Sociation Today®
The Official
Journal
of
The North
Carolina
Sociological
Association: A
Refereed Web-Based
Publication
ISSN 1542-6300
Editorial Board:
Editor:
George H. Conklin,
North Carolina
Central University
Board:
Bob Davis,
North Carolina
Agricultural and
Technical State
University
Richard Dixon,
UNC-Wilmington
Ken Land,
Duke University
Miles Simpson,
North Carolina
Central University
Ron Wimberley,
N.C. State University
Robert Wortham,
North Carolina
Central University
|
®
Volume 3, Number 2
Fall 2005
Reassessing the Effect of Urbanism and Regionalism:
A Comparison of Different Indicators of Racial Tolerance
by
J. Scott Carter
University of West Georgia
Introduction
The classical theories of Louis Wirth
([1938] 1964) and Samuel Stouffer (1955) relating urbanism and non-Southern
living to tolerance have stimulated a great deal of research. Both
Wirth ([1938] 1964) and Stouffer (1955) reflected on the diversity and
heterogeneity of urban life as conducive to toleration of individuals from
different social and cultural backgrounds. Stouffer (1955) further
adds that certain regions may also produce conditions that foster toleration.
In general, research testing the basic propositions of Wirth ([1938] 1964)
and Stouffer (1955) find urban and non-Southern residents to be more tolerant
of various groups typically discriminated against than their non-urban
and Southern counterparts (Abrahamson and Carter 1986; Jang and Alba 1992,
Tuch 1987). In reference to African Americans, for example, past
research has documented a significant positive effect of urban and non-Southern
residency (Carter et. al. Forthcoming; Tuch 1987).
An important question flowing
from that research is whether the observed attitudinal distinctiveness
by place of residency translates into explanations about the causes of
racial inequality. Two basic explanations have been discussed in
the literature. First, some pose that inequality is a consequence
of external structural factors. A structural explanation of inequality
is more sympathetic and blames structural limitations, such as discrimination,
as restricting the social and economic opportunities of African Americans
(Kleugel 1990; Kleugel and Smith 1982). Secondly, others pose that
racial disparities in social and economic success are a result of individual
characteristics, such as a lack of work ethic, rather than any form of
racial discrimination. This individualistic explanation is less sympathetic
to the plight of African Americans and denies structural limits to the
opportunities afforded to African Americans as a whole (Kinder and Mendelberg
2000; Kleugel and Smith 1982).
Beliefs about the causes of racial
inequity have garnered a great deal of research recently and have practical
consequences. Kleugel (1990) concludes that a person’s explanation
about inequality (either more structural or individualistic) influences
their attitudes toward governmental policy aimed to enhance opportunities
of African Americans. In general, those who see structural limitations
to the success of African Americans are more likely to support programs
that enhance the opportunities of African Americans, whereas those who
maintain individualistic explanations of racial inequality see government
intervention and associated programs as unnecessary. With this said,
this paper assesses whether the apparent toleration of African Americans
by urban and non-Southern respondents translates into more sympathetic
explanations about the causes of racial inequality in America.
With this said, this paper further
investigates the distinctive impact or urban and regional residence.
Simple toleration as emphasized in the classical work of Wirth ([1938]
1964) and Stouffer (1955) may not translate into more sympathetic beliefs
regarding the unequal positions held by African Americans. Urban
and non-South residents may merely learn to “live and let live” and espouse
principles of racial equality without necessarily maintaining more sympathetic
explanations of the causes of inequality. Sears et. al. (2000) argue
that regional differences become less sharp once respondents are asked
questions regarding policies such as Affirmative Action. In fact,
they pose that regional differences in attitudes may actually reverse and
Southerners become more tolerant than non-Southerners (Sears et. al. 2000).
Similar findings may be predicted for urban residents as well. Inherent
in this argument is the idea that underlying negative attitudes toward
African Americans may not vary by place of residency (including urban and
region) and subtler questions measuring racial attitudes may reveal differing
results.
Following the foregoing, this research
attempts to answer the following questions. In concert with past
research, are urban and non-Southern residents more likely to espouse principles
of racial equality and does that impact persists into more contemporary
data? Early research assessing the effect of place of residency used
questions regarding principles of equality predominately to assess toleration
(Carter et. al. Forthcoming). Correspondingly, are urban and non-Southern
residents more likely to view inequality as resulting from external structural
limitations than are non-urban and Southern residents? By using different
indicators to assess racial toleration, this research is able to further
flesh out the impact of place of residency and further test the propositions
outlined by Wirth ([1938] 1964) and Stouffer (1955).
Background
Urbanism
To explain the unique effect of urban
residency, Wirth ([1938] 1964) developed several propositions comprising
a theory of urbanism. According to Wirth ([1938] 1964), metropolitan
areas bring individuals from various cultural backgrounds into close contact
within a relatively small space. Furthermore, Wirth ([1938] 1964)
argues that caste-like separations in the metropolitan spheres create an
overabundance of secondary relationships that foster tolerant attitudes
toward others from different cultures, personalities, and backgrounds.
Wirth ([1938] 1964) posits that the
effect of urbanism on residents is a function of three variables: the size
of the population, the density of the population, and the heterogeneity
the population. Individuals from larger metropolitan communities
that are densely populated with heterogeneous groups tend to be more psychologically
sophisticated, cosmopolitan, and, therefore, generally more accepting and
tolerant of differences. By contrast, individuals from smaller communities
more sparsely populated with homogenous groups tend to be more conservative,
parochial, maintain more personal acquaintances, and thus, more judgmental
and less tolerant of differences.
Similar to Wirth ([1938] 1964), Stouffer
(1955) argues that residents of metropolitan areas are exposed to others
considered to be “the strange and the different” which produces a static
urban lifestyle and greater acceptance of others with varying social and
cultural backgrounds. Testing these ideas, Stouffer (1955) finds
urban residents more likely to express tolerant attitudes toward ideas,
such as communism, that differ from ones own.
Using size as a proxy for urbanism,
contemporary research consistently finds urban residents to be more tolerant
than non-urban dwellers (Abrahamson and Carter 1986; Fischer 1978; Fischer
1982; Glenn and Hill 1977; Smith and Petersen 1980; Tuch 1987; Williams
Jr, Nunn and Peter 1976). In a replication of Stouffer’s classical
work, Williams Jr, Nunn, and Peter (1976) similarly find a positive effect
of urban residency on attitudes. Assessing attitudes of white respondents,
Tuch (1987) finds greater tolerance toward African-Americans for urban
respondents than non-urban respondents and that appears to be persisting
across time. Similarly, research finds urban residents more willing
to support minority candidates for office than non-urban residents (Glenn
and Hill 1977).
Regionalism
Odum (1945; Odum and Moore 1938) posits
that idiosyncratic features of geography produce distinct cultures.
Odum (1945) argues that various geographical elements, such as wealth,
abundance of natural resources, type of economy (e.g., agriculture vs industrial),
produce distinct regional sub-cultures. The differences between regional
areas are often expressed through personalities or varying attitudes, which
are often the focus of research comparing Southern cultures with non-Southern
cultures.
Ecological divisions had obvious ramifications
in the South. The backdrop of the “Old South” culture was not conducive
to tolerance between the races. The burgeoning plantation economy
was sustained by legalized slavery, whereas in the North, a more industrial
economy, slaves were not as essential. However, blacks were not necessarily
well treated in the North. Slavery in the South, nevertheless, created
severe status distinctions not found in other regions. Such disparity
in social status fueled intolerant attitudes (Schuman et. al. 1997).
Stouffer (1955) further argues that
regional variations in tolerance are a result of migration. Certain
regions are magnets for transient individuals and experience greater geographic
mobility. Geographic mobility, in turn, creates diversity and tolerance
towards others of different cultural and social backgrounds. Such
change was never more evident than during the World War II era, where a
surge of African Americans moved from the South to the industrial North
for employment (Schuman et. al. 1997). However, a recent move by
African Americans back to the South may potentially affect regional variation
(Loftus 2001).
Existing evidence shows that Southerners
hold more prejudicial views toward African Americans than their non-Southern
counterparts (Abrahamson and Carter 1986; Middleton 1976; Schuman, et.
al. 1997; Stouffer 1955; Tuch 1987; Williams Jr., Nunn, and Peter 1976).
Middleton (1976), for example, observes Southerners to be more prejudiced
toward African-American than non-Southerners, but that region’s impact
differs only slightly with respect toward other groups, such as Catholics,
Jews, and immigrants. Middleton (1976) further argues that increased
levels of anti-black prejudice in the South suggest a special sub-cultural
tradition of anti-black prejudice in the South not found in the North.
Indicators of Prejudicial Attitudes
The literature reporting attitudinal
differences by urbanism and region is replete with findings that predominantly
measure attitudes using what Schuman et. al. (1997) term “principle questions.”
These questions typically ask respondents how they feel in principle about
racial prejudice and inequality. With this said, these principle
questions have been criticized extensively as possibly revealing only socially
desirable responses or mere lip service (Schuman et. al 1997). In
fact, survey research using these types of questions finds almost a consensus
of acceptance. Nonetheless, Schuman et. al. (1997) argue that although
these questions may not predict behavioral intentions, they do represent
normative expectations in our society. That is, respondents feel
pressure to answer in a socially appropriate manner.
Regardless, in using the principle
questions, a persistent effect of urbanism and region on racial attitudes
is often found (Carter et. al. Forthcoming, Tuch 1987). With this
pattern reflected consistently in the literature, this paper assesses whether
these apparent tolerant attitudinal differences by urbanism and region
is found using other indicators of toleration. That is, do attitudinal
patterns found in the urban/region literature translate into explanations
of racial inequality in America (termed “explanations for inequality” questions
by Schuman et. al. 1997).
Predictions
Following the discussion above, the following predictions
are tested.
H1: Urban residents will be more tolerant of African
Americans than non-urban residents when assessing tolerance using principle
questions.
H2: Non-Southern residents will be more tolerant of
African Americans than Southern residents when assessing tolerance using
principle questions.
H3: Urban residents will be more empathetic in explaining
the causes of racial inequality than non-urban residents.
H4: Non-Southern residents will be more empathetic
in explaining the causes of racial inequality than Southern residents.
Data and Measures
Data
The data come from the General
Social Survey (GSS). The GSS is annually administered by the National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) and is based on a probability sample of
the adult non-institutionalized civilian population of the United States,
stratified by region and metropolitan versus non-metropolitan residence,
annually administered between 1972-1994 and biennially thereafter.
Interviews are conducted by telephone, with selection by random digit dialing
(Davis and Smith 2002).
Dependent Variable
To assess toleration, two indices were
created from questions collected from the GSS. One index included
several questions measuring principles of racial equality.
The second index included several questions assessing the respondent’s
explanation of the causes of racial inequality.
The first index (termed principle index)
includes principle questions used by past research to assess racial prejudice
(Carter et. al. Forthcoming; Firebaugh and Davis, 1988; Wilson, 1986, Tuch’s
1987). These questions meet the stipulated criteria of questions
of principle as defined by Schuman et. al. (1997) (1) and have been
employed in past research to assess racial prejudice (Condran 1979; Firebaugh
and Davis 1988; Greeley and Sheatsley 1971; Tuch 1987; Wilson 1986).
The two questions concern attitudes toward interracial marriage (Racmar)
and African American pushing themselves where they don’t belong (Racpush).
The second index (termed Explanation
Index) is a composite of four questions from the GSS asking respondents
their explanation of the causes of racial inequality. These
explanations of inequality questions are taken directly from the work of
Schuman et al. (1997). Respondents were asked how strongly they feel
the unequal distribution of jobs, income and housing is caused by discrimination
(Racdiff1), in-born ability to learn (Racdiff2), lack of opportunity for
a good education (Racdiff3), and/or the lack of motivation (Racdiff4).
(2)
Independent Variables
In order to assess the independent
impact of urbanism and regionalism, this paper controls for several extraneous
variables established in the literature, including sex, race, income, education,
age, year, and, of course, urbanism and regionalism. In the literature
assessing the impact of urbanism and region, it has been argued that the
effect of urbanism on attitudes is a function of various demographic characteristics,
including race, social status, and life cycle stage. Gans (1962)
made an argument that if such factors were controlled, then the differences
found by size of residency would become insignificant. In testing this
assertion, he found a reduction in the effect of urbanism on attitudes
after controlling for several compositional variables, including occupational
prestige, religion, race, and region.
Therefore this paper includes several
control variables, including race, sex, age, education, income level, and
level of religious fundamentalism. The race variable in the model
compared only white and black respondents. Respondents in the “other”
category were dropped from the analysis. Similarly, the sex variable
compared males and females. The income variable was treated as an
ordinal variable ranking from 1 to 12 with higher scores equating to higher
incomes. Education was treated as a ratio variable ranging from 0
to 20 years of education. Similarly, age was also treated as
a ratio variable measured by years. To assess the impact of religious
fundamentalism, respondents were asked to rate their church as being fundamental,
moderate, or liberal.
Finally, this paper includes two variables
to discern the size of residence and region of residence. The size
of resident variable in the GSS is somewhat vague and differentiates between
SMSA and non-SMSA residence. For the purpose of this paper,
the urbanism variable was treated as a dichotomous variable comparing urban
and non-urban locales. (3) Region of residency was also dichotomized
comparing respondents from the South and respondents from the non-South.
The determination of South and non-South was affected by two elements.
First of all, past research was used to rate states Southern or non-Southern
and, secondly, the categories provide by the GSS affected which states
were rated as South or non-South. (4)
Results
Table 1 displays preliminary analyses
of unadjusted principle index mean tolerance scores from 1972 to 2002 by
urban/non-urban and South/non-South and differences by year.
Table 1
Mean Scores for Principle Index (1) by Urban/Non-Urban
and South/Non-South 1972-2002
|
Urban
|
Non-Urban
|
Difference
|
Non-South
|
South
|
Difference
|
1972
|
0.96
|
0.62
|
0.34*
|
0.94
|
0.57
|
0.37*
|
1973
|
0.98
|
0.67
|
0.31*
|
0.97
|
0.69
|
0.28*
|
1975
|
0.99
|
0.65
|
0.34*
|
0.97
|
0.64
|
0.33*
|
1976
|
1.09
|
0.72
|
0.37*
|
1.08
|
0.71
|
0.37*
|
1977
|
1.09
|
0.82
|
0.27*
|
1.12
|
0.69
|
0.43*
|
1980
|
1.18
|
0.78
|
0.40*
|
1.16
|
0.82
|
0.34*
|
1982
|
1.35
|
0.90
|
0.45*
|
1.31
|
1.06
|
0.25*
|
1984
|
1.25
|
1.00
|
0.25*
|
1.27
|
1.00
|
0.27*
|
1985
|
1.22
|
0.89
|
0.33*
|
1.21
|
0.96
|
0.25*
|
1994
|
1.49
|
1.27
|
0.22*
|
1.51
|
1.32
|
0.19*
|
1996
|
1.53
|
1.34
|
0.19*
|
1.56
|
1.35
|
0.21*
|
1998
|
1.51
|
1.37
|
0.14*
|
1.55
|
1.35
|
0.20*
|
2000
|
1.51
|
1.37
|
0.14*
|
1.55
|
1.39
|
0.16*
|
2002
|
1.57
|
1.50
|
0.07
|
1.62
|
1.42
|
0.20*
|
*=p<.001
(1) The Principle Index includes the following
two questions from past work (Tuch 1987): 1) Do you think there should
be laws against marriages between (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) and
whites? [1=Yes; 0=No]; and 2) (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) shouldn’t
push themselves where they’re not wanted. [1 = Agree; 0=Disagree]
Using an independent-samples t-test, findings show a statistical
significant urban/non-urban and South/non-South difference in racial tolerance
across majority of years (see year 2002 for the only exception).
Interestingly, although a movement toward
greater tolerance regardless of residency type is found, an attitudinal
gap is apparent across majority of years. Thus, it appears that these
findings corroborate past results and support the first two predictions
(H1 and H2) by showing urban and non-Southern residents to hold more tolerant
views toward principle of racial equality than their non-urban and Southern
counterparts.
Assessing unadjusted Explanation Index
mean tolerance scores reveal similar results (See Table 2).
Table 2
Mean Scores for Explanation Index (1) by Urban/Non-Urban
and South/NonSouth 1977-2002
|
Urban
|
Non-Urban
|
Difference
|
Non-South
|
South
|
Difference
|
1977
|
2.00
|
1.96
|
0.04
|
2.10
|
1.69
|
0.41***
|
1985
|
2.24
|
2.11
|
0.13
|
2.38
|
1.87
|
0.51***
|
1986
|
2.19
|
2.09
|
0.10
|
2.27
|
1.94
|
0.33***
|
1988
|
2.29
|
2.04
|
0.25*
|
2.38
|
1.94
|
0.44***
|
1989
|
2.16
|
2.21
|
-0.05
|
2.36
|
1.84
|
0.52***
|
1990
|
2.20
|
1.98
|
0.22**
|
2.26
|
1.90
|
0.36***
|
1991
|
2.25
|
2.14
|
0.11
|
2.32
|
2.03
|
0.29***
|
1993
|
2.40
|
2.03
|
0.37***
|
2.45
|
2.05
|
0.40***
|
1994
|
2.31
|
2.16
|
0.15*
|
2.43
|
1.99
|
0.44***
|
1996
|
2.29
|
2.09
|
0.2**
|
2.36
|
2.04
|
0.32***
|
1998
|
2.30
|
2.13
|
0.17*
|
2.35
|
2.08
|
0.27***
|
2000
|
2.33
|
2.04
|
0.29***
|
2.38
|
2.01
|
0.37***
|
2002
|
2.25
|
1.85
|
0.4*
|
2.28
|
1.91
|
0.37***
|
*=p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
(1) The Explanation Index includes the following
four questions in reference to the following statement: “On the average
(Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) have worse, jobs, income, and housing
than white people.” Respondents were then asked to respond to the
following four questions 1) Do you think these differences are mainly due
to discrimination [1=Yes; 0=No]; 2) Because most (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans)
have less in-born ability to learn? [1=Yes; 0=No]; 3) Because most (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans)
don’t have the chance for education that it takes to rise out of poverty?
[1=Yes; 0=No]; and 4) Because most (Negroes/Blacks/African-Americans) just
don’t have the motivation or will power to pull themselves up out of poverty?
[1-Yes; 0=No]
Southerners and urban residents
maintain less tolerant and more individualistic explanations of racial
inequality. Using an independent-samples t-test, non-Southern residents
were consistently more likely (across all years) to use structural explanations
to explain racial inequality. However, for urban residents the effect
appears much more variable. In several years (i.e., 1977, 1985, 1986,
1989, and 1991), the differences do not reach statistical significance
and, in some years, the significance is marginal at the .05 level (see
1994 and 1998 for example). Although much more for the effect of
region, these findings appear to support past research and our last two
predictions (H3 and H4).
Table 3 shows parameter estimates and
fit statistics from two different models regressing the composition variables
on the Explanation Index and Principle Index. Controlling for several
compositional variables, these models provide a much more comprehensive
test of the four predictions.
Table 3
Unstandardized Coefficients (Main Effects) and Standard
Errors for Principle and Explanation Indices
|
Main Effects
for Principle
Index
|
Main Effects for
Explanation
Variable
|
|
Model 1
|
Model 2
|
Urban (Urban = 1) |
.202 (.021)***
|
-.008 (.012)
|
Region (South = 1) |
-.368 (.020)***
|
-1.77 (.011)***
|
Sex (Male = 1) |
-.174 (.019)***
|
-.095 (.011)***
|
Race (White = 1) |
-.785 (.033)***
|
-.423 (.017)***
|
Household Income |
.021 (.004)***
|
-.006 (.002)**
|
High School |
-.966 (.35)***
|
-.243 (.028)***
|
College |
-.433 (.036)***
|
-.106 (.019)***
|
Post College |
-
|
-
|
Age 18-24 |
.979 (.049)***
|
.243 (028)***
|
Age 25-34 |
.769 (.046)***
|
.162 (.025)***
|
Age 35-44 |
.598 (.046)***
|
.133 (.25)***
|
Age 45-54 |
.420 (.047)***
|
.097 (.026)***
|
Age 55-64 |
.198 (.048)***
|
.019(.027)
|
Age 65-74 |
.116 (.049)*
|
-.012 (.028)
|
Age 75 + |
-
|
-
|
Fundamentalism |
.180 (.013)***
|
.040 (.070)***
|
Year |
.034 (.001)***
|
.001
|
|
R Square = .312
|
R Square = .103
|
|
df = 14586
|
df = 12966
|
*=p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001.
Standard Errors are in parentheses.
In general, net of all control
variables, findings across question types show that individuals who are
white, males, older, lower education, and fundamental in their religious
view are more likely to hold intolerant attitudes toward African Americans
regardless of question type. The sole exception is for the household
income variable. For principle questions, individuals with higher
family incomes were less tolerant than individuals with lower family incomes.
However, this finding reverses when the Explanation Index is used as the
dependent variable; individuals with higher family incomes maintain more
tolerant attitudes toward African Americans than individuals with lower
family incomes.
Assessing the effect of urbanism and
region also provides variation and test of the four predictions.
Net of all control variables, Southern and urban resident were more likely
to espouse principles of racial equality than their non-Southern and non-urban
counterparts. Therefore, these findings adjacent with the unadjusted
Principle Index mean scores provide support for predictions H1 and H2.
Assessing tolerance using Explanation Index, provide differing results.
Individuals from the non-South were more likely to use structural limitations
to explain inequality, whereas individuals from Southern regions were more
likely to use an individualistic explanation to explain racial inequality.
However, the effect of urbanism diminished once tolerance was assessed
using belief questions. Individuals from urban and non-urban areas
maintain similar explanations of racial inequality. Therefore, these
findings support for prediction H4 but not for prediction H3.
Conclusions
In general our results reveal that
the effect of region persisted regardless of question type used to measure
racial tolerance. Southerners were generally more likely to espouse
principle of racial equality as well as view the cause of racial inequality
as falling outside the control of African Americans. Non-Southerners,
on the other hand, were more likely to view causes of inequality as being
more individualistic. However, question type did differ by size of
residency.
Although urban resident were more likely
to espouse principles of racial inequality, they did not differ from non-urban
residents in their views regarding the causes
of inequality. Therefore, it appears that Schuman et al.’s (1997)
reproach to distinguish principle questions from explanation of inequality
questions is necessary in revealing the true complexities of racial prejudice.
One possible explanation for the strong
regional variation is that, given its unique heritage with slavery, the
South produces a subculture that fosters more negative attitudes specifically
toward African Americans. A second view is that the South is the
most conservative region politically and, thus questions that evoke individualistic
beliefs will garner less acceptance. Lipset and Schneider (1978)
argue that belief in individualism does not necessarily reflect a racist
ideology but rather a genuinely held American value.
Turning now to urbanism, it appears
that the effect depends on how tolerance is measured. Using questions
that assess explanations of inequality reduces the effect of urbanism and
supports the idea that the level of acceptance in
urban locales may be superficial. Urbanites learn to accept
others of differing social and cultural backgrounds without developing
more empathetic beliefs about the causes of racial inequality.
Although this finding does not necessarily oppose the theoretical propositions
of Wirth ([1938] 1964) and Stouffer (1955), the findings are interesting
and prescribe further need to tease out the independent impact of urbanism.
Wirth ([1938] 1964) and Stouffer (1955) imply that the effect of urbanism
simply instills in its inhabitants a desire to “live and let live” and
does not necessarily entail a deeper level of tolerance.
In conclusion, this research shows
that place of residence still matters. However, the manner with which
toleration is measured temper the effect of urbanism. Urban and nonurban
residents maintain similar explanations about the causes of racial inequality.
The effect of region, on the other hand, appears to persist even with the
use of these more subtle questions measuring racial tolerance.
Footnotes
(1) See Table 1 for full question and available responses.
Preliminary analyses (available upon request) reveal a high level of consistency
across the two principle questions. In a principal component analysis
of the two questions, only the first component had an eigenvalue greater
than zero (1.33), and it accounted for over 67 percent of the variance.
(2) See Table 1 for full questions and available responses.
A principle component analysis for the four explanation questions also
provided consistency, with first component maintaining an eigenvalue of
1.67 and accounting for over 40 percent of the variance.
(3) More precisely, the following categories were used to delineate
urban and non-urban. Urban: within an SMSA and-- a large central
city (over 250,000); a medium size central city (50,000 to 250,000); a
suburb of a large central city; a suburb of a medium size central city;
an unincorporated area of a large central city (division, township, etc),
an unincorporated area of a medium central city. Non-urban includes the
following areas: Not within an SMSA, (within a county) and-- a small city
(10,000 to 49,999); a town or village (2,500 to 9,999); an incorporated
area less than 2,500 or an unincorporated area of 1,000 to 2,499; open
country within larger civil divisions, e.g., township, division.
(4) Non-South: Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut,
Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, South
Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Washington, Oregon, California, Alaska, Hawaii,
Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico.
South includes the following states: Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, District of
Columbia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Oklahoma,
Louisiana, and Texas.
References
Abrahamson, Mark and Valerie J. Carter. 1986. “Tolerance,
Urbanism and Region.” American Sociological Review 51: 287-294.
Carter, J. Scott, Lala Steelman, Lynn Mulkey, and Casey
Borch. Forthcoming. “When the Rubber Meets the Road: The Differential
Effects of Urbanism and Region on Principle and Implementation
Measures of Racial Tolerance.” Social Science Research.
Condran, John G. 1979. “Changes in White Attitudes Toward
Blacks: 1963-1977.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43:463-476.
Condran, John G. 1979. “Changes in White Attitudes Toward
Blacks: 1963-1977.” Public Opinion Quarterly 43:463-476.
Davis, James A. and Tom W. Smith. 2002. General Social
Surveys, 1972-2002. Chicago: National Opinion Research Center.
Fischer, Claude S. 1978. “Urban-to-Non-urban Diffusion
of Opinions in Contemporary America.” American Journal of Sociology
84: 151-159.
__________. 1982. “The Dispersion of Kinship Ties in Modern
Society: Contemporary Data and Historical Speculation.” Journal of Family
History 7: 353:370.
Gans, Herbert J. 1962. “Urbanism and Suburbanism As Ways
of Life: A Reevaluation of Definitions.” Pp. 625-648 in Human Behavior
and Social Processes, edited by Arnold Rose. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Glenn, Norval D. and Lester. Hill, Jr. 1977. “Rural-Urban
Differences in Attitudes and Behavior in the United States” Annals of
the American Association of Political and Social Science 429: 36-50.
Greeley, Andrew M. and Paul B. Sheatsley. 1972. “Proceedings
of the Twenty-Seventh Annual Conference on Public Opinion Research.” Public
Opinion Quarterly 38: 398-454.
Jang, Sung Joon and Richard D. Alba. 1992. “Urbanism
and Nontraditional Opinion: A Test of Fischer’s Subcultural Theory.” Social
Science Quarterly 73: 596-609.
Kinder, Donald R. and Tali Mendelberg. 2000. “Individualism
Reconsidered: Principles and Prejudice in Contemporary American Opinion.”
Pp. 44-74 in In Radicalized Politics, edited by David O. Sears,
Jim Sidanius, and Lawrence Bobo. Chicago and London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Kluegel, James R. 1990. Trends in Whites’ Explanation
of the Black-White Gap in Socioeconomic status, 1977-1989. American Sociological
Review. 55:512-525.
Kluegel, James R. and Eliot R. Smith. 1982. “Whites’ Beliefs
about Black’ Opportunity.” American Sociological Review 47: 518-532.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and William Schneider. 1978. “The
Bakker Case: How Would It Be Decided at the Bar of Public Opinion?”
Public
Opinion 10: 38-44.
Loftus, Jeni. 2001. “America's Liberalization in Attitudes
toward Homosexuality, 1973 to 1998.” American Sociological Review
66: 726-782.
Middleton, Russell. 1976. “Regional Differences in Prejudice.”
American
Sociological Review 41: 94-117.
Odum, Howard W. 1945. “The Way of the South.” Social
Forces 23: 16-26.
Odum, Howard W. and Harry E. Moore. 1938. American
Regionalism. New York: Holt
Schuman, Howard, Charlotte Steeh, Lawrence Bobo and Maria
Krysan 1997. Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations.
Rev. ed. Cambridge, MA: Harvard U Press.
Sears, David O., John Hetts, Jim Sidanius and Lawrence
Bobo. 2000. “Race in American Politics: Framing the Debates.” Pp. 1-43
in In Radicalized Politics, edited by David O. Sears, Jim Sidanius,
and Lawrence Bobo. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Smith, Leslie Whitener and Karen Kay Petersen. 1980. “Non-urban-Urban
Differences in Tolerance; Stouffer’s ‘Culture Shock’ Hypothesis Revisited.”
Non-urban
Sociological Society 45: 256-271.
Stephan, G. Edward and Douglas R. McMullin. 1982. “Tolerance
of Sexual Nonconformity: City size as a situational and early learning
determinant.” American Sociological Review 47: 411-415.
Stouffer, Samuel (1955). Communism, Conformity and Civil
Liberties. New York: Doubleday.
Taylor, Marylee C. 1998. “How White Attitudes Vary with
the Racial Composition of Local Populations: Numbers Count.” American Sociological
Review 63: 512-535.
Tuch, Steven. 1987. “Urbanism, Region, and Tolerance Revisited.”
American
Sociological Review 52: 504-510.
Williamsm Jr, J. Allen, Clyde Z. Nunn and Louis St. Peter.
1976. “Origins of Tolerance Findings from a Replication of Stouffer’s Communism,
Conformity, and Civil Liberties.” Social Forces 55: 394-403.
Wilson, Thomas C. 1986. “Community Population Size and
Social Heterogeneity: An Empirical Test.” American Journal of Sociology
91: 1154-1169.
Wirth, Louis. [1938] 1964. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.”
Pp 60-83 in On Cities and Social Life: Selected Papers, edited by
Albert J. Reiss Jr. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago
Press.
© Copyright 2005 by the North Carolina Sociological
Association
Return to the Fall 2005 issue of
Sociation
Today
|