UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Comparative analysis of involvement and central life interest Epps, R. Timothy 1970

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1970_A4_5 E66.pdf [ 3.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101941.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101941-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101941-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101941-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101941-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101941-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101941-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101941-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101941.ris

Full Text

A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF INVOLVEMENT AND CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST  by  R. TIMOTHY EPPS B.I.E., GENERAL MOTORS INSTITUTE, 1 9 6 9  A THESIS IN COMMERCE SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION  We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l * 1970  )  In presenting  t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l l m e n t  of the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the IJhiversity of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available f o r reference and study.  I further  agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s thesis f o r scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives.  I t i s understood  that copying or publication of t h i s thesis f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission.  Faculty of Graduate Studies The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver #, Canada Date  A p r i l 17, 1970  ABSTRACT  This study was designed to increase understanding of the commitment of an i n d i v i d u a l to h i s job or p o s i t i o n within an organization.  Based on the test instrument designed  and evaluated i n Lodahl and Kejner's The D e f i n i t i o n and Measurement of Job Involvement, an empirical study of job involvement was made.  Concurrently, the central l i f e interests  of the respondents were measured by means of the questionnaire battery used by Dubin i n I n d u s t r i a l WorkerIs Worlds:  A  Study of The "Central L i f e Interests?.,ofIndustrial Workers. The i n v e s t i g a t i o n was conducted by means of a questionnaire that combined the involvement and central l i f e i n t e r e s t instruments.  The data were obtained from 2 5 #  randomly selected employees at three l e v e l s of the organizational hierarchy:  104 unskilled employees, 8$ s k i l l e d  and 6 6 foremen.  tradesmen,  These individuals worked i n a medium-light  automotive manufacturing company with plants at two geographical locations that were separated by a distance of several miles. The objectives of the study were e s s e n t i a l l y threefold. The job involvement instrument was used to determine the  extent of job involvement displayed by the sample.  Analysis was also conducted to study the e f f e c t of job l e v e l , age, and job s e n i o r i t y on the degree of involvement. The c e n t r a l l i f e i n t e r e s t instrument was used i n a s i m i l a r fashion, t o observe l i f e i n t e r e s t influences  iii  r e s u l t i n g from biographical differences with the sample. In both of the above cases comparative data were available from e a r l i e r studies i n which the instruments had been used, thus providing an additional facet f o r analysis. F i n a l l y the evidence from the study was evaluated to test the general hypothesis, that f o r any given l e v e l of job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , job involvement i s i n a c t u a l i t y a measure of the " c e n t r a l i t y " of l i f e interest i n that job. The general conclusion reached i n t h i s investigation found that f o r the present sample, job involvement exists as points d i s t r i b u t e d across a continuum.  A pure work  orientation on the one hand, and a preference f o r the s o c i a l relationships occurring i n the workplace on the other, provide two inversely related extremes.  The s o c i a l l y oriented  i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y to view work as boring and generally unimportant.  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE ABSTRACT  i i  TABLE OF CONTENTS  .i  LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . .  V  vi  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  vii  CHAPTER I  II  III  INTRODUCTION  1  H i s t o r i c a l Perspective  1  Concepts, and Definitions . . .  3  Hypotheses  4  METHODOLOGY  7  Questionnaire Description . . .  7  Test Site and Sample  10  S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures  12  STUDY RESULTS  13  Job-involvement  IV  V  .  13  Central L i f e Interest  15  Hypothesis One  20  Hypotheses Two and Three  21  DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS  25  Job-Involvement  25  Central L i f e Interest  31  CONCLUSIONS  35  . .•  V  PAGE BIBLIOGRAPHY  39  APPENDIX A _ WORK ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE  41  APPENDIX B - FACTOR ANALYSIS-INVOLVEMENT  51  APPENDIX C _ INVOLVEMENT-LIKERT SCORE  57  APPENDIX D - FACTOR ANALYSIS.CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST . . 6 3 APPENDIX E - CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES  69  APPENDIX F - VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q  75  vi  LIST OF TABLES  TABLE I II III IV V  PAGE Questionnaire  Return Rates  Factor Analysis-Involvement  12 Section  14  Central L i f e Interest-Over-all Analysis  16  Correlation Matrix - Central L i f e Interest Code #1 and Codes #1 & #2  22  " t Tests f o r Differences i n Means  24  n  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  This t h e s i s , and my education a t the University of B r i t i s h Columbia have been a s s i s t e d f i n a n c i a l l y with a General Motors Fellowship granted by General Motors of Canada Limited. This report i s due, i n no small part, t o Dr. V. M i t c h e l l and his advice and guidance throughout. For t h i s contribution I owe special thanks. To Dr. L. Moore, Associate Professor of Organizational Behavior, Dr. M. Miessner, Associate Professor of Sociology and H. Pold, Research Assistant, a debt of gratitude for t h e i r advice, recommendations and help i n preparing the report. F i n a l l y , t o my wife S t e l l a , I express my appreciation f o r both typing the report, and f o r her c r i t i c i s m and suggestions during the study.  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  For some years writers i n the f i e l d of management have maintained that p o s i t i v e job attitude i n each employee i s an important contribution to the success of any business organization.  Only recently however, have empirical and  t h e o r e t i c a l studies been designed and directed toward establishing a validated description of positive job attitude. Lawler and H a l l (1969) suggested that there are three d i s t i n c t types of job attitude: and s a t i s f a c t i o n .  involvement, i n t r i n s i c motivation,  The investigation reported here focused  on the f i r s t of these attitudes, job-involvement, i n an e f f o r t to further explain and understand i t s relevance i n the workplace.  H i s t o r i c a l Perspective The study of involvement i n the job developed as a concern of psychologists near the end of the war years (McGregor 1944).  A l l p o r t (1947) defined involvement as the  s i t u a t i o n i n which the person "engages the status-seeking motive" i n h i s work. Wickert (1951) saw involvement as the opportunity to make decisions on the job and to have a f e e l i n g of contributing to the success of the organization.  In a  study by Gurin, Veroff and F l d (i960) i t was found that e  individuals with a higher l e v e l of involvement are more  2  frequently at the extremes of job s a t i s f a c t i o n depending on the job environment and job design. (1962)  On the other hand, Vroom  proposed that job-involvement was best described as  the extent to which self-esteem was affected by perceived l e v e l of performance.  S i m i l a r l y French and Kahn ( 1 9 6 2 )  involvement as the extent to which job performance  saw  was  " c e n t r a l " to a person where c e n t r a l i t y was the degree to which an a b i l i t y affects self-esteem.  In the most recently  reported study of t h i s construct, Lawler and Hall  (1969)  concurred with a d e f i n i t i o n proposed by Lodahl and Kejner (1965)  i n regarding involvement as the degree of psychological  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with one*s work.  Lawler and H a l l were careful  to note however, that the d e f i n i t i o n s r e l a t i n g  performance  to self-esteem actually referred to i n t r i n s i c motivation rather than job-involvement.  That i s , when an i n d i v i d u a l  uses job performance to s a t i s f y his needs (self-esteem or any of the other types of need), reference i s being made to his i n t r i n s i c motivation rather than to h i s job-involvement. A p a r a l l e l stream of evolution of the concept of involvement has also occurred i n the d i s c i p l i n e of sociology. The study of "emotional involvement" has i t s roots l a r g e l y i n the e f f o r t s of Robert Dubin (1955, 1958, 1961).  In  pursuing a s o c i o l o g i c a l phenomenon which he c a l l e d " s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n " Dubin (1961) defined emotional involvement as:  3  "The" i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of values about" the goodness"of work or the importance of work i n the worth "of the person - and perhaps i t thus measures the ease, with which the person can be further s o c i a l i z e d into an organization?? C l e a r l y then, Dubin s d e f i n i t i o n was not designed to apply f  s p e c i f i c a l l y - t o the work s i t u a t i o n , t h i s quite i n t e n t i o n a l l y so.  As a section of h i s analysis  of s o c i a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  i n the many areas of l i f e , Dubin has conducted  several  studies of "central l i f e i n t e r e s t " (Dubin 1955).  Central  l i f e interest was defined as the "expressed preference f o r a given l o c a l e or s i t u a t i o n i n carrying out an a c t i v i t y " (Dubin 1955).  In l a t e r a r t i c l e s , Dubin alluded to the fact  that c e n t r a l i t y of l i f e interest i s a r e f l e c t i o n of the degree of emotional involvement characterizing  the i n d i v i d u a l  i n a given l o c a l e or s i t u a t i o n (Dubin 1961). Thus, i t would appear that the two streams of research proceeding within the d i s c i p l i n e s of psychology and sociology, are e s s e n t i a l l y d i f f e r i n g approaches to d e f i n i t i o n and measurement of the same phenomenon: jobinvolvement .  Concepts and Definitions As interpreted  by Lawler and H a l l (1969), Lodahl  and Kejner regard job-involvement as the degree to which a person i s psychologically  i d e n t i f i e d with work, or the  extent to which work i s important i n h i s perceived s e l f image.  Psychological i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , as used i n t h i s  d e f i n i t i o n , refers e s s e n t i a l l y to the comparison of one's i n d i v i d u a l values and attitudes with those of others.  Any  of these values and attitudes that are seen as desirable are adopted by the i n d i v i d u a l , and thereafter affect both his behavior and his self-image. Gn the other hand, Dubin views involvement as the i n t e r n a l i z a t i o n of values, or the acceptance of values into the personal behavior system.  Although both d e f i n i t -  ions are stated i n s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t terms, they seem to r e f e r to the formation of motives and to t h e i r effect on behavior.  Hypotheses The two aspects of the present study represented e f f o r t s to r e p l i c a t e previous investigations by Lodahl and Kejner (1965), Lawler and H a l l (1969) and Dubin (1955). More important however, was the attempt to establish the relationship  between job-involvement and the c e n t r a l i t y of  the workplace as a l i f e i n t e r e s t .  Accordingly i t was  hypothesized that:  Hypothesis 1:  Involvement, as measured by the 70b-involvement s e c t i o n of the questionnaire w i l l bear a close p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p to the measure of c e n t r a l i t v of l i f e i n t e r e s t .  Clearly t h i s would be the case  i f both instruments do r e f l e c t job-involvement.  Further provisions were made i n the study design to view the effects on involvement of increased r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on the job, age of the i n d i v i d u a l , and length of employment.  Hypothesis 2:  Involvement w i l l be p o s i t i v e l y - r e l a t e d to .job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  This hypothesis extends  from the premise that the acceptance by an i n d i v i d u a l of an increased degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y acknowledges h i s willingness to give additional time, e f f o r t , energy, and psychological commitment.  Hypothesis 3-  With reference to the temporal element, the e f f e c t s on involvement o f both age and s e n i o r i t y w i l l be s i m i l a r .  Throughout  the working  life  of an i n d i v i d u a l , i t i s suggested that jobinvolvement prevails to a lesser degree during the more complicated middle years of l i f e when many more a c t i v i t i e s v i e f o r i n d i v i d u a l attention.  Clearly then r e l a t i v e involvement  would best be described as a flattened "u" shaped curve over the period of working l i f e . It might well be that i n d i v i d u a l job-involvement would be at i t s highest l e v e l just before retirement.  the analysis of the data was directed towards detecting evidence i n support of these hypotheses.  An  additional step foresaw a degree of inter-marriage between the two instruments i n the creation of a t h i r d , more e f f e c t i v e measure.  7  CHAPTER I I METHODOLOGY  The instrument used i n t h i s study was, except f o r minor modifications, a d i r e c t combination of that portion of the Lodahl and Kejner ( 1 9 6 5 ) measure of involvement that was u t i l i z e d by Lawler and H a l l ( 1 9 6 9 ) , and Dubin s f  L i f e Interest Questionnaire (Dubin 1 9 5 5 ) .  Central  For t h i s reason  the s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data, at l e a s t i n the i n i t i a l stages, were prescribed by those used i n the previous studies that employed the component instruments.  Questionnaire Description A series of s i x questions designed to measure job-involvement was taken from a larger Job Attitude Questionnaire used by Lawler and H a l l (1969) to evaluate a subset of factors which comprise job a t t i t u d e s .  These s i x  questions together with seven point Likert-type response scales formed the f i r s t section of the questionnaire. The respondents were asked t o indicate the extent of t h e i r agreement or disagreement with each of the following statements:  1.  The major s a t i s f a c t i o n i n my l i f e comes from my job.  2.  The most important things that happen to me involve my job.  a  3.  I l i v e , eat, and breathe my job.  4.  I am very much involved personally i n my work.  5.  I*m r e a l l y a p e r f e c t i o n i s t about my work.  6.  Most things i n l i f e are more important  than  work.  In a l l but one of these questions (item 6 ) , answers which r e f l e c t e d strong agreement were interpreted as indicating a higher degree of involvement.  For the interested reader,  the entire questionnaire i s appended as Appendix A. The second section of the questionnaire was comprised  of Dubin*s f o r t y question Central L i f e Interest  measure.  Each question consisted of a p a r t i a l statement, with  a choice of three phrases to complete the r e p l y .  Inherent i n  the respondents' choice of a reply was the selection of a job-oriented, passive, or non-job-oriented connotation f o r that question.  The code i n d i c a t i n g the mode of each of the  reply selections has been included with the appended copy of the questionnaire. The instrument y i e l d s several sub-catagories, i n addition to an o v e r - a l l measure, which focus on four s p e c i f i c classes of human r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  These sub-categories, and  the number of questions comprising each are as follows:  9  1.  General- Relations:  (nine-questions) which  concentrates on r e f l e c t i n g the respondents  1  perception of work centered a c t i v i t y as a generally valuable s o c i a l experience. (Dubin predicted that t h i s would be  2.  Informal Relations;  low.)  (fourteen questions)  which tests the importance of relationships established between individuals that are not a product of the formal hierarchy of the organization.  (Dubin predicted that the  importance of these relationships would be perceived as  3.  low.)  Formal Relations:  (seven questions) which  measures the job attitude of individuals with regard to t h e i r l i f e experiences with formal organizations.  (Dubin predicted that  the job w i l l be the most dominant area of experience with formal organizations.)  4.  Technical Relations:  (ten questions) which  r e f e r s p e c i f i c a l l y to the preferences of individuals towards the technical aspects of the environment.  (Dubin predicted that a high  number of individuals would be job-oriented in this  regard.)  10  The t h i r d section of the survey e l i c i t e d  demographic  data to be used i n v a l i d a t i n g the investigation and to provide f o r the study of intra-sample r e l a t i o n s h i p s .  Test Site and Sample The study was conducted at a large automotive manufacturing complex, which consisted-of two f a c i l i t i e s approximately seven miles apart.  The two plants employ  a t o t a l of approximately 7,000 hourly workers, a l l of whom are  members of The International Union, United Automobile,  Aerospace and A g r i c u l t u r a l Implement Workers of America. A d d i t i o n a l l y approximately 1,800 non-union s a l a r i e d employees also work at the two plants. The tasks performed at the f a c i l i t i e s vary from heavier foundry and forge work to l i g h t and medium l i g h t automotive component machining and assembly.  A l l of the  individuals i n the sample worked either i n the production aspects of the system, or i n service and supervisory capacities. The individuals to be surveyed were selected from three l e v e l s of the organizational hierarchy.  At the  lowest l e v e l , 300 unskilled employees were randomly selected from p a y r o l l l i s t s .  The jobs of these men are characterist-  i c a l l y of the elementary physical v a r i e t y within the production and secondary service departments.  11  Approximately 200 s k i l l e d tradesmen were also selected at random to p a r t i c i p a t e .  These men possess  journeyman q u a l i f i c a t i o n s i n normally recognized trades, and work r e g u l a r l y at t h e i r respective trades.  Typical  tasks performed by these men include machine maintenance, t o o l i n g control and service, plant maintenance and upkeep. These jobs require a f a r greater degree of s k i l l and technical knowledge than those characterized by the unskilled classifications. The t h i r d echelon represented i n the study i s that of foremen.  Of the t o t a l of approximately 340 foremen, a •  •  •  sample of 150 was selected.  ^  The r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of these  men c l o s e l y p a r a l l e l those of the t r a d i t i o n a l shop foreman. They supervise and d i r e c t the e f f o r t s of the employees under them, and they are responsible f o r d i s c i p l i n e , production records, e f f i c i e n c y and equipment i n t h e i r areas.  The  foremen supervise employees i n the s k i l l e d and unskilled c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , and are not members of the union. The demographic data that were obtained indicated that s i x of the unskilled employees were working on a shortened s h i f t basis, and three were on l a y o f f .  A l l other  respondents to the questionnaire were employed on a f u l l time basis at the time of the survey. The questionnaire was mailed to a t o t a l of 650 individuals choosen from the three l e v e l s of the organizational  12  structure together with a stamped envelope f o r t h e i r ' convenience i n replying.  The envelope was pre-addressed  to the investigator at the University.  T b l e 1 r e f l e c t s the a  response rates that were obtained.  TABLE I . Questionnaire Return ftatea Sent Out  Returned  Return Rate  Unskilled  300  104  34.5  %  Skilled  200  88  43.9  %  Foremen  150  66  44.0  %  Total  650  258  39.7  %  S t a t i s t i c a l Procedures As has been mentioned  e a r l i e r , the i n i t i a l  a n a l y t i c a l procedures were drawn l a r g e l y from those used i n preceeding applications of the test instruments (Dubin (1955),  Lodahl and Kejner ( 1 9 6 5 ) , Lawler and H a l l  (1969)).  These techniques were supplemented by factor analyses, means t e s t s , c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis and tests f o r association among variables as the analysis proceeded.  13  CHAPTER I I I STUDY RESULTS  Before presenting the r e s u l t s of the several tests to which the hypotheses of the study were subjected,  i t is  necessary to describe some of the preliminary analyses that were made and the findings that were obtained.  Job-Involvement In the involvement section the data were tested by means of factor analyses using the method of p r i n c i p a l components with r o t a t i o n to the varimax c r i t e r i o n 195#).  (Kaiser  This method of evaluation was used primarily as  a t e s t of the Lawler and H a l l (1969) measure of jobinvolvement.  Calculations were made on both a two factor  and three factor solution, the r e s u l t s of which are presented i n Table I I . Upon evaluation, i t was determined that three d i s t i n c t and interpretable factors existed within the involvement scales. one, two, and three.  The f i r s t factor consists of scales Factor two was i d e n t i f i e d as consisting  of scale f i v e and the t h i r d f a c t o r as consisting of scale six.  Scale four, involvement personally i n my work, was  discarded from the analysis since t h i s scale loads ambiguously on both factors one and two.  14  -TABLE. I I Factor Analysis of Involvement Scales (n=253) Variable Two Factor Solution  1  2  1  Job i s major s a t i s f a c t i o n  0.323  0.247  2  Important happenings involve job  0.363  0.029  3  Live, eat, breath job  0.745  0.034  4  Involved personally i n work  0.425  0.654  5  Perfectionist  -0.139  0.900  6  Most things more important than work  -0.370  0.022  1  2  about work  Three Factor Solution  3  1  Job i s major s a t i s f a c t i o n  0.326  0.206  -0.141  2  Important happenings involve job  0.366  -0.016  -0.117  3  Live, eat, breath job  0.739  0.037  0.030  4. Involved personally i n work  0.423  0.639  -0.167  5  Perfectionist about work  -0.034  0.904  0.063  6  Most things more important than work  -0.094  -0.020  0.935  15  In order to determine the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s f a c t o r structure, factor analyses were performed  on both the  data from the t o t a l sample and on a l l sub-categories as broken down by demographic c l a s s . The pattern of three factors and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of factor loadings extracted from the aggregate data were well reproduced i n the factor analyses of the demographic sub-categories.  These several analyses are presented as  Appendix B of t h i s study.  central L i f e interest I n i t i a l l y the data from the central l i f e interest section of the questionnaire were scored according to a tandem decision r u l e designed by Dubin (1955).  This  procedure entailed summarizing the data on an i n d i v i d u a l basis and then making a judgement i n each case of the degree of the respondent's  job-orientation.  Under Dubin s procedure, T  a person was described as job-oriented i f he q u a l i f i e d under either of the following two decision rules:  1.  The sum of the job-oriented answers (Code 1) comprised at least 50% of the questions i n the category.  or  2.  The sum of the job-oriented and passive answers (Codes 1 and 2) comprised at least 70% of the Questions i n the category.  16  Scores were obtained by t h i s means f o r the o v e r - a l l measure of c e n t r a l i t y of the job as a l i f e interest and f o r each of the four sub-categories.  The results of the o v e r - a l l  analysis of the data i s recorded i n T b l e I I I . The a  corresponding analyses f o r the biographical sub-sections are appended i n Appendix D.  TABLE I I I Central L i f e Interest - Over-all Analysis (n=25#) Rule Si  Rule" #2  Tp.tal  % of SjamjOa  Over-all  6  151  157  60.3  General Relations  9  110  119  46.2  Informal Relations  2  73  Formal Relations  36  162  Technical Relations  91  32  30  31.0  243  96.2  173  67.0  *Z0.1 out of 23 possible code 2 answers was the average Rule 1 » the sum of the job-oriented responses i s equal to or greater than 50$ of the category responses Rule 2 - the sum of the job-oriented and passive responses i s equal to or greater than 70% of the category responses  17  As the analysis of the central l i f e interest data proceeded, the appropriateness of Dubin*s two came under serious question. the majority  decision rules  As can be seen i n Table I I I  of t h e job-oriented  individuals were c l a s s i f i e d  as such on the basis of decision rule two.  That i s , a  preponderance of passive responses by a p a r t i c u l a r respondent were interpreted under the decision rule as evidence of job-orientation. (rule 2) was (passive).  In one case the 70% response requirement  s a t i s f i e d e n t i r e l y by code two answers C l e a r l y any suggestion that such a pattern  responses i s evidence of job-orientation i s open to At t h i s point, i t seemed appropriate with an analysis that recognized only the  of  question.  to proceed  job-oriented  r e p l i e s i n evaluating the job-orientation of the respondents. Accordingly,  t h i s method was  used to investigate demographic  sub-categories within the sample, and i n the analysis of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between central l i f e i n t e r e s t and  job-  involvement . Further, an attempt was  made to j u s t i f y the  s t r u c t u r a l r e l a t i o n s h i p among the four subsections of the central l i f e questionnaire technical r e l a t i o n s ) .  (general, informal, formal and  Since factor analysis was  statistically  impossible because of the response format of t h i s instrument, a t o o l measuring variable association was  used (Goodman  and Kruskall 1954).  The reply codes were dichotomized  ( i e . code 1 vs. codes 2 & 3) and then a l l questions i n each subsection were compared with one another i n bivariate tables.  The following i l l u s t r a t i o n exemplifies the technique:  Question 0  1  0  219  7  1  30  2  #14  where 0 represents the number of job-oriented r e p l i e s and 1 represents the passive and non-job-oriented r e p l i e s  19  This b i v a r i a t e table was  reduced to a single number  (Yule*s Q) representing the degree of association between the two variables ( i . e . between questions #11  and  Yule's Q » ad - be (range -1 t o + l ) ad + be  when the table i s i n the form a c  b d  Therefore f o r the example:  Yule's Q = 21Q (2) 219  (2)  - 7 ("30) » . 3 5  +  7  (30)  Where the variables being compared are associated, a pattern of high Q values subsection.  (-1 to + l ) would occur i n each  However, no such pattern was  found to exist  20  (Appendix F) i n d i c a t i n g a lack of variable association within the various sub-sections.  . . . . . .  The investigator thus was  l e f t with no a l t e r n a t i v e  basis f o r proceeding with the analysis but to accept the construct v a l i d i t y of the several sub-sections  of the central  l i f e interest measures as posited by Dubin (1955).  It  must be noted, however, that the content v a l i d i t y of the sub-sections was  Hypothesis  judged as reasonably high.  One It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that hypothesis one  predicted  that job-involvement would bear a close p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n ship to the measure of c e n t r a l i t y of l i f e i n t e r e s t .  In  order to t e s t t h i s hypothesis the i n t e r - r e l a t i o n s h i p between the two sections of the questionnaire was of a c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis. correlated.  1.  tested by means  In t o t a l , eight variables were  These variables were established as follows:  F c t o r one comprising a  involvement scales one, two  three. 2.  Factor two  consisting of involvement scale f i v e .  3.  Factor three consisting of involvement scale s i x .  4.  Total score on the Central L i f e Interest measure.  5.  General Relations  6.  Informal Relations  7.  Formal Relations  8.  Technical Relations.  and  21  Crude f a c t o r scores were computed f o r each respondent by summing (or using) the response values checked f o r the scales or scale comprising analysis was  the f a c t o r .  The c o r r e l a t i o n a l  calculated twice allowing f o r the two  methods used i n the central l i f e i n t e r e s t section.  scoring Initially  the i n d i v i d u a l scores i n each section consisted of his t o t a l of job-oriented answers.  The second c a l c u l a t i o n used the  t o t a l of job-oriented and passive answers f o r the according to the method used by Dubin (1955).  score  Table IV  presents the r e s u l t s of these c o r r e l a t i o n a l analyses. These r e s u l t s f a i l e d to f i n d support f o r the hypothesis,  and i n fact indicated that just the  opposite  relationship existed.  Hypotheses Two  and Three  As discussed e a r l i e r i n t h i s study, hypotheses two and three predicted that increasing job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y would vary p o s i t i v e l y with job-involvement, and that jobinvolvement would evolve i n a "u" shaped pattern as both age and s e n i o r i t y increased. These hypotheses were both tested i n a s i m i l a r fashion.  For the involvement section a mean L i k e r t score  and standard  deviation were calculated i n each demographic  class; f o r each of the s i x items*.  22  .  .TABLE IV  .  Correlation Matrix Central L i f e Interest - Code #1 only1  Variable  2  3  4  5  6  7  1  Factor One  2  Factor T o  3  Factor Three  -0.20*  4  Total  -0.45*-0.18**0.28* 1 . 0 0  5  General  -0.36*-0.09  6  Informal  - 0 . 2 2 * - 0 . 1 4 * * 0 . 1 5 * * 0.64*  7  Formal  -0.34*-0.11  8  Technical  -0.38*-0.15** 0.24* 0.81* 0 . 4 5 * 0 . 3 1 * 0.39*  w  1.00 0.05 1 . 0 0 0.01  1.00  0.15**0.74* 1 . 0 0  0.27  0.31* 1 . 0 0  0.68* 0 . 4 5 * 0 . 2 7 * 1 . 0 0  v  Central L i f e Interest - Codes #1 & #2 1  Variable  2  3  4  5  6  1  Factor One  2  Factor T o  3  Factor Three  -0.20*  0.23*  4  Total  -0.39*  0.18**-0.12  1.00  5  General  -0.38*  0.03 - 0 . 0 7  0 . 7 5 * 1.00  6  Informal  -0.11  0.15*-0.06  O.65* 0 . 2 7 *  1.00  7  Formal  -0.20* 0.26*-0.03  0.50*  0.20*  8  Technical  -O.36*  w  *  • p < .01  7  1.00 0.05 1 . 0 0 1.00  0.01 -0.13**0.77*  0.29*  0.45* 0 . 2 3 *  1.00 0.20*  23  job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - 3 l e v e l s  ie  age  - 5 levels  seniority  - 5 levels  For the central l i f e i n t e r e s t section the demographic class mean and standard deviation were calculated f o r the number of job-oriented answers i n each of the f i v e  categories  ( o v e r - a l l , general, informal, formal and technical r e l a t i o n s ) . The mean and standard deviation summaries are presented f o r job-involvement i n Appendix C and f o r central l i f e i n t e r e s t i n Appendix E. The difference between each of the corresponding means was tested by the- t " t e s t procedure. n  The mean  differences were s i g n i f i c a n t only occasionally at either the .01 or .05 l e v e l s of confidence as indicated i n Table V.  What i s more important there was no discernable  pattern  of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between the demographic classes.  2  h  TABLE V " t " Tests f o r Differences  i n Means,  Significance Levels .01  .05  NS  Total  Job Responsibility-  5  4  15  24  Age  7  4  25  36  Seniority  4  1  55  60  Job Responsibility  3  2  10  15  Age  5  6  39  50  Seniority  2  1  47  50  Job-Involvement  Central L i f e Interest  These results f a i l to support the hypotheses because of the lack of evidence substantiating differences between the groups.  25  CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS  The discussion of the results can be convenientlydivided into two sections.  Job  Involvement The factor structure that was found to exist f o r  the s i x item measure of involvement seems to shed some additional l i g h t on the concept of job-involvement. I t w i l l be r e c a l l e d that three d i s t i n c t factors were found which accounted f o r 75.9$ of the variance i n the f a c t o r space.  The f i r s t of these, consists c l e a r l y of the items  concerned with s a t i s f a c t i o n with, importance of and preoccupation with the job, and seems to measure job-involvement. The l a s t three items i n the section present a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t picture.  Item four, questioning personal  involvement i n work, appears to be s p l i t between the established involvement factor and a second f a c t o r .  Item  f i v e , r e f l e c t i n g the individual's view of himself as a p e r f e c t i o n i s t at work, loads very highly on t h i s second factor. In speculating as to the i d e n t i t y of the second factor, inspection of the wording of statements four and f i v e highlighted one p o s s i b i l i t y .  Phrases such as "I'm  r e a l l y a p e r f e c t i o n i s t " and "very much involved personally",  26  intimated that perhaps rather than r e l a t i n g to involvement, these items tend more towards measuring self-esteem. The study by Lawler and H a l l (1969) gave parti c u l a r recognition to the d i s t i n c t i o n between involvement (or psychological i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with work) and i n t r i n s i c motivation based on self-esteem. Item four, questioning personal involvement i n work was referred to s p e c i f i c a l l y , and i t was t h e i r observation that i t related more to involvement than to i n t r i n s i c motivation. Does an i n d i v i d u a l view h i s job as an opportunity to s a t i s f y important needs (rationale f o r involvement) or does he f e e l that his need s a t i s f a c t i o n i s dependent  on his job performance  (rationale  f o r i n t r i n s i c motivation)? In spite of t h e i r suggestion, i t would appear that i n gathering the present data, items four and f i v e , the personal involvement and p e r f e c t i o n i s t questions, have not d i f f e r e n t i a t e d between involvement and i n t r i n s i c motivation. The phrases could c e r t a i n l y have appealed to the i n d i v i d u a l as requiring him to indicate his feelings about doing his job w e l l .  That i s to say his motive i n answering might have  been:  I am involved personally and I am a perfecti o n i s t because I need to be to s a t i s f y my  needs.  27  A l t e r n a t i v e l y however, i t must be recognized that t h i s factor may have been more a r e f l e c t i o n of the neurotic behavior of individuals i n a f l i g h t to avoid c r i t i c i s m , especially when considering the need to see oneself as a p e r f e c t i o n i s t . (Symonds 194-6). Item s i x (Most things i n l i f e are more important than work.) see*ms to tap s t i l l another dimension of meaning. The key word i n t h i s item i s "important". to his  It i s d i f f i c u l t  imagine the c r i t e r i a on which an i n d i v i d u a l would base evaluation of t h i s statement but most c e r t a i n l y other  major interests i n l i f e , or even a negative reaction to work i n terms of i t s being r e l a t i v e l y important, could have e f f e c t . The study by Lodahl and Kejner (1965) reported the e f f o r t s made i n reducing a series of question items to the involvement instrument used i n the present study.  The  present item s i x , regarding the importance of work, was used on three occasions by Lodahl and Kejner (1965).  For each  case they reported a light- to moderate loading (as high as .35) on a factor which they interpreted as dealing with the boredom and general unimportance  of work.  I all n  l i k e l i h o o d , the factor has reappeared i n the present study as factor three. One r e s u l t of primary importance was the r e l a t i o n ships that were found between the involvement and central  23  l i f e interest measures.  The c o r r e l a t i o n study described  e a r l i e r r e f l e c t e d that the involvement factor, comprised of the three involvement items, was  negatively  related with  each of the f i v e measures of central l i f e i n t e r e s t . was  This  true not only for the dual measure of central l i f e  interest u t i l i z i n g both job-oriented  and passive answers as  i n Dubin^s e a r l i e r work, but also for the scoring system comprised only of job-oriented i n the present study.  answers that was  Although f a i r l y low,  the  developed correlation  c o e f f i c i e n t s were s i g n i f i c a n t at .01 or .05 l e v e l s of confidence i n a l l but one The additional  instance.  c o r r e l a t i o n matrix also indicated the  following  relationships:  1.  The  f i v e measures of central l i f e interest  were quite highly intereorrelated .27 to .31, median r = .45 for the  (ranging from job-oriented  r e p l i e s only and  from .20 to .77, median r «  when considering  both the job-oriented  .45  and  passive r e p l i e s . ) 2.  The relationship of item f i v e , the view of ones e l f as a p e r f e c t i o n i s t at work, to the remaining items i n the matrix i s questionable because of the low and  statistically insignificant  correlation coefficients.  29  3.  Factor three of the involvement measure, consisting of the boring and general unimportance of work item, bears a s l i g h t but s i g n i f i c a n t negative c o r r e l a t i o n to Factor one, job-involvement (r = - . 2 0 , p_ < . 0 1 ) , but a s i g n i f i c a n t positive relationship to a l l but one of the f i v e central l i f e interest measures.  At f i r s t  glance these results seem to f l y i n the  face of the o r i g i n a l prediction that the two instruments i n fact measure the same thing, job-involvement.  Upon  further r e f l e c t i o n however, t h i s seems to be only p a r t i a l l y true. The statements purporting to measure jobinvolvement suggest that the i n d i v i d u a l rated as highly involved, must be submerged to an unusual degree i n the pure work aspects of his job.  Statements such as "major s a t i s f a c t i o n  i n l i f e " , "most important things i n my l i f e " or "I l i v e , eat, and breathe my job" seem to v e r i f y t h i s as being the case. The central l i f e interest questions however suggest another interpretation.  These statements, almost without exception,  draw on s o c i a l relationships as t h e i r measures of central l i f e interest.  They seem to tap the s o c i a l environment  s o c i a l attitudes i n the workplace.  and  30  In returning to consideration of the o r i g i n a l hypothesis, i t appears that i n r e f e r r i n g to job-involvement, the investigator's f a i l u r e was one of d i s t i n c t i o n .  The r e s u l t s  suggest that the respondents are d i f f e r e n t i a t i n g between job-work-involvement  and job-social-involvement.  In f a c t ,  these two attitudes or facets of the same attitude, were found to be inversely related.  That i s to say, i f an i n d i v i d u a l  i s involved to a greater degree i n the pure work aspects of his job, i n a l l l i k e l i h o o d he would tend t o de-emphasize the s o c i a l relationships i n and around h i s job.  This would also  be true f o r the converse s i t u a t i o n . Further evidence i n support of the existance of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was offered i n the c o r r e l a t i o n a l analysis by item number s i x of the involvement scale (the importance of work).  If  t  as the study by Lodahl and Kejner (1965)  suggests, t h i s item does i n fact r e f e r to the boredom and r e l a t i v e unimportance  of work, then the relationship can be  placed on a stronger basis. Item number s i x , the boredom and general unimportance of work and the involvement factor were found to be negatively correlated.  I t would seem to follow from the above discussion,  that a person who  i s high i n jobrwork-involvement w i l l tend  to be low i n job-social-involvement. inferred that the same person who  L o g i c a l l y i t can be  i s high on  job-work-involvement  31  would not be bored and c l a s s i f y work as being r e l a t i v e l y unimportant.  Rather, t h i s would be the state of the job-  s o c i a l l y - i n v o l v e d person. Lawler and H a l l (1969) gave passing to t h i s f a c t .  recognition  When q u a l i f y i n g t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n of involve-  ment they said that there may be several reasons why a person may view holding a job as necessary f o r his need s a t i s f a c t i o n . He may, f o r instance, be thinking of his "work-involvement", but on the other hand may prize the s o c i a l relationships on the job t o which the holding of the job e n t i t l e him and make possible f o r him. C l e a r l y then, the r e s u l t s reported here suggest that t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n not only e x i s t s , but that the two states are inversely related.  Central L i f e Interest This section of the study indicated that the degree to which the workplace represents  a central l i f e  interest was much higher i n the present study than i n the e a r l i e r Dubin study (1955) when the data were scored by using the tandem decision r u l e .  The r e s u l t s show that when  comparing the numbers of job-oriented individuals i n the present sample to D u b i n  T s  study, 60.8% i n the present study  as compared with 2k% i n Dubin»s were job-oriented o v e r - a l l .  32  In sub-category-comparisons  46.2$ versus 15$ were job-oriented  i n general r e l a t i o n s , 31.0% versus 9% i n informal r e l a t i o n s , 96.2$ versus 61$ i n formal relations and 67.0$ versus 63$ i n technical r e l a t i o n s .  Although Dubin s prediction of T  a tendency f o r higher job-orientation i n the formal and technical relations prevailed i n t h i s study, the degree of job-orientation was much higher, and there were no noticeable c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sample to suggest that i t was unique or unusual i n t h i s respect. One questionable element i n the instrument did come t o l i g h t .  design  In viewing the breakdown of job-oriented  individuals according to the rule under vfhich they were so c l a s s i f i e d , i t was obvious that a disproportionate number of people were c l a s s i f i e d as job-oriented on the basis of passive responses allowed by decision rule two.  Unfortunately, t h i s  type of breakdown of responses was not supplied i n the Dubin study (1955) so comparison of the r e s u l t s obtained i n the present study with those of Dubin was not possible. It w i l l be r e c a l l e d that Dubin's second.decision rule allows that f o r any i n d i v i d u a l , i f the sum of h i s job-oriented and passive answers i s at least 70$ of the J  t o t a l , that i s 23 items of a possible 40 f o r the o v e r - a l l accounting, then he i s c l a s s i f i e d as job-oriented.  This  appears to be c l e a r l y i n c o n f l i c t with the t h e o r e t i c a l intent of the questionnaire.  I t seems only l o g i c a l that any  conclusions concerning the degree of job-orientation of an  33  i n d i v i d u a l should be confined to his job-oriented r e p l i e s . The passive r e p l i e s should have no bearing. To i l l u s t r a t e , analysis of the results of r u l e two indicated that of the 2# questions comprising the 70% requirement, answers.  the sample displayed an average of 20.1 passive  In the case of one i n d i v i d u a l thus c l a s s i f i e d as  job-oriented, a l l 2$ of his answers were passive r e p l i e s . An attempt was made to analyze differences i n job-orientation reported by the several demographic subcategories within the sample by u t i l i z i n g only the job-oriented answers.  The differences i n mean job-orientation were only  occasionally s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t however, and did not j u s t i f y further a n a l y s i s . As a t e s t of construct v a l i d i t y , Y u l e s Q was ?  used to t e s t variable association within each of the central l i f e interest sub-sections. Normallyj to l e g i t i m i z e favorable conclusions, the Q. values i n any sub-section of the instrument would converge on p o s i t i v e or negative unity f o r a l l comparison.  Any  i n d i v i d u a l question showing consistently low values, when compared with the others i n the section, would be discarded as being inconsonant with the measuring tendency of the remaining  questions. The results of t h i s t e s t , as indicated by the  34  cumulative tables i n Appendix F, can best be described as inconsequential. tend to be low.  The Q values wander unaccountably, and I t would seem that the i n t e r n a l association  of variables within the sedtions, was at best,  questionable.  35  CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS  The present study has found job-involvement to exist i n two forms; that directed towards the pure work aspect of the job and that which values the s o c i a l relations occurring at the workplace.  Ideally job-involvement can be  characterized as a continuum with pure work and s o c i a l orientation as two inversely related extremes. Associated with the job-social-involvement attitude i s aview of work as being boring and generally unimportant. The involvement instrument was found to be most e f f e c t i v e when considering only the f i r s t three items comprising factor one i n the present analysis.  Item s i x was related to  the boring and generally unimportant aspects of work rather than involvement.  Any suggestionas to the measuring tendencies of  Items four and f i v e would be only speculation, but there was l i t t l e evidence to support the conclusion that they tapped job-involvement. The Dubin instrument was valuable i n that i t d i d focus s p e c i f i c a l l y on the s o c i a l relationships i n the workplace.  Any conclusions, based on the tandem decision rule,  a l l o c a t i n g numbers of individuals who regard work as a central l i f e i n t e r e s t , would be r e l a t i v e to the a r b i t r a r y l i m i t s inherent i n the rules themselves.  Recommendations  36  f o r future applications of t h i s instrument would include the following:  1.  Disregard the passive r e p l i e s when establishing a job-oriented  2.  classification.  C a r e f u l l y evaluate the appropriateness  of the  50% l e v e l of job-oriented answers required to q u a l i f y an i n d i v i d u a l as job-oriented. The  evidence of the present  study suggests that  t h i s requirement should be validated on some more reasonable basis than has been offered thus far.  One of Dubin s (1955) recommendations was that T  attempts to motivate workers should be abandoned since t h e i r l e v e l of involvement with the workplace was so low as to e f f e c t i v e l y f r u s t r a t e any motivational e f f o r t s .  Kornhauser  (1965) however, i n h i s comprehensive study of mental health i n the automotive industry, argued that h i s evidence supported the conclusion that potential does exist f o r motivating the i n d u s t r i a l worker. In view of the findings of the present  study,  although bounded by the automotive industry, t h i s investigator must agree with Kornhauser.  Further i n v e s t i g a t i o n may well  discover the key f o r d i r e c t i n g job-involvement towards work rather than towards the s o c i a l relationships i n the workplace.  37  Unfortunately, attempts to validate the hypotheses concerning the effects of job r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , age and job s e n i o r i t y were unsuccessful.  Conclusions i n t h i s area must  await a similar study based on a larger sample and more e x p l i c i t measuring devices. The reader i s cautioned against over generalization of the results of the present study.  The data reported here  were obtained from a sample of the employees i n only two plants and u n t i l further r e p l i c a t i o n s j u s t i f y a wider application of the conclusions of the present study, t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y i s confined at most to the automotive industry. Future e f f o r t s directed to r e p l i c a t i o n or enlargement of the present study may  find some value i n the following  recommendations:  1.  The study provided evidence f o r the existance of a negative relationship between work and s o c i a l job-involvement industry.  at the foreman-worker l e v e l i n  Additional studies may evaluate t h i s  relationship at higher organizational l e v e l s , and within organizations of other types  (hospitals,  m i l i t a r y , sales etc.) 2.  The t h i n l i n e of d e f i n i t i o n between  job-involvement  and i n t r i n s i c motivation played an important part i n the present study.  The question then  follows, what i s the relationship between i n t r i n s i c  38  motivation and job-social-involvement?  The  Lawler and H a l l study ( 1 9 6 9 ) incorporated an i n t r i n s i c motivation instrument which could be used i n a fashion s i m i l a r to the use of t h e i r involvement  instrument i n the present study to  provide useful r e s u l t s .  Additional research i n both areas would undoubtably provide information of great potential i n furthering present understanding of job attitudes and t h e i r part i n motivation theory.  39  ..  - BIBLIOGRAPHY. - -  A l l p o r t , G.Wi, The psychology of p a r t i c i p a t i o n . Review, 1 9 4 7 , 52, 117-122.  Psychological  American Psychological Association, Inc., Publication manual of "the'" American Psychological Association. (Rev.) Washington, D.C.: 1967. 1  Campbell, W.G. Form & s t y l e i n thesis w r i t i n g . Boston: Houghton M i f f l i n Co., 1954. Dubin, R. Human r e l a t i o n s i n administration. C l i f f s , N.J,: Prentice H a l l , 196l.  Englewood  Dubin, R. I n d u s t r i a l workers* worlds: A study of the "central l i f e i n t e r e s t s " of i n d u s t r i a l workers. S o c i a l Problems, 1955, 3 , 131-142. Dubin, R. The world of work. Prentice H a l l , 1958.  Englewood C l i f f s , N.J.:  French, J.R.P. J r . and Kahn, R. A programmatic approach to studying the i n d u s t r i a l environment and mental health. Journal of S o c i a l Issues, 1962, 18, 1-47. Goodman, L. and Kruskail, W. Measures f o r cross c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . Journal of American S t a t i s t i c a l Association. 1954, 49 PP 733-764. Gurin, G., Veroff, J . and Feld, S. Americans view t h e i r mental health. New York: Basic Books Inc., i 9 6 0 . Faculty of Graduate Studies, Publication manual of the American Psychological Association. The University of B r i t i s h Columbia. Kaiser, H.C. The variance c r i t e r i o n f o r analytic r o t a t i o n i n f a c t o r analysis. Psychometrika, 1958, 2 3 , 1 8 7 - 2 0 0 . Keithley, E.M., A manual of s t y l e . Western Publishing Co., 1954  Cincinnati:  Souths  Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of behavioral research, York: Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1 9 6 4 .  New  Kornhauser, A.W. Mental health of the i n d u s t r i a l worker, New York: John Wiley & Son, 1965. Lawler, E.E. and H a l l , P.T. The r e l a t i o n s h i p of job c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to job involvement, s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n t r i n s i c motivation, In Press, 19&9.  40  Lodahl, "T.M. and Kejner, M. The' d e f i n i t i o n and measurement . of job involvement. Journal of Applied Psychology. 1965, V o l . 49, No. 1, 24-33. McGregor, D.M. Conditions of e f f e c t i v e i n d u s t r i a l leadership. Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1944, 8, 55-63. Symonds, P.M. The dynamics of human adjustment. Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc. 1946.  New York:  Turabian, K.L. A manual f o r writers of term papers, thesis and d i s s e r t a t i o n s , Chicago: Phoenix Books (paperback) 1955. Vroom, V, Ego-involvement, job s a t i s f a c t i o n , and job performance. Personnel Psychology, 1962, 15, 159-177. Wickert, F.R. Turnover and employee's feelings of egoinvolvement i n theday-to-day operations of a company. Personnel Psychology, 1951, 4, 185-197.  A P P E N D I X  A  42  i  WORK ATTITUDE QUESTIONNAIRE  This i s a study, of the ways i n which we look at work i n our society, being conducted at the university of B r i t i s h Columbia.  ~  lou have been selected at random as an employee of one company, of several, to be studied across the country. Tour answers w i l l be kept e n t i r e l y confidential by the University research s t a f f .  I t i s not necessary f o r  you t o sign the questionnaire, since we do not wish to i d e n t i f y you personally.  A l l of the answers w i l l be grouped  with those of the other people p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the project. I t i s important to the success of the study to have your p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n order to insure that we have enough r e p l i e s from which to draw r e l i a b l e s c i e n t i f i c conclusions. I t w i l l take you less than 3 0 minutes to answer these questions.  Please do i t now and return i t i n the  stamped envelope enclosed f o r your convenience. Thank you very much f o r your time, and the help you have given us.  Directions:  For each of the following statements you are asked to give your opinion on the degree to  which you agree or disagree with each of the statements. This can be done by c i r c l i n g the appropriate number of the  43  seven point scale below each question. Strongly Agree 1  1.  Strongly  2  3  4  5  6  1  2  3  The most important job.  1  4  5  6  2  '2  3  4  5  6  7  job.  '  3  4  5 6  7  I am very much involved personally i n my work.  1 I'm  2  Strongly Disagree 3  4  5  6  7  r e a l l y a p e r f e c t i o n i s t about my work.  Strongly Agree 1 6.  7  Strongly Disagree  Strongly Agree  5.  Disagree  Strongly Disagree  I l i v e , eat, and breathe my  1  job.  things that happen to me involve my  Strongly Agree  4.  ?  Strongly  Strongly Agree  3.  Disagree  The major s a t i s f a c t i o n i n my l i f e comes from my Strongly Agree  2.  For example:  2  Strongly 3  4  5  6  7  Most things i n l i f e are more important Strongly Agree 1  Directions:  2  Disagree  than work.  Strongly Disagree 3  4  5  6  7  For each of the following statements, there are three possible answers.  We would l i k e you to  read each statement and the three answers very c a r e f u l l y .  44  A f t e r you have read the statement and the three answers under i t , pick out the answer which comes closest t o your own feelings about the matter.  Place a check i n front of t h i s  answer. Sometimes, none of the answers w i l l exactly f i t your own ideas but you can pick out one which i s closest to the way you f e e l and check  it.  Please be sure to check one answer and one answer only t o every statement.  7.  I f I received a promotion that meant moving to another city 2 1 3  #.  1 2 I 3 1 2 10.  I ' l l get t o be a more important member i n my club, church or lodge I ' l l get a promotion at work such things won't ever bother me most enjoy keeping my things around the house i n good shape my hand tools and work-space on the job i n good shape my mind o f f such things  I would rather spend my evenings with 2 3 1  11.  my friendships wouldn't make any difference i n my moving I would most d i s l i k e leaving my friends on the job I would most d i s l i k e leaving my other friends  I sometimes hope that 3  9i  Bo not skip any statement?  d i f f e r e n t people depending mainly on what we do my family people from work  I believe that 3 2 1  the things I do away from the job are more important than anything else most things are about equally important my job i s more important than anything else  45  12.  I most l i k e 3 2 1  13.  In my spare time 1 2 3  14.  I often think up better ways of doing my job I just prefer t o relax I often think about keeping my car i n good shape  The most pleasant things I do are concerned with 3 2 1  15.  t a l k i n g with my friends about things that are happening t a l k i n g about whatever my friends want to t a l k about t a l k i n g shop with my friends  things away from work d i f f e r e n t things at d i f f e r e n t times things about work  I f a job I know about was giving"everybody trouble and I heard that another company had solved t h i s problem 1 2  I would t e l l my bosses about i t I don*t worry about things and would forget the whole matter  3  I'm too busy to worry about the company problems  16.  I would rather take my vacation with  17.  3 my family 1 some friends from work 2 by myself I l i k e to read 2 1 3  18.  things about l o t s of d i f f e r e n t subjects things about my job things about what I most l i k e to do  In order to get ahead i n the world 2 3 1  19.  t  I think you have to have a l o t of luck I think you have to be well l i k e d and known about town I think you have to be well l i k e d where you work  When I am not around them, the people I miss most are 2 3 1  just people i n general my friends around town my friends at work  46  20.  I would enjoy taking classes to learn more about 3 1  2 21.  I prefer to j o i n a club or a lodge 3 1 2  22.  3 2  something at work something i n an organization I belong to anything, but i t doesn't matter very much what  t a l k shop with the fellows t a l k about whatever comes up t a l k about things not concerned with the plant  When I am worried, 1 2 3  26.  i s so important that I'm w i l l i n g to spend a l l the time "necessary to make contacts and pick up information about my work i s not so important that I would give up time to make contacts and get information about my work i s not p a r t i c u l a r l y important to me  In my free time at work, I would rather 1 2 3  25.  job  I am happier i f I am praised f o r doing a good job of 1 3 2  24.  where there are people from my neighborhood who are members where there are people from work who are members where the members come from a l l over  Moving ahead on my 1  23.  my hobby or other interests my job only something very special and important  i t i s usually about  how well I'm doing on my job just l i t t l e things things that happen to me outside the plant  I t i s more important to me 1 3 2  that  I be tops at my job and that my friends know t h i s I be good at other things (away from my job) and that my friends know t h i s things go smoothly whether or not my friends think I'm good at them  47  27.  I would most hate 1 3 2  2#.  When I am doing some work, I usually t r y not to waste material 1  2 3  29.  2 1  playing cards with the fellows at work at lunch time playing cards only with people I can win from playing cards at night with friends  Noise bothers me most 3 1 2  32.  from an o f f i c e r of an organization I belong to i n town from a policeman from my foreman  I get a bigger kick out of 1 2 3  31.  on my job seldom; I don't worry about wasting material on a project at home  I t i s easier f o r me to take a bawling out 3  30.  missing a day's work " missing a meeting of an organization I belong to missing almost anything I usually do  when working at home when working at the plant hardly ever  I hope my children can 1 3  be sure to work at the same kind of job as mine be sure to work at a d i f f e r e n t kind of job from mine  2  work at any job, I don't care what  33.  When I am doing some work  34.  3 I am usually most accurate working at home 2 I seldom think about being accurate 1 I am usually most accurate working at the plant I prefer t o have as friends 3 2 1  people who do not work at the same place as I do d i f f e r e n t people according to what they're l i k e people who work at my company  48  35.  I don't mind getting d i r t y 3 2 1  36.  I would much rather be a leader i n 1 3 2  37.  2  by the people at work by the people around town by anyone I know  I think that i f I were suddenly to get a much better job 1 3 2.  41.  I am most annoyed on a job at the plant I am most annoyed on a project where we are f i x i n g up the church or our organization club-house I am annoyed regardless of where we are working  I t hurts me more i f I am d i s l i k e d 1 3 2  40.  d i f f e r e n t people depending on what we t a l k about my neighbors the people at work  I f I have to work with someone else who i s a slow worker to get a job done 1 3  39.  my company's recreational program my lodge any organization just so i t ' s a good one  I prefer t a l k i n g to 2 3 1  38.  while working at home at anytime i f I can wash up afterwards while working at the plant -  probably my l i f e would change and be better i n l o t s of ways probably my l i f e would not change much except that I'd l i v e a l i t t l e better I wouldn't know what would happen to my l i f e  The people I would be most l i k e l y to borrow money from are 3 2 1  the people I know around town anyone who would lend i t to me the people I know here i n the plant  49  42.  I f I get poor materials to work on 1 2 3  43.  I would prefer going to 1 2 3  44.  almost any of my friends the friends I have around town the friends I have at work  I am most interested i n 1 3 2  46.  a company dance any dance depending on the orchestra a dance at my lodge or other favorite organization  The people I can count on most when I need help are 2 3 1  45.  I am most annoyed when i t slows me up at my job I just accept'it as a matter of bad luck I am most annoyed when i t makes me lose time on a project I am doing at home  things about my job things I usually do around the house anything I happen to be doing at the moment  I do my best work 1 3 2  when I am at the plant when I work around the house when I'm not bothered by people  In order to have some general idea about the people who are cooperating i n t h i s study, please check the answers that apply to you. My age i s : under 2 0 years between 2 0 and 2 9 years between 3 0 and 3 9 years between 4 0 and 4 9 years 5 0 years or over  50 Right now I am: ••  -- ,  working f u l l time working f u l l time working part'time working part time not working  at at at at  - my regular job a temporary job my regular job a temporary job  I have been working at the same plant for: regular job)  (at your  less than 1 year between 1 and 5 years between 6 and"10'years between 11 and 15 years more than 15 years My job i s best described as: Regular hourly employee S k i l l e d tradesman Foreman  NOTE:  The answer codes included with t h i s copy of the questionnaire were not printed on the copies of the  questionnaire sent t o the study sample.  are  reproduced here f o r the information of the  reader.  The code i s as follows: 1 - the job oriented reply 2 - the passive reply 3 - the non-job oriented reply  They  P P E W D I X  B  FACTOR ANALYSIS ... INVOLVEMENT BY JOB Variable  1  Factor 2  3  Unskilled (n=104) 1  0.869  0.134  -0.036  2  0.862  -0.040  -0.039  3  0.837  0.013  -0.071  4  0.728  0.444  -0.054  5  0.063  0.969  0.044  -0.075  0.034  0.996  1  0.804  0.224  -0.089  2  0.872  0.001  -0.092  3  0.737  -0.206  -0.118  4  -0.072  0.769  -0.145  5  0.078  0.849  0.047  6  -0.184  -0.084  0.970  1  0.735  0.018  0.470  2  0.832  -0.216  0.263  3  0.750  0.358  -0.261  4  0.231  0.408  0.642  5  -0.028  0.932  0.064  6  -0.051  0.069  -0.812  6  S k i l l e d (n=88)  Foremen (n=66)  53  FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY ..SENIORITY Factor Variable  1  2  3  l e s s than 1 - y r . (n=5) 1  0.051  0.821  -0.557  2  0.313  0.332  -0.859  3  -0.037  0.981  -0.116  4  -0.963  0.072  0.229  5  -0.912  -0.385  -0.006  6  0.788  -0.301  -0.357*  1  0.865  0.104  -0.183  2  0.846  -0.001  -0.134  3  0.791  0.006  -0.069  4  0.611  0.557  0.287  5  -0.047  0.893  -0.276  6  -0.200  -0.180  0.909  1  0.726  0.377  -0.246  2  0.903  -0.035  -0.113  3  0.712  0.228  -0.038  4  0.267  0.744  -0.435  5  0.118  0.861  0.272  6  -0.151  0.049  0.927  5 y r s . (n»50)  10 y r s . (n*83)  FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY,SENIORITY 1  Factor 2  1  0.887  -0.295  -0.169  2  0.497  0.092  -0.823  3  0.801  0.487  -0.197  4  0.212  -0.934  -0.195  5  0.948  -0.237  -0.004  6  0.095  0.275  0.932  1  0.819  0.118  -0.122  2  0.886  -0.011  -0.034  3  0.795  -0.051  0.043  4  0.333  0.690  -0.012  5  -0.244  0.837  0.046  6  -0.048  0.031  0.995  Variable  3  11 - 15 yrs(n»9)  than 15 yrs. (n=lll)  55  FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY„AGE Factor Variable less than 20 y r s . (n»l)  1  2  3  (no factor analysis)  20-29 y r s . (n=42) 1  0.875  0.050  -0.032  2  0.810  0.117  0.000  3  0.711  0.021  -0.395  4  0.631  0.507  -0.110  5  0.060  0.963  -0.048  6  -0.089  -0.071  0.964  1  0.834  0.253  -0.180  2  0.911  0.022  -0.079  3  0.707  0.393  -0.230  4  0.316  0.692  -0.157  5  0.063  0.891  0.064  6  -0.201  -0.035  0.971  30-39 y r s . (n*85)  FACTOR ANALYSIS - INVOLVEMENT BY,AGE Variable  1  Factor 2  3  40-49 y r s . (n»84) 1  0.852  0.179  -0.132  2  0.911  0.003  -0.113  3  0.779  -0.046  0.210  4  0.385  0.716  -0.334  5  -0.141  0.877  0.254  6  0.018  0.054  0.940  1  0.632  0.027  -0.024  2  0.802  -0.258  0.037  3  0.782  0.276  -0.109  4  0.020  0.038  0.966  5  -0.647  0.017  -0.317  6  -0.028  0.965  0.041  than 50 y r s . (n=46)  A P P E N D I X  G  INVOLVEMENT-LIKERT SCORE - JOB STANDARD VARIABLE Unskilled (n-IOA) 1  MEAN  DEVIATION  4.510  1.911  2  4.856  1.781  3  5.539  1.895  4  4.337  1.820  5  3.279  1.715  6  3.894  2.000  1  4.761  1.390  2  5.227  1.460  3  6.136  1.366  4  3.841  1.694  5  2.852  1.497  6  4.136  1.763  1  3.970  1.403  2  4.182  1.508  3  5.652  1.494  4  3.136  1.335  5  3.773  1.681  6  4.439  1.551  S k i l l e d (n=88)  Foremen (n=66)  INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT'SCORE - SENIORITY  ,. VARIABLE  ..  ... MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  less than 1-yr. (n=5) 1  4.800  1.304  2  4.400  1.140  3  6.000  1.732  4  3.200  1.483  5  2.400  0.894  6  4.400  1.949  1  4.960  1.726  2  5.100  1.705  3  6.060  1.300  4  4.440  1.593  5  3.520  1.776  6  4.000  1.917  1  4.675  1.523  2  5.096  1.559  3  5.868  1.576  4  3.940  1.830  5  3.133  1.702  6  4.060  1.797  1-5 y r s . (n=50)  6-10 y r s . (n-83)  66  INVOLVEMENT - LIKSRT SCORE - SENIORITY VARIABLE  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  1 1 - 15 y r s . (n-9) 1  4.556  1.590  2  5.333  1.803  3  5.778  1.202  4  4.000  1.581  5  2.667  1.323  6  4.000  1.732  more than 15 y r s . (n«lll) 1  4.045  1.643  2  4.441  1.650  3  5.559  1.847  4  3.559  1.672  3.324  1.630  4.207  1.820  5 6  v  61  INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT SCORE - AGE VARIABLE l e s s than 2 0 y r s . (n=l)  STANDARD. DEVIATION  MEAN  (no analysis)  2 0 - 2 9 y r s . (n=42) 1  5.167  1.607  2  5.191  1.518  3  5.952  1.431  4  4.667  1.557  5  3.667  1.844  6  3.881  1.837  1  4.859  1.489  2  5.059  1.606  3  6.082  1.441  4  3.918  1.747  5  3.259  1.63.4  6  3.859  1.760  3 0 - 39 y r s . C n s 8 5 )  62  INVOLVEMENT - LIKERT SCORE - AGE VARIABLE  MEAN  STANDARD. DEVIATION  40 - 49 yrs. (n=84) 1  4.143  1.709  2  4.679  1.673  3  5.452  1.766  4  3.607  1.817'  5  3.012  1.548  6  4.369  1.881'  1  3.674  1.399  2  4.283  1.695  3  5.587  1.869  4  3.473  1.457  5  3.370  1.743  6  4.304  1.762  more than 50 yrs. (n»46)  A P P E N D I X  D  64 CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BT JOB Rule 1  Rule 2  Total  Unskilled (n=104) Over-all  1  58  59  56.8  General Relations  4  36  40  38.5  Informal Relations  0  30  30  28.9  Formal Relations  36  61  97  93.2  Technical Relations  36  29  65  62.6  Over-all  2  53  55  62.5  General Relations  2  40  42  47.7  Informal Relations  1  29  30  34.1  Formal Relations  22  64  86  97.8  Technical Relations  3©  33  63  71.6  Over-all  3  40  43  65.2  General Relations  3  34  37  56.1  Informal Relations  1  19  20  30.3  Formal Relations  28  37  65  98.5  Technical Relations  25  20  45  68.3  S k i l l e d (n*88)  Foremen (n-66)  \  65  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BY SENIORITY Rule 1  Rule 2  Total  less than 1 y r . (n=5) Over-all  0  3  3  60.0  General Relations  0  2  2  40.0  Informal  0  3  3  60.0  Relations  V  Formal Relations  1  4  5  100.0  Technical Relations  2  1  3  60.0  Over-all  0  23  23  46.0  General Relations  0  16  16  32.0  Informal  0  15  15  30.0  16  29  45  90.0  9  14  23  46.0  Over-all  3  47  50  60.2  General Relations  6  31  37  44.4  Informal  0  23  23  27.7  Formal Relations  33  48  31  97.6  Technical Relations  26  29  55  66.3  1 - 5 y r s . (n=50)  Relations  Formal Relations Technical Relations  6-10  yrs. (n»83)  Relations  66  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST - BY SENIORITY Total  %  Rule 1  Rule 2.  Over-all  0  5  5  55.6  General Relations  0  4  4  44.4  Informal  0  2  2  22.2  Formal Relations  2  7  9  100.0  Technical Relations  4  0  4  44.4  Over-all  3  73  76  68.5  General Relations  3  57  60  54.1  Informal  2  35  37  33.4  Formal Relations  34  74  108  97.3  Technical Relations  50  38  88  79.3  11-15 y r s . (n=9)  Relations  more than 15 y r s . (n =111) ;  Relations  67  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST -' BY AGE Rule 1  Rule 2  Total  less than 20 y r s . (n=l) Over-all  0  0  0  0  General Relations  0  1  1  100.0  Informal  0  0  0  0  Formal Relations  1  -  1  100.0  Technical Relations  0  0  0  0  Over-all  0  20  20  47.7  General Relations  0  12  12  28.6  Informal  0  14  14  33.3  14  26  40  95.4  9  9  18  42.8  Over-all  2  44  46  54.1  General Relations  3  35  38  44.7  Informal  1  17  18  21.2  Formal Relations  27  55  82  96.4  Technical Relations  23  27  50  58.9  Relations  20-29 y r s . (n=42)  Relations  Formal Relations Technical Relations  30-39 y r s . (n=85)  Relations  68  CENTRAL.LIFE INTEREST . BY AGE 1  ::.  40  &lie  1  Rule 2  Total  - 4 9 y r s . (n=84)  Over-all  4  55  59  7.0.2  General Relations  6  41  47  55.9  Informal  1  26  27  32.2  Formal Relations  31  50  81  96.4  Technical Relations  33  28  61  72.6  Over-all  0  32  32  69.6  General Relations  0  21  21  45.7  Informal  0  21  21  45.7  Formal Relations  13  31  44  95.8  Technical Relations  26  18  44  95.8  Relations  more than 5 0 y r s . (n=46)  Relations  A P P E N D I X  E  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-JOB ..  .. -  STANDARD DEVIATION  MEAN  Unskilled (n=104) Over-all  8.894  4.343  General Relations  1.36$  1.316  Informal Relations  1.192  1.316  Formal Relations  2.904  Technical Relations  3.433  2.037  Over-all  9.580  4.269  General Relations  1.466  1.270  Informal Relations  1.386  1.584  Formal Relations  2.830  1.140  Technical Relations  3.898  1.977  10.955  4.666  General Relations  2.152  1.449  Informal Relations  1.394  1.585  Formal Relations  3.258  1.119  Technical Relations  4.152  2.091  1  1.355  S k i l l e d (n=88)  Foremen (n=66) Over-all  71  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-SENIORITY  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  Over-all  9.800  5.741  General Relations  1.800  1.3-27  Informal Relations  1.600  1.855  Formal Relations  2.400  1.020  Technical Relations  4.000  2.683  Over-all  8.280  3.873  General Relations  1.400  1.183  Informal Relations  1.160  1.419  Formal Relations  2.860  1.200  Technical Relations  2.860  1.755  Over-all  9.651  4.527  General Relations  1.518  1.508  Informal Relations  1.253  1.343  Formal Relations  3.205  1.190  Technical Relations  3.675  2.077  l e s s than 1 y r . (n=5)  1-5 y r s . (n«50)  6-10 y r s . (n»83)  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED R EPLIE5.SENI0RITY  .  r  11-15  MEAN  STANDARD, DEVIATION  y r s . (n=9)  Over-all  9.444  4.475  General Relations  1.333  1.155  Informal Relations  1.667  1.633  Formal Relations  2.778  0.916  Technical Relations  3.667  2.309  10.288  4*491  General Relations  1.766  1.349  Informal  1.378  1.571  Formal Relations  2.883  1.293  Technical Relations  4.261  1.948  more than 15 y r s . (n«»lll) Over-all  Relations  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-AGE  MEAN  STANDARD. DEVIATION  less than 20 y r s . (n=l) Over-all  13.000  0.0  General Relations  2.000  0.0  Informal Relations  4.000  0.0  Formal-Relations  4.000  0.0  Technical Relations  3.000  0.0  Over-all  8.190  4.244  General Relations  1.333  1.189  Informal Relations  1.214  1.489  Formal Relations  2.929  1.203  Technical Relations  2.714  1.991  Over-all  9.047  4.237  General Relations  1.506  1.386  Informal Relations  1.071  1.412  Formal Relations  2.953  1.197  Technical Relations  3.518  2.004  20-29 y r s . (n-42)  30-39 y r s . (n=85)  CENTRAL LIFE INTEREST-JOB ORIENTED REPLIES-AGE  MEAN  STANDARD DEVIATION  40 - 49 y r s . (n=84) Over-all  10.60?  4.838  General Relations  1.952  1.535  Informal Relations  1.500  1.547  Formal Relations  3.060  1.257  Technical Relations  4.095  2.027  10.304  3.895  General Relations  1.370  1.050  Informal Relations  1.435  1.393  Formal Relations  2.848  1.302  Technical Relations  4.652  1.722  more than 50 y r s . (n»46J Over-all  A P P E N D I X  F  VARIABLE ASSOCIATION.*!DIE' S Q.GENERAL RELATIONS  Question #11  #14  #17  #18  #25  .35  .41  -.03  .14  #14  .82  -.08  .33  #17  -.48  -1.0  #18  #32  #40  #45  #46  .54  .56  .51  .21  .69  .77  .45  -1.0  .73  .35  .35  .24  -.01  .36  .36  #25  .31  .28  .60  .41  #32  -.09  .37  .35  #40  .03  -.24  #45  .68  -.11  .62  #46  NOTE:  Bivariate table i s  a  b  c  d  Yule's Q = ad - be (range -1 to 1) ad + be  77  VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-INFORMAL RELATIONS Question  #10  #12  #16  #19  #21  #24  #7  1.0  .15  .81  .64  .18  .45  .09  #10  1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0  1.0  #12  -1.0 #16  .45 .57 -1.0 #19  #26  .15  .10  -1.0  -1.0  . 6 0 .64  -.03  -1.0  #21  .68  .14  #24 . 6 8 #26  78  VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-INFORMAL RELATIONS;CONT'D Question  #30  #34  #37  #39  #41  #44  .22  .53  .43  .11  .36  .27  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  1.0  .03  -1.0  .41  .37  .45  -1.0  .52  -1.0  -1.0  -1.0  -1.0  -1.0  -.13  .84  .63  .37  .55  .48  -.22  .41  .62  .53  .36  .32  .13  .64  .59  .56  .28  .57  .16  .49  .15  .43  -.33  .40  #30  -.20  .24  .29  .15  .03  #34  .73  .49  .54  .89  #37  .56  .23  .68  #39  .04  .68  #41  .67 #44  79  VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-FORMAL RELATIONS  Question  #15  #23  #27  #29  #36  #43  #8  .46  .46  .19  -.29  -.06  .04  #15  .47  .02  -.28  -.22  1.0  #23  .45  -.16  .63  .52  #27  -.06  .30  .15  #29  -.15  -.28  #36  .27 #43  80  VARIABLE ASSOCIATION-YULE'S Q-TECHNICAL RELATIONS Question  #13  #20.  #22  #28  #31  #33  #35  #38  #42  #19  .55  .29  .35  .65  .03  .69  .12  .39  .36  #13  .46  .59  .61  -.11  .34  .31  .20  .59  #20  .58  .40  -.05  .32  .15  .25  .30  #22  .37  -.16  .06  .41  .09  .47  #28  -.23  .82  .44  .32  .64  #31  -.29  -.20  -.07  -.03  #33  .22  .13  .56  #35  .27  .16  #38  .20 #42  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101941/manifest

Comment

Related Items