The Business Attitude Scale

We have remarked many times through the course of this report on the nature of the community's climate in which the Project operated. We have pointed out such characteristics as fear, hostility, reliance on external controls for social problems and a kind of tentative, hopeful optimism which seemed to evidence itself at times. We have maintained that these attitudes were critical in the operation of the Project as a whole. It is important, therefore, to have some kind of analysis of these attitudes which helps us move away from the kind of anecdotal sort of impressions one tends to make about such situations as these. Moreover, since the Project involves a significant kind of demonstration of an idea, it is important to see whether or not this demonstration makes any real difference in the kinds of attitudes shared by the community.

In order to study the characteristic attitudes of the community and their possible changes there was devised what was called the Business Attitude Scale. This instrument was comprised of some twenty-four items plus an opportunity for open-ended description of the situation on the Beach. The Test also contained a data box for getting as much information about the testee as possible. The information requested in this data box was as follows:

a. Sex b. Age c. No. of years on Beach d. Residence

e. Size of business f. Businesses other than Beach g. Location of Business

The characteristics gleaned from this data of physical characteristics together with typical responses obtained from the open-ended questions at the conclusion of the test gave us the variables by which we were able to do some cross-tabulations, and to determine whether or not there was any particular group which had a certain mind set as over against some other particular group.

The basic thrust of this Business Attitude Scale was to measure those attitudes which comprise what is known as the Authoritarian Personality. One might imagine a continuum from rigid, arbitrary authoritarian traits on the one hand extending, on the other extreme, to more egalitarian, supportive traits. The basic theoretical orientation for this approach is found in The Authoritarian Personality, T. W. Adorno, et. al.; The Open and Closed Mind, Milton Rokeach. More immediately, the work of Dr. William E. Alberts on "Ministers' Attitudes Toward Juvenile Delinquency" (Ph. D. Dissertation, Boston University, 1961) and Levinson and Huffman's article in the Journal of Personality, March 1955, entitled "Traditional Family Ideology and Its Relation to Personality."

Out of this basic theoretical orientation three principal attitudes were drawn: domination, avoidance-rejection, and stereotyping. While these attitudes may be broken down into finer points, for our purposes they serve well as major foci for establishing the climate of opinion on Hampton Beach. These attitudes represent the salient features of what has been described as the authoritarian personality. It seemed beyond the purview of the Project to deal extensively with personality attributes. Let it be simply understood that under girding this somewhat crude attitude scale there is a substantial body of theoretical formulation. It is perhaps necessary to add that the Business Attitude Scale represents a kind of global picture of the attitudes rather than the highly disciplined approach used by Adorno and his collaborators. And, while no extensive validity and reliability checks were made on this instrument, there was a fairly decent pre-testing done using the up-town merchants. And, we might add, the two waves of this Business Attitude Scale are very similar to each other even though different businesses were tested. Because an exhaustive list of businesses on Hampton Beach was virtually impossible to obtain, the strict tenets of a stratified random sample were not able to be obeyed. However, there is through both of the waves of this test very adequate and, as far as we can tell, proportionate representation of the businesses on Hampton Beach.

Let us turn now to a description of the nexus of attitudes which constituted the climate of opinion measured by the Business Attitude Scale. The first of the three was what we called dominance. At its most simple level, dominance is that attitude which convinces its holder that his status gives him the right to direct the affairs of others, and that the other person is expected to conform to these demands. The person with this mind set is likely to have a hierarchical view of society in which rules and regulations are handed down through the echelons of society. Such an individual maintains such an attitude because it is useful in handling his own perhaps unrecognized hostilities. These hostilities are managed by the individual's identification with the values of those who are perceived to have power over him. This enables the person holding dominance attitudes to justify himself and to displace his hostility on all those who transgress the particular set of values held to be dominant. As a part of this attitude, there is a distorted belief in will power. The individual described here holds that the person who disobeys authorities in the society does so because he either wants to or because he does not have enough sheer will power not to follow his baser instincts. And so it is that punitive dominance is further justified in that transgressions of the "law" bring with it mandatory restrictions. The depth of human behavior is passed over in favor of a generalization that makes it possible to rationalize delinquent behavior and not face what might prove threatening either in the other person or in himself.

The second attitude which the Business Attitude Scale attempts to portray is called avoidance-rejection. Simply, the person holding this attitude either avoids or rejects the individual who either violates his code of ethics or has a different code. The rationale for this is seen in relation to the attitude of dominance. The authoritarian individual cannot afford to acknowledge in any real sense that other life styles have any validity - styles other than the one set by the perceived authority figure. Obviously, to analyze and sympathetically understand a differing life style is again, too threatening.

If one must rigidly adopt a set of values as the only way of life and if one cannot psychologically afford to consider the other person who is different and so must thereby reject him, we are immediately encountered by the third attitude set, stereotyping attitudes. If all of the above is an actual way of regarding those differing in life styles, then there is only one obviously logical conclusion; all those who are different than I am are alike. To portray this stereotyping attitude and its counter-part, let us turn to the work of Dr. William Alberts in his work on "Ministers' Attitudes Toward Juvenile Delinquency," (published by the General Board of Christian Social Concerns, The Methodist Church, 1962, p. 36):

Unlike the person whose rigid personality structure calls for the stereotyping of youth in trouble, the individual with supportive tendencies has the capacity to recognize and appreciate the individuality and uniqueness of human life. This capacity for individuated perception is an outgrowth of his developmental awareness and acceptance of the underlying forces within his personality. Mindful and tolerant of subtle discrepancies, self-centered motives, and anti-social impulses within his own system of values, he is able to identify consciously with individual children and to respect their uniqueness. Aware and appreciative of personal needs, hopes, fears, achievements and failures, it is possible for him to view delinquent behavior from a more comprehensive and less symptomatic position than the representative of authoritarianism. Thus the greater the degree to which the individual has become aware of, accepted and integrated those emotional forces of his own personality which often function below the surface of consciousness, the more he possesses the capacity for individuated perception. On the other hand, the lesser the degree to which he has become aware of, accepted and integrated those forces, the more he evidences stereotypy.

Dominance, avoidance-rejection and stereotypy form the triad of attitudes measured by the Business Attitude Scale. It can be readily seen that the higher the scores on these scales the more difficult it will be for the ideas of the Project to be accepted, the more difficult it will be for the young people on Hampton Beach to be themselves. On the other hand, if there comes to be significant shifts in attitude, we will measure whether or not the presence of such a Project has any impact on such a major kind of value structure. We can see, therefore, that a test such as the Business Attitude Scale is an essential part of the research connected to a Project such as this.

Let us now see what particular items were used to measure these attitudes. Only a partial listing will be given.

The Attitude of Dominance:

The youngsters who come to this Beach should learn, as others have, that no one is his own master because much of life is determined by unchangeable forces beyond human control. One of the answers to our disturbances at Hampton Beach is for the churches to start preaching more "Hell-fire" sermons.

On the whole, young people who get into trouble with the law really know right from wrong and can do better if they really try.

The Avoidance-Rejection Attitude:

I would like to see young people on Hampton Beach enjoying themselves, so we should have the kind of entertainment most appealing to them. (Reverse scoring).

We should pay attention to what youngsters are doing in the disturbances because they are trying to tell us something in their revolt. (Reverse scoring).

The Stereotyping Attitude:

While looks can be deceiving, physical appearance, such as tidiness or sloppiness, portrays a young person's true character.

The crowds of teen-agers that invade our Beach every weekend have driven away the good family business we used to have.

There is no earthly reason why people do the destructive, foolish things they do.

People can be divided into two distinct classes: the weak and the strong.

The method of scoring this test was according to the Likert scheme:

plus 1: I slightly agree	minus 1: I slightly disagree
plus 2: I moderately agree	minus 2: I moderately disagree
plus 3: I strongly agree	minus 3: I strongly disagree

These responses were converted into numerical scores in the following way:

minus 3: 1 point	plus 1: 5 points
minus 2: 2 points	plus 2: 6 points
minus 1: 3 points	plus 3 7 points

If the individual being tested did not reply in any way to the item that item was given four points.

The Attitudes of Dominance and Stereotyping had a possible high of seventy-seven points and a possible low of eleven points. The Avoidance-Rejection attitude had a possible high of twenty-eight points and a possible low of four points.

We have mentioned earlier in this report the possibilities contained within this test and the interview situation for a fruitful kind of intervention technique. This test was administered for the most part by laymen and women from the town of Hampton. Perhaps the most salutary effect this test had in terms of opening up dialogue was for the people of the Beach to witness people for the town taking a genuine interest in the problems of the Beach. Although there was some fear and trepidation on the part of some of the interviewers, this technique of providing the lay person with a standardized approach and an interview form and sending him forth into the field was a good one and one to be emulated in other similar ventures. The only caution one should take is to be sufficiently aware of the total situation so that no one type of business is interviewed as over against some other type. A very serious effort was made to approach as close as possible to a stratified random sample - without knowing the precise dimensions of the business community.

Let us turn now to the results of this business-Attitude-Scale. These results will be given according to the major groupings which were derived by the physical characteristics given in the data box and by the open-ended responses provided at the conclusion of the Scale. All of these open-ended responses were compiled and categories derived. The mean scores and standard deviations for each of the attitudes are given for each of the groups. The standard deviation is an important device here which we will take to indicate the kind of consensus in the business community or sub-group about a particular attitude. As the standard deviation increases, we will take it to indicate that a divergence of opinion is occurring. As the standard deviation narrows, this will be construed as implying a convergence, a focusing of attitude. This test was administered in two waves: one at the beginning of the summer through the middle of July, and another from the middle of August through the second week of September.

Perhaps it would be convenient as a first step to attempt a translation of these numbers into verbalized concepts of behavior. Such translating involves one in some rather arbitrary picking and choosing, however the following categories seem to offer a fair description of what is in the above table.

Numerical Scores, Means
Avoidance-Rejection	Dominance & Stereotyping	Description of Response
28	77	Not attained in scale
18 and over	60-70	Very difficult to deal with
16-17	55-60	Stubborn but might be persuaded
15-14	50-55	Will listen but retain a firm sense of his own decision-making rights
13 and below	40-50	Very reasonable

There is not much point to attempt setting up a similar type of arrangement for the Standard Deviations. One must examine them in relationship to each other.

It is striking to notice how close both the means and the standard deviations are for both waves on all three attitudes. Actually, it is rather difficult to draw any kind of substantial conclusion from this parallelism. It is a bit too easy a generalization to conclude from this that there were no changes in attitude on Hampton Beach over the summer. Our sub-groupings show some interesting, if not substantial changes. One would like to take these parallel results as confirmation that the Business Attitude Scale is reliable. A more precise sampling technique would enable one to make such a statement. It might be fair to say that because they are so very close that we probably have a reasonably accurate assessment of the attitudes on Hampton Beach for the summer of 1965 and that on the whole there was probably no marked change in the attitudes of the entire business community. Let us assume then that what this Business Attitude Scale describes does actually have some reality to it, and that we are not simply playing with numbers.

Those who remark on business conditions as being improved seem to be somewhat less dominating and stereotyping than those who indicate that business is only fair or poor. It might almost seem that the description "fair" actually means uncertain or anxious. Those responding with this description tend to persist in their more authoritarian attitudes and there seems to be more agreement among this group than there are with either of the other groups, especially as it relates to the attitude of dominance. It is interesting to note that by the end of the summer there seems to be real agreement between those who say that business has improved with those who say that behavior has improved, and genuine disagreement in the attitudes of dominance and stereotyping between those who say that business has improved and those who feel that the behavior of the young people has deteriorated. One might conclude that the way a businessman looks at his business prospects tends to run parallel to the way that a businessman evaluates the behavior of the youth on the beach. The marked exception to this are those business people who judge business at the end of the summer to have been poorer than last year's. One might say of this group that even though business did fall off it did not tend to blame the young people for their difficulties.

In all of this it must be noted that we are making no attempt to delineate cause and effect. We are simply attempting to trace out parallel lines of thinking.

When we examine the attitudes of dominance, avoidance-rejection, and stereotyping in relationship to age, the following results are to be found. Among the men over fifty years of age, there was a slight, but real shift toward a more permissive attitude in the areas of dominance and stereotyping. Also, the range of opinion seemed to broaden out somewhat. This is somewhat surprising because the older men seemed to modify their attitudes while the men under fifty years of age remained relatively the same. However, this shift must be seen in the light of the fact that the men under fifty were less authoritarian to begin with than were the men over fifty.

We might draw two general conclusions from the data with regard to attitude related to size of business. Of the businesses tested, the larger the business the less authoritarian its proprietor, and the more flexibility he seems to have. In contrast to the large business establishments, the smaller places seemed to reflect a most severe approach to the problems - particularly in the attitude of dominance. Again we note the fact that the mid-range size of business seems to possess a greater concentration or consensus of opinion than do either the small or the large business people.

It might be of interest to note the comments made by proprietors of the larger business establishments: we need more activities for all people; police too strict, business is hurting, only the 'power structure' is benefiting from the Beach set-up; we need to have more for kids, kids need recognition, behavior is beginning to improve; business is slack, reputation gone, Beach is uninteresting; overall business climate is backward, too much restraint on youngsters; police responsible for good job. And so on. These comments were given near the close of the summer season.

The second general conclusion is more in the shape of an intuition while reading the data with the knowledge of the business community. It is quite possible that the small businessman does not score as high as one might expect considering how precarious his situation is because his summer business is only a side-line, or a retirement proposition. On the other hand, it is the middle-sized businessman who is really the most frightened by what he sees for prospects on Hampton Beach. It is, further, quite possible that it is this rather large and insecure group of middle-sized business groups which succeeds in actually generating the punitive attitude toward the young people. More prosperous business people, in turn are then able to build a political base on these fears even though as a group, the larger business type may not feel as punitive toward the youngster. In other words, his own self interest outweighs whatever he might feel toward youngsters on the Beach.

Those who judged youth behavior as poor, scored very high on all authoritarian indices. Perhaps it helps to correct the picture by noting that there were only two individuals in Wave I and two individuals in Wave II who commented in this fashion. On the other hand, seventeen business people in the early part of the summer and sixteen in the late summer judged that the behavior of the youth had improved. Those who evaluate behavior to be improving tend to be less dominant and stereotyping than the others, but just as rejecting. In other words, they permit themselves to analyze the situation, but are not overly sympathetic with those who deviate. It is quite probable that those who see behavior improving on the beach are mostly the larger business people.

The most dramatic contrast in the entire Business Attitude Scale is the attitude toward police. It is obvious that those who endorse the police and their program are far more authoritarian than those who are critical. By the end of the summer the attitudes toward police in the business community tended to polarize. In the early part of the summer fourteen percent of the respondents mentioned the police in the open-ended question at the end of the interview. But by the end of the summer, forty-four mentioned the police. Not only that, criticism of the program of control through law enforcement by the business community grew appreciably. There is more difference in attitude between the group that endorses police and the group who criticizes police than between any other groups, with the exception possibly of large and medium-size business proprietors.

Because this contrast is so dramatic, it might be useful to see what the characteristics of these two groups are. This information provides a useful clue to the contrasting ideologies on the Beach. A simple frequency distribution of the two waves will serve our purposes here.

	Endorse police	Critical of police	Ambivalent towards police*
Business Improving	2	1	2
Business Fair	2	1	0
Business Poor	3	3	0
Behavior Improving	3	2	1
Behavior Fair	2	0	0
Behavior Poor	2	0	0
Small Business	4 (all W. II)	2	1
Medium Business	5	1	1
Large Business	5 (4 in W. I)	4	2
Beach Needs Improvement	0	2	1
Women	7	4	1
Men under 50	3	1	2
Men over 50	4	2	1

* Ambivalent reactions - both for and against - did not appear in Wave I but did in Wave II.

A comment or two might be in order. In the beginning of the summer the large business group tended to endorse the police program. However, by the end of the summer, only one in the large business group did endorse the police approach. It may not be of any consequence, but it is interesting to note that not one of those who endorsed the police approach also commented about the need for improvement on Hampton Beach. Finally, it is interesting to note the appearance at the end of the summer of a group of business people who seem to be taking a second look at the police approach. They have not yet made up their minds as to whether it is good or bad; they are ambivalent. Clearly, there is a large group within the business community that does endorse the police approach. Just as clear, however, is the fact that such endorsement is not unanimous among the people of the business community. In fact, there are some thoughtful, trenchant criticisms of the police.

Before stating some general conclusions arising out of the date gathered by the Business Attitude Scale, let us ask whether or not there were over the summer significant shifts in the consensus of opinion of the groupings we have outlined. We will interpret the Standard Deviation as a measure of consensus on a particular attitude. Let us also assume that a change of five points in the standard deviation indicates a real degree of shift. The first observation we make is the fact that in comparing first and second wave standard deviations there were no significant shifts upward. This is to say that over the summer opinion by any of the sub-groups did not appreciably generalize. In contrast to this, there were several significant shifts downward, toward greater consensus. These shifts were in the areas of business conditions fair to poor, dominance attitude; small and medium-size business, stereotyping; those who judge youth behavior as poor, all attitudes; the advocates of police policies, dominance; the critics of police practices, all attitudes; and attitudes of stereotyping among those who see the need for improvement on Hampton Beach. We can conclude from these observations that in those situations where strong feelings are generated, particularly feelings of anxiety, there tends to be among the various sub-groupings a focusing of feeling. With the exception of those who felt that business was poor this summer (attributable perhaps to a deviation in the sampling technique) and with the exception of those critical of the police (in which earlier, more permissive attitudes were subsequently reinforced), the shifts represent a trend toward the intensifying of dominance and stereotyping attitudes. Putting it another way, fears in a business person whose livelihood is already threatened does not simply dissolve; it rather intensifies.

General Conclusions:

There is fairly general agreement among sociologists and anthropologists that the attitudes which a society has towards its youth is a critically determinative factor in the health and longevity of that society. Considering the range of response open to the person given the Business Attitude Scale, we would have to say that this particular business community tends toward a rigid, authoritarian approach in its dealing with youth. Moreover, the theoretical background out of which this instrument is derived would suggest that what we are measuring is a kind of life style, and that the attitudes of dominance, rejection, stereotyping, are personality characteristics of these people which color their perceptions of all of life. While there were some interesting changes in the sub-groupings of the sample, it has to be said that there were no really dramatic changes in the attitudes of the business community over the summer period. This is understandable insofar as the test was measuring attitudes which are intimately linked with deep-seated personality traits. Such attitudes are very slow to change.

Perhaps, in light of the kind of attitudes tested, it is remarkable that there were as many changes as there were. It is fair to say that if the leadership of the business community can understand its role in alleviating the insecurity of the smaller businessman, and can responsibly act out what he is beginning to see in terms of alternative attitudes to the ones tested, that there can arise within the business community of Hampton Beach that climate of opinion which tends toward respect for the individual rather than stereotyping, and mutual responsibility instead of postures of dominance.

What has been said above is immediately sharpened by the fact that it is the middle-size business and the small-size business in which the proprietor has more opportunity to come into contact with the individual customer, more, that is, than the man who operates a larger establishment. While the data from the random interviews does not substantiate this fact, it might well be that upon more careful interviewing and probing, we could discover some very real relationships between resentments felt by young people and the particular businessmen in question.

Here then, are two foci of future research: investigation into "political" patterns and community attitudes of leading business people, and a more detailed analysis of business-consumer patterns of inter-reaction.

Secondly, it has to be of some major significance that there are within the business community two groups as divergent in attitude as those who endorse the police approach and those who criticize the police policy. This split within the community, a difference of opinion which persisted through the summer, was one of the very real set of dynamics within which the Project attempted to operate. It can safely be said that the only time peace and harmony made its happy visitation to the Chambers of Commerce this past summer was when both endorsers and critics of the police honestly recognized the validity of the other person's approach. This recognition tended to moderate the extremes in each group who would have tended to rely on one approach to the exclusion of all other approaches. There are, in other words, not simply differences in approach to a particular problem, there are individuals on Hampton Beach with very different personalities. Stepping outside the strictures of research, one can comment that when we see people as valid persons rather than as types, we will start moving toward resolving the kinds of tensions and disunities which characterize this Beach community.

The third generalization which can be drawn from this data is that no one sub-grouping has any 'monopoly' on any set of attitudes. In other words, what this test describes is not a set of attitudes which arises out of one's physical and economic circumstances necessarily. More likely is the fact that we are seeing personality types which occupy a certain niche in the society of Hampton Beach.

The possibility of a changing climate of attitude is present in Hampton Beach. This possibility must become an actuality if there is to be any ultimate resolution of conflict in the community. We must consider, in the fourth place, what sort of things can be done to implement this all-important change in the attitudes of the business community. The answer to this question is concomitant to that which will reduce fear and insecurity among the members of the business community. Inevitably, the economic factor will have to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, it is nearly as certain that such reckoning will not actually happen until there are some very real changes in attitude similar to that with which we have been dealing. This, perhaps, is another way of saying that not until the business leadership is something less than content to dominate the scene and perceive his environment in stereotypical terms is there likely to be any significant structural change in the Beach community enabling the frustrated "little guy" to do any more than strike out at the nearest target - which, in this case, might well be youth.

A complementary approach to the above suggestion regarding business dealership has to do with working on that attitude which seems most likely to change, stereotypy. Generally, the stereotyping attitude is lower than either dominance or avoidance-rejection. Before attempting to modify ideas related to power structure, then, it might be well for future work, demonstration or otherwise, to concentrate on giving the business community those opportunities and experiences which modify their prejudices. Perhaps to over-simplify, it might be more effective to approach the matter of the adult world's relationship with youth on the basis of analysis and understanding rather than on the more idealistic, albeit more desirable, basis of outright acceptance.

One of the ways in which further understanding could be realized is by the more extensive use of interviewing techniques such as the Business Attitude Scale. As we have said before, and now say in this context again, any opportunity for dialogue between individuals of different groups and locations will serve to break down the barriers which we see in the attitudes of the business community. Shorter interview schedules given to more people, inquiry into basic economic dilemmas, more open-ended questioning will be of real use. For the Project as a whole, it would be more helpful if such tests were more securely tied into the other instruments of the research program.