MEANNGFUL INTERACT if)“: AN EXPUCATION OF A
SUGGESTEEEp NECESSARY CONDSTION 0F SOCIAUZATiON
N A CIGLLE‘ISE OR. UNWERSNY SETTING

Thesis For fhet Degree of M. A.
MICHSGAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Donald M. Bybee
1965

51-15515

”WINNIE!!!“WIIHWIHHI!llllmllflflll

293 20145 4612 .

   
     

  

LIBRAR y

Michigan State
‘ University

 

 

MEANINGFUL INTE CTION:

AN EXPLICATION OF A
SUGGESTED NECESSARY CONDITION
OF SOCIALIZATION IN
A COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY SETTING

By
Donald M. Bybee

A THESIS

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

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Sociology

1965

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The writer wishes to acknowledge the advice and
constructive criticism offered to him by the members of
his committee. Without the help of Drs. Wilbur B.
BrookOVer (Chairman), David Gottlieb, and Denton Norrison
it would have been impossible to initiate and coordinate
the many phases of a project of this sort. The writer
also wishes to acknowledge the cooperation and assistance
offered to him by the members of the student personnel

services staff in East Wilson Hall.

ii

TABLE OF

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . .
LIST OF APPENDICES . . . . .

CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION . . .

II. THEORY AND RELATED L

III. STRATEGY OF RESEARCH
IV. FINDINGS . . . . .
V. CONCLUSION . . . .
FOOTNOTES . . . . . . . . .
BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX . . . . . . . . . .

ii

CONTENTS

0 0 O O O O O O O O 0 iv
0 O I O O O O O O O 0 v
C O O C O O O O O O O 1

ITERATURE . . . . . . 7

O O C O O O O O O O 20

i

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
4-1. Relationship between the rating of relation-
ships by Head and Graduate Resident Advisers
and the configuration of goal sympathy per-
ceived by students . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4-2. Relationship between the rating of relation-
ships by Resident Assistants and the con-
figuration of goal sympathy perceived by
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3-1. Relationship between ratings of relation-
ships by Head and Graduate Resident Advisers
and perceptions of goal sympathy by
students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

B-2. Relationship between ratings of relation-

ships by Resident Assistants and per-
ceptions of goal sympathy by students . . . 54

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX Page
A. INSTRUIIIENIATION O O O O O O O O O O O O 49

B. ALTERNATIVE BREAKDOWN OF DATA . . . . . 53

CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION

Need

Socialization is the general sociological heading
under which one would classify a large part of the con-
cern of very nearly all college and university admin-
istrative organizations. That is, there are those
administrators whose functions may be described as
attempts to transmit selected elements of the greater
society's social and cultural heritage to the nearly
mature coming generation. The name generally given to
this area of practice and study within the college or
university community is student personnel services. The
chief functionary is usually a Vice President for Student
Affairs or a Dean of Students.

In contradistinction to the academic faculties,
whose functions may be similarly described, the avowed
or official ends or goals of these organizations seem to
vary more from institution to institution. Also, within
and among institutions there seems to be a division of
opinion as to whether student personnel services ought
to be organized and perceived as supplementary or
complimentary to the academic or instructiinal efforts.
There is, however, very little disagreement concerning
the desirability of having the functions performed.1

1

A useful way to conceptualize the present state of
affairs is to envision a continuum. At one end there are
those institutions in which student personnel services
have a definitely ancillary status; their existence is
justified only in so far as they contribute more or less
directly to the classroom instruction. At the other end
of the continuum are those institutions in which student
personnel services are encouraged to be what may be called
student oriented, as opposed to strictly instruction
oriented. Their status within the institution is gen-
erally a coordinate one, and through a number of more or
less specific programs attempts are made to educate the
student in ways other than increasing his knowledge and
proficiency in a number of selected academic disciplines.

Although one could probably observe attempted
socialization in either extreme type of situation, it is
in those situations of the second general type that it
may be more clearly seen as socialization in the more
usual sense of the term, rather than as one or another
type of specialized education. (The real or supposed
distinction between education and socialization is not
crucial for present purposes.) The general focus of this
study will be those situations tending toward the second
general type. This seems Justified in view of the fact
that as colleges and universities are growing so is the
practice and study of student personnel services.2

One of the most fundamental aspects of the social-

3
ization process is that historically it has always been
differentially successful. Indeed, as Moore notes, the
relative efficiency of the socialization process determines
to a large degree the extent to which a given social
system remains stable or undergoes social change.3 Given
the crucial nature of the enterprize, it would seem that
on a practical basis alone further study of the social-
ization process would be useful. However, given the
gradual shift in the responsibility for the performance
of the socialization process from the family and other
such primary groups to increasingly large and often
impersonal organizations--perhaps epitomized by the large
university--it would seem that efforts to study the
phenomenon in its new "location" should be useful in and

of themselves. Such is the presumption under which this

study was begun.

Purpose

The general purpose of this study, as its title
implies, is to explicate a concept which, in turn, is
presumed to refer to a necessary condition of social-
ization in the college or university setting. By
explication is meant the process of bridging the gap
between the theoretical or conceptual and empirical
domains. Thus, although what follows will at least
roughly approximate a more or less typical thesis form,
the overall net result should be a conceptually and

operationally defined concept. The explication will

4
proceed in such a manner that the task may be at least
tentatively considered as accomplished when answers are

discovered to a few selected research questions.

Objectives

The starting place of the explication will be a
model of adolescent behavior recently suggested as useful
by Gottlieb and Guttman. Although originally constructed
for use with facet analysis, the model indicates certain
independent and dependent variables which, if the expli-
cation is accurate, will yield a number of hypotheses
which may be verified by observation and measurement.

Gottlieb and Guttman say the following about
adolescent behavior:

...that adolescents behave much the same anywhere,

in any socio-cultural context, in that they will

become oriented to (involved with) referents whom

they perceive as having the desire and the ability

to help them attain skills, goals, and roles (ends),

and that they will not become oriented to referents

having neither the desire nor the ability to help

them attain these same ends. 4

The model‘s applicability to present purposes
becomes clear when the college or university setting is
viewed as the relevant socio-cultural context and when it
is realized that the practitioners in the area of student
personnel services attempt (or ought to attempt) to
control the definitions of their respective situations in
such a manner as to be perceived as having the desire

and/or ability to help students achieve their ends or

goals. This, it is here argued, leads to meeting the

5
relevant necessary condition of socialization in the
college or university setting.

Another (the other) part of meeting this so-called
necessary condition of socialization is for the college
students to become oriented to or involved with members
of the student personnel services staff, thus completing
the definition of the situation in which meaningful
interaction occurs. The objectives of this study entail
identifying and observing the relevant variables in this
process in such a manner that a general hypothesis of
the following form may be tested: It is hypothesized
that in those instances where a student perceives a
member of the student personnel services staff, i.e.,

a referent, as having the desire and/or ability to help
the student achieve certain of his goals, meaningful
interaction probably will occur. And in those instances
where a student does not so perceive a staff member,
meaningful interaction probably will not occur. In other
words, meaningful interaction probably will not occur
unless a student perceives a staff member as having the
desire and/or ability to help him achieve certain of his
ends or goals.

For purposes of this study, the desire and/or
ability to help a student achieve his goals will be con-
ceptualized simply as "goal sympathy," even though it
will eventually be shown to have more than a single

dimension. Thus the perception of a staff member's

6
goal sympathy or lack of it will occupy the status of an
independent variable, whereas some indication of meaning-
ful interaction itself-~or its absence--will occupy the
status of a dependent variable.

By means of a thorough, but selective, review of
the relevant literature and through utilization of
appropriate design and analysis, it is hoped that the
above hypothesis will be verified and that the gap
between social theory and social "reality" will success-

fully be bridged.

CHAPTER II

THEORY AND RELATED LITERATURE

Goals or Ends

According to one of its authors, the Gottlieb-
Guttman model of behavior is not based on any single
theory or school of theory, but one can easily see that
it may be viewed as a particular example of a more
general phenomenon variously known as an action schema,
a means-end schema, or, perhaps, a crude form of anthro-
pomorphism. This latter designation is Sorokin's
reaction to Parsons' general means-end theoretical
orientation in 19376 which he (Parsons) has subsequently
reaffirmed with "no fundamental changes."7

The following will not be an attempt to justify or
refute any one or another grand social theory, but,
given the status of ends or goals within the context of
this study and the general eminence of Sorokin, there
would seem to be sufficient reason to devote some
discussion to such a means-end schema's usefulness at
least for present purposes.

Sorokin's objections to the schema seem mainly
to involve the analytical status of ends: If they are
mistaken for the products of unconscious motivations,
if they are mistaken for simple effects or posterior
conditions, or if they are mistaken for behavior

7

8

occuring "because of" something instead of "for the sake
of" something, they are not truly ends. His principal
positive criterion for the establishment of an end or

3
goal is simply--and only--that it be thought of as such.
And, indeed, this does limit the field, for the existence
of goals or ends becomes dependent upon what is here
implied is a much too explicit and particular state of
mind.

The theoretical bias of this study is a position
from which it is not meaningless to regard ends or goals
as dependent upon a state of mind, but it is a consider-
ably more general one. For purposes of this study, goals
or ends may be thought of as end states--or simply states
of affairs-~which are anticipated as or expected to be
rewarding.

This theoretical orientation represents what is
expected to be a useful synthesis of the theoretical
works of Parsons, Becker, Newcomb, and Homans. Its
touchstone, as it were, derives from Parsons' original
statement made in 1937:

The origin of the mode of thinking in terms of

the action schema in general is so old and so

obscure that it is fruitless to inquire into it

here. It is sufficient to point out that, like

the schema of the classical physics, it is deeply

rooted in the commonsense experience of everyday

life, and it is of a range of such experience

that it may be regarded as universal to all human

beings. Proof of this claim can be found in the

fact that the basic elements of the schema are
imbedded in the structure of all languages, as

in the universal existence of a verb correspond-
ing to the English verb "to do." 9

9

Within this orientation the restrictions concern-
ing the classification of goals are relatively flexible.
Covert and reflexive motivations, although undoubtedly
present, are analytically of slight importance. Simply
that an individual wants to do something implies a goal
orientation.

Thus a given individual is likely to assess a
given situation in terms of whatever is rewarding to him,
i.e., in terms of whatever will help him do whatever it
is that he wants to do, whether it is the seeking of one
or another type of gratification or the avoidance of some
type of unpleasantness. Both types of behavior may be
regarded as potentially rewarding, and either could--
but does not have to--be regarded as directed toward the
achievement of a goal or end (or an intermediate goal or
end) that the individual may have clearly in mind.

It is in this sense, then, that we shall speak of
goals and goal-directed behavior. Sorokin's implied
objections to such an orientation become largely irrel-
evant when this position is made explicit and juxtaposed
with his own. Whether, as Parsons seems to contend, goal-
directed behavior represents a single exhaustive class of
human behavior is a question that need not now be pursued.
The relevant point here is that in the following this
general orientation seems to be more useful than possible
alternatives in reflecting--or imposing order on—-the

empirical reality at the focus of this study.

1O
Ends or Goals and Interaction

That a good deal of behavior can be viewed as goal-
directed, at least in the above sense, becomes obvious,
however, when one examines Homans' descriptions and
explanations of human behavior. Borrowing the points of
view of behavioral psychology and elementary economics,
Homans writes, for example, that one may "...envision
human behavior as a function of its pay-off: in amount
and kind it depends on the amount and kind of reward and
and punishment it fetches."1O That this kind of goal-
directedness is relevant to the central concern of this
study, i.e., the interaction process, is shown by Homans'
definition of interaction, per se: "...when an activity
(or sentiment) emitted by one man is rewarded (or punished)
by an activity emitted by another man, ...we say that the
two have interacted."11

That this type of goal-directedness is relevant to
the Gottlieb-Guttman model is also shown by Newcomb in a
somewhat indirect manner. In an article on interpersonal
attraction Newcomb writes that "...the reader of either
theoretical or empirical treatises is likely to conclude
that, for social-psychological purposes, the phenomena
of attraction are undifferentiated (except in degree)."12
He then proposes to differentiate among types of attraction
on the basis of "reward associated" attitudes.13 If it

can be presumed that attraction normally precedes inter-

action--at least the kind of interaction under scrutiny

11
here--Newcomb has added weight to the position here
being presented.

Thus it would seem that a means-end schema should
be useful for present purposes in that it is relevant to
the relationship likely to obtain between an adolescent
(a college student) and a referent (a member of the
student personnel services staff). Before pursuing this
particular topic further, however, let us begin to examine
the relationships among socialization, an adolescent's
goals (a college student's goals), and referents (members

of the student personnel services staff).

Socialization and Referents

With respect to socialization we can begin by
repeating that it is a particular type of socialization
that is under consideration here. It is what Parsons
calls the "third stage" of socialization; it occurs a:
the college or university level of formal education.1
Parsons writes that "...the main outline of the structure
of the individual personality is derived, through social—
ization, from the structure of the systems of social
objects to which he has been exposed in his life history,
including, of course, the cultural values and norms which
have been institutionalized in those systems."15 The
college, university, or graduate school is the third such
system, preceded by the family and the primary and

secondary school systems.

One such "social object" to which the adolescent

12
is exposed during this third stage of socialization is,
in many colleges and universities, the supposed referent
in this study. As an agent of socialization his intention
with respect to the college students in his charge is to
attempt to inculcate the relevant aspects of the cultural
values and norms subscribed to by the institution of

which he is a part.

Referents and Students' Goals

In his empirical setting, however, the role of this
individual (the referent) can and should be at least
analytically separated into two interrelated aspects.
For this individual on the job is at once an agent of
socialization and an agent of social control. This is,
of course, true of other presumed agents of socialization
and in this context the distinction could be an important
one in understanding the behavior of the adolescents in-
volved.16

That this should be true becomes clearer when we
again examine the notion of goals, the goals sought by
adolescents. The adolescents in question here are, of
course, the American college students about whom a great
deal has been recently reported. And a substantial
portion of this literature is concerned with assessing
the theoretical and practical importance of their goals
as they interact with their environments during this

third stage of socialization.

13

In this literature the notions of youth cultures
or student cultures seem to be occupying an increasingly
prominent place. Coleman, among others, has gone to
considerable length to describe and explain the many
aspects of these youth cultures as they first emerge in
the American high school.17 Trow, Becker, Newcomb,
Pace, and others have devoted considerable attention to
these cultures as they flourish on the nation's college
and university campuses.18

Becker, for example, views the student culture as
a means toward the achievement of more or less specific
intermediate goals which are, in turn, the means toward
the attainment of more long-range goals: "...student
culture can be viewed as a collective response to chronic
and pressing problems, problems which arise when the
long-range perspectives of students are confronted by
the social environment of the campus."19 Becker adds
that these situational problems must be shared by a
minimal number of students who interact, thus encouraging
the emergence of a student culture.20

The inference to be drawn here is that in attempt-
ing to solve these ubiquitous situational problems con-
fronting them, these college students are engaging in
goal-directed behavior. The goals that they are attempting
to achieve are the solutions to these situational problems.

And, of course, similar goals are likely to be common to

groups and/or individuals in similar situations. In

14
terms of the above definition these students are either
seeking some form of gratification or they are attempting
to avoid some form of unpleasantness.

Trow, who has done some significant pioneering in
this area, writes that with respect to such subcultures
”...most colleges are not monolithic and uniform but
contain within themselves different subsocieties, whose
members share common codes of values, attitudes, and
patterns of behavior.”21 That is, there are likely to be
a variety of types of what Becker calls situational
problems and thus a variety of types of goals that are
apt to be the objects of goal-directed behavior. However
many of these subcultures there are in a given institu-
tion is an empirical question, but Trow suggests that
four general types are usually represented in varying
proportions.22

Pace, among others, has studied the other side of
the coin, as it were: the environments within which these
student subcultures differentially succeed in meeting
and solving their situational problems. That is, he has
studied the cultural values and norms of these institu-
tions which comprise the content of the social and
cultural heritage which is presumed to be transmitted
during the process of socialization--by the presumed
agents of socialization, i.e., the referents in this

study.

Pace describes several types of subcultures exist-

15
ing on the college and university campuses; the student
subcultures are examples of only one of at least three
types. In addition to the student subcultures, Pace
discribes the faculty and administrative subcultures.23
Given the social and psychological characteristics of
students, as compared with those of a college or univer-
sity administration, one can easily see that relative to
the administrative organ represented by the student
personnel services staff, the goals of students are
likely to be heterogeneous.

This may have implications for the staff member's
role as an agent of social control. Social control, as
Parsons writes, has to do with counteracting tendencies
toward deviance,24 and if the students' goals were
sufficiently heterogeneous they are bound to imply a
certain amount of "deviant" behavior. Under such circum-
stances one can easily imagine a university staff member
acting as an agent of social control. Trow, as a matter
of fact, labels one of his four typical stuent sub-
cultures as the "deviant" subculture.25

Thus some proportion of the interaction between
the referent and the college student may be viewed as
examples of the Operation of the mechanism of social
control. It is here suggested that this interaction
may or may not be what is being called meaningful inter-

action. That is the process of social control may be

a component of or separate from the process of social-

16
ization depending, it is suggested, on the presence or
absence of perceived goal sympathy. This should become
clearer as we now turn to a discussion of meaningful

interaction and socialization.

Meaningful Interaction and Socialization

The notion that meaningful interaction is a
necessary condition of socialization derives in part
from the almost universally held proposition that what-
ever it is that is transmitted during the socialization
process is transmitted via the interaction process.
Parsons, for example, discusses interaction and social-
ization as they occur under normal circumstances: "An
established state of a social system is a process of
complimentary interaction of two or more individual
actors in which each conforms with the expectations of
the other(s) in such a way that alter's reactions to ego's
actions are positive sanctions which serve to reinforce
his given need-dispositions and thus to fulfill his given
expectations....It is only when this mutuality of inter-
action has been established that we may speak of social-
ization."26

This statement, of course, implies that there are
types of interaction which would be irrelevant, if not
inimical, to the socialization process. For example,
Becker suggests a classification of social interaction,
or "sociation" in his terms, based on its most funda-

27
mental aspects--association and dissociation. Becker

17
lists what he calls the associative and dissociative
processes. The associative processes are advance,
adjustment, accordance, and amalgamation; whereas the
dissociative processes are competition, contravention,
and conflict.23 In the context under consideration here
both types of interaction are represented. The latter
types, i.e., the dissociative types, it is suggested
would be irrelevant, if not inimical, to the social-
ization process.

Individual relationships are not likely to be pure
examples of either type, but they probably tend more
toward onetype than the other. And if a relationship
were predominantly dissociative, it is suggested that
it would not contribute to socialization to the extent
that it precluded the complimentary relationship des-
cribed above. A staff member whose function with respect
to a given student was primarily that of social control
would probably have this sort of relationship; and in
such a case, as far as socialization is concerned, an
impasse would have been reached.

An associative relationship, on the other hand,
would be the sort of relationship implied by Parsons'
above statements. But the mere fact that it is associa-
tive (or only mildly dissociative as in a case where
social control would be a component of socialization)
does not in itself insure that it will be meaningful

in terms of socialization. For a relationship of this

18
sort it is hypothesized that the target of socialization,
i.e., the student, must perceive the agent of social-
ization as being sympathetic to his goals--as having

goal sympathy.

From Theory to Empirical Reality

The first stage of the explication in now complete.
Meaningful interaction may now be conceptually defined
as that associative interaction occurring within a
socialization context between an agent of socialization
and a target of socialization who perceives the agent as
sympathetic to his goals--as having the desire and/or
ability to help him attain his goals. It is suggested
that it is necessary for this type of relationship to
exist between a student and a university staff member in
order that socialization may occur; and that if it does
not, socialization is not likely to occur.

The next stage of the explication should involve
obtaining evidence to indicate whether the various
concepts and relationships in the conceptual definition
have empirical counterparts. More specifically, it
would be useful to know whether what is being called
perceived goal sympathy is correlated with a particualr
sort of associative relationship. If the correlation
exists, the concept meaningful interaction will have
been demonstrated to have an empirical referent, and the
concept will have been at least tentatively explicated.

To compellingly demonstrate that this sort of relation-

19
ship is in fact a "necessary condition" of socialization,
if possible, would take considerably more time and talent
than is presently available. It will, therefore, remain
as a suggestion. It is presumed, however, that previous
and subsequent remarks will serve to at least strongly

suggest the validity of this suggestion.

CHAPTER III
STRATEGY OF RESEARCH

Introduction
This phase of the project was begun and completed
subsequent to the previous phase. Therefore, the gen-
eral granatical tense of the presentation must change.
This chapter and the following one are descriptions of
how answers to the questions implied at the end of the

preceding chapter were secured.

The Setting

In accordance with the objectives of the study as
a whole, the site of the research was a university campus--
a large, state supported university in the Great Lakes
region of the United States. The university is one of
the many maintaining extensive facilities to enhance the
out of class experience of its students. That is, it
takes seriously the notion of socialization discussed
in the preceding chapters.

Of these many facilities, it is in the university's
residence halls that interaction between students and
members of the student personnel services staff is
qualitatively and quantitatively most intense. It is
here that day to day contact, a number of planned
programs, and not a few ad hoc decisions are supposed

20

21
to accomplish the process of socialization. It was,
therefore, from one of these residence halls that a
sample of students was selected.

Each residence hall on the campus of this univer-
sity is staffed by three grades of student personnel
workers. The tOp administrative position in a residence
hall is that of Head Resident Adviser. This man is a
full time member of the Student Affairs staff in addition
to typically being an advanced graduate student in
student personnel and administration. He is also usually
well trained and experienced. Such was the case in the
residence hall chosen for this study.

The Head Resident Adviser is assisted by two
Graduate Resident Advisers who are usually graduate
students in education or the behavioral sciences. Their
appointments with the Student Affairs office are half-
time. Their function is to assist the Head Resident
Adviser and to oversee a number of specific programs
within the residence hall.

Each residence hall on the campus studied is
subdivided into a number of smaller units called houses
or precincts. A Resident Assistant lives in each of
these units which contains from fifty to sixty under-
graduate students. The Resident Assistant typically is
an upperclassman who has demonstrated superior ability
and maturity. Each takes a three credit course of

formal training and attends weekly or biweekly training

22
sessions conducted by the Head Resident Adviser.

Although social control is a concern of all these
individuals, the specific function of each staff member
is to act as an agent of socialization as it has been
discussed. The official by-word is to create and sustain

a "living-learning" situation.

Operationalization of Variables
Although the approach here is a correlational one
and a definite antecedent-consequent time order is not
postulated, it will be convenient to refer to the two
principal variables of the study as the independent and
dependent variables. Beginning with the independent
variable, then, the following means were employed for

its operationalization.

Perceived Goal Sympathy:

The task here was to find a set of operations
which would indicate whether a student perceived a member
of the student personnel services staff as having the
desire and/or ability to help him attain one or another
of his goals. It would have been simple enough to ask a
student this question directly, but a few judicious
trials of versions of this procedure led to interminable
difficulties concerning the meanings of such terms as
goal, ability, or desire. Considerations of this sort
are of course relevant and important, but it was decided

that they were not sufficiently germane to warrant the

23
utilization of this type of direct approach.

An agent of socialization in a college or university
setting is called upon to work with individual students
harboring all sorts of goals and definitions of their
respective situations. Whatever they pursue or value,

a member of the student personnel services staff may or
may not be perceived as instrumental in this quest.

With these considerations in mind (and after a few more
trials and errors), a questionnaire was prepared which
seems to take this aspect of the situation well into
account as well as overcoming the difficulties mentioned
above.

The questionnaire breaks down into three two-part
questions. First of all, the respondents were to be
asked: "Under your present circumstances at the univer-
sity, which one(s) of those listed below do you see as
having an interest in you and your future?" Respondents
were to place an X on the line preceding applicable
responses. They were asked to choose from a presumably
exhaustive list of those individuals in their human
environment. The list was as follows: an instructor or
professor other than your academic adviser; your academic
adviser; your R.A. (Resident Assistant); a close friend
other than your roommate; your roommate; the head adviser
or either graduate adviser in your residence hall; and
"someone not listed" whom they were to specify.

If a respondent were to make more than one response

24
to the question, he was then asked to identify which of
those individuals already indicated he saw as having the
most interest in him and his future. The purpose of
this second question was to make more certain that a
respondent knew what kind of information was being sought,
i.e., information about whom he perceived as having an
interest in him and his future.

The purpose of the entire first two-part question
is seen as an attempt to define the research situation
to the respondent and to give him practice in working
with the questionnaire. This first question was fol-
lowed by two more two-part questions of a similar form
but differing in contents.

With respect to the same presumably exhaustive
list of individuals in their human environment, respond-
ents were next to be asked: "Which of those listed below
do you see as having a sincere desire or inclination to
give you some kind of advice or help?" This was to be
followed by asking the respondent to identify which of
those indicated by him had the strongest desire or in-
clination to give him some kind of help or advice.

And, finally, respondents were to be asked: "Which
of those listed below do you see as having the ability
to give you useful or valuable advice or help?" And
this was followed by asking the respondent to identify
which of those indicated by him he saw as having the most

ability to give him useful or valuable help or advice.

25

The logic of this procedure is that the notions of
help or advice only have meaning with respect to ends
or goals--especially as they were defined in the previous
chapter. Whatever the student's goals or situational
problems, the above questions are relevant to him. His
responses should indicate whether he perceives members of
the student personnel services staff as instrumental to
him. That is, they should indicate the presence or

absence of perceived goal sympathy.

The Associative Relationship:

If a respondent did identify a member of the
student personnel services staff as being sympathetic
to his goals, we would, according to the hypothesis,
expect meaningful interaction to occur between that
student and that staff member. Under these circumstances,
the staff member as an agent of socialization and social
control would have an essentially associative relation-
ship with the student in terms of the definition suggested
in the previous chapter in that the student would probab-
ly relate to him or become oriented to him. In other
words, we would expect the dependent variable to be
present also.

With these considerations in mind it was decided
to interview all the staff members included on the list
to which the students were to respond on the questionnaire.
After inferring the nature of the relationship between

the staff member and the student (from the staff member),

26
it would be possible to correlate the responses made by
the staff members and the responses made by the students.

As agents of socialization and social control
members of the student personnel services staff are
obliged to maintain a particular definition of the sit-
uation existing between them and students. They have
certain objectivesand goals by virtue of their positions.
This limits and conditions the interaction between them
and students. In terms of his position and role, only
certain kinds of interaction between him and a student
would be satisfactory to the staff member. Presuming
this to be the case it was decided to have staff members,
after a series of preliminary questions, rate the re-
lationship between them as staff members and students
on a six point scale ranging from very satisfactory to
very unsatisfactory.

The logic here is that if the relationship were
sufficiently satisfactory to the agent of socialization
it would be evidence to believe that if socialization
were not already under way, it had not been blocked by
a dissociative or otherwise irrelevant relationship. In
short, according to our hypothesis, a sufficiently
satisfactory rating should exist with respect to a re-
lationship in which the student perceived the staff member
as somehow sympathetic to his goals or ends.

The preliminary questions preceding the final

rating question were designed to recall specific relevant

1‘0

7

features of the relationship between the staff member

and a given student to the staff member's mind. For
example, he was to be asked how well he knew the student,
how often he interacted with him relative to other students,
whether there had been problems with the student, and, if
so, what kinds of problems were encountered in the re-
lationship. After these preliminary questions the staff
member was to be asked to, in terms of his objectives as
a staff member, rate the relationship between him and the
specific student, i.e., "How would you as (an R.A., a
Head, or Graduate Adviser), and in terms of what you're
trying to accomplish, rate the relationship between you
and ........? As very satisfactory, quite satisfactory,
just satisfactory, just unsatisfactory, etc."

Each member of the residence hall staff was to be
interviewed (privately) to determine the nature of the
relationship between him and the students in the sample
with whom he interacted. Each Resident Assistant was to
be interviewed about those students in the sample who
lived in his house, and the Head and both Graduate
Resident Advisers were to be interviewed about all those
students in the sample whom they knew by name.

In those instances where a student was known by
only one staff member, i.e., the Resident Assistant, the
Resident Assistant's rating of the relationship was the
one to be used in the analysis. If two staff members

knew a student and disagreed substantially in their

23

ratings, the rating of the one professing to know the
student better (on a five point scale) would be employed.
If three staff members knew a student and there was
substantial disagreement, the most divergent rating would
be excluded.

Copies of the questionnaire sent to the students
and the interview schedule followed with the members of
the student personnel services staff are included in the

appendix.

The Sample of Students

The questionnaire was to be sent to a twenty
percent sample of the six hundred fifty undergraduate
males residing in the residence hall chosen for the study.
The sample represents what is called a systematic random
sample. That is, after a random start from one to K on
a complete alphabetical listing of residents, every Kth
individual was selected.29 K in this case was set equal
to five. Each student thus selected was, a priori, the
"responsibility" of at least three staff members: the
Head Resident Adviser, both Graduate Resident Advisers,

and the Resident Assistant assigned to his house.

Proposed Analysis
The relationship between a student and a staff
member was considered to be ”sufficiently satisfactory"
to meet the definition of meaningful interaction if it

was given either of the two top ratings. Since it was

29
a six point scale, a dichotomy had to be made between
satisfactory and unsatisfactory in the mind to the
interviewee, and it is believed that the ”just satis-
factory” category (the third from the top) would give
the interviewees an opportunity to avoid what would
amount to making an admission of at least partial fail-
ure to the interviewer. (The long pauses preceding this
particular response during the process of data gathering
and the interviewer's familiarity with the interviewees
tend to support this decision.)

It can be seen that the process of data gathering
should yield two discrete and dichotomous variables.
Either a student respondent will perceive a staff member
as sympathetic to his goals or he will not so perceive
a staff member. And either the relationship will be
rated as sufficiently satisfactory or not.

Therefore, the obvious method of cross classifi-
cation will be employed. That is, the data will be cast
in contingency tables from which the Contingency Co-

efficient and Xg's may be computed.

Hypotheses
Because there are two separate classes of student
personnel workers in the study, and because the dimen-
sions of goal sympathy are distinct phenomena, a number
of hypotheses should be tested. The data should be such

that analysis will make it possible to note any differ-

30
entials between the two classes of student personnel
workers; and it should be possible to at least make some
estimates about the relative importance of the two dimen-
sions of goal sympathy.

Because of the nature of this enterprize, the more
or less conventional process of hypothesis testing will
not be employed. In the tradition of Lipset, Trow and
Coleman it is suggested that factors are present which
make tests of significance either too strong or irrel-
evant.30 The intent here is to attempt to discover
indications of the presence or the absence of a number of
relationships. No presumptions are made concerning the
description or the estimation of parameters. Nor is it
presumed that this study is in any way a definitive one.
In this sense it may be thought of as an exploratory or
a pilot study.

Under these circumstances the decisions whether
to accept or reject null hypotheses at a specified level
of confidence are not really crucial. Indeed the use of
conventional hypothesis testing procedures presupposes
the existence of factors which, if present, would be
quite incompatible with what is conceived as the purpose
of the study.

With these considerations in mind, then, two sets
of nearly identical hypotheses will be examined--one
set pertaining to the Resident Assistants and one set

pertaining to the Head and Graduate Resident Advisers.

31
They are all variants of the following general form:
That satisfactory relationships will tend
to be associated with perceived goal sympathy,

and that unsatisfactory relationships will
tend to be associated with no perceived goal

sympathy.
It can be seen that the Contingency Coefficient and X2
are relevant to this formulation.

In all there will be two sets of four hypotheses
varying with respect to the rater of the relationship
and with respect to the configuration of goal sympathy
implied by its two dimensions. These configurations
are (in set theory terms): (1) ability and no ability,
(2) desire and no desire, (3) desire and ability--the
"intersection" of the two sets-~and either one or the
other of neither of them, and (4) desire and/or ability--
the "union" of the two sets--and neither desire nor
ability.

Let us now finally proceed to an examination of the

data collected.

Summary of Data Collected

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

The procedures outlined in the preceding chapter

were followed. The following two tables summarize the

the data collected.

TABLE 4-1. Relationship between the
rating of relationships by the Head
and Graduate Resident Advisers and
the configuration of goal sympathy
perceived by students.

 

Relationship Rating

 

 

Configuration of Satisfactory
Goal Sympathy f
Ability 12 (so)
No Ability 9 (47)
Desire 8 (73)
No Desire 13 (45)
Desire and Ability 6 (75)
Either Desire or

Ability or Neither

Desire nor Ability 15 (48)

 

(Continued on next page.)

32

Unsatisfactory
r i1%)

8 (40)
1o (53)

3 (27)
15 (54)

\

2 (25)

16 (52)

33
(TABLE 4-1 continued.)

 

Desire and/or Ability 14 (64) 3 (36)

Neither Desire
Nor Ability 7 (41) 1O (59)

(Total N in each case = 39; %'s computed laterally.)

 

TABLE 4-2. Relationship between the
rating of relationships by Resident
Assistants and the configuration of
goal sympathy perceived by students.

 

Relationship Rating

 

 

 

 

Configuration of Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Goal Sympathy ____§__1§Q___ f (%i
Ability 23 (68) 11 (32)
No Ability 14 (42) 19 (58)
Desire 18 (62) 11 (38)
No Desire 19 (50) 19 (50)
Desire and Ability 16 (73) 6 (27)

Either Desire or
Ability or Neither
Desire nor Ability 21 (47) 24 (53)

 

Desire and/or Ability 25 (61) 16 (39)

Neither Desire
Nor Ability 12 (45) 14 (54)

(Total N in each case = 67; %'s computed laterally.)

 

34

Each of the above breakdowns of the total N's is an
attempt to view the relationship implied by a specific
configuration of goal sympathy. These configurations, of
course, are not mutually exclusive. The residual left
from set intersection, for example, is inclusive of part
of the union of the same sets. The two two-by-two
matrices involving set intersection and set union (for
each table) can be combined into a single two—by-three

matrix. These alternative breakdowns are included in the

appendix.

Analysis and Hypotheses

Inspection of the above tables reveals evidence
supporting the existence of the hypothesized relation-
ship. That is, in every instance except one the percents
in the upper left and lower right corners of each sub-
division in both tables exceed fifty percent.

With respect to the particular relationships
between the ratings of relationships by Head and Grad-
uate Resident Advisers and the students' perceptions of
goal sympathy as exemplified by each possible config-

uration, we find the following:

1. For "ability," 0 = .024 and x2=.22 (pa<.70).
2. For "desire," C = .178 and x3: 1.27 (p.<;30).

3. For "desire and ability," 0 =.150 and x9=.90
(p.<350).

4. For "desire and/or ability," C :.169 and X2:1.15
(p5<.30).

35
With respect to the same particular hypothesized
relationships between the ratings of Resident Assistants
and the students' perceptions of goal sympathy as exem-
plified by its various configurations, we find the fol-

lowing:

5. For ”ability," 0 =.246 and x2=4.31 (p.<;os).
6. For "desire," C :.113 and X2:.87 (p.<:30).

7. For ”desire and ability,” 0 =.239 and X2:4.O6
(p.<305).

S. For "desire and/or ability,” 0 =.143 and x2=1.41
(P.<53O).

Because of the relatively small N from which the
Contingency Coefficients were computed for the first set
of hypotheses, Yates' correction for continuity was used
in the computations of the X2's. It was not used in the
computations of the X2's for the second set of hypotheses
since the N was larger and each cell of the data matrices
had at least five cases. The maximal value of C for a
two-by-two table is .707.31

Interpretation of Data

Although the data clearly reveal evidence to
support the general hypothesis in that the relationship
is present in seven out of eight possible instances, it
would be less than a completely sound undertaking to
arrive at anything but the most tentative conclusions
concerning the underlying relationship between the two

variables. To begin with, the probabilities that any of

36
these seven relationships could have occurred by chance
range from the conventionally acceptable one chance in
twenty to seven chances in ten. In addition to this,
there are some methodological difficulties which dictate
a certain amount of caution in drawing conclusions.

Primary among these difficulties is the nonresponse
error, i.e., the fact that only slightly over sixty
percent of those to whom questionnaires were sent
responded to them. Subsequent responses probably would
have confirmed the trends, but one cannot be certain of
this. There is also no way of knowing what biases are
represented in this differential rate of response. And
finally, larger N's would have made the drawing of any
kinds of conclusions a scientifically more respectable
venture.

Another difficulty may arise from the lumping of
the Head and Graduate Resident Advisers together on the
questionnaire administered to the students. At the time
of the construction of the questionnaire, however, it
was decided that any more possible responses referring
to the staff in the students' residence hall would tend
to make them unduly reluctant in making candid responses.
And, as it turned out, the N for these three individuals
together was barely sufficient to make a meaningful
analysis.

An unfortunate inherent difficulty centers around

the fact that only nominal or categorical data were

37
gathered. Had more sensitive measures been available,
perhaps more clearly definite signs of a relationship (or
its absence) would have revealed themselves. Depending,
of course, on the tenable assumptions inhering to more
sophisticated measures, it would seem likely that more
alternatives with respect to modes of analysis would also
have been availableand legitimate.

Despite these difficulties, however, if one were
pressed to make a decision on the basis of the evidence
obtained, he would probably be less wrong if he con-
cluded that the hypothesized relationship does exist
than if he did not so conclude. If pressed one could
also probably say that perceived goal sympathy as exem-
plified by "desire" is relatively most important in the
relationships between students and the Head and Grad-
uate Resident Advisers; and that perceived goal sympathy
as exemplified by "ability" is relatively most important
in the relationships between students and Resident Assis-
tants. In other words there are some apparent differences
that may be real.

Thus, with a most tentative positive conclusion
concerning the existence of the hypothesized relation-
ship, the time has come to note some of the possible
implications of this somewhat less than completely satis-
factory exploration into the empirical domain for the
original task of bridging the gap between the empirical

and theoretical domains.

CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION

Summary

For all practical purposes, the explication is now
at least tentatively completed. Before finally concluding,
however, it might be useful to briefly recapitulate in
order to achieve a more or less balanced perspective.

So far it has been noted that colleges and univer-
sities are in the business of socialization. To help
accomplish this task in many colleges and universities,

a more or less specialized area of study and practice

has come into being; it is called student personnel
services. By various means, practitioners in this field
attempt to compliment or supplement the efforts of others
in the college or university community who are engaged in
this "third stage" of socialization.

It was suggested that there is a certain necessary
precondition for this kind of socialization. A certain
kind of associative relationship was suggested as this
necessary condition. It was termed meaningful inter-
action, and it was conceptually defined as the kind of
interaction occuring between a member of the student
personnel services staff and a student who perceives him

as having the desire and/or ability to help him attain
33

39
certain of his ends or goals. The over-all purpose of
this project was to be an explication of this concept.
In other words, the attempt would be made to discover an
empirical counterpart to this conceptual formulation.

The strategy employed was to--after discussing the
theoretical antecedents of the conceptual formulation--
go to a setting where this kind of socialization was
being attempted and try to observe the phenomenon. The
phenomenon, meaningful interaction, was to be operationally
defined as the correlation of two variables which, in turn,
were operationalized components of the conceptual def-
inition. It was hypothesized simply that the correlation
would exist, and if it did the concept would have been
shown to have an empirical referent.

The relevant terms were operationalized and a
modest empirical study was designed. Data were gathered
which seem to support the above hypothesis. That is,
meaningful interaction was observed. But the results of
the study were somewhat less than completely satisfactory.
A number of more or less "mechanical" difficulties were
discussed. Despite these difficulties, however, it was
concluded that the explication was in some measure

successful.

Concluding Remarks
At the very least the bulk of the foregoing makes
a number of things quite clear with respect to any

future related endeavors. Folloing are a number of things

40
that future interested students may wish to consider.

Of these concerns, a primary one should be with
valid and reliable instrumentation. This, of course,
presupposes that a number of other conditions have been
met, e.g., that the dependent and independent variables
have been adequately operationalized. Gottlieb, Reeves,
and TenHouten, in developing the facet design appli-
cation of the Gottlieb-Guttman model, chose "perceptual
states” and ”level of involvement” (as determined by a
questionnaire administered to college students) as cor-
responding, respectively, to the variables operationalized
in this study: ”perceived goal sympathy" (as determined
by a questionnaire administered to students) and "re-
lationship rating" (as determined by interviewing the
referents).'/2

For the above purposes the Gottlieb, Reeves, and
TenHouten approach was not feasible since the object was
to examine some of the presumed implications of students'
perceptions for the relationships between them and refer-
ents. It is possible that a similar approach could be
used in a much more comprehensive design. It should be
remembered, however, that some indication of the nature
of the relationship--independent of any antecedent per-
ceptions--would be most useful to have.

A related concern here is the level of measurement.
This has already been discussed as a possible shortcoming,

but it ought to be made clear that it probably is legit-

41
inate to measure the two variables as continuous.
Carefully constructed and pretested instruments, in ad-
dition to being a more accurate reflection of ”reality,"
should make measurement and analysis possible at least
at the ordinal level, thus allowing one to draw (or fail
to draw) conclusions based on more precise observations.

Another concern centers around the ultimate useful-
ness of such observations. Future interested students
would do well to use a more sophisticated sampling pro-
cedure—-even if one is again only interested in exploring
possible relationships rather than attempting to general-
ize to a population. The recommendation here is that one
attempt to select a larger and more representative sample.
In the present study only one residence hall staff and
only males were included in the sample. This made it
impossible to say anything about any possible sex dif-
ferences or possible variations among student personnel
services staffs.

If such an interested future investigator were
interested in the possible practical implications of his
work, he would also do well to retain residence halls as
sampling units and familiarize himself with sampling
problems peculiar to these sub-units. Trow, in a dis-
cussion of the administrative implications of research in
higher education, writes that "...residence halls are
usually things the administrator can do something about;

they are manipulable. And when the social scientists can

42

say something concrete about the bearing of the residence
halls on student life and the educational enterprize, then
the administrator is more likely to pay real attention--
and, conceivably, even to make use of those findings in
his policy planning."33

A final recommendation conderns the desirability
of useful control. Control would, of course, again
entail a more comprehensive design, but there are possible
variables on which it may be useful to stratify samples
or of which independent measures may be taken. Examples
of the former could be sex, class standing, or cumulative
grade point average. A possible example of the latter
is suggested in some research reported by Stern concern-
ing the implications of the relationships among situation,
personality, and learning. Stern reports that in a
number of situations the psychological variables author-
itarianism, rationalism, and antiauthoritarianism were
related to academic achievement as measured by common
objective examinations.34 To the extent that similar
mechanisms are involved, similar relationships may hold.

Stern and his associates had something available
to them, however, that was not available for this study
and well may not be available for subsequent studies.
Stern was able to use scores on common objective exam-
inations as indications of learning. No similar device

is available to indicate socialization. That the ana-

lytically distinct phenomena socialization and, say,

43
social control may be inextricably interwoven empirically
suggests that one may only obtain less than concrete,
quantifiable indications of socialization. Indeed, the
ultimate usefulness of this entire explication depends on
the tenability of the assumption that socialization was
occuring (or was not blocked) in the setting from which
the data were gathered. Perhaps a solution here is to
simply define socialization in this "third stage” as
that process during which college students become oriented
to or involved with referents who are attempting to be of

help to them.

FOOTNOTES

1. Gerald P. Burns (ed. ), Administrators in Higher
Education, (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962): see

especially Chapter IX.
2. Ibid., passim.

3. Wilbert E. Moore, Social Change, (Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963), pp.12-13
and. 7 2-74 0

4. David Gottlieb, Jon Reeves, and Warren TenHouten,

The Emer one .9; Youth Societies: g Cross Cultural
Apgroach, (East Lansing: Michigan State University Press,

19 3 g p. 1b.

5. Letter from David Gottlieb, Washington, D.C.,
January 11, 1965.

6. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Societ , Cultur , and
Personalit , (New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc.,
1962), p. £

7. Talcott Parsons, The Social S stem, (New York:
The Free Press of Glencoe, 1965), pp. 6- 9

8. Sorokin, g2. cit., pp. 44-47.

9. Talcott Parsons, The Structre of Social Action,
(2d ed.; New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), p. 51.

10. George C. Homans, Social Behavigr: Its Elemen-
tgry)Forms,3 (New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc.,

11. Ibid., p. 35.

12. Theodore H. Newcomb, "Varities of Interpersonal
Attraction," Gr u Di amics, ed. Dorwin Cartwright and
Alvin Zander, New York: Row, Peterson and Company, 1960),
p. 105.

13. Ibid.

14. Talcott Parsons, "General Theory in Sociology,"
Sociology Toda , ed. Robert K. erton, Leonard Broom, and
Leonard S. Cottrell, Jr., (New York. Basic Books, Inc.,
1959). p. 30 44

15. Ibid.

 

16. Parsons, Social System, pp. 206-207.

17. James S. Coleman, The Adolescent Society, (New
York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961), especially
Chapters I and XI.

18. Terry F. Lunsford, (ed.), The Study pf Campus
Cultures, The Papers Presented at the Fourth Annual
Institute on College Self Study, University of California,
Berkley, July 24-27, 1962.

19. Howard S. Becker, "Student Culture,” The Study
pf Campus Culture , Ibid., p. 12.

 

20. Ibid., p. 13.

21. Martin A. Trow, "Administrative Implications of
Analyses of Campus Cultures," Ibid., p. 105.

22. Ibid.

23. 0. Robert Pace, "Interactions Among Academic,
Administrative, and Student Subcultures," Ibid., pp. 55-80.

24. Parsons, Social Systems, p. 206.
25. Trow, pp. cit., p. 105.
26. Parsons, Social Systems, pp. 204-205.

27. Howard S. Becker, "Changing Societies as
Family Contexts," Marriage and phe Family, ed. Howard
Bezker andAReuben Hill, (Boston: D. 0. Heath and Company,
192.13. .

28. Howard Becker, Man ip_Reciprocity: In r no or

Lectureg pp Culture, Societ , and Persoplaity, Fredrick
A. Praeger, 1956), p 398.

29. Leslie Kish, "Selection of the Sample,"
Research Methods iplphp Behavioral Scienc s, ed. Leon
Festinger and Daniel Katz, (New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston, 1953), pp. 198-202.

30. Seymour Martin Lipset, Martin Trow, and James
Coleman, Union Democracy,(New York: Anchor Books, Double-
day and Company, Inc., 1962), pp. 480-485.

31. Sidney Siegel, Nonparametric Stati tic , (New
York: HoGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956), pp. 196-202.

45

32. Gottlieb, Reeves, and Tanoute , pp. cit., p. 10.

33. Trow, pp. cit., p. 96.

34. George G. Stern, ”Environments for Learning,"
The American College, ed. Nevitt Sanford, (New York:
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962), p. 699.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Becker, Howard 8. "Changing Societies as Family Contexts,"
Marriage and the Family. ed. Howard S. Becker and
Reuben Hill. Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1942.

Becker, Howard S. Man ip Reciprocity: Introductory

Lectures pp Culture, Society, and Personality.
New York: Fredrick A. Praeger, 195 .

Burns, Gerald P. (ed.) Administrators pp Higher Education.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962.

 

Coleman, James S. The Adolescent Society. New York: The
Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Gottlieb, David, Reeves, Jon, and TenHouten, Warrens pp;
Emergence pf Youth Societies: A Cross Cultupgl
Approach. East Lansing: Michigan State University
Press, 1963.

Homans, George C. Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms.
New York: Harcourt, Brace, and World, Inc., 1961.

Kish, Leslie. ”Selection of the Sample," Research
Methods ip ppp Behavioral Sciences. ed. Leon
Festinger and Daniel Katz. New York: Holt, Rine-
hart, and Winston, 1953.

Lipset, Seymour Martin, Trow, Martin, and Coleman, James.

Union Democracy. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday
and Company, Inc., 1962.

Lunsford, Terry F. (ed.) 22£.Study pf Campus Cultures.
The Papers Presented at the Fourth Annual Insti-
tute on College Self Study, University of California,
Berkley, July 24-27, 1962. Includes: Becker, Howard
S. "Student Culture;" Pace, C. Robert, "Interactions
Among Academic, Administrative, and Student Sub-
cultures;" and Trow, Martin, "Administrative Impli-
cations of Analyses of Campus Cultures."

Moore, Wilbert E. Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1963.

Newcomb, Theodore H. "Varieties of Interpersonal Attraction,"

Group Dynamic . ed. Dorwin Cartwright and Alvin
Zander. New York: Row, Peterson, and Company, 1960.

47

48

Parsons, Talcott. "General Theory in Sociology," Sociology
Today. ed. Robert K. Merton, Leonard Broom, and
Leonard Cottrell, Jr. New York: Basic Books, Inc.,
1959.

Parsons, Talcott. The Structure 9: Social Action. 2d ed.;
New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1961.

Parsons, Talcott. The Social System. New York: The Free
Press of Glencoe, 1964.

Siegel, Sidney. Nonparametric Statistics. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., 1956.

Sorokin, Pitirim A. Society, Culture, and Personality.
New York: Cooper Square Publishers, Inc., 19 2.

APPENDIX A

INSTRUMENTATION

The following is a copy of the note attached to the

questionnaire sent to the students in the sample:

Dear Student:

If you will glance at the attached questionnaire
you will notice that there are a number of questions _
refering to a list of peOple who are presumed to be rel-
evant to you and your life here at the university and
possibly in your future. You are being asked to fill
out the attached questionnaire so that answers to several
carefully formulated research questions may be discovered.
The answers to these questions are expected to be of
practical importance to both educators and college students.

, It is hoped that you will feel free to respond as
candidly as possible. All your answers will be confi-
dential; they will be used for the research being done
and for no other purposes. Read each question carefully
and make your responses as accurately and carefully as
the structure of the questionnaire permits.

When you have finished, seal the completed question—
naire in the attached envelope and return it to Don Bybee
(East Wilson Scholastic Graduate Adviser). This may be
done in person or via the East Wilson reception desk. If
you have any questions you may see or call Don Bybee at
3-0298. To be of use, the questionnaire must be returned
no later than Friday, April 23.

The following is a copy of the questionnaire sent

to the sample of students:

I. Under your present circumstances here at the univer-
sity, which one(s) of those listed below do you see
as having an interest in you and your future? Place
an X on the short line preceding each applicable
response and/or write in an applicable response in
the provided space.

An instructor or professor other than your

49

II.

III.

IV.

V.

50

academic adviser.
Your academic adviser.

Your R.A.
A close friend other than your roommate.

Your roommate.

The head adviser or either graduate adviser in
your residence hall.

,___ Someone not listed. Please specify: .
In question number I above, if you indicated more than
one response, circle the X preceding the ppp referring
to the individual whom you see as having the most in-
terest in you and your future.

Which of those listed below do you see as having a
sincere desire or inclination to give you some kind
of help or advice? Place an X on the short line
preceding each applicable response and/or write in
an applicable response in the provided space.

An instructor or professor other than your
academic adviser.
Your academic adviser.

Your R.A.

A close friend other than your roommate.

Your roommate.

The head adviser or either graduate adviser in
your residence hall.
Someone not listed. Please specify: .

In question number III above, if you indicated more
than one response, circle the X preceding the one
referring to the individual having the strongest

desire or inclination to give you some kind of advice
or help.

Which of those listed below do you see as having the
ability to give you useful or valuable advice or
help? Place an X on the short line preceding each
applicable response and/or write in an applicable
response in the provided space.

An instructor or professor other than your
academic adviser.

Your academic adviser.

51
Your R.A.
A close friend other than your roommate.

Your roommate.

The head adviser or either graduate adviser in
your residence hall.
Someone not listed. Please specify:

 

VI. In question number V above, if you indicated more
than one response, circle the X prededing the gpg
referring to the individual having the most ability
to give you advice or help.

Following is a copy of the questions asked of the
members of the student personnel services staff. The

precoded responses were recorded on separate index cards.

Instructions:

At the end of this interview you will be asked to rate
the relationship between you as an R.A. (or Head Res-
ident Adviser or Graduate Resident Adviser) and the
student on a six point scale ranging from very satis-
factory to very unsatisfactory. The immediately follow-
ing questions are asked to assist you in making this
judgement by recalling specific features of the relation-
ship to your mind.

1. In terms of the folloing continuum, how well do you
know ?

Very well (5), Well (4), Average (3), Slightly (2),
Hardly at all (1).

2. How often do you interact with compared with
the rest of the men in the house (hall)?

Less than average (3), Average (2), More than
average (1).

3. Has ever come to you with any sort of problem?
Yes (2), No (1).

4. If ”no," do you think it is likely that he ever will?

Yes (2), No (1).

5. If "yes," what kinds of problems usually?
Academic (3), Personal-Social (2), Other (1).

0. Do you think that the outcome was (is usually) satis-

C]
M

factory for

13.

11.

?
Yes (2), No (1).

Have you ever approached about a problem?

If "no," is there any specific reason?

 

If "yes, " what kind(s) of problems (usually)?
Academic (4), Personal-Social (3), Discipline (2),
Other (1).

If ”yes," how did he (how does he usually) react at
the time(s)?
Favorably (Q), Unfavorably (1).

Do you think that is currently benefiting from
his stay in Wilson“ Hall?

YES ‘22, NO (I).

How would you as (an R.A., a Head, or Graduate Res-
ident Adviser), and in terms of what you're trying
to accomplish, rate the relationship between you
and ?

Very satisfactory _(%), Quite satisfactory

Just satisfactory 1' , Just unsatisfactory

Quite unsatisfactory,(_), Very unsatisfactory (l).

 

 

APPENDIX B
ALTERNATIVE BREAKDOWN OF DATA
TABLE 3-1. Relationship between the
rating of relationships by Head and

Graduate Resident Advisers and per-
ceptions of goal sympathy by students.

Relationship Rating

 

 

Perception of Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Goal Svmpathy f Lil g:fl;£%)
Desire and Ability 6 (75) 2 (25)
Desire or Ability - 8 (57) 6 (43)
Neither Desire nor Ability 7 (41) 1o (59)

 

The data for this table are the same as for TABLE
4.1. The total N, therefore, is the same (i.e., 39).
The x2 for table B-1.is 2.67 (p.<;30) with two degrees
of freedom. TABLE B-2.(reproduced on the next page) is
constructed from the same data used in TABLE 4-2. The

total N is 67; the X2

is 3.90 (p.<.20) with two degrees
of freedom. The percents in both tables were computed

laterally.

53

TABLE 3-2. Relationship between the
rating of relationships by Resident
Assistants and perceptions of goal
sympathy by students.

 

Relationship Rating

 

 

 

Perceptions of Satisfactory Unsatisfactory
Goal Szmnathy f (E) f (%)
Desire and Ability 16 (73) 5 (27)
Desire or Ability 9 (47) 1o (53)

Neither Desire nor Ability 12 (45) 14 (54)

 

“11111111111111.111111111111111111"111111111111158

31293201454612