日本の文化型の量的研究

抄録

Problem
This paper aims to dimensionalize quantitatively the culture pattern of Japan. The piece of research presented here has been inspired by Cattell's example. He makes a factorial analysis of “group syntality” of family and nation and finds the major factors on those organizations.
According to Cattell's method, the authors attempted to explore the major reference of the culture pattern that forms the personality of the Japanese.
Procedure
The authors selected 42 variables which seemed to denote the degree of culture. These were population, farm households, death percentage, gas supply, electric power consumed, telephones, savings, retail price index, local labor-membership, taxes, students of colleges and universities and religious affiliations, etc. These variables were represented with T-scores, for each of the 46 prefectures. The Pearson correlation between these variables were calculated. As a result, the authors obtained 861 correlation coefficients. Using Thurstone's centroid method, the authors explored the major factors of this correlation table.
Result
The authors extracted three factors. The first factor had the psychological significance, but the interpretation of the other factors was difficult. The variables positively loaded with the first factor were households, service establishments, telephones, savings. The ones negatively loaded, were death percentage, baby death percentage, farm households. Therefore, the authors called the basic first factor “Urban affluence Result. Rural poverty”. These results show, fundamentally, that the basic framework of the culture pattern of Japan consists of such basic actors. It seems that the basic framework influences the personality of the Japanese.
These two factors were plotted in a diagramatic form. The authors found interesting facts in these figures. For example, one was that voting percentage and votes polled for Conservative Party were plotted in the Rural poverty factor, the other was that votes polled for Social Party were separated from local labor-membership.
Then, the authors calculated the profile-values of the first factor in 46 prefectures. These results suggest that “Urbanity” and “Rurality” can be quantitatively measured.