Herbert H. Hyman

Voluntary Association Memberships of American Adults: Evidence from National Sample Surveys

differentiation takes place. Knowledge of the association of the dimensions becomes important as a basis for further evaluations of the Shevky theory. In the reported factor analysis tests, the social rank, urbanization, and segregation factors were allowed to assume whatever relationships were necessary to best fit the predicted models. Factor correlations were computed from the original rotated matrices for all cities.26 As Table 5 indicates, these correlations show a rather consistent pattern. The low correlations, ranging from -.143 in Akron to .224 in Atlanta, between social rank and urbanization factors, indicate that they are almost independent of each other. The segregation factor, however, is related to both social rank and to urbanization. Correlations of segregation with social rank are consistently negative for the separate cities and range from -.015 in Atlanta to -.752 in Providence. Segregation is positively correlated with urbanization, with values varying from effectively zero in Portland to .344 in Akron.

Trends in Voluntary Association Memberships of American Adults: Replication Based on Secondary Analysis of National Sample Surveys

A small but noteworthy increase in the percentage of American adults who belong to voluntary associations has occurred since the mid-1950s (the date of an earlier study of this topic by the authors), as documented through several replications of national sample surveys. These same replications also confirm a major generalization of the earlier study that such membership is less common than had been assumed; indeed, voluntary association membership is not characteristic of the majority of American adults. Data from the replications confirm the previously demonstrated relationship between membership and major socioeconomic characteristics; but subgroup trends suggest that during the more recent period there has been a sharper growth in associational membership among the lower status groups. Although the findings are not completely consistent, there also seems to have been a sharper growth in association memberships on the part of Negroes. All of these findings, like those in the earlier study which has been replicated, are based on secondary analysis of national sample surveys. These social trends should be systematically measured and documented in the future by additional replications and new primary surveys.

DO THEY TELL THE TRUTH

Do the answers of people really give a true picture of their behavior? The answer to this question is obviously of basic importance to the whole scientific study of opinion. Some facts useful in arriving at the answer are offered by surveys conducted by the Division of Surveys of the Office of War Informations Bureau of Special Services. In these surveys the respondents answers could be, and. were checked against objective records of his behavior. It was not possible to get objective records for many such questions. Moreover, the questions dealt with behavior to which high prestige is attached and the results are qualified by this fact. But, nevertheless, the results are not without significance. I

STUDYING EXPERT INFORMANTS BY SURVEY METHODS: A CROSS-NATIONAL INQUIRY

Can a valid sample of informed, knowledgeable experts from many countries be obtained to give reasonably reliable reports on the introduction of planned programs of change in developing countries? In other words, can public opinion survey methods be used to obtain expert information as well as general public opinion in cross-national studies of developing countries? In spite of many obstacles and difficulties, the authors of this paper believe they have devised and used such a tool in their recent cross-national study of thirteen countries. Herbert H. Hyman is professor of Sociology at Columbia University, Gene N. Levine is Project Director at the United Nations Research Institute for Social Development on leave from the Sociology Department of the University of California, Los Angeles, and Charles R. Wright is Professor of Sociology at the University of California, Los Angeles.

An Exploration into Opinions and Personality

PSYCHOLOGIZING about politics has a long history. Doctrines of human nature figure in classics on political theory; the eloquent appeal in i908 by Graham Wallas for a revival of such interest was ultimately followed by the works of Merriam and Lasswell; the recent period is highlighted by Riesmans writings and the publication of The Authoritarian Personality-these latter works so prestigious that they alone have created an extensive literature of commentary. The present emphasis on the political behavior approach and the universal use of public opinion data and method today give psychological analysis a central place in current work. What does the publication of Opinions and Personality add to the picture? The authors state in their prefatory remarks that their work is in the service of discovery, rather than proof. They sought to develop a coherent framework for conceptualizing the relations between opinions and personality which then guided their methodology and empirical investigation and in turn led to improvements in conceptualization. It was hoped that such a framework or conceptual apparatus and the methods employed could guide others in discovering and proving by systematic inquiry the manifold relations between opinions and personality. That they have rendered such a service well seems abundantly clear to this reader. Smith and Bruner are social psychologists with much training and practical experience in field research and public opinion surveys. Bruner has also been distinguished for experimental work in cognition, perception, and higher mental processes. Both have had long association with Harvard and the Psychological Clinic, at which a group of investigators under the inspiration of Henry Murray have been engaged in clinical studies of normal personality.1 Smith and Bruner and Robert

The Cochran-Mosteller-Tukey Report on the Kinsey Study: A Symposium*

Abstract * A review article on Statistical Problems of the Kinsey Report, by William G. Cochran, Frederick Mosteller, and John W. Tukey, with the assistance of W. O. Jenkins. Washington, D. C.: The American Statistical Association, 1954. Pp. x, 338.

Interviewing in social research

5.00.