experience as a r e s u l t of t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Z e l d i t c h and Anderson formulate these ideas i n t o three assumptions which are b a s i c to t h e i r theory. They s t a t e t h a t i 1. Balanced ranks are s t a b l e j 2. Imbalanced ranks tend t o change u n t i l they become balanced; 47 3 . Imbalanced ranks produce a s t a t e of t e n s i o n . . ' 19 I t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the case t h a t a l l imbalanced rank systems w i l l achieve a s t a t e of balance. However, i t i s po s t u l a t e d t h a t w h i l s t ever the ranks are imbalanced a person w i l l experience some form of t e n s i o n . I n an attempt to create balance and t o a l l e v i a t e the t e n s i o n a s s o c i a t e d with imbalance, one can p r e d i c t t h a t a person w i t h imbalanced ranks w i l l act i n d i f f e r e n t ways from those whose ranks are balanced. Such a statement i s obviously very vague and has l i m i t e d p r e d i c t i v e value unless the exact forms of behaviour can be s p e c i f i e d . I n order f o r a person to be aware th a t h i s or her ranks are imbalanced i t i s necessary f o r some comparison process to take place between d i f f e r e n t people or groups. As Z e l d i t c h and Anderson suggest, t h i s process i s p o o r l y under-stood i n s o f a r as i t i s unclear which comparisons w i l l cause people to f e e l r e l a t i v e l y deprived. Not a l l comparisons between ego and others w i l l r e s u l t i n ego d e f i n i n g him/herself as having imbalanced ranks and thereby a c t i v a t i n g mechanisms to create balance. I f , i n f a c t , no comparisons are made, Z e l d i t c h and Anderson define the ranks as being "vacuously" balanced and s t a b l e . I n a d d i t i o n , " i n s u l a t i o n " occurs when a person makes a comparison between h i m s e l f / h e r s e l f and others who are imbalanced i n the same way and thus does not r e a l i z e t h a t h i s / h e r ranks could be defined as imbalanced from a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e . I t can be noted t h a t Z e l d i t c h and Anderson i n d i c a t e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l makes comparisons and thus i s aware of h i s / h e r own balance or imbalance. This s e l f 20 r e a l i z a t i o n i s i n co n t r a s t to Le n s k i ' s approach where balance or imbalance i s not n e c e s s a r i l y a s u b j e c t i v e l y f e l t c o n d i t i o n although people may s t i l l engage i n behaviour to counteract imbalance without any awareness that e q u i l i b r a t i n g ranks was the u n d e r l y i n g impetus. I n terms of Z e l d i t c h and Anderson theory, however, compensatory behaviour a r i s e s because a person has made a comparison between him/herself and s i g n i -f i c a n t others and has r e a l i z e d t h a t h i s / h e r rank system d i f f e r s from t h a t of other people. I f a person defines him/herself as having imbalanced ranks, what then are the processes which could be fol l o w e d i n order to counteract t h i s undesirable s t a t e ? Published research Lg has i n d i c a t e d t h a t people may respond i n d i f f e r i n g ways. 7 Z e l d i t c h and Anderson maintain t h a t despite the v a r i e d forms of compensatory behaviour which have been reported such behaviour can be c l a s s i f i e d i n t o only a few response c a t e g o r i e s . F i v e c a t e g o r i e s of response t o imbalance are considered» i s o l a t i o n , i n s u l a t i o n , r o l e - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , m o b i l i t y and a s e r i e s of responses which could l e a d to s o c i a l c o n f l i c t and r e v o l u t i o n as suggested by Benoit-Smullyan. The f i r s t three responses are c l a s s i f i e d as w i t h -drawal responses as these are forms of behaviour such t h a t a person does not deal w i t h the problems of having imbalanced ranks but i n s t e a d withdraws from those s i t u a t i o n s i n which the comparison process i s d i s t u r b i n g and which d e f i n e s him/her 21 as being imbalanced. Thus, " i s o l a t i o n " ( i s a response i n which a person does not compare him/herself w i t h any other person i n the s o c i a l system; " i n s u l a t i o n " occurs when comparisons are made only between i n d i v i d u a l s who are imbalanced i n the same manner and who,therefore, would not see themselves as having imbalanced ranks; " r o l e - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n " may occur when there are two or more r o l e s i n a s o c i a l system and people make comparisons not between the a c t o r s i n the system but between the r o l e s which people perform.-* 0 I t i s then l i k e l y t h a t comparisons between a t t r i b u t e s which are not part of the r o l e w i l l not be d i s t u r b i n g to people, and people w i l l not f e e l t o have imbalanced ranks. For example, Z e l d i t c h and Anderson d i s c u s s the f a c t t h a t a surgeon who has higher ranks on s k i l l , p r e s t i g e and income than an a n a e s t h e s i o l o g i s t w i l l not f e e l imbalanced because he i s l e s s competent than the anaesthesio-l o g i s t at g i v i n g a n a e s t h e t i c s as t h i s i s not regarded as p a r t of the surgeon's r o l e . This response i s connected to a problem Z e l d i t c h and Anderson d i s c u s s e a r l i e r i n t h e i r paper which they l a b e l 'system reference problems.'^ 1 Here the i s s u e i s to counteract the p o s s i b i l i t y that people who belong t o d i f f e r e n t systems are evaluated on c r i t e r i a from each of these systems when i n f a c t they should be evaluated on c r i t e r i a r e l e v a n t only to the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n being considered. In t h i s instance and i n the r o l e - d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n response t o imbalance, the concern i s w i t h making comparisons between c r i t e r i a which p e r t a i n to the p o s i t i o n a person holds i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l 22 system and not, f o r in s t a n c e , comparing ranks on job c r i t e r i a , m a r i t a l s t a t u s and s k i i n g a b i l i t y when one i s only concerned wi t h the work s i t u a t i o n . At the present time there has been i n s u f f i c i e n t research to a l l o w conclusions to be drawn about why, or i n p r e c i s e l y what manner people with imbalanced ranks may withdraw. From the published r e s e a r c h , however, i t would appear t h a t many of the responses people make are not w i t h -drawal responses. From studying t h i s r e s e a r c h , Z e l d i t c h and Anderson maintain t h a t i i t s i s most l i k e l y t hat some of the observable r e a c t i o n s to rank imbalance are procedures by which people seek to a l t e r t h e i r ranks i n such a way as to decrease t h e i r imbalance r a t h e r than withdraw. The processes they d i s c u s s , which can be l a b e l l e d as m o b i l i t y and r e v o l u t i o n , are interconnected and the l a t t e r response i s only l i k e l y t o occur when attempts at m o b i l i t y have proven u n s u c c e s s f u l . M o b i l i t y i s defined as the increase or decrease of some rank by any person i n a given s o c i a l system. This a l t e r a t i o n of rank may, however, be achieved i n various ways. I f one assumes th a t people wish others to have as p o s i t i v e e v a l u a t i o n of them as p o s s i b l e , then i t would seem most l i k e l y t h a t people would wish to achieve rank balance by r a i s i n g t h e i r lower ranks to the l e v e l of t h e i r higher onesj but not a l l ranks are independent of each other. Consequently, a l t e r i n g a rank on one c r i t e r i o n may have repercussions f o r a 23 person's other ranks. Z e l d i t c h and Anderson suggest t h a t i f two ranks are c a u s a l l y r e l a t e d ( t h i s they r e f e r to as con-t i n g e n t ranks) then one rank w i l l be the independent rank and one the dependent rank.-^ Taking t h i s f a c t o r i n t o account they make two assumptions about the way i n which the m o b i l i t y response may work. These are: (a) i f there are 'noncontingent imbalanced ranks, whichever rank i s lower i s r a i s e d i ' (b) i f there are 'contingent imbalanced ranks, whichever rank i s dependent i s changed i n the d i r e c t i o n of balance.' 54 For example, i f one defines a person's l i f e s t y l e as dependent on t h a t person's income, and the ranks on these two c r i t e r i a are imbalanced, then Z e l d i t c h and Anderson p r e d i c t t h a t a person would attempt to achieve balance by a l t e r i n g the l i f e s t y l e rank r a t h e r than the income. The p r e d i c t i o n s about the way i n which people w i l l seek t o a l t e r t h e i r ranks r e s t on two f u r t h e r assumptions. The f i r s t , i n connection w i t h non-contingent imbalanced ranks, s t a t e s that people wish to maintain as p o s i t i v e a s e l f -e v a l u a t i o n as p o s s i b l e . They would, t h e r e f o r e , p r e f e r t o r a i s e t h e i r lower ranks t o the l e v e l of the higher ones r a t h e r than v i c e v e r s a . I n the second assumption, Z e l d i t c h and Anderson s t a t e t h a t a person must have "an o v e r a l l e v a l u a t i o n of h i m s e l f that i s no l e s s p o s i t i v e than the evaluations s i g n i f i c a n t others have of him."-'-' This assumption i s part of the theory i n order to counteract the p o s s i b i l i t y that a person may not f e e l d i s t u r b e d i f one rank i s lower than another 2k because he or she has a low s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n . I f t h i s were the case then such a person may t r y to achieve balance by having a l l the ranks low or may not t h i n k t h a t rank e q u a l i t y i s j u s t i f i e d . Such an assumption i s seen to be a s i m p l i f y i n g procedure which i s necessary i n the present development of the theory. This r e s t r i c t i o n could be r e l a x e d i n a more developed theory since such a theory ,would then take i n t o account the - p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t a l l types ^ f imbalance are not e q u a l l y d i s -t u r b i n g . The m o b i l i t y response t o imbalance discussed above i m p l i e s t h a t the s i t u a t i o n i s an i n d i v i d u a l problem but, as Z e l d i t c h and Anderson argue, imbalance may be a pervasive problem i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. Whether or not the problem i s an i n d i v i d u a l or a group one i s l i k e l y to lead to d i f f e r i n g responses. I n d i v i d u a l m o b i l i t y occurs when only a few people move rank, whereas stratum m o b i l i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the movement of a l a r g e number of people. I t i s a l s o p o s s i b l e i n the l a t t e r case, however, th a t i t i s not j u s t people who are mobile but that the s t a t u s i t s e l f may move up or down some e v a l u a t i v e h i e r a r c h y . Such may occur, f o r i n s t a n c e , with an occupational s t a t u s whose importance has changed through time. This m o b i l i t y of a stat u s Z e l d i t c h and Anderson l a b e l " r e -e v a l u a t i o n . " ^ Although a person may wish to overcome the problem o f having imbalanced ranks by r a i s i n g some of h i s / h e r ranks i t i s l i k e l y t h a t t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y w i l l not always be a v a i l a b l e to a 25 person. For example, a s c r i b e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are not amenable to change except through a process of r e - e v a l u a t i o n . F u r t h e r , a person may l a c k the r e q u i s i t e s k i l l s or. knowledge t o r a i s e the appropriate ranks or others may a c t i n such a way as t o prevent m o b i l i t y on the p a r t of people w i t h imbalanced ranks. C o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e r e f o r e , has to be given t o a l t e r n a t i v e responses to imbalance when m o b i l i t y i s blocked. Z e l d i t c h and Anderston s t a t e t h a t " m o b i l i t y of an element of S (a s o c i a l system) i s blocked i f e i t h e r a c t o r s do not want or expect t o be mobile or others can and do act to prevent them from being mobile."-" The expectation of being mobile i s important since people are u n l i k e l y t o r e a c t t o imbalance i f they f u l l y expect t o move out of the dis c r e p a n t ranks w i t h i n a short time. I f t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n does not e x i s t then other forms of compensatory behaviour are l i k e l y t o be r e a l i z e d . Organized movements g e n e r a l l y presuppose t h a t many people share a common grievance. Because of t h i s , Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's a s s e r t i o n t h a t "a blocked stratum has greater t e n -dencies to organize as a movement than blocked i n d i v i d u a l s " - ^ seems reasonable, again assuming t h a t members of the imbalanced stratum do not expect to be mobile. Benoit-Smullyan maintained t h a t s o c i e t i e s would ex-perience r e v o l u t i o n of people's m o b i l i t y was blocked. As Z e l d i t c h and Anderson i n d i c a t e though, the combination of f a c t o r s which cause r e v o l u t i o n s are very complex and i n v o l v e 26 many issues outside the scope of t h e i r theory. T h e i r d i s -c u s s i o n of the consequences of m o b i l i t y being blocked i n d i c a t e s t h a t they do not see r e v o l u t i o n as a necessary outcome. Rather i t can be viewed as an extreme response under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . I f a blocked stratum organizes, i t i s l i k e l y to do so i n order to e f f e c t change i n the rank s t r u c t u r e of the s o c i a l system by a l t e r i n g the weight, ( i . e . , the importance) attached to each of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . This Z e l d i t c h and Anderson l a b e l " r e d e f i n i t i o n . " - ^ C o n f l i c t may r e s u l t from t h i s r e d e f i n i t i o n because although i t w i l l decrease the rank imbalance f o r one group i t w i l l simultaneously increase other people's imbalance. Such c o n f l i c t could be avoided i f people can withdraw i n t o i n s u l a t e d s o c i a l systems and do not have to accept the r e d e f i -n i t i o n of another group. At the present time, however, s o c i o -l o g i s t s are not able to e x p l a i n when t h i s l a t t e r a l t e r n a t i v e may be adopted r a t h e r than c o n f l i c t . Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's theory of rank balance i s extremely broad i n scope; f o r i n s t a n c e , no r e s t r i c t i o n s are placed on the type of s o c i a l system considered or the nature of the e v a l u a t i v e process; moreover, t h e i r theory touches on many d i v e r s e forms of behaviour some of which are not w e l l understood. Nevertheless, i t s advantages over other formu-l a t i o n s of the approach are very c l e a r . I n the f i r s t p l a c e , the theory i s s y s t e m a t i c a l l y formulated and a l l assumptions, d e f i n i t i o n s and deductions from the b a s i c premises are c l e a r l y l a i d down. F o l l o w i n g from t h i s , one i s then able to subject 27 the theory to systematic t e s t i n g . Only by being able to do t h i s i s i t p o s s i b l e to begin to assess the v a l i d i t y of a theory. I n view of the i n c o n s i s t e n t and c o n t r a d i c t o r y r e s u l t s which researchers have r e p o r t e d , i t i s obviously necessary t o t r y to dea l w i t h the i s s u e s of t h i s approach i n order to see whether the theory i s u s e f u l i n e x p l a i n i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n behaviour. The i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to t e s t p a r t s of Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's theory i s , i n some cases, very d i f f i c u l t t o o b t a i n . Studying the causes of r e v o l u t i o n s , f o r i n s t a n c e , i s both d i f f i c u l t and complex, and one may j u s t i f y choosing to i n v e s t i g a t e other responses t o imbalance on the grounds t h a t they are more frequent occurrences than are r e v o l u t i o n s . One can a l s o argue t h a t i t i s more e s s e n t i a l t o e s t a b l i s h f i r s t the v a l i d i t y of the b a s i c assumptions r a t h e r than the r e s -ponses t o imbalance. Such a procedure, however, does not mean that i f the b a s i c premises were t o r e c e i v e support then the hypo-t h e s i z e d response patterns would l i k e w i s e be v a l i d a t e d . Rather, i t would i n d i c a t e that there were e s t a b l i s h e d assumptions which could be taken as the foundation of the theory and from which hypotheses could be d e r i v e d . The research reported i n subsequent chapters i s concerned w i t h the v a l i d i t y of rank balance theory as formu-l a t e d by Z e l d i t c h and Anderson. I n view of the broad scope of t h i s theory only c e r t a i n aspects have been t e s t e d , but 28 a t t e n t i o n has been focused p r i m a r i l y on those i s s u e s which are b a s i c to the theory and, indeed, any rank balance approach. To the extent t h a t these p a r t s of the theory r e c e i v e support then there are grounds f o r proceeding to a more d e t a i l e d a n a l y s i s of p o s s i b l e responses t o imbalance than i s reported here. Three major issues are d e a l t w i t h i n t h i s study. The f i r s t concern i s with what has been l a b e l l e d a precondi-t i o n to the e n t i r e theory—namely, the nature of the s t r a t i f i -c a t i o n system. I f a person's o v e r a l l s t a t u s i s not determined i n the way Z e l d i t c h and Anderson suggest then t h e i r theory would have to be e x t e n s i v e l y r e v i s e d . A l l t h e i r developments of the theory r e s t on the assumption t h a t t h e i r s t a t u s equation i s c o r r e c t . I n order to t e s t the equation, four sets of i n f o r m a t i o n are necessary. These are: 1) a person's o v e r a l l rank; 2 ) the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a on which a person i s assessed; 3 ) the r e l a t i v e importance of the c r i t e r i a ; k) & person's rank on each of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . Once these data have been obtained i t i s then p o s s i b l e to t e s t Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's s t a t u s equation. This allows one to assess whether or not the p r e c o n d i t i o n to t h e i r theory has been met. I f , i n f a c t , the s o c i a l system does not have m u l t i p l e bases of e v a l u a t i o n and the e v a l u a t i o n s are not combined i n the way Z e l d i t c h and Anderson s p e c i f y , then the remainder of 29 t h e i r theory would have no foundation. Support f o r the s t a t u s equation, however, does not mean t h a t subsequent p a r t s of the theory w i l l n e c e s s a r i l y a l s o be supported. Although rank balance theory does r e s t on the assumption t h a t s o c i a l systems are multidimensional i n terms of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , a l t e r n a t i v e explanations can be deriv e d from t h i s which do not take the form of rank balance theory. As one theory w i t h i n t h i s f i e l d of s t r a t i f i c a t i o n i t has t o be demonstrated t h a t rank balance theory does indeed a l l o w one t o e x p l a i n p r e d i c t e d forms of behaviour. I f i t does not, then.the theory has t o be r e v i s e d or abandoned, but t h i s would not mean that the multidimensional nature of a s o c i a l system was i n question. I f the p r e c o n d i t i o n to Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's theory i s supported i t i s then p o s s i b l e to i n v e s t i g a t e the second i s s u e which i s c r u c i a l to any thoery of rank balance. This i s the determination of the extent to which people i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system have balanced or imbalanced ranks. This problem i s l i n k e d t o the f i r s t not only because the s t a t u s equation i s a p r e c o n d i t i o n t o t h i s p a r t of the theory but a l s o because the rank orderings used i n t h a t equation w i l l provide the informa-t i o n necessary f o r d e c i d i n g whether people are imbalanced or not. From the a n a l y s i s of the extent to which people i n one s o c i a l system do or do not have balanced ranks i t w i l l be p o s s i b l e t o move on t o a t h i r d i s s u e of concern. This i s an examination of how i n d i v i d u a l s respond t o rank imbalance. 30 One response t o imbalance i s i n v e s t i g a t e d and t h a t i s i n d i v i d u a l rank m o b i l i t y . This response was chosen because i t seemed l i k e l y t hat t h i s would be a response which could be r e a d i l y adopted. Ranks may be moved more e a s i l y to the extent that e v a l u a t i o n s are not made on a s c r i b e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s or on behaviour dependent on some innate a b i l i t y , and to the extent that the s t a t u s system i s not r i g i d such t h a t people do 1 not have the p o s s i b i l i t y of a l t e r i n g t h e i r ranks. I t appeared that both of these c o n d i t i o n s would be found i n the s o c i a l system s t u d i e d since the i n t e r p e r s o n a l e v a l u a t i o n s made were not based on a s c r i b e d c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s were c o n t i n u a l l y modified as new people entered the system each year. Consequently, i t seemed p o s s i b l e t h a t people would be able t o a l t e r t h e i r ranks i f they so wished. M o b i l i t y i s a l s o the response category i n t o which much of the behaviour reported i n previous research would f i t . This would i n d i c a t e that i t i s a form of compensatory behaviour which may be r e a d i l y undertaken by those w i t h imbalanced ranks. C e r t a i n l y Z e l d i t c h and Anderson assume th a t people would attempt to a l l e v i a t e the s t r e s s of im-balance through m o b i l i t y before they would engage i n responses which would r e q u i r e greater o r g a n i z a t i o n and which would have severe consequences f o r the s o c i e t y as a whole. Consequently, i t i s appropriate to i n v e s t i g a t e what appears t o be a frequent response t o imbalance before t u r n i n g to other l e s s usual occurrences. In t h i s r esearch, a t t e n t i o n i s d i r e c t e d t o whether such a response i s e x h i b i t e d and whether people are mobile i n the manner p r e d i c t e d by Z e l d i t c h and Anderson. 31 These three i s s u e s have been chosen f o r study because they are c e n t r a l to any f u r t h e r development of rank balance theory. I f the research i n d i c a t e s support f o r the theory i n these areas then i t w i l l be appropriate to go on and consider some of the r e l a t e d i s s u e s encompassed w i t h i n the approach. Without t h i s systematic t e s t i n g of rank balance theory i t s v a l i d i t y w i l l remain i n question and i t s usefulness i n research s e v e r e l y l i m i t e d . **«##«<* 3 2 FOOTNOTES ^he researchers using this theoretical approach have not been consistent i n their terminology. "Status crystallization," "status discrepancy," "status congruency," "status consistency," and "rank balance" are terms used to describe the same empirical phenomenon. In the order given above the following references indicate the different uses of the termsi G. Lenski, "Status Crystallizationi A Non-Vertical Dimension of Social Status," American Sociological Review. 19 (1954), pp. 405-4l3i N.J. Demerath III, Social Class in American Protestantism, Chicagoi Rand McNally and Co., 1965, PP. 127-173? Ralph V. Exline and R.C. Z i l l e r , "Status Congruency and Interpersonal Conflict i n Decision-Making Groups," Human Relations. 12 (1959), pp. 147-162; E. Jackson, "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress," American  Sociological Review. 27 (1962), pp. 469-480} Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks"," in Socio-logical Theories in Progress, vol.1, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, New York* Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, pp. 244-268. Morris Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . . pp. 244-268. Lenski, op c i t . . pp. 405-413. ^Ibid.. p. 405. 5Ibid., pp. 405-413. ^Gary B, Rush, "Status Consistency and Right Wing Extremism," American Sociological Review. 32 (1967), pp. 86-92. 7 'James A. Geschwender, "Status Inconsistency, Social Isolation and Individual Unrest," Social Forces. 46 (1968), pp. 477-483. G. Lenski, "Social Participation and Status Crystallization," American Sociological Review. 21 (1956). pp. 458-464. ^Irwin Goffman, "Status Consistency and Preference for Change in Power Distribution, American Sociological Review. 22 (1957), pp. 275-281. 1 0 E l t o n Jackson, op. c i t . . pp. 469-480. 13"These problems have been most consistenly presented by Blalocki Hubert M. Blalock, Jr., "Comment* Status Inconsistency and the Identification Problem," Public Opinion Quarterly. 30 (I966)a, pp. 130-132; "The Identification Problem and Theory Buildingt The Case of Status Inconsistency," American Socio-logical Review. 31 (l966)b, pp. 52-61; "Status Inconsistency, Social Mobility, Status Integration and Structural Effects," American Sociological Review, 32 (1967)a, pp. 790-801; "Status Inconsistency and Interactions Some Alternative Models," American 33 J o u r n a l of Sociology. 73 (1967) b, pp. 305-315* "Tests of Status Inconsistency Theory: A Note of Caution," P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review. 10 (1967) c, pp. 69-74. 1 2H.H. Gerth and C. Wright M i l l s , ( e ds.), from Max Weber: Essays i n Sociology, t r a n s l a t e d by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright M i l l s , New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958, 1 3 I b i d . , pp. 46-47. 14 Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M a r t i n L i p s e t , " K a r l Marx's Theory of S o c i a l Classes," i n Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M a r t i n L i p s e t , e d i t o r s , C l a s s , S t a t u s , and Power. NewVYork: Free P r e s s , 1966, pp. 6-11. •^Max Weber, " C l a s s , S t a t u s , and Power," i n H.H. Gerth and C. Wright M i l l s , op. c i t . . p. 185. l 6 I b i d . . p. 187. "^John DoHard, Caste and C l a s s i n a Southern Town. NewTYork: Harper, 1949. S t . C l a i r Drake and Horace R. Cayton, Black M e t r o p o l i s . New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1945. B u r l e i g h B. Gardner and Mary R. Gardner, Deep South. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1941. Robert S. Lynd and Helen M e r r e l l Lynd, Middletown, New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1929* Robert S. Lynd and Helen M e r r e l l Lynd, Middletown i n T r a n s i -t i o n , NewXYork: Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1937» W. L l o y d Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The S o c i a l L i f e of a Modern  Community. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1941, Yankee C i t y S e r i e s , V o l . I . W. L l o y d Warner and Paul S. Lunt, The Status System of a  Modern Community, New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1942, Yankee C i t y S e r i e s , V o l . I I , W. L l o y d Warner and Leo S r o l e , The S o c i a l Systems of American  Ethnic Groups. New York: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1945, Yankee C i t y S e r i e s , V o l . I I I . W. L l o y d Warner and J.O. Low, The S o c i a l System of a Modern  Factory. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1947, Yankee C i t y S e r i e s , V o l . IV. l8W. L l o y d Warner, Marchia Meeker, Kenneth E l l s , S o c i a l C l a s s i n America. New York: Harper and Row, i960, pp. 47-98 and 121-130. 3^ 1 9 C . Wright M i l l s , "Review of the S o c i a l L i f e of a Modern Community," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 7 (1942), pp. 263-2715 Harold W. Pfautz and O t i s Dudley Duncan, "A C r i t i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of Warner's Work i n Community S t r a t i f i c a t i o n , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 15 (1950) . PP» 205-215. on * UC. Wright M i l l s , op. c i t . . pp. 264-266 . 21 W. Ll o y d Warner, Marcia Meeker and Kenneth E l l s , S o c i a l  C l a s s i n America, p. 2 1 . 22 E v e r e t t C. Hughes, "Dilemmas and C o n t r a d i c t i o n s of Status," American J o u r n a l of Sociology. 50 (1944) , pp. 353-359. 2 3 •^Emile Benoit-Smullyan, " S t a t u s , Status Types, and Status I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 9 (1944), pp. 151-161. ?4 N.J. Demerath, I I I , op. c i t . . pp. 129-142. 2 5 I b i d . . p. 131. 2 6 I b i d . . p. 331 . 27 'George C. Homans, "Status Among C l e r i c a l Workers," Human  Orga n i z a t i o n . 12 (1953) , PP. 5 -10 . 28 S t u a r t N. Adams, "Status Congruency as a V a r i a b l e i n Small Group Performance," S o c i a l Forces. 32 (1953-54), pp. 16 -22 . 29 Leon F e s t i n g e r , A Theory of C o g n i t i v e Dissonance. Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Row, Peterson and Co., 1957, 3°James A. Geschwender, " C o n t i n u i t i e s i n Theories of Status Consistency and C o g n i t i v e Dissonance, S o c i a l Forces. 46 (1967) , pp. 160-171. 3 1Edward E. Sampson, "Status Congruence and C o g n i t i v e Con-s i s t e n c y , " Sociometry. 26 (1963) , PP. 146 -162. ^ 2 A r l e n e Brandon, "Status Congruence and Expectations," Sociometry. 28 (1965) , PP. 272-288. ^ R o b e r t E. M i t c h e l l , " M e t h o l o g i c a l Notes on a Theory of Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n , " P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y . 28 (1964) , PP. 315-330. ^ N . J . Demerath, I I I , op. c i t . . p p . 149 -173 . ^ M a r t i n D. Hyman, "Determining the E f f e c t s of Status Inconsistency," P u b l i c Opinion Q u a r t e r l y . 30 (1966) , pp. 120-129. 35 3 6 H u b e r t M. B l a l o c k , J r . , o p . c i t . , 1 9 6 6(a), pp. 130-132; 1 9 6 6(b), pp. 5 2 - 6 1 ; 1 9 6 7(a), pp. 790-801; 1 9 6 7(b), PP. 3 0 5 -315; 1 9 6 7(c), pp. 69-74. -^Seymour M a r t i n L i p s e t , P o l i t i c a l Man. Garden C i t y : Doubleday, 1 9 6 3 , PP. 230-278. -^John N. F o s k e t t , " S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a -t i o n , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 20 (1955), PP. 4 3 1 - 4 3 8 . ^ A u g u s t B. Hollingshead and F.C. R e d l i c h , S o c i a l C l a s s and  Mental I l l n e s s : A Community Study. New York: John Wiley, 1958. ^°Robert E. M i t c h e l l , op. c i t . . pp. 3 2 0 - 3 2 3 ; Marvin E. Olsen and Judy Corder T u l l y , "Socio-Economic-Ethnic Status Incon-s i s t e n c y and Preference f o r P o l i t i c a l Change," American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 37 (1972), pp. 560-574. ^ H u b e r t M. B l a l o c k , J r . , op. c i t . . 1 9 6 6(a), p. 1 3 0 . ^ H u b e r t M. B l a l o c k , J r . , op. c i t . . 1 9 6 7(b), p. 314. ^ M o r r i s Z e l d i t c h , J r . , and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . . pp. 244-268. ^ I b i d . . p. 245. ^ I b i d . , p. 246. ^ I b i d . . p. 248. * * 7 I b i d . . p. 249, J.A. Davis, "A Formal I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the Theory of R e l a t i v e D e p r i v a t i o n , " Sociometry. 22 (1959), PP. 280-296; M. Patchen, "A Conceptual Framework and Some E m p i r i c a l Data Regarding Comparisons of S o c i a l Rewards," Sociometry. 22 (1961), pp. 136-156. *^See f o r example, J . Geschwender, op. c i t . . pp. 477-483; E. Jackson, op. c i t . . pp. 469-480; G. L e n s k i , op. c i t . , 1954, pp. 405-413, and Gary Rush, op. c i t . . pp. 86-92. ^ Q M o r r i s Z e l d i t c h , J r . , and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . . p. 2 5 9 . 5 1 I b i d . . pp. 2 5 2 - 2 5 5 . 5 2 I b i d . . p. 261. 5 3 I b i d . , p. 260. ^ I b i d . , p. 2 6 0 . 36 ^ I b i d . . pp. 249-250. 5 6 I b i d . . p. 261. ~ ^ I b i d . . p. 262. Blocking i s used i n t h i s context to mean that ranks are immobile for whatever reason and not necessarily be-cause someone else acts to prevent another from moving his/her ranks. In t h i s statement Zelditch and Anderson introduce the idea of people wanting to be mobile. This i s a new area of concern which i s not dealt with i n the theory as i t i s presently stated but which would be an issue i f the theory were to be completely developed. I t indicates that under some circumstances people may prefer to have imbalanced ranks rather than to balance them. 5 8 I b i d . . p. 264. 37 CHAPTER I I THE RESEARCH DESIGN The data used to t e s t p a r t s of Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's theory of rank balance was c o l l e c t e d through i n t e r v i e w s w i t h students i n u n i v e r s i t y r e s i d e n c e . This i n f o r m a t i o n was c o l l e c t e d i n a five-week p e r i o d from the l a s t week i n February through March 1972. Although these data are the b a s i s f o r the a n a l y s i s reported i n subsequent chapters a second group of students answered a q u e s t i o n n a i r e s e v e r a l months l a t e r . T h i s second set of data provided i n f o r -mation necessary to r e s o l v e a problem encountered d u r i n g the a n a l y s i s of the student i n t e r v i e w s and focused s p e c i f i c a l l y on one i s s u e . As the present chapter i s concerned with the sources and methods of the data c o l l e c t i o n both of them w i l l be discussed i n the f o l l o w i n g pages. Z e l d i t c h and Anderson do not place any r e s t r i c t i o n s on the type of s o c i a l system to which t h e i r theory a p p l i e s . Consequently, the c r i t e r i a f o r choosing a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system arose more from, c o n s i d e r i n g the k i n d of i n f o r m a t i o n necessary to t e s t t h e i r theory than from any s p e c i f i c guide-l i n e s s t a t e d by them. Since the theory r e s t s on assumptions about s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n , i t was e s s e n t i a l to conduct the research i n a s i t u a t i o n where the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system could be described 38 as completely as p o s s i b l e . Given t h i s c o n d i t i o n i t appeared l i k e l y that the s o c i a l system would have t o be r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l and be one where people i n t e r a c t e d f r e q u e n t l y with each other. I f t h i s was the case, then people would probably have s u f f i c i e n t i n f o r m a t i o n to evaluate the other members and be f a m i l i a r w i t h the s t a t u s system. I t was a l s o evident that i t would be necessary f o r membership i n the s o c i a l system t o be c l e a r l y d e f i n e d . This would be e s s e n t i a l to ensure that the same people are always under c o n s i d e r a t i o n and t h a t they were being evaluated i n reference to t h e i r membership i n that system. From i n f o r m a l conversations with students and f a c u l t y at King's U n i v e r s i t y , i t seemed l i k e l y t h a t t h e i r residences would be the s o r t of i n s t i t u t i o n where people would i n t e r a c t f r e q u e n t l y , would be of a s u i t a b l e s i z e f o r people t o know each other and where there would be a c l e a r d i s t i n c t i o n between members and non-members. These impressions were, i n f a c t , borne out d u r i n g the i n t e r v i e w s . However, there were a l s o other advantages to conducting the research i n the u n i v e r s i t y which do not r e l a t e s p e c i f i c a l l y to the needs of the theory. F i r s t l y , the u n i v e r s i t y residences could be seen as s o c i a l systems which were r e l a t i v e l y simple. This a r i s e s from the f a c t t h a t they are s i n g l e sex i n s t i t u t i o n s which are r e l a -t i v e l y homogeneous with regard to such c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as age, educational attainment and s o c i a l background. I t was f e l t 39 that i t would be p r e f e r a b l e to conduct the study i n such a s i t u a t i o n as i t was l i k e l y t o reduce the number of f a c t o r s which could complicate the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system. Secondly, on l o g i s t i c a l grounds the King's r e s i -dences a l s o seemed a p p r o p r i a t e . I t was apparent, f o r i n s t a n c e , that permission to c a r r y out the study i n the residences would be e a s i l y obtained from the u n i v e r s i t y a u t h o r i t i e s . A l s o , as the people to be interviewed were students, i t was thought that they would be f a m i l i a r with the idea of research and, t h e r e f o r e , be w i l l i n g to cooperate. T h i s , i n t u r n , would reduce the l i k e -l i h o o d of non-respondents. Having considered a l l these i s s u e s , i t was evident that the residdences were a h i g h l y s u i t a b l e s o c i a l system f o r the purposes of t h i s study. King's i s not a t y p i c a l Canadian u n i v e r s i t y i n terms of i t s s i z e or i t s academic programme. I t has, f o r i n s t a n c e , somewhat l e s s than 3 0 0 students. O r i g i n a l l y founded i n 1789 as an A n g l i c a n c o l l e g e , i t has s i n c e 193° been i n a p a r t n e r -shi p w i t h Dalhousie. This agreement has meant t h a t King's and Dalhousie maintain a j o i n t a r t s and science f a c u l t y and King's a separate theology f a c u l t y . At the present time, King's degree g r a n t i n g powers are i n abeyance except f o r degrees i n theology and honourary degrees. King's students can r e g i s t e r only f o r a B.A. or a B.Sc. degree apart from theology degrees, and they take a l l t h e i r courses with the exception of theology at Dalhousie. Consequently, i t i s not 40 s u r p r i s i n g t o f i n d t h a t most students i n residence are r e g i s t e r e d f o r B.A. or B.Sc. degrees and, indeed, t h i s c h a r a c t e r i z e s 8 6 per cent of the women and 7 0 per cent of the men. The students who are not i n these programmes l i v e i n King's residences e i t h e r because there i s no place f o r them i n the Dalhousie residences or because of p r e v i o u s l y e x i s t i n g t i e s with King's. For i n s t a n c e , some of the students had f a t h e r s who were educated at King's and some of the male students had attended a p r i v a t e school i n Windsor which had c l o s e connections w i t h the u n i v e r s i t y . Although King's has had a lon g h i s t o r y as a c o l l e g e , i t i s probable that i t i s not very w e l l known outside the province s i n c e i t i s very small and i t s a f f i l i a t i o n w ith Dalhousie has meant t h a t i t s own academic programmes have been c u r t a i l e d . The l o c a l nature of the u n i v e r s i t y can be seen by the f a c t that of the students i n residence 8 7 per cent of the women and 7 9 per cent of the men are from Nova S c o t i a and only 15 students come from outside the Maritimes. Because of the p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h Dalhousie i t i s apparent t h a t students do not r e g i s t e r at King's f o r the academic programmes. The f a m i l y t i e s mentioned p r e v i o u s l y are one reason why students may choose to attend King's and a f u r t h e r reason can be found i n the r e l i g i o u s t r a d i t i o n of the c o l l e g e . Although not i n a m a j o r i t y , students of A n g l i c a n background do form the l a r g e s t s i n g l e r e l i g i o u s group being 43 per cent of the women and 41 per cent of the men i n residence. kl King's has made a conscious attempt to emulate the Oxford and Cambridge p a t t e r n of r e s i d e n t i a l c o l l e g e s . I t s t r e s s e s the " i n e s t i m a b l e b e n e f i t s of l i f e i n a small r e s i -d e n t i a l c o l l e g e " 1 and the s o c i a l and moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s t h a t students who are to be leaders i n s o c i e t y have to accept. Students are encouraged to l i v e i n residence and t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n the u n i v e r s i t y ' s e x t r a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s as these are important i n the educational philosophy of the u n i v e r s i t y . Apart from the r e s i d e n c e s , King's has i t s own d i n i n g room, l i b r a r y , chapel, gym and common rooms. King's students have a student union and student s o c i e t i e s i n c l u d i n g debating, drama, and l i t e r a r y clubs and a t h l e t i c a s s o c i a t i o n s . As the enrolment at King's i s small and as students are encouraged to l i v e i n residence at some time d u r i n g t h e i r years at u n i v e r s i t y , many of the students are q u i t e w e l l known to each other. Nevertheless, i t was not to be expected that students would be s u f f i c i e n t l y f a m i l i a r w i t h a l l the students or even the ones i n t h e i r own residence t o be able to answer the questions i n the i n t e r v i e w . This would p a r t i c u l a r l y be the case f o r the k7 per cent of the students who were i n t h e i r f i r s t year at u n i v e r s i t y and the 57 per cent of the students who were i n t h e i r f i r s t year i n residence. However, the residences are organized i n terms of twelve u n i t s or bays 2 which are determined by the p h y s i c a l layout of the b u i l d i n g s . The number of students i n each bay v a r i e d between twelve and twenty-three and i t seemed reasonable t o assume th a t students 42 would be f a m i l i a r with those students i n the same bay as themselves. Apart from the general encouragement to p a r t i -c i p a t e i n the l i f e of the u n i v e r s i t y , the bays were designed i n such a way tha t contact with other bay members was v i r t u a l l y unavoidable. For the men, t h e i r p a r t of the residence was d i v i d e d i n t o s i x u n i t s each of which had a separate entrance. F i v e of the u n i t s were i d e n t i c a l i n terms of p h y s i c a l l a y o u t , w h i l s t the s i x t h was somewhat d i f f e r e n t . The f i v e which were the same were set up such that there was a common s t a i r w e l l w i t h a small l a n d i n g on each of the fo u r f l o o r s from which leads the bathroom and f o u r student rooms. I n t h i s way, i t was necessary f o r a person wishing to reach the f o u r t h f l o o r t o pass through the three lower ones. I n most of the cases, the rooms are double rooms and arranged i n such a way that one person i n every p a i r has to pass through the room of h i s roommate i n order to reach h i s own room. The exception to t h i s p a t t e r n i s the f o u r t h f l o o r where there are four s i n g l e rooms. The s i x t h bay was one f l o o r at the top of the admini-s t r a t i o n b u i l d i n g and contained twelve s i n g l e room. The women i n the residence a l l l i v e i n one common b u i l d i n g . Here there was a c e n t r a l s t a i r c a s e connecting the three f l o o r s . The residence was again d i v i d e d i n t o s i x bays, two per f l o o r . Each bay had i t s own bathroom but there was a l s o a k i t c h e n on each f l o o r , shared by both of the bays, 43 which was used f o r i r o n i n g , i n c i d e n t a l cooking, or as an e x t r a study or t a l k i n g p l a c e . The f i r s t f l o o r bays were the sm a l l e s t having seven rooms on one side and eight on the other, whereas a l l the other bays had eleven rooms. T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the rooms were designed f o r double occupancy, but i n p r a c t i s e t h i s v a r i e d from a bay i n which only one out of eleven rooms was shared t o a bay where f i v e out of seven rooms had two people i n them. U n l i k e the men's residence where each person e s s e n t i a l l y had h i s own room, the women who d i d not have s i n g l e rooms had t o share a s i n g l e space i n which there were two of a l l the e s s e n t i a l a r t i c l e s of f u r n i t u r e , f o r example, beds, desks, c l o s e t s , c h a i r s . Given t h i s p h y s i c a l l ayout of the b u i l d i n g s and the f a c t that the residence was "home" to the students f o r s e v e r a l months of the year, i t seemed h i g h l y probable that the students would be q u i t e f a m i l i a r with t h e i r f e l l o w bay members. Such f a m i l i a r i t y , i n f a c t , seemed t o be expected and encouraged i n s o f a r as the bays were c a l l e d upon to organize f l o a t s f o r the winter c a r n i v a l and to take part i n in t e r - b a y s p o r t s . Meetings were h e l d t o organize these events and bay members were expected to p a r t i c i p a t e i n these a c t i -v i t i e s i n some way. Members of the same bay were a l s o seen t o be f a m i l i a r with one another i n th a t they f r e q u e n t l y v i s i t e d each other's rooms. These v i s i t s were o f t e n simply s o c i a l i n nature and arose out of the wish to have someone t o t a l k to or with whom to dr i n k c o f f e e . Students were a l s o observed to lend a wide range of items to each other, i n c l u d i n g not only LL a r t i c l e s such as c l o t h i n g , r ecords, cups and k e t t l e s , but a l s o books and notes r e l a t i n g t o course work. I t was not uncommon to f i n d students h e l p i n g one another e i t h e r by l e n d i n g m a t e r i a l r e l a t e d to a course or by e x p l a i n i n g work which another student d i d not understand. In t h i s regard, the j u n i o r members of the bay would sometimes seek the help of the students who were more advanced i n t h e i r s t u d i e s than they themselves were. Although students were seen to v i s i t each other's rooms i n a l l the bays, the men's bays were more i n f o r m a l than the women's. C h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y , the men's bays were n o i s i e r than the women's, doors to rooms were u s u a l l y l e f t open and the students would go i n and out of others' rooms without f e e l i n g o b l i g e d t o ask permission. As a r e s u l t of t h i s type of i n t e r a c t i o n , the men had considerable i n f o r m a t i o n on where other students were, what time they would be back i n the bay or the best times to f i n d p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s . The women's bays d i d not show the same degree of i n f o r m a l i t y . There was some v a r i a t i o n between the women's bays5 f o r i n s t a n c e , Bay Fk was most l i k e the men's, but on the whole they were q u i e t e r , the doors to rooms were shut and people d i d not enter without knocking. Once permission was obtained from the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i n i s t r a t i o n to conduct i n t e r v i e w s with w i l l i n g students, the students themselves were contacted by l e t t e r . The l e t t e r explained that research on student r e l a t i o n s h i p s was being 45 conducted i n the residence and requested that they agree to an i n t e r v i e w which would take about an hour of t h e i r time. The exact nature of the research was not explained to the students at t h i s time. I t was thought that students might be l e s s cooperative i f reference was made to the f a c t t h a t the study was concerned with people's r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s on various s t a t u s h i e r a r c h i e s . Students would perhaps be r e l u c -t a n t t o di s c u s s what they might see as the undesirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e i r r e s i dences. A l s o , i t was d e s i r a b l e to minimize as f a r as p o s s i b l e the l i k e l i h o o d of students g e t t i n g together and agreeing or c o l l a b o r a t i n g on t h e i r answers. Such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l e d to d e s c r i b i n g the research as d e a l i n g with "student r e l a t i o n s h i p s " as t h i s was a term which d i d not s p e c i f y the exact problem being s t u d i e d but was s u f f i c i e n t l y ambiguous to cover a range of problems i n c l u d i n g rank balance theory. F o l l o w i n g t h i s l e t t e r , one of the i n t e r v i e w e r s contacted the students and e i t h e r interviewed them at t h a t time or arranged a l a t e r appointment. Some students proved d i f f i c u l t t o contact and towards the end of the i n t e r v i e w i n g pe r i o d those who had not been reached were sent a second l e t t e r a s k i n g them to contact one of the i n t e r v i e w e r s and arrange f o r the i n t e r v i e w . Of a l l the students, only one male student was never able to be contacted by any of the i n t e r v i e w e r s . 46 The data were c o l l e c t e d through i n t e r v i e w s u s i n g a questionnaire which was predominantly open-ended. The i n t e r v i e w was designed to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n i n four major areas: (a) the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a students used and the r e l a t i v e importance of them; (b) the students' ranks on these c r i t e r i a and the o v e r a l l status dimension; (c) a student's p r e f e r r e d ranks, and (d) general background i n f o r -mation on the students. The complete i n t e r v i e w schedule i s i n Appendix A. The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted by four i n t e r v i e w e r s , three of whom made the m a j o r i t y of contacts and d i d most of the i n t e r v i e w i n g . A l l i n t e r v i e w e r s were u n i v e r s i t y graduates and had had previous experience i n t e r v i e w i n g i n s o c i a l surveys. A f t e r the questionnaire had been pr e t e s t e d by conducting f i v e i n t e r v i e w s outside the student residence and the procedure appeared acceptable as a method of c o l l e c t i n g the necessary data, I conducted the f i r s t ten i n t e r v i e w s i n the student residences. These t e n i n t e r v i e w s were used as a b a s i s f o r t r a i n i n g the other i n t e r v i e w e r s . Interviewers were i n s t r u c t e d on how t o present the research so that the students would be w i l l i n g t o take p a r t i n the study. A t t e n t i o n was a l s o d i r e c t e d t o how each question was to be asked. For i n s t a n c e , i n the questions on p r e f e r r e d ranks i n t e r v i e w e r s had t o avoid the i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t moving any of the ranks was p r e f e r a b l e t o keeping them 47 i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l p o s i t i o n . Thus they had to be sure t h a t they i n c l u d e d a l l of the three a l t e r n a t i v e s open to the s t u d e n t s — t o keep the rank the same, to increase i t or t o decrease i t — w h e n they asked about students* rpreferred p o s i -t i o n s . Most of the i n t e r v i e w was not d i f f i c u l t to conduct once a respondent had agreed to cooperate. The most pro-blematic part was i n d e c i d i n g what e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a students used to assess each other. This was a d i f f i c u l t procedure and the i s s u e i s discussed i n d e t a i l below. In order to t e s t Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's sta t u s equation i t was necessary t o know the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a r e l e v a n t w i t h i n the s o c i a l system, t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance, the ranks i n d i v i d u a l s have on these c r i t e r i a and the same i n d i v i d u a l s ' o v e r a l l s t a t u s ranks. Published research on u n i v e r s i t y students has given l i t t l e a t t e n t i o n to the q u a l i t i e s they aee as d e s i r a b l e i n t h e i r f e l l o w students. Consequently, the s e l e c t i o n of the r e l e v a n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a could not be made, by reference to previous research. I t was decided to use an i n d i r e c t approach to e l i c i t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n . Students were handed a l i s t of members of t h e i r bay and asked to give a d e s c r i p t i o n of each person. No d i r e c t i o n was given as to what s o r t of i n f o r m a t i o n should be i n c l u d e d . Interviewers were i n s t r u c t e d to respond to any requests f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n by g i v i n g non-committal answers. The d e s c r i p t i o n s , however, would only be u s e f u l i n s o f a r as 48 they made reference to s p e c i f i c behaviour or p e r s o n a l i t y c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Consequently, i n t e r v i e w e r s were to ask f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n i f students gave d e s c r i p t i o n s which were too general; f o r i n s t a n c e , i f a student simply s a i d , "He's a V- t y p i c a l Cape Bretoner" or "She's O.K." Students who asked why the process was necessary at a l l were t o l d t h a t i t was to a l l o w the i n t e r v i e w e r s to have some idea of what the people i n the bay were l i k e i n order to be able to understand the student r e l a t i o n s h i p s . G e n e r a l l y , students gave d e s c r i p t i o n s which were four or f i v e sentences long. T y p i c a l d e s c r i p t i o n s would be» She's easy t o t a l k t o . W i l l i n g to l i s t e n to you but doesn't say much h e r s e l f . Very h e l p f u l and w i l l do almost anything you ask her t o do. He's a ni c e guy. Good t o t a l k t o and w e l l l i k e d i n the bay. He doesn't study much but gets along w e l l with the others i n the bay. Prom these d e s c r i p t i o n s , the i n t e r v i e w e r determined the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a the respondent was u s i n g . I t was assumed that the forms of behaviour and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which a student thought important would be r e f l e c t e d i n the descrip-t i o n s given of the other bay members. I n order to s e l e c t the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a the i n t e r v i e w e r had e s s e n t i a l l y to do a -— content a n a f y s i s of these d e s c r i p t i o n s . The i n t e r v i e w e r s chose as e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a those q u a l i f y i n g words which occurred most f r e q u e n t l y i n a student's d e s c r i p t i o n s . I n 49 some i n s t a n c e s , t h i s p a r t of the i n t e r v i e w d i d not pose any problems as c e r t a i n words were repeated many times. I n other cases, however, no s i g n i f i c a n t word might be used more than once. When t h i s occurred the students were asked d i r e c t l y s o r t s of behaviour or aspects of p e r s o n a l i t y they thought were important f o r students i n residence to have. The c r i t e r i a they l i s t e d were then used as the r e l e v a n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . I n a l l cases, i n c l u d i n g those where the choice of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a by the i n t e r v i e w e r was comparatively simple, students were asked at the end of the ranking process whether they thought there were any other c r i t e r i a they would l i k e to add. I t was necessary to add t h i s question i n order to counteract the p o s s i b i l i t y of underestimating the importance of a c r i t e r i o n which may have been mentioned only once. Otherwise the procedure f o l l o w e d may have biased the choice of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a i n the d i r e c t i o n of those most f r e q u e n t l y used without g i v i n g enough a t t e n t i o n to the importance of some other c r i t e r i a . Z e l d i t c h and Anderson r a i s e one problem i n t h e i r development of rank balance theory which the present research design can be s a i d to e l i m i n a t e . This i s the issue which they l a b e l "system reference problems." J Such problems r e f e r to the p o s s i b i l i t y t hat e v a l u a t i o n s w i l l be made on c r i t e r i a which are no n s e n s i c a l w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. As the students themselves generated the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a used here, one can say t h a t by d e f i n i t i o n they are a l l r e l e v a n t to the system and th a t meaningless comparisons of ranks are impossible from the p o i n t 49a of view of the student who generated the c r i t e r i a . Although s o l v i n g the system reference i s s u e the s p e c i f i c i t y of the c r i t e r i a generated by t h i s method could be a problem when t r y i n g to e s t a b l i s h g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s of any k i n d . Even though the choice of e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a was seen to be the most d i f f i c u l t part of ibhe i n t e r v i e w , the procedures fo l l o w e d were s u c c e s s f u l . A f t e r the i n t e r v i e w s had been conducted i n t e r v i e w e r r e l i a b i l i t y was checked. Two bays, one male and one female, were chosen at random. The three i n t e r v i e w e r s who had conducted most of the i n t e r v i e w s then read the bay d e s c r i p t i o n s and i n d i c a t e d which e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a they would choose from these d e s c r i p t i o n s . The l i s t s of c r i t e r i a obtained were then compared to the o r i g i n a l l i s t and t o each other. The three i n t e r v i e w e r s chose an average of 69 (78 per cent) of the same c r i t e r i a , from the i n i t i a l 88 c r i t e r i a . An average of nineteen c r i t e r i a which were i n the o r i g i n a l l i s t was omitted by the i n t e r v i e w e r s i n the r e l i a -b i l i t y t e s t and an average of ten new c r i t e r i a was suggested* As some of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a used by the students came from a d i r e c t question, and hence were not a v a i l a b l e from the bay d e s c r i p t i o n s , i t was f e l t that an average of 78 per cent was a high percentage f o r t h i s r e p l i c a t i o n . I n comparisons between the i n t e r v i e w e r s i t was found that there were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e i r choices (X between . 3 ° and . 5 0 ) . This r e s u l t i n d i c a t e s t h a t i n t e r v i e w e r r e l i a b i l i t y was h i g h . See Table I . 50 TABLE I INTERVIEWER RELIABILITY* DISTRIBUTION OF CHOICES WHICH WERE THE SAME, OMITTED OR NEW BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL LIST OF EVALUATIVE CRITERIA AND THE LIST GIVEN IN THE RELIABILITY TEST, BY INTERVIEWER CRITERIA CHOICE Interviewer Same Omitted New A 71 (71.57) 17 (19.71 14 (10.72) B: 67 (70.17) 21 (19.32) 12 (10.51) c 69 (65.26) 19 (17.97) 5 (9.77) T o t a l 207 57 31 X 2 = 4.3 df = 4 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .50 and .30 l e v e l s . Once the students had described a l l the others i n t h e i r bay they were then asked to rank a l l the bay members i n terms of those who were most w e l l thought of t o those who were l e a s t w e l l thought of and then on the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a taken from the bay d e s c r i p t i o n s . The f i r s t r a n king procedure was designed to a s c e r t a i n students' general s t a t u s ranks. I n order to study t h i s aspect of the sta t u s system i t was assumed th a t people d i d indeed have an o v e r a l l s t a t u s and th a t people w i t h i n the s o c i a l system would be conscious of where other members ranked r e l a t i v e to one another. Consequently, 51 students were simply asked to rank the bay members "from those who were most t o those who were l e a s t w e l l thought of." The use of the word " s t a t u s " was avoided i n order to reduce ambiguity, s i n c e i t was thought t h a t students might g i v e d i f f e r e n t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s to the word. A l s o , i t seemed p o s s i b l e that students might be somewhat r e l u c t a n t to t a l k about the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system i n the residence and, t h e r e f o r e , i t was d e s i r a b l e to avoid words which might c a r r y negative connota-t i o n s . To t h i s end the i d e a was s t r e s s e d t h a t i t was normal and usual f o r d i s t i n c t i o n s to be made between people i n s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Students were a l s o assured t h a t t h e i r answers would be completely c o n f i d e n t i a l and that r e s u l t s would be w r i t t e n i n such a way t h a t s p e c i f i c respondents or bay members could not be i d e n t i f i e d . I n f a c t , students d i d not appear to be s e n s i t i v e to the question on s t a t u s rankings and no one refused to answer the questions because they f e l t i t was i n a p p r o p r i a t e . Having obtained the general s t a t u s r a n k i n g , each student then proceeded to rank h i s / h e r bay members on the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a which he/she had i n d i c a t e d were important. I f academic and a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s had not been suggested by the students themselves as important c r i t e r i a then they were asked t o rank the students on these c r i t e r i a as w e l l . These two c r i t e r i a were included because i t was an advantage t o have some e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a which were used by everyone as t h i s would a l l o w f o r comparisons i n ran k i n g between d i f f e r e n t 52 i n d i v i d u a l s . These p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i a were chosen because i t was thought t h a t they were c r i t e r i a which were r e l e v a n t to the residence i n i t s context of being part of a u n i v e r s i t y . They were a l s o c r i t e r i a about which students would be l i k e l y to have some inf o r m a t i o n to enable them to rank each other. Once a respondent had ranked h i s / h e r bay members on o v e r a l l s t a t u s and on the r e l e v a n t e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a the respondent was then asked to i n d i c a t e where he/she ranked on a l l the c r i t e r i a used. I n c l u d i n g t h i s question meant t h a t a complete view of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system was obtained from each i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s p e c t i v e . The f o l l o w i n g question on the i n t e r v i e w schedule d e a l t with the r e l a t i v e importance of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a themselves. Here the students were asked to rank order the c r i t e r i a they had used from being most important to l e a s t important. Although the determination of the weights to be attached to the c r i t e r i a i s necessary f o r the s t a t u s equation, Z e l d i t c h and Anderson give no i n d i c a t i o n k how t h i s i s to be achieved. F u r t h e r , i t appears that other researchers have not been concerned w i t h a s s e s s i n g the r e l a t i v e importance of e v a l u a t i o n s . There i s , t h e r e f o r e , no a v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n on any scale which might be used t o measure the weights and, consequently, the determination of them could have been very problematic. The rank or d e r i n g of the c r i t e r i a used here i s a very s u i t a b l e procedure i n t h a t i t was simple and e a s i l y managed i n terms of data c o l l e c t i o n and was seen to 53 be an important step i n f u r t h e r i n g the research i n t h i s unstudied area. Subsequent questions i n the i n t e r v i e w d e a l t with the m o b i l i t y response to rank imbalance. Using the rank orderings the students gave, a person's rank balance or imbalance could be determined u s i n g Z e l d i t c h and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n of balance. The extent to which students have balanced ranks i s discussed i n Chapter IV but here the concern i s with how the rank m o b i l i t y response was measured. In order to study t h i s i s s u e students were asked what t h e i r p r e f e r r e d ranks would be on the i n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a . From the theory, one would expect t h a t students with balanced ranks would not wish to a l t e r t h e i r p o s i t i o n s on the c r i t e r i a . Students w i t h imbalanced ranks, however, should i n d i c a t e pre-f e r r e d ranks which would create rank balance. Two separate questions were asked i n r e l a t i o n t o the m o b i l i t y response. The f i r s t q u e s tion placed more c o n s t r a i n t s than the second on the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r m o b i l i t y i n that the respondent was asked to assume that he/she could a l t e r t h e i r rank on one p a r t i c u l a r c r i t e r i o n w h i l s t ranks on the others stayed as they were. The question was repeated so th a t a l l the c r i t e r i a a student used were put i n the s i t u a t i o n of being the one where the rank could be a l t e r e d . Using i n f o r m a t i o n from t h i s question i t was p o s s i b l e to see which ranks a student would p r e f e r to move and to measure the 5 * degree to which a rank was moved up or down a p a r t i c u l a r h i e r a r c h y i n r e l a t i o n to the ranks on the other c r i t e r i a . The second question d e a l t w i t h m o b i l i t y under the assumption that there were no c o n s t r a i n t s on a person but that one could s t a t e a completely i d e a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n of ranks. I t i s c l e a r that i n both of these questions one i s d e a l i n g w i t h an expressed d e s i r e to have p a r t i c u l a r ranks and that t h i s does not i n d i c a t e t h a t people can, or w i l l , neces-s a r i l y s t r i v e i n such a way as to achieve the p r e f e r r e d s t a t u s . However, i f the assumptions made by Z e l d i t c h and Anderson are c o r r e c t i n t h a t imbalanced ranks create t e n s i o n and are u n s t a b l e , then students w i l l express a wish f o r p r e f e r r e d ranks which would reduce the t e n s i o n . Data gained from the l a s t p a r t of the i n t e r v i e w and from records kept on the students by the u n i v e r s i t y a u t h o r i t i e s were used as background i n f o r m a t i o n . I t was c o l l e c t e d i n order t o see whether f a c t o r s such as f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s or year at u n i v e r s i t y would a f f e c t people's p e r c e p t i o n of the s t r a t i f i -c a t i o n system. The occupations of the students' f a t h e r s were a l s o recorded to determine whether the f a m i l y ' s socio-economic s t a t u s would i n f l u e n c e the students' e v a l u a t i o n s . Such a c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s important i n that i t would show whether or not c o n d i t i o n s outside the residence were r e l e v a n t to the students. This could i n d i c a t e a l i n k a g e between the s o c i a l system stud i e d here and a s o c i a l system or systems outside the 55 residence i n tha t at l e a s t one of the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a would be common t o more than one system. Coding of the i n t e r v i e w s d i d not present any s i g n i -f i c a n t d i f f i c u l t i e s . The rank orderings, g i v e n by the students had simply to be t r a n s f e r r e d from the i n t e r v i e w schedule to the coding sheets i n order to be ready to be keypunched. Answers to other questions, f o r example, r e l i g i o n and the e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a were a l s o coded as given by the students. The two questions which i n v o l v e d d e c i s i o n s about the grouping of answers were f a t h e r ' s occupation and home town. I n the l a t t e r case, i t was decided to f o l l o w recognized geographical areas w i t h i n the province of Nova S c o t i a , e.g., eastern shore, the V a l l e y , Cape Breton, and then to code other responses i n terms of A t l a n t i c provinces other than Nova S c o t i a , any other Canadian provinces and f i n a l l y any residence outside of Canada. Father's occupation was coded on a s i x - p o i n t s c a l e . The c a t e g o r i e s , p r o f e s s i o n a l , managerial and ex e c u t i v e , other non-manual occupations, s k i l l e d manual, u n s k i l l e d , and farmer or fisherman, were f a i r l y broad because i n f o r m a t i o n about the occupation was not s u f f i c i e n t l y d e t a i l e d to a l l o w f o r f i n e r d i s t i n c t i o n s . I t l a t e r became apparent that some of the occupational c a t e g o r i e s had very few e n t r i e s i n them and, t h e r e f o r e , the occupations were regrouped i n t o four c l a s s e s . P r o f e s s i o n a l , managerial and executive were Class 1; other non-manual Class 2; s k i l l e d manual C l a s s 3, and u n s k i l l e d manual, farmer and fisherman Class 4. A complete l i s t i n g 56 of a l l the codes used i n the study can he found i n Appendix B. From the 194 students i n resid e n c e , 162 i n t e r v i e w s were obtained and i t i s from these data t h a t the analyses i n the f o l l o w i n g chapters have been made. Of the 162 students, 90 were men and 72 women. This number of i n t e r v i e w s was a r r i v e d at as the r e s u l t of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s . S i x people were not interviewed at a l l as one male student could never be contacted and f i v e women refused to take pa r t i n the study. Of.these f i v e women, only one could be considered a t y p i c a l student i n terms of the students i n residence as she was a white Nova S c o t i a n between the ages of 20 and 24 years. The other f o u r were not t y p i c a l i n tha t three were of a d i f f e r e n t race from the m a j o r i t y , and the f o u r t h was over 40 years o l d , so tha t t h e i r e x c l u s i o n a c t u a l l y l e f t the sample even more homogeneous than i t would otherwise have been. Other students have been excluded from the study even though they were i n t e r v i e w e d . Only one r u l e was made with reference to whether an i n t e r v i e w was to be included f o r a n a l y s i s or not. The r u l e s t a t e d that a respondent had t o be able to describe at l e a s t h a l f of the t o t a l number of people i n h i s or her bay and to be able to rank the same number on the general or o v e r a l l s t a t u s dimension. This f i f t y per cent r u l e can be seen as r e s t r i c t i n g the d e f i n i t i o n of who i s a 57 member of the s o c i a l system. Although membership can be broadly defined by reference to who l i v e s i n the resid e n c e , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n does not giv e any i n d i c a t i o n of whether or not a student knows or i n t e r a c t s with other people i n the bay and i n a more s u b j e c t i v e sense can be considered a member. The r u l e r e q u i r e s people to show some f a m i l i a r i t y with the other students and allows f o r a b e t t e r a p p r e c i a t i o n of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system i n the bay. When students could de-s c r i b e the m a j o r i t y of t h e i r bay members they could a l s o rank them on the general s t a t u s dimension. I n only two cases d i d students describe the other students and then c l a i m t h a t they were not f a m i l i a r with the stat u s h i e r a r c h y i n t h e i r bay. Gen e r a l l y the respondents f e l l c l e a r l y i n t o one of two cate-g o r i e s i they could e i t h e r describe and rank a l l the bay or they could not describe and rank more than three or four people. Thus by ap p l y i n g t h i s r u l e i t was p o s s i b l e t o get very complete rankings on the o v e r a l l s t a t u s dimension. I n terms of the i n d i v i d u a l e v a l u a t i v e c r i t e r i a no f u r t h e r d i f f i c u l t y was encountered since a l l students were able to rank at l e a s t as many students as they ranked on general s t a t u s . By t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of a useable i n t e r v i e w , twenty respondents were e x c l u d e d — s i x t e e n men and four women. Of the men, s i x came from one bay and represented h a l f the membership of tha t bay. As a consequence i t was decided t o take t h a t e n t i r e bay out of the study as so much i n f o r m a t i o n was miss i n g . This bay was u n l i k e the other f i v e i n terms of 5 8 physical layout and in the fact that eight of the students were graduate students who interacted very l i t t l e with each other or the other members of the residence. Table II summarizes the distribution of interviews by bay. TABLE II DISTRIBUTION OP STUDENTS, NUMBER OF INTERVIEWS, AND NUMBER OF USEABLE INTERVIEWS,' BY BAY BAYS Ml M2 MJ M4 Mi M 6 FI F2 F4 15. F6 No. of Students 17 17 2 3 21 2 3 12 12 12 1 6 12 14 15 No. of Interview®' 17 17 22 21 2 3 12 12 12 14 11 12 15 No. of Useable Interviews 15 1 6 19 20 20 6 12 12 12 10 11 15 A problem which had to be encountered during the analysis of the student interviews was whether or not students were using different names for the same behaviour in their descriptions of the bay members. This would, of course, affect the evaluative c r i t e r i a which were chosen from these descriptions. In order to test this possibility a small supplementary survey was conducted. Seventy-one students from four different university courses took part in the project. These students were asked to study the l i s t of 5 9 59 evaluative c r i t e r i a taken from the interviews in the i n i t i a l survey and indicate the words which they thought described identical forms of behaviour. In order to ensure that the students in this second study were lik e l y to assign the same meanings to the words as did the King's students i t was desirable that the two samples be very similar in terms of S'ocial characteristics. Therefore, in addition to the main question on the evaluative c r i t e r i a the students were asked to indicate their age, sex, degree they were studying for, home-town and whether or not they had ever lived in a university residence. (The complete questionnaire is in Appendix A.) These questions were used to estimate the similarities of the two groups of students. The students were approached during their regular class time and f i l l e d in the questionnaire during the f i r s t 15 to 20 minutes of the class. The courses in which the students were enrolled were chosen in order to increase the likelihood of the students being similar to the King's students on certain characteristics. Thus i t was desirable that the courses should not be predominantly of one sex and as the majority of students in the residences were in B.A. or B.Sc. programmes the courses chosen were also in these areas rather than in the professional schools. The courses involved were a f i r s t year Chemistry and a f i r s t year English course, a second year Economics and a third year Sociology course. Each of these courses were small and this allowed for close supervision of the survey. 60 Of the 71 students who took part, 36 were women and 35 were men. Generally these students were very s i m i l a r to the students i n residence. The area i n which they showed the greatest difference was that i n comparison to 100 per cent of the students i n the i n i t i a l survey, only 25 per cent of the men and 47 per cent of the women i n the supplementary study had ever l i v e d i n a^'university residence. On other charac-t e r i s t i c s , 89 per cent of t h i s l a t t e r group came from the Maritimes, 53 per cent were i n t h e i r f i r s t year at univ e r s i t y , 81 per cent were studying f o r a B.A. or B.Sc. degree and 79 per cent of them were 24 years or younger. For the residence students, the corresponding figures are 91, 47, 77 and 80 per cent. In view of these figures i t can be seen that the students i n the supplementary survey were very s i m i l a r to the King's students and t h i s increases the l i k e l i h o o d that they would assign the same meaning to the evaluative c r i t e r i a as the students i n the i n i t i a l survey. This problem i s discussed further i n the following chapter. Having considered the source of the data to be used and the data c o l l e c t i o n procedures, the following two chapters are concerned with the substantive f i n d i n g s . Chapter III deals with the general status equation and Chapter IV the process of rank balance and the response to imbalance. FOOTNOTES ^King's College University Calendar, 1972-73. 2 In the succeeding pages, the men's bays are designated by the letter M and the female bays by the letter F. % o r r i s Zelditch, Jr., and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of at Set of Ranks," in Sociological Theories in Progress. Vol. I, edited by J. Berger et a l . . New York: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, pp. 252-255. ^Ibid.. pp. 246-248. 62 CHAPTER III THE DETERMINANTS OF STATUS As stated i n Chapter I, one of the major areas of t h i s research i s to test Zelditch and Anderson's status equation. The t e s t i n g of t h i s equation i s fundamental to establishing the v a l i d i t y of rank balance theory as developed by them. Not only i s the equation a precondition to t h e i r theory but i t i s also e s s e n t i a l i n assessing whether or not people have balanced or imbalanced ranks. This follows from the f a c t that the ranks a person has on s p e c i f i c evaluative c r i t e r i a are used to determine whether a person's ranks are balanced or not. In t h i s chapter, attention i s directed at the status equation per se and the issue of rank balance i s addressed i n the following chapter. I t was indicated previously that t e s t i n g the status equation involved obtaining information about four d i f f e r e n t areas. These are» 1) the rank orderings of indivi d u a l s on the ov e r a l l status dimension; 2) the evaluative c r i t e r i a relevant to the s o c i a l system studied; 3) the r e l a t i v e importance of the c r i t e r i a ; k ) the rank orderings of indivi d u a l s on the evaluative c r i t e r i a . These four issues are dealt with i n the succeeding pages of t h i s chapter. 63 1. Rank Orderings on the  Overall Status Dimension As reported i n Chapter I I , the interviewing procedure assumed that, i n f a c t , students did have a general or ove r a l l status and that t h i s status was known to the students. I f t h i s assumption had been incorrect, (for instance, i f students could not rank each other on the general status dimension), then a major r e v i s i o n of Zelditch and Anderson's theory would have been necessary. From the re s u l t s of the interviews, however, one can conclude that students do indeed see them-selves and other bay members as having a general status within t h e i r bay and that they can describe t h i s status system. When students did not rank others on t h i s dimension i t was because they were unfamiliar with the bay rather than because they did not believe that such a dimension existed. When one compares the rank orderings students give i n each of the bays the ov e r a l l conclusion i s that there i s great v a r i a t i o n between the students' evaluations. Each student had a d i f f e r e n t rank ordering of individuals f o r his/her bay and agreement on where p a r t i c u l a r individuals ranked was very low. Table III presents a summary of the students' rankings i n t h e i r bay and measures the degree of consensus about rankings by the i n t e r q u a r t i l e range of ranks and Kendall's W. I t can be seen from an examination of the Kendall's W that most of the women's bays show somewhat greater consensus than do the men's. However, as the largest TABLE III CONSENSUS ON RANKINGS ON GENERAL STATUS: DISTRIBUTION OF THE INTERQUARTILE RANGE OF RANKS AND KENDALL'S W, BY BAY INTERQUARTILE R£NGE Ml M2 M3 M4 GENERAL STATUS BAYS M5 F l F2 F3 F4 F:J F6 TOTALS M F 1.50 or below 3 2 2 3 1 7 i o "4 11 7 4 11 43 1.51 - 3.00 10 12 12 9 8 5 2 7 1 7 9 51 31 3.01 - 4.50 4 3 8 8 9 0 0 5 0 0 2 32 7 4.51 or above 0 0 0 1 - 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 ^ 6 0 KENDALL'S W .059 .066 .008 .025 .003 .140 .123 .062 .175 .035 .065 No. of students ranked 17 17 22 ' 21 23 12 12 16 12 14 15 No. of students ranking 15 16 19 20 20 12 12 12 10 11 15 6 5 W i s 0.175 i t i s apparent that consensus on rankings i n a l l of the bays i s very low whether these be women's or men's bays. Within the general statement that there i s low consensus on where people rank there are c l e a r l y noticeable va r i a t i o n s . Bay F k , f o r instance, stands out because i t appears to have a r e l a t i v e l y high degree of agreement, p a r t i -c u l a r l y i f one looks at the i n t e r q u a r t i l e range of ranks. This bay was unusual i n comparison to the others because s i x students maintained that a l l the students i n the bay had the same o v e r a l l status and that no d i s t i n c t i o n s could be made between them on t h i s dimension. One could question whether such a response should be interpreted as a r e f u s a l to answer the question. However, from the remarks the students made during the interview i t appeared that they did not think that there were s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the bay members. Students made such remarks as "Some people are better i n some ways than others but everything more or less evens out" or "When you get to know them (the bay members) they're a l l equally nice." Given such comments i t seems that the students had evaluated each other and then concluded that there were no status d i s t i n c t i o n s . For students to conclude that there are no s i g n i -f i c a n t differences between the bay members on general status implies that they have considerable information about each 66 other. However, having a great deal of information may also i n h i b i t a person i n recognizing status d i f f e r e n t i a l s or may allow for d i f f e r e n t interpretations. The amount of knowledge people have about each other may be related to the size of the bay since smaller bays may allow more opportunities f o r people to know each other well. Consequently, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the size of the bay and the degree of consensus on general status rankings was investigated. Correlating the number of students i n the bay and Kendall's W as a measure of consensus, one finds a c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of r =-.86 and an r of .7**. Such a high c o r r e l a t i o n indicates a strong r e l a t i o n s h i p between the size of the bay and the l e v e l of consensus such that as the bay becomes larger consensus over rankings decreases. The issue of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the size of the bay and the, information available i s i n need of further inves t i g a t i o n . I t i s unclear, for instance, whether i n the smaller bays the students are more f a m i l i a r with each other and, therefore, have more information on which to judge one another or i f there i s a better al t e r n a t i v e explanation f o r the findings. I t may be the case that such a r e l a t i o n s h i p i s not simply a question of the amount of information available but that higher l e v e l s of i n t e r a c t i o n are charac-t e r i s t i c of smaller bays and that such i n t e r a c t i o n leads to a greater degree of agreement on p a r t i c u l a r i s s u e s . 1 However, 6 7 even though the c o r r e l a t i o n between bay size and consensus on rankings i s high i t has to be noted that the v a r i a t i o n i n the Kendall's W (from . 0 0 3 to . 1 7 5 ) i s not very great. Therefore, although consensus i s related to si z e , size c e r t a i n l y does not appear to cause very s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n i n the l e v e l of agreement on rankings. Further, even i n the larger bays the majority of students were able to give descriptions of the other bay members and did not claim any d i f f i c u l t y i n rank ordering them on t h i s hierarchy. Thus, i t could be concluded that most students had s u f f i c i e n t information as a r e s u l t of t h e i r contacts with other students i n the bay to be able to rank them on general status and that the low consensus r e f l e c t s d i f f e r e n t perceptions of the status system. Although the o v e r a l l f i n d i n g i s that there i s very low agreement on where individuals rank on general status, nevertheless one does f i n d some instances of high consensus. For the purposes of t h i s research, high consensus was said to exist i f a student was ranked such that the i n t e r q u a r t i l e . range of a l l the ranks assigned to him/her on t h i s hierarchy was 1 . 5 or l e s s . Further, a person was c l a s s i f i e d as being i n a high status p o s i t i o n i f apart from t h i s high degree of consensus, he/she was also ranked such that the median of the assigned ranks was either 1 , 2 , or 3 , i . e . , one of the top three positions i n the bay. For example, a student over whom there was high consensus as to h i s ranks aiSd:i^ &©<ia&?80l:.wfis 68 of high status could have an i n t e r q u a r t i l e range of ranks of 1.00 and a median rank of 2. Low status people were those over whom there was high consensus but whose median rank was one of the three lowest positions i n the bay. Other people who were ranked consistently but whose median rank was not one of the s i x already mentioned were said to have medium status. Using the above d e f i n i t i o n of high consensus, there were f i f t y - f o u r students (33 per cent) whose ranks gave an in t e r q u a r t i l e range of 1.5 or l e s s . Of these f i f t y - f o u r , forty-three were women and eleven were men. See Table IV. Categorizing these people into high, medium or low status positions one finds that for both men and women there are r e l a t i v e l y few people i n the high and low status categories. The small number of men over whom there i s high consensus, however, means that the v a r i a t i o n between the status cate-gories r e f l e c t s a difference of only one or two people. The medium status category of women i s very large because of the ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Bay F k where few d i s t i n c t i o n s were made between people on t h i s status dimension. This meant that i n several cases the students were assigned a rank of 6.5 and t h i s placed them i n the category of high consensus medium status. I f one excludes t h i s bay from consideration then the medium status category contains twenty-two women. 69 TABLE IV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OP HIGH CONSENSUS STUDENTS ON GENERAL STATUS BY STATUS POSITION AND SEX STATUS POSITION MEN HIGH CONSENSUS STUDENTS WOMEN ON GENERAL STATUS High 18* 14* Medium 46* 77* Low 36* 9* Total 100* (11) 100* (43) From these data i t can be concluded that there i s very l i t t l e agreement even over which students could be considered to be the leaders i n the bays. Students i n Bays M2 and M4, f o r instance, show no agreement over who could be considered to be i n such positions i n t h e i r bays since there i s no one over whom there i s high consensus and who has high status. Given such lack of consensus on who could be considered to be the prominent people i t i s not surprising, perhaps, that there i s l i t t l e consensus on where people rank i n the other positions. As the students maintained that there was a general status dimension i n the bays and that i n the majority of cases the students were f a m i l i a r with t h i s status system, one would have to conclude that t h i s lack of consensus arises because of di f f e r e n t perceptions of the bay and i t s members. Such differences i n perception may a r i s e , as already discussed, because of d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of information available to the 70 students but may also r e f l e c t the f a c t that students d i f f e r over the aspects of behaviour they see as relevant and important within the residence as, t h i s would lead them to have d i f f e r e n t evaluations of people. Although the student residences have so fa r been viewed as self-contained s o c i a l systems, i t i s obvious that they are embedded i n a wider s o c i e t a l context. When students described t h e i r bay members they did not use as evaluative c r i t e r i a those dimensions of behaviour most frequently > reported i n other studies, for example, educational a t t a i n -2 ment, socio-economic standing, r a c i a l or ethnic background. The choice of d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the type of s o c i a l system being studied and may be seen as an i n d i c a -t i o n of i t s r e l a t i v e i s o l a t i o n from the rest of society insofar as the students do not consider important the evalua-tions made i n the society outside the residences. Even though the students did not e x p l i c i t l y mention factors such as the other students' socio-economic status, i t was possible that such evaluations were influencing the rank orderings the respondents gave. As the occupations of the students' fathers had been obtained i t was decided to use ; t h i s as a measure of the fa m i l i e s ' socio-economic status and determine whether or .not. the rank orderings of students, on the general status c r i t e r i o n were related to the students' family backgrounds. Father's occupation i s only one aspect 71 of a student's family background but i t i s s t i l l an important in d i c a t o r of r e l a t i v e s o c i a l s t a t u s . 3 There-fore, t h i s measure can be used to determine whether or not there i s any re l a t i o n s h i p between the students' status system and the status system operative i n the society at large. The occupations of one hundred and f i f t y - f i v e students' fathers were put into one of the four classes of occupations discussed i n Chapter I I . Students whose fathers were r e t i r e d , deceaaed, or on whom there was i n s u f f i c i e n t information were excluded from the analysis. Thus c o r r e l a -tions were calculated between the students' rankings and the occupations of the students' fathers for 86 men and 69 women. Using these co r r e l a t i o n s , one can conclude that there.is very l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a student's rank on general status and h i s family status. Only 17 men and 21 women ranked t h e i r bay members such that the correlations yielded a l e v e l of significance of O.05 or above. There were 9 women fo r whom there was a perfect c o r r e l a t i o n between the two status systems but these were the only instances i n which t h i s occurred. Of further i n t e r e s t i s the fac t that among men, 13 of the correlations which were s i g n i f i c a n t were negative correlations as was also the case f o r 7 of the women. In f a c t , i f one considers a l l the correlations from the men's status rankings, whether or not they were s i g n i -f i c a n t , one finds that 72 per cent of them were negative. 72 The corresponding figure for women was 45 per cent. One can conclude from t h i s that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two status systems for many of the men i s one of re v e r s a l . This pattern i s also found among the women but not so consistently. Thus, the rel a t i o n s h i p between the status system i n the r e s i -dences and the status system i n the larger society i s not strong and insofar as i t does exist i t i s frequently a negative one. Such findings suggest that the residences are indeed i s o l a t e d from the status systems of the society i n which they exist and that the men may, i n f a c t , be r e j e c t i n g the outside status system altogether. The findings on the general status dimension are' not simple and consistent. Thus whilst nearly a l l the students indicated that such a dimension did exis t and that they could, place each of t h e i r bay members on the rank hierarchy, each student had a d i f f e r e n t perception of the status system. This , resulted i n there being very low consensus on where students ranked. The reasons f o r the d i f f e r i n g perceptions of the status system are not clear although they may be related to the size of the bay and friendship patterns as these factors may a f f e c t the information available to each of the students. From the data obtained i n the interviews, i t was possible to make some assessment of the influence of f r i e n d -ship on the rank orderings on general status. I t was thought that students would assign high ranks to f r i e n d s . This was 73 l i k e l y because i t was assumed that students would have more information about t h e i r friends than about the other people i n t h e i r bay. One hundred and nineteen students out of 162 had friends i n the same bay as themselves. Most students had one, two or three friends i n the bay and only t h i r t e e n students claimed more than three friends i n t h e i r u n i t . The r e l a t i o n s h i p between friendship patterns and ranking on general status i s not a very consistent one. I f one considers the extent to which students place t h e i r friends i n the top t h i r d of the ranks of the bay, s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a -tions between the men and women can be seen. See Table V. For the 62 men who had friends i n the bay a l l but seven (12 per cent) ranked at l e a s t some of t h e i r f r i e n d s i n the top t h i r d of the ranks and 38 ( 6 l per cent) of them put a l l t h e i r friends within these positions. Among the women, 25 (44 per cent) ranked a l l t h e i r friends i n the top t h i r d of the bay and a further 11 (19 per cent) put some of them i n these posi t i o n s . Twenty-one (37 per cent) of the women, however, put none of them i n the top positions. These findings suggest that men are more l i k e l y than women to rank t h e i r friends i n high p o s i t i o n s . The comparison between men and women on the influence of friendship patterns on the general status rankings i s d i f f i c u l t , however, because of the d i f f e r e n t sizes of the bays. Considering the top t h i r d of rankings 74 i n a bay means that the men have a greater number of ranks on which to assign t h e i r f r i e n d s . Consequently, i t was decided to re-examine the issue by considering just those people who had three or less friends within the bay and determining whether these friends were given higher status on the general dimension. High status was defined as having one of the top three ranks i n the bay. This procedure allows f o r a comparison between men and women without the size of the bay being an intruding f a c t o r . TABLE V PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FRIENDS IN THE TOP THIRD OF RANKS ON GENERAL STATUS, BY SEX MEN WOMEN FRIENDS IN THE TOP THIRD OF RANKS ON GENERAL STATUS  A l l of them (33l§5) (30.17) None o r them 12^ ^ Total X 2 = 11.51 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .01 and .001 l e v e l s 100# (62) 100JJ (57) When one makes the analysis of where friends are ranked i n t h i s manner, one finds that there are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the sexes on where friends are ranked. In 75 both instances, a majority of students ranked some or a l l of th e i r friends i n the top three ranks. See Table VI. The number of people who put a l l t h e i r friends i n these ranks, however, did not d i f f e r very greatly from the number who put none of them i n these high positions and t h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y the case f o r the men. These r e s u l t s suggest that friendship patterns are not very important i n explaining the general status rankings. Nevertheless, the inconsistency i n the resu l t s such that some students do rank t h e i r friends highly, whilst others do not, suggests that t h i s i s an issue which should be more f u l l y investigated i n the future. PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF FRIENDS RANKED IN THE TOP THREE POSITIONS ON GENERAL STATUS, BY SEX MEN WOMEN FRIENDS RANKED IN THE TOP THREE POSITIONS ON GENERAL STATUS  TABLE VI A l l of them None of them Some of them Total 35* (18 .32) 27* (11.39) 38* (22.29) 100* (52) 36* (18 .68) 9* (11 .61) 25* (22.71) 100* (53) X 2 = 1 .67 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .50 and .30 l e v e l s 76 2 . The Evaluative C r i t e r i a Having established that students could rank others and themselves on the dimension of general status, the major question was then to determine at how a p a r t i c u l a r rank was arri v e d . In order to test Zelditch and Anderson's ideas, one must be able to describe the evaluative c r i t e r i a operative within the s o c i a l system. Past researchers appear to have sett l e d t h i s issue by deciding themselves that p a r t i c u l a r k c r i t e r i a are important i n the context they are studying. Zelditch and Anderson suggest that observation of the s o c i a l system w i l l be necessary before one can say what evaluative c r i t e r i a are re l e v a n t . J Although none of the published research indicates that the researchers did make systematic observations p r i o r to conducting t h e i r studies, one could assume that general f a m i l i a r i t y with the society was s u f f i -cient to j u s t i f y t h e i r choice of c r i t e r i a . In t h i s research the students were asked both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y what evaluative c r i t e r i a they thought were important i n the residences. Excluding academic and a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s which were c r i t e r i a chosen by t h i s author, the students used a t o t a l of 57 d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a . See Table VII. Of these, 25 were used only once. 77 TABLE VII THE FREQUENCY AND PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF THE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA, BY SEX EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USED BY THE STUDENTS EVALUATIVE CRITERIA MEN WOMEN FREQ. PERCENT. FREQ. PERCENT. 86 95 71 98 89 98 68 94 25 27 40 55 16 17 23 40 13 14 21 29 4 4 20 27 38 42 4 5 2 2 12 16 2 2 2 2 6 8 l 20 22 10 13 2 2 4 5 1 1 2 2 2 2 12 16 1 1 3 3 10 13 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 2 3 4 3 4 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 Academic A b i l i t y A t h l e t i c A b i l i t y Friendly Considerate Helpful Easy to t a l k to Bay s p i r i t Sense of humour Not moody Sympathetic Lots of fun Easy to get along wj Easy going Mature Patient Trustworthy Not two-faced General temperament Outgoing Creative Tolerant of other's ideas Conscientious student Good l i s t e n e r Has own opinions Empathetic Active Empathy A c t i v i s t 78 TABLE VII (cont'd.) EVALUATIVE CRITERIA EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USED BY THE STUDENTS MEN WOMEN FREQ. PERCENT. FREQ. PERCENT. Understanding Kind Reliable Interested i n people Same inte r e s t s Appearance Nice Well organized Quiet Well adjusted Perceptive General attitude Sociable Generous Self-awareness Easy to get to know Communicative a b i l i t y Non-aggressive Sense of community Responsible Respectful^ A b i l i t y to combine academic matters and a good time W i l l i n g to t r y . A b i l i t y to be a good f r i e n d College pride Good to t a l k to P o l i t i c a l awareness S p i r i t u a l i t y 8 1 1 3 6 5 2 1 3 1 1 1 1. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 3 6 5 2 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 16 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22 1 1 1 5 1 l 1 l 1 79 TABLE VII (cont'd.) EVALUATIVE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USED BY THE STUDENTS CRITERIA MEN WOMEN FREQ. PERCENT. FREQ. PERCENT. Musical 1 1 Not shy 1 1 Warm and fun-loving 1 1 No. of c r i t e r i a 3 k7 366 No. of students 90 72 The women used kZ d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a and the men 32, with 17 of these c r i t e r i a common to both sexes. The c r i t e r i a l i s t e d i n Table VII are the words the students used i n t h e i r interviews. I t i s assumed that when students are using the same word they are r e f e r r i n g to the same form of behaviour? for instance, students are r e f e r r i n g to the same behaviour when they describe someone as being h e l p f u l . The fact that the students were r e l a t i v e l y homo-geneous i n terms of many of t h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s increases the p r o b a b i l i t y that the same behaviour i s being described when p a r t i c u l a r words are usedi but one also needs to assess whether or not students describe the same behaviour under two d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s . I t was t h i s problem which led to the small supple-mentary survey being conducted as described i n Chapter I I . The purpose was to determine whether or not any of the 59 c r i t e r i a could be eliminated because they were describing 80 i d e n t i c a l behaviour. When the seventy-one students who p a r t i -cipated i n t h i s second survey had indicated which words they thought described i d e n t i c a l forms of behaviour, a t o t a l of 6 8 k d i f f e r e n t pairs of words were l i s t e d . This large l i s t was, i n f a c t , generated by 6 k students as 7 of those who participated i n the survey maintained that i n t h e i r opinion none of the words were describing exactly the same behaviour. From t h i s l i s t of i d e n t i c a l behaviour, only 29 pairs of words were seen as i d e n t i c a l by at lea s t l k per cent of the students. See Table VIII. None of the words were seen as i d e n t i c a l by more than 30 per cent of the students and t h i s percentage occurred only twice. In analyzing the evaluative c r i t e r i a which students claimed were i d e n t i c a l i t was also found that t h e i r opinion d i f f e r e d from the students i n residence. Thus, c r i t e r i a deemed i d e n t i c a l by the students i n the supplementary survey were treated as d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a by the residence students and they also ranked others on these c r i t e r i a i n a d i f f e r e n t order. These cases are marked with an * on Table VIII. In these instances, i t was decided that the residence students' views of the c r i t e r i a as describing d i f f e r e n t forms of behaviour would be accepted and, conse-quently, the 29 pairs of words used most frequently by the students i n the supplementary survey were reduced to 2 3 . In view of the low l e v e l of agreement on which words could be considered to be describing i d e n t i c a l forms of behaviour, i t was decided that a l l 59 of the evaluative 81 c r i t e r i a would be retained. This means that i t i s assumed that students i n residence were r e f e r r i n g to d i f f e r e n t and unique forms of behaviour when using d i f f e r e n t descriptive words. TABLE VIII EVALUATIVE CRITERIA SEEN TO BE IDENTICAL BY AT LEAST TEN STUDENTS IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY SURVEY IDENTICAL EVALUATIVE CRITERIA NO. OF TIMES CHOSEN 1. F r i e n d l y and sociable 2 . Friendly and easy to get to know 3 . Friendly and warm and fun-loving k . Friendly and easy to t a l k to 5. Friendly and easy to get along with 6 . Friendly and nice ?. Considerate and h e l p f u l 8. Considerate and understanding 9 . Considerate and kind 10. Helpful and kind 1 1 . Easy to t a l k to and easy to get along with 12 . Easy to t a l k to and good l i s t e n e r 13• Easy to t a l k to and communicative a b i l i t y l k . Easy to t a l k to and good to t a l k to 15 . Bay s p i r i t and college pride 16 . Sense of humour and l o t s of fun 17. Sense of humour and warm and fun-loving 18. Lots of fun and warm and fun-loving 19 . Easy to get along with and easy-going 2 0 . Trustworthy and not two-faced 2 1 . Trustworthy and r e l i a b l e 22. Outgoing and not shy 2 3 . Tolerant of others' ideas and good l i s t e n e r 2 k . Good l i s t e n e r and good to t a l k to 25• Good l i s t e n e r and understanding 15 18 11 17* 17* 12* 21* 10* 15 13 l k * 11 10 10 12 16 11 16 10 21 19 17 10 10 10 82 TABLE VIII (cont'd.) ~~~"""~~~~~~~~~~~————— _p T I M E S IDENTICAL EVALUATIVE CRITERIA CHb'SEH 26. Understanding and kind 10 2?. Kind and nice 10 28. Reliable and responsible 11 29. No desire f o r power and non-aggressive l k It can be seen that the great majority of the evalua-t i v e c r i t e r i a r e f l e c t a concern with aspects of interpersonal behaviour. Students are concerned with whether a fellow bay member i s f r i e n d l y , easy to get along with, has a sense of humour or i s dependable. Given that students have to l i v e at close quarters with a variety of people i t i s , perhaps, not surprising that such emphasis should be placed on q u a l i t i e s which are l i k e l y to make f o r easy s o c i a l intercourse and which may influence whether a residence i s an enjoyable place i n which to l i v e . In comparing the evaluative c r i t e r i a used by the men and women, one finds that the bay descriptions given by the women y i e l d a larger number of d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a and that the women also rank each other on a greater number of c r i t e r i a than do the men. For the men the average number of c r i t e r i a used, including a t h l e t i c and academic a b i l i t i e s , i s 3.9* The corres-ponding figure f o r the women i s 5.1. The reasons for t h i s difference are speculative. I t could be argued, for instance, that women are p a r t i c u l a r l y perceptive about such aspects of 83 behaviour and see more d i f f e r e n t forms of behaviour as being s i g n i f i c a n t . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , i t may be the case that s t r a t i f i -cation i n the women's bays i s more complex than i n the men's. There are k0 c r i t e r i a which are used by only one sex. Some of these c r i t e r i a may appear somewhat idosyncratic i n that they are used only once as i n the case of 25 of them. However, the use of c r i t e r i a by only one sex and the frequency of use of some of the c r i t e r i a seem to point to some i n t e r e s t i n g differences between the men and women i n the area of expected behaviour. Such a conclusion i s quite speculative but there does appear to be some support for the view that the women are more concerned with emotive aspects of behaviour i n comparison to the men who are more achievement oriented.** The women, for instance, use such c r i t e r i a as being understanding, not being two-faced or being l o t s of fun, and stress more than the men such aspects as being f r i e n d l y , outgoing, h e l p f u l , and con-siderate. The difference between the men and women can perhaps be most cl o s e l y seen i n r e l a t i o n to the c r i t e r i o n bay s p i r i t . Bay s p i r i t r e f e r s to the notion of "being f o r the bay," and emphasizes the need f o r cooperation among bay members to uphold the prestige of the bay through inter-bay sports, for example. For the men t h i s i s the most frequently mentioned c r i t e r i o n since k2 per cent of them rank on t h i s dimension i n comparison to only 5 per cent of the women. Bay s p i r i t i s c l o s e l y linked 84 to inter-bay sports as t h i s i s the occasion f o r most of the r i v a l r y , but i t may re f e r i n a more general sense to a s p i r i t of camaraderie expressed through bay p a r t i e s and common s o c i a l events. That t h i s cooperative aspect of bay l i f e i s not of importance to women can be c l e a r l y seen from the data. The lack of importance attributed to such common a c t i v i t i e s may be i n part a r e f l e c t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t organization of bay l i f e between men and women. This can be seen i n r e l a t i o n not only to inter-bay sports but also i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies. Women's inter-bay sports are spasmodic and poorly organized a f f a i r s i n comparison to the hockey games organized by the men's bays. Whilst some of the women students referred to the f a c t that t h e i r inter-bay sports, e.g., v o l l e y b a l l , were cancelled because of the lack of interest and the consequent lack of teams, t h i s did not occur i n the men's bays. Indeed, i t seemed to be a point of honour that each bay had a team and students were pressured to play i f they had not volunteered and even i f they were not p a r t i c u l a r l y a t h l e t i c . The f e e l i n g seemed to be that any team was better than no team. The desire to create t h i s commitment to the bay was c e r t a i n l y part of the i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies f o r freshmen. Here again, these were more organized and considered more important i n the men's bays than i n the women's residence. I t i s doubtful, i n f a c t , whether the women's bays could be considered to have i n i t i a t i o n r i t e s since the events were primarily s o c i a l i n nature and used as a means for students to get to know each other. In the men's 85 bays the i n i t i a t i o n took on the more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c nature of r i d i c u l i n g the new students, making them perform r i d i c u l o u s acts and stating t h e i r allegiance to t h e i r bay. Within the men's bays, therefore, there were deliberate e f f o r t s to encourage the students to i d e n t i f y with t h e i r bay and to look upon some a c t i v i t i e s as important cooperative ventures. These sentiments may also be r e f l e c t e d i n the use of c r i t e r i a such as college pride, being r e l i a b l e and i n the greater importance given to a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y by some students. The conclusion that the choice of evaluative c r i t e r i a do r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t bases of evaluation between men and women i s tentative at t h i s time. Nevertheless, previous research has indicated the differences i n orientation between men and women i n academic settings and t h i s may be further evidence f o r such findings. I t i s apparent that whilst there i s noticeable v a r i a t i o n between men and women i n terms of the evaluative c r i t e r i a they use, there i s also considerable v a r i a t i o n between people of the same sex. The fact that 59 d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a were used i s i n d i c a t i v e of the complexity of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system. Gnce the c r i t e r i a the students used i n t h e i r evalua-tions were obtained i t was then necessary to establish the r e l a t i v e importance of the evaluative hierarchies. I t i s t h i s issue which i s dealt with i n the following section of t h i s chapter. 86 3. Relative Importance of the Evaluative C r i t e r i a Zelditch and Anderson suggest that i n order to simplify the theory at t h i s stage i n i t s development, one could impose a condition such that the evaluative c r i t e r i a are a l l seen to be equally important. They state, "Members of S (the s o c i a l system) agree on the weights to be given 8 c r i t e r i a by which they evaluate themselves and others." Such a r e s t r i c t i o n i s seen as being temporary and would be removed when the theory was f u l l y formulated. In the context of t h i s research i t was decided that t h i s condition was too r e s t r i c t i v e . As the students showed considerable v a r i a t i o n i n the evaluative c r i t e r i a they considered s i g n i -f i c a n t , i t was not possible to make any assumptions about the agreement on the r e l a t i v e importance of them. Gn the other hand, i t was possible to get some measure of the importance of the c r i t e r i a for each student during the interview and i t was f e l t to be desirable to include t h i s information and to begin a consideration of t h i s issue i n the int e r e s t s of developing the theory. As there was l i t t l e agreement between students on the relevant evaluative c r i t e r i a there could be l i t t l e agreement on t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance. Nevertheless, i t i s possible to investigate to what extent there i s agreement on the importance of the c r i t e r i a which students do use i n common. In t h e i r interviews the students rank ordered the 8 7 c r i t e r i a they used and i t i s t h i s ordering which i s used to discuss the importance of the c r i t e r i a . However, because students evaluated t h e i r bay members on a d i f f e r e n t number of c r i t e r i a i t i s possible to consider only such questions as which c r i t e r i a are seen as most or lea s t important. To make such comparisons meaningful, only those cases where at lea s t four evaluative c r i t e r i a were used have been included i n the following analysis. A t h l e t i c a b i l i t y i s seen as the least important c r i t e r i o n by a majority of both men ( 5 2 per cent) and women ( 6 9 per cent). A further 2 5 per cent of the women and 3 5 per cent of the men would maintain that t h i s c r i t e r i o n i s second to l a s t i n importance, thus 9 k per cent of the women and 8 7 per cent of the men consider t h i s c r i t e r i o n as the most unimportant dimension or next to the most unimportant. Both of the c r i t e r i a imposed by the researcher were, i n f a c t , seen as being rather unimportant i n many instances. The c r i t e r i o n which received the second largest number of choices f o r being l e a s t important was academic a b i l i t y . Twenty-four per cent of both men and women considered t h i s aspect of behaviour least s i g n i f i c a n t . Academic and a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s are the only two c r i t e r i a on which there i s r e l a t i v e l y large agreement that they are the least important. Ninety-three per cent of the women rank one or other of these two c r i t e r i a l a s t and 7 6 88 per cent of the men follow the same pattern. Apart from these c r i t e r i a there i s l i t t l e consensus over which can be consi-dered least important. Bay s p i r i t i s lea s t important for eleven men but with the exception of these three c r i t e r i a no other was chosen as lea s t important by more than f i v e persons. The agreement on which c r i t e r i a are most important i s l e s s pronounced than agreement i n the above instances. Twenty-four per cent of the men chose academic a b i l i t y as the most important c r i t e r i o n . This i s in t e r e s t i n g i n that an equal number of men regarded t h i s as the least important c r i t e r i o n and t h i s would indicate that there i s considerable v a r i a t i o n of opinion between the men over i t s r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e . In comparison, only one woman ranked t h i s c r i t e r i o n f i r s t . Other c r i t e r i a which the men ranked as most important were: easy to get along with 14 per cent; f r i e n d l y 11 per cent; considerate 10 per cent, and h e l p f u l 6 per cent. Apart from these, no other c r i t e r i o n was regarded as most important by by at least f i v e men. For women the corresponding c r i t e r i a were f r i e n d l y 21 per cent; understanding 12 per cent; h e l p f u l , easy to t a l k to and not two-faced each 9 per cent, and easy to get along with and a sense of humour both 8 per cent. Friendly, easy to get along with and he l p f u l are the only c r i t e r i a regarded as the most important by at least f i v e men and f i v e women. 89 I f one considers the c r i t e r i a ranked second i n importance there i s again r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e agreement over which c r i t e r i a are ranked i n that p o s i t i o n . Considering those c r i t e r i a chosen by at least f i v e men, one finds the following pattern of choices t academic a b i l i t y 22 per cent; bay s p i r i t 20 per cent; f r i e n d l y 8 per cent; a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y N and considerate, each 7 per cent, h e l p f u l 6 per cent. For women the corresponding choices arei considerate 13 per cent; academic a b i l i t y and h e l p f u l , each 11 per cent; f r i e n d l y 9 per cent, and understanding 8 per cent. These figures show that there i s more v a r i a t i o n over which c r i t e r i a are important than over which ones are unim-portant. The differences i n the rank ordering of the c r i t e r i a appear to indicate the d i f f e r e n t areas of concern to men and women as did the i n i t i a l choice of the c r i t e r i a . This i s seen p a r t i c u l a r l y i n reference to academic a b i l i t y where k6 per cent of the men consider i t to be f i r s t or second i n importance i n comparison to only 11 per cent of the women. Women, on the other hand, place more importance on those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which allow f o r easy and supportive s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For both men and women, however, there i s considerable v a r i a t i o n i n the choice of which c r i t e r i a are most important. From the data co l l e c t e d i n t h i s project i t was possible to investigate one possible explanation of why the students ordered the c r i t e r i a i n the way they did. I f one 9 0 assumes that people wish to maintain as p o s i t i v e a s e l f -Q evaluation of themselves as i s possible, then one could argue that the students w i l l consider the c r i t e r i o n on which they have the highest rank the most important. Likewise, the least important c r i t e r i o n w i l l be the one they rank the lowest. Consequently, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between a student's ranking of himself/herself and the r e l a t i v e importance he/she assigned to the evaluative c r i t e r i a was investigated. In f a c t , there does not appear to be much support f o r the assertion that the rank ordering of the c r i t e r i a i s re l a t e d to a person's own ranks on the c r i t e r i a . I f one looks at whether a student regards the most important c r i t e r i o n as the one of which he/she ranks highest then one f i n d s that t h i s i s the case f o r only 36 per cent of the female students and 42 per cent of the male students. S i m i l a r l y , only 34 per cent of the men and 43 per cent of the women regarded the l e a s t important c r i t e r i o n as the one on which they had the lowest rank. The fact that the r e l a t i v e importance of the evaluative c r i t e r i a does not appear to be related to the student's own ranks on these c r i t e r i a would indicate that the students gave an unbiased assessment i n t h e i r rank orderings of the c r i t e r i a . 4. Rank Orderings on the  Evaluative C r i t e r i a Having established the evaluative c r i t e r i a the students use and t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance, the f i n a l f a c t o r 91 necessary f o r the status equation was to determine people's ranks on these i n d i v i d u a l c r i t e r i a and t h i s issue i s d i s -cussed below. When comparisons are made on how students i n the same bay are ranked on common c r i t e r i a by d i f f e r e n t people, one finds s i m i l a r r e s u l t s to the rankings on general status; that i s , that there i s very l i t t l e agreement over people's ranks. Students did not appear to experience any d i f f i c u l t y i n ranking others on the evaluative c r i t e r i a they chose. Consensus on rankings, however, was low. In order to make comparisons between rank orderings, at l e a s t two people i n the same bay had to use the same c r i t e r i a . There were ninety-seven instances where t h i s occurred involving twenty-four d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a . Using Kendall's W as a measure of agreement on rankings, the figures i n Table IX indicate the generally low le v e l s of consensus. The only instances where there i s com-parati v e l y high agreement, (for instance W i s .4 or above), are four cases a l l i n the women's bays. In each of these instances the agreement i s between only two rankers. There i s , however, no consistent r e l a t i o n s h i p between the degree of consensus and the number of rankers using a p a r t i c u l a r c r i -t e r i o n . As academic and a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s were two c r i t e r i a which a l l students were asked to use as the bases f o r evalua-tions, i t i s possible to make more detailed comparisons with TABLE IX KENDALL'S W FOR ALL EVALUATIVE CRITERIA USED AT LEAST TWICE WITHIN A BAY, BY BAY BAY EVALUATIVE CRITERIA CODES KENDALL'S W 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Ml .053 .044 .174 .009 .000 .069 .252 M2 .034 .028 .095 .031 .122 .136 .087 M3 .005 . 0 0 9 .019 .002 .016 .002 M4 .016 .018 .007 .116 .001 .022 .016 M5 .003 .007 .004 .017 .002 .008 F l .068 .032 .166 .013 .196 .603 .029 .068 .225 .425 F2 .100 .050 .094 .028 .187 F3 .007 .073 .142 .074 .141 .008 . 0 3 6 F4 .154 .084 .090 .279 .261 .300 .111 .694 F5 .126 .045 .054 .034 .199 .075 .027 .049 .184 .082 F6 .018 .043 .138 .049 .093 .111 .218 .280 Key to Evaluative C r i t e r i a Codes -1 Academy A b i l i t y 2 A t h l e t i c A b i l i t y 3 Friendly 4 Considerate 5 Helpful 6 Easy to t a l k to 7 Bay S p i r i t 8 Sense of Humour 9 Lots of Fun 10 Easy to get along with 11 Mature 12 Not two-faced 13 Outgoing 14 Tolerant of other's ideas 15 Conscientious student 16 Good l i s t e n e r 17 Understanding 18 Reliable 19 Appearance 20 Nice 21 Sociable 22 Generous 23 Communicative a b i l i t y 24 Good to t a l k to vo to CM ON 15 .028 16 , 0 2 8 17 .068 . 1 2 1 . 0 2 8 .015 . 1 2 4 1 8 .002 .019 19 20 . 0 4 7 . 4 4 4 21 .019 22 .117 .032 23 . 0 9 8 2 4 .371 93 these than with any of the other evaluative c r i t e r i a used. Consensus on where people rank on each of these c r i t e r i a i s again very low as measured by Kendall's W. See Table IX. In seven instances, the consensus on rankings f o r academic and a t h l e t i c a b i l i t i e s i s even lower than f o r general status. (See Tables III and X). I f , however, one considers the number of persons over whom there i s agreement as to t h e i r ranks, one finds that there are 91 persons i n t h i s category f o r a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y and 39 for academic a b i l i t y i n comparison to 5 k on the ove r a l l dimension. High consensus i s again being defined as an in t e r q u a r t i l e range of ranks of 1.5 or l e s s . Analyzing these students into high, medium or low status positions as defined previously on page 13, one again finds that most of the students are i n the medium status category. (See Table X.'). Thus, there i s l i t t l e consensus over who can be considered the athletes or the best students i n the bays. The fac t that there are more high consensus indivi d u a l s on a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y than on either academic a b i l i t y or general status may be related to the fact that a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y i s more v i s i b l e than the other two. I t i s in t e r e s t i n g , however, that the women have more high consensus indivi d u a l s than do the men when a t h l e t i c s were unimportant to them. The lack of consensus among the rankings on the eva-luat i v e c r i t e r i a again supports the contention that students have d i f f e r e n t views of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system of which 9 k they are part. In summarizing the evidence presented so f a r i n t h i s chapter, one has to conclude that the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system i n any bay i s not as simple as one may have thought. This complexity i s the r e s u l t of t h e i r evaluating each other on many d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a , assigning d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of importance to those c r i t e r i a they do hold i n common and assigning d i f f e r e n t ranks to people i f common c r i t e r i a are used. In view of these factors, i t i s not surprising that there i s such a low degree of agreement on the rank orderings on general status since Zelditch and Anderson's theory states that a person's o v e r a l l rank i s the r e s u l t of the combination of evaluations on the i n d i v i d u a l evaluative c r i t e r i a . I t i s t h i s status equation which w i l l be discussed i n the following pages. TABLE X PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF HIGH CONSENSUS STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC AND ATHLETIC ABILITIES BY STATUS POSITION AND SEX MEN WOMEN HIGH CONSENSUS STUDENTS ON ACADEMIC AND ATHLETIC ABILITIES Status Academic A t h l e t i c Academic A t h l e t i c P o s i t i o n A b i l i t y A b i l i t y A b i l i t y A b i l i t y High 2 2 * 2 0 * Medium 5 6 * 77* Low 2 2 * 3 * Total 1 0 0 * (9) 1 0 0 * (30) 1 3 * 2 0 * 8 0 * 7 k * 7* 6 * 1 0 0 * (30) 1 0 0 * (61) 95 5. The General Status Equation Zelditch and Anderson incorporate the following equation into t h e i r theory as a description of the r e l a t i o n -ship between a person's o v e r a l l status p o s i t i o n and t h e i r ranks on the i n d i v i d u a l evaluative c r i t e r i a ! V l i + W 2 r 2 i + + Vki * R i Thus, a person's general standing (denoted R^) " i s determined by some set of c r i t e r i a ( r ^ , r 2 , - - - - , r ^ ) . Since the c r i t e r i a may vary i n importance, a set of weights (w^, w2, - - - - , w^ ) determines how much each c r i t e r i o n contributes to the value of R^. Just how the weighted values are added up i s d i f f i c u l t to say, but c e r t a i n l y R^, i s a monotonically increasing function of them." 1 0 I f the general status equation Zelditch and Anderson present i s an accurate r e f l e c t i o n of how a person's o v e r a l l status i s determined, then one should be able to predict that status i f a person's ranks on the i n d i v i d u a l c r i t e r i a and the r e l a t i v e significance of the c r i t e r i a are known. The rank orderings each i n d i v i d u a l gave to his/her bay members on the evaluative c r i t e r i a , the rank ordering of the c r i t e r i a themselves and the number of c r i t e r i a used were put into regression equations to determine the extent to which t h i s information predicted a person's general status ; rank. As the students had used many d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a , the 96 regression equations were calculated simply by taking into account the number of c r i t e r i a used and not the s p e c i f i c content of the evaluative c r i t e r i a upon which each student ranked. The regression equations for each sex were calcu-lated separately. The women used between two and eight c r i t e r i a and the men between one and seven, although there were only 17 cases among the men where 7 c r i t e r i a were used and i n these instances no greater p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of o v e r a l l rank was achieved than when 6 c r i t e r i a were used. I t can be seen that the rel a t i o n s h i p between the number of variables used and the amount of v a r i a t i o n explained i n o v e r a l l rank i s not a perfect one since the v a r i a t i o n fluctuates u n t i l at lea s t three c r i t e r i a are used by the men and four by the women. See Table XI. However, the regression equations for the women, unlike those of the men, continue to explain more of the varia-t i o n i n o v e r a l l rank as the number of c r i t e r i a continues to increase and do not reach a point beyond which noifurther v a r i a t i o n i s accounted f o r . With the use of eight c r i t e r i a the greatest p r e d i c t a b i l i t y for either men or women i s achieved. These data show considerable support f o r Zelditch and Anderson's status equation since the amount of v a r i a t i o n explained i s r e l a t i v e l y large and the r e s u l t s show a high l e v e l of si g n i f i c a n c e . Thus, i t can be seen that by knowing 97 people's ranks on the evaluative c r i t e r i a and the r e l a t i v e importance of the c r i t e r i a a considerable amount of the va r i a t i o n i n people's o v e r a l l status ranks can be accounted f o r . This i s seen to be the case p a r t i c u l a r l y as the number of evaluative c r i t e r i a i n the equation increases. TABLE XI VARIATION ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE GENERAL STATUS EQUATION, MALES AND FEMALES No. of Variables Total Variance Explained R 2 Level of Significance Sets of Rankings Males 1 .034 .241 42 2 .501 .000 92 3 .415 .000 295 4 .508 .000 1192 5 .609 .000 62 6 .635 .000 76 Females 2 .323 .007 28 3 .057 .254 73 4 .431 .000 280 5 .435 .000 182 6 .449 .000 220 7 .528 .000 109 8 .773 .003 22 I t has already been suggested that the fac t that the men and women perceive the status system i n the residences d i f f e r e n t l y i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r use of d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a . The evidence from t h i s equation further supports the idea of d i s s i m i l a r perceptions. The maximum number of 98 evaluative c r i t e r i a which are useful i n predicting men's ov e r a l l status ranks i s si x , whilst the upper l i m i t f o r women, "beyond which additional c r i t e r i a do not increase the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , i s at least eight. This suggests that the reason women generally used more evaluative c r i t e r i a than the men i s because of differences i n the status systems. For the women, the status system i s more complex than f o r the men insofar as a greater number of evaluative c r i t e r i a are r e l e -vant to the determination of a person's general status. Further evidence that the men and women do have d i f f e r e n t views of t h e i r status systems can also be seen by an examina-t i o n of the beta weights used i n the regression analysis. The beta weights are the equivalent of the W's or weights Zelditch and Anderson include i n t h e i r status equation. An examination of Table XII. indicates that the weights the men and women use are quite d i f f e r e n t and thus they do not share a common perspective about the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of the r e s i -dences. As a precondition to t h e i r theory of rank balance, Zeld i t c h and Anderson's view of the status system does receive support from t h i s data. Thus, one i s able to explain a con-siderable amount of the v a r i a t i o n i n ranks on general status by using Zelditch and Anderson's status equation. The evidence here suggests that further e f f o r t s to increase the p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of status ranks by t h i s equation would be p r o f i t a b l e . For instance, attention could be directed to 99 considering the s p e c i f i c combinations of c r i t e r i a i n the equa-t i o n and not simply the number of c r i t e r i a used. Seeing that the basis f o r ZelditcSh and Anderson's approach to rank balance theory does receive support, however, one can proceed to con-sider the major concern of the theory, namely, the issue of rank balance and the response to imbalance. TABLE XII BETA WEIGHTS FOR THE REGRESSION EQUATIONS K FOR MEN AND WOMEN MEN Nd. of Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 .185 .613 .197 .304 .357 .183 .355 .238 .224 .216 .133 .L75 .012 .380 .026 .155 .188 .040 .366 .257 .096 WOMEN No. of Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .482 .164 .160 .104 .091 .443 .117 .182 .155 .161 .1^4 .443 .090 .067 .172 .232 .223 .070 .046 .206 .210 .122 .002 .386 .156 .084 -.008 .691 s . 567 S.382 .046 .082 .037 .073 - . 3 2 5 **«««#« 10G FOOTNOTES George C. Homans, The Human Group. New Yorki Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1 9 5 © . PP. 131-136. See for example, G. Lenski, "Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n * A Non-V e r t i c a l Dimension of S o c i a l Status," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 19 (1954) , ppi 405-413 , and E. Jackson, "Status Consis-tency and Symptoms of Stress," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 27 (1962) , pp. 469-480 . -^Richard H. H a l l , Occupations and the Social Structure. Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1969, PP. 258-260. 4 G. Lenski, op. c i t . ^Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks," i n So c i o l o g i c a l Theories i n Progress. V o l i I, edited by J . Berger, et a l . . New York* Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, p. 246. ^The differences between men and women i n th i s regard have been noted i n a variety of contexts. See f o r instance* Ta l c o t t Parsons, "The American Family* Its Relations to Personality and.to the Soci a l Structures," i n Family. S o c i a l i z a t i o n and Interaction  Process, edited by Talcott Parsons and R.F. Bales, Glencoe, 111.* The Free Press, 1955, pp. 3-33s Fred L. Strodtbeck and Richard D. Mann, "Sex Role D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n Jury Deliberations," Socio-metry, 19 (1956) , pp. 3 -11; Matina Horner, "The Motive to Avoid Success and Changing Aspirations of College Women," i n Readings  on Psychology of Women, edited by Judith M. Bardwick, New York* Harper and Row, 1972, pp. 62 -67 , and Esther Greenglass, "The Psychology of Women? or, the High Cost of Achievement," i n Women  i n Canada, edited by Marylee Stephenson, Toronto:: New Press, 1973t PP. 108-118. 7The influence of i n i t i a t i o n ceremonies on commitment to the group has been previously noted} f o r example, E. Aronson and J . M i l l s , "The E f f e c t of Severity of I n i t i a t i o n on L i k i n g f o r a Group," Journal of Abnormal and Soc i a l Psychology. 59 (1959) , pp. 177-IBT; 8 Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . . p. 249. 9 I b i d . , pp. 249-250. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 246. *«*«*#* 101 CHAPTER IV THE PROCESSES OF BALANCE AND THE RESPONSE TO IMBALANCE At the very crux of rank balance theory i s the issue of whether people whose ranks are imbalanced w i l l exhibit behaviour d i f f e r e n t from those who have balanced ranks. I t i s assumed that i f there are differences they are attributable to the fac t that people with imbalanced ranks are attempting to a l l e v i a t e the tension associated with that condition. The exact forms of behaviour which people with imbalanced ranks may exhibit i s not well understood and the published research has indicated a variety of p o s s i b i l i t i e s . 1 Nevertheless, that there w i l l be behavioural differences between those whose ranks are balanced and those who are imbalanced i s c l e a r l y expected. Because of t h i s c e n tral issue, the decision as to > whether or not someone has balanced or imbalanced ranks becomes very important and the procedures by which t h i s decision i s reached are c r u c i a l . Consequently, t h i s chapter w i l l look f i r s t at the d e f i n i t i o n of rank balance and the extent to which the students do or do not have balanced ranks, and secondly, at the response to imbalance through i n d i v i d u a l rank mobility. One aspect of t h i s study which i s d i f f e r e n t from other published research i s that i t i s possible to look at two d i f f e r e n t aspects of rank balance. One issue i s to see whether 102 or not students rank other students such that t h e i r ranks can be said to be balancedt a second factor i s the p o s s i b i l i t y of inv e s t i g a t i n g whether the students see themselves as having balanced ranks. (These two d i f f e r e n t aspects of balance w i l l be referred to as the 'rankings of others' and *others' balance' i n the former case and ' self-rankings'* and ' self-balance V i n the l a t t e r . ) In previous research, the respondents have been assigned to various ranks by the researchers themselves. This has meant that i n some cases the respondents were c l e a r l y aware of t h e i r imbalance whilst i n others t h i s awareness was less d e f i n i t e l y e s t a b l i s h e d . 3 Here the extent to which people have balanced ranks under both self-rankings and the rankings of others can be investigated. However, as Zelditch and Anderson maintain that people are aware of t h e i r own balance or imbalance, only self-rankings are considered i n the response to imbalance; but under either condition the decision on whether someone has balanced or imbalanced ranks depends on how rank balance i s defined. Zelditch and Anderson maintain that a person has balanced ranks i f the ranks assigned to him/her are greater than, the same as, or l e s s than every rank assigned to any other people i n the same s o c i a l system. This i s a very general d e f i n i t i o n of balance which places no r e s t r i c t i o n s on how the researcher conceptualizes the ranks, nor on how many ranks are to be found i n any p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system. Consequently, one could use Zelditch and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n and have only two 103 ranks, or the number of ranks could be as large as the number of people i n the s o c i a l system being considered. Both of these extremes would s t i l l enable one to define balance i n accordance with Zelditch and Anderson's s p e c i f i c a t i o n s . Some of the d e f i -n i t i o n s of balance used i n previous research would f i t within Zeldi t c h and Anderson's definition.-* Others, insofar as they reduce the rankings to one o v e r a l l score, present a somewhat di f f e r e n t approach.^ Under a l l d e f i n i t i o n s , however, the determination of the ranks i s of major importance. Most researchers have themselves created the number of ranks they wished to consider by di v i d i n g the educational 7 spectrum into three categories, for instance, or income into ten. Having developed these ranks the respondents were accordingly assigned to them. In t h i s study the number., of ranks were created by the students who assigned a unique rank to every student i n the bay i n v i r t u a l l y a l l cases. This means that the number of ranks i n each bay i s equal to the number of students i n that bay. Such a procedure has given a more detailed ranking system than has generally been used before. I f one considers a set of rankings to be a l l the ranks one person assigns to another on the evaluative c r i t e r i a that person uses, then there are a t o t a l of 2,468 sets of rankings to be considered--842 among the women and 1,626 among the men—in the analysis of others' balance. Out of t h i s number there are only 32 instances where the rankings are i n 104 balance i n accordance with Zelditch and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n . Six of these instances are among the women (0.71 per cent) and 26 (1.59 per cent) among the men. In only two cases, both i n Bay M3, i s a person seen as being balanced by more than one person, and here two people are each considered balanced by two d i f f e r e n t students. The factor which stands out most among the men i s that i f they saw someone as having balanced ranks, then they frequently only ranked on two evaluative c r i t e r i a . This was , the case i n a l l but four of the twenty-six instances of balance. Of the four who did not conform to t h i s pattern, two were ranked on three c r i t e r i a and two on four. The very few instances of balance among the women make i t more d i f f i c u l t to draw any conclusions. However, four women are ranked on more than two c r i t e r i a and are seen to be balanced. In these cases the women with balanced ranks are ranked on four c r i t e r i a once, f i v e twice and six once. I t i s also apparent among the men that p a r t i c u l a r students assign balanced ranks more frequently than others. Seventeen instances of balance are a t t r i b u t a b l e to three men who i n a l l of these cases rank others on only two c r i t e r i a . One f a c t o r which does characterize even t h i s small number of balanced cases, however, i s that the students who are assigned balanced ranks are frequently ones who have high or low status. F i f t e e n students are seen to have high status 105 i n that a l l t h e i r ranks are i n one of the top three positions within a bay, and further seven students have ranks which are among the three lowest status p o s i t i o n s . For the women, there i s more d i v e r s i t y i n the number of evaluative c r i t e r i a used but they repeat the pattern of assigning balance to only high or low status people since a l l the women who are balanced are given either high or low status ranks. Such r e s u l t s imply that i t i s only at the extremes of the evaluative hierarchies that one finds people who are recognized as having balanced ranks. These findings c l e a r l y indicate, however, that rank balance i s a very infrequent phenomenon and one which characterizes an extremely small percentage of the sets of rankings. Neither Zelditch and Anderson, nor other researchers who have used the rank balance approach, have discussed whether a p a r t i c u l a r percentage of balanced people should be expected i n a given s o c i a l system. Thus, one has no reason to assume that rank balance w i l l be c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a majority or a minority of people. Certainly, i f one compares the re s u l t s o i n reported here to those of L e n s k i 7 or Jackson one finds a considerably smaller percentage of people are balanced than i n t h e i r studies. Lenski, f o r instance, reports that 72 per cent of his respondents were balanced and Jackson 23 per cent. Cl e a r l y , there i s a large v a r i a t i o n i n the findings between Lenski and Jackson and an even greater v a r i a t i o n between Lenski and the re s u l t s given here. 106 Perhaps the reasons f o r such a large v a r i a t i o n i n the number of balanced people can be found i n either the d i f f e r e n t samples involved or i n the way i n which balance i s defined and measured. In the former case, one would have to maintain that d i f f e r e n t groups i n society experience d i f f e r i n g degrees of rank balance. One can f i n d groups of indivi d u a l s with combinations of status variables which could lead to very high rates of imbalance. Hughes, 1 1 f o r instance, writes about such a p o s s i -b i l i t y when he examines the consequences of doctors having low r a c i a l status. However, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to use t h i s argument i n explaining the d i f f e r e n t percentages of balanced subjects i n Lenski's and Jackson's reports since they both use random samples of adults and i t i s u n l i k e l y that such variations i n balanced people would be caused by t h i s factor. The differences between the students* responses and these others may l i e i n the fact that d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a are used; for example, the students evaluate on interpersonal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as opposed to such c r i t e r i a as income or education, or be att r i b u t a b l e to the fact that the students are at a stage i n the l i f e cycle where t h e i r ranks have not had time to become s t a b i l i z e d and balanced. Such arguments, however, would not explain why Lenski and Jackson have such d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s and, therefore, i t seems most l i k e l y that the differences i n balance are a r e f l e c t i o n of the way i n which rank balance i s measured. The rank balance process w i l l be increasingly complex as the number of ranks on the evaluative c r i t e r i a increases 107 and as the number of c r i t e r i a used also increases. In t h i s l a t t e r case, the students do not d i f f e r very greatly from other research. Although the number of c r i t e r i a the students rank on varies between in d i v i d u a l s , the average of 3.9 for men and 5.1 f o r women i s close to the 3 or 4 c r i t e r i a which are the numbers frequently used by other researchers. In the small number of cases of balance found i n t h i s study, however, i t did appear that the number of c r i t e r i a might be an in f l u e n -cing factor, at lea s t for the men. Since there are such a few cases such a conclusion i s very ten t a t i v e . Further, i n comparing Lenski and Jackson one does not find a rel a t i o n s h i p between the number of evaluative c r i t e r i a and the percentage of respondents balanced such that as the former increases the l a t t e r decreases. In f a c t , the opposite i s the case. On the basis of such evidence i t seems un l i k e l y that the number of evaluative c r i t e r i a used i s a very s i g n i f i c a n t factor i n the issue of balance i n t h i s case. This indicates that the most important issue i s the question of how many ranks are used i n the evaluation of people. Whilst other researchers have used various procedures d i f f e r e n t from the ones adopted here i n order to define balance, one * factor they a l l have i n common i s that fewer ranks are con-sidered. In many instances, there are only three possible ranks and although Lenski creates ten he eventually reduces a l l the ranks on four d i f f e r e n t hierarchies to one common s c o r e . 1 2 Consequently, i t was decided to reduce the number 108 of ranks available and to investigate the extent to which the number of balanced people would vary as the number of possible ranks was altered . Even though the number of ranks i s reduced, the same d e f i n i t i o n of balance given by Zelditch and Anderson can be used here as previously. The ranks were reduced from the maximum number possible to three and then to two, which i s the minimum number possible. In the case of the three rank condition a procedure si m i l a r to Jackson's was adopted. 1 3 He does not write simply of balance and imbalance but rather of balance and degrees of imbalance. He ranks people on three c r i t e r i a — o c c u p a t i o n , education and r a c i a l - e t h n i c background. These c r i t e r i a were each divided into three ranks and every respondent was assigned a rank on each of the three c r i t e r i a . Respondents could then be divided into several categories according to the pattern of t h e i r ranks. People's ranks were defined as balanced i f they had the same rank on a l l three dimensions. Moderately im-balanced persons had two ranks the same and a t h i r d one one rank-step away, e.g., 2 2 3 , H2. Two categories of sharply imbalanced statuses were also devised. These consisted of persons with no ranks a l i k e and those who had two ranks a l i k e but a two-rank step separating the t h i r d dimension from the other two, e.g., 1 2 3 , 3 3 1 . In order to create three ranks from the t o t a l number of ranks the students used,the ranks i n each bay were divided into t h i r d s . When i t was impossible to do t h i s so that the 109 t h i r d s had i d e n t i c a l numbers of ranks within them, the ranks were divided so that the f i r s t and t h i r d categories always had the same number. The rankings the students had assigned to others were then reassigned to one of these three new ranks i n the following way. I f a student had an o r i g i n a l rank which placed him/her within the top t h i r d of ranks i n a bay, then he/she was reassigned a rank of one; i f the o r i g i n a l rank placed them i n the second t h i r d they were given a rank of two; and i f i n the bottom t h i r d a rank of three. A s i m i l a r procedure was followed i n creating only two possible ranks within a bay. Here the ranks i n the bay were divided into two and the o r i g i n a l ranks reassigned. Students whose o r i g i n a l ranks placed them i n the top h a l f of the ranks were given a rank of 1, otherwise they ware reassigned a rank of 2. When the ranks would not divide evenly, the extra rank was added to the top h a l f of ranks. Although the number of ranks has been reduced, Zeldit c h and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n of balance i s s t i l l a p p l i -cable. Thus, with only two ranks to consider, a person i s balanced i f a l l his/her reassigned ranks are the same, i . e . , a l l one or a l l twos otherwise, a person i s imbalanced. In the case of three ranks, the procedure was varied to the extent< that degrees of imbalance were distinguished and not just imbalance per se. Students were again defined as balanced i f they had the same rank on a l l dimensions. They were 110 considered moderately imbalanced i f they had ranks which were only one rank step away from each other, e.g., 1122, 2223, and sharply imbalanced i f t h e i r ranks were two rank steps away. This could mean that a student's ranks were, fo r example, 1133, or that the student was assigned a l l possible ranks, f o r example, 1123. When one analyzes the percentage of students balanced under these reworked d e f i n i t i o n s i t i s clear that the percen-tage of balanced eases i s , however, s t i l l small and reaches a maximum of 3 k per cent f o r men under the two rank condition. As the two rank condition presents the minimum number of ranks which could be considered under Zelditch and Anderson's d e f i n i -t i o n of balance, i t i s apparent that the percentage of balance fluctuates between 1.59 per cent and 34 per cent f o r men and 0,71 per cent and 27 per cent for women, depending on the precise d e f i n i t i o n used. See Table XIII. The percentage difference between men and women who are balanced under the two-rank d e f i n i t i o n are not very large although they are s i g n i -f i c a n t at the .001 l e v e l (X 2 = 12 .75 , df = 1 ) . Whilst i t i s possible that the difference arises because men are more l i k e l y than women to see each other as having balanced ranks, i t i s most l i k e l y that differences are due to the d i f f e r e n t size of the bays. A l l the men's bays were larger than the women's and th i s r e s u l t s i n there being a greater range of ranks under which the men can s t i l l be defined as balanced. I l l When comparisons are made between the two men's bays and the two women's bays which are closest i n size (Bays Ml and M2 and F3 and F6) f one finds that there are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the men and women i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the ranks into balanced and imbalanced categories. I t would seem, therefore, that the differences which are observed between men and women when a l l the bays are considered are l i k e l y to be a re s u l t of the differences i n the sizes of the bays and the eff e c t t h i s has on the d e f i n i t i o n of balance. TABLE XIII PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OTHERS' RANKINGS UNDER THREE CONDITIONS OF BALANCE, BY SEX RANKINGS OF OTHERS MEN WOMEN Balanced Imbalanced Balanced Imbalanced A l l ranks 1.59* 98.41* 0.71* 99.29* 3 ranks 20* 80* 13* m 2 ranks 3 k* 66* 27* 73* N 1626 842 Under the three-rank condition the men and women have very s i m i l a r d i s t r i b u t i o n s of ranks. See Table XIV. For both sexes, the number of students with balanced ranks i s the smallest of the three categories and the moderately imbalanced category i s the largest. The fact that for both men and women nearly 40 per cent of others' rankings are sharply imbalanced 112 i s an i n d i c a t i o n that the ranks vary quite considerably and'are not even r e l a t i v e l y close to one another. TABLE XIV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF OTHERS' RANKINGS UNDER THE THREE RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, BY SEX RANKINGS OF OTHERS MEN WOMEN Balanced 20# 13# (286.59) (148.41) Moderately imbalanced 43# (726.69) (376.3D Sharply imbalanced 37#- 39# (612.72) (317.28) N; laojJ (1626)\ 100^ - (842) jr • 1 8 . 7 3 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at .001 l e v e l When balance was defined using a l l the possible ranks i t was indicated that the cases of balance were attri b u t a b l e to the rankings of just one or two in d i v i d u a l s , p a r t i c u l a r l y among the men. In contrast to t h i s i t i s found that, when balance i s defined under the three-rank or two-rank condition, the incidences of balance are not due to the rankings of just a few people. Under both of these d e f i n i t i o n s the majority of students see at le a s t one person as having balanced ranks. Conversely, the majority of individu a l s are also seen to be, balanced by at least one person i n t h e i r bay. When three ranks 113 are used, 75 per cent of the women and 90 per cent of the men are assigned balanced ranks by at l e a s t one i n d i v i d u a l . These percentages increase to 93 per cent and 96 per cent respectively when only 2 ranks are considered. Since there i s a great v a r i a -t i o n i n who i s seen to have balanced ranks, there are very few instances where a majority of students rank the same person as balanced. Under the 3 rank condition t h i s only occurs k times (3 times amongst the man and once amongst the women). Such instances of agreement are increased considerably when the ranks are reduced to two such that 22 per cent of the men and 19 per cent of the women are assigned balanced ranks by at l e a s t h a l f of the bay members. From these figures i t i s evident that as the number of balanced cases increases the number of d i f f e r e n t i n d i v i d u a l s who assign such ranks also increases as does the number of d i f f e r e n t students who are considered balanced by at l e a s t one person. Despite such increases, however, i t i s rank imbalance which i s s t i l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most people's rank structure. The findings which are reported here i n r e l a t i o n to others' balance can be seen to apply also when one looks at self-rankings and self-balance. Using Zeldi t c h and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n with the maximum number^of ranks, one finds that no student assigns him/herself the same rank on a l l the c r i t e r i a he/she uses. Consequently, under t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , no one has balanced ranks. 114 The discrepancy i n the ranks the students assign themselves can be seen by the f a c t that only 25 students had a range of ranks which was three or l e s s . Consequently, i t cannot be maintained that students, although not having ranks which were completely balanced, did have ranks which were f a i r l y c l o s e l y aligned. The discrepancy i n ranks i s demon-strated again when the d e f i n i t i o n of balance i s reworked as previously. Under both the three-rank and the two-rank conr-di t i o n s of balance a majority of indiv i d u a l s were imbalanced. See Table XV, In the three-rank d e f i n i t i o n the men and women show the same pattern of ranks as was reported i n the discussion on others* balance i n that the moderately imbalanced category has the greatest number of persons i n i t , followed by the sharply imbalanced and then the balanced categories. See Table XVI, Referring again to Table XV, one can see that there i s a considerable difference between the percentage of men and women balanced under the two-rank condition. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of ranks between the balanced and imbalanced categories does not show such a wide v a r i a t i o n f o r men as i t does f o r women, a v a r i a t i o n which may, i n part, a r i s e from the d i f f e r e n t sized bays,and the influence t h i s has on the d e f i n i t i o n of balance as discussed when considering others' balance. The differences between men's and women's self-rankings under the two-rank d e f i n i t i o n are s i g n i f i c a n t at between the .01 and ,001 l e v e l s (X 2 s 8,2, df * 1) when a l l the bays are included, but comparisons between the men's and women's bays closest i n size reveal ho,significant differences i n t h i s regard. 115 TABLE XV PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SELF-RANKINGS UNDER THREE CONDITIONS OF BALANCE, BY SEX SELF-RANKINGS MEN WOMEN Balanced Imbalanced Balanced Imbalanced A l l ranks 0**> 1<©0* 0* 100* 3 ranks 15* 85* 14* 86* 2 ranks 40* 60* 19* 81* m 89 72 TABLE XVI PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF SELF-RANKINGS UNDER THE THREE RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, BY SEX SELF-RANKINGS ; MEN WOMEN Balanced 15* 14* Moderately imbalanced 53* 47* Sharply imbalanced 32* 39* N 100*, (89) 100* (72) From the preceding analysis of the students' ranks i t can be seen that rank imbalance i s more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the members ©f t h i s s o c i a l system than i s rank balance. Even under the least r e s t r i c t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of balance possible the balanced students are a minority of the cases. The fact that 116 the percentage of people with balanced ranks varies according to the d e f i n i t i o n of balance which i s used i s , however, the most s i g n i f i c a n t factor of these findings and one which has important implications f o r the expected responses to imbalance. I f there i s no agreement on who has balanced ranks and who does not, then i t i s not possible to explain d i f f e r e n t i a l behaviour by reference to that concept. Nevertheless, as a large per-centage of the students do have imbalanced ranks no matter which d e f i n i t i o n of balance i s used, i t i s important to look at the students' responses to t h i s condition. As the theory states that imbalanced ranks are unstable and produce st r e s s , i t i s predicted that people w i l l attempt to create rank balance. In view of t h e i r imbalance, one would expect the students to t r y to do t h i s and i t i s t h i s reaction to t h e i r s i t u a t i o n which i s considered i n the following pages. The analysis i s based on the students' self-rankings and the preferred ranks which were stated i n the questions dealing with t h i s issue. Response to Imbalance The students' responses to imbalance are examined i n lk r e l a t i o n to t h e i r desire f o r rank mobility. In order f o r • t h i s response to be possible, i t i s assumed that a person's mobility i s not blocked and that the person does indeed wish to be mobile. 1-* The manner i n which a person may move his/her ranks i s dependent on whether the ranks are contingent or non-contingent. An examination of the evaluative hierarchies 117 used by the students indicates that they do not appear to be interdependent; for example, a student's rank on the c r i t e r i o n , a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y , does not depend on his rank on being h e l p f u l . In the following analysis, therefore, a l l the ranks are con-sidered to be non-contingent. Because of t h i s i t i s expected that students w i l l seek to ra i s e t h e i r lower ranks to the l e v e l of t h e i r higher ones. 1^ This pred i c t i o n rests on two further assumptions which were discussed on page 23. These assumptions state, f i r s t l y , that a person would wish to have a 17 p o s i t i v e self-evaluation, and secondly, that that evaluation i s no less p o s i t i v e than the evaluation s i g n i f i c a n t others have of him/her. 1 8 Using some of the data c o l l e c t e d i n t h i s study, i t i s possible to test the second of these assumptions. In order to do t h i s the rank a student assigned him/herself on the general status hierarchy was compared to the median rank on that evalua-t i o n calculated from the rankings a l l the other students gave him/her. I f the self-assigned rank was higher than or equal to the median rank, then a student was considered to have s e l f -evaluation which was at least as po s i t i v e as the evaluations others held of him/her. The majority of the students do, i n fa c t , hold such evaluations of themselves. Sixty per cent of the men (N=89) and 59 per cent of the women (N=72) conform to the r e s t r i c t i o n assumed by Zelditch and Anderson. However, there i s s t i l l a large number of individuals f o r whom t h i s i s not the case. Consequently, when studying the response to 118 imbalance, the group with the lower sel f - e v a l u a t i o n w i l l be compared to the group f o r whom se l f - e v l u a t i o n and evaluation of others more nearly coincides. As the theory has been established on the assumption that people do have a s e l f -evaluation at le a s t as p o s i t i v e as that held of them by s i g n i f i c a n t others, one would expect that students with low self-evaluation may not react to imbalance i n the predicted way. For instance, they may not r a i s e t h e i r lowest rank since they do not think that t h e i r evaluations should be any higher. Two questions r e l a t i n g to rank mobility were asked and the r e s u l t s from each of these questions w i l l be discussed separately. In the f i r s t question, students indicated preferred ranks on the c r i t e r i a but each time assuming that only one rank could be altered and that a l l the other ranks would stay as they were. The second question allowed the students to move th e i r ranks on a l l the evaluative c r i t e r i a at the same time. In most of the instances the students' ranks are so varied that they could not achieve balance i n one move. This i s the case no matter which of the three d e f i n i t i o n s of rank balance i s used. In view of t h i s , the students' responses were analyzed by deter-mining the extent to which rank mobility reduced the range of ranks. A reduction i n the range i s defined as an increase i n balance. Other moves may either decrease the balance—by increasing the range of r a n k s — o r cause no change i n the extent to which a person can be said to be balanced. 119 The r e s u l t s obtained from both of the mobility questions show that ?8 per cent of both the men (N=89) and the women (N=?2) wished for some change i n t h e i r ranks. On the f i r s t mobility question these 12? students who stated preferred ranks did so for an average of 3*1 ranks among the women and an average of 2. k ranks among the men. This resulted i n 1?5 rankg being altered by the women and 170 by the men. Seven women and eight men altered t h e i r ranks on a l l the c r i t e r i a used but the rank which was altered by most people was the one on which they ranked themselves lowest. Sixty-seven per cent of the women and 71 per cent of the men would move t h i s rank. The next most frequently altered rank, however, was that on which a student ranked highest. This characterized 3 k per cent of the male students and 39 per cent of the female students who stated preferred ranks and showed a desire by these students to have an even higher evaluation on t h i s hierarchy. Under the d e f i n i t i o n of balance which used a l l the ranks every student was imbalanced and, therefore, i t could be expected that a l l of them would wish to a l t e r t h e i r ranks. The fact that 3 k of them do not choose to do so indicates that imbalance i s not f e l t to be disturbing by a l l of the students. It i s also apparent i n studying the responses the students ;do make that the preferred ranks most frequently do not lessen,a person's imbalance. Of the 175 changes the women make only 19 per cent r e s u l t i n an increase i n rank balance. The 120 corresponding figure f o r men was 29 per cent out of 170 changes. A l l the other changes meant that the extent of rank balance either remained unchanged or act u a l l y decreased. See Table XVII. These r e s u l t s are found because many students state preferred ranks which are higher on the evaluative hierarchies but show no concern with the extent to which t h e i r ranks may be of l i k e order. This can be seen by the fact that although a majority of the students do wish to r a i s e t h e i r lowest rank i n accordance with Zelditch and Anderson's pre-d i c t i o n , even t h i s does not mean that rank imbalance i s re-duced. Twenty-seven per cent of the female students and 18 per cent of the males who do ra i s e t h e i r lowest rank do so i n such a way that t h e i r rank balance i s decreased. This occurred i f a person had ranks i n the middle range of possible ranks and then raised the lowest rank above the l e v e l of the highest one. For instance, i f a person had ranks 8,9,14,16 on four evaluative c r i t e r i a and raised the rank 16 to rank 5 , then the degree of imbalance was increased. TABLE XVII FIRST QUESTION ON MOBILITY * PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE ALL-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, BY SEX MEN WOMEN Increase Balance 29% (41.39) 19% (42 .61) Decrease Balance 52% (98.55) 65% (101.45) No Change 19% (30 .05) 16% (30.94) Total 100% (170) 100% (175) 121 I f one considers the students who were defined as balanced or imbalanced under the three-rank and the two-rank d e f i n i t i o n s of balance, one i s able to compare the responses of each of these groups to each other. I f imbalanced ranks produce stress and are unstable, one would expect that students who are imbalanced w i l l show a greater tendency to increase t h e i r rank balance i n order to a l l e v i a t e the si t u a t i o n i n which they find themselves. For the men, there are no s i g -n i f i c a n t differences between the responses made by the balanced as opposed to the imbalanced group under either the three-rank or the two-rank condition. See Tables XVIII and XIX. The same r e s u l t i s found f o r women under the two-rank d e f i n i t i o n of balance but when balance i s defined using three ranks, one finds a s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the balanced and the imbalanced categories. See Tables XX and XXI. Although only. 18 changes are made by women who are balanced under the three-rank con-d i t i o n , a l l but one of the changes resulted i n a decrease i n balance as opposed to the resu l t s from the other groups where more of the changes increased or did not a l t e r t h e i r balance. This r e s u l t runs counter to the expected behaviour i n that the women who were balanced a l t e r t h e i r ranks such that they become less balanced. I t can also be seen that the imbalanced groups make more changes which r e s u l t i n a decrease i n balance rather than an increase. This r e s u l t i s found for both men and women. The women generally show a greater tendency than do the men to state ranks that decrease t h e i r balance. I t was seen that 122 t h i s was the case when a l l the ranks were considered and i s found also under the r e d e f i n i t i o n s of balance. Under the two-rank condition, the difference between men and women are quite s i g n i f i c a n t i n t h i s regard. See Table XXII. TABLE XVIII FIRST QUESTION ON MOBILITYi PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE THREE-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR MEN MEN: MODERATELY SHARPLY " BALANCED IMBALANCED IMBALANCED Increase Balance 17% 28% 3k% (3.82) (26 .4?) (19.71) Decrease Balance 68% 50% 49% (6 .65) (46.0&) (34.29) No Change 17% 33% , 17% (2 .52) (17.47) (13.00) Total 100% (13) 100% (90) 100% (67) X 2 * 3.82 df = 4 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .50 and .30 levels.. 123 TABLE XIX FIRST QUESTION ON MOBILITY 8 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TWO-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR MEN BALANCED MEN IMBALANCED __ Increase Balance Decrease Balance No Change 3k% (16 .83) 42% (25 .73) (11 .44) 100% (54) Total X 2 = 0 .86 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .70 and .50 l e v e l s 31% (36.16) 50% (55.28) (24 .56) 100% (116) TABLE XX FIRST MOBILITY QUESTION: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TWO-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR WOMEN WOMEN BALANCED IMBALANCED Increase Balance 1 5 % 22% (7.82) (28.18) Decrease Balance 6 6 % 6 4 % ( 2 4 . 5 4 ) ( 8 8 . 4 6 ) No Change 19% 1^ % ( 5 . 6 5 ) ( 2 0 . 3 5 ) Total 100% (38) 100% (137) X 2 = 0 .95 df «= 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .70 and .50 l e v e l s TABLE XXI FIRST QUESTION ON MOBILITYi PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TREE-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR WOMEN BALANCED WOMEN MODERATELY IMBALANCED SHARPLY IMBALANCED Increase Balance Decrease Balance No Change Total X 2 - 15 .38 df = 4 S i g n i f i c a n t between .01 and .001 l e v e l s 7* (3 .50) 93* (11.62) 0* (2.88) 100* (18) 16* (18.46) 69* (61.34) 15* (15.20) 100* (95) 29* (12.05) 48* (40 .03) 23* (9 .92) 100* (62) TABLE XXII FIRST QUESTION ON MOBILITY» PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TWO-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, BY SEX BALANCED IMBALANCED MEN WOMEN MEN WOMEN Increase Balance 33* (14 .09) 16* (9 .91) 30* (29.80) 22* (35.20) Decrease Balance 43* (28.17) 66* (19 .83) 50* (66*94) 64* (79.06) No Change 24* (11.74) 18* (8 .26) 20* (19 .26) 14* (22.74) Total 100* (54) 100* (38) 100* (116) 100* (137) Balanced Men and Women X z = 5 .26 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .10 and .05 l e v e l s Imbalanced Men and Women X 2 = 5.24 df = 2 Si g n i f i c a n t at between .10 and .05 l e v e l s 125 The r e s u l t s presented show c l e a r l y that f o r both men and women the expected behaviour patterns are not found, since most changes re s u l t i n a decrease rather than an increase i n balance. This i s the case whether the people were defined as balanced or imbalanced and thus i t cannot be shown that the students with imbalanced ranks were reacting d i f f e r e n t l y from those with balanced ranks i n an attempt to a l l e v i a t e the stress attributed to t h e i r s i t u a t i o n . For a l l groups the desire i s to have higher evaluations on the c r i t e r i a and there does not appear to be a s i g n i f i c a n t concern with balancing ranks. The r e s u l t s from the second question on mobility are somewhat d i f f e r e n t from those discussed above. There are no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the men and women i n the way i n which they move t h e i r ranks but i n contrast to the previous findings, more of the changes r e s u l t i n an increase i n balance rather than a decrease. See Tables XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI and XXVII. Also under the three-rank d e f i n i t i o n of balance, the differences between the balanced and the imbalanced groups are s i g n i f i c a n t for both men and women. The sharply imbalanced groups show a greater tendency to make changes which increase t h e i r balance than do the balanced groups. For men the greater the degree of imbalance the more they are l i k e l y to state changes which would increase t h e i r balance. This pattern i s s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r the women because more of the moderately im-balanced group state preferences which would neither increase or decrease t h e i r balance than occurs among the men. See Tables 126 XXIV and XXV. Under the two-rank d e f i n i t i o n of balance, differences between the balanced and the imbalanced groups generally the groups show a greater tendency to increase rather than decrease balance. Only among the women who are balanced under t h i s d e f i n i t i o n does one not f i n d a majority of people increasing t h e i r balance. See Tables XXVI and XXVII. with respect to changes i n rank are not s i g n i f i c a n t but TABLE XXIII SECOND QUESTION ON MOBILITY t PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE ALL-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, BY SEX MEN WOMEN Increase Balance 64% (43.05) Decrease Balance 25% (19.01) 29% (14.99) No Change 11% (8.9k) 14% (7.06) T o t a l 100% (71) 100% (56) X 2 = .56 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .80 and .70 l e v e l s 127 TABLE XXIV SECOND QUESTION ON MOBILITY* PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE THREE-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR MEN MEN MODERATELY SHARPLY BALANCED IMBALANCED IMBALANCED Increase Balance 43* 59* 74* (4.44) (25.35) (15.22) Decrease Balance 43* 33* 9* ( 1 * 7 7 ) (10.14) (6.08) No Change 14* 8* 17* (0.79) (4.51) (2 . 70) Total 100* (7) 100* (40) 100* (24) X 2 = 6.65 df = 4 Si g n i f i c a n t at between .20 and .10 le v e l s TABLE XXV SECOND QUESTION ON MOBILITY* PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE THREE-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR WOMEN BALANCED WOMEN MODERATELY IMBALANCED SHARPLY IMBALANCED Increase Balance Decrease Balance No Change Total 50* (4 .57) (2 .29) 0* (1.14) 100* (8) (16.00) 36* (8.00) (4.00) 100* (28) 75* (11.43) 10* (5 .71) 15* (2.86) 100* (20) X 2 = 7 .33 df = 4 Sig n i f i c a n t at between .20 and .10 l e v e l s . 128 TABLE XXVI SECOND QUESTION ON MOBILITY: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TWO-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR MEN MEN BALANCED IMBALANCED Increase Balance 61% 57% (14.44) (26 .56) Decrease Balance 31% 23% (6 .69) (12.31) No Change 8% 20% (3 .87) (7 .13) Total 100% (25) 100% (46) X 2 = 1 .83 df * 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between ,50 and .30 l e v e l s TABLE XXVII SECOND QUESTION ON MOBILITY: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF PREFERRED RANKS UNDER THE TWO-RANK DEFINITION OF BALANCE, FOR WOMEN WOMEN BALANCED IMBALANCED Increase Balance 42% 63% (7 .07) (25.9*0 Decrease Balance 42% 23% (3 .21) (11.78) No Change 16% 14% ( 1 . 7 D (6.28) Total 100% (12) 100% (44) X 2 = 2 . 1 3 df = 2 S i g n i f i c a n t at between .50 and .30 l e v e l s 129 When one compares the responses to mobility which the students with a p o s i t i v e self-evaluation gave as opposed to those with a low self-evaluation, one finds no s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the two groups. Students with a high self-evaluation are no more balanced than those with a low self-evaluation when the o r i g i n a l ranks are considered and do not show any greater tendency to wish to increase t h e i r balance. Consequently, the student's self-evaluation does not appear to be an important fa c t o r either i n the o r i g i n a l assignment of ranks or i n the response to imbalance. From the data presented i n t h i s chapter i t would • appear that the central issues of rank balance theory have to be questioned. Although the students give unique ranks to each other and themselves i t i s apparent that they do not, have ranks of the same order on the d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a . The extent of rank balance, however, varies with the precise d e f i n i t i o n of balance which i s used. This has consequences f o r the students' responses to the questions dealing with imbalance since i t i s only under the three-rank condition i n the second mobility question where a l l ranks can be moved simultaneously that there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the balanced and the imbalanced groups such that the imbalanced groups show a greater preference for changes which would increase t h e i r balance and thus act i n a manner predicted i n the theory. In the f i r s t mobility question, 130 where students could only state a preferred rank f o r each of the evaluative c r i t e r i a i n turn, the changes made seem to r e f l e c t a wish for higher evaluations regardless of whether t h i s decreases or increases rank balance. Preferred ranks stated i n answer to the second mobility question are more l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n an increase i n balance. The students again show a wish for higher ranks on the evaluative c r i t e r i a , but the r e s u l t of stating t h e i r preferences i s an increase i n balance i n many cases. Under these conditions, therefore, some students do want to have ranks which are more cl o s e l y a l i k e but there are only six students who state preferred ranks which would make them balanced under the a l l -rank d e f i n i t i o n . The r e s u l t s from these questions suggest that students are generally more concerned with having higher evaluations on p a r t i c u l a r hierarchies than with rank balance per se. The possible exception to t h i s statement may occur when the three-rank d e f i n i t i o n of balance i s used and people are able to a l t e r a l l t h e i r ranks. As i t i s the sharply im-balanced group which shows the greatest tendency to increase balance t h i s may imply that people do experience d i s s a t i s -f a c t i o n when some of t h e i r ranks are i n the top t h i r d of possible positions and some are i n the lowest t h i r d . This suggests that a d e f i n i t i o n of balance based on three ranks may be the one which w i l l allow differences i n behaviour due to discrepant ranks to be observed. 131 FOOTNOTES xSee f o r example, Karl E. Bauman, "Status Inconsistency, Sati s f a c t o r y S o c i a l Interaction, and Community S a t i s f a c t i o n i n an Area of Rapid Growth," So c i a l Forces. 47 (1968), pp. 45-52; Irwin Goffman, "Status Consistency and Preference f o r Change i n Power D i s t r i b u t i o n , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 22 (1957), PP. 275-281; El t o n Jackson, "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 27 (1962), pp. 469-480; G. Lenski, "A Non-Vertical Dimension of S o c i a l Status," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 19 (1954), pp. 405-413; Gary B. Rush, "Status Consistency and Right Wing Extremism," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 32 (1967), PP. 86 -92 . K. Dennis K e l l y and William J . Chambliss, "Status Consistency and P o l i t i c a l Attitudes," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 31 (1966), pp. 375-382. This i s probably the only report of the many dealing with rank imbalance and using survey data which refe r s s p e c i f i c a l l y to the respondents' perception of imbalance. Here the authors are concerned with the respondents' perception of t h e i r rank on income, occupation and education. 3 I n the experimental research, the researcher i s more c e r t a i n that the subjects are aware of t h e i r r e l a t i v e ranks on the hierarchies of evaluation. See f o r example, Arlene Brandon, "Status Congruence and Expectations," Sociometry. 28 (1965) , pp. 272-284, and E. Burnstein and Robert B. Zajonc, "The E f f e c t of Group Success i n the Reduction of Status Incongruence i n Task-Oriented Groups," Sociometry. 28 (1965) , PP. 349-362. In the research based on survey data i t i s not necessarily the case that respondents are aware of t h e i r rank balance or imbalance. See f o r example, Karl E. Bauman, op. c i t ; G. Lenski, op. c i t t : and Elton Jackson, op. c i t . This implies that there have been two d i f f e r e n t approaches to the question of rank balance. In one approach i t i s assumed that people are aware of t h e i r own rank balance or imbalance, whilst i n the other the concept of rank balance i s used to interpret "compensatory" behaviour using data that does not include information about s p e c i f i c comparison processes. k Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks," i n S o c i o l o g i c a l Theories i n Progress. Vol. I, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, New Yorki Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, p. 248. ^For example, Arlene Brandon, op. c i t . ; E l t o n Jackson, op. c i t . E. Burnstein and Robert B. Zajonc, op. c i t . ^Karl E. Bauman, op. cit.« and G. Lenski, op. c i t . Elton Jackson, op. c i t . 132 David R. Segal, Mady W. Segal and David Knoke, "Status Inconsistency and Self-Evaluation," Sociometry, 33 (1970) , PP. 3 k 7 - 3 5 7 . 9G. Lenski, op, c i t . 1 0 E l t o n Jackson, op. c i t . •^Everett C. Hughes, "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status," American Journal of Sociology. 50 (1944), pp. 353-359. 1 2G. Lenski, O P . c i t . . pp. 407-408 . 1 3 E l t o n Jackson, op. c i t . . pp. 471-472. l i +Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . , pp. 260-261 . 1 5 I b i d . . p. 262. l 6 I b i d . . p. 260. 1 7 I b i d . , p. 260. l 8 I b i d . , pp. 249-250. *«#-»*«* 133 CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS From the data presented i n the preceding chapters, i t i s possible to reassess Zelditch and Anderson's theory of rank balance. Although i t i s not fea s i b l e to decide to accept or r e j e c t the theory on the basis of research conducted i n one s o c i a l system, i t i s possible to suggest where the theory has received support and where, on the other hand, i t may need to be modified. The following discussion, therefore, w i l l focus on two i n t e r r e l a t e d issues. One w i l l be to look at the theore-t i c a l implications of t h i s research insofar as generalizations can be made from the residences to other s o c i a l systems. Such generalizations may i n some instances be lim i t e d by the special c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s o c i a l system which was studied. Nevertheless, conclusions drawn from the data obtained i n the residences w i l l allow one to make observations about the use-fulness of rank balance theory as an explanatory approach i n that context and some of the conclusions w i l l have a more general importance and relevance. From the discussion of these conclusions the second issue of concern w i l l be developed which w i l l be to suggest directions f o r future research. Such research would need to be undertaken i n order to further the attempts to establish the v a l i d i t y of t h i s theory and to answer some of the problems which have been raised by the research reported here. 13 k The precondition Zelditch and Anderson place on t h e i r theory, namely that s o c i a l status i s a multidimensional charac-t e r i s t i c , does receive support from these data. As was men-tioned previously, these assumptions were tested i n order to see whether the bases from which Zelditch and Anderson proceed to develop t h e i r theory could be supported. The fact that they were indicates that rank balance theory has a l o g i c a l and established foundation. Thus, the students assigned unique ranks to themselves and others on the general status hierarchy. They also indicated the evaluative c r i t e r i a which were impor-tant to them and ranked the students on those hierarchies which were seen to be contributing factors to a person's o v e r a l l rank. L a s t l y , they were also able to rank the evalua-t i v e c r i t e r i a as a measure of the r e l a t i v e importance of each of .the hierarchies to a student's general status. Once a l l these factors were entered into Zelditch and Anderson's status equation, i t was seen that a considerable amount of the va r i a t i o n i n students' rankings was explained as Zelditch and Anderson had assumed. It appears reasonable to assert that support f o r the status equation i s not peculiar to just the student residences. In t h i s regard, i t i s expected that members of other s o c i a l systems would be able to indicate the bases of evaluation relevant to t h e i r situations and the r e l a t i v e importance of the evaluations, as well as rank order the members on the o v e r a l l status hierarchy and on the separate 135 c r i t e r i a . This i s not to imply that a l l s o c i a l systems are necessarily multidimensional, (for instance, members of some r e l i g i o u s communities may evaluate only on a c r i t e r i o n such as s p i r i t u a l i t y ) , but i n such systems there could, of course, be no concern with rank balance. Given the complexity of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s , however, i t seems probable that several hierarchies of evaluation are used i n most s o c i a l systems i n these socie t i e s and there i s no reason to assume that students would be any more aware of these evaluative processes than people i n other s o c i a l s i t u a t i o n s . Therefore, the support obtained here f o r the assumption Zelditch and Anderson make about the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n of s o c i a l systems can be taken as an i n d i c a t i o n of the v a l i d i t y of the status equation. Despite the general support f o r the equation which i s given by the data from the students, there are some factors which are not consistent with the expected r e s u l t s . Such issues may be i d i o s y n c r a t i c to the system studied but are worthy of inves t i g a t i o n i n that they point to problems which may be encountered i n research i n other settings. The f i r s t problem i s that the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the number of evalua-t i v e c r i t e r i a used and the t o t a l amount of v a r i a t i o n explained i s not completely uniform. When only a few c r i t e r i a are used the v a r i a t i o n explained fluctuates. This may mean that a minimum number of c r i t e r i a have to be used i n the equation i n order to get reasonable p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , or that t h i s 136 problem i s related to the second issue raised by the r e s u l t s presented. This second issue i s that i n predicting the ov e r a l l rank f o r men the equation does not become increasingly accurate as more than s i x c r i t e r i a are used. Of the three factors which are important i n the status equation—the evaluative c r i t e r i a , t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance and the rank orderings on the c r i t e r i a — - i t i s probable that the f i r s t f actor raises the most d i f f i c u l t i e s and w i l l account for the problems encountered. The choice of the evaluative c r i t e r i a i s also the most important issue because i t i s the factor which has to be determined before i t i s possible to consider either the r e l a t i v e importance of the c r i t e r i a or the rank orderings of students on them. Although only a rank ordering of the evaluative c r i t e r i a was obtained from the students as an i n d i c a t i o n of the c r i t e r i a ' s r e l a t i v e importance, the regression analysis preserved t h i s ordering but weighted the c r i t e r i a such that the greatest t o t a l v a r i a t i o n could be explained. Unless one doubts the v a l i d i t y of the rank orderings of the evaluative c r i t e r i a which were given by the students, t h i s element i n the status equation does not seem problematic. Also, unless the students attempted to disguise what they thought to be the actual rankings on either the general status hierarchy or the evaluative c r i t e r i a , one has no reason to assume that the given ranks are not an accurate r e f l e c t i o n of the status system as each student saw i t . I t , therefore, appears most l i k e l y that i t i s the evaluative c r i t e r i a which need to be further investigated. 137 Although the interview procedures were designed to ascertain a l l the relevant c r i t e r i a from the students, there was no independent check that t h i s had, i n f a c t , been accom-pli s h e d . The procedures depended on the students being able to describe the important aspects of behaviour, and i t may be the case that some were inadvertently omitted and that others, less important, were included. The determination of the evaluative c r i t e r i a was the most d i f f i c u l t aspect of the interview and, although the procedures did reveal many of the relevant c r i t e r i a , future research should seek to improve on the methods used here. I t would c e r t a i n l y be desirable i f a l l the relevant c r i t e r i a could be determined p r i o r to any of the other aspects of the research being conducted. I t seems un l i k e l y that one could establish an exhaustive l i s t of c r i t e r i a but i f i t were r e l a t i v e l y complete i t could be used as a reference to ensure that at lea s t a l l those c r i t e r i a were considered and rankings given on them i f the respondents thought them to be s i g n i f i c a n t . The determination of the evaluative c r i t e r i a i s a c r u c i a l aspect of any research on rank balance and i s l i k e l y to be complex. In the residences, which are comparatively simple s o c i a l systems i n r e l a t i o n to such variables as age and s o c i a l background, i t i s apparent that many diverse forms of behaviour are considered important. The c r i t e r i a chosen by the students are s p e c i f i c to t h e i r s i t u a t i o n i n the residence and do not give any i n d i c a t i o n of those c r i t e r i a l i k e l y to be important i n other systems. 138 Consequently, i t remains to be seen what c r i t e r i a d i f f e r e n t systems may have i n common with each other and whether the d i v e r s i t y of c r i t e r i a found here w i l l be duplicated i n other settings. Prom t h i s study, i t appears that there w i l l be l i t t l e overlap between the evaluative c r i t e r i a used i n the residences and those used i n other areas of society. I t was apparent that the student status hierarchy was not congruent with that found i n the society external to the residences insofar as t h i s was measured by occupational status. Thus, prestige from one's family does not correspond to the prestige a person has i n the bay. Occupational status i s , of course, only one c r i t e r i o n which may be seen as relevant i n the s o c i a l system outside the residences. Although i n t h i s case there does not appear to be agreement on the evaluative c r i t e r i a between the two systems, t h i s does not preclude the p o s s i b i l i t y that there are evaluative c r i t e r i a i n common. The c r i t e r i a the students use, however, do r e f l e c t quite d i f f e r e n t bases of evaluation from those most frequently used i n other studies of rank balance 1 and i s again a r e f l e c t i o n of the s p e c i f i c nature of the evaluative c r i t e r i a chosen by the students. Indeed, i t can be argued that the students make a deliberate attempt to produce a counter-system to the res t of the society and, therefore, r e j e c t the s o c i e t a l bases of evaluation. That t h i s may happen has been seen by some other researchers as an expected pattern of behaviour i n 139 the North American context. I t has been argued that t h i s may occur because the st r u c t u r a l arrangements of the society are such that young people i n formal education are l a r g e l y segre-gated from the rest of the society and, therefore, the possi-b i l i t y of producing separate youth cultures, which may be i n opposition to the society, i s enhanced. I t has also been suggested that such a counter-system i s to be expected as part of the process of ppychological development. Erikson suggests that i n the development of a psychosocial i d e n t i t y , young people experience a "normative c r i s i s i n i n d i v i d u a l develop-ment." 3 He indicates that young people are at a stage i n t h e i r development where important decisions are made which w i l l s i g -n i f i c a n t l y influence t h e i r future, f o r example, choice of occupation. As part of t h i s process Erikson maintains that young people are l i k e l y to r e j e c t the d e f i n i t i o n s and expecta-tions held about them by older persons i n an attempt to create t h e i r own d e f i n i t i o n of themselves. The extent to which d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l systems do have evaluative c r i t e r i a i n common i s an issue which has to be investigated further. I f one could determine which c r i t e r i a two or more systems use, then i t would be possible to indicate how the relevant c r i t e r i a change from one system to the next and the consequences f o r a person having membership i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l systems. Whilst socio-economic status i s unimportant i n the residences i t does not seem l i k e l y that i t 140 w i l l continue to be so when the students move from the uni v e r s i t y into the employment s i t u a t i o n . One could consider the longitudinal changes i n the evaluative c r i t e r i a relevant to people throughout t h e i r l i f e t i m e or the analysis of d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l systems at any given time as a means of studying t h i s problem. The evaluative c r i t e r i a i n common to d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l systems are important to rank balance theory since Zelditch and Anderson use t h i s factor i n t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of subsystems. They maintain that one s o c i a l system i s a sub-system of another i f there i s at least one evaluative c r i t e r i o n common to both. In view of the c r i t e r i a the students use and the fact that the comparison between the residences and the outside s o c i a l system reveal that the status hierarchies are quite d i f f e r e n t , i t i s not clea r that these s o c i a l systems are related as Zelditch and Anderson suggest. Consequently, al t e r n a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n s of subsystems could be considered. Although there may be no overlap of evaluative c r i t e r i a between the residences and the external society, there i s c e r t a i n l y an overlap of personnel between the system studied here and the fami l i e s of which the students are members. Therefore, an alte r n a t i v e way of defining subsystems would be to consider the extent to which they have membership i n common. I t seems l i k e l y that i f one were to consider defining subsystems i n terms of common membership i t would be necessary 141 to specify that a c e r t a i n number of people would have to belong to both or a l l the systems i n question. Without such a l i m i t , one would have to consider two systems to be subsystems of each other even though they might only have one person i n common. Such an approach does not seem to be very f r u i t f u l as i t would create the p o s s i b i l i t y of having to consider a great var i e t y of small subsystems about which i t would hot be possible to make any generalizations. One further p o s s i b i l i t y i n studying subsystems would be to consider both common membership and, as Zelditch and Anderson suggest, common bases of evaluation. I f , i n f a c t , there are common members and only one or very few evaluative c r i t e r i a are relevant to both subsystems, then t h i s would raise questions about the consequences of being evaluated on d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a i n d i f f e r e n t systems. One could assume . that people w i l l give up membership i n one system i f the bases of evaluation are i n c o n f l i c t with those of another system of which they are also a member, or at l e a s t there w i l l be some attempt to counteract what could be a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . In order to do t h i s , people may try to keep t h e i r memberships i n the two systems compartmentalized and thereby avoid c o n f l i c t and tension. I t i s doubtful, however, i f t h i s would be possible under a l l circumstances since the behaviour and evaluations made of a person i n one system may well a f f e c t the behaviour that person shows i n another s i t u a t i o n . I t can also be suggested that h o s t i l i t y between various systems w i l l be related to the 142 extent to which they share common bases of evaluation and each i s intent on i t s evaluations being accepted. Certainly a h i s t o r y of student protest has been documented which occurs over the c o n f l i c t about the d e s i r a b i l i t y of a p a r t i c u l a r type of u n i v e r s i t y or society and which i s attri b u t a b l e to disagree-ment over basic values.^ In studying the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system of the r e s i -dences, there are other issues of general s i g n i f i c a n c e . Perhaps the one issue which appears most c l e a r l y i s the com-p l e x i t y of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system. This complexity i s re f l e c t e d i n the choice of the many d i f f e r e n t evaluative c r i t e r i a as s i g n i f i c a n t and relevant to t h i s s o c i a l system and i n the lack of agreement about where people rank. I t was previously suggested that the choices of evaluative c r i t e r i a which the students make r e f l e c t somewhat d i f f e r e n t bases of evaluation between men and women. Such a conclusion would ,. indicate that systematic research on the nature of evaluations made by d i f f e r e n t people i s needed. One might consider that variations i n the behaviour and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s evaluated would occur not only between men and women but also with respect to other s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and the type of s o c i a l system analyzed. Many theories of s o c i a l s t r a t i f i c a t i o n have been concerned with evaluations made on c r i t e r i a assumed to to be important for the t o t a l society. This has resulted i n less attention being directed to the nature of interpersonal evaluations and the way i n which these may be i d e n t i c a l with 143 or vary from those made at a s o c i e t a l l e v e l . The i d e n t i f i c a -t i o n of the evaluative c r i t e r i a are obviously a central problem both- i n understanding the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system i n general and i n increasing the usefulness of Zelditch and Anderson's status equation. What i s very evident from these data i s the f a c t that members of the same s o c i a l system, whether men or women, have very d i f f e r e n t assessments of where people rank i n the status hierarchies. Other researchers have reported a sim i l a r f i n d i n g i n that they suggest that people w i l l have d i f f e r e n t perceptions of a status hierarchy depending on where they themselves rank on i t . ^ I t has generally been concluded, however, that there i s considerable consensus over the rank orderings of ind i v i d u a l s or items on p a r t i c u l a r h i e r a r c h i e s . 7 Here, one has to conclude that people d i f f e r considerably i n the rankings of students to the extent that there i s very l i t t l e agreement on who could be seen to occupy even the most or the least prestigious positions i n a bay although these could be considered to be the most v i s i b l e positions. Some of the v a r i a t i o n i n o v e r a l l rank can be attributed to the fact that the students see d i f f e r e n t aspects of behaviour as important and relevant to l i f e i n residence. That such a fact o r does not explain a l l the observed v a r i a t i o n can be seen when one considers that even when students do evaluate on the same c r i t e r i o n , the ranks assigned to others s t i l l show very considerable v a r i a t i o n . Although there are some differences between men and women i n the l e v e l of agreement on the rankings of others which should be investigated further, some of t h i s v a r i a t i o n may be explained by the fact that the men were ranked by a greater number of people than the women. This assumes that consensus i s related to the number of people involved i n the evaluation, an occurrence which may not be found i n a l l situations and for a l l types of evaluations. In order to more f u l l y understand the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system, however, i t i s necessary that the reasons for the lack of consensus on where people rank be investigated. The study of t h i s issue could not be systema-t i c a l l y undertaken i n t h i s project, but i t would appear that a useful approach would be to study the rel a t i o n s h i p between the patterns of i n t e r a c t i o n of members. An associated problem i s the degree of information people have about each other and the e f f e c t t h i s has on the placement of people on general status ranks and on the ranks of the s p e c i f i c evaluative c r i t e r i a . One further issue which rel a t e s to the question of consensus on rankings i s whether or not the perception of the status hierarchies changes through time. The nature of t h i s study was not such that one could assess how stable the students' rankings were since the residences were studied at only one point i n time. I t may be the case that the rankings vary through time such that the people a student once thought had high status would be of lower status l a t e r . Although such 145 a concern would not a f f e c t the status equation i t may be of considerable importance i n explaining the lack of consensus about people's rankings. Perhaps agreement on the status hierarchies takes time to be established and the six or seven months the students had l i v e d together were not s u f f i c i e n t for a consensus to be created. Certainly, i n any attempt to understand the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system i t would be advantageous to study i f the rankings change with time. The assigned ranks are not the only factor within a s o c i a l system which may be affected i n t h i s way. I t i s also possible that the actual bases of evaluation may also a l t e r . Just as consensus over the status hierarchies could be a r e s u l t of r e l a t i v e l y prolonged involvement i n the system, so may the forms of behaviour seen to be important. Whether or not t h i s occur and i f i t i s charac-t e r i s t i c of a l l , or only some types of s o c i a l systems, remains to be studied. The extent to which rank balance can be considered an issue of concern to the students i s a central question from these data. Overwhelmingly, the students rank themselves and others such that they are imbalanced. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n the l i t e r a t u r e on rank balance of the extent to which d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l .systems w i l l vary with respect to the propor-t i o n of t h e i r members who have balanced ranks. Insofar as the students are a l l imbalanced on t h e i r self-rankings and assign imbalanced ranks to v i r t u a l l y everyone else when balance i s defined i n reference to a l l possible ranks, i t would appear 146 that t h i s system i s at one extreme of a continuum which could range from the case where everyone was imbalanced to the s i t u a t i o n i n which a l l members of a system were balanced. The fact that the students appear to represent an extreme case means that aaay conclusions based on t h e i r responses to imbalance must take t h i s into account. One issue which i s of relevance no matter what s o c i a l system i s studied, however, i s the d e f i n i t i o n of rank balance. I t was demonstrated that the percentage of students who could be considered to have balanced ranks varied with the precise operationalization of the concept. Such a fi n d i n g suggests, that rank balance i s an a r t i f a c t of the measurement process and raises considerable doubts about the u t i l i t y of the concept since d i f f e r e n t researchers would not reach the same conclusions about which people they would consider to be balanced or imba-lanced and, therefore, would see d i f f e r e n t behaviour a r i s i n g from these states. Zelditch and Anderson do not r a i s e the p o s s i b i l i t y of there being degrees of imbalance but write only of two p o s s i b i l i t i e s — r a n k balance and rank imbalance. In view of the fa c t that the percentage balanced varies with the number of ranks taken into consideration on each of the evaluative c r i t e r i a , i t would seem that the best strategy f o r future research would be to consider more than these two p o s s i b i l i t i e s . I f one considered rank balance as a state with varying degrees i t would then be possible to determine what l e v e l of rank imbalance has to exist i n order f o r people to react i n the 147 predicted ways. Perhaps only gross rank discrepancies w i l l produce s t r a i n . The analysis of the students' responses indicate that the three-rank d e f i n i t i o n of balance i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t of the three d e f i n i t i o n s used here i n that i t i s the only one which d i f f e r e n t i a t e s at a l l between the balanced and the imbalanced groups i n the manner predicted by the theory. Consequently, i t would be appropriate to consider using t h i s d e f i n i t i o n rather than any other. There i s , however, no necessary reason why the degree of imbalance which causes a Response i n one s o c i a l system would be the same as i n other systems. The relevance of t h i s as a factor has to be esta-blis h e d . Although the majority of students were defined as imbalanced on t h e i r self-rankings no matter which of the three operational!zations of the concept used, the part of Zelditch and Anderson's theory which presents most problems i n the l i g h t of these data i s the response to imbalance. Students generally did not respond i n the expected way i n terms of t h e i r rank mobility. Many students indicated preferred ranks which would r e s u l t i n higher ranks on p a r t i c u l a r evaluative hierarchies but which would not create rank balance or lessen the imbalance c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of most students. Indeed, some students did not wish to a l t e r any of t h e i r ranks at a l l even though they were not balanced. Consideration, therefore, has to be given to why the students did not seem to be concerned with rank balance. 148 Several reasons can be put forward as possible explanations. One would be to consider that the students' Q mobility was blocked. I t was assumed i n Chapter IV that the students' mobility was not, i n f a c t , blocked and t h i s assump-t i o n s t i l l appears most reasonable i n view of the evaluation processes. The behavioural c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s on which the students evaluated each other are not the types of behaviour which are generally subject to outside c o n t r o l . For instance, i t would not be possible f o r someone to block a student from becoming more considerate or being easier to get along with. P a r t i c u l a r l y as the mobility response was measured i n terms of stated preference f o r another rank, rather than the actual achievement of a d i f f e r e n t rank, i t could not be assumed that a student's mobility was blocked by others. Part of Zeldi t c h and Anderson's d e f i n i t i o n of blocked mobility, however, states that blocking could occur i f people o "do not want or expect to be mobile." 7 Although students were asked to state whether alternative ranks were preferred, i t i s possible that students indicated ranks which they thought they could r e a l i s t i c a l l y a t t a i n . Consequently, some of them may have seen t h e i r mobility as blocked because they did not see themselves as acquiring any more of an a b i l i t y or exhibiting more of a p a r t i c u l a r form of behaviour. Most of the evaluative c r i t e r i a are such that a student could increase his/her ranks on the c r i t e r i a i f wishing to do so. For most students, even t h e i r rank on a c r i t e r i o n such as a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y which may 149 be seen to depend on innate capacities more than some of the other c r i t e r i a do, could be increased since the l e v e l of a b i l i t y shown i n inter-bay sports, f o r example, was not p a r t i c u l a r l y high. In view of t h i s i t does not seem rea-sonable to ascribe the lack of mobility to the students' expectations that some ranks could be mobile and that others could not. The idea that blocking i s responsible for the way i n which students a l t e r t h e i r ranks does not, therefore, seem l i k e l y and the assumption, that mobility was not blocked by others or because the students could not be mobile, s t i l l seems warranted. One other aspect of blocking has to be considered, however. Zelditch and Anderson state that "the less perma-nent an imbalance i s seen to be, the less mobility i s blocked. Only i f imbalance i s thought to be r e l a t i v e l y permanent w i l l an i n d i v i d u a l respond to imbalance as an undesirable s i t u a -t i o n . Students cannot be i n residence f o r more than three years and, i n many instances, students w i l l be members f o r only one or two years. Knowing t h i s , students may not be concerned with t h e i r imbalance because they see i t as being of a short duration and expect i t to be resolved when they move out of the system. Zelditch and Anderson do not discuss the p o s s i b i l i t y of resolving imbalance by moving out of the system. Clearly, however, such a p o s s i b i l i t y does exist i n some cases and i s an additional response to imbalance which has to be considered. In doing so, i t would be necessary to 150 investigate under what circumstances i t i s possible to move from one system to another and when people would choose to do t h i s rather than adopt an alternative solution to imbalance. Whilst Zelditch and Anderson write of imbalance being imper-manent or not, no i n d i c a t i o n i s given of how long people w i l l accept imbalance i n the expectation of eventually a l t e r i n g that state. Indeed, since Zelditch and Anderson are concerned with someone's expectation about mobility i t may be the case that some people w i l l not be concerned with t h e i r imbalance because they continue to expect to be mobile even though such expectations are u n r e a l i s t i c from another's viewpoint. I f i t i s assumed that the evaluations made i n the residences do not d i f f e r very much with time, then i t would appear that some students w i l l have been imbalanced for nearly three years, that i s , a l l the time they have been i n residence. In t h i s context, imbalance over a three-year period cannot be d i s -turbing. This i s undoubtedly related to the fact that students are aware that t h e i r movement out of the system w i l l occur within t h i s s p e c i f i e d time and that i f rank balance i s a concern to them i t w i l l then be resolved at leas t i n r e l a t i o n to t h i s s e t t i n g . I f students did not respond to rank imbalance because i t was seen to be a problem which was impermanent, then the assumption that students' mobility was not blocked would have to be revised. Although Zelditch and Anderson state that blocking may occur f o r d i f f e r e n t reasons they do not imply that t h i s could have consequences for people's behaviour. I t 151 i s possible, however, that t h i s would be the case. In t h i s study the students perhaps were not concerned with t h e i r imbalance because they saw i t as a consequence of t h e i r being members of t h i s s o c i a l system that was of a r e l a t i v e l y short duration. I f , however, mobility had been blocked by others, then t h i s might have caused them to react d i f f e r e n t l y ; f or example, they may have questionned the relevance of the evaluations made. A second explanation of the observed rank a l t e r a -tions may be found i n the nature of the comparisons a student makes between him/herself and others. Zelditch and Anderson argue that the response to imbalance r e l i e s i n part on com-parison processes. In order for a person to recognize his/her own imbalance a comparison must have taken place between him/ herse l f and at least one other person. I f no comparisons are made, Zelditch and Anderson define the ranks as vacuously balanced and state that such ranks are s t a b l e . 1 1 The con-d i t i o n s under which a person may or may not compare him/ herse l f to others are not known but i t i s un l i k e l y that t h i s could occur i n the residences f o r students must have compared themselves to others i n order to establish the rank orderings on general status and on the evaluative c r i t e r i a . Therefore, i t does not seem possible to argue that they would not have compared t h e i r own configuration of ranks with that of others i n the bay. This would only be a p o s s i b i l i t y i f a person considered each evaluative hierarchy separately and did not 152 look at a person's t o t a l evaluation. As the students ranked a l l the hay members on o v e r a l l status, which i s a combination of these separate evaluations, t h i s again does not appear possible. A more fe a s i b l e explanation f o r the response the students made can be found i n arguing that the comparison 12 processes are insulated. This means that comparisons are made between people who are s i m i l a r l y imbalanced. When th i s occurs individuals would either not recognize that they have imbalanced ranks or they would recognize the condition but see that nearly everyone else i s i n the same s i t u a t i o n . Consequently, they would not wish to a l t e r t h e i r ranks i n the d i r e c t i o n of balance because balance was not seen to be a usual state and, therefore, the students who were imbalanced would not experience r e l a t i v e deprivation i n terms of t h e i r rank structure. As a majority of the students were imbalanced whether one considers self-rankings or the rankings which others gave, balance c e r t a i n l y would not be seen as the norm i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n . The fact that students chose to a l t e r some of t h e i r ranks may simply mean that they dp recognize the h i e r a r c h i c a l nature of the evaluations and i n some cases would prefer to have more of a p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e . That t h i s i s not always the case could be a r e f l e c t i o n of the type of c r i t e r i a on which they evaluate. The possession of some personal charac-t e r i s t i c s may not be seen to be that important and consequently, 153 the students do not put a premium on having high ranks on these c r i t e r i a . Zelditch and Anderson's theory places no r e s t r i c t i o n s on the type of evaluations which take place. Thus, they imply that any and a l l evaluations are equally s i g n i f i c a n t and any imbalance r e s u l t i n g from them equally disturbing. Among the students, the status hierarchies involve behaviour which i s not ea s i l y i d e n t i f i e d by people other than those with whom a student i s f a m i l i a r . One cannot, for instance, simply look at another student and determine his/her rank on the c r i t e r i a used. There has been some discussion i n the l i t e r a t u r e on rank balance that only cer t a i n types of imbalance w i l l create tension. In p a r t i -cular, attention has been directed to imbalance between achieved and ascribed statuses; f o r example, between educational a t t a i n -ment and ethno-racial s t a t u s . 1 3 The evidence i s by no means conclusive on t h i s issue, but i t has been assumed that a low r a c i a l status i n conjunection with high achieved status would predispose people to seek a r e d e f i n i t i o n of the status system through p o l i t i c a l action. One d i r e c t i o n of research which could be explored would be the issue of the v i s i b i l i t y of the c r i t e r i a on which people are evaluated. Insofar as researchers have used race or et h n i c i t y as an ascirbed c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i t may not be the question of race per se which causes people to react i n a p a r t i c u l a r way but that that status i s e a s i l y assessed by any other person. I f i t i s a question of the v i s i b i l i t y of the c r i t e r i a being important, then one may also f i n d people responding to imbalance when there i s imbalance between achieved c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which are r e a d i l y 15 k evaluated by others. In that the c r i t e r i a used here are not such that a person's rank i s e a s i l y assessed by others then the students may not be disturbed by t h e i r imbalance which i s known to r e l a t i v e l y few other people some of whom the students may not regard as s i g n i f i c a n t . Only when imbalance i s gene-r a l l y acknowledged may i t become a source of tension with, which a person has to deal. An additional concern which complicates the balan-cing process i s the lack of agreement over the evaluative c r i t e r i a and t h e i r weightings. Zelditch and Anderson put a condition on t h e i r theory i n which they state that agreement on the relevant c r i t e r i a and on the r e l a t i v e importance of Ik the status hierarchies i s assumed. They see t h i s condition as a simplifying procedure at t h i s stage i n the development of the theory. Such a condition was not assumed i n t h i s research because i t was c l e a r l y untenable. It may be, however, that such assumptions are not simply expeditious at t h i s time but are, i n f a c t , essential to the theory. Perhaps only when there i s agreement on the c r i t e r i a and t h e i r weightings w i l l comparisons between people indicate where imbalance exists and produce the stress which would lead to predicted compen-satory behaviour patterns. When there i s agreement on these basic issues people may f e e l concerned when they f i n d that t h e i r configuration of ranks i s d i f f e r e n t from others. Without such agreement the s i t u a t i o n found i n the residences may be repeated where unique evaluations do not cause the 155 students to be concerned with t h e i r imbalance insofar as they do not state preferred ranks which necessarily increase t h e i r balance i n many instances. One further c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the residences which should be discussed i n r e l a t i o n to the students' responses to imbalance i s the fact that the residences as a s o c i a l system can also be defined as imbalanced. Zelditch and Anderson maintain that balance i s an attribute not only of in d i v i d u a l s ' ranks but also of s o c i a l systems. They write that a s o c i a l system i s balanced i f every member has balanced ranks and i s imbalanced i f one or more members i s imbalanced. 1^ This d e f i n i t i o n of an imbalanced system i s very extreme i n that a balanced s o c i a l system i s l i k e l y to be very rare since i t only needs one in d i v i d u a l to have imbalanced ranks to create system imbalance. Yet, i t would seem l i k e l y that there w i l l be d i f f e r e n t consequences f o r an i n d i v i d u a l who i s the only one who i s imbalanced as opposed to being one of a majority i n the same s i t u a t i o n . I t has been suggested that i t would be desirable to consider the p o s s i b i l i t y of ind i v i d u a l s having d i f f e r e n t degrees of imbalance and a si m i l a r procedure could be adopted with reference to the balance of a system. A system which i s balanced or which has very few imbalanced members may be one i n which the bases of evaluation do not change over long periods of time and in d i v i d u a l s ' ranks are either stable or people move up or down the evaluative hierarchies i n the same r e l a t i o n to one another. Such s o c i a l 156 systems may be more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of non-industrial s o c i e t i e s or occur only where deliberate attempts are made to counteract the e f f e c t s of a modern i n d u s t r i a l state as happens i n some Utopian communities. I t i s , perhaps, the case i n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s that people are very l i k e l y to have imbalanced ranks since there are diverse bases of evaluation and the p r o b a b i l i t y of individuals changing t h e i r ranks i s high. In t h i s s i t u a t i o n , people may accept that imbalanced ranks are normal and thus do not seek to balance them. Having imbalanced ranks may s t i l l be s t r e s s f u l but the response to t h i s may not be to t r y to eliminate the causes of the stress but to seek escape from the consequences. The present development of the theory does not deal adequately with the consequences f o r individ u a l s of being i n a s o c i a l system which i s highly imbalanced as opposed to a more balanced system. Indeed, one could question whether rank balance would be seen to be a desirable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c i n a l l s o c i a l systems. I n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s may be the type of setting where i t i s more feasi b l e to develop patterns of i n t e r -action which make rank imbalance an unimportant issue. For instance, the fac t that d i f f e r e n t spheres of peoples' l i v e s can be compartmentalized may mean that rank imbalance i s an i n s i g n i f i c a n t issue i n such so c i e t i e s as a person may not be i n situations where a l l the ranks on evaluations are relevant regardless of whether they are balanced or imbalanced. Zeldit c h and Anderson do not d i r e c t l y consider t h i s p o s s i b i l i t y 157 but suggest that the number of imbalanced people i n a system may be related to c e r t a i n responses to imbalance. Thus, stratum mobility depends on t h e i r being many people who are imbalanced and the solution to imbalance i s dependent on the united e f f o r t s of a l l the imbalanced members rather than on i n d i v i d u a l attempts. The more extreme responses to imbalance such as c o n f l i c t and revolution also imply that many i n d i v i -duals i n a p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l system are responding to the stress of an undesirable state. Even these predictions are at the present time r e l a t i v e l y imprecise since i t i s not known whether a majority of people i n the system have to experience imbalance or whether "many" re f e r s to a smaller but s i g n i f i c a n t number, In order to determine whether people w i l l react d i f f e r e n t l y i n a s o c i a l system where only veijy few are im-balanced, as opposed to where everyone i s imbalanced, compa-risons need to be made between two such d i f f e r e n t systems. The student residences are an example of a system where imbalance i s prevalent and a comparison needs to be made between t h i s system and one where people with balanced ranks constitute a larger proportion of the membership. From t h i s study, one would conclude that rank balance i s not a s i g n i -f i c a n t issue when the entire s o c i a l system i s very imbalanced, but i t i s impossible to determine whether t h i s i s due to the system being imbalanced or to some other factors such as the 158 type of evaluations held to he important. At t h i s time the influence of each of these variables i s not known. The issue of whether or not people w i l l respond d i f f e r e n t l y to imbalance depending on whether the system i s only s l i g h t l y imbalanced as opposed to being severely imba-lanced i s related to the question of the comparisons made between people. As suggested previously, the comparison processes are c r u c i a l to a person i n recognizing t h e i r own balance or imbalance. This aspect of behaviour i s not well understood but i n order f o r rank balance theory to be developed further, t h i s i s a problem which has to be dealt with. The issue of the s i g n i f i c a n t o ther 1^ i s one which i s important i n other areas of s o c i o l o g i c a l research and i n the case of rank balance theory i s central to the behaviour being explained. Research has to be directed to the question of with whom people compare themselves and under what circumstances p a r t i -cular comparisons take place. This information i s necessary not only i n order to be able to assess whether or not people w i l l consider themselves imbalanced but also i n order to more f u l l y understand the responses to that state. The expectation a person has about being mobile, for instance, w i l l probably be created through the comparisons a person makes between him/herself and some s i g n i f i c a n t other. Without a better understanding of these comparisons rank balance theory w i l l not be able to provide as s a t i s f a c t o r y explanations of people's behaviour. 159 The conclusions drawn from one s o c i a l system are not s u f f i c i e n t evidence on which to base a r e j e c t i o n or acceptance of the theory of rank balance. Nevertheless, some of the conclusions indicate that the theory may need to be modified and that future research should be conducted i n a s o c i a l system i n which some of the issues raised here could be studied. Prom t h i s research i t appears that rank balance theory may only apply to certa i n types of s o c i a l systems and, therefore, i t s scope has to be l i m i t e d . Such a p o s s i b i l i t y could be deter-mined i f future research was done i n a s o c i a l system quite d i f f e r e n t from the student residences. Preferably such a system would be one where there was agreement on the evaluative c r i t e r i a and t h e i r r e l a t i v e importance. At the same time, i n order to counteract the l i k e l i h o o d that i t s members may not respond to imbalance because they can move e a s i l y from one system to another, i t should be one to which the members have a commitment or at l e a s t cannot move without considerable costs to themselves. Comparisons between such a system and the one studied here could then be made i n terms of the complexity of the s t r a t i f i c a t i o n system, the extent to which people are balanced or imbalanced and t h e i r response to imbalance. Perhaps, a work s i t u a t i o n would be s u f f i c i e n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the student residences to provide important points of comparison. In such a s i t u a t i o n , there may be more agreement on the evalua-t i v e hierarchies and the evaluations of a person may have more important consequences than they do f o r the students since they 160 could a f f e c t such factors as income, job security or job co n t r o l . Research has also to be directed towards answering questions about the bases of evaluation i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l systems and to the r o l e of the s i g n i f i c a n t other i n comparison processes. Without a concerted e f f o r t i n these diverse areas of research the importance of rank balance theory as an explana-tory approach cannot be s a t i s f a c t o r i l y answered. 161 FOOTNOTES Researchers using the rank balance approach have generally used a l l or some of the following e v a l u a t i v e . c r i t e r i a : educa-t i o n , income, occupation, ethno-religious status. See f o r example, G. Lenski, "Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n : A Non-Vertical Dimension of S o c i a l Status," American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 19 (195*0, pp . 4 0 5 - 4 l 3 ; K a r l E. Bauman, "Status Inconsistency, Satisfactory S o c i a l Interaction and Community S a t i s f a c t i o n i n an Area of Rapid Growth," So c i a l Forces. 47 (1968) , pp. 45-52; David R. Segal, Mady W. Segal and David Knoke, "Status Incon-sistency and Self-Evaluation," Sociometry. 33 (1970) , pp. 3 k 7 -357. o Talcott Parsons, "Youth i n the Context of American Society," i n Youth: Change and Challenge, ed. by Erik Erikson, Basic Books, Inc., New York, 1963, pp. 93-119. 3 E r i k H. Erikson, Identity. Youth and C r i s i s . W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., New York, 1968, p. 42. k I b i d . . pp. 15-43 and 232-260. ^Richard D. Lambert, editor, Annals of the American Academy  of P o l i t i c a l and S o c i a l Science. 395 (1971). ^ A l l i s o n Davis, Burleigh Gardner and Mary R. Gardner, Deep  South. University of Chicago Press, 1941, p. 65; Norman C. Alexander, J r . , "Status Perceptions," American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review. 37 (1972) , pp. 767-773. 7 'Norman C. Alexander, J r . , "Status Perceptions," American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 37 (1972) , pp. 767-773. fi Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks," i n S o c i o l o g i c a l Theories i n Progress. Vol. I, edited by J . Berger, Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, pp. 261-263 . 9 I b i d . , p. 262. 1 0 I b i d . , p. 262. n i b i d . , p. 250. 1 2 I b i d . . pp. 259-260. 13 -'Edward 0 . Laumann and David R. Segal, "Status Inconsistency and Ethno-Religious Group Membership as Determinants of Social P a r t i c i p a t i o n and P o l i t i c a l Attitudes," American Journal of 162 Sociology. 77 (1971), pp. 36-60? Marvin E. Olsen and Judy Corder T u l l y , "Socioeconomic-ethnic Status Inconsistency and Preference f o r P o l i t i c a l Change," American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review.37 (1972), pp. 560-57 k. Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, op. c i t . . p. 249. 1 5 I p _ i d . , pp. 256-258. ^ J . A . Davis, "A Formal Interpretation of the Theory of Relative Deprivation," Sociometry. 22 (1959), PP. 280-296; M. Patchen, "A Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Data Regarding Comparisons of S o c i a l Rewards," Sociometry. 2 k (1961), pp. 136-156. 1 6 3 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Stuart N, "Status, Congruency as a Variable i n Small Group Performance." S o c i a l Forces. 3 2 ( 1 9 5 3 - 5 4 ) , pp. 1 6 - 2 2 , Alexander, Norman C , J r . "Status Perceptions." American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 3 7 (1972), pp. 7 6 7 - 7 7 3 . Aronson, E., and J . M i l l s . "The E f f e c t of Severity of I n i t i a t i o n on L i k i n g for a Group." Journal of  Abnormal So c i a l Psychology. 5 9 (1959), PP. 171-181. Bauman, Karl E. "Status Inconsistency, Satisfactory S o c i a l Interaction and Community S a t i s f a c t i o n i n an Area of Rapid Growth." So c i a l Forces. 4 7 ( 1 9 6 8 ) , PP. 4 5 - 5 2 . Bendix, Reinhard, Seymour Martin L i p s e t . "Karl Marx's Theory of S o c i a l Classes." In Reinhard Bendix and Seymour Martin Lipset, editors, Class. Status, and Power. New York: The Free Press, i 9 6 0 . Benoit-Smullyan, Emile. "Status, Status Types and Status Interrelationships." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 9 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , pp. 1 5 1 - 1 6 1 . Berger, Joseph, Bernard P. Cohen and Morris Zelditch, J r . "Status Ch a r a c t e r i s t i c s and S o c i a l Interaction." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 3 7 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 2 4 1 - 2 5 5 . Berry, Kenneth J . , and Thomas W. Martin. "Some Methodological Dilemmas i n Status Inconsistency Analysis." Rocky  Mountain Social Science Journal. 9 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 8 3 - 9 4 . Blalock, Hubert M. S o c i a l S t a t i s t i c s . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., i 9 6 0 . Blalock, Hubert M., J r . "The I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Problem and Theory Building: The Case of Status Inconsistency." American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 3 1 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 5 2 - 6 1 . Blalock, Hubert M., J r . "Comment: Status Inconsistency and the I d e n t i f i c a t i o n Problem." Public Opinion Quarterly. 3 0 , ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 1 3 0 - 1 3 2 . Blalock, Hubert M., J r . "Status Inconsistency and Interaction: Some Alternative Models." American Journal of  Sociology. 7 3 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , PP. 3 0 5 - 3 1 5 . 164 Blalock, Hubert M., J r . "Status Inconsistency, S o c i a l Mobility, Status Integration and Structural E f f e c t s . " American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 32 (1967) , pp. 790-801. Blalock, Hubert M., J r . "Tests of Status Inconsistency Theory* A Note of Caution." P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 10 (1967) , PP. 69 -74 . Bottomore, T.B., Maximilien Rubel (eds.). Karl Marx: Selected Writings i n Sociology and So c i a l Philosophy. Harmonds-worth: Penguin Books, 1961. Box, Steven and Julienne Ford. "Some Questionnable Assumptions in the Theory of Status Inconsistency." S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review. 17 (1969) , PP. 187-201. Brandmeyer, Gerard. "Status Consistency and P o l i t i c a l Behaviour: A Replication and Extension of Research." S o c i o l o g i c a l  Quarterly. 6 (1965) , pp. 241-246. Brandon, Arlene. "Status Congruence and Expectations." Sociometry. 28 (1965) , pp.272-288. Broom, Leonard and F. Lancaster Jones. "Status Consistency and P o l i t i c a l Preference: The Australian Case." American  Soc i o l o g i c a l Review. 35 (1970) , pp. 989-1001. Burnstein, Eugene and Robert B. Zajonc. "The E f f e c t of Group Success on the Reduction of Status Incongruence on Task-Oriented Groups." Sociometry. 28 (1965) , pp. 349-362. Dahl, Robert A. "The Concept of Power." Behavioural Science. 2 (1957) . Davis, J.A. "A Formal Interpretation of the Theory of Relative Deprivation." ^nciameiry, 22 (1959) , pp. 280-296. Demerath, N.J., I I I . Social Class i n American Protestantism. Chicago* Rand McNally and Co., 1965. Dollard, John. Caste and Class i n a Southern Town. New York* Harper, 1949. Drake, St. C l a i r and Horace R. Cayton. Black Metropolis. New York* Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1945. Eitzen, Stanley D. "Status Inconsistency and the Cross-Pressures Hypothesis." Midwest Journal of P o l i t i c a l  Science. 16 (1972) , pp. 287-294 165 Erikson, E r i k H. Identity* Youth and C r i s i s . New York* W.W. Norton and Co., Inc., 1968. Exline, Ralph V. and R.C. ZiljLar. "Status Congruency and Interpersonal C o n f l i c t i n Decision-Making Groups." Human Relations. 12 (1959), pp. I k 7 - l 6 2 . Fauman, Joseph. "Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n and I n t e r r a c i a l Attitudes." S o c i a l Forces. 47 (1968), pp. 53-60. Festinger, Leon. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Evanston, I l l i n o i s * Row, Peterson and Co., 1957• Foskett, John N. "So c i a l Structure and Soc i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 20 (1955), PP. 431-438. Gardner, Burleigh B. and Mary R. Gardner. Deep South. Chicago* University of Chicago Press, 1941. Gerth, H.H. and C. Wright M i l l s (eds.). From Max Weber 1 Essays  i n Sociology. Translated by H.H. Gerth and C. Wright M i l l s . New York* Oxford University Press, 1958. Geschwender, James A. "Continuities i n Theories of Status Consistency and Cognitive Dissonance." So c i a l Forces. 4 6 (1967), pp. 160-171. Geschwender, James A. "Status Inconsistency, S o c i a l I s o l a t i o n and Individual Unrest." S o c i a l Forces. 4 6 (1968), pp. 477-483. Goffman, Irwin. "Status Consistency and Preference f o r Change i n Power Di s t r i b u t i o n . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 22 (1957), PP. 275-281. Greenglass, Esther. "The Psychology of Women; or, The High Cost of Achievement." In Women i n Canada, edited by Marylee Stephenson. Toronto* New Press, 1973, pp. 108-118. Gustafson, David P. and Jack E. Gaumnitz. "Consensus Rankings i n Small Groups* Self-Rankings Included and Excluded." Sociometry. 35 (1972), pp. 610-618. H a l l , Richard H. Occupations and The Soc i a l Structure. Prentice-H a l l , Inc., 1 9 6 9 . Hamilton, V. and P. Freeman. "Academic Achievement and Student Personality Characteristics." B r i t i s h Journal of  Sociology. 22 (1971), pp. 31-52. 1 6 6 Hartman, Moshe. "On the D e f i n i t i o n of Status Inconsistency." American Journal of Sociology. 8 0 ( 1 9 7 4 ) , pp. 7 0 6 - 7 2 1 . ' H e l l e r , C e l i a S. Structured Social Inequality. Londoni The Macmillan Co., 1 9 6 9 . Hempel, Carl G. Philosophy of Natural Science. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J . t Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 6 . Himmelfarb, S. and D.J. Senn. "Forming Impressions of So c i a l Class i Two Tests of an Averaging Model." Journal df Personality and Social Psychology. 1 2 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , pp. 3 8 - 5 1 . -Hoge, Dean R. "College Students' Value Patterns i n the 1 9 5 0 s and 1 9 6 0 s . Sociology of Education. 4 4 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , pp. 1 7 0 - 1 9 7 . Hollingshead, August B., F.C. Redlich. S o c i a l Class and Mental  I l l n e s s i A Community Study. New Yorki John Wiley, Homans, George C. The Human Group. New Yorki Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, Inc., 1 9 5 0 . Homans, George C. "Status Among C l e r i c a l Workers." Human  Organization. 1 2 ( 1 9 5 3 ) , PP. 5 - 1 0 . . Horner, Matina. "The Motive to Avoid Success and Changing Aspirations of College Women." In Readings on  Psychology of Women, edited by Judith M. Bardwick. New York* Harper and R o w , 1 9 7 2 , pp. 6 2 - 6 7 . Hughes, Everett C. "Dilemmas and Contradictions of Status." American Journal of Sociology's: 5 0 ( 1 9 4 4 ) , pp. 3 5 3 - 3 5 9 . Hyman, Martin D. "Determining the E f f e c t s of Status Incon-sistency." Public Opinion Quarterly. 3 0 ( 1 9 6 6 ) , pp. 1 2 0 - 1 2 9 . Jackson, E. "Status Consistency and Symptoms of Stress." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 2 7 ( 1 9 6 2 ) , pp. 4 6 9 - 4 8 0 . Jackson, Elton F. and Peter J . Burke. "Status and Symptoms of Stress 1 Additive and Interaction E f f e c t s . " American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 3 0 ( 1 9 6 5 ) , PP. 5 5 6 - 5 6 4 . Jackson, Elton F. and Richard F. C u r t i s . " E f f e c t s of V e r t i c a l Mobility and Status Inconsistencys A Body of Negative Evidence.^ American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 37 ( 1 9 7 2 ) , pp. 7 0 1 - 7 1 3 . 167 K e l l y , K. Dennis and William J . Chambliss. "Status Con-sistency and P o l i t i c a l Attitudes." American So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 31 (1966) , pp. 375-382. Kenkel, W.F. "The Relationship Between Status Consistency and Politics.—Economic Attitudes." American  So c i o l o g i c a l Review. 21 (1956) , pp. 365-368. Kimberly, James C. "A Theory of Status E q u i l i b r a t i o n . " In Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson, S o c i o l o g i c a l Theories i n Progress. New York i Houghton M i f f l i n , 1966, pp. 213-226. Knoke, David. "Community and Consistency« The Ethnic Factor i n Status Inconsistency." S o c i a l Forces. 51 (1972) , PP. 23 -33 . Landecker, Werner S. "Class C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n and Class Consciousness." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 28 (1963) , PP. 219-229. Laumann, Edward 0 . and David R. Segal. "Status Inconsistency and Ethnoreligious Group Membership as Determinants of S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n and P o l i t i c a l Attitudes." American Journal of Sociology. 77 (1971) . PP. 36 -60 . Lenski, G. "Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n s A Non-Vertical Dimension of S o c i a l Status." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 19 (1954) , PP. 405-413. Lenski, G. "S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n and Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 21 (195o) , pp. 458-464. Lenski, G. "Comment on 'Methodological Notes on a Theory of Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n ' . " Public Opinion Quarterly, 28 (1964), pp. 326-330. Lenski, G. Power and P r i v i l e g e . New Yorkt McGraw-Hill, 1966. Lenski, G. "Status Inconsistency and the Votet A Four Nations Test." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 32 (1967) , pp. 298 -301. Lipset, Seymour Martin. P o l i t i c a l Man. Garden C i t y j Doubleday, 1963. Lundy, Richard M. " S e l f Perceptions and Descriptions of Opposite Sex Sociometric Choices." Sociometry. 19 (1956) , pp. 272-277. Lynd, Robert S. and Helen M e r r e l l Lynd. Middletown. New Yorki Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1929. 168 Lynd, Robert S. and Helen Merrell Lynd. Middletown i n Trans i t i o n . NewXYork, N.Y.* Harcourt, Brace and Co., 1937. Malewski, A n d r z i j . "The Degree of Status Incongruence and Its E f f e c t s . " In Reinhard Bendix and Seymour M. Lipset, editors, Class. Status, and Power, revised e d i t i o n . New York: Free Press, 1966, PP. 303-308. Marsland, David. "Some Observations on S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " S o c i o l o g i c a l Analysis. 1 (1971) , PP. 107-113. Martindale, Don A. The Nature and Types of So c i o l o g i c a l Theory. Boston1 Houghton M i f f l i n , I960. M i l l s , C. Wright. "Review of The So c i a l L i f e of a Modern Community." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 7 (1942), ppl 263-271. M i t c h e l l , Robert E. "Methodological Notes on a Theory of Status C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n . " Public Opinion Quarterly. 28 (1964) , PP. 315-330. Moore, James C , J r . , Eugenie B. Johnson and Martha S.C. Arnold. "Status Congruence and Equity i n Restricted Communi-cation Networks." Sociometry. 35 (1972) , pp. 519-537. Nagi, Saad Z. "Status P r o f i l e and Reactions to Status Threats." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 28 (1963) , pp. 440-443. Olsen, Marvin E. and Judy Corder T u l l y . "Socio-economic-ethnic Status Inconsistency and Preference f o r P o l i t i c a l Change." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 37 (1972) , PP. 5 6 0 - 5 7 ^ Parker, Seymour. "Status Consistency and Stress." American  S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 28 (1963) , PP. 131-132. Parsons, T a l c o t t . "The American Family t I t s Relations to Personality and to the Soc i a l Structure." In Family S o c i a l i z a t i o n and Interaction Process, edited by Talcott Parsons and Robert F. Bales. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s * The Free Press, 1955, PP. 3-33-Parsons, T a l c o t t , "Youth i n the Context of American Society." In Youth; Change and Challenge, edited by E r i k H, Erikson, New York* Basic Books, Inc., 1963, pp. 93-119. 169 Patchen, M. HA Conceptual Framework and Some Empirical Data Regarding Comparisons of S o c i a l Rewards." Sociometry. 22 (1961) . PP. 136-156. P e l l e g r i n , Roland J . and Frederick L. Bates. "Congruity and Incongruity of Status Attributes within Occupations and Work Positions." S o c i a l Forces. 38 (1959) . pp. 23-28. Pfautz, Harold W, and Otis Dudley Duncan. "A C r i t i c a l Evalua-t i o n of Warner's Work i n Community S t r a t i f i c a t i o n . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 15 (1950) , pp. 205-21^. Rush, Gary B. "Status Consistency and Right-Wing Extremism." American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 32 (1967) , pp. 86 -92 . Sampson, Edward E. "Status Congruence and Cognitive Consis-tency." .Sociometry. 26 (1963) . PP. 146-162, Segal, David R. "Status Inconsistency Cross-Pressures and American P o l i t i c a l Behaviour." American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review. 34 (1969) , PP. 352-359. Segal, David R. "Status Inconsistency and Party Choice i n CanadaJ An Attempt to Replicate." Canadian Journal of  P o l i t i c a l Science. 3 (1970) , pp. 471-474. Segal, David R. and David Knoke. " S o c i a l Mobility, Status Inconsistency and Partisan Realignment i n the United States." S o c i a l Forces. 47 (1968) , pp. 154-167. Segal, David R., Mady Segal and David Knoke. "Status Incon-sistency and Self^Evaluation." Sociometry. 33 (1970) , PP. 347-357. Sem, Tove T. "Sex Differences i n Academic Behaviour." Acta  Sociologica. 14 (1971) , pp. 59 -67 . Siegel, S. Non-Parametric S t a t i s t i c s f o r The Behavioural Sciences. New York* McGraw-Hill Co., Inc., 1956. Smith, Thomas. "Structural C r y s t a l l i z a t i o n , Status Inconsistency and P o l i t i c a l Partisanship." American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review. 34 (1969) , PP. 907-921 . Stehr, Nico. "Status Consistency; The Theoretical Concept and Its Empirical Referent." P a c i f i c S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. 11 (1968) , pp. 95 -99 . Strodtbeck, F.L. and R.D. Mann. "Sex Role D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i n Jury Deliberations." Sociometry. 19 (1956) , pp. 3 - 1 1 . 170 Svalastoga, Karle. S o c i a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . New York: David McKay Co., 1965. Treiman, Donald J . "Status Discrepancy and Prejudice." American Journal of Sociology. 72 (1966) , pp. 651-664. Tucker, Robert C. (ed.). The Marx-Engels Reader. New York: W.W.Norton and Co., Inc., 1972. Warner, W. Lloyd et a l . Democracy i n J o n e s v i l l e . New York: Harper and Brothers, 19*+9. Warner, W. Lloyd and J.O. Low. The So c i a l System of a Modern  Factory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1947, Yankee C i t y Series, Vol. IV. Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt. The S o c i a l L i f e of a Modern  Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941, Yankee C i t y Series, Vol, I. Warner, W. Lloyd and Paul S. Lunt. The Status System of a Modern Community. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1942, Yankee City Series, Vol, I I . Warner, W, Lloyd, Marchia Meeker and Kenneth E l l s . S o c i a l Class i n America. New York: Harper and Row, 19^0. Warner, W. Lloyd and Leo Srole. The So c i a l Systems of American  Ethnic Groups. New York: Yale University Press, 1945, Yankee City Series, Vol. I I I . Warren, Donald. "Status Inconsistency Theory and F l y i n g Saucer Sightings." Science. 170 (1970) , pp. 599-603. Wolff, Kurt H., edi t o r . The Sociology of Georg Simmel. Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : Free Press, 1950. Zelditch, Morris, J r . , and Bo Anderson. "On the Balance of a Set of Ranks." In S o c i o l o g i c a l Theories i n Progress. Vol. I, edited by Joseph Berger, Morris Zelditch, J r . , and Bo Anderson. New York: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1966, pp. 244-268. 171 APPENDIX A INITIAL INTERVIEW SCHEDULE Study on Student Relationships As you w i l l remember from the l e t t e r you have received, t h i s i s a research project about student r e l a t i o n s h i p s . We're looking at c e r t a i n aspect of students' l i f e i n residence. I should l i k e to thank you for agreeing to be interviewed. Everything you say w i l l be kept c o n f i d e n t i a l and nothing w i l l be written i n such a way that p a r t i c u l a r students can be i d e n t i f i e d . Susan M. Clark 1. Here i s a l i s t of students i n your bay. Could you give me a short description of each person on the l i s t — e x c l u d i n g yourself. 2. I t seems to be the case i n s o c i a l organizations, whether hospitals, schools or o f f i c e s , that some people are looked up to or admired more than others. Could you order the people i n t h i s bay from those who are most well thought of to those who are least well thought of. This does not necessarily mean those whom you l i k e best but who i s generally well thought of . 3. Looking at the descriptions of people you have given me, i t seems that c e r t a i n aspects of people's behaviour are important. For instance, i f we take the idea of ( c r i t e r i a 1) could you order people from those who are most to those who are l e a s t _ . 4. Are there any other aspects of behaviour which you think are important f o r people to have. Rank people on these, i f any • 5. Could you order people i n terms of those who have the highest academic a b i l i t y through to those who have least a b i l i t y . 6. Repeat f o r a t h l e t i c a b i l i t y . 7. I f we go back over these l i s t s could you indicate where you would place yourself. 172 8, Taking these c r i t e r i a that you have ranked others on, can you t e l l me which you consider most important, next most important, and so on. 9. Suppose that your standing on a l l the c r i t e r i a except ( c r i t e r i a 1) were to remain the same, but you could change your p o s i t i o n on that c r i t e r i o n , what would your preferred p o s i t i o n be? For instance, would you prefer to remain where you are now, or would you prefer to move to a higher p o s i t i o n , or prefer to move to a lower position? Repeat fo r each c r i t e r i o n i n turn. 10. I f you could change your p o s i t i o n on a l l the c r i t e r i a at once, what would your preferred positions be? 11. What year are you i n university? 12. What are you studying? What are your courses t h i s year? 13. How long have you l i v e d i n t h i s residence? l k . Do you p a r t i c i p a t e i n any clubs, organizations or any sort of a c t i v i t i e s outside your classes? 15. Are there any people i n the bay whom you regard as being p a r t i c u l a r friends of yours? I f yes, ask f o r t h e i r names. BAY DESCRIPTIONS Interviewee's Name DIMENSIONAL RANKING Interviewee's Name Dimensions (go from high to low) Insert self-rankings and preferred positions RANK ORDERING OF THE EVALUATIVE CRITERIA Interviewee's Name Criteria (go from high to low) Interviewee's Name Year at university: Course of study: This year's courses: Year i n residence: Extr a c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s : Friends: 177 Interviewer's Report Interviewers Interviewee s Sex Male Female Race Negro White Other (specify) Interest (high) 1 2 3 L 5( low >*''"• Cooperativeness 1 2 3 4 5 Length of interview Comments Information from unive r s i t y records Student's name : Date of b i r t h : University enrolled i n : Home town: Religion: Occupation of father: 179 SUPPLEMENTARY SURVEY MOUNT SAINT VINCENT UNIVERSITY Below i s a l i s t of c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which male and female students used to describe people i n t h e i r univer-s i t y residence. Please study the l i s t and then write down on the attached sheet those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which you think are i d e n t i c a l to each other. (You can refer to the charac-t e r i s t i c s simply by the numbers assigned to them.) Would you please also answer the following questions? 1, Sex: male female 2, Your age: 3, Home town: k . What i s your actual or indended major? 5. Year at univ e r s i t y : 6. Have you ever l i v e d i n a university residence? Yes No 180 02 Academic a b i l i t y 03 A t h l e t i c a b i l i t y 04 Friendly 05 Considerate 06 Helpful 0? Easy to t a l k to 08 Bay s p i r i t / b e i n g for the residence 09 Sense of humour 10 Not moody 11 Sympathetic 12 Lots of fun 13 Easy to get along with 14 Easy-going 15 Mature 16 Patient 17 Trustworthy 18 Not two-faced 19 General temperament 20 Outgoing 21 Creative 22 Tolerant of other's ideas 23 Conscientious student 24 Good l i s t e n e r 25 Has own opinions 26 Empathetic 27 Active empathy 28 A c t i v i s t 29 Understanding 30 Kind 31 Reliable 32 Interested i n people 33 Same int e r e s t s 3 k Appearance 35 Nice 36 Well organized 37 No desire for power 38 Quiet 39 Well adjusted 40 Perceptive 41 General attitude 42 Sociable 43 Generous 4 4 Self-awareness 45 Easy to get to know 46 Communicative a b i l i t y 47 Non-aggressive 48 Sense of community 4 9 Responsible 50 Respectful 51 A b i l i t y to combine academic matters and a good time 52 W i l l i n g to t r y 53 A b i l i t y to be a a good f r i e n d 54 College pride 55 Good to t a l k to 56 P o l i t i c a l awareness 57 S p i r i t u a l i t y 58 Musical a b i l i t y 59 Not shy 60 Warm and fun loving 181 APPENDIX B. CODES FOR THE INITIAL SURVEY Evaluative C r i t e r i a i Academic ability-A t h l e t i c a b i l i t y Friendly Considerate Helpful Easy to ta l k to Bay s p i r i t Sense of humour Not moody Sympathetic Lots of fun Easy to get along with Easy-going Mature Patient Trustworthy Not two-faced General temperament Outgoing Creative Tolerant of other's ideas Conscientious student Good l i s t e n e r Has own opinions Empathetic Active empathy A c t i v i s t Understanding Kind Reliable Interested i n people Same inte r e s t s Appearance Nice Well organized Quiet Well-adjusted Perceptive General attitude Sociable Generous Self-awareness Easy to get to know Communicative a b i l i t y Non-aggressive Sense of community Responsible Respectful A b i l i t y to combine academic matters and a good time W i l l i n g to t r y A b i l i t y to be a good f r i e n d College pride Good to t a l k to P o l i t i c a l awareness S p i r i t u a l i t y Musical Not shy Warm and fun-loving 182 Religion* 1. Roman Catholic 2. United Church, Methodist, Presbyterian 3 . Baptist 4. Anglican 5 . Other r e l i g i o n — S e v e n t h Day Adventist, Pentecostal 6. No r e l i g i o n 7. No answer Occupation of Father* 1. Retired 2. Deceased 3 . Professional k . Businessman—managerial, executive l e v e l 5 . White-collar 6. S k i l l e d manual 7. Unskilled manual 8. Farmer, fisherman 9. No answer These occupational categories were r e c l a s s i f i e d * Class I. Professional, businessman I I . White-collar I I I . S k i l l e d manual IV. Unskilled manual, farmer, fisherman V. Retired, deceased, no answer Home-town* 1. Halifax-Dartmouth 2. Cape Breton 3 . South Shore 4. Eastern Shore, including New Glasgow and Antigonish 5 . Truro and the Annapolis Valley 183 6 . Outside Canada ?. Other A t l a n t i c province 8. Other Canadian province 9. No answer University or college registered at» 1. King's 2. Dalhousie 3 . Nova Scotia College of Art and Design k . Other University programmes 1. 1st year B.A. 2. 2nd year B.A. 3 . 3rd year B.A. k . 1st year B.Sc. 5 . 2nd year B.Sc. 6 . 3rd year B.Sc. 7. k t h year B.Sc. 8. 1st year LL.B. 9. Pre-medicine 10. 1st year M.D. 11. 2nd year M.D. 12. 1st year D.D.S. 1 3 » 1st year B.Pharm. l k . Nursing Diploma—public health 15 . Nursing Diploma—public administration 16 . 1st year Phys. Ed. 17. 2nd year Phys. Ed. 18. 3rd year Phys. Ed. 19. 1st year B. Ed. 20. 1st year B. Comm. 21. 2nd year B. Comm. 22. 1st year B. Sc. Eng. 184 University programme» 2 3 . 3rd year B.Sc. Eng. 24. 1st year N.S.C.A. and D. 25 . 2nd year N.S.C.A. and D. 26. 3rd year N.S.C.A. and D. 27 . 1st year B. L i t t . Theology 28. M.A. or M.Sc. 29* No degree Codes for the Supplementary Survey* The same codes as used i n the i n i t i a l survey were used f o r the questions on home-town, major course of study, and u n i v e r s i t y or college registered at. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0100039/manifest

Comment

Related Items