SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL
VOLUME 18 NUMBER I MARCH 1964 230 PARK AVENUE . NEW YORK, N. Y. 10017
soelALIZATION THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE by Orville G. Brim) Jr.'"
refers to the processes by which individuals acquire the knowledge, skills, and dispositions that make them more or less able members of their society. It is apparent that the socialization experienced by a person in childhood cannot prepare him for all the roles he will be expected to fill in later years. Not only do persons move through a sequence of different positions in society, in accord with different stages of the life cycle, but also changes in the demands upon them arise from their mobility, both geographical and social, and from changes in the customs of their society which may occur during their lifetime. A half-century of important research on socialization of the child has described the development of children's personalities and social behavior; there has been much less work, virtually none in comparison, on socialization at later stages of the life cycle. Moreover, neither those studying child socialization nor those studying adult socialization realize the full extent of the similarity of their research interests and of their concepts and procedures. To stimulate interest in their mutual concerns and to provide for exchange of ideas the Council's Committee on Socialization and Social Structure sponsored a Conference on Socialization through the Life Cycle, in New York on May 17-19,
• The author is President of Russell Sage Foundation. He has been a member of the Council's Committee on Socialization and Social Structure since its appointment in 1960. On behalf of the committee he or· ganized the conference reported in the present paper, which draws on a longer one prepared for the conference, and which will be published by Russell Sage Foundation (copyright by Russell Sage Foundation, the present version is printed by permission). The other members of the committee are John A. Clausen, University of California, Berkeley (chairman); Alex Inke1es, Harvard University; Ronald Lippitt, University of Michigan; Eleanor E. Maccoby, Stanford University; M. Brewster Smith, University of California, Berkeley; staff, Ben Willerman.
1963. The participants in the conference were social scientists who were studying socialization into different roles and social institutions from childhood to old age. 1 The conference was viewed as exploratory in nature, with the hope that the participants would leave with some new concepts and plans for research. The objective was not to develop a common point of view or to produce a report, but rather to speculate, to try to identify topics warranting further study, and generally to open up the field of inquiry rather than to partition it into areas. One can say in considering the outcomes of the conference that it succeeded to some extent in narrowing the gaps between students of child development and students of adult socialization. The latter were interested primarily in the acquisition of roles by members of society, and in the conditions under which roles are effectively taught; they were less concerned with the actual learn1 The authors of papers presented at the conference and their sub· jects were (in order of presentation): Irving Rosow, Western Reserve University, "Forms and Functions of Adult Socialization"; Howard S. Becker, Stanford University, "Personal Change in Adult Life" (pub. lished in Sociometry, March 1964, pp. 40-53); Charles E. Bidwell, University of Chicago, "Some Aspects of Pre-adult Socialization"; Murray A. Straus, University of Minnesota, "Power and Support Structure of the Family in Relation to Childhood Socialization" (to be published in a forthcoming issue of Journal of Marriage and the Family); Yonina Talmon, Hebrew University, Jerusalem, "Comparative Analysis of Adult Socialization." The other participants included, in addition to the members of the . committee: Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., Russell Sage Foundation; Neal Gross, Harvard University; Reuben L. Hill, University of Minnesota; Morris Janowitz, University of Chicago; Henry S. Maas, University of California, Berkeley; Daniel R. Miller, University of Michigan; Lloyd E. Ohlin, Columbia University; Francis H. Palmer, staff of the com· mittee, 1960-63; Albert J. Reiss, Jr., University of Michigan; A. Kimball Romney, Stanford University; Alberta E. Siegal, Stanford University; and Stanton Wheeler, University of Washington.
ing mechanisms involved in the acquisition of such roles. In contrast, the participants from the field of child research were more concerned with the development of personality traits, such as aggression or achievement, than with the learning of roles, and they were interested in the mechanisms by which the traits are acquired. Since the majority of the participants were interested in adult socialization, the trend in the discussion was in the direction of their interests. For the members of this particular group the conference was highly successful in that it brought most of them together to discuss their work for the first time, and it helped to identify a field of social science research which up to now has been somewhat amorphous. In the course of the discussion there emerged general themes which spanned the different life-cycle stages, rather than being specific to anyone. In the paragraphs which follow only a sampling of the themes developed by the conference can be given. A more complete analysis of the contributions made by the conference is being prepared by the author in an expansion of the background paper he wrote for the conference. 2 FORMALITY OF THE RELATIONSHIP IN SOCIALIZATION A major theme was the relationship of the person undergoing socialization to the socializing agent or agency, and how this relationship may change through the life cycle. The first important aspect which was developed concerned the degree of formality or "institutionalization" of the relationship. One way of approaching the assessment of formality is to inquire into the nature of the roles regulating the interpersonal relationships. First, it is important that the person being socialized usually has a well-prescribed role as a learner. In many instances being socialized requires one to take a specified role; one takes a role to learn a role, so to speak. In the teacher-pupil and the parent路 child relationships the broad and dominant purpose is the physical care and training of the child so that he may become a socially suitable member of society. Socialization at later age levels quite often does not require the individual to take the role of one being socialized. There are exceptions, as in an occupational apprenticeship, or where prior socialization has been inadequate or wrong and the individual is required to go through a resocialization process in a specified role, for example, in a correctional institution. Nevertheless, socialization into marital roles of husbands by wives, or vice versa, the socialization of the adult into the role of 2 Socialization Through the Life Cycle, to he puhlished by Russell Sage Foundation in September 1964.
the parent by the child, the socialization into most types of work, the gradual shifts into the old-age role-these and many others do not require the person being socialized to take a formally specified role of a learner. Talmon pointed out that there is another sense in which a socialization relationship may be formal, depending on whether the socializing agent or agency constitutes or represents a formal organization, such as an Army unit, a school, or a corporation, or is instead an informal primary group, such as the family or a friendship group. These two components of formality provide a fourfold classification: formal organization, role of learner specified; informal organization, role similarly specified; formal organization, role of learner not specified; informal organization, role of learner not specified. From the stage early in the life cycle when the organization is formal and the role of learner is specified, perhaps the best example is the student. Examples from later stages of life are the training of the new military recruit, or systematic "on the job" training for an occupation. Talmon pointed out that even within formal organizations with specified socialization roles, much of the socialization still occurs through informal processes, outside of the specified roles. Studies have made clear that the primary group often is the main agency of socialization within these formal institutions. Thus while training may be acquired in a well-defined role, a great deal of indirect, unplanned training takes place through informal discussion and perhaps unconscious identification with role models. In the case where the organization is formal but the role of learner is not specified, the person has to learn as best he can through observation, gleaning information here and there. Where the socialization agency is an informal group but the leamer's role has been prescribed, the child in his family is the archetype. Finally, the case where the agency is informal and no role is specified is exemplified by peer-group socialization, as of the child in his neighborhood, and by adult socialization into a new social class or community status, or into a wider family circle through marriage. The comparison of socialization at various stages suggests differences of many kinds, but the most striking is that much of adult socialization takes place in formal organizations without a clearly specified role for the leamer, while the child, in sharp contrast, is socialized by informal groups in which he has a well-defined learner's role. Much adult socialization thus is allowed to proceed through trial-and-error learning; but for children the process is regulated by specification of rights and duties, and provides opportunities for supervision and guidance to help shape the appropriate responses, and protected occasions for practice without punishment. 2
GROUP CONTEXT OF THE PERSON BEING SOCIALIZED
junctive passages through the process. An only child in a family continues in an individual disjunctive relationship (the eldest child in a family remains in that relationship for only a year or more). More frequently a child is one of a series passing through the process as an individual. Still, if the children are close in age and interaction is encouraged, then the children themselves may develop a close group relationship and their situation could be described as one of collective disjunctive socialization. In the other major institution of childhood, namely, the school, children are socialized in what is clearly a collective serial relationship. Each of these situations has consequences for the socialization process. Older children in families may pass on to the younger learned ways of "getting around the parents" or, on the other hand, may be active agents of socialization under the monitoring of their parents. Where the children are close in age and act as a group, their solidarity may enable them to influence the course of parental practices. So is it also with children in school, although it is unlikely that children in the early grades ever develop as effective means of influencing procedures as do their seniors in high school or college. It is clear that in the later stages of the life cycle we also find the individual in a variety of socialization contexts. In some instances he is alone and in a unique relationship; this characterizes the mutual socialization of spouses in marriage. But in other cases, for example, when a person enters the military system, or becomes a member of a church, or joins a social club, the relationship is that of a member of a collectivity and usually of a serial nature. Thus one finds little systematic change from one type of relationship to another in socialization through the life span. There may be some regular and predictable combination of life-cycle stage and type of institution, and an effort to chart the different contexts is to be desired. At the very least, the analysis of socialization settings provides a guide to understanding what takes place in specific cases.
Another aspect of the relationship with the socializing agent is whether the person is being socialized alone or as a member of a group, in other words, whether his relationship to the socializing agent is that of an individual or a member of a collectivity. Becker introduced this conceptual distinction in his paper, and in the discussion Wheeler added a related distinction. He asked whether the person or group being socialized is one of a series, passing through the socializing agency in succession, or whether the individual or group is one of a kind -whether the process is, in Wheeler's term, "disjunctive." When these two conceptual distinctions are employed together another fourfold classification of relationships results: First there is the individual disjunctive relationship held, for example, by the only child in a family; next there is the individual serial relationship, for example, that of president-elect of a national organization where change of office takes place every year; third, the collective disjunctive instance, which is relatively rare but is exemplified by the one-time summer camp or a summer training institute; and fourth, the collective serial relationship, a familiar instance being that of a freshman class at college. The last type is the one that contains the idea of a "generation" of individuals being socialized. These various types of relationships may influence the outcome of socialization by engendering resistance to or subversion of the socializing process. In the distinction between individual and collectivity, the significant point is the extent to which the collectivity can develop unity, develop a sense of group identity and a power to act (what Becker calls "cohort solidarity"), and hence influence the socializing agent's objectives and techniques by organizing resistance of some kind. In the distinction between the serial and the disjunctive situation, the significant point is that the individual may have been preceded by others who can enlighten him in informal ways concerning the socialization setting. The participants in a socialization sequence, or persons who have graduated, may pass on information to the newer members which enables them to manipulate in their own interest the socializing agent or agency, and hence to interfere with the planned process. What changes may there be in these aspects of the socialization relationship from one stage of the life cycle to another? A review of the varying contexts makes it evident at once that there are no regular systematic changes. Consider the situation of the child. The primary socialization of early life occurs in contexts which vary from individual to group relationships, and from serial to dis-
POWER AND SUPPORT IN THE SOCIALIZATION RELATIONSHIP Still another aspect of the relationship between persons and their socializing agents can be referred to as its quality. An analysis of the pertinent characteristics of relative power and support was presented to the conference by Straus. Many methods of describing the parentchild relationship have been used, and in the past two decades a number of factor analyses, intended to reduce the various descriptions to their common elements, have shown that power and affectivity are the two major 3
values. Adult socialization probably requires a relationship resembling that of childhood to effect equivalent changes in basic values through socialization. This relationship may occur in rare and usually noninstitutionalized settings, for example, in adult religious conversion, in which the submissive relationship and high affective interchange with a religious figure underlie the radical shift in the adult's value system. Another example is the extreme relationship in prisoner-of-war camps. Recent research on "brainwashing" and the breakdown of resistance to enemy values shows this context to be one in which the captors use their extreme power in deliberate manipulation of the whole range of affect from rejection and hate, on the one hand, to support and overt sympathy, on the other, thus bringing the prisoner into a position similar to that of a child with his parent. It follows that if society is to undertake basic resocialization of adults in respect to motives and values, it might well institutionalize in some form the high power and affectivity relationship characteristic of childhood learning.
dimensions underlying the various ways of describing relationships. This empirical discovery points to the importance of these two dimensions. The first indicates the degree to which the socializing agent-the parent in these particular studies-exerts dominance or authority in his relationship to his child, as against being permissive or democratic, or in some cases submissive. The second indicates the degree to which there is a highly affective relationship between the parent and child, in contrast with one of low affectivity or "affective neutrality," to use Parsons' term. The affectivity, of course, can range in direction from positive to negative, from love to hate; it is the amount of affectivity which is the issue. The relevant studies of adult interaction unfortunately have not dealt with socialization as might be done in a study of interaction between recruits and drill sergeants in a military setting, or in a study of interaction of a newly married couple. Instead, the studies have analyzed the interaction of small ad hoc groups in such processes as leadership development and problem solving. N evertheless, the factor analyses of the data on interaction between these adults also reveal the characteristics of power and affectivity as two basic dimensions, and it is likely that they would apply also to the adult socialization relationship. Use of these two dimensions in a fourfold classification will serve to identify different types of relationships. In this way interpersonal situations can be contrasted. In the case of childhood, a parent who rejects his child and is dominant can be contrasted with one who loves his child and is easygoing and permissive. In adulthood, the conditions under which an occupation is being learned in one instance may involve little affectivity or difference in power, while in others the situation may involve considerable exercise of authority of the agent over the trainee, with more feelings becoming involved. The major contrast is between child and adult socialization relationships. It seems evident that the child is socialized in a context of high affectivity and of high power, and that the adult is socialized in a sharply contrasting situation of affective neutrality and little power differentiation. Straus pointed out in his paper that the "high power," "high support" (or positive affect) relationship leads to the acquisition by children of deep-seated motives and values. Other investigators, theorizing about internalization and identification, i.e., the acquisition by the child of the basic parental and cultural values, also u,Sually assume that it is in the environment in which the affective rewards and punishments are large and the socializing agent has considerable power that the fundamental components of personality are laid down. The adult socialization context cannot be so characterized, and is not conducive to the inculcation of basic
CONTENT OF SOCIALIZATION THROUGH THE LIFE CYCLE Another of the fundamental themes developed at the conference was that changes occur in the content of socialization at different stages in the life cycle. Rosow opened the discussion of this topic by analyzing the relative emphasis in socialization on values and overt behavior. The ensuing comments and resulting conceptual development may perhaps best be summarized in the following terms: First, we note three things a person requires before he is able to perform satisfactorily in a social role. He must know what is expected of him (both in behavior and in values), must be able to meet the role requirements, and must desire to practice the behavior and pursue the appropriate ends. It can be said that the purposes of socialization are to give a person knowledge, ability, and motivation. A simple cross-classification of these three concepts with values and behavior establishes a paradigm which is useful in the analysis of changes in the content of socialization through the life cycle. In this paradigm six cells are indicated by letters for simplicity of reference: Knowledge Ability Motivation
Behavior A C E
Values B D
Cells A and B indicate respectively that the individual knows what behavior is expected of him, and what ends he should pursue; E and F indicate that the individual is motivated to behave in the appropriate ways, and to pursue the designated values; cells C and D indicate that the 4
the individual has serious conflicts within himself, but does his best, therapeutic procedures are instituted to solve this problem, which lies in cell D. It is only in the last analysis, when other possible types of deficiencies in socialization have been ruled out, that it is assumed there is a problem in motivation toward the appropriate values, that is, that the case is represented by cell F. Such cases may be disaffected by or divorced from the value system of their society; in our country they may be pacifists, or Communists, or members of other groups which reject the traditional American values. Sometimes resocialization efforts are launched in such cases, but more often retraining of these individuals is considered to be too much of a task, and they are jailed, or ignored, or relegated to marginal, inconsequential positions. In general, then, socialization after childhood deals primarily with the overt behavior in the role and makes little attempt to influence motivation of a fundamental kind, or to influence basic values. Society is willing to spend much less time in redirecting the motivation and values of adults than of children; in the case of the latter it is understood that this is a necessary task of the institutions involved, such as the family, and they are organized to carry out this task. Why should this difference exist? Probably it stems directly from the limitations on learning in later life, which make impractical any attempt at thorough resocialization. Rosow asked in his paper whether adult socialization can in fact generate suitable beliefs and attitudes, suitable motivation for certain types of performance, or whether the limitations on learning are such that the socializing agent must deal with overt performance only. It may be that the costs are too high, and it simply is not efficient from society's point of view to spend too much time on teaching an old dog new tricks. Perhaps an intensive and costly resocialization effort can be made for adults only when the need for a certain kind of manpower is very great and the question of efficiency becomes secondary to the need for personnel.
individual is able to carry out the behavior, and is able to hold appropriate values. (The question of being able or unable to hold values may at first seem somewhat peâ€˘ culiar, but the inability involved here arises from conflict . , within the personality.) With respect to changes during the life cycle, the emphasis in socialization moves from motivation to ability and knowledge, and from a concern with values to a concern with behavior. The highest priority in infant socialization, which is represented by cell F J is to transform the basic drives of the infant into secondary desires for human values and finally to more specific cultural values. Early-life socialization thus emphasizes the control of primary drives, while socialization in later stages deals with secondary or learned motives generated by the expectations of "significant others." Except in rare and extreme conditions, adult socialization does not need to teach the individual to control and regulate the gratification of primary drive systems. The usual concern of adult socialization is represented by cell A. Society assumes that the adult knows the values to be pursued in different roles, that he wants to pursue them with the socially appropriate means, and that all that might remain to be done is to teach him what to do. This is illustrated by the case of a military recruit. The training program starts at about the level of "this is a _gun" and "this is how it is fired." If there are some things the individual is unable to do (cell C), the training program seeks to upgrade his ability, for example, by instruction designed to reduce illiteracy. If he is unwilling to carry out his various tasks (cell E), then motivational training occurs through administration of special rewards and punishments. If it appears that education about values is needed (cell B), the individual is enrolled in a general orientation course on American values and on the purpose of its wars; the "why we fight" training programs are instituted to provide an understanding of the appropriate ends to be sought. If
STUDIES OF ECONOMIC GROWTH IN INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES: A NEW PROGRAM OF THE COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC GROWTH by Moses Abramovitz THE Committee on Economic Growth is sponsoring a program of studies of the economic growth of industrialized countries, for which funds have been granted to the Council by the Ford Foundation. The general aim of the ~
program is to throw light on the remarkable experience of industrialized countries in the period since World War II by intensive analysis of the relevant data, including both intertemporal comparisons of experience within
â€˘ The author is Professor of Economics at Stanford University and
the University of Wisconsin, Bert F. Hoselitz of the University of Chicago, Wilbert E. Moore of Princeton University, Neil J. Smelser of the University of California, Berkeley, and Joseph J. Spengler of Duke University.
~o-director with Simon Kuznets of Harvard University, chairman of the
Committee on Economic Growth, of the new project described in this report. The other members of the committee are Richard Hartshorne of
Japan Kazushi Ohkawa of Hitotsubashi University, and Henry ROo sovskyof the University of California, Berkeley
countries and international comparisons among countries. Analysis of experience over a long stretch of time, it is hoped, will help identify the forces that shaped that experience both in the postwar period and in earlier years. The results may also indicate the extent to which the experience of the postwar period was the reflection of transient circumstances rather than persistent forces and so provide a firmer basis for national policies bearing on growth. Work has been started under this program on a number of parallel studies in particular countries. These studies will describe and interpret the postwar economic experience in each country in the light of its record in earlier periods. Changes over time therefore are the principal subject of these investigations. As their results become available, a comparison of experience in the various countries will be undertaken, in order to clarify the causal influences revealed. This study will also serve as a general summary of the results of the program. Six studies in selected countries-France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States -have been organized. If possible a seventh study, of one of the smaller European countries, will also be undertaken. The principal investigators are:
United Kingdom R. C. O. Matthews and C. H. Feinstein, both of the University of Cambridge
United States Moses Abramovitz and Paul A. David, both of Stanford University.
The joint directors of the project, Messrs. Kuznets and Abramovitz, will also be in charge of the comparative study which is to follow completion of the separate studies. A small group of advisers is being organized to assist the directors and to review the work of the various participants. M. Charles Gruson, Director of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques, James Tobin of Yale University, and Robert Solow of Massachusetts Institute of Technology have agreed to serve as advisers. A first meeting of the participants in the studies was held at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, London, on January 9-11, 1964. This conference reviewed preliminary papers surveying the growth records of the various countries, considered the statistical materials available for study, and discussed the plans of each group for pursuing its work. Plans were laid for a minimal collection of statistical series for each country, covering production, supplies of labor and capital, pro- _ ductivity of resources, saving, income distribution, the elements of expenditure, and international flows of goods and capital. Major portions of the work are scheduled to be completed in the course of 1964, and a second conference of participants is to meet in the spring of 1965.
France Edmond Malinvaud, Philippe Berthet, Jean-Jacques Carre. and Paul Dubois, all of the Institut National de la Statistique et des Etudes Economiques Germany Gottfried Bombach and Harald Gerfin, both of the University of Basel, and Rolf Krengel of the Institut fUr Wirtschaftsforschung. Berlin Italy Giorgio Fu3. of the University of Urbino at Ancona, and Alberto Caracciolo, Guiseppe Orlando, and Paolo SylosLabini, all of the University of Rome
USE OF SURVEY METHODS IN THE STUDY OF POLITICAL MODERNIZATION: REPORT OF A CONFERENCE by Sidney Verba •
A SMALL and informal conference was held in New York on May 10-11, 1963, under the auspices of the Council's Committee on Comparative Politics, to consider uses of survey methods in research on political modernization. The participants were chosen for their interest in prob-
lems of political modernization as well as their extensive experience in survey research. The conference was planned not only for exchange of information as to the kinds of studies that have been made with survey techniques in the developing nations and discussion of the
• The author is Associate Professor of Politics at Princeton University and a member of the Council's Committee on Comparative Politics, whose other members are Lucian W. Pye, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (chairman); Gabriel A. Almond. Stanford University; Leon· ard Binder. University of Chicago; R. Taylor Cole. Duke University; James S. Coleman. University of California. Los Angeles; Herbert Hyman. Columbia University; Joseph LaPalombara. Michigan State University; Robert E. Ward, University of Michigan; and Myron Weiner. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; staff: Bryce Wood. Messrs. Hy-
man and Verba organized the conference reported in this paper. for the committee, and served as co-chairmen. The participants in the conference included the members of the committee and Robert O. Carlson. Standard Oil Company of New Jersey; Karl W. Deutsch. Yale University; Helen Dinerman. International Research Associates; Leonard W. Doob. Yale University; Frederick W. Frey. Massachusetts Institute of Tech-_ nology; Eugene Jacobson, Michigan State University; Daniel Lerner•. , Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Warren E. Miller. University of Michigan; and Bruce M. Russett. Yale University.
important subcultures, with localities undergoing change at varying rates. If surveys are to obtain information on the interaction of elite and other groups-as any study of the implications of the "revolution of rising frustrations" must-study designs will have to provide for obtaining data from varying social levels. Specific social groups on which one could concentrate were suggested also. These included strategic voluntary associations and university and secondary school students. It was also thought that the development of techniques of studying social structure and patterns of interaction within the framework of survey research would be worth while. Much time was devoted to discussion of how to coordinate the many studies that are currently being undertaken and planned for the future so that the results will be more cumulative. Replication is a major need in any set of studies of modernization, in order to test hypotheses in new contexts and over time. Discussion of this point led to consideration of the organizational problems of survey research on modernization and the role that the Committee on Comparative Politics might play in this area. There are several ways in which greater coordination of studies of political modernization could be brought about. One approach would be to arrange for more cross-national coordination of all kinds of studies, ranging from those in which major intellectual control is exercised by one central director to cooperative ventures in which research teams with similar technical skills, working in several nations, agree to coordinate their surveys and make every effort to obtain comparable results. Another way in which to increase the cumulativeness of survey research is through an emphasis in new studies on the replication of parts of earlier studies. Much of this kind of coordination might depend on adequate channels of communication so that scholars working in this general area could be kept informed of the work of others. This suggests the importance of development of adequate archives of previous survey data, as well as of survey instruments. It was the general consensus of the members of the Committee on Comparative Politics that it could not either assume the role of coordinator of specific survey research projects or manage archives of survey research. Both undertakings require a more permanent organizational structure and substantial financing; the conference discussions indicated that several such efforts are under way. A group such as the committee is better able to encourage the incorporation of survey techniques into other kinds of research on problems of modernization. By facilitating the kinds of exchanges that took place in the conference, the committee could hope to increase the contributions of survey research to the cumulative understanding of problems of social change.
direction that research of this sort might profitably take, but also to assist the committee in planning future activities. The following memoranda were prepared for the conference: "Some Nonpolitical Avenues for Approaching a Study of Political Modernization," by Robert O. Carlson; "Periodic Surveys in Subsaharan Africa," by Leonard W. Doob; "Surveying Peasant Attitudes in Turkey," by Frederick W. Frey; "Survey Research in Japan," by Hajime Ikeuchi (Director, Public Opinion Science Institute, Tokyo); "Comparative Survey Research: Some Topics for Discussion," by Eugene Jacobson; and "Survey Research on Political Modernization," by Daniel Lerner. These papers were discussed with reference to three broad topics-the substantive contributions that survey research can make to understanding of political change and modernization; methodological problems encountered in planning and carrying out such surveys; and the organizational problems involved. A number of ways in which survey research can contribute to understanding of processes of change and development were considered. In particular it was suggested that surveys concentrate on the study of what Lerner called "the revolution of rising frustrations." Survey techniques could be used to locate the segments of society where expectations are rising faster than the ability to satisfy them, as well as to examine possible ways of harnessing these rising expectations-through participation in voluntary associations, for instance. If survey studies are to contribute to knowledge of this area, it was agreed that they will have to be coordinated with a variety of other methods of study that go beyond the standard cross-sectional survey. Survey techniques themselves could be put to greater use, for example, in comparative studies. There was some discussion as to whether comparisons should be made within broadly similar cultural areas-such as the Arab Middle East or Latin America-or over a wider range of countries. A second question was whether the unit of study should be the nation state or the cultural units that make up many of the new nation states. In general it was agreed that studies of nations similar in culture and studies with a wider coverage are both fruitful. And even if the nation state were taken as the prime unit for survey purposes, it would be important to deal with regional and cultural differences. A major way in which survey research could be expanded, it was agreed, is through greater effort to focus on a variety of groups within a nation. In response to the question whether one ought to study the elite or mass _population, the conference strongly believed both should be studied. Samples should be designed to enable the investigator to deal adequately with strategic elites, with
COMMITTEE BRIEFS tion and application forms may be obtained from The Foreign Area Fellowship Program, 444 Madison Avenue, New York, N.Y. 10022.
CONTEMPORARY CHINA: SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH ON CHINESE SOCIETY G. William Skinner (chairman), John C. Pelzel, Irene B. Taeuber; staff, Bryce Wood.
INTERNATIONAL CONGRESSES The eighth and ninth seminars in the series sponsored by IN THE UNITED STATES the subcommittee were held in Bermuda, January 24-28, (Joint with American Council of Learned Societies) 1964, on Cognitive and Value Systems in Chinese Society, and Personality and Motivation in Chinese Society, respecFrederick Burkhardt (chairman), Charles Frankel, Pendletively. The program of the eighth seminar included the fol- ton Herring, Ben T. Moore, Donald Young; staff, Charles lowing topics: world views and the individual; personal and Blitzer. kin relations; and economic and communal processes. For this seminar the following papers were prepared: "Modern The Ford Foundation has granted $250,000 to the AmeriMeaning of Filialism among Taiwan's College Elite," by can Council of Learned Societies for continuation of the Ai-li S. Chin, Harvard University, with the collaboration of joint program to encourage the holding of international Robert Chin, Boston University; "Chinese Geomancy: Some scholarly meetings in the humanities and social sciences Observations in Hong Kong," by Maurice Freedman, Lon- in the United States during the next five years. This program don School of Economics and Political Science; "Family In- has been in operation since 1958, and has provided grants to teraction and Values," by William T. Liu, University of help meet the expenses of 17 congresses. Notre Dame; "Cognition and Values: Agenda Paper," by A maximum of $50,000 has been established for grants Mr. Pelzel; "The Value System of a Chinese Community in under the continuing program. Since the budgets of major Java" (excerpts from a doctoral dissertation), by Edward J. international congresses can run as high as $175,000, the Ryan, Harvard University; "The Fate of the Soul in Popular organizers of all the conferences or congresses previously Ancestor Worship: Some Syncretic Beliefs and Their Social aided have had to raise supplementary funds from other Function," by Marjorie Topley, Hong Kong; "Some Aspects sources. The amounts granted by the ACLS-SSRC program of Values Surrounding the Practice of Adoption in Singa- serve as a guarantee to permit an invitation to be extended pore," by Ann Wee, University of Singapore. in the first place and to defray the costs of foreign particiThe program of the ninth seminar included sessions on pants; no more than 20 percent of a grant may be used for the following subjects: the family as a behavioral setting; administrative expenses. The organizations receiving grants the goals and techniques of socialization; aggression and the under this program are encouraged to regard the funds as adult personality; religion and implicit personality theories. an advance which they should make every effort to return so The papers prepared for the seminar were as follows: "Chi- that as many organizations as possible can be assisted. nese Personality and Cognition," by Mr. and Mrs. Chin; Since most of the large international scholarly organiza"Sibling Order as an Index of Personality," by Katherine tions in the humanities and social sciences that would be Hanson, Cornell University; "Values and Social Relations in expected to hold congresses in the United States have done China: A Reappraisal," by Mr. Liu; "Temper Tantrums in so during the past five years, the committee hopes that in the Kau Sai," by Barbara E. Ward, Birkbeck College, University period covered by the new grant a number of smaller workof London; "Aggression in a Hokkien Village," by Arthur P. ing conferences can be supported. Inquiries should be adWolf, Cornell University; and "Child Training in a Hokkien dressed to the American Council of Learned Societies, 345 East 46 Street, New York, N.Y. 10017. C.B. Village," by Margery Wolf, Cornell University. FOREIGN AREA FELLOWSHIP PROGRAM (Joint with American Council of Learned Societies)
LEARNING AND THE EDUCATIONAL PROCESS Lee J. Cronbach (chairman), Richard C. Atkinson, Eleanor Gibson, Evan R. Keislar, Judson T. Shaplin; staff, Ben Willerman.
Pendleton Herring (chairman), Schuyler C. Wallace (director), Frederick Burkhardt, Chauncy D. Harris, T. Cuyler Young; staff, Dorothy Soderlund, James L. Gould.
With funds provided by the Ford Foundation the program of the committee has been expanded by inclusion of a new program for advanced graduate and postdoctoral training in the social sciences and humanities relating to Western Europe, under which a limited number of fellowships will be granted for the academic year 1964-65. Applications must be submitted on or before April 10, 1964. Further informa-
A conference on perceptual and linguistic aspects of reading was held by the committee at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, October 31 - November 2, in accordance with plans made by a subcommittee, consisting of Mrs. Gibson (chairman), John B. Carroll of Harvard University, and Mr. Keislar. Support for the Conference was provided by a grant to the Council from the Carnegie Cor-
SOCIALIZATION AND SOCIAL STRUCTURE
poration of New York. The conference, which dealt particularly with the acquisition and transfer of beginning reading skills, brought together persons who are conducting research on revised English alphabets, methods of teaching reading, • linguistics, and the underlying processes of learning to read . ., The following papers were prepared and distributed in advance: "Pitman's Initial Teaching (Augmented Roman) Alphabet," by John Downing, University of London Institute of Education; "Single-Sound UNIFON: Does It Fill the Need for a Compatible and Consistent Auxiliary Orthography for Teaching English and Other European Languages?" by John R. Malone, Foundation for a Compatible and Consistent Alphabet, Chicago; "Augmented Roman Alphabet: A Critical Analysis," by Edward Fry, Rutgers-The State University; "Analysis of the Reading Process as Perceptual Learning," by Mrs. Gibson; "Reading and the Learning of Variable Grapheme·to-Phoneme Correspondences," by Harry Levin, Cornell University; "Generalization and Transfer in the Perceptual Learning of Children," by Joachim F. Wohlwill, Clark University; and "The Phonic Method versus the Combination Method in Teaching Reading [in the Philippines]" by Emperatriz S. Tensuan, Pasay City Schools, and Frederick B. Davis, Hunter College and Project Talent Office, University of Pittsburgh. The papers by Messrs. Levin and Wohlwill were discussed by Leo J. Postman, University of California, Berkeley, and the paper by Miss Tensuan and Mr. Davis was discussed by Patrick Suppes, Stanford University. In a panel discussion of Strategies and Methodological Problems in Reading Research, the a participants were Jeanne S. Chall, City College, New York; • Mr. Cronbach; Arthur W. Staats, Arizona State University; and Ruth Weir, Stanford University. The conference concluded with presentation of a summary and suggestions for future research, by Mr. Carroll. Other participants, in addition to members of the committee and staff, were John W. Atkinson, University of Michigan; N. L. Gage, and William J. Iverson, Stanford University; Albert J. Mazurkiewicz, Lehigh University; Lloyd N. Morrisett, Carnegie Corporation of New York; David Reed, University of California, Berkeley; Lawrence M. Stolurow, University of Illinois; Fred L. Strodtbeck, University of Chicago; and Joanna P. Williams, University of Pennsyl vania.
John A. Clausen (chairman), Orville G. Brim, Jr., Alex Inkeles, Ronald Lippitt, Eleanor E. Maccoby, M. Brewster Smith; staff, Ben Willerman. A conference on character development, planned by Martin Hoffman of Merrill-Palmer Institute in cooperation with the committee, was held on October 31- November 3, at Gould House, Dobbs Ferry. Most of the commissioned papers had been distributed in advance to the discussants and other participants. The first session was devoted to presentation and discussion of the paper by Mr. Hoffman, "Early Processes in Moral Development." Mr. Clausen and Mrs. Maccoby were the discussants. The second session considered "Conduct and Conscience: A Natural History of Internalization," by Justin Aronfreed of the University of Pennsylvania. The discussants were Albert Bandura of Stanford University and Mr. Smith. At the third session "Stage and Sequence: The Developmental Approach to Moralization," by Lawrence Kohlberg of the University of Chicago, was discussed by Roger Burton, National Institute of Mental Health, and Robert Havighurst, University of Chicago. The fourth session was devoted to "Social Organization and Socialization: Variations on a Theme about Generalizations," by Albert J. Reiss, Jr. of the University of Michigan. This paper was discussed by Urie Bronfenbrenner of Cornell University and Yehudi Cohen of Social Research, Inc. Two informal evening sessions were also held. At the first, John W. M. Whiting of Harvard University spoke on the subject of the superego across cultures, which was discussed by Lawrence Freedman of the University of Chicago and Melford E. Spiro of the University of Washington. At the second, Ethel Albert of the University of California, Berkeley, and Beatrice Whiting of Harvard University presented brief papers on the relations between character and social structure. At the fifth formal session there was a general discussion and summary of the major issues before the conference. Other participants, in addition to authors and discussants, included members and staff of the committee and Richard Schmuck of the University of Michigan, who served as rapporteur. The papers and discussions at the conference are being edited by Mr. Hoffman, and it is expected that they will be published in a single volume.
PERSONNEL DIRECTORS OF THE COUNCIL
J. Roland Pennock, Swarthmore College, by the American Political Science Association Quinn McNemar, Stanford University, by the American Psychological Association Leo F. Schnore, University of Wisconsin, by the American Sociological Association Morris H. Hansen, Bureau of the Census, by the American Statistical Association.
The following persons have been designated by the seven national social science organizations associated with the Council to serve as directors of the Council for the three-year term 1964-66: Harold C. Conklin, Yale University, by the American Anthropological Association George H. Hildebrand, Cornell University, by the American Economic Association Bernard Bailyn, Harvard University, by the American Historical Association
Their credentials as members are scheduled for acceptance by the board of directors of the Council at its spring meeting in New York on March 20-21, 1964. 9
Philip R. Bilancia, Visiting Scholar, School of Law, University of Washington, for completion of a dictionary of Communist Chinese legal terms (renewal). Chang-tu Hu, Professor of Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, for research on the politics of education in Communist China. John Israel, Assistant Professor of History, Claremont Men's College, for research on the Chinese student movement of December 9, 1935: a case study in Chinese Communist historiography. Anthony Koo, Professor of Economics, Michigan State University, for research on land reform and economic development on Taiwan. Leslie T. C. Kuo, Chief, Oriental Project, National Agricultural Library, U.S. Department of Agriculture, for research on the technical transformation of agriculture in Communist China (renewal). John W. Lewis, Assistant Professor of Government, Cornell University, for research in Japan, Taiwan, and Hong Kong on urban politics and the political development of China: a case study of Tangshan. Maurice Meisner, Assistant Professor of History, University of Virginia, for research on Li Ta-chao and the origins of Chinese Marxism. Douglas H. Mendel, Jr., Visiting Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, for research on the policy of the United States toward Taiwanese nationalIsm, and on the activities of Taiwanese residents in the United States. Paul E. Zinner, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of California, Davis, for research on patterns of social control in the People's Republic of China.
GRANTS FOR AFRICAN STUDIES The Joint Committee on African Studies, of the American Council of Learned Societies and the Social Science Research Council-Alan P. Merriam (chairman), L. Gray Cowan, Philip D. Curtin, William O. Jones, Horace M. Miner, Roy Sieber, Benjamin E. Thomas-on January 16-17 made the following 11 grants for research relating to Africa south of the Sahara: William Bascom, Professor of Anthropology, University of California, Berkeley, for research in Nigeria on Ha, the system of divination among the Yoruba. Renee C. Fox, Assistant Professor of Sociology, Barnard College, for a comparative study in the Republic of the Congo and in Burundi of socialization of African university students. Arthur J. Knoll, Ph.D. candidate in history, Yale University, for research in Togo on German imperialism in Togo, 1884-1914. Igor Kopytoff, Assistant Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, and Jean H. Kopytoff, Instructor in History, Swarthmore College, for anthropological and historical research in Ivory Coast, Senegal, and France, on the Lagoon area of the Ivory Coast. Rene Lemarchand, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Florida, for research in Belgium and Africa on the separation of Ruanda-Urundi. Albert J. McQueen, Assistant Professor of Sociology, University of Michigan, for research on education, unemployment, and the future of Nigerian youth. Marvin P. Miracle, Assistant Professor of Economics, San Francisco State College, for research in France, Senegal, and Ivory Coast on commerce in an urban area of the latter country. Chandler Morse, Professor of Economics, Cornell University, for research in Africa on socialism and economic development. Benjamin Rivlin, Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College, for research in West Africa and Ethiopia on Maghreb unity and pan-Africanism (supplementary to grant awarded by the Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, 1962-63). Michael E. Sabbagh, Assistant Professor of Geography, University of California, Riverside, for research in South Africa on a plural society: the geographical implications of separate development in the Republic of South Africa. Darius L. Thieme, Reference Librarian, Music Division, Library of Congress, for research in Nigeria on Yoruba village musical practices.
GRANTS FOR LATIN AMERICAN STUDIES
The Joint Committee on Latin American Studies, sponsored with the American Council of Learned SocietiesRobert N. Burr (chairman), Charles W. Anderson, Fred P. Ellison, Joseph Grunwald, Allan R. Holmberg, Joseph A. Kahl, Stanley J. Stein, and Charles Wagley-at its meeting on February 14-15 awarded the following 18 grants for research: Thomas F. Carroll, Senior Adviser, Agricultural Policy, Inter-American Development Bank, for research on land tenure and land reform in Latin America. Dou~las A. Chalmers, Assistant Professor of Political SCIence, Rutgers-The State University, for research in Brazil on the structure and behavior of Brazilian political parties. Donald B. Cooper, Assistant Professor of History, Tulane University, for research in Brazil on the impact of yellow fever on Brazilian history, 1850-1930. Richard R. Fagen, Assistant Professor of Political Science and of Communication, Stanford University, for research on the political socialization of Cuban adults since 1959, with emphasis on the "year of education." Richard Graham, Assistant Professor of Latin American History, Cornell University, for research in Brazil on Great Britain and the onset of modernization in Brazil, 1850-1918. ~ Sidney M. Greenfield, Associate Professor of Sociology," University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, for research in
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON CONTEMPORARY CHINA The Joint Committee on Contemporary China, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-A. Doak Barnett (chairman), Alexander Eckstein, John K. Fairbank, Walter Galenson, John M. H. Lindbeck, Robert A. Scalapino, G. William Skinner, George E. Taylor, and Mary C. Wright-at its meeting on February 21-22 awarded 9 grants for research, as follows: 10
Brazil on land tenure and the organization and commitment of labor in rural Minas Gerais. Herbert S. Klein, Assistant Professor of Latin American History, University of Chicago, for a comparative study in Spain of the institution of Negro slavery in Cuba and Virginia. Henry A. Landsberger, Associate Professor of Industrial and Labor Relations (on assignment in Chile), Cornell University, for research on the background and attitudes of labor leaders and personnel managers and on labor-management relations in Chile. Kurt L. Levy, Associate Professor of Italian and Hispanic Studies, University of Toronto, for research in Colombia on the prose fiction of Antioquia. Donald L. McGrady, Assistant Professor of Romance Languages, University of Texas, for research in Colombia on the poetry of Jorge Isaacs. Richard M. Morse, Professor of History, Yale University, for research in the United States and South America on functional and structural aspects of Latin American cities. Ronald C. Newton, Assistant Professor of History, Purdue University, for research in Argentina on the validity of a modified "interest group" concept as applied to the Argentine university student movement, 1918-64. Fernando Pefialosa, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Sociology, California State Polytechnic College, for research in Mexico on urbanization in the state of Guana juato. Robert A. Potash, Professor of History, University of Massachusetts, for research on the role of the armed forces in the political process in Argentina since 1930. Donald Robertson, Associate Professor of the History of Art, Newcomb College, Tulane University, for research in Europe on Mexican pre-Conquest and early Colonial pictorial manuscripts. Raymond S. Sayers, Assistant Professor of Romance Languages, City College, New York, for research in Brazil on the Negro in contemporary Brazilian literature. Robert M. Stevenson, Professor of Music, University of California, Los Angeles, for research in Brazil on the history of Brazilian music, especially since 1800. Richard S. Thorn, Assistant Professor of Economics, Hunter College, for research on the relationship between the structure of public revenues and expenditures and economic development in Latin America.
Louis Dupree, Associate Professor of Anthropology, Pennsylvania State University, for research in London on ethnic groups in Afghanistan. Oleg Grabar, Professor of Near Eastern Art, University of Michigan, for research on the illustrations of the Maqamat of Hariri. Sidney W. Mintz, Professor of Anthropology, Yale University, for research in Iran on the internal market system in selected regions. E. Ann Pottinger, Instructor in History, Middlebury College, for research in Europe and Turkey on Turkish religious policy and the origins of the Crimean War. Morton Rubin, Associate Professor of Sociology, Northeastern University, for research in Israel on perceptions of the community. Nadav Safran, Assistant Professor of Government, Harvard University, for research in Iran, Egypt, and Tunisia on bureaucracy and development. Joseph F. Schacht, Professor of Arabic and Islamics, Columbia University, for research in North Africa on Islamic law. Dwight J. Simpson, Associate Professor of Political Science, Williams College, for research in Turkey on its modernization since World War II. Peter Suzuki, Social Scientist Associate, System Development Corporation, for restudy in Istanbul of the urbanization of a group of Anatolian peasants. Ehsan Yar-Shater, Professor of Iranian Studies, Columbia University, for research in Iran on unrecorded Iranian dialects. Leon Zolondek, Associate Professor of Semi tics, University of Kentucky, for research in Lebanon on the sociopolitical writings of Salim al-Bustani (1848-84). INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE TRAVEL GRANTS Under the program administered by the Committee on International Conference Travel Grants, 5 awards were made by its staff subcommittee at meetings on January 7 and 22, and February 20, to assist social scientists resident in the United States to attend international congresses and other meetings outside this country: Theodore Abel, Professor of Sociology, Hunter College; German Sociological Association, Fifteenth Annual Conference, Heidelberg, April 28-30, 1964. Peter M. Blau, Professor of Sociology, University of Chicago; International Sociological Association, Research Subcommittee on Social Stratification and Social Mobility meetings, Copenhagen and Lund, May 14-16, 1964. Eugene Jacobson, Professor of Psychology, Michigan State University; International Social Science Council, conference on research on international cultural exchanges, Tel Aviv, April 8-10, 1964. S. M. Miller, Professor of Sociology, Syracuse University; International Sociological Association, Research Subcommittee on Social Stratification and Social Mobility meetings, Copenhagen and Lund, May 14-16, 1964. Francis A. Young, Executive Secretary, Committee on International Exchange of Persons, Conference Board of Associated Research Councils; International Social Science Council, conference on research on international cultural exchanges, Tel Aviv, April 8-10, 1964.
GRANTS FOR RESEARCH ON THE NEAR AND MIDDLE EAST The Joint Committee on the Near and Middle East, sponsored with the American Council of Learned Societies-Morroe Berger (chairman), Leonard Binder, Marshall G. S. Hodgson, Charles Issawi, Malcolm H. Kerr, Albert J. Meyer, and Herbert H. Paper-at its meeting on February 14 made the following 13 grants for research: Willard A. Beling, Professor of International Relations, University of Southern California, for research in Algeria and the United Arab Republic on the role of organized labor in one-party states in the Arab world. Roderic H. Davison, Professor of European History, George Washington University, for research in Europe and Turkey on Ottoman relations with the European powers, 1839-78. 11
PUBLICA rlONS Attitudes and Social Relations of Foreign Students in the United States, by Claire Selltiz, June R. Christ, Joan Havel, and Stuart W. Cook. Sponsored by the former Committee on Cross-Cultural Education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, May 1963. 448 pages. $9.00. Basic Cognitive Processes in Children, edited by John C. Wright and Jerome Kagan. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 28, No.2 (Serial No. 86), 1963. Sponsored by the Committee on Intellective Processes Research. Lafayette, Indiana: Child Development Publications. 196 pages. $3.50. Bureaucracy and Political Development, edited by Joseph LaPalombara. Studies in Political Development 2, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press, August 1963. 501 pages. $8.50. Communications and Political Development, edited by Lucian W. Pye. Studies in Political Development 1, sponsored by the Committee on Comparative Politics. PrInceton: Princeton University Press, April 1963. 395 pages. $6.50. Concentration in the Manufacturing Industries of the United States: A Midcentury Report, by Ralph L. Nelson. Economic Census Studies 2, sponsored by the Committee on Analysis of Economic Census Data. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963. 302 pages. $7.50. Economic Trends in the Soviet Union, edited by Abram Bergson and Simon Kuznets. Outgrowth of a conference, May 6-8, 1961, sponsored by the Committee on Economic Growth. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, February 1963.406 pages. $9.75. The Education of Sociologists in the United States, by Elbridge Sibley. A study financed by the Russell Saf?e Foundation at the suggestion of the American Sooological Association, for which the author was granted partial leave from the Council. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, December 1963. 218 pages. $3.50. Generalization in the Writing of History, edited by Louis Gottschalk. Report of the former Committee on Historical Analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, January 1963. 268 pages. $5.00. Handbook of Mathematical Psychology, Vols. I and II, edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research. New York: John Wiley &: Sons, 1963. 491; 606 pages. $10.50; $11.95.
New Perspectives on the House of Representatives, edited by Robert L. Peabody and Nelson W. Polsby. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Political Behavior. â€˘ Chicago: Rand McNally &: Company, November 1963.392 W pages. Cloth, $6.50; paper, $3.50. The Political Systems of Empires, by S. N. Eisenstadt. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Comparative Politics. New York: Free Press of Glencoe, June 1963. 543 pages. $15.00. Problems in Measuring Change, edited by Chester W. Harris. Proceedings of a conference sponsored by the former Committee on Personality Development in Youth. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, October 1963. 269 pages. $7.50. Readings in Mathematical Psychology, Vol. I, edited by R. Duncan Luce, Robert R. Bush, and Eugene Galanter. Prepared with the aid of the Committee on Mathematics in Social Science Research. New York: John Wiley &: Sons, 1963. 535 pages. $8.95. Scientists and National Policy Making, edited by Robert Gilpin and Christopher Wright. Product of a conference, October 4-5, 1962, jointly sponsored by the Committee on National Security Policy Research and the Columbia University Council for Atomic Age Studies. New York: Columbia University Press, February 1964. 316 pages. $7.50. Six Cultures: Studies of Child Rearing, edited by Beatrice B. Whiting. Studies planned and initiated with the aid of the former Committees on Social Behavior and on Personality Development. New York: John Wiley &: Sons, March 1963. 1017 pages. $12.50. Trends in the Income of Families and Persons in the United" States: 1947 to 1960, by Herman P. Miller. Bureau of theW! Census Technical Paper No.8. Based on work done under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.353 pages. $1.75. U.S. Census of Population: 1960, Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas: Social and Economic Data for Persons in SMSA's by Residence Inside or Outside Central City, by Irene B. Taeuber. Bureau of the Census, Selected Area Reports, Final Report PC(3)-ID. Prepared for use in a monograph under the program of the Committee on Population Census Monographs in cooperation with the Bureau of the Census. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1963.767 pages. $4.50.
SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH COUNCIL 230
Incorporated in the State of Illinois, December 27, Directors, 1964:
for the purpose of advancing research in the social sciences
BERNARD BAILYN, ABRAM BERGSON, DORWIN CARTWRIGHT, JOSEPH B. CAsAGRANDE, THOMAS C. COCHRAN, JAMES S. COLEMAN, HAIlOLD
C. CONKUN, KARL A. Fox, WILLIAM J. GOODE, JR., MORRIS H. HANSEN, CHAUNCY D.
PENDLETON HERRING, GEORGE H. HILDEBRAND, NATHAN
KEYFITZ, THOMAS S. KUHN, STANLEY LEBERGOTT, GARDNER LINDZEY, QUINN McNEMAR, FRANCO MODlGLlANI, LOUIS MORTON, J. ROLAND PENNOCK, DON K. PRICE, LEo F. ScHNORE, HERBERT A. SIMON, GUY E. SWANSON, DAVID B. TRUMAN, JOHN W. TUKEY, CHARLES WAGLEY, S. S. WILKS, DONALD YOUNG
Officers and Staff:
IsBELL, ROWLAND L. MITCHELL, JR., BEN WILLERMAN,
P'ice-President; ELBRIDGE SmLEY, Executive Associate; Staff Associates; CATHERINE V. RONNAN, Financial Secretary
BRYCE WOOD, ELEANOR C.