¹ These definitions are limited in that they focus only on the cultural or evaluative aspects of continentalism. For a consideration of the structural and organizational aspects, the reader is referred to such works as Watkins, Melville H., Foreign Ownership and the Structure of Canadian Industry (Ottawa, 1970)Google Scholar; Levitt, Kari, Silent Surrender (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar; Gray, Herb, Foreign Direct Investment in Canada (Ottawa, 1972)Google Scholar; Warnock, John, Partners to Behemoth. (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar; and, Libbie, and Park, Frank, Anatomy of Big Business (Toronto, 1973).Google Scholar Also excluded because of the nature of available poll data is a treatment of power and authority relationships in continental organizations which some writers view as crucial. For example, see Creighton, Donald, Towards the Discovery of Canada (Toronto, 1972), 279.Google Scholar

² For some of these analytical discriminations, see Cuneo, Carl J., Social Class, Language and the National Question in Canada: An Analysis of the Social Support for the Integration of Canada With the United States, phd dissertation, University of Waterloo, 1973, 3–16Google Scholar; and, Carl J. Cuneo, James E. Curtis, and Ronald D. Lambert, The Idea of a Nation (forthcoming).

³ On the latter relationship, see Scheinberg, Stephen, “Invitation to Empire: Tariffs and American Economic Expansion in Canada,” in Enterprise and National Development, ed. Porter, Glenn and Cuff, Robert (Toronto, 1973), 80–100.Google Scholar

⁴ See especially Clark, S.D., Movements of Political Protest in Canada, 1640–1840 (Toronto, 1959), 3–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and his “Canada and Her Great Neighbour” (chap, xiv) and “Canada and the American Value System” (chap, xv) in The Developing Canadian Community (2nd ed., Toronto, 1968).

⁵ See especially (Canada) Ltd.: The Political Economy of Dependency, ed. Robert Laxer (Toronto, 1973).

⁶ See Newman, Peter C., “The U.S. and Us: A Four-Part Report,” Maclean's (6 June 1964)Google Scholar; Schwartz, Mildred A., Public Opinion and Canadian National Identity (Berkeley, 1967), 121–3Google Scholar; Toronto Star (26 August 1972); and, Kitchener-Waterloo Record (23 October 1972).

⁷ “A Methodology for Time Series Analysis of Survey Data: The Quasi-Panel,” in New Data Sources in International and Cross-National Research, ed. Cutler, Neal E. (Beverly Hills, 1974).Google Scholar There are two major procedural differences between Atkinson's paper and my own. First, he measures nationalism as anti-continentalism; secondly, he does not distinguish among economic, political, and sociocultural dimensions and measures of nationalism.

⁸ It is regrettable that the data reported here exclude the elites. It is usually speculated that the elites were nationalist around the time of Confederation but had become continentalist at least by the middle of the twentieth century. See Park and Park, Anatomy of Big Business; Levitt, Silent Surrender, 46–91; Cuneo, Social Class, Language and the National Question in Canada, 18–20; Grant, George, Lament for a Nation: The Defeat of Canadian Nationalism (Toronto, 1970)Google Scholar; and, Drache, Daniel, “The Canadian Bourgeoisie and Its National Consciousness,” in Close the 49th Parallel etc.: The Americanization of Canada, ed. Lumsden, Ian (Toronto, 1970), 3–25.Google Scholar

⁹ See S.D. Clark, “The Canadian Community and the American Continental System,” (chap, xi) in The Developing Canadian Community, 195–6; Lipset, S.M., “Revolution and Counterrevolution: The United States and Canada,” (chap. 2) in his Revolution and Counterrevolution: Change and Persistence in Social Structures (rev. ed., Garden City, N.Y., 1970), 72–3Google Scholar; John Meisel, “ ‘Cancel Out and Pass On': A View of Canada's Present Options,” (chap. 4) in his Working Papers in Canadian Politics (Montreal, 1972), 199; and, Berger, Carl, The Sense of Power: Studies in the Ideas of Canadian Imperialism 1867–1914 (Toronto, 1970).Google Scholar For the direct contrary view, see Horowitz, Gad, “Mosaics and Identity” in Making It: The Canadian Dream, ed. Finnigan, Bryan and Gonick, Cy (Toronto, 1972), 465–73Google Scholar; and, Smith, Goldwin, Canada and the Canadian Question (Toronto, 1971).Google Scholar

¹⁰ The sampling procedures used in these polls vary widely. Quota sampling was used in at least some of the cipo polls, a mixed quota-probability design was employed in the American data, and stratified multistage designs were used in the Meisel and Hoffman-Schindeler surveys. For some commentary on these sample designs, see Alford, Robert, “The Social Bases of Political Cleavage in 1962,” in Papers on the 1962 Election, ed. Meisel, John (Toronto, 1964), 205–8Google Scholar; Schwartz, Public Opinion and Canadian National Identity, 55–6; Meisel, John and Loon, Richard Van, “Canadian Attitudes to Election Expenses,” Studies in Canadian Party Finance (Ottawa, 1966), 23–146Google Scholar; and, Laponce, J.A., “Post-dieting Electoral Cleavages in Canadian Federal Elections, 1949–68: Material for a Footnote,” this Journal, V, no. 2 (1972), 270–86.Google Scholar In light of the wide variability in the quality of these selection procedures, tests of statistical significance are not reported in this paper.

¹¹ The occupational prestige and status scores were obtained from Pineo, Peter and Porter, John, “Occupational Prestige in Canada,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 4, no. 1 (1967), 24–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, Blishen, Bernard, “A Socio-Economic Index for Occupations,” Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 4, no. 1 (1967), 41, 53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar For further details, see notes to Table ii.

¹² On this problem, see especially Ryder, Norman B., “The Interpretation of Origin Statistics,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, XXI, no. 4 (1955), 466–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹³ The analyses for Table ii unfortunately could be carried out at reasonable cost to the author only where direct access to the data was available. The data in this table should therefore be considered only suggestive of the partial-order effects of various indices of stratification on continentalism.

¹⁴ A list-wise deletion of missing cases was used. This means that respondents were excluded from Table i if they were initially coded “no answer” or “undecided” on education, language, or continentalism, and from Table ii if they were so coded on continentalism or on any one of the stratification items. When other techniques for excluding and including missing cases were employed, no substantial differences in the findings using the various techniques were found. For these analyses, the reader is referred to chapter 2 and appendix b in Cuneo, , Social Class, Language and the National Question in Canada, 1973.Google Scholar For Table ii, the university educated were coded “2”, those with secondary or technical education were scored “1”, and respondents with no schooling or elementary education were scored “0”. The disadvantage to this division of respondents is the relatively small number of cases that fall into the university category. However, the theoretical rationale was considered to be more important; that is, the university group should be kept separate in light of its visible and vocal position on continentalism. The three language groups are English-speakers, French-speakers, and “other.” Unfortunately, two different language questions have been asked in various polls. The “language-in-use” question was asked in the cipo polls before 1958 and is usually considered a more valid measure of present linguistic-group affiliation than the “mother tongue” question which was asked in the cipo polls after 1958. On the relative merits of these two types of questions, see Lieberson, Stanley, Language and Ethnic Relations in Canada (New York, 1970), 17–20Google Scholar; and, Joy, Richard, Languages in Conflict (Toronto, 1972), 137–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ As can be seen in Table i, the relationship between education and preference for us tv in the Hoffman-Schindeler poll (superscript no. 22) is curvilinear. Therefore in Table ii the simple regression of −.02 and the partial-order regression of +.01 are probably underestimated. To correct for this nonlinearity, education was converted into two dummy variables. For the first dummy variable, X ₁ = 1 if the respondent had no schooling or elementary education; otherwise, X ₁ = 0. For the second dummy variable, X ₂ = 1 if the respondent had university education; otherwise, X ₂ = 0. The excluded category is secondary or technical education. The analysis was then rerun and the following standardized partial-order regression coefficients were obtained: X ₁ = −.08, X ₂ = −.08, income = +.02, and occupation = −.06. These findings suggest that respondents with secondary or technical education are still more continentalist than those with higher and lower education when income and occupation are controlled, and that education has a slightly stronger effect on continentalism than occupation, which is contrary to the findings in Table ii. For a description of this procedure, see Suits, Daniel B., “The Use of Dummy Variables in Regression Equations,” Journal of the American Statistical Association (December, 1957), 548–51.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Murray, J. Alex and Gerace, Mary C., “Canadian Attitudes Towards the u.s. Presence,” Public Opinion Quarterly, 36, no. 3 (1972), 388–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and, Atkinson, “A Methodology for Time Series Analysis of Survey Data: The Quasi-Panel.”

¹⁷ For some contradictory findings on Canadian preferences for American tv, see The Special Senate Committee on Mass Media, Vol. III (Ottawa, 1970), 131ff.

¹⁸ For these analyses, see Cuneo, Social Class, Language and the National Question in Canada.

¹⁹ On this question, see especially the Select Committee on Economic and Cultural Nationalism of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, Employee Attitudes (Toronto, 1974).Google Scholar

²⁰ For some indirect evidence of this among Canadian youth, see Johnstone, John C., Young People's Images of Canadian Society: An Opinion Survey of Canadian Youth 13 to 20 Years of Age (Ottawa, 1969), 22–7.Google Scholar