THE RELATIONSHEP BETWEEN
fiTUDENTS’ VBRBAUZED GOALS 0P
LiPE AND CERTAIN SELECTED
BACKSROUND AND EXPERMBNTAL
FAC'E‘ORS

’I‘iiasis for {its 333g?” sf M; A.
MICHIGAN .E‘ATE COLLEGE
. s a" w :2 3
fimm 23:31: Human:

E946

 

(ruesns'

 

 

 

4‘" In.

11‘: '- Ill-“‘1. .i 'ul.«

. my“ £34.11!” 4 .

9.1 f-’,..’_‘ 3’,

p,
1.

 

. This is to certifg that the

thesis entitled

THE RMTIONSHIP BETWEEN STUDENTS‘
VERBALIZED GOALS OF LIFE AND CERTAIN
SELECTED BA KGROUND AND EXPERIENTIAL

FAG TO RS
presented by

John Ben Holland

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

jib—degree infiggi-Ql-Qé’l

I“.
I \

Major professor

 

 

arr

THE RELATIOESHIP 33W '333 STUTTITS' vzm ‘ ”LI ED GOALS OF LIFE ARE

¥

CBETAIE STLTC BED finCKGR- ML MD IRISJTIAL FACTORS

JOKE... 1' XI 3;) HOLLITLZV

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Gra.duate Studies of Michigoan
State College of Ag oriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTETS CF ATT

Department of SOCiOlOéJ and Anthropology

19%

[Lhasa

I I .I ll PiINI

l I .l .I‘J .¥I...[I’..Lfl

1879232

ACKIOH FZGLTJT

Needless to say, the guidance and counsel of the teachers,
friends and colleagues who have made this study possible cannot be
adequately acknowledged. Nevertheless, I wish to express my grati-
tude and appreciation to Professor Charles P. Loomis, under whose
direction this research was conducted, and to Professors W. D. Eaten,
Clifford E. Erickson, Walter I. Firey, Leo A. Heek, Charles R. Hoffer
and Harold B. Pepinski.

Such an acknowledgment cannot express my debt for their stimu-

lation, critice appraisal and unfailing assistance.

CHAPTER

II

III

IV

COLTTELTTS

PART I
IKTRODUCTIOH

The General Problem

The Hypothesis

The Sample

The Instrument for Keesurement of Life Goals
Factors Selected for.Analysis

Method 0531‘ tud};

Survey of Related Liters ure

Summary

PA 31‘ I I
THE DATA

ALCALYSIS OF T123 TOTAL SLIPLE
Composition of the Sample
Performance on the Goals of Life Inventory

Comparison of the Sample with Other Groups

SILK I‘IFFEI‘E. CBS J'ITD UAR T“ DP 231703 AS FA CTORS
IR THT CHOICE OF LIFE GOALS

Composition of the Sub-Samples
Method of Analvsis

Comparison of Non-Veters Men with Men Veterans

Comparison of Hon—Veteran Men with Women
Comparison of Men Veterans with Women
Analysis of Differences Among Eon-Veterans,
Veterans and h’omen
Similarities Among Eon-Veteran Men,
Men Veterrns, and Women
Conc usions

111181 >121: 14‘. AS A FACTOR 1:1 T11? critics or 1.11-1.11 some

Selection and Composition of the Sub-Saunles

Differences Between Rural and Urban Students

Sinilarities and Differences Betveen Rural
and Ur‘an Students

Conclusions

H

19
lo

/

27
21

3Q
39
1:3
55
6b,

70
77

78
9-1

83
87

V G""F?AL ACfi.DFZ IIC AB ILITY AS A FnCTOR IF TiiE CHCICE

OFI II Ii‘B Cf LS

Basis for Determining.Academic Ability

Composition of the Sub—Seflple

Method of Analysis

Differences Between Samples Compared on the
Academic Variable

Analysis of Similarities and Differences

Conclusions

VI SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEXEHT AS A FACTOR IN THE CHCICE
OF LIFE GOBLS

The Criterion of Achievement

Composition of the Sub-Samples

Similarities and Differences Between Over
and Under.Achievers

Conclusions

VII RELIGIOUS AFFILIATICE AS A FLCTCR IS THE CHOICE
OF LIFE GOELS

Selection and Comoosition of the Sub—Sanples
Comparison of Protestant Church and
ITon—Church Mcznhers

Connerison of Catholic and Protestant
Church Members

Comparison of Catholic Church I-iembers and
Protestant Non-Church Memoers

Similarities and Differences Among Catholics,
Protestant Church Members, and Protestant
Non-Church Members

Catholic Priests and Protestant Ministers

Conclusions
PART I I I
SUMIARI
VIII IJTUABD“’ATIOJ AFD CO1 JLUSIOES

Summary of Differences and Similarities

The Emergent Pattern of General Goals of Life
The Cult of the Individual

Summary and Conclusions

BIBLIOGRAPHY

®“FLTDIX

89
89
91
91
97

10

104

10h
107

110
115
117

117

122

12%

126
132
136

137

137
1Lu
151
155

'-

157

159

,- -.~. 1‘
Tiiigllfl

1T0.

VI

‘fII

VIII

IX

‘9'
J).

XII

XIII

XIV

XV

T‘T
{3-1

t“
if!
U)

Background Data for Total Sample

Performance of
Inventory

Total Snuole on.§ggls 9£_Life

 

Perfornsnce of
and Present

ACE Sannle, Other HSC
8:113]. e

Students,

Background Data for Ton—Veterans, Veterans
and Women

Bartlett's Chi-Square Test for Homogeneity of

P

'1 (~-
( ,.
.

.35

Estimates of Variance for Snnples of Hon-Veterens,

Veterans, and Women

Differences Among Don—Veteran Men, Men Veterans,
and Women (breed on original samples)
Distribution of ACE Psychological Test Decile Ranks

for Eon-Veteran Ken and Kev Srnnle of Men
Veterans

Distribution of ACE Psycholo;icnl Test Iecile Ranks

for Hon-Veteran hen and new Sample of Women

Sunne y of Changes in.§ Values on Goals Rechecked
for Possible Bias in Samples of Non-Veteran,
Veterans and Women

Differences among Hon-Veteran Men, Men Veterens,
and Women (includes nev'_ values for goals re-
checked for possible senyle bias)

Performance of Hon-Veteran Men on Goels of Life
Inventorz

 

 

Performance of Men Veterans on Goals 2: Life
Inventory

Performance of Women on Goals g£_Life Inventogg

 

 

Summary of Differences Among Non-Veteran Men,
Men Veterans and Women

Backa‘ound Data for Samples of Rural and Urban
Students

3.41

[3.2

L6

‘1

J

64

80

XVI

XVII

XVIII

XIX

CI

XXII

XXIII

XXIV

XXV

XXVI

XXVII

XXVIII

XXIX

XXX

Differences Between Rural and Urban Students 82

 

 

Performance of Rural Students on Goels _£ Life
Inventorv 8U

Performance of Urben Students on Goals _f_Life
Inventorv 85

Background Data for Sannles of Students Connared
on Acrdemic Veriable 92

Differences Between Students of Low and High
Academic Ability (bescd on original scmnles) CM

Connarison of Changes in 3 Values on Goals Re—
checked for Possible Srmple Bias in Original
Connarison of Students of Low and High Academic
Ability 96

Differences Between Students of Low and High Academic
Ability (includes new E'values for goals rechecked
for possible sanule bias 98

Performance of Students of LOW'Acadenic Ability on
Goals 2£_Life Inventor: 100

 

Performance of Students of High Academic Ability
on Goals QEDLife Inventorz lOl

Honor Point Scores of Students Classified by

Decile Rank on ACE Psychological 105
Comparison of Limits Established for Over and
Under Scholastic Achievement 106

Number of Over and Under Achievers by Decile
Rank on ACE Psychological 107

Background Data for annles Compared on Fector
of Scholastic Achievement 108

Differences Between Students Who Under and
Over Achieve 111

Performance of Under Achi,vers on Goals 9£.Life
Inventory 112

 

 

Performance of Over Achievers on Goals _§_Life
Inventory 11%

Background Data for Students With Different
Religious Affilietion 120

XXXIII

XIXIV

XXXV

XXXVI

Le]

Differences Among Protestant Church Members,
Protestant hon-Church her1oers, and Catholic
Church hembers

Performance of Protestant Church Members on
Go_i_m-ls of Life Inve 1tor;r

Performance of Protestant Non-Church Members on
Goals 9£.Life Inventor;

Performance of Catholic Church Members on Goals
of Life Inventory

Orieinal Freouencv Distributions for Hon-Veteran

hen, Men Veterans, Howl n, Protestent and Catholic
Church Xem1oe1rs, and Total S: nnle on E.ch Gen 1 in

the Gorls of Life lnventorv

 

 

Sumnery of‘t Velies for All Grouns Connered
Obssed on oria: ine sa ales)

Summary of §_Velues for All Groves Connered
(includes new t values for rote ls recheel<ed for
possible samples bias)

Sumnerv of the Perf rt.:znce of All Groups
(includes new samples used to check possible
sample bias)

Comparison of Goals as Ranked bv 32 oil Sample
(includes corrections for samples rechecked
for possible bias)

Conparis on of Performance on Gons of Life
Inventory of Original and New Samples Drawn
to Correct for Possible ample Bias

12-79

H
U1
\0

170

172

173

l7h

$1121 I

INTRODUCTION

CH' TEE I. THE PROBLEL, NATUQE. AID SCOPE OF THE SEUD

The Genersl Problem

 

Is there any relationship between general life gnels which
peonle are willing to express and similer antecedent socialization?
In this query there lies a problem thet hss both theoreticel and
administrative significence.

Treatment of this problem has resrlted in two Opposing points

of view. The traditional point of view1

emphasizes the significnnce
of a total, pervesive culture shared to some extent by all sub-cultures
within a given society. There is, however, an alternate position.r
According to this more recent view;oint2 modern societies are made up
of specialized and fragmentary "behavior systems", or ways of life,
which are not clearly related to each other. According to this view
it is not scientifically correct to speak of social behavior in ref-
erence to the totality of a culture.

One of the purposes of this study is to test these two inter-
pretations of the socialization process. Such research is limited,
of course, to the nature of the data, the instrument, and the proce-

dures followei. Kevertheless, the evidence to be presented in this

report should heve some import for the general problem.

 

1. The best exposition of this position, perhaps, is given in the
classic article by A. L. Kroeber, "The Superorgsnic", American
Anthrogologist (ns). 19:163-213. 1917.

 

 

2. A clear statement of this point of view, though perhaps more
weeping in its implications than many would be willing to accept,
is given by A. B. Hollingshead, "Behavior Systems as a Field for
Research", Americen SociOIOgicsl Review, “:316—822, 1939.

 

‘ --v. y 0
Tue egootnesis

 

 

Bearing in mind the general problem, the hycothesis adepted for

1

testing in this study may be stated as fol'ows:

Intre—eroun vsriations in exoressions of senerel life pools will

 

equal or exceed inter-prone verietions on the ssme fnnls for

lerge classes of oeogle in our society.

0
A

This hviothesis is in some respects a null hypothesis. For it
was assumed before this research was undertaken that there were no
differences in life goals for the groups which were to be examined.
However, the hypothesis differs from the null hypothesis in one inner-
tent respect. It imtlies that, for large numbers of peeple, the
effects of a "total culture" cause similarities es noteworthy as the
differences existing between smaller g oups, insofar as evpressions

of general life goals are concerned.

This hypothesis is, in its very nature, abstract. For research
purposes it may be reformulated in terms of a more Specific hypothesis
or corollary, namely:

Certain genersl life 53213 which;£eople are willing to ero‘ess

are pervssive end extend beyond the limits of certain sub;

cultural grog) s.

 

The corollary is within the scepe of this study and will be
examined concretely in terms of the data and instrument used for this
research. Conclusions which may or may not justify the corollary
should apply to some extent to the more general hypothesis.

In this study-verbal statements of life goals are accepted as
symbolic of sentiments but not necessarily of action. From the corol-

lary it is Contended that willingness to accept certain verbelizetions

3
is not confined to Specific sub-groups. such as Catholics or Protes-
tents, rural or urban peoole, or college veteran or non-veteran.
Rather it is 90stuleted that such verbelizations occur within the
total culture of a large group of peOple, such as the middle class.
This does not deny the possibil ty that "fragmentary behavior systems"
exist within the total society, but rather that, with respect to
general life goals, these cultural segments are large and include a
variety of kinds of antecedent socialization.

The corollary, herefore, is in line with the treditionel point
of view regarding the socielizetion process. That is, general life
goals are held to be functionally autonomous and not necessarily
logically related to more specific goals occassioned by membership in
specific groups. The principle is akin to that of the functional
autonomy of motives described by Allport.l If there is 9 general
pattern of life goals which extends throughout a broad band of culture,
these goals will be manifested, symbolically at least, by groups who
have differing specific interests, beliefs, and valueS. This is the

main tenor of the hypothesis to be tested in this research.

The Sam p l e

 

She larger problem thus formulated has, for research purposes,
been limited in this study to a consideration of certain college
students. The total sample consisted of hOB students, mostly freshman
and s0phomores, in the Department of Effective Living at Michigan Stete

College. All were first term students in the department, and the Goals

 

 

l. G. W. ‘llport, Personality, Henry Holt and Company, 1937, pp.l?l-°OY.

 

u

of Life Inventory (to be discussed in the next section) was taken as a

 

part of their work in the department.
There are two selective factors in the sample which.should be

noted. Students who took the Goals of Life Inventory inthe fall of

 

-1

l9h5 id so during the lest half of Thanksgiving week. lhus about half
of the students in the department did not take the inventory because of
the Thursday holiday. The remaining students who took the inventory
Friday and Seturdsy did so as a regular part of their class work. These
students possibly were more serious minded than others, for the college
pOpulations as a whole is considerably less during the lest of Thanks-
giving week, even though Thursday is the only official holiday at MSG.

When the inventory was administered to students in the Winter
and Spring terms of l9h6 the test was not made obligatory but was Op—
tional for those who wanted to take it. This likewise might be a factor
in the selection of more serious minded.students, especially since the
hour used in taking the test could have been used for their own other
purposes.

Whether or not the manner of selecting the sample biases the data
cannot be determined with certainty. It would seem that there is some
bias in the direction of a sample of students somewhat more serious
minded then their peers, If so, it would seem that such.bias might
make for a more reliable perfonnance than if students less likely to
treat the inventory seriously had been included. Some evidence for this
apoears. Only four tests had to be excluded from the study because
they were incomplete. Since it requires about forty-five minutes to

take the test and it is a somewhat tedious process, this would seem to

indicate that these particular students were interested enough in the

results to expend conSiderable effort. ?

Failure to complete the inventory is the only evidence of non—
c00peration available from inspection of the answer sheets. There is
no way to determine if the students marked the test at random, Exami-
nation of the data, however,shows that, for practically all of the
students, there were some fairly well defined high goals and definitely
clear low goals. Such a performance would seem to indicate that def-
inite choices were made by most students.

Nevertheless, it cannot be stated that the sample selected was
the best sample which might have been selected. Ideally, the sample
should have been large enough to permit the building of sub-samples
eouivalent for factors to be examined separately. Such was not the case
and because of this it was necessary to inspect the data carefully to
determine if differences which occurred on certain variables were
spuriouly affected by the operation of other variables.

The sample, therefore, consists of a somewhat heterogeneous
group of college freShmen and sOphomores. The manner of selection
constitutes one of the limiting features of this study. There is some
possibility that the sample is more representative of the serious
minded student but there is no definite proof of this. The fact that
these students are in college canstitutes, to some extent, evidence of
a certain amount of homOgeneity in the sample. For the most part such
students are middle class, enterprisingjpersons seeking a way to go

further than they think they might go without a college education.1

 

l. Arnol W. Green in "The SociOIOgical Analysis of Horney and Fromm",
American Journal_of SociolOgy, 51:533-540. l9u6 classifies the
middle class person as one who is constantly striving toward the

 

improvement of his personal socioeconomic position within the class
structure.

b
As such these students probably represent to some extent wkpt may be
called the culture of the middle class and are identified, to some
degree, with the generalized life goals or sentiments of the middle
class.

~-,

The Instrument for Keasurement of Life Goals

 

The procedure which.was used in this study was that of giving
students a paper and pencil test designed to obtain acceptance or
rejection of certain selected, generalized life goals. This test is

called the Goals of Life Inventory and was deveIOped as a project of

 

the Cooperative Study in General Education.1

This inventory2 consists of twenty goals, each of which is
paired with the other nineteen goals. The student is asked to make a
choice between these goals. This technique of "paired comparisons"
forces the student, if he follows instructions, to appraise each of
the goals against all of the other goals and express each time his
preference. The maximum score, therefore, for any one goal is 19 and

the minimum is zero. If a student made choices with perfect consis-

tency the goals would be ranked from 19 to zero. There is no total

 

1. Ralph W. Ogan in "The )‘
EduCational Record, 23 692-703, 19MB, outlines some of the worE“_
done by this group. A more complete report of this particular pro—
ject is contained in the Staff hews Letter (The COOperative Study
in General Education, 5335 Kimbark Ave., Chicago, Illinois) Vol. 2,
Ho. 6 and Vol. 3. ho. 6, April l9ul and May l9u2, respectively.

Cornerative Study in General Education", The

 

2. Harold B. Dunkel, "An Inventory of Students' General Goals in Life",
Educational and Psycholosjcal Measurement, “:87-95, lghh, goes more
fully into the details of test construction and the interpretati n
given by the authors of the test. The following discussion is based
in part upon this report and "A: Inventory of Students' General Goals
of Life", Chapter II of a book now in the process of publication by

 

Professor Dunkel.

score for performance on the inventory. The final re llt is a series
of twenty separate scores for each person who takes the test.

In interpreting the individual profile particular attention is
paid to goals which are at the tOp and at the bottom of the choices
made on the inventory. Little weight is given to goals which are in
the middle of the list for by the nature of the test all goals which
are neither desired nor positively rejected will rank somewhere along
the middle of the scale. There is no way to make a perfect score since

there is, of course, no aroitrary authority who can say that the goals
should be ra.ked in any one particular order. It is difficult to say
what scores might be made by chance or random selection.

Students in philosOphy classes in colleges participating in the
study were the original source for the goals which make up the inventory.
A list of possible main gpals was secured both from students and teachers.
One of the criteria for selection was that the goals must give adequate
representation to some of the gpals in the main stream of Western philo-
s0phy and religion. The second was that some of the goals must express
more familiar but less formal goals which are part of common or "folk"
philosOphy. In order to keep the list of goals short, certain goals which
are ordinarily distinguished by philOSOpherS but appear to be related
in the minds of students were included in a single statement. Certain
sentiments which are not common in the stream of Western civilization,
for example, Nirvana, were omitted. Goals which appeared as common to
students but were expressions of more immediate or subordinate goals,
for example, "good health", were also omitted. The final result of this

selection by the authors of the inventory is set out below:

 

 

Goal he; Kane
1 Self-develOpment - becoming a real, genuine person.
2 Finding my place in life and accepting it.
3 Serving God, doing God's will.
H Achieving personal immortality in heaven.
5 Self-discipline — overcoming my irrational emotions and
sensuous desires.
6 Self-sacrifice for the sake of a better world.
7 Doing my duty.
8 Peace of mind, contentment, stillness of spirit.
9 Serving the community of which I am a part.
10 Fine relations with other persons.
11 Living for the pleasure of the moment.
12 Getting as many deep and lasting pleasures out of
life as I can.
13 Promoting the most deep and lasting pleasures for the
greatest number of peOple.
1h Making a place for'myself in the world; getting ahead.
15 Power - control over people and things.
16 Security - protecting my way of life against adverse
changes.
17 Being able to "take it"; brave and uncomplaining
acceptance of what circumstances bring.
18 Realizing that I Cannot change the bad features of

the world, and doing the best I can for myself and
those dear to me.

19 Survival, continued existence.

20 Handling the specific problems of life as they arise.
These goals are described by the authors as general goals of
life. They would not appear to be Specifics in daily living but rather

manifestations of sentiments around which daily living is oriented.

 

1. In the future discussion and in the tables which.will be presented
the names of these goals will be given in somewhat abbreviated form.

2. The use of the term "sentiments" in this study is closely akin to
the meaning employed by Pareto. In his analysis of non-logical
action sentiments are stated to manifest themselves in moral, reli-
gious and other "theories.“ Specifically, Sentiments manifest them-
selves in the form of residues and derivations. The residue is the
constant element and the derivation is the variable, consisting of
"reasons", lOgical or irrational, used to explain and to make further
deductions from the residue. See particularly The Kind and Society,
edited by Arthur Livingston; translated by Andrew Bongdorno and
Arthur livingston, Vol. I Chapter 2, Harcourt, Brace & Company, flew York,
1935. No attempt was made to analyse the goals on the Goals of Life
Inventory in strict Paretian terms. The position has been taken, how-
ever, that these goals represent, to a certain extent, derivations
which in turn manifest sentiments of the social actor. Whether or not

the actor will pursue a certain course of action because of these sen-
timents cannot be determined from a study of this kind.

 

 

9

About twenty-one colleges participated in the construction of

the inventory, including Kichigan state College. Nearly half of these
were denominational schools. Korms were established by the authors of
the inventory on the basis of SEQ; students who participated in the
final inventory which was developed. These norms are given in terms of
medians and inter-quartile range. Comparison of this group to the stu~
dents in the present sample will be made in Chapter II.

For the purp see for which the instrument was intended the authors
feel that there is sufficient reliability for its use.1 That is, the
instrument is designed to obtain tep, low, and middle goals and it
appears to render such discrimination. t cannot be claimed here
that full and positive proof of the instrument's preciseness has been
demonstrated by the authors of the inventory but rather that the instru—
ment is precise enough to obtain the kind of information which was the

objective of this study.

 

l. iarold B. Dunkel, "Reliability of the Inventory of General Life Goals,"
Appendix A of manuscript in process of publication. The authors of
the inventory used the Kuder—Eichardson formula (see G. F. Kuder and
M. W. Richardson, "The Theory of the Estimation of Test Reliability,"
Psychometrika, 2:151-1co, 19h7, particularly formula.21) as one mea—
sure of reliability. In addition Pearsonian coefficients of corre—
lation were obtained on two separate groups whicriwere retested, one
of 17 and another of 26 students. The results of the Pearsonian
analysis seemed to confirm the prepriety of using the Kuder—Richardson
formula. The authors made a very interesting individual analysis of
the performance of students in the two small groups mentioned above.
Using the Spearman rank-order correlation method they compared the
performance of each.student on the 20 goals and found. for the group
of 17 who had taken the retest two days after taking the original
inventory, that for these students the majority had correlation coef-
ficients of .90 or better, all but one had .85 or more, while one had
a coefficient of .61. They also made an individual analysis of the
students in the group of 26, likewise using the Speannan formula. This
group had taken the retest 20 days after the first administration. The
coefficients were not as high as in the group of 17 but 15 were .82 or
above and only four were below .75. In this connection it is interest—
ing to note that even among students for whom correlation coefficients
were rather low the high and low goals chosen on both tests remained
about the same. For example, the lowest coefficient was .59. In this
case the student had the same three high goals and the same four low
goals although the position of the goals in the hierarchy was somewhat
changed. ,In this particular study only high and low goals are of great
concern and group, not individual, perfonnance, is the object study.
From all of the evidence submitted by the authors of the inventory the
instrument would seem reliable enough for prEsent purpOseS.

10
For the punsoses of this research it may be stated that the
instrument compels choices of sentiments or general life goals. These
goals were selected for the inventory because they seemed to represent
the sentiments of many students and were compatible with both the more
formal religious and philOsoohicelstream of Western thought as well as
more informal "folk" ohilOsOphy. The estimates of reliability obtsined
by the authors indicate ttet the instrument is not precise but there is

evidence that, for purposes of this study, it may be used as a device to

measure the willingness of a group to exprEss certain life goals.

The Factors Selected for Analysis

 

Certain variables in social background and experience were
selected to test the e-fects of specific factors in socialization on
choices of general life goals. These variables were sex, war experi—
ence, general level of academic ability, scholastic achievement, reli-
gious affiliation, and residence. These are by no means all of the
factors which should he considered in appraising the effects of sociali-
zation upon choices of life goals. Nevertheless, it would seem tkwt
performance on the Goals of Life Inventory with respect to these vari-
ables would either tend to disprove or tend to confirm the major hypo-
thesis of this study. Performance with respect to these variables was,
therefore, taken to indicate, in a general way, performance which might
have occurred if other variables of a similar nature were examined.

'The reason for the selection of the particular variables used in
this study should be given. Sex and residence are two variables which
are customarily examined in most sociolOgical studies. Differences
between peeple who live in the country and those who live in the city

have been noted in many research studies. The fact that, in our society,

ll
children are exposed to somewhat differing environments because of sex
differences is generally accepted, though how much difference there is
in upbringing is debatable. What would.seem more important, however,
is whether men and women are similar or different in temperament and
personality traits depends in great part upon the culture in which they
live.1

For both the college administrator and the student of society
the effect of war experience on the choice of general life goals is
an interesting;problem. In many colleges there is an attempt being
made to give the returned veteran student th kind of education that
will best meet his needs. How much does the veteran differ from the
non—veteran and has the factor )f war experience made any difference
in the veteran's choice of general life goals?

Religious training is also a factor which is customarily asso-
ciated with the choice of life goals. As both Durkheimz and Weber}
have shown, moral and religious values play an important part in defin-
ing the goals of peOple who live in a particular society. Are differ—
ences in religious background in our society sufficient to cause
differences in the choice of life goals?

In most studies of college students general academic ability

 

1. Margaret Mead, Sex and Temperament in Three Primitive Societies,
N. w. Morrow anc Company, New York, 1935, makes this specific
point as a result of her research in New Guinea.

 

2. Emile Durkheim, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, trans—
lated by Joseph'flard Swain, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., London; The
Macmillan Company, flew York, 1915.

 

3. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Soirit of Capitalism,
translated by Talcott Parsons, George Allen & Unwin, Ltd,, london,

1930.

 

12

is an important factor, since it measures to some extent the degree of
success that students will obtain in our particular system of higher
education. Do students from differing levels of academic ability make
the same or different choices of general life goals? Academic ability
was based, in this study, on the performance of students on the Ameri—
can Council On Education psycholOgical examination which is usually
given to entering'freshman at Kichigan State College.

Although this research is confined to an analysis of background
and experience, in terms of willingness to manifest certain sentiments,
one variable was chosen to test the relationShip between what students
said and what they did. An index of scholastic achievement was set up
and students who either under or over achieved were compared. This
offered one check on the relationship between what students were will-
ing to express verbally and what they actually did in tenns of effort

expended for grade 3.

Method of Study

 

The Goals of Life Inventory does not give a total score. where

 

is a separate score for each goal for each individual profile. In the ex-

amination of any sub-samplel

used in comparing performance on a given
variable, the mean, standard error, standard deviation, and rank order
was obtained for each goal in order to give a composite picture of the
way the sample perfonned on the inventory. The way the goals ranked
gives some evidence of the high and low choices made by a given group

or sub-sample, representing their hierarchy of goals with respect to the

choices available.

 

1. E.g. veterans. women, Protestants, and other categories subsequently
used in the analysis.

13

This kind of information has value in interpreting the perfor-
mance of the total sample but more emphasis was placed noon the com-
parative performance of sub-samples selected from the total sample to
test the variables chosen for analysis. After such comaerisons are
made an interpretation of the total sample is more meaningful for, to
some extent. the effect of the unequal distribution of the variables
in the sample may be appraised.

hhen the mean performance of two sub-samples was compared it
is necessary to obtain more information than thet given by rank
order alone, for it is possible that a difference in means for any one
goal is due to chance. Ehe t test was used to determine if the differ-
ence between means was significant. In this test both the means and
standard errors are used. Its purpose is to determine whether differ-
ences in means can be accounted for by the variance within each of the
sub-samples compared, that is, whether such differences arise from
random sampling of the seme parent ponulation. A 2 value of 2.6 indi-
cates that there is a probability that such a difference between means
would occur by chance one time in a hundred. This is the one per cent
level of sirnificance and is used as the standard of comparison for
this study.

Values of‘t below the one per cent level of significance were
considered as only pointing toward significance if they were at the
five per cent level or beyond but still below the one per cent level.
At five per cent level the value of‘t is 2.3 and indicates the probability
that differences between means which were due to chance could occur five

times in a hundred. The more conservative one per cent level was used in

1M

preference to the five per cent level since the inventory used for measure-
ment is not known to be reliable for fine discrimination.

The use of't tests in conjunction with the rank onder of goals
would seem to give a fairly reliable indication of differences between
groups. For example, if the difference in the mean performance of two
sub-srmnles for any one goal is statistically significant and if, at
the same time, one group indicates a fairly strong tendency to place
this goal either at the top or bottom in the hierarchy of choices while
another group does not, there would appear to be a real difference in
the way the two groups accept this particular goal.

It was not possible in most cases to select sub-samplegprcpor-
tionally the same for the variables compared. Therefore, it was neces—
sary to attempt a 105ical as well as a statistical analysis. That is,
differences between men and women, for example, might be spurious be-
cause of the Operation of other ariables, such as academic ability,
religious affiliation or residence, which were disproportionately dis-
tributed in these sub-samples of men and women. While it was not pos-
sible to appraise the effects of more than one variable at a time it
was possible to check the Operation of any one variable when considered
si ngly.

Thus, if men and women (i.e. the sex variable) were found to
differ significantly on a given goal but such a difference did not
occur when another variable, such as residence, was examined, it was
assumed that difference in residence could not adecuately account for
the difference between men and women. If, on the other hand, it were

found that both urban and rural students and men and women students

 

It‘ll I‘llll‘ll‘l l

15

differed significantly on the same goal, it could be assumed that resi-
dence might account for the difference between men and women. Con-
versely, sex differences might cause a spurious difference between
urban and rural students, In such cases, it was necessary to re-
examine the composition of the sub-samples under consideration to
determine if the distribution Of the variable which might be causing a
difference was such as to confirm this supposition.

In summary, the variables selected for study were analyzed by
Obtaining sub-samples chosen from the total sample tO test the Opera-
tion of a given factor in background or experience. The mean perfor—
mance Of each sub-sample Of a given variable was obtained and signifi-
cant differences between such sub-samples measured by't tests. The
possible Operation Of other variables on a narticular variable under

analysis was checked lOgicelly but not statistically.

Survey of Related Literature

 

The general literature on values, ultimate ends, and life goals
is extensive. AxiOlOgy, as a special branch of philOsOphy, is concerned
with values and value-systems. The sociolOgist and anthrOpOlOQist has
become increasingly concerned with the study of common ends as a part
Of the explanation of the integration or lack of integration Of a
society.1 There is no common definition Of values, even within a given
discipline, and for the purposes Of this study, it does not seem neces-

sary to attempt one. As has been pointed out, this research is con-

 

1. Cf. Robert Cooley Angell, The Integration Of American Society,
McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc., lghl, Chapter II.

 

16

cerned primarily with the verbal manifestation of a certain kind of
sentiments - those relating to purposes or general goals of life.
Beyond that definition it does not seem necessary to 50.

Specific literature related to the kind of study attempted here
is limited. With.the exception of the literature alrealy quoted there

is, at present, no research known by the author which bears on the Goals

 

of Life Inventory. There is, of course, a great deal of literature on

 

student attitudes and Opinions. There is, also, one test of values
which has been rather widely used for college students.

Vernon and 9.11th1 develOped a test of values based on value—
types as classified by Eduard Spranger. Sprenger's value-types are
ideal—typical constructs which.purport to represent certain kinds of
historical individuals. These include the theoretical, economic,
aesthetic, social, political, and religious man. The test is constructed
to determine the relative prominence of each value in a given personality.

This test is extremely interesting, especially with respect to
the analysis of a given personality. However, it would not seem to pro-
vide a means of expressing general life goals in the same way as is
done by the Goals of Life Inventory.

Woodruff2 used the Allport-Vernon study as a basis for further
deveIOpment of a test of values, particularly emphasizing the relationship

between the verbalized motive and other behavior.

 

1. P. E. Vernon and G. W. Allport, "A.Test For>Personal Values",
Journal of Abnormal and Social PsycholOgy, 26: 231-2M8, 1931.

 

2. A. D. Woodruff, "Personal values and the Direction of Behavior,"
School Review, 50:32—h2, l9h2. Also, "Relationship Between
Functional and Verbalized Motives," Journal of @ducational
PsycholOgy, 35:101-107, l9hu.

 

 

 

17

Elizabeth Duffyl has summarized some of the most important work
done with the Allport-Vernon scale. She finds that

"There are characteristic differences between the evaluative
attitudes of students in different colleges, between students
in different fields of study within the same college, between
individuals in difierent occupations, between individuels who
exnress a preference for the seme occupations, between indivi-
duals who score differently on the Strong Vocational Blank,

and between men and women....hen score higher on theoretic,
economic, and political values; women score higher on aesthetic,
social, and religious value s."

With the exception of sex differences it may be seen that from
the above Quotation the kind of fectors chosen for analysis in this
study are not the same as those chosen for analysis of the Allport-
Vernon scale. Specific interests constituted the main.focus of atten-
tion when.various authors used the Alloort-Vernon scale. This would
appear to be the most logical avproach, for as Cantril and Allport2
point out the scale measures above all "generalized traits of person-

ality". Therefore, there would aspear to be considerable difference in the

approach of researchers using;the Allsort-Vernon Study of Velues end

 

that of this study based upon the Goals of Life Inventory.

 

A somewhat different study of values was that undertaken by

Harding.3 He attempted to discover the concepts of prospective terchers

 

1. Elizabeth Duffy, "A Critical Review of Investigations Employing
the Allport-Vernfln Study of values, and Other Tests of Evaluative
Attitudes," PsycholOgical Bulletin, 37:597-b12, 19HO.

2. H. Centril and Cu K. Allport, "Recent Applications of the Study of

Values," Journal of Abnormo and Social Psychology, 2o:259-£73, 1933.

 

K. L. W. Harding, "A Value-Tyne Generalizations Test", Journal of
Social Psychology, 19:53-79, 19H4. Also, "The Value-Type Problem-
mrire", Journal of Sociel PsycholOgy, 19:115-1hh, l9uu.

 

 

18

with respect to such value~arees as the nature of desirable social
organization, the nature of final causation, the place and function of
the individual in society, and the like. The two tests he Used are
extremely interesting but would not appear to get at exactly the same
kind of life goals as are on the inventory used in this study.

From this survey of the literature it does not appear that
studies similar to that undertaken here have been made. In none of
the research reported above was an attempt made to compare background
and eXperience with performance on the instrument used. There is some
evidence from the Allport-Vernon study which points to sex differences

in choice of values. whether or not this test and the Goals of life

 

Inventory may be compared on this ooint is doubtful but findings should

.L

be suggestive.

Susana r y

The general problem with whidh this study is concerned is limited
to the more specific problem of the relationship between cert in general
goals of life and some factors in the antecedent socialization of a
selected number of college students. Insofar as particular choices on

the Goals of Life Inventory are concerned, high or low preference are

 

both assumed to be symbolic of students' sentiments. Such sentiments
are further assumed to serve as clues to sentiments prevalent in the
environment from which the student comes. The limitations of the

sample have already been noted and , needless to say. no sweeping gener-
alizations may be made. Nevertheless, if the premise is tenable that
individuals obtain their values from the culture, some of the conclu—

sions from this research may apply to the groups in our society which

these students represent.

PART II

T ‘5..qu D 13.11.;

19

-—l
p.<
( f)

‘l
J;
O
I‘J
P1
’1:

'1
*3

CHAPTER II. Alan :CTAL SAHPLE

 

Composition of the Sample

 

The composition of the total sample selected for this study
is shown in Table 1.

It is apparent that, for the sample as a whole, there is a
somewhat greater number of men than women, although the difference
does not appear to be excessive. However, the number of non-veteran
men students is considerably less than that of the veteran men stu-
dents. While it would have been desirable to have a larger number of
non-veterans it was impossible to obtain more for this study.

The figures for residence show an interesting parallel to the total
figures for the state of Michigan. The ratio of known rural to known
urban residence in the sample is almost exactly prOportional to the
state figures of 33 per cent rural and 67 per cent urban. From the
data available in this study one Category, towns lOOlfiOOOpOpulation,
could not be classified as either rural or urban since the usual dividing
pOint of towns exceeding 2500 population is obscured by this category.
Assuming that the same prOportions would hold for this category as for
the rest of the sample, it may be stated that the total rural-urban
relationship is approximately the same in the sample as in the state of
Michigan. The sample is, of course, predominantly urban.

General academic aptitude as a basis for differentiation of
students in this sample will be discussed in Chapter V. From Table 1
it would appear that the total sample contains more students who per-

form in the upper 50 per cent level of academic ability than in the low-

 

EaCKGECUL Darn TOR.TOlLL SrjILE
Background Data Total Per Cent

Humber of Sample

 

SEX ELTIO AID ”LR fiKPTEIETCE

 

Men - Non-Veterans b6 ll.bl
n /".

VBt erans 1'7? 1?- .125;
Total Men 2 8 5Q.09
Women l°j #5.;1

 

Grand Total b0} 100.00

quIfimvcfi
*§.3 1%

JJ :3- . Kin

Rural
Farm 76 18.86
Su ruban Hon-Farm 23 5.71

Town under 1000 18 hphz

Total Known Rural 117 £9.0L

City 5030-:5,000 67 16.62

City 25,000-200,000 97
City Over 200,000 éz 16.62

Total Urban Over 25,000 16M “0.69
Total Known Urban 231 €7.31

Unclassified

 

 

 

Town 1000-5000 51 12.56
Unknown h 0.00
Total unclassified 55 1h.65
Grand Total 1103 100.00

 

 

TnELU I - (00‘01n1e0)
Bzch “0 nd De .ta Total Per Ce nt
Number of ernle

 

GihnwiJACAT“ :10 “I ‘ILI

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lower 50 ner cent 1&5 3§,o3
Upper 50 yer cent 20? 50.12
7,. C/ .
Unnnown 1 :3 11,90
~03 100.00
(Lower 20 per cent 5 10.10)
(Ubuer 20 per cent 85 71.09)
“fi'vn ‘j‘Yffi H: 2
Dinv’quSZIC 1“J..Iln ._._J .
O r I “' T t “b #-
vei Lonievenen Jr 13. 0
Under Achievement I“ 10. 02
Expected Achieve: .ent 305 75 .68
Total #03 100.00
LLLI rIC C’S 3:31: 'EITISLIZ
Protestant 2T9 56. 82
Catholic 51 2.66
Jewish u 0.99
Non-Church members
Protest: nt Pref ezence 9 73.08
Other or No Preference 22 5.06
Unknown 0 0.0?
Grand Total [03 103.00
EELIG OUS IEVF -PICE
Protes ant 32? 79.90
Catholic 55 13.65
Jevish 8 1.98
Eone 17 4.22
Unknown 1 0.?5

 

 

1.7
O
5 K»)
H
)
O
O
O
O

 

 

1. Percentages derived fro1 fierfornznce on American Council on Eaucz—
tion Pegrcholo :icz.=l E1911nution. See Chepter 5.
2. see 0-1801281. 6.

T0
T0

TABLE I - QContinned)

 

Background Data Total Per Cent
Dumber of Seunle

 

BLKRITAL S’ILTUS CF SL'UIIBETTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Married 53 3.15
Widowed or Divorced 3 0.70
Single 31:5 " 5.61
Unknown 2 0.50
Total L03 100.00
111.le T1111 EELTUS F STETTE'TS ' 7'11 "L .5
Living Together 309 76.68
Divorced or Senareted 22 5.06
One Parent Deceased 9 17.12
Both Parents Deceased 3 0.70
T013811 1403 100.00
353 N COLLVGE
Freshman 302 7b.9b
Sonhomore 8 20.60
Other 18 4.06

 

Total L303 100.00

 

er 5? nercent. Lhere is also 2 rethvr lerge nercentege of students
for whom no comp"rcble score of ececemic eptitude could be ortsined.
The birs in the direction of higher scholastic aptitude is also
aj111ei‘ent when the two extremes, thrt is, the uiiper end lower 20

per cent ere cmnpered. The results of the analysis of this fector
must be considered carefully, therefore, in meking statements Fbout

the total nerformence of students who took the Goels of Life InventorV.

Scholastic achievement es a behavior index end its relationship

to verbelized life eesls will be discussed in Chepter VI. From Trhle 1

H.

t would not apnecr th t, with reseect to the total senele, there was
much birs either in the direction of over or under achievement. 10

test for significent difference was obtsined, however, but the further

Q.
P“

scussion of this fector will indicate why it does not engesr to
affect the SfiMJIB as a whole.

When the ssmple is considered on the basis of religious affili-
ation it eppeers thet it is predominantly Protestant.l There is like—

cise e r.ther high percentage of non-ctmrch members, most of whom ex-

(A
‘
J

press a Protestant preference. There seems to be little difference

Q

between the number of Catholics ULO express a preference for Catholicism
and the number who are church members. This would appear to confinn

the usually accepted feet that Catholics belong to their church while

many peeple express a preference for Protestantism who do not take

 

1. This is also epperentlérfer the total kichi;rn ponuletion. Only the
1930 census figures were wvaileble. The percentages of Protestent
and Cetholic Church members for Michigan, according to this informa—
tion is 35 end 17 percent respectively. This would inéicste thst the
prooortion of Cetholic church members in this shnple is fairly close
to that for Lichigan. This would not seem to be true 3f Protestant
church members but it must be remembered that there are a number of
Protestant churches thzt set age limits on church membership.

21+

sctive pert in Protestant reliiious activities. It was for this
reason that the analysis of religious membership, which is made in
Chapter VII, takes up both the Protestant church and non-church member.
There was, of course, too $0311 a number of students of other faiths
or no faith to analyze, though the results of such an analysis, if it
were possible to make it, would be extremely interesting. For the
semple as a whole, therefore, it may be ststed that there is a strong
Protestant bias and the analysis of this factor must be considered
in making statements about the performance of the total sample.

Table 1 contains certain other factors which were known but were
not analyzed in this study. Ordinarily meritel status is not considered
when Freshman and sonhomore students, who make up neerly all of the

total sample, re analyzed. It is apparent2from stle 1, however,

‘2)

that there is an unusually large number of married students for this
kind of sample. This is due to the large number of veterans who com-
prise most of the 13 per cent who are married. It is nossible that
this factor should have been analyzed. However, most of these re-
turned veterans who are now married can not be classified in exactly
the same way as is done when studies of the married and non-married
are usually made. It would be necessary to know considerauly more
about the individual marriage, how far had they or have they gone in
establishing a real fsmily unit, how long have they been separated
from their wives, how recently have they been married, and other
questions which it is usually not necessary to ask in e normrl period.
The scone of this study does not include the answers to these Questions
end it is necesssr*, therefore, to assume, when comparing veterans

with other students, thct the marital fector may have some effect.

25

As has been pointed out, the total sample is almost entirely
Freshmen and SOphomores. The Freshmen make up nearly 75 per cent of
the sample. It did not seem profitable to attempt a separate analysis
of Freshmen and Sophomores for under most college pragrams, and under
the Basic College prOgram at Michigan State in particular, the kinds
of experiences for these two groups is not unusually different. An
interesting study could be made of differences in life goals as ex-
pressed by Fresnnan and Seghouores when compared to Juniors and Seniors,
but the composition of this sample did not permit such an analysis.

Still another factor which was known but not analyzed separately
was that of the marital status of the parents of the students in mn.s
samgle. The number of students whose parents were divorced or separated
seemed too small to use for comparative purposes. There was a fairly
large number of students who had only one parent living. It is poss—
ible that differences might occur because of this fact. Family security
and stability is, of course, an imsortant factor in individual growth
and specific motivation. Such an analysis Was, however, outside the
scape of this study. Such brOad cultural conditioning factors as
residence, religious training, differing cultural excectations be-
cause of sex differences, and war experience may be held to be fairly
constant in their effects. The Goals of Life Inventory is an instru—
ment whidh may be used to test acceptance of certain general, verbal
statements in conjunction with such general social factors. then,
however, we ask the question why does this particular student mark
these goals in this order and what do they mean to him personally we

begin to inquire into the specific factors which make him into a socio~

psychological being. How this process is related to the interna-
lization and personal interpretation of values and life goals
which exist in the culture is a problem which is of paramount im-
portance to the student of society. The problem is not one which
can be answered by this study. It is possible that specific, indi-
vidual socialization is the result of a comylez of operating factors
which cannot be considered singly. It is, therefore, possible that
there are many unknown factors which may account for the results of
this research more completely than the factors known and chosen for
analysis. Nevertheless, it will be the purpose of this study to ex-
amine the factors selected for analysis and to attennt to account
for them in a way which is not variance with the possibility that
other factors may be onereting.

One other factor should be considered. The mean age of the
total sample is 20.91 i .15. Age was not analyzed as a senarate
factor because there was little difference between women andIDn-veteran
men, while, on the average, the veterans were about four years older.
It was not possible to obtain any largenumber of vetersns who approxi—
mated in age the non-veteran men or the women, or who varied enough
from the nean for veterans to test the significance of the age factor.
In Speaking of the returned veteran student, therefore, it is necessary
to consider age as a factor conconitent with war experience. As has
been shown there are a number of variable in the sample which might
account, in part, for the performance of the total group. A discussion

of the total sample, to be meaningful, can best be made in terms of the

variables which are to be disucssed subseruently. It has already been

27

ackn wledged that other factors whose effects were not, or cannot,

be measured may affect this sample. fievertheless, it is of interest
to examine the perfornance of the total group in this study and to
compare it with that of the larger group of college students who
participated in the original American Louncil on Education study,

and also with that of otter'students at Michigan State who have taken

the Goals of Life Inventory study.

Performance on the Goals of Life Inventory

 

An examination 0 Table A in tie Appendix shows some interest-
ing facts with respect tothe distribution of scores on each gpal.
ho test for "goodness of fit," when the normal or probability curve is
used as a standard, was obtained. however. certain facts are apparent
by inspection. As would be expected thvse goals which rank high are
skewed to the left; those which rank low are skewed to the right. Per—
haps. more striking is the fact that there is a wide range of scores
marked by the students in this sample for each goal. This is true
even when the goals are ranked predominantly high or predominantly low.
The way in which many of the goals which are ranked in the middle
are marked shows that the resulting curve is long and flat. That is.
the entire range of scores is covered and the freeuency for any one
score is not large when compared to the freouency for a number of other
scores for the same goal. In such cases variation is aooerent along
the entire scale. Both high and low goals also show considerable
Variation but there is a tendency for scores to cluster more toward
one or the other end of the distribution. It should be nointed out

that this variability may be a function of the unreliability of the

R)
Cfi

Goals of Life Inventory. fhus, students may vary in the way they
mark the goals because of different, personal interpretations of
what these general statements mean to them. This is the most con—
servative position to take in interpretation of this data, for the
reliability of the instrument has not been thoroughly tested. Haver-
theless, it is important to see if other hyootheses may account for
the same facts and to narrow the ranse of alternate possibilities.
Assuming that the test is sufficiently reliable for the ouroOse of
Roam”:
this research,Avariation in marking goals be eXplained? Consideration
of this question will not be undertaken until all of the facts avail-
able about the data have been presented.

The distributions of scores for two goals in particular should
be mentizned. 6041 3, Serving God, Doing God's Will, has the largest
standard deviation of any of the goals. this variation is siread
throughout the entire length of the scale but there is a fairly large
number of students who rank this goal extremely high. Another group,
though not as large, ranks tnis goal extremely low. Goal M , Achiev—
ing:Personal Immortality in Heaven, has the second largest standard
deviation. In this case, however, the distribution is skewed to the
right but there is a fairly large number of students who rate this
goal extremely high. This suggests the possibility that an analysis
of religious background may show imnortant differences. Such an
analysis will be undertaken in Chester VII.

The mean, standard error, and standard deviation of each goal
and the way each goal is ranked, is shown in Table 9. By far the most

pooular goal is that of self-develonment, which is one of the most

TABLE II

PERFVRMAICE CF TCTJ" SAEPLE ON GOALS OF LIFE IKVETTCRY

e

 

 

Goal Rank S . 403
NO. Heme Order

 

1 Self-development 1 iu.97 .1».
7

20 Handling specific problems es they arise. c 12.7 .
10 Fine rel tion? with others. 3 1?.35 .1
8 Peace of mini. M 11.78 .r
13 ErcmotinggPlereure for others. 5 11.52 .J
13 Getting deep and lasting pleasure. 6 11.34 .?

[\AJ'

\JJ

1‘.)

in Getting ahead 7 10.92 .22

5 Self-discipline 8 10.91 .15

16 Security 9 10.65 .c

15 Acceptance of the world as it is 10 10.20 .

k»!

9 Serving the com nunity. 12 9.95
17 Ability to "take it". 13 9.5% .C

5

Doing: my duty. 14 9.31 .5

M

Finding place in life.

*J
kfi
an
O
0
+
O
n

F“
O\
U\
.
O
[‘J
r

Self-sacrifice

.t.‘ CK

Achieving personal immortality 17 6-39 -

19 Survival. 18 H.21 .

11 Living for pleasure of the moment. c0 3.25 .17

\n
\ W

 

individualistic goals of the twenty. Handling soecific problems

of life as they arise, the second highest ranking goal, might be
classified as the piilosoohy of individurl Opoortunisn. Fine re-
lations with others, the third nichest goal, may indicate conscious-
ness of others. Its close proximity to the goal of self-develooment
makes interpretation difficult. Is this goal marked high because of
a genuine interest in other peoole or is it a manifestation of a
sentiment best expressed by the followers of Dale Carnegie? Peace

of mind as a life goal is difficult to explain in its relationshi; to
the nettern of the other five high goals. It would appear to be a
goal of resignation, somewhat transcendental in character. Promoting
pleasure for others would appear to be a group~centered goal.l
Getting pleasure for self is, of course, an expression of the personal
pleasure philos ph;.

Of the five low ranking goals, self-sacrifice and personal
immortality are rejected by the group as a whole. Even more drasti-
cally rejected are the goals of survival, power, and living for the
pleasure of the moment.

It is not intended at this ooint to attempt an explanation of
why certain goals are marked high and others low. It will be the pur-
pose of tuis study first, to determine, if there are differing net-
terns of goals wnich appear to be related to difjerent factors in

socialization, and second, to attempt to explain such differences or

 

l. A more cynical interpretation of motives is that advr-nced by one of
the authors of the Goals of Life Inventory. H. C. Junlel, An Inven-
tory of Stuient's General Goals of Life," I) . Cit.., p. 3-5}. He
found that many students thought of this gee in terms of the e
the professional entertainer. The question of personal meaning is,
of course, beyond the scone of this study.

similarities as may occur.

Confisrisnn of Sample with Other Groups

 

Little data is available to make a careful comparison of tie
yresent sample with other groups thet have taken the Goals of Life
Inventory. The medians for each goal are available, however, for the
students who oerticixsteu in the originel Americsn Council on Education
study and also for another sample of Lichigan State stufents.l Table
3 shows tie medians for each goal for these two groups as comnared
with the sample used in this study. The ton five goals are marked with
an asterisK(*) and include only those goals with medians of twelve or
above. The low three goals are marked with a double asterdsK(**) and

include only those goals with medians of three or below. Clear differ—

entistion is pOssible for'only'tre too five and the low three goals.

It will b- noted that for the ACE sample the following sOsls were
ranked among the too five: Self—develooment, serving God, promoting
pleasure for others, fine relations with others, and handling soecific
problems as they arise. For the earlier Michigan State sample the
too five goals were: Self—develonment, fine relations with others,
oromoting pleasure for others, handlingjnroblems as they erise, and
serving God. For the present sample of students in the Eeoertment of

Effective Living at Hichigen State who took this same test it was

ecessary to include six goals because of ties: Self-develOpment,

:3

fine relations with others. handling problems as they arise, oeace OI

.—

1. This sample consisted of 535 students, mostly freshmen and sOphomores,

who had taken the Goals of Life Inventory in other years. Some of
these students were among thOse included in the ACE studf, es Er.
Dressel, Director of Counseling and Ersminations at h.S.C., cooper-
ated in this study. To establish h.S.C. noius, however, 3r. Dressel
included a.number of students who took the Goals of life Inventory
at a later period.

TABLE III

 

 

 

 

 

PEEEOHKAICE OF AGE SALPLE, THiR ESC STUTEEUS, ATS P128339 SAKPL‘
Ledien Performence
n . 2225 r . 535 x = Ho}

Sample Of
Goal ACE other MSG Present
No. Heme Senole Students emole

l Self-development 5; 1:: 15¢

2 Finding place in life 9 g 9

3 Serving God 15* 12* 10

u Achievina'oersonel imnortelity 7 5 5

5 Self-discipline 10 10 ll

6 Self-sacrifice 9 7 5

7 Doing my duty 11 9 9

8 Peace of mind 10 ll 13:

9 Servint the community 11 10 10
10 Fine reletions with others 12* 13* 13*
11 Living for pleasure of the moment 24‘"' 2** 2*:
12 Getting deep and lasting pleasure 10 ll 12:
1} Promoting pleasure for others 13: 13. 19*
1H Getting ahead 9 11 11
15 Power 3-" 2H: 2-H.
16 Security 9 10 11
17 Ability to "take it" ll 10 9
13 Acceptsnce of the world as it is 9 ll 10
19 Survival 3*: 3*: 3*:
20 Handling'problems as they arise 12* 13s 13:

* TOp five gosls
**L0u three goals.

-
‘3
'l,

mind, getting deep and lasting oersonal pleasure, and promoting pleasure
for others. On the basis of medien eerformance the ACE sample and the
earlier Kichigan State sample include the seme five top goals The
present sample is in agreement on four of these five goels but marks
serving GOd one step further down in the hierarchy.

A conoerison of the medians on.tke lowest three goals indicates
thst all three samples reject living for the oleesure of the moment,
power, smi survival as sentiments which they ere willing to msnifest
as a group.

Too much faith cannot be placed in the approximate comparisons
made in Table 3 but it is noteworthy that the present sample as a total
group, is in reasonably close agreement With the sentiments of previous
Michigan State college students and also with other college students
represented by the sample in the ACE study, insofar as too and low

goals are concerned.

t1l'|‘_(-}) is

CHAPTVR III. SVX DIFFVRVICES A.’3 ”1:3.VFDVRIVUCE.AD 1nd
IX "H“ CF”ICE OF LI .FE G OnLS

Connosition of the Sue—at? Inles
Freouencv Clstf‘DlulonS were obtained on e(ch of tne tve ty
1'}. , men

OalS in tne Goals of Life Inventory For tne non-veter n ~7en
ample. Toe comeosition of these

'1“
,.

veterans, and women in the tot,l s
sue—sam7les with respect to Lnown be

Ckground and ernerientinl

as.

factors is e iven in Table h.
Tnere IS a consider bly larger proportion of stuoents v1th
men sroun than in either of

in the non-vetera.n
7en ere nredoninantly more

rural backgroune
Conversely, the t

tne other two groups.
Tie men veterans tend to oe nroportionn.lly
tn n is true for men in tne state

urban in background
sonevhat more rural in becharoun

of mlChern as a vnole. There, therefore, considerable difference
1n tne Drooortion of rural—urea n one :srounds for the three suc-

'WlCS under analys1s here.
5 of tee test used for g ne e1 academic aptitude
d1 ivided in oeriwrionce. About

half in the

1‘) '
L—hl I -
.

0n the heel

the non-veteran men are e.bout euuzwl]
1n tne unn r 50 per cent of no.0 ”1c 8:111tv
, however, there

than in

F- 110-

half are ' ’ ,_

lower 50 per cent. ”hen the extremes are con81oered

1c a so ewnat lorser nronortion in the lovest twenty ner cent
ne hen veterans in the upper f1fty

per cent.
a n v terans in the loxer

tne highest twenty

outimuner the
group is

14.
lb;

oer cent of academic ebi
)er cen by more tn.n t. o to one, inrliczting th:t this
superior a scenic ability on the

fifty '
strongly binsed in the direct1on of
CE p chodogical examination. The same
ner cent in

ba51s of performs nee on the It
nd lowest twenty

0123 is also hope rent then the highest
Tie sub-Semnle of men veter ns also

cadenic abdlity are CO“cheQ.

T33 E IV.

31cxeantnn 3111 391 x:;_r:£:111s,

VS Irl’tLIVS, A373 17017131;

35

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Eon—Veteran Hen hen Veterans "omen
Eats 30. Per Cent 30. Per Cent No. sir Jen:
_.:s-;3103
Rural
Benn 15 32.61 39 22.67 :2 11.59
Suburban Eon-Farm 2 n.35 10 5.31 11 5.95
Town under 1000 _l' 2.ll 7 ‘ 4.07 10 5.hl
Iotel Known mural 15 33.13 36 32.35 'E3 23.25
Urban
City 5o00-2§,oc0 1 2.17 93 11.51 #1 22.16
City 25.000-200.000 12 26.09 35 22.09 37 23.31
City Over 200,000 _g 19.5 30 17.31 25 1F.13
Entel Urban Over
23,000 21 u5.6o 63 39.53 75 10.:1
Total Known Urban ‘2 h7.§3 §3 3H.07 136 6T.?0
Unclassified
Town 1000-5000 6 13.03 20 11.63 25 13.51
Unknown 0 3 1.75 1 O.Fh
Total Unclassified 6 1,.04 E: 13.35 56' 1U.o§
Grand Total M6 100.00 172 100.0: 135 100.00

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AOL” TIC 1:31: 1"!"
Lower 50 per cent 2? M7.q3 39 £3.67 84 h5.Ul
Upoer 50 per cent 21 ‘5.65 so 50.00 95 51.35
Unknown 3 6,52 by o7.33 6 3.34
iotsl no 100.00 172 100.10 155 150.00
~ fir - ‘ /
(howest 20 per cent 11 84.13 10 9.30 30 10.28)
(Highest 20 per cent 8 17.39 Ml 23.34 ,6 1?.LE)
SCECLASTIC nChIVVZiB.2**
Over Achievement 9 1f.57 21 12,91 :1 13-37
Under Achievement 10 21.74 15 11,17 lo z.CF

 

derived from oerfornrnce 0n

-

* Percentages
See Chepter 5.
*1 See Chapter 6.

a "‘ ,0.
Jth-4 o \ tr

cholesical

Evenina tion,

W I f‘f' T". ’ ‘:.fi'\ ‘ “ . - 1T \I‘v ,.‘x . "a. 7‘ ‘ . ‘ -.:‘.
bJLUIs IL-O ELL) DliA-"L .L 2‘11. .L (11“f..a¢. -4.L..o'3.."- S, 1:;

TABLE

IV.

(Con't)

. JEJLK 8,

A23 WOKVE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Background Hon-Veteran hen ken Veterans Women
Data 30. Per Cent K0. Per Cent 10. fer can
__”3§Bected Achievement 27 53.69 133 77.32 1M5 72.32 .
Total “6 100,00 172 100.00 125 100,90
1:1 I sinus 1:31-331. 31:2
Protestant 29 63.0% 82 17.68 115 63.79
Catholic h 8.70 30 17.h4 17 9.1a
Jewish 0 0 u 2.16
Eon4Church hemhers
Protestant Preference 7 15.22 36 26.7u ho 21.62
Other or K0 Preference 6 13.0H 12 6.98 M 2.l6
Unknonn 0 2 1.16 2 1.03
Grand Total M6 100.00 172 100.00 185 100.00
331101005 2123123103
Protestant 36 78.26 128 71.71 158 79.90
Catholic 6 13.03 32 18.61 17 9.19
Jewish 0 2 1.16 6 J.?4
tone h 8.70 9 5.23 h 2.16
Unknown 0 l 0.58 0
Total H6 100.00 172 100.00 155 100.00
1:121 1111. 37311113 01‘ 8'.“ 23-3122
Married 1 2.17 37 27.33 5 2.70
Widowed or Divorced O l 0.56 2 1.05
Single ‘5 97.83 122 70.93 178 96.22
Unknown 0 2 1.10 O __1
Total *he 100.00 172 100.00 185 100.007‘g
M11111L STATUS or 52033313' 2133115
Living TOgethar 3% 73.91 125 72.63 150 51.06
Divorced or Separated 5 10.87 12 6.98 5 2.70
One Parent Deceased 7 15.22 33 19.18 29 15.68
Both Parents Deceased 0 2 1.16 1 0.5M
Total 3363 100.00 172 100.00 185 100.x:-_‘
rent 13 0011303 ' 3"-
Freshman 33 71.71 128 7u.u2 1M1 76 22
Sephomore 12 26.09 33 19,19 38 20,sh
Other 1 2.17 11 6.39 6 3.23
Total _“ #6 100.00 172 100.00 135 lOH.‘O

 

 

W-

 

 

"-

 

37

includes a rather high pronortion of students for when no eouiva-
lent ranking of academic aptitude could be obtained. Assuming that
these students would rank prooortionally about the sane as the re-
mainder of this su -sanole, it may be stated that, for this sub-

ample and the test used, the veterans are me Pedly sunerior to the
other two groups in general academic ability. A larger number of
women students rank in the upper fifty per cent, though the propor-
tion is not great, as compared to the lower fifty per cent. This
tendency is confirmed when the highest and lowest twenty ner cent
are compared. When the sub-samples are compared, therefore, there
seems to be considerable difference in the proportional distribution
of students of high and low academic ability among the three groups.

When scholastic achievement is considered as a senarate factor,

there does not appear to be any great difference in achievement for
the men non—vetera.s, although there is a slight tendency toward
under achievement. The same is true of men veterans, although in
this case the tendency is toward over achievement. The women show

a tendency toward over achievement but the differences between the
number of over and under achievers would not seem to be sufficient
to bias the findings when these students are included in the total
sample of 185 women. When the three grouns are compared there would
not annear to be too much prob1bility that the factor oi scholastic
achievement is a source of bias in the three samnles.

Examination of Table 4 shows that for the non-veteran men and the

women there is pronortionally about the some number of Protestant and

Catholic church members. The women, however, tend to have a greater

\7 ,4
0'4

preportion of Protestant non-church members. The sample of men
veterans contains preportionally less Protestant and more Catholic
church members then either of the other groups. This difference
appears to be rather large. ihe veterans likewise have a greater
prooortion of Protestant non-church members in comparison with the
other sub-samples. “hen the samples are comoared, therefore, there
seems to be sufficient difference between the pronortions of Catholics,
Protestants, and Protestant non—church members in the three samples

to warrant a careful check on this factor as a source of bias.

As might be expected, there is not much difference between the
non-veteran men and the women students with respect to marital status.
Most of them are unmarried. There is, however, a rather high per-
centage of married men veterans. As has been previously acknowledged.
it is possible that this is‘a source of bias within the sample of men-

veterans. The same thing is true of the age factor. The mean age for

.15, respectively. The veterans average about four years older, the
mean age being 23.09 i .19. Therefore, the facts that veterans are
older and more of them are married must be considered along with war
experience when comparisons are made with the other two sub-samples.
The marital status of the students’ parents as a factor in the
choice of life goals, was not analyzed in this study. It would appear
from Table u that the men in both.veteran and non-veteran groups are
approximately similar with respect to the number of students whose
parents are living tOgether. The sub-sample of women is somewhat

higher prOportionelly in this respect. Conversely. the sub-sample of

‘ )Nl
k0

the women students shows a very small number who come from homes
where divorce or separation hes occurred. The non-veteran sub-sample
is highest in this resnect, being probortionelly over three times as
large as the sub-samnle of women. The d fference does not appear to
be so great when the non-veteran and.tre veteran men students are
compared. The non-veteran men and the women students are preportionally
about the same with.respect to the death of one or both parents. The
veterans are highest on this factor. though there would not appear to
be too great a difference among the three Queues. When the three
groups are compared, therefore, it would appear that the marital
status of the parents of both men groups is not greatly different.
There would appear to be, however, a somewhat larger prOportion of
men who come from homes broken by death or divorce than women. This
fector may affect the comparison of the three groups under ‘iscussion,
but it was not analyzed for reasons already noted.

The prOportion of Fre shnan students in the three samples does
not aspear to be greetly dissimilar. The non-veteran group has a
larger nronortion of SOphomores but this difference would not epgear
to be great. .The incidence of students in other classifications is
not large in any of th semnles. For reasons already noted an analysis

.- P

of

OIJ

reshman-SOphomore differences wes not made. There would not
appear to be much cause for bias in the three samples because of this
factor even if it should prove to be of importance.

Method of Analysi s

 

The non—veteran men, men veterans, and women groups were 0..-
pared, each with the other, by means of t tests. These tests were run

on each goal in the GOals of Life Inventory for each of the three sets

of sub-samples. Since th number of non-veteran men was only

(D

forty-six the formula for t sting the significance of differences

between the means of sn.ll samples used.J In this formula the

11

variances of the Sahglis are pooled to obtain the best estimate

H.

of the standard deviation of the mean of the parent pOpulet on.

It is oossible that the several estimates of variance are not homo-

geneous enfi, therefore, cennot be pooled. As a check on this ooss-

ibility Bartlett's chi-scuere test for the homOHeeeity'of several

I)» A.

2

estimates of variance ties employed. The results of this test

ere shown in Teble 5. ”he sterred items in this teble inflicete
goals in the Goels of Life Inventory for which the difference among
the three groups is significant at the five per cent level.3 That
is the semcle variances are probably not drawn from the same pepu-
letion variance and, therefore, cennot be pooled on these goals.

With respect to Goals ll, 15, and 19, therefore, it was necessary to

obtain t tests by a formu 2 wherein variance was not pooled.u

1. See W. 3. Eaten, Element3ry Kathemeticel Statistics, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc., Eew Yorh, 133;, pp. t7l-375. for the explenstion
and uses of this formula. Tne writer wishes to acknowledge his
personal debt to Professor Eaten for assistance in the use of
the statistical tools employed in this study.

 

2. See P. R. hider, an Introduction to Koéern Stetisticnl Hetgods,
John Riley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1539, pp. 110-303, for the
formula used in this test.

 

7. For the teule of chi-souare at the five oer cent level of sis?
nificance see G. W. Snedecor, Stetisticel hethois, Collehirte
Press, Ames, Iowa, l9?5, p. 16}. Ihe five per cent level of
significance wns selected because it represents the most con-
servative interpretetion of Teble 5. If the one per cent
level of significance were used only on Goal 19 would there
have been a statistically significent difference.

 

14'. if. D. Biten, 01-). Cit. ’ jpo 203-2614.

Bl

TABLE V

 

 

 

Blarieri's CHI-Sgrtys TEST ran HOKCCiKE TY or ssrzxirzs or
'u'.~‘iI.-...ICI3 :03 59.: 7:13.53 331::‘~1._v:2::~...; s, registers, 31:3 '.-:::..':-:-:
Goel No. Chi-Sou.e re Goel lfo. Cid-Senere
1 5.02 11 7.63*
e 1.05 12 .55
3 4.03 13 .57
h 14.36 11+ .60
5 2.15 15 6.53*
6 .uu 16 n.38
7 n.2s 17 2-3“
s 3.39 18 n.5u
9 .9h 19 11.20:
10 .25 20 1.51

*Difference is significant at the 5 per cent level

 

Table 6 gives the re nlts of‘t tests, obtained in the manner
discussed ebove, for the three sets of samples. Values of t which
ere significant at the one per cent level are merked with an asterisk
(*); values of E'et or ebove the five per cent level but less then the
one per cent level are marked with a double esteris (**); velues of
t which border on the five per cent level are underscored.

In discussing Table 6 it is imoortent to obtain some answer
to the ouestion: Are significant differences due solely to differences
in war experience and sex? As has been stated, it is not possible
to answer this cuestion with respect to factors not analyzed in this
study. However, it is possible to drew tentative conclusions with
resoect to the effect of those fectors which were analyzed.

Teble 3 in the Alpendix gives 1 values for all goals in the
Goals of Life Inventory, based on e commerison of sub-samples selected
in tenns of beckground end experientiel factors. This table may be

used as a besis for checking significant differences which may occur

TABLE VI.

T‘ ~~1Io1"' :- -‘1~ v '5" ,n‘ . ‘ I' '1- 75 \ ' .r-‘w --~A ._. __
ulfifiiflnuCLD ALUnb n-1-nn1u men,

1 ~-
.,.
Vb“.

(Based rm Orig-tine}. S

J'L‘l“\

«"1

 

t values

 

 

Goel Lon—Veteren Non-Veteren Veterens
N0. Heme vs Veterens vs Women vs Tomen
1 Self-develonnent -1.16 -3.91* -3.15*

2 Finding place in life u.u1* ?.ue* -1.nh

Serving God

17 kM

Achieving personal immortality

-h.0i*

 

 

5 Self-discipline - .23 ,3, .97
6 Self-sacrifice 30 _ .55 -1.37
7 Foing my duty 1.70 2.07** 55
3 Peace of Kind _ ,57* -2_27*¢ .97
9 Serving the community .16 — .13 - ,ng
10 Fine reletisns with others -1.0l -2.HO#¢ -2.15##
1 Living for pleasure of the moment 1.12 .70 .75
2 Getting deep and lasting gleasure -l.20 -2.05** —1.TC
13 Promoting cleesure for others - .80 -2.52* -3.12*
in Getting ahead .52 3.3;: 4.35.
15 Power E.Od** 1.35: 3 50*:
16 Security .2.33** 1.09 5.35*
17 Ability to "take it" 2.1u-* .90 -1,ng
13 Acceptance of the world as it is .77 - .06 -1.29
19 Survival .36 2,55: h.9h*
20 Handling specific problems as they
arise - .98 .63 2.53::
Legend: Asterisk (“)gt value is significent at tne one wer cent level,

insiceti

compared.

t value is significant at the five

is probability of significant difference
STOUQS

per

cent level, indicating tendency towerd
significance between the groups cnmprred.

Underscore g t value borders on significance at the five per

 

cent level.

:us si;n (-) = Second named gronn hes a higher mean.

K:J

in any given comparison because of the Operation of other factors.
lhus, significant differences between non-veteran and veteran may be
checked against differences based on residence, religious affiliation,
etc. If a pair of sub-samnles, e.g;, non-veteran and veteran, show a
significantly different performance on a given goal, and if another
pair, e.e., Catholics and Protestants, is differentiated on the same
5051; then a relationship may exist between the two Variables, war
exierience and religion. In such a case, the sub-samples selected

to analyze the effects of war experience must be checked further to

see whether the direction of th. dizference may be accounted for by

the unequal distribution of Catholic and Protestant students in the

variable is differentiated on a given goal and another variable

H
H:
O
:3
(D

is not, the two variables are probably Operating independently and
lack of relationship may be inferred.

This method of analysis is not inclusive, since measurement
is in terms of single factors. It is possible that several factors
may so Oper?t8 tOgether that differences in each are either accentuated
or negated. Furthermore, this kind of analysis is confined to an
explanation of differences and not of similarities whidh may occur
among variables in performance on the same goal.

Comnrrison of Eon—Veteran Len with Ken Veterans

 

-.- f _
From Table 0 it can be seen that the mean performance of non-

veterans on Goal 2, minding Ky Place in Life and Accepting It, is

'..\‘

 

IN

sivnizicantly higher than the veteran. Is this a real non—veteran-

veteran difference or is the difference due to other factors?

i \
1+4

Insoection of Table 3 shows that a sienificsnt diff rence occurs
when two other variables 1rr; used as e besis for comonrison on this
goal. ihe mean performance of students in the lowest twenty per cent
of academic ability is significantl y hifi 3ner th.n that of students

in the unoer t enty yer cent of scejelic ebility. The Protestant
non-church members as a group are ‘n1ficontlv higher then Cztholic
church members.

Whet effect has the academic factor on non—veter'n- veteran
difference? Table h shove the non-veteran and veteran distributions
on this variable. Among non-Veteran students there are seven per
cent more who rank in the lowest 20 per cent than 13 nh in the us per

90 oer cent on this variable. On the other hend among veteren students

there are 15 per cent more in the upper 20 per cent then in the lowest
20 per cent. Since the non-veterenr mar rk Goal 2 hishcr the n the
veteren it is possible thzt the variable of academic ability is
unduly effecting the comparative perfonnsnce 1f these gro o_s.

What effect has the factor of religious affilie tion on non-
veteren—veteran differences? Table u shows thet among non—veterans
there are seven p r cent more Prote cant non— church members then
Cetb olic church members. .nong veterans there are nine per cent more
Plotes te nt non-church men bers ths_n Cetho lic hurch members. The
difference between the non-veteran and veteran is not great on this
variable. Since the veteran group marks Goal 2 lower than the non-
veteran and since the veteran group includes a smnewhet larger pro-

portion of Protestant non—c.~urch members in comfcrison with Cstholi

church members, it would not eopeer that religious affiliation is

A new semgle was selected in which an attempt was made to
hold constant the factor of academic ebility. The o‘iginel sub-sample

‘ g 3‘ o _1':o
s for selection. fuel; c18-

’1‘
HI

of non-veteran men wes used as e be:

r w

ility was equated 5v deciles

I

('3

tribution on the test of academic a
with a sub-sample of vets ens, selected at random in ell other
resoects, but double the n'uber of the non-veteran sub-sample. It
was oossitle to equate the two sub—semples, decile by decile, for
students in the upper fifty per cent on the test of general academic
ability. It was not oossible to equate exactly the two sub-semnles
with.resoect to students in the lower fifty per cent.

There is a tendency toward positive correletion between
grsdes and academic ability, as will be shown in Chnpter VI. As a meens
of further eouelizing the two sub—seniles, veterans with very low
grede performance were chosen to make up the difference in the pro-
:ortion of students of low academic ability in the two sub-semoles.
The non-veteran men for whom there was no test record of ecsdemic
ebility were matched with twice the number of veterans who had
eppr ximetely the same grade performance.

It can not be said that the foregoing procedure elimineted
absolutely the Operation of the academic factor es a source of bias
in the sub—samples of non—veterens and veterans, but differences
would not appear to be excessive. Iable 7 shows the distribution
of the new sub-smnple of veterans compared with the original sub-
semgle of non-veterans on the basis of performance on the ACE

psychological test of general ecedemic ability.

4

TABLE VII.

“Ic-nI3I'I O? AC3 WCH"LOJIC4L I‘3I DEC LE hAIK

, '.' yew": "rm v: '7: f: \‘H -'=‘.“ , . .1.
IOII 1: ..L\' :3”; 3?»: SID'J’LU' (.‘2 12:.“ ‘J“J.L.-A{;xlts

2‘. 1

 

 

 

Leci1e* Eon-vets ren hen

To. Yen Irterans

l 5 3

2 o 8

3 4 9

1+ 5 <5

5 2 o

e 3 b

7 b 12

5 4 S

9 3 b

10 5 10

Unknown 3 11

$0 92

 

(I)
:5
{D
'1
(D
H

*Ee rforme use on test of u ecedemic ability for entering
7%?
o'-

SC Freshmen.

The new 3 value for the comparison of non—veteran men to
men veterans is “.79, indicetingjthet the difference between the
two groups remains significant.

The non-veteran men differ significantly from the men

veterans on Goal 8, Peace of Kind, Contentment, stillness f Spirit.

 

In this cese the vets ere ns mark this goal hieier than the non-veterens.
An examination of Table 3 shows that no signi ificent difference occurs
among other variables on this goal. It would not appear, therefore,
the t the difference between non-veteran end veteran on this goal was
due to the Operetion of the other variables.

There is a tendency toward significance in the difference

between non-veteran and veteran on Coal 15, Power-Control Over People

 

end TPin js. flhe non-veteren tends to mark this goal higher than the

 

veteran. An examination of Table B shows that no significant
‘3

difference occurs among other variables on this goal. It would not

appear, therefore, thet this tendency toxerd significance in the

4:.“
—~.|

difference between non—veteran and veteran can be attributed to
the Operation of the other variables.

There is a rather marked tendency toward significance in
the difference between the non-veteran and veteran on Goal 16.

Security - Protecting Xv flay of Life Against Adverse Changes. In

 

tnis case the veterans mark this goal higher than the non-veterans.
Again referring to Table 5 it would appear that this difference can
not be attributed to the Operation of the other variables.

There is a tendency toward significance in the difference

between the non-veteran and veteran on Goal 17, Being Able to "Tale It";

 

Bravo and Unconplaining Acceptance of what Circumstances Bring. The
non-veterans mark this goal higher than the veterans. From Table 3
it can be seen that the mean performance of students in the lowest
20 per cent of academic ability is significantly higher than the
performrnce of students in the higiest 20 per cent. As has alretdy
been shown the non-veteran sample includes pronortionally more
students inihe lowest 20 per cent of academic ability than the veteran
samole. Therefore, it is possible that the variable of a ademic
ability is affecting the difference between the non—veterans and
veterans.

The new sanele of veterans. selected for the academic fvctor,
was used to obtain a new 2 value of 1.58 for the comparative
performance of non-veterans and veterans on Goal 17. From this it
would appear that, when corrected for the academic variable, the

difference between non—veteran and veteran on Goal 17 is not marked.

There is the further Dossibility that fluctuations in samoles accounts for

then-Its "1' ~ ..
ex _.v lue. *hls “OSSiOilitX confirms the oosition taken here

1+5

thet differences below the one per cent level of significance
should be treated conservatively.
One fuxther sten wes taken in making the cannerison of
non-veteran men with men veterans. On Goals 2 end 17 it was
shown that gossibility of bias in the originel samples might
exist beceuse of the Operation of the academic verieble. In
anticipation of comparisons to be mede between non-Veteran men
end women, and between men veterans and women, it mev be stated thet

for some of these c nearisOns the gossibility tnet differences migfit

a.

\s

be spuriously affected by the sceiemic factor will be shown for
Geals 33 end 13. In order to meke the comperison of non-veteran
to vete en, non—veteran to vamen, eni veteran to women for Goals 12

q

and 13 on the seme kind of sue-samples it seemed desirable to use
the new sub-sample of men veterans, selected as previously described.
as the basis for comperison between the non4veteran and the veteran.
Teble 6 shows that there are no significant differences between
tnese two groups for Goels 12 and 1?. When the new E values
were commuted on he basis of the originel suo-senple of non-veterans
vs. the new sub-semgle of veterans it wes found that the differences
were still not significent.

In smwiery the non-veteran students differ sivnificently

a

from the veteran stueents on only two of the twenty goels in the

‘ "\

Goals of Life Inventory. Zhese diiferences appear to be genuine

—

differences between the sample: enn unaffected by the other veriebles

of beckwrmind and exnerience analyzed in this study. There enpeers

L.)

to be a tendency toward significance in the differences between the

non-veterans and veterans on two other goals.

Ctnoerison of Yon—Veteren Ken With Women

 

From Table o it can be seen thet the-e is e si nificent

.

difference between the non-veteran men end the women on Gosl l,

J

391‘_39V9103ment - Becoming a 302., Genuine Person. In this case,

I“

 

'1 I ~. A v r n I" ' ‘ ‘ ". ’ x . . "F. ' r- ' 'L 1 . : ,5" ‘I ‘r‘ r 1“ 4" ‘A "
the m.en nerfozn nee oi \Omcn 1s 51 MlllCru.Ly higher tn:n tn U

.. r , ‘ . . *', , -- . +',-« ._ ' . - t .. . '1 -. :4" i
of men—vate-J‘Qus. ruffle? .-t 1, 9.19.13 12' E: tensency tu‘fll‘f. S1:IL‘L1C.’;Ilce

in the difference beta'een the. Protestant church end non—church
member. Is this tendency effecting the difference between the
n n~veteran men and the Women.

Teble M shows that among non-veteren men Protestant church
membership exceeds non-memberSLip by H8 per cent. Among women this
difference is only MB per cent. Since the women mark Goal 1 hither
tren the non-veteran men it mey be inferred that the verifble of
religious affiliation is not unduly a fecting the two samples.

lhe non-veteran men differ significnntlv from the women on

G021 2, Finding My Pl es in Life and Accepting It, tending to mark

 

this goal higher~then women. Table B shows that for two other
variables there is likewise a significant difference on this goal.
As has been noted, as a group the students in the lowest 20 ger cent

1.

of academic ability are eigri: cently higher than students in the
highest 20 per cent; Protestant non-church members are significantly
higher than Catholic church members.

What is the effect of the academic factor on non~veteren—
women difference? Table 4 shm s that among‘women there ere three

per cent more students who rank in the upper 23 per cent then rank

in the lower 20 per cent on this verieble. As previously noted

among non~veteran men there are seven per cent more in the lower
EC per cent than in the upper 20 per cent. Since the non—veteran
’7

men mark Goal 2 higher thrn women it is gossible thet tie verieble

of academic ability effects the comparative nerfornnnce of these

Ices religious affiliation affect the difference oetween
non-veteran men end the women on C051 2? From fable 4 it appears
that there are 12 per cent more Erotestant non-church members am n5
the women than Crtholic church m mbers. The difference for non-
veternns is only seven per cent. Since the non—veterans mark this
goal higher then the women it may be inferred that the variable of
religious affiliation is not Operating to cause the difference between
non-veteren men end :omen.

In order to attempt to hold constant the factor of ecedemic
ebilitv a new SUb—Sfmple of women was selected in much the same
manner as was done oreviously for men—vetersns. In this case,
however, it was oossible to eouete throughout the decile range the
distribution of women on the test of a.edenic etility with that of

b

-in"l non-veteran sub-sengle. Che non-veteran men for whom
there use no test record of academic ability were matched with
twice the numoer of women who had eooroximetely the seme grade per-
formance. Thole 8 shows the distribution of the new sub-ssuole of
women compared with the originel the test of general academic ability
for hSC entering freshmen.

The new t value for he comparison of non-veteran men and tne

wonen is 3.00, indicating that the difference between tne two

firoups remains significsnt.

51

Ej:i:5:;:3 an I I .

I.."Q' -

. arr L” : Ar 1 ‘f‘T.‘ “ -“°""‘.. --: W ‘ " f“.'v~-'“- To” * .. "W "W?
DIQ‘ALI-;L‘LIU.\ 0.: nu-.~ ::;Iun._ucl;lCnJ_a lnzl .J it’ll“ l".;u.;,S :wi
. r.» m“ ‘ “77‘ r ‘ ' 7'. 12"}! c ‘t" "‘ .‘fi "
éJKJ‘L'o-x Al“—-‘ba.ul [MAJ :‘J‘ .AJ LL.” 1 x)...» J Jun-:1 Ci 3

 

 

. -. -— w—r- --— --—-- -—*

Lecile* Lon-Veteran
To. Non Women

 

*4

H
OO\OQNC\$TOOQFJL3

'_l

PJ

Ova ms: mm 4:94 m H

é—TJJ \NKN KC‘WN M‘J" JI’OVXJW

 

l 1
Unknown 6
"R
{‘1
*Eerfonnence on tort of general PCEfilmiC ability for entering
EEC Freehne:

Dine mean pe rforz‘iznce of the women on Goal 7,, Serving: 5305;,

 

Doing 305's hill, is significcntly higher than that of non—veteran

 

men. From Table 3 it would not appear that this ‘ifference can be
attributed to the Operetion of the other veriebles.

”here is a tendency toward sirnificence in the éifference

\,4

‘

oetween the mean performerce of non-veteran men and the women on

Goal 7, Doing;¥y'2nty. The non-veteran tends to rank this goal

 

higher then the woman student. From Table 3 it would not appear
that this tendency cen be accounted for in tenns of the operetion
of the othe r variables.

There is likewise a tendency toward significence in the
difference between the non-veteran men and the women on Goal 5,

Peace of Kind, Contentnen , Stillnees of Spirit. In this case the

 

WOmen tend to merk this goel hieher than non—veteran men. From

tg"

\JW
P)

Teble 3 it would not espeer that this tendency cen be attributed
to the other'variebles.
Agein, a tendency toward significance in the difference

between non-veteran men and women may be noted on Goal 10, Fine

 

Relations with Other Persons. Women tend to mark this goal higher

 

then non-veteran men. From Table 3 it would not eppeer that this
tendency en be attributed to the other variables.

There is a tendency towerd significence in the dierrence

between non-veteren men and women on Goal 12, Getting As Many Sees

 

5‘3
Q.

n Lestine-Pleesures C‘t of Life as I Cen. Women tend to mark

 

this @021 higher then non-veteran men. From T6016 3 it cen be seen

‘

that there is a significant diiference between the mean nerfornrnce
of students in the lowest and highest 20 per cent of academic ability
on this {031. Does the eceeemic verieble account for the difference
in the esmnles on non-veterans and women?

The mean performance of students in the highest 70 per cent
of ecademic ability is significantly higher than that of students
in the lowest 20 per cent. It has already been shown thst the
sample of women includes pronortionally more students in the hiygest
20 per cent of academic ability thet the samnle of non—veteran men.
Therefore, it is WOSFlble thet the comparison of non-veteran men and
women is unduly effected by the operetion of this verielle.

The new sub—semple of women, selected for the academic fector,
was used to obtein 8 new connerison between non-veterans and women.
The new 3 value wee - 1.1h. It would not appear, therefore, that
when corrected for the acsdenic factor there was eny marked difference

~A

between th nerfarmence of non—veteran men and women on Goal 1?. as

it

previously pointed out it is possible that fluctuations in semoles
accounts for the new 3 value. In any event it may be inferred that
the non-veteran end woman student are not greetly different with
rescect to this goal.

There is significant difference between the non-veterrn men

I

end the women on Gocl 13. Promoting the host Been end Lestins‘Pleesures

for the Greetest humber of Peoole. The women mark this goal higher

 

then the non-veteran men. From Table 3 it may be seen that no
significant differences exist on other variables for this yorl.
However, there is a tendency for the students in the highest 20 per
cent of acedemic ability to mark this goal higher than students in
he lowest 20 per cent. Since the sub-sample of women includes
pronortionally more students in the highest 20 per cent of acedemic
ability than the sub—sample of non-veteran men, it is qoseible that,
00mparison of non-veteran and women students is affected by the
ecedemic variable.

The new sub-sample of women, selected to eliminate the
Operation of the ecademic variable, was used to obtain a new com—
parison between non-veterans end.the women. The new 3 value of
- 3.16 indicates that the mean performance of women on Goal 1}
remeins significantly higher than thst of the non—veterans, after
correcting for the toesibility of bias in the original sub-samples.

For Goal 1H, Hehing-e Pl ce for hyself in the Uorld: Getting

 

Lhesd, the mean performaice of the non-veterans is significantly
1n{fier than that of the women. From Table 3 it wouldsnot appear
that this difference is due to the operation of the other variables,
as there is no significent difference among other camperison groups

on this goal.

51+

There is likewise a significant difference between the

non-veterans end the women on Goal 15, Power - Control Over

 

Peoole end Things. The non-veterans es a group mark this goal

 

significantly higher then the women. From Table 3 it would not
appear thet the Operation of the other variables accounts for
this difference.

The final difference between non-veterans end women is

found on Goal 19, Survival, Continued existence. In this case

 

the mean perfonnsnce of the non-veterans is significantly high-
er then tket of the women. Inspection of Table 3 shows that

for other conoerison groups there are no significant differences
found on this:gpal. However, the urban student shows a tendency
to mark this goal higher than the rural student. This tendency
is marked es the 1 value of 2.h9 approaches the one per cent
level of significance.

Does the variable of rurel-urben residence account for the
difference on Goal 19 found between non-veterans and women? From
Table h it can be seen that, among women, 29 per cent more come
from cities over 25,000 then come from the farm. 0n the other
hand, only 13 per cent more of the students in the non-veteran
men sub—sample come from cities over 25,000 as compared with
those who come from the farm. Since the non—veterans mark this
goal significantly higher than the women it would not apnear
that the difference in residence accounts fox'the difference be-
tween the non-veterens and the women.

One furthcr step was taken. It has already been shown that

there was a possibility of bias on Goal 17 in the connerison of

non-veteran men and men veterehs becsuse of tie academic
factor. A new comparisin wes made on this goal based on the
origfinrl se gle of non-veterans and a new sub—semple of vet-
erens, selected to eliminate the effects of the academic fector.
Since it seemed desirable to have the comparisons of all three
crouos, each.with the other, based on the same kind of sub—
gsmoles, the sub-ssnnle of women, selected to eliminate the
effects of the academic factor, which Wes used for Goals 2,
12, and 1?, was comnzred with the original sub—semnle of non-
veterens to obtain a new 3 value for Coal 17. Teble 6 shows that
th re was no significant difference between the non—veterrns end
the women on tuis goal when the original sub—samples were used.
When this new compnrison was mede the value of E was .HS, which
confirms the leak of significent difference between non—veterans
and women on Goal 17.

In summery, after correcting for noesible samole bias, the
snmples of non-veteran and women students differ significantly
on seven of the twenty goels in the Goals of Life Inventory. There
is a tendency towsrd signific;nce in the difference between the
two gjOUOS on three other 30218. It would eppeer, therefore,
that there is a marked contrast in the performance of non-veteren
men and women on the Gosls of Life Inventory. Is this a sex
difference? Interpretrtion on this point should be more positive
efter the differences between‘the samples of men veterans and
women are discussed.

Comparison of Men Veternis With Women

 

From Teble b it appears thrt there 1

(D

a significant differ-

\1‘1
ON

ence between the veterans and the women on Goal 1, §Sl£7
Develonment - Becoming a ncal, Genuine Person. Women tend to
mark this goal higher than men veterans. This ’es also true
in the comparative performance of women and non—veteran men.
From Tnble 3 the only suggestion that another variable is
effecting this difference is the fact that there is a tendency

toward significance in the comparative performance of Protestant
church and non-church members on Goal 1. The Protestant church
member tends to me k this goal higher than the Protestant non-
church menber.

Is religious affiliation unduly affecting the difference
in the performance on men veternns end wonen on Goal l? From
Table h it can be seen that among wo en there are #2 per cent more
Protestant church members then Protestant non-church members. On
the other hand there are only 21 per cent more Protestant church
members in the sample of men veterans then Protestant non-church
members. It would anoeer possible that the factor of religious
affiliation might operate to cause the difference between men veterans
and women.

However, reference should be made to the previous section
wherein the difference in the gerformance of the non-veteran and
women student on Goal 1 was discussed. In that case there were
sir per cent more Protestent church members than non— hurch meqbers
in the non-veteran sample. If the factor of religious effilietion
were 0 erating in the semnles of non-veterans, vetercns and women,

it might be inferred thst the t vslue for non-veteren vs. women

‘ 1

would be less then the t v lue for veteran vs. women. From Table
0, however, it can be seen thot tfis is not the case. Actually

the t values for the two connerison grouns is about the sens, both

indicating;sisnificence beyond the one per cent level.

As a further step in analysis, Table 8 wes insoected for th

difference between non-veteren and veteran. The difference is not

significant but the mean performance of the veteran on Goal 1 is

hiiier than that of the non-veteran. Among nonuveterens there are

F

per cent more :rotestent church members then Protestant non-

3;.“

church members, while among veterans this difference is only 21
per cent. If religious affiliation were affecting these samples
it would appear to be operating in a way Opposite of expectation
for non—veterans and veterans.

losical analysis is, of course, not a substitute for exper—

imental proof. however, in this instance it did not nopeer nece sery

(J)

to obtsin new sub—samples of veterans and women corrected for the
variable of religious affiliation. It should also be pointed out

sin that the difference between Protestant cnurch nni non-church

8 \
member only shows a tendency toward significsnce. Actually the 3
value of 2.00 for this variable is just et the five per cent level
of significance, whereas the men veterans differ significcntly frma
the women with a‘t value of ~3.15, whicn is beyond the one per cent

level of sisnificance.

‘ .

‘0

The veterans differ significantly from the women on Goal 3,

Serving God, Doing God's Jill. Women tend to mark this goal higher

 

then veterans, which is also true of the women when cqzyired with

55

the non—veteran. From Table 3 it wouli not appeer thrt the
other veriebles account for this difference.
There is a tendency toward sinnificence in the difference

between the men veterans end the women on Goel 10, Fine Eeletions

 

with Other Persons. Again women tend to mark this goal higher

 

than men veterans, as is elso true of their performance when
compared with that of non-veteran men. From Table 3 it would not
endear thet other variobles ascount for this difference.

The mean performance of women on 3081 1}, Promoting Deep and

 

Lasting Pleasures for the Greatest llumber of PeOple, is significantly

 

~

higher then that of men veterz; s. This is also true of women in
conperison with the sample of non-veteran men. From Tfihle 3,

es hes been noted, there is no significant difference in the ner-
formence of other conoerison grouos but there is a tendency taverd
significance in the difference between students in the lowest end
highest 20 per cent of acefemic ability. Stufients in the highest
20 per cent as a group, tend to mark Goal 1} higher than students
in the lowest 20 per cent.

Reference to Table M shows that among‘eterens there ere 15
per cent more students in the highest 20 per cent of academic
ebilitv, es shown by the genersl academic ebility test for entering
freshmen, then students in the lowest 20 per cent. Anong women,
this difference is only three per cent. However, women as a
group mark Goal 1} higher than men veterans whidh is Opposite of

expectation if it is assumed the veriable of academic ability is

affecting the comparison between men veterans and women.

as
,f,

Although it would not seem necessary to recheck the com-
parative performance of veterans and women on Goal 1}, there was
one reason for mekin; a new conierison. As was done before, it
seemed desirable to have the comparative performance of the three
groups under discussion in this chapter based on the same kind of
sub-samples for a given 5061. Since new sub-samples of women end
veterans, selected to hold constant the factor of academic ebilitv,
had already been used for comparison with the subasamjle of non-
veterans, these same sub-samples were used to connrre aeein the
performance of women and veterans on Goal 1}. The new 3 value was
~3.16, indicathig that the mean performance of women and veterans
remains significantly different.

There is a significant difference between men veterans and

women on Goal 14, taking a Place for Kyself in the World; Getting

 

Ahead. In this case the veterans tend to mans this goel higher

than women, as is also true of the performance of non—veterans in

congerison with women. From Table 3 it would not appear thet this

difference can be attributed to the Operation of the other variables.
There is a tendency therd significance in the difference

between men veterans and women on Goal 15, Power - Control Over

 

People end Things. In this case the veteran tends to mark this

 

goal higher then the woman student. The tendency toward significance
is pronounced as the E_velue of 2.50 is almost at the one per cent
level of significance. As hes already been shown, the non-veteran
group is significantly higher then that of women, indicating the
possibility of a sex difference on this goal. Inspection of Teble B

shows that for other comparison groups there is no difference in

60

performance on this goal at either the one or five per cent level
of significance. It would appear, therefore, that this tendency
toward significance between the samples of men veterans and women
is not influenced unduly by the operation of other variables.

The mean performance of men veterans on Goal 16, Secur't -
Protectine;hv day of life Against Adverse Chanjes, is significantly
higher than that of the women. Veterans tend to be higher than
non-veterans on this goal, also. Since the non-veterans are not
significantly'different fron women in their performance on this goal,
the difference would not appear to be a sex difference. Table B
shows that for other variables there is no significant difference
in performance on Goal 16. It may be inferred, therefore, that
this difference is not due to tie operation of the other variables.

There is no significant difference in the performance of

men veterans and women on Goal 17, Being Able to "Take It"; Brave

 

and Uncomplaining Acceptance of What Circumstances Bring. However,

 

the 3 value of -l.96 borders on the five per cent level of signifi-

 

cance which is the standard used in this study to point out tenden-
cies toward significance in the differences between samples.
Inspection of Table 3 recalls that the mean performance of students
in the lowest 20 per cent of academic ability is significantly
higher than.t}et of students in the hirhest 20 per cent. Since
there are prOportionally more students in the lowest 20 per cent

of academic ability in the sample of women than that of men vet-
erans, it is possible that the academic variable accounts for

this tendency toward significance in the difference between veterans

and women on Goel 17.

The new samples of women and men veterans, previously
described, were compared to obtain a new 3 velue of —l.35.
This shows that,'when corrected for the pOssiole Operation of
the academic variable, tre difference between men veterans and
women can not be considered as nointing toward significance.
It is possible also thwt fluctuations in samoles accounts for
this change. If so, this again confirms the use of caution in
interjreting borderline CtSES.

There is a significant difference between men veterans

and women on Goel 19, Survival, Continued Eristence. The veteren

 

group as a ‘.-!hOl€ me rks thi s goal higher than women, :hich is also
true of the performance of the non-veteran grow; when compared with
tne sub-senple of women. From Table B it would epieer th=t there
are no sign ficent differences for other variables on this goal.
Ehere is a tendency, however, for the urban student to merk this
{091 higher than the rural. This tendency aoproaches the one

per cent level of significance as the 2 value is -2.h9. Does
difference in residence account for th difference found betwee

the samples of men veterans end wonen?

From Table U it is seen that among:wonen 29 per cent nore
students come from cities over 2:,803 then come from the fern.
Among veterans this difference is only 17 per cent. Since veterans
mark Goal 1? higher then wcnsn it would not appear that the fsctor
of residence can account for this performance.

There is a marked tengency toward significance in the

difference between men veterans and women on Goal :0. Handling

the Specific Problems of Life as They Arise. The veterans tend

 

to mark this goal higher than women. The 3 Value of 2.93 is very
close to the one per cent level of significance. From Lacie 3 it
can be seen that there is neither a tendency toward siinificance
nor a signifiCLLt difference for other variables on this goal.
Since the non-veteran does not differ significantly from either the
veteran or the woman student on this goal, it would appear that
this difference is confined to the cougarative perfornauce of
women and men veterans.

One further steo was taken. although men veterans and women
did not differ significantly on Goals 2 and 1., new 3 values were
obtained for these goals by usine;the new sub-samples of veterans
and women which were selected, as previously described, to eliminate
the possible Operation of the academic factor. This was done
because these new sub-samples had been used to compare the per-
formance of non-veteran men to men veterans and to women. By so
doing the comparative performance of the three groups discussed
in this chapter, each to each, was based on the same kind of sub-
1

xx. 9 , y 1,
sennles lOI seer .o

\_J

F‘s

.

The new t_v" us for GOal 12 was - .YU as compared to the
original 3 value of -l.3T. This confirms the fact that no sig-
nificant difference on this goal exists between the sub—semples
of men ve to re n s and w o roe n.

The new 3 value for Goel 2 is -l.98 as compared to the
original 3 value of -1.5u. In both cases women tend to mark this
goal somewhat higher than veterans. If the academic variable

were ooerating the direction of change when the new sub-samples

63

were compared is onaosite to exoectdtion. The original sub—

semnle of women contained urogortionelly more students in the

4

lowest 20 per cent of a edemic ebilitr hen is true of the sub-semcle

C.

of veterens. The mean performance of students in the lowest

20 oer cent of scedemic ability is significently higher then

that of students in the highest 20 per cent. It might be expected
that, when corrected for the possible Operation of the academic
variable, the difference between men veterans and women would
decrease. The only explenation that can be offered is thpt of
fluctuetions wrdch occur among semnles. his possibility hes
slreedr been mentioned as 9 reason for caution in interprethig
borderline cases end other differences below the one per cent
level of significance.

In summary, efter correcting for the possible operation of
other variables, the men veterans differed significantly'from
women on six of the twenty goals in the Goals of Life Inventory.
There wes a tendency toward significance between the two sub-

senjles for three other goals and there wes one borderline case.

The foregoing disucssion has been lengthy and tedious
but it was undertaken to enswer the question: are the differences
among the three sub—samples analyzed in this chspter differences
which may be attributed_to the veriebles of war experience and sex
or are they souriously effected by the Operation of the other
variables selected for study. It seemed possible that the acedemic
variable might account for differences found on four goels. New
sub-semoles, selected to eliminate the possible effects of this
variable, were used to obtain new 3 values for these goals. Table 9

II

summarizes the results of this exocriment.

6h

STIILLLEX 03' CZLAlT’THS III t ValUTi “S Cl. ’30an lE":IEC§"E FOP. SCSSIZIE
El .3 II: a: 61:3 03 STY-‘JTI'L‘lL. hill, III}? WI'CeJlIIS, All) US. ~31?

 

t velues
Goal IIon-Vetersn vs. Veteran ZEZon- eteren vs. ’.-."o.rr:en Veteran vs. .Vi-men 1:21;?
170. Ori 2i nel Sermle 17E"? Seizjle 0‘31 {'1 nel 303713163 New Scrij'xle Origji 2;?1 SWWLE‘CS'V’“ l

 

 

PO

h.ui* n.7ow 3.uo* 3.oo* -1.54 -1.

12 -1020 - .56 -2006** “lolu -1022 * 074

13 - .80 - .27 ”20'52* ’2089* “3.1L* -3.l6
17 2.1'** 1.55 .90 .ug -1.u5 -1,25

——.—.

 

7 —‘ ——'

hermencl: See C‘s-ole o, Page 42.

It can be seen from Teble 9 that significant differences remained

m

nificent when new sue—s angles were used. This was ilOt true for bor-
derline cases and tendencies to..eré significance below the one per cent
level. In all such instances 3 values droyped beyond the yoint where
they might be further considered. In the cese of tie comparison of
vetexens to women on Goal 2 a borderline teniency taverd significance
occurred where no such tendency existed in the comparison of the
originel snb-seeoles. It seems probe ole tb .t chance fluctue ions of

samples accounts for this change.

;n9lYFiS of differences emong non-veterens, veterens and women

1:.

V

 

Table 10 gives 3 velues for tie comoerisons of the three sub—semnles
whidi indluee the new values obtained for reasons elreefl v noted. This
teble will henceforth be used in the discussion of difference which
occur among the sub- aemoles.

From the foreéping discussion it would seem thst there are a number
of differences between men and women in performance on the Goals of

A

Life Inventory. women differ significant

P!

y and in the same way from

both non-veteren and veteran men on Seals l, 3, 1}, IN and 19. There

.‘ .‘~A- 4.!“J

“Tfi- ‘~—‘. .0". A~~Q S A: ”‘13 n 51- .. V'-‘ . .. I _1- ‘f-r—II r: -— . s (I . ~— ,. fr“ . -“m

| - ' ‘ ‘ ‘ - . < _ . - - . .. _. _‘ . . l .

OJLE— -‘4..b—4A\ V—JA A Ik-a J -I‘C-\- {LL v ‘t..‘ A ail. ' 1' J -‘ AVJ-‘-4-~L§ -Do nLaJ ”' 6 -‘.4J:
c. 9

":33 new '0 wine. for .w‘osls reciecltee for possible senile bias)

 

+. h“
t Value 8

 

..nr—veteztzlxuen sink-vetertnlrxeh
Ubgl vs. vs.

I

To. Kane Len veterzns hose:

 

l Self—development -l.lo —3.21*

:x2 Finding nlece in llie 4.70* 3,00#
A . - Al‘, F —~‘

3 cerv1ng Goa — .l: -d.{«*

. ‘0 l “ ~ .5“. .. "p ‘w
u ncniev1ng nersonel innortelitj - .90 _ .40

‘JT

Self-discigline _ .33 .79

Self-secrifice .39 _ .R:

O\

7 105.115 my duty 1.70

U4

9 Serving-the community .10 - .13

 

r_J
bl
-J

‘3!

Peace of Yind -2.57* -9.27**

10 Fine relations with others -l.Ol -3.h'**

ll Lifinw for pleesure of the moment 1.12 .70

"1 o . .f "
32 Getting deep and lastuig pleasure - .50 -l.14
\’ . ._ fl _ r‘ '
‘13 Promoting oleecure Ior others - .27 -Logge

ro
(3
Ce
*
f
‘N

7‘0

.
‘ JJ
KN
*
'I‘
H

C
(D
l,

16 Security _

‘1] Ability to "take it"

H
0

\‘fl
0

1% Acceptance of the world as i

6"
H.
.0
I
«4
~q
|
C
6

MN
UN
to
0‘.
(K

Survival .

._l
Ki)

CH
o

0‘».
\ A

R)
0

handling specific problems es they arise - .9“

~J

~ .I
4; RT}

\\,.J

.' (j

 

:4

— flew t value based on semoles of men veterans and women selected to
possible bies in original samples.

Legend: 588 Table 6, page ME.

CO

is a tendency towzre s1, iiicence 1n tne difiexence oetvce-

women and both of the sub-s a leg of men on $021 10. In the

O
‘J
(D
O
H
‘1
J
‘J
' J
[—1
\ n
{’3
E
’1
"D
H
'0
‘1)

. signi1* icrnt difference between norzen
end non-vetcrrns end a merhed tendency tmserd significence in the
difference between women end veter‘ns. In other cases sirnificrnt
differences or ten encies tmvcrd signilicence in the differences
‘etween women end one sub-senole of men ere not confirmed by
differences oetw.en women end the other sub-snmnle of men.

Khen l] of the ststisticellg siunificrnt differences ere
sn nerised it would s en th.t women more then men tend to eccejt
the sentiments of self-deve103ment, Serving God, fine relations
with others, end fronxotin :jpleesure for other ge071e. lie men
tend to eaohz=size more then \omen the SB‘1ltlm9ntS
comer, end survivel. These differences between the sexes would
coveer to es understandable. Knny stnfents of our socie t: acres
that, at least for middle clans neo;le, the socialization process
is somewhat different for girls end bovs in our culture. lhere
may well be a pattern whereby pleasant reletions with others,
thinkin': of the oleosure of others, end imiiviriuel self-develop-
ment estezcrson are stressed more by parents for their daughters
than their sons. This me" likewise be true of the relivi ious gial
which may be more strongly insisted uion for girls than for men.
Conversely, middle class oprents, at least, may stress for their
sons the imoortence of gettins;alesd, pow r, and survivel in an

economic-centered society. This, of course, is only one line of

speculation and not the mein erjnzi ent of t- is stu 5y

The approxinste effect of the fector of war experience

on sentiments which geoble ere willing to express mey be messured

by cneching tn men veterans s5e1nst the non-veteran men end

women. These last named gToups are yrobebly, to some ex ent,

samples of what may be called the usual college freshman and

’1

ered that war has had its effects

0‘

soohomore. It should be enen
upon these students also, though not in the same way as for
veterans, many of whom were in actual combat.

From Teble 10 it cen be seen thet veterens ere not sig-

nificantly different in the same way from the other two groups

I

on any of tne twenty goals in the Goals of Life Inventory. On
" ' —-\ ' *' 1‘. ~".~ : '
Goal lo, Security — :rotectingjnv nk? o: niie Af‘lnst Acverse

the veterans as a group are significantly higher than

 

women and they tend to be significantly higher then non—veteran

{,1

.‘

It is nossinle thet veterens ettech more imoortance to this goal
the. the other grouse because of the effect of war experience.

The veterans as a group show a marked tendency to place
Goal 20 higher than the women but this tendency does not appear
when veterans are compared with non-veterans. fiiis difference
woulfl not eopesr to be one which may be attributed directly to
the factor of war experience.

Itwould not seem that for thisswuole the factor of wer
exoerience was s besis for any greet difference in manifesting
or rejecting any such sentiments as appear in the Goals of Life

Inventory. It should be rccelled, however, thet two other

variables are known to be Operating concomitantly with the factor

Fl

of war exoerience. ihe veterans ere, on the average, Iour yenrs
older than the other StULOflLS eni about one-fourth of them are
married. It is possible thvt these two varieoles Operate in such
a way with.the fsctor of wer engerience that differences between
veterans and the non-veterans and women are nuLlified. Experiment—

4“

911;; there is no evidence oi‘iered in tni 5 study eithe r way. Lauri—
celly, however, it would seem fleet increased age and msr‘iege
vould serve to eccentuete the cifferences between veterans end the
other tvo grouse.

The non-veteren men should also be COijnred vith the other
two grouos. On Only one gmal does the non-veteran differ sigh
nifics tly from the men veterens and the women. The mean performpnce

‘

11° .,
, 21m

'

$.56) A. \l

*U

lece in Life end

.—

T0

of the non-veteran men on Goal

 

‘hiliCRHtly higher then that of either men

 

veterans or women. For Goal 5, Teace of hiui, Contentment, Still-

 

ness 0: Snirit, the mean gezformence of non-veterans is sip;

 

nificsntly lower then that of veterans and tends to he signifi-
cantly lower than that of women.

The comparative zerformance of non-veterans with resoect
to ”hale 2 and 8 would seem to be inconsisten . It m'ght be
surmised that because many of these non—veterans were either
about to be inducted into the army or hed previously been re-
jected for military service, at a time when such rejection was

not pepular, thrt finding and occeptinv-a n1

(.3

ice in life 711th be

I!

a sentiment aporooriete to these circumstances. On the other .nnd,
it would seem that peace of mind is a 5021 which goes with that

of finding and accenting onc's olece in life. For the nor-veteran,

CF]

‘;}

however, peace of mitd might seem of little importance since

6*

here might be, es he saw it, ittle Opportunity to obtain it.

+3

h“

’1

e is little evidence wiich crn be offered either way from

this study or comparable studies of life goals. Perusos, the

best exolenetion is that there may be conflicting velues in a

given value-system which continue to exist because of the autonouy
of motives. In this particular case, the younger end, perhaps,

less mature non-veteran college student mey reflect sentiments which

sten from the storm and stress of the adolescent period and which

eccentuated by the circumstances of the recent war.

’33
"5
«D

1

The non—veteran group tends to mark Goal 7, 30in: fly Dutv,

 

,_.
-' I

higher than the women. lhere is no significant difference between
the non-veteran and veteran on this reel. Keither is there a
sienificsnt difference between the veterens and women. As hes
alresdy been pointed out differences between sub-ssmoles which
are below the one per cent level are not considered significant.
In this case the difference is Just at the five per cent level.
It would not seem necessary to attach great importance to this
difference.

The non-veterans are significantly different from the women

on Goel 15, Power—Control Over Peoole end Things. There is a

 

tendency toward significance in the difference between non-

veterans and veterans on this 5091, though this difference is just
at the five per cent level. There is, however, a marked tendency,
soproeching the one per cent.level, toward significance in the
difference between veterans and women. This goal has been discussed

-.

previously in terms of a difference between the sexes. ‘

7:)

ment mey be mode that both non-veterens end veterans tend to

A

:nsrzv: this goal higher than women but for non-veterans. this
tendency is more pronounced.

Sinilerities amone non-veteran wen, men veterens and women.

 

So fsr this discussion hrs oeen concerned vith differences

among the three sub-semnles. It hes been shown that there espeers
to be a tendency toward a sex difference but thet, othfiiwise,
differences ere not extensive. A consideration of the nettern of
choices on the Goels of Life Inventory will be useful in further
ennlyzing the differences and in obtaining a picture of the sini—
larities among the non~veteren men, men vetersns and women. Tables
ll, 13, end 13 show the mean performance, stendsrd errors, stend-
eri deviations, end ren}: order of each of the goals for the sub-
samples of non-vetezens, veterans, end women, resoectively.

It can be seen from these tables that all three groups in-
clude self-develonment, fine relations with other, end handling
soecific oroblems as they arise emong the too five goals. In
every case self-develOpnent is renked first. Even more striking
is the feet that all three groups place self-sacrifice, achieving
perwonel immortality, power, survival, and living for the pleasure

of

the moment among the lowest five goels.

In view of the fact that the purpose of the Goels of Life
Inventory is to force the student to make choices so that e
hierarchy of accepted and rejected sentiments mey be shown, the
differences which heve been noted nreviously should be reexemined.

There is a significant difference betw en men and women on

the goal of self develooment but since all three {routs rank this

71

gmel Ohove ell others it would seem thet this similarity was

more innortent than the difference. It mey be stated tnet there

is a statistical 7 significant difference between men end women;

1.

tnst women endorse the sentiment of self-develOJment even more

stronglv then men; but th:t both men and women consider it of

earn-.1 infiortxnce in the hiersrcly of goels from which the},r hed

to choose.

Similerly, there is a tenfiency for women to malk the goal

of fine reletions with others higher than men. Since women rank

this 5051 second, while men rank it fourth, it mry be inferred that

both attach a fairly high value to this sentiment.

Agsin, the men veterans tend to differ significently from

women on the goel of handling specific problems as they erise;

but since both groups rank tnis sentiment among their ton five

choices it would seem that the similarity was greeter then the

difference.

Similarly, while there are significant differences emong

the three grouse on the goals of power and survival, all three

grouse place these goals among the lowest five. The men reik

1 , to - A354-..‘.. ‘- t ,‘
t.e ce erals ei,,.tce_Nni Fila

1

nineteenth end twentieth.

among the groups on these

From the foregoing

nineteenth whlle the women rank them
It would seem espin tmwt the similarities
goals is greater than the differences.

it would seem that on some of the goals

over all similarities among the non—veterens, veterans, and

women is as imnortant as d

ifferences. There remains after this

analysis certain goals on whidlifle flanps differ both according

i

to t values and to rank order. These differences are sumnarized in

".ffln‘j'. ' «WC? nip "7"" ‘ 7.7"“ . ‘ 7* $.71?
I ‘ ~.

-1 Ch GOALS CF LIFE

‘- i ‘ f N ..
4‘ ‘JL L‘H‘.‘- .u..4..-JL-.

T IYr'“";Tf\T_) vyr
(H V 74—14.: «news» -

R)

 

 

GO ‘» hank
T Heme Crd r heen S. 2. S. D.
F‘ “ " l r y "I -‘
1 be f—ocveioolent l l4.03 .HO j.20
20 Handling syec1fic UTOblEfiS es
the; ar'se 2 12.70 .Le 3.5M
ld Gettine"erme-. 3 12.35 .QQ 4.'4
10 “4. "t. . - M .9- )4 ’ T" p") 2 ()4
line rele lUnS filth others . 11.40 . ; J.o
2 Finding plsce in life 5 ll.?l .c2 3.03
5 Self-discioline 6 10.9b .55 3.14
. - o I 3 O ‘ f. - y‘l
17 nullity to "tune 1t" 7 10.4} .o/ L.3o
‘N ' '1 ¢ ‘ 71 0-9
7 oozng my euty 5 10.41 .59 h.(}

*4
1 \J

\O

',_J
01 42’ C \

f"
\3

ll

Acceptance of the world as it iso

fromoting:uleesure for otlere

Security

Getting deep and lasting pleasurel?

Serving the community

P! ‘ - s, N. :'
.39 I'Vligg woo.

\..;

orifice

1'1)

Self—s
Achieving personal immortality
?ower

Survivrl

Living for pleasure of the non-
ment

C‘
(K;
r0

)1
{73
"Q

\A' l
I

Ox x): ‘3
<3 3 a)

0?.
“—

-4
\n

 

\J

b1

 

 

 

.‘ - f -‘ - T T
‘JL.-- .4 A~$ d-
PTZ:CZ;L33127.CN TL” ._3 THIKLLS CELJJZ IfifilgffiY
.. hf r - .
h = 1(5 terce t es notee
C081. :7 .Li.
Io. 1";"1e 1‘5 er ".6" n S. C. 5.
1 Self-develo;nent l l4.bl .Cl 2.72
70 hrnfiline soecific problems es
txe'r arise. 2 11.33 .“R 7.73
8 Peace of mind 7 1?.92 .71 e.¢2
10 Fine relstions with others 4 12.05 .27 3,51
. . 1. 1
1M cettlnegenesfi 5 11.97 .33 e.4;
1L Security 0 11.?0 .11 4.31
5 Self-discizline 7 11.10 .23 ".77
12 Gettinp-deep end l «ting
ile sure 5* 1C.i:‘ . 4* 4.1 *
- ._ .,_ . . 1 . -‘: \ \. 1,1
1; fronoting plefisure for otners 9* in.59* .47* w.~7*
9 Serving the community 10 9.95 .12 h.2t
15 Acceptance of the world es
it is 11 0.83 .72 n.1u
7 Toing:ny duty 19 0.2; .10 7.59
1? Ability to "take it" 131 {.23* .“ * ?.7?*
3 Serving; Cod 121 5. 93 .uo ;.19
"1 o we 0 ‘I ‘ v‘
2 .zlnoirnijlece 141 life l§* 7.37‘ .+3* 4.1aw
a o o . ' I. _/ ‘ _-
H Ach1ev1ng'personel innortelity lb 0.71 .40 5.c7
I, o I ’ 'I ‘ l
o Self-sacrifice l7 o.CO .34 4.57
19 Survival 13 5.07 .vo 3.37
1:5 Po‘v‘urer 1?: 3.77 .25 .2. {34
11 Living for oleesure of t e moment 20 3.07 .94 3.09
. l... 02 ne" ' 0'2"?!)16 re ‘rfi'r t fiC 'r . . ‘ o o
. - , ” sch . c rnn o checu ross1ble L1!" in or1 inel seznle

T3413 XIII

”J

 

 

F 13:1114t3 CF'JULZM CL GCnLS 3? ”IF? II‘LIECEY
I a 165 (excent es noted§
C—oel Len}:
To. Tome rder Immu1 S. 1. S. D.
n .n n v F F :q _. - '2 -
1 Sell-revelOpnent l lp._c .CO 3.52
10 Fine relations with others' 2 12.55 .20 3.h7
._ . , 1. ,.
1? :romoting nleesure for others 3* 1?.ff* ,hge 4.33:
20 Hendling soecific nroblems rs
- . ' .‘ .1 ,.
tney Prise u 1;.35 .34 3.10
3 Peace of mine 5 11.78 .72 u.Lo

\. I]

(.‘J

‘. I)

Serving God

Gettln; neeo ens

‘da

Self—d scieline

Acceptence of tne world 5

Serving the commun'ty
Ability to "take it"

Getting ahead
Security

Findinnjolnce in life

Ioirnfxny duty

(‘7‘
.p—
A‘"

Iifice

H)

l-

AChieving nersonel

re of

H-

Liv ng for plasu

lestine flersur87*

I
1771‘7

H
FJ

8

it i

f)

C
u.

9

‘1

11* 10
12 0

1“ (D

l) 9

ortslity

tile

1': omen t 1 3

—q
C
J‘—

.13* .19: u.oe*
.72 .27 3.75
lh5 .31 3.93

5*

’3

,th Mg: b.97w
.9' .32 H.23
-57 .30 3.77
.oe- .h3* u.13*
.06 .29 3.79
.2; .33 b.36
.22 .70 H.52

 

19 Sirvivel 19 3.2M .22 3.02
-- .V\ F I r— ‘1

lb rower :0 2.62 .25 3.%5
-7 n _ ‘ ~ g 1 o I U '

* h - 9:, new ssmole renrawn to chec: possible ties in origlnsl srnnle

on tin.s goal.

*4

U1

.w: - ~a- ~1 1" g
lg'LLJ-J:d 1‘1 ‘1,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FFIAEY OF ZIPFTRE;C?S A7FUG 303-??Imin3 TiI, NY. V?S'2;;?, T“???
t values
Goel 3 I}: Ordez‘ ; nr—vetezr1.s ;on-xm;tezvr;s Tetaz“21
To. fern= n.23’et:zv '0 a“«t;T ‘.s ., »' 1" Veterr' <~ vs 'f»1r.1 \w:,{ s

2 Finding nlece E 15 1h U.70* 3, 0* -1,f

2 qervinr God 1% 1h 6 _ 1? -2 7;: -T‘ffe

,. "' ‘L ' ' “' -1 0-5 o o-

8 Peace of mind 1? J 5 —2.57* -2.2{** ,QY
13 fl'esure for othegs 10 9 3 — .27 -2,50*i -3,1C*
1% Getting enezd 3 5 12 ,,52 3.35» 5.2::
16 Security 11 b 1} —?.3}** 1.99 $.21:

 

 

Le ”*3 nC. :

See T ole oT'Page 42.

From this table it would seen, on the besis of the avrilsele
date, that wtnen rank serving amiedfi-tuemoting nleesures for other
significantly hijher than men do. It would likewise seem that men
rank getting ahead significantly higher then women do. There is a
marked tendency for tEe veternns to rank the goal of security sigh

nificently higher than either non—veterens or women do. The non-

vetnrens, es s grouo, rsnk finding a niece in life significantly

Ho

ldgher then do either vetertns or women. There s a merked tendency
for the non-veteren to renk pence of mind lader than either veterans
or women rem? this 3031.

An enelvsis of Teble A in the A pendix shows a
that tlere is a wide range of scores marked by students for each
2021. This is ennarent for ell three sub-semoles. ThTs would apneer
to be true even in cases where the mean of one sub-semole P37€PTS
to be significantly different from tie renn.of another. fables ll,

12, 13 shows thst the size of the standerd deviation varies smon

non—veteran men, men vetezens, end women on each 5091 but, by in—

spectiOn, there would not seen to be too fires e difference in

y

”J
O‘\

standn r6 deviations fo r many of the goal s. The meaning: of the

stsné‘erd deviation cannot be determined statistic 113;

:n

n
H
h?
”D
O
i-‘J
d.
(L

since there is no stsnds rd against wiic‘n to measure it. lieverthe-

d
Ho
:3
v'

p
O
h‘
yJ
p)
d
(T)
'0

less, it x-iculc‘. seen the _t TS one 'WiliCi- purrorts to

measure generalized life cools the sttndarc’: deviations ‘.-.")1'le be

0 Q

stroller if the C061 s one on which 2 given S‘_LD-SE1.""V1€ excused 5

D

C"

pres" deal of e.,'greer'ien t.

Inszection of freouency distributions is not, oi
x-zetincl wiic’n groaluces fr-cts whi ch 1:15;: be positively state-:1. It
is used here beceuse such en inste ction silo we quickly the-t these
students,whether or not they :re non-vetersns, veterans, or women,
tent”. to merk e11 of the {:0'19 over a. rather wide renre. In the case
of the sub—sem_-les under discussion here there is sane fm‘t‘ner evi—
dence with resnect to veriebility.

’l‘ne Bartlett Chi-sousre test is en :‘h'oroxirnste measure of

whether random senole errors elone would have produced vs 1‘1.“ nce

(U

f“. S.

differences es larr'e :35 tho se Obtained in the present sub—err-y-l
Table 5 shows that this is true of all {335113 but three, if the five
per cent level 0:" significance is used. At the. one per cent level
thi s would be true of only one gpel. The goals for xvi-.i ch thi s is
true ere ll, 15, ens? 1‘3} and it ns elreec‘sy been shown thwt, in any
event, ell three grongw rsn}; these goals s tne 1:; st three in their
hiere rchjr of Choices.

The results of the Bartlett chi—smmre test may be interfreted
to mesh th:--t the sezz‘nole variances for all three samples are reletivel;r

nozzogqeneous. This would tend to confirm the fore;_-:oi11.g statements

mode after insnection of the data.

77

CO..C1‘J.S 10:18

 

Analysis of the sub—samwle s of non-veteran men, men veterens
and women shows that there woulds 2:.er r to be so sex differences
in the choice of life gosls. hen differ in that they ylece more

1

emjnssis on getting ehee:l. women differ in thet they accept the

goals of serving God end fromoting mle sure for others more posi-
tively then do tie men. The veterens tend to attach more significence
to the £021 of security than do either of the other two gronos. The
non-vetsren seers to emphasize findinr his olece in life more than do
veterans end women. Both veterans and \«or en consider hence of mind

of more inoortence then do t: e non -vcte rens.

fhe over-all similarities emong;the three groves would 3??)9 er

to be more strikixg then the diff.rence.. All three éITOUpS renk
self- ’ evelopment, fine elsflt one with others, end heidling specific
problems as they :rise among their highest 30218 . The thre grouos
are cur. si stent i-. that thev all re ,ject tne goals of power, survival,
achievine;:er o:;al 1.1ort.lit self-sacrifice, and livingtfor the

pleasure of the moment.

each group would an eer to sho: considerable variation in the
wey any particular goal is marked. This would seem to be true even
though a given {eel wrs mer:ed by the group, es a whole, either high

or low.

 

' Afi‘ .‘T- *3 ***.‘."'"|" "1‘1 .3 ~ '71 'f‘, 1" ’1' j flfi'p‘ \-71 a? ~V'--“71 ‘~ «"
U 1..-, -L>.-—'- I‘Ir. L; d OLA-r “is L-J J‘L-T- A‘. 1‘ ‘1de 4“ A. L-ac JJ— I -‘fi-J ‘v‘... .8. .‘L ‘ (:4 .‘t"‘
. _ -\ L‘~ “ ‘ fl‘r~ ~- 1
Selection and Coersi tion of one ban-3r“;“eS
..-. ‘ I I '_~ 3‘. I ' _ - ”‘l . g r\ ~‘ 4 ‘ V. ‘
rreouency distriuutions were 00L¢lnea on escn o: tne t entJ
. 1 . “A -.. - i r ‘ O'> ’~ - " ‘
c0"ls 1n tne Conls of Liz~ inventory for one thO sue-s atlas selected
p. 1, p i .‘ c '0 . f. “ ' .C‘ .~ I
to test tne eiIects oi residence on encice oi gOJlSo

The sub-symoLes
urban scale of resiienc
were co yered with stud
oonuletion. Sieve cste

rural—urb n diffJTCACES
categ i ‘ :ere 00in." P-
sted, of course, ould

IGT* selected to test the extreoes on the rvrol—
e. That is, stufents wdo CPLL from the farm
ents W10 core tron cities of over 25,503

rories were us d l“ecz-‘luse it would seem that

shoulC appear meet leez‘lr ‘.‘.'i‘.€ll the se two
d. If the differences xere s rikin; the next

be to compare other 1:i.os of residence along

J.

the rural-urban scale, If the diffe Mr= nces ”ere not exoensive, such
0 steo would not seem to be necessary.
The rural fern stufentc were used as a basis or th selection

irbsn QWlb— 5T1; 1e.

ooerstion of other veri

Was rechecke' 2nd certs
when the fsctor of Trot

In attempt to eliminate

ables the sub- angle of rurtl fern stuients

A
~

in student, were not includer

~
5
.4

estant church.membershio is examined

VII it wil be seen trrt, for reesons noted, nemhcrshio in Protest'nt
churches whictzvmuld ajjeer to be at the extreme left or rihht of
rlOtP°+“*t1 in general xeze net ed. lhe point of view of these
extreme groups is not measurcc in this study end, in OLier to epnreise
the nossihle o‘eretion of the variable of religious effiliotion, 1 81
students in this category were not luCLUQed in the sub-senile of rurvl
students. Llso, some stu ents *1) had been classified as rural iEarn

in the total sen le appearec to be borierline cases and they, too,

J.‘ ,,,_, “z. ,3 ‘,-‘ ~,.-. .- _'.'"v V,
e 9?“)180 giver ruCufiCRlflg, o; rural farm

(P
PJJ
H)
*3
O
”J
c
’4'

(

were eliminet-a
stuients were used 3s a sub—sennle.

The urbe. sub-s m le WES matched, as nearly rs possible, with
the rural sub-senole, then h it could not oe matched for "ll factors

and some factors were 1ot exsuined. Table 15 shows the composition

./

From Irnle 15 it would seem that, pro ortionelly, the two sub-
Sanles ere much the same except for the variable of academic ability.
Among'urben stufients there are 29 per cent more in the highest 20

lit; than in the lowest 20 per cent. Cn

-
L

t—lo

per cent of acatemic so

tne other Leno, among rural students there are five oer cent more

in the lowest 20 per cent of eceienic ability then in the hi test 20
per cent. It was not nossible to balance the verieLle of academic
ability in the two su‘o-se.'.-1f_nles anal st the same time keep the other
varieoles preportionelly the some. Further examination of the date
should help detennine if the factor of academic ability is unduly
effecting the results of the rural-urban analysis.

With resnect to both sub-sanples it would seem, from Table 15,
that measurement is prinsrily between single, Protestant. freshmen,
male students. fieritel stetus and year in college are not considered
scjeretely in this study. xros Chaser III it was shown that some
differences exist between men ani women and it is possible that if

q

the sex ratio were reverset that the comparison of urban vnfi rursl
stueents might be different. In the foregping Chester, hvyever, it

was concluded that men and women were remerkcbly :iihe in nznr of

TABLE XV

"'1' ,\ eat fry-h 1?": "'1 -
JAZJ} ‘Idp L-‘.‘-..J D-I-t‘A r C\‘

"‘ *Qn.‘ r‘
Smé’b; D (J

"4‘

It I

,’-,-. g.—
I

\

V .ov a 4-44.!

45

 

 

 

 

 

Bur Stufients Jrh n Stnfien s

Beckcronnd Data K fie: Cent 10. 3e? Cent
WA": :3:?7.‘:7LIF:.'33 AD SJ}:

Fon—Veteren men 13 ”0.97 13 Sc.97

hen Veterans 30 “5.39 30 M5.7?

- r 7- - ." T—_‘, —-——-' -

Total Len ed c .50 a} 99,;;

'.‘;'o:1en
Grand Total

”3'3“" I GIOU S A’Z'TI 1' ATI CI;

‘ ”-4-4

 

Protestsnt Church Kembers
Protestant Ken-Church Kenbers
Catholic Church Kembers

Total

KARITKL STATUS

 

harried
Si ngl 9

Total

n - “ 7 NH
LCM“ :1;

YTAR IL

 

Ere shmen
Sonhonore

Total

«1' “’W‘ a l‘
{.45 “.7...

ACADEKIC ABILI;Y*

 

Lower 50 per cent
Upper 50 per cent
Unxnown

Total

(Lowest 20 oer cent
(Highest 20 per cent

PO ‘JJ
-4 H 41'

CT\
r0

Eu.8h
33.87
11.29

 

100.00

10.75
80.65

100.00

55.71
11.29

100.00

M1.9u
h1.9h
16.12

100.00

 

eu.19
19-35

s4xn

O h)

0\
R.)

CH H
Ox m [4350‘

g 1’
.2: 3 -l4_
*

~ 0
.r

100.00

x, .,\
52*. 04

33-57
11.9

 

130.00

(5; o 87
10.13

190.00

 

 

* Percentages derived from perfornence on ACE Psycholoqicnl

See Chapter V.

their choices on the Goals of Liie Invsntory. It may be seid,
in enticioation of conclusions to be given in Chapter VII, that
the same thing is true of Protestant and Catholic stufents.

q

Difference between rural end urban sub-someles

 

!

The rural and urban students were compared by mesns of t

tests. Il1ese tests me e run on each gpel in the Goals of nife
Inventory. Ihe vs riences sweze not pooled en., therefore, a

test for homegeneity of the estimates of verience wes not employed.

etennined by emoloying the formula: The differ-

(‘1;

The value of t 1:3

Pure between the means divided by the standard deviation of the

difference of the meens.l
Tetle 16 gives the E values \hen tne oerforme nce of the
two sue-senoles Wes coin red on all goals in the Goals of Life
Inventory. From this table it can be seen that the sub-semglee
differ signific centlr on only one goel. Ihe mean per r10 mance of

the rural stufients is significantr higher than thet of urban
_ J \.

students on Goal 9, Serving the Community of which I an a Part.

 

Froxa isble B in ti ie nooendix it me 3r be in: erred that this is a

reel difference between rural end urban students, for there are

no significant differences for oth r veriebles on this goal.
There is a tendency tmrsrd significance in the difference

between rurel end urban students on Goal 6 Self-sacrifice for
9

 

r1

1. Reference hes already been made to w. D. Eaten, itid., no. c63-
Ihe formule on p. 263 was used to obtain the best 65b irate of tie
stsnéerd deviation of the perent from vhiCh the 93.31e came and

is used woe n tiie vrz‘rnce is not oooled. t shoulc oe steted

hat woolin5 the vsri nee is the best k trwi for determining
signilic n differences when the samples are smell. From the

st- aIICooint of the usuel conceotion of serple size for .1urooses

of sociolOgicel enelvsis, he present senvles ere smell. Ste-

tisticelly, however, any senole over 30, if recreoentetive,

may be considered a reasonably good semnle.

fi,.»\
C—C’"o
1 .

('0'

h.)

- ‘~L_' J— LA 41 I

75 'Q- P‘ ~,§ —
l
r).

 

 

“”1"" ‘ 1‘ "““o 7?”. ‘: .:' ‘ " “ ”‘ ’* ' :.7"'.'1 no
dig. £»¢o-ul'.v VaJQ ‘,/._J"I‘.J—‘o'- ”bvishg'u -L‘ *J V'-—J‘M‘.I H“J~A-J.ALQ
l‘ f
t v 1118

' 1* t 'r'

yl‘l" 1‘ 1"

-54-nL L' 1;.
“."Y" U“; ,1, cot ‘:"
l‘. ..-.e - L-t'-41 1 u‘Ll-n

 

'pJ

K71 " \14 R)

O 1

\f)

f.)

O

P)

Self-develOpment _1.25
Findinj alece in life .75
Serving God .51

Achieving personal innortelity .13

Self-eisci line _ .31

f)
D
A
N
J
*‘S
2
cf
’ s
,1
(D
O
C.)
3
C
!<
' _
’4.
(‘9‘
Q
P )
0

U)
I
t... I
O
0

Fine relations with other

Living for oleesure of the nement .70

Getting deey end 1 sting gleesure -l.20
Promoting;pleesure for others 1.hf

Getting ehead -1.

\ V
‘1 r]

Power - .60

.4

Security —

Ability to "t'ke it"

[.1

O
'3

(1‘.

Acceptance of the world as it i —l.§7

(I)

Survival -2.4?**

Handlinf soecific problems as they erise _ .51

 

I: 1
(D
W
(I?

\

See Table b. 3°;e 4;.

'L- J J

W

5)

the Selle of 9 Better ”niorld. 17-19 rurel stu‘ient tenfs t) 5.1 rk this

 

goal Lighfr than does the urban stuient. From Belle 1 it may be
seen thst this seLe tendency does iot appeer'when other verirbles
ere ex mined.

There is a marked tendency toward si nificsnce in the differ-

ence between rural end urban students on Goal 1?, Survival, Continued

 

Existence. In this instance the urben students tend to mark this
goal hig.er than flie rurel students. From Table 3 it Can be seen
that this difference is Liinf :"3 0.11111 when worn-en and the two groups
of men students are compared. In the present case, however, the
prooortions of non—veteran men, men veterens, and women are the

same for both rural and urbfn samples. It would not seen, there-
fore, that the factors of war experience and sex differences account
for the difference in the present sub-samples.

It can be said, after inspecting Trble 3, that the academic
variable does not appear to be Operating in such a way es to create
spurious differences between the rural and urbe sub-samples. This
would likewise seem to be true of the variable of scholastic achieve-
ment. the way in which this factor was distributed in the rural
end urban sub-samples Was not known but from Tells 3 it would not
seem thst this factor would be on rating in any say to affect the
differences obt:ined between the rural and urben sub-samples.

A

.inilsrities and Cifzerences between rural and urban students.

 

Tables 17 end 13 show the menus, standard errors, standard

deviatiOns, and rank order on each goz' in the Gosls sf Life Inventory

for urban end rural students.

Ava-P‘-
.4.
‘

I.
‘-— -'-u-

m , -: 2* *1."
-.‘1_.’.'..' 4 1L 'I .LI

j'fiA_‘r:Il _ $'|'r‘-fl v'1 If". "‘ cur", f-P"1~rl_‘ pl'v f‘ .4-- [\‘71 V “v
1‘ ‘ hqu C: -59...“ o“ ‘ #8 $an ll ..

"
fiNy'nJ-.| Vfi- UV‘ u \.'..

'r- '97-'37

’ \
....44

QTCRY

 

‘1';

 

 

y

LXI

10

\11

K4»!

-4

H
I“)

F“
()3 7‘ )

CW

 

 

c-1f-develogment l

Hpndling'specific p“oblens as
they arise

H)
H
W)
' N

Promoting gleesure

F:
[.J
H
A)

Peace of mind
Tine relrztio:;s with othero S
Self-discipline 5
Serving the coxxunity Z

Serving God 5 10.9h

. a
p01 Ile‘

my duty 9 10.81

fiettirg deeo and leeting oleeeuredfi)lfl.bl

Ability to "teke it" 11 13.34

Getting eheed 12 10.31

36 curi tgr

13 10.03

\

binding niece in life 1% 5.31

Ac eptence of world as it is l: 3.7

a

p

Self—sacrifice lb
AchiEVingj oersonsl in ortelitle 7.15

Power 15 3.34

‘J J
' )J
" _.)J

F0

'4

Survival

Livin: for pleasure of the
moment

I")
L)
F0
UV
Kl

.
7-4
.‘o—
». o
.i-

.
r :- I:
K D .{Z’

- J
{‘0

‘D
‘C

 

\fi

 

 

n) ‘~.C)

I:

O‘\

Serving God 10
Acceptance of worl: as it is 11
Ability to "t he it" 12
Icing; my duty 1",

serving;the community in

Pindinr place in life 15

}.

Acgieving personelity immortn

Self-srcrifice 17
Survivel 15
Power l9

Living for fleesure of the
aurient 20

no
0
r
m

\

R7
0/)
--5

'75:.
'l/
o ‘fJ

.hv

'A
‘0

.‘TC.

:t1.n-:l 0? 13341 STLTT- S “I GCALS GP LIT: IEVEIL‘RY
Tn
UC.
Goal Frn'
1r), .'coe Order‘ veer Q. 7? ‘?. D.
_ ,, , - -.‘..
1 Sell-development l if.1l .38 3.3»
30 lfiifilin: meflfic spun ms rs
they erise 8 13.0; .Ms 3.?3
8 Force of mind 3 13.90 .50 7.8%
- ‘ o v v ‘ ‘ 1 l ‘;- - -
10 fine relstions Vltfl otners 4 19.13 ..g 5.3;
9 Getting See: end lasting
olezsures 5 (11.50 .?2 4,39
, . . - . r . q,
1% Gettiig eneeo_ 5 (11.50 .50 H.;5
5 Self-discioline 7 11.7,r ,ug 3.25
13 Promoting oleesure for others 8 11.18 .,9 n.02
r —r 1
10 Security 9 10.02 .33 4.35

 

86

From these tables it may be noted that both groups rank self-
develonnent first and handling specific oroblens es they arise second.
Both groups include peace of mind and fine relations with others snong
the top five choices.

Both groups likewise reject the goals of self-sacrifice, achiev-
ing personal innortelity, power, survival, and living for the elec—
sure of the moment. These goals are placed in the lowest five out
of the twenty goals by both groups. It has been remarked that there
is a tendency toward significance in the difference between rurvl
and urban students for Goals 6 and 19, self—sacrifice and survival.
Since both grougs rank these goals at the bottom of their hierarchy
of choices it would not seen that the differences were as imoortsnt
as the similarity in ranking.

The rural students tend to mark Goal 0, serving the community,

I

Q
0

higher than urban students. This ten ency is further confirmed by
the way in which the two groups rank this goal. The rural students
rank Goal 9 seventh. The mean performance on this goal is not much
lower then that on Goal 5, self-discinline, and Goel 10, fine rela-
tions with others, which ranks above it. On the other hand, the
urban students rank this goel fourteenth, which would indicate a
definite tendency for the urban student to reject this goal.

This tendency toward whet might be considered group—mindedness
on the port of the rural student is further shown by the fact that
this sub-sample elso ranks Goal 13, promoting pleasure for Others

among the top five goals. Urban students ranks this goal eighth but

there is no significant difference between the means of the sub—

U31
N

semoles. On the other hand, urbon students renk Goel 12, getting
'I [V l t V s . —,

dees» and le sting5 nleesure, enc noel l4, Letting sheen, es tied for

fifth rises in the hiererchy of their choices. For the rural stu-

dents th‘se goals ere further dow th’ line, renking tenth end four-

(0

teenth, respectively. Since th ere no significant difference in

the performance of either ~ib—semole on these goals. conclusions
on this point can not be very positive.

Once eyein attention should be called the wide renge of
scores of individual students on each goal. fihis is true for both
rural end urban students. The freouency distributions for these
two sub-semgles are not shown in this report but it mey be stated
that, in the main, the same tendency toward veriebility'and wide
range wes shown for these st 0- fmples es for the samoles shown in
Table A in the nopendix.l

It mey be seen by inspection of Tables 17 end 13 that the
standard deviations are ebout the sens for both rural and urben
semoles on meny of the twenty feels.

Concerions

 

Considering the limitetions of the single end the instrument
used it spec rs thet rural students ere in smne resnects more
comwunity conscious th n urhen students. it leest this wmlld :joerr
to be true insofar as they show a willingness to n'lx-ifest the senti—

.L

ment of serving the canmunity. (let these students do in terms of

 

l. 1.1 of the freouency distrith ions xeie not include ed bee use it

:id not seem feasible to nresent tlem. Actually ECO frequency
distributions wexe obtained, 120 of which ere shown in Tehle A.

'he see distributions seemed to be representative enough, insofar
as they dewonstrate tie renge and variability wnich mey be seen
by inspection only, of other distributions not shown. A 1 of the
cats is {veileble, of course, to check against the ste texue t that
range end verietility seemed to be about the s ale -or all 0’ the
various scmil s on most of the goele.

other behavior is,

fis this

Illflyz'zl

upon four

stucy 1

students

of the

.wparent for these grOUpc as has been noted

, ‘ l

0;)

onlv a

:1

Of COUIFE. mptter for conjecture as far

e‘CEftion of tnls One goal, hovevsr, the rur l and
Show a remerk2ble degree of Sinilority. they three

five goals

ch hey “alace at the bottom of the. hierarchy.

‘ue tondency toward wide range and variation within each

for other

\70

F >1. 14' ’T"" W? .- _..I. .. .. , ,t 'v- T. ~. 1" I 1:71.: ”’1‘, _ S
Jéaflafi J- as- o' O lily: I. FAA "LUJLHI 1‘1. V 114.}; .. .Ll J-
'. \ “HAD 5' 1"" ' .Tr“? ."\ r1 " '5'“ NA ‘,
.1 A .-J ‘- ..- .; ... J--\\ .‘VoJ v- ¢. g'. - .‘J u‘w n-AA—
.. o r -. v : ‘ \r .‘.‘ _- o It-
3* 91 s - or mete: -Y-lu _-«.r. w 10 11 J

 

cleric-rel acadeiic ability considered a vrriwble which
might be related to the :.e1‘fon‘cence of stmfients on the Gaels of

1 1e Inventory. Accox-c‘tingjlv, from the total 3:.::;f_;le in tlis stmiv,

’J.

students were selected who gerfcmed well and who :gerforrfzed fioorly

g

on the test w‘fi ch was useo. es .9 lag:

an

H.

S for dece-:ni31i 1," eccefieyrgic

ability. rLhe extrer‘es were selected so t11=t stur‘ents in the .iagn-
est CO per cent on the mce-fienic ability test were corny rec“. with
students in the lowest CC: per cent.

oaei s for (3 ete 1m ining; acederzzic e'bil ity we 5 we rforr::r.nce

on tire Americen Council on Education PsychologgiCfil ”Exemimtion, es

(0

- ‘ .- .‘w T ~. r~ ‘ . vet niv‘l,‘ o ‘ ~ {'1“. ' qrr \ : "r n .
eevelene-{i cr i...“ cud Tltclrm 51-. “uretone. -Iil?! e‘--.-~..1lzation 1

Freshmen. It is :3 time limit tee rand resel-

:1.
F).
r‘
’[u
C?
O
{‘1
F’
k!
(D
7"
d-
I’D
’1
3,!
:3

L19

ing; vii s:—.'k:ilit,y m: v be a factor in the pear :_:verfomzmce of a. student.
The test is in two parts. One pert gives whet is called t're L
score which puifigorts to measure lingui stic ability. L‘he other

gives what is Called the a; score '.~:1';ich ‘ouroort s. to measure Quenti-

)
m

tative thinking. Botgi nzzrts ar- cored in such 9 way es to give

..

total score. For “purposes of thifi Study the total score was used.

as the (iiscz'i::1inetin» measure.

Te sts for academic e‘oili.t;,r have, of course, many limi tetions.

This particular test COCtSi'flly3.1c'c;s'_ll‘;::3 to some extent the I..’;__. It

can not be claimed that the test mes_.ures all factors whi ch should-

be coneifered in eopreising intelligence but it is de Signet to

:aeesun‘ tne kind of 'foility needed for success in college. "..'1';e-thcr

F.1-

t

eff

90

V

does so is not known for tinre is no researcn at :jre sent which

solntes the two v rizbles. Some of the later evidence

}_I-

ectively

this study will show that apparently there is suns corre]; tion

ts authors bvt 13 to

Ho

Validity of the test is not shown bv

etermined locelly. Jhe norms established for KQC sturerts cre

‘1) l
H.
:5
C?
'3’
43
C+
c.
f ‘u
‘ 4

‘
3
l 0
d
3&4
(D
0‘
‘1‘
U2
:_J o

" . --.: . m ‘a c .‘ , - ,1 .~ .
Ior measuirna tne oerlonnance of

students who took the 30.118 of Life Inventory. For example,

if a group of stuéents is te°,r1-cu es ren;:1ng in the u.per 5o

:36 I‘

0 'rwfl

cent in ecefienic e r it meens thet, on the noels of fine

norms they are in the sixth decile or enove on tne ACE Esyc olo ic 1.

one

of

eiven as .To for a, .9; for L, and .'

1 o ‘ ' \n.) ‘ o _ o 0
corrected one—even correlrtion on Sen ceses. nel1wxility is

see as renting among the
r ere in the ninth or tenth 6e cile accori—
to the norms- esteeli shed for g-LSV students.

The reliebility of the test was connoted by the authors for

hine scored exewiwatione, tLe tvge given at “SS, bv the method

\ H
.4
l b
O
"1
Cf‘
' J
:"n
d
C)
cf
,3
F
f)

O
O
*3
\D
a

 

H)

These norms :rere esV oliszeu by the office of the Director of
Counselinn em} Ex? :‘rotions. Iorne very son whrt from year to

e
A. .‘ ° 4... ,‘ ‘
Sb. In tree Stem}! t:.e

year :ni with d‘ifierent forms 0“ he te

norms esteulishe; for fresnnen for 19h5 iicluaed most of the

stulent s in the present son, 3. -n:re were some students M'o
too: t mi st in lC“ nso.cted ano

te )44 inf the rsw scores mere i e
jlscei in tm preper decile accorfiing t the 17%; nor
wes : fe'rly'lerge number 1 iken the test

0

of veterans “to
severrl years earlier. Trev ore considered ”unknown“ ceceus

the form of the test hey Look wzs not known to be eouivrlent

to the form used to estsblish the norms usec in tr.is study. Ehere
were, of course, some students who hnd ekcn t1‘.e test end they

are li'&\“~s‘ inclufleo in.tie ‘Hxflunidn" groan.

Barley, Testin"-rn4 counseligf in the Rift School
fiifence T‘I‘Oerrszn, Sci er .0? 121.63 see-r311 .—=.esocis tee, 19.5, o. 99. Size
foregoing discussion wee btsed, in osrt, on the criticel nwwrcis'l

of the AC? Fe;Cholo~icnl which was underteken bv thic eutnor.

 

4--

Covnvro si ti on of we Sub— 93'3‘1'018 s

 

prle 19 shone the comoosition of the sub-samples with r*spect
to the other variables examined in this study. It cen be seen fro]
this tsble th t, with the exception of the vsrisble of scholestic
achievement ens oossibly thrt of Protestant non-ciurch membership,
the sub-ssmoles are iissimiler in nony rssjects. Jhether or not
differences between the sub-sdfiples ere sonriouslv affected by th
Operation of these other ver'ebles will be given.ce1eful considerstion

in the next section.

fkfihoo ofinvlysis

 

The senoles of stuflents in the lowest Biner cent of academic
ability were compsred with students in the highest 20 her cent in
the some manner as has been described in the preceding cheoter.

Table 20 shows t_values obtained when the mean perfonnance

on the Goals of Life Inventory of tie two sub-samples is compared.

(L

_efore examining this table in detail it is necessary to question
the possibility that significant differences are spur ous because
of the Operation of the other variables snelyzed in this study.
Inspection of Table 3 in the nouendix shows tint this oossi-
bility does exist with respect to some of the other variables. The
mean performsice of students in the lowest 20 per cent of academic

L

ability is significantly higher than that of students in the highest

q

20 per cent for Cool 2; Findin¢'¥7 Place in Life one Accefting It.

 

)
From T'ble B it can be seen th~t the mean nerfonnsnce of Protestsnt

non-church members is siynificrntly higher than thet of Cetholic

('13

-me seal. Does religious sffilietion

r...“

S S

church members for th

H.

account for the 1f-erence between students of low and high soedenic

. . a. - ‘ 'I" ‘ I
M ‘ I .- . ‘ u .
V“.—LL/!. con»; yr‘h .‘ -)4.‘- {L

’\ ’ "\ ' 'T\ , ' 1‘ '
v _. ’ ‘ , ‘ ‘l r l
. _- ‘_ b -1 - -. ‘¢_a¢

 

£15K98t 20;
L01. 0 “i C: 1
Fe 1‘ Cent

01‘.

 

-‘vv' ~1x“'n» ~--;‘--\ a? .»
n It“). 7.41.." ' n F“ “A .1 ‘1 k}.

-. 4A: -4 . \....

 

Ion-Vetorsn Len
Men Veterons
Iotal Len

Gr2nd Total

‘ *vtv'mo
-§-¢ CL- .4. IU—J

H”

 

“T“:‘l
-uL;t

 

«.1

norm
Suburban Kon-Frrm
Town un§9r 1000

fotel Known fiural
Urban

City 5090-95,300

City 2%,COO-EOQ,OOO

Lity over 200,900

Sotal Urban over Eifimfl

Total Known Urban

Uncla 0 Si fie d

 

Town lOOC—EOQO
Unknown

Graxui Total

 

n>k1r:

N Cut—4
V I:

\i) I--' CC:

L3

'71

 

 

H

\n k»! RD

\N
\‘3 ‘ N

\1 0“-)4
H

‘. )J

T} \

2

m K
r] N 1
ml
,4“4\N_4
«J
H

0

-q
—q

.1

[U

n)

H

<30)
‘51 H) {)4

9) F1 H
—q kflJrkJ
;

a»

l

L»

gotal Unclassifi9c

 

r4 r
£D‘fl!U

 

\ 1‘,
-J

v

F.)
L)
O

14\»
O 0

ng1'
(NtAtD

 

f

11. b
1.13
1 “ «q—
.)_r. . "‘+

 

100.00

 

InéLE XII (Continued)
v I",'. '- . ‘ _‘ .fi
nou‘eet an; :. on 4.1.91“ st 34:: 011
AC; P9; crl AFB Peydrvloricel

i
jfckeround Drte 10. P L Cent Ex. 99? Cent

 

 

,1 21- Cinzr ch Z~Leri:'oe rs

 

 

 

~ , ~ 2 o ow ,- r 2:

2rd: st nt -1~Jx:rence le c-.“3 ;-. CE.ue

Ot.rr or [o :refeneace 2 F._o 6 .05
‘ ° . f A m _— ..

-otnl “on- enoershno l; LU.‘_ cJ f:.g+

*-

27 l“3:77 35 lGC.wW

Grend Totels

r .-~.-— « -. , 'ir‘. "T‘ .“U‘Y‘m
301:. ‘- 'i“ A AIC [AV .l-c‘r-X'er-‘iL*

. ‘ l } A
fver Achievement 8 14.0h 12 1..1C
Unfier Achievement ll 19.30 16 l?.52
‘ryected Achievement IS 0:.ec 57 b7.0o

' *- w_—r: =—- -:=*wv-
rotal 57 lQO.uH 95 lUU.pO

 

# See Ckuwwtez' VLI i+nf€ “0°

ability 01 309; 3?
From Z ble 19 it cen be seen that among students in the
lowest 20 per cent ofz cede ic ability there were ll per cent more

Erote

in

tent non-church members then Catholic c‘tmrc‘n members. Ammo;

students in the highest 23 fer cent of academic ability this diff:rence

is eight per cent. ine grobability would not eopefir to be great
that a difference of 2.23 per cent in the pronortions of E"otestent
non-church end Cetholic church members in the two sub-samples is
related to the fiifference in the performance of stuéents of high
eno lowzacedemic ebility on 30:1 2. It should be noted further
from T5619 B tket the religious effiliation end Pcefcmic ehility

fl ‘\
-
I
..

veri:bles 60 not show signifiCfint di rerences on the same forls

for the other items in the Corls of Life Invent3ry. For these

,enfit Wes mace in t*ie stufy to eliwinete tne fossible

oneretion 01 tne rel;giouq

"1
‘3
Ft
H-
i _J
Flo
'3
cf
‘r.!a
O
S
i
"I
H-
H
(D
*t
’3
O
:3
('f'
kqd
I’D
0]
r
I
pp
_J
I
H
(D
CD

' - «r r
.V
A-s—._ a-‘L
“—w‘ . -Q‘ 35—.» ..' — .-w - --1 v .- -~,-« ._ I. 1 .- N - u, —- p.., , ’fi ._“-‘_ -1.“ l T. -,n
-I .V - Aa.l.*4..av..¢ j ‘1‘“ ~ 'an-J ~-L-J¢-¢&1 4. V J- .— -t'l ‘XL-‘J -.... Jo- ‘LV‘..- 4- ~~V .._..L...‘ L

(bf see or; 01“igiziel. 95K221638)

 

 

t Values
Goal Lo;e: 20 per cent csioerefi with
e

’3"\ 1

; oer cent in ecrcemic 'Uiiitv

I.

~' -.\ q-r
I

-IVD. . :wYI‘le 1")..j
. ..

"J

h

 

l Self-develocment -1.50

2 Pinning glece in life 3.13'

\JJ
1)
"J
’1
4
H-
r?
g)
J
p
:1
J”!

u Achieving personal inrortelity -l-*7

a 1" fl ‘ .
5 DCL;—-i‘b-1- .c 1,h7
F .r . ~

€41- (L¢.L11c€ " o :0

W‘r 0‘ Yr." Q t r . u
Hullb 1.x) GU. 3 .J'-

8 Peace of mind .1,30

\0

Serving the comm nity' 1,39

10 Fine relntions with others -1,33

2

11 Living for plea re of the monent - .09
12 Getting deep and lasting oleasure -4.37*
l? Promotirg pleasure for others -2.31¢*
1U Cetting ahefid .67

15 P0wer _ .RB

16 Security .n3
17 gtility to "take it" 4.71:
13 Acceptance of the world as it is . - .51

10 Survival .39

20 Handlinr scecific problems es they arise. - .70

\_1

 

a)
O

. .. r .-.
Legend: See TRDle o, rage

bes~d on ecedenic ability.
It cen ge seen from Cable 19 thtt the two saujles under

consideration here are Quite cifferent with respect to the
distribution of XOR-VPtErfil men, men veterans, and women in

each. Uithout unfiertakingjthe lengthy ennlysis followed through

in Chenter III, it may be steted that, in some instances, it seemefi
tossible that differences between the samples based on acefiemic
etility might he ettridited to the variables of war experience

end sex. Since it seemed necesscry to correct for these factors it
wee Gecided to recheck ell goals on which significant difrerences
or tendencies toward sign_ficence occurred. As 9 f*“ther check
on the limitations 0“ the ervsent ub-semnles two other goals,

‘

Vith t velues th't might possibly by considered a

(D

bordering on

the five per cent level of significence, were elso reexenined.

new sue—samiles of stuients in the lowest end hiL§est e7 Her
cent of scene ic atilitv were selected. fhese sem;_es vere selected
at rnncon in ell restects except thet the number of non-veterans,
veterans, and women vgs enuplizec for both sub-snmnles. The new
sub-semnles contain eight non—veterens, 16 veterrns, and 3H women.

The nercentages ere l&.§l, Pfi.o}, and 55.50, respectively. For

each of these sub-samgles there are slightly more women than men

but the difference would not appear greet. There are about twice
2 s TEE: .y veterans e s non—ve terens in each of the sub— temple s.
‘ o

Teole cl shows the new t values obtained.when the new sub-

lected for reexamination. The

F‘
U)

sample s we re co mgr red on the 550»-

C
u

a)

5

table also shnrs the original t vel es obtained on these gosls.

f”. . -.:~~ I!“ . .4
J. .“._,.l.u“4 -15.;1'

cm"; "I. RAT; ’ “'1‘ fs I"£1r-TT}"‘ \
h a

5 ft" f“-A_J,T q Tray-v1nq Qat- QA‘D ‘.f‘Lfio '.- Q}
U

A '1 _,.

a .A’La-u IDIK4o- V: C :4“ \a -o lAH‘J \- A! Uv'A‘AI & ~~~Jl--1\Jl Ann-J ‘.“~:$—5 -: o AHAJ
c ”as ”L“ “7- r“ o': '2 T. ' :13 m c: ~sr~ o.» r ,r‘ ' no «ems:- r”? CF
U“ ,. .LJ 1‘.‘ .j ‘4}. ~J 1.. LAil y A. . .44— Viz. a .;95 (74.5. C 1... JAM—1.1.5.; D ‘_ 3 -J‘v'i .1. .1 ~.‘I-' .4 .144. .1

HI {:1}; £53..o:‘:: IS «lg—:I: If; Y

 

 

Cori 01-15;; l 36‘
To. ?fm~ Srrnlne 9?“ le

 

l Self-devc109ment -l.39 —l T7

 

 

2 Finc'n; olece and accegtin; it 3.1:* 5.13.
5 leece of mine -1.30 -1_oo
‘fi . - ‘ " r- ": q " +:"-- ' r-s'u' i‘ ~fi* ‘1' 'M“*
.Lc— :I'eUtlAL; (leel-i (fl-ILKL i:'."":b“’;*_:. t‘le(.::.\.re -‘r. «l —L9. “:1

1 r: - I...

l} rrunot i1 oleosure ior otucrs -c.fl** -1,~5
-n -—._‘u ' ‘ .r . ‘1 _, 7-?—
l{ :eing :ole to 't be it" c.(1* fogs

 

“cgesz: Sec racic 0, page Lug

It will be seen from th' above table that signific:*

r“
p
H
('1'
C‘.
H.
F5
4
3
’1
I

ences remained significant when new sub-se:1_7les \ere con:;erefi. This
is not true for tendencies tow: a significance. Goal 1} does not
show tne same tendency toward siwnificence when the new sub-srmolES
ere comoared as when the orig mi 81 samples were usefi. ”he most thrt
can be srid for this goel is that there is a borderline tendency,
not too oronounced, towerd a significnnt difference between the low
and high academic ability students. Goal 1 reneins boréerline end
Goal 8 drops out of the borfierline category.

'11is perfonnence of the new sub-sewoles is in line with what
occurred in the ex 9eriments ego .m in Ci‘iefjter IV. Chet is, (i fferences
at or above the one per cent level_of significence rennin significeit
when new sub-seniles are usei. Differences at or shove the five per
cent level, but below the one per cent level, decrease to tne ooint

thet they no longer show —z;.1r';:,ronounced tendency toward simificznce.

C:

0’10
Chis would seem to confirm experi entallv the choice of the‘per

x
-\

(1'

cent level of si;nificsnce es the strnderd user in his study.

Eiffererces Between Senvles CONoerei on the Acedemic Vrrisble

Table 22 gives the t velues for the comparison of sub-
semvles of stuflents of low end high acsdemic etility, revised to
inclufie new 3 values rechecVei for possible sentle bifls. Lhis

eule will be used, henceforth. in aiscussin; the differences
be tween the se sub- SE?!" ple s.

From ”able 22 it cen be seen that for only three fiosls ere
there between students of low eceFeric shility and stufients of
high eceietic ability. The mean performance of students in the

lowest 20 yer cent is sierificently higher then that of students

in the hi hest 20 oer cent for two goals: $091 a, Finf n9 KY

 

 

Plsce in Life and Acceotinr It; and Goal 1?, Reins Able to "Take

 

 

It"; Ervve r23 Uncwenlsininé iccewtsnce of Ihet Circumstences Brine.

'1‘ '~ I- ‘9 v‘r~ LV“: “L . ‘2 ‘~. ,».~ I- I 3 7*. .0 . '
-zze hem. vweiior..1c-nce of etc-tents. ‘1’an L1,!“— me tic 8.311112] is

‘

significsntly higher than thst of stucents with low acrdemic

stility on Goel 12, Getting As Leny Deep erfi lestiug Flessvres

Cut of Life As I Gen. There are tn goels for which there is a

 

borierline tendency toward si~nificrnce in the difference between

students with low end kirh.eceiemic abilitr: Coal l, Self—Sevel @-

 

ment - Becoming A Reel Genuine Person; and Goel 1}, Promoting the

 

 

fidst ”ee and Lasting Pleesures for the Greatest Humber of Peoole.
For both these {pals the students with high academic :Dility tens to
merk higher than stufients with low acefiemic ability.

finelysis of similerities srfi difference

m

[m

 

So fer this discussion has shown thst on the basis of the

ffer—

(‘1
d-
r I I
’D
To
H
O
‘4)
r) u
k..-

instruments used in this study there is not a ”re

_Ps_fi v? _
Litmus ALI J.

-‘q.-< v-.-~~<— n-o-q r‘ —~ v-u ~ '— --1\ Pg uv-- . a‘ Q \ q
‘ “11- .. a L]. \ r. 4 I. . <&v D ,‘ I- "\ n. I ‘ \
~_....-_4--.44 .4... “.‘AI'.1.¢ ‘ - u,/.......~ lg. 54‘ O—nw -- a

K?)
0:1

. '1‘__' an ~ . 1-" Jv-r I1
. 3-. "L'J-L-‘"4A.;U 4L....LJ._' ¢Y

(include iew t vslues for goals rechecked for ~ossitle ssmzle Li s)

 

t vvlny*s

 

In _ T n
IU—O 5.4 1 ._,' (J 1l're I. C
3J0 . 1'1:— v‘-‘:e 7—7“ ° 1' 2“

x1 Self-develooment

X2 Findingjplsce in life

1. Se rvi r; God

M Achieving personel immortality
o Self-discipline

Self-srcrifice

0‘s

—4

Doing my duty

CM

Eeece of mind

\0

Serving the community

10 Fine relations with others

ll Living for fileesure if the moment
:{2 Getting deeo and lestin; glessures.
x13 Promoting pleasure for others

1’4 Getting; sheecl

15 Power

lb Securit;r

XI] Ahility to "take it"

H
CQ
H.
d.
H.
D

Acceptance of the world as

F"
\C)

Survival

90 Hancling specific problens ss they

per cent cowoeied with

h

ner cent in seedeiic ebility

4.57

.J

 

3.1a

 

" Obl-
.eo
se. - .20

 

t — flew t value based on sennles of lover & uojer 7% her cent in
senienic etility selected to coriect for nossible seiflle ties.

9.-

“ o

-

Legenfiz See Tehle 6.

ence between the students who show: high sceienic ability enci those
rho are low on this veri letle. the mesns, stenderi errors, stfnd-
srd deviations, snfil‘snk order of esch goal is shot. n for the two
sUIJ—S .‘les in '11- 1.16:; 2, and 21%.’31‘1ese tables may

tsin some newer to the ouestion of similari y between the two

(v

st‘CC- s'“7'“ 1e 7:.

3 i .4 show hat both groups rent the 50315 of
self-develonment, henfiling snecific nroolems ss they srise, end
fine relations With others snonp the too five 5091s in their
hiersrchy of choice s. This hes been true of the other F‘IZ-
er ”)1 so fer ersnined. Like ell othe; sub-san:les, s1lf—nevrloa
ment is r nhed first.

Likewise, both groups nerform as have the other girogas
JI‘DVMIIQlV ties risen, in that thev eject the {“0918 of self-sund-
fice, personsl immortelity, survival, newer, and livinr for the
olessure of the moment.

?oth gryues rrnh getting;:herd and asses of mini feirly
liflh in the hierarchy of sentiments WuiCh they accent, though the
order is reversed for the two sub—sen les. SelI— ciscioline is

-. .

rzznked third by students :ith low aczcexic at ility, while it is
rsnkei eighty by students with high.e siemic ebility. The differ-
ence in me~n oei forms nce is not significant end this diffeience in
rsnk order is only suséestive.

Uhen the rsnk order of the goals are com FTEd with sijnificent
Lifferences or'tentencies tavern significance in the difference in the

ween.:eriormrnce of t.e sut- se17fles the behnrior of the two gTouos

is further clerified.

hr‘ *nql

.
Lac... 1'~-¢

n11 QII

ALI);

q v7 .. - ‘ R - 'I“ ‘ s " ‘ a‘ .'\ -s s , .‘ - ’1' f.. - A v .7 ~—
_ _ -, ‘ I . ' I 1 k‘ ‘}‘ ‘ l . ‘ . .. 1“, -.
- -..... . -.“1 .4”. ‘ .. u‘. I... - .Ak- \x -. u J.\JJL..- -» ..-...-' -- y- .L. A.
\ u- , (\v‘ ~ w—‘ -- or y .2 ‘,‘
< - - i-C~Y
-tv-“- 4 VA. ~fia . . I .me L 'Q\

 

‘ '7 .,, : ii‘._‘\
- — V ZélCegt as Lotee/

 

LR;

k.)

K»!

n)

-4

+4
I Q

IT ON

‘4
K7)

FJ
07

ll

Self-development

c oratlems r:

' .

.4!

9»)
L’f‘
d
F‘-
:1
"fl
D VJ
O-
(D
M
"\

i1"

.‘L'.3ility to "trite -t

~. I. 0 ~
.9906 O; I'lll’lCi

I
?;cur1tz'

Se rvi 11.; the ov':n‘.a.;;1u11ity
Servinr 305
(J

'1' . :0 ‘_ _:
.; li‘.‘1;Lh—'

plece
tLe

acceptance of

3'7 . -' .. 1 r wr- .4".
-Iomotin; lielsuze i.

Acniev-ng
Survival
Power

" 1.
i the

\
F"
n)
A i
'-3
t 4
H5
(‘1:
0

Living for
{10:4811t

gersonfil i :ort'lity

f q 3, I“

C: ‘LP.L-rl .LLL..§L .j'L-I;
\

3 1-.79 .‘C 3.?1

4‘1“
0-4
+4
0

(‘1 ,
O
O

\ T1
\ A
‘Jl
kl")

\ r

5 1.53

‘ T1
5
_;_-'
.J

\ -3

‘2 V. \‘
llo"~r_.* 0/1"* a p55!

11.171 as: 3

(A
El
;

~J

~4
.
an
0
pl

»1

C\

1 “: r-(x l —; 3
J on‘O 0:3; "0 :r;
fif‘ 1 { Hr -yl C- -v ‘
JJJ J- ) 3’ I. 0 ~\—

}.J
F!
«I
5'
_)
O

F1
F4]
{1
53'
I
4:”
O

N
‘ ,
I

W6 (\ 1 1" \ ‘4 ‘7
19 AC. 90’ of: L‘o' U
1‘ ‘—~ \
'1’,‘ {N f ..
.L'!* ;l.:JLJ* .LL‘ ‘f.r1¥

‘ .
1+ 9.

«* ~7 -v — ,)
L0 to/_) 05:) 30:4"
.7 _- I P:‘ ‘.I

ll :IOCY 0:,“ H015

1’] 39’\l .“f’ 4. Xi:
r ‘ '1
l"O 'Jge‘ré 0LT? ~01?

 

\ ‘ .
5., ncw ssm le recrnwn to che“g

(‘0?10

possible b'es in oritinsl srrwle

1*
... _ .‘ --,._..,
._ w ,I 1 I
A‘..-..L An ‘L—b- -
- .' -v" f, ‘ ".‘T‘ /\-':, C3-- ffl‘f- “C P? i‘? .E‘ ,I' .‘H "' '1 "T/'. . ‘T‘ futf C‘” 1': "1
.._".' .nr‘.-b-Vad \v. -\1-»»J‘—Iv 'J v- -L .1..- ohdah'nd.‘v 05.1“ .‘ —‘ ..._..‘...
"1“” r- "3‘ 7.x“ 7"?" Y
“dw‘w \ )— ..‘ -4 - -. .«‘ o’\v’-i

 

“ ‘
b. r V
Autfi ILA":

I1me Ciier gesn u. ..

 

01

‘JJ

-4

F)
K]

[.1
U1

}_J

t...‘

391f_revelopment 1* l§.3?* .3~*
Fcntlin specific r0ble.s :s
1 - r .- o o 1 '
tifé' rI‘l ‘28. L. 1L. 0 ,0 o :15

’r '
p
I3
(D
*1
(U
P
(‘7
('1'
H
O
*1
0')
'4
Ho
6*
DJ
0
d
('3
*‘5
f)
x»!
$-
I"
O
i
H
o
,,
4.
L)

...
(L
;'H
O

D
Q
*3
1
5.:
:3
1:1
1'1
I
f)
o
4.,
l1
0
TI

-\J

l1

LN
F4

Self-siscijline

Srcurity 9 10.:6 .

\ fl
KN

)

l

Acceotence of the worl; *s it is lu l).wd .4;

. ‘ "t ' ‘ ‘I‘ '1 f‘ l."1 .f‘fl
Seitinb Q04 ll j.JL .vo

.4

\
‘N

Serving the community 12 9.39 .s

E)
H
R;
f.)
:1
d"
<4
H
KN
\O
0
H
U
C
L -
\ )J

('Y
g.)
«l1

glace in life 15* 7.»:* .

Fl
«1
’m
0
-1
\n
O
:1
H

Self-secrifice

H
L);
4;,
o

r]
r
O

' _
-,_.
;

flirvivel

h 3
Q
m
*1

+
C.
O

r
to

l-
p
<
H
H
o—

d
O
*‘1
L.)
H
F)

1
’1
s:
’3
LD
0
:4;
C &
(U

_)
r‘
' J
U
.3»!
0
\JJ
K )J
O
.L-
Q

 

' ~ - ‘ .P.v ~ . . ‘ ‘ n ‘I ‘1‘ '3 .t‘ . I‘ . ‘. "-
5H, new s M le FECIJJL to cuecn ,ossiole oils in 311,
on t-I-l° ,3:...

(3' \

—q

43'

0Q

11)

r.
k 13‘

Significant‘iifferences on Gosls 13 end 17, nleesnre for

' "1 . hfirv‘\ ‘ ' I“ r - -: ‘r 1‘ .5‘ RT“. ‘ ‘ - , Q.
nolllty to "t nc it” is runhea Fltth.3y sutrcnts 0L low screen;

J"

toilit' sni fifteenth lo: stu‘ents or low ecedemi: rtility.

rne significrnt differences in perfornsnce on 60:1 8, fin:—

eleventh while stuGents of high academic ability rank it fifteenth.

in ‘8 plcce in life is not eccegtei by either fir0$? but stnients
I tend toxeject it more than students
of low aesdemic ability.
The borierline tenflency taker: signi1icence in the difference
between the sue—semeles on goal 1}, oronotiag cleesure for others,

-.

is empnesizoi by the difference in rent order. .tufents of high
ecsfiexic ebility rrnk this deal sixth, stile it is ranked thir-
teentt bv students of low a,s6emic Guilitv.

The borderline tendency toward sipnificence in the difference

between the sub—samgles on Goal 1, self—develonnent, is not con-

rst out of

Ho

firmed inasmuch as both sub-sflm*les rsnx this 30?; f

The fre»uency distributions were not shown for thee? sue-
ssmoles but it may be stated, rs v=s done in the preceding chapter,
that insgection in icstes the same tenflency toward verinnility end

7‘-
u

wide rsnre as is shown by the distributions yiven in isble A in

 

the .‘ijjoenoix. From {SI-bles :7. 5:110. c» it cen be seen t‘net for many

goals the standard devietions are about the same for both sub—senjles.

(I)
cf
9
(D
S
C+
O?
O
F!)
',
\J
(\\

‘rr ;ce£exic chility when connrred tc stuients

of hirhescefienic ebility Ono: e ten ency tower stoic l eccentence

‘ J

of personal misfortune. Ihet is, they piece a rether high premium

on the sentiment of being sole to "take it." they also rank self-

‘

ciscipline nigrer then stunsnts of greater academic etility, though

3...!

icrl

(‘9‘

H-

tiw difference in means is not stf—Lt

C
L!

y Significant. In

( \

('3

contrast to stufients of higher r— cs _

‘fiiC Leility, they do not seem
to prize so hiihly tLe more Epicurean sentiment of getting~deep
end lesting pleesures out of life. fine difference in perfonience
on these three goals is suggestive of e rye of sturent who is

‘

reelisticelly concerned with the nnoolem of getting ahead. This

letter goel is renkei even hiéhcr b7 stiflents of low ecedemic

\.

eLilitv then students of tdgfier eLility.

'1

I

,4

Severtheless, cesjite such soeculetion, over-all sini—

lerities between the two snF-samples wouifl nopeer to be more

45‘"

pronounced than dificrences. They agree on three out of five

in
0
re
w
"3
'_.l
F“
H)
*1
c:
(1‘

too renning goals an' ion ranking 5091s. Lech sub—

s mnle is similar in thrt from insuection there seems to be a

rather wiie range and verintion in ineividuel nerformnnce on ell

of the 30:1s in the Goals of life Inventory.

; I--::" .A1’ in --‘1 "1 .5 Q .1 fl .. :fi‘ ~‘.—~-.-‘ T-‘ n'rq Th 7
‘4 J ..

“vi 5'» {AV-‘1‘ ‘ T n.r\-U‘r\" . fl . , ‘ '
U-.‘-L.!_)L . .. J‘. bu--z «nib.-I‘ o‘nv'- _..o.4’—.. A4. - -5 J- DAXU- ,J-B -- n— *VJ—a

.‘
J

rv—x i w" *r -"

x. A 4.1 .P :1 (J‘1 —-*‘I. Q

The criterion of echievenent

 

”J
(N
O
i
‘1
H.
’D
O
J
O
Hz

This study hes ceen COLiiIed so fsr to
certain sentiments which e 0319 ere willing to exgress end certain
fectors in previous socialization. It would seem desirable to
test such exyressions of sentiment saninst other kinds of be-
havior. Shetnope of this study dees not include such a pro ran

as Major ps rt of the less n rvch but there was availcele one gossi—
bility for checkingjwhet stucents say against what they are willing
to do.

The “QVCIW13’1Ce exn mtior descrioea in tlw prececing
ncjter evinorts to test generel ecsdenic ability. If there is

some oositivc correlation between jerfopnence on this test end

n college, it is oossitle to see whether a stu-

[-0-

gredes earned

dent is .erformin" above or below cspecity. This is one kind of

index of whet peoole ere willing to lo enfi wry be releted to

such general sentiments es are chosen from the Goals of Life Inventory.
Since the raw scores of the stuients in this study‘ ho

took the -svc“olo ical exsnin Wion were not evoilsb e, a corre—

letion tslle could not be constructed. Using deciles di 6 not

seem to be a satistoctory wsy to obtain a correlation coefficient

as there vrs no w y to know how hi h or low tne stucent rented

the decile. One possible method was to examine th grade

v“
4
Ho
9" J
P I
1-1

performance of students by decile rank on the psycholOgicsl

‘ O 1 "~" 0 s. ..
E‘fv'fimlnfitlono 'l‘irit 15, tne S’ 2:: file \rlas first C13 Sqified accoralng

 

1. Che writer is infiebted to Dr. Paul Dressel, Director of Coun—
seling and szmine tions, at ISO for suggesting end heleing glen
this procedure.

105

to the way students rsnked on the psycholowicel examination by
deciles. Each decile was tlen considered seoerntely and the
mesh honor ooint2 score ohteined. One standard deviation above
the mesh was considered es an indication of over echievement in
terms of scholastic ability. Conversely, one standard devietion
below the mean was taken to indicate under achievement.

Teole 25 gives the means, standard errors, and standard
deviations of the honor ooint scores for each decile on the
psycholOgiCsl examination.

7". Afifi ‘3 11V
JufiA-JL —J oHL

' "V " '7. ‘, 07""? w“ “NT. “ 3'1 "'1T"';"T“” “" '” (3-37“ I . V
hko'lul-.“- .. ‘VLLV; 5 LAN“; C: S.» Lin/14-4 Lb CJJIL-JL)J.: ID :3 L
‘1‘“77'17'” -.-. 1;; ' v n‘f A 31-1 -.~ cur/xx; ".T ."T ~ -v
-Hul... 1.- -um. ..". w... (“1.4 I) J‘. v.1 .140 1;. C214:

— - A...

ACE PsychOIOgicnl Ko. of keen honor Stennsri Error
Decile No. Students Ioint ficore Stenderf Devirtion

 

l 29 .78 .10 .su
2 25 .56 .11 .5“
3 25 .95 .11 .55
u 33 1.15 .06 .36
5 25 1.17 .13 .64
6 27 1.u7 .11 .56
7 53 1.h1 .06 .57
8 37 1.63 .10 .57
9 25 1.57 .12 .59
10 59 1.36 .06 .50

 

From the shove trole it con he seen that the mean honor
joint score incresses nlnost in the form of a straight line from

decile one to decile ten. This would seem to indicate that, as

\J

 

2. The honor point score wss determined for each student bv obtsin~
ing the ratio of grsde :oints to college credits. Grade ooints
ere measured on a continou. rancins from -l for a grade 0” F to
3 for a grade of n. The term.in which the student too? the
Gosls of Life Inventory was used as a bzsis for determining hon-
or points.

far as average performance is concerned, there is a positive
correlation between decile rznk .n the test of general acodenic

eoilitv end grrdes ectuslly eerned in college.

31 the nethod used it was not dossible to determine if
6 student in decile one wes under achievine since there WFS no
UFY to determine the lmaer limit of this decile. Yonversely,
over achievement could not be measured for students in the tenth
decile. Table 25 shows the honor point score it would be neces-
sary for a student to eern if he were one stendsrd devirtion
sway from the mezn performence of students of similar decile
remit.
1:113 XXV I

f‘""‘,) CW" A" ’ "T 7" .-‘ fi' ' -- It‘s-w: H'“ 34:6 7""1 " '“"."L 0L.“ "' “ ~'.‘ ”V"
V 1.. £qu (‘3‘. \a‘i‘ LI-uL .3 . SA-Jt-jii slouD «1:5 CV---M‘-h J's-L... U. l).an gun -'.....£' 1. ..J-.‘ U
_7
b

1!

1...... w- »
Anni; “

0—3 M

 

 

o—i
:5wiue1;t nuist ;;u_<iit Lllst
. . ‘1‘,
'L;.L13CP E 8.1.01?

333 Psycholo;ical One 3.3. glofieofbove Cne : D. neon of
t V ' . . 1.At‘3 {. V 0 1‘. e4. . - I!
Iec1le so. soove been 313119 Lo. below yegn Lec1le no.

 

.

I
V“ J
L‘
I
|
I
I

*
I
I

C
”,7
+7

)J
H

,3.~\n
rronrg.‘

r.) :o w m m r—4 I-‘ H H
O
.. 4:1.
J O
r.) H

1

3

h .

5 . 1 1 .73 1

6 .03 10 .91 '5

7 . 9'5 10 . 314 2

>3 .26 10 1.12 1'.

9 .ch 10 .95 1.
13 ----* —- 1. 2: 5

 

*nehievement score ennot be determined from the drts.
The number of students in the total sample who either under
or over scnieve, according to the :rocedure outlined shove, is

Y

shown by decile runs in Toole 27.

- _‘......I

"1" r” r 1 N "" " "our, " .. r~ f"
V . ii I: U... 'r ’( bk...) ‘ ‘....J....'. ctb--;.-4 -.-LL) .11 .7

" n “7 r «1,1 ““0 rat“: ('1 Na?
F-JL~I{:. O.I o’l'd—a :le:-t$40'.I{U..‘.u

I

E}
5—!
t v
(:1

 

 

--r*<~'1 r» - 5 ° ,. ’. .7. 'v. .' . .h
.uns;.egCnolo :cwl -nuxoer of ..r1oer o-
c‘ o i' v'_-~-‘R u —'u ‘ ,~ . ‘-:-. -
qPCll? .o. UhCCT noniev»rs OVer :C.1errs

 

pm...» r J H
.p’

‘W
‘l

H
OWN }-’ 4:\_D ‘ 3'1 '...'1 ‘11 C\

0‘71 N ()‘2‘ -

. “O
104 435‘ (‘1‘ N (”I 7‘.) $:’\__r1

Tot ls et

4..
\11
l

 

comqosition of the Sub~sxngles

The composition of the sub-samnles of under and over

achievers with respect to other variable.

K 0
‘D
9
H
\1
N
("
£1)
H.
H
H
(1'
L‘S
H.
D
’2
(J
g.
:1
t4

is shown in Teble 25.

From this table it is clear‘thst the various fsctors in
background and eroerience are not proportionally‘the same for

"11.1

Roth sub-samrles. inere are more men in both sub~semnles but

Ed
(D
5:).
H.
H)
H)
(D
"S
(T‘
'5“
O
(D
H
(D
'D
(D
('1)
O

ially Loticeeble in the sub—semnle of
under rchievers. r"nere is about the some percentege of veterrns
in encn sub-sample but there is a somewhat greater prooortion of
nan-veterens in.tte sub-setple of under eonievers.

Searly 95 per cent of s‘HEents who under echieve could not
CR clessified as to residence. The total percentages for stue

dents witn known urban back rounds is about the same in both sub-

19$

f~'.’ .4471" \ 'rr-OTI II
41-. ILA-J o~J¥ u .

 

 

 

 

I"“V 1“ -~. "fin?- h \~ ,A .
:'4.C}:r L. hh‘l‘l: - .U DnlA“ an} Ne“); C)“: L: SCK‘K JJAPBL-JL C:; FoliC-Icri
\n r
2 Sv-.\)&»’13¢.iv 1131:] A
Under qul€V”FS ever
"\ ‘ .. .7 I 5“ ,. ’1 .
gem reunulkts o. :e:.ynt o.
.I '1 "7 "H _ :V' 'r‘ i. ”V 'w 1.-
h .130: »~«‘L.. 1-.i 5 v.4 -“I .' b 4“
——.-

 

iroi-v'eteren Ken 10 £7.73 3
uen Veterens 13 U0.91 21
r‘ . ’W —-_‘

Totel xen so t}.c4 JJ

. v 1‘ r' r (‘3
women 10 1b.30 :4

 

 

.. \ ._
Grrnd iotsl H4 lUQ.OO EM
1" - "1 ~— _"1“‘C'fi
Rural
f‘, fi 5
«TEI‘YTI J 1-).0'4 .LLI- Ll:-
Suburben Lon—Fern 3 b-53 5 9
Town under 1000 l 2.27 M 7

 

m

Totsl Known hursl LO 5

o
"J
‘JJ

n)
l N

 

City FOOD-25,000

~o
O
:3

to
H
H

City 2? ODU-r'” “300 12 27.? l?
Lity over EJOO, 0'0 5 15. 5 E
'“I 'v ‘ r \ . I ‘ 1 \ I - _
iotsl Lrezn over ;5,900 90 e'.eE lf

 

"‘ 1 - .v 1 r h?‘ '_‘ “- '
i-otzal Kno‘m ”fl-Len 1-_~.~ 64.514 93

J

I

.7;

Uncl=ssifie

 

Town 7ZTW—'UJ” 10 22.73
Lnknovn O

 

(

l

lotsl Unclassified 10 22,72 3
—‘-

 

3'” n5 metal 143+ 1510 . 00 51+

J

u

“'7’ 1‘ 1‘,(‘
H (3‘be

 

.1.“
P.)
C\
Q

 

v“ N

(D

L..J

(n

 

[th

 

1.-.\- 4“ ‘; §‘-~r‘V

AHALI‘

*“: I~~

II -

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Queer LC ievers Cver noblevere
38 kground Ffitfi [0. ye: cut fo. :6? Cent
’Hf'tdtnvc 'Ti‘4w': ”t
A.» a -v --‘ A -4 —4- 4 ‘-
~\ A [q ‘ Prf‘ —, .
rrote°trnt an 54.03 Ly 5;.7;
* ’ ‘: " “o A:
CE uhOliC is i230+5 7 «L’hojv‘
n m
Jewish 1 ;.c7 0
Total C}1LUfc embersndi 31 70.L§3 30 00.57
Ion-Church Le here
—~ . .- to ‘ r);
:roteet:nt:re;e1ence 10 -L.73 1% .[.93
- . -- .n ‘, n f. E
Utner or no HT ‘reuce ; “.5“ J 5.5_

'" 4. 1 \v \ g 1‘
:otr; LHDR-wehHfiETSL
,
Ln} :.no‘~.n
Lotel

51‘? nd

-‘O-“‘- ‘r‘.~-‘~-\

"""" AVA I ‘;

dIC ABILICY*

Lowe; 5’) per cent
Uner 50 per cent

 

 

 

 

 

1 2.27 1 1.55
an 1 o. F“ 1)q 0W
-. -3. r ..

1; 5+.09 23 h5.15

29 e?.91 :5 51.55

 

 

I-’

an 100.

 

 

(”owect ”9 her cent h 9.09 11 E“ 17)
(Highest :0 per cent 12 27.n7 b 1.11)
* Eexcezltet-es §_exived from nerformance on n05 PsychoLOgicpl. See
C «oter 5.
learl;,r 2n per cent of students who under :chieve could not

'..'1 th

F”.

there w uld not apperr to be

sub- 9:. mole e.

The distribution of

known urban t echggrounds 1 s
Lhe fpctor of religious 2”

too

stucents in the u per

The totel percent: jee for students

about the 59:9 in both sun—semcles

not eouelized but

grert 7 difference between the two

and lower 5“) ye: r cent

110

of academic ability is about equal in the sub-sample of over
achievers. For the sub-saunle of under achieve,s, however, ther
are nearly twice as many students in the u oer 5O oer cent of aca-
Eenic ability as in the lower 50 per cent. The sub-samples are not
eouivalent, therefore, insofar, as the distribution of the academic
variable is concerned.

It would annear that the two sub-sennles differ in several re-i
spects. Whether or not the Operation of any one variable night pro-
duce a spurious difference between under and over achievers will be
consid red in the same manner as has been done in the analysis of

other variables.

Similarities and Iifferences betvccn Over and Under.AcLievers.

The sub—samnles of over and under achievers were compared in
the same manner as was described in Chapter IV. That is, §_valnes
were obtained by the same formula. Table 29 shows t_values ob-
tained to determine differences between the two sub-samples.

From Table 29 it would annear that there is a significant
difference between under achievers and over achievers on only
one goal of the twenty in the Goals of Life Inventory. Tie mean
performance of under achievers is significantly higher than that

of over achievers on Goal 11, Living for the Pleasure of the Houent.

 

This would annear to be a very interesting difference, esnecially
since the sub-sannles were chosen to connare ver sliced senti-
ments with willingness to efnend effort for college grades. But

N

does the way the two sub—samples rank this goal confirm this difference?

111

.-u...‘ _._-
.

duo‘Lx-Jo~—-‘J -Iurbeb

 

 

 

 

v—q-‘v~4-fia h—‘m.‘-y~<,‘ -.v-. ‘4 ..... .V - ~q- «c ..L‘ ‘ '3‘ - q“-" "-q\ "~" -.- n .n -—“P-‘
l 4 ‘ - - x .. . ., - v . .'. , , , a q .. x.
nai-QJ- --~-h-_.- V44.,_‘ ,4..J.Ln . A- ,‘ I- ‘40' ..L. H . n -‘ -,~-. A... __I .. . ...... A.Vo--L—4IA.J
t vr"
Go ‘ m .— .-:. .7 »
F»; L}.-G~ I (L LLfishfi
"Tom 141;? r r "‘9'?
1‘0. £1.38 "..L A. 0‘0; (L-.-

 

..J
(N

H

n)

A

:elf—develenent

H

~—.. V

:lnfliuy clace in life

R)

1 Serving Cod

M Acti“ving jersonel immortality

Sclf—éiscioline

\n

O‘\

Self-szcrifice
7 Icing my duty

fleece of Mind

\(
fi
(

9 Serving the community

ine relztions with others

*Z‘
K.)
’:_j

11 living for pleasure of the moment

6 Getting deep and lasting oleoeure

lo Security

17 Ability to "take it"

Acceptance of the world as it is
9 Surviva-

a.

0 Handling specific problems as they arise.

 

 

 

112

Tables 30 and 31 given means, stendard errors, stsndard dev—
iations end rank order for all goals. Fro? these tables it is
sooerent that under echievers rsnk goal ll nearly es far down
the list of choices es do over achievers. Ehst is, under
achievers rsnk tLlS so: n’neteenth; over a hievers rank thr ssne
noel twentieth. It cannot be seii from this evidence tbrt under
achievers are willinr to scce t the sentirent of living for the
moment much more readily then over achievers.

It would not seen tnét the siiferences between under end over
echievere is very'greet. This is confirmed by the similarity
bett-Ieen the two prongs icit h restect to themv the;..r rank the goals.

Both grouse rank self-develosment :s the too ;oel. Fine

relrtions with others and handling snecific p:oblems as they rrise

rank second end thirs, theuxh the order is reversed in the two sub—

1.!

Both groups reject the same five soals thst grouns electe

(D

for other variables slso reject. That is, self-sacrifice, personal
innortality, survival, power, and living for the nleasure of the
monent are the bottom five goals in the hierarchy.

Under achievers. as a group, rank oeace of mine” no getting
cheed among their too five gen 3. Over achievers rank promoting
pleasure for others endgetting deep and lasting pleasures for
themselves among their toy five 50318. The differences are angers-
tive but statistically there is no significant difference in the
mesn eerfonnsnce of both grouos on these sozls.

Frenuency distributions are not shown but it may be said again

that inspection x-fovld in’icate that EPCh group shows a wide ral‘qj‘e

113

[r "'~?7-\ qr~r1
u

“G“‘V1;“V_‘fi’ \ {-1 ‘s’fi OH '~ 0‘7; 3. nt‘-f-\vr"“jn nt' Citd'fi 5 ," ‘i .‘J‘, T ’11“ ‘VT‘:‘L {fir f;
I an“; ‘-l'.i~..'1.' {41.4 J.‘ L.\......-.s ADI.,.:. i . lab 5..“ l1,__‘. ‘JC;LLJ: C- _,I _, I“ “I ‘ ;,J_\)“Y

 

 

 

@001 35111.
?o. fame Greer Keen S. I. S. D.
. X f‘
1 Self-develooment 1 14.59 .h‘ 3.90
10 Fine relations with others 2 17.18 .56 3.70

20 Yendling‘826cific problens es

they arise. ? 12.3} .:u 7.?1
S Fe'ce of mind 4 11.93 .01 H.“2
1% Setting eheed 5 11.6h .53 4.13

«)1

Self-discijline 6 11.61 .50 3.2b

a -. ‘ - - -- .’ ‘ A
1? Getting ceeo ens lesting 7 1_,k5 .07 4.’v
pleasure

—, A ‘ n ~_ 3 -- f‘ P‘
13 Promoting plessure Ior otucrs o 11.H7 .04 h_~3
16 Security 9 10.53 .iT 4.79

1? Ability to "t: Xe it" 10 (9,93 .57 2,77

18 Acceptence of the world as it is 11 9.66 .64 4.?9

7 Seine my duty 12 9.73 .62 u.ou
9 Serving the community 13 9.h3 .57 H.79
Z Fincing plece in life 1h 9.39 .gn n.19
3 Servifie God 15 5.97 1,”; 5.77

6 Self—secrifice 16

n x
0
'JJ
(3‘3
9
f3
g.)
I
Q
.1
N

h Achieving personal immortelity 17 5,55 .6; ”.31
19 SUI'Vi‘JZ-Za. l- [In-‘70 .57 «.73
11 Living for pleasure of the moment 19 3,9: ,eg 7.b7
15 Power 3) 7.; .53 7.50

 

'1 7",” “‘.“‘T
ASL-4,1414 (um.

 

 

. M.w—‘p . ~ ’. . '(i v1 r\-—! Fl‘p- . Cs»- --q‘y~ nr- -‘ A ‘ "~>~‘ r'f. - .-. C ,1 - -.-V‘- —¢ 'M‘ «a. . f
,..( .. _ .' ‘~.' r . K“ , _ .
£7 .aafifi v-..111..\l ml ‘w'- \4 low.-.» .X J ..a. . V.-. --J ‘ - #44544 LA." 5 .1. Ni.» 'J ..-| V“; ..C‘.‘
r'
:3 ' ’4
‘ J
J). .. 111x
‘ v ‘ a g»,
r‘ w~a ‘ u u 1‘ .
_0. lug CIFGI ,c n S. r. 2. -.
-o- <-

 

'-.J
“\l

(1‘)“

 

r I)
T!
J

F‘s
l
KW]
’T
<
(D
r4
0
hi
("F
H
F"
o
{-4
) '
0

r1

\

I ‘ )
C

-cific ofOLléhg 5s

(f
6‘
.-
m
I
x.
"Q
’i
H.
(D
(D ”D
O
I")
F.)
‘ H
O
_ 1
K"
o
‘14
k!
0
H
rd

”~' ~~ “ ‘ - " ‘ ‘. w w; T" 7 r
.3lne relations Litn.otners; ‘ L1.Q; ,,L 1.7»

4:
H
H
O
-4
0 r
O

C‘
«J
-c '
O

(

_;

fromotinijoleesure for others

.1

1? tin; fleesure

( 1
H—
(0-
HI
II)
C‘
l i
’11
H
\I!
F’
i‘”
.
1‘.)
Ta)
0
O\
‘ )4
I-
o

x .

U)
T
|....J
( I
H.
O
('3
b].
x )
}..J
H.
:3
0‘
H
I._J
O
O
.r.
Tl
D
O
I 1
TI

Seece of mind 7 (10.; M’s;

L)
x»:
‘~ .71
O

N
A
*4
Q

0
.1)
ku
O
51
CI
p:
O
f‘ )
-\1

3.: rvi n 9;“ the CD jf‘iuni t y

t...
+:
{-4
(D
('1'
(”f
F].
;J
{3'
’0
'33
{In
.0
H
:3
o
"J
O)
0
{—3
H
;-v
.
t,
" I

}..J
r ..I

Toing'j my Cuty 1? 9.73 .50 4:7;

3‘“ 0 1’. a ‘ . I). -" __ H‘r'
4114111 tzi to ” tit, L-t3 1t ” 1."? L1 . Lf‘?) 0‘1"? 1‘. [- :3

1)

Fl
H.
i-
m
H

n
9
:3
L)
(

.1.
1‘ in:

l

1 .
.irnr .lace 111

L—I
p-
0
H.
(a
A
-‘C
H.
C35
‘
'r’
"1
C)
:—
f—J
H.
.3
O
’1
(f.
F)
H
fl
k:
F]
-13
\ T}
O
‘ 3-1
'33
.
f' .
I}
O'—
‘Nl
Q\

l ‘, 4. ~ a ’ \,\_ —; mr‘
3nrv1vel 19 3.03 .e+ f.ec
w o a A _ ‘ w ,. ~‘ ‘ It‘ P) .3,” r‘ “rw‘
liVing Jor ;1easnre oi tn: moment LO ;.?3 .;~ r.~:

 

r

|I ‘Q‘I ll....ll Ill.

. ‘ \ .' .' t :.. .L-1_.J . 7 r.-. .r w,“ ' ',,~‘ .‘ . ”e. _j
:ni vs ration in tne HEJ on” one :Ofll is Lernec. Stencsrd nev-

iotior s for both grooms are unite siniler for meny of the twenty

 

”711‘ - vw — r -: J ' r~ ‘ ~ n '. . ‘ A ..— v‘ .
ine sue—somzles oi uneer en: over achievers co not eooear

to differ rrevtly. Ihis me? be due to the meesu1e of scho1e<tic

echievement which was used to Nlec t the two samples, list is,

(T-

’ v- . #5.. v1 1“- ,x‘
9n0 CV;?CP1£WV€I€nt 1 :flrr9 cze, of

1“!

it may not deteirine nude
course, ot er explsnntions for the lrck of difference v;ich zooly

to e11 of the SFMfilES which have been discossed. Such possibilities
will be teken no toyeth "-r when the results of this study'are sun—
tearized.

tin: to note thrt unoer achievers rank getting

.7

It is inte

'S

’D

e
she i even higher then do over schievers. Jith respect to the
Goals of Life Inventory the two sub—sanoles ere siniler in the way
they re nk many other gOalF, both those anon; the too and the cotton
five.

Lie similarities between the two sub—samples in choices of

{0112 would sagesr to be renounce d. ihis is also true of the

 

this is actually the case we should exoect the suuoles to ger—
s random swwo es selected from the total known pooulstion,
, ting a tenfiency for ooth to regress toward the mean of the
totsl s"nole. Shis may be what has occurred, but frov T ble 2;
we m1 iciit also expect differences similar to differences on other
variables because of the unenusl distribution of these veriobles
in the two sen:les. This did not OCC“r.1evertiie1ess, it must
be admitted thzt tne stenfisrd of sch stic ac ievezoent Used for
this exoeriment is only an agirox1.ete ne-.eure gni mry not le
fiiscriminsting nough to isol >te difrerences in vi; lin JG”? to

occe t the encrs ized senti nerte Liven in the So 1s of L139
Infinsn 'or;r.

VV ‘ "To
.AL; ’_A.OA ,

O

I" ' ’ ‘ -. "1‘11“! '1 Iv '— “‘7’ f ”I ”1‘7 .. ”1'1“"? " *IF" r" ‘ ‘1 7" "1”1‘." 'H'
v 41.41..-.“ f l. __.._;.L J LS .‘L‘AlalA‘. -1:- AZ.) A EJLV 111.1 I.-
.'\'. fi-fyt'f ,fi’f. " 1' “I ." . 1‘.‘
U... — ,g ‘J .J 'w—J -.." .. -- Hit—'4’“. S

«-1 _ .: ,.. . 1, A ' a”. 47‘ ‘«. " «'H ..z.
3:1ect11n rfi? c01,5'ltlun o; the Sue—2:2,les

—— -—-.- ‘-

 

the stuoy 01 society the sociolo¢y o: reliygon has become an
incre?singjl’r ingortent field. She :reccnt study is, of cairse,

limited in scoge, but it would seem teat the fector of reli

which P¢y be eclect=d froq tn? Goels of Life Inventory.
From Tvclc l in Chipter III it copesrs thzt 51 out of the 54

Catholic stuzents in the total snmgle were church members. lhis
rrorr of Catnolic church members was used as a besis for selecting

1.
111 S

..J
O"

(9

two other sub-cclee- from the totgl number of students 11

1 _ o a ‘- ' ' ‘ ~ ‘ '
7re sue-s r“ consistec of :rotesteut cnurcn menoers,

1
x} J

F"
(D

L, ,1 -r
S Lulu‘, o

the other of etufients who excressed a Irotastsnt preference but
were not churcl members. i’h-c-re 1": re not enough stuj ents in the total
Eran? for a sqnfile of Jewish church members to be obtained. ;either

were there enough students to obtain 3 semgle 01 those who nee no

gious creference. Analysir of the religious factor is confined,

i—Jo
J)

rel

H.

n this study, to e cooperison of Ce holic church members with two
kinds of Protestants - t nse who belong to a church and those

who 30 not.

 

 

 

..IAIII'I-I

‘a

Using'the Cfitdolic sub-sofljle es 3 bese it Wes ,ossihle
to equate tiis sub-ssnole for some fectozw with the Erotestent
uo—senwles, on the ratio of on? to one end a h lf. list is,
there were one and 5 half es navy rrotestents in each sub-s 2318
AS there were stufienis in the Catholic sub—ssm;le. Ker exnerience,
sex, and rener l eczdemic ability (lowest end highest 20 per cent)
were selected prOportiozx 11” (“out the same in ell three sub—
samgles. In :11 other resoects the Erotestmiit non church mewbers
were selected at random.

The sub-samgle of Eiotestent church members was limiteu by

snotuer fsctor. A number of these Erotestants were member of

(D

churches wiich represented a more extreme position thrn th t of
mein streem of Erotestnntism in the United Stetes. Some of these
churches are often referred to as fundomentelistic, for exemf.e,

' N
-

Church of Christ :eformed, Seventh Ivy Adventists, en” the like.

Others are on the rer'cbrrer of Protestem ti ism, suc s letter

flu
.A

A

r

on Seints nni Ch.r1s ti .n Scie nce. Still others ere close, in many

vays to Get? olicism, such as the Anglican and J loiscoosl'en churches

Therefore, students who beloneed to any of the foregoing type of
churches were not included in the sub—spmole of Erotestent church
members. This sub—senole consisted of students who elon so to

A

Lutlzrrn, Retuoiist, Conaflre t10“’ll°u, sectist,

(I)
(1.
J7
(LI

$71651 CTl‘LlI‘CILES 8

end the like.1

 

1. It must Le eomittea thet selection was based on the author's
suojective evaluation of Erotestnntism. It is gossible that
some rcLoo 1st or 33 Mt st clurches, for exam, 9, n:v oe eitler
more or less "legrli tic :‘lly" minded. or more or less riturlietic.
Erotestentisn in Amcric1would epyeer to 06 a broad area within
which churches differ not only from otuer ckurcn s but emong teem~
eelves. levertneless, it woulf seem thet s2me ett en ;t should be
TTlT-“-'i€ to tne-lte the sen-'91: of Irot est:.1.t c uric 1 me? cersl; ,. es horse-

591160119 es moss sible liar-3 were not en 1Lbfh students We hemmed

to the enurcres excluded from tgis st‘ey to test the hv,oth

11hfih ‘-V'.”".l (1‘1 +1fi.‘\-v ..nn- -_...'1-__‘l- 1

eels

ll?

Teble ?? ives the C-’.‘:.‘.”10S‘itif)':1 of the three sub-s:::.z'_-les
He ec cted to test the reliiious veri=ble. SchOLectic schieve—
ment was not teter'1nin out it.r s elresiv seen shown in the fore—
goingc nr1ttr thrt, at least as :sr es the meesm“e of scholmstic

o J.

achievement used in this study is concerned, studen.s do not
Eiffer very much on this variable. Aceiemic sbility'wsg selected
so thst, Jrooortionelly, there were about the seme number of stu-
dents in the lowest and highest 30 eer cent of academic ability in
e

1 three snb—ssnsles. The three sue-.1 :ples lef er somewhet

i...‘

in thet the distribution of students in the lower eni upper 50

lity, as Well as thet of students for whom

Pl.

per cent of academic eb
there were no gsy c nolo,icnl test soon e s, is not ecusl. however,
there would not eppesr to be too much differenc on tkis verifble,
es‘_::ecisil,jr since the two extra. 1es of high rnd low soilitv were
hele constsnt in ell sub—sen les.

As might be expected, tile Catholic sub-sample is more urban then
the two Protestant sub~semjles. It has already been shown in
Chspter IV that stueents do not differ greatly in the choice of

via

goals on the Goals of n11e Inventory beesuse of difference in re-
sidence. In this particular case inspection of Table 3 in the

Aspencix will show that significant differences on the rel';ious

(1‘
H)
H)
HI
F1
H.
4\‘
Cf

ion verieble do not occur on the same goels for which

signific cant differences occur when the residence variable is con-

From Table 3? it enoeers thrt in all three sub-samples there

are more men thrn worien - the retio is about two to one. It is

TJELE Y"KII

1 — ,. a ‘1“"“ '1'.“ :5 ' "H . 1'3 :I‘“"T‘1 ‘ ** *n’ \fy I
BALI. S‘s—‘NC Iv“? ~o1‘n‘1 u: \4‘h1 J-\." .- - LL‘ J. S It I Isl. H I... A L. -.BJ‘J'RL fih;q—4. Jl‘ ..J" S J;‘ 3 II: .It:' ICl¥

 

-1 Jtfi St: -1.Lt
Protestsnt L n-Church 02tholic Cnurch

 

*v H .w z "1'.” ,
:42 ckrrownd Date Lulu-Jen 44.8 hue rs . m: , ~
" _ . _t*;.10‘:‘l q
homoers
10. Per Cent E0. Evr Cent Lo. Per Cent
Kai 5“““T‘ZUE ;;D 57X

 

-- q- r r I. (’I‘

Lon-“eteran Len o 7.79 b 7.7? M 7.:w
\

Men Veterans M5 F’.MM M5 5%.4h 20 53.5?

Cotal Ken 5; gg;:3 fl bs.3° 34 55:35

._ P 4,
‘Janen 9b 51.7, 60 .

N
)J
“\l
-\l
H
'4
N
I
o
rJ

 

I

Grind iotal 77 190.03 77 130.?

‘31

1 110 fl“

 

{“Tfi
‘4

 

 

LIX hi:
3
4
3
y.)
H
F]
H}
4—
0
TD
‘0
f 1

i0 . [‘3
2—4
43

4ourvrn ion-y'rm
To n1HV£r INN)
ithI Igown Eurrl

9.00
2.00

m)
0
C)
ru-4t4

I

 

 

-1
k)
f a
J
O
C
Cu
“{J
U
”I
.i,, H [VJ—NI
H
x 4‘ H
o 0
U -
I ‘

 

L CL C AL
Cit; 5? n-25 finw 14 45.55 13 12.9} 13 1f.60
n. "3
C

,y-1

I * A H P\ .'
If :45: , COO—:00 , 0‘30
nr~;‘ I ,‘-
. r cflj),x))0
‘ 4‘ 7" «.3, ~ Or: A
:2 t9; .144u1 OVcI'¢.;,OJJ

O
F“) 0Q
‘, (fl
k1
F) H

H F‘
7..)

L, k )4
o

04
L F"

l

 

)4
..J
I‘
. ..

F
[
I

 

RN IF F‘F’
ko kflkdoq
-J
Fl
k
\ I
)1
O
r._J

r:
x [‘1
\}
.
CH
1-

iotal Known Urben 51.15 2 54.79

‘-. IJ

 

 

Town 100-5000 1M 15.15 7 0.00 7 17.7?
Unknown 1 l..}r l 1.7“ 1 l.’{
lot: 1 Uncles Hi 18 6 5 19.45 5 10.3: o 17.4

Grand TOt/F‘l T

‘\l
H
o

W
O

‘4
\J
H
‘)
Q

J
'1
)4
}-_1
3

- "
_ d v-
.Lc—-..._4—J

l' '7‘" ,W W 7 ’ a ‘7
dJLo¥-.L L'yl-‘L.-a- Lad)

 

 

jr'rote‘ strait E rot 2: st: lit C;

3r, ‘( ‘ ' “ f1 “at“ In)”, C‘, ‘ v-‘C'
r.C;.r'IOuIlLL ..J- 'C. V lLL; l ‘y .-'L‘."' \J‘LuL .-
LemLers Lenbers Féxbmrn
- ‘ A'- ‘ \ ‘ K: h V T ‘ I. ’
1 ;:- Cert n. ;2T Cent no. Ber Cort

unlicihAJCu

 

‘J -.J.

 

Lover 3U

*4
o
”J
-77 ‘4
H
\ ‘7‘

4 3rnr' ’5‘. :Cr C

.I-.L -‘;&\. ,-

o
I y

K
J“.
|

I
7‘.) ‘. .71 W)

J
O
x
'.J
[‘4 —) n
x.“- \

Unknown ll “-.“3 37

 

 

 

ZOt'l 77 l.“." 7: 103.03 fil 153.33
..- - .. ." f ,5 -
(Lowest no ~¢r cent 9 ll.o9 9 11.0? c 1.75
(Ifi,hect EC Per Cent 3; Z_.57 :1 97.27 16 f.c1

 

1
O

9': {'1 01361108 011 AV... .3.” €1,781:ij 7.0.51 Cal , 3t“

”oovible tgét Ts?d;tS of

were greater tan beyond tha rcope of this st

q

creek down each variable

analyre Cifferences on the bFSiS

,
("911 C

to

of sex or other differenccs. That is, only one veripole has

considered at a time and interrelations which may exist between

variables :99 not been explored. It is ooseiole that Protestant

women and so on, but it is

here to if the factor of religious affiliation ty itself

0;

relrte

“£311 9. fa: cto r.

u . _ q‘.‘ . ' -.T‘ -.- ~14_‘.1 "~,- ‘
;- TO to st? Ilt can Cu 911w. ...<.)r1-C.-nc1: Cu ,31‘1139! S

;.—J
f—Iu
. J
C)
(_J
'a‘
(1
D
to
”3
}J
H
H.
[L
c+
'th
O
5—)
6
1
('W
' 3
F)
l—b

' ‘J 14. . -
t tr“ S, ostrine:
-

I
C

to any differences v;ich may occur between :rovps 9918Ct;

132

in the mrnner described in Chrnter IV. Table 33 gives these t
1

I 1 fl 0 u _ _ :r.i\-‘
vr loss for ell conxzrlrons brsao or.» :12: Tell-0710‘J_? V5,1‘i-ule.

Free Table 33 it csn be seen that there were no sivnificent

(I)
O
F')
H4
"3
O
a
1
If)
rt-
( h
g.
’1)

-, - . w . ‘ -, i ,. 1 . I”. . ‘ , ‘, a" ..

ciffcrences on :n, {owl LULM tne two suo-snm.le
. —: 8,. - 1" - -'~- .. , ‘-—- 1 ”.1..-“ .

were Conwereu to eecn other. -He {FOtrCtgnt Cnorcn mortal", es 3

‘ .-__ c. ... ~ , -. --. -. u ~ - r‘ 1.9 -- Aw ..
--T‘OJ',, 8.40?! P. 13:11:18}ng to “.124 JOEL l, Deli-JCVCl") ..'..€31-t - _:::'C'.).;1Ii,-—

-— w

 

 

'0
(f
(9'
Ho
")
('9'
Fl.
’3
‘\
l..J
}‘__I
<
"3
H

‘ :
{4
l

,4

elre"£y teen snovr that there 5;oeers to C8 e
-: ‘5’“ i 'L ‘ " K '“ "f‘c r‘.‘ ~1 , . \v’ \ 1 ‘ . .1 r, 1,". ‘ 1 , . " .
cznt cifieicnce between “en a“; no: n on tnlS gonl (tnousi lb 1s
1 ~‘r- ‘ . . Ayn ...- ' v" ‘ f 7‘ 7- \ . v v v n‘ ....-‘x -
lahmea first of both men en; vonen). LOLQVQI, tne sub—cei,les 01

Protestents contain the Same grooortions of men and woven. It

)1

woul; not seen thet this difference cen be accounted for by differ-

(

ences in sex.

This tendency towaré significsnce between the Protestents
on Coel l is just at the five per cent level. From evidence
alreedy shown, such a difference has not proved to be statistically

reliable when new semples were used, and, therefore, it has been

treetei conservatively. It would not se,m, therefore, that the

W

rotestants, whether they belong to church or not, differ greatly
in performance on the Goals of Life Inventory.

Cozzsocrir-on of Cethclic enc‘. Protestant Chur ,h EIeI'i‘t-ers

 

Ieble 33 shows that there is only one goal on which the
Catholic end Protestant Church members differ significantly. The

mean perforscnce of the Cetnolic sub—sample is signiiicently higher

then that of PTOtLStEDtS on Goal H, Acnievinq Personel Immortslity

 

in Kesven. Such a sirnificont difference was not shown on any

other 3031 when other veriebles were analyzed, es me? be seen from

 

 

 

""“Z- '3- 3135 AI ..v .r .1”: 731.1‘ '1‘ 3:129.er l.‘-‘iI-3'£-.S, E BIZ" -' SL‘L‘T
ICI-CIZgCh H_HLZJS AT? CAZP?LIC 0:;432 EILBLZS

Irotestent Catholic Church Crtholic
Cnurcn Lembers ie;bere cont red Cnnrch ‘
Soxri~re¢7 vitl: .i‘tn i‘rot-str;;t 'oel‘s c 7
;rotesten Chur h e5 vith
Lon-Cnurch. Lemeers Protect

late “embers §*”n‘3”“'?q

 

CK"

H
XIV

I...)

on

‘xl

....)
L‘ 4

 

Self-flevelocment 2.00** -1.02 .“4
Sinein;;)lzce in 1118 -1.49 -l.10 -d.o1*

Serving GOd °“5 1'30 1°75

\
a . . - . f\ " f“ -' .‘l
denieViru‘~xersoncl 13"or- .7: “ .u~* f-F**

H
"h
I
(D
‘3
O
H
H.
’4)
FM
0
0
H
n
L}
I
.
b
H
C
)1
3

Self-"

1" .
FJ
’0
r)
’_J
H
,4.
t‘
(D
I
C
O
)4
H
O
-\l
C)
O
x;
H

Zoingszcmty -1.03 .F? - .RQ

Perce of mind —l.El - .15 -1-7b
. x r _ .

Serv1ng the con unity 1.14 — .;7 .95

'fi

rine

'1

I.’
q
I
41’

\ J1

eletions vith others - .03 .

- 1‘]
\fl
'
...;

.
L_l
*1

living for K16 sure of the - .Ew — .
moment

Getting dean and 19sting' ’1-15 ' ~30 ‘1-EE
fileesure

Eronotina oleeeure for —1.19 .10 — .Se
others --

.~ A” n
C‘ett inf: FEE ."1d 103:? "- . CO 0 :z‘...

.
“w
H
O
5)
3.:
*__1
.
H

Power
Security 1.00 -1.
Ability to “teke it" .21 - .19 .00

Acceptance of the “Grid es - .77 -1-*9 ’3-l)**

i; 1e.

'~

Slil‘ViVEil - .( _, '" 09:5 -10r3?

H.
O
".1
"I
O
C .
rs
(D
a
(1‘
U)
0
TD
‘ N
I
O
O
+~I
.
H
(Y,

 

'1
6: T- (‘ ° :‘o. , " v I v: .2' 3 .../5
h ‘ n... J " ., ~18 ... ; ,‘L -.—.

vs

fable 4 in the Aofiendix. with res>ect to the other goals t

values are below even the five per cent level of si nificencc.

~~ n I v "' ' "F . A- -‘ ‘ 'n- ‘ ‘A‘ " .7 " n2 - ‘1" .'r~y r\.
CO.._”:.‘I'19’)Z’1 of Oil: 311C ...;urcn testers, em J—I‘ote etch-t _ TM-—y;;‘glf‘C-.l .-.t—.T'.;,€‘I‘f§.

5““... - —.-....

 

 

From Seble 33 it may be even thet there ere two goele for

which there ere stetisticruly SififlifiC"nt differences betteen
Cetholic Church members r—‘a:.~f: Erotestent non-church r.:e<abe re. 'l‘he
meen performance of Protestrnt non-church r noers is si

( .

higher then that of Catholic church members on Goal 2, Findin: Ky

 

t. It will be recalled that non-veteran

Flo

Elace in Life and Acceoting

 

men, as e grouo, merked this goel significantly higher then either
men veterans or women. Hovever, neither of the two sub-sen;1es
under discussion had eny lerge number of non-veterans end. in both
sub—semoles the distribution was nrooortionally rbout the seme.
It would not seem thst the difference between non—veterans end the
women end men veterans would ceuse the difference between Catholics
end Protestant nor-church.m mbers. -
From Table B it also epoeers that students in the lowest
20 oer cent of ecedemic ebility, es e groun, marked Goal 9 signifi—
cantly higher then students in the highest 20 per cent. However,
the two sub—semnles under discussion were orooortionelly about the
same with respect to the distribution of students in the lowest

1

(D
sl
[.4
’4.
('9'
E3
C.)
I
a

;
--
J

and highest 20 per cent of academic ability. From Ta

be seen thet students in the upper end lower 50 per cent, in terms

3

of ecefemic a ility, are fairly ecuelly distributed in the seuoles
of Catholics end.Erotestent non—church members. It does not eooeer

to be probable that the factor of ecedemic sbility is ceuSing a

spurious difference between the Catholics and Protestant non-church

Ihe mean >erformsnce of Catholic church members is

siynificently higher tixiiiflv t ofjfrotestent non-cnnrcn members

on 3021 h, Aciievin;;?ersonrl invortnlitr in Serven. This mes flso
true of the '.‘,.€.Z"':C ...cnee of Setholics in Comowrison to thst of
Protestant church members. Ihere is no

rest difference in the

Brotestent sub-sen l s. It

(T‘

Comorretive fierfornence of the two

w*n.i e‘oerr thrt on Jifil 4 there is a real Cetholic-;rotest"nt

difference. It his elreedy been shown thnt for other Vfrl”ClCS

There is e tendency, slightly shove the five jer cent level

. . . r- ) ‘ ‘.r‘ ' ““ -‘ r “- ‘ '7‘ v " ‘5 ‘\
'hifiance, for :rotestent ““1-Churcu me*oeis to JPTA oocl

H
b 4
I

t J
\J.
J

[.10
,5
1

(+-
Dw‘
,_.
('9'
_'
j
'V

:4
Q
('1'
(7'
5"

enge the Bed Feetures of the Sorld,

“7
I“
3
J
)
O
J
7'
‘1
d
H
,_
(D
L)
(T)
0
Cf
f—i

h o . ”in p I M: r: T' 3.
c-n :or nfseii enc iuose heir to he, Li her

the“ Catholics do. This tendency toward si~

gnificence is not
apparent, from Teble 3. when other veriebles are considered.

Therefore, it would not seem that this tendency toward significance

ants for Coal 15

cf-

rotec

ll,

p.

in the difference between ortholics an

 

is unduly effected by other Variables.
For Joel in, Power - Sentrol Cver Feoole end fhth9, there
is e borderline tendency, belom the five oer cent level, for thLolics

to mark tris goal higher then it is marked by the surestwole of
Eroteotant non—church he bers. From Teble 3 it cvn be seen thgt here

r w . 9-"n ‘ -‘ ‘I‘ ‘ A v . $ - . A - Va A r' ~ .‘
are axle Cif-erences bauWCLn non—veteran th, den veter LS, end

9 f 1‘. .4 v 1‘ V‘ ‘a -\ - - - A ‘ j a (\ .
women on tdlfi Loel. However, the sub—re: L09 0; d‘tflqllCO end

I...)
r )
C‘s

‘~ ~- \ L f" . "‘ D - - rho ' "‘ ~ r- , . a — ,
fiictunte to a cigciceraiie as res wuen new sub-sen» CC are crewn
I fl" . v 3-1 ,— a— “ ‘--t
13, in tuis case it solid sen: test to

i, ‘. :. “a- , - i .. A +‘...-':- , i. s h .
trt<t t e Lilierc cu Let sen urtuwiics ~h5 :rotcst-“ts on

‘. gvltiizr 1‘"? Mn far this will OE; ,‘1V6f1

*.I "f‘ A ‘ 0 ~— ‘ 1
.fl G . ‘f‘v. ‘r- v . rt1\r\'1 J ‘P‘ \. +rw-t 1‘ I15» Arr ' ”fl
“‘J-AAL-\-I-(.L C‘ ‘1 ‘AL Ll .../.ho—Co’ Jul \‘tC (:Ukat- V *I‘L/ A L L 341‘ C

 

 

irtions and ran: orser of egos L05; on the Goals of Life Inventcr"
o t J

for Catholics end the two sue-sausles of Protestants.
!

All three sub-samples rank the goal of self—deve nement

C

Q

first an? thct of hsndlin: sueci;ic yrablems of life cs they arise
second. Eine relations with others is third for Catholics and
fourth for the two Protests: sub-ssmnles.

All three sub-samples rank tie seals of self-sacrifice,
survival, power, and living for the nlessure of the moment among
the last five goals in tie hierarchy of choices. Ike Protest at

1- -

sub-sancles also inclu&e the seal of eersonsl in orteiity among

tne gprls UfilCJ apnear to ue definitely reJected. ths 6051 is

s .

(

runred by both Protestant sub-symal-s among the last five gorls,

‘ _ ‘ g.“ r. , .‘.. .' . 1. h , . ‘ ,. r
es ms seen tyre c Ase huff comari sons on ot..-er ire-1‘1: bles was mete.

c church members include the o~l

’Jo

'7‘ +n ~"-t"-+‘r.t c r " L-"
jOUA. :1“ CtichL (ifilx- -FblinL

of Cettins shes: axons the to; five 3031s. Protestant Lin-snurch
L L. _ . P

.LL—l

‘ .

«-

-yr

{Lo kAL .

.1,

,—0L.

‘x
u .v

. -u—h!

~
~ \

~r~

' od-

.--

---- -A— -—-.. —

'-—- .

__ - .—.-.—.—-.—-—_-.-.-—_‘.._.-
—._‘.-—-.—-—- - - ..-.

 

._

 

..l.

"
ol

 

,7;

M».

..i .u_

d...“
7|

.N

7 ..

..h/

1|.

if)
/

'r‘o
‘ ‘ ‘

l

L

l") ‘1‘— Q

settinr

1
.1-

l?

o
-v 7‘-
LAL.

)F' IV

'fi
~

.1
I

a «W»

.C

N)

.1 (‘1
gov)

"N
\.

1-
1.0—";—

F,

(C
.IA

7 ..
\’MI

W 1,

‘IA~

f"
«...

’-

OJ

1

;‘ ")'..' 6‘ I"

1

(art
- \

...;
rd.

-\

7~

 

'1 0’“.

.LL;

‘7‘ '- ‘. / of
.. -. ALU»

...

05A-

.«

‘

1“
J

. "‘-_ .A‘.\ r-.,.
I. rd -‘
l'..4’l.d.‘,~k

-‘
...

_H--v.'.--V..

‘7 .‘x‘.
4! ~..-

r .
-.y’ -..

L
;

I-

-r—w' ‘V. .
\I A '
lul".‘ - -sY

I

A

_ .
.I-‘A .1

 

 

-—

 

...
\I‘
e
F
F. x:
~h E
... .nll.
.0; l
_ & flu
C
r
m
1.
n: o
O
F;.L

 

vmsnt

’ ‘Ire L 3

‘3

.
r.-
-\~'~

r.

.,
.

-~‘~' -.
...L: Y.

fl")

3.4

.n\

.1

7‘

1L

‘5

7‘,

7

.L..'.

'I’W "3

(31‘?

0t;

.4...
KC

75/

7::

.l
.3.

9..

.LEI‘S

‘
l

ot

TOr

.73

~J

W

«.1

‘4. 01+

-L

7!:

7!.

.a
(I.

.f

t .

my in

13

3*:

h
.-

.i
, 0

NJ

7-

‘Y
I,

it

v.
Al

me CU T313111.

Q

16: t

.1,

I
Vvu
_ A

~.

Q0»-
w

(«,x

.rm.’

a}

‘lity to

ixci

17

.1. 5K

7"

V“ ..

al

I
\.

31. 'L TV 1 V -

‘Q

1!";

.2 J

2')‘. ’6‘ r

-«
..
.

‘
I

1.‘

 

 

 

 

rs 'fi~"*\_r — \ (\' r. :~ f\ _‘ . w 9"" fl. - ./\: -:-- ~— C‘ (~21.
:«.1: '7‘-‘ .a‘. '0 a ‘ - ‘V {L‘- -- Ll.) C.‘U.XU.. A‘AJ-._.J~_ 3 'w-
I"\ ' T ”1““ " " ‘ .' Vr"---Vf‘. 'f
*5, ‘ILL' S .11 a — —4 &-I ‘I n—d. $V L‘.l
'1 f"
gi : :‘l
ayrl. rung
~V3° —‘C‘e CIVw°r I 9‘11 9. .i. Q. I
(‘qfi “ ‘ v. L" (\ n W
l 3:L_—Lev:l3 sent 1 1,.v0 .3} c.33
A“ ... ' -‘ i . '~ ‘4 - -~~. f A ‘2‘“ "
;r) null LlIL 0;ec‘..is rocir is cs
. . l \
tzle'r Fl‘lfi‘i‘. 2 19.05 . 37‘ 9’ ‘74
"\ l' 1‘ . . J.‘ L" 7‘ h \ ":1 . ... f; ‘.
lg Iine r814t10n9 ”itn cuners F lLoCQ .50 f.';
\ \ . , r
.' ~ 8 . -1 flax. 1 ’,{' f‘. x
‘ SVIVIWL k % li.47 .w- Q. @
‘ ‘ .. ’ ” - 4
' . ‘ '"~ ' ' . fi- if . ,A
lL+ {Ettiig, ( :w»c b l_.'fj .c_ - .s:
5 Peace 0: tin; c ll.h$ .‘c 5.?3
'. . ' ' I .‘ L.‘ ~' ’1‘: I .
l} :rocoting 019°S&I9 ior otfisrs 7 li.00 .s4_ ~.Vl
"a- t:- v- v- (‘ r‘l: '2‘ -1 I-v
5 s»Lf-t1sc1,lide o 10.5e .[u j.#;
P \ 1
r1 ." -: —-— w r’. I " v: ‘1 , «r v r . - - ‘l -.
1'. Jottllsi ‘ 9v; (DAL .L FULJA- -‘ILL: e'lle :1 lCQYE oUY, “T.L1’_J
/' ., _ f \ ‘
q ’— ."_ ‘ u ‘ ‘ - f" ;'/‘ ' "I“ :0 f, r
LU : ‘CLAl‘l V of J.) .—\) o [J 0 Vi) LT. :- P
c. n\ ,_- 4 '. V t . a. ‘ '\ .ifi V' ‘ f '
J JeerLf tie C3mmu31bf il 9.;c .37 u.:o
‘ '. ' , ' -\ .. ‘ ‘,. ' , ‘J- '1 ' _ f‘ ’ I 'If'. ,- a
4 AC3]. 3V1“: {'3' I SOurtl MPH-.01 UE‘J. ltj 1L. 9. 03 . 3:} :3. ?L
.2-1 . ul,u ' t 7“ a ' ’ - m?
.1(J1.Li tj to u the 1 t . .9 j. . 35‘, . FQ :. H4

1" . I
“01115)?

“CCSC

Fower

m"
A.‘ v

V

ence

Survivel

.3
P0)

or fileesure of

duty

3: ‘5‘!- v v‘ . . ‘L .
O; 958 toils es it is

the :11 3 e nt

 

 

r0

0‘
4-:

(3‘\
KN

0\

‘JT
‘V‘

V
l

}_.J

.4

(3\
‘N

P.“ ‘)
x n

 

 

k...)
‘AI

.‘0 ‘
£41f1QO

Pe cc of ”-L5 is also reiced rather nigh by ell three :wro as.
vr)testent no ~cnlrch 1 core 1' ; th_s noel thirc while it is jlsced
fift‘zrrfi sifitb, Iwwr-‘ctitei , bj' xrfieaotrnt and C- t! rfliic church
‘e‘bers.

[he i‘l")t-’:‘T‘L' kit null-ct. 1011 member tend to Ten: tne (2.031]. of
gettinfi deep end l<stinr lefcure out of life higier thrn either
of the other two zrotws, ithou 1 tn Fifference is not Stftlfithm_17
si-nif ic ent‘". Erotest'nt and t th‘lic cLurc; "e oers rrnk this

K

507-1 Eii’ht‘il 3' 1 ninth, rec-3,503

Alt" M‘h there arcs .9 to
$91,1es to r*ii‘fer si “i“ig 4t&
both snvles1mcicthis r0.1 f-

in gerformsnce on hoal is

There is I‘- Si|~fnificant

C=tr olic and Protestgfe t n u

.-
l

finiin: eni accehting olsce

,.
C.

tLis goal would

in

goal fourteenth;

pppesr that Catholics

and *lrcc

P.)

- a
‘ “ ~ V1 fl-
All lLit‘.

accepting?

.
r‘ " .N
( AL A;

church me' 081 s the

But it would also

this senti rent is renked er
s dominant one in the thin iL;

Eifference

hur Cl;

attach less

'V

“c7 for the tvo rrotes

r . ‘ -' f‘ r '5‘ ‘9 A “.1 A
. on t*c ,Orl or sell—,eVeio "CLL,

It would

more oronounced

0.. 'r u r 1‘ Q r- "
in tne serionnsnce of

p.

oers on on ’1

L

e” 31 that of

“4

but tfle way thet both

~~n
J-

l_rit;f r;

stnnt nan-church we hers rank

q

rank it sever nteentr. It WOUlQ

to the sentiment of

iu~ortrnce

in llf then do Protestont non-

8111 :“i cc: nt .

I-CIHAI‘C fl rr-e

UCI‘S

: I

list of choices and is not

grou} o

131

ierence in the wei‘i7rJ1'-mr~'-nce

of Catholics when they were congrred to both Protestant sub-ssmxles

-—
5 J

;ieving perso;sl immortality. 30th irotestsnt

sin"— sis-roles agree in including t7tris [Of-3‘]. among the last five choices,

nq‘
:

while it is rsnked twelfth by Catholics. rne rnnk order of sosls

for the three grouse tencs to coniirm th= stetisticrlly significcnt

n n rfornsnce on Goal 4. However, it does not cooeer

L

T911

0

e

I‘D

Siff
thst this 5091, when compered to other goals, is a nrefioninant
choice of students in the sub—sonole of Catholics.

The tendency for Protestant non-church members to mark Goal
13, ecceotence of the world es it is, higher than Catholics is
oertisllv confirmed by the manner in which both grouse rank this
smsl. The Protestant non-church members rank Goal 1% es tentn in
the hiersrchy of choices while Catholics rank it fifteenth. Yowever,
for neither grouo does it sjoear that this sentiment is very Uro—
nounced.

or

:erline tenr';enc_3.r for or t‘nolics to me. r}: ”30:41 15, power,

A
..

higher than Erotestent non-church menbers is not coniirmed by the
rank order. Both groups rank tbis goal among the last five choices
mess from the twenty gosls.

Teole A in the Anoendiy gives the frequency distrihutions of

the Protestant and Catholic church members on all fjosls.l The se

istri'.)';tions show the aside rr-ngge of scores and the apparent vs rig ti on

(W.

 

l. Distributions for Erotestent non—churcl members is not shown but
what is said here snout Protestant church members would sq-enr to

99313 ;-sO to Protestrnt non-church members.

\

- -. 1, f . 4. ' r‘o ' ‘.‘ '7'? ‘-
on escn 30:1 n; LOth :rotestunts anc catholics. TPLlCS 1w, Kw,
both Catholics and Protestants on rhny of the twenty goals. The
fact that tleze appears to be a greet deel of veriction within

‘

groups which have been compared lss already been noted. This

')

varietion is less pronounces for 5051s yhich are rejected but it

is still eposrent.
is

Ini? factor of varietion within groupsAperticulerly in-

C)
...,
cf

oortsnt to this discussion of Protestents end lolics. From

D

‘

‘ ~ ‘7‘ * .’ - ‘ : ‘ -v'\ ‘1‘ (\ ’ ' ' .4 :
-"rr;;-1es :1!» 31+ ens s“. it cen we seen thet, as a group, Catholics
305, as their thirfi choice. Both sameles of

. ‘ ‘.‘I ‘ _ ‘1‘. ‘. 7‘.- ‘ ' _ ‘. N‘-
(rotestsnts ran: this :oil twelitn. Enere monli saucer to be a

striking difference between Erotestsnts end Cethoiics on this 5091
I ‘ O “ " 0 ' ‘ .“~ -

‘ulCL, :ccve ell otle1< is ieli 10d~ 1n cur: cter. .n; is t.is

lelc ezce u)b SLFthtlLrl-y s; nlficsnt?

ell as the Erotestent

(:0

lie v:-*:riztio:1 Within the Catholic as. a
sub-sanoles on final 3 woule ajpear to be the rerson. Chis verietion
isrnwmounced,illcoejnrisniudth.oerfonmume onrmnnrotherzrxls,

enfi is zoout the same for one sub-semele as another.

 

The over—ell similerities end the lack of differences between
Cztholic and Protestant students in this sample sugyests other
nossioilities that might be exemined. Nhet wouli be the performence
of a group of Zunksrcs or Jehoveh's fiitnesses compsred to thet of
Protestants who so to college? how would Cetholics who attend a
state institution such as MSG compare with students from Kotre Dene?

The answer to such questions is beyond the score of this study but

F.)
i),
‘N

v — l v ‘n ,‘ , L V‘ ' _’ "E a . o I! I... A
F k\n.r .L a ‘1 'deD O; \ Ur! \ n h 3n tr lute tr) .6 wt I'V..1.‘r.e ll .‘ rotc .Qt'tht
? "4 1.. ‘ ' 1 - r,— ‘ .. ,2 . .‘ 3'01“. .i . . - r.
"a“ uftnfiilc -uneers 91G»ee a“; firmet eliicrcnce elt gr anon,

themselves or WJPH caugrrei with the etuflents of this sam,le.

7"~— 1 ‘ r \ u " ' ‘.‘- ‘ ~ -~. ‘- il'n “ — -: I. 4» “ -~, A.”
31; :zotept Lb iiiicucrs gnu tto getaoiic UIlESVS VOihthCTrQ

to tzke the Goeis of “ife Invextory. CLev were not in?orwed of
the eerformrnce of the C:th3-ic :né Protegtcnt students. Ike

" ‘ V’\"‘ ‘V‘L " ~~~“,~- ( ~. .‘ A .r'V' I" I. ~ 0' '~ ‘
«retesteuuc kale LeLhfirlctc, iituqr;h9, grrsa,tc11<u9, qua Lon—

0
cf-
3
d
P.
J)
(O-
.4.
O
H
O
Q
‘ 3
'1
Ho
'0
O
:3
U)
9|
C"‘
6
"3
it
(D
’N
H
,J
O
(D
O
{1’
d
’0‘
,J
(D
f)
O
[A
I")
O
H)
[4
$4.
I" K
(.‘

Inveitory'is SUCLpstive of what mi ht be found
in:ortent goal in life. Qhe :rotentcnt whe did not agree renkcd
this yorl tbird, whicn is, of course, very high in the hierarchy

of Choices.

. 'LM ,. ,i ,. - ".1
witu c lurger hunger.

Achievire 3er9-n31 immortality is tied with service to God

99 the first cfinice of on? Cetholic priest. The other priest,

mmortvlity among thc last five {0918.

b”
q
5
4
(D
*‘5
5
L}:
*;
'r‘x
(D
9,
.LJ'
m
’1
a
Q
:5
;L
H.

Self-secrifice ané serving the community rre rcnke; smeng

the five ton gnrle for hrlf of’tke Protestants and Likewise for

one of the two Ortholics. :hn C tho ic priest filaced these govls

to etl r but only one Protestant Cid likewise.

t .

D
(1')

Half of th miz‘iiste re en» botri 'wrieste rt‘n}: self-éoveloyment

among the tow five (0919.

‘1." ‘c‘ ‘5 +"" I I r~“ ~‘\. Or “I. ‘ . -;1~: -‘ a 9“"
rmli oi tne Ministers LA! one xiiest I¢;£ nanniiJg e,ecii
1 '1 A-P.- ' t a “ _ 1 ’ D. ‘ -v ‘ '-
erooiems as CLC} prise cg,i3 tne Jirst latheqt fiflcls.

. - ‘ P \ H ' a~ "r ' “\ .‘n ’: ‘ u v” A ‘ ‘n p. I‘
The VTIESEE? nee in nflujup tut] Qflvpf the too rive _o ls
out oniy one ninister s_reeo\¥itn tnen. Cu the ot er nznu, :ro-
' v“- r ‘.\ ' . .- A“; ,,- ~ .. - .. - . .~" 1..
notin; olcrsures ior others is th.ec snon; tne to; ilre :O.i¢ of

. x I. ‘4 . ‘r ‘ - . .o i ‘N . +1" 'I ,-, 0 . r ‘ ~~ —. ..~ :1
fotJ‘:3i t:ue s1“ ruxristelw: sit nalxdt_r ,11=><t r_reen.

k.)
'h

1 )
r9-
0
’l
L)
N.

All Fin}: livin ; *or the 'lersime 1:" tire rigor";:‘-I1t
is also rrnkei low by :11, Leing zlnced in the last fiVe goals by
the T,I'i€-’St8 and all but one of the. ministers. : rvivr 1s. {21 so
among the lest five choices for :11 Protestants end for one of

q

the Catholics. The other rrieet rennea this goal fifteenth or :mong'the

4

last six choices. As elreefiy stated, the Protestants rank ozrsonel

innortelity low :nn the Catho;ics rre iivi‘ed in their Oéiiion.

students it won‘& haveer thrt Srotestent enfl cethoiic issuers s so

*-

very in their choice of {0219 on th, Gosls of Life Inventory. The
oriests differ frcm the ministers in thst they'olece fiuty higher
while the ministers niece promoting nleasures for others hi her.

In other resnects the Cstholic end Protestant l eders er: some—

(Y)

whet similar en this sinileritv also applies to the variation

. (3)

between Cetholic ena Cethoiic and Protestant and Protestant.
Uhen the oriests end ministers ere c0moered with the students

it crn he seen that there is e teneency'for them to reject most

of the feels rejected by the student s. Self-sacrifice, however,

which is rejected by the students tends to be rather strongly

emohnsizefl by the religious leaders. It would eoceer thet the

relisious leefiers are more 3¢eup conscious then the students, es

might be expected. Either serving the community or promoting

nlessure for others and sometimes both are ranked rather high.

Zicezt for rurCl stuients serving the conmunitv is not high
for eny grout) which hes been snelysed in this stuc‘y. Lhere is
a tendency, however, for the sentiment of oromoting pleasure

for others to renk rather Infinrafi_'fi”is is true of the Cetholic
end Protestent sub-srmgles.

Service to C05 is, es woule be espected, the first choice
of most of the religious leeiers. Only Cstholic end women
stufents rank this gorl very high end the varietion in scoring
hes been Graph? sized.

Lhe religious leaders are disagreed on the importance of
self-develOpment end heniling soecific problems es they arise,
though there is e tenéency for both Cntholics end Protestants

to renk this 3091 hixher than most. This is borne out by the

feet that three of the ministers rank both goels emong the too

(D

five, both pri sts egree on so placing the goal of Self-dGVCle-

ment ene one incluFes the 5051 of handling specific problem

'11
'3.“
m

they eri se .

It is nossible tnst part of the differences between re—
ligious leaders end students is due to the age factor. The re—
ligious leaders ere, of course, much older than the stuients.

It might be SUJfiiSEC, on the tesis of this evidence, th-t
the religious leeiers are more conscious of the gron; end of
serviwr 306 then are the stu ents. Thev ere feirly well agreed
with the stufients on @0518 which are rejected. They also show
some similerity to stub nts in the verietion in choices of to?
end low renking Goals. These are only suggestive oossitilities,

however, for there is no reel besis given here for reliehle con—

;~:' ents.

y.»
m
0
:5
0
l4)
’1
fl)
t_J
H
F"
0
F‘.
'n
}__l
{D
e
’1
fl)
d“
3
'o
q

OFT

Conclusions

 

Cstholics enfi Protestants, according to the S¢?Wl9S selecteT,
so not eggeer to be greatly iifferent in their choice of so ls on

the Cools of Life Inventory. Ike over-ell similerities ere rethcr

striking, both in the :osls which are zenked hieh and those which

(0

ere rrnked low. Cne Effil“flFti0n nny Le offered for this. It i
possible thvt the selective wrocesses which sccownt for the dreserce
of stuients at e state EungrtEi school wlso Operate to inks for
e certsin {novnt of hono;eneity between Catholic end Erotestant
stufient. Thet is, Catholic students who attend NSC no" te, for
verious ressonr, sore sinilsr to Erotrstpnt sturents st L53 than
to Catholic students at, for EXTEule, Lotre Dene.

flitn respect to differences the Cetholics tend to olece
more imiortance on the goal of personal immortality then do
Erotestents but, even so, this goal does not rank very hijh in
their hiercrchy of choices. Arein, Catholics es 9 group choose
serving God as s gOnl more then do Protestsnt, but here the
verietion within the Cetholic grouo is, angerently, about as
greet as it is within the Erotestnnt group.

As was true when other veria‘oles were examined, it woulr?

espeer thst there was a wide r use of scores end considerable

.J.

indiviouel varietion on each goel w thin eech of the three crouws
~4 C

e:v:e:nineci in this section.

‘ . T. n o
0'. A" :1 ii Y

U
no

 

 

"V u"r"r'. Yr '3' - ' -“ . *Y -- N ~-.-— ~ A'
U .o'J—gi-.-~—-b 11II. I: . —-..- ub¢~34§‘- - -3; I) I -.C“. 5):-1‘
Summer? of if? erer.ce eni °1nile‘it1
.htn ooth rrn? oré er and significant cifferences in the
'ne n .:eq“73rnvnce or t“x zo'ss in t? Lyn “s of Life V6.t07"'
were considereé totvt1er , 1t V" 9.0“n thet wen 'nd women dif‘fez
on a £5” anls. The diffe1ence would n1ueer to be one of will-

inpnes.

' -.+: ..
(”itl €91.uiT-.1€llts.

UTE {'33

I V“ . . V ‘: -" V -' ,- ‘ f - .‘V ,R - '\ ', ~ § : .- In "‘ ' -..
nomen snow 5 ten cue; to enxhasluc tne entinents 0; o OLOtlng
A? a: r». V .I‘ v t‘sa 1 r u’ r: 1‘ C T .: v, ,‘ ,f M t‘ffl" K v "Y '1'. .’ .GY
-‘vt‘ All 8 J. 01 O llt‘l S 3.1:- 0.; c': .‘V-.- :0»; ..AOI‘e .LCZIl 16.1 \.-O. y.» LL
. - ' -: W A - 1. -J' . . ('.\ .- q r ‘ . I" . yr “

E‘u" .. 351:2. C129 tne SUfltLulitllt 01 ,1, Ltlné (1.6;(1 NOTE: t3. 2'1 '10 women.

'1 1 ‘ .‘ .8 ~ ,~ ‘|.‘~j Vt ‘-‘r\ .1 -' l . . . ‘ _ fl ‘ ' ’~

gszi tne Icsesiw11 on t5: Ip¢gfi)It-JPTKCH1 St :7 o: i7 1r:e1

sane sinilrr evidence. Althflh

J.

1113‘ b

niiicsnt thet differences betwe

beer

 

h t 6 All nort scele

‘.~ 3
DJ 4

1 m ken to co53c

en men and women on the

Alloort scsle ere, in general, sinilsr to those Mind on t e
30319 of life Invenbozr Chat if, on the alloort scale women tens
,ore to ecce;t soci_l :nfl religious vrlues trile nen teni to :ccezt
theoretic, economic, rz‘ toiiticzl value

It shoulc at be ii “‘ ficult to cxolein these differences in
terns of the cifferin mores of socialization xlich midcle close
parents, at lerst, used in the unbriniin- of 3.1e end female
children. Taese EiffeLences, Loucvei, would not e,:t -:nr to be such
es stem from the specific socisli nation receivoé in discrete or

.0 . .. '. ' ~‘.-41 . 1. -
ixegmentsry mnymnntur s. .fi'mxl‘ tne»

of s more general ilture e. In confirmgt

fit tOgetber in th nettern

it woul (7 3'.- en:

ion of tnis,

 

th;t the men ant; '_--Jo:;1en in this stuc‘? ere I‘enaarkrzluly alike. both in
9
1. Elizabeth iuf3y, Op. Cit.

the general sentiments :Licltt e; entorse and those wlich they
reject. Desoite the emphasis in training which may account
Ior core difference:, as :LTSOhEl hes pointed out, ur own

middle-cless society is conspicuous in the way czildren of

On the ,ozl of s=cnrity only, Coes the veterer angercntly
fiiffer significectly fron 0t er stnéents. The esnhssis thst he
nieces on this scntin nt any be partly associeted Vith.the ftctors

1

of age e.d merriege. In other reswects tie vetergn is much like

9 en; wonen in totn the sentiments he endorses end

:3
U
L3
I

<3
'L‘
(+
'1;
'1
l "

those he rejects.

'3‘
f

.. 19 n.- 1;..vetr'3rr—en 15‘.

H)

fer fron veterans end wonen in

...].

1C1

(T;
94

thrt they olnce a retner hi-h vrlue on he sentiment of :.

..-, & ... ~\ - ~. 4 " " .: -' . z .
nl .cce,tiuf onc's ‘ -L& in llic, 1ui_e icuectinn tne sentin-n

r 1“» q . . - 4‘ “~ ‘ .v.n ‘L l
of be ce oi uinc. In other res,ects tuer oxe clhll r to V9LPT’LS

f

I“ ‘ v ' ‘ .. "V‘ "' ' L ’ ‘1‘ ‘.“ A!‘ ’:~ ’-
(.nn worerizin trc sentixnaits dCLLJ L3,:zx: reflectec.

w-r: 3,. . ..-.‘-.. ‘. o... ,-4—‘. ~,.. ' .. . ,_
Jiiiezence in resieence mas Iieqdehtlj been tncl ht to ,ro—

Luce differences Letwe n indiviflnels ens groizs.
howzver, this wouli not e_}eer to be txue oi sentiments whici

oeotle are willing to e

(3
f)
(D
d-
O
' ..
p
T
’1
g
"i
*-
2+
1.:
u
(D
:3
("7'
U)
,-
O
k 1
“3
H
(....
'3

be more community conscious es Shawn by their willingness to en~
Horse the sentiment of serving the corrtunitg,’ on? wrorotin‘; '2 e.” sure
{ed seventh by

H, r“ ,V - T. L , ~' ' - , .' ...-.3 ' ‘A, , ,- r. .
tne rnr l rtn Jab? whicn is not so n1,“ in tne 93.1; o: {091s es

 

 

7', ‘ 4- Ti. . . I ,. 1 .: '~ ' ~ - .,. .0 ~

1. leicott 1¢1s0-s, 'Agt enc box in the sociel St.uctnre oi the
.’ . xa: 1‘ . A ‘1‘. . ‘I! “ 1" ,‘R n1. “ w : '~‘ ".’\\I --'-""" Q ”1‘ r‘
Uni-ti: vs thJtUS’ " {3-1— 1‘l(‘~-n ’ifi‘IA'\|j—3é'-3.cql -.‘\:VL,‘_.’ 1", 7:0:r‘g; '.)’ l‘IV‘TL- .

 

variztion within 911 the

. . ' ..‘ ,— .. r‘ ‘ ’r.
Jere x0 i: rineer to -e sane

—\ w ‘ ‘

ne stucent 0: i0” 9C1t€i

U

50:19 w ich inclu’. Enth self-prenotinn end

1".-

r‘ '\v at: AQ ;‘ ¢ ""r‘ 1 1'? ~ 1““; n "‘C ")
(“Ct/e J 4‘ ‘]\.p~- .' - \..'~A\> —- -6 l“; L..."»". L--:

lity seem to enfor¢= n sanewurt rare

'3
'_l
,4.
0+-
\
“a
51'
’—
y):
W
f
l
(I)
f‘
('9
.A‘
‘4
H.
v—~
V1.

ehrvior irFe; thfre is th a wreflt amount 0

L

H.

renefiteth {1711153. 35$th

sentiments more strongly than

religioue sentiments: tne C‘=t:lolice 9nd

fl

9'5171'719 q ‘1}: S m? r}:€'-.:.O

[-10

‘ity tenis to hev’

)
a

t of I

u

I

.. '.‘ " ‘I'r' ~ ‘~ I‘ 4“!
“LLUIBLIL (vet in g.“ ls.

entimeuts which oeo.le ere willing to ervress.

o Protestants by

similer both in the sentiments they ecceat 6nd

. It is: jwoecikiie that If

I" N ‘

$ '- "' l -“ .1 ‘1"
instecn 0-. uftnaiics, tale.

('1’

Erotestnnts were

i510US sentiments

‘Jith the exceptivn

he Erotestants

KILLVS s. ‘LIL Tina't-A‘ iil ML 1‘ L'.’ 13.86..” :.u 1'5 “:9 1A0 K'T- /' 11'; t.’;ls E‘uLA. .'

a
'u 7 '. ’4

7‘C‘;‘€jf7-.L;'tf‘l:/ t3 tk st tr‘if‘ 11:513‘35.€-=is.

scores and the re sl'tLtir.” vr ristio n with: i both the tote]. ?;?*“.:.Jlé‘

~ .. ‘1. _. 1 r H . "n ‘ ,. I ‘ ‘20 . . ‘ 3
9213(1 the CM [‘~ saw-u; .Q hv S ?-.L1‘H?-l.‘:f D's: n E‘IS‘WIJi 53.2 26'. . i 1-1 S IVs-1158‘ 311‘
r . . l . " '\ ‘ ' 0'3 1 r‘i' : ‘ -.' 1‘ ; (~ 1 i ve‘ q
variation eqneers to be renwrxadlys similnr ior nli grouse 9n'LJITC.

In most ceses this Vtri nee ritigeted th. nossilility of finfiing

the rezmi werfarmence vm=s si niiixrwatlr éiffe z“t tne fcctor of

a ~ ‘ "'
enze 9n. vsr i tion snee'rEn to :e droneincen. ;nis wss true of

‘l _ ‘l I ,.1 3, A ‘R " ’ ‘_ r ' ‘ 1‘. 14V
tzma gee: s on.\u'r1en tzxaze tm—S In) germ rel := ree ezrt, tr“ t 1.s, tir>se

1 o i“ 1' ‘- A n ‘_ -_ u n . _ - 1 ‘ . H‘ -.
'.-rnic:~. renne; s)! where 5.10:1, tne ..11t‘.u.L8 o: tne scsle. I..-S wrs
- ‘ ,, s. ‘ ~ V.“ 1‘ . t '. ' ‘,.. , ‘ 1... .‘ ‘- ° ‘

still. true knit 109w: grsariincet;.i0r i4$€ls=ixxieu.nm-re IYTflzel )fls71.

t use less true of forls vhish were rejected tut was still evident.

Verissilitv nrs been dis assed arin'rilv in ter"s of in-

’4.
"7

Cf
'Jo

Spection of frequency nistributions rid not of sts

tne re suits of tne Bartiett citi- Su‘inI‘E test were :znelyzefi, fur ner

eviience, though suajective in nature, stems from the authfir's

ssm.les o: stuéent's with sinilsr life goals. unis nrocexure res
initistefl in en ettenet to calm truct ce ein ilerl tvnes against

which to c “jy.re the perfoi nzsnce of other ctuéents. It wss not

 

l. The sheer er’thmetic is in ressive. Out of 130 t v lnes (evclnsive
' 3 when sun-er ales were recneTEefi fer fiOsPible

, or itmmit l} nez‘(fient, wexw: si n51itxfi.v a: t.x= one

t 61. ”ten rank order es tell we st"

Cent {ifferunce‘r's concise rec, only gxgb, fir jive “er nint,0f

per erélen'tifin.

“oscible to oot in e cuiiicient number of stufents who had the
some high goals to male such on anvl'sis. Quljectively, it
sovesred thrt leyoné two morls the rrnse of choices seemei to
be limitless.l
This vsri tion 9nd rzn e of scores for indivicurls on all
reels regrrfiless of their membershio in certain selected groups
may, of course, be crefits: eitLar to tie urreli:bility of the
instruzent to th hetero eneit: the senile. Jhile the relis—
tility of the instrument as a grecise meecurin: fievice is not
15*VNdstrvtefii ststistia"fllv, thxzws is rwxut eviiermxs that, exmni in
infiiviiurl crses, nirh end l0? goels retain their place in the
hierarchy of choices ugon reexamination. Strass has been laid
in this study ujon hijh end low choices only, eni it would seem
reasonaule to accept the inventory es relisble for thst ourpose.
Furthermore, this stuéy has been concerned with group sentiments
and not the performance of individual students. From the evi-
Eence slrescv nresenteu it would seem thst .he consistency with
vnich the some 5051s were accepted end rejected by various sub-
ssmyles constitutes S3Pe enoiricel oroof of the relishility of
tie instrument for testing the sentiments of grouos, proviiing

the ssnoles ere sufficiently horraoeyeneous. Inst such consistency

is shown is orrticulerly striking'in View of the rrnge and v rielilitv

 

l. A much less suhjectivc iece of eviflence along this sane line
wss thst of work Cone by 2r. Eressel on this test. Xe founi

thst in checking corrolitions bet een goals sone oositive
relationship could be shown between as many es three 3021s
but thrt beyonf that {oint correlstions were not indicative

'I

o: relfltionshii.

In severz‘-l tugs the sub- S'—.:.’l_;l€$, even though they were
selected to test certain ayperent 1;! different cherecter’stics,
perforued much as rongon samples chosen from 9 total oooulntion -
in this csre the totel stmule. :viience for this is found in the

0

ch certain tools were ranked high enn certain

...].

con si stency with 2111
other ioels were ranked low bv rll #roups, much in the seme
manner es was done by the totel snugle. By itself such evinence
might be intzr'qreteri es demonstrating either the failure of the
instrument to Ciscrinin te between groups or the inedeouecy or

the @l‘D-Cfi'fjol“? '~.-.'hich were selected for analysi s. However, it

H
F.)
r.)

w' be recelled tnzt Fifferences were found between groups es

ties. Such differences tenéefl to be in line with

'Jo

well as similar
10 ical exoectetion. For exemple, vetergns as e group fiiffer

from non—veterens in the emphcsis filrced upon the

l_’

—0zlcfi'eecudty.
grin, rural stufients tended to be. more group conscious than

ifferences

{)2

urban studente. On orscticelly eVery veriable some
were notei and these differences tended to conform with observations
which ere freeuently "leni‘e about the {groups e:-:r;r-2i11ed. Jhe fillings

.L

in this study have led to an emgnrsis uoon similarities between
grouos because these similrr'ties ere more strin
Eifferrnces, but this emychis should not obscure the fact that
the instrument troved, in some respects, capsole of flifferertiet-
ing between groups.

The limitations of the total somole have been emphasized.

In this r+=ese.~"rch some rttemot hr s "been throne to overcome the re

I O a a v 'i '1 . n ‘ _ «h I Y.
llfiltfitl’n’xg by eétn'iinlng' tne net? :or llitz‘l‘hrl consistenc‘r.

'4
"r
\__,.J

Kevertneless, Both the total as file and neny of the sut~senfiles

were hetero eneous in co gosition end this fact mfg recount

fl -

both for varitiility in inoivifiurl scores end for lock or tiffer—
ences between groujs. Thfit is, the verious factors in the Con§0si—
tion of the totel sengles, and of the sub-semeles $93 so ooerflte

as to cancel out or co ceel differences. It mi ht also be ex-
oected tnst these f'ctors wouli so Operate as to wroduce differ-

ences. Insofar as the effects of simple vsristles could we

' J- -' q .n ‘-..' ,t: ‘ a J- . . & ‘.- ‘-- ,. : ' . .
heternineu tn; Lia not Erove to es tne Cjfic -n eny instance there

1' D

flifferences were stetisticnllr signifi rnt at the one per cent
level. There is elso the further fact that differences were found
when the various sub—samules were analyzed. Khile the lini-
tetions of the total snugle must constrntly he borne in mind
tLe:e is, therefore, some evidence that it may be consiiered
adesuete for the purgoses of this study.

Lnotner‘wey to eccount for the results of this reseerch
is in terms of unhnouz factors vhich Opergte in such a way as
to bins the findings. Thet is, the conoler interrelationshio of
the many factors at work in the socielizvtion of any one individ—
ual may be leyonfi the scooe of the Line of enalysis attempted
here. This supposition would lead to the further essunotion that
the kind of factors enalyzed in this study are relatively unimpor—

tent in their effects on choices of gener"l l fe go;

"'\
....
(D
U
r.
J
5-:
’r)
(1
I

cuently, it might be exoected that any sub-samples a alvzed for
such general background factors as residence or religion, would

yield no marked differences and further, would behave much in the

3
Q
d

3'
E3
‘1
(P
' J
’Jo
’1
:1.
Fl.
r—f-
kl
‘
O
*‘3
('9'
DY!"
(D
F‘-

nstrument or the heterogeneit' of

atte:;ting to account for this process? Can the finfiings oe
exoleined in tsrrs Jf e cease; velue svsten whi;h exterfis through-
out a CTO£5 ares of culture and vii n, in itself, offers some
exwlcnption of the unicueness of the socializing process? go
ensuer these Questions it is necess r? to focus ettention upon
tn generrl life posls which sppesr to ca helfl in co eon by LQH”
students without resoect to certain be h rgund end excerientirl

L

W\ two-H - " ...!r L L" h . " *"‘ ‘ l‘-. r‘ F 0 A
-.". '.l.r_‘.’."..‘:11t L:”Ul.t‘.LTi "I £j;‘!l.€'1"l 1'01“ OL .41 f8

 

Istlcs 3 1nd ; in the chendix simmerize the simil=rities
r ' ~lr‘. LP ‘ “.2 - v to '1 ”o'cfl --". r‘ t}‘ rr -. feta-r1; fl ':
....lCn. ‘.-. VC y--Cll -10 r4(- 0 J. ' ~——e ‘J ..VC 8 -ie .ueLH, g L‘l-_L(. r error.

stcndnrc deviet'on, 5nd ronk rder of each goal in the eOsls of

{>4
}-

nventory for the total sample and for all sub-semxles.

9“ 7 "V vs ' ., ‘ ‘a .‘ - .5 ‘ a . ,A .,
3r.le : sun erzscs ,ne ,crforn.nCe oi tne total sem,le an. all

cub-echeles with respect to rent order of all D rls in the Getls

 

 

 

r z. ‘- ~ .9 n s ”-4. ‘ : . ~ ,1 -.: '3”. .
. .1 rent t:-'~t bLlL-w't“? l')?’.i._:--o - ,‘rC‘O ' Z~ .fiE"'l, J 21.4. 1e .LL-S"I;,
_ - o 1 . . ‘1 "_ _‘ “I. u L.“ o - I“, ' A.
is ranked first oy all Lrouoe :Lrlc.ec in LL13 stucy. Joel e0,

-- ~, -. y" —- r‘~(3r~,fi. 1 .1 ’N j .~.v,c “-4) . ' Ana 5 ,~ ‘7‘ 4‘ -A g. h‘ 7’ ’C‘ 5‘» A“
3.. .AA \lLAA -> 1"“ 1C .1 ~t Ix \ ‘ -..:J {— ( F ‘4.t I nL‘ ‘I EC, ‘ g, "..L‘ x s 1 .‘. t -
__._.- _ -...

‘ ,. ' "4- ‘ 0 " ‘ .. ’ c J‘ ,. s - . . -
(non tne U3 :lx> orierh CLi;}WK“SEAL lSLdzt.Jk.hzit 'r»n

: .- , .: ~.~. ‘* r‘ o'~ ‘. w ', -.'4-‘ +,-~ .‘ ,, '
ee cectnc. wrl l-J, 211.0 ;te-l<tiozls ..1u1 (hut-1‘ .-~e;sons, is Elso

 

'1. . u * - , '-+ .. - A . - ‘- - -'+'-—,..,
:l1€3'9 fq-utml u" N: t:cl tor~211ve ('orls‘! f I)“; \rn i,s. .iituoeg_
' ' J- J‘ - \ “'I‘L‘ n“. +‘ ' ". ~ . .~D
it is rrn-ed -rw. szc .v to ii-t~, “"hr'l' unis .oal is l ceu
.- ~ L' - 4.. ,.° : +7: ‘- .-. ‘_
tnir: or ..OMI‘tu. u' we v mom . rims i1- 9.11.9 stucvr. 1.; t-..e

tntrl ¢Wifl€ these NO'ls rvnk in the origr "..3c‘n are been pre~
cantei trove.
The soove ofls :rc the most clearly defined choices of

tni 9 study.

recalled tirt in Ch13ter II these same foals eogeered anon;
th: too five for both the 597516 of students in the ACE study
1115.. other 1:53 stur'ents who tool: the @0215: of Life Imrentor;r

before

‘ ‘ - l ‘ -' ‘ .yx v“ ‘. \,_ -. V r _\ r
FOuT otner ro-ls snoulc oe Jen.1onec. 3051 5, :e cc of

 

1“

" vs ‘ I fl 9 (‘ “r ‘r.
om tentue is. ususllj I‘._-1i;.ed c"!

I

verious from: th or above — never 1 wer then seventh

LI the SUB-32‘31e of non—veteran men. For the totel

\ o I -\I I.
to: s for-.1 rents fmrth. GO'l l4, 1-

 

 

»- - . - 1:, n-¢;.:. , >3. .2 ' n1 . ‘1- _1, " ‘ '-.
pffiElf 1n the “Grin, getting urclt,ls also usuallj ranged n1 h.
t-.. . ~ .. ~.—- n 4..-:A...“ ,_ .: ,. A -- , -.
s; most ‘IOH;S. .o en, rur l stunent , anc oner c.chievrrs co

not niece but for :-l

sanolc.

~x

-.eeo and Lasting? I’lessurcs

1

 

 

Goels

 

tinj~the Kost Bees r

 

 

 

the “restest lumber of Ecoole, are not consistently ileced high
L” all “roui. tut there 1s z frislv stnan; tendsnsy n this fix

', . “L“ 1 \ *3 I‘ A "' ’ . l' . ‘- ‘5“ A " r ‘ ~ - "» r .I -
«1.ui tne ~139slole c-Iu; Llru o: xosl l, t::;; wove fOFU‘
{0"19 crn not be consiierei rs inficctive of yenerfllv ¢.reed

upon life {0’19 but only 2? en yestive of the totel orttvrn of

(i'
x."

o g7)“1€ hij_k1 difftxnent tivrrgs rCCE?it.
Sentiments ”Lick tLe stufints 1n tnis study re
even more clerr cut. Go:ls b, 1?, 19, find ll or, in etcrevi ted

1‘ a v1

c 4-“ - « ~ “'5‘: ... . . ' c- n
,or , t~ ll 9». —s:c1ii (e, pover, survival, en:
‘°..'...: ~, 1.- I‘ ‘ :_ ~ ‘- ~"

-ivi35 .or tLe ‘ietsure oi t‘m monent, 9T9 reaectefi Cf ell [Towns

2... ,. ‘ ..- J.‘ . ., 4. +’ , e. P - ,13' - ,.
for tne] r-n: anon, tne lo est 11‘? {Colfio In Pcnlthn, bOal H,

Achievinj Peroonel In ortfllitv is 2190 incluieé emong the loveet

D
a.-

 

rrnkiny five .cols by all but the snc-srwrle of Cetholic stufents.
In this letter Ci?€ Go~l 4 ranks twelfth unich is still not very
high in the hirrerchy of sentiments which Cetnolic stufients choose

to ex;re;s.

()

en these oentiments which are ecceoted and those whicn
are rejected be erpluined in terms of a more genercl settern of

“a ‘- . N 3‘ V ‘- ‘ Q . ' r- v . ‘ ,— ‘ 1 - ‘ a. (—
ceiiefs or <16 tncg olscrete go ls whicn st no clone end unrel ted

to each other

’0
|,_J

Consifier first the to: ranking goal, tnrt of self—56v oo—

n

;.OF ls

1

.;.-t. This sentiiient, Es is true of all 0:" tne goals en the
of nife Inventory, is 0ien to many individurl interpretations.

But es 3 ~rouo sentiment it woufil eope:r thrt tne inhortcnce of
self, individw‘l growtn, is the most desirable 333.16 real {or-‘1 in
life. Thile there are a number of other goels in the inventory

which axe more snecificelly infiivifiuelistic in chorecter, there

would eooeor to le none which normits the choice of self ehove

w

ell other sentiments in on te es harmless end, therefore, as

a ‘1 ' . ‘V ‘ ‘ :vr - _.'1 ’~_:\ - ‘_ v“ "
L0 . ..iec .1tz. t Ls 13.17 g" l o: vvi; Is ”he S!) ”hunt

..‘ , a: .. . . w -H v + -..c‘ .‘— 'x': . '
’) ,OrEUl~;Ft]C “I‘D?- CF';;L-.1QI‘V .- .‘L lif‘llufl F;’C3.-J.C .'_l:; .302,-

i
(h
v' )

r a ‘1 I" ' P ‘ 'n \‘ r' s ‘ " . v' ' ' " 1 ‘ I‘ " uv ~ 3" c. . -
. ; 12-16:; «119:. 84cm .. suwlwem :1 veg; 5-: I‘cS’,‘ ..nre 031.cern

vith in e izte rut, by ifi}liC“tiCR, lead cwncvrn Vith ultimnte
enr‘C. n? Furymisl has: winter": out, concern x-cith i_;_".'“.&,f“1...—' tr are
is cynrecse-i “:ort fz'rcuently in the for”: 0:“ ec'mmt‘ic rctivitsr.
In our 0"n ecv: iii —-c0utr1‘2€. Ficiety cuch 9. concern with inge-
Ciqtc enég, wvich 1y their n~tur9 are divcrete and infiivifual

"1 CE‘T'Z‘F‘CtEEI‘, ‘ 0 fl: '1 ,e'r to he cit-Lecte-4 rt le’st 101‘ “.13le-
C‘lnrs "A9916. -z.e fict hut LL; atmcuts in thic G"’.-‘l:3 3‘1“ in
(35119 e is -(-r:'1:.; confirm tion of tine—11‘ cn cern with tip 96‘ 6‘59,

r- . ~- ~ ‘-. ‘ \ ‘M - ‘ o' . : " I. . r‘ . ¥ ‘\ :A . 4:.
for VOC:t10n seiec~;ou rho tr thU 19 a srlw'ri QLJLCthe #9r
. ~ .~ .0 -, .
21L Lair 0; 5.5"”.

‘ - ’I o ‘ ‘ I ‘L o ’_ _ _ x - _‘ - n l‘-
-;;';e turn ,0’11 Whit-:1; 19 .os't frwuL-ntl/ €33.*‘II‘€~.“9HC 1.0. tmt

'—-. ..' ‘- .'"I.'. -+'. . . . '. A - ,.,‘
“131.3 “ltn ot..:‘;s. 4.“: roublzoht ..Iz'gf De lutgrretw-

that ”jcle Urrnethie has written the 003:: which b‘ect 1111411111: tee

, u g u

the wirit of our em." .hern so lateraretc‘d tne SEEIKtiTT‘v"I'lt [if

 

. I - l”“r\ "L 1 ~< ‘\ ,x . . .A~N Y v 7’ .
t 3:71 cons, 4.;- .‘_:.Jlmct..ue of ‘hcml .Lctld- 2.0'2-1 '~".’-};lll
o

. . we ".:-"1"th‘.1.1.'—"1'..'..‘~.’ tne (”at awr's
1
‘ t ’ _o _l a . -. 0 \ v‘ If" ml 1
dwarf-:10 0" "’)-~"lp 1' Putlln, * -. L. 4--‘*J...

a. Arnalt" '.'.'. Green, 0}. Cit”, '-‘-. “7,9.

"r‘n
-

U~&\-

O J‘ 1”: .r‘.

th

0
If-
’ l
.,‘,

.C IV. S

Li

4'
v.

v. A
a:

 

V,f"“ 54V
. ' ‘-

117"
‘

‘VA

nr the

~J

4"

A—J

K

C].

.
1"
,\.s.
C‘"

C

 

-
I" F

A

.1

"Nil

5
+b

3:

”C

I

)6‘

“ ,
oz,

118

.
...

’V

st

vi ,

to
,
‘J 0
V.

.

.

.( "

Jre
1t

‘ ‘l
.1
.

L»
.b

.

<1

\_ .5
CCC
to

3. ",1‘1

13-?

'1 ’3‘. x'

i

.
c
r!
l". I
l
9

‘2] t

-4.

C
I'F‘

~) 7:) 0

Ilce73tc

L.

I I)
n~r

5:!“
OL

11
tl”

At&

A
I
A.

1

£2
8. Cléi‘ $‘l

V

"1‘7“
‘_‘M¥,'
ci c“

.

I1

‘vL

1 f~ .
1: VO'

C nhilo
ction,"

g

g
’ I"
at
.2
..L
x "\
u A)
q
E n
—N
..J )0
L111.

i ‘L?

jiv

J)

2}
or'fi Intro

\AU

."
"I r
._.C

lat C‘

1

C,

V.

‘17:

'I’W“ .-

-..]

'+

S
:Lt:' ll

4.
\J

E;
Z'TPTL'

1

—--—V

1 "
L:

\a

but: burg“;
&‘;l .- .. V
943 iJuew
""w‘. ~'~ ~-r Po
414.. it:

;*'-\~“
.

h

t

ll

.o'LL
I
.

C CC (.7 ho
\.'

Cr

;-'C
A.

ch
ev.lrrxnent.
ant
I ... f
:31“:

 

(511
Va
1‘

LA

4‘
O-

C;

’18 C

5.44.

1. -. 1.: ,
,J..'._‘I'.’ “on OI

Laid e:-

1\

l

u.

an

at.

T.

2.

6:8 1‘ ‘

cl

far a

a

(A

“t

r‘ ‘Q
LL4-.

. ..
4L
Q»

7“

.1.

Cu,

‘ 1 4‘ N‘ A " ~ ‘ ~ " : ' I‘. ‘ ~ . " . '. u v "’ fl ‘. '
Llpw :rcm th strufi,_c -nVQ‘VtC 1n gettln; S)m” 3‘30: ' c

-9: cantenflei the cvmgetitive ncture of our culture it—

y"

1 Q “ - . -. 1': -fi-c - ‘»2.". “. I: ' ‘-. - . ‘.--x", a: -a,
can ”L906? li'..iV.LG.L-Txls Lance: 9t£d-'fl. .th m col Slazfieu, -;(:~3C9

Jhil= the gorls wLic; firs not accepted by a grcup give
3L1" n=getive eviience it is necessary to ask f these :4273 ‘
are cgnsictént with the heal? zhich h3ve been accewted. Ihis :
you‘d apicar to ca the REC. Lhc sentixent of Stir—sacrifice

(‘1 . . x g -_I vy"’-' - r» "--‘ r. ' ‘ .1 '1 '- ~- "\ ‘ .‘ v”: .~.‘» . --
tuglstlc to(*9 talch are “cccgtet. scatevthfl gcrsonal lfiwdrtc‘ltf

..J.
'1)

t

n
U

..JQ

.s with the more osjortun

(U.

- ..1-~ . ~, .- .
’.'..F?-O fir-43.11 17%. .511}: EJCCOT

’- ' A L \r' " 7'. .1 ' 1::I‘L ' v! . .l ". I $‘Lx‘f:
u§HLlUPhb of concern thn lflueu;uu9 en}: *thfl is hn tCCttva

l4.
'1

q .. .. c ‘ I ‘
{703; . .~.€ re Surinvc l , w:.1 Cfi

also rejected, woali not fspear

1

- ~ Q U 1 r- .l‘ ,\ ‘ n‘ - - .-‘ f‘ ‘ ,1 - . A "
to s. a 1:51rrcte {0J1 for deovie LL rra cohccrnec Vlth 9:11—

' .‘f v v: «H w v . 'r'x - n ""3 ". . ~ .9 " 1'. ~ ~- » . u 4,
.4;.;r4;.c, ..tv1 ,. 701‘ but ,vl€¢i¢ure cu tde Yflkléflt 11: rc . 0t—

 

 

 

 

“ c ‘ . - ‘ -.- “m ° ‘ ..1 :» t. ,, - . . .,,c- . w,
L, :s z '0“, (tnt 'H t. Luis 902+“ sugear ta cantlrm, t0 cnwe
’ ~' _4 " g 4. ,- J. 3 , ,' ° '. ‘ " ,, ‘ ' , fl f1 "I "f\
c_'t?1 b, ‘tgc Lnb 2:1-xit't1.vn V:.]C;L11CS bct‘l .' me cozwe o: 3:; u ,
‘ ‘3 ' -4 --\-'I ‘1 y I‘ : .. 7“ - /‘
4':gfl._-LL & vac; ‘1" )rc«x -1e ::9 tur r r12‘9:-. z'Df am‘l L_J CO'MLK tuni-
° ~~. -\ a + 4 4. ~ _‘ n 7- ° -.L' , :' -~ .- ,‘
Ctl\n‘u*gf L»- r;44*u.ax to tht r't;n r 1‘ t.;fi rtix: StliblHLflxt 0;. teczgn,
—- 4* ~ . .‘V‘ ‘ ‘ ': " “ . 4‘ 1 v" q i a . '~ ‘-
3 S'tuu*]fnl cnl "'° 1t 0cm; r-. ..r clcn.' b .3;1t :J.L be 361134;
‘. ' :s ‘1 7‘ 4‘ ,- .“-—‘ . ' ' .‘
1"t31 1111-1;~ ‘WJr t1.c ’lLCE $31?> o: t:¢; ,r‘ P:.t, |.uLLflL 1.: 31.00 5
m-’ .‘.<. _~‘—*flu—_
- v, .- 1 ”A ' . -. - L _ .- n _ , ' 2'
L. .. Tzll ~Fvu1 4, ‘.9 ~u12).10 .~ :0» ' alt r 0_ \34: twvwx u. :4.
1' . w M . .. -*-’-4""7~." ..- L : 1w 7‘0 , t z!‘
‘. rtnn '-).-.4 yr)-.. :‘x I“, ’ .../3‘ 0 4kg; ’r l'bk'JE-Ler‘L" J. t b‘: I. 1".
.L
U

I
nv')Y+‘ ‘q. t "\""‘.v' y" or“
.‘ '7- .L J 4.. ‘A r. C a J; I .1 LI J. ~
.- - — L
I ' ‘ ‘/ . ,_ ‘ - r ‘

Wily .',:.L...\‘.. {“x.\ .A v.3 I
. .
- , .t- _ 4L - - - .7 x t
-r‘ i Lrnt L :7dcnt

ever,

0

'la

w

\

. 3-
MA)»

It C”!

i

’2
L."

.l
I

-. o
I" :1 fl
A J- .-

o 9-2) by

o
0.1.

- H
>,.\-,~.x -\ ‘
..tICI .L 3....

..

the elecn'tion which
wry that tfis rentize
control over 360:19 a

_.1' .- -. ‘, -- W1»- fl,
tv~_1F‘L1C 111 CL. ”"Cttl‘. -3 2.1.3:." t: ."C
a 1%."?! ;t r' :28 41.5. Sti C “Li-t0?" :‘11" O; 1‘ V-
: 7‘ .L‘. (I: 4" t *)y fiwyagmv Ix]... u,- ‘r Q i‘ ’3,-\«.‘: r‘ .--\Or
L .. ..L" v- A.~ ‘~. ~'..- A "‘."r,\ ‘K -U J‘L ~. ‘.\.I-
....'- - ' .3 ., K .‘ ..- "- :. ,n.
24>t'r1“‘i. Cn tne cautrbrr iivtn for
5.! . 7‘ tr~‘~.- 7 :2“. - n‘ "I“: 4“. n T‘ “1“ r“ r' O Lii'x-r
\. . .l ._ -..‘ iv .L..L-.\. .k. ‘, .LK. -OVLEL.S ‘L‘. .~ L2 .-.,
‘7" .1 ~. :.< “. .. :u ' . ' '* LT.‘
Ll(l an in cioec csnunnctivn witn t.£
_ .4. TL _ 11 ~ -.fl . 1.". - 3.1-“ Ara. ,.
VIALI. .ku "Ting-J FQ‘CAA 1.6:7S‘JLE‘JU 2:, 'U' i-rC1L):‘;.
3—: .‘ - : 1 . i - . _ - .- 1.
f 9 z n thzbi‘f" rc‘Lti.ur;-t 1%t\°'nsirltrv1 * 1th;
(I ,. -‘5’ti CV"? (“ r t,. D ' 1r r n I“ C n '5 I‘ fit‘; ”7.";
y «'5.Cl \ 4. x.l.k.. r- -A:.rl I‘l-dA. ( u (. ‘ 2;».4..\ Cr
, ‘ KL
ic ‘cce,t;nce.
I _‘ V‘ .- ”P . 5 “ V‘ .'_‘o .-..
sin. nqkpvcr tnat the plansir: nllOCCDu;
1:- ‘- -. - pn"".’ l. L . .. 7‘ v H
r tuzt tn: -4»; ISbIC "trassnoaoer
1 O-“ ' _f\ __ ‘v .~ ’ _ o 1" ‘ ‘ ’7
(In: 0; C‘:’..ol.’w!‘.t ‘s.’ .1c-1 Lest €_'T’)I‘€Sf‘"?

r students in thig sturr. Gettin_ dccp and

-3 'L‘ ' 4,‘ “i “ :..
0. 11-9 is 3 $051 ancn r'nzs hi;h LOT

JOHl i0 not inco 3atible with the 30:1
However, liViHETfOT the pleasure of the

c with the drive for parser?

in edict? enfis.
arm or control over ;93}le nnr things is

z ": 1“ ‘1 “‘ t -‘ ' 1“. n-I
I‘SJCCtL‘d cf tut”. Stt F911»); 1.. tn; E’ Stu. v'. ..t
i . ‘t AWL-3. . : . ~43 iA _ ,_
+t $1.011 9 Centimezm Recon ¢ ti on tn. - -315

6 thrt its 10; rank in evidence connter to
by; LC?“ Cev9109;i. However, cansipcr the
nt is ex; ‘essefi. on the invents ry "Homer —
In; t1.in;s:” is a. c7_1re“t 9:16., soric‘xlut urinal

+4 I
t...)

J. .l r '\ +‘ t ,: ;- ...; ‘0‘ ‘ 9f 4. A n y r r .‘51 ~ Q. r, - vn ‘ t 1‘ ,. 1 Q
gudt- |.el‘t 0‘ ..E.‘ L: E.) o t .L‘_/“'' Li QNAA (k x I- :1-~‘¢.:J : -l O “riflllll g»:
~1‘v—J

vi. .9 '1‘, Iran -«.—.,..:, .‘°’ ‘-~. II "-- ‘ w- ,4.” .
Litrgt O- t..e .../-‘LQ u: l‘rl'l‘l AC 111132?qu U'li' l 99 V173," 11‘ U'wl‘tfi' ‘Sre-

. q s I *I _ ‘2‘ ‘. ‘ I: 4",. 3- \ ._, ..
ciuces rzr/ sucn {ivy : TRCOkllthWMl()J tmfi crlima; or eznrni 1 ,nc—

t~t"“_~ \v:: I- ‘1 “‘"QC‘ 1‘; ‘vfl1\ . o t‘ "t (31‘ :“Y‘f‘fifi‘a ‘ '7 L111.) Y'AQ‘: "F‘O
C_‘ L: L , .hL-b—L’ . .. I ~ 1 ~ 1;].‘1 L-L\ Ags UL. b‘ \. ALJVK - r
l .s-‘ . ' -- ‘ —' ‘ .: ‘ - .. 1

see .in‘ situx snccx s: 1-. ‘i, s \i-lcc. ire: soc-' Ll»; ; ;.rowfl:c.

FOHLQLV consistent jettern of motives enfl vrlues. Lhe key to
the nettern hrs seen intervretefi as the soel o: seli—ieveloo-

infiiviFue ac ievenent.

 

"Wit is there any general theory in sociel science x-u‘zic}:

*5
*‘S
L)
3
‘f
Li
rJ
'0
7’)
d-
! I
'-
I
4
a)

may sccount for the oattsrn of cacices emfirglfig
Ihe answer to this ruery mny come from a res: rinrtion of the
main hypotnesis of this study.

It was :rooosed tiat nif:ercnces an ng groups eouels or

1.3, for tyns

FJ

erceecs aifferencs: oetvecn F_'I'on_fj.s-~. Kore swecifiCs
stufiy, it wes hrcotnecized thvt there rre cert in general life
go>ls which peo,le ere willing to ex ress which extend beyond

...-5

the limits of certain sub-culturrl grouse. inis was proooseé es

true for lsrgs numbers of jeoile, for exrmgle, the midfle~cless.
When this hroothesis is examined for its iiylicstions e strizing

coagruence vith a well de"ined body of social theOry msy be

i
H
('1
( 1
l A
‘4
H
'0
O
H.
‘7
Pl
(’9'
Fl '
5
O
"i
L).
by
In
H
('3
O
(D
H.
'4
'3
‘x
H.
('9'
(D
1
O
' J
c..-
:\
F).
('1
(‘1‘
Ho
:1
Q
d
.4.
<1
'1»

formulation in the vritings of Turkheim, newer, ens more recently,

. ~ _ 1 Y< _‘._«, .5. - “1 ~o- I h_ .' .,-- . - ,
;{_‘<vu;?. ,;;l<vi., srL, 091K.“;o its SNJC?tffl.Ct

-- _ -I o ‘q U ‘ S I :I“ ~
be Out I. 1 use one .. ll".

rescsrch on

most conwon aorel sentiment

volustion nlnced on infivituzl personslity

tleretore, social pressure on tle

c.

his. own 'ersogmlity. Tint there is, on the

a.

ti e in:‘~ivi=‘-url to re spec

,4

socisl pressure

‘ “v ‘NR- ‘h‘? 1 V .2 ' V '.
otners so t.nb as], too, ht; cerelo; tneir
,‘. . o 1 ‘_- .
>snce, zine relftions ”itn otn rs become: e
snf if osis V neceositr upon an inCividusl

s w'7"nic1 will not violste the socizlly e
the crude evoression of the yower motive is

for ‘urEheim tnis sunreme value whic

iniiviiuel does not free niv froo societ='
anotho: kind cf restraint. ‘Hs infi"ivuwl

l?

L-

s

.' .‘
A A

q
l

iiViéusl to Ccveloo
other 1- 1121171, sziother
t the rigfits of
own persona

cnltursl interstiv

i : r: O
to rain his encs in
v‘ fl : ‘\ '1 .1 , ‘r‘pmq1fi
f.‘-JrOVe, ZLOI-TI C1. _AA‘ 1 (I). . K C,

not ecce table.
h is alecec “oon tne
restraint but ioaoces

 

~3ressure ran: is ‘tlll.'n n1:9stin- tii? collective cxniscicnce.

not the comwon socisl Vrlne of intividuelity bar so cancels a

thr wider rfings of indeoendence 1n indivicusl choice. As s stu-
2

dent of our own oerticuier culture Folsom hes observed the 9319

. .... - fin. .V,...,.' TT ,
suenoienn f larnhcim. ne sta

ES

5 "tie frecion of

U Q
‘2 "1“
‘ .. \n

H'

to devein uniouely."

-—. m-“-

tes thet the

SUSH'GIHB

ividusl personalities

 

l. Emile Durkheim, op. cit. She concepts
theory which are given :oove stem from

by Psrsons in Tne St uctnre of Socirl

V‘

of xurk
the etc

Action, 0):.

 

. ‘ Q - 4 ‘ --~-~ If -‘r“l ‘ q \ > 5‘ "\ . flauw ' \ r» . ’ r‘ ‘. fir
particulexly Sn gter o, "HMILC muiinsin I: lirly Edwlrlc 1 worn."
fl ' _ -r )5, r..n-' . ‘5 t ' ‘- n -—. V __ ‘“ , Fj.“‘-
c. J. Ii. jfiniso n Lne II “liar, Jozai'fiilegrx,nt. Sousa Inc.. :19;i3 o. :c‘+.

 

 

effects of the cult of the iniivifirel, esoecielly With reference

—.

to the growth of whit he terns ”r tionsl bourgeois csritrlism."
Accorfiinf to Teber our cc itslistic societv is chsr:cteri:ed

by rotiontl, in i’iiuelistic, eni crlculetin: attention to econo-
mic success. The roots of the system ere to be found in the

N

a r r- ‘ u. y‘: ‘p . ‘. ‘vw , "‘C}
"rrotest.nt it-lc" wdich co .els tut

)J

"‘h
5
Ho
(4
I
r-Jo
N
J
F;
:3
H
6"
O
O‘
I 1 l
’3
Q

:cern

(n
F

with his own res onsioility for all thinys. Here egein, es
with iurchein, the vrlce wlrcen ufon the individual is e soc121
velue, one rLich conjels inciwidnel choice end consecuently,

oremium upwn rhtionel behavior.

(

0
(....
I D

D

6

If we ecceft this tlcory of the cult 0:

‘Jo

the int vioUfil,

Q

: seerch for jeneral life x~;ls in our society is 6etermined by

the culture itself to be e seerch for inéividuel gorls. It is

t3 this theory the we me; eccount for both similarities end

I,

i)

differences rctveen promos. Hhile the grrsture for confonnity

!

oterates in our society to insure homogeneity, the pressure for
iiiiViduel rights encourages cultivetion of the men? hetrrqeneous

values which ere oert of our historicel tradition. It is this

culturel fiirective for iniivifiuel freedon to move from arou; to

g.
~l

I)
1.]

I ’J

'V -« . r‘ ‘ 1:. ': u ‘ ' . ~ v ,‘ . .h
,ero_L. in -wn;rcx: oi llr,iv1;1rllldr s ti.sl

'1

L5
3
W
C:
O
('1'
>- .-
...)
c f
D
o
(‘D
f)
’4
Z
r u

‘l‘Fltlr? inc differences between and soon: grouse.
It might, therefore, be erpectef thot intre— romp verirtion will

exceed inter-grouo verietioa with respect to eany fenerel life JOels.

 

1. Rex Seber, Ofl. cit. As in the cese of Turkheim, the euthor is
inéected to Persons, 00. cit., for an analyticrl trentfient of

- \ .
p. " . ‘w ' w- ”1‘, r- «o- q ' ‘ r ~' J ‘
rwrtiCnlsrl; olagter le, '_ci JQDGT I

'.
U
*1»
’J-
9
L.‘
(1’
ti
9
(I)
O
11:,
'0
3
H
1
C?
J
(D
I I
1 \
f.-
:3
(4'
:3
I)
4
3
w
2.4
A)
,1.
}__J
H
cf"
1
1
O
s-
'3
It
5—4
L 9’
k [a
I

“i
t

,_ _ . .. , . l- .. .. r -. .- . - ,1
.ctero,rne-ty 01 UNC s":.l:. SmCU fcctors He; in-eca oo—

- 1 r._'-. -‘p~ . ll .‘0 ‘: ‘ - - a \_n t _- . ‘\-
erete out tne v~rlrcil1ty o: o ixl,n, oe-1cl, (no attitnte

oilit". If the conuon v lue for lerge numbers of ecojle in our

v‘+-
J..'u

a‘
...
..

C

t...
*5.

‘ -: . .‘1 '...-'-.' x» '-." -:.~,.‘; ,:_
societ' is Me inlwoe V'LMQ flLEcCLLJ to tne 1L.ivl.i- cc-»

-\ .... I

\U

exrwinetion of celitzc enr sentinents new, uerfiejs, le culturzllfi
determined to entvil e serrc” for ar»ra es, wit; 0 ref 1 str—

ti sticr l T:.‘1."l;".t9 tin-t have reference to no perticufr im‘i‘.'i-;;L:-“-l.
I‘“!

~‘ - ‘ . r} -‘ r -‘n \ - A ‘1’ ". Q; <. ‘- rn‘ ' -\ f‘ . ' v‘ ' ,i
iie AQTHOHillcn cn~z~cter 0: tie cistliuitions O; cert in c~-rx:i.;«..l

..mwm.» , 1' «w‘hU‘x-v fly "fly- a :2 “13': 1‘ t7" '.1 mine a?
1".L-‘_ .httdllcu ‘9 ,‘A 3L3“ 5v’J-bl, Ln; . C-g ’ Cu .LI'ULCI $021 OJ» #6 SOClZ .b \‘f_‘*.~v O_

o ‘ .2 ”Q. \ j a £45 ‘«. _. ."fi‘, 0 ‘_ o ., ~ - - v. ‘ A
inc vlloal ailieiences. LL“t is to 9’3. in car culture ih“rv

:~.--. . '3‘ L4, . . ~ r--.~ 7 ~ ‘\ 9 ~ ‘ v- -
ln«lV1ii¢tlwn ls soc1rlix toirovec tne ireouenCJ culve encow-
“fisses e wife renre of iniivi‘ncl varirtion. In enotaer culture,
aflfl'tlin 14: coolellqr COgU£N1n€fl4 tne fremwzenc:'(rirve

. ...... —v-~ - " ' a '9 1 (~ ~ .. p . s-T: . f ,- .
nliit ce e-.ectec to GJP\.oees e norLOJ r-n-e oi inclV1'uel v r1-

“3
r?
’.10
C)
; 4
r
C
3-4
p v
v
C‘
O
('1'-
' Q
0
J
[[0
fr»
1')
cf-
9
..x

e curves we? vell ? erorimete the normal

.~ -.- \ 'r.&-- " n --.. " 4 " -
olr urn easiwtr tnis "normal" cistrlcution

“
O
.1
fl
:1
fl‘
L
C
'
*1
('f‘
.J
:1

r“ I n " - ‘r " fl ‘ re ‘ x A ~— ~ '4‘, - q. a 5‘ ,\+ .1 . #5,. - ‘

. count i; art nor t_s 0,. lei o,rl tion of interielstluq J ctozs
L‘, .° ".1 ' r- ' - .. ' ~r Ix -‘ ...: . '1 ‘ u l ' ‘

on one FOCl¢-12atiOu urzc:sc. rsécnolorlcally, Allooxt is n10-

-‘

ta'ply correct in lllf-‘lf‘tlflif11",”:11’1 tLe nltirlr-ete and irreduciole

 

 

}.J
L 7‘,
\ )1

S

p . q x -. ~ ~ . ‘ n..'$-‘ . -- . ,. ‘ -, ' . N, ,
’ ("'C.’ *‘l .J c 5’ SPu-hce -.h‘-L Lt- C) .CtlILCC 1.: LL“. 8. )lLlIJILtJ '1‘ '
0‘1 . "‘ ~“, 1 m 3 C - " “ o r .9, ' t ’:" ' I z ‘ ' r" 1 f 1‘ + 4 V“ C 11'”1"r 7“
41.1..» 11.. .1- ene ‘ C'). t. Q (~ no t 0 JanL Eff. ,‘.L£L’..&L vJ.O..-" ‘1: J‘: K t CLA--

rues of the :yivi (3.15.: l v':“.)'_p"-I‘S to use accentueted by tne v: inc

1.- . ,: ‘n '..1' .:.j~~.'1 “L: - ‘.° 4: .A A , 4.
rth:r1c-.:LL t7 t;.c liiL.1V.‘.‘L«iLr2.L nn. to 1.1.9 unmm—r L eVe]. 3:131:31; L.

 

1‘ — - ' L -
31L. fI“ ' ’lL )..C-.l'31)I:S
“‘34 4" .; °V . ...“ L‘. : . '- 4.- ,- ., a- ‘ ‘ p
‘AAB? J. l lfilx.L1 fl :3 0. LI ‘1‘. S I): Per: l‘C... Lt. {1.4.11.3 9.1V) ’5': a DI‘O‘t’L') 0‘.

a . ~ I .-~1 -. . ‘ ‘ ..-, . ~ , 7 ...-L1,
renrrrl Llf' L0 .1." '.;L1c-1zze ”-1 ML u m .1L;. out remect to
+« 4. -... H. ' .4- '-"' L'. rt”. - .
cerLL-in fucL-ors 1.. eute‘cecenL sac1-ilz€.L13n. ---eze (pale. mi),

Le ex“, lrimd in terms cf {-1 'smll-fcf‘inaeC' body of 9.00191 tiwcor‘r
whic‘n ermnasizcs the effect of the cult of the indiviiu: 1 113011

“ fi “ I r'\ ~ A r. - r.
~51, the. pattcrn 3f Lox-1.0. .-e-_-e..:1‘s

. . u .' A ‘ o r-qm ‘- 1». A, r“. r~ ¢I A ' F. > u‘fi‘
witn otners. :.;c'31€thL.;.-‘/, tnese FLouis {flay 0L: explnlnei 1;.

0;

terms of the nign V'luption of individuzl personality as such,
rational concern'witn inqeii.:te enés, and rational calculation
tn otner garcons as means to tinn

such irn'r;ed iate .ncis.

the fincii 11778 are, of course, limited. to the 31.121519 ans: the

are: 1'(*2'§i.reo.r~snts ti ve of the middle-cigss, there wmld sue-"r; to to .

I. P
, ,.
J. v‘
of
I __‘ “ N n — > _'\ , I . ' I I. . _" ‘f‘- o , - ; -.
r ‘1 ' I l < “" “l‘ . ‘ : " ‘ 77 . ~ .' '.- "3'. f1,
ccrtulr. ALL-Lu .1. , L5: L1; --1-. .-JL.; .L‘.' (.v' rive L,_L._.-..L;
-‘ - L ‘ a :l ' ' tr‘ ‘ a r‘ ’ " 'd. '\ (‘1', \--- “-n ,q. - ‘ ... \ y 1
-' x u L. ‘ - ‘ , C . . ‘ V a "“' . ,' - ,2
,(‘3’3 Lg‘_~ u..e ..L¢..Al C.- (J.- .‘ 7- CA; 1v . 'Luk-LL‘AUg_if _.. L I 1 LJ ,9. A .r_, 8‘.S ‘7‘.
. -\ 4- L - ‘I -\ L ' 1A . ‘ ~ .
-- .. -. ‘u A "\ I _ f! y 4 W 1 r n 1 r I r n
\ L"'(II‘ .-L -9 VJ J- ‘ .L 1 - t . 'o’o . L 4 -L-‘ ’8 t L n. ‘11 .4. ’11.- d-l ' ' O‘- ‘r‘

 

for s aci:ic cultur:1.sx;¢nent¢ thvre rugreawist s.cciql vrlue
rfgtpfis unipue to tnrcz 9e mnnts. It Li it be Cfinjectur€i tb't
such Valuec F?“ a ccifi: in chhr'ctxr Pnd cre, :erhrpn, ncre
clJLclf T‘l‘tfi to whet wcc,le in than are th: veg? Lcnfrcl

1. L 4.. .— ‘ - ‘4- , I-.‘ - L
9 Ln: L CLLLn: an CLL rerues sucu 'er'mcntrrg Je-

« L ., L ... L H

Iifi'rl”) a S . Such} 1:.
V 0 I "_ J. A. a s u‘ v “_ b _« _ . ‘
.Lt lS OSC“. 3-1.6 1., 3' u l: Ctl.€r Vr::.1fl‘llep, 5‘113‘1ag ‘C .qirsnl

0 “~ " _. ,2 -. " _. ' , L .. .' .._. ,\,.' “ ‘ .7 L. .1 ....
in Lao LOWE} bnn u 4L1 CLYSCCS, v:rs cogcarcc tic r83h4bs Li-nL

(

Lovchr, it is gossine tkzL with recgect to such general sent;-
ment? rs (re included in the goal? of life Inventory the fincings
might be much the gnme. oncn rjeculntion undirsccres the fret
thrt there have becn many Fuestions rsisei b“ thi? rezecrch

I. o . . .0 fl ‘ u . v .9 3 I ~. . ”I A a" a Q *
wnicn renirre 3n anflLwSls UCJCEG n: sco;c of tuis stua’.

BIE‘LIOGRAPHY

-‘- T“ V.-..- : v-«u‘
‘ ' I L.

‘I ‘A ' ‘ 1: I

.1 ~~-v _o-.d .-

-‘ K‘ 3 ' ,q‘ . . ~ I - I- ’_ ‘ . H 4‘ ‘ .. " V" b ’ _. 5 _
Luort, ;. u., r8390hfi’ltf, acnrJ ROLL kn? y’Tan},

 

gn‘cl, Eobcrt C)019 3, ’he Integrrtidn of Arericnn Soci ety,

 

 

 

 

2' n 1:" '1 '1, L1 1“ -. .«.- A”... T -L "'.L _. V ‘- “I
;Lc:;rf)1-.;1LJ. -<)LL: LLLL..4.J, -LLc., L. :. 1012c, 1‘7. 1.
.' ~\ '1‘} , . i P; Plr+o r a." . 1 ,. '

3:1t'e.'.’ II. — o, .-.L P 7 ’1'. 47:10:". ...-L L.. (7.711 Ulc 1 b‘v'7ti SthQ‘ DOlln ”118:”

” u 1 ‘ P r ‘7‘-" A) .-

5: $3119, IQLCI ‘ ¢ ‘- f JJ ..., 1"-TIU.

. V . 5" -- L. .‘ Y " I ‘ ‘ 'x I -‘

Chntrll, h. enc Airwort, Ln fl., “Accent A ~lic t1 ms of tne

Stufiv of leucp Jovrn21 of Agndrnyl "RS 5001? l

.’
'* w .. '1 ~{-.-, I“. -- “:r‘ c -;
3.17.] C Z..)]': .7" LI, 4 W, L_J;|,’ -L‘7-.

 

 

- ~y— T‘f‘y \ q .-‘ ‘ ~ \ " “ Q" I. ' "-‘
Junta], ArlOl 3., "A1 ILVCDLOIJ oi Rtu c s
:9." 4cm Ftidn”l rnfi :CYCnoioficr
\
l
I»?

l 7' (7.4. 3

”T, L+I\14‘-: '1'.

L - ‘r , fl '7’“ N u ' - ~31 7‘ \P‘ . J-

:ldluflL, n—roli ;., “a Inventorv o; QtLLLnL
- ‘rv. ... A. - '3 “ .,L L—. .:

-‘. p118 " p52 )LL,:1‘ L 0: 11.: LAUSCI'J._}t

i .
Of :ilblicpti OIL.

“was.“ F 1,. '3 -_- ' fr'V' . p ‘P - .I- ... .0 «PH-
“LLLLL, “LroLL -., "Avila liltj O; a: InvenLtiJ 0. Lantrel

=.niir A 0- fanuscript now in

‘bcv-

 

 

 

 

 

 

qrx‘ fl ’ -~ 0 fl ‘ 1 L' ‘ D “ I r ‘V ' V . 4... ‘6
”LL? “V ‘LLlnf‘Cr L'L, 1'- Cl‘l blCL .1. -.LVlt‘ Of 110.9 F‘LJ L10-._
.1 u ... .- |' 1 ~ -_ 4 ’ . _ ru'- ‘, " L
:4 1 if)” 111 t--\:’ ‘34-1— JCI.U- 7'77 1112111 l ‘1‘\ 'f OI 111\ I" 51nd
'— a, 0’ _ - I +‘. +‘~ 7 ' b —-V \ I“
0mm. r -L st: A, - -LL tne i. LLLLLer,” at L (:10- i0 1
... _. —— '.J' . ‘_ 1f \ ——.—- f-f -‘v -‘ 5 —'~-
... j-vth L1. tk’ ...-i, J, :‘ ::1;“-’ -L'.
M
..‘.‘ ‘f,~.,\ . v “ - [-I~_ - ‘ _ _ 4" ~—. 7 L1 ‘_‘ ‘ -.-—. ’31 0 0 ‘ g. I a”
_‘,’-LlLLIE_C'lL.1, “Ilia-'9, ...Jit‘? _;_|L67.r;1("nll""1':‘,’ £013.19 0;. the “.0 '1 10M?) 3.41123
- l 7. *‘ 7‘ q" *" : ‘--I‘ (“'1 r. : H ‘x 'I- ' ' 1 -T\"1: ‘
tI‘L n5. 4/ u J:c .11 ii} .3516..le ..‘COI '8 “Lien 0L L..r.;.:.h
v.4 ._ ’ {_ ’
- 4. - ¢_ L :- ._- r-n‘- v1,” .. - 1 ,‘ arr . w -1‘- . :
nLL... nonioii: ..--e cunlan CL: pany, Lew £01“, 1:3 V,
‘1:— q... .~ I T ‘ N I I i --" 1‘: l o A on ’:-y
:1111'75 i... u , 4-4110. ....(3 .VL‘ll C110, .2 . .1.” C51." :3 :1 g, i(_)(’-‘ I .
1 ' 'r '1 - ":.,L..L.:‘- .~ " ~'°'* .- 7 1- A“?
-olsoL, u, 1., -uc ”1L-ij, LOnn ”lir; L Sore, -nc., 1 3w.

 

 

 

 

r~ .( -. 1’ ~° I'fl« r~-‘ M
VJrecn,.Arnoid d., ’,Le Sociolo '10:. 1 ‘mn Inwais of LOanj :nd
.9 " V ‘ ‘r-A ‘ ' I " u ‘ ‘r- "‘ . .7 4., 0‘ /
1:..4," A.br1c A ¢01rn l of a®c1otou , 1 4c,
L-rfiff‘
512;: 7: ‘1’:“+ 1'.
w, r' N 'r O ' 1, “ ..L hunt rm - ,. ' ,_+ ' . , .5" 1- - ,.
I‘3r4r‘_gl1:,:’ $.39 "0 . 'Ji ‘ng'TLLLe-L'y :‘e \JJ‘Irlefll 34'5U1r):1& Lect’ " y(:‘7-'tlrl
1 u v 7 a u- 7:7 r—
0 ‘M‘lrl - '* 'cnOJLO'fir 19+ 19:“ ‘—79.
T , . '. - l-_ vr' _' J . r I . -
ncz;1nh, L. L., "I'e w LL6- 'ne PIOLl €HH81T9," “NTD‘l 0? $
- . -. ~‘ \
-.. w -... I r
.3 h" CLLGLKJI ‘_".' , .L(__]‘l"", l _‘ :11E—1“L to

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-\ r -.
I' ‘;
~7— ,- V \ ‘1 " ‘7 f‘ "" ‘ “ "‘\
---—-“-'A J-_- - é ‘1 - --. \ HO-J/
~— : - ‘ . . ._ - ; |-~ - .- «-_ +,. ,1 '1.- '1;- ’1 '- ‘ ~.
.'-().'._1:. ¢«ifl{-‘L-’ ..-. ~70 , | 7 l 7,10“ “‘11. I‘M”. 1‘ f 5'. (a I .eix‘ . J7" ...ECF'I'CL. "
.1 .- .. c - 1 ~, .- - . :~-» I. w mm
.gxquce” -0010.n ‘0“1 :vvivt, l s , wzblu—- L.
——" —--.—-— - ‘
7" . , 9r, -\ '4 ~r~ — ‘ 4" ','~ -- ,1 . r I‘ A‘ M.
gurxef, L rzn, ..r .vnroLIC .*I““i-th} 0. Lnr L‘Te,
v- ' ..qntf r \ ‘ H,» ,- -r~v ‘ l 'fa -§‘.- 1' .7...
a. .u o “V; J ‘A '.~A.\ VJ ..J ...;y , -.L d, .I;-'.., ./ )1.
vr_ ' - - ’ I" g L , .- ... — ' I' ‘.,-. . ' 1.- -.Lf, “ "—5.
..YUPOTT, .1. _., '.‘ §LJur0r;r:JLy .. :31 "I..u.h;r0.c;0‘.$m
’-
'- \ 1 , 1 "‘ f" 1 - "1 7
(2.9,, Ln.“ 13:4. 5-“...
4 H ‘ " . . H ’fi ... ' . . 1 . .. .L ' . .. - " l 1' ' 1‘:
“r'f, “:31'ret, gev an. -L; cvaCiv 1n -LFPU grlrltlve ann*r11v°,
;. . nb'iUJ 1L --.;Lnd, by. furA, .313.
T .fi -‘ ' ~1‘ 1 a, - .A' cu-..;.: -. fi 1, L .. _- 1 II
C e1n, ..IL-al L., '.;U‘ uxw 0:” UIVE‘ A11u.y 1;; Le »—rr]. 4L;m:rt;<n1,
r“ .- "at 4-' .. . v‘.‘ : (\3 " "" fin"; -~---.
1:”; ..‘ucr)uloix l .: cor'., 1, +5, czf:03( NJ}.
.7 ,. . ". q a ’- 7‘ ‘i ,- . 'n: \ , - ; 3‘ ~ .4 J. —- .: ‘ -. 7'. T . . .'. "P. .
‘ , Tet 3‘, ill-lI‘tl ‘7’ LAA ‘ . - .-{ 1:: ij‘vlt L .‘I , .LkO [1.7 $51" -111“ “lVllc-f '1. )I;’
.. -—.. -, .:- 1. .-' +‘-. “3 ° .~' ' ‘
t? 11‘ o .42., JLI. glCH __,J;- i‘.)l"..'x} (ICC JLI‘ u “Ll. LLVlll; ctr-71", ’03.. l,
V." _ ‘ 4. ~- . , ._ "f ,. 1? ~ Ir “.fi' \
3'3c0Jru, gr ca 2L; L3 ,WLJ, .:w for., l; 5.
~ . ‘ . .4. . A :44..'.. .4... -.v A“ .‘, ' w A , r:'1
... ’lr'fjli 1‘" ‘ .l.Cl\’t U ’ ...-»4 ...,- u...I-A( 'U k‘...'e 0‘ 53C L l "‘Ctj C-.. ..C ‘T“ (1" —.A- L.‘
0‘ ~' f‘». ‘.~’ _‘ .. ’ ~r' -. ‘r w, ""
‘jx’I -_ Ux). . )1 I..-1" I;‘C. ’ -I‘-‘I.-' Ltja'L ’ i'l'f" .
~~ . ~ .' ++ I , ,: v . '- 7- N ' . "w c
:zzwfn.c, -:Lco.v, '.M§e.mnA sex 1n t112 500131 avxnurture o; tne
\ t \ a
7': ' ‘ -\ ‘. fl‘ 1 < ‘ 1..“ nu: .‘ 3" . ‘ . v a o (“ f." —' ‘ " t “W.
.nltsu ctrtar, "A,c1ic_n .oc1nlo/1url -“V‘FW, leL, (:Q.L_v-;.
11.: .:' . * " ?v.- :..«L:.»m 4- ‘ L.-.” "L ' +' ,1 ' ‘
;1_LIJEI, ; . -“_., 4-1;. -uvr‘} way»; a: ux) ..Jph‘. 1'“ DV5 :7.culC.'r‘J. ‘ MJQL-S,
:- 1. ‘ : ~ . ,, ' n . fl * - '1 -- 1 ' fr".
U 3”}; HALF...) c... Q ‘L. , .‘.-.C. , -.C‘J .LL‘I‘fi, 1;? :)o
5- ’t ‘ '1 -.+ I I I + 0 ’ ’. ‘.‘ ‘ ,.~‘ ~ 1 ‘ g I 1;, A -.. ‘ T ' q \‘—‘ .u
Ski-wear. --.. new“ 1 err. uOL-n:1»te - lass, ma. .mf‘, .L'
fl 1 ‘- __ Q "“3‘ ; ,- ' L O (.‘_ : O _ -g ‘ . v-v: . '0
St“1- ems _etter (-Aq COJLQT'ulVE «Inky In uenwrnl AIuCFtlon,
—‘ :-
'T.7” 1".-1L ‘ L 1' I"'-.: ‘ ' ’3 " '
y, 3 A1¢marx Ave., Cnicr,0, L11n3.s,, 101. a, “0. o
I " \
_ .1 q f a 7 ova“ ' L " 7. (W ‘q
(; '1'1A- l, .L. (7"; {11.4. .l'ln. ‘2’. l\ L). ' (‘5');4, l, 1"‘;-L-
r‘ 1..' "'1 1' -- ‘ ~ fwr L r“ L -,.-+- -" " ' 'I -.L
LOLLlec, ger 1nzna, jvna neatbl Vfimccuus o; :3019-o.r, trnne,
1 L .L- - ‘ a. -w_._ 1 _ ~ . . .-.
the 93 11":Atca L; -L;r-es ' AQJL.s, AL7r;can
' ”‘7' ”N ~‘ " er * ~ . ' w’" 7 ("II-r)
BF) - U 7-“! ’ .I'.‘ 1‘3‘1'... uL’ \4.
w. - “ .- ‘ ' . . n " II '- ' I, 4‘ —* ~ '5. I
t. E rll,)I1. . . :‘o :IIAC- AX--J.~)OIt ’ 'J. II 0 ’ AL -L‘ .‘t' J. {“r ‘ hl‘9\j'.{ lit 1‘)? I?"
- . ’ \
A .«1 o‘ I m . A 'V . \ "‘ . 1 . I -'--| IT, ‘ :N-. p -.
JHHTT - 0-.nynnrmrl rnL QOClil .9fC1UlC y, l ‘L, Lp:1<l—;L,.
— . u" ...a
' ‘.— ?'. ’1‘ '~ ,1 "L‘ ' ‘ ‘L 1‘. ' ‘J- .D " _.'-Lr .‘ L
”5 .r, AHA, -70 grotuptfizt QMIC "a: tze ;=1r1u o. b 1n chn,
‘_ . " _’ . ' : _.. - .~ -. ‘ —.- 7 u, . a ‘ ._ -
v1“ 1;“. .4. - .L'CO'V L; .a.’ ;‘ -I-'.S‘, gt 3". E ‘gLLLJA g,- L”. 'liL, ....LL'. ,
‘." , , '1 “‘
.01.?) I, .L «3.
- D a- 4"! ‘- ' C ' .... O . ' I
7 ‘ L _ _ [I . .~* . ‘, w” ‘- .. r: A. . . ... _ _
.I'3.JL.,I‘J..- , A. ..v. , .7832 )..I L. . ..LJ?’ 8 F11L. uzie ..11“*Ct101; Of “3:1 V10.” "
'1 ~ .. 1% 1'1 {trad A “cf;
E.‘L.A.w )4. -.C‘ur-L' 1“, '1‘ ..., /.,‘ 03h-‘?L.
-v .-‘n q I“.'\ "L-..‘.: . --~ ..- L. - .- 4.' 1,1‘ 1* v. '.1 ‘: -.
..9m-r-L;L . .. ... '-.c..r-.t1 )I:>)11., ..ctumcn ..‘anLLm J. a - ‘wran LCCCL
- '0 ‘ ‘_‘U . 1 --\‘_ l ‘0 -* " ‘V , 1“ “~ -7. fil~1 [’7
._Ot1V€$, ' Jr.) ..1'31 1 O; _. 10 MIDI' ' :(fixcitr‘lo yr, l“‘r‘r, ; :3. uL-l ,.

 

Roch-i

r ~ n. '-
- 1.—

 

AX

..-

+ V

....3,

TV,

1rr1'1” .f.‘
«do! -‘v Q
’2

‘I‘
'1: 710‘.”-

'J.-.._

" q'""‘
é-fiq—l
‘.1

yp<~u
- ’
n l .04-

 

4

.LJ-

4. ‘1-
...-

 

 

3;. :L.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

* V
m
_
“n.~ P .
a... F; - V
.3. _ M l l 7 .3 1,. ‘ Wu ,2 . . .9. 2 a: 73.4%.. Kip... :,§% 6: l l 3 l
V... n. _ l 2,.
rt ”.4
. .. .
‘ I
T .L
r V“ T*
A
. ” fl-VV
‘ 1|. » V“ ....“ 9, 7t V10 «U m...“ 7.1.9,. ,C . V. as; rug—II... 1U- at a)... {OTC Caz/3‘19 7 ..xd. M“. 1 qt. an.
r l l l l I.
\4 . ~ «1.—
(V~ w. .
n... _ _.
F . . . ..L
.,.C _ _ H n d
. «g
A. I.
”u. .—
K -V, .. .
C . . .1 p; ..L fl... . 3 37‘ DJ 0; .. ...1...-C .3 .... , . . 9. )4 ,3 A} ".../1 C23 3. 7t 6; ..I. l .1. T. “414. 1.
....U T. 7;. PL 5. ac. 1.»; 1-.. a a... a!“ 11. l n; .... l 1:. 1:“ ..i «I.
n .
.. , v T
W .1
C. .x _
u. _ ._
V l
E H. 1i a; l n». 78 r... E i Q 5 V 4. m J. T V.. n ...‘O ‘ A; .0 .H) 72,571 AM. 7... O Mu. 20 rs». fl...” ..VO 7 1.3 .t. V. l 9.
Au. . _|.. l .-., .su .4 “l r; .1; L .1... l 11— .1._ all. 1 l l 1
MW . U V“
.t a u
n _ .ifi
\ V“ ...
.
.. f;
!.
C D I
Y
_. w 9 l L L 7.. r 7.]; ~34 G 7 ,1 1:218; .b 7).? 2 U. .0 l ...V.. I . l
a v»;
“A ..i ..
... . . —. 4
_ 42
u i
P m .. . ‘ y - V+ -
l .. .-. 1‘ .. r7. .L ..«J «J, V :1 7.! 1‘ F} ....J T .OL _. A... J. n14 1.. ..L 7 hf mu. 1:. an]. V ..\.V4. ml! ... .05-. A! rm. T ,1
. w ~l* film A...“ fr .1 \IW: /<.IVIJT ..er rrv.' Hg. 1 PL n “IL P L n ... 7A RI 1 .115 Apr; 1* ..L l
.1 a _ H
s. — .L
r . . . .
: . w A. V
P “
T
V.) w
P. .J ,L 2 7 u. r. 3.6 7: .2 Q). n; 4 _.V 73.4. ......0 7a a; 3.; my. 1 ac 2 :4 nib JO 0/ «(1. 1L. 5. 7 in». ESCU 7! 8 n7.
‘7. 7— TL 10.. l _I‘ .l— 1;. .L 7— 1+ «I. 1 «L l l 1. l l l l

 

.m—

- ...—....4. _.

 

n
V

03.1
h

u.’1\

‘ I‘ t"

d

 

L1

1” l
.1‘,
I“
9.;
.

1..
AL

(3.111 C '

 

—'-!\

n! ....a—d

 

-——.

 

AA-

 

 

-—.--

 

 

 

 

 

.7." E E l E .42.: 2.2.; 2,.1 l l .u. 2 7/?0 .515 1...E..O. 2.2 h. m 0:. c... C l 3 hr r33.» 91V
..—
_ f
7.
.1.
.14, Thu“. 7,13... RIP/nu. a; 9.. 20,10 77.1.11 1315.6 rm... .. 1 0C .LJQ..?7:FO C/nc n; 9. 7: 2.71.11 9. a... d; 71.1
I
—
._
v.
.1;
I
f...
I
.(h
er. .2 .7! 7.34 r0 O/(g .1. 7| 1 K123 OJ? :0... \1 fix}- ...0 P9 01 C-V,..:_..u ‘41 .1. «D a... fly -4. KC. 713/1 qsdfi/ 14., U 11. 7 1
ll 1 1 ll 1? . 1112311111
.1..
~.M
w.“
...H .... V. HSLil. Us 11. 14. 7. U 0;. v.10 .3). WW rO at. a; 4;. 1L 9.. .1, ..C 5,. 7-. r. U. . 0,, INC). 7-2K: 0/ t LDrO L V4. 1 / 9H1? r)...
«1 ...L .31 .-. ....m 1. 71. .. 11.7; at. l l
E.
n?
~. .—
rl.
of
T
7..
- .I .
«.4. 218: .4 7 #0 l 0:, l 91. 2 a; an 1 l r. ., K1, 3.. Nu. ..C O .0,“ Ob ’0 .4; Ga 2,, mu .1 6L CL 1 l
a q
a
H w
.7113/ _ .1310 2:4. 2...?! 7.1;; 77:4 .3112an T x. 0, $1. n.4,. O 2‘ ..w... 3L. ..n; 1.. ,0 TLC; 2; 044.0 mf, ..L. Crl n... 9.14.
1 1L m; .... an. ac n. at .1. 1 1n. 1 a; .1 1.1,; 1.3;»: n. 2;.-4 q tr 7 .7 At 1.. l l 1 .In 1 l «I. 1.. .L
.
Q l 2 731% 5.1/0 7. 5 G, 3, l 9;. 7 .-.u. 2:1 7 y . 0. fl, 1 9.. 2 $1.1 R ....O 7.3 Q; 0 l 9. .57“. CLEO 7. 5 3.
l . 11111111 «-L.11—lllllw}.ll

 

 

 

C _

.-.-....

Us; I-J‘ J]- .L

 

-.

I
Ur

.111‘ C I;

V .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OJ
T “a. 1. 7.” 7/6; 77.7-13rm,..7,,.7/..4.;u M..- n... l l .l. 9... 1 r... $4,.LJ. 3/ a; ,Ox4 1.. p... .Z. 3. 1h
r .. 1
h I. D
. . . ..
P. .1
. . . X1
1“ I.
. ‘ I
4
I ..
. l .1 l 1.. l CdCrCfiC l 7..fi.....0 ..sw. .r... .. l he . 1“ .. a; R; 03015.... ... ...,O l 79.. 7141.1 .11 ..I.
T 1 _ ~.. 11— m... .1—
. T. 7.
..u .... .
1 M‘
F 1 .3
-. T.. u .
. e .3.
n l 1 12.1.... .0 7.1:.) 7. kw ...... Q! 0-. 7 ...O 3 7.. . 7” 2 3,. u 2 r 5.0 .1. 2 71 7-,L...ur 7.1.... 1. ‘4 .c.. 7 l
m... «J l?.1.illl_t. .8. .3 111.111.11.91 1
m, ,. Q1“
.4 . .
.... ‘. _
.... 1 ._
I.
. . L
.1 V . 1 1 1422.53 A.) 7.014, ...») n7.7,,.1._nu . _ ..J "3.... 1, l 1 K....J WIN“. J: ... .20....0 l .r. . 0 Raw... 14- mg 7 71a...
c ....._..1. 1 1.1.1.11”... l .. 1:11 1 ll
2 _ ...
a ...
w . . . ..rv
T1 . . _
d f
.. .9
1 o l l n. d a: 101+ 7. 7. :94 l 7...... 0., 1...- 7-: l .C .1. 1 h 1 2-4 a. 1. C l l
. . .
. . _
_ 2... w.
1.. .... ....
.. .. N C-“
. .Q .
Cm n I.
11. 00 1 ms: #1 Irv FL I . n) 1 U a... «4" 1L .1». rrhd K.) 7 .. n , 21:7 A; ./Q 7‘. ...0 7| r» . U .143 7.. m”. [b ...... 7‘ ...: 111...». : ...l. O .30 all .1. 7..-, w...
.- a. In; 71.7.!“ -4 7.2.31. mg. m... 1 . Cc. h. I-.7-.T..1. : 11,. .1 :1 l l l
n. .
fin.-. MW ~I..
C n
1.9
e
T.
r).
‘C .J l 6... 7:37 Rib 7 ...C O. 1... 1 m2 .4 h». E174 7: ....) 3,. n. l 2 2.2:... fiJ. 0 75 n.) -J .-. a... 7 .24. r3213 7: 7) 3.-..
..D 1 111111111 .111 1111111

 

 

3.10

‘W

.1

...-fi -.—
0

vii

5-7

V
I J

l”

 

'3‘ war-.'\
‘ .spL‘ v...

 

 

a» {.19 2';

g

1% tr» 7*"

 

l‘ ”)1? '1

Il‘

QUOTE?

 

 

 

—« -..—....

 

 

a... C/rr. .CJ 7), 1‘7- ..(Z. TQAJ, 7\_l fir. l ...... 1 74H”. EQ- and. a: firm“. C,/\|l+ L4 9:. GC 711. .1...

T.

+...

..K

A;
.4 .6; ,C F .ropo 1.“), 1L ..lw. 7 r7 2 ..\1w. 1 l ....1. S. l 11.! 9:. 7.03.3 01351.9(» 1.7.3,? 7/0 D7. 75/.5;

.... l h.

.4

..N

..

....“

Q.h
l 7.2.1.92. 7..r..,.,Oh.. 71G 1.354.411 .-.. 343,.734‘}. v.01? 1.0m‘u:_2,2,4+500.

.1. 1....‘Lng l .1‘ a; l a. .1-.. l .1. fii hr «1— 1; l l 1

i.

4

m
1 12b 0,; L 3. E ...?An, .q .C ”a .L 5 \L, . O 2 7:1,. 73 ”A, 0/14 flu 71,.0 l O .. 2.0 Er. C "....JL.
1:. W; 1!. 11+ by 1i 1 .1; «(a 1* .11.- .lu. l l l l 1:— l l «I...

.4.

. Ihm

.1

9., 9L 17.5;er 1..n/L Rfdr 1:71; 1.17 1; .4 r m nu Tux Nu. 1H4. \d.\.L. u- «(d/L. .4 .AC 1
a,

.. .

._
.14. a; ,1...) 1M. «Id—(rhuhw To 1,141.! . 7.1LOLKJ7I 14“ 7s.“ 91.1 ... QC 2. 0177de d... To 2a O O ..Q l
fi4m_.n.£_‘__.‘_\%7..A.2-,..Lan.l ” ..l. G; 91 Ar. fif. Os. ..C _£.w«..mfi....r_ 2 .1h1..n.

_
a. 10. ac 7x71; .rnxu Q 7| JJ q, ...). .1. .g. 7. {LI P390 all 7; Or, 0 1 fix... 75.1» phi/’3 739 01.0 1 fir. 7 (U? .r... .fs ~/ ..3 a... u
fi1_.I‘_ILl.1.~|.llfiI.—l willlfiqufiniqumul*l

 

 

.__—-...-._ -..-.--
....ma—w..-» .

 

 

‘IIC

rate c

I.-

-
f."
‘4'-

 

 

 

«.1

.._4.,‘

 

 

 

 

 

 

-..

 

Pl

1 2 Nu. L.. C .. 4 a... 3.2.7.. 4.... .i , l ...; .1. l 1.4 9. 7. s4 Q... 7f: F0 :2 7 .....c l

1.; 7-..,1..- Us” 1; ...C 1....) 4... \..r CW... 7.5. JJ Pu) AC 1 l 1.1. l p-.. by; 9v 74 «Cl. 0... 7|.h 4W. 7. 7.. 4...... L n.
4.... 4!.

O 01.7. 2...: 0-. or 6 Q. n.) .r.. .72 O ..b 3;. 1%.? that .--. A:
l ...r. .

....._.L.i*l.l._.v*41._*aln .* .il 1.....ILLFL

."v .4 .Q . 7. ..L. ... ...}. .r...,.< ...; 4H) ..., .41 1..._./. .. . Ir...n)... (bfhv 01.75. 1 ..4 71,—7.1! 73.,NUJHO .0 fi\,..
7* I.;_l.Lw-*1L4ifil..ululfiL.lu w..~..1.$._4l

.4 2 . I _ 7. , r .. 7:4 1.. u... .4 :4. ..-. l 731 .. l C C a; l Hw 2,, H30 74.4 7.. -4 7;

 

w.

.2

_O
4.. . .. k. .1. L. Mu} .ILT .\.I a) U)... l «I.— v~...1L n}... .1;— 1... 7.?ru “K. n} O ..O W. n); ...(Hs ..u ti. 0“,. .3) «.11 3-..?
.IL..L..._...1..,; ”...—(.nc _«.n.£ r,L rut. fir. 1.: _ «IL 41;“; TL. 71..\:.T 7. ., ... 1.7..mkhL. .L

 

.4 ..-..7 ”H.249 -/I Q. a.) J. 41.6.; 7. x4] ”Mag .7: )3 ...f. 0 4a.. AC 2.4“” r” f0. 710-. F; ,n) l 9:“ .27. . . ..
.-.b 1L 11.11;..1111. .-.... a..*m¢lll.ll

 

 

.-. ..l r 711...... 2.1.57. 1 ...... .1 ,. 2 v3-4 1 2 772,. 7....bh. ...)6 .31... .35

 

 

_ O. C «L 1 _.+
..1 n... _. ... ”my
.6 A. .. 3.
MM. ... .... F
xc v «D .. . MP. Q.
.4; h .. .- n
M,
t H u .
_ h. F- 7.
.... ..C . Q Q. ...: .J .0 1 2 .9... ,9 l l l H“ .. . 2 c-.. 2....2 7.0 h. 5 2.. ..o l 3% .-L. 2.2
....u .1..— wf. l l « .-..
\. EA ‘ J
A: .F. l ..I.
T p. 3 .L
.Tv ... . q . .

. 6.."

‘1-
A.
'>' 1 ..
v - . i.L
C
—
1

 

 

 

 

m . a:
n ... 7:. r). ...? 0/ 7- 2 7. .-.. .b r. . l 7. I. .L H H M 2 £1.57! 71 7: 04.0 1 a... ._,.. .0 . . (...). :7» d P
..-. w. n. .. Hur N”... «L 1;" m .. .3. l l l ..i l 1:. l .1— 1L .1.
C
. n; A n .
D u f . I
.,.... — .‘é . fi\.
.L .. .... ..
. . . o. w.. .Ar
_ _.
u . ..
A . r A V . 1 ¢
. . w.» .. ..J 7. ....J ...: ....u ..t. .....u). ...q r 1.9L Mu. .../L. l l f; mu m . .l; szb 75.“) Ga “a..rq.; fit. 7.......4. 7.1...L O .i. Far;
.. . ... ..N..;~ .. n5. .1.“ AL 11* r Ti .11. l l l 1 a...” «C... .11. ,. 11.
x _ .. .. v. .
5v . . 1. u . .
‘ SR ...... l. .
_ A ~ .~ . u
.1 .I. — ‘1. .t
4 ...x. _ r1\...
".4 .nl‘. . ”Lm a...
.-.“ a. _ .r. .
.... t ~ .-.. 1,3..0 z. 7.- r. .L .... ...: l 1 l l 2 ... l 2 h 73.1 3. 731 h. an. 7.. 1 21.-.“. 1.9.. l
a. .....4 V.” . . ..
.m. n. . T.
. . ., .
...” ...... co .
.nnp 3. , «L .
. WI" . _;4
L .
p ‘_ l.
l I; .3... .... .1 ...... 1.. 1h- 7! 2 .... . .. ...... 7. 7.2.7.1 7-..... l at. . u a. 7 2. .0 2... /O 3.7, J .0 r ...O 2.54 vlbr. -4
p . ,1. 7| .3 HI. .A.. 7 ...”,C 1; .14. ..l. l ..L ..0._ l l «I. 1 r\._(. A... C... —.\...A ..“x. 25.. .1 ..mu 6C. .Ig
.u
...
n... n w:
. . S ...
.H. y
..I

 

 

.. l 1 “4.7. .. 5.1-0 71. 4 O l QC 7,.M1r .rn)../ 7n ....5 Hagar}, .I. 9: ..A ..iM- 21.7.0 7.! v0 ..Wv.

n..-” 1* h... 7 (an. E .... ...» 7o ...; fl... My Fun
lain—1.I.11-..‘filfi!_ .v._ll.\.l*1l._n.n&lql+11—l

 

 

,-

n¢
'L‘Cn

 

 

 

L. i

r.

.‘V: -‘L 1‘

.

f“
v

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

x...
u.
r .... 1 In... C. 14. 2 :4 fig? 1:3; 1 r... .1. .-.». l .3. a... l l 32 I... nc, a... CM... 717174. ,0 ...u. l
A. u. . . ”A ~
.i
: Cu m .A
.... ... n..
..u .-m w...
L. .-.
_ 3
_ u... .9
. _ M . . . . . .... - .
.-. F192... 7. 1.1”, 34 ..O .... ...0 .4 .4 ..n. rim. 1. l .l 2 1 1329.14 ..0 71. .1. 0-.., {.4 .... ..C : .,. c ...O \u-
4 v...
F; _. n\
.... 4-
...w... . v
H; ...... q...
5 . .nr“
.. S .
“ ....
o
w-“ . Hr“.
n l O. 71.5 I... . ,. 6.. 2.67:4- 7:4 01.5 ..m. 7. .-.. r0 I. 2 no .1. ..4 \4 ha 70 ..D 954 .b l r ..).. h. 2 ..v... O.
.. . u 4 l l .1" l l ...L 1+ 1 «I. 1 fl ” 1!. l l 1..” 1L. ...... l «I. .IL .11.
n ‘ .1 .vw
, . L. C»
T;
F. . at
a... . .
... . .L .. . l .... T. .U ... ,. 7 9.0.1... a. ......71? fl... .... 5.1 w. l 2 \.4 22.7.0 1 O h. -....- l r39. .1). .5. (.-./Q 0.-.. 7.
f m... 11L lll~lLl~I+l U. 11 11-11lele
«L .fu
.... s...
w ._ . L.
H ~ ~ vit
ra‘ a n.
. .. ...
c: l :4. 77.1}. fi .. 73. a... .-.r... 1.. 77.0.. E. l l .4. l 13i4. .17.... 1. 1.. .... 5L. ”7. 1 Ma.
.... . .
-. .. Z
.. .. ..h .7.
f... .M u M
.. .
8 .... r .. . . .
...-.. .. .. l ... .... ...-.. 0.1.0.7 1. 7.. l ... .H) l O... .3. 7! -d. l ...) 1 .71 l l .5... ...). 2 .715 . ..O ..O 0...»...15.» ..x. 2..
.... _. .. .i r... .1. L . . . ...... 7. mg ... ... .. .. 2 .0... p)... n... l l ... n... a... a. ....— 9. Cr. V..r 1.6;. C... h . a... .... l l
- l
l, O a
. Q... n w 4....
... 4
...... — m
.... .
All I C I
...... O l a... 2:4. n .. .-.. 7. .0 0,. A) l a; 7 (... r). C 7. .6 a... 9 l 9. 7 :4 Ciro 7.. 5 0.0 l 9 2 ...4 .870. 7-3 0..
.... l~i1+l~l+1lell 1111—1111‘111

 

 

$v

a

'31

t5.
. .-ILI‘CL‘.

("h

 

\
L

.

-fllI'Cl

hi

I!"

.—-—.—.——.——-.~ .- -- *.- ...-—

 

21

L - I
.t‘; LE? 1'

.. *7.
J1."

. -

 

.L

Li

.0 t"

 

_-—.-.—.~——. ---~--~.. - o o -— ._— -.-

m-.

C.

‘Q' '~" 1"
- .\

 

 

11.“- n... 7.0. A... fir. ...«u.na.. 7.. 7. ....1. .15.. .1. .1. .1.

11.. 7-7.3... .r. (4...... .... 1.. .1. 1.7.1. .... .L.
.-. .1. .1.

r... O. ...... ...). .5 71...... .56.: .... Ur ...c 1. .1. l

...r/ A»; .1... .1 _ .1-. 2...... «(4.... C .. ..v A... . r... ..L... .1. .1.
r... .... ... .1. «1. ..1.
..n ....D .r\.. n... ..Fuv .1 ...a .1 75.7.4. ...... 1.. ..I. 31. .....

.MJ...\...1.,._.,M.M..T. .. ..1. . ...C an. 3...... l ..c n. .1. .48...

77 VC ...}..r m... .1. .. .1. .... .1.

~ . A
.1. Hill ..

......
.1. l .1. .1. .1. a.

r... l ...... 7.1.1.. F..../O .71 ... «.1...\..:.. 1L .. .. .4 ..-...
. .

:1. 7|.HI 2...:1JMWI

7
.1

u...-
7

{A

.... ...... a .2 7.-....
.1. n..- .1. fir. l

 

0.5 ..-. 3 ...... .... Q...

7-..»... .31. . w. ...u. .1».

CM .\. ... C..J—.O ...ur ..
l l l ..- .. ....s.

 

...... l ...r ..........v ..-/i... ..1.
«1.11.11.11.11.

 

 

-- -.- -*

.i‘lI‘L'.
...”.- ""T
-&-‘-‘oL.‘.;. &

n‘

,ut

I"

otest

7’.

..

P
.
d-“o'Vu"‘

 

k.-

«WWVW;'

_ ' {I‘Ta
‘1. L’a—I‘
l" "‘
91....-5

. .L

J
.r'

 

~ .
—.—-.-J

.v‘\ r‘
V -.
(.011
\T‘ ‘I' .
I - -- .¢-

q

-Il

C: .

 

n
v

7‘39].

4

Car
3 .

 

ore

‘~

 

 

[’1
.‘fi

‘4

m2
C
.,. ,3 T :4 it 7‘ I .i..r 2 ...,39 E ....c. 2. l 1 3 WW 1 dc 2.;0 ‘4 n ,3 it. h- C a; E17. P ._

. ... L

...... r..,_

. :1.
.... -—

L

L

“ aflD

7‘). .L (11» ..1..H/. "um/rad ‘9... H1 .1..7\..«A ...fi.\m(. ..r. ,fb 1.. .-. .1.. 1 7‘ ,1 0L 7‘y1b 3.4... G. E ._....v..... 0 33 2b 1 ML 1 fl;
TL .. g ..J” .l. l l
. WM
.uv_
my. ..h
- . 1..
..ur -..
y. _. .v
1 1-4/0 5 3.1L v:7..1w 7|-L.. 1.. O .,.... a: 7.9734 2 m l .1. lb- 2 l C ..O Q 1“ r} ..L.,. n4 .4. ..ur Q»... 5 .9 v7.2
. * 7.. all. 1:. .1. l .I” .1... .i .... .. .i l .i 6L ...w .1 .1. fig 1

”v .
C.

m* .

AL. I E

. A
.2

..M :3 Q

A“ . «I...

1... n; m.-. .4 .,.C .,J .( 70 .mJ my m_ “.... nu. .,. .3 K). .1— 1 “J“. 1 fix. 1 .10 6 O n... CH 1; 5/3.. nu C/.,C A: l A). 7 it...

 

 

«I..-*1._~|._111__s.\....l. .1. .-m 11:— 1+111fillfii .-fl
. ¢
.-.. .. ...
. - .
..M 1 :
L +
G .l.
;. H...
7. 7.29;; Y‘akYL. dz" .....,,_.:1H..Jz_ l .... .42. Ag 7. .‘. 1.1.19; 6; 2.71.... n; lxlu.C..7/.2._A.;... 1.3.
..H
- I 3 .
“M“ ..du
4- .o
.L :
~. 7..
....
.1
1.2,: r0 9. u l 4 ; i 1.:0. p. ,. O u .21.. 15;: .4 . 7314 1F4 no 237.... .3 hr .0 1. .,C n... 3 7‘10), .... inn/h-
1 mg a. 7 ..7 .1 f, .. 1.... ..n., .. . 1; l ..-. 1” l 9.. C... 2.. 7 Ar. 7 C. 7. .73.»); ac .1. .-..
E
J ...
T, .m..
..u .,.
«v
Q.

av 11. nJL 7 .5 w. 5.. ,./.L 7‘ ....J. “.... . 1L n,.. .l 7...... T...) U 71. £0 n.4,, O l 2 75.7.4 Raf/b 7 .11. n7. 0!, .1. fi_ 2 .Lu. pun/...; 7/5 >H
11” .L 1.. l «1. 1 .IL. 1...]:— l .11 ...; 1+ .0; 1 nl 7.. ..L s5

W I.
'l\

.
"..I.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

“ _
J _
. .
m m..—
. ,
_ T.”
C ...
.1
T i— 111.“ “I. If "V. . . .
.0“ C .9 7 .r l a). \U- 21.33471 7/18. ....u l Vt” «I. m .. 1!. Kay 1 1:. /O ..J ..p .,.ML. #11. C. . gr. 7;
_ r .... Slu— ...
7» u .. .
...“. .r
-. J C . . a
. G . n
.v.
r... m,
1.. .. a v _
.”.«U «.9 n... ..D L , vs. .3. 0 £1.13 7C :2 CL C... 12.1; 1 . " 9L 1L 7; l C.. E. . F) 71. 7}" fl _. . r. fit H)“ 7 ..
“1 Na“ r. ... .... .l ~1— 1;
ix C e .... .u.
+U .VA ‘ U n - PM
0 U h. 3..
I ...n 9 T, a:
... “IV . A ...m ..\.5
¢ . . "
a .
._ ..w . . \RH. rW. ,\...,)_ n.» f3 a... 7 R2 0434. 7" .l. l l .l. a 1 Km.» JD 7‘ 7! fl .. 7* 7: r- J 7i . .. .,1 . -.r L
. w- "...L Q... 7 7.“ T .l .l. _ .— ..l 11. at. ..l 11. A); «I; . a
.. _ W .. u .
w _ . T‘.
D. .... 3
. w L
_ . C. «x a .
fi n” ma T.
. . 3
w M; Q. ‘ .\ .
, u L ~ . , f0 ..I -..). ,1. -.J Ts ,F‘..... d. _|._ rt. . CL 7| 7 ..r.» 17W C... 1 .ll_ . . a: 1.— 9,. Fm .. 24. may all..-“ n ._ —I!. f). _. «...». H... L d.
V...“ +u VJ 11— m.. r... l 1 1|. 1 ...“... l .... l 0.1. 3‘ a * fi; «
n .6 r6 om .
_, . .y. _l— 1..
\H . "WM .,r.
. . n1 _ u . u ..
Z _ x u.
. H . s _ z.
. .. s .
a * «I. _ .
4n — Ft '1‘
k; t .. 2 A O I 7 .u. R . 7... ma 2 ,2: 1-. 2 1 hr. 3... a; l .I. . l kw R/‘d. . C .4 \u- k... .r.
_ c . 1
. 1.: .--. ..
o n... I . - v4
. m u
w... . . A...“
A; 0'
AW.
5 $ - ML , . ,
1 1.. r b 1 ,. J. «m». ...1. ..q An}. 0 . 2 ,1...md .4../ .rr .../0 FA . mt m). n.L 1.1 “J14“- SJ .1. 7 . H.) 7‘ ..m w 1 7.4 i. . ~.~ .I»-.J .r. .
.IJ .... .—.r. .7. .rv «1A .fluC. l 11* r1? «.4 _ a l a... r.(_. “C. n). .1.” 31.. \IM .rr.. 7;» 4. .1. ..x ...L
t H ..
_ v A
. O .. n-..
9 1... «k... w.
“ e
. r
“I; II ‘ . I . v I . \ n ‘ u
«f F. l aL 7 I». phi/C "......u 3,. r) 1; a; 731-... F ,.,C ..II .1 C. A, 1.. a; 7 (‘4. C10 7:1. 911“; n . a in..- T. .. H q i J P).
.. a. llllllllll l:lllll.-...l

 

 

 

 

~ /
—-.

 

.5 ;
V.
‘.
- ..‘.. .
. I - .
_ ». ._., ....
. I .‘
O~ / a
r ' 1 ‘4 a.
- ‘._ ‘A ,‘ \.
~_/
. 1
o. m
3 \

¢
.3
"
4.
u
n
m.—
‘
'l‘
.
o
A.

   

. . .
. .
. . y,
, 4 A
W »
k‘ _. \
» . , _
l
,
.~ .
,- .f. f. .. ..
- U
.
‘ 3
.\ . _,
. .
I A
~L~
LL".
”...—...... .....— .
. ,4
._ ._‘
'w a. _

 

~ww-‘I-‘u— ..e ......

\
‘ _
. A

 

 

 

_ h-..“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

" """ - — 'H"-‘ M" *- ...... -._w._~v_.__. . . . _
-...— .....v........ aw ..-_. .- -- ...- .._..._‘ ...... .. ...-...; ..-. ,, .._ --- --.— -..-pk-.-” ..
v 3. T _ ~ . .
-1 ‘3
~ , — . . V
. g - l
. _ ," ,3 . F13.
. .. 1‘... -; .-,.V-..
_.,..-..—~ ...- .‘fi . ~ _
”.--—FA- .. . ”.....- N“... _._..._, ._ - .....- _,‘,__,,.__ "M...—
" a - r ..
. ' . > ;.r
.5
’ 1
.- -- _
.... . K
A“.
,_.. ‘ < a I
. .L . , 4+ ,
- .‘. 9. .
a
. u
6
.-" ..n '
s
'- _ . . ’,
l ' . :
- .
u ' >5 .-:
"‘ r..- ' '
... .1 ‘ x
.. ‘ _
4- __ .
‘ 5"
. .. 3k v.
.. . . , w u
_\, . AA
4‘. - - ~ -*.
. . . , t
- - _ e- '
._ . ,__ ' , |$ Zr:
. L' _ a
. . .- “ a
_ ‘ x.
I' ' -,(
r' a "‘ o
. _.
.\ 1 av
( \
. o
J‘
,. ... J
— ‘ I ' .’, A ,x_
, z .' ‘ft :11 \ o
__ 5 .—
’ ‘ ‘ -l .I .' I
“ fl "‘ 4. v ‘
" a
\
‘ . ,
1 nx‘ ak o '
. .A'. r
r\,’
. , .
. $ « ‘ '7 _. .C)
. ‘ , L.
7; ‘ A. ,. ..
a ,. . v
/ ...!
,- .. a .. -
g x
u: ak
1".
.. - . k
' F‘ ' f - ..- ‘,' 0
if. x; u-.s.y g _ ,
U .
.7 -"-\ r.
..L . ..

.r...
u.fl_-.__ ...”...-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7-:--'-_'j 7’7: 2‘.— T’f“ .".._."." ......" "L:- .._—..———-' ..- -'f'.l—' " 1-3;..3" ' .2- ILL-Z .-.‘L.’ ‘£._.';,,....._'._' ...... .... .. .. .- -. _ . .l. - - . -
. 7 . .
. . ')‘ ‘7 :~ . 5'
. . -. — ' o -
_ . 1 .
. , . r1 . ~ ;' ' L s
' , , .. A . ._, . ._ ,L _ - ,
I C . ~
. . . ~. : - 1‘ ~ ' '; _ .
_. ,_ 1‘ . —. . _; .. .. L . .. ,
--. -..—..-”... ~.—~——~——’.-r~ g... M ._ . .__-W.r.m .. .. - ..w. — . ...—.....- ,2 7-..... ......— .
. » 51‘ 7—.
... , 9
-. o _ ,
. . - ..,
- - ”I . .
u C 9 :-
. ‘.. : . ___ \
‘0 I» f w
' "‘ . / x a
\ D. __
. .
.. .... I
. ... ' ' l a 0
- ~I ILL-7 '
. "" ‘ ' i (- .. .
r _‘ -_‘ ‘ A ' ‘
. ‘- (I ‘
> o o .- "
\
5- r r‘\ __
s i o »./ X- I, ... e
. , ,
_ ‘ I ‘ '- .
o _ a .. - 9 I M
. ‘ --: 5 . _ ‘
l «I , - .
° . ‘ --~ 0 ... ’ . k 3 L.
g. 1 r '1 ‘
.- c __ . J o . I,
-W x '\ " - _
g ,' .u \ [\ J 7 L}; '
‘. . v ~ an
r l .1 . ’
r‘ .
_- __ 1 I. 17* . _ 1 _
« I.- . ' x I .
- ‘ o “" . .9 ...
.— A ...”
\ - . - I v- . .
. . \ 1 as -r. .
1 ' A "‘ "" - : .... ,
o 1 _, ,~ A ....
.‘ ,__ --
" - 1 " 4 ,. .
_‘- g. . -. a
a .1“ r -- ‘ -
n n '_ / __ v .1 y , ,
. j M M 9 1.“? ..- .1"-
t ‘V L. \, ._,
m . . _ _
‘ .- . L'. .. , . /\ .
1- ~ g i ‘ ’ l 4 I .‘
' o .. ‘ ..L a
'3 ‘. ._ ll . ..
‘ l: '7 . ,.
+— ' ~ ‘ ~- L* ., ,
. I . ,_\ , L
. , g . .
. .... ’-
.. ‘ '4 '1 1
I 5‘ —- . U ‘ I ~1- ...]. .7.
Q T I w l ; ,
__ ‘
I ' ' ’ (‘1 ' r‘ n
... , I I? \ * * k.‘ 1 I“, (N ’f-
. ‘ ' ‘ ... ' K,
~ 0 . h
‘ .‘ —
‘¥ #-
”- 9 5.1. -- 4‘ ’ “. j I .‘ __
. , ‘ r - t.

“J“.

M~--.—.-
-“¢‘ ...” . .—
M MMI<~~H

—-\-vW--m.—_-- _.

Q m" .., .4
_ w-
4
»

-... .r.» .

“...—...... ____

 

7".

 

\fl _.

.J

‘1"

l ...l

 

 

r__.
-, _.

‘«

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2112 £7.27 ""—
's
‘V I, '_‘
\. g _ ‘~.. ' g
. _ ,.L -_ ¥
' ‘ .
~ .- 1.: . \_ .
,
u-
. .... .--... ...—...”..- ”A- . -W~-‘~
0
’3. .
. ‘l ’-
,,
‘ l
I
a
1
s / ..
_p '>
' O
.. 3
.. n
.,.'
. .
,.
Q .r
_. . ‘ -
A
“' 4:- a
... - ,-
‘ 7’
“..L. p
'" v .
.h ,z-
o
-L . ..
——.—~...-..
rr‘
__ . ‘
.' a"
‘\ ‘
£1 :
0 wt
r\ . v
' 1- M
.. ’ .,
- AK.
.- l I .‘»{
.4 g l
—. t
2';
Q -A.‘-.
-..—...--.v ~

 

O O
0
it I
o
.
.
.. D .
o ‘ a
v
. o I .
n I .
o .
. a .a n u. o v . ..
- .
a m o
I ..d 6 '
.
,
. o
. 1 I
0.! O o p
o
I
I
. a . l
.
I
C
.
I
1
.
.
O
.
.
. .
.
.. a .0
.
.
I
.
Q
0
b
.
.
9 — c c a o a .
..
o
o v o I O a o o c c o. n o C o d o o o o
v.
. .
a
u I

\

. _ a .. ......
.QO‘u! .v'I. IA.~.F I ... .H % I... ‘ul M... haulf'L.Ou.b
’.

 

Illa-I I . ;

 

 

 

 

I . ‘ .
~s‘:l_'.f’_ '
’3’ .t '

+
" ~

 

9.-.... --.. -..-\q .n—~.- ~—

-.V.. ‘— --————~.~.¢—-~.~o A u

n -.A.-.’.. .

'5‘, I. ...I. . Q I O D

‘_,,.‘-. ...... o» -

m ..... -,.-“

.-m»-cr

——.—_——~.._.- ...-....-.

 

*““.. .,.
I‘ V- ‘ .' ’ >
‘- , . . -
,(. ‘I v I ’
“H‘ .. ',.._.-....- 5
‘ .

IIIII,....IIIIIII. .I “
... IIIIIII III I I.) II... I .I. I III
-II‘ IIIIILIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIII ..I. ..
. V [I I

_ w... .. .,.; C. 7 z 3.. _ ”.,.... .4..- -I i.

I _ . .. I ._ f , I .. r , _ . . ., I...
. . .. . , . -. _. . m 1 . F , .. f. A-..
. . o o o

...I \I .. .. ,. I...
(II... .III’IIIII'" .(Il O'BIIIII.‘ I‘D..l....ll‘oll;'ll III ..
I ..II . £1,3III .

 

. .. IEIII.
. , , T .,.I .. . .. I.
r. . I, . - . ... ..r . .,. .. ... . ..I.“ I? ..J . I4. I
a n I 3 IL . .. 7 \ .b . 1 .P n L.
a o o 9 O o u I o o o o I. . I
. o o o 0
..III ..II It I17 I- - III I IIIIIII I .....- I..I II
I! I329 I I . .....IIIIIIIIII .-...I. I II ,
_ I .... .. _. M. . II III)! II... III.. I: III! I III-IIIIIIIIIIIII. I IIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIIIIL.
. . , ... .. . . - . . -
_ . . .. . W . _ , h .. . . JI .. ...v T ...). _, A. 7 .IIJ
,. 7. .I .. a o .. . . . II If _ a . T v . . . .II
. .. . . .- W . A .. . ., I . ,. . I n . ,. ...). ...H .
. _

.
. I . I. . . _ .
.w _ 4. . I
1 . l .
ill... I. I . $le I v .. (I... III. III, ..II'IT III-l I." I. III In I‘l') In! .t’ i:
. I I ...l\.. ..ll: I... I. {III ...I I. .I
.. ._ .

If.\

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L I.‘ i . . , ,
_ 7-. _ . . .I I _ r
I 4 _ IL. . t u _ .IIA
IIIIIJIII II (It'll ‘III (III III! .II I II 1’].
if! I I ...:1 II ..II It :3). (II I. II I :I I IIIIIIIII..D (I’ll.
II. 101...... 051;.-{10‘
1 all
—/A , . v .I _ \ .
. I I. . III I . 7 I I)
_ . I I . . H . . . . r I. . II .I/ III, I
n . i . . _. AK —. . 1* .. I... . I u
I L . _ _ n: I I . 7 :I
a « .... a a. a n. . a I. r f . I: H r .
n o O u a o o a 0
. . . T o o c
I . - , -. . H .
III..I\ -.I I II ,
II" I ’1‘]! I -III ..y'l I I. § \IIIIIIII II I\ .
I I‘d 0" I I'll'l -I It I i 'I ‘ ‘l ' .I. r - III! ‘9.» II- igiIII‘IIJI ‘IK‘ I'VI’III
. I III II I I I . III I I II I I
- . . . . . . w a , . _ . _, .V I I I
. o . . If‘ I I
., . . . .,. , . _ J ~ I _ I 7.. I I
a x .I I . . . r \ , . V I. .
a a I 2 I I. I . . IV I
o a c a 4 ... o o a . a p . h
0 a o 0
‘ l.:'I I I, I. II- I.- ‘ l I I) I III II. II II‘ ..I .‘I". I I'll IQ. I‘I . It‘ll!!!" ’1'...I\.l "Iz’Izltt'I I!
II. III?! IIIIII, III.... I. II...
. I6 .LI
_ . ., L. . . . _. 4 ma}.
_ r .. . J . . . .
. x. . . a , “ I. _.
_ (I _ a I 7 a n 0 ¢
7 . o
a r O t ... r . y 0 O
0 O a —. Ifi . I“ _ .. n4
I. ‘l- _ — n I A
- _ .y _ . fl
_ I; q >
I III I III. . .
. II II .I . I I {1213... QIIII.$,.I III I I. III IIIIIIIIIIIII III III... IIIIII .I. i
I..- IIIIIIIIIIII IIII:
. I p ‘ .. A... u .
“ fl . I I . . r.» . , _ .a . . ‘
. . a . .
I W 1!.
.I‘I'III III! II I. I. .. II....\. IIJII .Iflv [III 1.1‘l, ’i‘l‘!!!‘ ‘25.! III" . II I II II I!) I JIIII III). .
"I I -
'\III~‘ -.AI.‘ .II'I‘ Ii, -.. Iii '-
.
. . .
. . . u .I I _
. . . h I . _ F. 4 _..A I m
I _ I \,/ ...
V .1 _ . _ In. _ M
I a . 9 e. a n v .
n u
y t a. s O I I 9 O a .
4 . . . » I _ (I ~
_ I . _ . . . I 5. _ \ If I . m ..
IIIQIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIII III ......I. IUIII. ... I III If III! I I I I III 2:. f IIIIIII..I III! I II I...I 1.3211.
5.... .I I... ..I (II. ..I.... o.|1

'3 l I! I'll! -It‘l.|lII illl I! IV ..pllil III-....l. VIII!“ IIII
. . H . L A \. . n, . . . . , N. .. _
. . . I . . . .r .. , . . (iv 7. . . < q . I.
_ . . . . . . . I .. _ . . r. . _ . . I .

7 _ I . I _. .L - ,. ..
5 l O O t O

... II ‘1. .I.I Ilulififtfig.‘ 3.I|IIII|I‘:IIIIII I I

w
I, 0“, 'II ‘g’liJ III
I _ I . . \. .
. . A. . . y u . I... . . 11‘ a... . . . III fil. .

. I. .I ... .. I M.. ...._ . Yr). ail . . h.¢ ...... H
II a. D A ... 1 O 9 a f t . ( I

 

 

 

_ \ 7. . I N .
~ I ‘ . r
_ L I. p
. _ . . . . . u _I.*
A
.I III. I I I II .I III'III I‘III I III III I I [Illa-III. IIIII. .' II. .IIIIIIII . II. II I IIIIII' III! III .3" 1‘ *
. 1 I l.ll I; . .‘ I».|III.I .III I! II. ‘1,’ -III III. I. In \ .
I t I .II 1! \ \ t . . . I . . n
. . , I . — I r I , ._ NA . . I. 1. a . . J . ._ 1 1
. . _ , . . r . ... . (\ . . I . R h. L I .,.
I . I . . ... . I .
. I . . . .I o. ., . I . I.
~ .1.“ . . w A
IIIIII III!!! .II III} I I 3‘. I IIIDIIlII. I I. III{ I III] II
I I ..I III I. . I ...I‘ In! . ..- II .I.- III I .I'Itl‘lll.‘ 33...?! lit‘Ii.C.yI IIII'II...
. I I
. I . . . . 1 . \ I . I
. I I . I r . p. ... .I I. . I. W( \I .
\ . .
‘ w . w _ I. I _ . \I

I .‘Iln -Il..IIl. ...» Ill...-

 

 

T
9 ‘--»~ I“

. a --.I II -.I I IIIII I III IIIIIII I x. ..I I I I IIIIII III I I I
II III. .II II I II III! Iiil’IIIIIIIIIII
I. I
.. - . r .
, ..Mu I t .
. - I ...

 

 

 

.
I I ,—
leI r \ a —- A M
. . _ I I ._ .
< II II! 1.14 ‘I“' l
I. III I I9 . \III. II. I I Ill-I Iolv‘IIl I III.‘ I: II I II. :l‘f‘ II llaIII I
I II I I I I .I III. I II III I III? I III
_ I A; . .
w . .. .Ir . u L .. F
. \I. y In .,. I r . _ II. “ , ..
_ r.\_ r w. . _ \.l. . f . .
. . , .. o o
_ 05 , n o I o I o
x ... a . 1 s 7 O 0 e a. II .I. . ......I. I
a I I .I- ‘1‘; . ‘III I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII. IIIIIII
I \l, I. I I I. .5. II I. I: I]. IlIIIII I III bill II II: IIIII I II -II III]! I I III-2 Ililll. ll 1'
m. .
I IT H ml! . I , .. I .
3 . .
6 r . \IL _ _ I. . I L . . —
I ,4 . ,
. I _ V . rK — . W
/ u “U . I ~ . G o n a o _
r I \ n. m G D I \ \ _. . s
I a .. c a . . I. _ n .
v 4 c . _. K . " ... . .. .I I . I“
. . _ I n r . . .w .3; .1 ... ~
7 I . .
. .... 4 L .4 . III. I..- I I I II .III.
. I I I .I. {‘1 iii" IIIDIIII II it ., .I I
IIIIIIII I .I I IIIIII III. III; III III I .. III.» M L . x I
_ . I . rI
J ‘ — . /, .
. . I . . .
. .. - 5 , . , 1 1 _
... _ _
... ,. . _
. III-III .C IIILIIIIIIIII! I III
I I I II“ b I I ‘5’ III 4" .Q I‘llil‘ O - I] \‘I ID!
III 'III III-III I I II III I I I III III II II I.

. .1.” . I .» ., . I .II
.1 II . I \Ifl! I‘ {VI/l /\ . u.) .* rI r . 7‘; [K
2.. H I . - _ I , ...: . I . L.. . r I .. J 7 , 7. . I .
.. L I. _. . 1 ... O Q I O
7.. L . .

 

II II. I) .III IIIIIIIIIII‘IIII’
I . III I II. I I. I .«I..|II«I ....II. II IIIII ....Illllui’iII I. Iii. II, III-II? I I! III‘ I! .
II. I. -I II a. I a I I III! I II III! I. l . II . . / ....
x f I . I. —.. .. . . fir... ,I _ . w... . _
. .II _ I . I I”. ...... .. .
N .. . .4 .. _ _. _ \I . . n
» . . . .I . . . B I 0
fl 0 _ . . . . O a a. a A. o
y . I x K a
a o u o . III I IIIIIID i'lllall illIlIIIIIi. I‘IIIIIII'IIIIIII Al'tl‘li-“ IIIIIII.IM!
II . . . .I II :7... I I .I III! .I. *
I \I II FIII . I .. I I II: I
.4 1 . ”a .. .. ”I... W
. , . I I
_ _ . . A . g L . r o n o
I 0
II
_ . ~ o .n r o w. 0 G \ , w
a a . . I
v u x i Q ml” . x g .
. . _
_ . l ,
II II .II: I lIIIzllIlIIIIIII
. III.‘IIII.\IIII.II I'LIIIII II....III. I. I...III.|..I)II I.» I I‘M.
...II..I.II.I.III ..I. II II! . II I . III IIIII.I I .
I . I I .. I I.|...f .I.III.II III! Ix'i S .... .
II}! III 1.1.. . . _ no .
. r. . . _ II.“
. . y . . y . . . .. u .
. . _ .
~ _
. . .III .IIII..:...I.- Ill-ii..$ III
I II. III .III: IsiI I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVI: I I‘ll. I -.. III: III
I! If C II! I {III} 011‘ (I‘ll I JIIIII.’ ...kIIIIl'II. AIIIIKI...I -.. ‘l-h. I ..II. I .
. [4 I. .IIIII I .. .I. I ..I I .I.
I . , .
I. . , . . .
_ . A . w I \ , . .; .
. . . ., . m I ., i . . . . . .
. _ . .. I . . . , l . o . f O. . O
. y a t . 4.
. c . . v 8 e , . . _ _
. 1 u n . I
II I IIIIIIIIII II, III. ....I IIIIIIII. III.“
{I I II II ..II
II. V I I I. I 4' - I III. I I IIVI‘ II I .1}: . \ I I*
u u. _ N I a . .
. u _ . ,
. m .. I
D s c o o
b 6 I. a. 0
n
o ...
. . .
l ... . .11 ~ II... III. 0111:)..‘52...
0". III I I II .II... .9571 ...II ... II II
IJYII II II I II IIIIIII II .02! III II..- III: III, I .I. I
III I III .I I II I (III II I II III! .I w
.
I . .. .
. I I ~ . . ~
. _ . : II
_ ~V 5,-
. . o 9 0 0 0
v I
l r h. n» ¥ 9 I
or v . I .
:4 . . . y
. - . . H
1 . a
I II II III}; n
I I - I~I€IIIIIII§ I . I I .
I. I I I I I. I III II I III I I I I I I I .
IIIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIII III? ‘30 ii. I III! IIIJIIII n: I ~
\
.. .. . * ~ M
. ;_
III .III‘ III I I» I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .. :11... i. I I I M
I I II I .I II II I III III: III III}; I III I I I I I'.I II
.II III III I! I.IIIIIIIII It}. IIIII I .
a . J *
, ~ .
. w qI IA , _ Ida. III-1‘ I .
Ill — ‘ui‘clll -I‘QII’AII!‘ A I. l‘ ’i
. I II..I. I}..- I I I . .III . III) I II
M II I I. I I II..I.....I III¢ I II I - I
PI I I I. I II I .I I

 

1

...

41' -
l

D

$

V.

. .
I

o

o . .

. I

O
I
r.
'—I
l
L!
‘I‘.
. I.
... O
.A.‘,'
‘
I
O
I
I u
l
’ . I
I
I O
..
' \
It ’ .
.I
, I
.7 I
‘4.
U l

 

 

...

        

 

I

”...—...

I .....fi—M-

L
a. A V
L . a a ..y
z . 0 O C O .I .
.V A A. Q I
_ ..I .
I . .
g I I I w . . .
II .I. I. II II: 5.11. III I . (III: II . I L
I II I I I III I
_ . I 1 \I I III.’. VIII-III! II C LI.I Ir a I l ‘ III III! IIII III N
__ r . . . I II I54
. . . I .. \I. .
. . , . _ . _ I . L
a I II t a a o a. . . . . I . . s w
. r . .
. A. ¢ ¢ u . a e . .
Q
. I III, I. . I II I 9 ~
.A II I . III. I .I. I II. I I ITIIII I
A II.II.II I I I IIIIIIII III-II I I I I III I .I I III III. I .
H. I. .I.. . I I I I .I II. .194.
k L I 7 _ I I . II
. a . _ a L I, _ I . . I . _
n . I . . . I . I . . I _. . I .. .
,. a n a 9 o a a q
— h L . _ I A. ’ I
V , x _ A _ WIN . _
. _ L. I _ I . . .. .
A I . . . . . .
I _ .
. .
. .I II. III III I \s ; .I m
.III,I..I,I.- - I 13:... III; - I __
m I .III III. .,...II IIIIIIIIIIIIIII II In I III I IIIIII I 3L III III
. I I IIIII. I
7. _ LII» IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII. nil. III,
I L . I . I I _ . . 11.1
. _ . I / L I / I ..A . . I .I III I
. I L ,I . .I.
1 _. . . . I I , C r. , 7,. C. . ._ J m
y _ . I V
.V _ . a _ . .; _ . _ I I. ,
~ « .. _
_. I 1 I)! I II I I I I I I- III II I III II IIIIIIII III
. I I I I III I III. I I I I I I
. . I: I I I! I III I I III 6!.I I I .I .I II I III II II I. .. III. II. .
4 .. _ I II
\
fl ,. . I , . . a .. , .
. _ .
L « . .I _ —
L o ‘ a n. e a a . 9 I u L
. c
0. I
In
, . .r p. I 0 e .
. I V L .
L I I III I II II III III IIIIIII. IIIIIII I ~
I. II I I I I II I III II I I I I f I) I I
I I I I. I I:I\III I III I I
I III}- 3.5.9 I
. . .4 L
. A. I. ,
m . _ . _ I V
O > 1 .r u a n . v I o. , f . . . n w
. o s. t o
O o
n
_ III. \— u
II I II II I II III I I I I l I (I
L I I I I II. III. III I III IIIIIIIIIII
III‘IIII -

.
. I I
. . N I
. fl , .
h
A
.I III III I..I....I...IIII.IIIIIIIII I . I Ii)
.
II 1 I .I ...
L
.
L
I III II I I I I .
.
_
m . I v . II
.
I a I a a
L
I
I
w
l
.
L
.
m
I
_
L .
. \\ ’ - 7
.
,
w
. I I I I I II I I I I . III
m
I
«
. w r
.
,
6 I I .a
.
‘ I I .

III-III, III III
I III III: III

IIIIIIIIIII I‘ll-III III. «III- . .1.

I III III
I III I. .I IIIIIIII? I III II: II II
I I‘.’ .4 II...-
IIIIII‘IIIIIII A III
I , I
1.: II .II III .

., I

IIIIIIII I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII I. I. I

.I IIIIIIIIIIIII II III:

»

.‘~_~_ )\

IIIIIIII III! .I
III III IIIII. IIIII.

.. I, . I . L n. __ R
~ ..I .. . . . . . .~
N

.L I. , I . I . ..

o . u v t a a c .I.I1III.II.I IIII. IIII III I I I .I IIII. I .I I II I II I
. I! I I I II I I IIIIIII. II I II III III. IIIII/IIII I III: I . _ x I I./» h
. I . I L . I L
,. 7 I , , ,.
_ . . I e
E 0 t
c t 0 a
a A t n O 9 0 v . . .. M
I. . ._ F _
p .
. _ 1” ’
h u .L I .
..
I . 4 I I I. III I I I I I .I III.
I II I‘- al. II. II I II I I I I I I I. a Ip‘l‘" III Ill I u
I x . I . .
.. I Iv L fl , “I J , _, f, r/ ,. .
I I . L V fi . .II
_ . . _ I. n ..I._ . a . _ w
L . . . . . k
II, III .I I I I I I II III VIIIIII .IIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIII..
II IIIII III...III IIIIIIIIII III III II I III III; I . ...IIIIIII I I I I n

In

0

" \

o

o

I

o

. .

n

a
__-‘,___ ,.

III (III I. III II I I I I II I I I I A.
III, \ I ...... III I .l I 4 )IIC I II I It
, r I ‘ . , I L
_ I ._ I ..
L . I I I ... _
a I I _ . _ t
Y I
a . _
- ~ . ... r k t q x «
‘- .
I I I . I III I I. I I II I I III. I I , w
IIIIIII I I {III . I .II I / .x.I ., H
. . . .r . L
. I I 1 v
.. I . , I L
n n a
m A v I I I , —
a i l Nu in I I .4 d
. _
a .
u a
.
.
.
I I I.I II I III I I III .III III...
.I I I I III I III. III
I III. II III I I I II II. II I III! «I L
I II . _
. J _ n ,z
, I . .
. . I
_ - .
w . L
I. . , IEI; . . . II I .III I4
_
d _ A I . ._
A. .
. . . / ~
I _ v V
a I O
x 1 I I u a. 1 e p
z ..4 .
n u a
w
.
III... II. I I III I -.III III- III . . IIIIIIII I I III L
I III In I .II I III 1 .IIII .I: III II I III
.
.
I. I _
. I _ ‘ .... a . M
. I K _ L
I I I ,
r, .I
I 4 Ar .9 F D fl
. : a
II.
.I III III IIIII..II I II..III.IIIIIII..1) I ,IIIIII I I I.
I. _ I . . M
x h w
..
a o ¢
_ . a r r a .
a
9 a a J z I
. I. _ . _ .
. _ . .IIIIII s It: I. I 4
II \IlIrI III. ‘I‘IIIIL \ ‘I‘. '
I .I I. II III. I 1 I III I. I I ,,,,, I III II .
_
_
I ~
.
.
. . I . II I IIII.- II I I‘l'I'I-I'I-Ilb
I I II III I III. . I I LIIII:I.I I I. .IIIIIIVIIII: . .
IIIIIIII III, III! III .
I I. 1 I I I I I. .
.
, I . _
— . L H A _ — II I I I .Il'lv" II I
v I: III I .
. II I I! a IIIIIIII It‘ll I
I. I I I I .\ I III
III . I. I I I

I. IIIIIIIII t.

  

                   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. I .,lii .II. III. | ‘|.l.|‘0 .d ..I I U

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I
I

 

 

..--

 

m.
7
.
q
...
m
M
..I,
v.
A
.
m
o
h.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..I! f: -51. ’ol“! 1. III. ‘ AIAIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

: . . .I .
M II ,. . a . I I I .I. ”I . , . . . I. . I . . .. n In .,..I . .. .IU .IIII.. wk. . . .r .. .I
. . A .. 19m . . m I, 7-4. .I 11“ .IL. 1 ..I._ n

.1... {llIleIu'l‘ iIIIIIII-IIIIInIIl‘l'II. l {\IIII'XIIIlI‘l I .I .f. I

 

 

 

? . , I . _
_ I
. r
A ~
_ . . _ ..I .I _
. r

, J _
. w I III. III? LIII
. , In. A ‘IHIIIII slnv .. .«Ii I. JIIII‘IIIIII'IIII.‘ LI 4 I I I III». III ’ l. ‘ISltI . . I O I) II? .I I .0 1.1.1.; I\ III III II: can I‘ll
, n w
. , _
. . I ..., I . m
.w _ . . I I .... I I .. I m. I x ...w . . ..I. .1-.. .
. , . . .. . . I . I .
.... .. m . I . l v _ I .. I I.— ..I. 1.0:“

. . _ II . ..II. . . _ . w
. I I . ,

. . . . ' nil-II" [III-...,
T ..I II. I... III- ..II I I3 Ila! I . I III! I I III III I I III.II It I..-:II l I . III. .2".- I II a 2 [rill-II ..I I 0 o
I II. I. .III ..I . I In. .I. I I I: .. I I . .I. III .I .. II I u. I .I. I. .. .
. A . . ., I . x. . N A. ... \ . I. . r I.

e o o o

...—......_ ... ... ..

u _ . ,I
u . . W
. . .

.
II'II!‘ ..IIIOI‘IIIII In. Ali... ’ix.‘!IJIl-Il.|“.llulx I \OII\I-.I I II. (it-I‘ll. ‘ IVIIIIII'I‘I
. .

W _ I... III I. I I I. I ..II II IIIiIIII I I..- III; III .I

MM  . I. . I. 1.. I. I. .

, I .
. . I I I . . , . . .L ,
I. _ , , . . . . . . . . . . I. I. v.
. I . . .I .I a ..I A N . .
. .
. . -.IIIIQ‘III‘IIII‘I‘I «i
_ I i I. 11].! III~l.t6.II-.l\ I I.
. \lfullu‘ . u! | II ...4 I . .. . . ...!v .I III. .1 I . .-..IIAI‘I'“- I It I I..- ..I ..I III -.IvII? I'll- I I IXKI‘PoI ‘le... .o III-«n! II .. ‘u I. .I. . l
. ) I I t I
I \ /

. I _ _ I. I . _ . n w I ...; I .
N . . . . .4 . III.. M I. ../II

. . _ . . c c o a
..f I a n a ..I. a e e A o ..

 

fi . I v
. . . I A . a ‘ . I . . , , I. _ n. . ~
. . . I I . I
. I . .
. ..
II II III. I I III. III F
.v I. I 1 II I ‘I‘I‘Il {’I I saII‘II-u .. - I. 3! nl'i‘
.N I II. I I t (. III.II1‘I , lilil O. It. I .I I (0.1.. I- III! .I It! I uIéI I III III, II\ 0 III I
a II I.
I . _ 4
. _ w . — . I.“
. .

 

 

 

qu _I .
. I III IIIII ~ III... III:
. ‘1‘ 1| I I I I
~ ~ I 0’ I .OII III .I‘lr I... I Iv . ..I In I III»; . . III: I :I III .1 OIIIIE..\.) 0' III \ «I A
. _ . I I

 

 

 

 

.
. n “
L ,
p» I: ..I. tlal I .‘I III I- I I ‘II A
III! II I IIIII... . ..I IIII.I.III I. . ..Icl . In! (I.III0II..I9!.|. . I .1 until...
i. I...“ \ r. I
_
. ‘ «I. _ fi
.I. ll! III 1 ii III 2 I II (It? III};
. l ‘|I - ‘ i. I‘D. 4‘ ‘ ' ll H
I \lfl c I I. II III III I I II I I IIIII' IIIIIII I

I ~

_ .

. .

\

h ....l

. . A A w
M L II .u «I ..IL ~ _
u I ‘ \I‘l‘ . . I v I ‘I !‘

.IrII III IIIIIIIIIIII III .III III

 

7‘
.1.

~
|
4

‘, 1
-.....,_...J .

ITORY

CE 03'? GOALS OF LIFE IITVEI

.
‘
I

m

COTPARISOI‘I 0F PERI‘OPJ

 

.
.
m
.
_

 

 

1:;

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

O 0,7i has. 1 .6. 7 .7 .3 .74. K-.._rn:;.l .... 71F4.fi. n.).r A...
.l. 1.. \4. 7| 1.. O n”. a. CM 7 , 7- 0; Ram: .-rr 7 41. 7 .. u- M4.
J . O O n O o o O o O 0 0 O O o O o o o o
3 h. .4 .4 2 a Mr h- 1» n; U. 7 {4. ‘4. -..». 3 1+ 1.4 Y 2
e - r . L
1L __,_ 7. .r 710 1.6 T. L. AJ nix/n.1/OFC ...J \u. fl. 7t,,h,.s,_ 71.
7 S h \4 L .u- L. L M, .4. hip. (L570 c... 1:3 r,.-‘.+,_r_‘u‘
H. 5. . o o o o n... o o o o \HW o o . a o 0 3:“. a o o o o o
nr 0.... PM], r .. _ PK 1.
flu
.n : 7n .5 \4. 7 , : , q :31 .4 : c. ,_ l 7. KO , D #0 ._ 7. (4.. 3 r\.. 7d a;
u. ..H ”L ..C 7. ,. n. ab 1 F .. KN). 7 .1). 7 .5 .r.. ..u 1 ..ML‘ s; C . K A. .0...
.t. C. u ., o o o o . . o o o o w ¢ 0 o o o o O "u“ o o o o n o
. . ... V. 71. AU r.‘ U C a... mi \r) .!r AI. 7; 0/ r). . .i r» z 7 .... r5... 1 ...4.
l «I; .L .l. 1... 1!— .o.‘ .-1. .|.. l .l. l 1.-.
v.1'i' l
a. r , 5 92. h. 7. 1.1 l 1 7?? 13/0 1 R2 5:4 .,0 h.
n ._ at. «I... 1 «IL 11. 1 l l 1
fl 1: ...Iln... ii
» 754 5 3 U: 0 74.10 1 7:7«14 2 5 .5 ‘4 l 7711
.f 7 . 0 Cl. 3 l 2 W. l 0 C ... DJ :11. .1 ..rJ M» H... 7..
e O o o o o o o o o . t o o o o o o o o c o o
1. H“... \ M. .1 )4 Mn \4 “T 7 14. 7a, r ‘4- .4- .n . -H. .4. 2. H». 7
N an m); 65 1.. .1. l 1 O n, 719:. 1r A. #0 x0 IL». .3 H. AU
._ L 2.2 2, 7 2.7357 -4 :,c,,R.,.C5 PHI. \4 7Y4 Mw
OJ C m..- o u o c K / o o o o o o o o o a o o o o o 5
7| ‘ 1,, 7‘ K7!
1; ...J l KI. v4.
m n : 1.2 .,I Q-‘ Q = .,.U Fx. 5 2., = l h :0 n; r b I) = 7. a; O .-.; Ox. 2
.1 .... 1 O .... C .3 .,O (L .3 AL 1 lxd. O F) 0 Q4 .-..» r ..,..O .4.
. F ..‘u n o o o u n o o o o I.“ o o o o o o ..1. o o o o o o
.1 I g l C , .L m a... .4 a.” l O .0 1 £17.? 2 l 9.
“A. l .... .L w . l ...... l 7* 1.. l 11— l
A.— \ /
r. .fi.
. w... l! “!l u. .U
T {K
m :13. 0,7... : Sun. 9. l .... 7.531,}: 1 ugh- 82674
H l l l l L ..-. l l l
- «J
y
no ...u
t .1
..I. l
.l. ...L.
.1 .0
.u A
1‘
C
C. C 01*
n .1 a.
n‘ n. 9.,
“I. 8 .JC
:& .fl‘u Hf
. t C
o; C 11.
v- n .n L
.,.IA w I: n“,.."
I . .u.
pl 0 O ”..I"
u A. 0 II ..b V—L
«Ia
r. O I u
n, O T. A... 7.1,! 2 8 72.7: 1 0L 1.... 9- .1 ,. 7| 1 O 3 n... 2 .7!
nubh ..IPHI. .i .11— ql. l l l l ..|_ 1!“ l b

 

 

 

 

 

 

1‘

3.1.4. I ‘32..

..‘.

gqligfr .-.JNJfl-ar-t I. I ..

.9.

1e.

. 3‘.“ 4.. ..S... .H
.V, «1 1......) u .t

 

 

I .l
.

shat. .. -

6-7

it. .

~\.3...3.-_

...»...

{vrmrw’
r7...x

 

.. .O A
. c. .v
. .a»‘
“3.4.4.. v.
r . \vn.€r ..I
...... x... .q. .
.L \.
. .~ A. ..;3.Y
... r n
‘. n m I .II A 0
.. 3 .
... .1
O . .,. .— I".
v . .
. ... ..,
1 .. .

 

 

 

.10
.I. .
3
..
.
O
L...
I‘-
.. ,
..V Q.’
r .-.
.r.\. by
... n
a: V
n
n
H o

, .

,8.

' - A
. , . fg-'

A. ‘.

1' .

. rt“) 5- ‘ '
34'5H'1‘LJK’H:

 

I
III
I

l
I
II
l
l
l