Committee Social Report
| Count of Social | Social | |||
| Petition | Church Member | Freeholder | Householder | Grand Total |
| Anti-P | 4 | 1 | 10 | 15 |
| NoS | 3 | 3 | ||
| Pro-P | 10 | 3 | 13 | |
| Grand Total | 14 | 1 | 16 | 31 |
Using the Committee List Data Set, pivot tables can be constructed to summarize the relationship between factional affiliation and social status for the thirty-one different committeemen who served on committees between 1685 and 1698. Select "PivotTable Report" from the Data Menu and click the "Range" button. Drag through the cells (include labels) of the "Petition" and "Social" columns. In the "Layout" window, drag the "Petition" icon to the "Row" field and the "Social" icon to the "Column" field. Drag another "Social" icon to the "Data" field where it should read "Count of Social" (if it does not, double-click the icon and select "Count").
Only a slight majority of the thirty-one committeemen were householders: sixteen were householders as compared to fifteen church members (church members and freeholders). The number of seats held by these fifteen church members can be counted by applying "AutoFilter" (from the Data menu) to the "Social" column. They held forty-three of the sixty-nine possible seats on the committee between 1685 and 1698, indicating that church members were more likely to serve multiple terms. It would appear that with the notable exception of the years immediately surrounding the witchcraft outbreak when householders dominated the committees, there was no inherent structural antagonism between Salem Village's church and its committee.
The table also underlines the strong association between church membership and support for Parris. Ten of the fifteen church members who served as committeemen signed the pro-Parris petition in 1695. Only three householders were aligned with the Parris faction. Among village leaders, just as among the general population, there was a strong association between social status and factional affiliation: church members lined up behind their minister while householders either opposed him or did not take a stand. A pie chart vividly illustrates these relationships. Users can gain additional insight into the political and social characteristics of committeemen by making a variety of pivot tables.
Salem Village was a divided community, politically and socially. Could there have been an economic basis to its divisions? Wealth disparities and conflict are well-established themes of historical analysis. Might they explain Salem Village's factional strains? Click Next.