xt7tdz032619 https://exploreuk.uky.edu/dips/xt7tdz032619/data/mets.xml Kentucky University of Kentucky. Center for Developmental Change 1968 Other contributors include Donohew, Lewis. Photocopies. Unit 1, copy 2 is a photocopy issued by the clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical Information. Report of a study by an interdisciplinary team of the University of Kentucky, performed under Contract 693 between the University of Kentucky Research Foundation and the Office of Economic Opportunity, 1965-68. Includes bibliographical references. Part of the Bert T. Combs Appalachian Collection. books  English  Contact the Special Collections Research Center for information regarding rights and use of this collection.  Community Action Program (U.S.) Economic assistance, Domestic--Kentucky--Knox county. Poor--Kentucky--Knox County Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 7: Modernization of Life Styles text Community Action in Appalachia: An Appraisal of the "War on Poverty" in a Rural Setting of Southeastern Kentucky, August 1968; Unit 7: Modernization of Life Styles 1968 2016 true xt7tdz032619 section xt7tdz032619   I·I’)I)I§RNIZ/\'I`I<1V-I r>1·` LIFE S'1_‘YLI?S
L! !1‘1‘ 7
!,iiwlS DONOHEW AND ii. KRISHNA SINGH
  Aupugé, 1968

 { I
if Contents of Entire Report:
l COMMUNITY ACTION IN APPALACHIA
This is one unit of a report which includes the following units, I
each separately bound as is this one:
Unit l--Paul Street, Lpppedeepipp_epd Synthesis
_ Quality of Life in Rural Poverty Areas y,}
K Unit 2——Lowndes F. Stephens, Economic Progress in an Appelachianll
Q_ Cpegpyi Tee Relationship Betyeen Economee
l epd Soeiel Change
gi
I Unit 3--Stephen R, Cain, A_Seleepeye Desepiption ef a Knox County
» Mpeppein Neighbprhood
Unit 4--James Wu Gladden, §amily_pife Styles, Social Participation
I end Seeio·Cultural_Qhange
Change and Impacts of Community Action
Unit 5-—Herbert Hirsch, Povepty, Participation, and Political
' Socialization: A Study of the Relationship
§etween_Participation in the_Qommunity Action
Pgogrem_epd the Political Socialization pf
A the Appalachian Child,
Unit 6--Morris K. Caudill, The Youth Development Program
y Unit 7-—Lewis Donohew and B, Krishna Singh,]Modernizap;ep of
I Lifsiiies *——-
·- Unit 8—·Willis A, Sutton, Jr , Leeeepship and Community Relations
Unit 9——Ottis Murphy and Paul Street, The "Image" of the Knox County
` Community Action Program
I Specific Community Action Programs
Unit l0--Ottis Murphy, Tee Knpg_County Economic Opportunity Anti-
_Peyerty Arts and Crafts Store Project
Unit ll--Paul Street and Linda Tomes, [pe Early Childhood Program
Unit 12-—Paul Street, The Heeeph Edueepion Ppogram
S Unit I3--Thomas P: Field, Wilford Bladen, and Burtis Webb, Recent
N Home_Constrpepion ie Two Appalaehian Counties
L I ,

 O O
PREFACE
It seems like a long time since our first planning pre-test sessions
on this project. And it seems longer still since the co-investigators,
graduate assistants, and others made that first interviewing trip to
l , Knox County, trudging up hollows or splashing through creek beds in a
rented four—wheel drive Jeep, and literally getting dirty with our data.
Since then, we have had many disappointments and many rewards, many times
when we fretted and got little done because of some bottleneck, or worked
almost all night for many nights in a row to meet a deadline--as we have
just finished doing again at the time this is written. Now that we have
gone up some blind alleys, and up some that were rewarding, we could design
and carry out a much better study, of course, But our major fear, that
no changes of the kind we wanted to measure would show up in such a short
time, provedtbh without grounds, and in that we feel particularly fortunate.
We wish to thank many people who have helped. Our first expression of
gratitude must go to our respondents, those patient, hospitable people
who sat through four to six hours of interviewing and gave us what we
A believe to be very honest answers. Second, we especially want to thank
Mrs. Paul Holleran, who helped bring order out of chaos when we were far
behind schedule on coding. We also wish to thank Bob Chanteloup, who
adapted a number of computer programs for our use and trained graduate
assistants to succeed him when he left for service; Dr. Ottis Murphy,
field director of the project, for directing an important second effort
QI
ii
t
i c,   _, __A____  -.,...._._......e...,...—...—-....»-» -

 when it appeared that we would not get interviews with a number of
' · respondents; Mrs. Oshia Stivers, an interviewer who succeeded where
others failed; Frank Bailey, al1—purpose man, whom we berated in
midsummer and thanked at its end; Herb Hirsch and our other colleagues
on the project, whose companionship and criticisms we have enjoyed;
the family of the first named author below, whichbgave up its vacation
while dad worked to finish the project, and finally the project
director, Dr. Paul Street, who meets the qualification of a gentleman
and a scholar.
Lexington, Kentucky L.D.
August, 1968 B.K.S.
OO
. iii A

 •   TABLE OF CONTENTS
I
Page
PREFACE .............................. 2
LIST OF TABLES ..................   ........ iv
LIST OF FIGURES .......................... vi
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ........ · ............... 1
II. METHOD, SAMPLE, VARIABLES ................. 9
III. NORMATIVE ANALYSIS: DIFFERENCES BY NEIGHBORHOODS ..... 31
IV. IPSATIVE ANALYSIS: TYPES OF INDIVIDUALS AND THEIR
LIFE STYLES ....................... 50
V. IPSATIVE AND NORMATIVE ANALYSIS: MEAN CHANGES BY
TYPES AND NEIGHBORHOODS ................. 69
VI. ACCEPTANCE OF NEW IDEAS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION .... 86
VII. SUM ARY AND SOM  RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 114
REFERENCES ............................ 121
APPENDIX I
APPENDIX II
O I
iv ·
.1__“_111___-__1__.__1,_1_,-1.11_I_.____.1;_.____....1.iILLL_.e.Q.._._......_......._.....__..__...,.............~.L..LI.-..—*“—».m..»»»»·e.-—

 · · LIST OF TABLES
Table A Page
l. A. Means, Time One and Time Two, on Indicators of
Modernity in Each Neighborhood (Bases of
Modernization) .................... 37
B. Means, Time One and Time Two, on Indicators of
Modernity in Each Neighborhood (Psycho—social
Characteristics) ................... 38
C. Means, Time One and Time Two, on Indicators of
Modernity in Each Neighborhood (Media
Participation) ................... 39
D. Means, Time One and Time Two, on Indicators of
Modernity in Each Neighborhood (Acceptance of
New Ideas) ...................... 40
2. Direction of Change and Two-Tail Probabilities of Change
Differences Between Time One and Time Two,
by Neighborhoods ..................... 47
3. Number of Persons Primarily Leading on Each Factor ..... 52
4. Frequency with Which Each Type Was Higher than All Other
Types on Each Characteristic, Time One and Time Two . . . 60
5. Frequency with Which Each Type Was Lower than All Other
Types on Each Characteristic, Time One and Time Two . . . 61
6. Directions of Change and Two—Tail Probabilities of Chance
Differences Between Time One and Time Two, Least
Modern Types ....................... 70
7. Direction of Change and Two-Tail Probabilities of Chance
Differences Between Time One and Time Two, Semi
Modern Types ....................... 71
8. Direction of Change and Two-Tail Probabilities of Change
Differences Between Time One and Time Two, Most
Modern Types ....................... 72
9. Mean Scores of Adoption of Innovations at Time Two,
Least Modern Types , ................... 75
l0. Mean Scores on Adoption of Innovations at Time Two,
Semi—Modern Types .................... 76
ll. Mean Scores on Adoption of Innovations at Time Two,
• . Most Modern Type ............ . ...... . . 77
v

 · · Table Page
12. Level of Acceptance of Community Center by Neighborhoods. . 88
13. Level of Acceptance of Early Childhood Program, by
Neighborhoods ...................... 90
14. Level of Acceptance of Adult Education, by Neighborhoods. . 92
15. Level of Acceptance of Neighborhood Youth Corps, by
Neighborhoods ...................... 93
16. Level of Acceptance of Work Study Program, by
Neighborhoods ...................... 94
17. Level of Acceptance of Head Start, by Neighborhoods .... 95
18. Level of Acceptance of Model Homes, by Neighborhoods .... 96
19. Level of Acceptance of Birth Control Measures, by
Neighborhoods ...................... 98
20. Level of Acceptance of Landscaping and Home Beautification,
by Neighborhoods ..................... 99  
21. Per Cent Acceptance of New Ideas in the Neighborhoods i
of Knox County ..................... 100 E
22. Usage of Sources of Information in Artemus ......... 106 j
23. Usage of Sources of Information in Bailey's Switch ..... 107 A
24. Usage of Sources of Information in Middlefork ....... 108
25. Usage of Sources of Information in Bethel ......... 109
26. Usage of Sources of Information in Messer ......... 110 5
27. Usage of Sources of Information in Kay Jay ......... 111 g
28. Mean Credibility Scores of Neighborhoods .~ ........ 113 4
1
O I  
vi

 LIST OF FIGURES
· . Figure Page
1. Level of Modernity of the Six Neighborhoods at Time One . . . 43
2. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
One and Time Two, Artemus ................. 54
3. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
One and Time Two, Bai1ey°s Switch ............. 55
4. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
One and Time Two, Bethel ................. 56
5. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
One and Time Two, Middlefork ............... 57
6. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
One and Time Two, Messer ................. 58
7. Characteristics Distinguishing Between Types at Time
I One and Time Two, Kay Jay ................. 59
8. Changes Between Time One and Time Two, Neighborhoods in
Which There Were No Community Centers ........... 64
9. Changes Between Time One and Time Two, Neighborhoods in
Which There Were New or Smaller Community Centers ..... 64
10. Changes Between Time One and Time Two, Neighborhoods in
Which There Were Old Established Community Centers .... 64
ll. Profile of Acceptance of New Ideas in Knox County
(All Six Neighborhoods) .................. 102
12. Profile of Acceptance of New Ideas of the Six Neighborhoods
of Knox County ...................... 103
13. Comparative Profile of Acceptance of New Ideas in the Six
Neighborhoods of Knox County ............... l04
· · vii

 ABSTRACT
ll
l A Studies of communicatiod and change in underdeveloped countries were
drawn upon to design a study of modernization of individuals--including
adoption of new ideas and practices-—in six neighborhoods in Knox County.
Two of the neighborhoods are served by old, established community centers
operated by the OE0-CAP, two are served by newer or smaller centers, and
two have no centers, although they have some contact with this agency
for change through programs brought to them by mobile units and by other
means.
The study approaches the individual as an interactive behavioral
system whose components are variables defining his "style of life." Data
were gathered at two points in time on 57 aspects of life style of heads
of households and homemakers in these six neighborhoods. These included
nine practices whose adoption was sought by the OE0-CAP or other change
agents. They also included indicators of the base for modernity--such as
family income, cosmopoliteness, and others--psycho-social attitudes and Q
behaviors, and media exposure. Q
We found that more changes toward modernity took place among individuals f
in neighborhoods served by the centers than in non-center areas, with the
greatest changes occurring in the adoption of innovations and the least E
in the base for modernity. Differences were tested for significance by A
t—test. E
Correlation, factor analysis, and weighted rotation of our data matrices g
produced three individuals "types" of persons in each of the neighborhoods, ;
as indicated by the items describing their life styles at the beginniag of l
O·‘  
l_ s h t •A_NpHF*_·m"g _ {

 study. These types were ordered along a continuum from least modern to
. . most modern. Similar analysis of data gathered near the end of the
study also produced three "types" of persons, with more persons loading
on modern types in neighborhoods served by centers.
Differences between neighborhoods on the extent of modernization
remained after we sorted each neighborhood into groups according to
their factor types at Time One. That is, no single type, such as least
modern, accounted for the major portion of the differences between
comuunities.
It was concluded that there are striking differences in the rate
of modernization of persons in areas served by community center areas
and those not served by centers and that many of these changes could
logically be attributed to presence of the centers.
O I  
2 5
N ,
_____________g__________*____________;_,_______ ___e,___e, .ee. ___._-.-  f

 IO
Chapter l
INTRODUCTION I
In this study we have set out to measure changes which took place
in individuals, over time, following efforts to expose them to programs
of the Office of Economic Opportunity through the Community Action
Program. We have measured these individuals at two points in time,
and in our analysis have sought to answer three main questions:
l) What changes took place in the "life-styles" of the people--
their participation in organizations, meetings with other people,
frequency of trips to more modern areas, etc.——which might effect their
likelihood of breaking out of the "poverty cycle"?
2) Were there differences in the extent of modernization of these
persons in areas served by community centers of the O.E.O.—C.A.P. from
that of persons in areas where this agency for change was not present?
3) What kinds of persons-¤as indicated by the characteristics
measured here--adopt (or refuse to adopt) what kinds of ideas and
practices supported by the OEO and others after exposure (or lack of it)
to what sources of information?
Background
The design of this project reflects certain decisions about the
relative order of variables in the development process. In a review
OC I

 of the literature of development, McNelly (1964) has written that there
· · are two main views. One is that the really important factors in dev-
lopment are economic and that other factors such ss education, cultural
advancement, political stability, and communication are either irrelevant
or sort of "tag along" with economic development. He said the other
position, supported by Galbraith and others, is the "people are the
com on denominator of progress," and that "if a bad land system, mass
illiteracy, a corrupt, incompetent, or exiguous public administration
or all three are what is wrong, the provision of technical aid or the l
damming of rivers will do little good." McNelly added that "there is
a growing recognition among persons concerned with developing countries
of the importance of social and political development as conditions for
and not just antitipated results of economic development." O.E.O.—C.A.P
programs appear to follow this latter approach and the major emphasis
of the design for measurement of early phases of the "War on Poverty"
in Knox County is oriented in this direction.
Rao (1966), who has studied communication and development in India,
has offered this justification for beginning a project such as the one
here by attempting to change the life-ways of the people:
If one is not conscious of what is going on outside
his immediate world the opportunity itself will not
be recognized. For any development to take place,
opportunity must be seized (and often created) by
a large number of people in any given community. Other-
wise development remains lopsided and the fruits of
growth are not shared.
2
O O

 In a similar approach, Schra m (1964) has written that along
· · a country's path of development, it
. . .finds that it can use com unication to implant and extend
the idea of change, to raise the aspirations of its people so that
they will want n larger economy and a modernized society
. . .When the idea of change is once implanted, then it is necessary
to teach many new skills--from literacy to agriculture to hygiene
to repairing a motor car. And it becomes necessary to mobilize
the people for participation in the great effort: persuade them
to be active in the program; to take part in planning and governing;
to tighten their belts, harden their muscles, work longer, and
wait for their rewards.
In many ways, the people of the Southern Appalachian region of the
United States are like the other isolated, illiterate, and poverty—stricken
people who make up the bulk of the world's population. How to cause
such people to participate in modernizing activities and bring them
into the "mainstream" of society appears to be no less a problem in
Appalachia than in the Middle East or Latin America, which have been the
subject of a number of modernization studies. According to Lerner
(1958, 1963) motivation of these people to change must come through
providing them with clues to what the better things of life might be.
He said that "before any enduring transformation of the vicious circle
of poverty can be started people will have to learn about the life—ways
evolved in other sections." Thus, modernization of developing areas
requires socio—cu1tural change, involving the adjusting of old patterns
of life to new demands.
In recent years, the concept of modernization has had the opportunity
to be criticized, furthered and distinguished from other types of socio-
cultural change. The criticism has been basically aimed at the value-
• I   ,

 laden orientation of the concept. In the process of classifying a
• · society, certain standards are prefixed and mostly it is left to
the writers to say whether a society is modern or traditional.
(McClelland, 1966) Many social scientists have asserted that this
distinction is dubious and unnecessary.
While all these criticisms have not been successfully refuted,
the concept of modernization has formed a core of research propositions
and some well-done research. Of many disciplines exploring this
concepg economics, communication, sociology, political science, and
history have perhaps contributed the most. Three interrelated but
distinct approaches have emerged in recent years about the concept
of modernization.
The first appromh involves plausible relationships among urban-
ization, literacy, industrialization, media participation, and development.
The second appunch is basically concerned with institutional structure
r
of societies-including nature and commitments of leadership, the re-
lationship between the political, economic, social, and cultural insti-
tution and their differing consequences--which either promote or retard
the process of modernization. The third approach is concerned with the K
basic distinction between relatively modernized and relatively non-
modernized socieites. Modernization is defined as a process of rapid
change (mostly normative) in individuals as social systems tending to-
ward a high rate of literacy, urbanization, media participation, and
general development. Our approach is concerned with changes in the {
individual and thus is closer to the one last mentioned.
  I
l 4

 Lerner has offered the propostition that modernity is an
• · interactive system, a "style of life" in which the efficient
functioning of any one component requires the efficient functioning
of all the others. Social scientists have been seeking to identify
the components of such a system and to determine how they go together
in the modernization process. Of particular interest to investigators
of developing countries and to those introducing programs for change
into these countries has been a communication research approach to
the study of change from traditional to modern styles of life (Rogers,
1968, McCrone and Cnudde, 1967, et. al.). As Pye states it: "The
I
flow of communications determines the direction and the pace of dynamic
social development. Hence it is possible to analyze all social processes
Dl*C¢fmS of the structure, content, and flow of communicationsJ'
Describing the role of communication in bringing about change,
Lerner has written:
The modernization process begins with new public
communication-—the diffusion of new ideas and new information A
which stimulate people to want to behave in new ways. It 4
stimulates the peasant to want to be a freeholding farmer, the
farmer's son to want to learn reading so that he can work
in town, the farmer's wife to want to stop bearing children,
the farmer's daughter to want to wear a dress and do her
hair. In this way new public communication leads directly
to new articulation of private interests.
These interests in co munication and change have led to identifica-
tion of a number of variables which describe the lives of persons in ,
L
developing societies. These dimensions include several areas of communi- g
i
cation behavior--such as exposure to the mass media and interaction with {
other persons-—social-psychological orientations, contact with and parti— l
 
cipation in the local society and the greater society beyond it, adoption
  N
  r_.____,____________M_.,_,______.._____._..ln......;_..._.._._..-._.i....__.......i.~_...~-...---.-~-.» l

 of new ideas, and demographic characteristics.
· · In this study, we are concerned with people who still live a
life of relative isolation from the greater society. For the most
remote, as Weller (1965) notes, the bed of a stream may be their
only road, and their only contact with other people may be their
neighbors, who quite possibly are relatives. Most of these people
do not even take a weekly newspaper, although they probably do have
a radio and several also have access to television.
· Coming into this setting, the Office of Economic Opportunity has
gone up the valleys and established community centers which conduct
programs intended to bring about changes in attitudes and behaviors
and eventually in the economic well-being of these people, to accelerate
their transition from almost a traditional society to one that is more
modern. Our study is based on the OEO's Knox County, Kentucky, program,
one of the largest rural programs in the United States.
Thus, it seemed appropriate to draw upon studies carried out in
underdeveloped countries and to take some of the variables which have
been found to be related to change in these countries and study them
in a rural poverty setting in the United States.
Two closely-related kinds of studies were drawn upon most extensively
in planning this portion of the project. One kind involves changes
related to alterations in the psychic structure of individuals, such as
those reported by Lerner and others in the Middle East involving the
development of empathy, or psychic mobility.*
*0f this quality, Lerner writes:
Empathy endows a person with the capacity to imagine himself
· · as proprietor of a bigger grocery store in a city, to wear nice
clothes and live in a nice house, to be interested in 'what is going
on in the world,' and to 'get out of his hole.' With the spread
of curiosity and imagination among a previously quietistic population
come the human skills needed for social growth and economic dev-
elopment. (The Passing of Traditional Society, 1958)
1 6

 A second kind of studies drawn upon is of the diffusion of innova-
. · tions (Rogers, 1962, 1967). This often has involved farm practices,
2-QD weed spray, etc. Here we are looking at ideas introduced by the
Office of Economic Opportunity. We also have selected some variables
on the basis of writings of Ford (1962), Weller, and others who have
studied the Appalachian people or who have lived and worked with them.
Third, we have drawn upon conventional techniques for comparing
in a normative way changes between two points in time. These are changes
which took place in individuals in neighborhmxk which had different
levels of contact with the O.E.O.-C.A.P. program.
Finally, we have adopted an approach recommended by MacLean
(1965) to this study of life styles during a period of dynamic inter-
vention by a program of planned change.* This approach is described
in the methodology section of this paper. Essentially, it is concerned
with analyzing the hierarchy within individuals of the variables mentioned
above. This is a sort of rank-ordering process, with individuals des-
cribed by their rankings on the variables studied here. For example, some
*0ne of the investigators on this project, B.K. Singh, is presently
working on a systems analysis of the Knox County data. Most of the
studies in the general area of diffusion of innovations have been con-
cerned either with finding out the characteristics of adopters or with
predicting adoption behavior based on these characteristics. Some of
them have combined both approaches. However, a recent trend has been
to make predictions by configurational models or game theories. The
configurational method is designed to predict a criterion with discrete
categories from a set of discrete or continuous factors on the basis of
the principle of maximum probability. (See R.P. Stucert, "A Configura—
tional Approach to Prediction," Sociometry, 21, 1958, pp. 225-237). For
a game approach see Torsten Hagerstrand, "A Monte Carlo Approach to Dif-
fusion," unpublished paper, Lund, Sweden, University of Lund. The
characteristics studied have a wide range of personal, social, cultural,
and psychological spheres. Similarly, the prediction of innovation by the _
multiple regression method has been widely used. Rogers gives a detailed
· · description of studies on innovation utilizing these different approaches.
(See Rogers, 1962).
7

 4
individuals may rank highest on items indicating isolation from
· · change, such as possessing ai strong sense of powerlessness and social
isolation, and lowest on those indicating interaction with potential
forces for modernization (such as the mass media or trips to town).
In such individuals, some of the items at the top must give way and
other items favoring change must move upward if the individual is to
become ready to break free of the restraints holding him in poverty.
In this study, we were asking if these hierachies changed, over
a relatively brief period of time, and if they were related to activi-
ties of the O.E.0.—C.A.P. in Knox County.
O I
8
____,_,_,_____,_,__ -· ___* l-   ··, 4 l·   _r__r  ,_ rrr ,,rr I

 OO
Chapter 2
METHOD, SAM@LE, VARIABLES
In Chapter l, we reported Lerner's proposition that modernity is
an interactive behavioral system. He described it as a "style of life"
( whose components are interactive in the sense that the efficient func-
tioning of any one of them requires the efficient functioning of all
the others. He said the components are behavioral in the sense that
they operate only through the activity of individual human beings and
they form a system in the sense that significant variation in the ac-
tivity of one component will be associated with significant variation
in the activity of all other components.
In this study we analyze changes which took place in individuals i
who have different levels of exposure to a program sponsored by the  
0.E.O. in a rural Appalachian region of the United States. Prior to
their exposure to the O.E.O.program, the individuals in this study 5
ranged along a continuum from traditional to modern. As discussed here,
this traditional-modern continuum refers to the amount of potentially
modernizing instruments available to them (such as an automobile, tele-  
vision set, and other items which tend to be related to income), to the
extent that they are receptive to change as indicated by their social- l
psychological orientations (empathy, alienation, political efficacy, etc.), ‘
and to the extent to which people expose themselves to stimuli for change
(such asthe mass media, schools, and the "outside world" in general)- ,
{Ib Qu, 9 A

 In our process—oriented model, it is the state of the individual
· · in terms of these indicators that forms the base for modernization,
the potential for slow or rapid change. These persons exist in a
situation into which planned social change--in the form of change
agents for the O.E.O.—-intrude by introducing new ideas. These forces
for planned change then interact with the individuals to form the
basis for further modernization.
A tool which lends itself particularly to this exploratory approach
is factor analysis, which has been frequently used in efforts to iso-
late basic dimensions of human behavior.* The reader is reminded that
in factor analysis a number of test scores or other measures are inter-
correlated and factor analyzed to determine the number of basic dimen-
sions (fact0r® the test space occupies. These dimensions are interpreted
through observing which measures have the highest loadings on which
factors and what these measures have in common.
Method
Several studies of communication and development have used the
individual as the unit of analysis, and some have employed factor
analysis, but they have largely been normative studies in that they
have examined relationships among variables across a population of
*Fruchter (1954) points out that in factor analysis the individual
differences represented by a large number of measures, given to a single
population, usually at one time under a standard set of conditions,
are studied to detect possible common sources of variation or variance.
In another commonly used test, analysis of variance, a single measure is
administered over a series of occasions and conditions to determine the
significance of group differences. It has been suggested by Royce (1950)
‘ that a proper order for research programs might be factor analysis to
isolate basic dimensions, then analysis of variance in which experiments
are conducted on each of the dimensions, one by one. ·
l0  

 I . individualsfk In this paper, we will use normative analysis to the
extent of testing for differences within neighborhoods at two time
periods on each of the variables through use of t-tests. Following
. ic-/r . _.
3 SUgg€SCl0U by MMCLCMH. we are UBlng an ipsative approach. That
is, instead of identifying variables which go together across a pop-
ulation by correlating amlfactoring tests for a sample of persons,
we consider the individual as our "system" and correlate and factor
persons for a purposive sample of tests.
Our concern, therefore, is with the relative order of items for
each person, with time held constant, from those on which he has
high scores to those on which he has low scores. The correlation and
factoring procedures locate the clusters of people who have, under our
operational definition, about the same "style of life." In other words,
in taking an ipsative approach, we are shifting the focus from the tradi-
tional one in which norms of a population are considered (R analysis) to
one which considers norms of variables. To us, thisappears to come
*In an earlier investigation using R factor analysis on data from
the area to be discussed here (Donohew, 1967), we found four normative
dimensions of communication and "receptiveness to change." They were:
(l) a factor indicating exposure to other persons within the neighborhood,
(2) a factor indicating exposure to stimuli for change from outside the
community, (3) a factor indicating isolation from change stimuli (except
radio and television) which appears to be related to the role of the
housewife, and (4) a factor indicating isolation from other persons
within the community and to stimuli for change from the outside.
H . . .
ccFor other illustrations of this procedure, see L. Erwin Atwood and
Malcolm S. MacLean, Jr., "How Principals, Advisers, Parents, and Pupils
View Journalism," Journalism Ouarterly, 44, 1, Spring, 1967, pp. 71-78,
and Lewis Donohew and B.K. Singh, "Poverty 'Types' and Their Sources of
Information about New Practices," paper presented before International
Communication Division, Association for Education in Journalism, Boulder,
Colorado, 1967. A similar approach, using nations rather than persons,
was used by R. Vincent Farace in "Identifying Regional 'Systems' in
· · National Development Research," Journalism Quarterly, 43, 4, Winter, 1966,
pp. 753-760.
ll

 closer to producing the kind of information we need for determining
·   how modernization takes place in the individual. One justification
for the use of this procedure, adapted from MacLean, is that when
people make decisions, or otherwise behave in certain ways, they
do so on the basis of some kind of comparative judgment of the alter-
nati