|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
tic leader (variable 11.06). Thus, these two variables were expected to correlate negatively with the other variables while being essentially unrelated between themselves. The observed correlations wee almost exactly as predicted. Variables 11.03 and 11.06 were themselves uncorrelated (r = .04), and seven out of eight of their correlations with the other variables were negative. But the correlations involving "personalism" averaged only -.13, and they included the one unexpected positive correlation. These unsatisfactory results caused the variable to be dropped from the cluster. The remaining five intercorrelated at an average magnitude of .41 (adjusting for signs), the first factor accounted for 54 percent of their variance, and the reliability of the " involvement" scale they produced was a respectable .78. The previous section sought to validate the concepts with evidence of convergence among their indicators. The results of the validation were inevitably complicated by departures from expectations and problems of missing data, and some survey of the results is necessary to extract a message from the complexity. Table 14.7 has been prepared to assist this survey. It cites each of the concepts in the framework and comments on the extent to which the data analysis supports the conceptual expectations. For example, Table 14.7 reminds us that seven variables were originally proposed as measures of "institutionalization," that one was soon dropped for lack of face validity, and that four of the remaining six intercorrelated as expected. These four items yielded a scale of institutionalization with a reliability (Cronbach's alpha) of .79. If the institutionalization cluster of variables qualifies as being "strongly" in accordance with expectations, the governmental status cluster deserves an even higher rating. Of the six variables that were retained on the grounds of face validity, five intercorrelated as expected, producing a governmental status scale with a reliability of .92. Four other concept clusters conformed to expectations as well or better than institutionalization and governmental status. These were degree of organization, centralization of power, coherence, and involvement. Thus, the expectations of relationships among the variables subsumed under each concept in the framework were strongly, but not completely, supported by Institutionalization.
One of the original variables (1.07) was dropped
for conceptual reasons. Of the remaining six, four
intercorrelated as expected. 1.01 Year of Origin 1.04 Leadership
Competition 1.05 Legislative
Instability 1.06 Electoral
Instability Governmental Status.
Two of the original variables (2.07 and 2.08) were
dropped for conceptual reasons. Of the remaining
six, five intercorrelated as expected.: 2.01 Government
Discrimination 2.02 Governmental
Leadership 2.03 Cabinet
Participation 2.05 Legislative
Strength 2.06 Electoral Strength Social Support.
Measures of social attraction, concentration, and
reflection were devised to tap "diversity" of
support along six dimensions. All three measures
interrelated exactly as expected for four of the
six dimensions, but not for socioeconomic status
and education. The reliabilities for these scales
were much lower, for the concentration measure did
not relate as strongly as expected to attraction
and especially reflection. (The concentration
measure was included in the socioeconomic and
educational diversity scales, but the inclusion is
debatable.) |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||