REFERENCE GROUPS AND ISOLATES: A STUDY OF CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE OPINIONS Thesis for the Degree Of M. A. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARY BISHOP LITTRELL 1968 I J‘OT' - o D‘fi' O -."-‘,I Q "‘ '.L" ‘. v f PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this qheckout from your record. To AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE ME DUE DATE DUE 1M chlRC/MDMM ABSTRACT REFERENCE GROUPS AND ISOLATES: A STUDY OF CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE OPINIONS by Mary Bishop Littrell As one part of a larger longitudinal project con- cerning opinions about clothing and appearance as related to role, social class and social acceptance, the purpose of this study was to investigate the moyement by isolates into desired reference groups and to identify variables related to this movement. yIn question form the purpose was: Do adolescent girls who desire membership in partic- ular peer reference groups and have opinions about clothing and appearance similar to those of the group, become mem- bers of their desired peer reference groups? Data had been collected, prior to this study, for one class of girls over their four years in a large mid- western high school. Two forms of data collection were used. A background questionnaire, given each of the four years, contained the single sociometric question seeking best friend choices. Using the data from the background questionnaires, yearly sociograms were developed showing only reciprocated choices and the resulting sociometric classifications of isolates, mutual pair and reciprocal friendship structure members (RFS). As a second form of Mary Bishop Littrell data collection, the class members were interviewed as ninth and twelfth graders concerning their opinions about cloth— ing, appearance and social acceptance. Nineteen individuals appearing as isolates in the ninth grade were also present in the tenth grade. These 19 isolates formed the population for the present study. Of the 19 isolates, 14 made choices while ninth graders into RFS's. Seven of the 14 became members of their desired RFS's by the tenth grade. Five variables were investigated to determine the factors separating thoSe isolates who be- came members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Explanation of each of the five variables will follow, along with the findings indicating whether the variable was a factor sep- arating the two groups of isolates. I. Cohesion of the RPS into which the isolate chose The cohesion or integration among the members of a RFS was defined as the number of choices made within the RFS divided by the number of possible in group choices. The cohesion of the RPS into which the isolate chose was found to be a variable separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of those isolates who chose into more cohesive RFS's became members of the RFS's into which they chose. All of those isolates who chose into less cohesive RFS's did not become Mary Bishop Littrell members of the RFS's into which they chose. II. Diversity of opinions among RPS members of the RFS into which the isolate chose The diversity of opinions among RFS members was the number of different answers given by the RFS members divided by the number of different answers given by all class mem- bers to interview schedule questions. A high opinion di- versity score indicated that the RFS members gave a greater number of different answers when answering interview sched- ule questions. The opinion diversity score for each RFS gave no indication of the content of the opinions given by the RFS members. The diversity of opinions among RFS members of the RFS into which the isolate chose was found to be a variable separating those isolates who became mem- bers of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with low opinion diversity scores became members of the RFS's into which they chose. The majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with high opinion diversity scores did not become members of the RFS's into which they chose. III. Orientation of the isolate to the RFS into which the isolate chose Two factors, whether the isolate made a choice into the RPS and whether the isolate considered herself already Mary Bishop Littrell to be a part of a group of girls within the class, were used in defining an isolate's orientation or general out- look toward the RFS into which she chose. The orientation of the isolate to the RFS into which she chose was not a factor separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Three—fourths of all isolates both considered themselves to be part of a group of girls within the ninth grade class and made a choice into an RFS. IV. Appearance and discourse scores of the RFS into which the isolate chose Stone's view of a social transaction, containing both appearance and discourse aspects, was used as a basis for deriving three appearance and discourse scores for each class member. The general social acceptance score concerned factors important for general social acceptance in the school. The group social acceptance score concerned factors which the interviewee felt were important for social acceptance in her group. The self satisfaction score concerned opin- ions about oneself as related to factors for social accept- ance in the school. It was found that the relationship of an isolate's general and group social acceptance scores to the median general and group social acceptance scores of her chosen RFS was a factor separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The Mary Bishop Littrell majority of those isolates who had general and group social acceptance scores close to the scores of their chosen RFS's became members of their chosen RFS's while the majority of those isolates who had general and group social acceptance scores far from the scores of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Whether or not an isolate had a self satisfaction score close to the median self satisfaction score of her chosen RPS was not a factor separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. V. Contentppatterns of opinions of the RPS into which the isolate chose While the appearance and discourse scores were seen as measures of general opinion, content patterns of opin— ions for RFS's were seen as measures of the actual content of the opinions among RPS members. Three content patterns of opinions, corresponding to the three appearance and dis- course scores, were developed for each RPS. The content patterns of opinions were the content of the answers to those questions on which at least 50 per cent of the RPS members were in agreement when answering. Whether an iso- late had opinions in agreement with the general and group content patterns of opinions of her chosen RPS was not a variable separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become Mary Bishop Littrell members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of all isolates had opinions in agreement with the general social accept— ance content patterns of their chosen RFS's, while the ma- jority of all isolates had opinions not in agreement with the group social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RPS's. In contrast, agreement with the self satisfaction pattern of a chosen RPS was a factor separating those iso- lates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. REFERENCE GROUPS AND ISOLATES: A STUDY OF CLOTHING AND APPEARANCE OPINIONS By Mary Bishop Littrell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts 1968 (7‘ “i \5 1’ SL4. j»qu§ ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Grateful acknowledgment is extended to the follow- ing individuals whose assistance made this research possible: Dr. Joanne Eicher for her enthusiasm, thought- provoking ideas and guidance throughout the completion of this study. The writer's committee, Dr. Anna Creekmore, Dr. Elinor Nugent and Dr. Mary Gephart, for their helpful sug- gestions, criticism and assistance in completion of the thesis. The school officials and teachers at East Lansing High School for their cooperation and assistance in the collection of data for the larger project and to the class members who made the collection of data possible. The writer's husband, John Littrell, for his under- standing, encouragement and helpful editorial assistance, and the writer's parents for their encouragement through- out the writer's master's degree program. The Michigan State University Experiment Station for its financial support of the larger project of which this study was a part. ii TABLE or CONTENTS Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii LTST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v LIST or FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .viii Chapter I 0 INTRODUCTION O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 1 Statement of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . 1 Review of Literature. . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Focus of the Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 I I O NIB THODOLOGY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 3 The Setting and the Sample. . . . . . . . . 24 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 43 III. DESCRIPTION OF ISOLATES . . . . . . . . . . . 46 General Characteristics of Isolates . . . . 46 Orientation of Isolates to Reference Groups 56 Appearance and Discourse Scores . . . . . . 62 Content Patterns of Opinions. . . . . . . . 74 IV. CONTENT PATTERNS OF OPINIONS OF RECIPROCAL FRIENDSHIP STRUCTURES AND THE NINTH GRADE CLAS s O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 79 Comparison of RPS and Class Content Pat- terns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 Class Content Patterns and RPS Entrance by Isolates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 V. RELATIONSHIP OF ISOLATES TO REFERENCE GROUPS. 100 RPS Cohesion and Reference Group Entrance . lOl RPS Opinion Diversity and Reference Group Entrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 RPS Appearance and Discourse Scores and Reference Group Entrance. . . . . . . . . 111 iii Chapter Page RPS Content Patterns and Reference Group Entrance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 RPS Cohesion, RPS Opinion Content Patterns and Reference Group Entrance. . . . . . . 126 RPS Opinion Diversity Scores, RPS Content Patterns and RPS Entrance by Isolates . . 130 VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS. . . . 134 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 conClqu-ons O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 143 Implications O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 148 BIBLIOGRAPHY O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 151 APPENDIXO O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 154 iv Table 10. 11. 12. LIST OF TABLES Proposal by Merton for relationship between reference group variables of attitudes toward and eligibility for membership in the reference group O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Number of ninth through twelfth grade isolates according to isolate categories . . . . . . . . Sociometric standing of former reciprocal friendship structures and mutual pairs from which tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade iso- lates came. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ninth grade friendship choices and tenth grade sociometric classification of ninth grade iSOlateS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Comparison of ninth grade isolates by socio- metric categories for isolates and tenth grade sociometric classification. . . . . . . . . . . Orientation of ninth grade isolates to refer- ence groups O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Median ninth grade appearance and discourse scores by isolate categories and sociometric ClaSSificationS O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Median appearance and discourse scores of ninth grade reciprocal friendship structures. . . . . Reciprocal friendship structure general social acceptance content patterns . . . . . . . . . . Reciprocal friendship structure group social acceptance content patterns . . . . . . . . . . Reciprocal friendship structure self satisfac- tion content patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . Comparison of relation of isolates' general and group social acceptance and self satisfaction opinions to the class content patterns and re- ciprocal friendship structure entrance by iso- lates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page 13 47 47 S4 55 61 64 7O 83 88 91 96 Table 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. Page Comparison of relation of isolates' general and group social acceptance and self satisfaction opinions to the class patterns and non-chosen reciprocal friendship structure entrance by iso- lates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Cohesion and opinion diversity scores of ninth grade reciprocal friendship structures. . . . . 102 Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure cohesion scores to reciprocal friendship struc- ture entrance by isolates . . . . . . . . . . . 103 Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure cohesion scores to non-chosen reciprocal friend- ship structure entrance by isolates . . . . . . 104 Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure opinion diversity scores to reciprocal friend— Iship structure entrance by isolates . . . . . . 107 Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure opinion diversity scores to non-chosen recip- rocal friendship structure entrance by isolates 107 Comparison of reference group orientation of isolates and reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 Comparison of reference group orientation of isolates to non-chosen RFS's and non-chosen reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Comparison of relation of isolates' appearance and discourse scores to median appearance and discourse scores of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures and reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates. . . . . . . . . 113 Comparison of relation of isolates' appearance and discourse scores to median appearance and discourse scores of non-chosen reciprocal friendship structures and non-chosen reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates . . . 114 Comparison of relation of isolates' opinions to content patterns of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures and reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates. . . . . . . . . 121 vi Table 24. 25. 26. Page Comparison of relation of isolates' opinions to content patterns of non-chosen reciprocal friendship structures and non—chosen recipro- cal friendship structure entrance by isolates . 122 Comparison of relation of opinions of isolates who became members of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures to the content patterns of opinions of their chosen reciprocal friendship structures and the cohesion of their chosen reciprocal friendship structures. . . . . . . . 128 Comparison of relation of opinions of isolates who became members of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures to the content patterns of opinions of their chosen reciprocal friendship structures and the opinion diversity scores of their chosen reciprocal friendship structures . 132 vii Figure 1. LIST OF FIGURES Reciprocal Friendships of the Ninth Grade Girls in One High School Class Which Became the Senior Class of 1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Reciprocal Friendships of the Tenth Grade Girls in One High School Class Which Became the Senior Class of 1965. . . . . Reciprocal Friendships of the Eleventh Grade Girls in One High School Class Which Became the Senior Class of 1965. . . . . Reciprocal Friendships of the Twelfth Grade Girls in One High School Senior Class of 1965 . Reciprocal Friendships of the and Unreciprocated Friendship the Ninth Grade Isolates. . . Reciprocal Friendships of the and Unreciprocated Friendship the Ninth Grade Isolates. . . Reciprocal Friendships of the and Unreciprocated Friendship the Ninth Grade Isolates. . . Reciprocal Friendships of the and Unreciprocated Friendship the Ninth Grade Isolates. . . viii Ninth Grade Girls Choices Made by Ninth Grade Girls Choices Made by Ninth Grade Girls Choices Made by Ninth Grade Girls Choices Made by Page 47 48 49 50 57 58 59 6O CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem To become members of small peer friendship groups is a desire of adolescent girls.1 Because adolescent girls desire membership in peer groups, these groups are often seen as reference groups2 with adoption of the dominant group attitudes and opinions an important means for gain- ing social acceptance in the reference groups.3 Among the attitudes and opinions deemed important for social accept- ance by adolescent girls are those concerning clothing and appearance.4 There had been, however, no empirical test- ing to determine if adolescent girls who have opinions about clothing and appearance similar to those of a desired peer reference group do become members of the reference group. The purpose of this study was: (1) to determine whether movement by isolates into desired reference groups did take 1Elizabeth Hurlock, Adolescggt Development (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 19557, p. 105. 2Muzafer Sherif and Carolyn W. Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956), p. 642. 3T. M. Newcomb, Social Psychology (New York: Holt- Dryden Book, 1959), p. 242. 4Hurlock, pp. 216—17. place, and (2) to identify the variables which were related to the movement. In question form the purpose was: Do adolescent girls who desire membership in particular peer reference groups and have opinions about clothing and ap- pearance similar to those of the group, become members of the desired peer reference groups? Review of Literature The review of literature will contain sections con- cerning reference groups and the relationship between an individual and his reference groups; social acceptance among adolescents and the relationship of clothing and appearance to social acceptance; and the measurement, by the sociometric method, of social acceptance of individuals. Reference Groups In showing the relationship of an individual to his reference groups, a beginning is made with the total social framework of which the individual is a part. Within the total framework there are many social structures. These social structures can be seen as specific status continua with norms and roles related to the continua. Connected to each of the social structures are many groups. These groups are perceived as such because of a distinguishing variable or complex of variables.5 As the group members 5Harold A. Nelson, "A Tentative Foundation for Ref- erence Group Theory," Sociology and Social Research, XLV (April, 1961), p. 275. interact they develop group norms for thought and behavior.6 Each individual is a member of many groups. These groups are linked to social structures that are likewise a part of the entire social framework. The extent and con- tent of the individual's knowledge of these groups is deter- mined by the particular social situation and the position of the individual in the social structure and structural framework.7 The individual has varying attitudes toward the groups of which he has knowledge. He may have various de- grees of favorable or unfavorable attitudes or feelings toward the groups. The fact that an individual has favor- able or unfavorable attitudes towards groups does not imply that the individual will have only favorable attitudes to- wards the groups of which he is a member and unfavorable attitudes towards the groups of which he is not a member. Besides having positive or negative attitudes the individual may also have normative, comparative or inter- active attitudes toward groups. The individual with a normative attitude tends to behave in accordance with the norms of a group and to compare his behavior to the norms of the group. He behaves in this way to show that he is either a member of the group or desires membership. The 6Sherif, p. 188. 7Nelson, Sociology and Social Research, XLV, p. 276. ' individual with a comparative attitude again tends to com- pare his behavior to the norms of a group, but there is no corresponding goal of exhibiting actual or desired mem— bership. The individual with an interactive attitude does not make use of the group norms in a comparative way, as he takes the group into consideration only because it stands in the way of a personal goal. He interacts with the group only in order to eliminate the blocking of his goals. He does not desire membership in the group nor does he compare his behavior to the norms of the group. From the individ- ual's knowledge of groups and depending upon his attitudes toward the groups, the individual selects certain groups as reference groups.8 The knowledge of and attitudes toward various groups becomes part of the individual's frame of reference. Sherif emphasizes that the concepts of reference group and frame of reference cannot be used interchangeably.9 Merton de- fines reference groups as "the groups to which the individ- ual relates himself by taking the values or standards of the group as his own through a process of evaluation and 10 self-appraisal." Reference groups are only one part of 81bid., pp. 276-77. 9Muzafer Sherif and M. O. Wilson, Gropp Relations at the Crossroads (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953), p. 210. 10Herbert H. Hyman, "Reflections on Reference Groups," Public Opinion Quarterly, XXIV (Fall, 1960), p. 387. the total frame of reference. Sherif views the frame of reference as the relatedness of all external and internal factors that are operative for an individual at a given time.11 A distinction may also be made between an individ- ual's membership groups and his reference groups. A mem- bership group is one in which the individual actually inter— acts with the group members. Although a membership group and reference group may be the same for the individual, the situation is not necessarily so. The individual may interact with a group to which he does not relate, or he may relate to a group with which he does not interact.12 Since 1950 there has been growing interest in the concept of reference groups.13 It seems that there are at least four reasons for the growing interest. First, Kelley indicates that there has been great interest in at- titude formation and change as related to the reference group concept.l4 Second, there is interest in an individ- ual's subjective interpretation of a situation, which in- volves man's ability to relate to reference groups not llSherif, Group Relations at the Crossroads, p. 210. 12Sherif, An Outline of Social Psychology, p. 631. l3Hyman, p. 385. 14Harold H. Kelley, "Two Functions of Reference Groups,“ Readings in Social Psychology, ed. Guy E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952), p. 410. visible to others.15 Sherif gives two additional reasons for the increasing interest in reference groups. There is interest in reference groups because man psychologically has the ability to behave according to norms and standards of groups with which he is not in interaction. Finally, within modern society an individual must interact with groups, many of which have conflicting demands. In this case there is interest in how reference groups are related to the resolving of conflicting demands from society.16 Two distinctive meanings have evolved in the devel— opment of the reference group concept. The first meaning for reference group is the reference group as a type of model. The individual compares himself to the group in evaluating his own status. This type of reference group is termed the comparison reference ggggp.l7 The second meaning for reference group is the reference group whose norms influence the attitudes and behavior of the individ- ual. The norms usually influence the attitudes and behavior of the individual because he has taken the norms as his own. With the second meaning, the reference group operates as an opinion leader with censorship power to enforce its 15Tamotsu Shibutani, "Reference Groups as Perspec- tives," American Journal of Sociology, LX (May, 1955), p. 569. l6Sherif, Group Relations at the Crossroads, p. 206. l7Ke11ey, pp. 412-13. norms. Stouffer18 terms this reference group a sanctioning reference group while most others call this type the pggmgr tive reference group.19 Discussion of the two meanings for reference groups will follow. There will be greater emphasis on the normative reference group as it is the type to be investigated in this study. Herbert Hyman, using a comparison meaning, first made use of the reference group concept.20 Originally Hyman used the concept in voting studies as an aid for understand- ing what group of people an individual compared himself with when voting. Hyman points out that Merton and Kitt, who did the first major work with reference groups following his own initiatory work, included both the comparison and normative meaning in their reference group definition. However, most of the work following Merton and Kitt's writ- ing has been with the normative meaning. Hyman feels that the comparison meaning for reference groups should receive more emphasis in current investigation and writing than it does. He explains that self~appraisal and comparison with the norms of the group is an important part of behaving 18Samuel A. Stouffer, Social Research to Test Ideas (Glencoe: The Free Press, 19627, p. 14. 19Kelley, pp. 411-13. 20Herbert H. Hyman, "The Psychology of Status," Archives of Psychology, No. 269, 1942. in accordance with the norms and attitudes of the group.21 Study of normative reference groups has been focused on the findings that the norms and attitudes of the reference group influence attitude formation and behavior of the in- dividual. This influence on attitude formation and behavior usually takes place because the individual desires to at— tain or maintain association with or membership in the ref- erence group. Although the individual may never be able to gain actual membership, he psychologically associates himself with the group and takes its norms and attitudes as his own. Through observation the group members then evaluate the individual and use their censorship power of acceptance or nonacceptance.22 Newcomb feels that normative reference groups can be further divided into positive and negative reference groups. A positive reference group is one in which a per- son is motivated to be accepted and treated as a member. A negative reference group is one in which the individual does not want to be treated as a member. Newcomb feels, however, that the negative reference group can still be classified as a normative reference group. The group may be an influence on the attitude formation and behavior of the individual even though the individual does not desire 21Hyman, Public Opinion Quarterly_(Pall, 1960), p. 387. 22Kelley, p. 411. 23 For example, an adolescent might con- group membership. sider his parents to be a negative reference group while his peer group would be a positive reference group. This use of positive and negative normative reference groups is not to be confused with the earlier discussion of positive or negative attitudes towards groups.24 In the above para- graph positive and negative refer only to desired and nonde- sired reference group membership. Earlier, positive and negative referred to an individual's feelings towards the groups of which he had knowledge. Conceivably an individ- ual might have a negative feeling toward a reference group and yet desire to be a member of the group. The reference group would be considered a positive reference group accord- ing to Newcomb's definition, even though the individual had negative feelings toward the group. A discussion will follow of some of the findings concerning the relationship between an individual and his reference groups. 5‘ Reference groups have been found to be of more im—&" portance in determining an individual's behavior and atti- tudes than the individual's membership groups.25 Therefore, when investigating the reference groups for an individual 23Newcomb, p. 226. 24Supra, pp. 3-4. 25Eugene L. Hartley and Ruth E. Hartley, Funda- mentals of Social Psychology (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), p. 470. 10 it is important to identify whether an individual's member— ship groups are also his reference groups. Individuals who are not initially members of their reference group tend to express the values and norms of the group prior to inter- acting with its members.26 However, the extent to which the behavior and attitudes continue to be expressed varies with the degree of assimilation into the reference group.27 The extent to which the behavior and attitudes are expressed may also depend upon whether the group permits a wide or limited range of behavior in exhibition of its norms.28 The type of group norms adopted by isolates is not discussed by the various authors in the previous paragraph although they discuss the adoption of group norms prior to group entrance by isolates. In contrast, Selvin and Hagstrom discuss two types of norms or properties characteristic of groups. The first, aggregative properties, are based on 26Leah Stewart Houser, "A Sociometric Test of Ref— erence Group Theory in a Study of Prejudice Among Youth" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1956), abstract. 27Theodore M. Newcomb, "Attitude Development as a Function of Reference Groups: The Bennington Study," Read- iggs in Social Psychology, ed. Eleanor E. Maccoby, Theodore M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley (3d ed.; New York: Holt, Rine- hart and Winston, Inc., 1958), p. 265. 28Samuel A. Stouffer, "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms,” American Sociological Review, XIV, No. 6 (December, 1949), p. 708. 11 characteristics of smaller units of the groups. An example of an aggregative property would be the median opinion of all the group members about what adolescent girls should wear to school in cold weather. The second type of group characteristics are integral properties. Integral proper- ties of groups are not based on smaller units. An example of an integral characteristic would be the place where the group has meetings. Selvin and Hagstrom, although identify- ing two properties characteristic of groups, do not identify which properties isolates would tend to express when desir- ing membership in a particular group.29 Hartley has investigated reasons for selection of particular reference groups by individuals. She has found that there is a relationship between the values, needs and .— _ f; dflrr‘-— personality of an individual and his selection of a particu- JREIPEIepence group. The greater the compatibility between the values of the individual and the perceived values of the new group, the more likely the individual is to select the new group as a reference group.30 The more successful a new group is perceived to be in meeting the personal needs 29Hanan C. Selvin and Warren 0. Hagstrom, "The Em- pirical Classification of Formal Groups," American Socio- logical Review, XXVIII (June, 1963), pp. 402-403. 30Ruth B. Hartley, "Relationship Between Perceived Values and Acceptance of a New Reference Group," The Journal of Social_PsychologyJ LI (February, 1960), p. 189. 12 of an individual the more likely the individual is to ac- cept the new group as a reference group. Hartley has also \. .._._.._...._.__.....L. .n .-.....l .1) .1 1- found that there may be a general personality tendency for W‘IAMK ~‘ A: "w“ some people to accept more readily many and new reference Mari-H. groups.?l WM Eisenstadt, also investigating the reasons for the selection of particular reference groups by individuals, found that 90 per cent of his subjects gave as the single most important reason for the selection of a particular reference group--the significance of the reference group for status conferral within the social structure. The choice of a reference group was thus very much determined by the status aspirations of the individual.32 The evaluation of potential members by reference group members has been studied by Merton. When consider- ing the variables of eligibility for membership in the ref- erence group and desire for membership in the reference group (orientation) Merton proposes the relationship between variables shown in Table l. Merton suggests that new mem— bers will be evaluated by group members in the following order from most favorable to least favorable: candidate 31Ruth E. Hartley, "Personal Needs and the Accept- ance of a New Group as a Reference Group," The Journal of Social Psychology, LI (February, 1960), p. 189. 325. M. Eisenstadt, "Reference Group Behavior and Social Integration: An Explorative Study," American Socio— logical Review, XIX (April, 1954), p. 177. 13 Table 1. Proposal by Merton for relationship between reference group variables of attitudes toward and eligibility for membership in the reference group Non-member's Attitude 'Group-defined Eligibility toward Membership .;, of Non—members (Orientation) Eligible for Ineligible for Membership Membership Aspire to belong Candidate for Marginal man membership Indifferent to affilia- Potential member Detached non- tion member Motivated not to belong Autonomous non- Antagonistic member non-member for membership, detached non-member, potential member, mar- ginal man, antagonistic non-member and autonomous non-member. When testing Merton's proposal, Pishbein found that new members were evaluated in the following order from most favorable to least favorable: candidate for membership, marginal man, potential member, autonomous non-member, de- tached non-member and antagonistic non-member.35 When the variables of eligibility and orientation are considered separately a different order of acceptance is produced than 33Robert K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Struc- ture (Glencoe, Illinois: 1957), p. 290. 34Martin Pishbein, "The Perception of Non-members: A Test of Merton's Reference Group Theory," Sociometpy, XXVI, No. 3 (Sept., 1963), p. 275. 35Ibid., p. 284. 34 14 when the variables are considered together. Since both factors are considered by the reference group when evalu- ating potential new members it is the combination of the two variables which is important in determining who will become new reference group members. Previous membership status, a third variable, did not prove to be of signif— . 36 icance in selection of new reference group members. Social Acceptance Among Adolescents As an individual enters the school years his life changes from family and parent centered to focus in the peer friendship group. Although this move away from paren- tal focus begins in the earlier school years, it becomes more evident in the adolescent years.37 For the adolescent, the opinions of his peer group are more important than the opinions of parents, teachers, or other adults.38 Besides the increasing desire for identification with the peer group, there is also a desire during adolescence for this peer group to be a small select group.39 Sherif indicates that it is these small friendship groups which become the dominant f,- 361bid., p. 271. 37Charles E. Bowerman and John W. Kinch, "Changes in Family and Peer Orientation Between the Fourth and Tenth Grades," Social Forces, XXXVII (March, 1959), p. 208. 38Hurlock, p. 110. 391bid., p. 105. 15 reference group for the adolescent.40 The reference group influences the adolescent's attitudes, interests, activi- ties, and aspirations. Thus, for the adolescent, the peer membership group serves at the same time as a reference group. Although the dominant reference group among adoles— cents for association this is not to infer that the peer friendship group is the only reference group. Bowerman and Kinch found that the peer group was the dominant over- all reference group for adolescents. However, the adoles- cents still selected the parental group as the reference group they wanted to be like when older.41 Within the social structure of a high school many peer friendship groups exist. Besides peer friendship groups, there are mutual friendships of individuals not part of a larger group, and isolates. Kelley, in an earlier analysis of the data used in this study, found that during the high school years individuals shifted among the three social acceptance categories of isolate, mutual pair member, and friendship group member, as well as shifted in placement in the peer friendship groups.42 4OSherif, An Outline of Social Psychology, p. 642. 41Bowerman, p. 207. 42Eleanor Ann Kelley, "Peer Group Friendships in One Class of High School Girls: Change and Stability" (Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1966), p. 165. 16 In investigating membership qualifications for ado- lescent friendship groups, Smith indicates that there seem to be no formal criteria for membership in the adolescent groups. The selection or rejection of members by specific groups seems to be based upon conformity to the group norms. In order to make adjustments to the group norms, the indi- vidual must be aware of the thoughts, feelings and behavior of the group. However, Hurlock indicates that for acceptance by a group, conformity to the behavior and appearance of the group is not enough. The adélescent also must conform to the opinions of the group.44 Among adolescents, conformity to certain group norms is more important than conformity to others for acceptance in the peer friendship group. Coleman reports that high school students give as the three most important items for gaining entrance to the leading crowd: personality, good looks and having nice clothes, and being well dressed.45 Hurlock indicates that adolescence is the period in life when clothes assume their greatest importance. When dressed like other members of the group, the individual identifies ‘ __._‘ 43Ernest A. Smith, American Youth Culture (New York: The Free Press, 1962), p. 70. 44Hurlock, p. 109. 45James S. Coleman, The Adolescent Society (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1961), p. 36. l7 himself with the group and feels that he belongs to it.46 In investigating the relationship between clothing and social acceptance, Hendricks, in an earlier analysis of the data used in this study, found agreement among high school girls on the more basic questions concerning cloth- ing and social acceptance. For instance, the girls agreed that clothing influences a girl's popularity. At the same time there was some support for the hypothesis that opin- ions about clothing, appearance, and social acceptance dif- fered among peer friendship groups and between group members and isolates. Also, the more cohesive the friendship group the more similar were the opinions regarding clothing, ap- pearance and group acceptance.47 Measurement of Social Acceppance Sociometry has been used as a major tool for in- vestigating social acceptance within a group. Sociometry can be used to determine the degree to which individuals are accepted in a group, to discover the relationships which exist among these individuals, and to discover the structure 46Hurlock, p. 216. 47Suzanne H. Hendricks, "Opinions on Clothing and Appearance as Related to Group and Non-Group Membership of Twelfth Grade Girls" (Unpublished Master's thesis, Depart- ment of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1965), pp. 107-13. 18 of the group itself.48 Measurement by the sociometric method has been developed in an attempt to answer the basic question of how and when the various parts of society are 49 The method has been drawn together and pulled apart. used mainly in small group research for studying the inter- action within a group. The basic procedure with the sociometric method is to present a situation to the members of a group. The individuals are asked to name others in the group with whom they would like to interact in the particular situation. Qualifications for success with the procedure are that the group has been together long enough to know each other, the boundaries of the group for selection are known, the criteria or situations for interaction are feasible oppor- tunities for association within the group, and the number of choices is unlimited. Gronlund and Whitney suggest that within a school situation a more general criteria, rather than very specific interaction situations, be used. A more general situation seems to provide a better overall measure of social acceptability of individuals within the group.50 48Mary L. Northway, Primer of Sociometry (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1952), p. l. 49The Sociometry Reader, ed. J. L. Moreno (Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960), p. 1. 50Norman E. Gronlund and Algard P. Whitney, "Rela- tion Between Pupils' Social Acceptability in the Classroom, in the School and in the Neighborhood," School Review, LXIV (September, 1956), p. 270. 19 Various methods of analysis are available for an- alyzing sociometric data. The methods of analysis include index, statistical, matrix, and graphic analysis. A common means of graphically portraying the relationships which exist within a group is the sociogram. On a sociogram in— dividuals who select each other are connected by lines. From this graphic representation of the group, relation- ships which exist within the group can be ascertained.51 Although a major tool for investigating social ac- ceptance, weaknesses as well as strengths exist with the use of sociometry. Strengths include the applicability of the sociometric method in many areas of research and the potential for relating many variables to a sociometric classification. The sociometric method is also easy and inexpensive to administer. A weakness is that analysis of sociometric data can be very detailed. The fact that sociometry is a subjective measure can be considered both a strength and a weakness. Although the individual makes his own selection, the full meaning of the choice is not known, because the depth or quality of the choice cannot be certain.52 51Gardner Lindzey and Edgar F. Borgotta, "Socio- metric Measurement," Handbook of Social Psychology. Vol. I: Theory and Method, ed. Gardner Lindzey(Reading, Massa- chusetts: Addison—Wesley Publishing Company, 1959), pp. 410-20. 52Lindzey, pp. 406, 410-20. 20 Summary Reference groups have been defined as those groups to which an individual relates himself by taking the values or standards of the group as his own through a process of evaluation and self-appraisal. The individual may or may not have membership in his reference group. Comparison and normative reference groups as well as positive and neg- ative normative reference groups may exist for an individ- ual. Positive normative reference groups are those to which the individual relates himself and in which the individual desires membership. In order to attain reference group membership an individual tends to express the attitudes, values and be- havior of the group prior to interacting with the group. Those non—group members who desire membership and are eli- gible for membership are viewed by the group members as most likely to attain membership in the reference group. During the adolescent years a shift takes place in major reference groups with the peer friendship group, rather than the family, becoming the dominant reference group. At the same time adolescents begin to desire mem— bership in smaller peer friendship groups rather than a larger crowd. For the adolescent, his peer friendship group often serves as a reference group. Conforming to the behavior, attitudes and opinions of these groups has been shown to be of importance in gaining entrance. Among 21 the attitudes and opinions of importance in social accept- ance among adolescent girls are those concerning clothing and appearance. A means for investigating social acceptance is the sociometric method. The degree to which individuals are accepted in a group, the relationships which exist among these individuals and the structure of the group can be ascertained by the sociometric method and portrayed using the sociogram. Focus of the Study This study was a portion of a larger longitudinal project for investigation of the relationship of the opin- ions of a high school class of girls on clothing, appear— ance and social acceptance to role, social class and group acceptance.53 The particular focus of this study was to investigate the relationship of the opinions of the isolates in the high school class of girls on clothing, appearance and social acceptance to the movement by isolates in the school social structure. Before undertaking this study the following assump— tions were made: 1. Adolescent behavior is influenced by peer groups. 2. In most circumstances the peer friendship group also serves as a reference group for the ado- lescent. 53Infra, p. 23. 22 3. Social acceptance can be measured using the sociometric technique and can be portrayed by the sociogram. 4. Clothing and appearance opinions can be ascer- tained by means of an interview schedule. Objectives and guiding hypotheses which served as a framework for the study were: Objectives: 1. To investigate the patterns of clothing and appearance opinions among one class of high school girls. 2. To investigate the movement within_the social structure of isolates in one class of high school girls during their first two years in high school. 3. To investigate the relationship of the variables of orientation, clothing and appearance opinions, and re- ciprocal friendship structure cohesion to reference group entrance by isolates. Guiding Hypotheses: 1. Patterns of clothing and appearance opinions distinc- tive to reciprocal friendship structures within the entire ninth grade class of girls would differ from each other and from the overall class patterns of cloth- ing and appearance opinions. Isolates who are positively oriented to particular re- ciprocal friendship structures and have similar cloth— ing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the re- ciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. Isolates who become members of chosen highly cohesive reciprocal friendship structures would more closely approximate the reciprocal friendship structures' con- tent patterns of opinions than isolates who become mem- bers of chosen less cohesive reciprocal friendship struc- tures. Isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures with low opinion diversity scores would more nearly approximate the reciprocal friendship struc— tures' content patterns of opinions than isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friendship struc- tures with high opinion diversity scores. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY The data used in this study were part of the data from a master project.1 Therefore, discussion of methodol- ogy will include initial data collection and analysis methods 1This study is part of a larger project sponsored by the Michigan State Agricultural Experiment Station which is titled "Ninth Grade Girls' Attitudes and Behavior Related to Role, Appearance, Social Class and Group Acceptance," and is under the direction of Dr. Joanne Eicher. Other theses which have resulted from the larger project are: Betty Marguerite Wass, "Clothing as Related to Role Behavior of Ninth Grade Girls" (Unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1962). Arlene Louise Bjorngaard, "The Relationship of So- cial Class and Social Acceptance to Clothing and Appearance of a Selected Group of Ninth Grade Girls" (Unpublished Mas- ter's thesis, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1962). Madelyn Claire Williams, "Opinions on Clothing, Appearance and Social Acceptance as Factors in Group Co- hesion of Ninth Grade Girls" (Unpublished Master's thesis, College of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1963). Suzanne H. Hendricks, "Opinions on Clothing and Appearance as Related to Group and Non-group Membership of Twelfth Grade Girls" (Unpublished Master's thesis, Col- lege of Home Economics, Michigan State University, 1965). Eleanor Ann Kelley, "Peer Group Friendships in One Class of High School Girls; Change and Stability" (Unpub— lished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology, Mich- igan State University, 1966). Published articles resulting from the larger proj- ect appear in the bibliography. 23 24 as well as those specific to this study. Areas for dis- cussion will be (1) the setting and the sample, (2) data collection, (3) data analysis, and (4) operational defini- tions for the study. The Setting and the Sample The setting for the study was a midwestern city of 30,198 population in 1960. The city itself was a suburb of a larger city of 107,807 inhabitants. Located within the city was a university with 35,451 students in 1965.2 The average educational level and average salary level were high for the state, being in 1960, 15.8 years and $7,152 respectively. These figures were compared to 10.8 years and $6,256, for the entire state. The population was largely composed of white collar workers with 71.9 per cent of the workers being a part of this group.3 The four-year high school chosen for the study was the only public high school in the city. The school had an enrollment of 1,271 students in 1965. The majority of the students came from homes with the socio—economic char- acteristics discussed above. However, the school also had students from a low income housing area annexed to the school district prior to the years for the study. Individuals 2Registrar of local university. 3United States Bureau of Census, Michigan General Populatign Characteristicsigl960 (Washington, D.C.: Gov- ernment Printing Office, 1960), pp. 24-17, 24-179, 24-181, 24-191, 24-206. 25 from extremes in socioeconomic levels were therefore in- cluded in the school and in the study. The study itself was of the longitudinal type with data being collected for one class of high school girls as they passed from ninth through twelfth grades. The par- ticular population for investigation in this study was those girls who were sociometric isolates in the ninth grade. The years for data collection were 1962-1965. Data Collection Each year of the four years the class of girls were given background questionnaires developed by Wass. The background questionnaire also contained a single socio- metric question which was of the general criteria type. The situation was that of naming best friends as ”the people with whom we share secrets and spend most of our time.” The students were given the opportunity to list the names of two best friends, two additional friends if they were also best friends, and best friends in another grade or school. The exact questions used for eliciting the socio- metric data and the form used for answering follow. The people with whom we share secrets and spend most of our time are usually referred to as our "best friends." Write the names of your two "best girl friends" in the 9th grade in the high school. (If you only have one person you consider a "best friend," write her name only.) 1. 2. 26 If you have more than two ”best friends" in the ninth grade, write their names in the space below. 1. 2. If your "best girl friends" are in another grade, or another school, write their names in the spaces below. Other Grade Other School 1. l. 2. 2. The background questionnaire was administered in the school cafeteria the first year and in home rooms for the last three years. Confidentiality of the responses was guaran— teed. An interview schedule was developed by Bjorngaard and given to the students as ninth graders in 1962. The interview schedule contained questions about clothing, ap- pearance and social acceptance within the school. Copies of the interview schedule and background questionnaire are included in the Appendix. The interview schedule was slight— ly modified by Hendricks and again administered to the stu- , dents as twelfth graders in 1965. Both interview schedules contained an appearance rating sheet to be filled out by the interviewer at the time of the interview. The inter- views, conducted at the high school by trained interviewers during class periods of 70 minutes, lasted from 25 to 70 minutes. 27 Data Analysis The sociometric classifications, as defined in the overall project, were: Reciprocal Friendship Structure (RPS): a sociometric dia- gram of individuals whose choices of friendship were re- turned. Mutual Pair (MP): a reciprocated choice of two members, hence a dyad. Isolate (I): an individual who had no reciprocated choices on a sociogram. Four categories of isolates were: Isolate (11): pure isolate; made and received no friendship choices. Isolate (12): ignored isolate; made choices but received no choices. Isolate (I3): self isolate; made no choices but received some choices. Isolate (I4): confused isolate; made and re- ceived choices, none of which matched. Accurate Perceiver: An individual who had all choices reciprocated, or who neither chose nor was chosen. Reference Groups Sociometric classifications for the class members were portrayed each year of the four years by means of a sociogram. Each girl received a number which remained with her throughout the four years. New girls were given numbers as they entered the school. Lines between the numbers did not indicate one way choices as on many sociograms. Instead 28 each line between two individuals indicated that pgph_in- dividuals named the other as a best friend choice. One way choices were not indicated on the sociograms (see pages 47-50). From the basic ninth grade sociogram showing only reciprocated choices, additional ninth grade sociograms were made showing the unreciprocated choices made by the isolates to other class members and to the isolates from other class members. From these additional sociograms it could be determined to which RFS's the isolates directed their unreciprocated choices (see pages 57-60). Reference groups for the ninth grade isolates were determined on the sociograms as those RFS's into which the isolates had unreciprocated friendship choices. The desired RPS was identified as a reference group because the peer friendship group often serves as a membership and reference group at the same time for adolescents.6 There could be, however, no actual verification that an isolate considered her desired RPS or RFS's to be reference groups. At the time of the composing of the in- terview schedule it was not a purpose of the master project to identify, through interview schedule questions, reference groups for the interviewees. Therefore no questions were included in the interview schedule for this purpose. Attainment of desired reference group membership 6Supra, p. 15. 29 was determined for the ninth grade isolates by comparing ninth grade friendship choices to tenth grade sociometric classification. Attainment of reference group membership by ninth graders was then compared with the variables of reference group orientation, RPS cohesion, RPS opinion diversity, RFS appearance and discourse scores, and RPS clothing and appearance content patterns of opinions to determine which variables were related to attainment of reference group membership. Each of the above mentioned variables will be ex? plained in the following sections of this chapter. In in- vestigating the relationship of the variables to attainment of reference group membership by isolates, those isolates who became members of a desired reference group were com- pared as a group to those isolates who did not become mem— bers of a desired reference group. In addition, the iso- lates who did not become members of a desired reference group, but who did become members of other RFS's, were further investigated to determine whether their opinions were more like the opinions of the chosen reference group or the RFS's of which they became members. Because the researcher was analyzing the entire population of isolates rather than a sample of the isolates in the ninth grade class, a descriptive rather than statistical analysis of the findings is given. 30 Reference Group Orientation Merton defined orientation as an important variable for entrance into a reference group.7 Two factors, desire for membership in and indication of present membership in a group of girls in the class, were used to define an isolate's position or orientation to reference groups. Four types of orientation were developed for the study. Although developed for use when investigating the isolates, the four types of orientation would apply to any member of the class irrespective of their sociometric classification. The first division in orientation was between posi- tive and negative orientation. Positive orientation, de- sire for membership in a RPS, was determined by the indi- cation of a friendship choice into a RPS. Negative orien- tation, no desire for membership in a RPS, was the lack of an indication of a friendship choice into a RPS. Each of these orientations were further divided on the basis of two interview schedule questions. The questions used were numbers five and eleven in the questionnaire (see Appendix). Question 5. With the group you go around with (gig), what are some things which are important to do in order to be popular? Question 11. How does the group you go around with compare in dress to other groups at school? 7Supra, p. 13. 31 If a girl indicated in her answers to both questions that she was part of a group, her orientation was labeled recog- nized. The isolates with a recognized orientation were further checked to determine if the group indicated was composed of girls from the class. If the group was not composed of girls from the ninth grade class, the orienta— tion was labeled unrecognized. Also included in the unrec- ognized orientation were those isolates who indicated in their answers to the two questions that they were not part of any group. The four types of orientation were: Type I: recognized-positive: the individual who indicated in her answers to the two questions that she was part of a group, and indicated a friendship choice into a RPS. Type II: unrecognized-positive: the individual who indicated in her answers to the two questions that she was not part of a group, but indicated a friendship choice into a RPS. Type III: recognized-negative: the individual who indicated in her answers to the two questions that she was part of a group, but did not indicate a friendship choice into a RPS. Type IV: unrecognized—negative: the individual who indicated in her answers to the two questions that she was not part of a group, and did not indicate a friendship choice into a RPS. Reference Group Cohesion The word cohesion is often used when discussing the integration among the parts of a whole. In this study co- hesion referred to the integration among the members of a 32 RFS. The variable of RPS cohesion was introduced to inves- tigate the relationship between RFS entrance by isolates and integration among the members of the chosen RPS. An index of cohesion was determined for each RPS. The follow- ing formula for determining cohesion was used. C=m—_—)i{-m x100 C indicates cohesion, X equals the number of in-group choices made by all RPS members, and N equals the number of RPS members. The cohesion score was an indication of the ac- tual number of in-group choices divided by the possible number of in-group choices. N-l accounts for the factor that an individual cannot choose himself, and thus is the total number of in-group choices that one RPS member could make. Appearance and Discourse Scores It was of major importance in this study to deter- mine the factors important for social acceptance in the school and the particular friendship groups in the ninth grade class as seen from the viewpoint of each RPS. In order to determine the factors important for social accept- ance in the school and particular RFS's, the opinions of the girls, as expressed in the interviews, were analyzed. Stone's view of a social transaction was used as a guide. Stone divides a social transaction into two parts. 33 Appearance, then, is that part of social transac- tion which establishes identifications of the par- ticipants. As such it may be distinguished from discourse, which we conceptualize as the text of the transaction-—what the parties are discussing. Appearance and discourse are two distinct dimensions of the social transaction.8 For this study social acceptance in the school and particular RFS's was seen as the "social transaction," and the researcher aimed to determine the general importance which each RPS gave to appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance in the school or RPS. Second, the researcher wished to determine the general opinions of the class members about themselves and social acceptance factors. To meet these ends, each girl was given three scores which were called her appearance and discourse scores. Each girl received a general social acceptance score, a group social acceptance score and a self satisfaction score. Each of the scores was derived from opinions given in an- swer to selected interview schedule questions. The word "opinion“ was deleted from the score titles for ease in discussion. From the individual appearance and discourse scores, medians and ranges were determined for each RPS, the total RFS classification, each of the four isolate categories, the total isolate classification, the total MP classification and the entire class. When citing the 8Gregory P. Stone, "Appearance and the Self," Human Behavior and Social Processes: An Interactionist Approach, ed. Arnold M. Rose (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1962), p. 90. 34 appearance and discourse scores of RFS's or sociometric classifications, reference was made to the median scores of the groups mentioned. The interview schedule questions for the general social acceptance score concerned factors important for general social acceptance in the school. The interview schedule questions for the group social acceptance score concerned factors which the interviewee felt were important for social acceptance in her group. The coding of the questions for the general and group social acceptance scores will be discussed at this point since the coding of the questions for the self sat- isfaction score were coded in a slightly different manner. The method for coding the general and group social accept- ance opinions was a four to six point scale which varied with the question. The highest weight indicated that only appearance factors were important for social acceptance, and the lowest weight indicated that only discourse factors were important in social acceptance or that clothing fac- tors were not important in social acceptance. The inter- view schedule questions used for the general and group social acceptance scores and the exact meanings for each of the weights in the coding of questions are as follows. General Social Acceptance Score 1. If a new girl came to and wanted to get in with the popular girls, what would be the best way to do this? l O 35 Meaning mentioned only appearance factors mentioned appearance factors more than discourse factors mentioned appearance factors and discourse factors equally mentioned discourse factors more than appearance factors mentioned only discourse factors no answer or inappropriate answer 2. What characteristics do you think a new girl would be 6. What are lar girl question 8. Does the judged on? (coding same as question 1) the characteristics of the most popu- in the ninth grade? (coding same as 1) clothing of the popular girls in the ninth grade differ from the clothing of the other girls? Weight Oi—‘Nw Meaning Yes Sometimes I don't know No 9. Do you think clothing influences a girl's popu- larity at ? (coding same as question 8) Questions eight and nine were considered direct questions as the interviewees were directly asked the im— portance of clothing for social acceptance. Questions one, two and six were considered indirect questions. The inter— viewees were asked to name factors important for social acceptance rather than to cite the importance of a partic- ular named factor for social acceptance. Group Social Acceptance Score 3. What characteristics do you use in choosing a friend? (coding same as question 1) 17. 30a. 30b. 31. 32a. 36 Do you think that the manner in which your best friend dresses is a reflection on you? By that I mean, do others judge you by the way your best friend dresses? Weight Meaning Yes Sometimes I don't know No No best friend OHNWOD- Jean is a new girl in the ninth grade in . Her appearance is neat and clean. Her favorite combinations are plaid skirts and flowered blouses. Would you consider her well dressed? Weight Meaning NO I don't know Sometimes Yes OHNW Would you invite her into your group even if you do not feel she is well dressed? Weight Meaning NO I don't know Sometimes Yes No comment or no group 0&4wa Michelle recently moved to from California. Her first day at she noticed that she was the only girl wearing colored bobby socks which were popular in California. She came home and told her mother that she had to buy heavy white socks so that she would be like all the other girls. Her mother thought this was rather foolish since all her colored socks matched her outfits. Do you think it is important for Michelle to have bobby socks like the other girls? (coding same as question 8) Lynn dresses very neatly for school. She has many expensive clothes; however, her hair is usually messy and unkempt. What do you think is more important--expensive clothes or neat hair? 37 Weight Meaning Expensive clothes Both Neat hair I don't know No comment Ol—‘NWQ 32b. Would you like to have Lynn as your girl friend? (coding same as question 30b) 32c. Would you invite her to run around with your group? (coding same as question 30b) A girl's answers for each question were coded in only one category. The general and group social acceptance scores for each girl were the added values of her coded answers for the interview schedule questions composing the two scores. A high general or group social acceptance score indicated that an individual considered appearance factors to be important for social acceptance in the school or her group. A low general or group social acceptance score in- dicated that an individual considered discourse factors to be important for social acceptance in the school or her group. The interview schedule questions for the self sat— isfaction score were opinions about the self as related to factors for social acceptance in the school. The self score questions were coded so that a high weight indicated more positive self opinions, while a low weight indicated more negative self opinions. The interview schedule ques- tions used for the self satisfaction score and the exact meanings for each of the weights in the coding of questions were as follows. 14. 16. 22. 23. 24. 26. 27. 28. 38 Self Satisfaction Score Is there anything about yourself you would like to change? Weight Meaning 4 No 3 I don't know 2 Sometimes 1 Yes 0 No comment Do some clothes give you more self confidence than others? Weight Meaning 3 Yes 2 Sometimes 1 I don't know 0 No Are you usually satisfied with your general appearance? (coding same as question 16) Are you usually satisfied with your hair? (coding same as question 16) Are you usually satisfied with your complexion? (coding same as question 16) Do you enjoy wearing your clothes if your friends don't like them? Weight Meaning 4 Never 3 Seldom 2 Sometimes l Often 0 Almost always Do you feel ill at ease at school because of your clothing? (coding same as question 16) Do others compliment you on the way you dress at school? Weight Meaning Almost always Often Sometimes Seldom Never Ol—‘NUJb 39 29. Have you felt embarrassed about the clothes you wear to school? (coding same as ques- tion 26) As with the general and group social acceptance scores, a girl's answers for each question were coded in only one category. The self satisfaction score for each girl was the added values of her coded answers for the interview schedule questions in the self satisfaction score. A high self satisfaction score indicated more positive self opinions and a low score indicated more negative self opin— ions. The variable of the relationship of an isolate's appearance and discourse scores to median appearance and discourse scores of a chosen RPS was investigated by com- paring an isolate's scores to those of an RPS. When com- paring an isolate's appearance and discourse scores to those of an RPS, it was said that an isolate's scores were close to those of the RPS when her scores were within three points of the median RPS scores. Otherwise an isolate's scores were considered far from those of the RPS. The breaking point for the classification of isolates as "close to" or “far from" the RFS to which they were being compared was determined at three points after an investigation of the frequency distribution of the differences in points between isolates' appearance and discourse scores and the median appearance and discourse scores of RFS's to which they were being compared. The majority of the isolates either had 40 appearance and discourse scores within three points of the RFS's to which they were being compared or had scores five points or more from the RFS's to which they were being com- pared. Content Patterns of Opinions In addition to determining the general importance which each RPS gave to appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance, it was of interest to know the ac— tual content of the opinions of the members of each RPS. To meet this end three content patterns of opinions were developed for each RPS, the total RPS classification, each of the four isolate categories, the total isolate classifi- cation, the total MP classification and the class. The three patterns were a general social acceptance content pattern, a group social acceptance content pattern and a self satisfaction content pattern. The questions used in deriving the three patterns were the same as those used in deriving the corresponding appearance and discourse scores.9 In deriving the patterns, first for each coding category of each question an index of agreement was fig- ured using the following formula: A=§xioo% 9Supra, pp. 34-39. 41 A indicated the index of agreement on one category of the question; x equaled the number of girls whose answers were coded in the particular category; and n equaled the total number of people in the RPS, isolate category, sociometric classification or class. The RPS, isolate category, socio- metric classification or class content patterns were devel- oped from those questions where at least 50 per cent of the individuals were in agreement when answering a question. The 50 per cent breaking line was chosen for two reasons. First, it was felt desirable to include those questions in the pattern where the group was exactly split in half on agreement in answering a question. Also, in most cases where 50 per cent agreement was found when answering a ques- tion, but not a half-and-half split, the remainder of the answers were spread over several additional categories in percentages of 33.3 per cent and less. The actual content patterns consisted of the con— tent of the answers to those questions on which there was at least 50 per cent agreement when answering. The indi- vidual RPS patterns were compared with each other and with the class pattern to determine if and how the RPS patterns differed from each other and the class pattern. The variable of the relationship of an isolate's opinions to the content patterns of a chosen RFS was inves— tigated by comparing an isolate's opinions to the content patterns of an RPS. When comparing an isolate's opinions 42 to an RPS pattern, the isolate's opinions were considered the same as those of the RPS when her answers were in agree- ment with at least 75 per cent of the answers for the ques- tions included in each of the three RFS content patterns. Otherwise the isolate's opinions were considered not in agreement with the RPS. RPS Diversity of Opinions The variable of the diversity of opinions for RFS's was introduced to the study so that the entrance of isolates into RFS's with narrow versus wide ranges of opinions could be investigated. An opinion diversity score was computed for each RPS to determine the percentage of different an- swers given by the RPS in comparison to all of the differ- ent answers given by the class members. The formula used for computing the opinion diversity score was: D=35x100 Y D indicated opinion diversity score; x equaled the number of different categories used when coding the answers given for all questions by members of the RPS; and y equaled the number of different coding categories for all questions. The opinion diversity score was an indication of the per- centage of different categories used when coding the answers given by members of the RPS as compared to the total number of different coding categories. A low opinion diversity score would indicate that the group confined its answers to fewer different answers while a high opinion diversity 43 score would indicate that the group gave a larger variety of different answers. In the study, opinion diversity scores from 34 to 49 were called low opinion diversity scores, and scores from 50 to 65 were called high opinion diversity scores. With the opinion diversity scores there was no in- dication of appearance and discourse emphasis in answers. The indication of appearance and discourse emphasis in an- swers was included in the appearance and discourse scores. Also there was no indication with theopinion diversity scores of the actual content of opinions. The indication of actual content of answers was included in the content patterns of opinions. Operational Definitions The following terms for use in the study were de- veloped by former researchers and the present researcher. Definitions for the sociometric classifications were given earlier.lo Reference Grogp: Reciprocal friendship structure into which an isolate had an unreciprocated friend- ship choice. Membership: An individual who appeared as an isolate on a sociogram for one year became a reciprocal friendship structure member when on the loSupra, p. 27. 44 sociogram for the following year at least one reciprocated choice brought her into a recip- rocal friendship structure. Orientation: Four types of orientation were: Type I: Type II: recognized-positive: the individual in- dicated in her answers to key questions that she was part of a group and indicated a friendship choice into a reciprocal friendship structure. unrecognized-positive: the individual indicated in her answers to key questions that she was not part of a group, but indicated a friendship choice into a re— ciprocal friendship structure. Type III: recognized-negative: the individual in- Type IV: dicated in her answers to key questions that she was part of a group, but did not indicate a friendship choice into a reciprocal friendship structure. unrecognized-negative: the individual indicated in her answers to key questions that she was not part of a group, and did not indicate a friendship choice into a reciprocal friendship structure. Cohesion: The result of the division of the number of choices made within a reciprocal friendship 45 structure by the number of possible in-group choices for the reciprocal friendship structure. Opinion Diversity Score: The result of the division of the number of different categories used when coding the answers given by members of a reciprocal friendship structure for all questions by the total number of coding categories in all ques- tions. Content Pattern of Opinions: The content of the answers to the interview schedule questions on which there was at least 50 per cent agreement when answering. CHAPTER III DESCRIPTION OF ISOLATES The description of the isolates will include dis- cussion of (1) general characteristics of isolates, (2) orientation of isolates to reference groups, (3) appearance and discourse scores of isolates, and (4) content patterns of opinions of isolates. Section (1) will include infor— mation about the isolates in all four years of the study. Sections (2), (3), and (4) will include information con- cerning the ninth grade isolates only. General Characteristics of Isolates Of the 196 girls who were part of the study for at least one year, 77, or 39.3 per cent, of the girls ap- peared on a sociogram as an isolate for at least one year (see Figures 1, 2, 3, and 4). Nineteen girls, or 9.7 per cent of the class appeared as isolates on the sociograms for two years; however, they did not necessarily appear as isolates two years in a row. Three girls, or 1.5 per cent, of the class appeared as isolates for three years. One girl, or .5 per cent of the class, remained an isolate all four years of the study. Table 2 depicts the number of isolates in each isolate category over the four years, while Table 3 depicts the sociometric standing of former 46 47 9 // V'fi —4/‘ .44," Lk:_(\ RFS 1.\ ® L g I: o A El 3: - IBI E -:..Q (Q) (:J (U) W In ‘- n. é é I. I OII o o = i Or , of the Ninth Grado‘Girls in One High School (o) RPS [06 «at Iar IQI . III RFS [08 Class Which Became the Senior Class of 1965 Figure 1. Reciprocal Friendships ._ _ . “31.11.3933 3...!!! £3. . _. 3:8 5 .1535 £393“ Imaging . ‘ - .. -, _ . can... 5. . . . .3322 . .quw .\ . .l .o o .JVHhMMJ- m . .0 {M _.\ .I.W€gd‘. «3%. . .3‘ orsmwmmifi... .v. wbuhifix ......3.:.. any. 1% “v' .: “. ' n 16- (of 54 . n 50 No. \ at mood Ho mmaHo_uoacom doosom swam oco ca mauwu compo spmaoze esp mo maasmvcoaum Adoonmaoom .c ousmwm . .. A \. . . :nlA/o3Hv 1:.00 w \ . , t I. .1 . ~\I. \ II ,t l . fly. N20. who“ Away . . x If -. . ...;\ <1 . . 3.5.33.1 éo? . 33.33. .. was. 8 E I . . Na» mat » x u L Nix xx}... s... K A b . A Jaw 3.01.3. {on 5:01;; sen... ivoox ( .\ f.\ .\ 5 f/. .1 .\ fi/J; K :1: - nag-Job u _ x . a .«v , \n: 14.527 \{r \\| . x. u. 5/. \.\A. . . . \. .. x J j, 1 .00..» ":20. _ oo .. .323. . ... //| .I 4Q , i..y 00‘. _\OI~..TI.A n50. O'HOUJ .0§..-~mw§ 6! r .. / x. - » (.. 3238.; 20.9991 . . . Vs.PI1\ x - . v\/4 .\ I now: M: r 30»: 0:1 «.0 r. A «I a .35. ”43309 . 3:... 2:.) 8-0.. V} .Xufl . .x 3. \M c . oo‘lllnmlkonc‘ ., V, \ .. M. x. V. a. .Y.. . x, I x t/JI. who. . .\.. .1 .4 . wn14u 4:000 XV x; o-.. 3... . .1 v 7.8. .3.» ME 0.} L .. H inq :3be >3 93 F - i - K.;...L\ JV- .. N . n .. hkt .. . - 4. .oo [.68. 11,3. .53 y 30.... .foT .709 VI. .A P. . . .l x. v ./ (,1- f, , . 4 4 «ow Ck a , A. M ,e. .. I H ./ n L. 5 b N .I. u . 1! V A V . K .. N 08. , :0. .eov.-imum.:.o~.. .o~o- ll 1 4' ”.1 . \ ‘. i I a r .. .1 ; 4 . < .9, . _ \ /l V9. h \k. . in: _. l -_ . ow. {.23. X . .s . l H l _ . . K 4 .\\./ R p ~ ~ . v < -....oo~- 65* .Co loom1m3n1-1.~_v 3.00.1.9» aka VI ~ i u. t \.4. A .y/ . M , . \ i . / V5 H]: . ”I fax. . \ .. 4 «1: \k‘ MKQ szxv Al/wmoy .4007. . a J I x H . o . n P .. L 1. W.\ q p .00 l 03 1 one . 9.9.; . co. - l o L .V 4 b I . .. a. \ I. — d p ,. a... L ._ p .\ \\ .. a a ... a . . .onolo: .- ._. a8. qoé invo... l \ V; k r . . . . -\ , . J / r; v.4 ) 3.10 «it p A \\ A \ 2:: 7!-.. IL eon \ ., a ,, \K r 3 M3 15% » . ,OIOIO x; . o p /\ 4.. 1 v 0 \: V .Wnflwlfi. .T! 30... ,4. ‘14, \|i A Or .‘ y I, {1H, 1‘. wa » ; cocoa .5! \4... r .. k L; -s . o-\ / . . l..v__I;L.«¢~.Y .~., ”on. V/Ii). (/ .1/ 4. I l 1 4 ‘ ~, ks «AL/( \I- «JV/.KQ . ;n_~ ..v0.0l|.0¢.o V, A 5/ 4. I .u . 551/ \ r“ .08 A L \ ..Y.J.\. - - w .4 .iv « ;& ,v.) \ M . .... 11: - oonrloallno. 13A .y I i a .r/ 41.! [I (I0 ‘ ; I ¢/;I;I, I » r14 . LI \r .u’// .- ;.. V O - .¢ol;H.oo_ 1... win. :1 cooTiooox. v . -..\.\\. . , . . 7- A A . '.~ ~ :}¢ KI 51 Table 2. Number of ninth through twelfth grade isolates according to isolate categories Grade in School Isolate Ninth Tenth Eleventh Twelfth Totals Categories No. No. No. No. No. % Type I (True) 2 l 8 3 14 13.33 Type II (Ignored) ll 12 10 7 40 38.10 Type III (Self) 5 8 9 4 26 24.76 Type IV (Confused) 5 6 9 5 25 23.81 Totals 23 27 36 19 105 100.00 Table 3. Sociometric standing of former reciprocal friend- ship structures and mutual pairs from which tenth, eleventh, and twelfth grade isolates came Grade in Which Isolate Appeared Sociometric Standing Tenth Eleventh Twelfth of Former RFS or MP Grade Grade Grade Isolates Isolates Isolates Totals RFS Still Exists 5 2 2 9 RFS Members to Other RFS's 6 13 4 23 Other RFS Members to MP Membership 4 l 5 Other MP Member Gone from School 2 l 3 Other MP Member to RFS Membership 2 l 3 Other MP Member Also an Isolate 2 2 Totals 15 22 8 45 52 RFS's and MP's from which tenth, eleventh and twelfth grade isolates came. In investigating the isolates by years, and begin— ning with the ninth grade isolates, three of the 23 ninth grade isolates remained as tenth grade isolates, four were no longer in the school system by tenth grade and the re- maining 16 became RPS members, with two becoming MP members. Among the 27 isolates appearing in the tenth grade, as mentioned, three had been isolates in the ninth grade. Nine isolates were girls new to the school. The remaining 15 were former ninth graders who had been RFS or MP members. As seen in Table 3 the majority of the 15 tenth grade iso- lates who were former ninth grade RPS or MP members came either from RFS's which were still in existence in the tenth grade or from RFS's which had split by the tenth grade with the members joining other RFS's. As these 27 tenth grade isolates moved into the eleventh grade, eight remained in the isolate category, three became members of MP's, five became members of RFS's, and the remaining 11 were no longer in the school system by eleventh grade. Isolates in the eleventh grade included five indi— vidualsnew to the school, seven isolates from the tenth grade, one who was an isolate in the ninth and tenth grades, and four individuals who had been isolates in the ninth but not the tenth grades. The remaining nineteen were for- mer tenth gradenswho had been RFS or MP members. As seen 53 in Table 3 the majority of the eleventh grade isolates, who were former tenth grade RFS or MP members, came from RFS's which had split by the eleventh grade with the mem- bers joining other RFS's. As the 36 eleventh grade isolates moved to the twelfth grade, 11 remained as isolates, six became part of MP's, 14 were linked to RFS's and the re- maining five were no longer in the school. None of the individuals making up the twelfth grade isolate classification were new to the school, even though there were eight girls new to the school that year. Eight of the twelfth grade isolates had been isolates none of the prior years, four had been isolates two of the prior years and one had been an isolate the three prior years. The remaining seven girls were former eleventh graders who had been RFS or MP members. As seen in Table 3 one-half of the twelfth grade isolates, who were former eleventh grade RFS or MP members, came from RFS's which had split by the twelfth grade with the members joining other RFS's. Study of the isolate classification over the four years showed that the majority of the girls in the isolate category changed each year with many of the isolates in one year moving into RFS membership the following year. The desire by isolates for friendship, and corresponding group membership, substantiated Hurlock's statements that adolescents desire membership in small select friendship 54 groups.1 Also the importance of the identification of factors significant for social acceptance in desired RFS's was shown if isolates who desire RFS membership are to gain entrance to desired RFS's with the least amount of frustra- tion. Population for Study Nineteen ninth grade isolates were the subjects studied for the relationship of various variables to move- ment of isolates in the social structure between the ninth and tenth grades. These 19 isolates included only ninth grade isolates who remained in the school system in the tenth grade. Table 4 shows the sociometric classifications of ninth grade isolates as they became tenth graders. Table 4. Ninth grade friendship choices and tenth grade sociometric classification of ninth grade isolates Tenth Grade Ninth Grade Friendship Choice Sociometric Chose into Did not choose Classification a RFS into a RFS Totals Remained an Isolate 2 l 3 Became MP Member 1 l 2 Became RFS Member 11 3 14 Totals 14 5 l9 1 Supra, p. l. 55 Of the 14 ninth grade isolates who became tenth grade RFS members, seven, or one-half, became members of the RFS into which they chose as ninth graders. The remain- ing seven became members of RFS's into which they did not indicate a choice when they were ninth graders. Table 5 illustrates the comparison of the breakdown of ninth grade isolates by sociometric categories for isolates and tenth grade sociometric classification. Table 5. Comparison of ninth grade isolates by sociometric categories for isolates and tenth grade socio- metric classification Tenth Grade Ninth Grade Isolate Category Sociometric Type I Type II Type III Type IV Classification (True) (Ignored) (Self) (Confused) Totals Remained Isolate 2 l 3 Became MP Member 1 l 2 Became RFS Member 1 6 2 5 14 Totals 1 9 4 5 l9 Although both “ignored" and "confused" isolates chose into RFS's only "confused" isolates also were chosen by class members. Of the five isolates who chose and were chosen, all became RFS members by tenth grade, while two- thirds of the nine isolates who chose but were not chosen became RFS members by the tenth grade. Therefore the fact that an isolate chose and was chosen as a ninth grader, even though none of the choices matched, seemed to indicate 56 that the isolate would have a better chance of having a choice reciprocated when in the tenth grade than if the isolate chose but received no friendship choices as a ninth grader. Orientation of Isolates to Reference Groups Orientation to a reference group by a ninth grade isolate was determined by whether the isolate made any choices into RFS's and by whether her answers to interview schedule questions revealed that she was part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 have the unreciprocated choices of the ninth grade isolates added to the basic ninth grade sociogram as only recipro- cated friendship choices were indicated on the basic ninth grade sociogram. These sociograms in Figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 were used in determining the particular reference groups or RFS's to which isolates were oriented. From the figures 5, 6, 7, and 8 it was seen that ninth grade isolates directed their friendship choices into 14 of the 17 RFS's. Although the isolates directed 35 friend- ship choices into RFS's the highest number of choices re- ceived by any RFS was the seven choices received by RFS 107. Besides directing friendship choices to RFS members, the ninth grade isolates also made friendship choices to other isolates. Six of the 23 isolates received friendship choices from other isolates with isolate 151 receiving three choices from other isolates. In summary, the isolates did Vt Wkk W: “kt (lb. 1\ 6663266. I 6&5. .94.! 57 6 Q .3) 2®§ 66. 36 _ok m m ~o__ omo av. n: 500 g .o mmtwso 6.6663? (666 66.2 H: «kt «u: n.. , moo 1\ b3363¥c6z 666 moo o~o no «.60 ~c. .oo swo moo ® -. n~_ Ono moo nco ~vo mno :20 .293 mopmHomH 066nm fifiz es .3 022 $326 aEmEmflm nopmofifiogs cam wHAfiu ocwgu spswz map mo mmHSmczofiph Hmoonmwoom .m ohswflh nn. UQx WKQ “0‘ WKQ J. \) Jmo 71.39 {Pu Mu. ,PKWX f8 0. in m or..- 7.4) K) .. 66 6.66 9th 666 666 D \\\/ 1a: D “To 5 o w x < \ IA/WW-xl show y/\. -J.\n “60,1 QNO6 ,fl 3 (\ ). umlv/ovr “0'0 _.. >/ \) /.\ «MU/A 58 mopwHomH momma npcwz may an mow: mmowozo afinmpcmfihm topmoonmwomsca paw manwo mpmso spsflz «:9 mo wowsmpzofium HmQOMQHomm .0 mhswfim \ my, in. ), n” ‘ .‘rIl-vb. I- . Vii! 1| 366.66 Dawthfit ©/.\ 20:. :3: t. é. "7.1.1? .x xi“- ND? ”IQ... V. 1.®@®@ «2.119 o .5 . .. 3.666.666. 2 66.663666 \/ .1. .- z \ .. Ow. O .r. .. t. f . W) L T- .@\ n: /|\ . . . at...” ,...l ._ .... ...u r H. .9.» u . , 0y. .. . - . l a! on. / ..o~ 62:02! 89394 0.0 to . (m. , s 1.5.8. 6.663666 66.. 666 666 6.66 666 6.6 66.. 36...?! Llr\\‘/ “\th . _ o 5.3.)» a Chm”... (MI. 0;! 6.36: 2.9192 333 . . if ”6.. ’12.»... u \ x.» v.1! ,_. .u ..w . . . L/ z\ k D; FUR . _- J , _.. o M. .fi/n 2 a K)” (36./u _o.uom .mmo Omar l 0.0 r . m1 2 I r as... w: .1... w: .6. . \A A.-. f. ., -1 .Il .. U‘ \r fil- vfi VI/kr H: MKQ $ 41,...) \u 2 Y :m.) ”36.. Wit. ( . 000. On. moo. ..,( K- e... 4 a! .n. 3 6 ._ i\ u _ 1U, .. m as ,.l h... 0 6! Mk6 $0 666.66 . Co, 666666 R104 nwofl " l 1 . A1... ammo 4.. L 60... ® 8 , 0 9-4 ’ 9’ ) I) ‘6 ‘\_{ f” 1:. lg .. 4] ME) ‘5) t ,v O. "O 73:) -3} < / - : mm m m. E (K \\1:./. ,.( ( 4W3 ... .I _ .36 f. ‘ — 'r .7 .I' .4”; D. ,u.,.\.\ xvaw- A .. m. l b, moo ace 2. [3,. -o. 6._\/\..n8_r . .. mm 0 .‘1 ‘ IAN“ .V _ MVO //..: . q ‘ ' _ x 4 ‘xlklMH (.\....//. Q 4 ® (5 K6; 59 ‘3 INS. \ \RFS 105 TA ," 9 . I I4§}—-—— 152 g, '6 » ‘r/ E, fl)“ - f ‘ h ‘ Whig) '5 § 3 “ '2' e. .‘ . ' ,-.../;: '(61 (3 o I“; 3&3 (QED L3 id. g: 9) A02 \ _ a: 5< g n S ,r ’m.:,’..“ {:3} {I ‘3“ § '-‘ SQ) (U/ we"! , H III ”:chg 0(3) “II (2 I G) (I) (EI I§D§ 2’ - *2, :1? ea} ‘M' 1 I ._M m t o 0’): Q I30 (“£6 : (2)-(Q Ur @® ‘3.) 1%))fig D—(J:%~{1'\Ji r unreciprocated Friendship Choices Made by the Ninth Figure 7. Reciprocal Friendships of the Ninth Grade Girls and Grade I$olates 60 mmpmfiomH opmyo 36:62 are an meme moosoro aflgmecoflrm sapwoosaficmpns pzw mthw mpmho SpSfiz map mo unfinmpcmfinh Hmoouaflomm om ohawmh ES” 6 .6.... IIII 66. 666 666 6...... «fly \I/, hnv, hnv At KHUA -1, \x . . . .. . \ll... 1...... 6.-.... .. .9... ,6: :3... t. 30 RaoyllLonow 7.60%. IHI th .Ll 6\; {K \ JUu L V“\ NM! _on.||..,n?.. .mn.l-.3.. i x- \I, , \J p 4 «”1 («UN W1... . 0.. moo. .03. mi... :o.|..l... . .To. V\r. ()1. . / . . , -L . . L noo._Tl../mmo...7 _ I I mu: .axIIj/ .. \M/W/ . .\.D, an: 26 . .3. a .21... .n. . . one 760 /:\. xmvm, 626663 .00.. . )HU) , //.r~.c 2.8!. 205qu . . :mo . 0.0 to .(x . v1 .566366663666 on... o. If? _ ”an... (I). D a . ~.o ]\NI 4.... “3.x. 9.0. ..® 0 . x.) I; . \ , , In Dy, .6) ® .1 6 ). lbw .vn... N... O .., 1|. .6 c1 /,( xfl|\ (NV. 6 m - /II\/ )I/\ ) \.I \II/ I) “’0; W.— [' .. \) ll r in». .36... 9...). For (ix 20. .... -W. ._ wx... II 4-x.» K)“. ,. . .. . flud. I- . i .. V . . ., ._ , . Y. . .3669.-. 3:666. «a: . .__ x Ii. .. .. , _ .4 . ll”! . ,zi . ... I: - ....|IU\> rimlu . m. n .. (note we. «6...... - L»... ...m~._.. (Ill. .1. MEL {NH A IN...» \rH /,. II] \V lshhk‘dm... “(l/.7 . . J _wn.o| v. 1' \l/ UNO J an.' . . mm.) 1 «I .. , r I 2 , I x// (1. AW) p.) I (. )‘V 'II) \ \\)/.. \. UU < .d .KIWUD. [ .«NOOd. .. III... mm. 1. . (ll . a .n n l .m //(\. ”H \ «x .r/\ 1 -.\.\ .wI/. ' )H . 1, .qu I \ ,4/ (Qt . .1. (12:1) .1 (32)” {I an» 41‘ '3) O M“ kc; r :1 é) . _ s 51.. .66.... ../ D.) 6.06 / woo. 30. .2 3.. 7.3. .-o 1 ‘i ‘n? t. F s Q 3 T ( a 66.) 61 not limit their friendship choices to only a few RFS's but made choices into over three-fourths of the RFS's. The isolates did not limit their friendship choices to only RFS members but also chose other isolates and MP members. Table 6 depicts the orientation of ninth grade iso— lates to reference groups. Table 6. Orientation of ninth grade isolates to reference groups Group Membership Considered Considered Indication of Choice Self Part Self Not Part Totals into a RFS of a Group. of a Group Made a Choice 13 1 14 Did Not Make a Choice 2 3 5 Totals 15 4 l9 The 13 isolates who made a choice into an RFS and considered themselves to be part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class were of the Type I orientation (rec- ognized-positive) as defined on page 43. The one isolate who made a choice into an RFS, but did not consider herself to be part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class, was of the Type II orientation (unrecognized-positive). The two isolates who did not make a choice into an RPS, but considered themselves to be part of a class group of girls, were of the Type III orientation (recognized-negative). Finally, the three isolates who did not make a choice into 62 a RFS and did not consider themselves to be a part of a group of girls in the class were of the Type IV orienta- tion (unrecognized—negative). Although 14 ninth grade isolates made choices into RFS's, only one of the 14 did not consider herself to be part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. Five isolates did not choose into groups, but two of the five did consider themselves to be part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. Therefore, although all but one of the isolates who made a choice into an RFS also consid- ered themselves part of a group of girls in their class, the opposite was not necessarily so. Isolates who did not choose into RFS's did not necessarily consider themselves not to be members of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. Appearance and Discourse Scores In discussing the appearance and discourse scores of ninth grade isolates, the scores of the isolates will. be compared to those of the total RFS and MP classifications. Also the various RFS appearance and discourse scores will be discussed to determine if and how the RFS's differed in the general importance they give to appearance and dis- course factors for social acceptance. The differences be- tween the appearance and discourse scores of the various sociometric classifications will be given first. 63 Appearance and Discourse Scores of Sociometric Classifications In studying the appearance and discourse scores, the following basis for comparison was used: General Social Acceptance Scores Score Meaning 21-16 predominant appearance emphasis l3-ll appearance=discourse emphasis 8—0 predominant discourse emphasis Group Social Acceptance Scores Meaning 31-22 predominant appearance emphasis 18-14 appearance=discourse emphasis 9—0 predominant discourse emphasis Self Satisfaction Scores Meaning 33-24 predominant positive emphasis 19-15 positive=negative emphasis lO-O predominant negative emphasis Table 7 depicts the three appearance and discourse scores for the ninth graders by isolate categories and so- ciometric classifications. First, when comparing the general social acceptance scores of the various sociometric classifications, it was expected that perhaps there would be some similarity between the RFS and MP general social acceptance scores, as all individuals composing these classifications had at least one friendship tie with another individual. Because each of these individuals had achieved some degree of social acceptance there might be some understanding of the factors operative for general social acceptance in the school. 64 Table 7. Median ninth grade appearance and discourse scores by isolate categories and sociometric classifica— tions Median Migth Grade Appearance and Discourse Scores General Group Self Social Social Satisfaction Sociometric Acceptance Acceptance Score Classification Score Score Il (True) 15.00 20.00 21 12 (Ignored) 12.00 ,, 14.5 24.5 13 (Self) 12.00 16 27 I4 (Confused) 13.00 10 27 Overall I 12.00 14.5 25.00 Overall MP 11.00 15.5 22.5 Overall RPS 12.00 16 25.00 Second it was not necessarily expected that there would be similarity between the general social acceptance scores for the isolate classification and other sociometric clas- sifications or among the scores of the isolates in the var- ious categories. The isolates had not achieved any degree of social acceptance as seen on the ninth grade sociogram. The first part of the expectation was born out that the MP and RFS general social acceptance scores would be similar. The RFS and MP general social acceptance scores, both in the 11-13 range, showed that RFS and MP members gave equal importance to appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance in the school. The second part of 65 the expectation was born out in part. Contrary to expec- tations, the isolate score, along with the RFS and MP scores, showed that the isolates gave equal importance to appear- ance and discourse factors for social acceptance in the school. The similarity in scores would suggest that per- haps the factors important for general social acceptance in the school were apparent to all and not just understood by those who had achieved some degree of social acceptance in the school. As expected there was no similarity in scores among the categories of isolates. The scores of the "ignored," "self," and "confused" isolates showed equal importance of appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance in the school. However, the "true" isolates, who neither made nor received any friendship choices, con- sidered clothing factors to be slightly more important than discourse factors. The "true" isolates had the least tie of any of the isolates to others in the class as they made and received no friendship choices. Isolates in the other three categories either made a friendship choice or received a friendship choice. Perhaps the "true" isolates had the least knowledge of the general social acceptance factors operative in the school. Although the general social ac- ceptance scores for the “ignored," "self," and "confused“ isolates were the same as those of the MP and RPS classi- fications, the range of the individual scores were also the same. The fact that the scores of fewer individuals 66 were used in deriving the median scores of the isolate cate- gories than the median score of the RFS sociometric clas- sification would suggest that there was less similarity in scores among isolates than among RFS members, even though the median scores were the same for the RFS classification and three isolate categories. This finding concerning the similarity of the ranges of individual scores used incom— puting the RFS and three isolate category median scores was in line with the expectation that there would be little similarity among the general social soceptance opinions of isolates in the various isolate categories. When comparing the group social acceptance scores and self satisfaction scores of the various sociometric classification and isolate categories it was not necessar- ily expected that there would be similarity between MP, RPS and isolate group acceptance scores or self satisfac- tion scores. This expectation for little similarity was in contrast to the general social acceptance scores where similarity between scores was expected for the MP and RFS classifications but not necessarily between the isolate classification and other sociometric classifications. The opinions elicited for the group social acceptance scores were opinions concerning only one's own group. Therefore, it was not expected that individual RFS scores would be similar. The opinions elicited for the self satisfaction scores were only about oneself. Therefore, again it was 67 not expected that the self satisfaction scores would be the same for the RFS, MP and isolate classifications. However, from the findings it is seen that, like the general social acceptance scores, the median group social acceptance scores for the isolate classification, MP classification and RFS classification were in the same 14 to 18 point range, again giving approximately equal im- portance to appearance and discourse factors for group ac- ceptance. Among the isolate categories, "true" isolates had the highest median group score of 20, indicating a slightly greater importance to appearance over discourse factors for group acceptance. The "confused“ isolates had the lowest median group score of 10 indicating a greater discourse than appearance emphasis, as important for group acceptance. From these findings it could be suggested that the general opinions about factors important for group ac- ceptance were similar among RFS members and non-RFS members. Among the isolate categories again "true" isolates did not have similar scores to the scores of the other iso- late categories or RFS and MP members. As mentioned earlier the "true" isolates were the farthest from group acceptance of any category of isolates. "True" isolates did not make or receive any friendship choices. Again the group score of the "true" isolates, farthest from any tie with other class members, was far from the group social acceptance scores of RFS and MP members. The group social acceptance 68 scores of isolates who made and received friendship choices, none of which matched ("confused" isolates), also had opin- ions different from RFS members. Perhaps their differing opinions could have been one factor in the lack of match- ing in their made and received friendship choices. The "confused" isolates felt that discourse factors were more important in group acceptance while RFS members felt that discourse and appearance factors were of equal importance for group acceptance. In summarizing the discussion of the group social acceptance scores it would seem that the expectation was not born out that there would be no similarity among the group social acceptance scores of RFS, MP and isolate clas— sifications. Instead there was similarity among the group scores of the group and non—group members with the scores indicating that appearance and discourse factors were of equal importance in group social acceptance. However, within the categories of isolates the scores were not sim— ilar with two of the scores for isolates categories show- ing greater importance of appearance than discourse factors for group social acceptance. The expectation for no similarity among MP, RFS and isolate self satisfaction scores also was not borne out entirely. The median self satisfaction scores for the overall isolate classification, and RFS classification fell within the 24-33 point range, indicating predominantly 69 positive self opinions. In contrast, the MP classification median self satisfaction score fell within the 19-24 point range indicating a greater, but not predominant, positive over negative self opinion. As with the general and group social acceptance scores the self satisfaction scores of the four isolate categories varied. The "confused” isolates had the highest score of 27, indicating predominantly posi- tive self opinions. The "self" and "ignored" isolates fol- lowed with scores still indicating predominant positive rather than negative self opinions. However, the "true" isolate score of 21 fell in the 20-32 range, indicating slightly greater positive than negative self opinion, rather than predominantly greater positive than negative self opin- ions. Appearance and Discourse Scores of RPS's Since the appearance and discourse scores of the isolates were to be compared to the appearance and discourse scores of chosen RPS's it was of interest to determine if and how the various RPS appearance and discourse scores differed. If the scores of the various RFS's did not dif- fer it would have been of little significance to study the relationship between the similarity of an isolate's appear- ance and discourse scores to the scores of her chosen RPS and entrance into a chosen RPS. If the RPS appearance and discourse scores were similar, the fact that an isolate's scores were similar to those of her chosen RPS would also 70 mean that her scores were similar to the scores of every other unchosen RPS. Consequently the acceptance or rejec- tion of Hypothesis II would have little meaning if the ap- pearance and discourse scores of all the RPS's were the same. Table 8 depicts the three appearance and discourse scores of all ninth grade RFS's. Table 8. Median appearance and discourse scores of ninth grade reciprocal friendship structures Median Appearance and Discourse Scores Ninth Median General Median Group Median Self Grade Social Acceptance Social Acceptance Satisfaction RPS's Score Score Score 107‘ 12 17 26 102‘ 13 18 25 109’ 10.5 18 26 113‘ 9 16 26 104' 13 15 23.5 108‘ 13 14.5 23 111‘ 12.5 20 26 112 12 13 23 105‘ 9.5 14 22 110 9 11.5 25 103 10 17.5 25 106 11 17.5 24 115 11 19 21 116 10 15 24 117‘ 8 13 26 101‘ 10 13 23 114 15 16 31 ‘RPS's into which isolates chose or became members. 2Hypothesis II: Isolates who are positively ori- ented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they as- pire. 71 It was expected that there would be less difference among the RFS's general social acceptance scores than the RFS's group social acceptance scores. With the questions for the group scores the individuals were giving opinions about their own groups and these opinions could be expected to differ. With the questions for the general social ac- ceptance scores the individuals were giving opinions about general acceptance in the school and the opinions could be expected to be more similar. Although the RPS's did differ in their general and group social acceptance opinions there was a slightly larger point range among the RPS group so- cial acceptance scores. With the general social acceptanCe scores, eight of the RFS's indicated that appearance and discourse factors were of equal importance for social ac- ceptance in the school. Another eight RFS's indicated that discourse factors were of more importance than appearance factors for social acceptance in the school. The remain— ing RPS's indicated that appearance factors were Of more importance than discourse factors for social acceptance in the school. With the group social acceptance scores, 11 of the RPS's indicated that appearance factors and discourse fac- tors were of equal importance for group acceptance in their RFS's. The remaining six RFS's indicated that discourse factors were more important than appearance factors for social acceptance in their RFS's. 72 When comparing the RPS general and group social acceptance scores for each RPS, the RFS's were not neces- sarily consistent in giving similar importance to appear- ance and discourse factors for social acceptance in the school and in their particular RFS's. Pive RFS's consid- ered appearance and discourse factors to be of equal im— portance for social acceptance in the school and in their own groups. Three RFS's considered discourse factors to be more important than appearance factors for social ac- ceptance in the school and their own groups. The remain- ing nine RFS's did not consider social acceptance factors to be of the same importance for acceptance in the school and in their own RFS's. Of these nine RFS's, five consid- ered discourse factors to be more important than appearance factors for general social acceptance in the school but considered appearance factors and discourse factors to be of equal importance for social acceptance in the groups. Two of the nine RFS's considered discourse factors and ap— pearance factors to be of equal importance for general so- cial acceptance in the school but considered appearance factors to be of more importance than discourse factors for social acceptance in the groups. One RPS considered discourse factors and appearance factors to be of equal importance for general social acceptance in the school but considered discourse factors to be more important than ap- pearance factors for social acceptance in the group. The 73 remaining RPS considered appearance factors to be more im— portant than discourse factors for general social accept- ance in the school but considered appearance factors and discourse factors to be of equal importance for social ac- ceptance in the group. Although there was the largest point range among the RFS's self satisfaction scores of the three appearance and discourse scores, all of the RFS's self satisfaction scores indicated that the members had more positive than negative self opinions. Eleven of the 17 RPS's had scores which showed that the members had predominantly positive self opinions. In summarizing the comparison among the appearance and discourse scores of the various RPS's it was seen that the appearance and discourse scores of the RPS's did differ. It would seem that the comparison of an isolate's self sat- isfaction score to the median self satisfaction score of a chosen RPS would not be of as much importance as the com- parison of an isolate's general and group social acceptance scores to the general and social acceptance scores of a chosen RPS. All of the RPS self satisfaction scores showed that the members of the RFS's had positive self opinions, while the general and group social acceptance scores of the RPS's showed that the RFS's had differing opinions about factors important for general and group social acceptance. If an isolate agreed with the general or group social 74 acceptance score of a RPS she would not at the same time be in agreement with the general or group social acceptance scores of all other RPS's. If an isolate agreed with the self satisfaction score of a RPS she would at the same time be in agreement with the self satisfaction scores of other RFS's since all of the RPS self satisfaction scores showed positive self opinions among members of the RFS's. Content Patterns of Opinions Content patterns of opinions for RPS's and socio- metric classifications consisted of the content of the an- swers to those interview schedule questions on which there was at least 50 per cent agreement among members of the RPS or sociometric classification. Corresponding to the three appearance and discourse scores there were three con- tent patterns of opinions for each RPS and sociometric clas- sification: a general social acceptance pattern, a group social acceptance pattern, and a self satisfaction pattern. As when discussing the appearance and discourse scores, the content patterns of the isolates were compared with the content patterns of the RPS and MP classifications to determine if the opinions of group members were differ- ent than the opinions of non-group members. The comparison of RPS patterns with each other and with the class patterns to determine if and how the patterns differed will be in- cluded in the following chapter. With the general social acceptance patterns there 75 was similarity among the isolate, RPS and MP patterns in agreement that: 1. Only discourse factors were important for a new girl to get in with the popular girls at the school. 2. Clothing of the popular girls in the ninth grade differed from clothing of the other girls. 3. Clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. Questions two and three were direct questions in which the girls were asked the influence of clothing on social accept- ance. Question one was an indirect question, as the girls were asked to name factors important for social acceptance in the school. The similarity of agreements on these three ques- tions seemed to be somewhat contradictory. From the pat- terns it was seen that although clothing factors influenced a girl's popularity at the school, only discourse factors were important for acceptance of a new girl by the popular girls. Thus in summary it seemed that when the girls were directly asked if clothing influences popularity in the school they agreed in the affirmative. However, when they were asked to name popularity factors they either gave dis- course factors as important for social acceptance in the school or could not agree on important factors. Also in summary it could be said that group members and isolates had similar general social acceptance opinions. With the group social acceptance patterns there 76 was similarity among the isolate, RPS and MP patterns in agreement that: l. 2. 3. 6. Only discourse factors were used in choosing a friend. Others do not judge you by the way your best friend dresses. A new girl to the school who wore plaid skirts and flowered blouses was not considered well dressed. The new girl who wore plaid skirts and flowered blouses would be invited into their groups. Neat hair was more important than expensive clothes. The girl with expensive clothes but messy hair would be invited to run around with their groups. Although it was not expected that there would nec- essarily be similarity among group and non—group members when answering group social acceptance questions the case was not shown to be true. RPS members and isolates had similarity in their answers to the questions concerning group social acceptance. A possible reason for the simi- larity in answers among RPS members and isolates to ques- tions concerning group social acceptance was that many of the questions might have been the type to which an individ- ual gives the “expected" answer rather than her own opinion. In summarizing the similarity in agreement between RPS members and isolates the RPS members and isolates agreed that only discourse factors were important in choosing a friend and were consistent in indicating that although they might not consider a girl well dressed they would still 77 invite her to run around with their groups. When comparing the agreement composing the RPS and isolates' general and group social acceptance patterns contradiction was found in answers. Although clothing was said to influence popu- larity in the school it.was also agreed by RPS members and isolates that within their groups discourse factors were of more importance than appearance factors when choosing a friend. When comparing the RPS, MP and isolate self satis— faction patterns it was not necessarily expected that there would be similarity in the agreement when answering ques- tions, as all individuals were answering the questions only in relation to themselves. However, there was similarity in the agreements of the RPS, MP and isolate patterns on six of the nine self opinion questiOns. There was similar- ity in agreement that: 1. There was something about themselves they would like to change. 2. Some clothes gave more self-confidence than others. 3. There was usually satisfaction with their gen- eral appearance. 4. There was usually satisfaction with their hair. 5. There was usually satisfaction with their com- plexion. 6. Others sometimes complimented them on the way they dressed for school. There was consistency in agreement that the self opinions were positive even though there was agreement that 78 there was something about themselves they wanted to change. Five of the nine questions about oneself concerned clothing and oneself. However, on only two of the five questions could the RPS and non-RPS members agree when answering. Thus there was more agreement when answering questions about oneself that did not concern clothing than when answering questions about oneself that did concern clothing. Perhaps the fact that there was more agreement when giving non- clothing self opinions could relate to the general and group social acceptance patterns where there was agreement that discourse factors were of main importance for social acceptance. Perhaps opinions about oneself and clothing 2::: I H could be more diversified and personal without the diversi- I fication of self clothing opinions affecting social accept- ‘ / ‘fl\l ance o CHAPTER IV CONTENT PATTERNS OF OPINIONS OF RECIPROCAL FRIENDSHIP STRUCTURES AND THE NINTH GRADE CLASS It was important for three reasons to investigate the content patterns of opinions of RFS's prior to investi- gating the variables for entrance into RFS's by isolates. First, as with the RPS appearance and discourse scores, it was important to determine if and how the RPS content patterns of opinions differed from each other. If the pat- terns of all RFS's were similar, the fact that an isolate agreed with the pattern of her chosen RPS would not be sig- nificant as the isolate would at the same time agree with all other RPS's. Therefore the acceptance or rejection of Hypothesis 11 would have little meaning.l Second, be- sides determining if and how the RPS content patterns dif- fered, it was also of interest to determine if ninth grade class patterns existed and whether the three class patterns differed from the majority of the RPS patterns. If class patterns existed, the isolates as well as group members would have contributed to the patterns. If the class lHypothesis If:~ Isolates who are positively ori- ented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they as- pire. 79 80 patterns were the same as the RPS patterns, then it would be expected that an isolate could more easily learn the opinions of a chosen RPS since her opinions were part of the class pattern which was similar to the RPS patterns. Third, it was important to find the content of the RPS pat— terns at this point so that in the following chapter when it was said that an isolate's opinions were in agreement with the content patterns of her chosen RPS the substance of the patterns with which she agreed would be known. The guiding hypothesis for the investigation in this chapter was Hypothesis 1: Patterns of clothing and appearance opinions distinctive to reciprocal friendship structures within the entire ninth grade class of girls would differ from each other and from the overall class patterns of clothing and appearance opinions. Two sections will be included in comparing RPS content patterns and the ninth grade class content patterns. First, the RPS patterns were compared to the class patterns to determine if and how the individual RPS patterns differed from the class content patterns. Second, the opinions of those isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's and the opinions of those isolates who did not become mem- bers of their chosen RPS's were compared with the class patterns to determine if there were differences between the two isolate groupings in their agreement with the class content patterns. 81 Comparison of RPS and Class Content Patterns General Social Acceptance Content Patterns Among the ninth grade class members there was at least 50 per cent agreement when answering three of the five interview schedule questions concerning general social acceptance. The class agreed that: 1. Only discourse factors were important for a new girl to get in with the popular girls at the school. 2. Clothing of the popular girls in the ninth grade differed from clothing of the other girls. 3. Clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. These three opinions were considered the dominant opinions of the class and composed the general social ac- ceptance content pattern of the class. From the pattern it could be summarized that class members could agree when asked direct questions about clothing factors as related to popularity. They agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school and that clothing of the popular girls differed from that of other class members. However, when the class members were asked to name popularity factors they either gave discourse factors as important for social acceptance in the school or could not agree when naming important factors for general social acceptance in the school. In comparing the RPS general social acceptance con- tent patterns with the class pattern, only four of the 17 82 RPS patterns were the same as the class pattern. Among the 13 remaining RPS's there were 12 different general so- cial acceptance content patterns. The content of all RPS patterns is included in Table 9. Four of the 13 RPS's which were not in complete agreement with the class pattern had content patterns in which there was agreement on the same answers for the three questions making up the class pattern as well as a 50 per cent or more agreement among members when answering addi- tional questions. As with the class pattern the four RFS's agreed, when asked the direct question, that clothing in- fluenced a girl's popularity at the school. However, un- like the class, when asked to name popularity factors, the RPS's could agree on factors important for social acceptance in various situations in the school. Two of the RPS's were consistent in naming discourse factors as important for various social acceptance situations. Another RPS, while agreeing that only discourse factors were important for a new girl to get in with the popular girls, agreed that ap- pearance factors, more than discourse factors, would be used in judging a new girl and were characteristic of the most popular girl in the ninth grade. In summary, although these four RPS's could agree when answering the indirect questions of naming factors important for social acceptance in various situations, they were not necessarily consistent in always naming the same factors as important for social 83 .uoandu «nu so endgame mum macaw unoamouwm woumouw no flow moumouvaw :N: am .ououuma oocuuamouu Hmwoou Hmuoaow mumao as» owedaoo mafia mansov unu oponw uaownwno «6059* «Huaw unasdon on» £u«3_aw uow 0» spam so: a Mom uauuuogaq on vasoa muououm onusoomav away whoa uwouomw oucwumonm< ufiwww,umammom osu swab a“ com ou Hufluxam: a you uowuuomaq haausum on vases.uu0uoaw omuooumwv tau uuououm oocmumoam< scone. smwm as. u. huwuwasa0d u.Hu«w w cosmoamoa uoa moov wowfiuoHo uawwmluuSuo ogy mo magnuoau or» Scum noumwo uo: 6006 coup» cacao «Au cw wauww amassed onu mo mswnuoHo mvwwm nude: «nu ca Huwmlwmfisdom uuoa can mo uwumwumuuaumsu mum muouowm unusoumwt mace mkum nus“: onu a“ spam nuanmom ones can no owumaumuowuuSo maaasvo mum uuouomm onusoomwv can muouomm moamuumdn< ovmww snow: «ca 6% Huwm umaamoa uuoa «nu mo owuuwwou uoauwno mum muououm amusoomwv swan mucuoom mocuuammda who: woman rungs mnu ca Hufiw nuasmom umoa man mo ofiumwuou -ouuwno mum muouoom oufimumonnm Guru mwouomm onusooawo who: INHmemo muouowm onusoouac can awouomm ooawwuomdm do tampon on case: Hug» Boa d mucuomm mauooomwv swab whoa auouomm oodauwoamu no powwow on vfisoa.au«w 36: < muouuam oocnuaomdm saga whoa muouuum onusoomav no common on vasoa_~uaw son 4 Hoonom mag: any um hwflmmdmmon w.HuHm a moodmsamawlwmafiuoHu . mauww,uonuo on» mo-wd«nuoHo «no aoum mummmwc mvmuw snows may :a mend» us~=non osu mo wowsuoHo Hoofiom mnu um mauww wadsmmn on» rues :« uow cu Huaw so: a you assumedaw mum muouowm mmuaoomwo made NHH NHH «AH was on m3 «OH moH wOHOHn mum HoH 00H “He was in: sea macadamo monwunooo< Hmwoom Hakeemo * mauouuwd unouaoo oocmuaooom Hmwuon Hakeem» owouusuum dqsmvnoqum Hmooudwuam .m «#969 84 acceptance. In all cases, however, they agreed on the direct question that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. Another seven RPS's agreed with the answers for two of the questions making up the class pattern, but did not agree on the same answer for the third opinion making up the class pattern. Of these seven RPS's all agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. However, in two of the eight RFS's one-half of the RPS mem— bers also agreed that clothing did not influence a girl's popularity at the school. Like the four previously discussed RPS's, and unlike the class pattern, the seven RFS's in gen- eral could agree, when asked indirect questions, on factors important for social acceptance in various situations. The seven RPS's, again like the previous four RPS's, were not consistent in always naming only appearance factors or dis- course factors as important for social acceptance. For in- stance, three RPS's, while agreeing that only discourse factors were important for a new girl to get in with the popular girls, also agreed that a new girl would be judged equally on appearance and discourse factors. Finally, the remaining two RFS's were in agreement with the class content pattern on only one of the three opinions making up the class pattern. In these three groups, there was agreement among the RPS members on a different answer for the two remaining questions in the class pattern 85 and/or agreement on answers for additional questions. Only one of the two RPS's agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. As with the other RPS's, when answering the indirect questions of naming factors important for social acceptance in various situations, the RPS's were not consistent in naming only appearance factors or only discourse factors as important for social acceptance. In summarizing the comparison of the RPS and class general social acceptance content patterns, there was a definite class general social acceptance content pattern and RPS general social acceptance content patterns with the majority of the RPS content patterns differing from the class content pattern and from each other. Fifteen of the RPS's patterns were the same as the class content pattern on two of the three questions of the class pattern. The class agreed, when asked the direct questions, that clothing influences a girl's popularity at the school, but could only name discourse factors or could not agree, when asked through indirect questions, to name factors important for social acceptance in various situations. Like the class, the majority of the RPS's agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity. Unlike the class pattern, the RPS's could agree, when asked through indirect questions, on fac- tors important for social acceptance in various situations. The RPS's were not, however, always consistent in naming only appearance factors or discourse factors as important 86 for social acceptance in the various situations. Group Social Acceptance Content Patterns Of the eight questions concerning group social ac- ceptance, there was a 50 per cent or more agreement among the class members when answering all eight questions. There- fore, the answers to the eight questions composed the class group social acceptance content pattern. The class agreed that: 1. Only discourse factors are used in choosing a friend. 2. Others do not judge you by the way your best friend dresses. 3. A new girl who is neat but wears plaid skirts and flowered blouses would not be considered well dressed. 4. The new girl, who wears plaid skirts and flow- ered blouses, would be invited into their groups. 5. It was important for Michelle, a new girl, to have bobby socks like the other girls. 6. Neat hair was more important than expensive clothes. 7. Lynn, who has expensive clothes but messy hair, would be desired as a girl friend. 8. Lynn, who has expensive clothes but messy hair, would be invited to run around with their groups. In summarizing the pattern, the class agreed that only discourse factors were important in choosing a friend and were consistent in showing the importance of discourse factors by indicating that although the class might not consider a girl's appearance to be appropriate they would 87 still invite her to run around with their groups. The con- tent of the opinions of all RPS group social acceptance patterns is included in Table 10. In comparing the RPS group social acceptance con- tent patterns with the class group social acceptance con- tent pattern, only three of the RPS patterns were found to be the same as the class pattern. Of the 14 remaining RFS's, there were 13 different group social acceptance con- tent patterns. Of these 14 RPS's, two of the RPS's agreed with the answers for all of the questions in the class pat- tern, two of the RPS's agreed with the answers on seven of the eight questions in the class pattern, eight of the RFS's agreed with the answers on six of the eight questions in the class pattern, and two of the RPS's agreed with the answers for five of the eight questions in the class pattern. Since the differences between the RPS patterns and class pattern of the 14 RPS's, that did not agree with the class pattern, were similar, they will all be discussed together. First, the majority of the RFS's that did not agree with the class pattern agreed that it was not impor- tant for Michelle, a new girl, to have bobby socks like the other girls. The remainder of the differences between the RPS patterns and class pattern were opinions of uncer- tainty as to whether one of the two girls with irregulari- ties in appearance would be accepted as a girl friend or as a member of their group. 88 .umsudm may no «panama mum wooed uauauuumu woodman no Non nouuowocw :N: d< .auouuon avocadoooo auwuou dsouw nudge unu anomaoo mafia oansov onu u>ona naoaaqao omonhw N \NSme uwonu saga museum can ou vmuw>aw on no: wasa:..uwwn momma asp moguoHu u>wmaonxo an: on: .ooha vaouum Huwm a «a wouwuoc on cases .uaan Names asp monuoHo o>wuaumxo an: on: .qazg porous: squamous: naudwluonuo «bu oxwu mxuou mmAOA o>ms cu .Huww so: a .uHHonowx wow ucuuwomaw uo: aw uH mmouw Hausa ouch nouw>aw on uos pesos «manage bonusoam vow nuuwxm panda «mama or: gnaw Boo use doomw HHoSu cane vouw>aw on vasoa monspo vouosoam van muuwxm madam undo? 0&3 Huww so: may wonuons camuuoucb mommouv vdoaum anon pooh has oculwb sohtmwmmfi «porno msowm,uwo:u saga museum can ou vmuw>cw on vfisoa .u«m£ humus usn nonuoHo o>aaoodxo can or: .azag vaowum Hqu u no vouwmmt on vasoa .wwmn humus bob mocuoao m>wmaoaxo an: on: .anma moguoao o>audwmxo Garb ufiduhOdma whoa nu wan: ummz mauww wmnuo mnu mafia mxuonINAAOQ o>un ou .Huww so: a .mHHononz Mom uamuuonaa ma uH nsomuluaonu ouau umuw>¢w on vfisoaxdmomsofin woumzoam was nuuuxu madam «new; 053 .auaw so: may comment Hams wouotwunoo on you vase: monspo vmumsoaw can nuuwxm owuad undo: usn one: ma 0:3 anew am: 4 um um an an un noumwut wamwum anon much has onu up 50% wwwsfi uoa op muonuo an an an um wooden w wflwnoono aw van: mum mwouomm mausoumwvnwwao oaamo Hofi as -w-wo~ Camag 1: T... ”ammo“ ossmoswfifi on RH: hos uaowcwdo mocwummoo< Huaoom macaw w «unwound ucmucoo moauuaoouu ~u«006 macaw «wouusuua nunavoowum annoudwoum .oH manna 89 In summarizing the comparison of the class group social acceptance opinions and RPS group social acceptance opinions, both class and RPS group social acceptance con- tent patterns existed with the majority of the RPS patterns differing from the class pattern and from each other. Pif- teen of the RPS content patterns were the same as the class content pattern on six of the eight questions. Differences between the RPS and class patterns were that the majority of the RPS's unlike the class, agreed that it was not im- portant for Michelle, a new girl, to wear bobby socks like the other girls and expressed uncertainty whether one of the girls with an appearance irregularity would be accepted in the RPS. The class was consistent in emphasizing the importance of discourse factors in their pattern by agree- ing that the girls with appearance irregularities would be accepted in their RFS's. Self Satisfaction Content Patterns Among the class members, there was 50 per cent or more agreement when answering six of the nine interview schedule questions concerning oneself. These six questions composed the class self satisfaction content pattern. The class agreed that: 1. There was something about themselves they would like to change. 2. Some clothes gave more self-confidence than others. 3. They were usually satisfied with their general appearance. 9O 4. They were usually satisfied with their hair. 5. They were usually satisfied with their com— plexions. 6. Others sometimes complimented them on the way they dressed for school. In summarizing the class pattern the opinions were consistently positive even though the class members agreed that there was something about themselves they would like to change. Two of the positive opinions were about cloth- ing and oneself while three of the positive opinions were about non-clothing appearance factors and oneself. None of the RFS's had self satisfaction content patterns which were the same as the class self satisfaction content pattern, and each of the 17 RFS's had a self satis— faction content pattern different from every other RPS. The opinions in all the RPS self satisfaction content pat- terns are included in Table 11. Eight RFS's agreed with all the answers in the class pattern, but also had agreements on answers for additional questions. The majority of these additional agreements were positive opinions about seldom or never feeling ill at ease or being embarrassed at school because of clothing the individuals wore. Six RPS's agreed with the class pattern for five of the six questions. As with the previous eight RPS's the additional agreements were positive opinions about seldom or never feeling ill at ease or being embarrassed 91 .wczuaw unu no endgame mmm madam usuauouwa woumouw no Now amuaoHu:H :N: :< .auauuwd uaaucoo coHuumwaHuwm mem mano «nu omoaaoo odHH posov can m>onw acoHaadow muosuo nmnu ooaovaoooumHom whoa o>mm no: ow monuoHo 080m Hoonon you meant H was osu do as usuaHHnEoo cmuwo muonuo Bozo oxHH u.aov atomHuH he HH monuoHo waHuwua >0nco wumsz unoaHm H Bonn oxHH u.:ov ovcoHuH he HH umnuoHu wcHuwos hemso muaaumaom H Edna mxHH u.aov avaoHum ma HH monuoHo wwHumoBANofico uw>oa H aura mxHH u.:ov avaoHum %a HH munuoHo wdHuwoz Hence actHom H Hoosom cu wmu3 H mmauoHo onu u30bm vommmwuwnao uHoH moaHumEom o>mn H Hoonom ou Haas H monuoHo orb unonm vmmmwuuwoao uHoH EotHom o>m£ H Hoonuw cu puma H mosuoHo gnu usonm tonmwuumbao uHoH uo>oc o>wn H mwcmno ou oxHH anoz H bang Hmeza ozone wcHnuoa 6H agony uHmn as nqu toHHmHuwm no: HHHmsma Em H GOHKoHHEoo he nuHa tonoHumm no: mHHmoms an H wmwnuoHo H6 H0 umsmoob Hoosom um 0660 um HHH Hoom moaHuoaom H waHauoHo he Ho omsmuob Hoo:om um memo um HHH Hmmw uo>oa H wcHsuoHo %8 Ho museums Hoosom um comm um HHH Hoom aovHom H r: x X X N N X Hoonom wow mmouo H has era :0 0a ucoaHHdaoo mmaHuoaom magnuo :onoHaaoo he nuH3 vammHumm HHHmsm: an H uHmn he zuHB.pmHHmHumm hHHmsms Em H museumommm Hmuocuw he :uH3 toHHmHumm hHstms Em H ##3## XXX” muonuo cmsu monotHHaoouHHom whoa o>Hw monuoHo oaom xxxxx x_x x x x XXX” xxxxx ”KKKN xxxxx xxxxx XXKNK xxxxx ”KKK?! xxxxx NXXN“ XKXXK wwmwno cu waH pHso3 H HHoamE usonm wcHnuoEOm 6H oumnh HoH moH Jam nor NHH was mHH was HoHnHH cHH mHH coH CHH HHH {OH We. waoflcwao «Hum t wauouuma uaoucoo cowuoamauuao.HHou ousuusuuu stawaoHum HmoowdHoum .HH «Hams 92 at school because of their clothing. Four of the six RFS's also indicated that others often complimented them on the way they dressed for school. In contrast the class had only agreed that others sometimes complimented them on the way they dressed for school. Of the three remaining RFS's, one was in agreement with four of the six opinions in the class self satisfac- tion pattern, and two RFS's were in agreement with three of the six opinions in the class self satisfaction pattern. Unlike all but one other RPS's discussed, these three RPS's agreed that there was nothing about themselves they would like to change. Two of the three RPS's also had additional positive opinions about never feeling embarrassed about the clothes the individuals wore to school. RPS 101 was an interesting case as it seemed to present some contradic- tion in its agreements. Although the members agreed that there was nothing about themselves they wanted to change and that others often complimented them on the way they dressed for school, the members of the RPS also agreed that they sometimes felt ill at ease or embarrassed about the clothes they wore to school. In summarizing the comparison of the class and RPS self satisfaction content patterns of opinions, definite class and RPS patterns of opinions existed. The class agreed that although there was something about themselves they wanted to change the rest of the self opinions were 93 positive. Among the RPS's each had a self satisfaction content pattern of opinions which differed from every other RPS and the class pattern. However, the majority of the RPS patterns were in agreement with at least five of the six opinions in the class pattern. The majority of the RFS's also differed from the class pattern by agreeing on positive self opinions in addition to those in the class pattern. Although the RPS self satisfaction patterns did differ from each other on particular agreements, all RPS's had positive self opinions. Therefore, when an isolate's opinions were the same as the self satisfaction content pattern of a particular RPS her opinions would be at the same time in agreement with other RPS's. Findings from the comparison of the three RPS con— tent patterns to the three RPS content patterns of every other RPS and to the three class content patterns of opin- ions would lead to the suggestion that Hypothesis I would be accepted: Patterns of clothing and appearance opinions distinctive to reciprocal friendship structures within the entire ninth grade class of girls differed from each other and from the overall class patterns of clothing and appear- ance opinions. In relating the findings from this section of the chapter to findings from earlier mentioned writers, Hurlock stated that adolescents desired membership in small, select 94 friendship groups.2 The findings from this study would show that adolescents were members of small friendship groups and that the friendship groups had content patterns of opin- ions which differed from the content patterns of opinions of other friendship groups and the class content patterns of opinions. Houser related that when isolates desired membership in their reference groups they tended to express the opinions of the desired group prior to interacting with the desired group.3 If this were true for this study then isolates who desired membership in particular RPS's would express opinions different from opinions of isolates who desired membership in other RPS's. Since the opinions of all RPS's in their self satisfaction patterns were positive the fact that an isolate agreed with the content pattern of her chosen RPS would mean that she would agree with other RPS's since all RPS's had positive self opinions. However, the agreement by an isolate with general or group social acceptance content patterns of her chosen RPS would not mean that she also agreed with the opinions of every other RPS. With the RPS general social acceptance content pat- terns the RPS's differed in agreement on factors they felt were important for social acceptance. With the RPS group social acceptance patterns the RPS's differed in agreement 2Supra, p. l. 3Supra, p. 10. 95 as to whether they would want one of the inappropriately dressed girls as a member of their groups. Coleman related that adolescents felt that clothing and appearance factors were important for social acceptance.4 In this study, the majority of the RPS's also felt that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school. However, they were not always consistent in naming only appearance or discourse factors as important for social acceptance in various situations in the school. Class Content Patterns and RPS Entrance by Isolates In discussing the relation of the class content patterns to the differences between the opinions of those isolates who became members of chosen RPS's and the opin- ions of those isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's, reference will be made to Tables 12 and 13. An iso- late was said to be in agreement with the class pattern when her answers corresponded to the answers for at least 75 per cent of the questions making up the class content pattern. Two tables are included for the following reasons. First, it was of interest to compare the opinions of those isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's to the opinions of those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Also it was of interest to investigate 4Supra, p. 16. 96 mHmuoa o VNIH H N H mglmm w m m v H m gslom m H w m mmumn H H v m 00H ucmsmmum< ucmu umm .02 .02 .oz .02 . .02 .oz mcumuumm mmm dmmocu mum ammocu mam cwmozu mam ammonu mum ammonu mam ammonu ucmpoou mmMHU Ho quEmZ mo Honemz mo Honsmz Ho umnamz mo umnfimz Ho umnfim: on mCOHcHQO mEouwm mfimumm mEoumm mfimumm maoumm mfimumm .mmpMHomH uoz UHQ uoz UHQ uoz UHQ mo GOHuMHmm cumuumm COHuumHmemm HHmm cumgumm mucmuamuo< cumuumm wUCMHmmuu< HMHuom Qsouw HMHUOm Hmumcmw oucmuucm mucuusuum mflcmpcmwuh HmuouQHumm mMDMHomH HQ mucmuucm manpozuum QHcmodeuw HmuouQHumw ocm mcumpbmm ucmpcou mmmHu 029 cu mCOHoHQo COHuummmHDMm HHmw ocm mocmudooum HMHUOm msouo pom Hmumcmm .mmumHOmH Ho GOHuMHmw Ho comHHMQEOU .NH mHnma 97 m v m w m v mHmuoa o vNIH H mwlmm m N H m H wblom m H H m mmlmb H H m 00H udemmum< ucmu umm .02 .oz .02 .oz .02 .oz mdumuumm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mhm uGOHGOU mmMHU concavicoz mo ammocUIcoz cmmocUIcoz mo cmmO£UIooz cmmo:UIdoz mo cmmOQUIcoz umnamz mEmumm Ho HmQEmz quEmZ mEmumm mo Romeo: quEmS memomm mo quEmz .mmm m oucH mEmomm .mmm m OHCH mEmumm .mmm m OHCH msmumm mmoonu .mmm m mmoono .mmm m mnoonu .mmm m #02 van oped mmonwl uoz 6H6 ouca mmoru “oz can och mmonu cumppmm COHuummmHumm Hme cumuumm OUGMDQmUU< HMHuom Qsouo cumppmm mucmfimmuu< Hmwuom Hmumdmw mucmuucm muopusupmxmwnmocwHum HmuoumHumm cmmocUIcoz ou mCOHGHQO .mmuMHomH Ho GOHumHmm wouMHomH >9 mucmuucm musuuouum QHcmocmHuH HmuouQHumu ammonUIcoc pom mcumubwa pompcoo mmMHu on» on mCOHCHQo COHuummmHuMm HHMm new mocmudmuum HmHUOm msowm pom Hmumcwm .mmpMHomH mo COHDmHmH mo comHHmQEou .MH mHQMB 98 those isolates who became members of non-chosen RPS's by comparing the opinions of those isolates who chose into RFS's and became members of a non-chosen RPS with the opin- ions of those isolates who made no friendship choices but became members of non-chosen RPS's. Since the opinions of all isolates were included in the class pattern there was no reason to believe that isolates who became members of a chosen RPS would be more likely to agree with the class patterns than those isolates who did not become members of chosen RPS's. Since the opin- ions of the 19 isolates were only a small proportion of the opinions of the total of the 153 class members their opinions were not a large enough proportion of the opinions of the class members to influence the direction of the opin- ions. Therefore, there was also no reason to expect that isolates either would or would not be in agreement with the class patterns of opinions. In summarizing the comparison of isolates' opinions to the class content patterns of opinions, it was found that both isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's and isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS's and also isolates who became members of non-chosen RPS's were as likely to agree as to not agree with the class general and group social acceptance patterns. However, both isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's and those who did not become members of their chosen RFS's were 99 more likely to not agree with the class self satisfaction pattern than to agree with the pattern. The isolates who became members of non-chosen RPS's were more likely to agree with the class self satisfaction pattern than to not agree with it. In relating these findings to the findings of ear- lier mentioned writers, Houser told that isolates who de- sired membership in particular reference groups tended to express the opinions of their chosen reference groups prior to interacting with the chosen reference group.5 It was of interest in this study to determine if the isolates who became members of chosen RFS's expressed also the opinions of the class prior to interacting with their chosen RPS. It was shown that approximately the same number of isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's agreed with the general and group social acceptance content patterns as did not agree with the patterns. More isolates who became members of chosen RFS's were not in agreement with the class self satisfaction pattern than were in agreement with the class self satisfaction pattern. Therefore, agreement or noneagreement with the class patterns was not a variable separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. 5Supra, p. 10. CHAPTER V RELATIONSHIP OF ISOLATES TO REFERENCE GROUPS The discussion of the relationship of isolates to reference group entrance will include analysis of five vari- ables for reference group entrance. The five variables are (l) cohesion of the RPS into which the isolate chose, (2) opinion diversity score of the RPS into which the iso- late chose, (3) reference group orientation of the isolate, (4) appearance and discourse scores of the isolate as com- pared to the median scores of the RPS into which she chose, and (5) the content of the isolates' opinions as compared to the content patterns of the RPS into which she chose. When discussing the isolates, those isolates who became members of the RPS into which they chose were compared as a group to those isolates who did not become members of the RPS into which they chose. Also those isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's, but did become members of non-chosen RPS's, were further investigated. The isolates who chose into a RPS and became a member of a non-chosen RPS were compared as a group with those iso- lates who did not choose into a RPS but became members of non-chosen RPS's. When appropriate, the findings will be discussed in relation to the guiding hypotheses. 100 101 Four of the 14 isolates who made choices into RFS's made friendship choices into two RPS's. Two of these four isolates became members of one of the two RFS's into which they chose. These two isolates were studied in all sections of the chapter in relation to the RFS's into which they chose and became members. The remaining two isolates did not become members of either RPS into which they chose. These two isolates were studied in all sections of the chap- ter in relation to the RPS's into which they directed their first choice for friendship. RPS Cohesion and Reference Gropp Entrance Table 14 relates the cohesion and opinion diversity scores of the ninth grade RPS's. The cohesion and opinion diversity scores were included together in this section in order to show the relationship between the RPS cohesion scores and RPS opinion diversity scores. As cited earlier the cohesion score of an RPS was the percentage of friend- ship choice among RPS members as compared to the potential friendship choices among RPS members. The opinion diver- sity score referred to percentage of different answers given by the RPS as compared to the total number of different answers which all class members gave when answering inter— view schedule questions. The four RPS's which had the highest cohesion scores of 100 (perfect cohesion) had the lowest opinion diversity scores with their opinions covering slightly over one-third 102 Table 14. Cohesion and opinion diversity scores of ninth I grade reciprocal friendship structures Reciprocal RPS ‘ RPS Friendship RPS Cohesion Opinion Diversity Structures Size Score Score RPS 101 3 100 37 114 3 100 34 116 3 100 39 117 3 100 37 105 4 83 42 110 6 66 49 115 3 66 44 108 4 66 39 103 6 60 45 106 4 58 46 112 5 55 47 109 8 55 51 111 4 50 41 113 7 33 47 104 8 27 53 102 15 20 60 107 27 12 65 of the response categories. In contrast, the three RPS's which had the lowest cohesion scores had the highest opin- ion diversity scores with their opinions covering from one- half to nearly two-thirds of the response categories. Thus, those RFS's which had high cohesion tended to narrow their range of opinions, while those RPS's which had low cohesion scores tended to have a wider range of opinions. Besides differing in cohesion and opinion diversity scores, Kelley found, in an earlier analysis of the data used in this study, that the RFS's with the highest and lowest cohesion scores also differed on other characteristics.1 RPS 101, an RPS lEleanor Kelley, pp. 102, 168—169. 103 with perfect cohesion and a low opinion diversity score, seemed to reflect negative group esteem and was composed of lower social class members. In contrast RPS 107, an RPS with low cohesion and a high opinion diversity score, was characterized as the "social elite" or "leading crowd." Two-thirds of the RPS 107 members were in the upper social class. In summary, for at least two of the RFS's, differ- ences in cohesion and opinion diversity scores were only two of a number of characteristics on which the RPS's dif- fered. The remaining RFS's, although their cohesion scores ranged from 33 to 83, all had opinion diversity scores in- dicating that their responses covered approximately 40 to 50 per cent of the total range of opinions. Tables 15 and 16 illustrate the comparison of RPS cohesion scores to RPS entrance by isolates. Table 15. Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure cohesion scores to reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Cohesion Became Member of Did Not Become Score of Chosen RPS Member of Chosen RPS Chosen RPS No. No. 76-100 3 51-75 2 26-50 4 0-25 2 3 Totals 7 7 104 Table 16. Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure cohesion scores to non-chosen reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates Non-Chosen Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Did Not Choose Cohesion Scores Chose into an RPS into a RPS of Non-Chosen Became Member of Became Member of RPS Non-Chosen RPS Non-Chosen RPS 76-100 1 51-75 26—50 3 0-25 3 Totals 4 3 In the discussion, "more cohesive“ RFS's will in— clude those RFS's with cohesion scores from 51 to 100. Those RPS's with cohesion scores from 0 to 50 will be termed "less cohesive" RFS's. In investigating the rela- tion of RPS cohesion to the entrance of isolates into chosen RFS's the following results were found. Of the seven isolates who became members of the RFS's into which they chose, five chose into more cohesive RFS's. In con- trast, among those isolates who did not become members of the RPS's into which they chose, none chose into more co— hesive RFS's. In investigating the data in another manner, of the total number of isolates who chose into RPS's with cohesion scores of 51 to 100, all became members of the 105 RFS's into which they chose. Of the isolates who chose into RPS's with cohesion scores from 0 to 50 only two of the nine became members of the RFS's into which they chose. Also, all but one of the seven isolates who became members of non-chosen RFS's became members of less cohesive RPS's. In summarizing the variable of the relation of RPS cohesion to RPS entrance by isolates it was found that the RPS cohesion scores and Opinion diversity scores were some- what, but not completely, related. The majority of the highly cohesive RFS's had low opinion diversity scores in- dicating that they used a narrower range of answers when replying to interview schedule questions. The majority of the RPS's with very low cohesion had high opinion diver- sity scores indicating that they used a wider range of an- swers when replying to interview schedule questions. Per- haps the similarity in opinions was a factor contributing to the cohesion among members of the highly cohesive RFS's. Although more isolates chose into less cohesive RFS's, the variable of RPS cohesion did separate those iso- lates who became members of chosen RPS's from those isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's. The majority of the isolates who became members of chosen RPS's became members of more cohesive RPS. All of the isolates who did not become members of chosen RPS's chose into less cohesive RFS's. Although one isolate became a member of a more co- hesive RPS without choosing into the RPS, the majority of 106 the isolates who became members of more cohesive RPS's in the tenth grade chose into the RPS in the ninth grade. This finding would suggest that becoming a member of a more cohesive RPS was a longer process in time which required that the isolate begin in the ninth grade by choosing into the RPS in order to finally one year later have her choice reciprocated. Becoming a member of a less cohesive RPS, on the other hand, was a shorter process in time and did not require a choice into the RPS at the beginning of the ninth grade in order to insure entrance by the tenth grade. Perhaps the highly cohesive RFS's, which represented high group integration and few unreciprocated friendship choices, indicated that the RPS members were less willing to accept others. Perhaps the less cohesive RFS's, representing low group integration and many unreciprocated friendship choices, indicated that the RPS members were more willing to accept others. RPS Opinion Diversity and Reference GrouppEntrance Tables 17 and 18 represent a comparison of RPS opinion diversity scores to RPS entrance by isolates. In summarizing the discussion of the variable of the relationship of opinion diversity scores of RPS's to RPS entrance by isolates, first, more isolates chose into RPS's with high opinion diversity scores, indicating wider ranges of opinions. Nevertheless, the variable of opinion diversity scores of chosen RFS's did divide those isolates 107 Table 17. Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure opinion diversity scores to reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Opinion Diversity Became Member of Did Not Become Score of Chosen RPS Member of Chosen RPS Chosen RPS No: No. 34-42 4 1 43-49 1 50-57 1 2 58-65 2 3 Totals 7 7 Table 18. Comparison of reciprocal friendship structure opinion diversity scores to non-chosen recip- rocal friendship structure entrance by isolates Non-Chosen Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Did Not Choose Opinion Chose into a RPS into a RPS, Diversity Became Member of Became Member of Score of Non-Chosen RPS Non-Chosen RPS Non-Chosen RPS No. No. 34-42 1 43-49 3 50-57 58-65 3 Totals 4 3 108 who became members of chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's. The majority of those isolates who became members of chosen RFS's became members of RFS's with low opinion diversity scores. The majority of those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's chose into RPS's with high opinion diver— sity scores. However, the majority of the isolates, who became members of non-chosen RPS's, became members of RPS's with low opinion diversity scores. Since the cohesion scores and opinion diversity scores were somewhat, but not complete- ly, related for RFS's, the comparison of isolate entrance into RPS's to the variables of RPS cohesion scores and RPS opinion diversity scores could not be discussed together. However, since the two scores were somewhat related for each RPS, it was not surprising to find that the size of the RPS opinion diversity scores of the RPS into which iso- lates chose was a variable separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's. It had been found earlier that the size of the RPS cohesion score of RPS's into which isolates chose was a variable separating isolates who became members of chosen RPS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS's. 109 Refegence Group Orientation and Reference Group Entrance ‘ Orientation for isolates was determined by whether the isolate chose into a RPS and by whether the isolate indicated through her answers to interview schedule ques- tions that she was part of a group of girls within the ninth grade class. Table 19 shows the orientation of isolates to chosen RPS's, while Table 20 shows the orientation of isolates to non-chosen RPS's of which they became members. Table 19. Comparison of reference group orientation of isolates and reciprocal friendship structure entrance by isolates Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Did Not Became Become Member of Member of Chosen RPS Chosen RPS Orientation No. No. Type I: Made Choice into RPS, Considered Self Part of a Group 6 7 Type II: Made Choice into RPS, Did Not Consider Self Part of a Group 1 Type III: Did Not Make Choice into RPS, Considered Self Part of a Group Type IV: Did Not Make Choice into RPS, Did Not Consider Self Part of a Group Totals 7 7 110 Table 20. Comparison of reference group orientation of isolates to non-chosen RPS's and non»chosen reciprocal friendship structure entrance by -isolates Non-Chosen Reciprocal Friendship Structure Entrance Did Not Choose Chose into a RPS, into a RPS, Be- Became Member of came Member of Non-Chosen RPS Non-Chosen RPS Orientation No. No. Type I: Made Choice into RPS, Considered Self Part of a Group Type II: Made Choice into RPS, Did Not Con- sider Self Part of a Group Type III: Did Not Make Choice into RPS, Consid— ered Self Part of a Group 4 1 Type IV: Did Not Make Choice into RPS, Did Not Consider Self Part of a Group 2 Totals 4 3 Three-fourths of all isolates indicated, through their answers to interview schedule questions, that they were part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class even though on a sociogram they were seen to be excluded from group membership. The fact that this many of the isolates considered themselves to be group members would suggest that perhaps the isolates did not recognize that they were 111 isolates in the ninth grade social structure. In summary the variable of orientation to a RPS did not separate those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of all isolates behaved the same way by making a friendship choice into a RPS and at the same time consider- ing themselves to be members of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. RPS Appearance ang_Disggurse Scores and Reference Group Entrance Questions for the general social acceptance score dealt with factors important for general social acceptance in the school. Questions for the group social acceptance score dealt with factors important for social acceptance in the interviewee's group. Finally, questions for the self satisfaction score dealt with opinions about oneself as related to factors for social acceptance in the school. Guiding the investigation of the relationship be- tween RPS appearance and discourse scores and RPS entrance by isolates was Hypothesis II: Isolates who are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become mem- bers of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. In this particular section "clothing and appear- ance opinions" refers to the three appearance and discourse 112 scores for each RPS and each individual. The appearance and discourse scores were general measures of opinion and not specific measures of actual content of opinions, as with the appearance and discourse content patterns of opin- ions. The content patterns of opinions will be discussed in the following section. In discussing the relation between the three appear- ance and discourse scores and reference group entrance, those isolates who had individual scores within three points of the median scores of their chosen RFS's will be referred to as "close" to the group opinion score. Those isolates who had scores which varied from the median of chosen RFS's, by more than three points will be referred to as "far” from the group opinion score. Table 21 shows the comparison of the relation of isolate's appearance and discourse scores to the median appearance and discourse scores of chosen RFS's and RPS entrance by isolates. Table 22 shows the comparison of the relation of isolate's appearance and discourse scores to the median scorésxof non-chosen RFS's and entrance into non-chosen RPS's by isolates. When comparing the appearance and discourse scores of isolates to the appearance and discourse scores of their chosen RFS's it was found that the majority of all isolates had appearance and discourse scores within the ranges for the appearance and discourse scores of the members of their ll3 .muoum COHuUMHmemm MHmm pom muoum mucmuamuum Hoauom mocha .muoum wocmuamuum HMHUOm Hmumcmm or» mum mmuoum mmusoumHo pom mucmummadm woman was. H N a a a a mHmuoe N H N N H cmHomz scum whoa no .mum m N N N cmHomz eoum .mu6 m H N cmHomz scum .mp6 a N m guano: scum .mu6 m m H N N amHomz scum .mua N H m H quomz scum .ua H H N H H N aMHomz spa: mmuo< .02 .oz .02 .oz .02 .02 max cmmoau mo mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mnoum cmHom: 0» ammonu dmmosu ammonu ammonu ammonu ammonu muoum m.mva0mH Ho umnawz m0 umnEmz mo quEmz mo umnEmZ mo umnamz mo Hmnfimz mo COHHMHmm maoumm mfimuwm meoumm memumm meoumm mfimumm uoz oHo 602 can uoz oHo muoum wuoum mucmuamuu< muoum wucmuamou< GOHuommmHumm mHmm HMHuom macaw Hoduom Hmumcmw mocmuucu whopuzuum QHzmocmHHm Hmooumwumm .mmbmHOmH an mucmupcm musuusuum QHnmocmHum Hmuouaaumu pom mmufiuoouum QHsmocmHum HmuouQHumu cmmonu Ho monoun mmusoumflo pom mucmummaam CMHUME ou monoum mwuooumHo pom mucmummmmm .mmumHomH mo COHuMHmH mo comHHMQEou .HN MHQMB 114 .muoum QOHuummmHumm HHmm pom mHOUm muomudmuum Hoduom moonm .muoum mucmuamuum HMHuom Hmumcom wnw mum monoum 0mu300mwo pom mocmwmmmmm omwsu.m£9. m ¢ m w m v MHmuoa N N m GMHomz Eoum whoa no mHQ m H H cmaomz Scum .mum m H cmHoms scum .m»6 a H N H H cmHomz scum .mu6 m N H cmHomz scum .mua N N amHomz souw .H6 H H H cmHomz nqu mmuo< .02 .oz .02 .oz .02 .oz mam ammoroucoz mo mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm ououm cmHomz ou cmmoaUIcoz ammonUIcoz. ammocUIcoz :mmonUIcoz cmmOSUIGOZ d0m0£Ulcoz wuoum .mmuMHomH mo umnfimz mo umnamz mo H0980: Ho uwnfiwz mo Honfimz mo umnamz Ho GOHHMHmm mamumm mamumm mfiduwm mEmumm memumm mfimumm .mmm 6 .mm« o .mmm m .mmm m .mmm m .mmm m Oped mmoonu oucH omonu Oped mmoonu oudH mmocu OUGH mmoonu oucH muonu uoz 6H6 uoz oHo uoz oHo wuoum muoum musmummuu< wuoum oucwumouud COHuummmHumm HHmm Hafiuom asouu HMHuom Hmumcmw mucmuucm musuusuum QHnmoGMHHh Hmuoumwumm ammonUIdoz : - .mmHMHomH HQ mucmuucm muduusuum mammocmflum Hmuouaflumu ammocUIcoc pom mmuduusuum QHnmocmHum HmuouaHumH cmmOEUICOC mo monoum mmHSOUmHo paw mucmnmwmmm amaomfi on nmuoum onusoumflp paw wuomummmmm .mmgmHomH mo coaumHmu mo comHHMQEOU .mm mHQma 115 chosen RFS's. More isolates had group social acceptance scores outside the range for the group social acceptance scores of their chosen RPS's than for either the general social acceptance or self satisfaction scores. Two of the seven isolates who became members of a chosen RPS had group social acceptance scores outside the range of scores of their chosen RFS's, while three of the seven isolates who did not become members of a chosen RPS had scores outside the range of their chosen RFS's. With the general social acceptance scores: allxof those isolates who became members of a chosen RPS, had general social acceptance scores within the range of scores for the RFS's into which they chose. However, one of the seven isolates who did not become mem- bers of the RFS's into which they chose, had a general so- cial acceptance score outside the range of scores of the RPS into which she chose. With the self satisfaction scores one of the seven isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's had a self satisfaction score outside the range of scores of her chosen RPS. Among isolates who did not be- come members of their chosen RPS, two of the seven had self satisfaction scores outside the range of scores of their chosen RFS's. In summarizing the relation between RPS appearance and discourse scores, and RPS entrance by isolates, the agreement with the general and group social acceptance scores of chosen RPS's was a factor separating those isolates who 116 became members of their chosen RPS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of the isolates who had general and group social acceptance scores close to the scores of their chosen RFS's became members of their chosen RPS's while the majority of the isolates who had general and group social accept- ance scores far from the scores of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of those isolates who did not become members of chosen RPS's but became members of non-chosen RPS's also had gen- eral social acceptance scores far from the scores of the RFS's of which they did become members. In contrast, the majority of the isolates who did not become members of chosen RFS's, but became members of non-chosen RPS, had group social acceptance scores close to the group social acceptance scores of the RPS's of which they became members. The agreement with the self satisfaction scores of chosen RFS's was not a factor separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS's. An equal number of isolates who had self satisfaction scores close to the scores of their chosen RPS's became members of their chosen RFS's and did not become members of their chosen RFS's. However, more isolates had self satisfaction scores close to rather than far from the self satisfaction scores of their chosen RFS's. Also, among the isolates who became 117 members of non-chosen RFS's all had self satisfaction scores close to the median self satisfaction scores of the RPS's of which they became members. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, all RFS's self satisfaction scores were similar in that they had positive self opinions. Therefore, whether or not an isolate agreed with the self satisfaction score of her chosen RPS did not have as much meaning as whether or not she agreed with the general and group social accept— ance scores of chosen RFS's. Houser suggested that individuals tend to express the opinions of their reference group prior to interacting with the group.2 Findings from this study show that iso- lates who became members of their chosen reference groups did express opinions, in the form of a general and group social acceptance score, close to those of their chosen RPS prior to interacting with the group. In contrast, those individuals who did not become members of their chosen ref- erence groups did not express opinions, in the form of gen- eral and group social acceptance scores, close to those of their chosen RFS's. Smith explains that among adolescent groups there are no formal criteria for membership. The criteria are instead approximation of the group norms.3 Again findings Zsuera, p0 lo. 3Supra, p. 16. 118 from this study would show that the isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's did approximate a group norm in the form of general and group social acceptance scores prior to interacting with the group, while the isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS's did not approximate a group norm, in the form of general and group social acceptance scores. Coleman found in his study of high school students that clothing was named as one of the most important fac— tors for social acceptance.4 In this study it has been shown that the isolates who agreed with the clothing opin- ions of their chosen RFS's, in the form of general and group social acceptance scores, did become members of the RFS's into which they chose, while the isolates who did not agree with the clothing opinions of their chosen RFS's, in the form of general and group social acceptance scores, did not become members of the RFS's into which they chose. Although Selvin and Hagstrom did not mention the type of characteristics of groups non-members might approximate prior to becoming group members, they discussed two types of characteristics of groups: aggregative and integrative characteristics.5 RPS appearance and discourse scores were examples of aggregate characteristics of groups, as they 4Supra, p. 16. SSupra, p. 11. 119 were based on smaller units of the group. Isolates did express the aggregate characteristics of their chosen RPS's prior to interacting with the RPS, while the isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's did not express the aggregate characteristics of their chosen RFS's. The hypothesis guiding the investigation in this section of the chapter was Hypothesis II: Isolates who are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opin- ions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. Although the opposite case was not stated in the hypothesis it was implied that isolates who are pos— itively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship struc- tures but do not have clothing and appearance opinions sim- ilar to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would not become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. It would seem that the hypothesis would be accepted when "clothing and appearance opinions“ meant general and group social acceptance scores, but not when "clothing and appearance opinions" meant self satis- faction scores. RPS Conpent Patterns and Reference Group Entrance Three content patterns of opinions were developed for each RPS. The general social acceptance content pat- tern dealt with factors important for general social 120 acceptance in the school. The group social acceptance con- tent pattern dealt with factors important for group social acceptance. The self satisfaction content pattern dealt with opinions about oneself in relation to factors of so- cial acceptance in the school. The patterns were developed from those questions on which there was at least 50 per cent agreement among RPS members when answering. The dif- ference between the appearance and discourse scores and the content patterns of opinions was that the scores were measures of general opinion about social acceptance while the content patterns were measures of the actual content of opinions about social acceptance. Guiding the investigation of the relation of RPS content patterns of opinions to RPS entrance by isolates was Hypothesis II: Isolates who are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. Whereas in the previous section "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean appearance and discourse scores, in this section "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean content patterns of opinions. Table 23 depicts the comparison of the relation of isolate's opinions to the content patterns of opinions of chosen RFS's and RPS entrance by isolates. Table 24 depicts 121 b b u b u h mHMHOB H o H ¢NIH H H H vamN m N m m N vhlom m N H H m mmlmh H H H m m 00H ucmEmmum< ucmu Hum .02 .02 .oz .02 .oz .02 mum ammonu mo mam cmmocu mum cmmocu mhm ammonu mhm cmmonu mmm ammonu whm ammocu mcumupmm ucmwcou 0» mo umnemz mo umnamz Ho umnfimz Ho noose: mo menses .mo quEmZ mGOHcHQO .mmHMHomH mEoumm mamumm mEoumm oemumm mEoumm mamumm Ho soapmHmm Hoz UHQ uoz UHQ uoz own cumuumm ucmucou sumuumm ucmpcou cumuumm ucmucou mucmgemuu< mucmuamoo< GOHuummmHumm HHmm HwHuom Qsouw HMHuom Hmumcmw mononucm whoposunm QHnmocmHum HmooumHumm mmumHomH an mocmuucm mudguowum aHnmocmHuH HmuouQHumu pom mmusuuouum QHsmUCMHHH Hmuoumdumu ammonu mo mcumuume uomucou ou mCOHCHQo .mmumHomH mo COHumHmu Ho GOmHumanu .mN memB 122 meuoa OOH udmfimmum< ucwu Mom .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 mmm mmm mmm mmm mmm ammo:UIooz dmmonUIcoz cmmOQUIcoz Cenozoicoz cmmocUIGoz mo umnEmE mo Mensa: mo HmnEmE mo H0080: mo nomad: osdumm .mhm memumm.mmm memumm .mmm mEmumm.mmm wEmme .mmm ouoH wmoonu oucH mmonu OHGH mmoosu OpGH mmonu ouoH mmoonu 0 oz mum cmmO£UIGOZ Ho umnamz oemumm .mmm ouGH muonu #02 UHQ uoz GHQ #02 UHQ cumuumm cumuumm mucmummuu< cuwuumm wucdwmmuu< GOHuummmemm HHmm HMHuom adouw HMHuom Hmumcow mucmuHcm mwsuusuum chmocmHum Hmuoumauom ommosUIcoz mam concavidoz mo mowmuumm pompdou on mGOHcHQo .mmHMHomH Ho coapmHmm mmuMHomH no encompam musuusuum QHcm Iocmflum HmuouQHumH cmmOQUIco: cam mounuunuum QHSmocmHuH HmuouQHumu ammono loos Ho mcwmuuma ucmucou on chHcHQo .mmHMHomH mo COHumHmu mo comHumeEou .wN mHnma 123 the comparison of the relation of isolates' opinions to the content patterns of opinions of non-chosen RFS's and entrance into non-chosen RFS's by isolates. In summarizing the relation between RPS content patterns of opinions and RPS entrance by isolates, agree- ment with the general and group social acceptance content patterns of opinions was not a factor separating those iso- lates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. More than half of both those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's and those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's had general social acceptance opinions in agreement with the general social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RFS's. However, slightly more of the individuals who became members of their chosen RFS's were in agreement with the general social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RFS's than those who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Only two of the seven isolates who became members of non-chosen RFS's were in agreement with the general social acceptance content patterns of opinions of the RFS's of which they became members. With the group social acceptance patterns, the majority of both those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's and those isolates who did not become members .of their chosen RFS's were not in agreement with the group 124 social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RPS's. Likewise, more than half of the seven isolates who became members of non-chosen RFS's had group social acceptance opinions not in agreement with the group social acceptance content patterns of their RFS's of which they became members. Agreement with the self satisfaction content pat- terns of chosen RFS's was a factor separating those isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's from those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's. The ma- jority of the isolates who had self satisfaction opinions in agreement with the self satisfaction opinions of their chosen RPS's became members of their chosen RPS's while the majority of the isolates who had self satisfaction opinions not in agreement with the self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RFS's. While the majority of the isolates who did not be- come members of their chosen RFS's were not in agreement with the self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RFS's all of the isolates who became members of non-chosen RPS's were in agreement with the self satisfaction content patterns of their non-chosen RPS's. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, all RPS self satisfaction content patterns of opinions were similar in that they had positive self opinions. Therefore, the fact that an isolate agreed with the self satisfaction pattern of her particular chosen RPS did not have much significance as by agreeing with one RPS 125 she was at the same time in agreement with other RFS's. Houser suggested that individuals tend to express the opinions of their reference group prior to interacting with the group.6 While from this study the above statement was shown to be true when opinions meant general and group social acceptance scores, it did not seem to be true when opinions meant group content patterns of opinions. Only two of the seven isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's had group social acceptance opinions in agreement with the group content patterns of their chosen RPS. Those isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's did have general social acceptance opinions in agreement with the general social acceptance content pattern of their chosen RPS. However, those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS also had general social acceptance opin- ions in agreement with their chosen RFS's. These findings would suggest that agreement with the overall feeling or opinion of a group about factors for social acceptance as .revealed in the appearance and discourse scores may be more important for social acceptance than agreement with the actual content of the opinions of the desired RPS about factors important for social acceptance. The hypothesis guiding the investigation in this section of the chapter was Hypothesis II: Isolates who 6Supra, p. 10. 126 are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opin- ions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. Although not stated the opposite case is implied that isolates who are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures but do not have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friendship structures would not become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they as- pire. It would seem that the hypothesis would not be ac- cepted when "clothing and appearance opinion" meant agree- ment with general and group social acceptance content pat- terns of opinions but would be accepted when "clothing and appearance opinions" meant agreement with the self satis- faction content patterns of opinion. However, since all RFS's had similar positive opinions in their self satisfac- tion content patterns of opinions, an isolate who agreed with her chosen RPS at the same time was in agreement with other RFS's. RPS Cohesion, RPS Opinion Content Patterns _and Reference Group Entrance Up to this point those isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's were compared as a group with those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RPS's. However, it was of interest to further investigate the seven 127 isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's to deter- mine how the cohesion of their RFS's was related to their agreement with the RPS content patterns of opinions. For the investigation the guiding hypothesis was formulated: Isolates who become members of chosen highly cohesive re- ciprocal friendship structures would more closely approxi- mate the reciprocal friendship structures' content patterns of opinions than isolates who became members of chosen less cohesive reciprocal friendship structures. The cohesion of a RPS was the percentage of recip- rocated friendship choices among RPS members as compared to the total number of possible reciprocated friendship choices among RPS members. RFS's with cohesion scores from 51 to 100 were referred to as "more cohesive" RFS's while RFS's with cohesion scores from 0 to 50 were referred to as "less cohesive" RFS's. Of the seven isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's five became members of more cohesive RFS's while the remaining two became members of less cohesive RFS's. The following table illustrates the comparison of the relation of the opinions of the isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's to the three content patterns of opinions of their chosen RFS's and the cohesion of their chosen RFS's. In summarizing the comparison of the relation of opinions of isolates who became members of chosen RPS's 128 N m N m N m mHMHOB o H «NIH H mvlmN H H N m vhlom m H m mmlmb H H N H OOH usefimmum< unmu Mom .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 .02 mam ammonu Ho omIH OOHIHm OmIH OOHIHm omIH OOHIHm mcumuumm ucmucou «GOHmmnou «GOHmeOU "cowmmcow|,«00Hmmnou «dOHmmnou «GOHmmnou o» mGOHCHQo mmm cmmoco mo GOHmchU mam cwmozu m0 COHmmnou mum cmmmmu H0 GOHmmnou .mmumHOmH cuwpumm cumuumm mocmummuu< cumuumm mucmuawuu< mo :0HumHmm GOHHUMHmHumm HHmm HMHuom esouw HmHuom Hmumcmw mCOHCHQm mo mcumuumm pcmucou mmudpusuum ecu pom mmusuusuum m0 mcumuuma ucmucou mo mumnama mEmomn 0:3 QHnmocmHum Hmuoumwumu cmmoau uflmnu Ho GOHmmnou Qflcmpcwflwm HmuoueHumu ammonu uwmnu mo mCOHGHQO may on mmusuozwum QHnmocmHHH HmuouaHumu cmmocu mmHMHomH Ho mCOHCHQo H0 COHumHmu H0 somHHMQEOU .mN mHQma 129 to the content patterns of their chosen RFS's and the co- hesion of their chosen RFS's, it was found that the isolates who became members of chosen cohesive RFS's more closely approximated the reciprocal friendship structures' group social acceptance and self satisfaction content patterns of opinions than those isolates who became members of chosen less cohesive RFS's. However, the isolates who became mem- bers of chosen cohesive RFS's did not more closely approxi— mate the reciprocal friendship structure's general social acceptance content patterns of opinions than those isolates who became members of chosen less cohesive RFS's. The guiding hypothesis formulated for the investi- gation in this section was: Isolates who become members of chosen highly cohesive reciprocal friendship structures would more closely approximate the reciprocal friendship structures' content patterns of opinions than isolates who became members of chosen less cohesive reciprocal friend- ship structures. It would seem that the hypothesis would be accepted for the group social acceptance patterns and self satisfaction patterns, but not with the general social acceptance patterns. The opinions given for group social acceptance patterns were only opinions about one's group. Therefore, perhaps this accounts for the fact that the co- hesion of the group was a factor separating those who agreed with the group pattern from those who were in less agree- ment with the group pattern. 130 RPS Opinion Diversity Scores, RPS Content Patterns and RPS Entrance by Isolates Besides investigating the seven isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's to determine how the cohesion of their RFS's was related to their agreement with the RPS content patterns of opinions, it was also of interest to determine how the opinion diversity scores of their chosen RFS's were related to their agreement with the RPS content patterns of opinions. For this investigation, guiding hy- pothesis IV was formulated: Isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friendship structures with low opinion diversity scores would more nearly approximate the recipro- cal friendship structure's content patterns of opinions than isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friend- ship structures with high opinion diversity scores. The opinion diversity score of an RPS was the per- centage of different answers given by RPS members in reply to interview schedule questions as compared to all the dif- ferent answers given by class members. Opinion diversity scores from 34 to 49 were considered low opinion diversity scores and indicated that the RPS confined its answers to a narrow range of opinions. Opinion diversity scores from 50 to 65 were considered high opinion diversity scores and indicated that the RPS gave a wider range of different an- swers when replying to interview schedule questions. Pour of the seven isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's became members of RFS's with low opinion diversity 131 scores, while the remaining three isolates became members of RPS's with high opinion diversity scores. Table 26 il- lustrates the comparison of the relation of the opinions of the isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's to the three content patterns of opinions of their chosen RFS's and the opinion diversity scores of their chosen RPS's. In summarizing the comparison of the relation of opinions of isolates who became members of chosen RFS's to the content patterns of opinions of their chosen RFS's and the opinion diversity scores of their chosen RFS's, it was found that the isolates who became members of RPS's with low opinion diversity scores did more closely approximate the RPS group social acceptance and self satisfaction con- tent patterns of opinions than those isolates who became members of RFS's with high opinion diversity scores. How- ever, the isolates who became members of RFS's with low opinion diversity scores did not more closely approximate the RPS general social acceptance content pattern than those isolates who became members of RFS's with high opinion di- versity scores. The guiding hypothesis formulated for this section was: Isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friendship structures with low opinion diversity scores would more nearly approximate the reciprocal friendship structure's content patterns of opinions than isolates who become members of chosen reciprocal friendship structures 132 m v m v m O mHmuoa O H ONIH H mvlmm H H m N Oblom H N H m mmlmw H H m OOH ucmEmmum¢ ucmu umm .02 .02 .02 .oz .02 .02 mam ammonu Ho huHmum>Ha HuHmum>Hn HpHmum>Ha HuHmum>HQ HuHmum>Ha >uHmH0>HQ msuwupmm ucmucou GOHGHQO GOHCHQO GOHGHQO COHGHQO COHGHQO COHCHQO on mCOHcHao non 30H aon 30H son 30H .wmumHomH mmm cmmonu Ho mmm comonu Ho mam ammonu Ho Ho COHHMHmm muoum HuHmum>HQ COHCHQO muoum HuHmum>HQ GOHCHQO muoum HuHmum>Hn QOHCHQO cumuumm ucmncou onmuumm ucmpoou cumuumm pomucou COHuomHmHumm HHmm mocmuaouo< mucmummuo< HMHoom edouw HMHuom Hmumcwo mCOHcHQO Ho mcumupmm #cmucou mmusuusuum aHsmocmHum HmuoueHuwu ammonu HHmng Ho mwuoom muHmum>Ho COHCHQo map 006 mmusuusuum QHcmocmHum HmuoueHomu ammonu uHm£# mo mCOHcHQo mo moumuuma pseudoo on» on mmusuusuum QHcmocmHum HmuouQHumu cmmoco Ho mHMQEmE mfimomn 0:3 mmuMHomH mo mCOHCHQo Ho GOHHMHOH mo COmHHmQEOU .ON wHQmB 133 with high opinion diversity scores. It would seem that the hypothesis would be accepted for the group social ac- ceptance content patterns and the self satisfaction patterns, but not for the general social acceptance patterns. The opinion given for the group social acceptance score were only opinions about one's own group and perhaps would ac- count for the fact that the opinion diversity of the group was related to the agreement by isolates with group social acceptance content patterns of opinions. CHAPTER VI SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS Summary The study was a part of a larger longitudinal proj- ect concerning clothing, and appearance as related to social acceptance.1 The purpose of the present study was to in- vestigate the relationship between selected variables and reciprocal friendship structure (reference group) entrance by isolates. The subjects for investigation were 19 girls who appeared as sociometric isolates in the ninth grade class of a large midwestern high school. Data collection was in two forms. First, a back- ground questionnaire was given each of four years of the larger study in which sociometric data were gathered con- cerning "best friend choices."i Yearly sociometric diagrams were constructed showing only reciprocated friendship choices and the resulting sociometric classifications of reciprocal friendship structures (RPS), mutual pairs (MP) and isolates (I). From the sociograms movement of the ninth grade iso- lates was traced as they continued into the tenth grade. Also from the sociometric data, index of cohesion scores were figured for all reciprocal friendship structures. lSupra, p. 23. 134 135 As a second form of data collection the class mem- bers were interviewed concerning their clothing and appear- ance opinions as related to social acceptance. The girls were interviewed the first year of the study as ninth graders and again the last year of the study as twelfth graders. Only the ninth grade findings were utilized in this study. Stone's framework of appearance and discourse factors of a social transaction was used as a guide in coding the data. From the data obtained at the interviews appearance and discourse scores were determined for all class members as ninth graders. The appearance and discourse scores were measures of an individual's general opinion about the im- portance of appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance. The general social acceptance score was a measure of an individual's opinion about the importance of appearance and discourse factors for general social ac- ceptance in the school while the group social acceptance score was a measure of an individual's opinion about the importance of appearance and discourse factors for social acceptance in one's group. The self satisfaction score was a measure of an individual's opinion about herself as related to factors for social acceptance in the school. Opinion diversity scores and content patterns of opinions were determined for all reciprocal friendship structures, mutual pairs, the overall sociometric classi- fications and the class as a whole. Opinion diversity 136 scores were measures of the percentage of different answers that members of a group gave in reply to interview schedule questions in relation to the total number of different an- swers given by all class members. The content patterns of opinions were measures of the actual content of a group's opinions about factors important for social acceptance. The general social acceptance content pattern concerned the content of the group's opinions about factors important for general social acceptance in the school while the group social acceptance content pattern concerned the content of the group's opinions about factors important for social acceptance in the group. The self satisfaction pattern was composed of the group's opinions about themselves. The content patterns were composed of the content of the answers to those questions on which the group members had 50 per cent or more agreement. Orientation to RFS's by isolates was determined from an analysis of both sociometric and interview data. The five variables of RPS cohesion, RPS opinion diversity scores, reference group orientation, appearance and discourse scores and content patterns of opinions were investigated in relation to RPS entrance by isolates in order to determine differences between ninth grade isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's by the tenth grade and those isolates who did not become members of their chosen RFS's by the tenth grade. 137 In a general investigation of the characteristics of the isolates the following characteristics were found. Fourteen of the 19 isolates became members of RPS's by the tenth grade with seven of these isolates becoming members of the RFS's into which they chose. Two of the 19 ninth grade isolates became mutual pair members by the tenth grade. The remaining three ninth grade isolates remained as isolates in the tenth grade. Three-fourths of all iso- lates were positively oriented to a reference group and also considered themselves part of a group of girls in the ninth grade class. When the appearance and discourse scores of the isolate, and RPS classifications were compared, the groups had both the same general social acceptance scores and group social acceptance scores. The scores indicated that isolates and RPS members considered appearance factors and discourse factors to be of equal importance for social acceptance in the school and in their groups. The self satisfaction scores of the isolate and RPS classifications were also similar, showing predominantly positive self opinions. Upon analysis of the clothing, appearance and so- cial acceptance opinions of class members it was found that definite general social acceptance content patterns, group social acceptance content patterns and self satisfaction content patterns existed for the class and RFS's with the RPS patterns being different from the class patterns and 138 from each other. However, in all cases there was some agreement between RPS patterns and the class patterns. Following are the opinions composing the three class pat- terns and a summary of the major differences among the RPS patterns themselves and between the RPS patterns and the class patterns. General Social Acgeptance Content Pattern of Opinions for the Class The class agreed that: 1. Only discourse factors were important for a new girl to get in with the popular girls. --‘f.’) 2. The clothing of the popular girls in the ninth/\ grade differed from the clothing of the other girls. 3. Clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the,?; high school. (C3H4” While the class agreed that clothing influenced a girl's popularity at the high school they could only name dis- course factors or could not agree when asked, in indirect questions, to name factors important for social acceptance in the school. In contrast the RFS's, while still agree- ing that clothing influenced a girl's popularity, could agree on factors important for general acceptance, when asked to name them through indirect questions. However, the RFS's were not usually consistent in always naming only discourse or appearance factors as important in all situ- ations. 139 Group_Social Acceptance Content Pattern of Opinions for the Class The class agreed that: 1. Only discourse factors were used in choosing a friend. 2. Others do not judge you by the way your best friend dresses. 3. A girl with a flowered blouse and plaid skirt was not considered well dressed, but she would be invited into their groups. 4. It was important for Michelle, a new girl, to have bobby socks like the other girls. 5. Neat hair was more important than expensive clothes. However, a girl with expensive clothes but messy hair would be invited to run around with their groups. The class was consistent in agreement on the importance of discourse factors for group social acceptance. They agreed that only discourse factors were used in choosing a friend and continued by agreeing that although a girl might have appearance irregularities she would still be invited to run around with their groups. The majority of the RFS's continued to agree that only discourse factors were used in choosing a friend. However, they did not agree that one or both of the girls with appearance ir- regularities would be accepted as a girl friend or a mem— ber of their groups. Self Satisfaction Pattern of Opinions for the Class The class agreed that: 1. There was something about themselves they would like to change. 4. 140 They were satisfied with their general appear— ance, hair and complexions. Some clothes gave the girls more self—confi- dence than others. Compliments were sometimes given on the way they dressed for school. The class agreed that, although there was something about themselves they would like to change, their opinions about themselves were generally positive. The majority of the RFS's had positive opinions, as in the class pattern, as well as additional positive opinions about rarely or never feeling ill at ease or embarrassed about the clothes they wore to school. When analyzing the five variables for RPS entrance by isolates the following relationships were cited. 1. Reciprocal Friendship Structure Cohesion: The majority of those isolates who chose into more cohesive RFS's became members of the RPS's into which they chose. All of those isolates who chose into less cohesive RFS's did not become members of the RPS's into which they chose. Reciprocal Friendship Structure Opinion Diver- sity Scores: The majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with low opinion diversity scores became members of the RFS's into which they chose. The majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with high opinion diver- sity scores did not become members of the RPS's I'll. . I... III. ‘lllll! 'l.‘ Illa“, 141 into which they chose. A low opinion diversity score indicated that an RFS had a narrow range of Opinions when answering interview schedule questions while a high opinion diversity score indicated that an RPS had a wider range of opinions when answering interview questions. Reciprocal Friendship Structure Orientation: Three-fourths of all isolates both considered themselves to be part of a group of girls with- in the ninth grade class and made a choice into an RPS. Reciprocal Friendship Structure Appearance and Discourse Scores A. General Social Acceptance Score: The major- ity of the isolates who had general social acceptance scores close to the median scores of their chosen RFS's became members of their chosen RFS's. The majority of those isolates who had general social acceptance scores far from the median scores of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RFS's. B. Group Social Acceptance Score: The majority of the isolates who had group social accept- ance scores close to the median scores of their chosen RFS's became members of their 142 chosen RFS's while the majority of the iso— lates who had group social acceptance scores far from the group social acceptance scores of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RFS's. Self Satisfaction Score: The majority of all isolates had self satisfaction scores close to the self satisfaction scores of their chosen RFS's. Isolates who had self satisfaction scores close to the self satis- faction scores of their chosen RPS's were as likely as not to become members of their chosen RFS's. Likewise, those isolates who had self satisfaction scores far from the self satisfaction scores of their chosen RPS's were as likely as not to become mem- bers of their chosen RPS's. 5. Reciprocal Friendship Structure Content Patterns of Opinions A. General Social Acceptance Content Pattern: The majority of both isolates who became members of their chosen RPS's and those who did not become members of their chosen RFS's had opinions in agreement with the general social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RPS's. 143 B. Group Social Acceptance Content Pattern: The majority of both those isolates who be— came members of their chosen RFS's and those who did not become members of their chosen RFS's had group opinions not in agreement with the group social acceptance content patterns of their chosen RFS's. C. Self Satisfaction Content Pattern: The majority of those isolates who had opinions in agreement with the self satisfaction con— tent patterns of their chosen RFS's became members of their chosen RFS's while the majority of those isolates who had opinions not in agreement with the self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RFS's did not become members of their chosen RPS's. Conclusions The very small size of the population for investi- gation, only 19 isolates in one ninth grade class of girls, must be kept continually in mind throughout a discussion of possible acceptance or non-acceptance of the guiding hypotheses for this study. Each hypothesis will be cited followed by corresponding data which aided in determining whether or not it would seem that the hypothesis should be accepted for this study. 144 Hypothesis I: Patterns of clothing and appearance opinions distinctive to reciprocal friendship struc- tures within the entire class of girls would differ from each other and from the overall class pattern of clothing and appearance opinions. Definite general social acceptance, group social acceptance and self satisfaction content patterns were found to exist for the class and reciprocal friendship structures with the majority of the reciprocal friendship structure patterns being different from the class patterns and from each other. However, when comparing the content patterns of reciprocal friendship structures to the class content patterns, in all cases there was some agreement between reciprocal friendship structure patterns and the total class pattern. The differences between reciprocal friendship structure patterns and class patterns resulted from the reciprocal friendship structures having a different answer for questions included in the class pattern and/or agree- ment on answers for questions not included in the class pattern. With this kind of differences between class and reciprocal friendship structure content patterns in mind, the hypothesis was accepted that patterns of clothing and appearance opinions distinctive to reciprocal friendship structures within the entire class of girls differed from each other and from the overall class patterns of clothing and appearance opinions. 145 Hypothesis II: Isolates who are positively oriented to particular reciprocal friendship structures and have similar clothing and appearance opinions to those of the reciprocal friend- ship structures would become members of the reciprocal friendship structures to which they aspire. When "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean appearance and discourse scores the following data were related to the hypothesis. The majority of those girls who were positively oriented to their chosen RFS's and had general and group social acceptance scores close to the median scores of their chosen RFS's became members of their chosen RFS's. However, the majority of all isolates had self satisfaction scores close to the self satisfaction scores of their chosen RFS's and both isolates who had self satisfaction scores close to and far from the self satis- faction scores of their chosen RFS's were as likely as not to become members of their chosen RPS's. In summary, when "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean appear- ance and discourse scores, the hypothesis was accepted only in the cases of the general and group social acceptance scores and not in the case of the self satisfaction scores. When "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean content patterns of opinions the following data were related to the hypothesis. Both isolates who became members of their chosen RFS's and did not become members of their chosen RFS's had opinions close to the group con- tent patterns of their chosen RFS's. Both isolates who 146 became members of their chosen RFS's and did not become members of their chosen RPS's had opinions about group so- cial acceptance far from the group content patterns of their chosen RFS's. However, with the self satisfaction content patterns, the majority of those isolates who had opinions‘ in agreement with the self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RPS's became members of their chosen RFS's and the majority of those isolates who had opinions not in agreement with the self satisfaction patterns of their chosen RPS did not become members of their chosen RFS's. In summary, when "clothing and appearance opinions" was taken to mean opinion content patterns the hypothesis was accepted only in the case of the self satisfaction content pattern and not in the case of the general and group social acceptance content patterns. Hypothesis III: Isolates who become members of chosen highly cohesive reciprocal friendship structures would more closely approximate the reciprocal friendship structures' con- tent patterns than isolates who become members of chosen less cohesive reciprocal friendship structures. The majority of those isolates who chose into more cohesive RFS's had group social acceptance and self satis- faction opinions closer to the general social acceptance and self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RFS's than those isolates who chose into less cohesive RFS's. However, the majority of those isolates who chose into more cohesive RFS's did not have general social 147 acceptance opinions as close to the general social accept- ance patterns of their chosen RFS's as those isolates who chose into less cohesive RFS's. In summary the hypothesis would seem to be accepted only in the cases of the group social acceptance and self satisfaction content patterns but not in the case of the general social acceptance con- tent pattern. Hypothesis IV: Isolates who become members of chosen re- ciprocal friendship structures with low opinion diversity scores would more nearly approximate the reciprocal friendship struc- tures' opinion content patterns than iso- lates who become members of chosen recip- rocal friendship structures with high opin- ion diversity scores. The majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with low opinion diversity scores had opinions closer to the group social acceptance and self satisfaction content patterns of their chosen RFS's than those isolates who chose into RPS's with high opinion diversity scores. However, the majority of those isolates who chose into RFS's with low opinion diversity scores did not have general social acceptance opinions as close to the general social accept- ance patterns of their chosen RFS's as those isolates who chose into RFS's with high opinion diversity scores. In summary, the hypothesis would seem to be accepted only in the cases of the group social acceptance and self satis- faction content patterns but not in the case of the gen- eral social acceptance pattern. 148 Implications Authorities have indicated that among adolescents there is a desire to belong and be a part of friendship groups. Not all adolescents, however, remain continually part of the same friendship groups. Instead there is move- ment from friendship group to friendship group and from non—membership status or isolation to group membership. When individuals desire to be part of a group they are said to view the desired group as a reference group. As isolates desire membership in their reference groups they take on certain attitudes and opinions of the group prior to en- trance into the group. The main contribution of this study has been to show that there was movement among isolates in a high school situation into friendship groups and that when the isolates had certain opinions concerning clothing, appearance, and social acceptance like those of their ref- erence groups they were more likely to become members of their reference groups than when they had other opinions. It would be suggested from the findings in this‘ study that the approximation by isolates of the general opinions of a chosen group about factors important in so- cial acceptance would be more important for gaining accept- ance in the group than approximation of the specific opin- ions of the group about factors important for social ac- ceptance. It has also been a contribution of this study to 149 show that there was not across the board conformity in ado- lescents' opinions. Although there was much agreement among class members on a few opinions, each individual friendship group had its own opinion pattern peculiar to itself. The findings from this study would seem to be per- tinent to educators who are interested in variables of stu- dent social acceptance as it has been suggested that certain aspects of clothing and appearance opinions are related to reference group entrance and that all of these reference- friendship groups do not have similar opinions. However, if these findings are to be of value to educators it would seem that the following further research would be profitable. l. Duplication of this or a similar study using a larger population. 2. Clarification of which aspects of clothing and appearance opinions are related to reference group entrance. 3. Clarification of reference group operational definition so it can be verified whether iso- lates do view desired membership groups as ref- erence groups. 4. Investigation of those individuals who move from reference group membership status to iso- lation by comparing their clothing and appear- ance opinions to the opinions of those indi- viduals who remain in the reference group 150 membership status. Identification of additional variables, besides clothing opinions, related to reference group entrance so the relative importance of cloth— ing opinions as a variable can be seen in re- lation to other variables for reference group entrance by isolates. BIBLIOGRAPHY Bowerman, Charles 8., and Kinch, John W. "Changes in Family and Peer Orientation of Children Between the Fourth and Tenth Grades," Social Forces, XXXVII (March, 1959), 206-ll. Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society. New York: The Free Press, 1961. Eisenstadt, S. M. "Reference Group Behavior and Social Integration: An Explorative Study," American So- ciological Review, XIX (April, 1954), 175—85. Pishbein, Martin. "The Perception of Non-members: A Test of Merton's Reference Group Theory," Sociometry, XXVI (September, 1963), 271-86. Gronlund, Norman 3., and Whitney, Algard P. "Relation Be- tween Pupils' Social Acceptability in the Classroom, in the School and in the Neighborhood," School Re- view, LXIV (September, 1956), 267-71. Hartley, Eugene L., and Hartley, Ruth B. Fundamentals of Social Psychology. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952. Hartley, Ruth B. "Personal Needs and the Acceptance of a New Group as a Reference Group," The Journal of Social Psychology, LI (May, 1960), 349-58. Hartley, Ruth B. ”Relationship Between Perceived Values and Acceptance of a New Reference Group," The Jour- nal of Social Psychology, LI (February, 19605, 181- 90. Houser, Leah Stewart. ”A Sociometric Test of Aspects of Reference Group Theory in a Study of Prejudice Among Youth." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1956. Hendricks, Suzanne H. "Opinions on Clothing and Appearance as Related to Group and Non-group Membership of Twelfth Grade Girls." Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Textiles, Clothing and Related Arts, Michigan State University, 1965. 151 152 Hurlock, Elizabeth. Adolescent Development. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1955. Hyman, Herbert H. "The Psychology of Status," Archives of Psychology, No. 269, XXXVIII (June, 1942). Hyman, Herbert H. ”Reflections on Reference Groups," Pub- lic Opinion Quarterly(Pall, 1960), 383-96. Kelley, Eleanor Ann. "Peer Group Friendships in One Class of High School Girls: Change and Stability." Un- published Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Sociol- ogy, Michigan State University, 1966. Kelley, Harold H. "Two Functions of Reference Groups," Readings in Social Psychology. Edited by Guy E. Swanson, T. M. Newcomb and Eugene L. Hartley. New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1952. Lindzey, Gardner, and Borgotta, Edgar F. "Sociometric Measurement," Handbook of Social Psychology, Vol. I: Theory and Method. Edited by Gardner Lindzey. Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., 1959. Merton, Robert K. Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1957. Moreno, J. L. (ed.). The Sociometrngeader. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1960. Nelson, Harold A. ”A Tentative Foundation for Reference Group Theory," Sociology_and Social Research, XLV Newcomb, Theodore M. "Attitude Development as a Function of Reference Groups: The Bennington Study," Read- ings in Social Psychology. Edited by Eleanor E. Maccoby, Eugene L. Hartley and Theodore M. Newcomb. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1958. Newcomb, Theodore M. Social Psychology. New York: Holt- Dryden Book, 1959. Northway, Mary L. Prime; of Sociometry. Toronto: Univer- sity of Toronto Press, 1952. Selvin, Hanan C., and Hagstrom, Warren 0. "The Empirical Classification of Formal Groups," American Socio- logical Review, XXVIII (June, 1963), 399-411. 153 Sherif, Muzafer, and Sherif, Carolyn W. An Outline of Social Psychology. Revised Edition. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1956. Sherif, Muzafer, and Wilson, M. 0. Group Relations at the Crossroads. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1953. Shibutani, Tamotsu. "Reference Groups as Perspectives," American Journal of Sociology, LX (May, 1955), 562- 69. Smith, Ernest A. American Youth Culture. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Stone, Gregory P. "Appearance and the Self," Human‘Behavior and Social Processes. Edited by Arnold M. Rose. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962. Stouffer, Samuel A. "An Analysis of Conflicting Social Norms," American Sociological Review, XIV (Decem- ber, 19495, 707-17. Stouffer, Samuel A. Social Research to Test Ideas. Glen- coe, Illinois: The Free Press, 1962. United States Bureau of the Census. Michigan General Popu- lation Characteristics, 1960. Published Articles Resulting from the Larger Project Ostermeier, Arlene Bjorngaard, and Eicher, Joanne Bubolz. "Clothing and Appearance as Related to Social Class and Social Acceptance of Adolescent Girls," anr- terly Bulletin: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, XLVIII, No. 3 (February, 1966), 431-36. Wass, Betty M., and Eicher, Joanne B. "Clothing as Related to Role Behavior of Teen-age Girls," ggarterly Bul- letin: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Michigan State University, East Lansing, XLVII, No. 2 (November, 1964), 206-13. Williams, Madelyn C., and Eicher, Joanne B. “Teen-Agers' Appearance and Social Acceptance,“ Journal of Home Economics, LVIII, No. 6 (June, 19665, 457-61. APPENDIX 155 You and Your Clothing An Opinionnaire WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT Michigan State University is doing a study of the opinions young people in Michigan have about clothing. You can help us best by answering the following questions as clearly and carefully as you can. If there is something you do not understand, ask questions. You will be helped as much as possible. No one you know, not even your teachers, will ever see what you have written. INSTRUCTIONS This Opinionnaire is in two parts. When you have finished the first part place it in the envelope and go on to the second. Sign your name to the first section. These ques- tions are about yourself and your class. Do not sign the second section. For this part, we do not want to know who you are. Most of the questions can be answered by checking a blank or filling in a short answer. In those cases where you are asked to write out your own answer, space is provided for you to do so. 156 First, we would like some information about you. 1. 2. Your name , ‘ , last first middle When were you born? Month Day Year How many living brothers and sisters do you have? (Cir- cle the correct number on each line, the 0 if none.) Brothers 0 1 2 3 4 or more Sisters 0 l 2 3 4 or more Who contributes most to the financial support of your family? Your father Your mother ___. Some other person ___.(Explain who this person is. For example, "my brother," "my uncle." How far did this person mentioned above go in school? No schooling‘___ Some grade school.___ Graduated from grade school ___ Some high school ___- Graduated from high school.___ Some college __ Graduated from college ____ Don't know,___ Other (Explain) What does this person do for a living? (Write in the complete name or title of his or her job, not the com- pany he or she works for.) Describe as accurately as possible what this person makes or does on the job. (For example: he supervises the work of 15 office clerks; he sells from door to door; he operates a farm of 160 acres; etc.) 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 157 Does any other person contribute to the financial sup— port of your family? Yes No If yes, explain who (mother, father, brother, etc.) What does this person do? What church do you go to? How many clubs or organizations in school and outside of school do you belong to? None One Two Three Four or more___' Please list the clubs and organizations you belong to: What is the name and location of the grade school you attended? The people with whom we share secrets and spend most of our time are usually referred to as our "best friends." Write the names of your two "best girl friends" in the 9th grade in High School. (If you only have one person you consider a "best friend," write her name only.) 1. 2. If you have more than two "best girl friends" in the 9th grade, write the other names in the spaces below. 1. 2. 158 If your "best girl friends" are in another grade or in another school, write their names in the spaces below. Other Grade Other School 1. l. 2. 2. 159 C O N F I D E N T I A L I N T B R V I E W‘ What this is all about The youth of a community are in many respects the most important element of our society. There is a great deal written and said about this age group, but much of it is not based on facts. This study is intended to supply important information about the opinions young people have about themselves. I need your help for without it this study cannot be done. You can help best by answering the questions as clearly and carefully as possible. I would like your honest reac- tion to what adolescents think. You may think about the question and take your time in answering it. There are no right or wrong answers. We want to know what your opin- ions are. Different people will have different opinions. This information is confidential. Your name will never be used and no one you know will know what you have said. 'This portion of the Appendix is reduced to one- third of the original interview schedule which allowed adequate space for recording responses. 160 Now I would like to begin by asking you some questions about what would happen if a new girl came into your grade at school. 1. If a new girl came to High School and wanted to get in with the popular girls, what would be the best way to do this? What characteristics do you think a new girl would be judged on? What characteristics do you use in choosing a friend? Do you think it is difficult to make friends in High School? No Yes If yes, why do you think so? With the group you go around with, what are some things which are important to do in order to be popular? What are the characteristics of the most popular girl in the ninth grade? Who is the most popular girl in the ninth grade? Does the clothing of the popular girls in the ninth grade differ from the clothing of the other girls? No Yes If yes, how does it differ? Do you think clothing influences a girl's popularity at High School? No Yes Why or why not? 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 161 How do your clothes compare with other girls in school? How does the group you go around with compare in dress to other groups at school? What are the characteristics that are necessary to be the best dressed girl in school? L Who do you think is the best dressed girl in the ninth grade? Is there anything about yourself you would like to change? No Yes If yes, what would you change? Anything else? Do you think you would make a different impression on others if you could make these changes? No Yes If yes, why do you feel this way? If yes, do you think it would be easier to make friends if you made these changes? No ’ Yes If yes, why do you feel this way? Whose approval of your clothing means the most to you? Why? Do some clothes give you more self-confidence than others? No Yes If yes, which ones? Why? Do you think that the manner in which your best friend dresses is a reflection on you? By that I mean, do others judge you by the way your best friend dresses? No Yes If yes, why do you feel this way? 162 18. Are there any girls in the ninth grade who do not dress right? No Yes If yes, why do you think their clothes are not right? How would you describe these girls who do not dress right? Can you tell me more about them? Would you mind telling me who they are? Do they have many friends? No Yes 19. Do you have any friends that are not dressed right? No Yes If yes, what's wrong with the way they dress? 20. Have you ever come to school dressed differently from the other girls? ___No ___Yes If yes, how did you feel when you were dressed differently from everyone at school? 21. If you heard that everyone on "dress-up" day was going to wear a sweatshirt to school and at the last minute they changed their minds but you were not notified and wore one to school; what would you do when you saw them dressed differently? How would you feel? Now I am going to ask you several questions about yourself. 22. Are you usually satisfied with your general appearance? Yes No If no, why not? 23. Are you usually satisfied with your hair? Yes No If no, why not? 24. 25. 163 Are you usually satisfied with your complexion? Yes No If no, why not? Does your mother make suggestions about the clothes you wear to school? No Yes If yes, do you follow her suggestions? If yes, what kind of suggestions does she make? I would like you to answer the next four questions with one of these responses. (Give interviewee card with responses.) 26. 27. 28. 29. Do you enjoy wearing your clothes if your friends don't like them? Almost always Often Sometimes Seldom Never Do you feel ill at ease at school because of your clothing? Almost always Often Sometimes Seldom Never Do others compliment you on the way you dress at school? Almost always Often Sometimes Seldom Never Have you felt embarrassed about the clothes you wear to school? 164 Almost always Often Sometimes Seldom Never If you have felt embarrassed about your clothes, why? 165 RATING APPEARANCE OF INTERVIBWEE Clothing: Figure: Hair: Style Complexion: Make-up: Eyes Lipstick Make-up base neat clean pressed fit appropriate for school fashionable tall average short heavy average slender neat clean unkempt simple elaborate good fair poor None Some but not obvious Obvious III. ‘5xl.ll I115515lifl‘ll‘lllflifS