​

​

The Clemson ReportEngland, and records clearly indicate that it was followed by most of the landed gentry. George Washington, Jefferson, Madison and others bred gamecocks as a matter of course. Still later, there is clear evidence that Stonewall Jackson bred such cocks, preferring, as a matter of fact, a strain he called his “black Tormentors.” Although there is no empirical proof of the matter, Abraham Lincoln, while in Illinois, is supposed to have supplemented his meager law income by being a referee at cockfights.

 

Solon, the great lawgiver, some 120 A.D., has written a very expressive defense, or rather exhortation to engage in cockfighting as a moral exercise, presenting ideas held by Alexander the Great and other Greeks earlier.

 

Students interested in the historical background of the sport can find any number of excellent historical documents and books outlining this aspect of the sport.

 

The object of the National Cocker Survey, as it is known, was to see who, in what number, and of what disposition, are followers of this behavior in the United States today. Through the assistance of one of the national magazines devoted to the development of this activity, Professors William C. Capel of Clemson University and Professor Clifton Bryant, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, were able to conduct a national mail survey of a selected random sample of 1000 cockers, of whom over 500 responded fully. This supplemented individual interviews and investigations and led to a number of conclusions. The survey was not limited to merely assessing the demographic data on these people, but in assessing their psychological profiles, and any differences in actions, feelings, or motivations that would separate this group from other Americans. In particular, the surveyors wanted to see if people engaged in this activity were more sadistic, more prone to compulsive gambling, more violet or aggressive, or in any other way socially pathological.

 

In summary of the above later point, although the data has not been completely analyzed as yet, it can be stated that NO PATHOLOGIES have been exhibited. Devotees of cocking show NO psychological abnormalities, at least on the measures used. Their prime variation from the norm for other Americans on all these points seems to be their interest in gamecocks, extending from breeding to matching these birds in combat.

 

What follows in this report, which it must be stressed, is not complete, and is presently being computer analyzed, is a brief summary of some of the salient findings of this survey, which, so far as is known, is the ONLY effort to examine this activity on a national scale, in depth. Cockfighting is a major American recreational activity, which has a very sizable number of enthusiasts and participants. Cockfighting itself is misunderstood, if not, in large measure, unknown to the general public, and the general picture of the cocker himself is incomplete and sometimes distorted. The recent National Cocker Survey was designed to learn more about cocker’s and their involvement in the sport, and thus to better complete that picture. The enthusiastic response to the survey was most gratifying, and approximately 53% of the individuals who received a questionnaire completed and returned it. The responses have been coded and tabulated and a complete report on the research is now in progress.

 

REGION 0F RESIDENCE

 

Regionally speaking, cocker’s seem to live predominately in the Southeastern or Southwestern part of the United States. Almost 58% of all those responding said they lived in a state in these areas, with more than one‑quarter of all cocker’s mentioning a state in South Atlantic region (Delaware to Florida). Less than 5% lived in new England or the Mid‑Atlantic states, less than 10% listed a Pacific Coast state, and only 5% lived in a Mountain State. The Midwest accounted for 16.5% of the cocker’s. Only a few dozen respondents lived in Hawaii, Alaska, Guam, or Canada. (Persons from overseas countries were excluded from our sample because of the time necessary for mail to reach them.)

 

RURAL OR URBAN RESIDENCE

 

Although more than one‑half of the cocker’s indicated that they lived in a rural area (village under 2500 or open country) when they grew up, the majority (56%) reported that they now live in towns or larger urban areas. This reflects the general urbanization trend of all Americans.

 

Age would seem to be no impediment to participation in the sport in that the cocker’s ranged in age from under 15 years of age to over 80. The average of the respondents was approximately 39 while slightly more than one‑third were 50 or older, and 17% were 19 or younger. Nine cocker’s reported that they were over 80.

 

MARITAL STATUS

 

Like most Americans, a very high percentage (85.9%) of the cocker’s are married, and almost as many (80.1%) have children. The average number of children per family is 2.39, which reflects the typical American family of 2 to 3 children.

 

OCCUPATION

 

There was a fairly large range of occupational pursuits reported by cocker’s. Some 17% of all cocker’s responding said that they were retired and listed their former occupation. Some 28% of the respondents listed an occupation classified as Skilled Blue Collar, and slightly less than one‑quarter of them mentioned a Semi‑skilled blue‑collar specialty, while almost 38% fill the white collar ranks in sales, administrative, or business positions. Almost one‑quarter of the respondents said that they were self‑employed and approximately 45% mentioned a business or commercial organization. Less than 15% said that they worked in government, education, or the armed services.

 

An examination of the occupations shows that those taking part in this activity represent a cross section of what is basically “the great American middle class” and there are simply very few representatives of unemployed, welfare, or other such groups, unless one wished to regard retired persons in this category. Those self‑employed are principally owner‑operators of small businesses.

 

Slightly more than 10% of the respondents did not reveal their incomes, but of those who did, the average income was $9,000.00 to $11,000.00 annually. Only 12.8% of the cocker’s responding reported an income of less than $7,000.00, while approximately one‑quarter listed a figure of $7,000.00‑$11,000.00. Some 22% said they earned from $11,000.00 to $15,000.00, and almost 30% made $15,000.00 or more.

 

EDUCATION

 

The average educational attainment of our respondents was nearly 12 years (11.85) of formal schooling. High school graduates made up 38.8% of the sample, while those having education beyond high school constituted 27.4% of those answering the questionnaire. Less than 4% of the sample claimed less than an eighth grade education and 12.4% reported completing college or work beyond college. Some 26% of all those surveyed had completed business or trade school.

 

Only 2 out of 533 respondents were female, so the term “spouse” generally refers to a wife. Wives of cocker’s tend to be somewhat less well educated than their husbands having completed an average of eleven years of schooling. About 45% of the wives are high school grads while a smaller number, only 20% have education beyond high school. Only 1.9% of the spouses have less than an 8th grade education and about 10% report having a college degree or higher. About 20% of spouses have attended a business or technical school.

 

AGE WHEN WENT TO FIRST STAGED COCKFIGHT

 

While the mean (or average) age for all cock fighters who reported fell between 20 and 29 years old, 30% were fifteen and younger when they went to their first fight, while less than 6% never went to a fight until they were past 40. This finding suggests that cocker’s are initiated into the sport at an early age, and by their elders. Host cocker’s reported that they became involved as more than spectators (if they become involved at all) also at ages about 24 or 25. Seventy‑seven per cent of the answers stated that cocking was their main time activity. Not surprisingly, the next most active hobby had to do with active, outdoor leisure, such as hunting, fishing, trapping, etc. Only a few cared very much for team or individual sports.

 

PARTICIPATION BY SPOUSE

 

By an overwhelming percentage (84.6%) the spouses usually wives approve of cockfighting. The small number who did not approve usually did so on the grounds of cruelty. Of the married cocker’s, just over half (55%) participate in the sport, either as a spectator, or helping with the raising and training of the birds. As noted in Part 1 of the study 85.9% of all cocker’s are married and have an average of between two and three children, although almost 11% had four. One per cent managed to have eight. But, rather surprisingly, almost 20% reported no children. On the question “Do your children participate in fights” there is an almost exact split. Forty per cent reported that “yes” their children did participate and 40% reported “no” they did not, while the remaining 20% chose, for reasons of their own, not to answer.

 

FREQUENCY OF ATTENDANCE, AND FREQUENCY OF FIGHTING

 

Nearly all the cocker’s responded to this question. Same four per cent say they are not interested in the fighting aspects of the sport and never attend fights, while another four per cent said they attended “very seldom”. By far the greater number, some 54% “a few times a month,” while 18% say they go “once or more weekly,” which translates into a lot of people seeing a lot of cockfights.

 

The next question showed that, of those who fight birds, that in contrast to the 18% who attend more than one a week only 7.5% fight birds that often, although a whopping 50% of all those who fight birds do so a few times a month. Some 25% fight only a few times a year. Cockfighting promotes sharing leisure time in other activities with individuals met through cocking in 51% of the cases.

 

A slightly higher percentage (62.1%) have occasion to visit or go out socially with other cockfighting enthusiasts and their friends, while an even higher percentage (67.7%) have “best friends” who are also involved in the sport.

 

BETTING

 

Although a number of fictional books about cockfighting and one recent movie strongly intimated that the be-all and end-all of cocking was betting, and that mains or hack fights were the predominant forms, the national survey indicated that things are quite a bit different. In the first place, it is only almost true that the majority of cocker’s who bet at all, and 83% say they do bet, do so “frequently.” Forty-nine per cent of all cocker’s say they bet frequently, and another 34% say they bet “occasionally.” It should be noted that only some 15% say they bet “seldom” or “never.” Additionally, the preferred type of fight attended is clearly the “derby” or “tournament” fight. Very few attend mains, probably because of their decline in general popularity.

 

DEFENSES AND CRITICISM OF COCKING AS A SPORT

 

 When asked the twin questions “What is the thing about cockfighting that you think most people in it like?” and, “What is the major thing that you like about cockfighting?” there was close agreement. Some 19 reasons were presented in answer to these questions, but three clearly presented the vast majority viewpoint. The leading thing most liked about cockfighting was “Competition,” an answer that received 26.5% of the votes. A close second was “Thrills and excitement” an answer that received 23.5% of the votes and “cock husbandry” which received 12.8%. “Money” came in a distant fourth, with 8.8% of the sample selecting this as their main reason for liking the sport. This same rating was given for both questions, as to what cocker’s think others would like best and what they themselves liked best.

 

In defense of critics of the sport, who call it cruel, illicit or “deviant” cocker’s tend to concentrate in two areas. Thirty‑one percent thought the critics were uninformed and ignorant about the purpose and practice of cockfighting, while the larger number, some 42.4%, lumped their defenses under what we called “general disagreement with critics.” Their reasons for defending cockfighting were concentrated on the idea that “The Lord made game birds to fight, that cocking is no different and no more cruel than other sports, that cocker’s have a degree of honesty, dignity and pride unknown to many other sportsmen and so on.” The primary contention was on some variation of the general theme that cocks are born to fight, and exhibit such gameness that they provide inspiration in the game of life.

 

In response to the question, “It is said that some hobbies tend to change people and their personality. What has the gamecock sport done for or to you?” On this rather complex question there was a surprising degree of agreement that cocking has a definite “Therapeutic” value. Almost 45% endorsed this view, citing improved marital relations, giving one goals to strive for, giving great personal satisfaction and sense of personal worth, new lease on life after retirement and the like. Less than one per cent said that it provided profits. In fact, on all questions involving money, cocker’s are in entire agreement that if it is money you’re looking for, the cocking is not for you.

 

HOW THE COCKER LOOKS AT HIS SPORT (PART Two)

 

 The preliminary stages of the survey have been reported above, and show who the cocker is, where he lives, how he gives his time to the sport, who bets, how much, and other of what sociologists call “Demographic features”. In this section we will look more closely at the “How” of the cocker. How he became involved in the sport, some of the ways he maintains contacts and involvement in the behavior patterns, and the like.

 

INVOLVEMENT IN COCKFIGHTING

 

Cockfighting, like other hobbies and sports, has a large number of followers, not all of whom are involved to the same degree in terms of time and effort, or for the same reasons. Hobbyists find different aspects of their recreational pursuits satisfying, and cocker’s are no exception.

 

One of the questions on the survey inquired as to the individual’s present involvement in the sport. Since many cocker’s participate in this leisure activity in various ways, multiple responses were permitted. Some hobbyists follow their sport only by keeping up through the magazines. This is certainly not the case with cocker’s. As Table 1 shows, only a very small percentage, 12.6%, only keep up with cockfighting through the magazine devoted to the sport. Cocker’s, it would seem, are not in general, only vicarious participants in their hobby. Nor are cocker’s only onlookers. As the results of the question indicate, only a very small percentage of individuals in the sport, only about 8.5% or one in twelve, are only spectators at fights. There is no denying the feathered beauty of gamecocks, but they are a special kind of bird and apparently most cocker’s who raise gamecocks are more interested in the birds for competitive rather than for merely poultry or business reasons. As Table 1 points out, more than 82% of those individuals in the survey said that they raised and fought gamecocks. At the

 

TABLE 1

 

PRESENT INVOLVEMENT IN THE SPORT OF COCKFIGHTING

 

Did Not Respond

 

Only keep up with cockfighting through the magazine. 12.6% 87.4%

 

Only a spectator at cockfights. 8.3% 91.7%

 

Raise gamecocks merely as poultry hobby. 14.4% 85.6%

 

Raise and fight gamecocks. 82.2% 17.6% 0.2%

 

Primarily raise gamecocks as a business. 8.1% 91.9%

 

Primarily in business making or selling some product for the sport (i.e., spurs, medication, diet supplement, etc.). 1.7% 98.3%

 

Primarily enjoy the opportunity for betting on cocks. 8.4% 91.6%

 

Other. 8.1% 91.9%

 

 

same time, only 8.1% or less than one in ten raised the birds as a business, and only slightly less than 15% mentioned raising gamecocks as a poultry hobby. Cockfighting is a big hobby and there is a sizable market for various products used in the sport. Only a very small percentage of cocker’s, however, less than 2%, are primarily involved in conducting a business selling some product. Cockfighting does permit the opportunity for betting, but only a small number of persons, 8.4% of all responding to the question, indicated that they were primarily in the sport to enjoy the opportunity for betting on cocks. An even smaller percentage, 8.1% listed other reasons. Overall, it would appear that cocker’s are involved in the hobby primarily because they enjoy raising and fighting their own birds. It’s the competition that is the main factor, and other reasons would seem to be very much secondary.

 

 

EARLY CONTACT WITH COCKER’S

 

Since many cocker’s started out in the sport at a relatively early age (the average age, as you recall from Part II was between 20 and 29), it might be assumed that they might have known other cocker’s while growing up, and perhaps been influenced by them. On the survey cocker’s were asked about persons that they might have known when they grew up that raised or fought cocks. The results of that question are shown in Table 2.

 

TABLE 2

 

CONTACT WITH COCKER’S WHILE GROWING UP

 

Who Cocker’s Were Yes No Did Not Respond

 

No one, 24.2% 75.6% 0.2%

 

Members of Immediate Family. 21.4% 78.4% 0.2%

 

Other Relatives. 24.0% 75.8% 0.2%

 

Neighbors. 22.1% 77.7% 0.2%

 

Friends (other than neighbors). 49.5% 50.3% 0.2%

 

Less than one‑quarter of those answering the question said that they knew no one who raised or fought cocks while growing up. Surprisingly, only a little over 20% of those in the survey indicated that members of their immediate family raised or fought cocks. The sport was apparently not a “family tradition” in many instances. Similarly, less than one‑quarter of the respondents reported that other relatives were cocker’s, and only slightly over 22% mentioned neighbors. A somewhat larger percentage of individuals, almost one‑half of all answering the question said that they had friends who raised or fought cocks when they grew up. Three out of four cocker’s did know persons who raised or fought birds when they were growing up. In some instances, these persons were members of the immediate family, relatives, or neighbors. In most cases, however, they were friends and undoubtedly were an influence on those in the survey in terms of taking up the sport.

 

HOW COCKFIGHTING KNOWLEDGE ACQUIRED

 

To raise a healthy gamecock and properly condition him for the ring is a challenging task. Appropriate behavior in handling birds in matches, and being familiar with proper procedures, etc., in Derby’s and tournaments all call for detailed knowledge of the sport. As might be expected, cocker’s acquired their skills and knowledge from a variety of sources.

 

TABLE THREE

 

HOW KNOWLEDGE TO RAISE AND/OR FIGHT GAMECOCKS ACQUIRED

 

Yes No Did Not Respond

 

Learned from members of family, neighbors, or old friends. 61.2% 38.8%

 

Learned directly from other cocker’s that you met while attending matches. 48.8% 51.2%

 

Learned from just observing things at cockfights. 39.2% 60.8%

 

Learned from reading books and magazines about cockfighting. 53.5% 46.5%

 

Attended a cockfighting school, 2.8% 97.2%

 

Other. 6.8% 93.2%

 

As Table 3 points out, the largest percentage of cocker’s, up wards of two-thirds of those responding to the question, said they acquired their knowledge from family, neighbors, or friends. In view of the information given in the previous table, that about one-half of the cocker’s in the survey knew friends that raised or fought cocks when they grew up, it is a strong likelihood that it was perhaps these friends that shared their knowledge of cock raising and cockfighting with the respondents. A substantial percentage of cocker’s, however, almost one-half, met other, presumably more experienced, cocker’s at matches and gained the necessary information and skills from them. A good many individuals, somewhat more than one third, managed to learn what they needed to know from just their observations while attending cockfights. In cockfighting, as in other sports, books and magazines are important devices of communication and information. It is interesting to note in Table 3 that slightly more than one‑half of the cocker’s in this survey, some 53.5%, obtained their knowledge of cock raising and cockfighting from books and magazines on the subject. Although there are schools for cocker’s, it would seem that not many individuals have yet had occasion to attend. Only a very small percentage of the cocker’s in the survey, less than 3%, had attended a cockfighting school. Over all, it appears that cocker’s acquired the necessary knowledge to participate in the sport through information shared by family, friends, and newly met fellow cocker’s, and/or picked it up by themselves through observation and reading.

 

SOME RESULTS OF RESPONSES TO PSYCHOLOGICAL QUESTIONS ASKED OF COCKER’S ON NATIONAL SURVEY.

 

The establishment of ”psychological profiles” on individuals and on groups of individuals linked through some behavioral characteristic has been an established practice in sociology and psychology for some time.

 

Results of such studies have often been badly used by sensation seekers and popularizers who do not appreciate the limits of such devices. The basis of psychological studies is a comparative one. If one studies a known group which has already demonstrated a characteristic response in real life to certain conditions and extracts those responses that occur most often, one can predict about what a person known to be in that category will do, and even think, in a given situation. If we then take the responses of an unknown individual or group and extract the same responses as those of the known group we can make fairly inferences as to what the unknown group will do. If psychotic individuals answer a certain item in a certain way, regularly and persistently, we can assume that this response is “typical” of a psychotic. If we give the same item to a person about whom we know nothing, and he responds regularly and persistently in the same way as a psychotic (known) does the investigator feels reasonably sure that this individual, while not ever necessarily acting in a psychotic manner, has the more pronounced capacity to do so when compared to a person who makes totally different answers. Inexact as the science is today, it does afford a way of looking at groups of persons and calculating their major characteristics. One section of the National Cocker Survey concerned itself with the responses to a questionnaire designed to reveal certain known characteristics to see which pattern, the one followed a minority (which society has labeled “deviant”) or of the majority (which society has labeled “normal”).

 

This section is a condensed report of some of the major findings of this profile study. It has not been completed at this time, but throws considerable light on the way cocker’s look at things generally.

 

The questionnaire consisted of a list of items with which the respondents were asked to check whether or not they “agreed” were “neutral or didn’t know” or whether they “disagreed.” A variety of variations were provided for degrees of approval or disapproval, but these were condensed in the discussion in the interest of space and time.

 

What was immediately apparent is that cocker’s, whatever their position, are seldom neutral. This made the interpretation of your positions on these issues easier to determine.

 

In one sense this is like the familiar Gallup Poll in that you are asked your opinion, and the results can be tabulated and given to you in percentages. For example, one item asked, “In times like these a person doesn’t know who he can count on.” Thirty‑one per cent agreed and 18% strongly agreed, making a total of 49% who thought this was so, or very probably so. On the other hand 18% strongly disagreed and 24% disagreed, so we had 42% who do not think that it is hard to find someone you can count on. There some of the items that do not receive much endorsement at all, and others that many people felt they either did not know enough about, or were not sure as to make it unusable, but there were many very interesting responses that show much about the views of cocker’s. For clarity’s sake, we have condensed the strongly disagree and disagree together and have done the same with the agree and strongly agree categories. The middle position is called neutral. Percentages are rounded off, and do not always add up to 100% but are close enough to show these differences and similarities.

 

These are, of course, opinions and there are no “right” or “wrong” answers. It is reasonable to ask why these particular statements were chosen to be asked out of all those possible. For instance, you note that no political questions were asked. While many of these statements may appear simple, actually they have been carefully tested over quite a long time, with thousands of different people from many walks of life. These items, out of thousands tried, have shown themselves to be ”discriminating” in the best sense of that word, meaning that these items are capable of arranging themselves into patterns that allow differences between groups of people to become apparent, and thus allow for comparisons. For instance, when we compare cocker’s with a general sample of the population taken without regard for their occupations or leisure time activities, we find that cocker’s are more concerned with their health than the general population. This may be because they are aware of the value of good nutrition, exercise and the like as shown by the development of their fighting cocks, or it may be due to their association with the outdoors, and with sports. Whatever the reason, it can be stated that cocker’s are more interested in their health. It is possible that this may be responsible for the continued activity of many cocker’s into old age. Thus, one answer to “Who is a cocker?” might be “A man with a sensible regard for his health.”

 

The first listing in this article simply shows the percentage answers to selected items (the complete statistics on this will be in the book to be published on the complete results of the cocker survey). It should be noted that the items are grouped together into certain natural divisions rather than listed randomly as they were in the questionnaire.

 

When a large group of people act alike and respond alike to certain stimuli we say they are “homogeneous.” This state may be brought about by people living very near one another, but it is sometimes attained through a group sharing of some common experience. It is apparent from an examination of how cocker’s “look at things” that they are a remarkably homogeneous group. It would almost seem that if you asked any cocker what his opinion on a subject was (other than quality of his cocks) what one cocker said would represent what 3/4ths or more below would say. Notice in the items listed in the table below, you will see that the opinions are usually lopsided, either very strongly “pro” or very strongly “con” For example, 85% of the cocker’s agree that “Old people should get more respect than they do” and you might ask “Doesn’t everyone feel this way?’ but the answer is “No, they don’t.” Many other groups are far less convinced of this fact.

 

TABLE FOUR

 

PERCENTAGE RESPONSES TO SELECTED OPINION ITEMS

 

ITEM Agree PERCENTAGE Neutral Disagree

 

In times like these a person doesn’t know who he can count on. 50% 5% 42%

 

No one is lower than a person who does not show love, gratitude and respect for his parents. 74% 4% 19%

 

What young people need today is discipline, determination, and the desire to fight, if necessary, for home and country. 85% 3% 8%

 

Obedience and respect for authority are the first duties of a good citizen. 86% 3% 6%

 

These days things change so fast that you hardly know what to expect next. 74% 4% 18%

 

It is hard to decide who you can really trust these days. 54% 4% 38%

 

Old people should get more respect than they do. 85% 5% 10%

 

In times like these a person has to live pretty much from day to day and let tomorrow take care of Itself. 34% 5% 49%

 

Good health is more a matter of luck than what a person does about his health. 11% 4% 80%

 

A person’s health is more a matter of something that is born into him than what he does about it. 24% 9% 63%

 

It’s usually not possible to prevent sickness; if your going to be sick, you will be sick. 19% 6% 68%

 

Public officials will help a person if he just lets them know what his problems are. 51% 14% 30%

 

There is not much chance that people will do more to make this country a better place to live in. 29% 7% 60%

 

Most people can be trusted. 54% 9% 31%

 

In court, a poor man has just as good a chance of a fair deal as a rich man. 23% 4% 67%

 

I am more concerned about my general state of health than most persons my age. 41% 16% 38%

 

I think about my own general state of health quite frequently. 63% 6% 25%

 

I am a hard driving, aggressive sort of person. 58% 10% 27%

 

I often have the feeling that time is passing too quickly each day to get done all that needs to be done. 82% 2% 11%

 

I don’t like it if I have to wait in line, or wait on someone who is late for an appointment. 67% 7% 20%

 

To get somewhere in the world a man has to make careful plans for the future. 84% 3% 8%

 

I am often in a hurry to get things done. 76% 3% 14%

 

Many people do not know what to do with their lives. 82% 4% 9%

 

Many people today are lonely. 83% 4% 9%

 

Today there are a lot of people who are unhappy because they do not know what they want out of life. 85% 3% 5%

 

The health of a person my age depends on the food he eats. 60% 11% 24%

 

The health of a person my age depends on the amount of stress and tension he has to put up with in his daily life. 70% 6% 18%

 

Cocker’s are very firmly on the side of law and order, and respect for one’s fellow man. Other issues about which cocker’s feel more pronounced unanimous feelings than other groups are about such things as that most people can be trusted, that young people need more discipline and determination, and that to get ahead one must make careful plans for the future.

 

The happy‑go‑lucky attitude toward life is not for the cocker. He sees time as a precious commodity that is moving too fast. He feels that his diet is important to his health, and definitely feels that he has control over his health.

 

All of the responses to all of the items have been analyzed by a different procedure from that described so far. This procedure is called ”factor analysis” and is only possible since the advent of the computer. What this does, in simple language, is to take into consideration the way in which every person who answered these opinion questions. He is assigned a certain scale value according to each answer. Then each answer is related to every other answer, and all of each person’s answers are related to all of every other person’s answers. If you think this is a complicated arithmetical problem you are absolutely right. It would take 1,000 accountants 1,000 years to do it, but the computer can do the entire procedure in a few minutes or less. It is thus possible to make millions of comparative analysis that were impossible a few years ago. One thing that we do is to take all the answers and group them into sets of items that “hang together.” In the above table you will note that the items “Good health is more a matter of luck than what a person does about his health;” “It’s usually not possible to prevent sickness; if you’re going to be sick, you will be sick” and “A person’s health is more a matter of something that is born into him than what he does about his health,” all are very much alike. These three statements indicate a strong belief in “fate” or “chance” and in the kind of analysis that we are talking about (factor analysis) they compose a factor and are treated as if they were one, and reveals persons who agree with this to be strongly psychologically given to trusting to luck in their lives. Notice that cocker’s, by a large majority, don’t agree with this.

 

Now suppose we take the people who did agree with this and checked to see if they also bet compulsively and heavily, with a great deal of dependence on luck, then we would be justified in saying that such people are apt to be compulsive gamblers. Many people make just such assumptions about cock fighters … that they are big gamblers, often betting on superstition and luck … whereas our study shows that on this factor, which we have called “Fatalism”, that cocker’s are, for the most part, far different.

 

SUMMARY

 

While, as we have several times indicated, the findings in this report are by no means complete, they do give us the best general profile of the American cocker thus far assembled.

 

It is difficult, of course, to estimate the total number of persons who are engaged in some aspect or other of this form of behavior. If we count persons whose participation has been limited to a very occasional visit to a Derby, it is possible, by extrapolation from circulation figures of the three principal magazines, plus observational studies to estimate that something over 100,000 are more or less actively engaged in some form or other of the activity. An estimate of some 40,000 might be more accurate for those who are extensively engaged in the behavior generally described as “cockfighting.”

 

While generalizations may often be inaccurate, there are a few salient features that have emerged. Cocking is basically a white (and Puerto Rican) activity in the United States, and is primarily a middle class activity viewed by the participants as “recreational” in nature, and while some gambling is usually closely associated with the behavior, this gambling is neither as intense nor on anything like the scale in which it accompanies other sports.

 

There are no serious psychological differences between those who engage in this behavior and those who do not. Certainly there are NO signs of psychotic behavior. On attitudes expressed, people engaged in this recreational form are basically conservative, highly concerned with health and outdoor life, strongly patriotic and strongly in favor of obeying laws and preservation of, public order.

 

It is very clear that they do not consider themselves as a “deviant” group, and do not view their behavior as either morally or legally wrong in the deeper sense that it could be considered an action of real danger to society. It is a very “long‑lasting” behavior pattern, and people engaged in it are very unlikely to cease their activity no matter what efforts are made to suppress it.

 

At the present time the entire behavior represents a good example of “decriminalization” in that while laws against it remain on the books of most states (albeit they are very vague in some) the enforcement depends almost entirely on local sentiment. Anytime enough pressure is brought to bear, or when the conduct is considered offensive by enough local citizens, it usually moves elsewhere. About the only real effect of a national act of legislation to make this activity a felony would be to “criminalize” a considerable number of otherwise law‑abiding taxpayers without in great decrease in the activity itself. Any behavior so strongly rooted in history and tradition will survive, but being criminalize would bring individual grief to many citizens who are otherwise solid pillars of the community.

 

From this survey, it would appear that little could be gained in terms of national order by a national legislative act that is not now covered by local action.

 

There is no attempt in this survey to make any judgments on the “cruelty” or lack of in cock fights. Strong arguments can be made for both sides of this question, but they are basically emotional. We were concerned with whether, because of their somewhat variant recreational behavior, these people were demographically or psychologically “different” from general population, and whether or not these differences, if any, would be apt to create other problems, or breed general disrespect for the law or accepted moral attitudes. All the evidence to date (and again, this is a preliminary report) indicates that this activity, which seems to maintain a remarkably even level of participation through time, poses no serious threat to the public order.

 

William C. Capel, Box 1506 Clemson, South Carolina 29631 Clifton Bryant VIP

http://www.sagepub.com/authorDetails…ntribid=522605

http://www.savethegamecock.com/content.php?137-The-Clemson-Report

 

 

 

​

​

​