Suchergebnisse

Abstract The objective of this investigation is to elaborate and test the linear development and systemic models of community attachment. We focus on the interplay of community size, five social position variables, and three dimensions of community attachment, namely, involvement, amity, and sentiment. Data are obtained from a statewide migration telephone survey of 851 respondents aged 18 and over, conducted in Utah in October 1988. We focus on a weighted subsample of 415 nonmetropolitan respondents. Multiple Classification Analysis (MCA) techniques are employed. Contrary to the linear development model, community size did not have an independent inverse impact on community involvement, amity, and sentiment. Results do vary by social position and community attachment dimensions.

Survey data from the 1971 Commission on Population Growth and the American Future are utilized to investigate the relationships between community size, public attitudes, and population-policy preferences. Contrary to popular belief, the analysis indicates that there is no direct relationship between larger community size and concern over population matters or more activist governmental policies to control or influence population growth or distribution. The analysis also indicates that policy makers may not be as bound by public attitudes as they claim when dealing with population issues. The implications of these findings for subsequent policy making are then pursued.

Two theories of community conflict are examined in this paper with data from elections in 89 cities in the San Francisco Bay area. One theory is developed from the work on group conflict by Georg Simmel and Lewis Coser while the other is a rational choice theory based on assumptions about the costs and risks of conflict in different size cities. Both theories suggest that conflict, while more frequent in larger communities, is likely to become most severe in smaller communities. Both theories are confirmed by the pattern of findings in the analysis, but the rational choice theory proves to have the greater generality, i.e., that it can explain more of the findings in the paper.