UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The effects of social environments on solitary behavior Meis, Scott Maxam 1971

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 M45.pdf [ 3.52MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101790.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101790-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101790-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101790-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101790-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101790-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101790-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101790-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101790.ris

Full Text

THE EFFECTS OF SOCIAL ENVIRONMENTS ON SOLITARY BEHAVIOR by SCOTT MAXAM MEIS B.A., University of Calgary, 1966 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts in the Department of Anthropology and Sociology We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard, THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1971 In presenting th is thesis i n p a r t i a l fu l f i lment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f reely avai lable for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of th i s thesis for scholar ly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. I t i s understood that copying or publ ica t ion of th i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my wri t ten permission. Department of /fA)Ttf/?Qf JAJA a/fry The Univers i ty of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada / i ABSTRACT Two c o n t r a d i c t o r y s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l models o f human s o c i a b i l i t y e x i s t i n t h e s o c i a l s c i e n c e l i t e r a t u r e : a s t e a d y s t a t e m odel, and a h o m e o s t a t i c model. I n t h i s t h e s i s a model o f p o s s i b l e e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s on i n d i v i d u a l s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r i s d e v e l o p e d t o t e s t t h e s e u n d e r l y i n g s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l models. These models a r e t e s t e d i n a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s o f a c t i v i t y l o g d a t a o f a sample o f i n d u s t r i a l w o r k e r s . The r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e t h a t two c a u s a l p r o c e s s e s i n t e r a c t i n p r o d u c i n g d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e amounts o f t i m e p e o p l e spend a l o n e . I n one p r o c e s s , t e m p o r a l c o n s t r a i n t s on t h e number o f p e r s o n s and t h e amount o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r non-work s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s f a c i l i t a t e s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r on workdays. These d i r e c t e f f e c t s c a r r y o v e r i n t o t h e weekend when t h e c o n s t r a i n t s o f work h o u r s a r e n o t d i r e c t l y p r e s e n t . I n t h e o t h e r p r o c e s s p e o p l e compensate f o r extremes i n t h e i r s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work by p a r t i c i p a t i n g more i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . When combined, t h e s e two i s o l a t i n g p r o c e s s e s p r o d u c e an even s t r o n g e r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t . T hese o b s e r v a t i o n s s u p p o r t t h e h o m e o s t a t i c model o f human s o c i a b i l i t y . S u g g e s t i o n s a r e t h e n made f o r a more s o p h i s t i c a t e d f u t u r e t e s t i n g o f t h e s e models. i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v LIST OF FIGURES v i i Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1 THE THEORETICAL CONTEXT 1 THE PROBLEM 3 Specification of the Dependent Variable: Solitary Behavior 3 A Theoretical Framework: The Importance of the Density of Persons i n an Environment 5 The Immediate Effect of Social Density of Environments on Solitary Behavior . . . . 6 Density of Spatial Contexts 7 Density of Temporal Contexts 8 Temporal Incongruity Within the House-hold 12 The Antecedent Effect of Social Contexts . 14 The Compensatory Effect 15 The Carry-Over Effect 16 The Null Hypothesis 16 Temporal Suppression of the Compensa-tion Effect 19 Temporal Reinforcement of the Carry-over Effect 20 i i i Chapter Page The Effects of Differential Individual Susceptibility to Social Environments . . 23 SUMMARY 25 REFERENCES 28 2 METHODOLOGY 31 THE RESEARCH DESIGN . 32 OPERATIONALIZATIONS OF THE CONCEPTS 33 Solitary Behavior 33 Extent of Participation 33 Social Density of Environments 33 Temporal Marginality 34 Temporal Incongruity 34 THE DATA 34 THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS 35 THE SAMPLE OF BEHAVIORAL RECORDS 37 THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA 40 REFERENCES 47 3 THE ANALYSIS 48 THE DISTRIBUTION OF SOLITARY. BEHAVIOR 49 IMMEDIATE CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON SOLITARY BEHAVIOR 50 Spatial Accessibility to Other Persons . . . . 51 Temporal Constraints on Accessibility to Other Persons . 55 Temporal Marginality 55 Temporal Incongruity 56 / IV Chapter ' Page The Independent and J o i n t E f f e c t s of M a r g i n a l i t y and In c o n g r u i t y 5 9 ANTECEDENT CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON SOLITARY BEHAVIOR 6 1 The E f f e c t of S o c i a l Experience at Work . . . 6 1 Temporal M a r g i n a l i t y and Weekend S o l i t a r y Behavior 6 4 Temporal Suppression of Compensatory D i s p o s i t i o n 6 5 Temporal Reinforcement of the Carry-Over E f f e c t 67 DIFFERENTIAL INDIVIDUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ENVIRON-MENTAL CONSTRAINTS 7 0 REFERENCES • 7 2 4 THE CONCLUSION 7 3 CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY 7 3 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 7 4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY 7 6 REFERENCES 7 8 V L I S T O F T A B L E S T a b l e P a g e 1 T h e D i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e O r i g i n a l S a m p l e o f P e r s o n s . . 3 6 2 T h e D i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e I n i t i a l S a m p l e o f A c t i v i t y L o g s b y t h e D a y o f t h e W e e k a n d t h e R e s p o n d e n t ' s W o r k -i n g S t a t u s o n t h e R e c o r d e d D a y 3 8 3 T h e A m o u n t o f T i m e t h e T o t a l S a m p l e a n d P a r t i c i p a n t s O n l y S p e n t i n S o l i t a r y A c t i v i t i e s o n D i f f e r e n t D a y s o f t h e W e e k ( i n H o u r s ) 3 9 4 T h e E f f e c t o f a P e r s o n ' s W o r k i n g S t a t u s a n d t h e D a y o f t h e W e e k o n T i m e S p e n t A l o n e ( M e a n H o u r s ) .... 4 0 5 T h e A m o u n t o f T i m e P e r D a y S p e n t i n S o l i t a r y A c t i v i t -i e s o n W e e k d a y s , S a t u r d a y s , a n d S u n d a y s ( i n h o u r s ) 4 9 6 E x t e n t o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n i n S o l i t a r y A c t i v i t i e s ( M e a n H o u r s ) o n D i f f e r e n t D a y s o f t h e W e e k b y t h e N u m b e r o f C h i l d r e n P r e s e n t i n t h e H o u s e h o l d 5 2 7 T h e E f f e c t o f C o - R e s i d e n c e w i t h O t h e r A d u l t s o n S o l i -t a r y T i m e o n W e e k d a y s , S a t u r d a y s , a n d S u n d a y s ( M e a n H o u r s ) 5 3 8 T h e E f f e c t o f t h e N u m b e r o f R e l a t i v e s P r e s e n t i n t h e R e g i o n o n S o l i t a r y T i m e o n W e e k d a y s , S a t u r d a y s a n d S u n d a y s ( M e a n H o u r s ) 5 4 9 T h e E f f e c t o f T e m p o r a l M a r g i n a l i t y o n S o l i t a r y T i m e o n W e e k d a y s 5 6 1 0 T h e E f f e c t o f C h i l d r e n ' s A g e s o n t h e S o l i t a r y T i m e o f M a r g i n a l S h i f t W o r k e r s - o n W e e k d a y s 5 7 1 1 T h e E f f e c t o f I n c o n g r u e n c y o f S p o u s e s ' W o r k S c h e d u l e s o n t h e A m o u n t o f T i m e S p e n t A l o n e o n W e e k d a y s . . 5 8 1 2 T h e J o i n t E f f e c t s o f I n c o n g r u e n c y a n d M a r g i n a l i t y o n t h e A m o u n t o f T i m e S p e n t A l o n e o n W e e k d a y s ( M e a n H o u r s ) 6 0 v i Table Page 13 The Effects of Work Crew Size, Informal Social, Opportunity, and the Number of Social Contacts on the Job on the Amount of-Time Spent Alone on Weekdays 63 14 The Antecedent Effects of Temporal Marginality on the Amount of Time Spent Alone on Saturday and Sunday 64 15 The Joint Effects of Social Opportunity at Work and Intervening Time on Time Spent Alone (in Hours). . 66 16 The Effect of Years of Temporal Marginality on the Amount of Time (in Hours) Marginal Workers Spent Alone 68 17 The Joint Effects of Temporal Marginality and Length of Time on a Given Shift on Solitary Activity on Weekend Days 69 18 The Joint Effects of Social Opportunity at Work and Temporal Marginality on Solitary Behavior on Weekdays 71 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 The Relationship Between Density and Solitary Behavior 7 2 The Structure of the Antecedent Contextual Effect . . 15 3 The Short Term Temporal Suppression Effect 19 4 The Long Term Temporal Reinforcement Effect 21 5 The Combined Relationships of Antecedent Social Experience, Short Term Compensation, and Long Term Adaptation 21 6 The Integrated System of Environmental Effects on Behavior 24 7 A Relationship Diagram of a Contextual Effect . . . . 32 8 The Amount of Time Spent in Solitary A c t i v i t i e s on Weekdays . 42 9 - The Amount of Time Spent in Solitary A c t i v i t i e s on Saturdays 43 10 The Amount of Time Spent i n Solitary A c t i v i t i e s on Sundays 44 ACKNOWLEDGMENT I w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s my a p p r e c i a t i o n t o Dr. George Gray f o r t h e use o f h i s d a t a i n t h e a n a l y s i s f o r t h i s t h e s i s . CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION THE THEORETICAL CONTEXT To date the s o c i o l o g i c a l l i t e r a t u r e has taken a very atomis-t i c approach to the subject of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Studies have concentrated on the v a r i a t i o n i n rates of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p a r t i c u l a r contexts of s o c i a l a c t i v i t y . Some examples are studies of p a r t i c i p a -t i o n i n s o c i a l organizations (Scott, 1959; Wright, 1958; Komarovsky, 1946; Hausknecht, 1962; Blakelock, 1967), family units (Bott, 1957; Dotson, 1951; Mogey, 1956) and informal and k i n networks (Bott, 1957). Studying s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h i s atomistic way creates a problem. I t gives no c l e a r p i c t u r e of the i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n e x i s t i n g i n o v e r a l l l e v e l s of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . No one has examined, as yet, the i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s i n toto. This oversight, i n p a r t i c u l a r , and the atomistic approach to the subject, i n general, are consequences of a p a r t i c u l a r i m p l i c i t model of human s o c i a l behavior. The basic assumption of t h i s model i s that humans are gregarious by nature. In other words, i t assumes that s o c i a b i l i t y i s a constant and u n i v e r a l human need. To j u s t i f y t h i s model, experimental psychologists argue that s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s a p r i n c i p l e source of stimu l a t i o n and feedback 2 to individuals of the species. Therefore i t i s necessary to their development and survival (Ainsworth, 1964; Freedman, 1964: F l a v e l l , 1968). Research findings on the effects of extreme social isolation support this assertion of a need for some minimal level of social stimulation (Soloman, 1963), and lend c r e d i b i l i t y to this model of human sociability. However, empirical evidence also exists that contradicts other implications of this model. One such contradiction i s that the model implies that solitary activity is an unnecessary and uncommon aspect of human daily behavior; whereas Berger and Sorokin (1939) found that everyone experiences at least some isolation as a part of their normal daily l i f e . Specifically, they found that 31 per cent of people's daily a c t i v i t i e s were carried out alone. Some writers, who have been concerned with the importance of this daily solitude, suggest that i t too i s necessary to the health of individuals (Plant, 1930; Chapin, 1951). This argument has received indirect support from the empirical findings of Calhoun (1962) and Christian (1963) that extreme crowding produces pathological changes in the social behavior and physiology of rats. Analagous studies of human reactions to the stresses of other kinds of sensory overloads have produced changes in their social behavior also (Selye, 1959; Ruff, 1963). These observations support the notion that perhaps a better model of human sociability i s that of a teleological system. This model is based on the following different assumptions about human social behavior. It assumes that people have similar maximum and minimum t o l e r a n c e l i m i t s t o b o t h s o c i a l c o n t a c t and i s o l a t i o n b u t t h a t a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i s p o s s i b l e f r o m day t o day and fr o m p e r s o n t o p e r s o n w i t h i n t h o s e e x t r e m e s . I t assumes s e c o n d l y , t h a t p e o p l e choose t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r so as t o m a i n t a i n some p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l o r b a l a n c e between s o c i a l and s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a t t h e y have d e v e l o p e d f r o m t h e i r p a s t e x p e r i e n c e . I t assumes, t h i r d l y , t h a t s u c h a p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l w i l l a d j u s t t o l o n g t e r m d i f f e r e n c e s i n n o n d i s c r e t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r . One p u r p o s e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o t e s t t h e s e two models o f human s o c i a l and s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . A se c o n d p u r p o s e i s t o i n t e g r a t e some of t h e p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n t h a t have been p r e s e n t e d i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n t o a g e n e r a l t h e o r e t i c a l framework. A t h i r d p u r p o s e i s t o t e s t t h e u t i l i t y o f t h i s framework i n e x p l a i n i n g i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e amount o f t i m e p e o p l e spend a l o n e i n a day. THE PROBLEM S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f t h e Dependent V a r i a b l e : S o l i t a r y B e h a v i o r I n t h e t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i o l o g i c a l t e r m i n o l o g y , s o c i a l a c t i o n i n c l u d e s a l l a c t i o n t h a t i s d i r e c t e d t o w a r d s t h e imme d i a t e b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r s o r t h e a n t i c i p a t e d b e h a v i o r o f o t h e r s . I n t h e s e terms o t h e r p e r s o n s do not n e c e s s a r i l y have t o be c o - p r e s e n t i n o r d e r f o r a p e r s o n t o be engaged i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t y . On t h e o t h e r hand, a l t h o u g h 4 o t h e r p e r s o n s may be c o - p r e s e n t ; a g i v e n p e r s o n ' s a c t i v i t y may be n o n - s o c i a l i f i t i s n o t d i r e c t e d towards t h e p r e s e n t o r f u t u r e a c t i v i t i e s o f t h e s e o r any o t h e r s . Thus, t h e s o c i a l o r n o n - s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r o f p e o p l e ' s a c t i v i t y can be d e s c r i b e d a l o n g two d i s t i n c t d i m e n s i o n s : t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e a c t i v i t y and t h e i n t e n t i o n s o f t h e a c t o r s . T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n f o c u s s e s on t h e f i r s t o f t h e s e . One r e a s o n f o r t h i s f o c u s i s t h e q u e s t i o n t h a t t h e r e s e a r c h a t t e m p t s t o answer: do p e o p l e r e a c t t o v a r i a t i o n s i n c o n c r e t e s o c i a l s t i m u l a t i o n as i f t h e y were h o m e o s t a t i c systems? The phenomenon o f c o n c e r n i n t h i s q u e s t i o n i s c o n c r e t e i n t e r a c t i v e b e h a v i o r . I t i s assumed t h a t t h i s t a k e s p l a c e a t e i t h e r a v e r b a l o r n o n - v e r b a l l e v e l whenever p e o p l e a r e p h y s i c a l l y p r o x i m a t e . S o c i a l b e h a v i o r c a n t h e n be d e f i n e d as b e h a v i o r i n s o c i a l c o n t e x t s and c o n v e r s e l y , n o n - s o c i a l b e h a v i o r c a n be d e f i n e d as b e h a v i o r when o t h e r s a r e n o t p h y s i c a l l y c o - p r e s e n t . A second r e a s o n f o r t h i s emphasis i s t h a t t h e c o n t e x t o f a c t i v i t i e s i s t h e o n l y one o f t h e two d i m e n s i o n s t h a t i s d i r e c t l y r e c o v e r a b l e i n t h e d a t a used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . These d e f i n i t i o n s , w h i c h d e s c r i b e o n l y t h e o b s e r v a b l e n o n s y m b o l i c a t t r i b u t e s o f s o c i a l a c t i v i t y , s h a r p e n t h e f o c u s o f t h e a n a l y s i s . The q u e s t i o n t o answer becomes: how much i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n e x i s t s i n t h e amount o f t i m e p e o p l e spend a l o n e o r i n t h e company o f o t h e r p e r s o n s . S i n c e t h i s q u e s t i o n c a n be answered by e x a m i n i n g e i t h e r o r b o t h of t h e s e phenomena, t h i s a n a l y s i s f o c u s s e d on t h e l e a s t complex and l e a s t r e s e a r c h e d o f t h e t w o — s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . 5 Constructing a crucial test between two contradictory social psychological models of the human propensity to participate in this behavior i s one of the stated goals of this investigation. Looking at whether people engage i n solitary or interactive social behavior at times in the day when they have the maximum amount of personal discretion to do what they want i s one way of testing these two models. In reviewing the literature one finds that both within and across cultures there is relatively l i t t l e variation in the amount of time that people spend in the daily a c t i v i t i e s of work, work related a c t i v i t i e s , personal t o i l e t , sleeping and eating (Szalai, et a l . , 1966; Chapin and B r a i l , 1969). These a c t i v i t i e s , which satisfy sustenance and physiological needs, are termed 'non-discretionary a c t i v i t i e s ' . However, because of their greater variation, i t is the rest of people's behaviors, their discretionary non-work a c t i v i t i e s , that are of particular interest in this investigation. Thus the problem i s further restricted to an investigation of the sources of differences in people's daily discretionary solitary behavior. A Theoretical Framework: The Importance of the Density of Persons in an Environment Assuming for the moment that people do have an i n i t i a l pre-disposition for social action, another basic assumption of sociology is that a common environment is the most elementary prerequisite of conjoint social action. Thus within any defined environmental set the number of other persons who share that set, their relative prox-imity, and the organization of their ac t i v i t i e s constitute the 6 physically determined potential social opportunity structure of that set for any given individual. The basic theoretical structure of the analysis consists of this conceptualization of the environment as an opportunity set and three different arguments suggesting how the dis-tribution of aggregates within such environmental sets can cause individual differences in solitary behavior. The f i r s t argument hypothesizes an immediate negative effect of the density of persons in the environment. The second argument hypothesizes an indirect effect of the density of persons i n antecedently experienced environ-ments. And the third argument hypothesizes that individuals are diff e r e n t i a l l y susceptible to such environmental effects."*" The Immediate Effect of Social Density  of Environments on Solitary Behavior Many findings in the literature support the argument that, for aggregates sharing a common environment, the size, physical proximity and social proximity of the aggregate are a l l positively related to rates of social interaction (Simmel, 1902; Stouffer, et a l . , 1949; Alexander and Campbell, 1965; Menzel and Katz, 1966; Barker and Gump, 1964; Blake, et a l . , 1956; Ittleson, et a l . , 1970). One can argue, that the larger the opportunity i s for social interaction, the smaller i t i s for solitary activity. If other persons sharing a common These explanations a l l have the general form of cross level explanations which are referred to in the literature as compositional, contextual and structural effects. See the beginning of Chapter 2 for a discussion of some of the methodological implications of such explanations. 7 e n v i r o n m e n t make demands on t h e i n d i v i d u a l t o i n i t i a t e and m a i n t a i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n t h e n t h e s e demands r e s t r i c t t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s a b i l i t y t o engage i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . F u r t h e r m o r e , i f no d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t i n t h e d i s p o s i t i o n s o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l s i n q u e s t i o n t h e n i t can be assumed t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r t h e more s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t y i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l e x p e r i e n c e . I f t h i s c h a i n o f i n f e r e n c e i s c o r r e c t t h e n one s h o u l d f i n d a n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d e n s i t y and s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p s h o u l d e x i s t i n b o t h s p a t i a l l y and t e m p o r a l l y d e f i n e d s o c i a l c o n t e x t s a t many d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f s c a l e . D e n s i t y S o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r F i g . 1 The R e l a t i o n s h i p between D e n s i t y and S o l i t a r y B e h a v i o r D e n s i t y o f S p a t i a l C o n t e x t s The l i t e r a t u r e c o n t a i n s c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e o f t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e h o u s e h o l d , t h e n e i g h b o u r h o o d , and t h e community as c o n t e x t s o f p e o p l e ' s l e i s u r e s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e (De G r a z i a , 1962; K e l l e r , 1964; S z a l a i , e t a l . , 1966). Because p e o p l e spend most o f t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n -a r y t i m e t h e r e , t h e h o u s e h o l d c o n t e x t i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e most i m p o r t a n t o f t h e s e . The c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y argument, i n g e n e r a l , and t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f h o u s e h o l d d e n s i t y , i n p a r t i c u l a r , a r e t e s t e d i n the f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s . 8 Hypothesis (1) The larger the number of persons i n the household the smaller the amount of solitude individuals experience. Studies such as those of Dotson (1951) and Young and Wilmott (1957) have demonstrated that the presence of other relatives in the community correlates with social participation in that context. The importance of this measure of contextual social density i s tested with the next hypothesis. Hypothesis (2) Persons with other relatives l i v i n g in the region of the community spend less time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s than persons with no relatives l i v i n g in the community. Density of Temporal Contexts Apart from these spatial units, Blakelock (1960) and Gray (1968) have stressed the importance of the temporal contexts of peoples' ac t i v i t i e s as a source of variation in their social behavior. The basic idea i s that although other persons may spend much of their free time in the same spatial settings as a given individual i t i s possible that their timing i s disparate to his. In this explanation an urban community i s seen as consisting of a large number of persons engaged in various ac t i v i t i e s at different points in time and space in carrying out their daily af f a i r s . Susten-ance a c t i v i t i e s are assumed to be the most important of these. People's work ac t i v i t i e s in an urban community are seen to have highly specialized ) 9 f u n c t i o n s . These p e o p l e i n t u r n depend upon o t h e r s w i t h s i m i l a r l y s p e c i a l i z e d work t a s k s t o f u l f i l l t h e r e m a i n i n g f u n c t i o n s n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e i r s u s t e n a n c e . Thus a l l t h e members i n an u r b a n community have e i t h e r d i r e c t o r i n d i r e c t l i n k s t o each o t h e r t h r o u g h t h e f u n c t i o n a l i n t e r d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e i r work a c t i v i t i e s and s u s t e n a n c e needs. I t i s argu e d t h a t p e o p l e ' s work a c t i v i t i e s a l s o d e t e r m i n e t h e t e m p o r a l r e l a t i o n s between t h e members o f an u r b a n community. I f examined f o r l o n g p e r i o d s o f t i m e , t h e sequences o f a c t i v i t i e s a r e see n t o r e o c c u r i n n a t u r a l c y c l e s w i t h s t a b l e t i m e i n t e r v a l s . P e o p l e ' s d a i l y and w e e k l y p a t t e r n s o f a c t i v i t y a r e two s u c h n a t u r a l c y c l e s . F o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n , work a c t i v i t y i s t h e l a r g e s t and l e a s t f l e x i b l e b l o c k o f n o n d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y i n t h e s e c y c l e s . Because o f i t s c o l l e c t i v e f u n c t i o n a l i m p o r t a n c e and i t s i n d i v i d u a l i m p o r t a n c e , t h e t e m p o r a l s t r u c t u r e o f p e o p l e ' s work d e t e r m i n e s t h e t e m p o r a l s t r u c t u r e o f t h e i r nonwork a c t i v i t i e s . T h a t i s , t h e days o f work, t h e d a i l y t i m e s o f work and t h e t i m e s p e n t a t work d e t e r m i n e t h e l o c a t i o n o f t i m e and t h e amount o f t i m e a v a i l a b l e f o r p e o p l e ' s non-work a c t i v i t i e s . I n v e s t i g a t i o n s o f t h e o r d e r i n g s o f p e o p l e ' s a c t i v i t i e s i n u r b a n c o m m u n i t i e s have r e v e a l e d t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a modal p a t t e r n t h a t ( S e e l e y , e t a l . , 1956) i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f t h e m a j o r i t y o f t h e a d u l t p o p u l a t i o n o f t h e community. I n most o f u r b a n N o r t h A m e r i c a i t c o n s i s t s o f about e i g h t h o u r s o f work f r o m 8 a.m. t o 5 p.m. d a i l y w i t h some s i x t e e n h o u r s a day l e f t f o r r e s t , p e r s o n a l c a r e and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s nonwork t i m e i s u s u a l l y s t r u c t u r e d so 10 that the early evening hours are spent in discretionary a c t i v i t i e s and the later hours are spent in sleep u n t i l people rise the next morning to rei n i t i a t e the cycle. This daily modal pattern i s nested within a weekly modal cycle consisting of five or six workdays from Monday to Friday or Saturday; with one or two days off work, usually Saturday and Sunday. Again on these weekend days persons are relatively free to choose what they do and where they do i t . Although the temporal ordering of the activities of some communities may d i f f e r from this pattern, (e.g., in a company town), i t w i l l be assumed that this pattern is characteristic of most urban communities. Persons whose schedules of work and free time are congruent with the majority pattern are referred to as temporally modal (Gray, 1968:3-8). However, for reasons of pr o f i t , efficiency, and community necessity some organizations in the urban community maintain certain functions at different times or for longer time periods than the modal schedule. Thus the discretionary time periods of persons employed in such functions are incongruent with those of the majority of the community: they are described as temporally marginal (Gray, 1968:3-8). In order to participate in direct social interaction with other persons, the temporal and spatial ordering of people's a c t i v i t i e s must be synchronized. Thus, the act i v i t i e s of most housewives become in-tegrated into the temporally modal work pattern in the process of synchronizing their a c t i v i t i e s with the schedules of their employed husbands, their school-age children, and the hours of operation of r e t a i l stores and other commercial services of the urban community. On 11 the basis of this argument, Gray (1968) proposed that the greater the degree of temporal marginality of a person, as determined by the disparity between their work schedule and the modal schedule, then the fewer their opportunities for social interaction with the majority of the population of the community. Furthermore, the greater the temporal disparity between the work schedules of any two persons the fewer their opportunities for social interaction. Both Gray and Blakelock have found evidence in support of this argument in their studies of shift workers' social participation with family members and in voluntary organizations. By adding the assumption that the fewer the opportunities for social interaction the greater the opportunities for solitary be-havior, several hypotheses can be made regarding the effects of temporal marginality on solitary behavior. Hypothesis (3) Persons who work temporally marginal shifts w i l l spend more of their nonwork time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on workdays than persons who work temporally modal shifts. Hypothesis (4) Persons whose days of work are temporally marginal w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on their days off than persons whose days off are temporally modal. To this point the argument of a temporal contextual effect treats the community as a whole as the relevant spatial social unit. However, 12 temporal constraints on social behavior within the household are also relevant (Gray, 1968; 100-105). Temporal Incongruity within the Household Assuming that the density of the household affects people's solitary behavior as hypothesized, then this relationship should be influenced by the likelihood that.persons are i n the same spatial context at the same time. Thus one can argue that the congruity of the time schedules of household members interacts with household density to re s t r i c t people's opportunities for solitary behavior. When children reach school age, they become integrated into the modal schedule and their free time schedules become fixed. This should reduce the amount of time marginal shift workers have available for interaction with their children on weekdays and increase their oppor-tunities for solitary a c t i v i t i e s on those days. If this i s true, then the following hypothesis w i l l receive confirmation. Hypothesis (5) Temporally marginal workers whose children are of school or working age w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s than temporally marginal workers whose children are not of school ,age. Similarly, when wives take a job they lose their discretion over the scheduling of their free time. If their work schedules are incongruent with those of their husband's then this should reduce the opportunities for social interaction between them and increase the 13 o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . C o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d s u p p o r t t h i s r e a s o n i n g . H y p o t h e s i s (6) Workers whose s h i f t s a r e i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h o s e o f t h e i r employed w i v e s w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n w o r k e r s whose s h i f t s a r e c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h o s e o f t h e i r employed w i v e s . I f d i f f e r e n c e s i n b o t h t h e home and community e n v i r o n m e n t s p r o d u c e c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s on s o l i t u d e , t h e n t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f b o t h t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y and i n c o n g r u i t y o f work s c h e d u l e s s h o u l d p r o d u c e a s t r o n g e r i s o l a t i o n e f f e c t . C o n f i r m a t i o n o f h y p o t h e s e s 7 and 8 s u p p o r t s t h i s e l a b o r a t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s (7) Of t h e w o r k e r s who a r e t e m p o r a l l y m a r g i n a l t h o s e whose s h i f t s a r e i n c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e i r w i v e s ' s c h e d u l e s spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n t h o s e w o r k e r s whose s h i f t s a r e c o n g r u e n t w i t h t h e i r w i v e s ' s c h e d u l e s . H y p o t h e s i s (8) Of t h e w o r k e r s who a r e m o d a l , t h o s e whose s h i f t s a r e i n c o n g r u e n t spend more t i m e a l o n e t h a n t h o s e whose s h i f t s a r e c o n g r u e n t . To summarize t h e f i r s t argument, i t has been p r o p o s e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s c a n be a c c o u n t e d f o r by d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e number 14 o f p e r s o n s i n t h e non-work c o n t e x t s o f t h e h o u s e h o l d and community, t h e number o f p e r s o n s w i t h s i m i l a r work s c h e d u l e s i n t h e s e c o n t e x t s , and t h e amount o f f r e e t i m e t h a t t h e i n d i v i d u a l has i n common w i t h t h o s e p e r s o n s . The A n t e c e d e n t E f f e c t o f S o c i a l C o n t e x t s T h i s n e x t argument p r o p o s e s t h a t t h e number o f p e r s o n s c o -p r e s e n t i n one e n v i r o n m e n t can i n d i r e c t l y a f f e c t a p e r s o n ' s b e h a v i o r i n l a t e r e n v i r o n m e n t s . S i n c e Marx t h e r e has been a h i s t o r y o f i n t e r e s t i n t h i s argument i n t h e f o r m o f t h e e f f e c t s o f p e o p l e ' s work e x p e r i e n c e on t h e i r non-work b e h a v i o r . I n a r e v i e w o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e c o n c e r n i n g t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p between work and l e i s u r e , W i t t and B i s h o p (1970) documented f i v e c l a s s i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s : c a t h a r s i s , c o m p e n s a t i o n , s u r p l u s e n e r g y , r e l a x a t i o n , and t a s k g e n e r a l i z a t i o n . E a c h makes a s s u m p t i o n s about c e r t a i n f u n d a m e n t a l human n e e d s , and t h e n e x p l a i n s p e o p l e ' s m o t i v a t i o n f o r p a r t i c u l a r d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i -t i e s i n terms o f t h e i r a n t e c e d e n t work s i t u a t i o n and e x p e r i e n c e s . As a group t h e s e e x p l a n a t i o n s can be t h o u g h t o f as ' t e m p o r a l l y a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s ' . They p r o p o s e t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t e m p o r a l l y a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t s p r o d u c e d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e h a v i o r w h i c h i n t u r n p r o -duce d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e o p l e ' s m o t i v a t i o n s and b e h a v i o r a t a l a t e r t i m e . A model o f t h i s c a u s a l p r o c e s s i s diagrammed i n F i g u r e 2. I n t h e d i a g r a m , Z r e p r e s e n t s i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r a t one p o i n t i n t i m e , T^, i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e d i r e c t e f f e c t o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n , Y; X t r e p r e s e n t s some endogenous i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r a t a l a t e r p o i n t i n 15 t i m e , T^l Z—*—:X i s an a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t o f b e h a v i o r Z on b e h a v i o r X; Y—>—Z i s an immediate c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t ; and Y—>—•X i s an i n d i r e c t a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t t h a t i s s u p p r e s s e d when t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between Y and Z, and Z and X a r e j o i n t l y a n a l y z e d . X F i g . 2 The S t r u c t u r e o f t h e A n t e c e d e n t C o n t e x t u a l E f f e c t W i l e n s k y (1960) has s p e c u l a t e d t h a t two o f t h e f i v e a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e x p l a n a t i o n s m e n t i o n e d by W i t t and B i s h o p — c o m p e n s a t i o n and t a s k g e n e r a l i z a t i o n ( " s p i l l o v e r " i n W i l e n s k y ' s t e r m s ) — a r e r e l e v a n t t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a t work and p e o p l e ' s n on-work s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . The Compensatory E f f e c t W i l e n s k y ' s compensatory argument can be i n t e r p r e t e d as h a v i n g two i m p l i c i t a s s u m p t i o n s : 1) p e o p l e have d i f f e r i n g b u t r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e p r e f e r e n c e l e v e l s f o r c e r t a i n s p e c i f i c k i n d s o f a c t i v i t y ( s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e ) ; and 2) t h e y have l e s s d i s c r e t i o n o v e r t h e i r c h o i c e o f j o b and t h e i r work b e h a v i o r t h a n t h e i r non-work b e h a v i o r . I t p r o p o s e s t h a t t h e y a t t e m p t t o compensate f o r s t r e s s e s i n t h e i r work e x p e r i e n c e i n t h e i r non-work d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s . I f t h i s argument 16 is valid, then the following hypothesis should be confirmed. Hypothesis (9) People who are socially isolated at work w i l l spend less time in solitary non-work a c t i v i t i e s on work-days than people who are not socially isolated at work. The Carry-Over Effect The carry-over argument states that the performance of different kinds of purposive activity, i n this case social inter-action, requires certain s k i l l s that are learned or maintained through previous experience. It assumes that the work experience i s a major source of the learning or maintenance of these s k i l l s . If this argu-ment is valid the following hypothesis should be confirmed. Hypothesis (10) People who are socially isolated at work w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s i n their non-work hours on workdays than people who are not socially isolated at work. The Null Hypothesis Meissner (1970) has added an elaboration to Wilensky's speculations. He argues that a third "null hypothesis" is also possible. The rationale of this third alternative rests on two assumptions: (1) that people are a l l equally gregarious and that (2) they daily perform different roles in different institutional "settings that are causally independent of each other. The validity of this rationale i s tested with the following hypothesis. 17 H y p o t h e s i s (11) The d i f f e r e n c e s p r e d i c t e d i n h y p o t h e s i s (9) and (10) w i l l be n e i t h e r s t r o n g n o r s i g n i f i c a n t . These t h r e e i m p o r t a n t p o s s i b l e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t s c a n be f u r t h e r t e s t e d by e x a m i n i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e o p l e ' s d i s c r e -t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r a f t e r work on workdays and t h e i r b e h a v i o r on weekends. I f t h e e a r l i e r argument about t h e e f f e c t s o f t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y on s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r on workdays i s t r u e , t h e n t h e same t h r e e p o s s i b l e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t s s h o u l d a p p l y t o p e o p l e ' s weekend b e h a v i o r . I f t h e compensatory argument i s a p p l i c a b l e t h e n : H y p o t h e s i s (12) Of t h e p e r s o n s who have b o t h S a t u r d a y and Sunday o f f work, t h o s e w o r k i n g m a r g i n a l s h i f t s w i l l spend l e s s t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s on S a t u r d a y s and Sundays t h a n t h o s e w o r k i n g modal s h i f t s . On t h e o t h e r hand, i f t h e c a r r y - o v e r argument i s t r u e t h e n : H y p o t h e s i s (13) Of t h e p e r s o n s who have b o t h S a t u r d a y and Sunday o f f work, t h o s e w o r k i n g m a r g i n a l s h i f t s w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s on S a t u r d a y s and Sundays t h a n t h o s e w o r k i n g modal s h i f t s . I f n e i t h e r o f t h e s e arguments i s t r u e , t h e n t h e n u l l e f f e c t w i l l be o b s e r v a b l e . The i m p o r t a n c e o f t h e s e t h r e e c o n f l i c t i n g arguments r e l a t e s d i r e c t l y b a c k t o t h e i n i t i a l p u r p o s e s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n . They 18 p r o v i d e a t e s t o f t h e two u n d e r l y i n g models of human g r e g a r i o u s n e s s . I f t h e n u l l e f f e c t h y p o t h e s e s a r e c o n f i r m e d t h e n t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f c o n s t a n t g r e g a r i o u s n e s s and i t s a s s o c i a t e d model o f human s o c i a l b e h a v i o r r e c e i v e s s u p p o r t . I f t h e compensatory h y p o t h e s e s a r e c o n -f i r m e d t h e n t h e model of human s o c i a l b e h a v i o r as a b a l a n c i n g s y s t e m r e c e i v e s s u p p o r t . I f , however, t h e c a r r y - o v e r h y p o t h e s e s a r e co n -f i r m e d t h e n f u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l e l a b o r a t i o n i s needed b e f o r e one can a s c e r t a i n t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r t h e two g e n e r a l models o f human d i s p o s i t i o n t o s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . T h i s i s n o t y e t a c r u c i a l t e s t . I n t h e i r s t u d i e s , M e i s s n e r and Gray r e a c h e d c o n f l i c t i n g c o n c l u -s i o n s r e g a r d i n g t h e s e t h r e e i m p o r t a n t h y p o t h e s e s . M e i s s n e r f o u n d weak s u p p o r t f o r t h e c a r r y - o v e r e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n on and o f f t h e j o b . G r a y , on t h e o t h e r hand, f o u n d e v i d e n c e o f a compensatory r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y on weekdays and s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h f a m i l y members on weekends. These c o n f l i c t i n g f i n d i n g s s u g g e s t t h a t f u r t h e r t h e o r e t i c a l e l a b o r a t i o n i s i n d e e d n e c e s s a r y i f one i s t o d e c i d e w h i c h o f t h e two g e n e r a l s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l models i s c o r r e c t . The weak p o i n t o f b o t h t h e c a r r y - o v e r and c o m p e n s a t i o n arguments i s t h a t a l t h o u g h a t e m p o r a l sequence i s c e n t r a l t o e a c h , t h e y do n o t h a n d l e t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t i m e as a v a r i a b l e i n t h e two h y p o t h e s i z e d p r o c e s s e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , two d i f f e r e n t t e m p o r a l e f f e c t s can be a r g u e d : 1) a t e m p o r a l s u p p r e s s i o n e f f e c t , and 2) a t e m p o r a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t e f f e c t . 19 T e m p o r a l S u p p r e s s i o n o f t h e Compensation E f f e c t The c o m p e n s a t i o n argument, a l t h o u g h i t does n o t s p e c i f y a r e l e v a n t t i m e p e r i o d , i m p l i c i t l y i n v o l v e s some s h o r t t e r m r e g u l a r c y c l e o v e r w h i c h t h e b a l a n c i n g mechanism o p e r a t e s . I f one assumes f i r s t t h a t t h e compensatory m o t i v a t i o n d e c r e a s e s as a f u n c t i o n o f ea c h a d d i t i o n a l compensatory a c t , and se c o n d t h a t t h e o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r e a c h compensatory b e h a v i o r i n c r e a s e d i r e c t l y o v e r t i m e , t h e n t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n e f f e c t s h o u l d d e c r e a s e d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e l e n g t h o f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g t i m e p e r i o d . A s t r u c t u r a l d i a g r a m o f t h i s ' s h o r t t e r m c o m p e n s a t i o n s u p p r e s s o r e f f e c t ' i s p r e s e n t e d i n F i g u r e 3. A t t i m e T 2: Z = consequent s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r ; X = a n t e c e d e n t work e x p e r i e n c e a t t i m e T^; T = t h e t i m e i n t e r v a l (T - 1^). F i g . 3 The S h o r t Term Temporal S u p p r e s s i o n E f f e c t H y p o t h e s e s (14) and (15) t e s t some o f t h e s p e c i f i c i m p l i c a t i o n s o f t h i s e f f e c t . H y p o t h e s i s (14) F o r t h o s e p e r s o n s w i t h b o t h S a t u r d a y and Sunday o f f work, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between p e r s o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t 20 l e v e l s o f s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work w i l l be l e s s on S a t u r d a y s t h a n d u r i n g non-work p e r i o d s on w o r k d a y s . H y p o t h e s i s (15) F o r t h o s e p e r s o n s w i t h b o t h S a t u r d a y and Sunday o f f work, t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between p e r s o n s w i t h d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s o f s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work w i l l be l e s s on t h e se c o n d day o f f (Sunday) t h a n on t h e f i r s t day o f f ( S a t u r d a y ) . T e m p o r a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e C a r r y - O v e r E f f e c t I n t h e c a r r y - o v e r e x p l a n a t i o n , t i m e i s i m p l i c i t l y t r e a t e d d i f f e r e n t l y . Here i t a c t s as a r e i n f o r c i n g v a r i a b l e . T h i s argument assumes t h a t t h e s o c i a l s k i l l s t h a t a r e g e n e r a l i z e d f o r p e o p l e ' s work e x p e r i e n c e i m p r o v e w i t h l o n g - r u n e x p e r i e n c e . I f b o t h t h i s and t h e e a r l i e r t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y argument a r e v a l i d , t h e n t h i s l o n g t e r m t e m p o r a l e f f e c t can be t e s t e d w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s . H y p o t h e s i s (16) P e r s o n s who have been t e m p o r a l l y m a r g i n a l f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s o r more w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n t h o s e who have been t e m p o r a l l y m a r g i n a l f o r o n l y a s h o r t t i m e . T h i s c a u s a l model i s s i m i l a r t o t h e l a s t e x c e p t t h a t t h e s i g n o f t h e t e m p o r a l e f f e c t i s r e v e r s e d . I t can be diagrammed as f o l l o w s . 21 I n t h e d i a g r a m , T = T - T Q ( t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t has been e x p e r i e n c e d ) ; X = a n t e c e d e n t v a r i a b l e ; and Y = c o n s e q u e n t v a r i a b l e 1 2 F i g . 4 The Long Term Te m p o r a l R e i n f o r c e m e n t E f f e c t A f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n i n c l u d e s b o t h o f t h e s e t e m p o r a l v a r i a b l e s i n t h e model a t once. One t h e n has a f o u r v a r i a b l e s y s t e m w h i c h p o s i t s c o n f l i c t i n g t e m p o r a l e f f e c t s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between work and non-work s o c i a l a c t i v i t y . The f i r s t i s a l o n g t e r m g e n e r a l i z a t i o n e f f e c t . The s e c o n d i s a s h o r t t e r m c o m p e n s a t i o n e f f e c t . T h i s model can be diagrammed as f o l l o w s . I n t h e d i a g r a m , LT X X = a n t e c e d e n t s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n a t T ^ ; Y = amount of s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t y a t T^l L T = l e n g t h o f t i m e t h a t X has been e x p e r i e n c e d ( T ^ - T Q ) ; and S T = t h e t i m e i n t e r v a l between t h e a n t e c e d e n t i s o l a t i o n and t h e com-p e n s a t o r y b e h a v i o r ( T ^ - T ^ ) . F i g . 5 The Combined R e l a t i o n s h i p s o f A n t e c e d e n t S o c i a l E x p e r i e n c e , S h o r t Term Co m p e n s a t i o n , and Long Term A d a p t a t i o n ST 22 If this i s a valid representation of the causal process in question then when the effects of s h i f t , time on s h i f t , and time passed since the last workday are examined simultaneously hypotheses (16), (17), and (18) should be confirmed. Hypothesis (17) When controlling for both length of time on shift and the day of the weekend, marginal workers should experience less solitude in a l l cells (compensation effect). Hypothesis (18) The differences between marginal and modal s h i f t -workers should be less on Sundays than on Saturdays (suppression effect). This more elaborate model f i n a l l y provides the crucial test of the two general social psychological models i n question. In the two contextual arguments outlined to this point a number of environmental variables have been hypothetically related to differences in the amount of solitude that people experience. However, Scheuch (1969) has cautioned that although people may have varying objective opportunity to participate i n a given behavior they may also vary in the degree to which they are individually susceptible to that setting. This principle of di f f e r e n t i a l individual susceptibility i s the third type of environmental explanation, of individual differences in solitary behavior. 23 The E f f e c t s o f D i f f e r e n t i a l I n d i v i d u a l  S u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o S o c i a l E n v i r o n m e n t s T h i s d i f f e r e n t i a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s can be e x p l a i n e d by t h r e e arguments. The f i r s t i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s l e a d t o d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r u t i l i z a t i o n o f common e n v i r o n m e n t a l s e t s . Second, i n d i v i d u a l s have v a r y i n g o t h e r r e s o u r c e s t h a t a r e n e c e s s a r y i n u t i l i z i n g t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l s e t h e l d i n common. T h i r d , i n d i v i d u a l s m i g h t be d i f f e r e n t i a l l y p r e d i s p o s e d t o u t i l i z e a g i v e n e n v i r o n m e n t a l 2 s t r u c t u r e . T h i s t h i r d p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n p r o v i d e s a way o f i n t e -g r a t i n g h y p o t h e s e s o f d i r e c t and a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s i n t o a s i n g l e t h e o r e t i c a l s y s t e m . I n t h i s s y s t e m s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r i s a f u n c t i o n o f an i n t e r a c t i o n between p r e s e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s and p r e s e n t d i s p o s i t i o n a l s t a t e s p r o d u c e d by p a s t e x p e r i e n c e . W i t h a f u r t h e r e l a b o r a t i o n o f i n c l u d i n g t h e two o t h e r d i f f e r e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y e f f e c t s t o common e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s t h e o v e r a l l t h e o r e t i c a l s t r u c t u r e o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s becomes c o m p l e t e l y i n t e g r a t e d i n t o one model. As a m e t h o d o l o g i c a l n o t e i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o r e a l i z e t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n t i a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y arguments have t h e a n a l y t i c a l f o r m o f i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t s . T h at i s , q u i t e a p a r t f r o m any i n d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t t h a t t h e y m ight h a v e , t h e i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t i e s i n q u e s t i o n m o d i f y t h e e f f e c t o f some o t h e r r e l a t i o n s h i p . 24 A n t e c e d e n t E n v i r o n m e n t P r e s e n t E n v i r o n m e n t T e mporal E f f e c t s A n t e c e d e n t A c t i v i t y P e r c e p t i o n s and R e s o u r c e s F i g . 6 The I n t e g r a t e d T h e o r e t i c a l System o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l E f f e c t s on B e h a v i o r C o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s w o u l d s u p p o r t t h i s model and i t s p a r t s : t h e arguments f o r a compensatory e f f e c t , a c o n -t e x t u a l d e n s i t y e f f e c t , and an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t between t h e s e two. H y p o t h e s i s (19) P e r s o n s who e x p e r i e n c e h i g h l e v e l s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a t work and work m a r g i n a l s h i f t s w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n i f t h e e f f e c t s o f t h e s e were m e r e l y a d d i t i v e . 25 SUMMARY The p u r p o s e s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a r e t o t e s t two c o n f l i c t i n g s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l models o f human s o c i a b i l i t y and i d e n t i f y some p o s s i b l e s o u r c e s o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n d a i l y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . One model assumes t h a t human g r e g a r i o u s n e s s i s a b a s i c and c o n s t a n t need. The o t h e r assumes t h a t i t i s a h o m e o s t a t i c need w i t h e x t r e m e s o f e i t h e r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o r s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r p r o d u c i n g p a t h o l o g i c a l r e a c t i o n s b u t a g r e a t d e a l o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n w i t h i n t h o s e l i m i t s . T h r e e g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r a r e p r o p o s e d t h a t argue t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l e n v i r o n m e n t s . These arguments a r e a c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y e f f e c t , an a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y e f f e c t and a d i f f e r e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y e f f e c t . The c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y argument p r o p o s e s t h a t p e o p l e ' s o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r a r e c o n s t r a i n e d by t h e d e n s i t y o f t h e c o n t e x t s o f t h e i r b e h a v i o r . The s o c i a l c o n t e x t o f t h e home and t h e community a r e examined as r e l e v a n t e n v i r o n m e n t s and b o t h s p a t i a l and t e m p o r a l a c c e s s i b i l i t y a r e c o n s i d e r e d i m p o r t a n t . I n t h e a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y argument p a s t e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be i m p o r t a n t . S p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s a r e made r e g a r d i n g t h e e f f e c t s o f s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e on t h e j o b and t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y . The c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y e f f e c t i s t e s t e d w i t h h y p o t h e s e s o f t h e e f f e c t s o f d e n s i t y o f home e n v i r o n m e n t s , t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y , and t e m p o r a l c o n g r u e n c y . I n t h e a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l d e n s i t y argument, p a s t e n v i r o n -m e n t a l e x p e r i e n c e i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be i m p o r t a n t . T h r e e s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s 26 a r e h y p o t h e s i z e d : a c o m p e n s a t i o n e f f e c t , a c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t and a n u l l e f f e c t . A l l t h r e e a r e examined i n t e s t i n g f i r s t , t h e r e l a t i o n -s h i p s between s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e on t h e j o b and d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r , and s e c o n d , t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y on weekdays and weekend d i s c r e t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r . Time i s seen as an i m p o r t a n t i n t e r v e n i n g v a r i a b l e i n t h e s e arguments. As e l a b o r a t i o n s two t e m p o r a l e f f e c t s a r e h y p o t h e s i z e d : 1) a s h o r t t e r m t e m p o r a l decay o f t h e c o m p e n s a t i o n e f f e c t , and 2) a l o n g t e r m t e m p o r a l r e i n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t . I n t h e t h i r d g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n i t i s p r o p o s e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o o b j e c t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s . I t i s argued t h a t t h e e f f e c t s o f p a s t e x p e r i e n c e p r o d u c e d i f f e r e n t i a l u t i l i z a t i o n o f e n v i r o n m e n t a l o p p o r t u n -i t y s t r u c t u r e s s u c h t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o s i m i l a r e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s t r a i n t s . T h i s argument i n t e g r a t e s t h e two e n v i r o n m e n t a l e x p l a n a t i o n s i n t o one complex c a u s a l s y s t e m . I n t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t f o l l o w s some o f t h e s e arguments r e c e i v e d s u p p o r t and o t h e r s d i d n o t . The c o n s t r a i n t s o f t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y and i n c o n g r u i t y w i t h s pouse's work s c h e d u l e were f o u n d t o f a c i l i t a t e s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r , w h e r e a s , t h e o t h e r immediate c o n s t r a i n t s had no c o n s i s t e n t e f f e c t . Of t h e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t s , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e work e n v i r o n m e n t were f o u n d t o e f f e c t p e o p l e d i f f e r e n t l y f r o m -c o n s t r a i n t s i n t h e non-work e n v i r o n m e n t s . T h e r e was e v i d e n c e f o r a compensatory r e l a t i o n s h i p between work and non-work s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e and t h e r e was a l s o e v i d e n c e f o r a weak c a r r y - o v e r r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r due t o t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y on weekdays 27 and d i s c r e t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r on weekends. When t h e i n d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t s o f a n t e c e d e n t s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work and t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y were j o i n t l y examined a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was f o u n d . T h i s e v i d e n c e was c o n s i d e r e d t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o c o n f i r m t h e p r i n c i p l e o f d i f f e r e n -t i a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y . These f i n d i n g s o f v a r i a t i o n i n i n d i v i d u a l p r o -p e n s i t y t o engage i n s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r and d i f f e r e n t i a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s f a c i l i t a t i n g s u c h b e h a v i o r g i v e t e n t a t i v e s u p p o r t t o t h e h o m e o s t a t i c model o f human s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . 28 REFERENCES Ainsworth, M.D. 1962 "The effects of maternal deprivation: a review of findings and controversy in the context of research strategy." Public Health Papers. Geneva: World Health Organization. 14. Barker, R.G. and P.V. Gump. 1964 Big School, Small School. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Berger, C.Q. and P. A i Sorokin. 1939 Time Budgets of. Human Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Bevans, G.E. 1913 How Working Men Spend Their Spare Time. New York: Cambridge University Press. Blakelock, E. 1960 "A new look at leisure." Administrative Science Quarterly 4: 446-467. Bott, E. 1957 Family and Social Networks. London: Tavistocke Publication House. Calhoun, J.B. 1962 "Population density and social pathology." Sc i e n t i f i c American, February, 26: 139-146. Chapin, F.S. (Jr.). 1951 "Some housing factors related to mental hygiene." American Journal of Public Health, 41, 7: 839-845. Chapin, F.S. (Jr.) and R. K. B r a i l . 1969 "Human activity systems in the metropolitan United States." Environment and Behavior, December, 2: 107-150. Christian, J. J. 1963 "The pathology of overpopulation." Military Medicine, 128, July, 7:571-603. De Grazia, S. 1962 Of Time Work and Leisure. New York: Twentieth Century Fund. 29 D o t s o n , F . 1951 " P a t t e r n s of v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n among urban w o r k i n g c l a s s f a m i l i e s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 16: 687-693. F l a v e l l , J . H . 1968 "The development of r o l e t a k i n g and communicative s k i l l s i n c h i l d r e n . " I n P . B o t k i n , ejt a l . , ( e d s . ) . C h i l d Development New Y o r k , W i l e y . Freedman, D . G . 1964 " A b i o l o g i c a l v iew of man's s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . " I n W. E t k i n ( e d . ) , S o c i a l B e h a v i o r from F i s h to Man. C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s . G r a y , G . A . 1968 The E f f e c t s of Temporal M a r g i n a l i t y Upon S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d Phd. T h e s i s . Eugene: U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon. Hausnecht , M. 1962 The J o i n e r s . New Y o r k : Bedminster P r e s s . I t t l e s o n , W. H . , L . G. R i v l e n and H . M . Proshansky 1970 "Bedroom s i z e and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n of the p s y c h i a t r i c w a r d . " Environment and B e h a v i o r , I I , December, 3: 255-270. K e l l e r , S. 1968 The Urban Neighbourhood, New Y o r k : Random House. Komar ovs k y , M. 1946 "The v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n s of urban d w e l l e r s . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, 11: 686-689. M e i s s n e r , M. 1970 The Long Arm of the Job : S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the C o n t r a i n t s of I n d u s t r i a l Work. A Paper p r e s e n t e d to the Canadian A n t h r o p o l o g y A s s o c i a t i o n , W i n n i p e g . M e n z e l , H . and E . K a t z . 1966 " S o c i a l r e l a t i o n s and i n n o v a t i o n i n the m e d i c a l p r o f e s s i o n . " P u b l i c O p i n i o n Q u a r t e r l y , 19: 337-352. Mogey, J . H . 1956 F a m i l y and Neighbourhood. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . P l a n t , J . 1930 "Some p s y c h i a t r i c aspects of crowded l i v i n g c o n d i t i o n s . " American J o u r n a l of P s y c h i a t r y , 9, 5: 849-860. 30 Ruff, G. 1963 Cited in J. M. Fitch, "Experiential basis for aesthetic decision." In Proshansky , et a l . , (eds.), Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1970. Scott, J. 1957 "Membership and Participation in voluntary associations." American Sociological Review, 22: 315-326. Seeley, J., et a l . 1956 Crestwood Heights: A Study of the Culture of Suburban L i f e . New York: Basic Books Inc. Selye, H. 1959 The Physiology and Pathology of Exposure to Stress. Montreal: Acta. Simmel, G. 1902 "The number of members as determining the sociological form of the group." American Journal of Sociology, 8, July, 1: 1-46. Soloman, P. 1963 Cited in J. M. Fitch, "Experiential basis for aesthetic decision." In Proshansky, et. j i l . , (eds.), Environmental Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. Stouffer, S. A., et a l . 1949 The American Soldier, 1. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Szalai, A., et a l . 1966 "Appendix to the multinational comparative social research." American Behavioral Scientist, 10, December, 4. Wilensky, H. L. 1960 "Work careers and social integration." International Social Science Journal, 12: 543-560. Witt, P. and D. Bishop. 1970 "Situational antecedents to leisure behavior." Journal of Leisure Research, 2, Winter, 1: Wright, C. R. and H. H. Hyman. 1958 "Voluntary association memberships of American adults: evidence from national sample surveys." American Sociological Review, June, 23: 284-294. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The aim of this study is to test a set of hypotheses that have been derived from the several proposed explanations of why people experience varying amounts of solitude. The explanations i n question posit that the immediate and antecedent contexts of people's ac t i v i t i e s are important sources of such variation. These explanations a l l have the general form of cross level explanations in which a dis-tinction i s made between units at different levels of scale and differences i n the properties of the units at one level are used to explain differences in the properties of units at the other level. When the properties of the higher level units are analytical, that i s when they are derived from the distribution of the properties of lower level individual units within the larger social or spatial unit (Dogan and Rokkan, 1969: 5), the explanation i s called a "compositional effect" (Davis, Spaeth, and Huson, 1961; Valkonen, 1969). On the other hand when the properties of the higher order units are global, that i s they are characteristic of the unit as a whole and not derivable from the characteristics of the individual members, then the explanation i s called a contextual effect (Scheuch, 1969). In either form the higher level units can be thought of as "opportunity sets" or the "objective 32 environments" of the lower level units (Scheuch, 1969: 144) and they can be visually represented as follows: X Y X Fig. 7 A Relationship Diagram of a Contextual Effect In this diagram Y represents a set of environmental properties, X represents a set of individual properties, and —»— represents a causal connection between the two. For example i f Y represents the number of other persons in the household of any given person, and X represents the amount of time that that person spends per day in solitary a c t i v i t i e s , and the size of the household i s hypothesized to have an inverse effect on the amount of solitude that individual's experience; then this effect can be termed the "contextual effect of household size". THE RESEARCH DESIGN An ideal test of the effects of these different contexts on the solitude that people experience would be to use an experimental research design and observe individuals in some sort of long term experimental situation where these contexts could be manipulated and the resulting individual behavior could be studied. However, a body 33 o f s u r v e y r e s e a r c h d a t a t h a t was r e l e v a n t t o t h e s e h y p o t h e s e s was i m m e d i a t e l y a c c e s s i b l e f o r a n a l y s i s . F o r t h i s r e a s o n a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s i s b e i n g made o f d a t a g a t h e r e d u s i n g a s u r v e y r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . T h i s c o n s i s t s o f making s t a t i c c o m p a r i s o n s between p e o p l e w i t h d i f f e r e n t work s h i f t s , d i f f e r e n t numbers o f o n - t h e - j o b a s s o c i a t e s , and d i f f e r e n t h o u s e h o l d c o m p o s i t i o n s . OPERATIONALIZATIONS OF THE CONCEPTS S o l i t a r y B e h a v i o r F o r t h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s a n a l y s i s s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r has been d e f i n e d as a p e r s o n s ' s b e h a v i o r when no o t h e r p e r s o n s a r e c o - p r e s e n t i n a g i v e n room w i t h him. The p a r t i c u l a r t h i n g s t h a t p e o p l e do u n d e r s u c h c o n d i t i o n s a r e r e f e r r e d t o as s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . E x t e n t o f P a r t i c i p a t i o n The d e g r e e of s o l i t u d e t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l e x p e r i e n c e s i s measured i n terms o f t h e e x t e n t t o w h i c h he p a r t i c i p a t e d i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s i s d e f i n e d as t h e t o t a l amount o f t i m e p e r day t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l spends i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . S o c i a l D e n s i t y o f E n v i r o n m e n t s T h i s i s a v a r i a b l e p r o p e r t y o f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t s i n w h i c h p e o p l e r e s i d e and work. A t work i t i s measured i n terms o f t h e number o f o t h e r p e r s o n s an i n d i v i d u a l has t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o t a l k w i t h about 34 non-work t h i n g s w h i l e on the j o b , and the number of persons on the work crew. Away from work i t i s o p e r a t i o n a l l y measured i n terms of the number of c h i l d r e n i n the home, the presence of other a d u l t s i n the home, and the presence of r e l a t i v e s i n the r e g i o n of the commun-i t y (the s t a t e ) . Temporal M a r g i n a l i t y T h i s concept r e f e r s to the degree to which a given person's work schedule i s out of phase w i t h that of the m a j o r i t y of the community. Temporally marginal workers are o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined as those working the afternoon and n i g h t s h i f t s . Temporally modal workers are o p e r a t i o n a l l y defined as those who work day s h i f t s . Temporal I n c o n g r u i t y This dimension i s defined as the temporal s i m i l a r i t y of husbands' and wives' work schedules. In t h i s a n a l y s i s i t i s t r e a t e d as a dichotomy. Housewives who are not otherwise employed are assumed to work temporally modal schedules and when the husbands' and wives' schedules d i f f e r they are considered temporally incongruent. THE DATA The data used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s was c o l l e c t e d by Gray (1968) f o r the purpose of t e s t i n g a s e r i e s of hypotheses of the e f f e c t s of s h i f t work on s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n . I t c o n s i s t s of d a i l y a c t i v i t y 35 logs that were gathered by interviewing a sample of industrial workers. In the interviews the interviewers reconstructed the a c t i v i t i e s of the respondents for the previous workday and weekend. This particular method of gathering the data was employed because i t has proven to yield data with larger returns, better validity and at less expense than the alternative diary method of collecting such daily behavioral data, (Gray, 1968: 41-46). THE SAMPLE OF PERSONS The original sample of 528 men was drawn from the employee rosters of two lumber and plywood firms in Eugene, Oregon. The scope of the sample was purposively restricted to married, lumber m i l l workers, i n manual occupations, who worked steady shifts. This was done in order to control the effects of possible confounding variables. This reduced the sample population to 264 afternoon shift workers and approximately twice as many day shift workers. In order to obtain approximately equal proportions of day and afternoon shift workers, Gray then selected a subsample of the day shift workers equal in number to the sample of afternoon shift workers. This subsample was chosen by f i r s t selecting every second name in the alphabetically ordered l i s t and then with a table of random digits randomly eliminating others u n t i l i t was equal in number to the sample of afternoon shift workers. (Gray, 1968: 51). For a number of reasons that are illustrated in Table 1, the f i n a l sample of completed interviews is considerably smaller. It 36 consists of 343 interviewed male lumber m i l l workers, on steady shifts, who were married and l i v i n g with their wives at the time of the survey. The selection methods used are such that they rule out the possibility of generalizing the results beyond the characteristics of this sample. However, they do f a c i l i t a t e testing the internal va l i d i t y of the arguments presented in the f i r s t chapter by reducing some of the possible confounding sources of variation in social participation such as occupational and residential status, irregular work hours, and marital status. TABLE 1 The Disposition of the Original Sample of Persons Disposition Number Interviews completed 343 Respondents refused 34 Moved (could not locate) 42 Insufficient address 44 Could not catch at home 30 Terminated employment 14 Respondents not eli g i b l e at the time of interview 21 TOTAL 528 Source: G. Gray, The Effects of Temporal Marginality Upon Social Participation, Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Oregon, (August, 1968). Adapted from tables on pages 52, 53. 37 THE SAMPLE OF BEHAVIORAL RECORDS According to Foote (1961: 167), one of the unique problems of time budget or activity log studies i s with controlling and interpret-ing sampling bias i n the time period that the data covers. The problem i s that in making static comparisons of the behavior of different sets of people, the time periods that are being compared may contain behavioral biases. For example, two sets of people of d i f f e r -ent ages might be compared to see i f the older are more solitary than the younger people. However, i f the behavior of the older people is recorded for Sundays and that of most of the younger people is recorded for weekdays, any differences i n behavior that are attributed to age may well be spurious. There are two solutions to this problem. The f i r s t and best i s to use a sampling technique to either control or randomize the variations in behavior that are related to the time period sampled. Unfortunately, since i n this case the data has already been gathered, the second and only alternative available i s to use tabular s t a t i s t i c a l control or subsampling to limit the bias in the data. As can be seen in Table 2 the disposition of the sample of 1029 days has a bias. On weekdays 100 per cent of the sample is work-ing, whereas on Saturdays and Sundays 13.4 per cent and 4 per cent respectively is working. This bias combines with any cultural d i f f e r -ences of behavior on these days to produce variation i n the distribution of daily solitary a c t i v i t i e s that cannot be explained by the variables 38 being considered. By partialing on different days of the week as has been done in Table 3, one can see that this confounding effect i s related to some 16 per cent of the variance in individual solitary behavior. It can also be seen that although the mean amount of time spent in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on each day of the week is about the same, on Saturday and Sunday the proportion of participants i s smaller and the variation in extent of participation is greater. One can see in Table 4 that less than one per cent of this variance is directly related to the proportions of persons who are working on those days. Most of i t must be related to either the differences in the time avail-able to most of the sample or cultural difference in behavior on these days. TABLE 2 The Disposition of the I n i t i a l Sample of Activity Logs by the Day of the Week and the Respondent's Working Status on the Recorded Day Working Status Weekdays Weekends Saturdays Sundays Total. Workday 343 46 14 403 Day off 0 290 325 615 No response 0 N 7 4 11 TOTAL 343 343 343 1,029 39 TABLE 3 The Amount of Time the Total Sample and Participants Only Spent in Solitary Activities on Different Days of the Week (in Hours) St a t i s t i c Day of the Week Weekdays Saturdays Sundays Total Total Samples: Mean 2.1 2.6 2.1 2.3 Standard Deviation 2.2 3.1 2.8 2.7 N 341 339 339 1019 Non Response 2 4 4 10 TOTAL NUMBER OF RECORDS 343 343 343 1029 Eta Squared = .16 Eta = .4 Participants Only: Mean 2.5 3.9 3.5 3.2 Standard Deviation 2.1 3.0 2.8 2.7 N 279 224 207 710 Per cent P a r t i c i -pating 82% 67% 61% 70% TOTAL N 341 339 339 1019 Eta Squared = .13 Eta = .4 40 TABLE 4 The Effect of a Person's Working Status and the Day of the Week on Time Spent Alone (Mean Hours) Working Status Weekdays (N) Day of the Week Saturdays (N) Sundays (N) Workday Non-workday 2.1 (341) ( 0) 2.0 2.7 ( 60) (279) 1.8 2.2 ( 23) (316) Difference E 2 E • • • • * « • « • .7 .00 .0 .4 .00 .0 Since this variation i s not accounted for in the posited explanations, i t s possible effects on the hypothesized relationships w i l l be controlled by selecting a subsample of persons with comparable activity records and examining weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays sepa-rately. The subsample selected consists of the 290 workers shown in Table 2 (page 38) who work on weekdays and have the whole weekend off. THE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The data used had been coded onto punch cards for machine processing. Before beginning the analysis i t was necessary to code some additional information (the number of persons talked to daily at work) and clean out some coding errors in the distributions of some of the variables. 41 Two computer programs were u s e d i n t h e a n a l y s i s i t s e l f ; MVTAB, a m u l t i v a r i a t e t a b u l a r a n a l y s i s program; and SP1, a p r o g ram w r i t t e n by t h e a u t h o r t o s e l e c t p a r t i a l samples and compute t h e i r f r e q u e n c i e s , means, s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n s , and v a r i a n c e s f o r s p e c i f i e d v a r i a b l e s . The t e s t i n g o f t h e h y p o t h e s i z e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s was b a s e d on two s t a t i s -t i c s : t h e Mean and E t a . The s i g n s and m agnitudes o f d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e mean s o l i t a r y t i m e s o f c o n d i t i o n a l groups w e r e . a n a l y z e d t o t e s t t h e d i r e c t i o n and c o n s i s t e n c y o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s . As can be s e e n f r o m t h e f r e q u e n c y h i s t o g r a m s i n F i g u r e s 8, 9 and 10, t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n s o f s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r have a s t r o n g p o s i t i v e skew. The non-normal shape o f t h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n s and t h e p a r t i a l l y non-random sample r u l e d out t h e u t i l i t y o f u s i n g t h e s t a n d a r d s t a t i s t i c a l t e s t s of t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f d i f f e r -ences i n t h e means f o r t h i s phenomena. However, some d e c i s i o n r u l e s i n t h i s a n a l y s i s t h a t had b o t h s t a t i s t i c a l and e x p e r i e n t i a l r e l e v a n c e were needed. I t was d e c i d e d t h a t mean d i f f e r e n c e s o f 1 t o 2 h o u r s ( a p p r o x i -m a t e l y t h e weekday s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n ) i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d weak c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h y p o t h e s e s ; d i f f e r e n c e s o f 2 t o 3 h o u r s w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d moderate c o n f i r m a t i o n and d i f f e r e n c e s o f 3 h o u r s o r more w o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d s t r o n g c o n f i r m a t i o n . As a n o t h e r t e s t o f t h e s t r e n g t h o f t h e p o s i t e d z e r o o r d e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s , t h e s t a t i s t i c E t a was used. E t a was c h osen as an a p p r o p r i a t e measure o f t h e d e g r e e o f a s s o c i a t i o n between t h e i n d e p e n d e n t v a r i a b l e s and t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s b e c a u s e t h e dependent v a r i a b l e s were a l w a y s i n t e r v a l v a r i a b l e s ( s o l i t a r y t i m e ) and t h e i n d e p e n d e n t \ FIGURE 8 AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT IN SOLITARY ACTIVITIES ON WEEKDAYS S N 0 S b1 3 d J O ti 3 9 W 0 N 45 variables are in most cases treated as nominal attributes or dichotomies. Eta squared i s defined as g2 _ ^ Within variance of Y Total variance of Y It can be interpreted as a measure of the proportion of the original variance of Y that occurs when X also varies (Anderson and Zelditch, 1969: 155-160). Because the interpretation of Eta i s analogous to those of r, and Q, we have used the terminological conventions suggested by Davis (1971: 49) in describing the strength of the association be-tween the tested variables. In the theory of Chapter 1, a number of the hypotheses posited that interactions between several independent variables affect the amount of time people spend alone. In testing for the presence of and interpreting these interaction effects a method suggested by Meissner"** was used. It is outlined as follows in the case of a fourfold table. (b-a) (d-c) (c-a) (d-b) (d--c) - (b-a) Where a, b, c, and d are the mean solitary times of each of the 4 con-ditional distributions; i f the effects of the independent variables are From a discussion of techniques to use in the analysis of survey data. 46 a d d i t i v e t h e n : (b-a) = ( d - c ) ( c - a ) = (d-b) and ( d - c ) - (b-a) = 0 However, i f (b-a) > ( d - c ) o r i f (b-a) < ( d - c ) and t h e same f o r t h e o t h e r s i d e o f t h e t a b l e t h e n ( d - c ) - (b-a) •/ 0 and t h e d e g r e e o f i n t e r a c t i o n i s e x p l a i n e d by t h e d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e d i f f e r e n c e s o f t h e c o n d i t i o n a l means. These t h e n a r e t h e b a s i c methods t h a t have been used i n t h e a n a l y s i s o f t h e d a t a i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . 47 REFERENCES Anderson, T. R. and M. Zelditch (Jr.). 1958 A Basic Course in Statistics: With Sociological Applications. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc. Davis, J. A. 1971 Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J., Prentice Hall, Inc. Davis, J. A., J. L. Spaeth and C. Huson 1961 "A technique for analyzing the effects of group composition." American Sociological Review, 26, A p r i l : 215-225. Foote, N. 1961 "Methods for study of the meaning in use of time." In R. W. Kleemier, (ed.), Aging and Leisure. New York: Oxford University Press: 155-176. Gray, G. A. 1968 The Effects of Temporal Marginality Upon Social Participation. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. Eugene: University of Oregon. Linz, J. J. 1969 "Ecological analysis and survey research." In Dogan and Rokkan (eds.), Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. Scheuch, E. K. 1969 "Social context and individual behavior." In M. Dogan and S. Rokkan (eds.), Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. Valkonen, T. 1969 "Individual and structural effect in ecological research." In Dogan and Rokkan (eds.), Quantitative Ecological Analysis in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: The M.I.T. Press. CHAPTER I I I THE ANALYSIS I n t h i s c h a p t e r t h e methods and t h e d a t a d e s c r i b e d i n t h e se c o n d c h a p t e r a r e used t o t e s t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s p o s i t e d i n t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r . To r e v i e w b r i e f l y , t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e t h e r a m i f i -c a t i o n s o f t h r e e g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . One i d e n t i f i e s d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i m e n s i o n s o f p e o p l e ' s immediate non-work e n v i r o n m e n t s as a s o u r c e o f s u c h v a r i a t i o n . The o t h e r i d e n t i f i e s d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e i n t e m p o r a l l y a n t e c e d e n t e n v i r o n m e n t s as a s o u r c e o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e amount o f t i m e s p e n t i n con s e q u e n t d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . The t h i r d p o s t u l a t e d t h a t c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l p r o p e r t i e s make p e o p l e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , an i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was h y p o t h e s i z e d between i n d i v i d u a l d i s p o s i t i o n s p r o d u c e d by a n t e c e d e n t e x p e r i e n c e and p r e s e n t e n v i r o n m e n t a l s t r u c t u r e s . The t h r e e a r e termed an imme d i a t e c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t , an a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t , and a d i f f e r e n t i a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y e f f e c t . B e f o r e t e s t i n g t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s , however, a b r i e f e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t y o f t h i s sample i s i n o r d e r . 49 THE DISTRIBUTION OF SOLITARY BEHAVIOR In the discussion of the behavioral sample in the last chapter the distributions of the amount of time the f i n a l sample spent in solitary a c t i v i t i e s were presented in Figures 8, 9, and 10, (pages 42, 43, 44). As can be seen in these frequency histograms, the amount of time that people spent in solitary a c t i v i t i e s is a positively skewed distribution that i s widely dispersed. It ranges between 0 and 12 hours on weekdays, 0 and 16.5 hours on Saturdays, and 0 and 14 hours on Sundays. From these frequency histograms and the distribution s t a t i s -t i c s in Table 5, three generalizations are possible that describe the most salient points of the distributions. TABLE 5 The Amount of Time per Day Spent in Solitary A c t i v i t i e s on Weekdays, Saturdays, and Sundays (in Hours) Day of the Week Extent of Participation i n Solitude (N) ' Mean Hours ' Standard Deviation Weekdays (281) 2.2 2.3 Saturdays (279) 2.7 3.2 Sundays (279) 2.2 2.4 1. Most people spend a very small portion of their day i n discretionary solitary a c t i v i t i e s . 2. A f a i r l y large portion of the sample (16.9 per cent on weekdays, 31.8 per cent on Saturdays, 38.5 per cent on 50 Sundays) e x p e r i e n c e no d i s c r e t i o n a r y s o l i t u d e a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i r a c t i v i t y logs."*" 3. The e x t e n t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n g e n e r a l shows c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i a t i o n ( i . e . , s = 2.3 h o u r s on weekdays, S = 3.2 h o u r s on S a t u r d a y s , and s = 2.4 h o u r s on S u n d a y s ) . IMMEDIATE CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON SOLITARY BEHAVIOR The g e n e r a l f o r m o f t h i s p o s t u l a t e d r e l a t i o n s h i p i s t h a t t h e e x t e n t o f p e o p l e ' s p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n non-work s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s v a r i e s i n v e r s e l y w i t h t h e number o f p e r s o n s i n t h e same g l o b a l non-work e n v i r o n m e n t . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t i s t o be measured i n terms o f t h e f o l l o w i n g v a r i a b l e s : t h e number o f c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t i n t h e p e r s o n ' s house of r e s i d e n c e , t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r a d u l t s i n t h e h o u s e h o l d , t h e number o f r e l a t i v e s i n t h e s u r r o u n d i n g r e g i o n , t h e s h i f t o f t h e w o r k e r , and t h e de g r e e o f t e m p o r a l c o n g r u e n c y w i t h one's s p o u s e ' s and c h i l d r e n ' s work s c h e d u l e s . T h i s second g e n e r a l i z a t i o n seems t o be d i r e c t l y c o n t r a d i c -t o r y t o t h e e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s o f B e r g e r and S o r o k i n t h a t some 31 p e r c e n t o f e v e r y o n e ' s d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s were s o l i t a r y . The s o u r c e o f t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n i s p e r h a p s i n t h e way t h a t s o l i t u d e has been d e f i n e d as a s t a t e o f b e i n g p h y s i c a l l y removed f r o m t h e p r e s e n c e o f o t h e r p e o p l e , w h i l e i n t h e i r c a s e i t was d e f i n e d as a s t a t e o f n o t b e i n g a c t i v e l y i n v o l v e d i n v e r b a l s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h o t h e r p e o p l e . 51 S p a t i a l A c c e s s i b i l i t y t o O t h e r P e r s o n s H y p o t h e s i s (1) p r e d i c t s t h a t : H y p o t h e s i s (1) The l a r g e r t h e number o f p e r s o n s i n t h e h o u s e h o l d t h e s m a l l e r t h e amount o f s o l i t u d e p e o p l e w i l l e x p e r i e n c e . I n T a b l e 6 t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i s examined i n terms o f t h e number of c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t i n t h e h o u s e h o l d . The amount o f v a r i a t i o n i n s o l i t u d e e x p l a i n e d i n each c a s e (6 p e r c e n t on weekdays, 3 p e r c e n t on S a t u r d a y s , and 5 p e r c e n t on Sundays) s u g g e s t s t h a t a weak r e l a t i o n -s h i p does e x i s t (E = .2, on a l l t h r e e days) i n t h i s d a t a . U n f o r t u n a t e l y t h e s i g n s o f t h e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e means a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t f r o m week-days t o weekends. On weekdays h y p o t h e s i s (1) r e c e i v e s some c o n f i r m a t i o n i n t h a t f o u r o f t h e s i x c o n d i t i o n a l means of p e r s o n s w i t h c h i l d r e n a r e , as p r e d i c t e d , l e s s t h a n t h e mean amount o f s o l i t a r y t i m e o f p e r s o n s w i t h no c h i l d r e n a t home. On S a t u r d a y and Sunday, however, t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o l i t u d e a r e n o t i n t h e p r e d i c t e d d i r e c t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s (1) can a l s o be t e s t e d by e x a m i n i n g t h e e f f e c t o f t h e p r e s e n c e of a d u l t s o t h e r t h a n one's spouse i n t h e h o u s e h o l d . T h e i r p r e s e n c e s h o u l d d e c r e a s e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s . T h i s p r e d i c t i o n h o l d s on weekends b u t n o t on weekdays. I n T a b l e 7', c o n t r a r y t o t h e p r e d i c t i o n , p e o p l e w i t h o t h e r a d u l t s p r e s e n t spend about 12 m i n u t e s more i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s on weekdays. On S a t u r d a y s and Sundays, however, p e r s o n s w i t h o t h e r a d u l t s 52 TABLE 6 Extent of Participation in Solitary Activities (Mean Hours) on Different Days of the Week by the Number of Children Present in the Household 3 Number of Children Present Weekdays Mean Hours (N) b Day of the Week Saturdays Mean Hours (N) Sundays Mean Hours (N) 6+ 1.8 ( 6) 1.2 ( 6) 5.8 ( 6) 5 3.1 (10) 4.0 (10) 4.4 (10) 4 1.9 (25) 3.5 (25) 2.5 (25) 3 1.5 (42) 2.5 (42) 1.6 (42) 2 2.5 (65) 2.6 (65) 2.5 (65) 1 2.2 (60) 2.4 (60) 2.2 (60) 0 2.4 (69) 2.4 (67) C 1.7 (67) TOTAL 2.2 (277) 2.7 (275) 2.2 (275) Eta Squared .06 .03 .05 Eta .2 .2 .2 Source: How many children do you have? Could you t e l l me the age of your children and whether they live at home? ^C e l l frequencies w i l l be presented in parentheses in the tables that follow in the analysis but sometimes without the ' accompanying tab. The difference in the Ns of the cells in this row are due to two respondents i n the data who did not complete activity logs for Saturday and Sunday. 53 in the home spend an average of 29 and 22 minutes less in solitary a c t i v i t i e s . On a l l three days the magnitude of the differences and the amount of variation in solitude explained by the presence of other adults in the one household are negligible. From this data then, i t would seem that hypothesis (1) of an immediate contextual effect of household composition on people's solitude receives neither sufficient nor consistent confirmation. TABLE 7 The Effect of Co-residence with other Adults on Solitary Time on Weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays (Mean Hours) Presence of Other Adults b Weekdays Days of Saturdays the Week Sundays Present 2.4 (12) 2.2 (11) 1.9 (11) Absent 2.2 (267) 2.7 (265) 2.2 (265) Difference + .2 - .5 - .3 E 2 .00 .00 .00 E .0 .1 .1 Adults other than the respondent's spouse. ^Source: Does anyone else l i v e with you as a part of your household? What i s their immediate relationship to you . . . ? Hypothesis (2) predicted that another dimension, the number of relatives in the region of the community would have a contextual effect on people's solitary behavior. Specifically i t stated that: 54 Hypothesis (2) Persons with other relatives l i v i n g in the region of the community w i l l spend less time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s than persons with no relatives l i v i n g nearby. In Table 8, the signs of the differences in these conditional means are inconsistent. Only on Sundays is the difference in the predicted direction. However, the magnitude of the difference i s too small to be considered significant. In fact, for a l l three days the amount of variation in the solitary behavior of this sample explained by the presence of relatives in the region i s negligible. Thus hypothesis (2) also receives neither strong nor consistent confirmation from the data at this level of analysis. TABLE 8 The Effect of the Number of Relatives Present i n the Region 3 on Solitary Time on Weekdays, Saturdays and Sundays (Mean Hours) Number of Relatives Present^3 in the Region Weekdays (N) Day of the Week Saturdays (N) Sundays (N) More than three 2.3 (135) 2.9 (135) 2.1 (135) Three or less 2.1 (146) 2.5 (144) 2.2 (144) Difference - .2 - .4 + .1 E 2 .00 .00 .00 E .0 .0 .0 in the same state ^Source: What relatives do you and your wife have that you v i s i t with occasionally? 55 In summary, at this i n i t i a l level of analysis, there is insufficient support for the hypothesized inverse relationship between the number of persons in the household or the number of relatives i n the community and the amount of time people spend alone. Temporal Constraints on Accessibility to Other Persons Temporal Marginality Hypotheses (3) and (4) postulated that the temporal context of people's non-work hours would also affect their solitary behavior. These were stated as follows: Hypothesis (3) Persons who work temporally marginal shifts w i l l spend more of their non-work time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on workdays than persons who work temporally modal shifts. Hypothesis (4) Persons whose days off work are temporally marginal w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on their days off work than persons whose days off work are temporally modal. The temporal marginality effect of hypothesis (4) is impossible to test with the data available. Hypothesis (3), however, is tested with the data presented in Table 9. As hypothesized, afternoon and night shift workers spend an average of 1 hour and 14 minutes more in solitary a c t i v i t i e s than do day shift workers. Temporal marginality explains 7 per cent of the total variance. Thus according to the 56 c r i t e r i a established, there is a weak positive relationship between temporal marginality and solitary behavior. TABLE 9 The Effect of Temporal Marginality on Solitary Time on Weekdays Temporal Marginality Mean Number of Hours Alone on Weekdays Modal (day shifts) 1.5 (127) Marginal (afternoon and night shifts) 2.8 (154) Difference + 1.3 E 2 .07 E .3 Source: What are your normal working hours during the day? Temporal Incongruity As an elaboration i t was argued that once children are of school age they become integrated into the modal community time schedule and are less accessible to persons who are temporally marginal. On the basis of this argument i t was hypothesized that: Hypothesis (5) Of the temporally marginal workers who have children l i v i n g at home, those whose children are of school or working age w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s 57 on weekdays than those whose children are not of school or working age. The data to test this argument is presented i n Table 10. It is clear from the table that the age of the men's children does not have the predicted effect on the amount of time that marginal workers spend alone. In fact, there is a negligible relationship in the opposite direction. Thus the hypothesized effect of children's age remains unconfirmed. TABLE 10 The Effect of Children's Ages on the Solitary Time of Marginal Shift Workers on Weekdays Children's Age Mean Number of Hours Spent Alone (N) Preschool age 2.7 (85) School age or older 2.4 (36) Difference - .3 E 2 .02 E .1 Source: Could you t e l l me the age of your children and whether they l i v e at home? A further elaboration of this temporal contextual effect argued that when wives are employed and their work schedules are at different hours than their husbands' the opportunities for solitary behavior would 58 increase. From this reasoning hypothesis (6) predicted that: Hypothesis (6) Workers whose shifts are incongruent with those of their employed wives w i l l spend more time i n solitary a c t i v i t i e s than workers whose shifts are congruent with those of their employed wives. In Table 11 the conditional distribution of the solitary times of workers whose shifts are congruent with the shifts of their wives i s compared with the distribution of those whose shifts are incongruent with their wives'. As predicted, incongruent workers spend an average of approximately an hour more alone. This effect explains some 5 per cent of the variation in solitary behavior of this sample. TABLE 11 The Effect of Incongruency of Spouses' Work Schedules on the Amount of Time Spent Alone on Weekdays Incongruency of Work Schedules Mean Number of Hours Spent Alone (N) Congruent 1.6 (129) Incongruent 2.7 (152) Difference +1.1 E 2 .05 E .2 Source: Does your wife work? What are her normal working hours during the day? Coding: 'Congruent' includes day shift workers whose wives also work day shifts, day shift workers whose wives are not employed, and afternoon and night s h i f t workers whose wives work the same shifts. 'Incongruent' includes a l l other combinations. / 59 The Independent and Joint Effects of Marginality and Incongruity The effects of marginality and incongruency, however, are confounded in this data. Most of the workers whose shifts are incongruent are also temporally marginal (94.7 per cent) and most of those who are congruent are temporally modal (92.2 per cent). In hypothesis (7) and i t s corollary hypothesis (8) this confounding effect of temporal marginality i s controlled by postulating an independent congruency effect. Hypothesis (7) Of the workers who are temporally marginal, those whose shifts are incongruent with their wives' work schedules w i l l spend more time in solitary a c t i v i t i e s than those whose shifts are congruent with their wives'. Hypothesis (8) Of the workers who are temporally modal, those who are incongruent w i l l spend more time alone than those who are congruent. These hypotheses are tested in Table 12 by examining the joint effects of shift and congruency. As predicted both day and afternoon shift workers whose shifts are temporally incongruent with their wives' spend more time alone. On the basis of this data and the evidence in Table 11, hypotheses (3), (6), (7), and (8) receive consistent confirmation although i n Table 12, the magnitudes of the independent effects of congruity are no longer significant. Furthermore, one can see that 60 the combination of both temporal marginality and incongruity produces a mutually suppressive interaction effect. That i s , those persons who are both marginal and incongruent spend about half-an-hour less in solitary a c t i v i t i e s on weekdays than they would i f the two isolating variables were s t r i c t l y additive. TABLE 12 The Joint Effects of Incongruency and Marginality on the Amount of Time Spent alone on Weekdays (Mean Hours) Incongruency Temporal Marginality Modal (N) Marginal (N) Difference Mean Number of Hours Alone Congruent 1.5 (119) 2.7 (10) +1.2 Incongruent 2.1 ( 8) 2.8 (144) + .7 Difference ;+ .6 + .1 - .5 In summary, temporal social constraints have the effect of f a c i l i t a t i n g solitary behavior as was predicted. However, in one instance, temporal constraints on a worker's interaction with his children, this predicted effect was not confirmed. This finding how-ever concurs with the earlier finding that the number of children in the household does not have a consistent effect on the amount of time these men spend alone. In conclusion, for this sample, temporal con-straints on interaction with their wives are important but similar constraints on interaction with their children are not. 61 ANTECEDENT CONTEXTUAL EFFECTS ON SOLITARY BEHAVIOR The g e n e r a l f o r m o f t h i s argument i s t h a t p e r s o n s ' s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e i n t e m p o r a l l y a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t s i s r e l a t e d t o t h e i r s o c i a l b e h a v i o r i n l a t e r s e t t i n g s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , two d i f f e r e n t c a u s a l p r o c e s s e s have been p o s t u l a t e d : (1) a c a r r y - o v e r o r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n p r o c e s s (2) a compensatory p r o c e s s . The E f f e c t o f S o c i a l E x p e r i e n c e a t Work A s e r i e s o f c o n f l i c t i n g h y p o t h e s e s were p r e s e n t e d t o t e s t t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s between p e o p l e ' s work e x p e r i e n c e and t h e i r non-work b e h a v i o r . The f i r s t o f t h e s e , h y p o t h e s e s numbers (9) and (10) were s t a t e d as f o l l o w s . H y p o t h e s i s (9) p r e d i c t s t h a t w o r k e r s w i l l compen-s a t e f o r t h e i r e x p e r i e n c e a t work i n t h e i r non-work a c t i v i t i e s . H y p o t h e s i s (9) P e o p l e who a r e s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d a t work w i l l spend l e s s t i m e i n s o l i t a r y non-work a c t i v i t i e s on workdays t h a n p e o p l e who a r e n o t s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d a t work. H y p o t h e s i s (10) makes a c o n t r a d i c t o r y p r e d i c t i o n t o t h a t o f h y p o t h e s i s ( 9 ) . I t p r e d i c t s t h a t : H y p o t h e s i s (10) P e o p l e who a r e s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d a t work w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s i n t h e i r non-work h o u r s on workdays t h a n p e o p l e who a r e n o t s o c i a l l y i s o l a t e d a t work. 62 Following Meissner's (1970) argument, i t is also possible that people are equally gregarious and their behavior in different institutional settings i s unrelated. The following third hypothesis was introduced to test this p o s s i b i l i t y . Hypothesis (11) The differences predicted in hypotheses (9) and (10) w i l l be neither strong nor significant. These hypotheses are tested indirectly with two variable measures of the density of persons in the work environment; 1) the number of persons on the work crew, and 2) the number of persons the worker has the opportunity to talk with about non-work things while he is on the job. They were also tested with a direct measure of the antecedent experience: the number of persons talked to in the course of the workday. Table 13 presents the relationships between each of the three measures of social interaction at work and discretionary solitude on weekdays. For a l l three measures the findings are consistent. This negative relationship confirms the compensatory hypothesis. Two of the three measures, social opportunity at work and size of work crew respectively explain 4 per cent and 2 per cent of the variance in solitary behavior. However, only in the case of social opportunity is the difference in the means of sufficient magnitude to be considered significant. Thus there i s consistent (and in one instance sufficient) confirmation of the compensatory hypothesis. TABLE 13 The Effects of Work Crew Size, Informal Social Opportunity, and Number of Social Contacts on the Job on the Amount of Time Spent Alone on Weekdays Social Experience at Work Mean Number of Hours Spent Alone (N) a Size of Work Crew Five or more 2.4 (145) Four or less 2.0 (134) Difference - .4 E 2 = .02 E = .1 Informal Social Opportunity^ High (2 or more persons) 2.5 (203) Low (1 or less persons) 1.5 ( 78) Difference -1.0 E 2 = .04 E = .2 c Social Contact at Work Some (1 or more persons) 2.2 (257) None 2.0 ( 24) Difference - .2 E = .00 E =.0 Source: How many other people work on the same work crew with you? ^Source: How many people do you have a chance to talk with about non-work things? Source: How many people do you have to talk to as a part of your job? 64 Temporal Marginality and Weekend Solitary Behavior As a further test of the consistency of the antecedent effects i t was argued that one could examine the relationship between temporal marginality on workdays and people's solitary behavior on the weekend. Hypotheses (12) and (13) are also stated in terms of the compensatory and carry-over effects. In Table 15 one can see that the differences in the conditional means are inconsistent from Saturday to Sunday. TABLE 14 The Antecedent Effects of Temporal Marginality on the Amount of Time Spent Alone on Saturday and Sunday Temporal Marginality Hours Spent Alone On Saturday Sunday (N) Modal shift (days) 2.8 2.0 (127) Marginal shift (afternoon and night) 2.6 2.3 (152) Difference - .2 + .3 Because of this inconsistency, i t is impossible to reject the null hypothesis. This provides i n i t i a l support to the steady state model of gregariousness. The further temporal theoretical elaborations that follow provide the crucial test of the general social psychological models in question. Temporal Suppression of Compensatory Disposition The temporal elaboration to the compensatory hypothesis' argued that the compensatory propensity would decay over a relatively short time period. That i s , ensuing compensatory behavior would have the effect of satisfying the homeostatic need, and thus reducing the differences in behavior attributable to this dispositional effect. Specifically i t was hypothesized that: Hypothesis (14) For those persons with both Saturday and Sunday off work, the differences between persons with different levels of social experience at work w i l l be less on Saturdays than during non-work periods on workdays. Hypothesis (15) For those persons with both Saturday and Sunday off work, the differences between persons with different levels of social experience at work w i l l be less on the second day off (Sunday) than on the f i r s t day off (Saturday). These hypotheses are tested by examining the change in the effect of the two dimensions on discretionary solitary time from workdays to Saturdays and Sundays. These conditional distributions are presented in Table 15. As predicted in hypothesis (14), the differences in the solitary behavior of persons with d i f f e r e n t i a l social experience at work are in both instances less on Saturdays than on workdays. How-ever, according to the c r i t e r i a adopted for this analysis, these 66 reductions of .7 and .2 hours are not significant. Contrary to the predictions of the corollary hypothesis (15), a similar reduction in the differences between these groups does not consistently appear from Saturday to Sunday. Thus there is consistent although not sufficiently strong confirmation of the hypothesized decaying effect of the compensatory disposition within the f i r s t day after the ante-2 cedent work experience but not on the second. TABLE 15 The Joint Effects of Social Opportunity at Work and Intervening Time on Time Spent Alone (in Hours) Social Opportunity at Work Day of the Week Weekdays Saturdays Sundays N Informal Social Oppor-tunity at Work: High 2.5 2.8 2.3 (203) Low 1.5 2.5 2.8 ( 78) Difference -1.0 -0.3 +0.5 Size of Work Crew; Five or more 2.4 2.8 2.2 (145) Less than five 2.0 2.6 2.1 (143) Difference -0.4 -0.2 -0.1 With this data i t was impossible to test the independent effects of different days of the week. 67 Temporal R e i n f o r c e m e n t o f t h e C a r r y - O v e r E f f e c t A f u r t h e r t e m p o r a l e l a b o r a t i o n i n t h e f i r s t c h a p t e r a r g u e d t h a t t h e l e n g t h o f t i m e t h a t a p e r s o n had e x p e r i e n c e d an e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e was a p o s s i b l e m o d i f i e r o f t h e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t . B a s i c a l l y i t p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h r o u g h t i m e p e o p l e adapt t o t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s by d e v e l o p i n g d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s o r a d i f f e r e n t d i s p o s i t i o n a l l e v e l f o r s o c i a l o r s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . T h i s e f f e c t c o u l d c o n f o u n d t h e p r e v i o u s r e s u l t s . The s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s t o t e s t t h i s e f f e c t w e re s t a t e d as f o l l o w s : H y p o t h e s i s (16) P e r s o n s who have been t e m p o r a l l y m a r g i n a l f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s o r more w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n t h o s e who have been t e m p o r a l l y m a r g i n a l f o r o n l y a s h o r t t i m e . H y p o t h e s i s (17) When c o n t r o l l i n g f o r b o t h l e n g t h o f t i m e on s h i f t and t h e day o f t h e weekend, m a r g i n a l s h i f t w o r k e r s s h o u l d e x p e r i e n c e l e s s s o l i t u d e i n a l l c e l l s ( c o m p e n s a t i o n e f f e c t ) . H y p o t h e s i s (18) The d i f f e r e n c e s between m a r g i n a l and modal s h i f t w o r k e r s s h o u l d be l e s s on Sundays t h a n on S a t u r d a y s ( s u p p r e s s i o n e f f e c t ) . T a b l e 16 p r e s e n t s t h e f i r s t t e s t o f t h i s l o n g t e r m r e i n f o r c e -ment o f t h e a d a p t i v e c a r r y - o v e r e f f e c t . As p r e d i c t e d t h e p e r s o n s who 68 TABLE 16 The Effect of Years of Temporal Marginality on the Amount of Time (in Hours) Marginal Workers Spent Alone Years on Afternoon Shift Mean Number of Hours Spent Alone (N) Less than five years 2.5 (101) Five or more years 3.3 ( 53) Difference 2 + .8 E = .02 E = .2 have been temporally marginal for a longer time spend approximately 48 minutes more alone on weekdays. This difference, however, is of insufficient magnitude to f u l l y confirm hypothesis (16). In Table 17 i t receives a further test when the effects of s h i f t , length of time on s h i f t , and the length of time since the last workday are simultan-eously examined. At this level of analysis i n three of the four comparisons there is a carry-over relationship between people's week-day temporal marginality and their weekend solitary behavior. This refutes the assumption of short term compensation for weekday temporal marginality that i s basic to the argument of a temporal decay effect. On both days there is a consistant but negligible reinforcement of the carry-over effect of marginality with increasing years on that s h i f t . In summary, environmental constraints on accessibility to other persons at the work place have quite different effects from constraints on accessibility to other persons i n non-work environments. These people compensated for their social experience at work in their choice 69 of non-work social or solitary a c t i v i t i e s . Furthermore, this compen-satory disposition was found to decay within the f i r s t day after the work experience. On the other hand, greater non-work solitary activity on weekdays due to the constraints of temporal marginality is weakly generalized to peoples' weekend behavior. This solitary activity i s also slightly reinforced with the increasing years of temporal marginality. Although they are somewhat inconclusive, these findings give some support to the homeostatic model of human socia b i l i t y . TABLE 17 The Joint Effects of Temporal Marginality and Length of Time on a Given Shift of Solitary Activity on Weekend Days Temporal Marginality Number of Years on Shift Less than 5 (N) 5 or more (N) Difference Modal Marginal Number of Hours Alone on Saturday - .5 + .1 3.1 2.6 ( 55) (101) 2.6 2.7 ( 70) ( 53) Difference - .5 + .1 + .6 Modal Marginal Number of Hours Alone on Sunday + .1 + .4 1.9 2.2 ( 55) (101) 2.0 2.6 ( 70) ( 53) Difference + .3 + .6 + .3 70 DIFFERENTIAL INDIVIDUAL SUSCEPTIBILITY TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS The f i r s t c h a p t e r i n t r o d u c e d an argument f o r a t h i r d p o s s i b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between i n d i v i d u a l b e h a v i o r and e n v i r o n m e n t a l i n f l u e n c e s . T h i s argument p r o p o s e d t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s use s i m i l a r e n v i r o n m e n t s d i f f e r -e n t l y b e c a u s e o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s , s k i l l s , r e s o u r c e s , and d i s p o s i t i o n s . The d i s p o s i t i o n a l argument i s u s e f u l i n t h i s i n v e s t i -g a t i o n b e c a u s e i t i s a means o f r e l a t i n g t h e o t h e r two e x p l a n a t i o n s o f im m e d i a t e and a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s . S p e c i f i c a l l y , an i n t e r -a c t i o n e f f e c t was p r e d i c t e d between t h e s e two r e l a t i o n s h i p s s u c h t h a t : H y p o t h e s i s (19) P e r s o n s who e x p e r i e n c e h i g h l e v e l s o f i n t e r a c t i o n a t work and work m a r g i n a l s h i f t s w i l l spend more t i m e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s t h a n i f t h e i n d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t s o f t h e s e were a d d i t i v e . T a b l e 18 p r e s e n t s t h e e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s e f f e c t . As e x p e c t e d , t h e c o m b i n a t i o n o f t h e s e two v a r i a b l e s p r o d u c e s a s t r o n g i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t o f an ho u r more s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r t h a n i f t h e y a r e c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n -d e n t l y . The i n d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t s o f t h e s e two d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s a r e e x a c t l y a l i k e . M a r g i n a l i t y has a weak e f f e c t when p e o p l e a r e compensat-i n g f o r s o l i t a r y e x p e r i e n c e a t work. S i m i l a r l y t h e a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t o f s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work i s weak when p e o p l e work modal s h i f t s . T h i s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e o f t h e compensatory r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e o p l e s ' s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work and t h e i r s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r when o f f work p r o v i d e s a d d i t i o n a l c o n f i r m a t i o n o f t h e h o m e o s t a t i c model of 71 TABLE 18 The Joint Effects of Social Opportunity at Work and Temporal Marginality on Solitary Behavior on Weekdays Work Shift Social Opportunity at Work Modal (days) (N) Marginal (afternoon and night) (N) Difference Mean Number of Hours Alone on Weekdays High 1.7 (85) 3.1 (118) +1.4 Low 1.3 (42) 1.7 ( 36) + .4 Difference + .4 +1.4 +1.0 human social behavior. Perhaps one of the most interesting findings of this investigation i s that antecedent constraints do not a l l have the same effects. The important intervening variable i s which social setting they affect. People compensate for extreme experiences i n their work setting. But those variables that affect their non-work social behavior on weekdays carry over into their weekend behavior in the same settings. This completes the analysis of the hypotheses presented in the f i r s t chapter. A further examination of the total amount of variation in the solitary behavior of this sample of persons explained by a l l of the variables introduced in this enquiry and the relative effects of each of these seems worthwhile. This however, would require more sophisticated multivariate s t a t i s t i c a l techniques. 72 REFERENCES Bevans, G.E. 1913 How Working Men Spend Their Spare Time. New York: Cambridge University Press. Davis, J. A. 1970 Elementary Survey Analysis. Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice Hall, Inc. Meissner, M. 1970 The Long Arm of the Job: Social Participation and the Con-straints of Industrial Work. A paper presented to the Canadian Anthropology and Sociology Association, Winnipeg. Sorokin, P. A. and C. Q. Berger 1939 Time Budgets of Human Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Wilensky, H. L. 1961 "Life cycle, work situation, and participation in formal associations." In R. W. Kleemeir (ed.), Aging and Leisure. New York: Oxford University Press. / CHAPTER I V THE CONCLUSION CONCLUSIONS OF THE STUDY T h i s s t u d y used t h r e e g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s — a n i m m e d i a t e c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t , an a n t e c e d e n t c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t , and a d i f f e r e n t i a l i n d i v i d u a l s u s c e p t i b i l i t y e f f e c t — i n a t t e m p t i n g t o e x p l a i n d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e amounts o f t i m e p e o p l e spend a l o n e i n a day. From t h e s e g e n e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s , a number o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h s p e c i f i c c o n t e x -t u a l v a r i a b l e s were h y p o t h e s i z e d . T e s t i n g t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s o f a c t i v i t y l o g d a t a y i e l d e d the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s . 1. The e x t e n t o f c o - r e s i d e n c e w i t h o t h e r a d u l t s o r c h i l d r e n has no c o n s t a n t i n d e p e n d e n t e f f e c t on p e o p l e s ' d a i l y s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . 2. Temporal c o n s t r a i n t s on p e o p l e s ' o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r t o t a l s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , i n g e n e r a l , and i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h one's s p o u s e , i n p a r t i c u l a r , f a c i l i t a t e s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . 3. C o n t e x t u a l v a r i a b l e s have d i f f e r e n t a n t e c e d e n t e f f e c t s d e p e n d i n g on t h e p a r t i c u l a r c o n t e x t o f t h e p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e : (a) a t work 74 P e o p l e compensate f o r t h e i r s o l i t a r y o r s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e a t work i n t h e i r c h o i c e o f s o l i t a r y o r s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s when t h e y a r e n o t w o r k i n g , (b) I n t h e community and h o u s e h o l d D i f f e r e n c e s i n non-work s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n on week-days p r o d u c e d by m a r g i n a l s h i f t work a r e g e n e r a l i z e d t o p e o p l e s ' weekend s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . 4. The i n c r e a s e s o f s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r c a u s e d by t e m p o r a l m a r g i n a l i t y a r e a m p l i f i e d when p e o p l e work a m a r g i n a l s h i f t f o r l o n g p e r i o d s o f t i m e . 5. The d i s p o s i t i o n t o compensate i n t h e i r non-work s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r f o r t h e i r w o r k i n g s o c i a l e x p e r i e n c e d e c r e a s e s as t h e d i s p o s i t i o n i s r e a l i z e d i n p e o p l e s ' d i s c r e t i o n a r y b e h a v i o r . D i f f e r e n c e s i n s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r c a u s e d by t h i s c ompensatory d i s p o s i t i o n do n o t l a s t i n t o t h e se c o n d day o f t h e weekend. 6. P e o p l e w i t h t h e s e d i f f e r e n t d i s p o s i t i o n s t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s a r e d i f f e r e n t i a l l y s u s c e p t i b l e t o o p p o r t u n i t i e s t o engage i n s u c h a c t i v i t i e s . These f i n d i n g s o f i n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n i n s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r s u p p o r t t h e h o m e o s t a t i c model o f human s o c i a b i l i t y . LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY T h i s was a s e c o n d a r y a n a l y s i s o f d a t a g a t h e r e d f o r a n o t h e r p u r p o s e . The s a m p l i n g t e c h n i q u e s employed i n g a t h e r i n g t h e d a t a f o r 75 tha t o t h e r purpose l i m i t the i n f e r e n c e s tha t are p o s s i b l e i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . These i n f e r e n c e s are l i m i t e d to persons w i t h s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample of m a r r i e d male i n d u s t r i a l m i l l workers who are w o r k i n g steady s h i f t s . The non-random n a t u r e of the sample and the s t r o n g skew of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of t ime spent i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s l i m i t e d the power of t h i s a n a l y s i s . T h i s c o u l d be improved by p e r f o r m i n g some n o r m a l i z i n g l i n e a r t r a n s f o r m a t i o n on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s o l i t a r y b e h a v i o r . T h i s would a l l o w the use of c o n v e n t i o n a l s i g n i f i c a n c e t e s t s . T h i s s h o u l d have the e f f e c t of i n c r e a s i n g the s t r e n g t h of some of the independent r e l a t i o n s h i p s and r e d u c i n g the i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s i n these d a t a ( D a v i s , 1969: 2 1 ) . The p e r i o d s of b e h a v i o r sampled a l s o l i m i t e d the ex tent of t h i s a n a l y s i s . Without b o t h w o r k i n g and n o n - w o r k i n g people on a l l days of the week i t was i m p o s s i b l e to assess or c o n t r o l f o r c u l t u r a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n b e h a v i o r on the d i f f e r e n t days . There i s a l s o a t h i r d s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n . The a n a l y t i c a l t echniques employed were not s o p h i s t i c a t e d enough to t e s t the models f u l l y . S tandard t e s t s of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the means c o u l d p r o b a b l y have been u s e d . As i t was the c r i t e r i a of s i g n i f i c a n c e t h a t were chosen were p r o b a b l y too s e v e r e . M u l t i v a r i a t e methods of a n a l y s i s c o u l d a l s o have been used t o examine the r e l a t i v e and c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t s of a l l the p r e d i c t o r v a r i a b l e s . To do so would r e q u i r e s t a t i s t i c a l t echniques capable of h a n d l i n g the f o l l o w i n g problems : 76 1. sorting out complex multivariate effects without a t t r i t i o n of c e l l sizes, 2. calculating the total variance explained i n a non-additive multivariate model as well as the relative effects of different preditor variables, 3. handling skewed distributions on the dependent variables, 4. a multivariate analysis with nominal predictor variables. The recently developed AID (Automatic Interaction Detector) and MGA (Multiclassification Analysis) (Andrews, 1969; Sonquist and Morgan, 1964) when used together are reportedly able to handle a l l of these problems. These might be employed to carry the analysis to completion in the future. IMPLICATIONS OF THE STUDY Two of the findings of this analysis are contradictory to the findings of other investigations in the literature. These suggest two problems for further research into differences in total social or solitary behavior. Contrary to the findings of Berger and Sorokin (1939), a considerable portion of this sample did not engage in solitary a c t i v i t i e s at a l l . Berger and Sorokin found that a l l persons in their sample spent 31 per cent of their day in solitary a c t i v i t i e s . This discrepancy is more than li k e l y due to the different ways that solitary behavior was measured in these two studies. Berger and Sorokin defined solitary activity as a state when a person was not engaged in verbal 77 s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . T h i s s t u d y d e f i n e d i t as a p e r s o n ' s s t a t e when o t h e r p e r s o n s were n o t p r e s e n t i n t h e same room. T h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n a l s o f o u n d a compensatory r e l a t i o n s h i p between s o c i a l c o n t a c t on t h e j o b and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n s o l i t a r y a c t i v i t i e s a f t e r work t h a t was c o n t r a d i c t o r y t o t h e weak c a r r y - o v e r r e l a t i o n s h i p r e p o r t e d by M e i s s n e r ( 1 9 7 0 ) . O t h e r p o s s i b l e l i n e s o f f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n s o l i t a r y and s o c i a l b e h a v i o r were d i s c u s s e d i n t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n on t h e l i m i t a t i o n s o f t h i s s t u d y . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d -i n g o f t h e c a u s e s and consequences o f d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e o p l e s ' s o l i t a r y and s o c i a l b e h a v i o r . They a l s o c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f th e r e l a t i o n s h i p between p e o p l e s ' work and non-work a c t i v i t i e s i n u r b a n e n v i r o n m e n t s . A l t h o u g h t h e p o s s i b l e i n f e r e n c e s o f t h i s s t u d y a r e l i m i t e d , t h e i d e a s c o n s i d e r e d a r e o f b a s i c c o n c e r n t o s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y . They have p r a c t i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s i n t h a t t h e y q u e s t i o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n s used i n d e s i g n i n g o u r e v e r y d a y l i v i n g e n v i r o n m e n t s . 78 REFERENCES Andrews, F. M. 1969 Multiple Classification Analysis. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. Berger, C. Q. and P. A. Sorokin 1939 Time Budgets of Human Behavior. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Meissner, M. 1970 The Long Arm of the Job: Social Participation and the Con-straints of Industrial Work. A paper presented to the Canadian Anthropology and Sociology Association, Winnipeg. Sonquist, J. A. and J. N. Morgan 1964 The Detection of Interaction Effects. Ann Arbor: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101790/manifest

Comment

Related Items