Public Attitudes Toward UFO Phenomena

Méthode

Tableau 4 - Sample Characteristics, February 1968, ORC Caravan Surveys: Adult Sample

The data in the table below compare the characteristics of the weighted¹ Caravan sample with those of the total population, 18 years of age or over. The table shows that the distribution of the total sample parallels very closely that of the population under study.

¹Weights were introduced into the tabulations to compensate for differences in size of household and variations in completion rates between rural and urban areas.

²Source: Latest data from U. S. Bureau of the Census, regular and interim reports.

Tableau 5 - Sample Characteristics, February 1968, ORC Caravan Surveys: Teen Sample

The data in the table below compare the characteristics of the Caravan sample households with those of all households in the United States.

¹Source: Latest data from U. S. Bureau of the Census, regular and interim reports.

The names drawn came from four major sources: case reports from Blue Book, case reports from NICAP, personal reports (i.e., cases from individuals who directly contacted the project), and reports from the file of all cases which have been investigated or extensively reviewed by the project staff.

An attempt to obtain approximately 50 completed questionnaires each from the Blue Book, NICAP, and "Personal" files was undertaken by a systematic sampling procedure. In the case of the Colorado investigation file, the names and addresses of sighters were taken from all files extant at the time the sample was drawn. When more than one sighter per report was listed, the case was reviewed to determine who was the principal sighter, and only that person's name was drawn.

A large number of cases did not include satisfactory mailing addresses for sighters. Consequently, it was necessary to select the next occurring file that did include a complete address in either the United States or Canada. Following this procedure, a total of 139 cases were drawn from the Blue Book file to obtain 106 names and addresses, 140 cases from the NICAP file to obtain 95 names and addresses, and 55 cases from the Personal file to obtain 54 names and addresses.

In the spring of en 1968, each person whose name was thus drawn was sent a letter explaining the purpose of the intended opinion survey and requesting his participation. Anonymity of the individual was assured. Enclosed with the letter was a reply postcard on which the sighter could indicate whether or not he would be able to participate. Some letters were returned by the post office for insufficient address; no reply was received to some letters. Of those from whom we received affirmative replies (and therefore to whom we sent questionnaires), most participated in the survey. A comparison of the percents participating, not participating, failing to reply to the request letter, and failing to receive the letter, for lack of sufficient address, for the four file sources appear in Table 6.

As would be expected, the rate of response is best for the "Personal" file. Most individuals represented in this file are those who volunteered information. In addition, a larger proportion of these cases occurred since the beginning of the project. Among the four files, the greatest proportion of letters returned for insufficient address were sent to sighters whose names were drawn from the Blue Book file. The proportion of "no reply" persons is difficult to interpret, because it is impossible to know how many letters were never received and how many were received but went unanswered. Both Blue Book and NICAP files have the greatest proportion of older sightings, which in part accounts for their relatively poorer rate of return. The final sighter sample, on which the analyses are based, consists of 21 sighters form the Blue Book file, 28 from the NICAP file, 31 from the Personal file, and 14 from the Colorado investigations file.

D. College survey

College survey data were obtained between le 4 Thursday and le Monday, May 13, 1968 from 12 college samples, representing 10 colleges and universities. The total number of students participating in the survey is 719. The names of the institutions participating and those individuals who assisted us in obtaining subjects appear in Appendix M. All but three sources of respondents were courses in the behavioral sciences; one participating class was in a physical science department and two were special courses in flying saucers, one offered at the University of California at Davis and the other at Wesleyan University. A description of the samples appears in Table 7. In this table, sample numbers correspond to the order in which completed questionnaires were received; however, the order of schools in Appendix M , referred to above, is alphabetical. Most questionnaires were filled out during a class period by students present on the day the questionnaire was administered. In a few cases, volunteers, rather than every student present, provided the data. In most instances students were not aware, until after they had completed filling out the questionnaire, that the research was being sponsored by the Colorado project.

Although group, rather than individual responses were of interest, students were asked to place their names on the questionnaires, in order to discourage careless or irresponsible answers. (A few students chose not to provide their names; one class was required by its instructor to fill in the questionnaires anonymously). The results of Scott's study (1968) indicate that responses regarding UFO material under public conditions may be more cautious than under private conditions. Consequently, it was felt that if there were any sample bias in assessing students' views on UFOs and related topics, it would be in the direction of obtaining cautious answers. Moreover, national opinion survey respondents were assessed by personal interview (though anonymity was assured), and the participants of the sighter survey were aware that their names were known to the investigator (though, again, anonymity was assured). Requesting names from students, then, also make the conditions under which this information was obtained more comparable to the other surveys.

Because the results of the national survey of adults serve to reflect the opinions and attitudes of the American adult public, they are given the greatest emphasis in the following analyses. Because of time limitations, only a portion of the data collected on each of the four groups could be analysed.

Tableau 8 - Item Composition of Attitude Scales

Tableau 8a -Reliability of Opinon Scales (based on adult sample)

Tableau 9 - Intercorrelation of Opinion Scales - (based on adult sample)

B. Teen sample, national opinion survey

1. UFO Opinion Questionnaire.
2. Teen Background Questionnaire -- comprised of background questions appropriate for teen-agers.

C. Sighter survey

1. UFO Opinion Questionnaire.
2. Sighter Background Questionnaire -- includes demographic measures, questions regarding the reporting of UFOs, and question about information sources.

D. College survey

1. College information sheet.
2. UFO Opinion Questionnaire.
3. A-B Scale.
4. Current Events Questionnaire. (Neither the A-B Scale nor the Current Events Questionnaire is included in the present analyses. Their descriptions appear in Appendix P).
5. College Background Questionnaire -- comprised of background questions appropriate for college students.

Résultats et discussion

The analyses of the data which are to be reported are of three kinds. The first section concerns the proportion of the population who identify themselves as sighters and the demographic characteristics of sighters and nonsighters, In the second section, the reporting of UFOs and attitudes toward reporting are examined. In the final section attitudes toward UFOs and related topics are discussed; data from each of the four groups surveyed are presented.

Observateurs et non-observateurs

All adults in the national survey were asked the question, "Have you, yourself, ever seen a UFO?" Three percent of the sample indicated that they had. In order to provide an analysis parallel 10 our analysis of the Gallup study's question, "Have you ever seen anything you thought was a 'flying saucer'?" the replies to the above question were examined with respect to four demographic variables: region, sex, age, and education. It was found that the proportion of sighters in the various regions of the country, East, Midwest, South, and West, are similar. Equal percentages of men and women say that they have seen an UFO. There are also no differences among age or educational levels. Differences with respect to these demographic variables, except for region of the country, were also absent in the project's analysis of the 1966 Gallup data.

A point at which the results of the above analyses do not agree with those of the Gallup survey concerns the proportion of the public who say that they have seen an UFO. Three percent of our sample said they had seen an UFO while 5% of those polled in the Gallup survey indicated that they had seen as the question was worded, a "flying saucer." The difference between the results of the two surveys approaches statistical significance. The apparent discrepancy between the findings of the Gallup and the Colorado project surveys may be due to one or more variables, such as the difference in the wording of the two questions, or difference in sampling techniques.

The findings of the study undertaken by the Colorado project suggest that the actual number of sighters in the United States is approximately 3.75 million. This estimate is based on the continental U. S. civilian population, 18 years of age and over Current Population Reports, 14 February 1968), the parameters of which were used in determining the survey sample characteristics.

The actual number of sighters may, however range from as few as 1,000,000 to as many as 5,000,000. (A range, as compared with a specific number, takes into account possible sampling variation).

VIEWS ON REPORTING

Attitudes toward the reporting of UFOs were covered in one of the Colorado project questionnaires by nine questions, five addressed to sighters and four to nonsighters. The previously conducted opinion surveys, by Gallup (1947,19S0, 1966) attempted to estimate the percentage of The American population who had heard of flying saucers and, in the 1966 survey, the number of sighters in the American population. However, the Gallup organization did not attempt to determine what proportion of these self-designated sighters actually reported their sightings.

A study which provides a basis for comparison is one concerned with the reporting of crimes. It was made for the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration by the National Opinion Research Center under the direction of Philip Ennis s7(1967a, 1967b). Cette étude révéla que 51 % des personnes interrogées qui avaient été victimes de crimes ne les avaient pas signalés à la police s8(1967b). Après avoir examiné les raisons que les gens donnèrent pour n'avoir pas prévenu la police, Ennis fit les observations suivantes s9(Ennis, 1967b):

D'abord il y a une forte résistance à invoquer les processus de maintien de l'ordre même sur des sujets qui sont clairement criminels. Ensuite, il y a un scepticisme considérable quant à l'efficacité d'une action de la police.

Attendu que les gens montrent une réticence à signaler des crimes, il ne devrait pas être surprenant que quelque chose considéré être un ovni ne soit souvent pas signalé par l'observateur. En fait, on dit courramment que les observateurs sont réticents à signaler ces événements à cause du ridicule (il y a, en fait, des cas où la publicité et le ridicule semblent avoir incité l'observateur à changer de travail ou à déménager dans une autre ville).

Les questions imaginées pour évaluer le processus de signalement dans l'étude présente ont été posées aux observateurs afin de savoir s'ils avaient ou non signalé leurs observateurs et les raisons de leurs décisions, et aux non-observateurs, en se plaçant dans l'hypothèse où ils auraient vu un object inhabituel suspecté d'être un ovni, pour déterminer s'ils pensaient qu'ils auraient signalé un observation et quelles auraient été les raisons de leur décision. De plus, on demanda aux observateurs qui avaient signalé leurs observations d'exprimer un degré de satisfaction quant à la manière dont le signalement avait été pris en charge.

La 1ʳᵉ des questions concerne l'agence à laquelle les observateurs avaient signalé un ovni ; la 2nde, l'agence à laquelle les non-observateurs signaleraient un ovni. Les réponses of national survey nonsighters appear in Table 10. Data for sighters identified in the national survey are not presented in the table because they are based on so few individuals that the results have no statistical validity. Data for sighters drawn from project case files are also not presented, because the percentages obtained primarily reflect the sources from which the sighters' names were drawn.

Tableau 10 - Preference of Nonsighters for Agency to Which to Report a UFO

The primary finding from the sighters' question is that 87% of sighters indicated that they reported the sighting to no one other than family or friends. It would seem, then, that most sighting have little chance of coming to the attention of an agency, whether official, semi-official, or private. The failure to report UFO sightings appears to be more prevalent, 87%, than the failure to report crime, 51%, as indicated in the Ennis reports (l967a, 1967b).

By contrast, only 16% of the nonsighters indicated that they would notify no one save family or friends. In addition, over half of the nonsighters, 56%, indicated they would notify the police. There is clearly, a considerable discrepancy between results for sighters and for nonsighters.

At least two possible explanations may account for the discrepancy between what people say they would do (responses of nonsighters) and what they in fact do, (responses of sighters) given the actual circumstance of a sighting:

1. The number of sighters in the study is small and thus may not accurately reflect the action of all sighters;
2. Entertaining the hypothetical situation of having seen something suspected to be an UFO and actually being confronted with the decision precipitated by a sighting are quite different events.

Although both sighters and nonsighters were asked for their reasons for reporting, responses from sighters identified in the national survey were not statistically meaningful because the answers are from so few respondents. Reasons given by nonsighters, which represent a response to a hypothetical situation, are interesting primarily in that they may be regarded as reflecting the views of most of the American public. As can be seen in Table 11, the dominant reason of nonsighters is "I would want to know what it was." The other alternative frequently endorsed is "because strange objects should be reported.

Tableau 11 - Major Reason for Reporting Given by Nonsighters
Who Indicated They Would Report an UFO

Tableau 12 - Major Reason for Reporting Indicated by Sighters from Project Files

In the questionnaire for project sighters was an identica1 question. Project sighters' reasons appear in Table 12 These sighters, who filled in a questionnaire sent to them, tended to give more than one "major reason." The alternatives "because a strange object should be reported," "other" (reason supplied by the respondent), and "I wanted to know what it was" were most frequently indicated, in that order.

The sighters in the national survey who reported their sightings and the project sighters both were asked: "How satisfied were you with the way your report of the UFO was handled?" Those few sighters in the national survey who reported were about evenly divided between satisfaction and dissatisfaction; again problems of interpretation arise because the results are based on only seven sighters. The responses of project sighters are presented with qualifications. These individuals received their questionnaires directly from the project and the fact that they had been asked by us for further information may have altered their evaluations of the "handling of the report." More than two-thirds were satisfied. Not to be overlooked in the interpretation of these findings is the fact that their reports had survived the reporting process and had become case files.

On demanda aux autres personnes interrogées du sondage national, des observateurs qui n'avaient pas fait de signalement et des non-observateurs qui avaient dit qu'ils ne signaleraient pas un observation, d'indiquer quelles raisons avaient influencé leurs décisions. Ces personnes furent autorisées à indiquer autant de raisons qu'ils le voulaient qui influençèrent leur décision, et on leur demanda d'indiquer la raison qui était la plus importante. Une comparaison du tableau 13, une synthèse des réponses des observateurs, et du tableau 14, une synthèse des réponses des non-observateurs, montre que les groupes d'observateurs et de non-observateurs sont relativement semblables. La raison la plus importante des 2 pour ne pas signaler fut que l'événement était probablement quelque chose de normal qui doit avoir semblé drôle pour une raison ou une autre. La peur du ridicule était la 2ᵉ raison par ordre d'importance pour les observateurs comme les non-observateurs. Les réponses combinées aux alternatives 6 et 8 which are concerned with knowledge about whom to notify and how to notify is third in order of importance, and the combined replies to alternatives 4 and 5 which suggest ineffectiveness and indifference on the part of authorities rank only fourth.

* Percents do not total 100 because multiple reasons were permitted.

** Percents are based on the total number of non-reporters the question. Eight percent of the respondents are not represented because they indicated more than one reason.

Ces résultats contrastent fortement avec ceux de Ennis, qui travaient que plus de la moitié des victimes qui n'avaient pas signalé les crimes avaient une vision négative de l'efficacité de la police s10(1967a). Bien que l'étude présente ne soit pas concernée que par la police, mais aussi par d'autres agences auxquelles des phénomènes ovni pourraient être signalés, il apparaît que le traitement attendu d'une telle agence n'est pas le principal dissuasif au signalement. Si l'échec à signaler des ovnis possibles avait les mêmes origines que l'échec à signaler un crime, l'innefficacité et l'indifférence de la part des autorités auraient dû atteindre un niveau plus élevé parmi les alternatives.

La découverte que la plupart des observateurs ne signalent pas leurs observations, et de la nature des raisons pour lesquelles ils ne le signalent pas, donnée par les observateurs comme les non-observateurs, suggère 2 considérations concernant le processus de signalement. La 1ʳᵉ est liée au rapport entre le public et les responsables d'agences publiques. Supposant que l'événement est quelque chose de normal, l'observateur pense apparemment qu'il n'est pas approprié de le signaler. L'idée d'approprié pourrait être ici le concept-clé ; la question soulevée est : Quand est-il approprié de signaler quelque chose comme un "ovni possible" ?

La 2nde considération est l'accès. Ne sachant pas qui alerter et comment les signaler révèle que the appropriate avenue is not available or, at least, is not visible to the individual. Hence the concepts of appropriateness and access seem to be interdependent in considering the problem of reporting.

Further consideration of "appropriateness" is beyond the domain of this discussion, but various public agencies, although concerned with different problems, have attempted to solve the problem of access by making it clear to the public who is to be contacted. Examples of such efforts include the establishment of poison control centers and suicide prevention services, which -- like the police and fire departments -- may be reached by phone at any time of day.

If the public is uncertain as to what agency is to be notified about a possible UFO, its uncertainty may mirror uncertainty among a agencies themselves as to which of them should handle UFO reports. If such is the case (and our survey research has no information either to confirm or negate this possibility), it would account, in part, for both the uncertainty as to the correct procedure for reporting and the expectation that authorities may be either indifferent or ineffective. These findings clarify some of the factors which influence the reporting process, as seen by the respondents at the time of the survey.

Attitudes et opinions

The attitudes and opinion of the respondents in the four surveys will be discussed first in terms of responses to the single opinion statements and, second, in terms of scores on attitude scales measuring four general concepts.

Attitudes and opinions are very similar concepts. Hilgard (1962) provides these basic definitions:

Attitude. An orientation toward or away from some object, concept, or situation; a readiness to respond in a predetermined manner to the object, concept, or situation. Opinion. A judgment or belief involving an expectation or prediction about behavior or events.

The reponses of the persons surveyed will be considered both as opinions and as attitudes.

The 29 opinion items used in the surveys and the percentages of adults and the percentages of teen-agers responding "true" and "false" to each statement appear in Table 15. Interpretation of these findings, however, requires a word of caution. First, it must be noted that the proportion in agreement with one item is not necessarily the same as that for an item similar to it. It appears that a change in wording or a slight change in emphasis results in different responses. For example, it is possible that the use of the word "/science," instead of "scientists," or "government," instead of "government agency" or "Air Force," even in the same context will not render the sane kinds of responses. Moreover, the items were initially selected to represent various beliefs which are frequently voiced with respect to the UPO problem. Consequently, some of the statements are fairly complex, and, as a result, complexity is another factor contributing to me variability in response. Therefore, the results appearing in Table 15 should be regarded simply as one way of describing public opinion.

Tableau 15 - Responses of Adults and Teen-agers to UFO Opinion Items

Table 15 reveals some fairly consistent differences between the adult and teen samples. For example, a greater proportion of teen-agers tend to agree with statements which suggest evidence for the existence of UFOs. However, the use of attitude scales, rather than single items, provides a more reliable estimate of opinion and a better basis for making group comparisons regarding a general topic.

Four scales based on the UFO items (see Table 16 for scale composition) were employed to determine whether individuals felt that UFOs were from outer space, whether they felt there was evidence for the existence of UFOs, whether the government was seen as handling the problem adequately, and whether secrecy in this matter was attributable to the government. Any scale score larger than .50 is in the direction of acceptance of the scale concept, e.g., evidence exists, secrecy exists, etc., while any score smaller than .50 is in the direction of rejection of the scale concept. The farther the score from .50, the stronger the acceptance or rejection.

Analyses of the findings by scale may be found in Tables 16, 17, and 18. Table 16 presents scale information for the adult and teen samples of the national opinion survey. Table 17 provides information on the sighter and nonsighter groups in the adult sample and on the sighter sample drawn from project files. The project sighters are unique in that they are all reporting sighters as compared with the national sighters, of whom 87% are nonreporters and in their willingness to participate in an opinion survey conducted by mail. Because these respondents are essentially self-selected by their willingness to participate in the survey, they may not be assumed to be representative of all sighters whose reports are in the case files of the Colorado project. The kind of bias this self-selection might introduce in unknown. Table 18 presents the information collected by the project from the college samples. The data on college students in the first column exclude students enrolled in the UFO classes. These latter students are represented in the second column.

Responses of students in UFO classes are interesting because of their exposure to material concerning UFOs and because of their high interest in the topic. Rather than attribute differences between this group and any other group to exposure to an UFO course, one might assume that these students are essentially self-selected on the basis of their prior attitudes or interest.

On only two of the scales do the mean scale scores for any group represent views antithetical to those of another. Differences of mean opinion on the other two scales represent only differences in degree of acceptance or rejection.

On the outer space scale, adults tend to respond negatively to the hypothesis that UFOs are extraterrestrial in origin, while teen-agers and college students, on the average, are almost neutral, and the two groups of sighters tend to react with greater degrees of acceptance of the possibility.

On the adequacy scale, both adults and teens are inclined to view the government's efforts as adequate. The mean scale value for sighters, though of a middle position, leans toward a negative view of the government's adequacy in investigating the UFO problem. This finding cannot be explained solely in terms of sighters' first-hand experience with reporting, because most of the sighters in the national survey were non-reporters. The mean score of college students falls between those of teen-agers and sighters.

On the remaining two scales, differences of opinion are merely a matter of degree, with the mean scale scores for all groups in the same direction. It would appear that the majority of respondents in all groups feel that there is some evidence for the existence of UFOs, with the adults and teen-agers tending to be the most neutral. The adults tend to be the most cautious in their view, with a mean close to the midpoint of the scale. Teen-agers tend to give more support to the possibility that evidence for UFOs does exist, and both groups of sighters seem nearly certain that evidence does exist.

A similar pattern is evident for the responses regarding secrecy. All groups to a greater or lesser degree, tend to suspect government secrecy with regard to UFOs and UFO reports.

Differences between adult and teen scores on three of the four scales, the outer space, evidence, and adequacy scales, were found to be significant at the .01 level. A t test (McNemar, 1962), modified for the present data was used; the sampling error for comparison of survey variable values was estimated, on the basis of sampling tolerances provided by ORC, to be approximately 20% greater than under the assumption of simple random sampling, yielding a design factor (Kish, 1965) of 1.20, which was incorporated in the t test.

Because these findings are the result of opinion surveys, they do not imply that, for example, evidence or secrecy actually exists. The findings only reflect opinions held by the adult, teen, college, and project sighter samples in our surveys, and only the findings for the adult and teen samples may be considered indicative of the opinions of adults and teens in the general population.

CORRELATES OF ATTITUDES

Our analysis of the 1966 Gallup data suggests that age and education but particularly age, may be related to opinions regarding UFOs and related topics. In the analysis of the Gallup data, it appeared that the younger and the better educated persons are more likely to say that flying saucers are "real" and that there are "people somewhat like ourselves living on other planets in the universe." The differences between mean scores on four attitude scales for adults and teen-agers from the national opinion survey (Table 19) once again suggest that age may be a factor in determining attitude.

Two kinds of analyses of the adult survey sample were undertaken to examine the relationships between age and opinion and between education and opinion. In Table 19 are the scores for adults on the four scales by age. The younger the age group, the less the respondents tend to reject the extra-terrestrial hypothesis, the more inclined they are to believe that there is evidence for UFOs and government secrecy about them; younger respondents also tend to be slightly less satisfied with government handling of the "UFO problem.

Findings also related to age have been reported by David R. Deener (1967). In a survey of 1,200 persons conducted in New Orleans, La., he found that 61% of those polled under 25 years of age, 48% of those aged 25 to 29, and 34% of those aged 50 and over felt that flying saucers are real. When asked if they thought flying saucers come from outer space, 47% of those under 25, 27% of those aged 25 to 49, and 19% of those 50 and over answered yes (Times-Picayune, 5 November 1967). According to Strentz (1967), Eugene J. Webb obtained data in 1966 that indicated that as age increases, the proportion of respondents who think UFOs are from some other planet decreases. In that study, a greater proportion of younger that older respondents also felt that the government is concealing information about UFOs.

Patterns are less clear for the analyses by education, Table 20. It does appear, however, that education is related to attitudes regarding evidence and secrecy. Better educated individuals feel more strongly that both evidence and secrecy exist.

Because education and income are frequently examined together as determinants of socio-economic status, family income was chosen as an additional variable for the analysis of correlates. Instead of using mean scores for groups, a correlational approach was employed. Pearson Product Moment Correlation Coefficients (McNemar, 1962) were calculated. It was found that the correlation between age and education is -0.37, age and family income, -0.33, and education and family income, +0.45. The correlations of these three demographic variables with the four scales appears in Table 21. All correlations are significant at the .01 level, except for the correlation between family income and the adequacy scale, which is not statistically significant. Of the three demographic variables, age is the strongest single predictor of opinion.

The correlations of the scales with age seem strong enough to warrant some speculations regarding its role in the nature of opinion expressed. These findings reflect, perhaps, something interesting about either a) the change of beliefs and attitudes with age, or b) the changing nature of beliefs and attitudes. To test the former interpretation would necessitate a prospective study in which the same attitudes are assessed at five- or ten-year intervals, using the same respondents.

Tableau 21 - Correlation of Age, Education and Family Income with UFO Opinion Scales*

* Correlation coefficients are based on the adult sample.

In consideration of the marked changes that have taken place in culture and technology during the past 40 years (noting that the oldest respondents in the sample were young adults 40 years ago) and particularly during the past 20 years (during which time the youngest members of the sample were growing up and receiving most of their formal education), the second interpretation seems highly tenable. Because the younger people have been exposed exclusively or primarily to the "space age," an era of accelerated technological advance and an era in which educational objectives have moved from the acquisition of facts to an emphasis on inquiry and problem-solving, it may be that age differences for the outer space and the evidence scales may reflect a greater readiness on the part of younger people to accept as possible that which has not, at present, been demonstrated.

At one time flying to the moon was only fantasy; now the plans for the landing of the first manned spacecraft are being completed. In addition, not only the scientific community, but the general public are aware of special technical problems, such as those concerning "soft landings," and zero gravity conditions of space flight. At the same time, television, a major medium of entertainment and information, is able to give the appearance of reality to that which is technologically impossible -- at least at this time. As a result of these and other factors, the younger person may have a greater range of acceptance for "what might be" than the older generation.

Given the findings of the present study, one might suspect that reactions to various projected or hypothesized social, scientific, and technological changes would reveal similar kinds of age and, perhaps, education differences. Such changes might include chemical methods to increase the capacity for memory, human hibernation, permanently inhabited undersea colonies, or the major use of rockets for commercial transportation -- all of which have been included among projections for the future (Kahn and wiener, 1967). The major implication of this discussion is that the present findings relating age and education to attitudes regarding UFO phenomena may, in large measure, reflect the changing technology and culture.

Inherent in the above speculations are at least two research questions which may be posed. The first of these concerns formal training in the sciences, the second concerns exposure to information Sources.

The measure of education used in the present study simply represents years of schooling. If the above interpretations are correct in relating attitude to differential exposure to a changing technology and culture by way of age, it should prove interesting to examine further attitudes with respect to both the nature of the individual's education and to age. Attitudes of persons trained in the physical sciences might be compared with those of comparable levels of education in other fields; the views of older scientists within a discipline might be compared with those of the younger.

The second variable suggested by the present research is differential exposure to information sources. To what extent do age-related attitudes reflect differential exposure either to popular or to technical sources of scientific information? For example, do younger people have a greater knowledge of the sciences and in particular of recent scientific developments? Is interest in an exposure to science fiction predictive of attitudes about conditions not now technologically possible or culturally familiar? Such questions as these may clarify the apparent relationships which are suggested by the present findings regarding attitudes toward UFO phenomena.

Apart from these speculations, there are a number of procedures in the social psychology of UFO phenomena which merit consideration for further study, as William A. Scott has pointed out (1968), and which could not be studied by the Colorado Project.

Scott suggests that, for example, the cognitive correlates of UFO phenomena might be studied in terms of a) the subject's interest in and information about UFO phenomena; b) the degree and range of credibility that the subject attaches to reported sightings; c) the subject's knowledge of possibly confounding illusions and misinterpretations e.g., atmospheric and astronomical phenomena; d) attitudes related to the process of hypothesis testing, the process of considering and rejecting alternative explanations, the rapidity with which the subject reaches a conclusion, and the certainty that he attaches to his interpretation; e) the degree of cognitive elaboration evidenced when the subject is exposed to a mock-up or experimental UFO.

Another area which the limitations of time and funds made it impracticable to study is that concerned with communication processes. Among the possible foci of study are the ways in which consensus develops among observers and the effects of communication upon that consensus. Still another approach might be the comparison of independent interpretations of the same UFO phenomenon. A related area of research might include studies of the effect of publicity on the frequency and nature of reports, the effect of the interviewers' (e.g., journalists', researchers') attitudes on the respondents' reports, and the effect of communication between subjects on the convergence and clarity of their reports.

D'autres suggestions pour des études plus avancées des phénomènes ovnis, dans le domaine de la psychiatrie sociale, sont faites par (Section 6, Chapitre 3).

It is the writer's judgment that, in evaluating the feasibility and desirability of such further studies, their costs, material and non-material, need to be weighed against the potential usefulness of the resulting data. The ultimate value of further studies concerning the social psychological aspects of UFO phenomena may rest on the generality of the processes studied and the degree to which the research contributes to the advancement of the behavioral and social sciences.