the linkage was significant at the P < .001 level and in another six at the P < .01 level.
Having found that certain aspects of the Conference did contribute to the nonbehavioral reactions of those in attendance, the question arises as to whether these were more important as determinants of the index scores than the background variables. A reversal of the procedures described above, however, did not yield such a finding. Sixty per cent of the sex, party, region, attitude, and involvement differences persisted when the Conference-size variable was held constant and the equivalent figure for the speeches-attended variable was 40 per cent. It would seem, in other words, that both the Conference and the background variables contributed to the nonbebavioral reactions of the conferees, albeit the former were, in percentage terms, relatively more potent as determinants of the index scores.
Although perhaps more relevant to conference-giving than to opinion-making, the data examined in this chapter yielded an interesting set of consistent and unambiguous findings. Both the consistency and the lack of ambiguity reflect the overall finding that the Conference was a stimulating experience for a preponderant majority of those present.
At the outset it was found that attendance at a conference can stem from a variety of motives which are not necessarily related to the purposes of the occasion. In this case a number of conferees attended in order to further the interests of their own organizations, whereas others did so out of a desire to support the foreign aid program. It would also appear that national leaders regard an invitation from the President of the United States less as a request and more as a command.
Once they arrived at the Hotel Statler the conferees were quite diligent in attending the 12 speeches and panels that comprised the Conference. However, despite their full exposure to the proceedings, the conferees tended to perceive