PERSONALITY NEEDS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESS OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION Thesis for the Dogm of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Paul S. CampbeII 1964‘ Iflflli 0-169 This is to certify that the thesis entitled Personality Needs of Community College and University Students and their Perceptions Of the Press of their Institutions: An Experimental Investigation presented by Paul S. Campbell has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Mdegree 111M; 8 Personnel Services College of Education Date Februag 5, I964 LIBRARY Michigan State University ABSTRACT PERSONALITY NEEDS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESS OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION by Paul S. Campbell The Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate the differences between community college students' and university students' personality needs and differences in their perceptions of the press of their respective institutions. The study was limited to students living .within the service area (25 miles radius) of the community college located in midwestern United States. The university with which comparisons were made is within the service area of the community college. It was hypothesized that significant difference at the .01 level would be found between students' perceptions of the press of their respective institutions on 11 factors measured by the College Characteristics Index. It was also hypothesized that significant difference at the .01 level would be found between the personality needs of the students attending the two institutions. These personality needs were compared on 12 factors as determined by the Stern Paul S. Campbell Activities Index. It was also hypothesized that significant difference at the .01 level would be found between the students from the two institutions on three additional variables: previous academic environment, socioeconomic status, and academic background. The Sample The sample for the study consisted of 90 freshmen enrolled at the university and 90 freshmen enrolled at the community college. The sample was randomly selected from students living within a 25 mile radius of the community college. The Methodology The students comprising the sample were administered the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index. Data were also gathered on the students' previous academic environments (size of high school graduating classes), socioeconomic status (fathers' occupations), and academic backgrounds (scores on College Qualification Tests). These data were collected from the students' records at their respective institutions. The data collected from the College Characteristics Iggex_and the Stern Activities Index were combined into 23 factors, 11 for the College Characteristics Index, and 12 for the Stern Activities Index. Tests for significant differences between the community college and the university were made on each of these factors by means of the t_test. Paul S. Campbell Data on each of the variables, previous academic environment, socioeconomic status, and academic back- ground were tested for significant difference between the community college and the university by means of the median test. The Findings Hypotheses I through XI suggested that significant difference would be found on each of the 11 factors per- taining to students' perceptions of the press of their respective institutions. These factors were: Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, Student Dignity, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Academic Organization, Social Form, Play-Work, and Vocational Climate. Significant difference was found for each of these factors. The mean scores were greater for university students than community college students on the following factors: Aspirational Level, Intellectual Climate, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Social Form, and Play-Work. The mean scores were greater for community college students than university students on the following factors: Student Dignity, Academic Organization, and Vocational Climate. Hypotheses XII through XXIII suggested that significant difference would be found on each of the 12 factors pertaining to the personality needs of the students from the Paul S. Campbell two institutions. Significant difference was found on each of the following factors: Self Assertion, Audacity— Timidity, Motivation, Friendliness, Expressiveness- Constraint, and Egoism—Diffidence. No significant difference was found on each of the following factors: Intellectual Interests, Applied Interests, Orderliness, Submissiveness, Closeness, and Sensuousness. The mean scores were greater for university students than community college students on the following factors: Self Assertion, Audacity—Timidity, Expressiveness- Constraint, and Egoism-Diffidence. The mean scores were greater for community college students than university students on the factors of Motivation and Friendliness. Hypotheses XXIV through XXVI suggested that significant difference would be found between the students at the two institutions on their previous academic environment, socio- economic status, and academic background. Significant difference was found on each of the two variables, previous academic environment and academic background. No signifi- cant difference was found on the socioeconomic variable. More community college students than university students were above the median on the previous academic environment variable. More university students than community college students were above the median on the academic background variable. PERSONALITY NEEDS OF COMMUNITY COLLEGE AND UNIVERSITY STUDENTS AND THEIR PERCEPTIONS OF THE PRESS OF THEIR INSTITUTIONS: AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION By Paul S. Campbell A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY College of Education Guidance and Personnel Services 1964 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The investigator would like to acknowledge his genuine gratitude to Dr. John E. Jordan for his assistance in the preparation of this thesis and for his helpful guidance throughout the doctoral program. Appreciation is also extended to Drs. John X. Jamrich, Walter F. Johnson, and Archibold O. Haller for assistance and helpful criticism of the entire research. The investigator is indebted to the officials of the community college and the university involved in this research who not only made possible the gathering of the data, but also assisted the investigator in his efforts. The investigator is particularly grateful to his wife, Betty, who so ably and patiently assisted in the preparation of the various stages of the manuscript. Much credit is due the investigator's wife and his children Karen and Kevin, for their understanding, patience, and support through the years of the investigator's doctoral program. The investigator also acknowledges the assistance of Dr. George G. Stern through telephone conversations and correspondence regarding the application of the instruments to the methodological design. TMflEOFCQWMWS ACKNOWLEDGMENT LIST OF TABLES . Chapter I. INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem . . Theoretical Basis for the Study. Definition of Terms. . . II. ANALYSIS OF RELATED STUDIES Early Studies of Needs and Press Studies of College Environment and Student Adaptation . . Studies which Employed the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index . . Studies Related to Reliability . Studies Related to Validity of the College Characteristics Index . Studies Related to Validity of the Stern Activities Index Studies of Students' Needs and Colleges' Press. III. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Description of the Instruments Sample Procedures. Hypotheses. IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA V. DISCUSSION. Students' Perceptions of their ReSpective Institutions. Students' Previous Academic Environment, Academic Background, and Socioeconomic Status . . . . . . Students' Personality Needs iii Page ii 68 73 75 Chapter VI. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH . Summary . . . The Problem . The Sample . . The Methodology. The Findings. Conclusions. . . . . . . Implications for Further Research BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIXES. A. Stern Activities Index, Form 1158 B. College Characteristics Index, Form 1158 C. Relevancy of the College Characteristics Index for Community College iv Page 82 82 82 83 8A 85 87 89 94 LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Reliability coefficients for the scales of the Activities Index and College Characteristics Index . . . 2. Comparisons of mean scores on College Characteristics Index for community college and university freshmen. 3. Comparisons of mean scores on Stern Activities Index for community college and university freshmen A. Number of community college and university students graduated from high school classes above and below the common median of 194.5 5. Number of community college and university students whose socioeconomic index fell above and below the common median of 50 6. Number of community college and university students who scored above and below the common median of 114 on the College Qualification Tests. Page 31 6A 65 66 66 66 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Statement of the Problem When college students live within commuting distance of both a community college and a major university, do the students attending the community college differ from those attending the major university with respect to personality factors and are there differences in the students' perceptions of their respective institutions? These two interrelated problems constitute the object of this research. Specifically, the study entails a comparison of the personality needs of students who come from the same area but attend different institutions in the same area. It also includes a comparison of these students' per— ceptions of the environmental press exerted by their respective institutions. It is hypothesized that there are differences in both the students' personality needs and their perceptions of the environmental press of their respective institutions. In addition to these main hypotheses having to do with students‘ personality needs and their perceptions of the environmental press of their respective institutions, I it is hypothesized that the students of a community college (i.e., junior college) differ significantly from those attending a university with respect to previous academic environment, socioeconomic status, and academic background. In order to research the problems proposed for this study the personality needs of university students will be compared with those of community college students. Also, the university students' perceptions of the press of their institutions will be compared with the community college students' perceptions of the press of their institution. If differences are discovered, support is given to the theory that postulates a relationship between personal and situational determinants of behavior."More specifically, the theory is supported if there are differences in the press of the two institutions and if the students attending these two institutions differ with respect to their personality needs. What sort of model is needed to research these differences? Essentially, the problem requires a com- parison of the personality needs of students attending the two institutions and their percpetions of the psycho— logical climates of their respective institutions. An instrument is needed which will measure these variables. The instrument must be administered to students attending a community college and to students attending a university. These students must live within the service area of the community college and the university must also be located within the same service area. The students will be compared as to their previous academic environment, as determined by the size of their high school graduating classes; as to their socioeconomic status, as determined by their fathers' occupations; and as to their academic backgrounds as determined by their scores on the College Qualification Tests. The obtained data will be quantified and analyzed to discover whether or not significant differences exist. Theoretical Basis for the Study Underlying this study is the concept of situational and personal determinants of behavior. The situational determinants of behavior proceed from the environment and those aspects of the environ- ment which are significant for the determination of behavior may be conceptualized in terms of what Murray has referred to as "press" (25:6). Press, essentially, refers to the environmental pressures upon the individual. These external pressures have internal counterparts which Murray called ”needs." These needs refer to personal determinants of behavior. Murray prOposed a system of constructs for classifying psychogenic needs and identified these constructs as ”a force (the psycho— logical nature Of which is unknown) in the brain region, a force which organizes perception, apperception, intellection, conation, and action in such a way as to transform.in a certain direction an existing, unsatisfying situation” (25:124). The social psychological theoretical concepts which underlie the premises of this study are, therefore, situational determinants of behavior and personal deter— minants of behavior. It is necessary to examine briefly each of these concepts and their interrelatedness as they have relevance for this study. The concept of press may be applied to any situation in which the individual finds himself. Situational analysis or press analysis, then, may be undertaken for an individual's home, job, college, community, etc. In order to assess press it is feasible to restrict the press analysis to a particular environment or institution. In this study, the press analysis is restricted to the specific environments concerned, higher educational institutions. Stern has described the characteristics of institutional press, particularly the press upon an individual in an educational setting (50:38ff). The goals and purposes of an institution function to determine the requirements which individuals must fulfill if they are to be selected for participation in the organization and are to be permitted to continue with their affiliation. It is in this sense that the goals and purposes of an institution determine the press of an institution or, in other words, situational deter- minants of behavior. Institutional roles, practices, and values logically follow the goals and purposes of an institution and in very much the same way contribute to its press. The roles, practices and values are reflected in the teaching procedures used, the kind of activity in which students are expected to engage, the material which the student is expected to use, and the contents of the various subject matters. The system of rewards and penalties represent another aspect of the press in the institution of learning. While most rewards and penalties may be subtle and not explicitly codified, they usually are explicitly represented in the grading system. Thus, the grading system has an effect as a press on the student. These statements relative to the press of an educational institution agree with Murphy's statement that "a study of situations that act upon persons should be at least as full and as systematic as is a study Of the internal structures which respond to these situations" (24:877). Having examined how these situations within the institution of higher education can act upon persons, the "internal structures which respond to these situations" must now be examined. It is not the purpose of this discussion to construct a theory of personality, but to discuss the major points which have been found useful particularly, by Stern, in understanding the individual in relation to the need concept (19, 50:46ff). Man is a social being in that he is dependent on others for the satisfaction of his needs. In the course Of this social transaction patterns of behavior appear. These patterns lead us to infer the presence of psycho- genic needs which have a function in the motivational system of the individual. As a consequence of the person's numerous experiences in the socialization process, he apportions his energies toward the satisfaction of his various needs. It can be said, since persons devote a good portion of their time and energy to some activities and a good deal less time and energy to others, that they develOp a hierarchy of activitiesf/ Since there must be a driving or motivating force for these activities, it may be said that the person has a hierarchy of needs which may be inferred from his differentially cathected activities and objects. This hierarchy of needs must be understood from the standpoint of the factors which serve to organize the person's behavior. These generally arise from the interaction process and include his self-concept, his conception of others, conscious and unconscious motivation, and a multiplicity of roles. Since a person‘s hierarchy of needs may be inferred from his differentially cathected activities and objects, one of the most effective ways to measure needs is to ask the individual to indicate his preferences among various possible activities Offered for his consideration. Thus far it has been shown that in attempting to understand behavior it is important to consider the situational determinants of behavior which are reflected in an analysis of the context within which performance is manifest, as well as the internal needs characterizing the individual. In other words, to understand behavior one should take into account the situational determinants of behavior and the personal determinants of behavior. The integration of press and needs or situational and personal determinants of behavior have been made explicit by Murray in his more recent writings (30:434—464). Of course, basic to this integration of personal deter— minants of behavior is the concept of role which Parsons and others have demonstrated as strategic to the inte- gration of the two levels of theoretical analysis, psychological and sociological. Murray shows that by extending the concept of role (social role) to include personal roles, that a "personality action system and a social action system can be represented as roughly homologous, at least in certain respects" (30:451). Murray further states that ”all social roles require the execution of one or more kinds Of actions; that is, the habitual production of one or more kinds of effects, and these effects (goals) can be classified in the same manner as need-aims are classified. Indeed, the need—aim and the role—aim may exactly correspond. . .Thus a man may want to do exactly what he is expected to do" (50:451). This is precisely the premise upon which Stern has constructed the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index. The former measures needs inferred from things that the individual typically does. The latter measures press inferred from things that are typically done to the individual in a particular setting (42). These Indexes, then, are based upon the theoretical position of the integration of situational and personal determinants of behavior. The psychological press is considered as a composite Of what appears to be objectively present as./’ well as what the individual feels subjectively to be significant. The subjective meanings are in turn dependent upon the internal frame of reference which characterizes the individual. The prediction of performance is based upon a study of the congruence between the environmental press and the individual's personality (50:53,54). It has been shown that the theory underlying this study involves the concept of situational and personal determinants of behavior. These concepts can be integrated into the concept of role so that a personality action system and a social action system can be classified in the same way and their correspondence studied. Thus, in an educational institution there may very well be a correspondence between the needs of the students and the press of the institution. This study is designed to determine whether or not students who live within commuting distance of both a community college and a major university differ significantly as to their personality needs and in their perceptions of the two institutions. Since there are obvious differences between the two institutions, the students' perceptions of the press of the two institutions should be quite different. If this is the case and if the theory described above is true, it should then follow that students within the vicinity of the two institutions would attend the institution which, according to their perceptions of its press, more nearly corresponds to their needs. It can be expected, therefore that the students attending the community college will perceive the press of their institution much differently than the univéfSity students perceive the press of the university. It can also be expected that the needs of the community college students will differ greatly from those attending the university. 10 If difference is not found between all the needs of the community college students and the university students this lack of difference may be due to the fact that not all of the students in the vicinity are free to choose between the community college and the university. This is to say that their choice of institutions may have been determined by factors other than their needs and their perceptions of the press of the two institutions. Such factors would likely include previous academic environment, economic status and academic background. Therefore, this study will not only include a comparison of the students needs and their perceptions of institutional press, but will also include a comparison of the students on the three factors mentioned above. These should help explain any lack of difference between the needs of community college students and those of university students. .Definition of Terms The following definitions are given for the various factors which provide the basis for comparison of the environmental press of the two institutions and were taken verbatim from the sources cited (41:3; 43:18-21). 1. Aspirational Level: A high score on this factor indicates that the college encourages students to set high standards for themselves in a variety of ways. These include opportunities for students to participate in ll decision-making processes involving the administration of the school, and administrative receptivity to change and innovation, thus implying that a student's efforts to make some impact on his environment have some probability of being successful. But a high level of aspiration is also encouraged by introducing students to individuals and ideas likely to serve as models of intellectual and professional achievement. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Counteraction, Change, Fantasied Achievement and Understanding. 2. Intellectual Climate: All of the various items contributing to this factor reflect the qualities of staff and plant specifically devoted to scholarly activities in the humanities, arts, and social sciences. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic lgggx scales for Reflectiveness, Humanities-Social Sciences, Sensuality, Understanding, and Fantasied Achievement. 3. Student Dignity: This factor is associated with institutional attempts to preserve student freedom and maximize personal responsibility. Schools with high scores on this factor tend to regulate student conduct by means other than legislative codes or administrative fiat. There is a minimum of coercion and students are generally treated with the same level of respect accorded any mature adult. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Objectivity, Assurance and Tolerance. 12 4. Academic Climate: This factor stresses academic excellence in staff and facilities in the conventional areas of the natural sciences, social sciences, and the humanities. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Humanities— Social Sciences and Science. 5. Academic Achievement: Schools high in this factor set high standards of achievement for their students. Course work, examinations, honors, and similar devices are employed for this purpose. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Achievement, Energy, Understanding, Counteraction and Conjunctivity. 6. Self Expression: This factor is concerned with opportunities offered to the student for the develOpment of leadership potential and self assurance. Among the activities serving this purpose are public discussions and debates, projects, student drama and musical activities, and other forms of participation in highly visible activities. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Ego Achievement, Emotionality, Exhibitionism and Energy. 7. Group Life: The four scales on this factor are concerned with various forms of mutually supportive group activities among the student body. These activities are of a warm, friendly character, more of less typifying l3 adolescent togetherness, but the items also reflect a more serious side to this culture as represented in activities devoted to the welfare of fellow students and less fortunate members of the community. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Affiliation, Supplication, Nurturance, Adaptiveness. 8. Academic Organization: The various components of this factor may be regarded as the environmental counter— parts Of the needs for orderliness and submissiveness in the individual. High scores on this factor are achieved by institutions which stress a high degree of organization and structure in the academic environment. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index sclaes for Blame Avoidance, Order, Conjunctivity, Deliberation, Deference, and Narcissism. 9. Social Form: In some respects this factor represents the formal institutionalization of those activities represented in Factor 7 (Group Life). There is in fact considerable overlap between these two factors, but Factor 9 minimizes the friendly aspects of Factor 7 while stressing its welfare components. Schools characterized by this factor also Offer opportunities for the develOpment of social skills of a formal nature and in some respects suggest the finishing school counterpart of the vocational climate represented in Factor 11 14 This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Narcissism, Nurturance, Adaptiveness, Dominance and Play. 10. Play—Work: Schools high in this factor offer Opportunities for participation in a form of collegiate life reminiscent of the popular culture of the 1920's. These are the institutions sometimes referred to as the fountains of knowledge where students gather to drink. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Sexuality, Risktaking, Play, and Impulsiveness. 11. Vocational Climate: The items of Factor 11 emphasize practical applied activities, the rejection of aesthetic experience, and a high level of orderliness and conformity in the student's relations to the faculty, his peers, and his studies. This factor is determined by the scores on the College Characteristic Index scales for Practicalness, Puritanism, Deference, Order and Adaptiveness. The following definitions are given for the various factors which provide the basis for comparison of the personality factors of students attending the two institu- tions and were taken verbatim from the scources cited (41:1; 43:13-18). 1. Self Assertion: This factor reflects a need to achieve personal power and sociO—political recognition. 15 It is based on items which emphasize political action, directing or controlling other peOple, and the acceptance of roles involving considerable group attention. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Ego Achievement, Dominance, Exhibitionism, and Fantasied Achievement. 2. Audacity-Timidity: The second factor is more personally than socially oriented. The emphasis here is on aggressiveness in both physical activities and in interpersonal relationships. It is of interest that this personal aggressiveness should also be associated with a high level of interest in science. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Risktaking, Fantasied Achievement, Aggression, and Science. 3. Intellectual Interests: The factors with the highest loadings in this dimension are based on items involving various forms of intellectual activities. These include interests in the arts as well as the sciences, both abstract and empirical. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Reflectiveness, Humanities-Social Sciences, Understanding, and Science. 4. Motivation: This factor, like 1 and 2 above, represents another form in which need achievement may be expressed. Here, however, are the more conventional 16 forms of striving most recognizable among students, involving elements of competitiveness and perseverance as well as of intellectual aspiration. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Achievement, Counteraction, Understanding, and Energy. 5. Applied Interests: A high score on this factor suggests an interest in achieving success in concrete, tangible, socially acceptable activities. The items involve orderly and conventional applications in business and science. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Practical- ness, Science, and Order. 6. Orderliness: PeOple with high scores on this factor have indicated a marked interest in activities stressing personal organization and deliberativeness. Although some of the items are concerned with long range planning and relatively high level time perspective, the major emphasis here is on the maintenance of ritual and routine and the avoidance of impulsive behavior. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Conjunctivity, Sameness, Order and Delib- eration. 7. Submissiveness: The preceding factor suggests a strong defensive system, based on rigid internal controls, 17 for guarding against the expression of impulses. The Submissiveness factor also implies a high level of control, but one which is based on social conformity and other— directedness. The items emphasize humility, deference, getting along with others, keeping in one's place, etc. It is of interest that the Nurturance scale items should appear in this context, suggesting that the submissive individual's interest in supportive activities is based to a considerable extent on his own unexpressed need for such help. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Adaptiveness, Abasement, Nurturance, and Deference. 8. Closeness: This factor is closely related to Factor 7, with which it shares both the Nurturance and Deference scales. However, the abasive and self-denying qualities implicit in Factor 7 are absent here. In their place is an acceptance of items which recognize one's needs for warmth and emotional supportiveness. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Supplication, Sexuality, Nurturance, and Deference. 9. Sensuousness: The thirty items associated with this factor are concerned with activities of a sensual character. The items suggest a measure of self—indulgence along with a delight in the gratifications which may be obtained through the senses. This factor is determined 18 by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Sensuality, Narcissism, and Sexuality. lO. Friendliness: Persons with high scores on this factor are indicating an interest in playful, friendly relationships with other peOple. These interests involve simple and uncomplicated forms of amusement enjoyed in a group setting. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Affiliation and Play. 11. Expressiveness—Constraint: This factor stresses emotional ability and freedom from self—imposed controls. Individuals with high scores on this factor are outgoing, spontaneous, impulsive, and uninhibited. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Emotionality, Impulsiveness, Exhibitionism and Sexuality. 12. Egoism—Diffidence: This factor reflects an extreme preoccupation with self. The items are concerned with appearance and comfort, as well as with fantasies in which the self obtains unusually high levels of gratification. The responses to other items in this group suggests that reality itself is interpreted in egocentric terms, but this may be not so much a matter of autistic distortion as of narcissistic egoism. This factor is determined by the scores on the Stern Activities Index scales for Narcissism, Fantasied Achievement and Projectivity. 19 The following definitions are given for the various scales in the Indexes and were taken verbatim from the source cited (42). 1. Abasement-Assurance: Self—depreciation and devaluation as reflected in the ready acknowledgment of inadequacy, ineptitude, or inferiority, acceptance of humiliation, and other forms of self-degradation. 2. Achievement: Surmounting Obstacles and attain— ing a successful conclusion in order to prove personal worth. 3. Adaptability--Defensiveness: Accepting criticism or advice publicly versus resistance and concealment, or justification of failure and humiliation. 4. Affiliation--Rejection: Close, friendly, reciprocal associations Maillothersiversus disassociation from others, withholding friendship and support. 5. Aggression-—Blame Avoidance: Indifference or disregard for feelings of others as manifested in overt, covert, direct or indirect aggression versus the denial or inhibition of such impulses. 6. Change--Sameness: Variable or flexible behavior versus repetition and routine. 7. Conjunctivity--Disjunctivity: Organized, purposeful, planned activity patterns versus uncoordinated, diffuse, or self-indulgent behavior. 2O 8. Counteraction--Inferiority Avoidance: Persistent striving to overcome difficult, frustrating, humiliating, or embarrassing experiences and failures versus avoidance, withdrawal or protective measures in situations which might result in such outcomes. 9. Deference——Restiveness: SyCOphantic submission to the opinions and preferences of others perceived as superior. lO. Dominance——Tolerance: Ascendancy over others by means of assertive or manipulative control. 11. Ego Achievement (derived from Exocathection—— Intraception): Self-dramatizing, idealistic social action; active or fantasied achievement oriented in terms of dominance or influence. l2. Emotionality—-Placidity: Intense, Open emotional display versus calm, serene, or restrained response. 13. Energy——Passivity: Intense, sustained vigorous effort versus sluggish inertia. 14. Exhibitionism-—Inferiority Avoidance: Self-display and attention—seeking versus avoidance, withdrawal or protective measures in situations which might result in attention from others. 15. Fantasied Achievement: Daydreams of success in achieving extraordinary public recognition; narcissistic aspirations for personal distinction and power. 16. Harm Avoidance—-Risktaking: Avoidance, with- drawal or protective measures in situations which might 21 result in physical pain, injury, illness or death versus indifference to danger; challenging or provocative disregard for personal safety; thrill-seeking. l7. Humanities—-Socia1 Sciences: The symbolic manipulation of social objects or artifacts through empirical analysis, reflection, discussion and criticism. l8. Impulsiveness-—Deliberation: Impulsive, spontaneous or impetuous behavior versus careful, cautious, considered reflectiveness. l9. Narcissism: Preoccupation with self; erotic feelings associated with one's own body or personality. 20. Nurturance-—Rejection: Supporting others by providing love, assistance, or protection versus disassociation from others, withholding support and friend- ship. 21. Objectivity--Projectivity: Detached, non- magical, unprejudiced, impersonal thinking versus super- stitious, autistic, irrational, paranoid, or otherwise egocentric perceptions and beliefs. 22. Order—-Disorder: Compulsive organization of the immediate physical environment, manifested in a preoccupation with neatness, orderliness, arrangement, and meticulous attention to detail. 23. Play——Work: Pursuit of amusement and entertainment versus persistently purposeful, serious, task-oriented behavior. 22 24. Practicalness--Impractica1ness: Useful, tangibly productive, nontheoretical applications of skill or experience, in manual arts, social affairs, or commercial activities. 25. Reflectiveness: Intraceptive activities; introspective preoccupation with private psychological, spiritual, esthetic, or metaphysical experience. 26. Science: The symbolic manipulation of physical objects through empirical analysis, reflection, discussion and criticism. 27. Sensuality--Puritanism: Indulgent, voluptuous sensory stimulation and gratification. 28. Sexuality--Prudishness: Erotic heterosexual interest or activity versus the denial or inhibition of such impulses. 29. Supplication—-Autonomy: Dependence on others for love, assistance and protection versus detachment, independence, self—reliance. 30. Understanding: Detached intellectualization; problem-solving, analysis, theorizing or abstraction as ends in themselves. The following definitions pertain to the institutions and students which supplied the comparative data for this study. 1. Community college: Community college is defined as a two—year public institution of higher 23 education offering curricula in the arts and sciences; business; technical; and health services. It is located in midwestern United States. Student pOpulation is derived from an area within a radius of approximately 25 miles of the college. 2. Service area: Service area pertains to the area from which the community college derives its students. This is an area within a radius of approximately 25 miles of the college. 3. Major university: The term ”major university" in this study refers to a large land—grant state-supported university located within the service area of the community college and within the same metropolitan area. 4. Freshmen: Freshmen, whether community college or university freshmen, are students enrolled for the first time in a higher education institution. They were enrolled for their first term at the time the instrument was administered to them. They were enrolled in curricula which would lead to recognized higher education degrees. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF RELATED STUDIES Early Studies of Needs and Press The theoretical position as described in the previous chapter indicates that if behavior is going to be understood and predicted, it is necessary to consider not only the in- ternal needs which characterize the individual, but also the situational determinants of behavior which are reflected in an analysis of the context within which performance is man- ifest. Since Murray and others postulated this theory of understanding and predicting human behavior, there have been various attempts to assess both the internal needs of the individual and the situational determinants of behavior. One Of the first serious attempts of this nature was made by the German psychologists of the Third Reich to pre- dict the general psychological readiness of the soldier to apply himself to a given military action (8). However, no assessment instrument is known to have been derived from these studies. Another attempt was made by the War Office Selection Board programs for the British Army (11:VIII). The effec- tiveness of the British War Office Selection Board proce- dures was purportedly subjected to some validity studies, 24 25 however, to date the results of such an inquiry have not appeared. By 1943 the United States established a psychologi- cal-psychiatric assessment unit in the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). The OSS assessment staff was charged with the responsibility for develOping a system of procedures which would review the personalities of OSS recruits to the extent of providing grounds for sufficient reliable pre- dictions of their usefulness to their organization during the remaining years of the war (26). The procedures devised included interviews, intelligence tests, paper and pencil tests Of personality, projective tests of personality, and a modified case conference to integrate the first data ob- tained. Other studies were undertaken during World War II by the Army Air Force in an assessment program (18). An ex- ample of these studies is the psychological research on bombardier training. Another study was made by Kelley and Fiske to derive predictive measures of potentially succeszul candidates for the Veterans Administration Clinical Psychology Program (17). These studies provide examples of the studies which incorporated the theory concerning internal needs of the individual and situational determinants of behavior as pos- tulated by Murray. While these studies did not point toward 26 a single definitive method of assessing personality needs or the press of a particular environment, they are impor- tant because they indicate that it was being recognized that it is important to consider both of these variables when assessing human behavior. Studies of College Environment and Student Adaptation One of the first publications to show extensive con- cern with the interrelatedness of needs and press was Methods in Personality Assessment by Stern, Stein, and Bloom, pub- 1ished in 1956 (50). In this book Stern gave definite clues to his interest in assessing college environments which led to the development of the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index. However, at about this time several other researchers were showing interest in studying the college environment. Jacob was one of the first researchers to ascribe the peculiar effect of some colleges to a distinctive institu- tional atmosphere. He found little evidence that courses, curricula, teaching methods or faculty had as much influence as had been supposed (l5). Riesman carefully reviewed Ja- cob's report and indicated the distinctiveness of certain colleges might be a reflection of the already existing view of the students who chose to attend them (31). Jacob's study which was methodologically studied by Barton caused him to observe the need to study the college as a system of 27 interacting elements, as well as the differences between types of colleges and to determine their effects upon dif- ferent types of students (2). In a study by Dressel and Mayhew, it was noted that the schools in which the student made high gains on the Inventory of Beliefs and on the tests of critical think- ing had certain institutional characteristics which were missing in the low-gain schools (5). Eddy studied the over—all climate of 20 colleges by examining data from interviews and participant-observer notes. The character of the college was attributed to such factors as the style of personal relationships between stu- dents and faculty or among students, the physical arrange- ment of buildings, and the level of expectancy in perfor- mance (6). In a series in which entrants to medical and law schools were compared, Thielens found that differences in environments resulted in differences in students' per- ceptions (52). Reports from the Center for Study of Higher Education by McConnell and Heist (21) and by Heist (12) indicated that college atmosphere is fixed by the character of the student body. It was found that equating for scholastic aptitude was not adequate assurance of the similarity of student bodies. Scholastic aptitude was equated by scores on the Scholastic Aptitude Test for students at 50 high- productive schools with those from 50 low-productive schools but it was found that students at these schools differed in respect to several of the scales on the Omnibus Personality Inventory and the Allport—Vernon-Lindzey Study of Values. (The Omnibus Personality Inventory includes eight Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory scales and a number of other scales to measure intellectual interest and other attitudinal "sets" supposedly related to scholarly activity.) Holland asked parents to respond to a series of eight dichotomies of college characteristics and-found that most parents feel that there is a group of generally outstanding institutions while about twenty percent believe that choos- ing the ”best” college must always be an individual matter of finding a stimulating interaction between a particular student and a particular college (14). Holland also attempted to estimate college environment by coding distributions of college majors at each college. Codes of students were measured by a Parental Attitude Re- search Inventory. He said that the findings did not lend themselves to explicit interpretation, but suggested that when codes of students and college correspond that change is less likely to occur than when codes are discrepant (13). Astin examined the Ph.D. producing rates of 36 col— leges which were selected because they were attended by large numbers of National Merit Scholars. It was shown that a college's productivity rates are related to characteristics 29 of its entering students other than just academic ability; namely, the percentage planning to major in the natural sciences and the percentage aspiring to the Ph.D. degree (1). These studies are indicative of the increased atten- tion which was given to the study of college environments at about the time Stern develOped the Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index. The methodologies and instruments employed in these studies varied considerably, but they generally indicated the importance of the college climate. Studies which Employed the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index Immediately following the development of the Activi— ties Index and the College CharacteristicsIndex, which are de— scribed in the "Description Of the Instruments” section of this paper, they were employed in a number of studies of college environments and students' needs. The Indexes have met with rather wide acceptance as evidenced by their con- tinued use by a sizeable number of researchers in assessing the needs Of students and college climates. These studies will be cited as they have relevance to the reliability of the instruments, their validity, their use in assessing col- lege students' needs, and in the measurement of the environ- mental press of colleges. 30 Studies Related to Reliability The statements relative to reliability of the Stern Activities Index found in the Preliminary Manual are made with respect to profile patterns Obtained by means of vector analysis. Stern states, "No convenient statistic exists for this purpose, although visual inspection of test-retest profiles suggests that a correlation based on a multivari- ate surface corresponding to the profile determinants should be quite high” (42:30). He cites a study made by Haring to substantiate this statement (10). In this study 122 school teachers were retested after seven months of participation in a workshop program. The pre—post correlations were based on a tetrachoric approximation and the average of the co- efficients was .69. A smaller sample of 11 social workers involved in a two-week work shop yielded product-moment test-retest coefficients ranging from .67 to .94 with an average of .88. The most extensive statement regarding the reliability of the Indexes is reported by Stern and is based on 1993 College Characteristic Indexes and 1078 Activities Indexes from undergraduates in 32 schools (40:706). Table 1 shows the reliability coefficients for each of the scales of the Activities Index and the College Characteristic Index. "...the scale means on Concerning the above Stern says, both instruments average only slightly above the arbi- trary midpoint of 5.0, with standard deviations which 31 TABLE l.-—Reliability coefficients for the scales of the Activities Index and College Characteristic Indexa b Scale Reliability AI CCI Abasement .51 .67 Achievement .73 .81 Adaptiveness .64 .58 Affiliation-rejection .81 .69 Aggression-blameavoidance .69 .72 Change-sameness .67 .44 Conjunctivity-disjunctivity .70 .72 Counteraction-infavoidance .66 .50 Deference .56 .60 Dominance .77 .5 Ego-achievement .80 .58 Emotionality—placidity .64 .56 Energy-passivity .40 .70 Exhibitionism-infavoidance .75 .57 Fantasied achievement .72 .40 Harmavoidance .67 .70 Humanism .83 .77 Impulsion-deliberation .64 .50 Narcissism .71 .74 Nurturance-rejection .73 .70 Objectivity .56 .70 Order .82 .59 Play .71 .75 Pragmatism .74 .69 Reflectiveness .68 .76 Scientism .88 .77 Sentience .5 .80 Sex-prudery .78 .71 Succorance-autonomy .67 .34 Understanding .74 . 5 MEAN .69 .65 8Adapted from Table l (40:706). bKuder—Richardson Formula 20. 32 indicate that a considerable number of respondents are to be found with extreme scores at either end of the ten-point range. The average scale reliability of .67 (KuderéRich- ardson) is close to the practical maximum for scales of such short length, corresponding to a value of .92 if increased from ten to thirty items" (40:707). While it is not ex- pressly stated by the author, it is Obvious that interitem consistency was measured to determine the reliability. In another study, Stern, Schultz, and Naugle studied the Activities Index to determine its resistance to faking (49). One group was instructed to complete the test as if they were responding for self, for employment as sales- man, and for employment as librarian. Another group was instructed to complete the test as if they were responding for self, for an aggressive person, and for a withdrawn person. Despite concensus on the vocational responses, differences were negligible between them and self. Response patterns for self and the two personality treatments were widely divergent and extremely significant. Stern concludes that responses to needs scale items appear to be resistant to faking. Stern cites another study (46:46) which has not been published which showed that the social desirability of needs scale items is relatively homogeneous, none being considered important to accept or to reject by any significant number of subjects. 33 Merwin and DiVesta reported a study of need theory and career choice which supports the reliability of the Activities Index. Certain scales from this Index were used to measure needs of a teaching and non-teaching group. The subjects respond on a six-point scale instead of two. There was evidence Of stability over a four month period in which there were attempts to influence the subjects through pos- itive and negative communication. Coefficients obtained were .53 for Achievement; .53 for Affiliation; .64 for Dominance; and .60 for Exhibition (23). The following study pertains mainly to the validity of the College Characteristics Index, but reference is also made to the support given to the reliability of the instru- ment. Studies Related to the Validity of the College Characteristics Index The difficulty of determining the validity of tests of personality is well known. Ideally, the data yielded by an instrument purporting to measure some personality char- acteristic should be correlated with a reliable criterion. Difficulty is encountered when a reliable criterion is not available. Essentially the same difficulty was encountered in establishing the validity of the College Characteristics Index which was designed to measure the climate or environ— mental press of colleges. No completely adequate criterion 34 exists with which to make correlations. The best criteria seem to be judgments of qualified persons and the obvious differences or measures of differences between different types of institutions. Thus, if the data yielded by the College Characteristics Index agrees with the judgments of qualified persons regarding the press of a particular institution, some degree of validity has been established. Likewise, validity tends to be established if the Index differentiates between colleges which are known to be different, such as a small denominational college and a large state university. Studies of such correlations have been made and an account of them follows. Immediately following the develOpment of the College Characteristics Index, it was administered to 423 students and 71 faculty members at five institutions (29). Most of the students were upperclassmen and most faculty members were from upper academic ranks. It was argued that if a dominant press really exists in a particular environment, almost any group of people living in the environment would probably identify it. Five institutions were chosen because observers would probably agree that they differ from one another with respect to the selection of students. The following types of institutions were represented: a large midwestern state university, a large midwestern private university, a large eastern university, a large moderate-size eastern private college for men, a publicly 35 supported college in metropolitan New York. The study was intended as a preliminary try—out of the model to provide some evidence of its reliability and construct validity. In an item analysis each of the 30 scales was subjected to analysis in five different samples. The total number of item discrimination indexes obtained was 1500. Of these 1500, one percent was negative, 18 percent fell between .0 and .19, 30 percent fell between .20 and .39 and 51 percent were .40 or higher. In other words, 81 percent of the items had, on the average, moderate to high discrimination in their respective scales. The part of this study which related to validity was based on arbitrary definitions of what levels of scores constituted a press. A press was identified when the mean scores for a particular institution fell in the upper or lower one-fourth Of the total distribution. While no estimate of the validity of these descriptions was available, they did show quite clearly that they did identify different environments and that the test is capable of revealing some sharp distinctions between colleges which qualified observers would expect to be different. The evidence, therefore, was claimed to be relevant to the prOperty of validity. For example, the rank order mean scores for college A correlates .06 with the rank order mean scores of college B. 36 Concerning this particular study, Pace and Stern said: "Perhaps the most important approach is one which treats reliability and validity as inseparable and deals with the institution as a whole. For example, do different peOple characterize the institution the same way? This involves the reliability Of profiles, with all their interrelationships. As a first approximation of this, the rank order of mean scores from the students' responses can be compared with the rank order of the mean scores from faculty responses within the same institution. Thus, do these groups see the institution in relatively the same pattern? For the two colleges which had the largest number of faculty respondents, these rank order correlations were .96 and .88” (29:275). A much more recent study was conducted by Stern (35) for the primary purpose of analyzing the intellectual climate in colleges, although other factors were also analyzed. The study included 1076 students located at 23 different colleges which included several large state universities, metropolitan schools, small private colleges both church-related and nondenominational, accredited and non—accredited, and a number of technical programs. They were most heavily concentrated in the midwest, but colleges from the northeast, the middle Atlantic states, the south, and the far northwest were also represented. Most of the schools were represented by one general upper-class sample. 37 Six distinctive factors associated with different types of schools were identified by the College Characteristics Index data which were gathered from the entire sample. The schools which scored high on the Intellectual Orientation factor were the elite liberal arts colleges. Social Effectiveness was associated with these liberal arts colleges and several of the select denominational colleges. Play was most prominent at several large state universities and several large private universities of a similar character. Friendliness or informal social organization was characteristic of a mixed group of schools. The denominational colleges were Characterized by the Constraint or compliance factor. The state teachers colleges were characterized by the Dominance-Submission or custodial care factor. Fifty schools were compared on the Intellectual Climate score and the Knapp-Greenbaum Index, which is based upon the number of various awards and doctorate degrees awarded. The correlation between these measures was .80. The correlation between the Intellectual Climate score and the percent of graduates receiving Ph.D. degrees between 1936 and 1956 at 37 colleges was .76. Forty-one colleges were compared on the Intellectual Climate score and the percentage of National Merit Scholarships Finalists among entering students. The 38 correlation was .49 on these measures, but the relation- ship to the number of Merit Scholars at all class levels was .59 at 25 schools. The National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test means at 38 schools correlated .71 with the Intellectual Climate score. There was a correlation of .83 with the College Board Verbal mean scores and .34 for the College Board Mathematical mean scores at 16 colleges. Many other aspects of the environments of the colleges were also studied and permited Stern to draw certain conclusions about what constitutes a favorable intellectual climate; however, correlations cited above are the most pertinent to the validity of the College Characteristics linse- Two other studies by Stern (40,45) which show signifi- cant relationships between press profiles and the types of institutions will not be treated here as extensively as the foregoing study. Rather, the findings as summarized by Stern (46:47-50) will be given. Most of the schools studied had high scores involving various aspects of constraint and dependency. It was found that the denominational schools were most extreme in their emphasis on conformity, while the liberal arts colleges were least so. The private liberal arts colleges were highest in intellectual press. Another group of schools were described by their students as sources of social pleasure and togetherness, but lacking in academic strength or direction. Stern claims that the essential details of the analysis given above was supported in a subsequent analysis by Pace (27) although a substantially different analytic model was used. In this study (27) Pace studied College Characteristics Iggey data from groups of students at 32 institutions, consisting of liberal arts colleges (highly selective and relatively unselective, nonsectarian and denominational coeducational and non-coeducational), universities (public and private), and various professional schools (education, engineering, and business, some separate and some parts of larger universities). He found that there were basically five types of college environments: humanistic; scientific; practical, status-oriented; those characterized by human relations and group welfare; and those character- ized by rebelliousness. These patterns of environmental press were quite different at three types of colleges: high intellectual colleges, high practical colleges, and high social colleges. McFee made a study (22) which she claims tends to confirm the College Characteristics Index as an objective indicator between colleges. In this study she used the College Characteristics Index and the Activities no Index to discover that the reSponses to 88 percent of the 300 College Characteristics Index items were independent of the parallel needs of the reSpondent. Stern cites certain other studies which have not been published but which he claims support the validity of the College Characteristics Index. He sayd, "Descriptions of college environments based solely on press profiles appear to be recognized and confirmed by academic participants and observers” (40:710). Studies Related to the Validity of the Stern Activities Index Most of the studies which have utilized the College Characteristics Index and the Activities Index have been for the eXpress purpose of understanding the environmental press of colleges and in these studies the validity of the Activities Index seems to have been an assumed factor. This assumption has probably been based upon the claims for its validity in the Preliminary Manual (42). Since this manual is preliminary in nature, the author implies that studies Cited therein which relate to validity will be discussed fully in a later manual. To date, however, a revised manual has not been published. It seems reasonable to expect that when the revised manual is published, it will include inform- ation substantiating the validity of the Activities Index. Certain studies have been cited by the author of the Activities Index (35,40,42,46) which he claims support the 41 validity of the instrument. Not all of these studies have been published, some are more pertinent to validity than others, and some do seem to support validity. Certainly, the most extensive inquiry into the validity of the Activities Index was made by Scanlon (34). The 73 subjects for this study were medical school students who were administered the Index during the first week of medical school. The following spring, when a sufficient time has elapsed for the class members to become acquainted, sociometric questionnaires which were supposed to yield criteria for comparisons were administered. The data from the Activities Index were analyzed by vector analysis and behavior ratings were derived from the sociometric questionnaires which were called Data Verification jQuestionnaires. The Index profiles were classified by vector summaries and compared with student ratings of personality characteristics of classmates rated on the Data Verification Questionnaire. The following correlations were computed: Group A, N=2 (too small to test significance), r=l.OO; Group B, N=7, r=.57; Group C, N=27, r=.lé Group D, N=12,Iih]£h Group E, N=18, r=.l3; Group F, N=7, r=.78; Total, N=73, r=.39. Scanlon felt that these findings did not permit an unequivocal acceptance or rejection of the hypotheses. He said of his study, ”It seems a more reason- able course to question the soundness of the design as to question the validity of the Index” (34:116). The flaw in 42 the design was felt to be in the grouping of the subjects' responses on the Data Verification Questionnaire. Scanlon said, "It is apparent from the overall correlation that student and Activities Index rankings agree, at least on a statistically significant level when the groupings are eliminated” (34:116). In a study cited by Stern (9; 40:708,709; 47) the ~Inventory of Beliefs was used as the criterion for classifying three groups of college freshmen (23 in each) as anti-authoritarians, authoritarians, and rationals. They were then administered the Activities Index and the responses of the three groups were compared. The anti- authoritarians appeared to be the most outgoing Of the three groups since their Activities Index responses suggested a higher degree of self-assertiveness, emotional spontaneity, and aggressiveness than either of the others. The authoritarians appeared to be more submissive and with- drawn. They also rejected intellectual activities. The rationals seemed to be a more socialized version of the anti-authoritarians in being socially outgoing but non- aggressive, and in having even broader, less specific humanistic intellectual interests. These descriptions derived from the legey were claimed to ”fit" the descript- ions ascribed the various groups on the basis of the Inventory of Beliefs. 43 In a study in which The Activities Index was used to discriminate between teachers from four elementary schools participating in a workshop program designed to change attitudes towards exceptional children, the assessment made by the Index was confirmed by independent analyses of workshop transcriptions (10). The Activities Index was used by Wassertheil to study the need patterns of negative and positive individuals. He found significant differences on Index subscales between extreme scorers on positivity-negativity index of Thematic Apperception Test protocols. Also, differences suggested by Activities Index patterns were confirmed in independent TAT analysis (56). Briggs used the Activities Index as a means of measuring social acceptability. Students at a summer reading camp were assessed by the lege; and rated independently by counselors. Correlation of .59 was found between the lege; scores and the independent counselor ratings (4). The Activities Index was used successfully in differentiating between four vocational groups and four academic groups. Significant differences were found between medical doctors and medical students, between salesmen and business administration students, between research chemists and engineering freshmen, and between elementary education teachers and freshmen education majors (51). A similar study showed significant relation- ships between needs scale profiles and career choice (48). 44 Significant relationships have been shown to exist between needs scale profiles derived from the Activities Index and certain forms of overt behavior such as reading skills (A, 9, 42). Stern cites various unpublished studies which he claims support the validity of the Activities Index. One such study used the Strong Vocational Interest Blank as the independent criterion (42:31). Another used the Rorschach, the Thematic Apperception Test and Sentence Completion protocols as independent criteria (42:31). Behavioral descriptions based on needs scale profiles derived from the Activities Index appeared to be recognized and confirmed by peers, psychiatrists, and administrators (35:7). Activities Index protocols from six parents of children under therapy were analyzed blindly. The unidenti— fied descriptions were positively identified by an attending psychiatrist who noted agreement between the IBBEE appraisal and clinical appraisal (42:34). Extensive differences were found between Activities Index patterns for 20 male neuro- psychiatric patients and 20 sanitation workers who were matched for age (42:34). In one study, the Activities Index itself was used as the criterion for "independent information about personalities” (16:312). Studies of Students' Needs and Colleges' Press In the analysis of studies which tend to establish the reliability and validity of the Activities Index and \ s I 45 the College Characteristics Index mention was made of several studies which had to do with students' needs and colleges' press. Not all of those studies will be re- classified under this section of this paper, but studies will be analyzed which have relevance for this study in that they have also investigated students' needs and colleges' press. One such study, reported by Stern, involved an analysis of 32 schools where both the College Characteristics Index and the Activities Index were given. It was found that the differences among institutional environments were substantially greater than the differences among student bodies. Some tendency was noted for students to be found at institutions where the environmental press was compatible with their personality needs (38). Stern also cites unpublished data which indicates that students describe their own institutions in terms of press scale scores that are significantly more alike than the corresponding scale means among different institutions. It was also shown that students enrolled in the same institution have needs scale scores significantly more alike than students at different institutions (40:713). Thistlethwaite reported (55) that certain scales of the College Characteristics Index were found to be more highly correlated with institutional productivity in natural sciences, while other scales were highly correlated with as institutional productivity in social sciences, arts, and humanities. The institutional productivity indexes were equated for initial talent-supply differences, so that the resulting correlations were presumably more clearly dependent upon environmental characteristics than upon student characteristics. In another study reported by Thistlethwaite (53) National Merit Scholarship winners or near—winners were given the College Characteristics Index to discover differences in institutional traits at 12 ”most productive institutions” and 12 "least productive institutions." The percentage of difference in responses ranged as high as 58 percent, suggesting that the productivity measures had substantial validity (28). Thistlethwaite also studied changes in the study plans of 987 men and 513 women from 327 different universi- ties and found that the press of the faculty as measured by a modified version of the College Characteristics Index was associated with changes in student's plans to seek advanced training. Traits attributed to teachers who were most influential upon students varied considerably from field to field (54). Mauksch made a study based upon Murray's theory in which he studied nurses' and student nurses' self per- ceptions, and perceptions of the role of nursing. His instruments were the Stern Activities Index and the ...— .—u 47 Professional Characteristics Inventory. He also analyzed institutional factors and their effects on the nurse. His findings Showed that certain needs are characteristic for the person in nursing, and that the role expectations on the nurse are due to the institutionalization of medical care, the complexity of the hospital, and the controls demanded by illness (20). An incoming class of more than 2,000 entrants at a major eastern university were compared on their responses to the High School Characteristics Index and the College Characteristics Index (39). At least three distinctive findings were reported: (1) Students with different high school backgrounds including public school, private preparatory, and parochial described their respective high school press in ways which differ significantly from each other. (2) The students' descriptions of the expected press of the college were highly consistent with one another, regardless Of their high school backgrounds. (3) Freshmen press profiles described the expected intellectual activities at an unrealistically high level as compared with senior press profiles from the same institution (40:712). Since the development of the Indexes normative data have been gathered for both instruments. Average values for each of the 30 scales have been reported for Liberal Arts Colleges, Denominational Colleges, University Colleges, Engineering Colleges, Business Administration Colleges, . u~ ,.. 48 and Teacher Training Colleges. Average values are also given for the total of the last three colleges mentioned above, and for all schools mentioned above. The total number of subjects tested on the College Characteristics Index was 1,993 and on the Stern Activities Index, 1,385 (36. 37. 43. 44>- In addition to these normative data other data have been compiled on large numbers of students from a variety of colleges. These data include: intercorrelations between Activities Index and College Characteristics Index means at 43 colleges (46:51, 52); College Characteristics Index stanine means for 573 senior men and 463 senior women at the same institution (46: 54-57); College Characteristics Index stanine means and Activities Index stanine means for a tocal senior class of 1,036 from a university- affiliated college (46: 59-61, 64-66); information regard- ing the College Characteristics Index and Activities Index scales contributing to differentiation between seniors in 16 different majors at the same institution (46:62, 67); mean distance between Activities Index and College Characteristics Index resultants for 32 schools of six general types (40:718); statistics showing the relation- ships between college environment and student personality (intellectual orientation, social relationships, and emotional expression) for 1,993 upperclassmen in 32 American colleges (35:16-18); and comparisons of schools at 49 Opposite extremes of an intellectual climate score (measured by the College Characteristics Index) and various other factors such as financial assets, sources of income, student activities, and types of institutional control (35: 21-32). CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES Description Of the Instruments In 1938, H. A. Murray introduced a taxonomy for classifying both the environmental pressures and the characteristic ways in which an individual strives to structure the environment for himself. The external pressures were called ”press” and their internal counter- parts were called ”needs” (25). The Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index are questionnaires developed for the measurement of needs and press, respectively. These Indexes are based upon the rationale that the determination of needs characterizing an individual can only be made from an examination of the interactions in which he engages, and needs may therefore be identified as a taxonomic classification of the characteristic behaviors manifested by individuals in their life transactions. Furthermore, the assumption is made that in place of actual interactions the individual can be asked to indicate his preferences among various possible activities Offered for his consideration. Although the relationship between these choices and actual behavior will be imperfect, a useful 50 51 approximation is Obtained. This rationale applies to such instruments as the Strong Vocational Interest Blank, the Kuder Preference Record, the Edwards Personal Preference Record, as well as to the Indexes being considered here (42). The needs of an individual are inferred from the things that he typically does and are measured by the Stern Activities Index. This Index was prepared originally by George G. Stern in collaboration with B. S. Bloom, H. I. Stein, and H. Lane for use in the Chicago studies of student personality assessment (50). It consists of 300 items describing commonplace daily activities distributed among 30 scales of ten items each, to which the individual records his like or dislike (42). The College Characteristics Index was develOped by Stern in collaboration with C. R. Pace and has a design similar to that of the Activities Index (29). These items, however, describe activities, policies, procedures, attitudes, and impressions that might be characteristic of various types of undergraduate college settings. This IB§§§.3180 consists of 300 items distributed among 30 scales of ten items each, to which the individual records his like or dislike (42). The 30 scales are identified by the same titles and definitions for both Indexes. Thus, for example, the Abasement scale on the Stern Activities Index 52 indicates the individual's abasement need; whereas the same scale on the College Characteristics Index indicates the student's perception of the pressure toward the development of student abasement responses at the school which he attends. For example, students with high needs for abasement might regard a school with a strong press for abasement as an especially congenial place to be. In the "Definitions" section of this paper each of the 30 scales was defined. In the chapter on "Analysis of Related Studies" examples of studies have been cited which related to the reliability and validity of the Indexes. Sample In order to study the problem as developed in the "Statement of the Problems" the College Characteristics Index and the Stern Activities Index were administered to a sample of university students and community college students who reside within the service area of the community college. The sample of community college students was Obtained by administering the Indexes to all full-time students of a freshman class (356 in number). Each of these community college students was given a number and a table of random numbers was entered to obtain a random sample of community college students (7: 472—473). All community college students reside within the service area of the college. 53 The sample of university students was Obtained by administering the Indexes to a group of randomly selected group of full-time students of a freshman class. Some of the students comprising this randomly selected group did not reside within the service area of the community college, therefore, it was necessary to select from this group only those who resided within the service area. This was done by sorting out every student whose address was within the service area. These comprised the sample of university students. Procedures The scales were combined to form 23 factors in the way described in the definitions section of this paper. For example: Ego Achievement, Dominance, Exhibitionism, and Fantasied Achievement raw scores were combined to form the Self Assertion factor for each student. These factors were derived by means of factor analysis and Stern, who develOped the Indexes, verbally recommended to the writer that they be used in this research in the manner just described. The method has since been described in a paper by Saunders (33) and its application has been explained by Stern (43). The score for a given factor represents the total raw scores obtained from the scales which combined constitute a factor. The factors which pertain to the community college and its students were compared with corresponding factors 54 for the university and its students. Tests for signifi- cant differences for each of the 23 factors were made by the t test. In addition to studying the sample of university students and community college students with regard to their responses on the Indexes, they were also compared as to the size of their high school graduating classes, their fathers‘ occupations, and their scores on the COllege Qualification Tests. The father's occupation were determined by referring to the student's application to his college or university on which the student had recorded this information. These data were quantified by using the Socioeconomic Index Scale (32: 263—275). The students' performance on the College Qualification Teege were obtained from the students' records. Both the community college students and the university students took these tests prior to entering their respective schools. The total raw score was used. This score is obtained by combining the raw scores for each of the three parts of the tests: Verbal, Numerical, and Information (Science and Social Science) (3:10). The size of the student's high school graduating class was obtained from the high school record which v35 submitted as the student made application to his respective school. 55 For each of these variables: father's occupation, The College Qualification Tests Total score, and the size of high school graduating class, the median was calculated for the university and community college students combined. Both university students and community college students were then grouped according to their positions above or below the median on each of these three variables. The Chi square test was then applied to determine significant difference on each of the three variables. Hypotheses The following hypotheses were tested within the framework of the foregoing design. The t test of means (two-tailed) was applied for Hypotheses I through XXIII and the median test was applied for hypotheses XXIV through XXVI. The .01 level of significance was used for both tests as the criterion to reject the null hypothesis. Hypothesis I: There is a significant difference between the Aspiration Level factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis II: There is a significant difference between the Intellectual Climate factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis III: There is a significant difference between the Student Dignity factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. 56 Hypothesis IV: There is a significant difference between the Academic Climate factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis V: There is a significant difference between the Academic Achievement factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis VI: There is a significant difference between the Self Expression factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis VII: There is a significant difference between the Group Life factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis VIII: There is a significant difference between the Academic Organization factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis IX: There is a significant difference between the Social Form Factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis X: There is a significant difference between the Play factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis XI: There is a significant difference between the Vocational Climate factor at the community college and the same factor at the university. Hypothesis XII: There is a significant difference between the Self Assertion factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. 57 Hypothesis XIII: There is a significant difference between the Audacity-Timidity factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XIV: There is a significant difference between the Intellectual Interests factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XV: There is a significant difference between the Motivation factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XVI: There is a significant difference between the Applied interests factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XVII: There is a significant difference between the Orderliness factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XVIII: There is a significant difference between the Submissiveness factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XIX: There is a significant difference between the Closeness factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XX: There is a significant difference betnNeen the Sensuousness factor for community college frwesshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. 58 Hypothesis XXI: There is a significant difference between the Friendliness factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XXII: There is a significant difference between the Expressiveness-Constraint factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XXIII: There is a significant difference between the Egoism-Diffidence factor for community college freshmen and the same factor for university freshmen. Hypothesis XXIV: There is a significant difference between previous academic environment, as determined by size of high school graduating class, for community college freshmen and university freshmen. Hypothesis XXV: There is a significant difference between socioeconomic status, as determined by fathers' occupations, for community college freshmen and university freshmen. Hypothesis XXVI: There is a significant difference between academic background, as determined by College Qualification Tests, for community college freshmen and university freshmen. CHAPTER IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The study was designed to provide comparisons of com- munity college students and university students on five var- iables: perceptions of their respective institutions, per- sonality needs, previous academic environment, socioeconomic status, and academic background. It was found that 90 of the randomly selected univer- sity students who were given the Indexes resided within the service area of the community college. Ninety community college students who were given the Indexes were randomly selected in the manner previously described. These 90 university students and 90 community college students com- prised the sample for the study. The students' perceptions of their respective insti— tutions were determined by their scores on the College Characteristics Index and data on their personality needs were obtained from their scores on the Stern Activities lgeeg, These data were obtained for the total sample. The students' previous academic environments were determined by the size of their high school graduating classes. Data on this variable were obtained for 90 uni- versity students and for 89 community college students. 59 q \ ._ .f‘ P.» n\~ 6O Socioeconomic status was determined by the students' fathers' occupations. Data on this variable were available for 79 university students and 83 community college students and were quantified by using the Socioeconomic Index Scale (32:263-275). Students' academic backgrounds were determined by their scores on the College Qualification Tests. Data on this variable were available for 90 university students and 86 community college students. Tests for significant differences between community college and university students on the Stern Activities Index and the College Characteristics Index were made by means of the t_test while tests for significant differ- ences as to previous academic environment, socioeconomic status, and academic background were made by means of the median test. The hypothesis in each case was that signif- icant difference would exist. The thirty scales of the College Characteristics Index were combined to form eleven factors. These were: Aspir- ation Level, Intellectual Climate, Student Dignity, Academic Climate, Academic Achievement, Self Expression, Group Life, Academic Organization, Social Form, Play, and Vocational Climate. Table 2 shows the mean scores and standard devi- ations on these factors for community college and univer- sity students, as well as the F and t_values. It will be noted that significant differences were ob- tained between community college and university students on 61 each of the eleven College Characteristics Index factors. Thus, all the hypotheses regarding the students' perceptions of their reapective institutions were supported. The thirty scales of the Stern Activities Index were combined to form twelve factors.' These were: Self Assertion, Audacity-Timidity, Intellectual Interests, Motivation, Applied Interests, Orderliness, Submissiveness, Closeness, Sensuous- ness, Friendliness, Expressiveness-Constraint, and Ego— Diffidence. Table 3 shows the mean scores and standard devia— tions on these factors for community college and university students, as well as the F and t_va1ues. A test of means, the t, showed significant difference at the .01 level for Self Assertion, Audicity-Timidity, Motivation, Friendliness, Expressiveness-Constraint, and Egoism—Diffidence. There was significant difference at the .02 level for Submissiveness. Thus, the hypotheses regarding the difference between the personality needs of community college students and the.: university students were supported for six of the twelve factors. There were no significant differences in their. Intellectual Interests, Applied Interests, Orderliness, Close- ness, and Sensuousness factors. When community college students were compared with university students as to the size of their high school graduating classes, it was found that significant differ— ences exist between these two groups. The common median for the two groups was 194.5. Table 4 shows that 33 com— .munity college students were below this median, while 56 62 university students were below. Fifty-six community col- lege students were above the median as compared to 33 uni- versity students. When the Chi-square test was applied to these data, the results showed significant difference at the .01 level. When the occupations of the fathers of community col- lege and university students were translated to a socio- economic index and then compared, it was found that there was no significant difference between these two groups. Table 5 shows that 39 community college students were below the common median of 50, while 37 university students were below. Forty-four community college students were above the median as compared to 42 university students. The Chi- square was .0003 for no significant difference. When comparing the community college and university students on the College Qualification Tests it was found that significant differences exist at the .01 level between these two groups. The common median for the two groups was 114 on the College Qualification Tests Total score. Table 6 shows that 52 community college students fell be- low the median, as compared to 36 university students. Thirty-four community college students were above the median, while 54 university students were above. When the Chi- square test was applied to these data, the results showed significant difference at the .01 level. 63 It has been shown that significant differences exist on seven of the twelve factors relating to the students3 personality needs and that significant differences exist on all Of the eleven factors relating to their perceptions of their respective institutions. It has also been shown that they differed significantly as to their previous aca— demic environment and academic background, but that they did not differ significantly as to their socioeconomic status. 64 msomCoonom* Ho. on man mg.e *JH.H ma.m sm.mm ms.m mm.wm message Hesofiosoo> go. on was as.HH ms.m ow.m mm.:m mm.: es.sa eso3-ssam Ho. on man ofl.efi Hm.m mm.m sm.mm sm.m mm.om shoe Hmaoom Ho. es man sm.m - mm.a om.m sm.Hm sm.m eg.mm soaossaseeso oasoesoa go. on man mw.w mm.H m:.m mo.mm es.q Hm.mH some goose Ho. on man em.0fi mo.m Hm.m wa.sm mo.m mm.om soannosoxm eaom Ho. on man so.: *me.H sm.e mm.mm om.m om.mm esoso>oaeo< ossooeoa go. on was mw.e me.H ss.m mm.:a Hm.m om.HH oossafio oasooeoa Ho. on man me.mfi- ms.H os.m He.sa :H.m mo.mm message oeoosem go. on was mm.HH sm.m sa.e sw.mm ms.m s:.mm message assoooafioooH Ho. on man Hm.mH om.m mm.m mfl.mm mw.m sw.mH Ho>oq aseoaomsaona nosfls>.w e .o.m one: .o.m esoz zpflmmwwflcb owmmwmo pOpomm thCSEEoo smashes“ mpamno>fics pom owoaaoo zpac5EEoo sow xoch momomapopomsmco owoaaoo co wopoom some mo ComaanEooun.m mqmfinhosdxm Ho. on was mm.m mm.m we.m me.m mm.e we.mfi amoeafiosofise man so: me.a em.m Hm.m mm.ma mm.m mm.:a nnmensosnemm man so: so. mm.m 00.: sm.mm ma.s as.mm neoconofio mo. on was :m.m Hm.m e:.: mm.mH so.» we.am whooo>annasosm man no: em.H *w:.H :m.m es.mH ms.m mm.om whosafisooso man so: mH.H em.m so.m sm.:a HH.m ms.mfi nonoseesH ooafiooa Ho. he was ss.m as.m Hfi.m mH.Hm me.e we.mm soaes>aeoz man so: me. mm.s mm. ss.om mm.s mo.Hm nenosoosH HeseooflfiooeH Ho. on was os.s OH.m we.m ofi.mm Ho.m mm.ma soaefisHe-soHeees< Ho. on man 00.: no.0 efi.m mm.am sm.m sm.mfi soaosonna ease nosas>.m e .o.m one: .o.m some hpammwwflcp mwwmwmo gonomm hpa::EEoo smegmong mpammo>acs new omOHHoo zuH25EEoo pom xoocH mmapa>apo< shepm so mohoom some mo comameEooun.m mqm