Make your own free website on Tripod.com
**************************************************************************************

Economic Development and Cultural Change, 1980, 28, 509-521

MODERNIZATION AND DEVELOPMENT AMONG INDIAN FARMERS: A Modern Proof of Some Old Theories



Satvir Singh
Guru Nanak Dev University

J. J. Ray
University of New South Wales

Introduction

There are probably few problems on earth today more critical than the battle to see that all the earth's people can feed themselves. It is now almost universally realized that foreign aid in the form of food is at best a temporary palliative to the problems of undernourishment and starvation that beset most of what is euphemistically called the "developing" world. The only long-term solution is to teach the hungry to feed themselves.

This has proved no easy task. Modern agricultural techniques of Western origin offer vast prospects for the improvement of agricultural productivity, but that alone has seldom proved sufficient incentive for their adoption among traditional farmers in the Third World. "Resistance to change" is the summary term that technological evangelists use to describe the reception given to their exhortations. Nonetheless some progress has been made. Some farmers do innovate and do improve their productivity. The question asked in this paper is what sort of people these are. Who are the innovators? What is necessary for a Third World farmer to change? If we understand what underlies the success stories, we might have more prospect of extending that success to increasingly larger numbers of farmers.

The approach taken to the study of the question in this paper is, primarily, psychological. The communication techniques, the social setting, and a host of other relevant variables will not be considered. What will be focused on is what the psychological variables in the farmer himself are that make for success in modernization. This is a trait study that will, it is hoped, be complementary to other more dynamically oriented studies.

Since Weber [1], the importance of psychological factors in economic development has become more and more widely recognized. Among the more notable researchers is David C. McClelland. He summarizes an interlocking series of empirical studies suggesting that a particular human motive -- the need for achievement -- promotes entrepreneurship, which in turn is a key to economic growth. Achievement motivation (n-Ach) is an inner concern with achievement, a disposition to engage in activities in which doing well or competing with some standard of excellence is important. More recently McClelland has emphasized the point that n-Ach is a desire for excellence not so much for the sake of social recognition as to attain an inner feeling of personal accomplishment. Together with J. H. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. I. Lowell, McClelland has also developed a projective technique, based on Murray's Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), to measure n-Ach [2].

There is impressive evidence that n-Ach is associated with economic growth in countries such as Turkey, England, Spain and the United States [3]. Even among peasants in Colombia and India [4], the correlations were .32 and .18, respectively, indicating a relationship between n-Ach and excellence in farming.

A careful study reported by Levine illustrates, in still another context, the importance of motivational differences. He observed that the Ibo in eastern Nigeria are much more upwardly mobile and economically successful than the Hausa of northern Nigeria. He attributes the difference in n-Ach level in the two subcultures to differences in their traditional status mobility system rather than in their child-rearing practices or religious ideologies [5].

Wharton reported that subsistence farmers also respond as quickly to economic stimuli "as the most commercialized farmers in the modern world. " [6]. It is hard to accept this viewpoint. All the same, it is possible that some of the subsistence farmers respond quickly to economic stimuli while others do not. It has been reported by McClelland and Winter that among the subsistence farmers, those who are high on achievement motivation are responsive to economic stimuli and vice versa [7].

Apart from n-Ach, Kock found that need for power facilitates business expansion if the business is possessed by the owner alone. Conversely, his need for affiliation retards business expansion [8]. Kock's former inference was contradicted by McClelland, Schrage, Andrews, and Wainer and Rubin [9]. His later inference was supported by Wainer and Rubin.

Attempts have also been made to study the values of entrepreneurs. The study of Ayal is an excellent example of this new trend. He analyzes two countries which have obviously differed very markedly in their rates of economic development -- Japan and Thailand. He attributes the marked differences in their rates of economic growth to the difference in their value systems [10]. Economic, theoretical, and political values [11] as well as pragmatic, dynamic, and achievement oriented values [12] have also been found to be positively related to entrepreneurial behavior. Lessner and Knapp, working on entrepreneurial orientation among small business owners found that merchandising-oriented entrepreneurs scored significantly higher on the inner directness, spontaneity, self-regard, and self-acceptance scales of the personal Orientation Inventory than did craft-oriented entrepreneurs [13]. Copp found that the progressive farmers of Kansas tend to be flexible, tend to believe in hard work, tend to be ready to adopt innovations, and tend to exhibit a progressive mentality [14]. Wilkenning and Guerrero also found that successful Australian farmers were optimistic and tended to collect greater information about agricultural innovations [15]. Hornaday and Bunker have also listed the important characteristics of entrepreneurs in the following order: intelligence, creativity, need for achievement, self-reliance, risk taking, innovation, leadership, and accuracy in perceiving reality [16].

We will be asking then, What traits in the farmer himself best predict his likelihood of improving his agricultural productivity by the application of innovative techniques? The oldest, and without a doubt, the most obvious answers that Western psychology would suggest are, of course, intelligence and achievement motivation. The more able and the better motivated improve most.

Nonetheless, as may be seen above, Western psychologists have proposed many different traits in individuals that are said to affect their productive behavior. How important are these and could there be even further variables that affect ability to improve oneself? Several other possible variables are included in the present study. In particular, Cattell's 16 PF is included as perhaps the most widely accepted and most scientifically based attempt to present a complete picture of the personality cum attitude domain. Also included, because of its widespread familiarity, was the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey scale of values. These, plus several other individual tests, make up the battery.

In spite of the psychological focus of this study, several "sociological" variables were also included. In the light of findings by Sandhu and Allen, two of these that seemed of considerable potential importance were size of landholding and years of education [17]. In view of the trenchant methodological criticisms of the Sandhu and Allen study by Gartrell [l8], at least some re-checking of their results seems indicated. Since the state studied by Sandhu and Allen (Punjab) and the state studied in the present study (Haryana) are adjacent, and the populations in each case were composed of Jats, the comparability of results should be good.

Method

Research Area and Subjects

The subjects were farmers of Rohtak Block, Haryana state and were selected from an area where agricultural growth was, in fact, perceptible and where enough infrastructure existed for further growth. They were well acquainted with modern agricultural techniques through mass media communication provided by the State government. Haryana is the state that encompasses the national capital, Delhi. Land is generally very fertile and suitable for growing various types of crops. It is mostly owned and cultivated by Jats who are known to be a hardworking community. The entire block was covered by a governmental community development program. The farmers were very homogeneous in their language and cultural background. The facilities of roads, electricity, post-office, marketing, medical aid, and education were available to them. They could take governmental loans for developmental programs, particularly from the Land Mortgage Banks which have been set up exclusively for the farmers. Out of the 45 medium-sized villages in Rohtak Block, 16 were selected at random. In each village, the names of farmers with operational landholding of 20 acres and more were noted from the village record maintained by the "patwaris" (revenue clerk) concerned. Widows and other landowners who were not cultivating their lands were dropped from the list. The enlisted persons were then contacted personally by the senior investigator for an informal chat. The conversation was in the regional dialect and the main objective was to locate the persons who were most influential in making important farm decisions. Other members of the family were also contacted to ascertain the correctness of the identification of the key members. They were also asked if they had records of their sales for the last 5 years. Only those who had such records were included in the sample. Subjects were told that the information was being collected purely for research purposes and would be kept confidential and presented only in a form in which no person could be identified. Being a resident of the area, the investigator knew many subjects personally and even when this was not so, the local identity proved very helpful in contacting other subjects. In all, 300 subjects were sampled. Their age ranged between 25 and 60 years with a mean and standard deviation of 37.47 and 9.42 years, respectively. With few exceptions, almost all belonged to the middle strata of the current caste pyramid of Haryana. Most of the subjects had very little formal education (mean 6.26 years of formal schooling) but were quite conversant with one or the other regional languages.

Growth Rate

Growth rate was the key variable for which predictors were sought. The record for the quantity of farm products of the subjects from 1964 to 1968 was available. The price for total output of each farmer from 1964 to 1968 was then assessed at the 1964 market rates of each commodity. The total income of each farmer thus obtained was then divided by the number of acres he cultivated in the respective year. The obtained figures indicated the amount of money a farmer could earn from one acre of cultivated land in each year. These data were used to compute the "total increase" per acre in the farm output for each subject using the formula: total increase = ( Y2- Y1/ Y1) X 100. The designate Y1 and Y2 referred to average output in rupees per acre for years 1964-65 and 1967-68, respectively. Note also that agriculture is tax free in this state.

Tests

1. Adapted version of McClelland's TAT for measuring n-Ach [19]. This test consists of six pictures adapted from Atkinson's multipurpose set A [20]. Responses to the pictures can be scored so as to assess the subject's level of n-Ach, n-Power (n-Pow), and n-Affiliation (n-Aff). Earlier, the test was used by McClelland in his training program at Kakinada and Vellore. McClelland claims that the test is a reasonably valid and reliable instrument to measure n-Ach, n-Pow, and n-Aff of Indian adults [21].

2. Adapted Hindi version of Cattell's 16 PF Questionnaire Form A [22]. The test provides scores for 15 personality factors and a single measure of intelligence (verbal test). The test has been profitably used in India.

3. Adapted version of Allport-Vernon-Lindzey study of values. The test is designed to measure six dominant interests: theoretical, economic, aesthetic, social, political, and religious. Chowdhary reports that "the adaptation of the scale in Indian situations seems to be quite satisfactory" [23].

4. Socioeconomic Status Scale (SES) : Rural. The scale calls for information about a rural family on important aspects of socioeconomic status of a family, that is, the occupation, education, and social participation of the head of the family; the caste of the family; the land, house, farm power, material possessions, and the general nature of the family: In all, there are nine items, the first four concerned with the head of the family and the others related to the members of the family. The responses can be quantified objectively. Pareek and Trivedi claim that the scale is a reasonably reliable and valid measure of the socioeconomic status of the rural population in India [24].

5. Job-Satisfaction test (JS) [25]. The test consists of 18 multiple-choice type items dealing with a worker's feeling toward his job as a whole. Subject has to choose one of the five given responses. The range of the possible total score is 18 to 90 with a neutral point at 54. The low score represents the dissatisfied end of the scale. Mukherjee used this test on an Indian sample and found it useful [26].

6. A projective technique for measuring Level of Aspiration (LASP) [27]. The test was designed to measure the level of aspiration of farmers around Delhi. The technique essentially consists in providing a stimulus in the form of a story in Hindi which may help the respondent-farmer to project his own level of aspiration. The story presents a farmer and some detail about him. After listening to this description, the respondent is required to guess certain things about what will happen to this farmer in various significant areas 5 years hence. The areas in which aspirations seemed to lie were: (1) education of children, (2) landholding, (3) income, (4) housing, (5) agricultural production, (6) furniture, (7) livestock, and (8) material possessions. The responses can be quantified objectively. Norms are expressed in standard scores. The standard scores from each were then averaged to arrive at the ultimate level of aspiration score.

7. Adapted version of Sentence Completion Test (SCT) of achievement orientation. The test was originally designed by Rogers and Neill in 1966 for measuring achievement motivation of farmers [28]. The items included in the test elicit responses which are concerned with future achievement or aspirations of the subjects. For this reason, we prefer to call it a test of achievement orientation rather than a test of achievement motivation as proposed by Rogers and Neill. The original test consists of 14 incomplete sentences with farming as a key word. In the present study, two items had to be dropped since they did not conform to the culture.

8. Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM) [29]. This is a nonverbal analogy test of intelligence consisting of 60 problems, divided into five sets with 12 problems in each set. It has been widely used in India.

Administration of Tests

The tests were administered to each subject individually. Two to three subjects were tested each day. In all, it took 4 hours with each subject. Testing was done in two sessions on different days suiting the convenience of the subjects. In each session a few minutes rest was given before administering the next test. Standard instructions, as given in the respective manuals, were followed in administering the tests. In both sessions, when preferred by subjects, the responses were recorded at the appropriate places by the investigator.

Scoring the Tests

The tests were scored following the instructions given in the respective manuals. Before scoring the TAT protocols, the investigator (Satvir Singh) had reached a rank-order correlation with the practice material of .91, .91, and .89 for n-Ach, n-Pow, and n-Aff, respectively [30]. Following Rogers and Neil [31], the responses on the SCT were rated on the six-point scale ranging from 0 to 5, the higher score denoting greater achievement orientation.

Results

Reliability

The reliability coefficients for the measured variables are reported in Table 1. The adequacy of the TAT stories was checked by finding the percentage of responses for three imagery types (i.e., n-Ach, n-Pow, n-Aff) for each card. The results revealed that TAT pictures elicited n-Ach imagery responses ranging between 22% and 69%, n-Pow imagery responses between 10% and 70%, and n-Aff imagery responses between 17% and 60%. These figures compare reasonably well with their counterpart reported by Atkinson on American samples [32]. The fact suggests that each card, at least to some extent, can elicit n-Ach, n-Pow, and n-Aff imageries. The interjudge reliability coefficients for n-Ach, n-Pow, and n-Aff are also reported in Table 1.

The reliability of the TAT as a source of achievement motivation scores is, of course, a vexed issue in the West [33]. Atkinson, Bongort, and Price make a case that internal consistency methods cannot be used to assess reliability [34], and Winter and Stewart show that scores are only consistent across time if subjects are asked to emulate the mood they were in on the first occasion of administration [35]. In India, however, there do not seem to be such problems, and high test-retest reliabilities are routinely reported [36]. The partial replication required for a separate test-retest study was thus not thought necessary on the present occasion. Only the routine inter-rater study was carried out.

TABLE 1

RELIABILITY COEFFICIENTS OF THE TEST MEASURES (N = 200)

Tests..............................................................................rtt

Standard Progressive Matrices (Intelligence).................90
A-Reserved vs. outgoing ................................................82
B-Less intelligent vs. more intelligent..............................41
C-Affected by feeling vs. emotionally stable...................88
E-Humble vs. assertive ..................................................82
F-Sober vs. happy-go-lucky............................................71
G-Expedient vs. conscientious........................................88
H-Shy vs. venturesome...................................................85
I-Tough-minded vs. tender-minded..................................80
L-Trusting vs. suspicious ................................................90
M-Practical vs. imaginative .............................................81
N-Forthright vs. shrewd...................................................76
0-Self-assured vs. apprehensive.....................................54
Q1-Conservative vs. experimenting.................................88
Q2-Group-dependent vs. self-sufficient...........................82
Q3-Undisciplined self-conflict vs. controlled....................86
Q4-Relaxed vs. tense ....... . ............................................86
Achievement orientation (SCT).................... ...................83
n-Ach.......................................... .....................................91
n-Power............................................................................91
n-Affiliation........................................................................94
Theoretical interest...........................................................67
Economic interest ............................................................77
Aesthetic interest..............................................................75
Social interest...................................................................63
Political interest................................................................72
Religious interest................................ .............................90
Aspiration..........................................................................83
Job-satisfaction ................................................................81
Social status ....................................................................86

Because on some occasions the interviewer knew the subjects from whom the protocols emanated, the inter-rater reliability demonstration serves a double purpose: It shows not only that the coding system was consistently interpreted but also that knowing the subject did not affect the score he obtained. The coding did, in other words, live up to normal standards of objectivity.

The reliability coefficients (Table 1) of the 16 PF variables were computed by the Kuder-Richardson technique for the weighted items [37]. The reliabilities of the progressive matrices, LASP, and SES were assessed by the test-retest (N = 50) method. The reliabilities of the study of values, SCT, and JS were determined by the split-half method and corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula [38]. Judged by conventional standards, the reliability coefficients, except for the factor B of the 16 PF, seem to be satisfactory. No explanation is offered for the low reliability of factor B of Cattell's 16 PF.

Relationships

The basic summary of relationships observed was in the form of a zero order product-moment correlation matrix. The main vector of interest in this matrix was, of course, the vector of correlations with growth rate. This is reproduced in Table 2. The zero order matrix was further summarized in two ways: analysis of latent structure and a multiple-regression analysis.

The conventional analysis of latent structure at the moment seems to be a varimax rotation of principal components. For the reasons given both in Ray and in Rump [39], all such conventional "factor-analytic" methods were eschewed on this occasion and a form of cluster analysis was used [40]. The results of this analysis are reported in Table 2. The structure did not suggest any striking new hypotheses. One interesting result however was that the scales of the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey battery were all confined to two of the six clusters. As the correlations between ipsative scales such as these cannot in fact be interpreted in the usual way (such intercorrelations are artificially low), this does free the majority of the clusters for any possible substantive interpretation.

Another form of analysis, that would certainly be conventional in a study such as this, is some form of multiple regression prediction of the criterial growth-rate variable. Although it was believed that multiple regression does, in fact, not normally add much to an understanding of the interrelationships between psychological variables, it was seen as having at least the role of providing some summary of the influence of the rest of the correlation matrix on the vector of prime interest. Using the MULTR program from Cooley and Lohnes [41], the multiple R obtained was .66 and the beta weights were as given in Table 2. Further analysis of a stepwise sort was not seen as justifiable. Even the simple multiple-correlation analysis that was carried out must be treated as a summary only because of its inclusion of intercorrelations between ipsative variables. For all that, one "step" that was seen as worthwhile was the multiple prediction of growth rate by intelligence and achievement motivation alone. The multiple R so obtained was .60 -- little less than that obtained from all variables combined.

TABLE 2

SCALE STATISTICS OBTAINED IN PREDICTING GROWTH RATE

...................................................Mean.......SD......Correlation...Beta Wt...Cluster

Landholding...............................27.990.....8.280.......-.017........... .016........4
Progressive matrices................ 28.700.....8.516....... .402........... .198........2

Cattell 16 PF :
Reserve.......................................9.593.....2.415.......-.077...........-.048........4
Intelligence ...................,.............6.097.....1.718....... .199........... .090.........2
Emotion ....................................15.413.....3.236....... .088...........-.016.........5
Humility.....................................12.287.....3.042.......-.011........... .001..........6
Sobriety.....................................12.503.....2.611.......-.080...........-.044.........6
Expedience...............................14.987.....2.519....... .041........... .023....,.....5
Shyness ...................................16.683.....2.938.......-.032...........-.008.........2
Tough-mindedness.....................9.047.....2.679....... .076........... .038..........3
Trust..........................................14.563.....2.611....... .058........... .059.........3
Practicality ...............................15.883......3.185.......-.051........... .026.........2
Forthrightness ..........................13.080.....2.214.......-.033...........-.091.........2
Self-assurance............................9.997.....2.812.......-.058........... .048..........5
Conservatism ..............................8.827.....2.439....... .063........... .046.........1
Group dependence......................9.267.....2.907...... .171............ .036.........2
Discipline ..................................10.547......2.959...... .029........... -.050........5
Relaxation....................................8.977.....3.251......-.089............ .002.........5

Achievement orientation..............27.040.....5.926..... .364............ .158.........1
n-Ach..........................................14.360......7.623..... .558............ .428.........1
n-Power........................................5.150.....3.054..... .140.............-.019........1
n-Affiliation ..................................5.470......2.553......-.017............-.052........2

Allport-Vernon-Lindzey values:
Theoretical..................................44.867......6.135...... .028...........-.099........4
Economic ....................................32.983......5.752......-.005..........-.136........3
Aesthetic.....................................28.520......6.160...... .090...........-.110.........4
Social...........................................44.663......6.732..... .043...........-.048.........4
Political..................... ..................38.400......5.464.....-.039............-.061........3
Religious.... .................................40.743......7.638.....-.100............-.086........3

Level of aspiration........................51.507......8.278..... .122............ .038....... 2
Job satisfaction ...........................55.047....12.648..... .239............ .101....... 2
Socioeconomic status ..................30.743......6.630..... .003........... -.023.......2
Age...............................................37.470......9.421.....-.003............ .017........2
Education (years)...........................6.260......3.548..... .192........... -.001........1
Growth rate ..................................22.937.....19.447...1.000 ...

SOURCES -- Data from Haryana State.

NOTE: N = 300. Multiple R = .66. F-ratio for multiple R = 6.26 (dfs of 33 and 266)


Discussion

One thing that the present results do strongly suggest is that the usual Western formulation of the reason why most Third World farmers fail to modernize (resistance to change) is, at the very least, superficial [42]. In fact, in this study, resistance to change (Cattell's factor Q1) correlated only .063 with growth rate. Some farmers with negative attitudes to change did make progress and some with positive attitudes did not.

Can we conclude from this that intrapsychic variables are unimportant? Must we say that it is the social situation and the social situation alone which is critical in bringing about modernization? No indeed. The two intrapsychic variables which did provide prediction of growth (achievement motivation and intelligence) did so at levels which would often not be exceeded in studies deliberately designed as validation for the instruments concerned. At the very least the correlations observed (.402 and .558) are high in the context of what is usually observed in the social sciences.

The only remaining correlate of growth that was of any magnitude was much lower at .239. This however was a correlation between growth and job satisfaction and it would be tendentious indeed to assume that this was a prior cause of growth rate rather than one of its outcomes. Because the sample is large (N = 300), the level of the correlation coefficient required for "significance" in the sampling statistical sense is low. Correlations above .113 are significant at less than the .05 level (two-tailed). Group dependency, power need, level of aspiration, and level of education are therefore additional positive predictors of growth rate. The predictions they provide are, however, at such a low level as to have no practical significance.

Note also that in this study both intelligence and achievement motivation have two measures each. For intelligence there is both the Raven's Progressive Matrices and the Cattell Factor B. For achievement motivation there is both the TAT-based projective measure and a SCT due to Rogers and Neill. In each case it is the better known and more widely accepted test of the trait concerned which provides the better prediction. The Cattell test also was handicapped by a very poor reliability.

McClelland's theories were supported not only by the success of the n-Ach predictor but also by the lack of prediction provided by n-Aff and n-Pow. At least in the agricultural situation, neither of these are seen as important predictors of achievement. In this respect our present group of farmers are evidently different from the business owners studied by Kock [43]. In explaining the differing results of Kock and the present study it is probably important to note that although farmers are in a sense business owners, they are a relatively poor and isolated sort of business owner.

Another contrast between the results of the present study and findings drawn from Western society was the failure of the value survey to provide any predictors. This contrasts with both Guth and Taguiri and England and Lee [44]. As the Allport-Vernon-Lindzey schedule samples only a small range of values, however, it may be simply that other values not included are the relevant ones.

One revealing contrast in the present results was the considerable success of traditional psychological predictors versus the clear lack of success of the traditional sociological predictors. Under any sociological theory, age, education, socio-economic status, and size of landholding should all have considerable relevance as predictors of success in innovation [45]. In fact, of these, only education was even statistically significant. On these results, reservations held by many sociologists concerning the relevance of their discipline must be seen to be very well founded.

Another whole approach to prediction which seems called into question is the factor-analytic approach. Cattell's 16 PF gave no significant predictions. Given the considerable claims of the 16 PF to represent a complete factor analytic survey of personality structure, the failure here is a considerable one. It is particularly notable in view of findings by earlier authors that several traits apparently similar to some of those included by Cattell were, in fact, good predictors of achievement [46]. The present results will then give some comfort to recent authors such as Jackson, Gardner, and Lukesch and Kleiter who have begun to assert the superiority of a priori or theory-based scales over "empirically" derived scales [47].

Overall, then, the major conclusion to be drawn from the present study is that Indian farmers are very much like the businessmen of the West. The better motivated and the more intelligent make the most material progress. There appear to be some invariants in human nature after all that strongly underlie and, hence, strongly limit what we can do in bringing about a better world.

-----------------------------

Footnotes:

1. M. Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1958).
2. D. C. McClelland, The Achieving Society (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1961); D. C. McClelland, J. W. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. I. Lowell, The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953).
3. N. M. Bradburn, "The Managerial Role in Turkey: A Psychological Study," (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1960); N. M. Bradburn and D. E. Berlow, "Need for Achievement and English Industrial Growth," Economic Development and Cultural Change 10 (1961) : 8-20; J. B. Cortes, "The Achievement Motive in the Spanish Economy between the Thirteenth and Eighteenth Centuries," Economic Development and Cultural Change 9 (1961): 144-63; McClelland.
4. E. M. Rogers and R. E. Neill, Achievement Motivation among Colombian Peasants (East Lansing: Michigan State University Department of Communication, 1966).
5. R. Levine, Dreams and Deeds: Achievement Motivation in Nigeria (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1966).
6. C. J. Wharton, Jr., "Modernizing Subsistence Agriculture," Modernization: The Dynamics of Growth. ed. M. Weiner (New York: Basic Books, 1966), pp. 279-90.
7. D. C. McClelland and D. G. Winter, Motivating Economic Achievement (New York: Free Press, 1969).
8. S. W. Kock, "Management and Motivation" (summary of Ph.D. diss. presented at the Swedish School of Economics, Helsinki, 1965).
9. McClelland ; H. Schrage, "The R & D Entrepreneurs: Profiles of Success," Harvard Business Review 43 (1965): 56-69; J. D. W. Andrews, "The Achievement Motive in Two Types of Organizations," Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 6 (1967): 163-68; H. A. Wainer and I. M. Rubin, "Motivation of Research and Development Entrepreneurs: Determinants of Company Success," Journal of Applied Psychology 53 (1969): 178-84.
10. E. B. Ayal, "Value Systems and Economic Development in Japan and Thailand," Journal of Social Issues 19 (1963) : 35-51.
11. W. D. Guth and R. Taguiri, "Personal Values and Corporate Strategy," Harvard Business Review 43 (1965): 123-32.
12. G. W. England and R. Lee, "The Relationship between Managerial Values and Managerial Success in the United States, India and Australia," Journal of Applied Psychology 59 (1974) : 411-19.
13. M. Lessner and R. R. Knapp, "Self-actualization and Entrepreneurial Orientation among Small Business Owners: A Validation Study of the POI," Educational and Psychological Measurement 34 (1974) : 455-60.
14. J. H. Copp, Personal and Social Factors Associated with the Adoption of Recommended Farm Practices among Cattlemen, Kansas State College of Agriculture and Applied Science, Technical Bulletin (Manhattan, Kans., 1956).
15. E. A. Wilkenning and S. Guerrero, "Consensus in Aspiration for Farm Improvement and Adoption of Farm Practices," Rural Sociology 34 (1969) : 182-95.
16. J. A. Hornaday and C. S. Bunker, "The Nature of the Entrepreneur," Personnel Psychology 23 (1970) : 47-54.
17. H. S. Sandhu and D. E. Allen, "The Village Influence on Punjabi Farm Modernization," American Journal of Sociology 79 (1974): 967-80.
18. J. W. Gartrell, "Comment on `The Village Influence on Punjabi Farm Modernization,' " American Journal of Sociology 81 (1976): 1169-74.
19. SIET Institute, Adapted Version of McClelland's Thematic Apperception Test of Achievement Motivation (Hyderabad, 1964).
20. J. W. Atkinson, Motives in Fantasy, Action and Society (Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand, 1958).
21. McClelland and Winter (n. 7 above).
22. S. Jalota and S. D. Kapoor, Manual of the Hindi Version of Cattell's Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (Varanasi: Psycho Centre, 1964).
23. K. Ray Chowdhary, "The Allport-Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values: Modification in an Indian Situation," Indian Psychological Bulletin 3 (1952) : 52-57.
24. U. Pareek and G. Trivedi, Manual of the Socio-economic Status Scale (Rural) (Delhi: Manasayan, 1964).
25. A. H. Brayfield and H. F. Rothe, "An Index of Job Satisfaction," Journal of Applied Psychology 35 (1951): 307-13.
26. B. N. Mukherjee, "Interrelationship among Measures of Job Satisfaction and Job Involvement," Indian Journal of Psychology 46 (1969): 21-32.
27. U. Pareek and S. N. Chattopadhyan, "Measuring Level of Aspiration of Farmers through a Projective Technique," Indian Journal of Social Work 25 (1965) : 363-73.
28. Rogers and Neill (n. 4 above).
29. J. C. Raven, Guide to the Standard Progressive Matrices (Sets A to E) (London: H. K. Lewis & Co., 1960).
30. C. P. Smith and S. Field, "How to Learn the Method of Content Analysis for n-Achievement, n-Affiliation and n-Power," in Atkinson (n. 20 above).
31. See n. 2 above.
32. Atkinson.
33. D. R. Entwisle, "To Dispel Fantasies about Fantasy-based Measures of Achievement Motivation," Psychological Bulletin 77 (1972) : 377-91.
34. J. W. Atkinson, K. Bongort, and L. H. Price, "Explorations Using Computer Simulation to Comprehend Thematic Apperceptive Measurement of Motivation," Motivation and Emotion 1 (1977) : 1-27.
35. D. G. Winter and A. J. Stewart, "Power Motive Reliability as a Function of Retest Instructions," Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 45 (1977) : 436-40.
36.Ray, J.J. (1974) Projective tests can be made reliable: The measurement of achievement motivation. Journal of Personality Assessment 38, 303-307.
37. P. L. Dressel, "Some Remarks on the Kuder-Richardson Reliability Coefficient," Psychometrika 5 (1940) : 305-10.
38. J. P. Guilford, Fundamental Statistics in Psychology and Education (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965).
39. Ray, J.J. (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Sociology 9(3), 11-13.
40. L. C. McQuitty, "Elementary Factor Analysis," Psychological Reports 9 (1961) : 71-78.
41. W. W. Cooley and P. R. Lohnes, Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral
Sciences (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1962).
42. See also F. von Fleckenstein, "Are Innovativeness Scales Useful?" Rural Sociology 39 (1974): 257-60.
43. Kock (n. 8 above).
44. See Guth and Taguiri (n. 11 above) and England and Lee (n. 12 above).
45. See Sandhu and Allen (n. 17 above) and Gartrell (n. 18 above).
46. See Lessner and Knapp (n. 13 above), Copp (n. 14 above), and Hornaday and Bunker (n. 16 above).
47. D. N. Jackson, "The Relative Validity of Scales Prepared by Naive Item Writers and Those Based on Empirical Methods of Construction," Educational and Psychological Measurement 35 (1975): 361-70; P. L. Gardner, "Attitude Measurement: A Critique of Some Recent Research," Educational Research 17 (1975): 101-9; and H. Lukesch and G. D. Kleiter, "The Use of Factor Analysis: Description and Criticism of the Practice of a Method," Archiv fuer Psychologie 126 (1974): 265-307.




Go to Index page for this site

Go to John Ray's "Tongue Tied" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Dissecting Leftism" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Australian Politics" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Gun Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Education Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Socialized Medicine" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Political Correctness Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Greenie Watch" blog (Backup here or here)
Go to John Ray's "Food & Health Skeptic" blog (Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Leftists as Elitists" blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "Marx & Engels in their own words" blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's "A scripture blog" (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here)
Go to John Ray's recipe blog (Not now regularly updated -- Backup here or or here)

Go to John Ray's Main academic menu
Go to Menu of recent writings
Go to John Ray's basic home page
Go to John Ray's pictorial Home Page (Backup here)
Go to Selected pictures from John Ray's blogs (Backup here)
Go to Another picture page (Best with broadband)