A COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF EUROPEAN-AMERICAN POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
March 1, 1954; Revised, December 15,1954.
Address general communications regarding
this prospectus to: Alfred de Grazia,
Department of Political Science, Stanford
University, Stanford, California, U.S.A.
I. Summary of the Plan
II. The Need for and Uses of the Proposed Survey
A. Public Policy and the Proposed Survey
B. Scientific Value of the Survey
C. Advancement of the Political Science Profession
III. Organization, Personnel and Procedure
THE ROLE OF THE PUBLIC IN WESTERN CULTURE :
PROSPECTUS FOR A COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF
EUROPEAN-AMERICAN POLITICAL BEHAVIOR
The time is at hand when a group of scholars concerned with the field of comparative government, and using the techniques of sample surveys, can engage in a joint effort to lay the empirical foundations for a truly comparative science of political behavior. Western Europe and America is the area most suited to the exploration and development of comparative government. Here exists a common tradition but, at the same time, a great dissimilarity in history and behavior. Here, also, are rich sources of hypothesis that connect with venerable theoretical sources of political science. Finally, here reside the professional skills that can most capably exploit the new techniques that would be employed, (323).
In this revised addition of the prospectus, the detail of personnel and events have again been omitted. The major changes consists in the introduction of a detail illustration of the manner of developing a hypotheses; of a more detailed budget section; and of a double time phasing of the program. Minor editing has occurred at other places to sharpen focus and correct errors. Discussions engendered by the first prospectus have proved stimulating and valuable in themselves, owing particularly to their orientation to a specific research activity. The pertinence of John Dewey's words are recalled: "One reason for the comparative sterility of discussion of social matters is that so much intellectual energy has gone into the problem of the relations of individualism and collectivism at large, and because the image of the antithesis infects so many specific questions. Thereby thought is diverted from it."
In the memorandum that follows, a plan for the realization of major advances in political study is presented. The first step in its development will be a summary of the plan as a whole. Afterwards, separate consideration will be given to the social need for the proposed research; to the scientific justification of the research in political behavior; to the explanation of the methodology to be followed, with special attention to the question of its fitness to extract the answers to a wide number of important substantive political questions; and to the contribution of the research to the profession and institutions of political science. Finally, the organization, personnel, and procedure for conducting the proposed comparative survey of European-American political behavior will be outlined.
I. Summary of the plan
In the period from 1954 to 1957, a group of political scientists and allied social scientists propose to settle upon some of the principal problems of the field of political behavior and to frame these problems in comparable terms by questions that may be addressed to the several populations of France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, and the United States of America. Each of these populations will be sampled by probability methods; they will be interviewed either by ad hoc or by established interviewing agencies; and their responses will be punched onto I.B.M. cards. The data thus obtained for several thousand individuals representative of the countries listed will be deposited in major centers of political study, particularly in the cooperating instituting scholars, their colleagues and students, land other interested and competent scientists.
The data will consist of responses to questions (1) about important contemporary issues of western civilization, such as European union, (2) about scientific issues important to the developing science of political behavior, such as the extent of apathy in western civilization towards democratic institutions, and (3) about social data, such as the age, sex, and religious and economic characteristics of the populations, which can be used to break down responses in the social and scientific categories for analysis and derivation of principles of political behavior.
It is believed, not only that the program will accelerate the professional training of the participants and many others, but that the results may yield immediate benefits to the statesmen of Western Europe and America, and, what is most important, will provide a vast reservoir of permanent data on political and social behavior in western civilization in the middle of the twentieth century. The program will encourage a variety of publications, and form the basis for a genuine science of comparative politics.
II. The Need for and Uses of the Proposed Survey
Four elements in the proposed plan require elaboration : the social and political goals that will be furthered by the implementation of the plan; the systematic and particular necessities of the science of comparative government ; the need for and justification of the particular methodology described by the plan; and the contribution of the plan to the advancement of the profession and of the teaching of political science throughout the world.
A. Public Policy and the Proposed Survey
Peace, community, democracy, a creative culture, and material well-being are the goals of an applied political science. Policies that strive towards achieving these goals in the twentieth century must rest upon a thorough understanding of the roots of policy in public opinion. Although it is necessary and valuable for political science to analyze systematically the leadership (372) and the institutions (14,201,467,476) of society, it is the intention here to analyze the dynamics of national and international behavior through the study of the collective behavior of the general populations and their subgroupings. We need not dispute the contributions of elite and institutions studies in order to justify an interest in the public and their problems. A science of the public, of public opinions and public behavior is an utter necessity of political policy (404). The behavioral sciences have been developing such a science, but not rapidly enough, nor generally enough, nor on enough of the important problems pressing upon the community of European - American civilization. Furthermore, it is not sufficiently realized that a new understanding of the public, like an understanding of a person, brings not only greater control of the subject, but also affinities with it (453). As John Dewey put it, (329,p.184) the great community is "a society in which the ever expanding and intricately ramifying consequence of associated activities shall be known in the full sense of that word, so that an organized, articulate public comes into being. The highest and most difficult kind of inquiry and a subtle, delicate, vivid and responsive art of communication must take possession of the physical machinery of transmission and circulation and breathe life into it." Understanding the public is not an ;incidental task, one of idle scientific curiosity, nor even solely none of basic discoveries about human behavior. The public to the statesman is like the body to the physician and the soul to the priest.
Cf. also the statement of purposes of the Ford Foundation (477) Madison Ave, New York) which represents the thinking of many scholars and civic leaders on the aims of research in human relations ; and James K. Pollock, "The Primacy of Politics," 45 APSR (1951) I-18, presidential address to the American Political Science Association.
What are some of the pressing issues of the European- American community that may be illuminated by the survey that is proposed. There are specific issues, such as the European Defense Council (70,101), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (2), the Council of Europe (37), and United Nations powers and policies (191,277). Some of these problems are only formulated for the moment. Yet, ;though the temporary phasing and continuous transformation of these specific issues arbitrate against the excessive employment of these issues as the foundation of the proposed study, there is no reason why, at any given time, the answers to such questions should not be immediately important, and, furthermore, why there should not be developed a progressively improved science for the abrupt determination of opinion on these questions and the relation of response to basic political behavior data. At present we lack even a bare knowledge of the transient condition of opinion on these matters that fill newspapers and the thoughts of statesmen (232,234,253,277), A great step forward might be taken if once we can show how the several public of the western world stand on such issues.
Cf. Deutsch: "For the states, communities and populations which are studied, an effort must be made to find bodies of large scale and relatively impersonal data which we May use as tests and cross checks upon the judgments concerning political amalgamation and integration suggested by more subjective types of evidence. Used in conjunction with the testimony of contemporaries and the judgment of historians, such well-chosen tests of political and social integration may then predict a wider range of behavior than that which is the immediate subject of each type of measurement taken by itself, though, even at their best, such models or tests cannot predict the behavior of these populations under all conditions The present task is to find that set of dimensions for the study of political communities which will yield the best predictions for their probable cohesion or disintegration under the widest range of conditions, and which will do this in return for the fewest number of
unfamiliar concepts and the least effort expended on research and measurement.
In addition, there are the ideological issues of the mid-twentieth century. What is believed to be democracy? what hold does democracy have on the public? How strong a bond is common Christianity? What hostilities and affinities exist among the people of the western world? How socialistic or capitalistic are the sentiments of the peoples? How fast do they believe social reform is occurring or how rapidly do they think the degeneration of the west is proceeding?
What are the party affiliations of the western public? How strongly identified are they with their parties, the parties of the moment (for there are fairly transient but important questions on the distribution of party affiliations, as well as upon the many party questions of more basic behavioral import that should properly be classified in the section to follow)? What is the extent of information of the public on the primary issues concerning the statesmen of the Western world ? How do people react to event of the moment ; how interested are they in them ? Whom do they see as the moving forces? Whom do they identify as their leaders ? Whom do they respect? whom do they hate ? Who and what movement are viewed as embodying the hope of the future, if there is such a hope? Such important questions of the times should be asked of the people of western civilization.
Only a large and imaginative study, systematically conducted and achieving valid responses to standardized queries, can provide us with the picture of the comparative roots of these issues in the several important societies concerned, and give us some idea of the extent to which different public opinions may be responsible for the differences in the behavior of the political leaders of these states (198-208). Without such knowledge, we shall engage in endless discussion, now apologizing, and now condemning, the conduct of leaders for alleged vices or virtues of the public they represent.
B. Scientific Value of the Survey
Although it may be appreciated that a survey such as this would provide political intelligence valuable to statesman and writers, the enduring scientific value of the Survey would rest upon its success in obtaining basic data concerning principal problems of political behavior, especially as these problems may be connected with universal problems of the behavioral sciences generally - economics, psychology, sociology, anthropology and history .
The major substantive areas into which the survey would delve are four: identifications, ideals, practices and social status.
By identifications are meant the important psychological and dynamic involvements of modern man in the numerous groups that structure world society (56,426,468). Although surveys have not generally assessed thoroughly the affiliations of the person, the task need no longer be postponed, and the international survey is an appropriate instrument for accomplishing it. On the international level, a most important problem is to discover the differing degrees of identity which men hold with the international community, a community of mankind and a community of allies. To what extent does the modern European or American feel his fate bound up with the nationalists or colored races in south Africa ? To what extent is the German worker touched by the symbols of Americanism ? what kind of image is evoked by the term United Nations or International Law or the Natural Equality of Man ?
On the next level, nationalism occurs as an identification that may be assessed by a survey of several populations. What are the differing degrees of attachment to this symbol ? What do people think of when the words `nation' or `fatherland' or their equivalents are put to them ? To what extent can they define the national character of their own country or of other countries ? To what do they ascribe these differences ? Why are those images vague and blurred in some people and sharply defined in others ?
On yet another level of this kind of inquiry, the nature of regional or provincial attachments may be assessed. How, if at all, do people regard their fate as determined by events occurring in an historical but non-national environment ? How much more concerned are different people with the fate of their locality than with the future of national land international entities ?
But separatistic identifications do not stop here. A systematic investigation of affiliations should pursue the question into the group membership of individuals. How many belong to what organizations ? To what party do people attach themselves and in what degree are they involved ? How do political party identifications national, and provincial images ?
In addition, beyond party identification and formal group membership, what social class consciousness do individuals maintain? Do they perceive society to be structured into classes ? How static do they regard their societies ? Where do they place themselves socially and with what class do they identify ?Do they see class as an instrument of reform or revolution ? Or do they view it as a statistical aggregation ?
Finally, there are the immediate or primary groups -family, friends, co-workers, and the commune. Do men and women attach themselves more strongly to the one or to the other group ?Do they orient themselves to the larger political world via their family or another organization ?(350). Do they conform to the family's image or do they seek other identifications for referring their values, needs, and political behavior ?
How do the several politically relevant identifications operate in conjunction with or in opposition to each other? What identifications are conflicting and cause tension in the individual? it is well known studies of opinion and voting that clashing involvements produce conflict, apathy, and sometimes revolt. If some measure of the known strength of identifications may be achieved for large aggregates, more reliable estimates may be made of the probabilities of disturbances in the existing equilibrium, given known stimuli, and of the direction and character of the new equilibrium.
It was stated above that a second major category of problems in the science of behavior was ideals. Under this category come problems of ideology and utopia, matters of what men use as justification of their attitudes and behavior, and to what they aspire. The task of comparative politics here is to define the ideals of populations respecting major concepts of philosophy, with the objectives in mind of using these concepts to understand action and behavior and of relating these concepts more precisely to identifications, practices and the social status of people.
We would be interested in examining the ideas that people hold regarding legitimacy (420, 483, 494, 497, 501). What actions of states or super-states are granted legitimacy? What forms of power behavior are credited with propriety? Do men more or less justify political actions on grounds that the action is traditional, rational, or good in its own right, without further justification, if works? What idea of authority do people have? Some men, it is know from various studies of the psychology of authority worship power whereas other it. it has been said, too, that this belief differs among nations and cultures. If there is a generally low level of acceptance of authority, as well as legitimacy, then who may be likely to establish a stronger authority? Who must intercede in this world to get people to accept an action, or better perhaps, whose stamp of approval of an action gives the action an authoritative character?
Whether people believe in human rights and to what extent they believe in them and what are the various specific rights with which they are concerned, may well be objects of inquiry. Practically every constitution has provisions respecting some basic rights, but it is not know to what extent these rights permeate the thinking of the common man. How do men rank these rights? What groups in society cause variance in the mean ranking of such rights as the right to a job? To what groups of society must one go to discover the principal exponents of different rights?
The respect that people have for constitutional orders may also be examined. By constitutionalism is meant more than constitutions of a written kind, though an expression of preference for a written or unwritten constitution would be easily possible and valuable in its particular meaning. But the whole notion of due process of law would demand consideration here. What do people from their experiences and beliefs, regard as major threats to an idea of due process of low? How do estimates of the value of a constitutional order vary? What groups value highly juridical defenses? Conversely, what groups value highly majoritarianism, elitism, or the leadership principle? (64, 65, 66, 420).
What do people perceive to be the connection between religion and politics? Some may feel that the intervention of church in matters of state is the only hope of resurrecting proper ideas of authority and legitimacy in the modern world while conserving ideas of human rights. What are the characteristics of people who call themselves devout compared with those apathetic or hostile to religion? (196, 203, 221, 227, 229, 240).
What beliefs do people hold in regard to freedom of opportunity? Do they prefer freedom of opportunity to security? What kind of opportunity do they believe to be most important - education, full employment, social equality? What conception do the Western peoples hold of communism? (222, 238, 239). Perhaps a majority of continental Europeans regard communism as a positive force on behalf of the working masses, and perhaps Americans may hold an entirely different view. To what extent do people visualize the future as being dominated by a communistic society? To what extent do they regard the totalitarian, police and other restrictive aspects of Russian communism as necessary accompaniments of communism in Western Europe and ultimately of any government?
There has been some success in opinion studies aimed at asking people their beliefs about the proper role of government (206, 214). The samples may be interrogated respecting their beliefs in increased governmental intervention, the proper limits of government activity, and the most appropriate level of government to exercise major functions. Also, successive investigations of electoral behavior reveal an important role played by fictions in the establishment of consensus regarding the value of elections. (201)Do people believe elections to be necessary or all-important means of selecting officials? Do they believe them to be plebiscites or true decisions? Do they reject or demand more power for the people acting as electors?
Finally, in the realm of ideological inquiry, can there be established a scale of preferred attributes of political leaders, and shown to have certain universal qualities, some national differences, or a vague and variant set of qualities?
The third category of behavioral variables to be inquired into consists of political practices of the public. An important element of such practices consists of the political and civic activities of the populations concerned. What is the rate voting participation, talking about politics, urging others into political action, contributing to the support of a party or candidate, membership of political clubs or associations, and communicating with political leaders? (219). These activities should be extended into the past insofar as possible in a single interview, for it is important to know how sporadic political and civic activity is and how it varies with social conditions and crises. We should also know the voting record of individuals to determine the extent of crossing party lines and of changing candidates over periods of time. Party preferences over time periods should be sought through the memories of the respondents, and respondents should be asked to recall the political preferences and identifications of their parents and families.
We would also like to know the preferences of men for given domestic and international leaders. Who are known, and in what way are they known? This kind of information should be supplemented by information about key issues of international, national and local kinds, so that we should have some idea of the extent of popular information on matters about which the public are supposed to have some opinion and on the basis of which they should act at the polls. In addition, questions probing the degree of apathy or interest in politics should be administered, for previous studies of opinion have indicated a relationship between indifference to political matters and a large number of other important variables. (195, 400, 418, 442). Apparently, an apathetic personality type exists and the frequency of this type of person in the several cultures investigated would be an interesting, significant fact.
In the modern world of mass media of communications, one should inquire also into the degree of exposure to the media among the population. Who listens to what, who reads what? What are the popular channels? Who are exposed to no mass media, for all practical purposes? How do they differ from others? What personal, professional, or other special associational media makes contact with people, and how do they seem to relate to the same people's exposure to mass media?
It is also important to ask about people's images of others. This has proved to be a promising research approach in American political behavior. What do people of various social strata believe to be degree of cohesion, goals and political affiliations of such social groupings as labor, big business, small business, the governmental bureaucracy, farmers, and religious groups? In some cases, the objectivity of these perceptions may be scored against objective data discovered by the Survey itself and, in other cases, checked by reference to census or to voting figures.
The fourth and final category of basic scientific variables which the Survey would study consists of social status variables. Most of these need no introduction, for they are the essential data for fundamental social analysis. Thus the age, sex, occupation, income, residence, religion, education, and number of children of the respondents would be asked. It should be pointed out, however, that only in the best of opinion studies do we find information on all of these variables for each respondent. Ordinarily, only one, two, or several of them are available. Yet this kind of information is highly desirable, because a great number of tabulations and interrelationships may be based upon it. Some indication of the relationship of the respondent to his work should be added also: does he own his means of production? Is he a renter of his materials and tools? Is he a wage-earner or salaried employee? Or, is he some combination of these? To gather some conception of social mobility, one should inquire into the occupation of the respondent's father, into the variability with time of his own occupation and of his stated income. His length of residence in the locality should be noted, too, for some studies indicate that we may expect significant variances between identifications, ideals, and practices and the stability or mobility of residence.
These, then, are the major variables that the Comparative Survey of European-American Political behavior can produce and analyze. The body of data thus gained would be enormous in scope and depth. Yet it is expected that the variables be so evaluated beforehand, so carefully guarded in the asking and the answering, that political scientists specializing in comparative government and associated social scientists may be satisfied that none of the details are trivial, none of the variables limited in interest to a brief temporal span, and all of them so phrased as to unite the data of the study with the historical and theoretical problems of political science. The study would not blindly gather data that cannot lead anywhere and that has no bearing upon any significant problem. The scientific goal of the Survey is to give the study of comparative government for the first time an adequate body of validated evidence on the most important theoretical problems of the field.
One additional point regarding the substance of the Survey may be added here. The question invariably rises whether the surveys in each of the six countries should be timed to coincide with an electoral campaign. contrary, perhaps, to the opinions of some, this is not an important problem. Although opinion studies frequently have been geared to elections, some disadvantages as well as advantages have resulted. Whether people behave differently during the campaign as opposed to the intervening periods cannot be disputed. But measures of most of the variables in the one kind of period can be repeated or duplicated in the study of the other. It should also be indicated that a number of past studies of opinion which have been tied to the conduct of actual elections have gathered, sometimes unwittingly, a body of useless data concerned with particular political characters, particular issues and much other matter that was neither intended, formulated, nor possibly of use in construction enduring propositions about political behavior. However, this question should not be settled here, and should form an item on the agenda of the first conference of the International Executive Committee for the Comparative Survey. The discussion and decision of the group on the question, no matter where it leads, will, in itself, be a useful judgment guiding the future of public opinion research.
"History", said Carlyle, "is the essence of innumerable biographies." (Thomas Carlyle, "On History," (1830), in Works (London:1887), Vol. XV, 493.) But in Carlyle's time, the abstraction of "the essence of innumerable biographies" was an impossible task. So it was that Carlyle arrived at what he regarded as the second best, but feasible, method for the study of history, namely, the `great man' approach. Select those men in history who most obviously epitomized their age, the aspirations of their nation, etc. and do an exhaustive and definitive study of all facets of their lives, personalities and activities. The validity of the great man thesis has often been challenged: it overemphasizes the role of the leader as opposed to the led in the course of history, a shortcoming that is particularly objectionable to those who seek a democratic philosophy of society; it also postulates a quite impossible "typicality" of great men.
It is no longer necessary for us to be restricted to a second best method in the study of societies. Two new factors make it feasible to attempt the abstraction of the "essence of innumerable biographies." They are that part of statistics that treats of public opinion study and electronic computing machinery, both of which are being rapidly developed. They invite the acquaintance of social scientists , so that the maximum of their potentialities for all phases of the study of society may be attained. What is needed is the positive adaptation of these tools to the researches of social scientists so that the horizons of our knowledge of society may be expanded to a degree inconceivable to scholars of Carlyle's day.
Until now, the most authoritative or `scientific' researches in "comparative government" have been those based on careful and exhaustive documentation of narrow subjects - biographies, legislative histories of particular laws, histories of institutions, constitutions, parties, and the like. These researches are of a microscopic character and have been and still are fruitful and provocative. But generalized statements about business, society, the state, the nation, the classes, etc. have necessarily always been tentative, educated guesses based upon thorough acquaintance with particular cases regarded as typical or typical for specified reasons.
This type of generalization, based upon a limited number of particulars assumed to be typical or unique, is an informed made with a specified degree of certitude. It is the latter type of generalization which is now more possible in the present state of development of social science technique. This does not imply that the close, carefully documented study is no longer valid as a method in the social sciences. It is. It does imply, however, that the use of these studies as the basis for social generalization is no longer always necessary, superior a techniques are now sometime available. Furthermore, it implies that the carefully documented study of very limited subjects can now be supplemented by carefully documented (with an entirely new type of document, namely the raw data of a social survey and its digested form on tabular cards) studies of societies, nations, electorates, etc. The sample survey is also superior, in many ways, to the study of voting behavior by mans of election returns, though the latter deserves respect for having provided us with many new discoveries about political behavior (14, 26-30, 53, 77, 120, 157, 164, 209, 249, 340, 342, 345, 442). The major difficulty of studying behavior by correlating socio-economic indices with election returns is the inadequacy of the data. One cannot move far beyond a few basic variables of the type provided by census bureaus. There is a great deal of room for the imaginative, inventive social scientist in adoption of the technique of the survey based upon interviews of a population sample. He can now make far more precise statements about far more subjects than heretofore.
In concluding a description of the sample survey method, Professors Angus Campbell and George Katona write that, "although the origins of the sample survey go back to the nineteenth century, the advanced methodologies now available to survey researchers have been developed only within the last few years.. there is reason to believe that the possibilities of the summary technique are not fully realized, either in scope of applications or in precision of methods.
(L. Festinger and D. Katz, eds., Research Methods in the Behavioral Sciences (New York: Dryden Press, 1953), p. 51.)
Of what, essentially, does the new type of survey consist? How does it work? What does it provide? What can it add to the scientific study of comparative politics?
The five major phases of a large scale sample survey include the design of the questionnaire, the sampling of a population, administration of the survey, the coding and punching of data onto cards, and the analysis of data and statement of findings. (See also p.20a infra., "An Illustration and Explanation of three General Hypotheses..")
The decision of the questionnaire in a sample survey is the task of gathering important hypotheses about attitudes and behavior and framing them into questions that may be understood and answered by people of widely differing social strata. The question may be one which demands an immediate and unqualified response from the population, or may be one that may be answered fully and leisurely. The length of an interview depends not only on the number of questions to be addressed to the respondents, but also upon the extent to which the former or the latter type of response is sought. The questionnaire contemplated in the present instance would be as long as might be administered by an interviewer at one sitting. We require both a broad range of data, testing many hypotheses, and qualified responses in some instance that may best be obtained through "open-ended" questions.
Experience in recent years with the application of American methods of interviewing and American questionnaires to European populations, and, indeed, populations of non-western culture, should reassure us about the transferability of the questionnaires method abroad (11, 75, 77, 303, 314, 334, 357, 425, 437, 440). No fundamental bias exists against the questionnaire. No basic inability to administer or reply to the questionnaire has been exhibited by any group.
In a study that will gather a wide range of data and which rests upon some consensus of important problems in the field, collaborative design of the questionnaire by experts is highly recommended. This is contemplated in the present instance. (The exact machinery is described in Section III of this Prospectus). Moreover, the use of a panel of experts in designing the questionnaire has significance for the development of the field extending beyond the immediate necessities of the questionnaire. Experience with many conferences discussing major fields of data in politics or any other social science reveals a constant tendency to shy away from concrete discussion of propositions and their probable or improbable verifiability. Consequently, when experts work together on the design of a questionnaire, they not only increase the value of the study by lending their varied insights and experiences to the project, but they also engage in the necessary task of trying to unite and place in a hierarchy the many scattered propositions of a major field of political science.
The closest precedent to the type of questionnaire design here proposed occurred in 1951 and 1952 when the Survey Research Center of the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, proposed to the Political Behavior Research Committee of the Social Science Research Council a large scale sample survey of the American people on political behavior, during the 1952 presidential campaign (195); A number of meetings were held to develop the questionnaire to be used in the survey, and a considerable volume of correspondence entered into the criticism of the design. The result was the incorporation of the principal concerns of experts in the field of parties and behavior in the final study, guarded by the criticisms that came from those who were to conduct the survey and those who were to read and use it.
The second major phase in the conduct of a large scale sample survey is sampling. The literature and experience in this area is vast and we shall only indicate several salient points here. In the first place, it is well to reassure ourselves on the validity of sampling. In its most negative form, the case for sampling may be contained in the statement that no serious social scientist today available on the specified points without resorting to a sampling taking the sample. Sampling does not guarantee the validity of a statement about a population, for we have to consider the kind of sample and the way in which the other phases of the sample survey were performed. But it is indispensable. A great number of the propositions of comparative government consists of statements about public opinion or collective behavior, and, although many of these statements are excellent and credible, the validity of most of them is in doubt and some are unfortunately compounded of implausible guesswork.
Beyond the basic acceptance of the sample as a mode of understanding public opinion and collective behavior, there lies the question of what kind of sampling procedure should be followed. The best current theory advocates probability sampling whenever possible. By probability sampling is meant the equal chance of becoming a member or subject of the sample. Probability sampling gains in importance the greater our ignorance of the stratification and behavior of the sampled population. In the case of the European-American survey, a probability sample is called for and, fortunately at least for the purposes of the study, is possible. Indeed, in at least two of the five European countries, a probability sample is easier to design than it would be in the United state (350,454). For example, rationing lists in England provide an excellent basis for extracting a random sample of the population.
The Probability sample, like all other samples, contains a certain percent of error which is reduced as the sampling is more perfectly conducted and as the number of respondents in the sample is increased. Beyond a certain heterogeneity of population, which must be presumed to exist in each of the five countries, multiplication of numbers in the sample does not noticeably affect the error of the sample. It is the expectation that the European-American Survey would provide about 2,000 cases in each country involved. The number might be smaller for Spain. Lest on feels that this number is excessively small for the several countries, it should be pointed out that highly successful sample surveys have been conducted with even fewer cases. An example is the 1948 election report of the Survey Research Center which was based upon less than 600 cases for the whole of the United States (16). A study of the Western United States by Alfred de Grazia, soon to be published, uses approximately 450 cases that stand up well, under the application of internal and external validating checks, as representative of the Western population.
Although the selection of the five countries to which the study will be devoted is not essentially or primarily a sampling problem, a world may be put in here explaining it. Naturally, the number of studies has been kept down and some arbitrariness is express in the neglect of Scandinavia and the Low Countries in terms of population, wealth and power in the Western Bloc today. It would seem that most of the complexities of the political societies of the west and of their mutual interrelations should be reflected in a study of Spain extends us some appreciation of Latin-America, and the study of England, some knowledge of the Commonwealth. Study of the other countries implies equally broad extensions to world philosophies, international organizations, and critical world movements. The United States study, besides lending its findings to the total study, will supplement the study of the election campaign of 1952, and, on a number of crucial points of political behavior, allow us to make trend analyses of data in 1952 and 1956. It is common to regret the absence of time series for basic behavioral data on large population, while fulfilling all its other functions in the comparative study, the United States study will represent a notable and necessary advance in the state of domestic political behavior research in America. The value of the present body of materials on the 1952 election will be greatly enhanced by giving it a time dimension.
The inclusion of Spain presents a special and interesting problem that may be taken up now in discussing the third phase of a sample survey, the administration. The administration of the survey consists of supervisors and interviewers, who are centrally trained in general interviewing procedures and in managing questions specific to the survey, and who conduct interviews with specified individuals and submit the results of the interviews to a central coding and analysis office. The interviewers are checked and carefully supervised and provided with a manual of instructions that details the objectives of the study and the meanings of many of the questions. In England, France, Germany, Italy and the United States we can quickly lay our hands on technically qualified personnel for the administration of the field work. The ideals of the present study would seem, however, to prescribe a period of intensive training for most people in these countries. We do not imply that the skills of these potential workers are below the average of their colleagues in the United States, because this same study, if it were to be done in the United States by personnel other than those of the Survey Research Center and a very few other highly disciplined organizations, would require the same kind of intensive training. It is the intention of the directors of the European-American Survey to increase the level of performance of field workers in all six countries.
In Spain, two problems exist, tentative answers to which may be provided here. One is the problem of qualified personnel. The other is the problem of the authorization of field surveys. A recent survey of social science research facilities in European countries, including Spain, by Sebastian de Grazia, revealed that there is a group of psychologists and social scientists in Madrid to whom responsible field work may be assigned. Recent travel reports and intelligence from Spain confirm that the loquacity of Spaniards is of a degree appropriate to interviewing on all question that might be asked in the Survey, Conversations with men recently in Spain tend to refute the stereotyped and, in some cases, official view that Spain is closed to certain studies deemed appropriate solely for democratic societies. The response of the Spanish authorities to the administration of a sample survey in Spain cannot be predicted at this time, but the problem should not be dogmatically foreclosed. The American Embassy and the Spanish government may facilitate the investigation, though perhaps with certain limitations. Certain Spanish scholars, at least one of whom is of world renown, are already being helped by American foundations. These channels might facilitate the opening of others for international scientific communication.
It is probably apparent to all that the inclusion of Spain would be a great advance in the performance of this study and in the general field of political theory. If it should result from the study of Spanish opinion and political behavior that many conditions thought to be characteristic only of government of a particular kind, were found also to be in a government with a distinctively different ideology and structure, then a number of hoary and venerated hypotheses of political theory and behavior would require revision.
It should be pointed out that diplomatic problems are not to be expected solely in Spain but in other countries as well. The sponsoring group of the European-American Survey realize the necessity of attending to governmental and public relations, not to mention other necessary and useful contacts with interested professional organizations.
The fourth step in the sample survey is the preparation of data for analysis. The data is coded and the symbols punched onto cards. A master code is prepared; it is a numbered list of items that subsume all replies to the question. Coders must be trained and coding must be supervised. Attention must be given to the reliability of coding so that all coders are working together and interpreting responses in the same manner. In this step, as in the sampling phase, experts will be provided by the Survey Research Center of the University of Michigan. Especially in connection with responses to open-ended questions, the coding is a crucial part of the operation and subsequent analysis depends heavily upon it. For example, the question will probably be asked in a form similar to this: "What do you like (dislike) about communism? Whereas in some cases the reply to this question will be abrupt, in many instances the respondents from all countries will give one, two, or as many as half a dozen distinct comments or attitudes about, communism. Some will be concrete, others abstract. Some will be logical, others diffuse. The coding of the replies to this open-ended question may well number a hundred categories, each requiring a discrete punch. The value of preserving this richness of response and the value of converting the variety of responses into a form the allows tabulation and cross-tabulation with a hundred other variables, is apparent. There would be a number of similar questions in the Survey. For this, and other reasons, the Survey should not be confused with brief polls that ask for impossible, implausible and often useless, dichotomous responses.
There will probably be 8 to 10 cards prepared and punched for each individual. The total sample for the six nations numbering perhaps 12,000 cases, will then be available in 8 to 10 decks and the decks themselves may be increased in number, as combinations from several of the cards are punched by an inexpensive process onto additional cards. This total collection of data will then be duplicated by a duplicating punching process that would cost less than $100.00 per set, and each set be deposited in the library or institute of the cooperating faculties.
Initially, we would plan to deposit a complete set of the data in the institutions of the members of the International Executive Committee. Thereafter, additional sets would probably find their way into other interested agencies. Experience with the duplicating of the punch cards derived from the large-scale 1952 presidential campaign study of the Survey Research Center indicates that independent investigations of the same data may be carried on in different geographical locations be competent scholars. The decision regarding the location of the raw data and other materials employed in the Survey would rest with the Executive Committee and would not seem to be an important problem.
The final phase of the sample survey deals with the analysis of the data. The scope of the analysis would be vast. As many studies as there are sets of cards might proceed simultaneously. Indeed, several investigations and many special inquiries might proceed concurrently at any given institution. Although the Executive Committee would undoubtedly desire to establish some general allocation system for analysis of the materials, and might wish to assign certain institutional priorities, there should not be much anxiety or conflict on the subject, for the field of investigation is so primary a condition for different analysis that overlapping, duplication, and stylistic sameness in the development of the materials would be negligible.
The design of the questionnaire, the administration of the Survey, the coding and punching of the cards, and the process of analysis would present some linguistic problems. We have already pointed out that these problems encountered in the design of the questionnaire are scientifically valuable, in that a truly comparative science must find mean of transferring responses from one culture to another in order that comparisons may be made. Translation or linguistic problems are taken care of in the administration of the survey by employing nationals of the countries concerned and maintaining overall control at the top.
Another linguistic problem may arise in the analysis of the data that is punched on cards. The code index to the punched data is likely to be 300 pages long; it will consist of abbreviated responses of a kind that may be readily understood by scholars who may have only a limited familiarity with English. Without much additional expense, a French, or other translation may be made of the code index. Once finished, there is no linguistic barrier to exploiting the data fully. The punched cards 'speak' an international language, and unlike many materials in comparative government, or in comparative anthropology, do not require an intensive familiarity with the nuances of language. Thus, the methodology of the study, beyond its many other merits, conquers, at least to some extent, the linguistic barriers to comparative political research. A scholar or student, working with the full set of 12,000 cards, becomes somewhat like the American scholar who is working with a set of cards on one of whose columns are punched the several regions of the United States. An analysis, for example, of the differences in male and female favorableness to symbols of authority can be made without reference to national boundaries. This tabulation in the turn may be broken down be countries to show whatever differences may exist among the men and women of the several countries concerned.
The sample survey approach to comparative politics the preceding paragraphs have shown, contains a practical method of attacking many traditional problems of comparative politics. Special merits of the survey approach have already been indicated in those very areas in which comparative political study has suffered from serious shortcomings. International and varying national behaviors are for once made comparable according to a rigid standard and at the level of primary data. Validity and reliability are rigorously criticized by experts in technique and in substance on the type of problem assumed. They will lend their conjoined judgment on these question to the study. General accessibility to the data is provided for long after the consummation of the study, to a degree hitherto unimagined.
In this last connection, it may be appreciated that many uncertainties of comparative political study have come, not only from primary data that is wrong (i.e. invalid or unreliable) but also from conflicting statements in subsequent analysis of the data. A body of material that is capable of being turned up not only for one-time analysis of a single scholar, but for a generation or generations of scholars may induce and inspire the healthy or generations of scholars may induce and inspire the healthy practice of analyzing what happens to data when it encounters minds with differing concepts and differing preferences.
In as much as the European-American survey will demand a heavy initial investment of funds, amounting to about a quarter of a million dollars, it is in order to emphasize not only the great importance of the studies that may be obtained therefrom, but also the considerable economies, in a relative sense, that would result. Fact for fact, finding for finding, theory for theory, the contemplated research should prove far less expensive than any other known method of discovering public opinion and behavior. To select one of a number of proofs of this point that might be advanced, the total expense of the European-American survey would among to the sum that is required to send a dozen American professors abroad for uncoordinated study over a three year period. Yet, even in this respect, as the following section will describe, the program of research will accomplish a considerable interchange of scholars.
D. Advancement of the Political Science Profession
The European-American Survey involves as collaborators a number of political scientists and political psychologists: it furthers the ideal of a universal academic community; it contributes to the spread of systematic technique in behavioral science; it provides widely scattered depositories of basic data in an important field; it extends the use of this data to far more scholars and students than those who perform the actual operations of the survey; and it encourages a continued chronological connection among participants and later recruits among students of political problems.
The scholars responsible for the program will consists of political scientists expert in the field of political behavior from leading European and American Universities. They will form an International Executive Committee and will engage in the researches over a two or three year period. In addition, the survey will enlist, in advisory capacities, the assistance and cooperation of approximately 40 senior scholars from Europe and America. Beyond these, it is anticipated that 100 or more advanced students of political science or kindred social sciences will receive training in survey methods and in comparative politics.
The survey will also introduce an unprecedented co-operation among the scholars of a number of countries, cooperation of a kind envisioned by such international organizations as UNESCO, and that would realize, in a practical form, the ideal of a universal academic community. three years of solid cooperation on concrete problems of political science, followed by an indefinite period of cooperation in pursuit of the initial analyses, should contribute to the historical dream of an integrated international group devoted to solving problems of enduring concern to all.
The survey promises to spread, over a number of countries, and within a discipline not heretofore fully conscious of it, will-developed techniques of systematic political research and a system of political investigation that has proven its value in the United States. The extent to which European scholars of the highest rank are not conversant with and not accustomed to the proposed method may surprise some Americans, but not the European themselves, who now invite the behavioral approach to their attention and welcome the material opportunities afforded by the program here described. European scholars, more than by the program here described. European scholars, more than their American counterparts (who in their turn often regret the same deficiency), have had little chance of exercising the newer techniques of social science because of the financial limitations upon their researches. What has come to the commonplace equipment at leading American Universities, such as punching, counting, and sorting machines, are rare or unknown luxuries abroad. This kind of research program is one of the best and most effective means of extending to European scholars the technical advantages of large-scale behavioral research.
The data to be obtained from the study will be deposited in the leading universities of Europe and America, in each case supervised by a participant in the proposed survey. These depositories will provide a bank of data on comparative government beyond the most fancied hopes of individual scholars. It may be predicted with confidence that the data will receive extensive use. It will be used for systematic works on truly comparative government. Many special studies of a monographic kind may also result, limited in quantity only by the number of men who can devote time to this purpose. Thesis material for AB, MA, and Ph. D. candidates would be provided from the data, just as raw materials for dissertations have been provided by similar studies in America. The technique of using the materials is not esoteric or difficult. It may be imparted by professors in the ordinary course of teaching.
Moreover, a reserve of data will be present in the several depository locations that will permit future validating and checking of the published works, and serve as a resource for future political scientists who may wish to develop trends or to establish more solidly their conclusions about European-American attitudes and behavior.
III. Organization, Personnel and Procedure
The organization appropriate to the European-American Survey should combine a wide participation of outstanding scholars in comparative government and political behavior, appropriate experts in the survey method, and a structure designed to perform efficiently the administrative operations required. How this may be done is summarized in the following diagram of organization.
***DIAGRAM OF ORGANIZATION*** (to be supplied later)
COMPARATIVE SURVEY OF EUROPEAN-AMERICAN
International Political Science Association
American Science Research Council
INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE
(Individual members, app. 8)
INTERNATIONAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (app.10)
Office of General Manager Stanford University
FIELD TASK FORCES
2. French Advisory Committee (app.5)
2. German Advisory Committee (app. 5)
2. English Advisory Committee (app.5)
2. Italian Advisory Committee (app. 5)
Office of European Operations Coordination (Rome or Paris)
1. Survey Research Center University of Michigan
2. U.S.A. Advisory Committee (app. 5)
Chairman, International Advisory Committee
It should first be indicated that the organization involves an unprecedented amount of international scientific cooperation. The cooperation and assistance on a formal level of four groups is planned: the International Political Science Association, the American Political Science Association, the Social Science Research Council, and UNESCO. Preliminary conversations with officers of all of these reveal an active interest, although no commitment was asked for, not was a formal discussion of the relationship pursued. The same may be said of the several Universities that will be involved and that will ultimately serve as depositories. Here, too, no formal invitation has been extended, but informal conversations would indicate a favorable attitude towards faculty members engaging in among of governmental interest in Europe and America in the proposed study. Although we are pleased with this friendliness and hope that the results of the study will be used by those who make international political policy, no formal participation by governmental officials is being considered at this time. The International Executive Committee may decide to coopt government personnel. This might, perhaps, be accomplished in a separate committee, provided assurances and safeguards for absolutely free research and inquiry were forthcoming.
The International Advisory Committee would consist of representatives of the four professional organizations cited above and of approximately eight individual members, who would be outstanding political and social scientists in the area of comparative political behavior. Neither they, nor the institutional representatives would be asked to undertake any responsibility for the operations of the Survey or for the design of the questionnaire. They would be invited, however, to criticize and advise the operations at all stages and they would also be asked to bring in the opinions of official and qualified outside persons and groups.
The direction of the Survey from beginning to end would be placed in the hands of the International Executive Committee of nine members. These men would include the General Manager of the Survey, the Executive of each national Field Task Force, the Manager of the Office of European Operation Coordination and the Chairman of the International Advisory Commission. The task of the General Manager is to Administer the study as a whole, to consult regularly with the International Advisory Committee, to be responsible for financial management, and to contribute to the substantive content of the study. Attached to him would be an Assistant Manager and an Expert Cadre of two or three men, recruited from the Survey Research Center of the university of Michigan, who would consult on questionnaire design, sampling, administration of field surveys, and coding and tabulating for all of the Field Task Forces. The tasks of the Manager of the Office of European Operations Coordination would be the administrative supervision of the Field Task Forces on the Continent and in Great Britain, and the minimizing of the structural and operating difficulties that might develop from the decentralized execution of the program. His office would be in Rome or Paris, depending upon a decision by the International Executive Committee.
Each Field Task Force would consists of an Executive who would also be a member of the International Executive Committee, and who would be responsible for the performance of the Survey in his own Country. He would have the assistance of National Advisory Committee of approximately five persons, who would be appointed by him also be assisted by the Office of the General Manager, the Expert his national survey. From this sketch of the structure of organization and mode of operation, it may be seen that more than sixty scholars of Europe and America will be involved in the Survey, not counting a number of advanced graduate students or instructing personnel, who will be receiving disciplined training in the substance and method of comparative research in political behavior.
The specific universities and personnel involved in the Survey are not named here. Their names are contained in a separate memorandum.
A tentative calendar for the accomplishment of the Survey follows. The duration of the project, exclusive of the analysis and reporting of findings, will be nearly three years.
Individual conferences of General Manager with May participants, potential cooperators, and officials in the U.S.A. and Europe. June Presentation and discussion of program before the International Political Science Association Conference on Comparative Government at Florence, Italy, April 5-10
Establishment of the structure. Final August organization of Executive Committee and Staff. September Appointment of Advisory Committee.
Preparation of background materials.
November Preliminary drafts of questionnaires.
Conference of Executive Committee (Stanford or Rome). (Refresher course, design of questionnaire planning of program.) February (International Advisory Committee would be present in second week of conference only.)
Organization of Field Task Forces. April Appointment and meeting of country Advisory May Committees.
Field Surveys in process.
Meeting of Executive Committee, International April Advisory Committee and Country Advisory May Committees for one week.
Coding and punching cards.
Final executive conference; preparation on December explanatory manual.
Distribution of Cards to depositories
Analysis and Report of Findings by teams and individuals.
The precise cost of the contemplated project it difficult to estimate. As far as can be seen at the present time after a discussion among men who have been financing and managing finances in this kind of work here and abroad, the budget submitted is appropriate. Certain features introduce fiscal uniqueness to this study. Thus the amount paid for supervision of field work is greater than would be required in other, more traveled survey areas, but on the other hand, payments to interviewers are smaller. Likewise there is some transatlantic travel, which, however, does not greatly increase the expense of the project and which is, in itself, a worthy object of support, since it brings together on scientific problems men who would otherwise be out of touch with one another. Salaries may, in several cases, be reduced by Fulbright exchange professorships. Costs of analysis and reporting of findings, usually incorporated in a proposed research budget, are not asked for preparation of an initial general report of findings by The Executive Committee. It is our feeling that the quality and extent of the data and the determined interest of the participants will justify special grants from several sources to individuals or cooperating scholars for analysis and reporting of the results. In this respect, each task and each man would have different requirements that would be impractical and probably unwise to define as an integral part of the study.
Training and Supervision of Interviewers $40,000.
Salary reimbursements to Universities
Project Executives (9)
Expert Cadre (3), each one year 92,000.
Wage Payments 50,000.
Coding and Punching 12,000.
Secretarial and Clerical 10,000.
Expenses of several Committees 8,000.
Duplicating and Office Expense 1,000.
Contingent, Incidental & Miscellaneous 15,000.
Research analysis handbook 10,000
The following collection of titles may have several uses, arising from these features :
1. It arranges a large number of works according to the needs of any truly comparative approach to European-American political behavior.
2. It presents a background of work already done in comparative surveys.
3. It provides sources for hypotheses about important substantive problem of comparative behavior.
4. It suggests new techniques of approaching old problems of comparative behavior.
5. It includes titles from several social sciences that make a contribution to political behavior research.
The bibliography also has limitations. If bibliographies can be placed on a scale from the annotated and completely tested type to the heterogeneous and quite unrefined type, this list would fall somewhere along the middle of the scale. It is not exhaustive, nor were most of the items weighed individually. it should be regarded as tentative and suggestive of a new area of and approach to research in comparative government.
The bibliography is organized to supplement the preceding discussion, the major object of which has been to describe the scope, significance, and method of a general survey of European-American political behavior. The half-thousands citations are grouped in the following categories:-
France Items 1-63
Germany Items 64-111
Great Britain Items 112-154
Italy Items 155-179
Spain Items 180-190
United States Items 191-219
and Nationalism Items 220-302
Methodology Items 303-455
Theory Items 456-501
In as much as a large number of items pertain to categories beyond the ones in which they are fully cited, such items are also cited by number in the list of analytic categories found at the end of the bibliography.
The analytic categories so employed are:
I Attitudes Towards XIII Leaders and Followers
XV Nationalism and
III Communications and XVI National Character
IV Constitutions,Laws and
Governmental Institutions XVII Political Parties
V Elections XVIII Psychological Motivation
VI Foreign Policy XIX Public Opinion Surveys
VII France XX Religion
VIII General Social Theory XXI Social Stratification
IX Germany XXII Spain
X Great Britain XXIII United States
XI International Cooperation XXIV War and Revolution
XII Italy XXV Wealth
1. Anonymous, "Pourquoi cinq millions de francais votent encore communiste," Réalités, May, 1952, 37-44.
2. Aron, Raymond, "French Public Opinion and the Atlantic Treaty," International Affairs, January, 1952.
3. Assemblée Nationale, Recueil des textes authentiques des programmes et engagements électoraux des députés proclamés élus à la suite des élections générales du 17 juin 1951, dressé par les soins du Secrétaire général de l' Assemblée Nationale (Paris: Imprimerie do 1. Assemble, 1952).
4. Beak, P. H., "Evidence Concerning the Distributions of Wealth in France," Political Science Quarterly, LV1 (1941), 361-387.
5. Carroll, Ever M., French Public Opinion and Foreign Affairs, 1870-1914 (New York: Century, 1931).
6. Case, Lynn M., (comp. & ed.), French Opinion on the United States and Mexico, 1860-1867: Extracts from the Reports of the Procureurs Généraux (New York: D. Appleton-Century, 1936).
7. Chaballier, Claude, "Géographie Sociale de la France: Bourgeoisie et Prolétariat Urbains," Revue Socialiste, June 1952.
8. Champion, Robert, "Le Programme Economique et Social de la C.G.T.-F.O.," Revue Administrative, March-April, 1951.
9. Debré, Michel, La République et Son Pouvoir (Paris: Editions Negel, 1950).
10. Delarue Maurice, and Mouillaud, Maurice, :Le Parti Communiste, les Intellectuels et la Bataille d'Idées," La Nouvelle Critique, January-February, 1951.
11. Dorsey, John "Public Opinion Research in France," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (1952)m 225-235.
12. Dupeux, Georges, and Goguel, Francois, Sociologie Electorale (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1951).
13. Duverger, Maurice, "L'influence des systèmes électoraux sur la vie politique," Cahiers de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, XVI (Paris: Colin, 1950).
14. ________, Les partis politiques (Paris: Colin, 1951).
15. _________, "Public Opinion and Political Parties in France," American Political Science Review, XLVl (1952), 1069-1078.
16. Ehrmann, H.W., "The French Peasant and Communism," American Political Science Review, XLV (1951), 190-233.
17. ________, French Communism and Peasantry (Colorado, 1952).
18. "Les Elections Sociales Comparées aux Elections Politiques," Revue Francaise de Science Politique, April-June, 1953.
19. Fauvet, Jacques, De Thorez à de Gaulle, Les Forces Politiques en France (Paris, 1947).
20. Ferré, Louise Marie, Les Classes Sociales dans la France Contemporaine (University of Paris: Thesis: Seine-et-Oise: the author, 1936).
21. Flavieu, Jean, "La Dégradation de l'Agriculture Francaise et l'Action du Parti à la Campagne," Cahiers du Communisme, June, 1951.
22. France, A Collection of materials on the Resistance movement in France, 1940-1944, Hoover Institute and Library on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
23. Frisch, A., "Bedeutung des Mittelstande in der Französischen Sozialstruktur, "Wirtschaftsdienst, March, 1953.
24. Gallagher, Orwell R., "Rural French Voting Habits," Social Research, December, 1951.
25. Godfrey, E.D., jr., Vitality of the Non-Communist Left in France since World War II (Princeton: Doctoral dissertation, 1952).
26. Goguel, Francois, "La Démocratie en France," Christianisme Social, December, 1950, and January-February, 1951.
27. ________, "Géographie des Elections, "Esprit, September,, 1951.
28. _________, "Géographie des Elections Francaises de 1870 a 1951 (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1951).
29. _________, "La Loi Electorale," Christianisme Sociale, May-June, 1951.
30. __________,"pour une Etude Scientifique de l'Abstentionisme Electoral, "Revue Francaise de Science Politique, January-March, 1952.
31. Gurvitch, Georges, "Social Structure of Pre-War France," American Journal of Sociology, XLVIII (1943) 535-554.
32. Hourdin, Georges, "La Liberté de la Presse, ou la Fin d'un 'Monde', Terre Humaine, September, 1951.
33. Hourdin, Georges, "la Liberté de la Presse, ou la Fin d'un 'Monde', Terre Humaine, September, 1951.
34. Lambert, Jacques, "Structures Sociales et Régimes Politiques," Revue Française de Science Politique, October-December, 1951.
35. Lavan, G.E., "Une Panacée Politique: Le Scrutin à la Pluralité de Voix ou l'Idée Fixe de M. Hermens," Revue Francaise de Science Politique, January-March, 1953.
36. Le Bras, G., "Géographie électorale et géographie religieuse," Etudes de sociologie électorale, Cahiers de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, no.1.
37. Levard, G., "Plan Schuman et Syndicalisme Chrétien," Revue de 1, Action Populaire, January, 1951.
38. Luc-Verbon, Philippe, "Lois Electorales, Partis et Composition des Assemblées," Revue Socialiste, May, 1951.
39. Marabuto, Paul, Les Partis Politiques et les Mouvements Sociaux sous la Ive République (Paris,1948).
40. Micaud, C.A., "Organization and Leadership of the French Communist Party," World Politics, April 1952.
41. __________, "Stresses and Strains in France Today," Virginia Quarterly Review, Summer, 1950
42. Neumano, R.G.,"Formation and Transformation of Gaullism in France," Western Political Quarterly, June, 1953
43. _________,"The Struggle for Electoral Reform in France," American Political Science Review, XLV (1951), 741-755.
44. "Les Partis Politiques et l'Unité Française (special issue on political parties, with articles by Hourdin, Simon, Fauvet, Madaule, Douries, Remond, Borue, Altschuler, Mauny, Goguel)," Terre Humaine, June, 1951.
45. Patinaud, Marius, "Les Problèmes de la Presse Communiste et Démocratique," Cahiers du Communisme, September, 1951.
46. Patri, Aimé, "Democracy in France,"Confluence , I, no.3 (1952), 54-62.
47. Pickles, W., "The Geographical Distribution of Political Opinion in France," Politics, II (1936-1937).
48. Polonski, Jacques, La Presse, la Propagande et l'Opinion Publique sous l'Occupation (Paris, 1946).
49. Rimbert, Pierre, "L'Avenir du Parti Socialiste. I: Son Evolution de 1920. II:Age et Composition Sociale," Revue Socialiste, February and March, 1952.
50. _________, "Le Parti Socialiste et les Responsibilités Gouvernementales,"Revue Socialiste, July, 1951.
51. Rossi, Anglo, A Communist Party in Action: An Account of the Organization and Operations in France, trans., ed., intro, by Willmore Kendall (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949).
52. Schnerb, Robert, "Les Partis Politiques," Annales, April-June, 1952.
53. Siegfried, André, Géographie Electorale de l'Ardèche sous la IIIe République (Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1949).
54. S. L. and J. S., "Deux Instituts Francais de la Recherche Sociologique," Revue de l'Action Populaire, February, 1951.
55. Stern, Eric, France: Media Impact Study (New York: Foreign Opinion and Market Research, 1950).
56. Stern, Eric, and Keller, Suzanne, "Spontaneous Group References in France," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVII (1953).
57. "Tableau Politique de la France, 1951 (a special issue, with particular emphasis on political parties; articles by Fauvet, Izard, Cot, Aron, Debré, Gazier, Rovan, Martin-Chauffier, and Rueff)," La Nef, April-May, 1951.
58. Verret, Michel, "Les Intellectuels et l'Esprit de Parti," La Nouvelle Critique, February, 1951.
59. Waline, Marcel, Les Partis contre la République (Paris, 1948).
60. Weill-Raynal, Etienne, Les Classes Sociales et les Partis Politiques en France," Revue Socialiste, December, 1950.
61. __________, "Structure Sociale de la France: Répartition des Salaires," Revue Socialiste, June, 1952.
62. Wright, Gordon, "French Farmers in Politics," South Atlantic Quarterly, July, 1952.
63. _________, "Agrarian Syndicalism in Postwar France," American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953), 402-416.
64. Abel, T. F., Original life stories collected in 1934 by means of a prize contest. Written by members of the national Socialists party, they form the basis of Rof. Abel's book, Why Hitler Came to Power, Hoover Institute and Library on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
65. __________, Why Hitler Came to Power (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1938).
66. Anspacher, Henry, L., Attitudes of German Prisoners of War, a Study of the Dynamics of National- Socialistic Followership (Washington: American Psychological Association, 1948).
67. Baden, Statistisches Landesamt. Ergebnisse der Gemeindewahlen vom 27 Januar 1946 in Baden US Zone. Karlsruhe, 1946.
68. Becker, Howard, "Changes in the Social Stratification of Contemporary Germany," American Sociological Review, XV (1950), 333-342.
69. Berlin (West Berlin). Hauptamt fur Statistik and Wahlen. Amtliches Gesamtergebnis der Berliner Wahl, 3 Dez. 1950.
70. Bretton, Henry L., "The German Social Democratic Party and the International Situation," American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953), 980-996.
71. Carey, Jane, P.C., "Political Organization of the Refugees and Expellees in West Germany," Political Science Quarterly, June, 1951.
72. Crespi, Leo, "The Influence of Military Government Sponsorship in German Opinion Polling," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Summer, 1950.
73. "Economia, Societa e Costume nella Germania d'Oggi (special Issue)," Cronache Sociali, January, 1951.
74. Erikson, Erik Homburger, "Hitler's Imagery and German Youth," Psychiatry, V (1942), 475-493.
75. Esprit: Revue Internationale, "Anthologie der deutschen Meinung: Deutschen Antworten auf eine französische Umfrage," Constance, 1948.
76. Forsthoff, Ernst, "Zur verfassungerechtlichen Stellung und inneren Ordnung der Parteien," in Forsthoff, Ernst; Loewenstein, Karl; and Matz, Werner, Die Politischen Parteien im Verfassungstreit (Tubingen Mohr: Siebeck, 1950), 5-24.
77. Franz, Gunther, Die politischen Wahlen in Niedersachsen, 1867 bis 1949 (Bremen: Dorn, 1951).
78. Germany (Territory under Allied Occupation 1945, US Zone). Office of Military Government. Civil Administration Division. Political Parties in Western Germany, (Berlin, 1949).
79. Gooch, G.P., and others, The German Mind and Outlook (London: Chapman and Hall Ltd., 1945).
80. Harcourt, Robert d', Les Allemands d'aujourdhui (Paris, 1948).
81. Holt, John B., "Corporative Occupational Organization and Democracy in Germany, "Public Administration Review, VII (1948) 34-40.
82. Institut fur Demoskopie, Das Dritte Reich: eine Studie uber Nachwirkungen des Nationalsozialismus (2nd ed.; Allensbach am Bodensee, 1949).
83. _________, Das Politische Klima; ein Bericht uber die Stimmung im Bundesgebiet (Allensbach am Bodensee, 1951).
84. Iwanow, I., Über die Rolle der Sozialistischen Parteien nach dem Zweiten Weltkriege (Berlin, 1947).
85. Klemperer, Klemens von, "Toward a Fourth Reich? The History of National Bolshevism in Germany," Review of Politics, April, 1951.
86. Lasswell, Harold D., "The Psychology of Hitlerism," Political Quarterly, IV (1933).
87. Lenz, Friedrich, Meinungsforschung in Deutschand: Eine Kurze Darstellung von Ergebnissen, Methoden und Erkenntniswert wissenschaftlicher Erforschung der öffentlichen Meinung (Stuttgart: Poeschel, 1950).
88. Lerner, Daniel, et al., The Nazi Elite (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951).
89. Levy, D. M., "Anti-Nazis: Criteria and Differentiation," Psychiatry, Xl (1948), 125-168.
90. Loomis, Charles p., "Political Parties in Western Germany (Washington: Library of Congress, 1951).
92. Mommsen, Wilhelm, Deutsche Parteiprogramme (Munich, 1951).
93. Munke, Dr. Stephanie, with Gurland, A.R.L., editor and collaborator, Wahlkampf und Machtverschiebung: Geschichte Analyse der Berliner Wahlen vom 3 Dezember 1950 (Berlin: Duncker und Humblot, 1952).
94. Neumann, Sigmund, "The New Crisis Strata in German Society," in Morgenthau, Hans (ed.), German and the Future of Europe (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).
95. Parsons, Talcott, "Democracy and Social Structure in Pre-Nazi Germany," Journal of Legal and Political Sociology, November, 1942.
96. Pilgert, H,P., Community and Group Life in West Germany, Historical Division, Office of the Executive Secretary, H.I.C.O.G., 1952.
97. Pollock, James K., "The Electoral System of the Federal Republic of Germany - A Study in Representative Government, American Political Science Review, XLVL (1952), 1056-1068.
98. Pribilla, Max, Deutsche Schicksalsfragen (Frankfurt a. M., 1950.).
99. Rodnick, David, Post-War Germans (New haven and London, 1948).
100. Roper, Burkhardt, "The Realization of Democratic Ideals in Germany," Confluence, I, no. 2 (1952), 14-22.
101. R. S., "The West German Political Parties and Rearmament," World Today, February, 1953.
102. Salin, Edgar, "Social Forces in Germany Today," Foreign Affairs, January, 1950.
103. Sanger, Siegfried, "Die Entwicklung der deutschen Presse seit 1945, "Gewerkshaftliche Monatshefte, III, no.4 (April, 1952), 196-200.
104. Shaffner, Bertram H., Fatherland: a Study of Authoritarianism in the German Family (New York: Columbia University Press, 1948
105. Stern, Eric, Germany: Media Impact Study I (New York and the Hague: Foreign Opinion and Market Research, 1950).
106. Sternberger, Dolf, Research in Germany on Pressing Social Problems (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, European Affairs Division, 1951).
107. _________, "Das Schicksal der Parteien," Wahler, VII (1951).
108. Technical Assistance Commission on the Integration of the Refugees in the German Republic, The Integration of Refugees into German Life: a Report submitted to the Chancellor of the Federal Republic of Germany (Bonn, 1951).
109. "Les Tendances Politiques du Protestantisme Allemand," Documents, September, 1951.
110. U.S. office of High Commissioner for Germany, Office of Executive Secretary, Elections and Political Parties in Germany, 1945-1952 (Godesberg Mehlem, 1952).
111. Wildenmann, Rudolf, "The Integration of the German Refugees," Confluence, II, no. 4 (1953) 37-38.
112. Abrams, Mark, "Public Opinion Polls and the British General Election," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (1950) 40-52.
113. Benney, Mark, and Geiss, Phylis., "Social Class and Politics in Greenwich," British Journal of Sociology, I (1950), 310-327.
114. Birch, A. H., "The Habit of Voting," Manchester School, January, 1950.
115. __________, "Voting Behavior in a Lancashire Constituency," British Journal of Sociology, I (1950), 197-208.
116. Bonham, J., "The Middle Class Elector," British Journal of Sociology, September, 1952.
117. "British General Election, The," a symposium, Parliamentary Affairs, Summer, 1950.
118. Burns, James McGregor, "The Parliamentary Labor Party in Great Britain," American Political Science Review, XLIV (1950), 855-871.
119. Butler, D.E., The British General Election of 1951 (London: Macmillan, 1952).
120. Campbell, Peter; Dennison, David; and Potter, Allen, "Voting Behavior in Droylsden in October, 1951, "Manchester School, January, 1952.
121. Conservative Party, Research Department, Local Government Elections, 1953 (London: Conservative and Unionist Central Office, 1953).
122. Dahl, R.A., "Workers' Control of Industry and the British labor Party," American Political Science Review, October, 1947.
123. Dicey, A.V., Law and Public Opinion in 19th Century England, 1905.
124. Eldersveld, Samuel J., "British Polls and the 1950 Election," Public Opinion Quarterly, Spring, 1951.
125. England, Leonard, "Personal Impact of British M.P.'s on their Constituencies," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Summer, 1950.
126. Epstein, Leon D., "Socialism and British Labor Party," Political Science Quarterly, LXVL (1951), 556-575.
127. "L'Expérience Travailliste (a symposium on the British labor party, with articles by F. Sellier, H. Bartoli, R. Lemnis, G.E. Lawau, J. Hundee, N. McLaren, and I. Mikardo)," Esprit, March, 1952.
128. Fitzsimons, M.A., "the British Elections," Review of Politics, January, 1952.
129. Goldstein, Joseph, Government of British Trade Unions (London: Allen & Unwin, 1952).
130. Gray, P.G., The British Household (The Social Survey, New Series Unnumbered; London: Central Office of Information, 1947).
131. Guttsman, W.L., "The Changing Social Structure of the British Political Elite, 1886-1935," British Journal of Sociology, II (1951), 122-134.
132. Harlow, Vincent Todd, The British Colonial Empire and the British Public (London, 1945).
133. Hodson, H.V., "United Kingdom Opinion on Multi-Racial Commonwealth." International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1949-1950.
134. Laing, Lionel H., "Fifty British By-Elections," The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, May, 1950.
135. "Liberal Party, The - a symposium," Political Quarterly, July-September, 1953.
136. Ligou, Daniel, "Géographie Politique de l'Angleterre," Revue Socialiste, October-November, 1950.
137. Lipson, Leslie, "The Two-Party System in British Politics," American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953),, 337-358.
138. Madge, Charles, and Harrison, Tom, Britain by mass-Observation (Hammondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Ltd., 1939).
139. Maillaud, Pierre, Perplexités et Grandeur de l'Angleterre (Paris, 1945).
140. Martin, F.M., "Social Status and Electoral Choice in Two Constituencies," British Journal of Sociology, September, 1952.
141. Maude, A., "The Conservative Party and the Changing Class Structure," Political Quarterly, April-June, 1953.
142. McCallum, R.B., and Readman, Alison, The British General Election of 1945 (London, 1945).
143. Milne, R.S., "The Study of Parliamentary Election," Cambridge Journal, August, 1952.
144. Nicholas, H.G., The British General Election of 1950 (London: Macmillan, 1951).
145. "The British General Election of 1951," American Political Science Review, XLVI (1952), 398-405.
146. Nicolson, Harold, "British Public Opinion and Foreign Policy," Public Opinion Quarterly, I, no. 1 (January, 1937), 53-63.
147. "Parties (a special issue in three parts on the British party system, with articles by S.B. Chrimes, J.A. Hawgood, D.C. Somervell, G.D.H. Cole, R.P. Dutt, R.T.McKenzie, H.G. Nicholas, Sir E. Barber, S.King-Hall, et al., a select bibliography by S.D. Bailey)," parliamentary Affairs, Winter, 1951.
148. Potter, Allen M. "British Party Organization," Political Science Quarterly, March, 1951.
149. Powell, Enoch, "The myths of the British Constituency," Confluence, II no.3 (1953), 16-24.
150. Roberts, B.C., "Trade Unions and Party Politics," Cambridge Journal, April, 1953.
151. Ross, J. F. S., parliamentary Representation (London: Eyre and Spottiswood, 1948).
152. Salter, Sir Arthur, "British Conservatism Today," Yale Review, Autumn, 1951.
153. Scammon, Richard M., "British By-Elections, 1952," American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953), 533-536.
154. Thompson, G.C., Public Opinion and Lord Beaconsfield, 2 vols. (1886).
155. Arnal, F., "La Crise de la Social-Democratie en Italie," Revue Socialiste, March, 1953.
156. Biondi, Prompter, "Potere e Classe Politica," Studi Politici June-August, 1952.
157. "Come hanno votato a Trieste," Cronache Sociali, IV, no.14 (1949), 305-314. (See also no. 10. for analysis of Val d'Aosta elections, article on Spanish Strikes, Democratic-Christians; no. 12 has good articles on political optimism in France and Italian Socialism.)
158. Conti, Giovanni, I Partiti Politici in Italia (Rome, 1947).
159. Dipiero, Michele, Storia Critica dei Partiti Italia (Rome, 1946).
160. Dorso, Guido, La Rivoluzione Meridionale (Rome, 1945).
161. Ferri, Guiseppe D., Studi sui Partiti Politici (Rome: Edizione Dell'Ateneo, 1950).
162. Flora, Francesco, Fine Dei Populi Guerrieri (Milan: Istituto Editoriale Italiano, 1946).
163. Giannini, Massimo Severo, "Le Development des Sciences Sociales en Italie," Bulletin International des Sciences Sociales, Summer, 1950.
164. Glisenti, G., et al., "A Statistical Analysis of the Italian Election Results," Cronache Sociali, July, 1948.
165. Granella, Costantino, "I Resultati delle Elezioni Amministrative (In Italy)," Civitas, July, 1951.
166. Italian Resistance, A Collection of Materials issued by Italian resistance organizations, 1939-45, Hoover Institute and Libary on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
167. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von, "The Political Mentality of the Italians," Catholic World, July, 1948
168. La Palombara, Joseph G., "The Italian Elections and the Problems of Representation, "American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953), 676-703.
169. Mendelsoh, Harold, and Caluman, Werner J., "Communist Broadcasts to Italy, "Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (1952), 671-680.
170. Messimo, A., "Democrazia e Liberta Religiosa," La Civitta Cattolice, April 21, 1951.
171. M.K.G., "The Italian General Election and its Consequences," World Toady, August, 1953.
172. Perticone, Giacomo, Gruppi e Partiti Politici nella Vita Publica Italiana (Modena, 1946).
173. Rossi, Paolo, I Partiti contro la Democrazia (Rome, 1945).
174. Salvadori, Massimo, "Italy and the Defense of Democracy," Confluence, I, no.2 (1952)m 3-13.
175. Secchia, Pietro, "Il Partito Forma Suprema Della Organizazione de Classe," Rinascita, January, 1951.
176. Sforza, Carlo, Gli Italiani quali Sono (Milan, 1946).
177. Sturzo, Luigi, "Leggi Elettorali e Istituzione Democratiche," Civitas, February, 1951.
178. Tesauro, A., "I Sisteme Elettorali e le Recenti Esperienze Costituzionale," Resseqna di Diritto Pubblico, November-December, 1951.
179. Valitutti, S., "Partiti Burocratizzati e Partiti Militarizzati," Studi Politici, March, 1953.
180. Aznar y Embrid, Severino, Impressiones de un Democrato Cristiano, Ecos del catolicismo social (Madrid, Edit. Bibliografica Espanola, Imp. Nebrija, 1950).
181. Brenan, Gerald, The Spanish Labyrinth (New York: Macmillan, 1943).
182. "Espagne Démocratique (a symposium with articles by E. de la Souchere, A. Breton, A. Camis, A. Beguin), Esprit, April, 1952.
183. Feis, Herbert, The Spanish Story: Franco and the nations at War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1948).
184. Gil Serrano, Rafael, Nueva Vision de la Hispanidad (2nd. ed., Madrid, 1947).
185. Hayes, Carleton J.H. , The United States and Spain: an Interpretation (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1951).
186. Jimeno y ostros, Jose Ros Estudios Demograficos (Madrid, C.S.I.C., Instituto "Balmes" de Sociologia (Imp. Diana, 1945).
187. Johannet, R., "La Condition Ouvrière en Espagne," Revue des Deux Mondes, February 1, 1953.
188. Linebarger, Paul, The Propaganda Terrain of Present-Day Catalonia, Spain, School of International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
189. _______, The Propaganda Terrain of Present-Day Iberian Peninsula, School of International Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
190. Menendez Pidal, Ramon, The Spaniards in their History (New York: Norton, 1950).
191. Almond, Gabriel, The American People and Foreign Policy (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950).
192. Barnhart, John D., "rainfall and the Populist Party in Nebraska," American Political Science Review, 1925, 527-540.
193. Barrett, Edward Ware, Truth is Our Weapon (New York: funk and Wagnalls, 1953).
194. Bruner, Jerome S., "Public Opinion and Policy-Making in the United States," World Politics, II (1950), 560-570.
195. Campbell, Angus; Miller, W; and Gurin, G. Decision at the Polls: 1952 (Evanston, Ill: Row-Peterson, 1954).
196. Cantril, Hadley, "Education and Economic Composition of Religious Groups: Analysis of Poll Data, "American Journal of Sociology , XLVIII (1943), 474-479.
197. _________, Gauging Public Opinion (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1944).
198. Cantwell, Frank V., "Public Opinion and the Legislative Process," American Political Science Review, XL (1956), 924.
199. Centers, Richard, The Psychology of Social Class: A Study of Class Consciousness (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949).
200. Chapin, F. Stuart, "'Mass' versus 'Leadership' Opinion on Wartime Rationing, " Public Opinion Quarterly, XI (1947-1948) 581-585.
201. De Grazia, Alfred, Public and Republic: Political Representation in America (new York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).
202. De Grazia, Sebastian, "A Note on the Psychological Position of the Chief Executive," Psychiatry, VIII (1945), 267.
203. Hamilton, Thomas, "Social Optimism and Pessimism in American Protestantism," Public Opinion Quarterly VI (1942), 280-283.
204. Hooker, R.J. "The Background of Federal Union," common Cause, I (1947), 47.
205. Hoult, T.F., "Economic Class Consciousness in American Protestantism," American Sociological Review, XV (1950), 97-100.
206. Kornhauser, Arthur, "Public Opinion an d Social Class," American Journal of Sociology, LV (1949-1950), 333-345.
207. Lenski, Gerhard E., "American Social Classes: Statistical Strata or Social Groups?" American Journal of Sociology, July, 1952.
208. Likert, Rensis, :Opinion Studies and Government Policy," Journal of the American Philosophical Society, CXCII (1948), 341-350.
209. Lubell, Samuel, The Future of American Politics (New York: Harper, 1952).
210. Markel, Lester (ed.), Public Opinion and Foreign Policy (New Yrok: Harper, 1949).
211. Merton, R., Mass Persuasion (New York: Harper, 1946).
212. Mosteller, Frederick, et al., The Pre-Election Polls of 1948 (Social Science Research Center Bulletin no.60, 1949).
213. Santayana, George, Character and Opinion in the United States (New York: Norton, 1934).
214. Strunk, Mildred J. (Comp.), Public Opinion, 1935-46 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951).
215. Taft, Philip, "Democracy in Trade Unions," American Economic Review, XXXVI, no.2 (May, 1946), 362.
216. University of Michigan, Survey Research, A Study of the Presidential Vote in 1948 (1949)
217. Warner, William Lloyd, Democracy in Jonesville (New York: Harper, 1949).
218. Williams, Robin, American Society (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).
219. Woodward, J.L., and Roper, Elmo, "Political Activity of American Citizens, " American Political Science Review, XLIV (1950), 872-885.
INTERNATIONAL STUDIES AND NATIONALISM
220. Allport, G. W. (ed.), "Psychological Considerations in Making the Peace," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, April, 1943.
221. Almond, G. A., "The Christian parties of Western Europe," World Politics, October, 1948.
222. Almond, G.A., et a;., Communism in the West: Its Appeals and Vulnerabilities (Princeton: University Press, Center of International Studies, ECD, 1952).
223. Barker, Ernest, National Character and the Factors in its Formation (4th ed.; London, 1948).
224. Bartoli, Henri, "A Defense of Neutralism," Confluence, I, no.2 (1952), 61-69.
225. Benda, Julien, Discours à la Nation Européenne (Paris, 1933).
226. Bonnefous, Edouard, L'Idée Européenne et sa Réalisation (Paris: Editions du Grand Siècle, 1950).
227. Bouscaren, Anthony T., "The European Christian Democrats," Western Political Quarterly, March, 1949.
228. Bryson, Lyman, et al, Approaches to National Unity (1945).
229. Burks, R.V., "Catholic parties in Latin Europe," Journal of Modern History, September, 1952.
230. Burns, C.D., "Making the International Mind," Ethics, XXXVI, 137-146.
231. Burns, W.L., Policy and Opinion in Imperial Affairs (Nottingham: University of Nottingham Press, 1952).
232. Center for International Studies, Research in International Communication: An Advisory Report of the Planning Committee (Cambridge, Mass., M.I.T., 1953).
233. Claparède, E., Psychologie de la compréhension internationale," in Pieron, H., and Meyerson, I. (eds.), Le Onzième Congrès Internationale de Psychologie (Agen, France, 1948).
234. Common Council for American Unity, European Beliefs regarding the United States (New York, 1949.
235. Delaisi, F., Les Deux Europes (Paris: Payot, 1929).
236. Demiashkevitch, Michael John, The national Mind: English, French, German (New York: American Book Company, 1938).
237. Distelbarth, Paul: Franzosen und Deutsche, Bauern und Krieger (Stuttgart, 1946.).
238. Einaudi, Mario, "Western European Communism: A Profile," American Political Science Review, XLV (1951), 185-208.
239. Einaudi, Mario; Domenach, Jean-Marie; and Garosci, Aldo, Communism in Western Europe (Ithaca: Cornell University press, 1951).
240. Einaudi, Mario; and Goguel, Francois, Christian Democracy in Italy and France (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1952).
241. Epstein, Leon D., "The British Labor Left and U.S. Foreign Policy," American Political Science Review, XlV (1951), 974-995.
242. Friedrich, Carl J., "European Unity and the European Tradition," Confluence, II, no.3 (1953), 42-53.
243. Frumkin, G., Population Changes in Europe since 1939 (New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1953).
244. Galantiere, Lewis (ed.), America and the Mind of Europe (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1951).
245. Guillaume, A.e., "Critiques Americains et Réalités Italiennes," Revue Politique et Parlementaire, January, 1951.
246. Ginsberg, M., "National Character," British Journal of Psychology XXXII (1942), 183-205.
247. Gleason, John Hawes, The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950).
248. Gosnell, H.f., Democracy: Threshold of Freedom (Boston: Ronald Press, 1930).
249. __________, Why Europe Votes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1930).
250. Grace, Harry A., and Van Welzer, Virginia, "Attitudes toward the Universal Declaration of Human Right: Perceptions of National Actions," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1951-1952.
251. Grossack, Martin, "A Study of Attitudes Toward American Policy in Germany," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (1952), 440-442.
252. Gundlach, Ralph H., "the Psychological Bases for Permanent peace," Journal of Social Psychology, XVI (1942), 297-334.
253. Harper, H.R., What European and American Students Think on International Problems (New York Columbia University Press, 1931).
254. Hermens, F.A. Europe between Anarchy and Democracy (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1953).
255. Hertz, F., "National Spirit and National Peculiarities," American Sociological Review, XXVI (1934).
256. _______, Nationality in History and Politics: A Study of the Psychology and Sociology of National Sentiment and Character (New York: Oxford University Press. 1944).
257. Hughes H. Stuart, The United States and Italy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1953).
258. Hunter, Earle, L., A Sociological Analysis of Certain Types of Patriotism (New York The author, 1932).
259. Hunter, Robert, Revolution: Why, How, When? (New York: Harper, 1940).
260. Ichheiser, G., "Some Psychological Obstacles to an Understanding between the Nations," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXVI (1941) 428.
261. Inkeles, Alex, Public Opinion in Soviet Russia (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1950).
262. Kohn, Hans, The Idea of Nationalism: A Study in its Origins and Background (New York: Macmillan, 1944).
263. Kris, Ernst, "Mass communications under totalitarian Governments," in Waypes, Douglas (ed.), Print, Radio, and Film in a Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1942).
264. Krocauer, Sigfried, "National Types as Hollywood Presents Them," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIII (1949) 53-72.
265. Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Erik von, "the Catholic Temper," Confluence, II, no.4 (1953), 92-105.
266. Lasswell, H.D., World Politics and personal Insecurity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935).
267. Lewin, Herbert S., "Hitler Youth and the Boy Scouts of America: A Comparison of Aims," Human Relations, I ( 1947), 206-227.
268. Library of Congress, European Affairs Division, The European Press Today (Washington, D.C., 1949).
269. Lorwin, V.R., "Communist Strategy and Tactics in Western European Labor Movements," Industrial Labor Relations Review, April, 1953.
270. Marshall, Peter, "British Notes," Confluence, I no.1 (1952), 31-37.
271. Martinez, C. Edda, and Suchman, Edward A., "Letters from America and the 1948 Elections in Italy," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (1950), 111-125.
272. McGranahan, Donald G., "A Comparison of Social Attitudes among American and German Youth," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XLl (1946), 245-257.
273. Mead, Margaret, Soviet Attitudes toward Authority (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1951.).
274. Michels, Roberto, Der Patriotismus (Munich and Leipzig: Duncker and Humblot, 1929).
275. Morris, Charles, "The Comparative Strength of Life Ideals in Eastern and Western Culture," in Moore, Charles A. (ed.), Essays in East-West Philosophy (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1951).
276. Murphy, G., Human Nature and Enduring Peace (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1945).
277. National Opinion Research Center, UNESCO and Public Opinion today (Chicago: Report no.35, 1947).
278. Neumann, Sigmund, "The International Civil War," World Politics, I (1948), 333-350.
279. ___________, "Trends toward Statism in Western Europe," Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, May, 1950.
280. Norman, Albert, Our German Policy: Propaganda and Culture (New York: Vantage Press, 1951).
281. Philip, Andre, "La Crise Doctrinale du Socialisme en Europe," Revue Socialiste, April, 1952.
282. Roche, John, P., Socialism - Its Current Meaning and Direction in Western Europe (Book; Haverford; due June, 1954).
283. Rogoff, Natalie, "Social Stratification in France and in the United States," American Journal of Sociology, January, 1953.
284. Rose, Arnold M., "Anti-Americanism in France," Antioch Review Winter, 1952-1953.
285. Schonemann, Friedrich, "Deutschland in der offentlichen Meinung Amerikas," Zeitschrift für Neusprachlichen Unterricht, XXXVI (1937), 193-214.
286. Siegfried, André, "La Psychologie des Latins," Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, May, 1946, 13-22.
287. __________, "La Psychologie des Relations Anglo-Allemandes," Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, 1952.
288. "Socialist Parties and European Unity: A British Labor Party View," World Today, October, 1950.
289. Sorokin, Pitrim, "War and Postwar Changes in the Social Stratification of the Euro-American Population," American Sociological Review, X, 294-303.
290. Sturmthal, Adolf, "Democratic Socialism in Europe," World Politics, October, 1950.
291. ________, The Tragedy of European Labor (New York: Columbia University Press, 1943).
292. Svalastoga, Kaare, "Factors Associated with Belief in Permanent Peace," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Fall, 1951.
293. Tomasic, Dinko, Personality and Culture in Eastern European Politics (New York: George W. Stewart, 1948).
294. Vanderschmidt, Fred, What the English Think of Us (New York: R.M.McBride, 1948).
295. Viereck, Peter, "The Revolution in Values: Roots of the European Catastrophe, 1870-1952, "Political Science Quarterly, LXVII (1952), 338-356.
296. Visser t'Hooft, W.A., "Europe Looks at America," Student World, XXIV (1931), 74.
297. White, Elizabeth B., American Opinion of France from Lafayette to Poincaré (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1927).
298. White, L, and Leigh, R.D., Peoples Speaking to Peoples (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1946).
299. "World Opinion" (results of public opinion polls in many countries)," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1951-1952.
300. Wright, Quincy (ed.), The World Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).
301. Zinner, Paul E., "Marxism in Action: The Seizure of Power nin Czechoslovakia" Foreign Affairs, XXVIII (1950), 644-658.
302. Znaniecki, Florian, Modern Nationalities: A Sociological Study (Urbane: University of Illinois Press, 1952.).
303. Adamec, Cenek, and Viden, Ivan, "Polls come to Czechoslovakia," Public Opinion Quarterly, XI (1947), 548-552.
304. Allport, C.W., "Guide Lines for Research in International Cooperation," Journal of Social Issues, III, no.1 (1947), 21-37.
305. Angell, Robert, "UNESCO and Social Science Research," American Sociological Review, April, 1950.
306. Arndt, Hans-Joachim, "The Questionnaire and the Information program," Confluence, II, no.3 (1953), 82-94.
307. Aron, Raymond, "Social Structure and the Ruling Class," British Journal of Sociology, I (1950), 1-16, 126-143.
308. Axelrod, M., and Freedman, R., "Why Joins What in the Metropolis," Adult Leadership, I (1952).
309. Bateson, Gregory, "The Pattern of an Armaments Race" An Anthropological Approach - part I," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, II, nos. 5, 6 (1946), 10-11, 26-28.
310. Bauer, Raymond A, and Riecken, Henry, "Opinion in Relation to Personality and Social Organization," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1949-50.
311. Beloff, Max, "The Frontiers of Political Analysis," Cambridge Journal, February, 1951.
312. Bendix, Reinhard, "Social Stratification and Political Power," American Political Science Review, XLVI (1952), 357-375.
313. Berelson, Bernard, and Janowitz, Morris, Public Opinion and Communication (Glencoe, Ill,: Free Press, 1950).
314. Berrol, Edward, and Holmes, Olive, "Survey and Area Approaches to International Communications Research," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVL (1952), 567-578.
315. Bierstedt, Robert, "The Sociology of Majorities," American Sociological Review, XIII (1948), 700-710.
316. Blondel, Charles Aimé, Introduction à la Psychologie Collective )Paris: A. Colin, 1928).
317. Boschwitz, Kurt, Du und die Masse. Studien zu einer exakten Massenpsychologie (2nd completely rev. ed.; Leiden: Brill, 1951).
318. Bower, Robert, "Opinion Research and the Historical Interpretation of Elections," Public Opinion Quarterly, XII (1948), 455-469.
319. Brinkmann, Carl, Soziologische Theorie der Revolution (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht, 1948.
320. Centre d'études scientifiques de la politique intérieure, Colloque de sociologie électorale tenu sous la présidence de André Siegfried les 10 et 11 avril 1948 (Paris, 1948).
321. Cobliver, W. Godfrey, "On the Place of Projective Tests in Opinion and Attitude Surveys," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1951-1952.
322. Cohen, John, Human Nature, War and Society (London: Watts & Co., 1946).
323. Contemporary Political Science: A Survey of Methods, Research and Teaching (Paris: UNESCO, 1950).
324. Dalemius, Tore, Technik und Methoden der Stichprobenerhebungen, in the series Schriftenreihe des Fachausschusses fur Stichprobenerfahren der Deutschen Statistischen Gesellschaft, II (Munich: Bayrisches Statistisches Landesamt, 1950).
325. Debré, Michel, "Essai sur l'Evolution Moderne des Idées Politiques," Revue du Droit Public et de la Science Politique April-June, 1950.
326. De Coster, Sylvain, "L'Exercise de l'Autorité: Problème de Psychologie Sociale, "Revue de l'Institut de Sociologie, no.1 (1951).
327. De Jonge, Wim, "Polls and Economic forecasting in Holland," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVL, (1952), 71-76.
328. Deutsch, Karl W., Political Community at the International Level: Problems of Definition and Measurement (Princeton University: Organizational Behavior Section, Foreign Policy Analysis Series, no.2, September, 1953.
329. Dewey, John, The Public and Its Problems, (New York: Holt, 1927)
330. Dinerman, Helen, "1948 Votes in the making," Public Opinion Quarterly, XII (1948-1949).
331. Dollard, J., "Under What Conditions DO Opinions Predict Behavior?" Public Opinion Quarterly, Xll (1948-1949), 623-632.
332. Doublet, Jacques, "Politique Démographique en Autriche," Population, April-June, 1947.
333. Edwards, Allen, L., "Four Dimensions in Political Stereotypes" Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, XXXV (1940), 566-572.
334. Erwin, Susan, and Bower, Robert T., "Translation Problems in International Surveys," Public Opinion Qiarterly, XVl (1952). 595-604.
335. Espenck, H. J., "Primary Social Attitudes as Related to Social Class and Political party," British Journal of Sociology, September, 1951.
336. Ferraby, J.G., "The validity of Public Opinion Survey Results," American Sociological Review, XXXVl (1944), 43.
337. Gallup, George, A Guide to Public Opinion Polls (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1948).
338. _______, "Reporting Public Opinion in Five Nations," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vl (1942), 429-436.
339. Gilbert, G. M., The Psychology of Dictatorship (New York: Ronald, 1950).
340. Goguel, Francois, and Dupeux, Georges, Sociologie Electorale: Esquisse d'un Bilan: Guide des Recherches (Paris: Librarie Armand Colin, 1951).
341. Goldhamen, Herbert, "Public Opinion and Personality," American Journal of Sociology, LV (1950), 346-354.
342. Gosnell, H. F., Getting out the Vote: An Experiment in the Stimulation of voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1927).
343. Halbwachs, M., Les Classes Sociales (Paris: Alcan, 1937).
344. Hawks, L.M., jr., "Social Behavior in Political Decision," Journal of Social Issues, III, no. 4 (1947).
345. Heberle, Rudolf, Social Movements : An Introduction to Political Sociology (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts).
346. Hofstaetter, Peter R., "Importance and Actuality," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Spring, 1951.
347. ________, Die Psychologie der offentlich Meinung (Vienna: Braunmuller, 1949).
348. Holland, John B., "The Utility of Social Anthropology as an Adjunct of a Social Survey," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1951-1952.
349. Hollerder, A. N.J., den, "'As Others See Us': A Preliminary Inquiry into "Group Images', "Synthise, Vl (1948), 214-237.
350. Horkheimer, Max (ed.), Autoritatund Familie (Research Reports of the International Institute of Social Research; Paris: Alcan, 1936.
351. Hunter, Floyd, Community Power Structure (University of North Carolina Press, 1953).
352. Hyman, Herbert, "Problems in the Collection of Opinion Research Data," American Journal of Sociology, LV (1950), 362-370.
353. Institut fur Demoskopie, Ein Bericht uber Umfragen in Deutschland 1948-1951 (Allensbach am Bodensee, 1952).
354. Katz, Daniel, "Do Interviewers Bias Polls," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vl (1943), 248-268.
355. __________, Kaufmann, Helen J., "Implications of domestic Research for International Communications Research," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVl (1952), 552-560.
357. Kellerer, Hans, "Opinion and Attitude Research in Western Germany and West Berlin (research organizations and their activities in the postwar period)," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Winter, 1951-19523
358. Kerr, Madeline, "An Experimental Investigation of National Stereotypes," Sociological Review, XXXV (1943), 37-43.
359. Key, V.O., Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups (3rd ed: New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1953).
360. Klein, Viola, The Feminine Character: The History of an Ideology (London, 1946).
361. Klineberg, Otto, "L'Etude Scientifique des Stereotypes Nationaux," Bulletin International des Sciences Sociales, Autumn, 1951.
362. _______, Race and Psychology (Paris: UNESCO, 1951).
363. ________, "Tensions Affecting International Understanding," Social Science Research Council Bulletin 62 (New York: 1950).
364. _________, The UNESCO Project on International Tensions: A Challenge to the Sciences of man," International Social Science Bulletin, I, nos. 1-2 (1949), 11-21.
365. König, René (ed.), in cooperation with Wilhelm Brefohl, Max Ralis, and Karl G. Specht, Praktische Sozialforschung, Das Interview: Formen-Technik-Auswertung (Dortmund: Ardey, 1952.).
366. La Rochette, Joe, "La Psychologie des Peuples et l'Etude du Langage," Revue de Psychologie des Peuples, no.2 (1952).
367. Lasswell, Harold D., "Democratic Character," in Political Writings (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1951).
368. ________, "The World Attention Survey," Public Opinion Quarterly, V (1941), 455-462.
369. ________, The World Revolution of Our Time (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1951).
370. Lasswell, Harold D., and Goldsen J.M., "Public Attention, Opinion and Action," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, I (1947), 3-11.
371. Lasswell, Harold D.; Lerner, Daniel; and Pool, Ithiel de Sola, The comparative Study of Symbols (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952).
372. Lasswell, Harold D.; Lerner, Daniel; and Rothwell, C.E., The Comparative Study of Elites (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952).
373. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., "The Controversy over Detailed Interviews - an Offer for Negotiation," Public Opinion Quarterly, Viii (1944), 38-60.
374. _______, Radio and the Printed page: An Introduction to the Study of Radio and Its Role in the Communication of Ideas (New York: Duell, Sloane and Pearce, 1940).
375. Lazarsfeld, Paul F.; Berelson, Bernard; and Gandet, The People's Choice (New York: Duell, Sloane and Pearce, 1944).
376. Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Knupfer, Genevieve, "Communications Research and International Communication," in Linton, Ralph (ed.), The Science of Man in the World Crisis (New York: Columbia University Press, 1940).
377. Leites, Nathan, "Psycho-Cultural Hypotheses about Political Acts," World Politics, I, no.1 (1948), 102-119.
378. Lerner, Daniel, "International Coalitions and Communications Content. The Case of Neutralism," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVl (1952) 681-688.
379. _______, (ed.) Propaganda in War and Crisis (New York: George W. Stewart, 1951).
380. Library of Congress, European Affairs Division, Freedom of Information (Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1949).
381. Liebert, Herman, "International Communications," Public Opinion Quarterly, V (1941), 295-298.
382. Lindeman, Edward C., "Notes on Psychological Aspects of Regionalism," Social Forces, March, 1941.
383. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Agrarian Socialism: The Cooperative Commonwealth Federation in Saskatchewan. A Study in Political Sociology (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1950).
384. ________, "Democracy in Private Government," British Journal of Sociology, March, 1952.
385. Macridis, Roy; and Cox, Richard (eds.), "Research in Comparative Politics. Report of the Inter-University Summer Seminar on Comparative Politics, Social Science Research Council. Comments on the Seminar Report," American Political Science Review, XLVII (1953).
386. Mandelbaum, David G., "On the Study of national Character," American Anthropologist, April-June, 1953.
387. Marcel, Gabriel, "The Concept of Spiritual Heritage, "Confluence II, no.3 (1953), 3-15.
388. Marchal, André, "L'Empiricisme Statistique. Ses Insuffisances et ses Dangers, "Revue de 'l'Institut de Sociologie, 1951.
389. Marshall. T.H. (ed.), Class Conflict and Social Stratification) London: Le Play House Press, 1939).
390. Mayer, J.P., "The new Middle Classes," Dublin Review, CCVIII (1941), 58-67.
391. Mayo, Elton, Human Problems of an Industrial Civilization (Boston: Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, Harvard University, 1946).
392. Mead, Margaret, "The Application of Anthropological Techniques to Cross-National Communication," Transaction of the New York Academy of Sciences, IX (1947), 133-152.
393. ________, "Public Opinion Mechanisms among Primitive Peoples," Public Opinion Quarterly, I, no.3 (July, 1937), 5-16.
394. Michels, Robert, Political Parties (Trans. by Eden and Cedar, Paul; Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1949.
395. _________, "Psychologie der antikapitalistischen Massenbewegungen," Grundriss der Sozialökonomik, Tubinger, 1926.
396. Miller, Delbert Charles, "The Measurement of National Morale," American Sociological Review, Vl (1941), 487-498.
397. Mises, Ludwig von, Socialism (trans. by J. Kahane; new ed., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1951).
398. Moraze, Charles, Quelques Questions de Méthode, "Etudes de sociologie électorale, Cahiers de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques, no.1.
399. Mosca, Gaetano, The Ruling Class (trans, of Elementi di scienza politica by H.D. Kahn; New York: McGraw-Hill, 1939).
400. Mussen, paul H., and Wyszynski, Anne B., "Personality and Political Participation," Human Relations, I (1952).
401. National Opinion Research Center, Interviewing for the NORC (Denver, 1945).
402. Nilsson, Sten S., Histoire et Sciences Politiques: Essai sur la Méthode Quantitative (Bergen: Chr. Michelsens Institutt, A.S. Grieg, 1950).
403. _________, "Le Problems des Electeurs Indecis, "Revue Francaise de Science Politique, January-March, 1952.
404. Palmer, P.M., "The Concept of Public Opinion in political Theory," in Berelson, Bernard, and Janowitz, Morris, Public Opinion and Communications (Glencoe, Ill: Free Press, 1950).
405. Pear, T.H., Psychological Factors of Peace and War (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950).
406. Perusse, Roland, Bibliography on International Propaganda (Washington, D.C., 1951).
407. Pfister, Karl, Das Ungelöste Wahlproblem (Munich: R. Pflaum 1949).
408. Pool, Ithiel de Sola, The "Prestige Papers": A Survey of their Editorials (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1952).
409. ________, "Who Gets Power and Why," World Politics, II (1949).
410. "Proceedings of the World Association for Public Opinion Research at the International Conference on Public Opinion Research, Paris, France, September 7-9, 1949," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Summer, 1950.
411. Przylaski, J., "Morale et Participation," Revue Philosophique, July-August, 1940.
412. Psychological Warfare in Support of Military Operations. A Bibliography of Selected Material with Annotations. Department of State: Division of Library and Reference Services, Washington, D.C., 25.
413. "Public Opinion Polls: Dr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde." Public Opinion Quarterly, VII (1943), 139-144.
414. Radvanyi, Laszlo, Public Opinion Measurement (Mexico, D.F. Instituto Cientifico de la Opinion Publica Mexicana, 1945).
415. Ranulf, Sven, Moral Indignation and Middle Class Psychology: A Sociological Study (Copenhagen: Levin and Munksgaard, 1938) .
416. Revue de Psychologie des Peuples (Le Havre, 1946---)
417. Robinson, Ray, "Progress in Mass Observation," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, II
418. Robinson, W.S., "The Motivational Structure of Political Participation,"American Sociological Review, April, 1952.
419. Ryan, Bryce, "Social and Ecological Patterns of the Farm Leadership of Four Iowa Townships," Agricultural Experiment Station Research Bulletin 306, Iowa State College, September, 1942, 148-149-166-180.
420. Sanford, Fillmore H., Authoritarianism and Leadership (Philadelphia: Stephenson-Brothers, 1950).
421. Sargant, Florence P., "Patterns in Recent Social Research," British Journal of Sociology, September,1950.
422. Sauvy, Alfred, Le Pouvoir et l'Opinion (Paris: Payot, 1949).
423. Seligman, Lester G., "The Study of Political Leadership," American Political Science Review, XLIV (1950), 904-915.
424. Sheatsley, Paul B., "An Analysis of Interviewer Characteristics and their Relationship to Performance, III,"International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research, Summer, 1951.
425. Sheldon, Richard C., and Dutkowski, John, "Are Soviet Satellite Refugee Interviews Projectable?" Public Opinion Quarterly, XV1 (1952), 579-594.
426. Sherif, Muzafer; and Cantril, Hadley, The Psychology of Ego-Involvement (New York: Wiley, 1947).
427. Silvey, Robert, "The Intelligibility of Broadcast Talks," Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (1951), 299-304.
428. Simpson, G., "Class Analysis: What Class is Not," American Sociological Review, IV (1939).
429. Smith, Bruce L., "Communications Research on Non-Industrial Countries," Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (1952), 527-538.
430. Smith, Bruce L; Lasswell, Harold D; and Casey, Ralph D., Propaganda, Communication, and Public Opinion. A Comprehensive Reference Guide (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949).
431. Smith, William C., "The Rural Mind: A Study in Occupational Attitude," American Journal of Sociology, XXXII (1927), 771.
432. Speier, Hans, "Historical Development of Public Opinion," American Journal of Sociology, LV (1950), 376-388.
433. _________, "International Political Communication: Elite vs. Mass,"World Politics, April, 1952.
434. Stammer, Otto, Herrschaftsordnung und Gesellschaftsstruktur, " in Schmollers Jahrbuch fur Gesetzgebung, Verwaltung und Volkswirtshaft, LXXI, no.3 (1951), 259-296.
435. Stewart, Frank A., "A Sociometric Study of Influence in Southtown," Sociometry, X (1947), 11-31.
436. Stoetzel, Jean, "Fonctions de la Presse: A Côté de l'Information, "Etudes de Presse, July, 1951.
437. _________, Théorie des Opinions (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1943).
438. Stycos, J. Mayone, "Interviewer Training in Another Culture," Public Opinion Quarterly, XVI (1952), 236-246.
439. Sweers, B., Vrije Meenigen in een Vrij Land (Amsterdam, 1946).
440. Tatsuki, Yasao, General Trend of Japanese Opinion following the End of the War, Based Especially on Public Opinion Surveys (Tokyo, 1948).
441. Thomas, Daniel H., "The Value of the Belgian Foreign Office Archives to Students of Public Opinion, "Public Opinion Quarterly, XV (1951), 140-142.
442. Tingsten, Herbert, Lars Gustaf, Political Behavior (London: P.S. King & Sone Ltd., 1937).
443. Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1951).
444. _________, Some Political Variables for Election Surveys," International Journal of Opinion and Attitude Research Summer, 1951.
445. Der Wahler die Hauptperson in der Demokratie (Heidelberg, 1947).
446. Wallas, Graham, The Great Society (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914).
447. Weavery Leon, "Polls of the Especially Competent: A Proposal," Social Forces, XXI (1942), 44-51.
448. Weil, Eric, "Propaganda, Truth, and the Mass Media," Confluence II, no.1 (1953), 69-79.
449. Whiting John W.M., "The Cross-Cultural Method," in Lindzey, G.E.(ed.), Handbook of Social Psychology (Forthcoming).
450. Wiese, Leopold von, Gesellschaftliche Stande und Klassen (Munich: Selmen, n.d., ca. 1950).
451. Williams, Robin, The Reduction of Intergroup Tensions: A Survey of Research on Problems on Ethnic, Racial and Religious Group Relations (Social Science Research Council Bulletin, 57, 1947).
452. Wilson, Elmo C., "Adapting Probability Sampling to Western Europe," Public Opinion Quarterly, XIV (1950), 215-223.
453. Wirth, Louis, "Consensus and Mass Communications," American Sociology Review, XIII (1948), 1-14.
454. __________, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology, XLIV (1938).
455. Wright, Quincy (ed.), Public Opinion and World Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1933).
456. GENERAL SOCIAL THEORY SUGGESTIVE OF FRUITFUL RESEARCH AREAS
457. Akerman, Johann, "Political Economic Cycles," Kyklos, I (1947), 107-117.
458. Arendt, Hannah, "Religion and Politics," Confluence, II no.3 (1953), 105-126.
459. Aron, Raymond, "The Diffusion of Ideologies, "Confluence II, no.1 (1953)m 3-12.
460. Bears, Charles A., The Economic Basis of Politics (3rd ed. rev.: New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1945).
461. Bell, D., "Selection of Leaders in a Democracy," Commentary, April, 1948.
462. Benda, Julian, The Great Betrayal (London: Routledge, 1928).
463. Benedict, Ruth, Patterns of Culture (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1934).
464. Beth, Marian W., "The Elite and the Elites," American Journal of Sociology, XLVII (1941-1942), 746-755.
465. Bourgeois, Leon, Solidarite (7th ed.; Paris: Librairie Armand Colin, 1912).
466. Briefs, Goetz Anthony, Le Proletariat Industriel (trans. by Yves Simon; preface by Jacques Maritain; paris: Desclee de Brouwer, 1936).
467. Burns, Delisle, Political Ideals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1915).
468. The Common Cause (Committee to Frame a World Constitution, Chicago: 1947-1950).
469. De Grazia, Sebastian, The Political Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).
470. De Jouvenel, Bertrand, "The Factors of Diffusion, "Confluence, II, no.3 (1953), 69-81.
471. Delaisi, Francis, Political Myths and Economic Realities (New York: The Viking Press, 1947).
472. De Man, Henri, Psychology of Socialism (London: Allen and Unwin, 1928).
473. Digest of "Whom We shall Welcome: The Report of the President's Commission on Immigration and naturalization, "printed by the League of Woman Voters of Milton, Mass.
474. Dubois, M., L'Aspiration Ouvrière vers la Culture et les Loisirs des Travailleurs (Paris, 1937).
475. Durkheim, Emile, Division of Labor in Society (trans. by G. Simpson; New York: The Macmillan Company, 1934).
476. "L'Etat et l'Opinion (a symposium with articles by P.H. Simon, P. Dhers, M.F. Guyard, R.Remond, J. Fontanet, J. Fauvet, J. L. Huillier. E. Borne), "Terre Humaine, July-August, 1952.
477. Friedrich, Karl, Constitutional Government and Democracy (Boston: Ginn, 1946).
478. Garosci, Aldo, "The Legacy of Totalitarianism," Confluence, I, no.4 (1952), 3-14.
479. Geiger, Theodor, Aufgaben und Stellung der Intelligenz in der Gesellschaft (Stuttgart: Enke, 1949).
480. ------, "Die Legende von der Massengesellschaft," Archiv für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie, XXXIX, no.3 (1950-1951), 305-323.
481. Golzio, Silvio; Lega, Carlo; Mira, Giuseppe; and Montanari, Fausto, "Le Professioni Oggi, "Studium, July-August, 1951.
482. Gurland, A.R.I., "Politische Wirklichkeit und politische Wissenschaft," in Gurland, A.R.I. (ed.), Faktoren der Machtbildung. Wissenschaftliche Studien zur Politik, (Berlin: Duncker and Humbolt, 1952).
483. Hagemann, Walter, Vom Mythos der Masse (Heidelberg, 1951).
484. Hopper, Eric, The True Believer (New York: Harper, 1951).
485. Lamberty, Max, Le Rôle Social des Idées (Brussels: Editions de la Cite chretienne, 1936).
486. Laski, Harold J.; Mosca Gaetano; et al., L'Evolution Actuelle du Régime Représentatif (Lausanne, 1928).
487. Lasswell, Harold D., and Kaplan, Abraham, Power and Society (Yale University Press, 1950).
488. Mannheim, Karl, man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1940).
489. McKeon, Richard, "Economic, Political, and Moral Communities in the World Society, "Ethics, January, 1947.
490. Merriam, Charles, E., The Making of Citizens (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1931).
491. Michels, Robert, First Lectures on Political Sociology (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1949).
492. Niebuhr, Reinhold, Moral Man and Immoral Society (New York: Schribners, 1933.
493. Oakeshott, Michael, The Social and Political Doctrines of Contemporary Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1939).
494. Opocher, Enrico, "Genesis of Totalitarianism in Democratic Societies," Confluence, I no.3 (1952), 47-53
495. Ortega Gasset, Jose, Idees et Croyances )Paris: Stock, 1945).
496. Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno 1931.
497. Silone, Ignazio, The School for Dictators (New York: Harper, 1938).
498. Sturzo, Juigi, "Authority and Democracy," Dublin Review, CCX, 151-163.
499. UNESCO. Democracy in a World of Tensions; a symposium (ed. by Richard Mckeon with assistance of Stein Rokkan. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951).
500. UNESCO (ed.), Human Right; a symposium, comments and interpretation (intro. by jacques Maritain; New York Columbia University Press, 1949).
501. Warnotte, D., "Les Vertus Bourgeoises, leurs Origines, leur Signification, "revue de l'Institut Sociologique, Brussels, 1939.
502. Weil, Eric, "Tradition and Traditionalism, "Confluence, II, no.4 (1953), 106-116.