Predictions from the determinist, compositional/systemic, and subcultural perspectives concerning effects on five “urbanism” variables—anonymity, tolerance, alienation, community social bonds, and deviant/unconventional behavior—are tested using individual level analog measures based on data from a three-state survey. Interpretation of the results in terms of the relative strength of the three perspectives depends upon how one conceptualizes their implications. This diversity of interpretational options underlines the imprecision of each of the three perspectives. Ambiguous elements are identified and it is argued that if the three perspectives were more fully specified and synthesized, it would move us toward a genuine and more adequate theory of urbanism.

Influences on Urbanism: A Test of Predictions from Three Perspectives

As a construct of psychological relevance, commitment has for some time been the focus of numerous programs of research, including explorations in decision making (Edwards, 1954; Festinger, 1957), deviation, and conformity in group settings (Kiesler & Corbin, 1965; Kiesler & Kiesler, 1969; Kiesler, Zanna, & De Salvo, 1966); the maintenance of costly courses of action (Staw, 1976, 1981; Staw & Fox, 1977); and job turnover (Aranya & Jacobson, 1975; Grusky, 1966; Porter, Crampon, & Smith, 1976). However, the examination of commitment specifically within the context of close relationships is a relatively recent development, with most theoretical treatments of the construct emerging after 1965 and most empirical studies being published after 1980. Given the relatively long history of research on interpersonal relationships, it is somewhat perplexing that the critical examination of commitment has been so late in coming to this area.

Interpersonal Commitment in Historical Perspective

Retrospective data were gathered from 1056 college students to test several of the propositions in Rodman 's theory that norms and resources operate in a cultural context in influencing the relative power of spouses. It was found that the normative dimension accounted for considerable variance in conjugal power and that relative resources accounted for very little. The data did not support Rodman's speculation that resources are more strongly related to power when norms about authority are more equalitarian than patriarchal. In fact, the trends were in the opposite direction. In addition, no support was found for the proposition that the range of tolerable behavior interacts with authority and resources in influencing relative power.

An Empirical Test of Rodman's Theory of Resources in Cultural Context.

In 1957, Hill, Katz, and Simpson published a prospectus for an inventory of marriage and family research from 1900 to 1956. A goal of this inventory was “the theoretical organization, where possible, of research findings into a set of interrelated hypotheses and propositions” (p. 89). This article also continued Hill’s earlier work (1951a,b, 1955) of organizing previous research projects by “major conceptual apparatus” (1957, p. 89). Two years later, William J. Goode (1959) published an article on family theory with the subtitle “Horizons in Family Theory.” The content and format of these two articles were dramatically predictive of what was to happen during the 1960s and 1970s in family theory.

The Rise of Family Theory

Wirth argued that community size increases social heterogeneity but offered no rationale for this association outside the occupational sphere. More recently, subcultural theory has argued that community size leads to heterogeneity in values and attitudes that compose the sets of cultural elements of a subculture. This study is among the first to test this hypothesis. An independent size-heterogeneity relationship is found for political and sexual attitudes, which are representative of the attitudinal elements of subcultures. However, no independent size-heterogeneity relationship is found for the attitude of satisfaction, which is unlikely to be included among the elements of subcultures. It is concluded that community size does increase social heterogeneity, but, consistent with subcultural theory, the relationship is restricted to subcultural elements.

Helen M. McLure

Papers

Social Systems and Family Patterns: A Propositional Inventory.