school children's perceptions of labor and management

This article was downloaded by: [McMaster University]On: 17 October 2014, At: 11:21Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

The Journal of SocialPsychologyPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

School Children'sPerceptions of Labor andManagementMason Haire a & Florence Morrison aa Department of Psychology , University ofCalifornia , Berkeley, USAPublished online: 30 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Mason Haire & Florence Morrison (1957) School Children'sPerceptions of Labor and Management, The Journal of Social Psychology, 46:2,179-197, DOI: 10.1080/00224545.1957.9714318

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1957.9714318

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of allthe information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on ourplatform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensorsmake no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy,completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views ofthe authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis.The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should beindependently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor andFrancis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings,demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, inrelation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vsoc20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/00224545.1957.9714318

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00224545.1957.9714318

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

T h e Journal of Social Piychology, 1957, 46, 179-197.

SCHOOL CHILDREN’S PERCEPTIONS OF LABOR AND MANAGEMENT*

Department of Prychology, Univrrsi ty of California, Berkelry

MASON HAIRE AND FLORENCE MORRISON

A. THE PROBLEM T h e study which is reported here is aimed a t an investigation of the way

in which school children see problems of labor-management relations. Sev- eral things combine to make this seem to be particularly important at this time. For one thing, there is a growing recognition of the importance of public attitudes toward labor-management relations as a determinant of both policy and action ( 5 ) . As a result of Big Unionism, strikes have become national and public issues rather than local and private. Mediators and conciliators must operate with an eye on the public; the company and union must evaluate their demands and settlements in terms of public approval or disapproval. T h e tendency to “take their story to the public” is growing, and a major strike issue hardly appears without the accompaniment of a pair of full-page ads with rationales. T h e culmination of public pressure is in legislative action, and no better index of its importance is to be found than the delicacy with which modifications of the present labor laws are being considered. For these reasons it seems important to see something of the nature of the public’s perception of labor and managment, so that we may understand it better, and, particularly, to see it in its roots and origins in youngsters, so that we may trace and understand its development.

I n addition to the importance of these public pressures, the study was shaped by two interests of more academic character. In the first place, we have relatively little information concerning the growth and development of attitudes (4). In order to understand the r d e of attitudes in behavior and their causes, we need to know more about their shape in early stages and the changes they subsequently undergo. Finallv, the study is influenced by a particular approach to the attitude itself. MacLeod (3) has suggested, in his Phenomenologica l A p p r o a c h t o Social P s y c h o l o g y , that in many cases we need to know first “what is there” rather than to begin with a concern about why it is there, or what its nature is. Such an approach

‘Received in the Editorial Office on December 2, 1955. ‘The work reported here w a s done under the auspices of the Institute of Indus-

trial Relations of the University of California a t Berkeley.

179

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

180 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

( a “disciplined naivete” in MacLeod’s words) treats the attitude not as a reified thing which is the possession of the subject, but rather as a characteristic of the perceptual organization of the observer as a result of which various things are seen or not seen in the social situation under consideration. For this reason the present study is oriented, not toward a study of what attitudes children have, but rather toward an understanding of the way labor and management look to youngsters from 12 to 17.

More specifically, the following kinds of questions are asked of the data: “What do unions look like to these subjects?” “What does management look like?” “Wha t do strikes look like?” “Is conflict seen between labor and management?” ”What motives and values are seen by children in the interaction of labor and management?” It will be clear as we go along that the particular approach and the nature of the theoretical questions asked strongly influenced the way in which the study was done.

Because the study was aimed a t finding out the structure of the subject’s perception of the labor-management relations, it seemed particularly important to avoid stimulus materials which would force the subject to respond in terms of dimensions of the material which existed in the experimenter’s mind. Consequently semi-projective material was used, which allowed the subject as great freedom as possible in terms of the aspects of the relationship to which he would respond, and, indeed, even in terms of whether or not he would see the labor-management relation a t all in the situation. Four types of such material were used: ambiguous pictures, followed by closed-ended questions, sentence completions, adjective check lists, and, finally, a series of “agree-disagree” statements such as “Strikes are more right than wrong” and “Unions make trouble for bosses.” T h e materials are described in detail below.

Among the liabilities one might list: ( a ) If the response is free it requires coding, with attendant difficulties in reliability and interpretation ; ( b ) it limits the de- gree to which the experimenter can bring his interests out in the open; and ( c ) different respondents may have different stimuli, because, although the same physical stimulus is presented to all, they attend to or emphasize one or another aspect of the pattern. It is argued here, however, that this last liability is in fact an immense asset in the investigation of attitudes. Indeed, it is just this process of attending to and emphasizing one of the possible dimensions of the physical stimulus world that i s an attitude. At the same time, the experimenter is protected from two great dangers in interviewing : ( u ) he is no longer able to phrase the questions entirely in terms of his own

They deserve a word of consideration here. T h e use of material of this type has assets and liabilities.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

MASON H A I R E AND FLORENCE MORRISON 181

dimensions of the environment, so that it is now possible for him to get back from the subjects something more than he put in; and ( 6 ) the experimenter is much less likely to uncover a false unanimity of response by asking questions which the subject answers as he feels he ought to, since the subject is relatively unaware of the purpose of the question. In these senses the projective attitude question is akin to the Ishihara color-blindness test, where the presence or absence of a particular kind of seeing determines what the subject will see in the picture, and consequently the incidence of malingering is reduced, and the subject tends to answer in terms of the dimensions of the world which are long-term characteristics of his organization of it. For these reasons the assets of this kind of approach seem greatly to outweigh the liabilities, and it is suggested that such a technique is particularly appropriate to the view of attitudes mentioned above (3) . If one considers an attitude to be a possession of and resident in the subject, it is appropriate to ask, “Wha t is your attitude?” If one considers an attitude to be a particular way of seeing certain classes of situations, it seems more appropriate to ask somehow, “How does it look to you?”

Let us look a t the instrument and the data with these three aims in mind: ( a ) finding out about children’s views of labor-management relations; ( b ) getting very preliminary data on the origin and development of attitudes; ( c ) attempting a phenomenological statement of this segment of the environment as it is seen by youngsters.

B. TESTS AND PROCEDURE T h e measuring instrument consisted of five short tests. Of these, four

are semi-projective tests which were developed and refined to be useful in examining children’s attitudes toward these complex issues. I n addition, a socio-economic questionnaire was answered by all subjects.

1. The Tests

a. T h e first test consisted of eight pictures about which yes-no questions were asked. T h e pictures were shown through an opaque projector, and after each had been exposed for approximately 30 seconds, the lights were switched on and the children answered the questions in their booklets. A. brief description of the pictures used follows :

(13B of the TAT cards) shows a little boy sitting in the doorway of an old house. This picture was a buffer and the responses were not analyzed.

T w o men against a truck: one wears overalls and cap, the other a

1.

2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

182 J O U R N A L OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

suit and hat. A descriptive caption given in the test booklet reads, “Here are two fellows leaning against a truck and talking.” Typical of the questions asked are, “Which one is the boss?”, “Which one works harder?”

T h e caption reads, “These strikers are receiving food and clothing.” Questions asked are : “DO you think they deserve help?”, “DO you think their bosses are right?”

A view of the New York Telephone Company strike showing pickets in front of the telephone building. Questions are asked about the identification of these people, and about personal characteristics, such as whether they are good, clean, smart, or hard-working.

T w o men seated across from each other at a desk-only the back of the head of the nearer man is visible. T h e description offered in the test booklet is: “Here are two men, sitting and talking across a desk.” Ques- tions are: “Are they friendly with one another?”, “Which is smarter?”, “Which one would you rather be?”

A man standing in front of a machine: he is either putting on or taking off a leather jacket. T h e description offered is: “This is a picture of a worker who is a member of a union.” Here the children are asked to check yes or no to adjectives such as, “lazy, greedy, intelligent, skilled, useless, submissive.”

A closeup of pickets: both men and women are holding signs. T h e booklet caption reads: “The people in this picture are on strike.” T h e questions asked here are similar to those of Picture 4: “Are they good, clean, smart?”, “Would you do the same thing?, “Are they going to win?”

T h e picture shows mounted police on the outskirts of a large group of pickets in the 1936 maritime strike in San Francisco, and is described by, “The policemen in this picture are watching these workers.” Questions : “Whom do you side with?”, “Will anyone be hurt?”, “Are the policemen friendly?”

T h e second test consisted of 10 sentence completion items such as, “A union is -, I think strikes are -.” These are open-ended questions and consequently the responses covered a wide and varied terrain. T h e completions therefore could not be scored dichotomously as could the other test items. It seemed feasible, for this reason, to do an analysis of the content of the responses. All content categories were obtained from a careful inspection of the protocols. T h e categories follow very closely the responses offered by our subjects; little has been done to change them except for com- bining some categories with others when they were similar, o r essentially the same.

3. People unloading a truck.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

8.

6. Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

MASON HAlRE A N D FLORENCE MORRISON 183

c. T h e third test consists of a series of 10 statements about unions, management, and labor, such as, “Strikes are more right than wrong,” “Unions make trouble for bosses,” “Strikes are no good because lots of people get hurt.”

d. T h e fourth test is similar to the Cornell were asked to underline which of two words unions, job strikes, etc. Some examples are:

Unions trouble Picket Lines wrong

Word Form ( 1 ) . Subjects they thought best described

progress necessary

e. T h e final section was a socio-economic scale consisting of 23 weighted items (2 ) . Weights were assigned on the basis of standard error scores for differences between the high-income and low-income groups’ percentage of “yes” responses to the 23 items of this scale. T h e difference scores were obtained from a sample of 50 records in each income group, group member- ship being established by independent criteria. If the critical ratio was 3, a weight of 1 was assigned the item; if twice that (roughly), a weight of 2 was given i t ; and if three times that, a weight of 3 was assigned. T h e critical ratios range from 2.5 to 11. If the difference was zero, no weight was assigned that item.

Most of our testing was done with large groups in school auditoriums. Approximately 150 to 200 subjects were tested together. This was true of the whole sample except the 1 1 th graders in some of the low income groups. These students were tested in their regular social studies class in groups of about 30 each. Help was given to any child who asked for it in explaining meanings of words, instructions, etc. T h e children were expressly told not to confer with neighbors, but it seems highly unlikely that this was achieved except in the small groups mentioned above.2* 3*

Though the original sample consisted of some 855 records, it was necessary to eliminate many of the cases for the following reasons: ( a ) too much of the test remained unanswered, or both answers to each question were checked ; ( b ) the socio-economic questionnaire was not filled in ; ( c ) information such as grade, etc., was omitted, making the records unclassifiable. Protocols

2We are indebted to Mr. Theodore L. Bystrom of Piedmont, Mr. Harold W . John- son of Emeryville, and Mr. Willard B. Knowles of Martinez for allowing us to test children in their schools. W e are grateful too, to Dr. C. C. Conrad of the School of Education, University of California, Berkeley, for helping us to contact these people.

SPreliminary testing was conducted at Whittier Grade School in Berkeley with the permission and assistance of the school principal, Mr. Burkhardt.

4Pictures which were added to our test were gotten through the courtesy of the library of the Regional Office of the American Federation of Labor in San Francisco.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


which omitted only the sentence completion section, were not excluded from the item analysis.

T h e final sample of 755 is broken down as indicated in Table 1.

TABLE 1 DISTRIBUTION OF SUBJECTS BY AGE A N D SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

Modal age Grade N High-income N Low-income

12 7 83 76 13 8 108 99 14 9 91 105 16 11 95 98

‘Totals 377 3 78 N = 755

T h e distribution of ages in the low-income group is more heterogeneous than in the high-income group. I n the low-income group, some children are found in each grade whose age is higher than the modal age for that category. I n the more homogeneous high-income group, age discrepancies are generally seen in children being younger than the modal age for their group.

C. RESULTS Certainly the most striking fact which stands out from these data is

the clear and consistent differences that occur in the responses of children of the ages studied. T h e children of high socio-economic groups make very different responses to stimuli in the area of labor-management relations than do the children of lower socio-economic groups, whether these responses fall under the general head of opinions, or of perceptions. Table 2 lists 55 items relevant to the children’s opinions about labor and management, and, it will be seen from the asterisked items, that 38 of them are significant a t the 1 per cent level of c~nf idence .~

This means that a t the ages of 11 to 16 there is already a well-established difference in what children say in response to stimuli having to do with industrial relations. Moreover, the direction of the difference is consistent and understandable. For instance, when asked to choose between “wrong” and “necessary” as adjective descriptive of picket lines, the low socio-economic group chose “wrong” in 41 per cent of the cases, while the higher group

6The proportion of 38/55 should not be interpreted directly in connection with the 1 per cent level of significance; that is, that 69 per cent of the items were significant at the 1 per cent level. To do so would be to assume that the items were uncorrelated, while in fact there is no evidence that this is the case. Nevertheless, the difference is so large and consistent that it is clearly beyond that which would be expected i f there were no difference between the groups.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

T A B L E 2 PER CENT RESPONSF TO SURVEY ITEMS

These strikrrs a r e receiving food and clothing (caption). 1. Do they deserve help? 48 76 75 77 50 45 2. Do you think they have a good reason for what they a r e doing? 58 82 78 85 62 53 3. Would you contribute to such a cause? 3 5 68 * 67 71 46 24 * 4. Do you hope they will win? 43 79 71 82 49 39 * 5. Do you think their bosses a r e r ight? 46 56 54 61 47 45 6. Do you think they a r e bad people? 22 7 8 6 25 20

7. W h o a r e these people (coded strikers or o t h e r ) ? 87 73 70 78 85 89 8. W h a t a r e they doing (coded striking or n o t ) ? 84 77 67 87 82 86

( N o caption-picture of pickets)

9. A r e they good people? 64 89 86 93 58 76 . * * 10. A r e they hardworking? 60 76 71 82 53 66 11. Would they be nice to talk wi th? 43 71 69 75 41 47 12. A r e they clean? 39 54 * 47 62 33 48 13. A r e these people smart? 31 55 52 58 30 33 14. A r e they doing the right thing? 29 59 53 67 36 26

This is a picture of a worker w h o is a member of a union (caption). Chrck yes or no for each w o r d .

15. lazy 29 15 17 1 3 35 22 16. kind 63 72 67 79 5 1 73 17. stupid 30 14 17 13 37 24

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

18. greedy 19. intelligent 20. Communist 21. overworked 22. industrious 23. skilled 24. useless 25. enterprising 26. suhmisnive

T l i c proplc i n this p ic ture a r e o n s t r ike (caption). 27. A r e they hardworking? 28. 29. 30. Are they smar t? 31. A r e they clean? 32. Are they good people? 33.

M o u n t e d pol ice at a picket l ine

Would you do the same thing? Would they he nice to talk wi th?

i i r e they going to w i n ?

H a v e these men done something wrong? 34. 35. A r e the policemen friendly? 36. Will anyone be h u r t ? 37. Will these men get what they w a n t ?

38 49 32 40 57 60 23 45 45

38 20 3 5 29 47 56 41

52 69 32 33

23 67 * 17 48 75 76 11 4

61 * 60

57 49 * 64 * 50 60 78 60

52 67 45 37

27 63 22 58 73 73 1 5 61 56

49 40 54 42 52 73 54

63 62 4 4 30

19 70 1 3 41 78 78 9

61 64

65 58 75 63 71 8+ 67

45 72 45 46

44 46 42 43 53 56 33 37 45

32 15 33 28 43 49 35

55 75 32 29

28 54 0

4 *1 23 38 4 m

4 r 66 14

45

62 4 g

* 3

* 4

4 49 2

2

8 4 r

0 4 4 46 23 37 3 1 4 * 56 4

66 I 47

I

52 64 * 33 4

37

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

I+ OL 6L L zz E6 01 LP

60 99 PZ

* * 1L 89 IE IE

* L9 ++ * * 92

L9 99

PS IS 98 L 8Z 68 01 16

SP 09 6E 29 99 82 9P L9 9s 82

9s

ES ZL 1P 6 El 56 L Ll

LS 8E SI 8P 16 SL 91 16 It ZS

ZE 8t

9) SL ZP 9 61 ss 01 IZ

0s 8s PE 80 98 0s w 98 PE Ot

Zt

6) tL

* It 8 Sl 16 8 81

ES * 9P

EZ 8D 88 z9 LZ 88 LE 9)

9E LS

8t 9L ZS L SZ 16 01 ED

'6b '8t 'Lt '9P 'SP .++ 'Et 'Zt 'IP 'Ot

09 Of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


chose “wrong” in 82 per cent. Again, after having identified strikers in an ambiguous picture, the response to the question “DO you hope they will win ?” was 43 per cent and 79 per cent for the two groups. There is no doubt that there is a difference. Let us look a t it in a little detail to see what it is and where it came from.

T h e number of items differentiating the two groups does not change ma- terially as they get older. In the 7th and 8th grades-12 and 13 modal ages-there were 40 items distinguishing the high and low socio-economic groups at the 5 per cent level of confidence (see asterisked items in Table 2 ) ; in the 9th and 11 th grades-14 and 16 modal ages-there were 38 items a t the 5 per cent level.6

However, the kinds of items that differentiate the two groups do change. If the items are divided into three groups-those relating to personal characteristics seen in workers or bosses (Items 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 29, 30, 31, and 32 in Table 2 ) , items relating to issues seen in industrial conflict (Items 2, 14, 33, 38, 40, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, and 55 in Table l ) , and items relating to identification of the respondent with one of the parties (Items 1, 3, 4, 28, and 29 in Table 2)- somewhat different things happen with age.

Among the three types of items, the perception of personal characteristics provides a larger proportion of the differentiation among young children of high and low SES than it does when they grow older. Conversely, issues and identification provide less differentiation when the children are young than they do when they are older. Table 3 shows the r6le that these items play in differentiating the two groups. In addition to these mean values, it might be pointed out that among the items relating to personal characteristics, the difference between the high and low group was larger when they were young in 11 cases, larger in the higher grades in eight cases, and equal in two. O n the other hand, the items relating to issues showed a larger differentiation in the higher grades in 9 out of 11 cases, and those relating to identification in all five cases. O n the basis of these data, it seems reasonable to say, even with the limited age spread provided here, that the younger children, while showing substantial difference between low and high-socio-

6The level of confidence of those and other measures in this paper were deter- mined by plotting each item in terms of the proportions of the two responses. On the same plot was drawn a curve which indicated the family of phi ratios which would be significantly different from a null hypothesis with the N’s involved. T h e significance was then read graphically in terms of inclusion or exclusion by this line. This method may lead to slight errors in reading, but the estimates involved do not produce gross errors in assigning a confidence level.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

MASON HAIRE A N D FLORENCE MORRISON 189

economic groups in their perception of industrial conflict, tend to have personal characteristics as a major dimension of their phenomenal environment, while this aspect is less weighted a little later. Younger children tend t o see the issues and the rights and wrongs as characteristics residing in the persons of the protagonists. Conversely, the perception of more abstract issues and the tendency to identify one’s self with one o r the other protagonist is more a characteristic of the organization of the environment of the older child.

TABLE 3 RESPONSES TO ITEMS RELATING TO PERSONAL CHARAcTER1STICS, ISSUES, AND

IDENTIFICATION

Average per cent

Personal characteristics Issues Identification

Personal characteristics Issues Identification

Difference between high & low

High SES Low SES Young Old Young Old

43 52 57 65 42 41 59 64 43 40 54 61

14 13 17 23 11 21

T w o other facts stand out which seem particularly interesting with respect to the difference in the perceptions of industrial conflict by high and low socio-economic groups as a function of age. I n the younger group (7 th and 8th grades) there is some tendency for the lower socio-economic group to fail to recognize the fact of a strike as soon as children from higher groups. I n response to the questions “ W h o are these people?” and “ W h a t are they doing?” when confronted with an ambiguous picture of placard-carrying pickets in the Reuben-Donnelly strike, 67 per cent of the lower group in the 7th and 8th grades recognized them as strikers without additional information, while 82 per cent of the higher group in the same grades recognized them.’

I n the higher grades (9 th and 11th) the difference disappeared, being 87 per cent and 86 per cent. I t suggests that for this sample, a t least, the lower socio-economic groups have a higher threshold for the recognition of the fact of striking and picketing. T h i s may be associated with a greater social awareness or general intellectual interest in the environment for children in the high-income group, or may be a sign of a vocabulary deficiency in the low-income group. T h e r e is no independent evidence to support a choice among the alternative explanations. However, various criteria suggested to the experimenters that a difference in intellectual level was charac-

7This difference is significant beyond the 1 per cent level of confidence.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


teristic of the two groups. T h e handwriting and spelling were better in higher socio-economic groups than in lower groups of comparable age and grade, the facilities were better in the schools, and the atmosphere was more intellectually oriented. I n the absence of ZQ measures it is impossible to give a measured difference between the two groups, but on these criteria a difference did seem to exist.

Both groups (high and low socio-economic status) move in the direction of making more pro-labor statements as they get older. Although the difference between the high and low groups continues to be largely on the basis of an anti-labor and a pro-labor split in sentiment, both groups change toward pro-labor attitudes from the younger to the older group. T h e lower group shows a more consistent and a larger change in the direction of pro- labor sentiments, and consequently the difference between the two is main- tained at both age levels. Of 44 items where an answer could be said to be either favorable or unfavorable to labor or management (the 37 items listed above, plus 10, 21, 34, 41, 43, 47 and 49 in Table 1 ) the lower group showed a change from young to old (i.e., from 7th and 8th grades to 9th and 11 th) , 34 items beconling more pro-labor, four remaining virtually the same, and four becoming anti-labor. Of the higher group, there were 29 items which became more pro-labor, 11 which became anti-, and four which remained much the same. T h e average percentages of response bear out this tendency. These data would lead one to suspect that the two groups may be pulling further apart, and it would be especially valuable to have further points on the curve of age.

TABLE 4 PRO-LABOR RESPONSES ( I N PER CENT)

Low group High group

Young Old

58 65

44 48

It is also possible to ask whether these differences in the perception of industrial conflict come chiefly from home influences or from school groups. I t is always difficult to give a precise answer to this question, but some evidence is available in this study. T h e schools that were used for the study were predominantly of one or the other classification (i.e., high or low socio-economic status) but in each case there were some cases of individuals who fell apart from the main category of the school. I n this fashion it was possible to collect a group of 33 children from high socio-economic homes in schools which were predominantly low, and 31 children from low socio-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

MASON H A I R E A N D FLORENCE MORRISON 191

economic homes in schools which were predominantly high. These groups, while the number of cases is small, give us an opportunity t o check to see whether children from the high group homes show attitudes that are more like their school-mates from low group homes, or whether they reflect the attitudes that are typical of their home environments. T h e comparison can be made for the opposite set of cases. In this way w e can compare the two cases where the schools are the same but the home environments different (i.e., high S-E home, low S-E school, low S-E home, low S-E school; and low S-E home, high S-E school, high S-E home, high S-E school) with the two cases where the schools are different but the home environments are the same (i.e., low S-E home, high S-E school, low S-E school; and high S-E home, low S-E school, high S-E home, high S-E school). If the difference is greater where schools are the same and homes are different it would suggest that the difference is being contributed by the home; if the difference is greater where the homes are the same and the schools are different, it would suggest that the difference is being contributed by the prevailing school attitude. I n these data, 130 items proved to be significant a t the 1 per cent level in the four comparisons, and of these 74 were from the two cases where the schools were different but the homes the same, while the remaining 56 came from cases where the schools were the same and the homes different. T h e chi-square test of significance shows this to be a difference which would occur less than 1 per cent of the time if there were actually no difference between the two groups. T h e suggestion is that the difference in perceptions of industrial conflict in these cases is more heavily contributed to by the school environment than it is by the home. If there is a general tendency for the two groups to d r a w apart as they get older, as the figures above suggest, it may be that the r6le of home influence would subsequently become stronger, and appear to be the determining factor. A t the age tested, however, it is slightly overshadowed by the school influence.

T h e sentence completion items in this instrument make it possible to say a little more about the shape and nature of school children’s perceptions of the participants in industrial conflict. These were open-ended free response items which were filled in to complete the following: “A union . . . ,” “I think that strikes are . . . ,” “A worker is . . . ,” “A boss is . . . ,” “Picket lines are . . . ,” ‘(Union members are . . . ,” “A difference between a boss and worker is . . . ,” ‘(Wages should be . . ,” T h e answers to these items were analyzed and coded into categories which seemed required by the answers themselves. I n many cases more than a single category was represented in the response from one individual, and some of the cases were thrown out as

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


being illegible, absent, or unintelligible. Consequently, the number of cases in these responses does not agree exactly with the number of individuals in the population surveyed.

Throughout all of these items there were a certain number of cases which were coded “indeterminate.” These responses should be distinguished from those mentioned immediately above which were thrown out, since they have a different character or a different meaning. A case was thrown out if there was no answer at all or if the answer was illegible or facetious. A case was coded as “indeterminate” if there was a sensible response, but one which could not be grouped with any general set of responses in the population. In this sense the indeterminate responses here serve as an index of the extent to which the respondents have failed to achieve dimensions of organization of their view of industrial conflict similar to those of their companions. O n every item the indeterminate items were greater among the lower socio- economic group than the higher, and this difference was greater among the younger children than the older. I n other words, the younger children of lower socio-economic homes provided more instances of relatively unstructured views of industrial conflict than did the children of the same age from higher socio-economic homes. I n the higher grades the difference tended to be smaller, though it was still present.

TABLE 5

COMPLETION TMT DI8TRlBUTlON OF PER CENT OF “INDETERMINATE” RESPONSES ON THE SENTENCE

Indeterminate responses ( in per cent) 7th & 8th Grades 9th C 11th Grades

Item Low SE High SE Low SE High SE

A Union is . . . 27 1 5 8 8 Picket lines are . . . 22 1 3 1 3 12 Union members are . . . 27 24 20 24 Strikers are . . . 14 6 7 5 A worker is . . . 8 10 9 6 A boss is . . . 6 5 5 4 A difference between a boss

and a worker is . . . 10 10 8 4 Wages should be . . . 3 5 17 20 1 5

T h e number of indeterminate responses ran about 10 per cent per item, and tended to be higher on items “A union is . . . ,” “Picket lines are . . . ,” “Union members are . . . ,” than on items “A worker is . . . ,” “A boss is . . . ,” and “A difference between a boss and a worker is . . . .” This is in line with the datum mentioned above, that the younger children of lower socio-economic homes did not recognize the fact of strikers and picket

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


lines as readily as did the younger children of higher socio-economic homes, and tends to corroborate the supposition that this dimension does not stand out in their organization of labor-management relations.

T a b l e 6 gives a condensation of the content analysis of the sentence completion items. T h e number of cases in the table varies, since a respondent often said things which classified in more than one category. Categories with fewer than 1 per cent values are not shown.

Considerable difference can be seen in the two groups’ perception of the union as an organization. T h e union is seen as a simple group-an aggre- gation-more by the high socio-economic children than by the low. T h e people in picket lines are described simply as “people walking up and down the street”; and the union is described as “a group of people” or by a name (e.g., A. F. of L.) , o r as “a group of workers in the same factory or trade.” T h e children from lower socio-economic families give a very different flavor to their picture of the union. T h e y fall mostly in the specific categories of “a union is a group of people who strike for higher wages,” I ‘ , . . to get what they want,” “picket lines are people who want more money,” and “picket lines are to stop people from going in, to keep workers from working.” T h e two groups seem distinguished by the tendency of the higher group to see the union as a simpler group, with relatively unspecific functions and with little organizational structure, while the lower group defines the union largely in terms of function, in terms of relatively specific functions, and in terms of economic functions directly relevant t o labor-management conflict.

I n the responses to the items “a worker is . , . ,” “A boss is . . . ,” and “A difference between a boss and a worker is . . . ,” the two groups provide evidence that they see very different things. T h e higher group tends t o stress the fact that the boss is a leader, and he is an important man and that he gets a bigger salary; these facts are particularly differentiating in the younger children. As they get older the higher group tends to stress the education and intelligence of the boss, to make the explicit differentiation betwten hand-work and head-work, and to stress the fact that he is the owner. The lower group, on the other hand, piles u p very heavily in the single category that describes the boss as the man who gives orders, who has power, and who tells other people what to do. W i t h respect t o the worker, the higher group stresses his subordinate character, both as a worker and as a union member, while the lower group falls more frequently in the categories indicating the worker as someone who works hard, is earn- ing a living, and someone who does what he is told to do.

T h i s same difference between the two groups’ views of the respective

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

T A B L E 6 CODED CATEGORIES OF RESPONSE

Per cent Low SES High SES

A union is . . . 1. to strike (including for more money). 4 2. a hiring hall. 9 3. to get more money (strike not mentioned). 4 4. to help and protect workers. 14 5 . an organization-stressing organized form or naming

(e.g., AFL) . 15 6. a social group-stressing interaction and belongingness. 4 7. a group of workers (unspecific). 23 8. a group of people (unspecific). 6 9. good. 25

10. bad. 5 n = 262

1. one who works with hands (skilled or unskilled manual labor) . 30

2. one who works hard. 15 3. one who works to earn a living. 27 4. subordinate-works under boss. 5 5 . necessary to business. 4 6. bad-stupid. 3

A workcr is . . .

7. good. 16 n = 308 A boss is . . .

1. one who gives orders. 52 2. leader, head, important. 28 3. man who pays employees. 7 4. smart, educated. 8 5. lazy, doesn’t work hard. 4

1. boss has power, gives orders. 49 2. boss educated, works with head not hands. 9 3. boss is superrinor-doesn’t work. I S 4. worker works harder. 12 5. boss makes more money. 11 6. boss owns business. 4

n = 285

1. for more pay. 5 2. people out of work. 1

4. lazy, greedy people. 1 5. good. 33

n = 278

1. to keep other workers out. 43 2. strikes. 61 3. people who want more money. 20 4. people walking up and down the street. 16 5. good, necessary. 28 6. bad. 80

n = 248

1. 7 2. workers. 28 3. a group-people who belong, who pay dues. 31

n = 261 Difference between boss and workcr is . . .

Strikes are . , .

3. bad, stupid, unnecessary. 60

Picket lines are . . .

Union memberr are . . . to get what they should, to get higher wages.

4. intelligent, smart. 3 5. subordinate, employees. 2

7. helpful people, good people. 22 8. grouped for safety, to protect selves. 1

6. stupid. 6

n = 243

2 1 0 8

23 2

30 9

12 14

313

39 12 15 10

5 5

14 296

39 37

5 16

3 257

37 17 19 4

16 7

29 3 4 0

80 1

1 5 306

21 5 3 13 29 11

137 264

2 23 25 2 4

20 22

3 240

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


r6les of labor and management in an industrial organization are reflected in their views of company policies. T h e descriptions of the two functions given above are probably characteristic of a somewhat old-fashioned view of the situation, in that they stress the boss’s character as owner-manager, his power, salary, and prestige, and in that they interpret industrial leadership as telling people what to do. I n line with this, we find the two groups pre- dictably split on whether wages should be higher (High S-E increase wages 21 per cent, low S-E 34 per cent; high S-E decrease wages 9 per cent, low S-E 2 per cent) just as, on the closed-ended questions reported above, the high group felt more strongly (49 per cent to 37 per cent) that the boss should have the right to fire a worker whenever he wanted to or (30 per cent to 27 per cent) that the worker should not ask for a raise, but should wait until the boss gives it to him.

Throughout the sentence completion items there were a good many responses which could be classified only as undifferentiated approval or disapproval of such things as unions and picket lines. I n general this is one of the biggest single categories of response to every item, and invariably the children from high socio-economic families showed more disapproval of organized labor than those from low families, and vice versa. Moreover, in every item the difference between the two groups increased as they got older. Unlike the general shift to a pro-labor answer with increasing age on the questions reported earlier, the undifferentiated approval and disapproval in a free response grows into a wider gap from the 7th and 8th grades to the 9th and 11 th.

D. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS I n summary, the results can be considered under two headings: ( a ) the

findings relevant to the social problem of the public’s perception of labor and management and of industrial relations, and ( b ) the findings relevant to the psychological problem of the origin, nature, and development of such attitudes.

Under the first heading we might point out: 1. Even a t the youngest ages tested here (about 12) there is a clear

difference between the perceptions of children from low and from high socio-economic homes.

T h e lower socio-economic groups tend to be much more strongly pro-labor, to show more undifferentiated approval of the workers involved, to agree with them on issues, and to identify with them.

As the groups get older (Lea, from about 12 to 16) both groups (i.e., low and high socio-economic families) move in the direction of a pro-labor

2.

3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


attitude. However, the change in the children from low socio-economic groups is so much larger than in the high group that the basic difference between them (the low being predominantly pro-, the high being predominantly anti-) tends to remain.

Where it is possible to attempt a differentiation of the effect of schools and homes on children’s perceptions in this area, the evidence suggests that the school is determinant.

Taken together, these data have important and disturbing social impli- cations. They suggest a kind of class consciousness and an attitude split associated with socio-economic position which runs counter to the democratic assumptions of an electorate making decisions on the basis of a conception of the common good. These findings suggest that the two groups are not even seeing the same thing when they look at labor-management problems, presag- ing considrrable difficulty in effecting a harmonious agreement on basic policy with respect to industrial relations. T o the extent that the schools do determine children’s perceptions in this area, they also suggest that the split between classes is being widened by education, rather than narrowed by an increased understanding. If this is in fact true it presents a crucial problem for education in a democracy. In all, it is perhaps not surprising that federal legislation regarding labor relations is often described as having a pendulum character, when two groups see the aims and meanings of industrial conflict so differently. These attitudes certainly suggest that, unless some clearer and more nearly single perception is achieved across class bound- aries, the problem of public pressure on legislation will continue to be parti- san, militant, and acrimonious.

4.

Under the second heading, we might point out: 1. While the pro- and anti-labor split remains throughout the age groups

tested, the younger children tend to express it in terms of personal characteristics of the antagonists, while the slightly older children see it more in terms of issues and their own identifications. I t is perhaps surprising that in an issue that is comparatively removed from personal involvement at this age there has been as much differentiation and structuring as has occurred.

The fact, mentioned above, of the school’s relatively greater influence on perceptions has long been an important one, and this datum adds a modi- cum of evidence. Developmentally, it is also interesting to note that the pro- and anti-split continues as the groups get older, although both groups move in the direction of what may be a prevailing social sentiment of a slightly more pro-labor view.

T h e lower socio-economic group consistently showed less differentia-

2.

3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014


tion in their perceptions of labor-management relations, although this did not prevent their taking sides. They did not recognize strikes as well in the younger ages, and throughout, they supplied more indeterminate responses, or failed to achieve the dimensions of their companions in perceiv- ing the situation. I t is suggested that this may be a function of the differ- ential intellectual orientation of the two groups. 4. T h e low and high socio-economic groups provided quite different

dimensions of organization for several of the items in the relationship. Low socio-economic children, for instance, tended to describe the union in terms of an economic function, while high income groups tended to describe it in terms of a simple aggregate of people. Again, the two groups differed in their description of the boss, the high group tending to see him in terms of power, money, and intelligence, with a unilaterality of action, while the lower group tended to see him almost exclusively in terms of the man who tells people what to do.

REFERENCES 1. ABT, L. E., & BELLAK, L. Projective Psychology. New York: Knopf, 1950.

(Pp. 439-443.) 2. GOUGH, H. C. A short social status inventory. J . Educ. Psychol., 1940, 40, 52-56. 3. MACLEOD, R. B. T h e phenomenological approach to social psychology. Psychol.

4. A group research project on the Internat J . Opin. &f Atti. Rer., 1947,

5. WARREN, E. L. T h e RBle of Public Opinion in Relation to the Mediator. Los

Department o f Psychology University of California Berkeley 4, Cd i forn ia

Rev., 1947, 64, 4-.

dynamics and measurement of opinion. SMITH, M. B., BRUNER, J. S., & WHITE, R. W.

1, 78-82.

Angeles, Calif.: Univ. California, 1953.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

McM

aste

r U

nive

rsity

] at

11:

21 1

7 O

ctob

er 2

014

school children's perceptions of labor and management

Documents