MEASURING INDIVIDUAL MODERNITY: A NEAR MYTH.

A variety of scales of individual modernity have been developed to measure a universal set of attitudes and behaviors which presumably better fit men for life in modern society. The present study attempts to assess empirically the equivalence, reliability and validity of four such scales constructed by Smith and Inkeles, Kahl, Schnaiberg, and Armer. Data were collected from multiple-wave interviews of a sample of lower-to-middle class, ethnically heterogeneous, married males in the Uptown area of Chicago. The results indicate that the scales (a) are moderately equivalent (intercorrelations range from .40 to .64) despite differences in dimensions, items, and scale construction procedures, (b) have moderately high Internal consistency (r_alpha .56 to .76) and test-retest (r₁₁ = .66 to .81) reliabilities, and (c) have low discriminant validity with respect to anomia, alienation, and to a less extent, socioeconomic status. Low construct validity persists when corrections or tests are made for attenuation due to unreliability, acquiescent response, and other possible interpretations. In short, the modernity scales tend to predict scores on anomia, alienation, and socio- economic status about as well as they predict other measures of modernity. Conversely, measures of anomia and alienation appear to predict modernity scores almost as well as do the modernity scales. The findings call into serious question the meaningfulness of the construct and/or measurement of modernity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]