1. UFO Opinion Questionnaire.

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

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.

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,

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 (1967a, 1967b). This study revealed that 51% of those interviewed who had been the victims of crimes did not report them to the police (1967b). After reviewing the reasons people gave for not notifying the police, Ennis made the following observations (Ennis, 1967b):

First there is strong resistance to invoking the law enforcement process even in matters that are clearly criminal. Second, there is considerable skepticism as to the effectiveness of police action.

Inasmuch as people show reluctance to report crimes, it should not be surprising to find that something thought to be an UFO frequently goes unreported by the sighter. In fact, it is commonly said that sighters are reluctant to report such events because of ridicule. (There are, in fact, some cases in which publicity and ridicule appear to have influenced the sighter to change jobs or move to another town).

The questions designed to assess the reporting process in the present study were asked of sighters to ascertain whether or not they had reported their sightings and the reasons for their decisions, and of nonsighters, under a hypothetical circumstance of having seen an unusual object suspected to be an UFO, to determine whether they thought they would report a sighting and their reasons for their decision. In addition, sighters who had reported their sightings were asked to express their degree of satisfaction with the way in which the report was handled.

The first of the questions concerns the agency to which sighters had reported an UFO; the second, the agency to which nonsighters would report an UFO. The responses 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

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.

In the questionnaire for project sighters was an identica1 question. Project sighters' reasons appear in Table 12 These sighters, who

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.

The remaining national survey respondents, sighters who did not report and nonsighters who said they would not report a sighting, were asked to indicated which reasons influenced their decisions. Respondents were permitted to indicate as many reasons as influenced their decision, and they were asked to indicate the one reason that was the most important. A comparison of Table 13, a summary of sighter responses, and Table 14, a summary of nonsighter responses, shows that the sighter and nonsighter groups are quite similar. The most important reason of both for not reporting was that the event was probably "something normal that must have looked funny for one reason or another." Fear of ridicule was the reason second in order of importance for both sighters and nonsighters. The combined replies to alternatives 6 and 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.

These findings contrast markedly with those of Ennis, who found that more than one-half of the victims who did not report crimes had a negative

** 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.

The finding that most sighters do not report their sightings, and the nature of the reasons for not reporting, given by sighters and non- sighters alike, suggest two considerations regarding the reporting process. The first is related to rapport between the public and officials of public agencies. Having assumed that the event is "something normal," the sighter apparently feels that it is inappropriate to report it. "Appropriateness" may be the key concept here; the question raised is: "When is it appropriate to report something as a 'possible UFO'?"

The second consideration is access. Not knowing whom to notify and how to notify them reveals that 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

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.

Table 15 reveals some fairly consistent differences between the adult and teen samples. For example, a greater proportion of teen-agers

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

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.

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

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.

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

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 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.

Other suggestions for further studies of UFO phenomena, in the field of social psychiatry, are made by Rhine (Section VI, Chapter 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.

Ennis, P. H., Criminal Victimization in the United States Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1967a.

Ennis, P. H., "Crimes, Victims, and the Police," Trans-action, 4, 7, 1967b, 36-44.

Gallup, G., "Nine out of Ten People Heard of Flying Saucers," Public Opinion News Service, Princeton, N.J., 15 August 1947

Gallup, G., "Just What ARE Those Flying Saucers -- A Secret Weapon?" Public Opinion News Service, Princeton, N.J., 20 May 1950.

Gallup, G., "More than 5 Million Americans Claim to Have Seen 'Flying Saucers'," Gallup Poll, Princeton, N.J., 8 May 1966.

Hilgard, E. R., Introduction to Psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1962.

Kahn, H. and A. J. Wiener. The Year 2000. New York: Macmillan, 1967.

Kish, L. Survey Sampling. New York: Wiley, 1965.

McNemar, Q. Psychological Statistics. New York: Wiley, 1962.

Rotter, J. B., "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement" (see Appendix), Psychological Monographs, 80, 1, 1966.

Scott, W. A., "Measures of Test Homogeneity," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20, 751-757.

Scott, W. A., Unpublished report minutes of the Fourth Meeting of the C.U. UFO-Investigators, Boulder, Colorado, 28 October 1966.

Scott, W. A., Personal Communication, 1968.

Strentz, H., Personal communication, 1967.

"Survey of Tulane Students Reveals Belief in Saucers." Times Picayune, New Orleans: 5 November 1967.

United States Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, Population Estimates, Series P-25, No. 385. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 14 February 1968.