PERCEWED PARENTAL REJECTION
AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

Thesis for The Degree of M. A.
TMICHI‘GAN STATE UNIVERSITY

Jane-t Landis Summers
1962

i;

 

L I B R A R Y
Michigan State
University

IIIIIII

TATE

RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

 

 

 

IVTE;I_J RETURNING MATERIALS:
Place in book drop to
LIBRARIES remove this checkout from
“ your record. FI__N__ES W1”
be charged if book is
returned after the date

2 2 CW aw stamped below.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

PERCEIVED PARENTAL REJECTION
AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

by Janet Landis Summers

This study analyzed the relationship between perceived

parental rejection and scholastic achievement within a

theoretical framework of deprivation and compensation. Data

obtained by the administration of paper—pencil questionnaires

to a sample of 293 undergraduates enrolled in basic social

science courses at a large state university were analyzed

to test three major hypotheses:

1.

There will be a low positive relationship between
certain of the background items—~namely, socio—
economic status, religion, parental valuation of
education--and scholastic achievement.

There will be an inverselassociation between
perceived parental acceptance and scholastic
achievement.

The inverse relationship between perceived paren—
tal acceptance and scholastic achievement will
be more definite when sooio—economic level is
controlled, and will be strongest in the high

socio—economic group.

Janet Landis Summers

The findings yielded support for the first hypothesis;
in addition, a low positive association resulted between sex
and achievement with females being the higher achievers, and
a positive relationship between year in school and achieve-
ment with freshmen being the higher achievers. Hypothesis
two was refuted: there was a tendency for perceived parental
acceptance to relate to high scholastic achievement, and for
perceived parental rejection to relate to low achievement.
These tendencies were stronger for mother acceptance than
for father, and were especially strong among females. In
light of the findings in relation to hypothesis two, the
third hypothesis was inapplicable. Perceived parental accep_
tance and scholastic achievement were unrelated in the high
socio_economic group; in the low socio-economio group there
was a low positive association between the two variables.

The findings were analyzed from a deprivation and compen»
sation framework. It was concluded that a large state-
supported university, such as that used for this study, is
not the type of institution which would tend to draw a pre~
ponderance of academically oriented students~mstudents whose
orientation is other than academic would tend to compensate
for feelings of parental rejection by seeking gratification
in areas other than high scholastic achievement. At a school
with a high proportion of academically oriented students, it
is expected that perceived parental rejection would be related
to high scholastic achievement. The results from the present
sample seem to suggest that perhaps one factor in adequate per-
formance is a feeling of acceptance in the family of orien-

tation.

PERCEIVED PARENTAL REJECTION

AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

By

Janet Landis Summers

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology and Anthropology

1962

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I wish to express my indebtedness to my husband, Worth,
and to my parents, Judson and Mary Landis, for their encourage—
ment and moral support throughout the various stages of my
graduate training. I want to thank my brother, Judson R.
Landis, for suggesting the topic of this study. I want also
to indicate my gratitude to Dr. Melvin Segal, Dr. Golda Ross,
Dr. Orden Smucker, Dr. Ruth Useem, and Dr. Arthur Vener for
their assistance and COOperation in the gathering of data
for the study. Finally, I wish to thank the members of my
guidance committee, Dr. Wilbur Erookcver, Dr. Charles Ramsey,
and eSpecially Dr. David Gottlieb who, as thesis advisor,

has given generously of his time and advice.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM.
II. METHODOLOGY
III. FINDINGS: BACKGROUND ITEMS AND SCHOLASTIC
ACHIEVEMENT . . . . . .
IV. FINDINGS: INTEGRATION WITH PARENTS AND
SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT.
V. FINDINGS: SOCIO-ECONOMIO LEVEL, INTEGRATION
WITH PARENTS AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT
VI. SUMMARY, INTERPRETATICNS_ AND CONCLUSIONS
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C

iii

Page
ii

Table

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES

Marginals for Integration with Parents
Categories Obtained by Method 1 and by
Method 2 . . . . . . . . .

Pattern of Childhood- Adolescent Happiness and
Integration with Parents

Socio-Economic Status and Scholastic
Achievement

Socio-Economic Status and Scholastic Achieve—
ment for Males and Females

Religious Preference and Scholastic
Achievement

Parental Valuation of Education, and Scholastic
Achievement

Scholastic Achievement for Males and Females
Year in School and Scholastic Achievement

Integration with Parents and Scholastic
Achievement

Integration with Parents and Scholastic Achieve—
ment for Freshmen and SOphomores

Integration with Parents and Scholastic Achieve—
ment for Males and Females

Patterns of High Integration with Father and
with Mother for Males and Females .

Father Integration in Relation to Mother
Integration . . . . . . .

Integration with Father and High Achievement,

Integration with Mother and High Achievement,
for Males and Females . . . . . .

iv

Page

23

26

32

33

all

Al

43

AA

146

1+7

48

Table Page

15. Pattern of Childhood-Adolescent Happiness and

Scholastic Achievement. . . . . . . . 52
16. Socio-Economic Status and Integration with .

Father for Males and Females., . . . . . 56
17. Socio-Economic Status and Integration with

Mother for Males and Females. . . . . . 58
18. Integration with Parents and Scholastic

Achievement by Socio-Economic Level . . . 60
19. Socio-Economic Status and Parental Valuation

of Education . . . . . . . . . . . 62
20. Integration with Father for Males and Females. 83
21. Integration with Mother for Males and Females. 83
22. Integration with Father and Scholastic .

Achievement for Males and Females . . . . 8A
23. Integration with Mother and Scholastic

Achievement for Males and Females . . . . 8A

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure
l. Nye Scale of Perceived Parental Rejection
with Response Values . . . . .
2. Integration with Parents Scores Yielded by
Methods 1 and 2.. . . . .
3. Breakdown of Integration and Achievement

Variables versus Combined Variables

vi

71

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION TO THE PROBLEM

The purpose Of this study is to examine certain rela-
tionships which may exist between perceived parental rejec—
tion and scholastic achievement as measured by expressed
grade point average.

Our theoretical framework is that Of deprivation and
compensation: when an individual is deprived in one area
he will seek out gratification in another area. The key
point is that unsatisfactory interpersonal relations in child-
hood produce insecurity and anxiety which are compensated
for by a quest for power, recognition, and success.

The expected institution for the initial satisfaction
of the individual's needs for acceptance and recognition is
the family of orientation. Because this is the initial group
to which one relates himself, a lack Of a feeling Of security
and acceptance within this group is an especially vital factor
in the development Of the individual. The need for acceptance
and recognition is developed in children to the extent that
they feel anxiety when they sense that there is a lack Of love
and acceptance from the family. The individual who feels unu

accepted will strive to overcome his anxiety, will strive to

2

be accepted and recognized elsewhere. Horney,l

in particular,
has suggested that the quest for power is frequently used as

a compensatory means Of attaining reassurance against the
anxieties produced by unhappy childhood experiences.

Because Of the widespread acceptance of high aspiration
and high achievement as values in American society today,
becoming a high achiever (at least in some socially accepted
area) is one legitimate means to Obtaining gratification and
of compensating for the emotional deprivation felt in the
family. It is recognized that there are avenues to gaining
acceptance other than that Of high academic achievement, how-
ever, our concern is only with the latter. Further, we are
saying nothing about how much this compensatory seeking Of
gratification is internalized or recognized by the individual,
rather, we are only interested in the external manifestations
of deprivation in interpersonal relations leading to a seeking
out of gratification in other areas.

Several investigations have been conducted which bear
on some of the assumptions of this operational framework.
Lasswell hypothesized that power is pursued as a means of
compensation against deprivation-—"power is expected to over—
come low estimates of the self, by changing either the traits

Of the self or the environment in which it functions."2 He

 

1Karen Horney, The Neurotic Personality Of Our Time
(New York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1937), pp. 162-187.

 

2Harold D. Lasswell, Power and Personality (New York:
W. W. Norton and Company, 1937, p. 39.

 

3
points out that the self includes symbols of identification,
so in this sense grades in school would be included as a part
of the self. His sub-hypothesis is that power is resorted
to when it is expected to contribute more than any alterna-
tive value to overcoming or obviating deprivations of the self.
He expects this to be especially the case in middle—class
homes--"we know that middle-class homes are hothouses Of
ambition, holding their children to high standards Of achieve—
ment, thus providing the tension between indulgence and
deprivation so congenial to the accentuation of power."3 His

major hypothesis is supported.

The intensive study Of infancy and childhood . . . has
underlined the decisive importance Of the early years
in shaping the structure Of personality. . . . The

data go in the direction toward which we have been
pointing. The accentuation of power is to be under-
stood as a compensatory reaction against low estimates
Of the self. . . . At the same time adverse estimates
Of the self must not be overwhelming, or the resort to
power will Be blocked by sentiments Of utter hopeless-
ness. . . .

Kausler and Trapp, on the other hand, found results
which conflict with those of Lasswell. They tested the null
hypothesis that there is no relationship between level Of
achievement motivation and level Of manifest anxiety drive.
The null hypothesis was rejected--”the results clearly

reflect a significantly negative relationship between

 

3Ibid., p. 47.

4Ibid.,pp. 52—53.

A

the two sets of scores. . . ."5 That is, high manifest
anxiety drive was related to low achievement motivation,
and low manifest anxiety, to high achievement motivation.

Further, in line with the assumption that excessive
ambition is a way of compensating for a low level of self-
esteem, that power is sought as insurance against an under-
lying feeling of worthlessness, Cohen6 investigated goal~
level setting within a level-Of—aspiration framework by
studying feelings of adequacy and self—acceptance. He found
that both very high goal setting and very low goal setting
were related to self-rejection, to a basic feeling of in-

7

security.

8

Along this same line, Wylie reviews numerous studies
on level of self—esteem and achievement, some Of which have
conflicting results. Some investigators reported no relation~
ship between self-esteem and academic achievement; others

found none between self-regard and n Achievement (i.e. achieve—
ment motivation). Where relationships were found between

self-esteem and achievement, they were usually direct rather

than inverse.

 

5D. H. Kausler and E. P. Trapp, ”Relationship Between
Achievement Motivation Scores and Manifest Anxiety Scores,”
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22: 448-4502

 

6Louis D. Cohen, "Level-Of-Aspiration Behavior and
Feelings Of Adequacy and Self-Acceptance," Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 49: 84-86.

 

 

7Ibid., p. 86.

8Ruth c. Wylie, The Self Concept (Lincoln: The Univer—
sity of Nebraska Press, 1961), pp. 224-246.

 

5

The conflicting results Of the above investigations
indicate a need for some measure which would discriminate
between two types Of individuals: (1) those whose level Of
anxiety is so high or who have such extremely adverse esti-
mates Of self that they are incapacitated, or, in Lasswell’s
words, are blocked from pursuit of power by feelings Of
utter hopelessness; and, (2) those who have a high level of
anxiety and a low estimate Of self but not so low that it
prevents them from attempting to attain power and recognition.

There has been an abundance of research in recent years
on the relationships between child—training practices and
achievement motivation. The results of these investigations
are in general agreement that severity of independence training
in childhood is significantly related to achievement. That
is, the earlier and more severe the independence training in

childhood, the higher the n Achievement.9 These findings

 

9See, for instance; Elizabeth M. Drews and John E.
Teahan, ”Parental Attitudes and Academic Achievement,” Journal
of Clinical Psychology, 13: 328~332; G. A. Friedman, "A Cross:
Cultural Study Of the Relationship Between Independence
Training and n Achievement as Revealed by Mythology” (unpub-w
lished A. B. thesis, Harvard University, 1950), cited in Mc-
Clelland, Studies in Motivation (New York: Appleton~Century—
Crofts, Inc., 1955), pp. 411—413; David C. McClelland, ”Meas-
uring Motivation in Phantasy,” Studied in Motivation, ibid.,
pp. 401-413; F. L. Strodtbeck, "Family Interaction, Values and
Achievement" in D. C. McClelland, et al, Talent and Society
(New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Compafiy,—Inc., 1958), pp. 135~
194; M. Winterbottom, "The Sources of Achievement Motivation
in Mothers' Attitudes Toward Independence Training,” in Mc-
Clelland, et al, The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton-
Century—CrOItET Inc., 1953), pp. 297—304.

 

 

 

 

 

6
tend to confirm the assumption that unsatisfactory inter-
personal relations in early childhood produce insecurity and
anxiety which are compensated for by a seeking Of power,
recognition, and success.

In the present study, rather than being concerned
directly with what training practices are related to later
achievement, we are interested in what feelings of the sub-
ject about the interpersonal relations in his family are
related to later achievement. Research has been conducted
by some investigators whose approach is directly relevant
to ours. Dynes, Clarke, and Dinitzlo initiated a project to
find if individuals with high aspirations are characterized
by greater difficulty in their interpersonal relations within
the family Of orientation than are those with lower aspira-
tions. They found a positive relationship between unsatis~
factcmw interpersonal relationships (as perceived by the
subject) in the family of orientation and high occupational
aspiration.

Ellis,ll testing the hypothesis that a sense Of inade-
quacy develops early in life during a childhood lacking in
warmth and affection, studied sixty unmarried career women,
comparing the successful with the nonsuccessful. She found

that the most successful women indicated that they felt

 

10Russell R. Dynes, Alfred c. Clarke, and Simon Dinitz,
"Levels of Occupational Aspiration: Some Aspects of Family
Experience as a Variable,” American Sociological Review, 21:
212—215 (1956).

11Evelyn Ellis, ”Social Psychological Correlates Of Up~
ward Social Mobility Among Unmarried Career Women,” American
Sociological Review, 17: 558-563 (1952).

 

 

7
rejected both by their parents and by their community.

Evidence is consistent with the theory that upward

social mobility is likely to be an outgrowth of

basically neurotic drives resulting from unsatisfactory

early primary group relations, and that mobility leads

to a continuation of superficial, impermanent primary

group relations and other overt manifestations Of

emotional maladjustment . . . A comparison of mobile

and non-mobile [successful and nonsuccessful] women

reveals that significantly larger proportions Of

mobile individuals had experienced both rejection by

parents and by the over—all community during childhood.12

One Of the most comprehensive studies Of family relation-

ships and achievement is reported in The Achievement Motive.13
As a part of their investigation the authors examined the
child-rearing practices attributed to parents by sons with
varying n Achievement. The most significant finding is that
perceived severity of upbringing or ”felt lack Of love" is
associated among college male students with high n Achievement.
The largest single correlation involves the rejection attriw
buted to the fathers by their sons; that is, sons who felt
their fathers had rejected them had higher n Achievement
scores than those who felt their fathers had loved and
accepted them. The authors point out that, "these data may
have more bearing on the ways sons with high achievement
motivation perceive their parents than on the way in which they
were actually brought up."lu The authors sum up their findings

as follows:

 

lerid., p. 563.
l3Mcclelland, §§_§; , The Achievement Motive, pp. 275-318.

14lbid.’ p. 280. (underlining this author‘s.)

8

College males who give evidence Of being very "close"

to their parents in their admiration of them and
perception of them as particularly loving and helpful

do not for the most part score high on n Achievement.

On the contrary, it is the students who see their.
parents as "distant"—-unfriend1y, severe, unsuccessful—~
who have high n Achievement scores.i

Similar studies by McClelland are reported in Studies of

Motivationl6 with results which support the above findings.

 

Robinowitzl7 examined the ways in which a group of
high school students with high achievement-re1ative-to-ability
differed from three control groups on several variables, two
Ofwhich were the subject's perception of his acceptance by
his family and by his peers. His data suggest a relationship
between achieving beyond the level of expectancy and holding
an ambivalent evaluation Of ones own family and peer accept-
ance. He infers from this that the subjects who are unsure
Of their own acceptance by family and peers seem to be seeking
a more secure status by means Of academic achievement beyond
the level of expectancy.

Friend and Haggard, with a sample Of 80 men and women
between the ages of 16 and 36, found that family integration
and attitude toward father are important in occupational
adjustment but make little difference in achievement-—that is,

those high in adjustment had closely knit, strongly unified

 

l51bid., p. 281.

16McClelland, §£_§l , Studies in Motivation, pp. 389—

 

397.

l7Ralph Robinowitz, "Attributes of Pupils Achieving ‘
Beyond Their Level of Expectancy,” Journal of Personality, 24:
308—317 (1956).

 

9

families and more affection for the father. On the other
hand, antagonism for the mother was positively associated
with both occupational adjustment and achievement.18 Those
high_in adjustment and achievement had a more positive
feeling for the mother and less sense of rejection than did
the lows. Although these findings conflict with those of
other investigators, Friend and Haggard make the important
point that, "whether or not a worker makes special demands
ofthe job or needs Special appreciation and status, depends
upon the amount Of deprivation during his early life: that
he goes after the identical and specific satisfactions in
his work which were denied him years before."19

A preliminary investigation was made Of those rela~
tionships which might exist between interpersonal relation~
ships within the family and scholastic achievement with a
sample Of 60 undergraduate students enrolled in introductory
and advanced sociology courses at a large state university.
The instrument and methods of analysis differed from those
in the present study. The sample was divided into a high
achievement group (reported grade average of A or B) and a
low or average achievement group (reported grade average of
C, D, or F), and into a group who perceived their relation-
ships with the family as being satisfactory (i.e., feeling
close to, accepted by the parents, and remembering childhood

and adolescence as being happy), and a group who perceived

 

l8Anne Roe, The Psychology Of Occupations (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956), pp. 128429.

 

19Ibid., p. 129.

10
the relationships as being unsatisfactory. Additional factors
in the social milieu of the subjects were examined such as
sex, religion, year in school, social class, and value the
family places on education, and these showed no relationship
to achievement. When the ”satisfaction with family relation-
ships" groups were examined for their levels of achievement,
the high satisfaction group had significantly more low
achievement (76%) than high achievement (24%) whereas the low
satisfaction group showed an equal amount of high and of low
achievement. These results might be interpreted to mean that
in a family which provides emotional support and acceptance,
the need to seek gratification and recognition elsewhere is
not developed.

The present study is intended to examine further the
relationship between perceived parental rejection and
scholastic achievement. The three purposes, with the second
and third being the major ones, are:

1. To examine certain factors in the subject's social
milieu-—such as, sociO-economic status, religion,
parental valuation of education, sex, year in
school--for their influence on achievement.

2. To examine the relationship between perceived
parental acceptance or rejection and scholastic
achievement.

3. TO make the same examination as in number (2),

within each sociO—economic group.

11

For the purposes Of this investigation it is hypothesized

that:

The

There will be a low positive relationship between
some Of the background itemse-namely, socio-economic
status, religion, and parental valuation Of educa-
tion—-and scholastic achievement.

There will be an inverse relationship between
feeling accepted by parents and high scholastic
achievement.

The inverse relationship hypothesized in number (2)
will be (a) more definite when sociO—economic
status is held constant, and, (b) strongest in the
high sociO—economic group.

rationale behind hypothesis 2 has been discussed.

The general hypothesis in most studies of social class and

achievement is that academic performance will be positively

related to social class--that more high achievement will occur

in the middle class than in the lower class. We hypothesize,

however,

that at the college level, if a relationship between

sociO—economic status and achievement exists, it will be

slight.

It is

Anne Roe states,

still not literally true that anyone who wishes

to can get a college education in this country, but it

is more nearly true than it used to be . . . . Expectation
Of college attendance varies with the social class position
of the family. . . . after students get to college the
percentage graduating is very similar in all groups except
for those from farm homes. College students, after all,
comprise a limited group and are already selgcted on a
social class basis to a considerable extent. 0

 

2OIbid., pp. 104—107.

l2

Washburne found that sociO-economic status, as measured
by education and occupation(s) Of parents, was n9£_signifi—
cantly related to the academic performance of college students.
He concludes that ”perhaps the part played by sociO-economic
status as regards higher education is limited to the deter-
mination Of Opportunity to attend school, and the development
Of levels Of aspiration such that the student is motivated to
attend when the Opportunity is Offered."21 Washburne's

results seem to indicate that once the student gets_tg

 

college, the social class of his family has very little to

do with his achievement.

22

With a sample of high school sophomores, Rosen found

 

that members Of the middle class tend to have considerably

higher need achievement scores than individuals in the lower
social strata, and that the middle class is characterized

by a larger proportion of persons with achievement oriented

values than are the lower social stratai'Subjects with high

____7 ,1
achievement motivation scores were proportionately more likely

 

to achieve grades of "B” or better than were those with low

motivation scores,whereas achievement value orientation was

 

not related to academic achievement but was related to edu-
cationaleaspiration. (Rosen concludes that the relationship

between academic achievement and social class reflects to a

 

21Norman F. Washburne, "SociO—economic Status, Urbanism,
and Academic Performance in College," Journal of Educational

Research 53: 137 (1959).

22Bernard C. Rosen, "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psy-
chocultural Dimension of Social Stratification," American
Sociological Review, 21: 203—211 (1956).

 

 

l3
considerable extent social class differences in achievement
motivation.

Finally, Strodtbeck, from a study of 1,151 boys Of pre-
college age, reports a definite positive relationship between
being an over-achiever and being of higher socio~economic
status.23

The latter two investigations cited indicate a positive
relationship between social class and achievement at the pre-
college level. They seem to get at the way in which and the
level at which this relationship operates. Middle class
individuals are likely to be both higher aspirers and higher
achievers than are those in the lower class. This differ-
ence is especially evident at the premcollege level because
a college sample is a select one in terms of motivation and
value orientation. Only thOse individuals, regardless Of
sociO-economic status, who are both high aspirers and high
zrhievers can go to college. SO, although the middle class
is characterized as having higher levels of aspiration and
achievement than is the lower class, we could assume that the
lower socio_economic level students who are in college have
high levels of aspiration in order to be there, and will,
therefore, achieve at almost as high a level as the higher
sociO—economic level.

It is expected that the extent to which a subject's

parents value education (i.e. encouraged him tO attend college)

 

23Strodtbeck, op. cit., pp.l35—l94.

14
will vary with sociO-economic level. An investigation by
Gottlieb in which the question was asked, "Who would you say
played the most important role in helping you to decide to
attend college?", reveals that middle and upper class boys
were more likely to mention parents than were lower class
boys and lower class boys selected teachers and guidance
counselors more frequently than did middle and upper class
boys.2u However, we might expect that the lower socio~economic
status college students gained at least some Of their motiva-
tion through encouragement to attend college received from

their parents. Gottlieb found that in each social class it

was the high achievers who had received parental encouragement

 

to attend college.25 In light Of this, we would expect a rela-
tionship between parental valuation of education and scholastic
achievement, however, because Of the relationship between socio—
economic status and parental valuation Of education, and of
the only slight relationship between socio~economic status
and achievement at the college level, perhaps the relationship
will not be strong.

Although we would not expect a strong relationship
between socio—economic status and achievement, because of the
differoing behavioral patterns at different sociO-economic

levels——these patterns influencing the subject's perception of

 

2“David Gottlieb, "Social Class, College Students and
the Ideal College Professor" (paper read at the Annual Meetings
of the Ohio Valley Sociological Society, April 21, 1961).
(Egrthcoming School Review, The University of Chicago Press,
19 2 .

 

25lbid., p. 5.

*—

15
his acceptance or rejection by his parents--we expect to find
a stronger relationship between perceived rejection and
scholastic achievement when sociO-economic level is controlled.
[Allison Davis cites research on child training practices which
supports the view that "the middle-claSs child undergoes in
his cultural training a more depriving attack upon his sources
of organic and emotional support than does the lower-class

child.”26

Middle-class parents "who have been taught by
their own parents to strive for early and fast attainment as
an absolute 'gOOd' in their part of society, very Often sacri—
fice their children's happiness, their basic adequacy in facing
the realities Of later life, by training them too early and
tOO severely for 'achievement'."EZ/,Following this line of
argument, we expect the relationship between perceived parental
rejection and scholastic achievement to be stronger in the
higher sociO—economic groups.

Most discussions Of the relationship between religion
and achievement are based upon Max Weber's study of the influ—
ence of a religious ethic upon social activity. Following
Weber's hypothesis that the spirit of modern capitalism is
intimately connected with the Protestant Ethic, McClelland,
Rindlisbacher, and DeCharms hypothesized that there will be
an association between ”the new 'spirit of capitalism,' 'the

irrational sense Of having done his job well' with an increase

in achievement motivation (n Achievement) and the Protestant

 

26Allison Davis, Social Class Influences Upon Learning
(Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960), pp. 18-19.

 

27lbid., p. 22.

16
emphasis on 'self-help' for salvation with an increased stress
on independence training for young children."28 That is, they
hypothesize that Protestants will have higher achievement
motivation than Catholics and that Protestant families will
emphasize independence training more. Winterbottom29 and
McClelland and Friedman30 have demonstrated an empirical con—
nection between emphasis on independence training and n
Achievement. In addition to their main hypothesis, McClelland
g§.§1., test Weber's suggestion that Jews like Protestants
will have a more rational acquisitive approach to the world,
with the expectation that Jewish parents also will emphasize
independence training more than Catholic parents. Their
findings indicate that Protestant and Jewish parents do expect
independence earlier on the part of their children than do
Irish— or Italian—Catholics.31
Strodtbeck, however, in a similar study, found three

items in particular which were related to achievement:

(1) A belief that the world is orderly and amenable to

rational mastery, that, therefore, a person can and

should make plans which will control his destiny;

(2) A willingness to leave home to make one's way in

life; and

(3) A preference for individual rather than collective
credit for work done.32

 

28McClelland gt 21,, Studies in Motivation, p. 391.

 

29w1nterbottom, op. cit., pp. 297—304.

3OFriedman, Op. cit., pp. 401—413.

31Mcclelland §t_a1 , Studies in Motivation, p. 395.

 

32Strodtbeck, op. cit., pp. 186—187.

17
These values correspond to Weber's characterization of the

Protestant Ethic, but, Strodtbeck states,

Our concern differs from Weber's in that the orien-
tation in question is not presumed to affect all
categories of Americans equally. Some elements are
believed to be widely held, but the particularly dynamic
element of substituting achievement for interpersonal
gratification is believed to develop only in adult years,
and only in people who have been in some sense specially
prepared. Not only is it necessary that they hold cer-
tain beliefs about the nature of the external system,

but the implication of performance in it for interpersonal
relations may also be involved. It is in search for
leads in this connection that we turn to . . . those

[items] relating to early training as a motivational
preparation for achievement.33

In the latter analysis, Strodtbeck found that sons' achieve~

ment was related to the power balance in the family (i.e.
democratic familyowrelatively powerful motherm-yields sons
with higher achievement motivation), which was in turn
related to social class. ”Socio-economic status affects
socialization and the power balance in the family, both of

”3A Thus, it

which are related to subsequent achievement.
appears that what is often characterized as the Protestant

Ethic is in fact the middle class ethic—~this ethic or set

 

of values beingtmgrgrdeterminedlby social class than by

religious background. It is because of this, as with socio~

economic status, that we do not expect a strong relationship

between religion and achievement.

 

33Ibid., pp. 143-14u

341bid., p. 185.

18
In summary, this chapter has included an introduction
to the problem of the study--the theoretical background, a
review of the relevant literature, and a statement of our

purposes and hypotheses.

CHAPTER II
METHODOLOGY

The instrument used in this study was a questionnaire
containing 35 items. (A copy of the questionnaire can be
found in the Appendix A.) Twelve of the items were intended
to obtain objective data on background information, the
remaining items, to elicit subjective responses on feelings
of parental acceptance or rejection and on feelings of happi—
ness in childhood and adolescence.

The major variable in the study, other than scholastic

achievement, is parental acceptance or_rejection of the child

 

 

 

a§_perceived by the child. Throughout the rest of this paper,

 

 

this "perceived parental acceptance/rejection” variable will
be referred to as ”integration with parents." Level of inte-
gration may be defined, then, as the degree to which the sub-
ject feels accepted or rejected by his parents.

1 originated a two-part scale to measure feelings of

Nye
acceptance and rejection between parents and children. The
first part of the scale consists of a group of items to deter-
mine to what extent the child accepted or rejected his parents,

and the second part, a group of items to determine to what

 

1F. Ivan Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent
Behavior (New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958), pp. 77~
78.
19

 

20
degree the child felt that his parents had accepted or re—
jected him. The latter group of items is the one used to
determine integration in this study. Figure 1 presents these
items.

Ten of the items elicit responses indicative of per—
ceived paternal acceptance, and 10 of perceived maternal
acceptance. Three scores were obtained from the scale:

(1) integration with father, (2) integration with mother, and
(3) integration with parents. The first score was derived

by totaling the response values on the 10 ”father items" and
terming those with scores from 15-20, highly integrated with
father; those from 10-14, middle integrated with father; and
those from 0—9, low integrated with father. The second score
was obtained in the same manner and with the same range of
possible values for each integration group using the total
response values from the 10 ”mother items.” 'Two methods were
used for determining the integration with parents score.
First (Method 1), the reSponse values for the total scale
(all twenty items) were totaled with a possible score of O~MO.
Those who scored 30-40 were classified as highly integrated
with parents, those from 20—29 as middle integrated with
parents, and those from 0-10 as low integrated with parents.
By the second method (Method 2), those subjects who scored
from 15-20 on the ten "father items" and who also scored from
15-20 on the ten ”mother items" were called highly integrated

with parents, those who scored from lO-lu on the ”father items”

10.

ll.

21

FIGURE 1

NYE SCALE OF PER’ SEIVED PARENTAL REJ-ECTION
WITH RESPONSE VALUES

My father is interested in what I do: (1) Always _§;
2) Usually _l} (3) Sometimes o _; (A) Seldom O_;
5 Never O

My mother is interested in what I do: (1) Always _§;
(2; Usually l_3 (3) Sometimes _g, (4) Seldom o;

5 Never 0 ,
My father ridicules my ideas: (1) Always C) ; eUsually
_g_; (3) Sometimes o ; (A ) Seldom l ; (STTUev 2..
My mother ridicules my ideas: (1) Always O ; eUsually
o ; (3) Sometimes o ; (u) Seldom l ; (”TTNev n_g_

My father encourages me to discuss my problems with him:
(I) Always 2 ; (2) Usually l‘; (3) Sometimes O ;
A Seldom _9l3 (5) Never 0

My mother encoura
Always 2 ; (
Seldom_ ,(

3 me to discuss my problems with her:
sually l ; (3) Sometimes o ;
-ever 0

 

02 mm
\J-Z/(D
'Z C1

 

think my father has my best interests at heart:

) Always 2 ; (2) Usually l ; (3) Sometimes O_;
Seldom O_; _5) Never 9,

t

hink my mother has my best interests at heart:
Always 2 ; (2) Usually l ; (3) Sometimes O ;
Seldom O“; (5) Never O .

21
22
22

 

I think my father shows more interest in my brothers and
sisters than he shows in me: (1) Always o ; (2) Usually

O ; (3) Sometimes O ; (A) Seldom l _; (57_Never 2 ;
(67 Usually shows more interest in me 2 ; (7) 11m“‘an
only child _l_. '_—-

I think my mother shows more interest in my brothers and
Sisters than she shows in me: (1) Always O ; (2) Usually
O ; (3) Sometimes O m; (A) Seldom l _; (57—Never _2_;

'(6) Usually shows more interest in me 2 ; (7) I'm an
only child _l__ '—__

Other fathers tend to Show more interest in their children
than my father shows in me: (1) Completely agree 0 ;

(2) Partially agree 0 ; (3) Undecided l ; (A) Partially
disagree _§_; (5) CompIetely disagree _E::'

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

I'D
I\)

FIGURE 1-~Ccntinued

 

Other mothers tend to show more interest in their children
than my mother shows in me: (1) Completely agree O ;

(2) Partially agree 0 ; (3) Undecided (u) Partially
disagree _2_; (5) CompIetely disagree

My father praises me when I do my work well: (1)
Always 2 ; (2% Usually ; (3) Sometimes O ; (

1
Seldom 0.; 25 6“

Never

 

My mother praises me when I do my work well: (1)
Always 2 ; (2) Usually 1.3 (3) Sometimes o ; (A)

Seldom"d ; (5) Never cf

Does your father ever seem to wish that you were a
different type( of person? (1) Always O ; (2) Often O ;
(3) Sometimes O ; (A) Seldom__l_; (5) Never _2_

Does your mother ever seem to wish that you were a
different type of person? (1) Always O ; (2) Often 0.;

(3) Sometimes _Q_; (A) Seldom_ 1 ; (5) Never 2

Do you think that your father tries to understand your
problems and worries? (1) Always _2_; (2) Usually 1 ;
(3) Sometimes O ; (A) Seldomm ;(5) Never _9_

Do you think that your mother tries to understand your
problems and worries?‘ (1) Always 2 ; (2) Usually l ;
(3) Sometimes _O ; (A) Seldc%m. O ;_T5) Never 0

My father says and does things that make me feel that

I am not trusted: (1) Always .913 (2) Often_;g_;
(3) Sometimes__g_, _A) Seldom 1.; 25) Never _2_
My mother says and does things that make me feel that
I am not trusted: (I) Always O“; (2) Often 0.;

(3) Sometimes .o , ,A) Seldom '1"; (5) Never :2:;

23
and also scored from lO_lA on the "mother items," middle
integrated with parents, and those who scored from 0-9 on
the "father items" and from 0-9 on the "mother items," low
integrated with parents° Figure 2 illustrates the possible
combinations of scores on the father items and scores on
the mother items which would yield a certain integration
with parents score by Methods 1 and 2.

The total range of possible father score-mother score
combinations which would fall into a given integration with
parents category is greater by Method 1 than by Method 2.
Thus, Method 2 yields purer categories, including only those
respondents in a given integration with parents group who
are of the same level of integration with one parent as they
are with the other. AS is obvious from Figure 2, this is
not necessarily the case when Method 1 is used.

The marginals which result using Method 1 and using

Method 2 are presented in Table 1.

TABLE 1

MARGINALS FOR INTEGRATION WITH PARENTS CATEGORIES
OBTAINED BY METHODS 1 AND 2

 

 

 

Method 1 Method 2
Integration Per Integration Per
With Parents N Cent With Parents N Cent

High . . . . . 91 31 High . . . . . 75 26
Middle . . . . 129 AA Middle . . . . 5A 15
Low . . . . . 73 25 Low . . . . . A7 16

Totals. . 293 100 Totals. . 176 57

 

 

21+

 

 

®H....O H moooooo + mo....o 0H....O H 0H...oo + 0H....O 30g
mm....om u 3H....ofi + SH....oH mm....om u om....o + om....o oases:
os....om n om....mH + om....mH o:....om u om....oa + om....oa swam
Hmuoe whoom oAOOm mo Hmpoe whoom oAOom muzmpmm
tempo: assume a sosooz senses spas
oHanuom oHnannom ofioaw o9 manannom mananuom soaooawoosH
m Conpmz H ponpoz

 

 

 

N Qz< H mQOmBmE Mm QmQQMHN mmmoom mezmmdm EBHB ZOHB<MGMBZH
m mMDme

h)

5

Clearly, Method 2 is the more exact one, however,
throughout most of the analysis, it was necessary to use
Method 1. Had Method 2 been used, only 57% of the sample
would have been included, with the result that, in most of
the analyses, the numbers in each cell would have been too
small to warrant legitimate examination. In the analysis
of one variable (achievement), we were able to use the second
method; in effect, Method 2 acted as a check on Method 1, and
the two methods yielded very similar results. Although
there is no way to state with certainty, we would hope that
Similar results would be obtained by the two methods on the
remaining variables. Finally, the method used throughout
most of this study (Method 1) is the one used by Nye.

Our use of the Nye scale to determine perceived parental
acceptance and rejection is grounded on the assumption that
it gets at the expressive content of long term behavior pat-
terns rather than at that of specific, momentary behavioral
acts. AS a partial check of this assumption,the respondent's
rating of his childhood and of his adolescent happiness were
combined into an index of childhoodmadolescent happiness.
Assuming that happiness in childhood and in adolesence is in
part related to interpersonal relationships in the family, if
our assumption about the Nye scale is true, we would expect a
strong relationship between this index and the integration
index. These two indices were examined (Table 2) and they are
significantly related. This tends to lend support to our
assumption about the type of information gained from the Nye

scale.

l\)
ox

TABLE 2

PATTERN OF CHILDHOODmADOLESCENT HAPPINESS
AND INTEGRATION WITH PARENTS

 

 

 

 

 

Pattern of Happiness High Middle Low
Integrated Integrated Integrated
Childhood Adolescent N % N % N %
Happy Happy (N=207) 81 39 95 A6 31 15
Happy Unhappy (N: 35} 5 14 19 5A 11 32
Unhappy Happy (N: 12) l 9 A 33 7 58
Unhappy Unhappy (N: 30) 2 7 7 23 21 7O

 

x2 = 57 86, df, 6, p = .<:.UOl.

Respondents were classified on sociomeccnomic status in
terms of father's occupation. In doubtful cases, father's
education was also considered. The index used for classifi-

cation cf occupations into socicmeconomic status groupings

. . - 2 . -
was taken from a study by DaVls 33.2319 and is as follows:

A. Low status : Garbage collectors, janitors,
ordinary seamen, truck drivers.

B. Respectable working class: Postmen, barbers, mechanics,
bus drivers, clerks in retail
stores, macnine operators.

C. Working class elite-m
bottom middle : Plumbers, carpenters, owners
of small retail stores, fore-
men, white collar supervisors,
farmers.

D. Middle-middle : Secondary teachers, morticians,
pharmacists, wholesale sales-
men, middle managers.

E. Elite 2 Major professionals, presidents
of mediumelarge firms, top
management in large firms.

 

2James Davis, David Gottlieb, and Joel Spaeth, Stipends
and Spouses (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 196277

 

27

Occupations of the respondents‘ fathers were classified into
the socio-economic Status index on separate occasions by two
individuals with almost complete agreement.

As did the authors noted on the preceding page, we
worked with two cells; low sociomeconomic group (A, B, and
C) versus high socio-economic group (D and E). The occupa_
tional groups were represented as follows: A~9, B—62, C9102,
D-9A, and E-26.

Respondents were asked to report their over-all college

grade average and were divided into achievement groups as

 

 

follows:
College Grade Average Achievement Group
A, B+, or B . . . High
Bm, C2, or O . . . Middle
C~, D, or F . . . Low

Reported college grade average is perhaps a rough measure of
achievement motivation, however, it correlates positively3
with both the Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (PPS)

(A. L. Edwards, New York: Psychological Corporation, 195“),
and with the TAT developed by McClelland and others, reported

in The Achievement Motive. Rosen found that subjects with

 

high motivation scores are proportionately more likely to

achieve grades of "B" or better than are adolescents with low

 

3Peter Weiss, Michael Wertheimer, and Byron Groesbeck,
"Achievement Motivation, Academic Aptitude, and College Grades,‘
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19:663~666 (l959).

 

28

motivation scores.21L We recognize, however, that in a study
of achievement a measure of intelligence might seem to be a
necessary variable. Due to an administrative conflict, we
were unable to obtain such a measure for the subjects in the
present investigation, therefore, this must be considered as
an exploratory study.

Although we recognize that having no indication of
the intelligence of the respondents is a shortcoming of the
study, there are a number of factors which make us think
that the range of variation in intelligence in the sample
is not great and that the variations in achievement are due
to other factors than IQ. First, a college population is a
select one in terms of ability; individuals from lower levels
of ability are not able to enter college. The subjects in
our sample are all in college, they are all in the same
university, at which two-thirds of the entering freshmen come
from the top one-third of their high school classes, and they
are all at the same level in the university (50% freshmen,
47% sophomores). In addition, the figures on freshmen achieve-
ment and sophomore achievement do not support the View that
there is a high freshmen drop—out rate due to low achievement.
On the contrary, there are fewer low achieving freshmen than
there are low achieving SOphomores. Finally, since IQ is
often reported to vary with social class, if achievement was

a direct consequence of intelligence, we would expect a strong

 

Rosen, ”The Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural
Dimension of Social Stratification,” 21: 208-209.

29
relationship between social class and achievement. The
figures on socio-economic status and achievement show this
not to be the case. Although there is slightly more high
achievement in the high socio-economic groups than in the low)
socio—economic groups, the two variables are not significantly
related.

In order to determine to what extent subjects' parents
valued education, each respondent was asked to indicate which
of the following alternatives best described the situation
in his family when he was in high school:

1. It was naturally assumed that you would go to college.

2. If you wanted to go to college you were encouraged

to do so by one or both parents, but it was not
assumed that you would go.

3. It was not assumed that you would go to college

and you received no encouragement from either
parent when you decided to do so.
The marginals were (1) 219, (2) 67, and (3) 7. Respondents
who indicated the first alternative were said to have parents
who placed high value on education; respondents who chose the
second or third alternatives were classified as having parents
who placed low value on education.

The sample is composed of 293 students who were enrolled
in basic social science courses at a large state university
during the Spring of 1961. All students at this university
are required to take a series of basic courses; the social
science courses in which the questionnaires were administered

are a part of this series. The sample consists not of a

select group of students who chose the field of social science

30
over other fields of study, but is instead a sample of under-
graduates from many fields of interest. It is not a random
sample of college students, however, it is felt that the
sample is sufficiently representative of the freshmen and
sophomore population at the university in which the sample
inhstaken to enable us to draw some conclusions and to make
some predictions from the data for such a population.

The questionnaires were administered during regular
class periods by the professor offering the course. Only
those respondents were included in the final sample who were
single undergraduates between the ages of 17 and 22, who
were United States citizens, and who answered all items on
the Nye scale and reported their college grade average.

The relationships between the variables will be examined
by the chi-square test of significance. Percentages will be

used in many cases to Show the distributions.-

CHAPTER III

FINDINGS: BACKGROUND ITEMS AND

SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

The results of this investigation will be presented
in three sections: the first will be concerned with the
background items as they relate to achievement, the second,
with the relationships between integration with parents and
achievement, and the third, with the relationships between
integration with parents and achievement within each socio-
economic group. The first section will be discussed in this
chapter.

The hypothesis pertinent to this section of the analysis
is that there will be low positive relationship between cer~
tain of the background items-~namely, socio—economic status,
religion, parental valuation of education-wand scholastic
achievement. The relationships which may or may not exist
between sex and achievement, and between year in school and
achievement also will be examined.

Table 3 shows the achievement patterns in each socio~
economic group. There is a tendency toward higher achieve-
ment in the high socio-economic group, however, the achieve-

ment differences between the two groups are not significant.

31

32
Low achievement appears to be more related to low socio—
economic status than high achievement does to high socio-

economic status.

TABLE 3

SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

T

Per Cent Achievement

 

 

Socio~Economic Status High Middle Low
High (N = 120) 28 59 ‘ 13
Low (N = 173) 23 56 21

 

x2 = 2.61, df, 2, NS.

Although there appears to be some relationship between
socio—economic status and achievement, it is not surprising
that the differences are small. In a study of college
studentsfrom each socioweconomic group, Gottlieb found that
the lower class contained the highest proportion of students
who had graduated in the top third of their high school class.
It seems that the student who comes from a lower sociom
economic group is a special one in terms of motivation and
achievement. College attendance is not such an accepted
course of action in the lower socio—economic groups as it
is in the higher ones and the lower class student must be
exceptional in terms of motivation and achievement in order
to reach the college level.

When socio-economic status and achievement are examined

separately for males and for females, in Table A, the picture

33

remains approximately the same, however, several interesting
differences in the achievement patterns are revealed. There
appears to be more of a relationship between socio-economic
status and achievement among females than among males; the
discrepancy between male and female high achievement is
greatest at the higher socio—economic level. Perhaps this
is evidence of the ”gentleman's C" norm operating in the
higher socio—economic groups whereas a "gentlewoman's C"
norm does not exist. Females, regardless of socio-economic
level, tend to be better students than males. Since college
going is more selective among females than among males, the

former are likely to be the better students.

TABLE A

SOCIOmECONOMIC STATUS AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT
FOR MALES AND FEMALES

 

 

 

 

Socio- Per Cent Per Cent
economic Male Achievement Female Achievement
Stat S
u N High Middle Low N High Middle Low
High N: 65 26 58 16 N=55 32 58 10
Low N=llO 22 57 21 N=63 25 5A 21
Males: x2 = 1.86, df, 2, NS. Females: x2=2.u5, df,2,
NS

The over—all picture of socio~economic status and
achievement is that there is a slight tendency for more high
achievement to occur in the high socio—economic group and more
low achievement, in the low socio-economic group. This tendency

is stronger among females than among males.

3A

Respondents were asked to State their religious prefer-
ence from five alternatives: Protestant, Catholic, Jewish,
Other, and None. Because of the small number of respondents
indicating "other" as their preference (4), that category is
excluded from this analysis.

The expected order for most high achievement among the
religion groups is Jewish and Protestant first, and Catholics
second. The data in Table 5 indicate that this is not nec-
essarily the case. Our expectations hold for the Protestants
and Catholics, with the former tending to have more high
achievement than low achievement, and more high achievement
and less low achievement than Catholics. Catholics have an

equal proportion of high and low acnievers.

TABLE 5

RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

Per Cent Achievement

 

 

Religious Preference N High Middle LOW
Protestant N=187 27 56 17
Catholic N: 60 23 55 22
Jewish N: 19 21 68 11
None N: 23 17 57 26

 

x2 = 4.90, df, 6, NS.

The Jewish group deviates from our expectations. That the
least amount of low achievement occurs in this group is not

surprising, however, there are fewer Jewish high achievers

35

than either Protestant or Catholic, and the Jewish respon-
dents tend to be disproportionately grouped in the middle
achievement category. Although the differences are insignifi-
cant, we can speculate about the reason for the low proportion
of Jewish high achievers; the school in which our sample

was drawn might not be the kind of institution to which a

good Jewish student would go. On the other hand, our

findings could be indicative of acculturative changes among
Jews: perhaps they can no longer be characterized as having
higher achievement and aspiration standards than other groups.
Or perhaps there becomes less and less variation in achieve-
ment between groups, with the standardization of education.
The number of Jewish respondents in our sample is quite

small, however, and perhaps we obtained a distorted picture
of the achievement patterns in this group.

An interesting finding is that those respondents who
stated that they had no religious preference were lower in
Iachievement than any other group. Having no religious pref—
erence might indicate alienation from the social environment,
low integration with family and peers. These respondents
might be at the low end of the continuum of adjustment to
their social environment, having no area in which they "fit."
Again, the number of respondents in this group is quite small.

Our findings on religion and achievement did not conform
to the usual expectations; instead, the order of high achieve-
ment was Protestant, Catholic, Jewish. There were no signifi-
cant differences between religious preference groups on

achievement.

36

Table 6 shows the relationship between achievement and
the extent to which parents value education. There is a re-
lationship between the two variables, however, the differ-
ences are not significant. Those respondents whose parents
place high value on education are more likely to be high
achievers, those respondents whose parents place low value
on education, to be low achievers. Comparing Tables 3 and 6
achievement tends to be more related to the attitude of
parents' toward education than to socio~economic status.
Students from lower socio-economic groups have more obstacles
to overcome in order to attend college; they are a Special
group in terms of motivation to be in college. Our results
lead us to believe that their incentive is due, in part, to
encouragement they have received from their parents. Parental
valuation of education will be discussed further, in the sec-
tion containing the results on integration with parents and

achievement within each socio-economic group.

TABLE 6

PARENTAL VALUATION OF EDUCATION
AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

Parental Valuation P8P Cent Achievement

 

 

of Education N High Middle Low
High N=219 27 58 15
Low N: 7A 19 55 26

 

x2 = A 99, df, 2, NS at .05 level. (p<<.10)

37

Much of the research on achievement motivation has been
conducted with male rather than with male and female subjects.
Perhaps the reason for this is that many investigators in this
area have used the method developed by McClelland (a TAT using
achievement—oriented pictures)1 for measuring achievement
motivation, and his method does not yield scores for females
comparable to those obtained on males. Robinowitz, working
with both male and female subjects, used grades-relative-to-
scores on intelligence tests as an index of achievement
motivation; his results were comparable to those of studies
using only males as subjects.2 In studies of achievement,
rather than achievement motivation, the data quite consistently
show that there do exist definite differences in the achieve—
ment levels of males and females at all levels of school,3
that at the college level, females are usually higher achievers
than males, and that females tend to utilize their measured
academic ability more effectively than do males.u

Table 7 shows the relationship between sex and achieve~
ment. There tends to be slightly more high achievement and

less low achievement among the females than among the males.

 

lMcClelland et_al,, The Achievement Motive.

 

/

2Robinowitz, op. cit., pp. 308-317.

3Merville E. Shaw and John T. McCuen, "The Onset of
Academic Underachievement in Bright Children,” Journal of Edu~
cational Psychology, 51: 103—108 (1960).

 

 

40. Lee Duff and Laurence Siegel, "Biographical Factors
Associated with Academic Over— and UndereAchievement," Journal
of Educational Psychology, 51: A3-A6 (1960).

 

38
The differences are not significant. As was pointed out
earlier, since college attendance is more selective among
females than among males, we might expect females to be the

higher achievers.

 

 

 

TABLE 7
SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT FOR MALES AND FOR FEMALES
?i
S Per Cent Achievement 5
ex

N High Middle Low ’

Males N = 175 23 58 19

Females N = l18 27 57 16

 

X2 = 0.8M, df, 2, NS.

Table 8 shows the relationship between year in school
and achievement. Because of the small number of juniors (7),
they are not included in this analysis, There is a signifi~
cant difference on achievement between freshmen and sophomores,
with freshmen being significantly higher in achievement. This
indicates that our sample does not contain a large group of
freshmen who would fail at the end of their first academic year.

TABLE 8

YEAR IN SCHOOL AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

 

Per Cent Achievement
Year in School

 

 

N High Middle LOW
Freshman N=lA7 35 51 1A
Sophomore N=l39 1A 63 23

 

x2 = 17.5, df, 2,:p <1 .001.

39
Secondly, it appears that in the type of institution in

which our sample was drawn, the longer a student is in college
the less important achievement becomes. We might speculate
here that at a large state supported institution, as opposed
to a school like Oberlin, Antioch, 0r Reed, social relation-
ships and peer gratification become more important than
scholastic achievement-~by the second year, the gratification
resulting from successful peer relationships has become more
important than that resulting from a successful scholastic
record.

Freshmen have significantly more high achievement than
do the sophomores in our sample. Year in school will be con—
trolled when we examine 0ther variables in relation to achieve-
ment in the following chapters.

This chapter includes an examination of the background
variables as they are related to achievement. Our hypothesis
gained some support-—achievement tended to vary with socio—
economic status, with religion, with parental valuation of
education, and with sex, but only insignificantly so. Achieve~
ment varied significantly with year in school, with more high
achievement occurring among freshmen. This relationship will

be examined further in the next section of the analysis.

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS: INTEGRATION WITH PARENTS

AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

The concern of this chapter is with the relationship
between integration with parents and scholastic achievement.
An inverse relationship between the two variables has been
hypothesized. We will examine integration with parents and
scholastic achievement for the total sample, for freshmen
and sophomores, and for males and females, and integration
with each parent and scholastic achievement for males and
females.

In Chapter II, the two methods for determining inte-
gration with parents were discussed (see pages 20-23).

The analysis in which we are able to use Method 2 is in that
of integration with parents and scholastic achievement for
the total sample. By comparing the results obtained using
Method 1 to determine integration with those using Method 2,
we can check the validity of the former method. Table 9
shows this comparison. It appears that the two methods yield
similar results, the only difference being that slightly
stronger percentage differences obtain using Method 2.

The hypothesis that integration with parents and achieve-
ment will be inversely related is not supported. On the

40

41

.m2 .3 .oo .sm.H u «x

.m2 «3 .mo .m>.H u x

 

 

 

 

 

N
mm mm ma Nznz 30A Hm mm Hm mmuz 30a
ma Fm mm :muz manna: ma pm pm mmauz manna:
ma no em mpuz swam AH mm mm Hmuz swam
30% GHOUHE Swflm Z mpcmhmm QQHZ 30% QHUUHZ Swfim Z mpcmhmfl SPH3
PC®E®>0H£O< PCQO flmm COHpMmepflH UC®E$>®H£O< pflmo fimm COHPGLWOPCH
N Dospmz H Conpmz

 

 

Bzmzm>MHmo¢ UHBm<Homow Qz< mEzmm¢m mBHB ZOHB<mUmBZH

m MHMdB

A2
contrary, there is a tendency for the least high and the most
low achievement to occur among those who are low integrated
with parents; high achievement tends to occur most in the
middle and high integration with parents groups.

In Chapter III, we found that there was significantly
more high achievement among freshmen than among sophomores.
When we control year in school and examine integration with
parents and achievement, as in Table 10, the picture remains
approximately the same as that for the total sample; there
is a tendency among both freshmen and sophomores for the most
high achievement to occur among those who are highly or middle
integrated. Although the differences on integration and
achievement are not significant for either freshmen or s0pho-
mores, low integration seems to make more of an achievement
difference among freshmen than among sophomores. This would
seem to be evidence in favor of the assumption that it is
“me degree of integration with parents which influences level
of achievement rather than achievement influencing integration.
We would speculate that low integration with parents has a
greater effect upon achievement among freshmen than among
sophomores, because by the second academic year peer inter-
action has become more important than family acceptance, and
social relationships more important than scholastic achieve~
ment.

Table ll shows the relationship between integration
with parents and achievement for males and for females. Among

males, middle integration with parents tends to be most related

.mz .: .co .mm.m u mx .mz .: .oo .sm.m u «x

 

43

 

 

 

 

Hm mo HA wmnz zoo mm N: am mmuz zoo
Hm mo oH smuz oflooflz ma Hm om owuz ofioofiz
mm mm 0H azuz gwflm w mm mm mquz gwfim
eon oHoon hwflm z monogommeofiz zoo oaoohz emflm z moeooom ooh:
oeoso>oaeo< oposoeoom eofioog ooeH oeoso>ofieoe eosgoogm eofioohwooeH
WWWD hwm PCmO hmm

 

 

mmmozommom Qz< zmzmmmmm mom
Bzm2m>MHmo< Qz< mezmm<m mBHB ZOHB<mUMBzH

OH mum<8

 

AA

 

 

 

.mz .: .oo .mm.m u mx .mz .2 .oo .m:.H u mx
om m: om mauz zoo om mm mm :muz sou
HA mm om equz oaoofiz ma mm mm mmuz ofioofiz
oH em om mmuz ewflm AH ow ma omuz swam
zoo oaoofiz swam z monocom eofiz zoo ofiooaz emfim z monogom nod:
pCoEo>oH£o< onEom coapmgonCH pCoEo>oHSo< mam: soapMLmopCH
puma pom pcoo mom

 

 

mHH<Smm Qz¢.WMH<E mom
EZMZW>MHIO¢ QZ¢ mfizmmdm 38H: ZOHB<mGMBZH

Ha mflm<e

45

to high achievement. Integration with parents appears not to
effect high achievement among females but does seem to have
an influence upon low achievement. It seems that for males,
a relationship of relative independence, neither too close to
nor too distant from parents, is the one most condusive to
high achievement. For the female, the relationship with
parents which has the most negative effect upon achievement
appears to be one in which she feels distant from, rejected
by her parents. We Speculate that these results are related
to the dependence patterns of males and females upon the family.
Males tend to be more independent of parents than do females;
females remain dependent upon the family for a longer period of
time. Because females tend to be more dependent, low integra-
tion with parents would have more severe consequences for them
than it would for males. Since males are normally relatively
independent from parents, this would seem logically to be
the best relationship for other autonomous behavior.

Table 12 shows the patterns of high integration with
father and mother for males and females. (The figures in
this table are extracted from Tables 20 and 21, which appear
in Appendix B.) Both males and females are more likely to
be highly integrated with mother than with father. We would
expect this because in our society it is predominately the
mother who has the role of socializing and training the
children; it is the mother who is with the children most of
the time, who cares for them and satisfies their needs.

Although both males and females are more likely to be highly

A6
integrated with mother than with father, there is greater
over-all integration among females. A significantly larger
number of females than males feels accepted by father and by
mother. These results bear out the notion that females feel
more dependent upon, and males more independent from, their

parents.

TABLE 12

PATTERNS OFI£HHIINTEGRATION WITH FATHER AND MOTHER
FOR MALES AND FEMALES

 

Per Cent High Integration with:

 

 

sex N Father Mother
Male N=l75 23 31
Female NzllB A0 64

F ;> M 17 33

 

Table 13 shows the relationship between father inte-
gration and mother integration for the total sample. It
appears that knowledge of integration with one parent is a
fairly good predictor of integration with the other parent.
If the child is highly integrated with the father, there is
a very good chance that he will be highly integrated with the
mother, and if the child feels rejected by the mother, that
he also will feel rejected by the father. On the other hand,
if the child feels accepted by the mother, he does not neces-
sarily feel accepted by the father, and if he feels rejected

by the father, he does not necessarily feel rejected by the

47
mother. Thus, a knowledge of perceived father acceptance or
of perceived mother rejection would be a fairly reliable

indicator of perceived integration with parents.

TABLE 13

FATHER INTEGRATION IN RELATION TO MOTHER INTEGRATION

 

Per Cent Mother Integration

 

 

Father Integration N High Middle Low
High N=87 84 16 0
Middle N=lOA 38 53 9
Low N=102 15 39 46

 

x2 = 15A 61, df, 4, p <: .001.

Table 14 shows the relationship between integration
with father and high achievement, and with mother and high
achievement for males and females. (The figures in this
table are extracted from Tables 22 and 23 which appear in
Appendix B.) For both males and females, the relationship
with father seems not to effect the level of achievement;
relationship with mother, however, tends to have an influence
on achievement among both males and females. It seems that
it is not a question of how much integration with mother the
individual perceives but rather one of feeling some integra—
tion versus feeling none. In the tables where there is a
relationship between integration and achievement, middle and
high integration tend to go together in contrast to low inte-

gration.

48

 

ma mauz mm mmuz ma mzuz mm onuz 30H

 

 

 

om omuz om mmuz mm ssuz om mouz ofioofiz

mm msuz om sznz mm mmuz om oquz omfim
honooz z gogoom z goeooz z coeoom z eofioogmooeH
monEom wcH>mH£o< swam pcoo pom moamz wcfi>oano¢ nmam psoo pom

 

mmqezmm oz< mmq<z mom .ezmzm>mHmo< mon oz<
mmmeoz meHs 26He<mom92H .ezmzm>mHmo< mon 62¢ momeem meHz oneamomezH

:H mqm¢8

49

Although the differences on integration with either
parent and achievement are not significant among males, middle
or high integration with mother, and middle integration with
father tend to relate somewhat to high achievement. Feeling
too close to the father, or too distant from the mother seems
to be most detrimental to male high achievement. Rosen states
that in order for strong achievement motivation to develop,
the boy seems to need more autonomy from his father than
from his mother. He reasons that the authoritarian father
may crush his son and in so doing destroy the boy's achieve-
ment motive, whereas the dominating mother does not seem to
have the same effect, possibly because she is perceived as
imposing her standards on the boy, while a dominating father
is perceived as imposing himself on his son.1 An intensely
'involved mother appears to promote the deveIOpment of achieve-
ment motivation in boys and it is the authoritarian father,
not the m0ther,who represents a greater threat to the boy and
inhibits the development of achievement motivation.2 Although
the tendencies are very slight, it appears that our results
might indicate such a relationship among the high achieving
males.

Among females, achievement is significantly related to
integration with mother; there is significantly more high
achievement among those who feel either middle or highly inte-

grated than among those who feel low integrated with mother.

 

1Bernard C. Rosen, "Family Structure and Achievement
Motivation," American Sociological Review, 26: 575 (1961).

2Ibid., p. 577.

 

50
This is an expected result. Of all the parent-child relation-
ships, that between the mother and daughter is the closest--
the atmosphere of this relationship, then,would be expected
to be most influential in the behavior of the female.

A basic assumption in this investigation is that it is
the degree of integration which influences level of achieve-
ment rather than level of achievement determining integration.
Some investigators have argued that there is a causal relation-
ship in the other direction, that it is the level of achieve-
ment which determines degree of integration with family and
peers. Strodtbeck, in a study of business executives, suggests
that high achievement brings depersonalization of relationships
which may cause anxiety, and,

The fact that status, power, and related rewards exist

as positive inducements to achievement makes possible

a resolution to the dilema: the chronic achiever expiates

depersonalization with more achievement. Perhaps, non-

achievers reduce anxiety over low achievement by the

cultivation of more gratifying interpersonal relations.3
Our hypothesis that high achievement may be a response to un_
satisfactory interpersonal relationships—-a seeking of gratifi-
cation in the area of achievement to overcome feelings of
deprivation gained in the family—mis in contrast to this.
Although the hypothesis that there will be an inverse relation-
ship between integration with parents and achievement has not

been confirmed, an attempt has been made to pinpoint the causal

factors in the relationship which has tended to result. As

 

3Strodtbeck, op. cit., p. 142.

51
will be recalled from the discussion of the research instru—
ment, childhood and adolescent happiness ratings were signifi-
cantly related to integration with parents. In order to
determine the causal factors in the relationship between
integration with parents and achievement, we have examined
the patterns of childhood and adolescent happiness as they

relate to achievement. Logically, there are four possible

 

 

patterns:
Childhood Adolescence
A. Happy . . . . . . . Happy
B. Happy . . . . . . . Unhappy
C. Unhappy . . . . . . . Happy
D. Unhappy . . . . . . . Unhappy

According to our original hypothesis, we would expect that
those highest in achievement would be found in groups C and
D, however, in light of our findings as revealed here, we now
would expect the high achievement to occur in groups A and B.
Table 15 shcws the relationship between pattern of

childhood-adolescent happiness and scholastic achievement.
Group C will not be discussed, because of the small number
of respondents it contains. Respondents in groups A and B
are more likely to be high achievers than low; the achieve-
ment percentages for group A are exactly the same as those
for the high integrated with parents group in our previous
analysis. At first glance, the results for group D appear

to conflict with our previous findings, however, in addition

52
to there being the largest-percentage of high achievers in
this group, there is also the greatest per cent of low
achievers . Although the differences are not significant,
we would speculate that the per cent of both high achievers
and of low achievers being greatest in group D suggests that
consistent unhappiness may effect different people differently;
some seek out academic gratification, while others sacrifice
grades and seek recognition in some other area. In addition,
we would speculate that perhaps our results reveal that un—
happiness in childhood and adolescence arouses anxiety which
causes the individual to seek power and recognition, but
at the same time, "adverse estimates of the self must not
be overwhelming, or the resort to power will be blocked by

”4

sentiments of utter hopelessness.

TABLE 15

PATTERN OF CHILDHOOD-ADOLESCENT HAPPINESS AND ACHIEVEMENT

 

 

 

Pattern of Happiness Per Cent Achievement

Childhood Adolescence N High Middle Low
A. Happy . . . . Happy N=207 24 57 19
B. Happy . . . . Unhappy N235 2O 74 6
C. Unhappy . . . Happy N212 25 58 17
D Unhappy . . . Unhappy N=3O 3O 4O 3O

 

x2 = 9.74, df, 6, NS.

 

”Lasswell, op. cit., p. 153.

53

We feel that the results for group D in Table 15 give
us some support for our original hypothesis that unsatisfactory
interpersonal relations in childhood produce insecurity and
anxiety which are compensated for by a quest for power, recog-
nition, and success. Students differ, our hypothesis appears
to be true of some students and not of others. From our
results on year in school and achievement, we speculate that
the school at which our sample was drawn, is not the type of
institution which has a preponderance of academically oriented
A students, and that the low integrated students would tend to
compensate for feelings of insecurity and to seek gratifi-
cation in areas other than scholastic achievement. There
may be campuses at which a greater proportion of academically
oriented students would be found, at at such institutions
we would expect to find more of a relationship between low
integration and high achievement.

Why does the relationship between unhappy childhood
and adolescence and achievement differ from that between low
integration with parents and achievement? The difference in
the number of respondents included in each group must be
ruled out as a reason for the disparity, because, although
there are only 30 in the unhappy childhood—adolescence group,
there are only 47 in the low integration with parents group
when integration is determined by Method 2. One factor which
might account for the variation in results is that the intent
of the items in the integration index is not quite so obvious

as is that of the items on childhood and adolescent happiness;

!

5A

knowing the purpose of the items may have influenced the
respondents. Secondly,although pattern of childhood-
adolescent happiness is significantly related to the integra-
tion index, both childhood-adolescence happiness and integra—
tion with parents are undoubtedly influenced by other factors.
The factors which the two measures do not have in common are
apparently related in different ways to scholastic achievement.

This chapter includes an examination of the relationships
between integration with parents and scholastic achievement
for the total sample, for freshmen and sophomores, and for
males and females. In addition, the patterns resulting
between integration with each parent and achievement for
males and for females were discussed. Subsidiary analyses
included in the chapter showed the patterns of male and of
female integration with father and with mother, the relation-
ship of integration with father to integration with mother,
and the ways in which patterns of childhood-adolescent

happiness are related to achievement.

CHAPTER V

FINDINGS: SOCIO—ECONOMIC LEVEL, INTEGRATION WITH

PARENTS, AND SCHOLASTIC ACHIEVEMENT

Our primary concern in this chapter is with the rela-
tionships between integration with parents and scholastic
achievement within each socio—economic group. First, we
will examine the patterns of integration with father and with
mother for males and females within each socio-economic group,
and second, the relationships between integration with parents
and achievement at each socio-economic level.

Table 16 shows the patterns of father integration for
males and females at each socio-economic level. Male inte-
gration with father varies with socio-economic level--males
in the high socio-economic group are much more likely to be
highly integrated with father than are males in the low socio-
economic group. High socio-economic level males are about
equally distributed among the three levels of integration
with father, whereas low socio—economic level males are much
more likely to be middle or low integrated with father than
to be highly integrated with him. We would interpret this to
mean that low socio—economic level college males do not want
to be like their fathers, that in attending college, they are

attempting to move away from the occupational status of their

55

56

 

.mz .m .co .mm.a u x Aoa..v.ov .mz .m .co .mm.: H x

 

 

 

 

m m
om mm H: mouz me o: AH oasuz god
em mm mm mmnz mm mm mm mouz hmfim
3 m w 3 w
oq Hoofiz 3 Am 2 w oq ofiooflz g Am 2 osooom
hospmm spa: Coapmpwoch onEmm . pofipmm Spa: coaumsmoch mam: oHEocooonoaoom
pcmo pom pcoo pom

 

mmg<zmm Qz< mMQ<E mom mmmE¢m
EBHz ZOHB<mUMBZH 92¢ mDB<Hm UHEOZOOMIOHOOm

ma mqm<B

57
fathers. Among females, integration with father varies only
slightly by socio-economic level. We would speculate that
female integration with father does not relate to socio—
economic level, because father's occupational status does not
pose the threat to mobility among females that it does among
males.

Table 17 shows the patterns for integration with mother
for males and females in each socio—economic group. High
socio-economic level males are more likely to be highly inte-
grated with mother ahd less likely to be low integrated with
her than are low socio-economic level males, however, those
in both socio-economic groups are more likely to be high than
low integrated with mother. Both high and low socio-economic
level females are much more likely to be highly integrated
than low integrated with mother, however, in the low socio-
economic group, there is slightly less high integration than
in the high socio-economic group and slightly more low inte—
gration. We would speculate that integration with mother
does not vary as much with socio-economic status as does inte-
gration with father, because the low socio-economic level
mothers have high aspirations for their children, they are
encouraging their children to rise above the parental socio-
economic level; high integration with mother, then, would not
be a handicap to mobility.

Ideally, now, we would examine the relationships between
integration with each parent and achievement for males and

females within each socio-economic group. Because of the size

58

.m2 .m .mo .mH.m n x .mz .m

 

 

 

 

m m
6H em ow mouz sm so mm oHHuz zoo
m Am so mmuz 0H ms om monz gmflm
zoo oHoon gwfim 2 god oaoofiz gmfim z
‘ msooom
ponpoz Sufi: coapmpwoch onEom socpoz Qua: cofipwpwopCH mam: oflEocoooIOHoom
ammo pom psoo Lom

 

 

mmq<zmm oz< mmq<z mom mmmeoz
meHz 26He<momezH oz< mpe<em onozoom-oHoom

NH mqm<e

59

of our sample, however, we are unable to make such an
analysis-—the numbers in each cell would be too small. In
the analysis of integration and achievement in which socio-
economic status is controlled, it is necessary to use inte-
gration with both parents, rather than with each parent,
and achievement for the total sample, rather than for males
and for females. Combining these variables will obscure to some \
extent the differences we have obtained in patterns of father ES
and of mother integration and patterns of achievement for ’
males and females at each socio-economic level. It is impor-
tant to keep this point in mind when examining the results.
The hypothesis pertinent to the examination of inte-
gration with parents and achievement within each socio-
economic group, is that the relationship between integration
and achievement will be more definite when socio—economic
status is controlled and that it will be strongest in the high
socio-economic group. When this hypothesis was formulated,
it was done so in relation to the one that there would be an
inverse relationship between integration with parents and
achievement. In light of our findings in Chapter IV, the
hypothesis which we thought would be pertinent here is not
applicable.
Table 18 shows the relationship between integration with
parents and scholastic achievement for each socio-economic
group. In the high socio-economic group. there seems to be no
relationship between integration with parents and achievement;

in the low socio—economic group, however, achievement tends to

6O

 

 

.mz .: .mo .mm.s u «x .mz .s .co .mm.fi u mx
hm om AH msuz NH om mm mmuz zoo
AH em mm msuz ma co :m omuz oaooflz
mm mm 0H osuz HA mm Hm msuz gwam

zoo oHoon swam 2 god oHoon swam z

 

 

pzosm>oano< mdpmpm

OHEocoomuoHoom 30g pcmo pom

 

 

psoEo>oH£o< mSpMpm
oHEocoomuoHoom swam pcoo pom

mpcopmm spas
coapmgwmch

 

 

qm>mq onozoom-oHoom Mm ezmzm>mHmo< OHBmaqomom oz< mezmm<m maHz ona¢m6mezH

ma mqm<B

6l
vary with level of integration. In the latter group, the
highly integrated respondents are slightly more likely to be
low achievers, the middle integrated, much more likely to be
high achievers, and the low integrated, much more likely to
be low achievers.

Apparently education is so much a part of the value
system in the high socio-economic group that this value over-
rides some other considerations which might be thought to
influence achievement so that, regardless of level of inte—
gration with parents, respondents in this group are much more
likely to be high than low achievers. In the low socio~
economic group, we would speculate that education is not such
a main part of the value system and that there is less likeli-
hood of contacts and experience and ”know—how" which would be
condusive to high achievement. Table 19 shows parental valu-
ation of education by socio—economic status.’ High socio-
economic status parents are significantly more likely to place
high value on education than are those in the low socio—
economic status. This lends some support to our interpretations
thus far. '

The question which remains to be answered is, why do we
obtain tendencies toward varying achievement patterns among
integration levels within the low socio—economic group? First,
since it is not as likely that education will be highly valued
by parents of the low socio—economic status respondents, we
would speculate that for a subject to be highly integrated with

his parents might also mean that he is more highly influenced

62

TABLE 19

SOCIOeECONOMIC STATUS AND PARENTAL VALUATION OF EDUCATION

 

 

Per Cent
Parental Valuation of Education"

 

Socio—Economic

 

 

Status N High Low
High N=l2O 83 17
Low N=173 69 31

}{)>I. l4 —l4

 

x2 = 9.00, or, 1. p <1 .01.

by their values; thus, the low socio-economic status respon-
dents who are highly integated with parents are slightly more
likely to be low achievers than high achievers. If this were
strictly the case, however, we would expect the most high
achievement in the low sociomeconomic group to occur among
those respondents who are low integrated with parents. As we
have seen, this is not the case; those respondents who are of
the low socioueconomic group and who are low integrated with
parents tend to have more low achievement than do those in

any other status—integration group. Perhaps there is a second
factor operating here. These respondents have two major strikes
against them for high achievement: they are low socio—economic
class individuals competing in a middle class system, and they
feel unaccepted by their parents. It seems that they have too
many handicaps which prevent them from being high achievers.

Finally, it appears that the relationship with parents most

63

conducive to high achievement in the low socio-economic class
is one of middle integration--a relationship in which the
respondent feels accepted by his parents but is not so close
to them that he is overly influenced by their values, one in
which he feels accepted by but remains autonomous from his
parents.

In this chapter we have dealt with socio-economic
status, integration, and achievement. The patterns of inte-
gration with father and with mother were examined for males
and females in each socio-economic group. The results on
integration with parents and achievement by socio-economic
level were presented. In an attempt to interpret the findings,
the relationship between socio-economic status and parental
valuation of education was examined. Our final interpretations

and conclusions will appear in Chapter VI.

CHAPTER VI
SUMMARY, INTERPRETATIONS, AND CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect
of perceived parental rejection upon academic grade achieve-

ment. The theoretical framework used is that of deprivation

\ W

and compensation, with emphasis upon the impact of unsatis-
factory interpersonal relations in childhood on later aspects
of behavior. More specifically, the position is taken that
early parent-child tensions will produce insecurity and
anxiety which may be expressed or compensated for by a quest
for power, recognition, and success. Either implicitly or
explicitly, investigators have examined the implications for
achievement of relationship with parents and/or level of
self—esteem. Numerous investigators report a relationship
between high achievement and feelings of rejection and low
level of self—esteem. This study represents a further effort
to examine the effect of perceived parental acceptance or re-
jection (i.e. integration with parents) upon scholastic achieve-
ment as measured by reported grade point average.

Data for the results reported here were obtained by the
administration of paper-pencil questionnaires to a sample of
293 undergraduate students enrolled in basic social science

courses at a large state university.

64

65

We took the position that (1) there will be a low
positive relationship between certain of the background items--
namely, socio—economic status, religion, and parental valu-
ation of education--and scholastic achievement; (2) there
will be an inverse relationship between integration with
parents and scholastic achievement; and (3) the inverse re—
lationship between integration with parents and achievement
will be more definite when socio-economic level is controlled
and will be strongest in the high socio-economic group.

The results obtained from the sample of college under-
graduates in relation to the hypotheses may be summarized as
follows:

1. The prediction set forth in the first hypothesis found
some support in our analysis. There was a tendency for

more high and less low achievement to occur in the high

 

.... ..___~_ fl ,
socio-economic group; this tendency was stronger among
'--————-—--"

females than among males. Achievement varied slightly
among the different religious groups, however, the ex—
pected order (i.e. Jewish, Protestant, Catholic) did not
hold in all cases. The order for high achievement was
Protestant, Catholic, Jewish and the order for low achieve-
ment, Jewish, Protestant, and Catholic. The group stating
"none" as their religious preference had the least high

and the most low achievement. There was a low positive

 

relationship between achievement and parental valuation

 

of educatiSRYIEhis relationships was stronger than that

66
between socio-economic status and achievement. Finally,
a greater proportion of females reported high achievement
and lesser rates of low achievement than did males, and
freshmen were significantly more likely to be high
achievers than were sophomores.

2. The prediction in the second hypothesis was not upheld;
on the contrary, there were tendencies for the most high
achievement to occur among those who were middle and
highly integrated with parents, and the most low-achieve-
mentl_among_those,whowwerewlowPintggggggdiy In particular,

,' trends appeared among both males and females for middle
/,i

< and high integration with/mother to relate to high achieve—

\ ,
~"ment.,,---and_low integration withgmother, to low achievement.
-.,_ “__/ ""“"""’""‘_‘_*‘\\

-..——_. ..___ .

 

This relationship was significant amongffemales. Father
integration appeared not to influence achievement among
either males or females.

3. In light of the results thus far, the predictions in the
third hypothesis were inapplicable. The results for inte—
gration with parents and achievement by socio—economic
level showed no relationship between the two variables
in the high socio-economic group. In the low socio-economic
group there was a tendency for the most high achievement
to occur among those who were middle integrated with
parents and the most low achievement among those who were
low integrated. As a part of the analysis, the relation-
ship between socio-economic level and parental valuation
education was examined with the result that the two are

significantly related.

/"

67

The tendencies which resulted between integration with
parents and achievement are surprising in terms of the rela—
tionships reported by previous investigators. We hypothesized
that the two variables would be inversely related; and the
. results indicated slight tendencies for them to be positivelyl
related. A difference in the indices used to determine per-
ceived relationship with parents must be ruled out as a possible
reason for our results conflicting with those of others; some
investigators1 reporting an inverse relationship between
perceived parental acceptance and achievement have used items
quite similar to the ones used in this study. Many of the
studies in this area have used achievement motivation (n
Achievement) rather than actual achievement, for their depen-
dent variable. This cannot account for the difference in
results, however, because other investigators have worked with
actual achievement and have reported results similar to those
obtained using achievement motivation. In addition, a rela-
tionship between achievement motivation and actual achievement
has been established.

A more likely interpretation for the discrepancy of
our findings with those of other investigators lies in the

nature of the sample. We would speculate that a large state

 

lDynes'et'al., op. cit., pp. 212-215; McClelland et al,,
The Achievement Motive; Robinowitz, op. cit., pp. 308-317.

 

2McClelland §t_§13, The Achievement Motive; Rosen, "The
Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural Dimension of Social
Stratification," pp. 203-211.

 

68
supported university, such as that used for this study, is
not the type of institution which would tend to draw a pre-
ponderance of academically oriented students. Students whose
orientation is other than academic and who perceive parental
rejection would tend to compensate for feelings of insecurity
and to seek gratification in other areas-—for example, in
peer relationships. At a school such as Oberlin, Antioch,
or Reed which Imus a high proportion of academically oriented
students we would expect to find a relationship between low
integration with parents and high scholastic achievement.

If we can generalize from the tendencies revealed in 1
this study, our findings seem to indicate that among respon-
dents at the type of institution in which our sample was
drawn, one necessary prerequisite for future adequate perfor—
mance is feeling accepted in the family of orientation. It
appears that the crucial relationships is that with the
. mother;;perceived maternal acceptance influences level of
Aachievément whereas perceived paternal acceptance does not,
and this is especially true among females. It seems that
rather than reacting against and trying to compensate for
the treatment one has received and the attitudes one feels
others hold about him, the individual tends to react in terms
of the picture he has of himself-~this picture being formed
initially in the family, and continuously through interaction
with others. In light of this, the result that relationship

with mother is more important than that with father is easily

understandable. At this point in our society, it is

69
predominately the mother who has the job of child care and
socialization; she is the one, rather than the father, who
is in continuous interaction with the children and satisfies
their needs. Because of the role of the mother, both male
and female children tend to feel closer thPPP' Thus, it is

3 ‘\ -.__~_ _ ,_ . \‘—\
not surprising that perceived mhternal acceptance has a \\..
. ._ ,_____.__,/ h

greater effect upon/performance than does thatffor,father,gj

 

1"

_/

/

We-offerwtngdifferent interpretations for the results
obtained on integration with parents and achievement by socio-
economic level. Tbe first is strictly in terms of the
findings on integration with parents and achievement within
each socio-economic group,without reference to previous results
or to the methods of analysis used. The second interpretation
is in reference to the methods of analysis we found it neces-
sary to use, with emphasis upon the male-female patterns of
integration with father and with mother in each socio-economic
group which resulted in the previous analysis.

We would speculate that a relationship between inte-
gration with parents and achievement does not result in the
high socio-economic group for the reason that education is
such a part of the value system that this value overrides the
influence which parental integration might have upon achieve-
ment. In the low socio-economic group the value of education
is not influential or pervasive enough to override the influ-
ence of perceived parental acceptance; thus, a tendency results
for integration with parents and achievement to be related.

Those subjects in the low socio-economic group who are highly

7O
integrated with parents are more likely to be low achievers
than high. We Speculate that perhaps this indicates that
being highly integrated with parents also means being more
highly influenced by their values. Gottlieb,3 in a study
of social class and college students, reports that only one-
third of the lower class boys mentioned that parents had
encouraged and helped to influence them to attend college;
two-thirds mentioned non-familial sources of support and
encouragement. If our intapretations thus far were strictly
the case, we would expect the most low socio—economic level
high achievement to occur in the low integrated group. That
this is not so suggests that there is a second factor operating
here. It appears that the low socio-economic, low integrated
with parents group has too many strikes against them for high
achievement. They are low socio-economic status individuals
competing in a middle class system and they feel unaccepted
by their parents. Thus, in the low socio—economic group, it
seems that a relationship in which the subject feels accepted
by, yet autonomous from his parents is the one which most
conduces to high achievement.

Although we offer the above interpretation of the results
obtained for integration with parents and achievement within
each socio—economic group, we cannot help but feel that the
results were influenced to some extent by the methods of
analysis we found it necessary to use. It will be recalled

that in the analysis of integration and achievement our results

 

3Gottlieb, op. cit., p. 4.

71
became much clearer as we broke the total sample down into
males and females, and as we broke integration with parents
down into integration with father and integration with mother.
When the relationships between integration with father and
integration with mother and achievement for males and females
were examined, definite patterns emerged. Further, when this
same examination was made within each socio-economic group,
these patterns varied with each of the four groups. When
we looked at integration and achievement within each socio-
economic group, it was necessary, because of the size of the
sample, to combine the four groups into one, as in Figure 3.
Instead of determining the relationship between integration
with father and with mother and achievement for males and
females within each socio-economic group, it was only possible
to obtain that between integration with parents and achievement
FIGURE 3
BREAKDOWN OF INTEGRATION AND ACHIEVEMENT VARIABLES

'VERSUS REQUIRED COMBINED VARIABLES

Socio-economic Status

 

 

 

 

 

Integration Achievement Integration Achievement
Father . . . Male 1
Father Female
0 a c +— | 1 _
Mother . . . Male Paren. . . . Combinegeggjg
Mother . . . Female

for the total high socio-ecomomic group and for the total low
one. By combining these groups into one, the differences be-

tween the groups were obscured; some of these differences were

72
quite substantial. Had we been able to analyze the four
groups separately, our results might have been quite dif-
ferent.

In conclusion, we suggest that a large public university,
such as that used for this study, might not be the type of
institution which would tend to draw an abundance of academ-
ically oriented students--those whose orientation is other
than academic would tend‘macompensateikm=feelings of rejec-
tion by seeking gratification in areas other than scholastic
achievement. Among academically orientedstudents, we expect
that perceived parental rejection would be related to high
scholastic achievement.

Perhaps the major findings which can be abstracted from
this study is that among students at a large state-supported
school, a feeling of maternal acceptance is a factor in high
scholastic achievement. This suggests that one prerequisite
for future adequate performance is perceived acceptance‘vin
the family of orientation. There remain many unanswered ques-
tions, some of which might point the way for further research
into the influence of interpersonal relations within the family
and levels of self-esteem upon achievement. We might ask,
what are the types of interaction, or factors in interaction,
which most influence evaluation of self; in what way is eval-
uation of self related to levels of aspiration and achievement;
how do these relationships vary by social class. This study
indicates the need in research for a measure of factors which

could predict success.

REFERENCES

Cohen, Louis D. "Level-of-Aspiration Behavior and Feelings
of Adequacy and Self-Acceptance,” Journal of Abnormal
and Social Psychology, 49: 84-86 (1954).

 

 

Davis, Allison. Social Class Influences Upon Learning.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1960.

 

Davis, James, David Gottlieb, and Joel Spaeth. Stipends and
Spouses. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

Douvan, Elizabeth. ”Social Status and Success Strivings,"
in John K. Atkinson, Motives in Fantasy, Action, and
Society. New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1958.

 

Drews, Elizabeth M. and John E. Teahan. "Parental Attitudes
and Academic Achievement," Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 13 328-332 (1957).

 

 

Duff, 0. Lee and laurence Siegel. ”Biographical Factors
Associated with Academic Over- and Under-achievement,"
Journal of Educational Psychology, 51: 43-46 (1960).

 

Dynes, Russell R., Alfred C. Clarke, and Simon Dinitz,
”Levels of Occupational Aspiration: ‘Some Aspects of
Family Experience as a Variable,” American Sociological
Review, 21: 212-215 (1956).

 

Ellis, Evelyn. ”Social Psychological Correlates of Upward
Social Mobility Among Unmarried Career Women,” American
Sociological Review, 17: 558-563 (1952).

 

Friedman, G. A. "A Cross-cultural Study of the Relationship
Between Independence Training and n Achievement as
Revealed by Mythology.” Unpublished A. B. Thesis,
Harvard University. 1950. Cited inJHcClelland,Studies
in Motivation. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc.,

1955: pp° 411-413,

Gottlieb, David. ”Social Class, College Students and the
Ideal College Professor." Paper read at the Annual
Meetings of the Ohio Valley Sociological Society,
April 21, 1961. Forthcoming School Review, The University
of Chicago Press, 1962.

 

 

73

74

Horney, Karen. The Neurotic Personality of Our Time. New
‘York: W. W. Norton and Company, 1937.

 

Kausler, D. H. and E. P. Trapp. "Relationship Between
Achievement Motivation Scores and Manifest Anxiety
Scores," Journal of Consulting Psychology, 22: 448-

450 (1958).

Lasswell, Harold D. Power and Personality. New York: W.
W. Norton and Company, 1948.

 

 

McClelland, David 0. "Measuring Motivation in Phantasy,"
Studies in Motivation. New York: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, Inc., 1955. '

 

McClelland, David C., John W. Atkinson, Russell A. ark,
and Edgar L. Lowell. The Achievement Motive. New
York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955!.

 

McClelland, David C., A. Rindlisbacher, and Richard DeCharms.
”Religious and Other Sources of Parental Attitudes
Toward Independence Training," Studies in Motivation.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, Inc., 1955.

 

Murray, H. A. Explorations in Personality. New York:
Oxford University Press, 1938.

 

Nye, F. Ivan. Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior.
New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1958.

 

"Adolescent—Parent Adjustment--Socio-economic
Level as a Variable,” American Sociological Review,

16: 341—349 (1951).

 

Robinowitz, Ralph. ”Attributes of Pupils Achieving Beyond
their Level of Expectancy," Journal of Personality,

24: 308—317 (1956

 

Roe, Anne. The Psychology of Occupations. New York: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1956.

 

Rosen, Bernard C. HThe Achievement Syndrome: A Psycho-
cultural Dimension of Social Stratification," American
Sociological Review, 21: 203—211 (1956).

 

 

. "Family Structure and Achievement Motivation,”
American Sociological Review, 26: 574—584 (1961).

 

Rosen, Bernard C. and Roy D'Andrade. ”The Psychosocial
Origins of Achievement Motivation,” Sociometry, 22: 185-

218 (1959).

 

75

Shaw, Merville c. and John T. McCuen. "The Onset of Academic
Underachievement in Bright Children," Journal of Edu-
cational Psychology, 51: 103-108 (1960).

 

 

Strodtbeck, F. L. "Family Interaction, Values and Achieve—
ment," in D. C. McClelland, Alfred L. Baldwin, Urie
Bronfenbrenner, and Fred L. Strodtbeck, Talent and
Society. New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc.,
1958.

Taylor, Ronald G. "Personality Factors Associated with
(Scholastic Achievement." Paper presented at the 1961
American Personnel and Guidance Association Convention.

 

Washburne, Norman F. "Socio-economic Status, Urbanism and
Academic Performance in College," Journal of Educational

 

Research, 53: 130-137 (1959).

Weiss, Peter, Michael Wertheimer, and Byron Groesbeck.
"Achievement Motivation, Academic Aptitude, and College
Grades," Educational and Psychological Measurement, 19:

663-666 (1959).

 

Winterbottom, M. ”The Sources of Achievement Motivation in
Mothers' Attitudes Toward Independence Training," in
David C. McClelland, et al., The Achievement Motive.
New York: Appleton-Cghffiry-Crofts, Inc., 1955.

 

Wylie, Ruth C. The Self Concept. Lincoln, Nebraska: The
University of Nebraska Press, 1961.

 

 

S
m
I
D
N
E
P
P.
A

76

APPENDIX A

77

78

A study is being made of college students at this

state university. As a part of this study we would appreciate
receiving certain information from you about your background
and some of your attitudes. This questionnaire is to be
filled out anonymously and your full cooperation will be
greatly appreciated.

Please read each of the following questions carefully

and check the one item in each question which best applies
to you. In questions where there is no choice given but a
space is provided, please answer as accurately as possible
in this space. For questions 13 through 35, there are no
"right" answers; in these please check (X) the one item in
each question which best describes the way you feel.

10.

11.

What is your age?

Sex: (1) Male ,(2) Female

Year in School: 9(1) Freshman , (2; Sophomore ,
(3) Junior“ 4 Senior , 5 Grad

Marital status: (1 l) 21LSingle J (2) Married ,
(3) Divorced “, (4 ) Widowed .

What is (or will be)your college major?

 

Your approximate grade average in college is: (l) A ,
(a) 3+ . (3) B , 4) B— 4(5 0+ _:
6 C ; (7) C' 3 8) D 3A9

 

 

Your religious preference: (1) Protestant (
Catholic , (3) Jewish , (4) Other (Specify
(5) None

2)
)

 

Are you a United States citizen? (1) Yes , (2) No__
Where do you live now while attending college?

(I) Dormitory , (2) Fraternity or sorority ,

3 At home with my family , (4) Off-campus
apartment , (5) Married housing .

 

What is (or was) your father's occupation?

 

Which one of the following best describes the number of
years of school completed by your father: (1) Grade

school or less , (2) High school , (3) Attended
college but did not graduate , (4) Graduated from
college , (5) Obtained a graduate or professional

 

degree beyond college

\‘7 \7

12.

13.

l4

15.

best
l6.

17.

18.

19.

20.

79

Which one of the following best describes your family:
(1) Both of my arents are alive and living to ether

 

today , (2 ,M father is living , (3 My mother
is living , (4 My parents are divorced or separated
and I live with my father , (5) My parents are

divorced or separated and I live with my mother

 

Which of the following best deScribes the situation in
your family when you were in high school: (1) It was
naturally assumed that you would go to college‘“‘ ,

(2) If you wanted to go to college you were encouraged

to do so by one or both parents, but it was not assumed
that you would go , (3) It was not assumed that

you would go to college and you received no encouragement

from either parent when you decided to do so

 

How would you rate the happiness of your parents'
marriage: (1) Very happy , (2 Happy , (3)
Neither happy nor unhappy , (4 Unhappy ,
(5) Very unhappy

 

a. How would you rate your childhood: (1) Very happy

 

 

, (2) Happy ~ , (3) Neither happy nor unhappy
, (4 Unhappy , (5) Very unhappy
b. How would you rate your adolescence. (1) Very happy
, (2 Happy , (3) Neither happy nor unhappy
, (4 Unhappy , (5) Very unhappy

Which of the items in each of the following questions
describes the way you feel in your family?

 

 

My father is interested in what I do: (1)A1ways ,
2 Usually , (3) Sometimes*Se1dom—.
5 Never .

My mother is interested in what I do: (1) Always ,
(2) Usually , (3) Sometimes (4) Seldom ,
5 Never .

My father ridicules my ideas: (I) Always , (2)

Usually , (3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom ,
(5) Never .

My mother ridicules my ideas: (1) Always , (2)

Usually , (3) Sometimes _, (4) Seldom ,
(5) Never .

My father encourages me to discuss my problems with him:
(I; Always , (2) Usually , (3) Sometimes ,
4 Seldom , 5 Never .

X7 \/

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

30.

31.

32.

80

My mother encourages me to discuss my problems with her:

 

 

1) Always , (2 Usually , (3) Sometimes ,
(A) Seldom "“7"“, (5 Never ' .
I think my father has my best interests at heart:
(I; Always , (2; Usually , (3) Sometimes ,
4 Seldom.____”, (5 Never .
I think my mother has my best interests at heart:
(I) Always , (2) Usually ,(3) Sometimes ,
4) Seldom , (5) Never .
I think my father shows more interest in my brothers and >
sisters than he shows in me: (1) Always , (2) ,
Usually , (3) Sometimes *, (4) Seldom , ’
(5) Never , (6) Usually shows more interest in me; , -
(7 I'm an only child “—
I think my mother shows more interest in my brothers and
sisters than she shows in me: (1) Always , (2)
Usually , (3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom“ ,
(5) Never ' , (6) Usually shows more interest in me ,
7 I'm an only child '_—

Other fathers tend to Show more interest in their
children than my father shows in me: (1) Completely
agree , 2) Partially agree , (3) Undecided ,
(4) Partially disagree , (5) Completely disagrea:::

 

Other mothers tend to show more interest in their
children than my mother shows in me: '(1) Completely

 

 

 

agree , (2) Partially agree , (3) Undecided ,
(4) Partially disagree ., (5) Completely disagree
My father praises me when I do my work well: '(1) Always

, (2) Usually , (2) Sometimes , (4) Seldom

, (5) Never .
My mother praises me when I do my work well: (1) Always

, 2) Usually , (3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom

, 5) Never .
Does your father ever seem to wish that you were a
different type of person. (1) Always , (2) Often ,
(3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom , (5) Never .
Does your mother ever seem to wish that you were a
different type of person: (1) Always . , (2) Often ,
(3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom ____, (5) Never

Do you think that your father tries to understand your
problems and worrieszl (1) Always , (2) Usually ,
(3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom , (5) Never .

81

Do you think that your mother tries to understand your_
problems and worries: (1) Always (2) Usually

 

 

(3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom , (5) Never

My father says and does things that make me feel that I
am not trusted: (1) Always , (2) Often ,

(3) Sometimes , (4) Seldom , (5) Never

My mother says and does things that make me feel that I
am not trusted: (1) Always , (2) Often ,

(3) Sometimes , (A) Seldom , (5) Never

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COOPERATION

APPENDIX B

82

83

TABLE 20

INTEGRATION WITH FATHER FOR MALES AND FOR FEMALES

 

Per Cent Father Integration

 

 

Sex N High Middle LOW
Male N=l75 23 27 MO
Female N=118 40 33 27

 

x2 = 10.43, df, 2, p < .01.

Females are significantly more likely to be highly
integrated with father than are males.

[‘0

TABLE 1

INTEGRATION WITH MOTHER FOR MALES AND FOR FEMALES

 

Per Cent Mother Integration

 

 

Sex N High Middle Low
Male N:l75 31 AA 25
Female N=118 6A 25 ll

 

2
X = 30.74, df, 2, p <: .001.

Females are significantly more likely to be highly
integrated with mother than are males.

8A

0cm LoSpoE Spa: COprpwoch ComZPon

.monEom mcoEm pCmEo>mH£om

Qfinmcoaumamp ocmoamficwam m ma whose

 

 

.mo. am. e is .ee .Se.mH n mx .m2 .3 .6S .om.H u mx

we mm ma mfinz ma mo ma meuz 30a

S mm om omnz Hm mm mm SSuz manna:

mH sm mm msnz ma mm mm mmnz ewfim
sou manna: swam z seq mance: gwfim z tempo: spas

 

pam8m>maco< mHmEmm pcmo pom

 

meEo>oH£o< mam: pcoo pom

coapmhmmch

 

mMQ¢2mm mom Qz< mMQ<Z mom Bzm2m>mHmo< Qz< mmmBOS mBHB ZOHB<mUMBZH

 

 

mm mamae
.m2 .3 .me .om.H u mx .mz .: .ee .SH.H u mx
ma mm mm mmuz om Sm mm osuz seq
ma Sm om mmuz SH Sm mm mmuz mfieeflz
ma mm mm Seuz om om om osnz swam
seq manna: ewfim z seq mance: swam z Smepmm spa:

 

ucmfio>maso< mHmEmm pcoo mom

 

 

pcmEm>mH£o¢ mam: p:mo mom

 

coapmpwmpCH

 

mmn<2mm mom 92¢ mmfl<2 mom

Bzm2m>MHmo¢ QZ< mmm8¢m EBHB ZOHB<mUMBZH

mm mum<B

“3‘

APPENDIX C

85

DESCRIPTION OF

86

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sex N Per Cent
Male 125 60
Female 118 40
Per
Year in College N Cent
Freshman 147 50
Sophomore 139 47
Junior 7 3
Religious Preference N Eggt
Protestant 187 64
Catholic 60 20
Jewish 19 7
Other 4 1
None 23 8
Per
Father's Education N Cent
Grade school or less 39 13
High school 98 33
College,1-3 years 45 15
College graduate 65 23
Grad. or profes-
sional degree
beyond college 46 16

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE SAMPLE
Age N Per Cent
17 3 l
18 79 27
19 135 46
2O 61 21
21 7 3
22 7 3
Grade Average N Per
Cent
A 11 A
B+ 37 13
B 25 9
B- 49 16
C+ 65 23
C 54 18
C- 45 15
D or F 7 3
Place of’ per
Residence N Cent
Dormitory 200 68
Frat. or
Sorority 25 8
Parent‘s
Home 40 14
Off-campus
apartment 28 IO

 

87

 

 

 

 

 

 

Father's Occupation N Per Cent
A. Low status 9 3
B. Respectable working
class 62 21
C. Working class elite 102 35
D. Middle—middle 94 ' 32
E. Elite 26 9
Parental Attitudes About
College Attendance N Per Cent
Assumed child would attend 219 75
Encouragement if child
wanted to go, but didn't
assume he would 67 23
Did not assume nor
encourage 7 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Parent‘s Marital Status N Per Cent
Married and together 264 90
Father living only 3 1
Mother living only 12 4
Divorced or separated, child with father 2 l
Divorced or separated, child with mother 11 4
Both deceased l O

Self-Happiness During Childhood N Per Cent
Very happy 133 45
Happy 117 40
Neither happy nor unhappy 35 12
Unhappy 6 2
Very unhappy 1 O
Parent's Marital Happiness N Per Cent
Very happy 136 46
Happy 111 38
Neither happy nor unhappy ll 4
Unhappy 14 8
Very unhappy" ll 4

 

 

88

 

 

 

Self-Happiness During Adolescence N Per Cent‘
Very happy 88 30
Happy 131 45
Neither happy nor unhappy 5O 17
Unhappy ll 4
Very unhappy 4 1

 

, . — 4- f
.. . _‘
‘X';‘;::nL"'v-w1‘.fi‘v ‘-
\b ') "WW
3: ”I
L:

 

 

:7 .q- C ' a ; ' ‘A . 33‘? '5‘.

V
- 1,3...

A!

"11111111111111(Es