the Gallup oi'ganization J it! not attempt to determine what proportion
of thesl' sdf-dcsignatcd siglttcrs actually reported their sightings.
A ~llldy which proviul.'s a basis for comparison is one conc:erned
wi til the 'eportint~ of C1' imc5. 1t was made for 1'.l1e Pres ident' s Commi 5S ion
on Law Enforccment and Administration by the Nl>tional Opinion Research
Center lInd~r the din'ctioll of Philip Ennis (1967a. 1%7b). '(his study
revealed that 51 Po of ti'ose interviewed who had been the victims of
crimes did not report th0m to the police (1967b). After reviewing the
reasons people gave for not notifying the police, Ennis made the following
observations (Ennis, 19fJ 7b):
First there is strong r~sistancc to invoking the law
enforcement process even 1n 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 sl,QhtC:'r. ~n fact, it is commonly sa~d that sighters
are reluctant to report stich events because of rid ieul c. (There are,
in fact, some cases in \</hich 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 Kere asked of sig)lters 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 sus-
pected to be nn UFO, to determine whether they thought they would report
:l sighting and their l'C'asons for their decision. In addition, 5ighter~
11'110 hnJ reported their ::;ightings were <1~keJ to express their degree r;f
sati:-faction Id th the ,,'ar in which the report was handled.
'I1tc first of the qucstions concerns the agency to which sighters
JEll) reported an UFO; the se('ond, the a~cncy te· which nonsighters ~'oulcl
report an UFO. '111(' l'cspollses of natioll.. l survey nansi ghtcrs appear in
Table 10. Data for si~htl'rs identifiel! in the national survey arc not
presented in the table because the) arc hased Gil so f~I'" individuals that
the result~ h3.\'o no stntistical validity. Data for ~Ighters drawn from
339
the Gallup oi'ganization J ill not attempt to determine wha.t proportion
of thcs~' sl'lf-dcsignatcd sightcrs actually reported their sightings.
A :;tud,' wl1 ,ch proviJl's :1 basis for comparison Is onc con:::erned
wi til the 'oportin" of crimes. It was made for rho Pres ident' s Commi 5S ion
on Law Lnforcement ;lnd Administration by the Nt.tional Opinion Rescarch
Center undc?r the din'ctiolt of Philip Enni5 (1967u, 1%7h). 'Ihi:; study
reycaled that 51 Po of tj,osc interviewed who had been the victims of
crimes did not report tho.:-m to the police (1%7b). After reviewing the
rc"sons peoplo gave for not notifying the police, Fnnis made the following
ohservations (Limis, 1~)f17b):
First there i.~: strong r"sistanct~ to invoking the law
enforcement process even 1n l'1atter5 that are clearly
criminal. Second, there is ccn~iderablc skepticism
as to tlte effectiveness of police action.
Inasmuch a~ people show reluctance to report crimes, it should not
be surprisin~ to find that something thought to be an UFO frequently
goes unreporteil by the sl,~hter. Tn fact, it is commonly sacd that sighter;;
are reluctant to report snch events because of ridiculo. (There are,
in fact, saIDC' cases in 14hich publicity and ridicule appear ta have
influenced the sighter to change jobs or move to another town).
The questions designed to assoss the reporting process in the present
study 1I'0re asked of sighters to ascertain whether or nat they had reported
their sightings and the reasons for their decisions, and of nonsighters,
under a hypothetical circumstance of having seen an unusual object sus-
pected to he 8n UFO, to determine whether they thought they would report
:1 sighting and their reasons for their decision. In addition, sighten
11'110 haJ reported their sighting!' were [1~ked to express their degree of
sati:<fa-:tion Idth the II'a:; in which tht1 report was handlod.
'Iho first of the quC'stions concerns the agency to vihich sigi'ters
ha,l reportc,l an UFO; the :;o(:ond, the agency to which nonsightcrs lI'ould
report an LIrO. '111(' l'05p0l1Se5 of nat ionu! survey nonsi ghters appear in
Table 10 . Data fo]' si~htl'rs identine,! ill the national ~urvcy arc not
prC'S€'nt€'.1 in the tuble because the) arc ba~cd (in so f~w indiViduals that
the rcslllt~ h:\\'c no statistical validity. ilata for ~ightcr5 drawn from
339