‘v V l
0
35:2,
01' E ;
7

’§
~I.

1'
Ar

1 u x
5-: in“;

tax-55¢. .,_; I
1?» ’vv.
«:5 ’ v ‘

’i
. § “1
“,fifkflif‘l'} , ’( ‘

I“! "4:“: 5
'.‘t:ax .. 1-. _»:F‘1
xmsr *: r * 3* “5M?“

1*». ”gays . Q oi:

£11:
ways ‘~ 9
30:1??‘1i9‘
WW," "7.- .1
11725 ’ ra‘ ’ ‘

l

!‘
aw”. ,,<

Um,
r! guy-Ir

\ \‘l
1.. . “:5
:13
a“:

«2‘?-
t

%
33193 3‘?

1"” "(‘3 c'

'n-"" a
J. ,. at. n.

‘ :‘u-‘x 5"?
Ems?" ‘7‘” ,x

1
5'!

1:
x3:

5
.1

x
K"? V

'43
2‘5

 

NIVERSITY LIBRARIES

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILO II I I I IIII

3 1293 0140

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Construct Validity of Adolescent Alienation:
Examining Age, Gender, School Environment,
and Family Environment

presented by

Melissa Sue Huber-Yoder

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. Psychology

 

 

degree in

Mfm,

Major professor

 

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACER RETURN BOXtomnaumbchockomnomywrm.

TO AVOID FINES return on or baton duo duo.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ADOLESCENT ALIENATION:
EXAMININGthE, GENDER, SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT, AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT

BY

Melissa Sue Huber-Yoder

A.THESIS
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
Department of Psychology

1995

ABSTRACT

CONSTRUCT VALIDITY OF ADOLESCENT ALIENATION:
EXAMINING AGE, GENDER, SCHOOL ENVIRONMENT, AND FAMILY ENVIRONMENT

BY

Melissa Sue Huber-Yoder

316 rural Midwest students (g = 742 with archival data) from grades
seven through 12 completed questionnaires. The author devised measures
of school and family alienation and empowerment. Alienation was a valid
construct as measured by the author's scales (.53 to .60) and Dean
(1961) alienation (.84). Alienation and empowerment were highly
correlated within the same setting (5 = -.67 at home; E = -.91 at
school). Two path models tested an ecological theory of alienation at
home and school (family: 1‘} = 2.68, p=.612; school: 35} = 23.67, p -
.257). Individual factors of age and gender were not useful in
predicting alienation. Most environmental characteristics in each
setting were moderate to strong predictors of alienation (r = .16 to
.78). Alienation was small to moderate in predicting outcomes in the
famdly or at school (5 = .19 to .33). Findings suggest that
interventions should promote empowerment and focus on individual and

ecological factors.

Dedication

Darin Yoder

Jan &

Robb,

To my husband for his support, encouragement, endless trips to the
library, whose powerful vision for rural youth empowerment
provided the inspiration to complete this task.

Rick Huber

To my mother, and first psychology teacher, who embodies the art
of active listening and taking another's perspective with great
empathy. To my father, who taught me to ask difficult questions
and not to settle for traditional answers when they seem unjust.
Nate, & Kristin Huber

To my brothers & sister-in-law who are the real talented siblings
in my family. Robb, the carpenter, makes the world a more
beautiful place to live, sharing his skills at work and with his
family. Nate, the potter, will fill the world with inventive
works as a skilled artist and scientist. Kristin, the nurse,

shares my love of learning and keen desire to reform education.

Georgia, Marv, Shelly, & Nate Yoder

To my in-laws who welcomed me into their family and shared their
support. Your courage and determination to live your own dreams

has been an inspirational model of true success.

Phyllis & Abe Roth, Joann & Mel Huber

To my grandparents for their example of service to others and

their constant encouragement of all their grandchildren.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author gratefully acknowledges several people who have been
instrumental in the completion of this project:

Current chair, Ralph Levine, for countless hours of careful review
of many drafts, valuable feedback, a willingness to teach statistical
software, and a strong motivation to convert the scientific community to
confidence intervals.

Current committee member Bill Davidson for his helpful comments
and careful review of earlier drafts, skilled guidance for handling
difficult statistical problems, and assurance that this project could be
completed.

Current committee member Jackie Lerner for her shared knowledge
and enthusiasm for adolescent issues, support, and professional
development guidance.

Former committee member TomIReischl for his help with statistical
software, insightful reading of previous drafts, and carefully
documented comments provided encouragement and a clear direction for
revisions.

Former committee chair LaRue Allen for her enthusiasm and active
listening that enabled me to translate my visions into a manageable
project.

Classmates and 818 colleagues, Becki Campbell, Lynn Breer, Holly
Angelique, Bianca Guzman, David Canales-Portalatin, Hoa Nguyen for
support and statistical guidance.

Special thanks to Tina Tinskey and Brenda Vette for their
invaluable administrative assistance in the data collection phase of

this project.

ii

Table of Contents

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii
List of Figures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status of youth in Michigan and Nationally. . . . . . . 1
Outcomes Associated with Alienation . . . . . . . . . 3
Individual and Ecological Nature of Alienation . . . . . 8
Social Significance of the Problem. . . . . . . . . . 11
Overview of Possible Literature . . . . . . . . . . 12
Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Age Level as an Individual Correlate of Alienation . . . . 12

Gender as an Individual Correlate of Alienation . . . . . 16
School Environment as an Ecological Correlate of Alienation . 21

Family Environment as an Ecological Correlate of Alienation . 26

Empowerment as a Contradiction to Alienation . . . . . . 30
Correlates of Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Outcomes Associated with Empowerment. . . . . . . . . 32
Operationalization of Measures. . . . . . . . . . . 34
Reasons for the Present Study . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Bivariate Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Individual Correlates of Alienation and Empowerment . 40
Ecological Correlates of Alienation and Empowerment. . 42

Alienation Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

iii

Integrative Path Models

Method. .

Sample. . . . . . . .
Design. . . . . . . . .

Procedures

Results . . . . . .
Measures and Psychometric Properties.
Reliability . . . . . . .

Alienation Measurement Development

School alienation & empowerment

Family alienation and empowerment.

0

Construct Validity and Measurement Quality.

Alienation and Empowerment Quality of Measurement

Construct Validity of Alienation . . .
Construct Validity of Empowerment. . .
Discriminant Validity. . . . . .
Methodological Issues. . . . .
Potential Restriction of Range. .
Bivariate Hypotheses . . . . . . .
Individual Correlates. . . . .
Ecological Correlates of Alienation
Classroom environment. . .
Family environment. . . .
Alienation Outcomes . . .
Integrative Path Models .
Family Environment. . . . . .

School Environment. . . . . .

iv

44

48
48
49
50

51
51
51
54
54
55
56
57
59
62
64
66
66
71
71
73
73
76
79
80
81
83

Discussion

Nature of Alienation .

Nature of Empowerment. .

Individual Variables . .

Ecological Variables . .

Summary . . .
Recommendations. . . .
Appendix Confirmatory Factor

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Environment Scales.

Confirmatory Factor

Environment Scales.

Confirmatory Factor

Scale . . . . .

Confirmatory Factor

Empowerment Scale .

Intercorrelation of

.Attenuation . . .

Analysis

of Classroom

Analysis of Family

Analysis of Dean Alienation

Analysis of Alienation &

Scales Corrected for

Measures of Alienation . .

Measures of Empowerment

Measures of Classroom Environment.

Measures of Family Environment.

87
87
90
91
91

93

93

98

99

100

101

102

105

106

107

108

Appendix J Measures of Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . 109

List of References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

vi

Table
Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

10
11

12

13

14

15
16

List of Tables

Negative Behaviors Associated with Alienation. .
Positive Behaviors Associated with Lack of
Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . .

General Individual Correlates Associated with

Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship of Age to Alienation. . . . . .
Relationship of Gender to Alienation. . . . .

Relationship of School Environment to

Alienation . . . . . . . . . . .
Relationship of Family Environment to

Alienation . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measures of Psychological Functioning Related to
the Family . . . . . . . . . . . .
Measures of Psychological Functioning Related to
the Classroom . . . . . . . . . .
Percentage of Respondents by Grade Level . . .
Alienation and Empowerment Correlation Matrix. .
Results of Hypotheses for Alienation and
Empowerment . . . . . . . . . . .
Parallelism Between Alienation and Empowerment
in School and Family . . . . . . . .
Alienation Outcomes by Grade Level . . . .
Academic Outcomes by Grade Level . . . . . .
Trend Analysis of Alienation Types as a Function

of Grade Level . . . . . . . . . . .

vii

13
17

22

27

35

36

49

56

63

65

67

69

70

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table
Table

17

18

19

20

21

22

23
24

Results of Hypotheses of Individual Correlates
Results of Linearity Hypotheses of School
Ecological Correlates. . . . . . . .
Results of Correlational Hypotheses of School
Ecological Correlates. . . . . . . .
Results of Linearity Hypotheses of Family
Ecological Correlates. . . . . . . . .
Results of Correlational Hypotheses of Family
Ecological Correlates. . . . . . . .
Correlation Results of Alienation Outcomes in
Family and School . . . . . . . -. . .
Correlations for Family Alienation Path Model.

Correlations for School Alienation Path Model.

viii

72

75

76

78

79

80

83
86

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure

List of Figures

Predicted Path Model for Family Empowerment and

Alienation . . . . . . . . .

Predicted Path Model for School Empowerment and

Alienation . . . . . . . . .
Construct Validity of Alienation and
Empowerment . . . . . . . . .
Final Path Model for Family Alienation

Final Path Model for School Alienation

ix

45

47

58

82
84

Introduction

Status of youth in Michigan and Nationally

 

Current demographic indicators suggest that youth have an
increasing risk of adverse outcomes for their personal well-being and
quality of life. A sizeable number of youth nationwide and in Michigan
have poor outcomes in the areas of physical health choices, delinquency,
and academic achievement.

Physical health choices of youth have put some youth at risk for
substance abuse and teen pregnancy. Nationwide, over 15% of teachers in
public elementary and secondary schools during 1990-1992 reported
student drug use as a problem, while nearly 25% reported student alcohol
and tobacco use as a problem (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). Self
reports among youth supported these teachers' perceptions. In 1991, 35%
of youths aged 16 to 17 reported using alcohol and 21% reported
cigarette use (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1993). In
addition to choices about substance use, choices regarding sexual
activity have lead to increased risk of early pregnancy. Births to
teens without diplomas increased by 25% between 1980 and 1990 in
Michigan (Kids count in Michigan, 1993) and by 16% nationally from 1983
to 1992 (Kids count data book, 1993). Substance abuse and teen
pregnancy each appeared to affect nearly one quarter of youth.

In addition to substance abuse and teen pregnancy, juvenile
delinquency impacts many youth. The rate of juvenile delinquency has
increased for Michigan and the nation. Violent crime arrests for
Michigan youth rose 25.8% between 1980 and 1990 (Kids count in Michigan,
1993). This upward trend was larger for the nation. The national
juvenile violent crime arrest rate for youth ages 10 to 17 increased by
48% from.1986 to 1991 (Kids count data book, 1993). Juvenile arrest

rates increased from 1980 to 1990 for various offenses. .Arrests for

l

2

murder increased 87.3%, weapons law violations arrests rose 62.6% and
arrests for heroin/cocaine increased 713.8% (U.S. Department of Justice,
1992). Furthermore, for youth ages 15 to 19 in the United States, the
violent death rate increased by 13% between 1983 and 1992 (Kids count
data book, 1993). Increasing delinquency rates indicate a grievous
problem.with serious consequences for youth in Michigan and the nation.

Unfavorable school climates and poor academic achievement are also
a problem impacting many youth. Inside the school setting many teachers
have observed student behaviors that contribute to a poor school
climate. Over 35% of teacher in public elementary and secondary schools
nationally during 1990-1992 reported that student absenteeism.and
tardiness were problems. Nearly 30% of the teachers reported that
verbal abuse of teachers and physical conflicts among students were
problems at school. (U.S. Department of Education, 1992). The
achievement patterns of youth are also problematic. Nationally, 4%
fewer teens graduated from high school in 1992 compared to 1983 (Kids
count data book, 1993). While Michigan experienced 5.8% fewer dropouts
from 1980 to 1990, several thousand students still withdrew from.school.
In the 1991-92 school year, 20,032 (4.9%) high school dropouts were
reported in Michigan (Kids count in Michigan, 1993). Many dropouts were
also unemployed. For teens aged 16 to 19, 35,064 (6.2%) were not in
school or the labor force in 1990 (Kids count in Michigan, 1993).
Outcomes for students remaining in school were also unfavorable for a
large group of students. Education statistics from the 1992-93 school
year indicated that only 52.3% of Michigan's students were eligible for
state-endorsed diplomas in math (Kids count in Michigan, 1993). High
school dropouts, unemployment, absenteeism, and poor academic
achievement are problems impacting many youth.

These demographic statistics suggest that youth are estranged from
society in many ways. Personal health, community safety, school
attendance, and academic achievement were unimportant or unattainable

for some youth. It is interesting to note that these outcomes have been

3

associated with youth alienation. Alienation has been associated with
negative outcomes and lack of positive outcomes for individual youths,
their health, academic outcomes, family life, and delinquency in their
conmunities. A review of several studies suggested that alienation had
a significant role in these detrimental outcomes affecting a number of
youth. .Alienation may be seen as an important element of substance use,
delinquency, and poor academic achievement. This paper will explore
antecedents and outcomes of alienation with attention to both individual
and ecological factors. The research findings from the literature are

detailed further in the tables provided for the reader.

Outcomes Associated with Alienation’

Alienation has been a concern of social scientists for several
decades. The importance of alienation has been demonstrated by its
alignment with problematic results for youth (See Table 1). Physical
health behavior deficits have been correlated with alienation. .A small
relationship was found between alienation and drug use (Jones, 1977;
Owie, 1988), and alcohol abuse (Albas, Albas, McCluskey, 1978; Holmgren,
Fitzgerald, & Carman, 1983). Early sexual behavior was significantly
related to alienation from parents (Miller 8 Simon, 1974). Alienation
was also related to psychological correlates. Relationships were found
between general alienation and low self-esteem.(Warner & Hansen, 1970),
anxiety (Warner & Hansen, 1970), depression and (Schimek & Milstein
Meyer, 1975) suicide attempts (Kinkel, Bailey, & Josef, 1989). In
addition to psychological outcomes, alienation has been significantly
associated with behaviors that jeopardize communities, such as a history
of conviction (Reimanis, 1974) and anti-social behavior (Schimek &
Milstein Meyer, 1975). These behaviors suggest that the health and

well-being of youth are jeopardized by alienation.

 

‘Throughout this paper, correlations are reported using effect size
standards of magnitude based on the work of Lipsey & Wilson (1993).

 

.nwoa auuuwhqi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I I eaaom udooaou soda-usua- anodesn
ao.vm .veo. + nn.I I u mad as an nuaom eonnoeaeh .Aoma. asoo doocon no“: usueceua< Aaron. cones: a Means:
I I Muoaxed uneuueux coda-ae«de nuoaesn
Ho.vm .moo. + vm. I u mad as an .mnaa. uoH>oa .aoon. anon Hoocon no“: veueeoaa< .onoa. sense: a ueeunz
soduasnaaou agenda-a usuuasamxnai loses.
mo.Im .oo.n -_.x «v as a: scannouooo nuaom Anon”. saunasox uceoneaou< uo>ox caounuaz u xoaacom
acasacoo deacon noduaausdou massauem oauuuwcuwnn .npmac
Hoo.Im .w~.v« n..x av we as quct no agendadaoo Inflow .mmma. ecundeox ueeonoHou< uo>ex :«oundax a uoaacom
a: no.o emwaaou
2. 3... «8:3 :3:
mo.vm Ho ceuo«>eooao .o». I auaaaoaAHeu. nusocsun uo euca>aou
.coquQou uoc I u no“ a: vH.oH oouoa>coo nascea Lona”. odoum sums cao uao> auto” .vpoa. «acceded
Ann. I auaadnaaaou. .Ho. I huaaanaAAOM.
I I eudmceodunoso eoduocoddt
Ho.vm .mpo. + .od. I u can an an on: case .HomH. anon undo u~e> sauna Amman. oazo
Hoo.vwl pa unsound
.uoquQou so: I u onm a: we no ma one as usuaou souu eouuneeud< ooao use» ouiva .vrma. :OSAm u usudaz
mm.
0» ma. I «same .Hoo.vm anaeunnom
.An.n~H cu m.a~ I .x ”new we «a nudaouua ouaousm can noduuaunuuan swan undo ume> maiua “mead. woman a .>e~«~m .Hoxcax
I oo. I acauacOAHa
suob .mm. I m cadauasx com we a: can: nosuv no oozed Hao«u«H0d u ”macaw nucocsun hudnuo>qca Ahead. nocou
HocooAs
I I Hocooan ocqxeduc Amman scans 0:3 nucoosun Amooav
ovo. + ma. I u va a: a: now codua>duox .uonnob. c0«uae0«H< Hoocom so“: Hausa emauwo u .vanuoouudm .e0uosaom
84 I A SH 3 a: 3:81. 2:53 303 $833 3392 352:; 323 83: 8:300: 632 332
I II I .oaoadua> eeoouso. .oHnnwua> uouodooum.
swam uoouum 2 cm x ensues: nocuo ousnmox noduacOHH< noduaasnom eocoueuom

 

 

c0333.“: cud: cousaoouud uuoa>scom o>aummoz

.H mannaunv

5

Since the presence of alienation has been associated with
problematic behaviors, it is not surprising that alienation has been
negatively correlated with beneficial outcomes at school and at home.
Positive results at school have not been found when alienation is
present (See Table 2). Low to moderate relationships were found between
participating in activities at school and the lack of alienation
(Burbach, 1972; Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982). Kulka, et a1 (1982) has
suggested that a feedback loop exists between alienation and involvement
at school. Similarly, a lack of alienation is also associated with
academic achievement. Although alienation and grade point averages were
unrelated for highly alienated students (Warner & Hansen, 1970), other
researchers found moderate to large relationships between alienation and
grade point averages among high school students in general. Burbach
(1972) found moderate relationships between measures of alienation and
grade point averages for high school students. Moderate to large
relationships were also found between alienation and academic
achievement among high school students (Hendrix, Sederberg, & Miller,
1990; Verma, 1990). .Academic achievement and involvement at school are
positive outcomes associated with the lack of alienation.

Positive involvement at home and in the community are also
associated with the lack of alienation. Rode (1971) found that high
school students' positive involvement with father and mother had a low
association with the lack of alienation. Additionally, Calabrese &
Schumer (1986) demonstrated that low alienation was moderately related
to participation in community service. This positive relationship
between involvement and reduced alienation is further characterized in
Rafky's (1979) research showing that adolescents with higher political
efficacy were less likely to exhibit expressive alienation. A.moderate
effect size was found for this relationship. Additionally, Zimmerman
(1990) found moderate to large effects indicating that participation was

related to empowerment, and both empowerment and participation were

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

H.s n.so N unsquson
o.m s.ms H unsununod
m.r m.or unsuieun
«A mass: cu
H.ca ¢.p> N unsuuunon
~.v~ a.mp A unsqun0d
«.AA m.np unsuisuo
m” sass: o”
o.va o.Hm ~ unsuiunOQ
o.nH n.ph H unsqunoa
v.~d m.pp unsuIsua or. I auaadasdasu
mm sass: 0 usququ soon
I I ecuusddoauusm .Hsouc
Ho.vm ava. + vow. In sou>usm auaasssou aoduaesua< asso suasvsun susuo cum momma. usescom s snsunsasu
as. I auaaaosaaem
.«pma nosnusm.
I I nsscsnsauszod nauseous access code
so.vm «so. + ms~.I In men an an sosus>< sasoa ovauo access and: "nuns scans nuNHIauod .mams. nuanusm
I I lawns .usuuaz . amaze nauseous scone» nus:
Ho.vm ovo. + oH~.I In non an a: sosus>< uaaom susuo nnsennsauszoa Hudson Hausa scsuo cuwflIzuoH A~>mac cosnusm
or. I audaanswasu
couuodsu asso
.aoofl
I I .asso. assasssauszod suesosus ”cocoa and:
so.vm ovo. + mH~.I In new a: a: sumus>< uuaom susuo Hausaoom Hausa susuo cuwaucuon “whoa. compass
as. I Nuaaansaasm
ssaua>auos “was” compass.
I I unassuuusosuuxm nnscnnsauszod nauseous Hoocon no“:
Ho.vm «vo. + vn~.I I u new a: ma uo noses: Hoocom so“: Hanan sosuo cDNHInuoa “upmac combusm
assus>suoa
I I unflaosuusoauuxm less” .udussx s "aux. success» goons» so“;
do.vm avo. + osH.I I u new we a: no usnssz nsscnssdussom asaoom Hausu scsuu cuNHIcuoa .mpma. combusm
on. I audaunsaasu
usququ asso
assua>duos .HsmH
I I usasoauuzosuuxm .asso. nnsenssauszod nucscsus Hoocos so“:
ao.vm onv. + ~p~.I I u new s: we no ashes: Hausdoom Asusu scsuo cuuaIcuoa Aurmfl. compass
I II I .s~ns«us> .sannaus> uouofiusum.
swam uosuuu 2 cm : ssoouso. saunas: useuo susnssx acausnsunt nodusasnom sensuous:

 

 

coausGUAH4 no xosq cue: pouedoonndtsuoa>scom o>auasom

N manna

 

or. I nunnnnannsn
usunoosn ease

Amman .csoo.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho.vm woo. H pun.u I m man s: a: uessnssodsm noduscsnat anon ssussosnonsua: .ooon. unansssnn
I I sesausnnasano
no.vm amo.+ can. I n can a: s: a“ canusdnonunsm unsanszodau usuasusnonsue: Roman. amsnseann
me. I aunannsnasn
cannonsn case
I I unsubsNAasono .noma .asso.
Ho.vm omo. + ~H~.I I n can a: an an canusono«unsm soduscsau< ease nsusspanunspe: .oomfi. emansaann
or. I aunannsnasn
oeunoosn ease
I me I m .HsmH anodes“
.noo. + vmo. In om” an a: sosns>s venom scene .asso. acausesaa< noocon can: vsusasuat “chad. cones: s nscnsz
I I .cmmn .«anacm. snnom snuan an
no.vm «an. + omm. In as an s: uasas>saco< owesuso< noduscsan< unsosum nauseous snsno can" Aommn. sens>
I no.vm nucsnsn cut:
.mno. + m-.I In ucses>ao>ca ssuunsom
canew\nscuoz I .vsmH sedans> oscsunocm
no.vm .oso. + noH.I In .nsusscomv >nouas>eH Anoan .aounnasxv nauseous
cancoxnscumm new a: a: no«>snsm nesnsm snsom nodusesna< scene cuwaIcnoH .HpmH. scam
scanusu:0nuaoo
use annnscas>
Arman Hoocos uo uncoon
I I .nncaso s acunsmc Iunsn "noduaesnd<
no.vm Hmo. + mo~.I In com as s: >osouuum Hsodunnom s>dnnsndxm nucsonsaoc< .mean. henna
mo.vmimsn.~ IN nooaon sang I noozon
moo.0II:Esm unses>uo>ed .Nomn .nsocnnx .sncsx assumes» s acnu Amman.
mn~.o Isaac son an s: nunoan aunnns> .sxasx. canuaesna< s>on scans cn~nicuo Hsocqax a .sach .sxapx
mo.vm nh~.~ In doocon snag I aoocos
mmné Lassa .33 £353. 628. 5233:» s son» 83:
pmn.o Issmx pow a: I: bases>no>an Inano .axnpx. conuaasnns sacs sauna guNHIguo nsoannx s .snaax .Ixnpx
Lemon
.nsaaqz s .ononnscsm snooze»
I I .xanvcsmc noduscsn~< can: sunnsbss unszcaa .oman. nsaaax
Ho.vu one. + «cm. In awn“ an a: scenes: uaaom scone .n> ucseunssou Hoocom n sen» anodesm s .onsnnsosm .xnnccs:
I II I .s~ns«na> .sansans> nonuncsnm.
snnm nosuum 2 on : ssoouso. ensues: nscuo ensues: sodusesddt soda-asQOm suesnsusm

 

lu.ucoo. ~ ensue

8

associated with a lack of alienation. From this it is apparent that
positive behaviors in the school, the family, and the community are more
likely to be evident when alienation is not present. Within various
settings, alienation is an outcome that is associated with undesirable
outcomes for youth. Alternatively, the absence of alienation is
associated with desirable outcomes for youth. Because alienation is
linked with these outcomes, attention must be given to the various

antecedents of alienation.

Individual and Ecological Nature of Alienation

 

Both individual and ecological factors have been construed as
integral antecedents of youth alienation by researchers and theorists.
This dynamic has been present throughout the history of the study of
alienation. In the early development of the alienation construct,
Seeman (1959) and Dean (1961) conceptualized alienation as a phenomenon
influenced by both individual and situational factors. Bronfenbrenner
(1974) also pointed out that many systems, including the family, work,
and community, have a role in fostering alienation. This pattern of
looking at macro—level and micro-level causes of alienation has been
inherent in the discussion of youth alienation.

Many individual factors have been researched for their impact on
adolescent alienation (See Table 3). These personal variables include
the youth's perceived ability (Mackey & Ahlgren, 1977) popularity with
peers (Mohanty, 1984), socioeconomic status (Rafky, 1979), and parental
occupation and education (Mackey & Ahlgren, 1977). In these empirical
analyses, small relationships were found between alienation and most of
the individual variables. Two exceptions were moderate relationships
between alienation and youths' and lack of perceived ability (Mackey &

Ahlgren, 1977) and lack of popularity among peers (Mohanty, 1984).

 

 

 

 

 

 

mm mb.n mn.nm ooaanxscn
smu ~o.s bv.nm nonon sonnnxm ucossocununo
wma mm.n hw.nm ascoaunouonm nonsuasu
I conusdsooo .mnmn .asesom. .pbmn.
Hmm.um .mao. I n uconsm conussonad. suduusuaoud denuded a hogan:
mm vm.m mv.hm ooaaaxscb
omm hm.w po.pm nonsa Usaaaxm aunosmsocn
nva mb.m H¢.vm asconnuouonm asconnom
I ooo.um conuussuoo Amman .ansvom. .pemn.
.mvo. + sma. u n uconsm doauscondd. uncoonoaoud nonmanfl a mason:
«N n~.n mn.m~ omuno>o zonom
new mn.m mo.s~ ouonosm
hen pn.¢ ov.m~ smsno>s s>oo< ssocssoaoonsu
I ooo.nm sunnnnm Amman .cusoom. “span.
.Hvo. + Hmm. I n os>noonsm coauscoadd. sucsouoaoum nonmand w asxosz
mm ms.m ¢H.mm omnns>o sonsm
mum mm.n om.Hm omsno>¢ ucofioucsnuso
mmH ww.m HN.mm smsno>s o>on¢ asnsuaso
I moo.nm Rosanna Amman .cssusm. reams.
.mvo. + mvH. n n oo>aoonom coauscoAHd. nud00s0a0dd. nonmanfl w Saxon:
«N sn.p Nv.ov omano>m zonom
new mm.m mm.mm ommno>< hudusmsocd
bra Hm.m mm.vm omnno>s s>on< asconnom
I ooo.nm sunnnnm Amman .cusosmc lbpmnc
.mvo. + How. u n Uo>noonom coaumcoaad. nucsonoaond nonmacd a assoc:
“oaosnns>
Aoaosnns> oEoousoc
I II I nouonosnmc ensues:
swam avenue .2 am 2 ensues: nocuo coauocoadfl conusasdom ooconouom

 

 

coauscodad and; cousaoosnd_sousaonnou assofi>aocu denuded

n OHAUB

10

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as I‘m .mmoh saunas coauscsaas
H oao.I u n mom s: an oaeocooooaoom o>ansonmxm uncoouoaoud .mbmac hxusm
a: I‘m .spmn .nansnsx
I .ssnw unood gun: a span. success»
+ ~>N.I n n «m as so unansasdom coausdoaad. ease unaccouom .vmma. mucosa:
no I‘m Amhma .acsonsx nudoosun
I .msuw snows gun: a soap. unseen
+ ~m0.I u n ma so so muansasmom coauscsAHd. ansOdoosm “wand. zydeco:
mam hm.q m¢.m~ noose» can:
Nva Ho.m mm.m~ sooaaou assessedooasu
I voo.um conuuosuu Amman .cseoume reams.
.mvo. + ova. u n uconsm coauscoadd mucounoaou¢ nonmazfl w moses:
new Hm.m v>.mm nooaon sane unssomcmnuns
mma No.m vm.mm omsaaoo Hensuaso
I conusosum Amman .cofioom. .bhmav
mba.nm .hmo. u n uconsm coauscoaafl. nucsonoaond. nonmasfl a usxosz
mam mn.s mm.sm nooaon none monomsuucn
va mm.o mm.vm omsaaoo ascosnsm
I moo.um conunosum Ammmfl .csfissmc Abpch
.mvo. + men. I n ucsnsm conuscsnad. sncoonsHocd_ canvass s >sxosz
ooa mm.¢ H>.m~ Usaanxmca
omm ma.m Hm.mN nonca ouaafixm
sea mm.v mm.m~ asconnsomonm nuscnuoascnsw
I ooo.nm conuoasooo Amman .csEosm. .ppmnc
.Nvo. + van. u n uconsm connocOAHd nucoonoaond nonmacfl s >oxom2
AQEoonso.
I II I .nouonoonmv ensues:
swam vacuum .2 am 2 ensues: nscuo coauscsadd coansasdom oocsnsuom

 

lu.ucou. m snows

11

Within the social sciences there has also been attention to
contextual variables in the construction of adolescent alienation.
General societal factors theoretically linked to alienation have
included the fostering of ambiguous social roles for youth (Young,
1985), breakdown of the neighborhoods, communities, and extended family
(Bronfenbrenner, 1974), loss of social support, extreme mobility, and
contradictory societal values for youth (Baumrind, 1987). These
multiple facets of the community, school, family, as well as individual
variables have been described as factors impacting the emergence of

youth alienation.

Social Significance of the Problem

 

It is important that social scientists understand these empirical
issues related to the development of youth alienation. This is
important to adequately address the problem of adolescent alienation for
the benefit of the alienated individuals as well as the communities in
which they reside. These concerns arise from functional and
philosophical foundations. Pragmatic considerations for society include
questions about the role of the alienated youth. Their full
participation in the community cannot be realized if they have dropped
out of school, suffer from drug use, have low self—esteem, or lack
motivation. Humanitarian considerations compel helping professionals to
ameliorate individual suffering such as depression, powerlessness, and
behaviors leading to health problems or attempted suicide. To better
understand the etiology of alienation, it is important to compare the
personality and environmental models of alienation. By understanding
the influences in the development of alienation, social scientists can
discern where intervention efforts are most likely to be effective.
Additionally, community psychologists are admonished to go beyond
preventing alienation and look toward promoting empowerment (Kieffer,
1984; Rappaport, 1981). Since alienation is contrasted with empowerment

(Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988), this is well within the scope of

12
community psychologists. By systematically studying alienation and its
juxtaposition, social change agents can try to reduce sources of
adolescent alienation and cultivate seeds of empowerment within the

environments that affect adolescents.

Overview of Possible Literature

 

A meaningful and comprehensive scope for this review of a vase
body of literature included empirical studies of youth alienation
obtained through computer searches using PSYCInfo and PSYCLit. Given
the scope of the database, this discussion focused primarily on research
published in English from 1968 to the present, therefore international
research was limited. Unless specified otherwise, all research
citations referred to studies conducted in the United States. Within
this framework, citations were further limited to research in which
adolescent alienation as an outcome variable was measured against
predictor variables of age, gender, family environment, or school
environment. Also included in this review were empirical studies
focusing on alienation as a predictor variable for academic achievement,

school attendance, and involvement with school and family.

Literature Review
Age Level as an Individual Correlate of Alienation
Age has been often studied as a correlate of youth alienation (See

Table 4). Among students, alienation primarily decreased with age in
non-experimental pencil and paper studies that follow. Avi-Itzhak
(1987) found that among Arab secondary students, younger students were
more alienated than older students. Among students from private high
schools, Rode (1971) also found that younger students were more
alienated than older students. Jackson (1973) found that among 18-21

year old students, both younger males and females were much more

3
1

 

on.

on me. I sensosnsn
non >unnnnnnaom
sameness
unsennsnssns>

.mrmn Iowan
.aOsaosb. canuaesnat

seasssn susscsnunsoes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ho.vm on.>I ax mmm s: a: so< no easom no ono nse> Naipn .vpmn. someone
we. I nasasnans
Innsn non hunnnosnnsm
.oomn
.sOsxosb. canusasna< ssnnssn
mo.vm .n.. ...x c- «a a: Ina no onaom no uno naos nNIon .npan. consume
so. I unsasnsnnssoo
non >unnnnsnnsm
.comn
.eonxosn. genusasnn<
no.vm ps.m I.~x Ne s: an so< no snsom no sense uno nms> nquH .npan. coaxomn
Anuaosoannso
ow oo.m vv.~I mHIhn Amman snncs>sfi can .suesnno
ow on.n ~a.nI snImn .nsnsnu s anseosuuoo. Uncnno cunssc
an ~n.m nn..- .nInn conuINncmononno nausea .nuaaanonunua
I I ow ov.m ov.mI NnInn n~c0nnsm asnOOno cuso>c .mponv
mo.vm nmo. + omn.o In out can acnusesnn< Hanson sono nus» an on an emaunnsm s .usoenz..nsssnw
an. I nunnnnannsm
.~>on cosnnsmv
I I suscnnsnnssoo mucousun Hoocun can:
mvo. + omo.I In new we a: ns>sn scone noocom can: nanm sosno cuwnIcuon .mpmn. cosonsm
I I Aswan .unuuox . naoz. nucouzun nooaon can:
«vo. + ovo.I In new a: a: Hs>sn susnw nnscnnsnnssom nanUOm nsnsm susno cuwnIcuon Insane nosnnsm
op. I aunnnnsnnsn
nonnoasn case Insmn
I I .csso. suscsssnnszoo nucsosun Hoocon can:
0.0. + nvo.I In new a: s: ns>sn scans ususnoom Munoz scans cunnInuon “whoa. cosonsm
.anmnidasessm
no woman .npmn
I I .cosnsv:<c >noucs>cn noocos >nsocoosn bsn<
Ho.vm on". + nvv.I In on m: s: asssn susno genusuosoxm Hoocom suescsun sosno cum Arson. escnunIn><
I II I .snnann~> nononssnm. .snnonna> saoousoc
snnm uosnnm 2 on x snsnss: nscuo snssssx canusasnnt nodusnsoom socsnsnsx

 

 

conuscondd on saw no adcsdonusaom

v sxnnaunv

314

 

no.vm noo. n pmn.I In

mom

Ga

Ga

004

cannns> usasunocm
Amman .counncoxv
snsom noduscsnnt

sucsusun
suano aunnIauon

.Hhmav ovum

 

Sim $6 I .x

No

NC

a:

s04

on.

0» mp. I nodaonnnn
non >unnnosnnsm
Damonnsn
uncannvanw3bm

“mean .momn
.aOnxomb. nodumcwnad
no snsom no

nouns susscsnonscc:
uno nus» «NIpn

“whoa. canxumb

 

36a 3.? .x

omw

MC

NS

004

cm.

on mp. I nonsonosn
non >unnnnsnnsm
snsonnsn nesesnsos
Innsm Ampmn .oomn
.conxosb. canumesnn<
no easom ha

nsHsson sussosnonsues
ono nss> -Ihn

.vrmav coaxomb

 

snnm ausnnm

2|

.Innanna> nouonusnm.
Omanflox MOBUO

lonnmnn~> seoouso.
snssssz canuscsna<

cannonsoom

socsnsnem

 

.u.ucoo. v canoe

15

alienated on specific dimensions than their older counterparts. Younger
males felt more powerless than older males, while younger females were
higher on self—abasement than older females. Jackson (1974) generally
replicated these findings for 17-22 year old students. Once again,
younger males felt more alienated on powerlessness, while younger
females were higher on self-abasement than older females. Burbach
(1972) found similar effects for an inverse relationship between
alienation and age. Among rural high school students, Burbach (1972)
found negative correlations between age and several measures of
alienation, including Dean's societal powerlessness, Neal & Rettig's
social powerlessness, and Burbach's high school powerlessness. These
studies supported adolescent alienation decreasing with age.

.Although research has provided support for the belief that
alienation decreases with age, two other studies have contradicted these
findings. In Jackson's (1974) study discussed above, older females were
more alienated on valuelessness than younger females. This
contradictory finding suggests that older females were more alienated in
relation to perceived social norms and guiding values. Perhaps this can
be attributed to the young women's observations of external
circumstances and changing roles of women in society. These external
appraisals seemed to measure a construct distinct from alienation based
on internal assessments of one's power and self-concept. This suggests
that researchers should attend to distinctions between alienation based
on internal and external appraisals.

.A second contradiction was found in an exploratory study analyzing
the contents of 11 to 18 year old students' speech. Gleser, Winget, &
Seligman (1979) reported a positive correlation between age and social
alienation and personal disorganization. The sample for this study was
composed of summer program participants, mental health clients, and
juvenile delinquents. This population may be quite different from the
previous studies conducted among typical junior and senior high school

students. The seemingly atypical positive correlation between

16

alienation and age for this population may attribute to underlying
alienating experiences for these youth that increasingly result in more
contact with the mental health and juvenile justice systems. Unlike the
previously mentioned studies, it is not clear that the measure of
alienation used in this research is based on the constructs delineated
by Dean or Seeman. This contradictory finding may be due to differences
in the sample population, the Operationalization of alienation, or more
likely due to sampling error resulting from a small sample size.

These studies, focusing on students between the ages of fourteen
and twenty-two, suggest that alienation, especially powerlessness,
generally decreases with age among typical students. Not to be
dismissed are the diverse results suggesting that differences in
alienation may be found among students involved with the mental health
or juvenile justice systems. Researchers may need to make distinctions
between various types of alienation. While considering these
differences, most studies are supportive of the idea that alienation
decreases as adolescents become older, have greater access to resources,
and gain more independence.

One of the main objectives of the author was to determine how much
overlap existed in various measures of alienation. The hypothesis that
various measures of alienation were unrelated was considered and
discussed for its implication about the nature of alienation as a

construct (Refer to discussion section).

Gender as an Individual Correlate of Alienation
Gender has often been assessed in relation to youth alienation
with mixed results (See Table 5). Males were shown to be more alienated
in some studies while females were more alienated in others. Various
types of alienation were measured which may be partially responsible for

the apparent differences. Studies that found males to be more alienated

117

 

”Q I m
.osunoosn no: I «x
ucsssnsosIann

we. I assesses.
Inns» non auannsnnsm
so. I essannsnnsson

non >ununnannex

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

osusesnnm snos sons: .oomn
Hoo.vm pm.o~ I_.x .aonnosn. canuscsnn< ssussusnonsuas
nnscnnsnnszod can we a: neocsu no ensom no uno nss> onIon Amend. conxosb
.ommn
.nsnnn: s .unsnnsosm snoocos
couscsnnslsnoe nonmm .xnnoesz. acnusasnnt can: cannons» unsscna .ommnc nonnnx
Ho.vm .nmo. + moo.I I n nwmn noneso .s> neseunseoo noocom n aonn anodesm s .onsnnscsm .xnncas:
.aomn
.nsnsno u ensconuuow.
mu oo.n mn.mI ensesn canusnnasonosno
ususesnns mnoe nonsm mm sn.~ ~o.nI sass asconnsm mono Aswan.
no.vm .onn. + man. I n nsscso sac nonuscsnn< nanoom nos» on on nn sung: auaonnsm s .usucnz_.nsosno
.oomn
.nsssno s uneconuuoo.
cousconns once nsnsasm ow rm.n mv.~I snmaon acnusnncsonOnno
I n: I m mu mm.~ n~.mo ease AseOsnsm nuno Aaron.
.snn. + noo. I n nougoo can nonuaasnn< Hanson nus» on on nn nouns assunnsm s .usoanzc.nsnsnu
up. I case an
causesnns snoe nonmesm s: vo.vr snsesn osunoosn >unnnosnns¢
a: I m .nn I: ao.~p onus Insmn
.osunoosn no: I n nsccso .esso. canuscsnat nunsosus susno cum Amman. annnsm s snsnnsnsu
on. I aunnnnsnnem
ohm va.» pm.om snsasn Amwmn cosnnsm.
couscsnns smoe nonsssm nmw om.p mo.om sass snsanssansson nucsosun noonon can:
«so. + Ono.I I n nsccso noocom can: Hanna susno cumnIcuOA Anson. coannsm
o>~ ps.~ oo.o snassn
ususasnns mnos ssnmm mam no.~ pp.m same Aswan .OAuusm a assz. nucscsun noocon cone
no.vm nvo. + own. I n nsucso assasssnnsxom HsnOOm nsnam scsno cumnIcuon Laban. cosnnsm
ohm no.~ Ho.~n snsesn .nomn
couscsnns Mnoe nsnsm now no.n o~.~n onus .csso. onsasnsnnszon nuasssun noocon can:
«so. + one. I n nounso asusnoom Hanna sosno zuwnIcuon .«nmn. cosonsm
I II I Asnnsnns> nouUnusnmc .snomnns> saoousov
snnm uusnnu 2 am : snsnss: nscuo snsnss: acnusasnnd cannonsoom suesnsnsx

 

 

conusconfld on noodom no macncOHusHom

m canes

218

 

“0&NGOHHO ONO—B ”GHQ:
”a I m

cannns> usasunocm
Amman .counnaex.

nueevsus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.30. n «8.- I m «an In .3 nouaso Snow 8323? scans 53133 :5: seem
cannnsmun
vov as o.“ sasaen no suns no unonsn
osusasnns swoa nonessm non s: o.n sass Inns» "nannsasna<
no.vm nmo. + pvn.I I n nsoeso s>nsssnoxu suceonsnout .ahmn. >xnmm
ma oo.n no.ov sasssn
ususcsnns mnos nonsm «m on.m mv.on sass .ohan .ncnsnsx snvnn
no.vm on”. + cow. I n nsusso a nose. nodusesnn< .sssnno aonn sucsosum .voon. >uasco:
.90. I Munnnnunnenm
assesssnscnso
I .ppmn .conana<
ususesnns mnoe modem s asxoax_ canusasnn< nauseous
no.vm nmo. + men. I n com a: as nsvcsu scone coon was nus .ppoH. nsnonc< s >sxomx
Ace. I aunnnnsnnsn.
unsasocsnuns Hansunsu
ususesnna snma nonmesm I Arron .csnonct nuasosus
mo.vm mno. + con. I n oom so a: nsuaso s asxosx. genusasna< eusno anon can can «span. csnuHc< s >sxom:
.oo. I munannsnnsn.
csusesnns snos nonmasm >unusnsoen unconnsm
I no I m I .nbmn .esnonc< suescsun
.wmo. + ado. I n oom so an nsoeso s asxosxv :Onusasnn< susno anon ocs cum .hpanv conuncx a honest
an a: m.on sonaasn Acnmn .snsos
couscsnns snos nonaesm so a: n.o sense genuscsnns ao>esq. nauseous noocon can: Amman. scosnnsz
no.vm .vmo. H nnm. I m nsocsw acnusesna< nancsn nus» unnnm .cnunom .3» .snnoasq
so. on me.
ususEOnns I socsn >unnnnsnnsm
snoa nsocso czocxca Anson .ooon
noo.vm mm.vn I_~x .aonxosn. cenuscsnn¢ noussosnonsccs
nnscnnsnssns> mmn an ac nsoasw no snsom no cno nss> -Io~ .vnmnc cOoxomn
couscsnna snoa sons:
809mm 3.3 I .x as. on m...
suscnnsnssns> I suesn >unnnosnnsm
“mean .oomn
mo.vm vo.v I ma .conxosb. cOnuscsnn< nouszosnunsocs
asscs:0n< own as an neceso no snsom no uno nae» onIFH .vran. aOnxusb
I II I asnnsnns> nouoncsnm. .snnenns> ssoouso.
snnm nosnnu 2 cm x snssas: nseuo ensues: aOnusnsna< nodusnsnom soesnsnsx

 

is.ucoue m manna

19

than females are discussed first. Hendrix, Sederberg, & Miller (1990)
found males to be more alienated than females on a continuum of
commitment & alienation when comparing seniors from Midwest suburban
schools. On Dutt & Kureshi's measurements of alienation; including
despair, disillusionment, unstructured universe, narcism, psychological
vacuum; Mohanty (1984) found males to be more alienated than females
when comparing students from Orissa, India. Jackson (1973) found 18-19
year old undergraduate males to be more alienated on the powerlessness
dimension of the DJ scale of alienation than female undergraduates.
Simdlar findings for powerlessness were reported by Jackson (1974) for
males among 17-19 year old undergraduates and 20-22 year old
undergraduates on valuelessness. Among ninth and tenth grade public
school students, Mackey & Ahlgren (1977) found males to be largely more
alienated than females on the guidelessness dimension of an alienation
scale based on Seeman's constructs. Burbach (1972) found males to be
higher on Neal & Rettig's social powerlessness and on Dean's measure of
societal powerlessness. Males were also more alienated than females
according to Rode (1971) who used a shortened version of the Keniston
alienation scale with private school students from grades 10 through
twelve. Among white 11 to 18 year olds, males were found to be more
socially alienated in their speech as measured by content analysis in an
exploratory study by Gleser, Winget, & Seligman (1979). Across several
studies, males were more alienated than females in several age
categories on measures of alienation, including powerlessness and
valuelessness.

In contrast to findings of more alienation among males, several
other researchers reported higher alienation among females. Rafky
(1979) found a higher rate of expressive alienation, such as vandalism
and confrontations at school, among adolescent females. Among first
year junior high school students LaTorre, Yu, Fortin, & Marrache (1983)

reported higher alienation among females compared to males. Among ninth

20

and tenth grade public school students, Mackey & Ahlgren (1977) found
females to be much more alienated than males in regard to cultural
estrangement, and more alienated in terms of personal incapacity.
Burbach (1972) also found female tenth to twelfth graders to be more
alienated than males when compared on the dimension of high school
powerlessness. Calabrese & Seldin (1986) reported higher levels of
alienation, as measured by Dean's (1961) scale, among ninth grade
females. Gleser, Winget & Seligman (1979) found higher levels of social
alienation for females, as compared to males, among black 11 to 18 year
olds. In these instances, researchers were able to demonstrate higher
levels of alienation among females on some measures of alienation.

It is important to note the use of multiple measures of alienation
in these gender comparison studies. Important findings regarding
alienation can vary widely depending on the type of alienation, and
there may be interactions with other variables. To demonstrate this
effect, the following studies from above are highlighted. In Rafky's
study (1979), males were more likely to be rebellious and females were
more likely to be alienated. In this study rebellion was linked to
action taken to improve a situation of powerlessness while alienation
was aligned with inaction. This dimension points to not only a
difference in types of alienation but also to potential differences in
self-efficacy as well as participation.

In contrast to the inaction of the females in Rafky's study,
another analysis (Calabrese & Schumer, 1986) conducted in the late
1980's contended that high school females' alienation levels decreased
as they were particularly responsive to an involvement in a volunteer
community service project. Although the types of involvement mentioned
in these two studies use varied scales, it is possible that a difference
between the earlier females' inclination for inaction and the later
females' responsiveness to active involvement can be attributed to
cultural maturation effects as the roles of women have moved from

passive to more active and assertive. In considering the assessment of

21

alienation, gender differences may be masked in measurement issues and
in interactions with other variables such as ethnicity. Referring back
to Gleser, Winget, & Seligman (1979) of 11 to 18 year old students, race
appeared to be a factor in outcomes for each gender. Among black
students females were more alienated, but among white students male
students were more alienated.

When comparing male and female alienation it is difficult to make
strong general statements about the role of gender in fostering
alienation. Males and females from various ages, ethnic groups, and
types of schools have been compared using a variety of alienation
measures. Without replication of studies with similar variables and
measurements of alienation it is difficult to make assertions about the
role of gender as a single variable.

In summary, research on individual differences related to
alienation has suggested the following: First, a variety of factors may
be responsible for fostering alienation among youths. Second, there may
be problems of alienation construct validity if global measures of
alienation do not accurately measure alienation. Finally, alienation may
not be a unitary construct as measured by multiple instruments reviewed

in this text.

School Environment as an Ecological Correlate of Alienation

In addition to personal variables such as age and gender,
environmental variables, such as the school climate, also appear to have
a role in the development of alienation (See Table 6). For example,
some of the differences showing higher alienation among females have
been attributed to the masculinization of the junior and senior high
school environments (Calabrese & Schumer, 1986; Calabrese a Seldin,
1986; LaTorre, Yu, Fortin, & Marrache 1983). A.more in-depth look at

dimensions of the school environment can provide clues about alienation.

222

 

Shine

e.mmlumsuncou

no. mmm.In nsenm
Ennnsncounso
.AnOnnsndosn

on cOnusnsUnncoo.
.nnsen00n< "uncounosnd

.npan .no: u .nnsunu
.nszonnn3. >oonoson

Ann. I aunnnnsnnsn.
nasssnsnocncss:
.mmmn .nsssnox.

snneesOnunsso

anoocom

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I nnsnocncss: mv a: a: nonueoo nnnsm sosunuu< nnnsm can: means» 302 “Neon. >0:
36.31
n .mnIIumasncoo
no. mmm.In nmcnu
AnnOnssnoosn .mh. I munnnnsnnsn.
sns mosanuen .unnono. unsannsnnssom
.socsnucnz .Ennnsnvounsu Anson .50: s .nnsunm Amman .nsnsnox.
“snouOnosno .nszonnnse >oonoscn snnaeaonunsso nnoocom
I nnsconsnnszom mv a: an nonuaoo nnnsm sosunuu< nnnsm can: asnnsb 3oz Anson. >0:
Anson nunonu
I I s ananazc samenno Amman unooaom
no.vm non. + mnv.I In mv sq so nseOnuaunesono .nsnsnox. acnuaesnn< can: assnsb 3oz Anson. >0: s nonunsm
or. I nunnnnannsn
men as m.on sussnnm usunonsn ease snoocon can:
ns>sn mo.vm mmm a: p.pn Unnosa unsanssnEnoz I .nman sus>nnn can unnnso
.osunOan uoc I n "noocon no sd>9 .essoc canumcsnnt sonn suesosuu snsssm .npomn. snsnnsnso
or. I nunnnnannsn
men a: n.m~ sus>nnm usunoosn asso snoocon can:
ns>sH mmm s: n.p~ ennnsm genusnonn I .nwmn sus>nnd can ennnsd
noo.vm .osunoosn no: I n "noocon no saha .csso. genuscsnn< Bonn nauseous snsesm “organ. snsnosnsu
up. I >unnnnsnnsn
s: I m men s: ~.mn sus>nnm osunonsn case nnoocon can:
.ussnoaon no: I n mmn a: n.- onnnaa .nsmn su~>nna sea onnnsa
cOnumcsnns nsuoa “noozon no en>a .caoo. canus=0nn< EOnn uncanny» snnfism Lehman. ononnsnsu
usuacsnns Amman noozon
snos nucsmsun nannw - vs. om.m nannm .cosnsu:<. >noucs>EH >nsucoosn none eonn
no.vm an. + mnm. I n vn so. nn.m anon: acnusuosnxm noocom nauseous sosno cum Arman. escnunin><
en mm. om.~ sonsn
nn or. no.m annuss .mpmn noonun
I s: I m s an. oo.n nnmen .eonnsuc4. >nouas>en ansveoosn aunt sann Arman. xscnunIn><
.pmn. + mnn. I n snnm unsannonam acnusuosdxm neocom nauseous svsno cum
I II I .snnanns> nouUnusnmc .snnsnns> ssoouso.
snnm nosnnm 2 on x snsnssx nseuo snsnss: genusasnnt canusnsQOm soasnsnsm

 

 

connsconnd on udoEdonn>cm noocom no oncnconusnom

_w nannauhv

223

 

nanuonnso

 

 

 

 

an ~n.ohn Iucssssnos son
onusnasesc
s: mo.>mn Iueoessnos son
nanoonnao
so mm.mon Inassssnos can:
snunncsssc
s: n~.~mn Inasessnos can:
Enron .>o= s .nnsonu Amman .nsnsnox.
I I .nPJOnnnE moonoson snnsccOnunsao
no.vu «'0. + pnn. I n nvn nonucou nnnsm sosunuu< nnnaa nuasosun can: nanase .Nomnc ennssnm
no.vo mmn. + now. I n
ucsEnnOncw ucsosumi .smon .nsnsnoxc
no.vm mmn. + wmv. I n snnmccOnussso
sunn nnsum mv as so noocos no snnm sosunuu< nnnsa snoocon can: nnpan. >0: a noonnsnam
npsmn .no: s .nnssnm roman .nansnox.
I I .nszonnnx. >oonoson snnsc:0nunsso
no.vm non. + an.. In m. a: a: nonncou nnasa scannnna nnasa anooaon eon: Inpon. >0: n nounnanux
mnm.Iw_
o.nnInm~nncou
no.v mom.In nuann .ms. I annnnnmnnon.
annnsnoounso unscsnsnsnoz
.ucsEsosocsnno .mnon .>om s .nnsonm Amman .nsnsnoxc
“uncuonosno .nszonnnz. moonoson snns:20nunsso snoocom
I anscnnonanoz m. In an nonnaoo nnasa ouannnna nnnsn can: nouns» 3s: insane no:
I II I nonmmnna> nononuonns noannna>Immoon=oc
sunm uosnnu 2 am I ensues: nscuo onsssox cos-con? canusnsnom eccensnsm

 

AU.uCOUV 0 OHQMB

24

The size and geographical setting of the school are one facet of
the environment related to student alienation. A large relationship was
found between the geographic setting of the school and alienation.
Students from the rural schools were more alienated than students from
the urban school (Avi—Itzhak, 1987) which the author attributed to
differences in social and political climates between the two settings.
The size of the school was also a predictor of alienation. Large
correlations were found to suggest that students from schools with a
larger student enrollment and staff size were more alienated (Rafalides
& Hoy, 1971) although these findings were not supported by Ayi-Itzhak
(1987) in Arab secondary schools. These findings suggest that students
can feel alienated in school settings that provide them fewer
opportunities, such as rural schools, or in settings that are large or
impersonal and leave students feeling isolated.

Within the general environment of the school, the openness of the
climate and the control orientation has been linked to student
alienation. Students were less likely to be alienated in the more open
schools as reported by Hartley & Hoy (1972). Similarly, Rafalides & Hoy
(1971) reported that schools with a more custodial, rather than
humanistic control orientation, had pronounced levels of alienation. Hay
(1972) supported these findings in reporting custodialism.as a predictor
of normlessness, powerlessness, and meaningless in multiple regression.
Additionally, when students from.public and private schools were
compared, the private school, described as more controlling than the
public school, had more sizable levels of alienation than the public
school on the dimension of isolation (Calabrese, 1987b). However, in
this same study, students from the public school reported notable levels
of alienation on the normlessness dimension. Calabrese (1987b)
suggested that students from the private catholic school were given more
guidelines, so there were clear norms established in the controlling
environment. These studies suggest that school environments facilitated

alienation if they were too highly controlled or isolating for students.

25

However, the school environment was also alienating when guidelines were
unclear. .A healthy school environment can be described as one having a
balance between establishing clear rules while retaining openness in the
school and humanistic regard for students.

In addition to these general characteristics of the school
environment that foster alienation, a lack of fit between individuals
and their environments was found to exacerbate alienation. Agreement
between administrators and students regarding type of control and level
of control was important. Additionally, agreement between students'
developmental need for control and experience of control was necessary.
Disagreement between students and school staff has signified higher
levels of alienation. In one example (Shearin, 1982) eighth and ninth
grade students in schools with low agreement between students and staff,
in regard to pupil control orientation, scored higher on alienation than
students from.schools with high student-staff agreement.

Another example supports the importance of fit between the school
environment and individual control ideologies. Students in a
controlling environment with an intrinsic motivational style were less
engaged (Boggiano & Katz, 1991). In the typical junior high school
setting students had decreased opportunities for control although their
developmental need for control increased. This created a motivational
deficit for the students most advanced in their developmental need for
autonomy (Eccles, Miller Buchanan, Flanagan, Fuligni & Yee, 1991).

Having a match between students' developmental level and school
environment was pivotal. Case studies of precocious junior high
students pointed out that ill-fitting educational pace was responsible
for alienating bright students. Bright, but uninterested students were
seen as a problem. An alternate approach was developed which stated
that the level of education was too elementary for such bright students
that in turn lead to their disengagement in the classroom. Moving these
students into advanced studies in an honor college appeared to remove

the problem of alienation and their lack of acceptance by peers. These

26

otherwise disenfranchised students were quite successful in their new
environment (Stanley, 1975). Overall, the degree of "fit" between
student desires, developmental level, and school environment was a
critical factor in reducing alienation and promoting positive student
outcomes. Overall, the size, structure, setting, openness, and control
orientation of the school environment were important variables to

predicting assessing youth alienation.

Family Environment as an Ecological Correlate of Alienation

 

The family has been identified as a source of adolescent
alienation. One theory states that this is due to the bureaucratization
of the family in which parents are executives and children are products
in a dehumanizing environment (Young, 1985). Previous research provides
some support for the belief that the structure of the family can
facilitate alienation as noted in table 7.

Some elements of the structure of the family have been found to
influence the alienation of the children while other components have not
been found to be related to alienation. One—parent versus two-parent
households had no noticeable relationship to youth alienation
(Calabrese, 1988) and neither did the type of relationship that youth
held with significant adults (Galbo, 1983). However, the birth order
did appear to be a factor in alienation with a large correlation found
between the two variables. Calabrese (1988) found older children to be
more alienated than the later-born children.

Further aspects of the quality of the family life have been
related to alienation. Rural students in seventh, ninth, and eleventh
grades that had been referred to a mental health center for
interpersonal problems at home and school were shown to have higher
alienation scores on the dimensions of meaninglessness and
closemindedness than their peers (Gladding, 1977). The correlations
between these variables were large. However, a moderate correlation

revealed that the students not referred to the mental health center had

2'7

 

 

 

 

mn an n.av ennEOn
en so n.mv snse
nanucoo
mn we «.mm snseon
an a: m.v¢ snss
susnosansuan
mn a: m.mm snsssn
en a: «.pm snne
>50:0us<
.vmmn .unsnum
n 5328 .nonncoo 2. I 32358
.cooxv nuasecOnn>cs osunoo0n esso sunsos oaso>
I I nsoeoe0us< .nmon ansnoIsnoonz cos
no.vm men + omv. I n .n> oannnOnucou .csso. canuscsnn< sncsosun >unnns>nca nwmmn. curse
on. I Nunnnosnnsn munasssoo
uesnso snoenn osunonon esso ocsnocm 302 ansussz
no I m .n> ucsnao snnsoo Anoan cannonsn s Eonn
.oounoosn no: I m ov a: so snsuosnum >nnesm .esoo. eOnuscsnn< nauseous sosno cum Amman. snsnosnsu
an. I annnnn-nnsn annazesoo
osunoosn ease ocsnocm 302 ensunsz
I I .nson cannonsn s acnn
no.vm mvn. + mmm.I I n ov a: so nsono cunnm .easo. cOnuacsnnt sucsosun sosno cum .moonc snsnnsnsu
I II I .snnsnns> nouonosnm. nonnsnns> sEoouso.
snnm nosnnm 2 am : snssssx nscuo snsnss: eonuscsnnt cannonsnom suesnensm

 

 

conuscondfl ou ucofidonn>cm annash no ancnoonusnom

b vanes

 

nl

no.vm ano. n mmo. I

mm
mN

mm
mm

I~N OF
HN HH

osusasnns son
sonanonna can:
nnnnu

usuaasnna son
sonaaonna can:
n>om

.snnann~> seconso.
“swan .nsaooo.
acnussns>m nesnsm

no. I >unnnnanno¢
aonnns>

noun: nonnanna>
nouonoonmv «noon.
canuscsnnd esso

snocn Bonn nucsosum

insane nnassx s .noanm .Izcnm

 

no.va~mo. I no..- I n
unnnw\nsznoz

no.vm mmo. + n.m.- I
unnno\nocn~n

nl

mom

.vomn .nsnsscom.
aOnusson>nocn
no socsunooot

I n0n>snsm unsnsm

censnss oscsunocm
Amman .cOunncox.
snsom cenusesnn<

nucsosun
Guano zuwnicuon

«noon. Guam

 

283

no.vm,oso. + man. I n
unnaw\nsanoz
no.vm one. + an. I
annzoxnsanan

54

now

.vomn .nsnsmcomv
nonuaoo I >noucs>en
n0n>scsm uaonmm

cennns> osesunocm
«noon .cOunncoxv
snsom canusesnnt

suasosun
ouano annnIznon

.npon. soom

 

HI

no. n su.o- I

nl

moo. H nnm. I

nl

moo. H arm. I

Nnn
om
Nnn
on
Nnn
on

H

nuasosun
sucsnnOI
nucsosun
nucsnnOI
sucsosun
suesnnUI
Ansnnsnsn
nsuaso cunssc
nausea on unnomsnv

secs nu nmnnnsonnnnu

nsconnsnnsucn

nusescont
unscosocnesnOnu

unscnnsnoaneasx

nsnsonnsn usnaoc<
no snmom snoenm

mono nss> onI~n nsnsm

Aphan. oanuuano

 

s: I m

.osunonsn no: I n

nm

sunsoa unsunnncOnn
gun: nananconnansm

.vpmn
.asxosz. unsannsns<

canuscsnn< nasonsnoo<

unanasn noocon can:

Amman. canoe

 

ounm uoonnu

2|

2:

.snnanna> nononssnn.

snsnms: nszuo

nonnsnns> seoousoc
ensues: canusesnnt

eonusnsoom

suesnsnom

 

no.0d00. b wanna

29

higher scores on the aloneness dimension of alienation. It was assumed
that these students were not having problems with their families, unlike
their peers who had been referred to the mental health center due to
family or school problems. These findings suggest that problems in the
family may be related to some forms of alienation, although some
experience of alienation may not be atypical. Since the non—referred
students had higher scores on the aloneness dimension of alienation,
there may be feelings of alienation that are a normal part of the
adolescent developmental process.

Other assessments of the quality of the home life were found to be
related to alienation. Students scoring high on alienation reported
having lower esteem for their parents (Sinha, Singh, & Kumari, 1988) and
the correlation between these variables were very large. These studies
suggest that there are differences in the family environments of
alienated youth, although the direction of the influence is unclear.
Structural components such as single-parent were not related to
alienation, but the quality of the relationships with parents appears to
be an important element.

The controlling nature of the family has also been studied for its
impact on youth alienation. Overall, higher levels of control in the
family have been associated with alienation, just as it has been in the
school environment. Conspicuous levels of alienation have been reported
in family environments characterized by control rather than autonomy
(DeMan, 1982). Rode (1971) reported that alienation was more salient
with controlling mothers and fathers. Rode (1971) also reported large
inverse relationships between alienation and both mothers' and fathers'
acceptance of youths' individuation. The role of the controlling family
climate is an apparent factor in youth alienation. In summary, some
aspects of the family structure, the controlling climate, and the
parent-child interaction have been found to relate to the development of

adolescent alienation.

30

Empowerment as a Contradiction to Alienation

Community psychologists are admonished to go beyond preventing
alienation and look toward promoting empowerment (Kieffer, 1984;
Rappaport, 1981). One alternative that has been offered to alienation
is empowerment (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Empowerment encompasses
more than an absence of alienation. It has included self—efficacy,
positive self-concept, social support, critical awareness and
understanding, and participatory competence (Kieffer, 1984; Zimmerman &
Rappaport, 1988). Empowerment has been described as containing elements
of positive self-concept or self-competence, analytical understanding of
the socio-political context surrounding oneself, and the formation of
individual and group resources for socio-political action purposes. The
notion of participatory competence (Kieffer, 1984) includes the
"cultivation of individual and collective resources for social and
political action (p. 31)." This includes a behavioral dimension as well
as a psychological dimension. Action cannot coexist with the inaction
inherent within alienation. Rafky (1979) illustrated this point. In
that study alienation was inversely related to rebellion. Rebellion
contained an element of action and a desire to have an influence to make
things better.

The dimension of action is an important contradiction to
alienation. Engagement and involvement have been used in contradiction
to alienation. These positive outcomes have been facilitated by proper
person-environment fit in the school setting (Boggiano & Katz, 1991;
Eccles, Miller Buchanan, Flanagan, Fuligni & Yee, 1991). For these
reasons it is important to assess the environmental impact on the
development of empowerment in addition to alienation. Expanding studies
of alienation to include dimensions of empowerment is one avenue to

build on previous research.

31

Alienation, as construed by Seeman (1959), can be seen as a
contrast to empowerment. Powerlessness, as a component of alienation,
was described as a belief that behaviors could not produce desired
outcomes. Similarly, meaningless was depicted as a low expectancy that
future outcomes of behavior could be made. These dimensions typify a
sense of hopelessness and futility in influencing outcomes. This has
been confirmed by other research indicating that a lack of mastery and
control was a key element in the development of alienation (Wilkerson,
Protinsky, Maxwell, & Lentner, 1982). Conversely, theories of
empowerment have included elements of power, connectedness, and
awareness (Kieffer, 1984; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). Having
appropriate or desired level of control was demonstrated to have great
importance to students in their junior and senior high school
environments (Boggiano & Katz, 1991; Eccles, Miller Buchanan, Flanagan,
Fuligni & Yee, 1991; Hoy, 1972; Stanley, 1975) and to college students
in their family environments (DeMan, 1982). Therefore, it is
appropriate to consider empowerment, characterized by a sense of
control, as antithetical to alienation.

Normlessness, as a partial measurement of alienation, was
characterized by a belief that one must engage in atypical social
behaviors to achieve desired goals. Similarly, isolation was said to
occur when an individual ascribed low rewards to commonly valued
societal beliefs and goals. These dimensions portray a lack of
agreement between an individual and the surrounding environment. Within
the milieu of beliefs, varying roles, and the socialization of youth,
several researchers have noted that the concept of person environment
fit was important for positive outcomes (Boggiano & Katz, 1991; Eccles,
.Miller Buchanan, Flanagan, Fuligni & Yee, 1991; Stanley, 1975; Hay,
1972). Aligning oneself with an activity or organization demonstrates a
sense of belonging, as supported by Hendrix, Sederberg, & Miller's
(1990) use of school commitment as a polar opposite to alienation.

Studies have affirmed the importance of the match between students and

32
their school environments. Jones (1977) found that university students
were shown to be at risk for drug use when they were experiencing
loneliness or discomfort in their college environment and demonstrating
vulnerability to the powerlessness dimension of alienation. This
compatibility between an individual and the surrounding environment is

an important consideration when measuring empowerment.

Correlates of Empowerment

 

Unlike the isolation and meaningless depicted by alienation, a
sense of connectedness and purpose is part of empowerment. Studies
previously discussed in this review have indicated that this empowerment
was facilitated by voluntary participation in community activities
(Calabrese a Schumer, 1986; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988). In one study
(Calabrese & Schumer, 1986), high school students participating in a
voluntary, student-controlled community service project were much lower
in alienation, isolation, and discipline problems than their peers in
the control group. In another example, undergraduates participating in
community activities were considerably higher in political efficacy,
self-efficacy, mastery, perceived competence, desire for control, and
civic duty than the nonparticipants (Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988).
Taking an active role in a community, participating in purposeful work,
and following intrinsic desires appeared to have a role in discouraging
the development of alienation while contributing to the advancement of

empowerment for youth.

Outcomes Associated with Empowerment
Consistent with the notions of empowerment, several favorable
outcomes have been associated with the lack of alienation at school,
home, and in the community as noted in Table 2 previously. These
positive outcomes can be placed in the framework of empowerment. In
general, low alienation has been negatively related to longer

participation in community service according to Rode (1971). Within the

33

family, alienation has been negatively correlated with positive
involvement with mother and father according to Calabrese & Schumer
(1986). In these instances, the lack of alienation has been associated
with positive involvement with the family and community.

Positive involvement and achievement at school have been often
related to the lack of alienation. Less alienated students have been
documented by Burbach (1972) to be much more active in extracurricular
activities when alienation was measured by societal powerlessness,
social powerlessness, and high school powerlessness. Students who were
less alienated at school were more likely to be involved in class and
varsity teams, according to Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel (1982). From these
studies it can be said that school involvement is inversely related to
alienation.

In addition to school activities, academic achievement also
appears to be negatively related to student alienation. .Although Warner
& Hansen (1970) reported no differences in grade point averages among a
group of alienated high school juniors, other researchers reported large
differences between alienated and non-alienated youth: Burbach (1972)
reported higher grade point averages among tenth to twelfth grade
students scoring lower on societal powerlessness, social powerlessness,
and high school powerlessness. Similarly, Hendrix, Sederberg, & Miller
(1990) reported that lower alienation was related to higher grade point
averages among seniors from.suburban high schools. Verma (1990) also
found that high achievers were less alienated than low achievers.

From these multiple sources of research, one could expect higher
levels of achievement and involvement among those students less
alienated. Empowered youth have been found to be more active in the
community and positively involved at home and at school. They have also
demonstrated higher academic achievement than alienated peers. Although
these relationships are found, the direction of influence is not known.
Further studies are needed to clarify the developmental nature of

empowerment, involvement, and achievement in these arenas.

34

Operationalization of Measures

The measurement of alienation and meaningful factors related to
alienation, has been operationalized in many ways. It is important to
review strategies for measurement of these important constructs. The
main variables to consider are family environment, school environment,
empowerment, and alienation.

The family environment, as measured by the Family Environment
Scale (FES), (Moos & Moos, 1981) is a useful because of its demonstrated
relationship to various psychological functioning measures (See Table
8). The FES has been related to adolescent distress (Kleinman, Handal,
Enos, Searight, & Ross, 1989), self-concept (Felner, Aber, Primavera, &
Cauce, 1985; Nelson, 1984), adolescent achievement (Nelson, 1984),
adolescent depression (Friedrich, Reams, & Jacobs, 1988), post-divorce
adjustment (Farber, Felner, & Primavera, 1985), and adjustment to
parental alcoholism (Dinning & Berk, 1989). Families in different
situations, such as having a psychologically maladjusted child (Fox,
Rotatori, Macklin, Green, & Fox, 1983), have showed differences when
compared against normative FES data. Important differences have been
demonstrated in families having a child in early adolescence compared to
families with a child in late adolescence (Alessandri & Wozniak, 1989).
Gender differences have been demonstrated in youth's perceptions of
their family environment (Margalit & Eysenck, 1990). The many uses of
the Family Environment Scale to assess family functioning in relation to
adolescent adjustment or maladjustment suggest that it is an appropriate
measure to use in assessing family functioning related to adolescent
alienation.

The school environment, as measured by Trickett and Moos (1974) in
the Classroom Environment Scale (CES), has also demonstrated usefulness
as a correlate for assessing youth adjustment (See Table 9). The CES
has been related to scholastic self-concept (Felner, Aber, Primavera, &

Cauce, 1985; Madonna, Bailey, & Wesley, 1990; Nelson, 1984), positive

135

nssuounn Donovnnnoo vounnIN one Geno anon»

ns>nsuan consonnsoo ooonaiu ems ssso sonnet

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nsosno
mo.v m .n~.II m man a: a: "assesssncos nesossnoo< nonueou unsosno casinos .vmon. cosnsz
mo.va .ou. I n can so so unscaOOInnsn onunsnocom canusunesuno snot-nu assigns .vomn. connsz
mo.va .n~.II n can so as unsoeooInnsn unansnosom nonueoo unsosnu cuoIcup .vomn. ecsnsz
.mn. on nn.w nnm ov. vo.~ sensesm nauseous nnssnsn
nn. I n npm as. sp.~ nuns: nounso nonncoo sno nus» on on «n lemon. nonsnnu s nnnaonu:
.se 0» saw n~omn .nseuasn nauseous .momn. snom s .ucOnnssm
noo.v a .On. I n mmm so an nmmn. nssnunno nsonoOnocohsm nonuaoo ono nos» on on an .soeu .nsoaa: .assensnx
in: on new .~san .nsnuasn unasusnn Insane anon n .naunnasm
noo.v m .mn.I I n mom a: an «own. nusnunno nsonOOnocu>sm canusnnasuno ono noon on on nn .nocm .nsoesm .emsdnsnx
as: on new snnnu soanu .mman.
no.v m .Nm. I n hvn s: s: canonsnnso unsunsnoo< nonueoo sauna oes cuconm season a .nsssm .connosnnm
.I: on new «nan s>nnmanoz mun sonnsnuanaa annanoon Amman. non s
mo.v m .mn.~ I u so we so .n> nucsosun snnesm aOnusnncsono osnonsn nucsonsnoo< .cssno .cnnxosx .nnousuom .xom
as: on so. acnncsano nuasosun noocon Amman. sosso
no.v m .Nn. I a omm a: an unsocooInnsn snunsnocom oncn=0nusnsm onnnsn hunUInsecn s .sns>~anna .nsn< .nsansm
.nsonunno
cnwn snonsn osono>no
.mm. 0» m~.w no osusnsasn suasnsd. Amman.
mu. I n mm s: a: >unnnuno= nonucoo sucsosun sosnnoo sns>mannm w .nsensm .noonsm
asnnocoons
as: an new nancsnsn an osusnsn nn scone acnn
noo.v m .mn.I I n vmv s: s: nssnunno nounoOnono>nm cannsnou suesonsnoos nsnam Amman. unsm u acneeno
uno annex anIan
.en. on m~.w nm vo.m m~.am seasonsnoos susn no nnIun suesonsnoos
mm. I n nm nn.on no.~m socsonsnoos mnnsm :Onusnncsono cun3_nsnnnssm Amman. nsnenoz s nnocsnssn<
.snnsnns> saoouso.
too on «9.: I I I usnsom
sunm nosnnm 2 on x .snnanns> nonunosnm. nasaeonn>am >nnesm cannonsnom soasnsnsm
Admmfl nuOOZ a ”002. OHMUm UGQEGOHA>GHINHHEUH find 0» OUUfldflmimchOHUUGdh HQOHWOHO£QNWQ HO nUHSOMUZ

m 0.33.

ns>nsuan seasonnaoo osonsIu one once unsm.

ns>nsuen seasonnaoo .33st «mo ssso unnoz.

 

 

 

 

 

36

 

 

 

 

nssnsno
no.v m .vm. I m mm as so munnnnsnOOs nssm canusnncsono s neono unsosus aennonm Anomn. nszou s unannz
I sssnsno
no.v m .pm. I n mm s: s: woos s>nunnom :Onus>oacn unsosus sonoonm nwomn. c0300 s uconnz
no: on saw noooaoo
mo.v m .nw. I n man so a: Inns» snussnocom canua>oacn unsosno cuoisup .vomn. cannsz
as: on new unsoaou
no.v m .m~.II n man so a: Innsn Unuusnocom nonueoo nscossa nnsosnu cuoieuh Avomn. connoz
as: on new unsoeoo
mo.v m .m~. I n can an s: Innsn onussnocom canusnncsono u neono onsosno cuoIcun .vmmn. connoz
3.. on 59 naoonoo 83:
on. I n vm s: so Innsn ununsnocom canusnnaaono s noono unsosnu cumicuv asnnoS s .>snnsm .secoos:
nonos no
sosno cum osusnmaoo.
Asa 0» sec nasoaoo cannessno noesosus nooeon Amman. sossu
mo.v m .mn.II n omw s: a: Inns» onunsnocom cuzono ns:0nnsm onnnso >unounsoen s .sns>sannm .non< .nsensm
.snos no
scone cum osusnasoov
As: on an. udooaoo canncsano sucsosun noocon .mmmn. sosso
noo.v m .mm. I n omm we a: Inns» onunsnocom onescOnusnox ennnsd munOInsecn s .snssmfinnm .nso< .nscnsm

 

donnnnng 28383
:8 on De 3:8
snnm uosnnm nonosnna> nonunosnm. oceanonn>cm Scannseno

conuansnom soasnsnsm

2|
O
U)
3:

 

 

.vrmn £002 a uuoxonnav onsom udoEdonnZnu Eoonnnsno can on osusnsm nonconuocsm neonmonocomnm no nonsnsoz

m canon.

37

mood, and peer sociability (Wright & Cowen, 1982). This suggests that
the CES is also an appropriate measure to use in assessing environmental
factors in the school related to adolescent alienation.

The measurement of alienation has often been based on the
conceptualization of Seeman (1959) who set forth five dimensions of
alienation. In his definition he proposed five dimensions of
alienation. These dimensions included: 1) powerlessness - a subjective
perception or objective situation in which one's behavior cannot
determine outcomes; 2) meaninglessness - a "low expectancy that
satisfactory predictions about future outcomes of behavior can be made
(p. 786)"; 3) normlessness - a ”high expectancy that socially unapproved
behaviors are required to achieve given goals (p. 788)"; 4) isolation -
a situation or state that is evident when individuals ”assign low reward
to goals and beliefs that are typically highly valued in a given society
(p. 789.)”; and 5) self-estrangement - a situation or state in which
one's behavior is determined on the basis of anticipated rewards.

This foundational article was used by Dean (1961) to create the
Dean.Alienation Scale used in much of the sociological literature on
alienation. Dean collapsed the five concepts into three dimensions of
powerlessness (.78 split—half reliability), normlessness (.73 split-half
reliability), and social isolation (.84 split-half reliability). This
twenty-four-item total alienation scale was found to have a .78 internal
consistency reliability coefficient by Dean in his original work. Both
Dean (1961) and Seeman (1959) described alienation as a non-unitary
trait in which both individual and situational factors have a role.
.Although widely used, Dean's alienation scale, as with many others, was
developed on non-adolescent populations during another era (Mackey &
.Ahlgren, 1977). Others studies have corroborated this belief (Hartley 5
iHoyy 1972; Downs, 1990). Dean actually found a normal distribution
curve for the subscales of alienation on the dimensions of occupation,
education, income, community type, and age. Because the hypothesis of a

:negative correlation between those demographic factors and alienation

38

was rejected, and because the scores on the alienation scales extended
the full range, Dean did not consider the components and scales to be
artifacts. This prompted his explanation that alienation may be more of
a situational variable that a personality trait. To consider the
importance of settings in the origination of alienation, it was
important to devise measures sensitive to alienation produced in various
settings. In addition to the use of the Dean Alienation scale (1961),
setting—specific measures of alienation in the school and family were
devised by the author for use in the current research. These measures
used the same three dimensions as understood by Dean, which include
powerlessness, normlessness, and social isolation. Using these
definitions of alienation it was also possible to use proxy variables,
such as number of activities engaged in at school or with the family, to
assess the extent of alienation in these settings. The juxtaposition of
these same dimensions was used in the current research to assess
empowerment. This was consistent with research by Hendrix, Sederberg, &
Miller (1990) who operationalized alienation as an opposite of

commitment.

Reasons for the Present Study

 

The current research examines several areas that have been
inconclusive in past research. These areas to be examined include
assessments of the construct validity of alienation, and the
relationship of personal and ecological variables to alienation within a
multivariate framework. Previous research has focused on bivariate
analysis which has not clarified whether or not alienation is a
predictor or outcome variable. The present research considers multiple
variables within one model and examines the direction of influence to
and from alienation.

Examining the construct validity of alienation is one of the
primary objectives of the current research. Despite theoretical

discussions of the interplay of personal and environmental factors on

39

alienation, subsequent measures of alienation (often based on the work
of Seeman and Dean) have primarily measured alienation as a global trait
that has individual or environmental covariates (e.g., Dutt & Kureshi,
1976: Jackson, 1968; Keniston, 1965; Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982;
Lanyon, 1970; Mackey & Ahlgren, 1977; and Neal & Rettig, 1967). From
the empirical and theoretical foundations of knowledge two contrasting
models of alienation have been offered. The theoretical model suggests
that alienation is heavily linked to specific environmental settings,
while the empirical model suggests that alienation is personality-based
by the overwhelming use of a global measure of alienation.

The disparity between the theoretical and empirical notions of
this alienation construct has limited the ability of researchers and
practitioners to fully understand the development of alienation. This
disparity raises questions about the construct validity of alienation as
a global or setting—specific measurement. Therefore, the present
research focuses on major variables from.both individual and ecological
domains to examine the nature of adolescent alienation. In doing so,
the current research explores the usefulness of the global measure of
alienation in comparison to context-specific measures of alienation for
understanding the presence of alienation in adolescents.

The research also compares the importance of environmental factors
along with individual factors in the development of alienation in the
family and in the school. These two areas of investigation will add to
the present debate about the socio-psychological versus the sociological
(Calabrese, 1987a) notion of alienation. Investigating the
environmental factors in alienation moves this research away from the
"person-centered" research that is characterized by ”person-blame"
attributions (Caplan & Nelson, 1973).

By including environmental and individual factors in this study,
new domains of inquiry will be established and others will be
replicated. This study is unique in assessing both classroom

environment and family environment for their roles in facilitating or

40

hindering alienation. Other attempts will be made to replicate or
clarify previous findings. This includes the previous finding that
alienation decreased with age. This study will examine the impact of
age on alienation with a population with an extended range of ages. The
ages in youth in this study range from 12 to 19. Gender will also be
included in this study to supplement previous research showing
inconsistent relationships between gender and alienation. The present
research is expected to clarify issues surrounding the nature of
alienation and to assess individual and ecological factors in the
development of alienation.
Hypotheses
Bivariate Hypotheses

Alienation and Empowerment

Alienation has been shown to be antithetical to empowerment
(Rafky, 1979; Zimmerman, 1990). Additionally, students that were less
alienated tended to be involved at home (Rode, 1971), at school
(Burbach, 1972; Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982), and in the community
(Calabrese & Schumer, 1986). Although these researchers measured
alienation in general, it can be expected that alienation and
empowerment are inversely related in specific settings. Therefore, the
same variables that relate to alienation may also relate to empowerment.

In line with previous research, the following hypotheses are stated:

H: School empowerment will be negatively correlated with school
alienation.

H: Family empowerment will be negatively correlated with family
alienation.

Individual Correlates of Alienation and Empowerment

 

Previous research has suggested that individual variables are
important to consider when investigating adolescent alienation. Younger
adolescents have been found to be more alienated than their older

counterparts on general alienation and school alienation (Ayi-Itzhak,

41

1987; Burbach, 1972; Jackson, 1973; Jackson, 1974; Rode, 1971). Because
alienation has also been linked to the home (Rode, 1971), it is also
possible that younger adolescents would also be more alienated from

their family than older youth. Therefore, these hypotheses are offered:

H: Grade level will be negatively correlated with school
alienation.

H: Grade level will be positively correlated with school
empowerment.

H: Grade level will be negatively correlated with family
alienation.

H: Grade level will be positively correlated with family
empowerment.

Gender has also been believed to be an important consideration in
youth alienation. Many researchers have included gender analyses in
their inquiries, with mixed results. Both males and females have
demonstrated higher levels of alienation, depending on the measures used
and the age of the respondents. Although it is difficult to anticipate
the response to the alienation measures used in this study, the recent
work of Rogers & Gilligan (1988), has suggested that adolescent females
have been at much greater risk than males to lose self-confidence. They
have proposed that females receive conflicting messages about
appropriate roles for women. This tension between individual desires
and societal norms can be likened to Dean's concept of guidelessness.
Therefore, the following hypotheses are given for further study:

H: Gender will be negatively correlated with school alienation.

(Females will have a higher alienation score.)

H: Gender will be positively correlated with school

empowerment. (Males will have a higher empowerment score.)

H: Gender will be negatively correlated with family alienation.

(Females will have a higher alienation score.)

H: Gender will be positively correlated with family

empowerment. (Males will have a higher empowerment score.)

42

Ecological Correlates of Alienation and Empowerment

 

In addition to naming demographic variables, researchers have
pursued environmental origins of youth alienation. Special attention
has been paid to the family and school environments. The issue of
control has important consequences for the development of health
autonomy in adolescents (Steinberg, 1990). The type of control
adolescents exert and have exerted over them were important contributors
in the school (Calabrese, 1987b; Hartley & Roy, 1972; Hoy, 1972;
Rafalides & Hay, 1971) and the home (DeMan, 1982; Rode, 1971). In both
settings, research strongly suggests that authoritarian control
facilitates alienation. These hypotheses are submitted in consideration

of such research:

H: Family control will be positively correlated with family
alienation.

H: Family control will be negatively correlated with family
empowerment.

H: Teacher control will be positively correlated with school
alienation.

H: Teacher control will be negatively correlated with school
empowerment.

In addition to appropriate levels of control, person-environment
fit has been established as necessary to prevent alienation. The lack
of agreement between the school setting and students' ideas about how
the environment should be structured was responsible for alienating
youth (Shearin, 1982; Stanley, 1975). Other studies have pointed out
that students' engagement and involvement in school decreased when there
was not appropriate fit between developmental needs of youth and the
structure of the school setting (Boggiano & Katz, 1991; Eccles, Miller
Buchanan, Flanagan, Fuligni & Yee, 1991). These studies suggest that
salient features in the settings where youth spend their time should be

adjusted to meet individual needs.

43

Extremes of important structural components may be unsuitable.

Too much or too little of these elements are expected to foster

alienation.

Using the System Change/System Maintenance dimension of the

environment scales (Moos & Moos, 1981; Trickett & Moos, 1974) important

elements of the organizational structure can be assessed for their

impact on alienation. These hypotheses suggest that the following

variables facilitate student alienation when in excess or shortage.

H:

Family order/organization will have a "U—shaped" curvelinear
relationship with family alienation to demonstrate an
optimum level.

Family order/organization will have an "inverted U—shape"
curvelinear relationship with family empowerment to
demonstrate an optimum level.

Classroom order will have a ”U—shaped" curvelinear
relationship with school alienation to demonstrate an
optimum level.

Classroom order will have an "inverted U-shape" curvelinear
relationship with family empowerment to demonstrate an
optimum.level.

Teacher rule clarity will have a "U-shaped" curvelinear
relationship with school alienation to demonstrate an
optimum.level.

Teacher rule clarity will have an "inverted U-shape"
curvelinear relationship with family empowerment to
demonstrate an optimum level.

Teacher innovation will have a "U-shaped” curvelinear
relationship with school alienation to demonstrate an
optimum.level.

Teacher innovation will have an "inverted U-shape"
curvelinear relationship with family empowerment to

demonstrate an optimum level.

44

Alienation Outcomes

Alienation has been understood as having an isolation component
(e.g., Anderson, 1973; Dean, 1961; Kolesar, 1956; Seeman, 1959; Sharma,
1988). Alienated individuals have also been seen as less engaged at
home (Rode, 1971), in school work or activities (Burbach, 1972; Hendrix,
Sederberg, & Miller, 1990; Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982; Verma, 1990),
and in the community (Calabrese & Schumer, 1986; Zimmerman, 1990) and
have achieved less academically (Bronfenbrenner, 1979; Moyer & Motta,

1982). For these reasons the following hypotheses are proposed:

H: Family alienation will be negatively correlated with family
activities.

H: School alienation will be negatively correlated with school
activities.

H: School alienation will be negatively correlated with school
attendance.

H: School alienation will be negatively correlated with school

grade point average.

Integrative Path Medels

 

In addition to the hypotheses specified above, two path models
were designed to encompass these individual relationships within a
larger framework. Because the family and school settings are expected
to have differential impacts on alienation, two separate models are
hypothesized.

In the family setting, several factors are believed to facilitate
alienation (See Figure 1). Gender and age are expected to facilitate
family empowerment. Older students and males were expected to have
greater empowerment in the family. The increase in autonomy and
privileges, such as driving or staying up later, is believed to increase
empowerment. In keeping with previous research on gender and alienation
having inconsistent findings, it is hypothesized that gender will affect

alienation, although the direction is not known. As family empowerment

45

 

 

   
   
   
 

Family
Alienation

 

Family
Activities

 

46

increases, alienation in the family declines. Family environment,
including order and control, is also expected to impact family
alienation. A family high in control and order may be too restrictive
for youth, especially since the development of autonomy is important.
The impact of family order, however, may be masked if it has the
expected curvelinear relationship with family alienation. The reduced
family alienation is expected to facilitated increased involvement in
family activities. Youth that feel empowered in their home setting will
value time spent with family. This model outlines the overall expected
relationships between individual and ecological factors in the
development of family alienation.

In the school setting, several factors are believed to facilitate
alienation (See Figure 2). Similar to the model above, gender and age
are expected to facilitate school empowerment. Older students were
expected to have greater empowerment at school in keeping with previous
research findings. The school may also offer more autonomy and
privileges to older students, such as late arrival, flexible class
scheduling, senior class trips, and more leadership roles in activities.
Gender is also expected to impact school alienation. .Although earlier
researchers found inconsistencies in gender effects on alienation, it is
hypothesized that females will be less empowered as some researchers
(Calabrese & Schumer, 1986; Calabrese & Seldin, 1986; LaTorre, Yu,
Fortin, & Marrache 1983) have criticized that the junior and senior high
school environment is a more "masculinized" environment. As school
empowerment increases, alienation in the school is presumed to decline.
Order, control, rule clarity, innovation in the classroom are also
expected to impact school alienation. .A classroom high in control,
order, and rule clarity may be too confining for youth, especially since
the development of autonomy is important. Too much innovation may also
be unsettling for students. The reduced school alienation is expected
to facilitate positive outcomes such as increased involvement in school

activities, reduced absences, and increased grade point averages. Youth

47

School
powennen

CES:
Rule Clarity
School

 

Alienation

      
    

CES:
Innovation

 

School
Activities

 

School
Absences

Figure 2

   

48

that feel empowered at school may take greater interest in academic and
extracurricular pursuits. This model outlines the overall expected
relationships between individual and ecological factors in the

development of school alienation.

Method
Sample

Data was collected at a rural junior/senior high school consisting
of grades seven through twelve. The total number of students enrolled
at the time of the data collection was 742. Archival data (gender and
grade level) was collected and analyzed for this population of 742.
Grade point averages were available for the high school students (N=429)
in grades nine through twelve, but not for junior high students.

Because pairwise analyses were used, the total sample size for
each analysis varies by the amount of valid cases available in each
variable. Efforts were made to insure the maximum number of valid
responses could be used. For respondents with less than 35% missing
data on a given scale, the missing data was replaced with the mean. For
any given analysis of variables from the questionnaire, the maximum
number of respondents in the sample size was 316. Due to some remaining
missing data, sample sizes as low as 311 were used in analyses involving
variables contained in the questionnaire. Analyses involving the
archival data utilized sample sizes ranging from 181 to 740
participants.

No meaningful differences were detected between responders and
non-responders on the basis of gender. A.very low correlation was found
between gender (5 = .0507, conf 95% = —.02 5 g g .12) and responding to
the survey. Slightly more females (2 = 163, 51.6% of respondents) than
males (2 = 153, 48.4% of respondents) returned questionnaires. The
total population of students in the school consisted of slightly more

males (51.2%) than females (48.5%).

49

No large differences were found between responders and non-
responders on the basis of grade level (See Table 10). A very low
correlation was found between grade level (5 = .0168, conf 95% = -.06 g
Q 5 .09) and responding to the survey. Although grade level differences
were not large, a higher percentage of the respondents were from the
younger grades.

Low to moderate differences on grade point average and school
attendance were found between students returning questionnaires and
those not responding. Responders had higher grades (M = 3.02, SE = .64)
than non-responders (M = 2.62, SE = .73) on a 4.0 point scale, (5 = -
.2749, conf 95% = -.36 g Q 5 -.19). Non-responders also had greater
days absent from.school (M = 4.05, SD = 4.36) than responders (M = 3.02,
SQ - 3.79) with a resulting correlation of E = .1226, conf 95% = .05 3,9
5 .20). Findings suggest that higher achieving students and students
with fewer absences are over represented in the sample of respondents.
Table 10

Percentage of Respondents by Grade Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Grade Level Number of students Percentage of Total Responding
7th 64 20.3
8th 58 18.4
9th 56 17.7
10th 56 17.7
11th 48 15.2
12th 34 10.8
Design

The current research employed a non-experimental cross-sectional
design. The paper and pencil survey was given to students for a one-
time data collection during the spring of 1993. Students were from a

rural school with combined junior and senior high schools.

50

Procedures

Parent permission and student assent were obtained prior to the
distribution of surveys. To accomplish that task, the researcher went
to the research site two weeks prior to the survey date. The teachers
agreed to meet with the researcher before school that day. All teachers
were given permission slip packets for their third period classes and
instructions on how to distribute these materials. Each third period
student was given a letter addressed to parents that explained the
project and requested that parents sign and return the permission slip
if they wanted their child to participate. Along with the letter was a
self-addressed stamped envelope for the parents to return the permission
slip. Students were told about the survey and were allowed to read the
letter that was being sent to their parents. To facilitate the
distribution of the permission slips to parents, these letters were
mailed to parents rather than given to students to take home. Students
were involved in this process because they were given large envelopes to
address to their parents and enclose the permission slip and reply
envelope in the larger envelope. At the end of third period classes,
the researcher picked up envelopes addressed by students and mailed them
from the university. Teachers reported that some students chose not to
mail envelopes home to their parents. Teachers retained extra
permission slip packets to distribute to students who were absent.

Those students were told to take the permission slip packets home to
their parents rather than having them.mailed.

On the day of the data collection, the researcher returned to the
third period classes to give surveys to those students who had
permission slips on file. Students were read the consent information
which indicated that the survey was voluntary. Some students with
consent forms on file chose not to participate in the survey. Some
students without permission slips on file brought permission slips with
them to class and they were given surveys. Several students remarked

that they had returned permission slips but they were not on file with

51

the researcher. A.list of these students names were gathered and they
were given new permission slip packets to return. An unanticipated
problem was later discovered with the mailing of the permission slips.
A large time lag was found receiving mail from one of the small villages
because mail was rerouted to a larger city before coming to the
university. Many permission slips revealed a two-week delay from the
date of the parents' signatures on the permission slips to the incoming
envelope postmark date. Several permission slips were received in the
mail after the survey collection date and efforts were made to deliver
surveys to these students after the original data collection date.
Teachers were given surveys 1) for their students that had
permission slips on file but were absent, 2) for students that wanted to
take the survey but didn't have permission slips on file, and 3) for
students whose permission slips were received after the original data
collection date. The researcher returned to the school two weeks later
to collect surveys from.those students who were absent from school on
the test day and from those students that returned pemmission slips
later. Less than two dozen surveys were collected after the original
data collection date. A.total of 316 students returned questionnaires,
producing a response rate of 42.6% for the entire data collection.
Including all permission slips received before, during, and after the
data collection, a total of 387 permission slips was returned with 361

of them providing consent.

Results‘

Measures and Psychometric Properties

Reliability

 

The internal consistency of the measures used in the current

research are reported below as Cronbach alphas after performing a

 

‘In the results presented in the current research, all correlations reported
or used in statistical computations have been corrected for attenuation unless
otherwise specified.

52

confirmatory factor analysis of the present data. Confirmatory factor
analysis was performed using multiple group analyses with communalities
(Nunnally, 1978). The program that utilized this technique is called
CFA, written by Hunter & Cohen (1969).

Grade level of students was reported by responders on the
questionnaire. Archival data was utilized to gain this information for
all students, including those not completing questionnaires. This
variable was assumed to have a reliability of 1.0.

Age of students was reported by responders on the questionnaire
and was assumed to have a reliability of 1.0.

Gender of students was reported by responders on the
questionnaire. Archival data was used to gain this information for non-
responders. This variable was assumed to have a reliability of 1.0.

Grade‘point averages (GPA) of students were obtained from archival
data in school records. This information was figured cumulatively by
semester starting with ninth grade unless a student transferred from
another school which recorded GPA before the ninth grade. This
information was assumed to have a reliability of 1.0.

Student absences from school were obtained from archival data in
school records and were assumed to have a reliability of 1.0. This data
was recorded in whole or part days missed.

School activities of students were reported on the questionnaire
and were assumed to have a reliability of 1.0. Students reported which
of the nine activity categories they participated in at school.

Teachers noted that many activities were offered to the students in
grades nine through twelve only and this may affect younger students'
participation rates.

Participation in family activities by students was reported on the
questionnaire and was assumed to have a reliability of 1.0. Students
reported which of the seven activity categories they participated in
with their family.

53

A 16-item shortened version of the Classroom Environment Scale
System.Maintenance System Change dimension (Trickett & Moos, 1974), was
used in the self—report questionnaire. The first four items of each of
the following scales in this domain were used: classroom order, rule
clarity, teacher control, and innovation. Three items were dropped
after performing a confirmatory factor analysis using the statistical
program, CFA, written by Hunter & Cohen, (1969). The output of this
analysis is contained in Appendix A. The following reliabilities
(Cronbach Alphas) were found using CFA: classroom order = .74; rule
clarity = .70; teacher control = .60; and teacher innovation = .65.

An 8-item shortened version of the Family Environment Scale System
Maintenance System Change dimension (Moos & Moos, 1981), was used in the
self-report questionnaire. This domain consists of two scales, family
order/organization and family control. The current research used the
first four items of both scales from the standard Family Environment
Scale. The organization scale was operationalized as ”the degree of
importance of clear organization and structure in planning family
activities and responsibilities" (Moos & Moos, 1984, page 2). The
control scale was defined as "the extent to which set rules and
procedures are used to run family life" (Moos & Moos, 1984, page 2).

The following Cronbach Alpha reliabilities were found after performing a
confirmatory factor analysis (CFA by Hunter & Cohen, 1969): organization
= .59; and control = .46. The output of the confirmatory factor
analysis is contained in Appendix B. Reliabilities were unable to be
further improved by deleting items with low itemrtotal correlations.

A.lO-item shortened version of the Dean Alienation Scale (1961)
was included in the self-report questionnaire. Items were selected for
their face validity and high reliability in prior pilot testing. The
original Dean scale consisted of three dimensions: social isolation,
powerlessness, and normiessness. Dean (1961) included helplessness,
being separated from control over one's environment, and being used for

others' purposes as elements of powerlessness. He conceptualized

54

normlessness as a sense of anxiety, uncertainty about goals, and being
separated from group standards, perhaps as a result of great transition
surrounding oneself. Social isolation was characterized by Dean as
feeling estranged from group standards because of mobility and
isolation. After performing a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA by
Hunter & Cohen, 1969) one item was dropped and the subscales were
combined into one overall alienation scale to improve the reliability of
the measure. Appendix C contains the output for this analysis. This

resulted in a Cronbach Alpha reliability of .71 for the total scale.

Alienation Measurement Development

Confirmatory factor analysis was performed using multiple group
analyses with communalities (Nunnally, 1978). The program that utilized
this technique is called CEA, written by Hunter & Cohen (1969). The
items from the school alienation, school empowerment, family alienation,
and family empowerment scales were submitted to a confirmatory factor
analysis. Factor loadings confirmed the presence of these four scales

(See Appendix D).

School alienation & empowerment.

 

Measures of alienation & empowerment in the school were devised by
the author to measure alienation and empowerment in the specific setting
of the school. These measures were included in the self-report
questionnaire. Based on Dean's (1961) operationalization of alienation,
a six-item.measure of School Alienation included components of
powerlessness, meaninglessness, and role estrangement in the school
setting. Powerlessness was an individual's perception of lacking
control or ability to have participation on matters at school.
Meaninglessness depicted a lack of purpose in school. Role estrangement
was characterized by an individual modifying behavior to fit in at

school. This six-item scale was found to have a Cronbach Alpha of .81.

55

In contrast, dimensions of powerfulness, meaningfulness, and role
authenticity in the school setting were included in a six-item School
Empowerment scale. Powerfulness was an individual's participation in
decision-making on matters at school. Meaningfulness depicted a sense
of purpose in school. Role authenticity was characterized by an
individual acting in agreement with how they truly perceived themselves
while at school. One of the original items from the School Empowerment
scale was dropped because of its low correlation with other items in the
scale, so a 5-item School Empowerment scale with a Cronbach Alpha of .72

was used in subsequent analyses.

Family alienation and empowerment.

Family alienation and empowerment measures were devised by the
author to measure alienation and empowerment in the specific setting of
the family. These measures were included in the self questionnaire.

Based on Dean's (1961) Operationalization of alienation, this six-
item.measure of Family Alienation includes components of Powerlessness,
Meaninglessness, and Role estrangement in the home setting.
Powerlessness was an individual's perception of lacking control or
ability to have a say on matters at home. Meaninglessness depicts a
lack of purpose at home. Role estrangement was characterized by an
individual modifying behavior to fit with the family. The six—item
scale was found to have a Cronbach Alpha of .79.

In contrast to alienation, additional dimensions of powerfulness,
meaningfulness, and role authenticity in the school setting were
included in a five-item.Family Empowerment scale. Powerfulness was an
individual's participation in decision-making on matters at home.
Meaningfulness depicted a sense of purpose at school. Role authenticity
was characterized by individuals acting in agreement with how they truly

perceived themselves when they were with the family.

56

Two of the original items from the Family Empowerment scale were
dropped because of their low correlation with other items in the scale,
so a three-item scale with a Cronbach Alpha of .73 was used in
subsequent analyses. In addition to the internal consistence measures

listed above, intercorrelations of scales are provided in Appendix E.

Alienation and Emppwerment Construct Validity and Measurement Quality
Two models of alienation were proposed in the literature, as
suggested in the earlier review in this paper. One model emphasized
individual correlates of alienation, while another model stressed
environmental correlates of alienation. The current research attempted
to compare both models within one study by observing the correlations of
alienation within and between settings. Low correlations of alienation
within and among settings would support the ecological model, while high
correlations of alienation within and among settings would support the

personality model of alienation.

Table 11

Alienation and Empowerment Correlation Matrix’

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dean Family Family School School
Alienation Alienation Empowerment Alienation Empowerment

Dean 1.00

Alienation

Family .53 1.00

Alienation

Family -.57 -.67 1.00

rment

School .60 .43 -.53 1.00

Alienation

School -.47 -.30 .64 -.91 1.00

Empowerment

 

Within the ecological framework presented by various theoreticians
(e.g. Bronfenbrenner, 1974; Caplan & Nelson, 1973; Dean, 1961; Seeman,

1959) the author predicted that the ecological model of alienation would

 

’Correlations were corrected for attenuation.

57

receive support. Because research on the nature of alienation was
inconclusive, other models of alienation were also be considered.
Therefore, it was important to assess the validity of the constructs
designed to measure alienation in global and setting-specific
situations. In doing so, one can begin to assess the strength of
settings as covariates of alienation (See Table 11 above). The steps
for assessing the construct validity and quality of measurement for

alienation and empowerment are outlined in succeeding paragraphs.

Alienation and Empowerment Quality of Measurement

 

The first step was to examine the quality of each measure as an
index of the specific type of alienation it was intended to measure.
The quality of a measure is the correlation between a construct (latent
variable) and the measurement variable used as an index of that

variable. This correlation is equal to the square root of the

 

reliability of the measurement of a variable.

Dean's measure of alienation was found to have a standardized
Cronbach Alpha reliability of .71 in the current research. Therefore,
the correlation of Dean's alienation to the construct of alienation was
.84. This indicated that Dean's measure of alienation was a relatively
good measure of global alienation. This correlation is represented on
the arrow in figure 3.

The construct of family alienation was measured by a family
alienation variable and a family empowerment variable. The family
alienation measure was assumed to positively measure the construct of
family alienation. Conversely, the family empowerment variable was
expected to measure the inverse of family alienation. Family alienation
was found to have a standardized coefficient alpha of .79 in the current
research. The correlation of family alienation as a measure for the
true construct of family alienation was .88 which indicated that the
measure of family alienation employed in this research was largely able

to measure the construct of alienation in the home setting.

 

Dean
Alienation

 

 

 

  
 
 

School
Alienation

58

  
   

   

  

 

 

School School
Alienation Empowerment
Figure 3

 

Global

Alienation

  
 

Family
Alienation

 

Family
Alienation

 

Family
Empowerment

 

 

 

59

Family empowerment was found to have a standardized coefficient
alpha of .73 in the current research. The correlation of family
empowerment as a measure for the true construct of family alienation was
-.85. This suggested that the measure of family empowerment used in
this study was a relatively good measure of the opposite of alienation
in the family setting.

The construct of school alienation was measured positively by
school alienation as a variable and negatively by school empowerment as
a variable. School alienation was found to have a standardized
coefficient alpha of .81 in the current research. The correlation of
school alienation as a measure for the true construct was .90 which also
suggested that the measure of school alienation used in this study was a
relatively good measure of alienation in the school setting.

School empowerment was found to have a standardized coefficient
alpha of .72 in the current research. The correlation of school
empowerment as a measure for the true construct of school alienation was
-.85 which suggests the measure of school empowerment used in this study
was a relatively good measure of the opposite of alienation at school.

The measures of alienation and empowerment constructed for this
study were relatively good indices of the variables they were intended
to measure. The absolute values ranged from .85 to .90 for the

correlations between the measurement variables and the latent traits.

Construct Validity of Alienation

 

The alienation and empowerment variables employed in this research
were relatively good measures of family alienation and school
alienation. Dean alienation was also a relatively good measure of the
construct of general alienation. The next step in the construct validity
determination was to determine the true relationship between the
setting-specific constructs of family and school alienation and the

construct of global alienation.

60

The relationship between family alienation and global alienation
was initially unknown. This relationship, equivalent to the construct
validity, was computed by dividing the original correlation of the two
variables by the product of the validities of each variable. This step
was analogous to correcting the correlation for attenuation. The
construct validity between family alienation and Dean alienation was .53
which was moderate (Conf 95% = .45 5 Q g .61, two-sides). The
relationship between school alienation and global (Dean) alienation was
also unknown, and was solved as demonstrated above. The construct
validity between school alienation and global (Dean) alienation was .60
which was also moderate (Conf 95% = .53 5 Q 5 .67, two-sides). Both
school alienation and family alienation as constructs were relatively
good measures of the construct of global alienation.

An additional consideration was the relationship between school
alienation and family alienation. The correlation between these
measures was .43 which was moderate (Conf 90% = .36 5 Q g .51, one—
sides). This finding suggests that alienation was partially generalized
across these two settings. It was necessary to determine how much of
this correlation was due to the shared effects of global alienation.
Further analysis revealed that a correlation of .17 remained between
school alienation and family alienation after the effects of global
alienation were partialled out. The drop in the correlation (from .43
to .17) between family alienation and school alienation is sufficient
enough to explain the commonality shared with global alienation.
Therefore, much of the relationship between family alienation and school
alienation is through the shared relationship with global alienation.

However, there is some overlap between these two measures of
alienation at home and at school since a correlation of .17 remains
after global alienation has been accounted for. If the two setting-
specific measures of alienation were independent of one another, there
would be a correlation of zero remaining when the effects of global

alienation were partialled out. Therefore, a portion of the commonality

61
in these settings was not explained by global alienation, although the
partial correlation of .17 was small. Measures of alienation in each
setting to not appear to be completely distinct from one another,
otherwise the only relationship between school alienation and family
alienation would be from the commonality shared through global
alienation. (This is mathematically equivalent to .60 x .53). More
commonality is found between family alienation and school alienation
beyond what is shared through the effects of global alienation.

The strength of the relationship between these two measures of
alienation was further supported by a confirmatory factor analysis using
SPSS. This analysis revealed a Cronbach alpha of .84 for the combined
factor of family alienation, school alienation, and the two empowerment
scales reverse coded. These considerations provided support for the
strong construct validity of general alienation.

One possibility for this overlap is that alienation may become
generalized from one setting to another setting over time. If an
adolescent feels he or she lacks purpose or meaning at home, he or she
may begin to feel less positive about expectations at school.
Similarly, if an adolescent's family begins making demands to alter
appearance, music, or friends, the adolescent may feel an increased
desire for autonomy at school. Since the school system may share some
of the adolescent's parent's demands for appearance or lifestyle, the
adolescent would feel additional role estrangement in the school
setting. These are some possible explanations for the overlap in
alienation as measured in the home and school settings.

.Although there is strong support for the unitary nature of
alienation, one cannot dismiss the uniqueness that does remain in the
measurement of alienation in specific situations. There is a small
residual of uniqueness that does appear to be due to setting variance.
There may be specific elements of the home or school setting that
promotes alienation that is not carried over into the other setting. An

adolescent may feel incapable of having control in a school that is

62

characterized by a large student body or strict bureaucracy. Yet, this
same student may feel empowered at home where he or she is part of the
decision-making. Conversely, an adolescent may feel he or she has
little meaning at home, but involvement in a club at school may provide
a sense of purpose and meaning. Because family alienation and school
alienation do not completely overlap in the measurement of alienation,
setting variance remains an important consideration for the model
analyzed in this paper.

The present model emphasized a dynamic mixture of individual
differences and the specific influence of the settings. This was
assessed by measuring the relationship between latent variables and
theoretical constructs. Results demonstrated moderately large
correlations between Dean's global measure of alienation and the two
measures of alienation in the school and family and there was a small
portion of shared commonality between the two setting-specific measures
of alienation that could not be explained by the shared variance with
global alienation. Individual differences were moderate in explaining
alienation. However, a small residual of variance remained, indicating
that the home and the school can each foster alienation in ways that are

unique from one another.

Construct Validity of Empowerment

A strong relationship was found between alienation and empowerment
in the school setting, and a moderate to strong relationship was found
between alienation and empowerment in the home setting (See Table 12).
The correlation found between school empowerment and school alienation
was -.91 (Conf 95% = -.93 5 9,5 -.89, two-sides). More distinction was
found between family empowerment and family alienation. The correlation
between these two measures in the home was -.67 (Conf 95% = -.73 5 Q 5 -
61, two-sides). This suggests that empowerment may be a relatively
strong measure of the inverse of alienation, especially in the school

setting.

In

I"

63

Table 12

Results of Hypotheses for Alienation and Empowerment8

 

 

Hypothesis Effect size Hypothesis
Confidence interval (one—side) confirmed?
Yes or No

School empowerment will .2 = -.91 Yes
be negatively correlated. Conf 95% = -.93 5 p 5 -.89
with school alienation

Family'empowerment will .E = -.67 Yes
be negatively correlated. Conf 95% = -.73 5 p -.61
with family alienation

IA

To consider this further, a reliability analysis was performed
using SPSS to assess the reliability of both alienation scales. Family
alienation included the family alienation scale and the inverse of the
family empowerment scale and this Cronbach Alpha was .85. Similarly,
the school alienation factor was comprised of the school alienation
scale and the inverse of the school empowerment scale. This Cronbach
Alpha was .86. Within the settings, alienation and empowerment were
found to be highly correlated. Because these two constructs were highly
correlated, it would be possible to consider these as one domain on a
continuum.from alienation to empowerment rather than two distinct
constructs.

Empowerment and alienation within a setting appeared to have
moderate validity as one construct. Across the settings, alienation and
empowerment were less related. The correlation between school
empowerment and family alienation was -.30 (Conf 95% = -.40 5 p 5 -.20,
two-sided). .A correlation of -.53 (Conf 95% = -.61 5 p 5 -.45, two-
sided) was found between family empowerment and school alienation. The

correlations between alienation and empowerment were much larger within

 

'Correlations were corrected for attenuation.

64

the same settings than they were across different settings. This
suggested there was still some uniqueness between alienation and
empowerment as constructs since the correlations were less than

moderate.

Discriminant Validity

 

Alienation and empowerment appeared to have moderate convergent
validity as demonstrated just previously. The next consideration for
validity was the extent to which school (alienation & empowerment) and
family (alienation & empowerment) variables had higher correlations with
similar variables but less with unrelated variables. School alienation
and school empowerment were considered together because they related to
other variables in an analogous fashion. Similarly, family alienation
and family empowerment were examined together since they too related to
variables as a combined pair. Therefore, empowerment and alienation
were considered together within each setting, resulting in a school
measure of alienation & empowerment and a family measure of alienation &
empowerment. These two measures were considered when observing
parallelism with other variables.

The correlations displayed in Table 13 gave evidence to the
discriminant validity of a family measure (alienation & empowerment) and
a school measure (alienation & empowerment). The school measures and
the family measures discriminated from one another. The school-related
variables had higher correlations with the school alienation and
empowerment measures than with the family alienation or empowerment
measures. Grade point averages and school absences had higher absolute
correlation values with school alienation and empowerment (.19 to .27)
than to family alienation or empowerment (0.0 to .25). This was true of
the classroom environment scales also. They were correlated much higher
with school measures (.17 to .53) than to family measures (.07 to .33).
The family-related variables had higher correlations with the family

alienation and empowerment measures than with the school alienation or

Table 13

65

Parallelism Between Alienation and Empowerment in School and Family9

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

School School Family Family

Alienation Empowerment Alienation Empowerment
Gender -0.01 0.03 0.04 0.04
Grade 0.19 -0.12 0.19 -0.13
Age 0.18 -0.12 0.17 -0.1
Grade Point 0.27 -0.24 0.19 -0.25
Average
School Absences -0.19 0.24 -0.00 0.13
Family Order a 0.34 -0.48 0.67 -0.67
Organization
Family Control —0.06 0.13 -0.16 0.26
Classroom Order 0.31 -0.36 0.07 -0.17
Classroom Rule 0.35 -0.53 0.12 —0.33
Clarity
Classroom Control 0.17 —0.32 0.07 -0.23
Classroom 0.35 -0.51 0.11 -0.25
Innovation
Dean Alienation 0.60 —0.47 0.53 -0.57
School Alienation 1.00 -0.91 0.43 -0.53
School Empowerment -0.91 1.00 -0.3 0.64
Family Alienation 0.43 -0.3 1.00 -0.67
Family Empowerment -0.53 0.64 -0.67 1.00
School Activities 0.24 -0.13 0.33 -0.25
Family Activities 0.26 -0.21 0.25 -0.36

 

 

’Correlations were corrected for attenuation.

66

empowerment measures. The family environment scales were correlated
higher with family alienation and empowerment (.16 to .67) than with
school alienation or empowerment (.06 to .48). Additionally, nearly all
the variables loaded in opposite direction on the empowerment and
alienation measures in relatively similar magnitudes. Variables that
should have correlated with related scales appeared to be relatively
parallel. Variables that should not have correlated appeared to be
relatively unrelated. These discriminant and parallel correlations
provided further evidence for the validity of a family measure,
consisting of alienation and empowerment, and a school measure,

consisting of alienation and empowerment.

Methodological Issues

 

An important concern in the current research was the extent to
which these results could be generalized. This was a salient issue
since some students elected not to participate in the study. One
potential concern was the possibility that the more alienated students
dropped out of school as they became older. This issue was addressed by
analyzing the drop out rate of the cohorts, the alienation scores by

grade level, and the grade point averages by grade level.

Potential Restriction of Range

 

Readers may have concerns about a potential restriction of range
due to differential drop out rates for older students. The alienation
scores and grade point averages for each grade level (see Table 14) did
not suggest that the more alienated students dropped out over time. If
the most alienated students were to drop out as they grew older, the
alienation score would be expected to decrease at each grade level.
This would depict artificially lowered alienation scores that resulted
by the omission of the alienated students scores. Should that occur,
the standard deviations of the alienation scores would have been

expected to shrink at each grade level as the alienated outliers dropped

67

Table 14

Alienation Outcomes by Grade Level

 

 

 

 

Grade Dean Family School
level Alienation .Alienation Alienation
7th grade

M 3.01 3.62 3.98
M 64 64 63
§2 .61 .89 .80
8th grade

M 2.96 3.49 3.88
M 58 58 57
§2 .77 .87 .89
9th grade

M 2.98 3.69 4.10
M 55 56 55
§2 .68 .88 .70
10th grade

M 3.08 3.74 4.21
M 56 56 56
§2 .76 .86 .62
11th grade

M 3.13 4.00 4.28
M 47 47 47
§2 .69 .67 .71
12th grade

M 3.17 3.94 4.24
M 34 34 33
§2 .68 .95 .82
Standard 1.06 1.09 1.09
Deviation i .16 i .17 i .17

Ratio

68

out of school. The figures in Table 14 did not reflect artificially
lower alienation scores or small standard deviation scores. All three
mean alienation scores increased across grade level rather than
decreased, and the standard deviations were relatively similar since the
standard deviation ratios were near 1.00. The standard deviation ratios
reflected the ratio of the lowest grade standard deviation to the
highest grade standard deviation. From this analysis, it is suggested
that the scores did not reflect an omission of highly alienated drop
outs.

The mean alienation scores of this sample were compared to the
scores of other samples to demonstrate that the alienation levels in the
present were not artificially lower due to a restriction of sample.
Zimmerman (1990) used the full Dean alienation scale (Dean, 1961) with a
sample of 388 undergraduates, required to participate in the research as
part of the class assignment, and with 205 community residents, who were
recruited from voluntary organizational meetings. Zimmerman provided
descriptive statistics for each group using the subscales in Dean's
alienation scale. Dean's scale in Zimmerman's research utilized a 5-
point likert scale analogous to the scale used in this author's
research. For the undergraduate sample the mean alienation score ranged
from 2.87 to 3.03 with standard deviations ranging from .50 to .58. For
the community sample the range for alienation scores was 2.46 to 2.88
with standard deviations of .57 to .68. The mean overall alienation
scores in the current author's work were higher than those of
Zimmerman's sample. This also supported that the alienation scores in
the current research were not artificially low in this non-random sample
of students.

An analysis of the grade point average means for each grade level
also addressed concerns of a restricted range (see Table 15). If these
means increased for each grade level it could have been suggested that
the more alienated and less achieving students had dropped out, assuming

grades were not curved. This incident would have been reflected in

69

shrinking standard deviations across grade levels. If either of these
scenarios were true, it could have been argued that grade point averages
were artificially inflated due to the omission of the alienated
students' scores. Neither of these situations were found in the current
data. The means and standard deviations of the grade point averages
appeared to have a basically flat trend, suggesting that alienated

dropouts were not missing from the sample.

Table 15

Academic Outcomes by Grade Level

 

 

Grade

level GPAlo
9th grade

M 2.765
M 123
§2 .813
10th grade

M 2.819
M 117
§2 .692
11th grade

M 2.785
M 103
§2 .726
12th grade

M 2.759
M 83
§Q .630

Standard 1.286
Deviation : .131
Ratio

The sample of students included in the current research did not
appear to be lacking the inclusion of alienated dropouts on the basis of
alienation scores or grade point averages. This suggests that the

findings could be generalized. It is clear, however, that the sample of

 

1°7th ad 8th grade students are considered junior high students and do not
have grade point averages computed by the school.

70
students included in this data collection had a higher level of academic
achievement and were less likely to miss school than the school
population as a whole. The students in the sample may be less alienated
than their non-respondent peers, but it was not likely that a whole
segment of highly alienated students were missing from this sample based
on the above analysis.

Additional evidence was gathered from a trend analysis of all the
alienation measures across grade levels (See Table 16). The nonlinear
relationships between alienation and grade levels were not
characteristic of increased dropout rates for higher grade levels. The
trend analysis indicated that the linear components were larger than the
nonlinear components. Because the relationships were primarily linear,
there was no evidence of any drops in the alienation scores which would
have been evident if a group of alienated students were missing from the

sample due to dropping out of high school in the later years.

Table 16

Trend Analysis of Alienation Types as a Function of Grade Level

 

 

 

 

 

 

Correlation Trend Analysis
Linear Non- Linear Nonlinear Eta 95%
Alienation linear Confidence
Type (two-sided)
School E = eta = 511) = 9.39 F(4) = .99 .07 5 n 5 .27
.17 .20 pp = .00 p = .45
Family 5 = eta = F(l) =10.85 F(4) = .39 .06 5 n 5 .26
.18 .20 p = .00 p = .82
Dean 5 = eta = F(l) = 2.84 F(4) = .39 .00 5 n 5 .16
.10 .12 p = .09 p = .82 (Probability

that eta is
zero is 0.077)

71

Bivariate Hypotheses

Individual Correlates

 

Gender and grade level were expected to contribute to alienation.
Table 17 describes the outcomes for both grade level and gender
hypotheses in more detail. Grade level was hypothesized to be
negatively correlated with both school alienation and family alienation
and positively correlated with measures of empowerment in the school and
family. None of these hypotheses were supported (see Table 17). The
resulting correlations were opposite of the predicted direction. In
each case, however, the absolute values of the correlations were less
than .20 suggesting that the relationships between grade and both
alienation or empowerment were not strong. These findings were contrary
to the studies reviewed earlier in this paper that suggested younger
students are more alienated and less empowered. The author expected to
replicate the findings of Burbach (1972) who measured alienation in a
sample of rural high school students similar to the sample employed in
the current research. In that study, a small relationship was found to
suggest that older students were more alienated and less empowered than
their younger counterparts.

Gender was also an individual variable expected to be correlated
with measures of alienation and empowerment. At home and at school
females were expected to be more alienated than males and males were
expected to be more empowered. The findings did not strongly support
these hypotheses. Resulting correlations were in the predicted
direction in three out of the four hypotheses (see Table 17 above) but
all correlations were small. Results indicated that males in the
present sample were more empowered at home and at school as expected.
As hypothesized, females were found to be somewhat more alienated at
school than males. The remaining hypothesis was in the opposite of the
predicted direction. Unexpectedly, males were more alienated in their
families than were females. Due to the magnitude of these correlations

and the presence of zero in all four confidence intervals, no

72

Table 17

Results of Hypotheses of Individual Correlates

 

 

Hypothesis

Grade level will be negatively

 

Effect size and
95% Confidence
Interval (one-sided)

r = .19

Hypothesis
confirmed?

No: wrong

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

correlated with school alienation .1 < p < .28 direction
Grade level will be negatively E = .19 No: wrong
correlated with family alienation .10 < p < .27 direction
Grade level will be positively E = -.12 No: wrong
correlated with school empowerment —.21 < p < -.03 direction
Grade level will be positively E = -.13 No: wrong
correlated with family empowerment -.22 < p -.04 direction
Females will be more alienated E = -.01 No: 57%
from school than males (negative -.10 5 p _ .08 chance of
correlation) negative
correlation
Females will be more alienated E = .04 No: 75%
from the family than males -.05 5 p .13 chance of
(negative correlation) positive
correlation
Males will be more empowered at E = .03 No: 69%
school than females (positive -.06 5 p .13 chance of
correlation) positive
correlation
Males will be more empowered in E - .04 No: 75%
the family than females (positive -.05 5 p _ .13 change of
correlation) positive

correlation

73

substantial relationships were demonstrated between gender and both
alienation or empowerment in either setting.

After considering individual covariates of alienation, namely
grade level and gender, it was apparent that neither variable was
largely related to alienation nor empowerment at home nor at school.
Attention was next given to the possible role for ecological variables

in alienation and empowerment

Ecological Correlates of Alienation and Empowerment

Ecological covariates, in addition to individual variables, were
also assessed for a potential relationship with alienation and
empowerment. Dimensions of students' family and school environments
were assessed for their linear and nonlinear relationship to alienation
and empowerment in specific settings. In these cases, curvelinear
relationships were predicted. The graphical representations of these
relationships were specified as ”U-shaped" or inverted "U-shaped.”

These hypotheses were tested by using the REGRESS program (Hunter
5 Cohen, 1969). Initially these regression equations were set up to
include these orthogonal components: x = independent variable, (x-M)2==
(independent variable - independent variable mean) squared, and y =
dependent variable. Entering these components into the REGRESS program
yielded b weights. The linear b weight (b,), nonlinear b weight (b,),
and constant (bo)‘were used to solve for the "a" coefficients. The
coefficients were solved as follows: a0 = bo + b,x2, a1 = b1 - 2b2X, a2 =
bL These coefficients were translated into the regression equation Y =

a0 + alx + a,X2.

Classroom environment.

 

Several facets of the school environment were expected to
facilitate alienation when present in diminished or excessive
quantities. This relationship would be represented by a "U-shaped"

curvelinear relationship. This would mean that alienation would be

74

greatest when order, rule clarity, or innovation were too great or too
little. In a related fashion, empowerment was expected to be achieved
when these elements of the school environment were present in moderate
amounts. This would be represented by an "inverted U-shape" curvelinear
relationship, suggesting that empowerment would be highest when order,
rule clarity, and innovation were found in stable quantities rather than
extremes. Results of these hypotheses are displayed in Table 18. All
classroom environment characteristics were found to have linear
relationships with school alienation and school empowerment, so none of
the curvelinear hypotheses were supported. In all regression equations
the linear b weights were larger than the nonlinear b weights. However,
the nonlinear components that were present in each regression equation
were consistent with the predicted direction. The classroom environment
dimensions had positive linear relationships with school alienation and
negative linear relationships with school empowerment. The following
linear relationships were found where curvelinear relationships were
expected: 1) As classroom order increased, school alienation increased
and school empowerment decreased. 2) As teacher rule clarity increased,
school alienation increased and school empowerment decreased. 3) As
teacher innovation increased, school alienation increased and school
empowerment decreased. The magnitudes of the relationships between the
variables in the regression equation were large, as evidenced by the
Multiple R values in Table 18, for teacher rule clarity and teacher
innovation when compared to both school alienation and empowerment, and
for classroom order when compared with school empowerment. The
relationship was moderate for classroom.with school order. The
classroom environment variables had consistent relationships with school
alienation and empowerment and the relationships were moderate to large,
although the relationships were primarily linear, rather than non-
linear. These regression analyses provide inconclusive information for
assessing the impact of these classroom characteristics on school

alienation and school empowerment.

'75

.nssnounn cocoonncoo one pennnIOQOS

.2335 85328 .3 3.3.5.5..

.osonsiozu sns una>nsuen consonneoo nns .osuoeso ssnznscuo snsnnaz

 

 

.vN.v ou mo.~.

SAMN. 0» ho.Iv

.vn.I ou om.I.

neeanszooss
noocon can: oneneOnusnsn nssann

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

as» mm. nssenn no.m so. ~n.I s>nusose e s>sc nnn3.nonneoo nscossa
noconun canuscsnns
you. n~p.n 0» cm.~. anvn. on on.I. .nv. on no.. noocos can: oncscOnusnsn nssnnn
no» on. nssenn no.n No.I nw. ssnunnoo s s>sc nnnz nanueoo nscossa
uassnssooas noocos
.mm.v on mv.mv .o~. on oo.I. awn.I ou om.I. cun3_oncnc0nusnsn nssennssnso IooscnI:
oz mm. nssenn va.n mo. ov.I osnns>sns ea s>sc nnn3 eOnus>ocen nscossa
acnusesnns
.nn.n ou mo.~. zen. 0» an.Iv .mm. on n~.. noocou can: oncneOnusnsn nascnns>nso
oz on. nssenn oo.~ mo.I an. InsoscnIDI s s>sc nnn3 canus>oeen nseossa
unsanszooas noocos can: oneneOnusnsn
.pn.p on an... zoo. 0» ~m.Ic .sm.I on hn.nI. nascnns>nso IsoscnI: osuns>enu
oz om. nssenn or.m m~.I oh.I as s>sc nnn3.>unnsno snsn nsrossa
noconun canusesnns noocon
non. .mp.n on mo.. .vw. on on.I. .vh. on oo.. cun3.oncn:0nusnsn nssenns>nso Iososcn
oz mm. nssenn vm.~ no.I en. ID: a s>sc nnvz >unnsno snsn nscossa
ueosnssooas noocos
.no.n ou mm.~. .on. on mo.I. non.I on ~v.I. can: oncnnOnusnsn nssenns>nso Iooscn
oz hm. nssenn m~.n mo. on.I I: usuns>enc as s>ss nnn3.nsono soonnnsno
aOnusesnns
.mn.n cu vm.~v Ano. on nN.I. nov. 0» an.. noocon can: oneseOnnsnsn nssenns>nso
oz vm. nssenn no.m mo.I an. IososcnIDI s s>sc nnn3.nsono soonnnsno
.osonnusco AnsonnIseo AnsonsIseo
.soasonncoo ammo .socsonncoo omm. .soesonneou ammo
«osEnnneoo m nsscnneoc ozone: n prone: o
nnnszuon>x snonunsz no nascnn unsuscoo nascnneoz nssenn nnnscuoohz

 

 

 

sususnsnnoo nounoOnoou noocom no senscnomNmINunnssenn no nunsnsm

an Onnmh

76

For other dimensions of the classroom environment, linear
relationships were expected. Based on previous studies outlining the
strong role of control in student alienation, teacher control was
hypothesized to be positively correlated with school alienation and
negatively correlated with school empowerment. As shown previously in
Table 18, teacher control was shown to have a strong linear relationship
to both school alienation and empowerment. This was explored further
through correlational analyses. Both hypotheses were supported.
Students who perceived their classrooms to have higher levels of teacher
control had higher levels of school alienation and lower levels of
empowerment. This suggested that elevated levels of teacher control
could have negative impacts on student psychological outcomes. The

results of these hypotheses are detailed in Table 19.

Table 19

Results of Correlational Hypotheses of School Ecological Correlates

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis Effect size Hypothesis
95% Confidence confirmed?
Interval (one- Yes or No
sided)
Teacher control will be positively E = .17 Yes: but
correlated with school alienation .08 <53 < .26 small effect
-.32 Yes

Teacher control will be negatively E

correlated with school empowerment .40 < 2.< -.23

Family environment.

For family environment variables, both linear and curvelinear
relationships were predicted for alienation and empowerment. The order
or organization of the family environment was expected to have a "U-
shaped” curvelinear relationship to family alienation. Additionally,
family empowerment was expected to have an ”inverted U-shape"

curvelinear relationship to family order/organization. It was expected

77

that too much or too little family order or organization would have
undesirable outcomes. A moderate amount of family organization was
believed to provide optimum outcomes. Family organization had strong
linear relationships with family alienation and empowerment, as

evidenced by the large Multiple R values rather than curvelinear

 

relationships. The direction of these relationships, however, were
positive and negative as predicted. Higher levels of family
organization were associated with increased alienation and decreased
empowerment in the family. This suggests that family order and
organization has positive effects on the psychological outcomes for
children. These hypotheses were not supported, although the direction
of the relationships were predicted correctly.

Other family variables were expected to have linear relationships.
Family control was anticipated to have a linear association with family
alienation and empowerment. Increased family control was believed to be
related to increased alienation and decreased empowerment at home.
Neither hypothesis was fully supported. .Although family control was
related to family alienation in a strong linear fashion indicated by the
Multiple R value, the relationship was negative rather than positive.

As family control decreased, so did alienation in the home. Family
control was found to have a strong non-linear relationship to family
empowerment, however the relationship was positive rather than negative.
A.moderate level of family control was associated with family
empowerment outcomes, whereas extreme amounts were associated with
family alienation outcomes. These results are displayed in greater
detail in Table 20.

Because family control was originally hypothesized to have a
linear relationship to family alienation and empowerment, correlational
analyses were conducted. It was expected that family control would be

positively correlated with family alienation and negatively correlated

.2533 85328 .2 332.8:
42633 8.3328 .2 SunnIonoa

.osonnIozu sns nnu>nsuan consonneoo nns .osuoeso snnznscuo «none: .omo one uns>nsuen seasonneoo nnt!

 

 

'78

 

 

unsansmommmlxmmmmmlI
.84 on Si .13. on on; .8. on mo; 53 358328 nascnn 2.332.
oz 2.. 5057.82 3. no. 3. a 25: nnn: nonnnoo Sean
canusesnnn znnamn
83038 and on 3.: .12... on 8.; .3... on Si. 5? angnaonnansn name: 2.338
neon) “oz nv. nsocnn mv.m mm.I on.I a s>sc nnnz nonueoo >nnesm

 

nessnssommm unnasn

can: oneseOnusnsn nssennssnso

 

 

8mm 3 8.: .8. on SI. SCI 3 run; 392?: usnnssan. 5 32
oz S. 323 «mm on: at nnnz nonnannamunotsuno Sean
:Owumccndo
been 5? 3:28:23
and on 3.. .3. on so.-. .84 on 3.. naoanngnao Icon—2?? a 2.2
oz mm. nssenn mv.n on. he. nnnz acnusnnesono\nsono annesm
Gonna =83» Gonna
oz no no» I03» .socoonneoo ammo I03» .socsonneoo .mm. I039 .soesonncoo omm.
«ossnnneoo z nssenneoz masons: o aprons: a
unnscuoonz snonunsz no nsscnn ueauneoo nsssnneoz nsocnn nnnscuoo>m

 

 

 

 

:nsusnsnnoo noun snoom nnasm no assoc» z nunnssann no nunsnem

ON Innwa

79

with family empowerment. Neither hypothesis was supported since the
resulting correlations were opposite of the predicted direction.
Consistent with the findings in the regression analysis, increased
family control was associated with decreased alienation and increased
empowerment in the home. Table 21 contains further details of these

correlational analyses.

Table 21

Results of Correlational Hypotheses of Family Ecological Correlates

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis Effect size 95% Hypothesis

Confidence confirmed?

(One—sided) Yes or No
Famdly control will be positively £.= -.16 No: wrong
correlated with family alienation -.25 < p < -.07 direction
Family control will be negatively r = .26 No: wrong
correlated with family empowerment .18 < p < .35 direction

 

Alienation Outcomes

 

Alienation in the home and at school was presumed to have
consequences concerning family involvement, school involvement, and
academic progress. These findings are explained further in Table 22.
Alienation was expected to have negative relationships to participation
in family activities, participation in school activities, and grade
point averages. .Alienation was predicted to have a positive
relationship with school absences. Results from the correlational
analyses revealed relationships opposite to those predicted. The
magnitude of the correlations are less than moderate. These results
were found: 1) Family alienation increased with participation in family
activities. 2) School alienation increased with participation in school
activities. 3) Academic achievement as measured by grade point averages
increased with school alienation. 4) School absences decreased with

school alienation. These results were unexpected. From.these analyses

I

80

it would appear that the alienated student was more involved with
activities at home and at school, had higher grade point averages and

had fewer school absences.

Table 22

Correlation Results of Alienation Outcomes in Family and School

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hypothesis Effect size Hypothesis

95% Confidence confirmed?

(One-sided) Yes or No
Famdly alienation will be negatively 5 = .25 No: wrong
correlated with family activities .16 < p < .34 direction
School alienation will be negatively E = .24 No: wrong
correlated with school activities .1 < p < .33 direction
School alienation will be positively 5 = -.19 No: wrong
correlated with school absences —.28 < p < -.10 direction
School alienation will be negatively E = .27 No: wrong
correlated with grade point average .18 < p < .38 direction

 

Integrative Path Models

Path models were constructed to delineate the relationships of
individual and ecological variables to alienation and empowerment as
outlined in previous figures 1 and 2. A model was created for each
setting of family and school. Because it was not known prior to the
study that alienation overlapped in each setting, two independent models
were designed. Because confirmatory factory analysis and correlational
analyses determined that alienation and empowerment were strongly
related, the empowerment scales were inversely coded and combined with
the alienation scales in each setting. This resulted in a family
alienation scale comprised of family alienation and empowerment items
and a school alienation scale containing the school alienation and
empowerment items. The hypothesized path models were analyzed using the
PATH program.written by Hunter & Cohen (1969) which resulted in path

coefficients. The software also analyzed the indirect links as well.

81

The final models demonstrated an overall goodness of fit with the data
and no weak links were present to suggest that the model deviated from

the data.

Family Environment

 

The original family environment path model showed a strong degree
of fit and required no additional modifications (g! = 2.68 (4), p=.612)
(See Figure 4). The individual variables of gender (B = .08; 68%
confidence .00 S B 5 .15) and age (B = .05; 68% confidence -.03 S B 5
.12) did not conclusively predict alienation in the family. Ecological
variables were more useful in predicting family alienation. Family
order and organization had a strong relationship (B = .78; 68%
confidence .73 S B 5 .83) with family alienation, suggesting that
increased family order facilitated alienation from the family. .A
moderate to large relationship (B = -.37; 68% confidence -.45 g B 5 -
.29) showed that a decrease in family control predicted higher levels of
alienation. Surprisingly, increased alienation moderately predicted an
increased level of involvement in family activities (B = .33; 68%
confidence .26 5 B 5 .40). One possibility was that students feeling
alienated from their families attempted to mitigate these feelings by
becoming more involved in family activities. While gender and age did
not seem to have a role in fostering family alienation, higher levels of
family order and lower levels of family control were moderate to strong
in predicting the alienation outcome which then lead to increased
involvement with family activities. An analysis of the indirect links
revealed no need for modifications. Tests of specific parts of the
model showed that no parts of the model lacked fit. Table 23 reveals
only small errors for the reproduced correlations subtracted from the
actual correlations, and none of these errors were significant. This
proposed model of family alienation showed a high level of fit in its

original design, encompassing individual and ecological factors.

Age

Figure 4

.05 i .07

78i .05

 

82

.08 i .08

-.37 i .08

Family
Alienation

.33 i .07

 

Family
Activities

83

Table 23

Correlations for Family Alienation Path Model‘7

 

Reproduced correlations: Errors: (Actual - reproduced)
2 4 7 8 19 21 2 4 7 8 19 21
2 100 -5 -6 8 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 -9
4 -5 100 16 2 18 6 4 0 0 0 0 0 14
7 -6 16 100 17 77 28 7 0 0 0 O 0 -5
8 8 2 17 100 —19 -7 8 0 0 0 0 0 -1
19 0 18 77 -19 100 36 19 0 0 0 0 0 0
21 0 6 28 -7 36 100 21 -9 14 -5 -1 0 0
2 = Gender
4 = Age
7 = Family Order
8 = Family Control
19 = Family Alienation
21 = Family Activities

 

School Environment

The path model for the school environment (See Figure 5) showed a
moderate level of fit in its final version and required only one
additional modification (g3 = 23.67 (20), p = .257). The only deviation
from the original model was the deletion of the grade point average
variable. This variable did not increase the ability of the model to
explain the data so it was removed.

Similar to the family alienation model above, the individual
variable path coefficients of gender (B = -.03; 68% confidence -.13 5 B
5 .07) and age (B = .14; 68% confidence .04 5 B 5 .24) were not able to
predict alienation in the school setting with a high level of certainty.
Ecological variables that characterized the school environment were able
to predict school alienation better than the individual variables. Just
as in the family model above, ecological variables contributed more to

the model than the individual variables.

 

17Two decimal positions are implied in the matrices.

.14 i .14

® 6i.11

84

32i.ll

CES:
School
Alienation

   
  
     
 

  

CES:
Innovation

School
Activities

85

The model revealed that increased classroom innovation, rule
clarity, and order moderately predicted higher levels of student
alienation at school. Classroom innovation moderately predicted school
alienation (B = .32; 68% confidence .21 5 B 5 .43). Teacher rule
clarity (B = .19; 68% confidence .6 5 B 5 .31) and classroom order (B =
.16; 68% confidence .05 5 B 5 .27) were less strong in their predictions
of school alienation. Classroom control did not predict school
alienation with certainty (B = .02; 68% confidence -.10 5 B 5 .13).

Consequences of alienation were small to moderate in this model.
School absences were shown to moderately decrease with increased
alienation (B = —.22; 68% confidence -.31 5 B 5 -.13). Involvement in
school activities was found to increase with increases in school
alienation (B = .19; 68% confidence .10 5 B 5 .28). .Although the
magnitudes of these predictions were meaningful, both were in found to
be opposite of the predicted direction. One possibility was that these
students who missed fewer days were more involved in school activities
were actually more alienated from school because the quality of
education was not meeting their expectations. They may have compensated
for their disappointment by taking advantage of activities at school.
These surprising results warrant further study. School alienation was
originally hypothesized to directly impact grade point average. The
overall chi square value remained the same with or without the direct
link from.alienation to grade point average, therefore the link was
dropped because it did not increase the explanation of the data.

An analysis of the indirect links revealed no need for
modifications. Tests of specific parts of the model showed that no
parts of the model lacked fit. Table 24 reveals only small errors and
none of these errors were significant. This model of school alienation
had an overall good fit with the data with only one minor revision to
its original design. It revealed that ecological rather than individual

factors were better able to predict alienation at school.

86

Table 24

Correlations for School Alienation Path Model18

 

Reproduced correlations:

2 4 9 10 11 12 18 20 6 5
2 100 -5 1 5 -1 2 -2 0 0 0
4 -5 100 24 2 3 -8 16 3 -4 2
9 1 24 100 42 45 22 35 7 -8 4
10 5 2 42 100 48 55 44 8 -10 5
11 -1 3 45 48 100 15 23 4 -5 2
12 2 -8 22 55 15 100 45 9 -10 5
18 -2 16 35 44 23 45 100 19 -22 11

20 O 3 7 8 4 9 19 100 -4 20
6 0 -4 -8 -10 -5 -10 -22 -4 100 -32
5 0 2 4 5 2 5 11 20 -32 100

Errors: (Actual - reproduced)

2 4 9 10 11 12 18 20 6 5
2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -18 6 -14
4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 -25
9 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 -17 5 -4
10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -12 -1 -16
11 O 0 0 0 0 0 O -6 4 2
12 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 -12 -8 -9
18 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 0 0 14
20 -18 11 -17 -12 -6 -12 0 116 1 22
6 6 11 5 -1 4 -8 0 l 35 -11
5 —14 -25 -4 -16 2 -9 14 22 -11 43
2 = Gender
4 - Age
9 = Classroom Order
10 = Classroom Rule Clarity
11 = Classroom Control
12 8 Classroom Innovation
18 = School Alienation
20 - School Activities
6 = School Absences
5 = Grade Point Average

 

 

1"Two decimal positions are implied in the matrices.

87

Discussion

The present study contributed to the theoretical and measurement
issues related to alienation. It furthered understanding of the nature
and structure of alienation (See figure 3 earlier) and provided valid
instruments for the assessment of alienation and empowerment in both the
home and the school. These findings contributed to theories of
alienation: (1) The data supported a unitary construct of alienation
because alienation in the family and school settings were strongly
related to the global measure of alienation. (2) Alienation and
empowerment were strongly related and could be considered on opposite
ends of one continuum. (3) Age was unrelated to alienation in the
family, but alienation at school increased with age, although the
relationship was small. (4) Gender was not related to alienation or
empowerment in either setting. (5) Overall, ecological variables were
stronger than individual variables in predicting alienation and
empowerment within both settings. (6) School alienation was increased
by elevations in classroom innovation, teacher control, rule clarity,
and order. (7) Increased family order was strongly related to family
alienation and decreased family control was moderately related to
increased family alienation. (8) The relationships between environmental
characteristics and measures of alienation and empowerment were
primarily linear, rather than curvelinear. (9) Increased alienation
predicted increased involvement in family and school activities, along
with fewer absences from school and higher grade point averages.
Because many of these findings were unexpected further investigation of

these relationships is necessary.

Nature of Alienation

 

As foundational researchers in the field of alienation, Dean
(1961) and Seeman (1959) proposed that alienation was a non-unitary
trait. They stated that individual and situational factors had a role

in fostering alienation. Although this interactionist perspective has

88

been taken by many (e.g., Fromm, 1964: Merton, 1968; Wynne, 1978),
alienation has been primarily measured as a global personality trait
without regard to situations. Apart from the few researchers who have
used alienation measures specific to the school setting (e.g., Burbach,
1972, Kolesar, 1956; Kulka, Kahle, & Klingel, 1982; Rafky, 1979),
alienation has been measured as an individual trait.

This overwhelming disparity between theoretical perspectives
(which include setting-specific variables) and measurement practices
(primarily individual difference variables) has fostered a dilemma. It
has not been possible to discuss whether alienation is largely a
setting-specific or comprehensive phenomenon. As early as 1965, Dean
called for construct validity studies to assess the dynamic nature of
alienation. This task has been neglected for many years. The present
research attempted to integrate both perspectives. This interactional
approach included both setting-specific measures and individual
difference measures.

Earlier in this paper, a review of literature suggested that the
school, home, and community have been important environmental
determinants of alienation. Previous research noted that alienation has
been associated with age and partially with gender. The school and
family settings were also expected to be important contributors to
alienation. This thinking is consistent with Bronfenbrenner's (1977)
ecological theory of human development that stresses the interaction of
multiple systems. The present study examined the interaction between
individual and systemic factors in alienation.

Moderate support was found for a general unitary construct of
alienation, although there were still unique elements of alienation in
each setting. School alienation and family alienation accounted for a
moderate portion of the general alienation measured, although not
entirely. Several foundations for these findings were explored. The
commonality of alienation in both settings was quite high. This was

supportive of the view of alienation as a personality trait.

89

This finding may be partially accounted for by theories of
personality. Common to all personality theories (Maddi, 1972), are the
beliefs in core tendencies and traits altered through developmental
processes and become routinized in dealing with the surrounding
environment. On this basis, alienated adolescents would be expected to
consistently estrange themselves from their settings, and a general
dissatisfaction would be carried over into other areas of life.
Following the personality theories, certain individuals would be
continually prone to alienation throughout their lifespan or across a
variety of settings. The moderate correlation between general societal
alienation and localized environments may be attributed to inherent
traits or dispositions.

Alienation as a person-specific phenomenon may also be a result of
time-specific factors related to adolescence. .Alienation may be
characteristic of the ego-diffusion state delineated by Erikson (1950).
In this state of ego-diffusion, youth have not developed a clear picture
of the world at large or their relationship to it. In this framework,
ego-diffusion is a normal state that will be overcome with age as
identity formation occurs. Similarly, Fromm's (1946) framework also
suggests that alienation will decrease when individuation and self-
realization occur. This process is said to occur as youth grow stronger
physically, emotionally, mentally, and break ties with the family. In
both these instances, alienation might be expected to dissipate
following the normal period of self-discovery in adolescence.

Alternate explanations can be found within an ecological
framework. The unitary nature of alienation may be indicative that many
settings are alienating. Bronfenbrenner (1974) observed that the
primary institutions of the United States were failing. He credited
these evolutionary changes in settings, such as the schools, courts,
clinics, prisons, workplace, and family, as being responsible for
alienating young people from adults. Since adults are the primary

shareholders of the family, school, and society, it would not be

90
surprising to find that adolescents are alienated from both places and
from society in general. Such alienation from institutions may be a
result of deteriorating institutions, or this may reflect a normal
developmental process. Coleman (1961) concluded that involvement with
peers facilitated socialization into a peer culture. This preoccupation
was believed to alienate adolescents from adult society. This
explanation suggests that unitary alienation may be a transitory state.
It is based on the belief that adolescents are being simultaneously
alienated from adult institutions, rather than possessing a personality
trait that tends toward disengagement.

Neither explanation alone sufficiently illustrates the
relationships demonstrated in figure 3 earlier in this paper. An
interactionist approach offered by Kurt Lewin (1935) that acknowledges
individual and ecological factors are best suited to this data. This
theory suggests that a person's self-concept or personality may
predispose an individual to alienation. Additionally, environmental
forces serve to strengthen or inhibit the individual self-concept.
Lewin suggests that this is particularly likely to occur in adolescence
when individuals are between child and adult roles and have no clear
membership in either group. The Lewinian theory of behavior as a
function of person and environment best explains'the nature of

alienation found in the present study.

Nature of Empowerment

 

The present study also contributed to a further understanding of
the nature of empowerment. Empowerment was found to be highly
correlated with alienation in a completely inverse relationship in both
the family and school settings. From this it was evident that this
measure of empowerment was at the opposite end of a continuum between
empowerment and alienation. This finding adds to the research seeking
to understand the components of empowerment for youth (Zimmerman, 1990)

as well as adults (e.g., Zimmerman, Israel, Schulz, & Checkoway, 1992).

91

Individual Variables

 

.Although the findings of a unitary nature of alienation and
empowerment discussed above suggest that ecological factors are not
distinctive in the overall measurement of alienation, the present study
found ecological variables to be more important than individual
variables in predicting alienation and empowerment within the different
settings. Demographic variables of age and gender were generally not
supported as principle contributors to alienation. Gender was virtually
unrelated to both alienation and empowerment in each setting of home and
school. Grade level was less than moderate in predicting these same
outcomes. Although not profoundly, older students were generally found
to be more alienated and less empowered than their younger counterparts.
This contradicts previous research from.previous decades. One
explanation is that in the present society, more pressures than freedoms
accompany maturation. Uncertain job prospects and a changing society
may make decisions about work or higher education more difficult and
more important. Perhaps the educational system is not responding to
students concerns about the future since older students were less
empowered at school than the younger students who may not be facing
these complex decisions. It is not clear, however, that age is a

salient component of alienation.

Ecological Variables & Outcomes of Alienation

Ecological variables were more associated with alienation than
were the individual variables. The regression analyses indicated that
the characteristics of the family and home were related to alienation
and empowerment in linear, rather than nonlinear, ways. The direction
of these relationships were generally unexpected.

For the classroom, increased innovation at school was the
strongest predictor of increased alienation. This was closely followed
by reduced levels of teacher control as a predictor of school

alienation. Perhaps the most alienated students were in classrooms

92

where teachers were giving students more control in the classroom.and
employing non—traditional methods and to engage the students in learning
and having a positive experience at school. This may be reflected in
the finding that the more alienated students are more likely to have
higher grade point averages and fewer days absent from school.

Questions still remain in relationship to this finding. It is
unclear why these students with higher levels of alienation would be
doing better in school, perhaps as a result of more control and
innovation in the classroom. This is particularly puzzling since items
in the alienation scale include feelings of not having control and
having other people running ones life. One direction to consider is
that the profile of the alienated student may actually include the high
achieving student who perceives that the educational system is failing.
These students may still excel in school and take advantage of school
activities, but still feel that the school system is not meeting their
expectations. Further research is needed to create a better describe
who the alienated students are and what contributes to this paradoxical
finding.

In the home increased family order and organization was very
strong in predicting family alienation. Decreased levels of family
control were moderate in predicting family alienation. The present
findings were incongruous with previous research. Other studies clearly
outlined the role of increased control as a predictor of alienation.
For this sample, it appears that highly ordered families, rather than
highly controlling families, produced alienating situations for the
children. From this data, the profile of the alienating family appears
to be one in which daily life is very routinized and carefully planned
but there is little guidance given to the children. It is conceivable
that the members of these families are very busy with little time to
invest in the emotional ties with children. This could also explain why
the more alienated students are more involved in family activities.

Children from these families may take advantage of opportunities to

93

spend time with the family to increase the connections to the family
that may be lacking in the ordinary routine. It would be important to
further investigate children's perceptions of their family life and how

that may contribute to a sense of psychological alienation.

Summary

moderate relationships were found among the various measures of
alienation, suggesting that alienation consists of individual and
environmental factors, although environmental factors were more
pronounced. Empowerment was also found to be highly contrasted with
alienation in such a way that it may be considered a polar opposite on
one continuum. The hypothesized personality and environment variables
were differential in predicting alienation. Older students were more
alienated than younger students in both settings. Gender was unrelated
to alienation. Both individual and ecological factors were considered
in two path models that appeared to fit the data. In these models
family and school characteristics contributed to alienation. This
setting-specific alienation was able to moderately predict academic
outcomes and activity levels at home and school. Several findings were
inconsistent with expectations and further investigation is warranted to
understand person-environment fit and students' perceptions of their

environments.

Recommendations
Recommendations for action and future research are offered based
on the present research. This initial study raises questions about the
dual role of personality and environments in the development of
alienation. Because alienation is related to both individual and
environmental factors, additional research is needed. The present

study also offers a framework for alienation interventions.

94

Research efforts to clarify some of these issues should center on
several issues. (1) Additional methods of assessments should be
employed. In-depth assessments of students and their environments are
necessary to gain a better profile of the alienated students, their
families and their peers. Case studies, interviews, and field
observations could be useful to gain a broader perspective of the
alienated students. (2) Further research should also ask students about
what their desired environments are in addition to describing the actual
environment. Perhaps alienation is more related to the divergence of
ideal versus actual environments, rather than on specific environmental
characteristics alone. (3) It would be useful to identify the
additional environments that are important in the lives of these youth
and assess whether students are alienated from these settings as well.
This would help to answer whether alienation is still a unitary
construct when is it measured in settings outside adult-oriented
environments such as the school and home. (4) Additional samples should
be assessed to determine if contextual factors unique to the current
sample help to explain the findings that were inconsistent with previous
research. Variables such as rural vs. urban, local economy type,
population size and population composition could help explain
differential meanings of alienation, family characteristics, and school
characteristics. Communities have differing expectations for youth and
their behaviors that may contribute to differences in alienation
findings with this sample.

To further explain this notion of global alienation, it would be
useful for researchers to observe levels of alienation in non-adult
settings. If adolescents are estranged from institutions governed by
adults, as a result of peer-group intensification or by simply being
disregarded by adults, than we may find that adolescents can be

alienated from school while simultaneously being empowered in peer group

95

settings. Further research into youth oriented or non-adult dominated
settings may provide additional answers to the question regarding
globalized alienation.

This question can also be addressed by employing a longitudinal
design to assess alienation over time. If alienation is more
characteristic of an individual personality, we would expect that to
remain stable over time. If, on the other hand, alienation diminishes
as youth enter meaningful adult roles, alienation can be attributed to
the context of adolescence. As suggested by developmentalists,
alienation may be specific to the period of adolescence due to ego
diffusion and self-realization. Further longitudinal research is
necessary to compare theories of alienation as a state versus a trait,
and to consider the role of adolescence as a time-specific variable.

Findings from this research can impact interventions designed to
ameliorate alienation. The present study suggests that increasing
empowerment is akin to alleviating alienation. Using the dimensions of
empowerment measured in this study, community workers should increase
the sense of powerfulness, meaningfulness, and role authenticity
experienced by the youth. Within the framework of Kurt Lewin, the
environment moderates the personal concept. Therefore, these components
should be addressed on an individual level and an environmental level.

Further intervention efforts based on the present study should
seek to give adolescents a more salient role as decision-maker in the
family, school, community, and society to reduce alienation. From a
review of studies to date, the author suggests that a reduction in
alienation would be expected when the following conditions occur: 1)
Youth increase their ability to self-govern, 2) Peer-group
intensification is moderated by exposure to adults and multiple age
groups, and 3) Adults disregard youth less as a result of mutually

positive interactions.

96

Recommendations to decrease adolescent alienation have centered on
these ideas of integration, both within peer groups and across age
groups, and increased decision-making (e.g., Calabrese, 1987a; Rafky,
1979; Newmann, 1981). Rafky (1979) and Zimmerman (1990) have laid a
foundation suggesting that increased political efficacy and community
involvement are effective in reduce alienation and promoting
empowerment. Such involvement may hold the key to improving adolescent
alienation across many settings. Calabrese (1987a) has also suggested
that adolescent alienation can be reduced by integrating adolescents
with multiple age groups while also alleviating the segregation between
peers. Additional recommendations offered by Calabrese include efforts
to assimilate adolescents into society to provide a sense of meaning and
contribution to society, and promote enfranchisement by giving
opportunities for adolescents to actively participate in the decision-
making processes that affect them. Similar, but more extensive
recommendations were offered by Newmann (1981). He has suggested that
the main goals in reducing adolescent alienation at school should be to
promote individuality, communality, and integration. To accomplish
these goals he has suggested that 1) students should have increased
voluntary choices so that "students and their parents voluntarily
develop and attend schools whose education purposes they share” (p.551),
2) schools develop greater clarity and consistency in their goals, 3)
school size be maximized to provide the resources of larger schools but
the sustained individual contact of smaller schools, 4) students be
provided opportunities to participate in school policy development and
management, 5) teachers and students have more cooperative and extensive
roles to increase trust and mutual, rather than top-down,
accountability, and that 6) school work should be more meaningful and
integrated with the unique skills and interests of individual students.

The recommendations of these authors, in combination with the
present research, suggest that families, educators, community leaders,

youth workers, and others interested in the welfare of youth take an

97
active role in promoting environments that are conducive to
participatory decision-making, recognition of individual contributions,

and meaningful relationships across multiple age groups and roles.

Appendices

Appendix A

98

Appendix.A

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Classroom Environment Scales19

Factor 1 - Classroom order items (correlation matrix)
11 19 27 5 21 9 7 15 23 30 9 25 31 F1 F2 F3 F4
11 41 49 44 32 14 21 11 11 26 18 13 6 4 64 33 31 12
19 49 59 53 31 7 18 18 15 25 21 10 16 8 77 28 38 18
27 44 53 48 27 7 22 10 7 17 21 5 18 ~1 69 28 26 12

Factor 2 ~ Classroom rule clarity items (correlation matrix)
11 19 27 5 21 9 7 15 23 30 9 25 31 F1 F2 F3 F4
5 32 31 27 31 32 48 28 13 36 28 18 18 8 43 55 50 24
21 14 7 7 32 35 51 12 -5 21 14 29 24 15 13 59 20 37
9 21 18 22 48 51 74 15 -7 23 28 30 30 22 29 87 28 44

Factor 3 - Classroom control items (correlation matrix)
11 19 27 5 21 9 7 15 23 30 9 25 31 F1 F2 F3 F4
7 11 18 10 28 12 15 25 29 29 22 7 12 5 19 27 50 13
15 11 15 7 13 -5 -7 29 20 26 19 ~14 ~11 ~11 16 0 45 ~19
23 26 25 17 36 21 23 29 26 42 39 11 17 18 32 40 65 25
30 18 21 21 28 14 28 22 19 39 25 6 10 13 29 35 50 16

Factor 4 - Classroom innovation items (correlation matrix)
11 19 27 5 21 9 7 15 23 30 9 25 31 F1 F2 F3 F4
9 13 10 5 18 29 30 7 ~14 11 6 56 42 41 13 38
25 6 16 18 18 24 30 12 ~11 17 10 42 31 30 19 36 13 56
31 4 8 ~1 8 15 22 5 -11 18 13 41 30 30 5 22 12 54

U"
s]
U"

Factor Correlations
11 19 27 5 21 9 7 15 23 30 9 25 31 F1 F2 F3 F4
F1 64 77 69 43 13 29 19 16 32 29 13 19 5 100 43 45 20
F2 33 28 28 55 59 87 27 0 40 35 38 36 22 43 100 49 52
F3 31 38 26 50 20 28 50 45 65 50 5 13 12 45 49 100 16
F4 12 18 12 24 37 44 13 ~19 25 16 75 56 54 20 52 16 100

Average correlation within clusters:
F1 .4866667
F2 .4366666
F3 .2733333
F4 .3766667

Standard score coefficient alphas:
F1 .740
F2 .699
F3 .601
F4 .644

 

19Itemnumbers correspond to questionnaire items and bold items denote item
loadings on the appropriate factor.

Appendix B

99

Appendix B

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Family Environment Scales2°

 

Factor 1 ~ Family organization (correlation matrix)

32 38 42 47 35 40 45 50 F1 F2
32 14 24 15 25 -6 17 -6 17 38 13
38 24 39 38 28 -14 0 -2 13 62 -2
42 15 38 29 29 -13 6 -8 13 53 -1
47 25 28 29 29 -2 16 8 26 53 28

Factor 2 - Family control (correlation matrix)
32 38 42 47 35 40 45 50 F1 F2
35 -6 ~14 ~13 -2 14 20 11 19 ~17 38
40 17 0 6 16 20 26 12 29 19 51
45 ~6 ~2 -8 8 11 12 7 15 -4 26
50 17 13 13 26 19 29 15 30 33 54

Factor Correlations
32 38 42 47 35 40 45 50 F1 F2
F1 38 62 53 53 ~17 19 ~4 33 100 18
F2 13 ~2 -1 28 38 51 26 54 18 100

Average correlation within clusters:
F1 .265
F1 .1766667

Standard score coefficient alphas:
F1 .591
F2 .462

 

2°Itemnumbers correspond to questionnaire items and bold items denote item
loadings on the appropriate factor.

Appendix C

100

Appendix C

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Dean Alienation Scale21

 

Factor 1 — Dean alienation (correlation matrix)
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59 60 F1
51 20 59 5 12 15 11 25 21 19 45
52 59 15 15 6 8 8 23 14 15 39

57 25 23 8 15 28 29 22 20 25 47
59 21 14 16 27 25 20 20 28 50 53
60 19 15 16 23 27 38 25 50 36 60

Factor Correlations
F1 45 39 32 40 47 51 47 53 60 100

Average correlation within cluster:
F1 .2122222

Standard score coefficient alpha:
F2 .708

 

1“Item numbers correspond to questionnaire items and bold items denote item.
loadings on the appropriate factor.

Appendix D

101

Appendix D

Confirmatory Factor Analysis of Alienation & Empowerment Scale22

School School Family Family
Alienation Empowerment Alienation Empowerment
(SA) (SE) (EA) (FE)

 

School Alienation Items

6 .63 —.47 .26 -.27
12 .60 ~.65 .39 -.42
16 .66 -.53 .27 -.30
20 .71 -.68 .38 -.35
26 .76 ~.61 .34 ~.29

 

School Empowerment Items

 

 

 

10 ~.47 .65 ~.24 .34
14 ~.36 .54 ~.28 .42
18 ~.49 .55 ~.21 .29
22 -.46 .61 -.34 .48
28 ~.74 .55 ~.25 .32
Family Alienation Items

34 .37 ~.35 .77 ~.69
37 .25 ~.28 .54 ~.52
43 .31 ~.21 .55 ~.50
48 .40 ~.43 .83 ~.74
49 .26 ~.21 .57 ~.39
Family Empowerment Items

33 ~.29 .45 —.57 .59
36 ~.38 .45 -.58 .74
44 -.34 .42 -.64 .74
Correlations among scales

(SA) .100 ~.87 .49 ~.49
(SE) ~.87 .100 ~.45 .64
(FA) .49 ~.45 .100 ~.87
(FE) -.49 .64 ~.87 .100
Average correlation within clusters:

F1 .451

F2 .337

F3 .424

F4 .4766667

Standard score coefficient alphas:

F1 .804
F2 .718
F3 .786
F4 .732

 

”Item.numbers correspond with number on questionnaire and bold items denote
item loadings on the appropriate factor.

Appendix E

102

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

nN.o 00.0: 0N.o o~.o n~.0 00.0I 00.0 aua>an<.Eah 000.H
n~.0 no.0: «v.0 va.0 0H.o 0H.0| 00.0 awn>auut com ooo.a
>0.0I na.o mu.0| 0H.on nH.0| v0.0 00.0 spasm Eon «no.0
no.0 00.0 ma.o hH.0 ma.o v0.0 00.0 codd< Sam Noe.o
0v.o: vN.o v~.o| NH.on «H.01 no.0 00.0 IOQEm com oar.0
vn.o 0H.oi 0N.o 0a.o mH.o no.0: 00.0 coda< com hoo.o
en.o «~.oi mN.o oa.o HH.0 «0.0 00.0 cond< coco noh.o
nH.o 0H.0i v0.0a 00.0: NH.0| No.0 00.0 >occH condo vvo.o
nN.o no.0: v0.0 no.0 no.0 no.0: 00.0 Honucou woman Hoo.0
00.0 HH.0| HH.0| No.0 v0.0: no.0 00.0 Odom onoao mmm.0
NH.0 no.0: 00.0 v~.0 vN.o no.0 00.0 novno nnoao ove.o
hH.0 00.0 Na.0l No.0 no.0 00.0 00.0 Honucoo Emu Nov.o
mm.H wo.o No.0 0.10 0H.o mo.OI 00.0 HOUnO Emu Hmm.o
oo.o oo.H nv.o| no.0 no.0 00.0 NH.0 noocoun< ooo.H
No.0 nv.0I oo.a nN.0I no.0! ETC! hN.OI (m0 ooo.a
wH.o 5.0.0 MN.OI oo.H no.0 no.0! 00.0 02 000.."
ma.o no.0 no.0: no.0 00.H no.0: No.0 ocnno 000.H
wo.on no.0 va.0l no.0! mo.on oo.H no.0 nova—00 000.."
00.0 NH.0 pN.0i 00.0 «0.0 no.0 oo.a vcoauom 000.H
noUnO Eflw moocomn< (mo oo< oomnu noncow UCOduom noaoom 6

 

 

 

conuoscouufi nou vouuonnoo uoaoom no coauodonnoonoucH

m 53:09?

103

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-.o no.0 oo.o 00.0 no.0: 00.0.. 5325004 Bah ooo.H
0H.o no.0! No.0I v0.0! OH.OI 00.0: %u«>«UQfl 80m ooo.H
3.0: .30.. n~.0| nn.0i 3.0: end 3095 Bob «no.0
no.0 3.0 8.0 ~10 00.0 pad: 00.32 Sum «no.0
hv.0l Hm.0I Nn.0I no.0: wm.on nH.o SOQEM com mHh.o
00.0 mm.o bd.o mn.o Hm.o $0.0: cmad< com hom.o
3.4 3.0 00.0 mad and mn.ou can: coco 02.0
HN.0 mm.H ma.o no.0 NN.o no.0 >occH nmaao vvo.o
no.0 mad not" 0v.0 210 :0 anacoo 23.8 30.0
mH.o mm.o 0v.o Mv.H «v.0 no.0 masm nmmao mmm.o
an.o NN.0 mv.o Nv.o mm.d wo.ou nuvno QQMHU Ov0.o
mn.0n no.0 3.0 00.0 00.0.. wan Honucoo Emu vao
on.0 nH.o MN.o no.0 Nd.o PH.o novno Emu Hmm.o
HN.0I 0H.0I Ho.OI HH.0| no.0: oo.o m00cmufl< ooo.a
0N.o v0.0: 00.0 HH.0I 00.0 NH.0I (m0 ooo.H
OH.0 00.0I no.0 No.0 vN.o No.0 0nd ooo.H
HH.0 NH.0I no.0 v0.0l vN.o Ho.o ovmnw ooo.H
No.0 No.0 H0.0I no.0 «0.0 00.0 novcoo ooo.H
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 Ucoaumm ooo.H
coda cmoo >occH unmao Honucoo nnmao oasm unsao noUnO cacao Honucou Emu noaoom U

 

 

“Divan—“003‘ HON UOHOOHHOU uflddom HO GOHUEHOHHOOHOUQH

:0 . uaou. a mason:

104

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

00.H v0.0 on.ol m~.o n~.o| 0N.0 >ua>auu<.5um 000.H
v0.0 00.H m~.0n nn.0 nn.ou v~.o Mun>nuu< com ooo.H
on.oi m~.o| en.a h0.oi v0.0 no.0: 3005a Emu an.0
n~.0 nn.o >0.on 0~.H on.0| no.0 co«n<.8om Nah.o
H~.0i nH.on «0.0 on.0n mn.n no.0: spasm com 0Hh.0
0~.o vm.o no.0: nv.o no.0: v~.H cond< com h00.o
NN.0 0H.0 hm.oi no.0 rv.0n 00.0 cona< coco moh.o
no.0 no.0: n~.on Ha.o «0.0- mn.o >ocCH ouoao vvo.o
00.0 «0.0: nN.0n ho.0 ~n.0n hH.0 Honucoo unwao H00.0
no.0 v0.0: nn.o| NH.0 no.0: mn.o onsm muono mmo.o
no.0: 0H.0i ha.ou >0.o on.0i an.0 noono woman ov>.0
00.0: 00.0: 0N.o 0H.ou nH.0 00.0: Honucoo Emu N0v.0
n~.0 n~.0 bo.on hw.o mv.0i vn.o noono sum amm.o
no.0: no.0: nH.o 00.0 vN.o mn.o| ooocomnd 000.H
0N0 «v.0 mN.0I 0.70 vm.0| 0N0 <00 000.4"
0N.0 vH.0 0H.0n en.o «n.0n on.o 00¢ ooo.n
nm.o ma.o nH.o| ma.0 «n.0u mH.o ooono 000.H
00.0: ma.0u v0.0 v0.0 no.0 no.0: noncoo 000.a
00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 Uconwnom 000...”
>un>nuo< Emu >un>nuo<.com zodem Emu conn<.Emm zodEm com conH¢.com noamom o
scandacouufl now vouoonnoo noesum Ho coauodonnounoucH
«6.96000 u Xavcognfl

 

Appendix F

105

Appendix F

Measures of.Alienation

 

Dean.Alienation

51.
52.
53.
54.

55.
56.

57.
58.

59.
60.

The world in which we live is basically a friendly place.*

People are just naturally friendly and helpful.*

I don't get to visit (meet with people) as often as I like.

There are so many decision that have to be made today that
sometimes I could just "blow up."

There is little chance for getting ahead in life unless you get a
break.

We're so regimented (structured into a routine) that there's not
much room for choice even in personal matters.

The future looks very dismal.

Everything is relative, and there just aren't any definite rules
to live by.

I often wonder what the meaning of life really is.

The only thing one can be sure of today is that we can be sure of
nothing.

Family Alienation

My family doesn't care what I think.

Nothing is important to me at home.

I can't be myself at home.

My parents do not let me make my own decisions.
I don't really make a difference in my family.
I feel like a fake when I'm around my family.

School Alienation

6.

12.
16.
20.
24.
26.

At school other people are running my life.

I don't really make a difference at school.

I can't be myself at school.

The people at my school don't care about what I think.
While I'm at school life seems to have no purpose.

I have to be somebody I'm not while I'm at school.

*Items have been reflected

Appendix G

106

Appendix G

Measures of Empowerment

Family Empowerment

33.
36.
41.
44.
46.

I fit in with my family.

I take an active role in making decisions in my family.

I don't play games with my family in order to fit in.

My opinions are important to my family.

I get excited thinking about the future while I'm talking with my
family.

School Empowerment

8.
10.
14.

18.
22.
28.

I have important things to do at school.

My opinions are important to the people around me in school.
When I am at school it seems that life is full of meaning and
purpose.

I fit in with the people around me at school.

I take an active role in making decisions at school.

.At school I can be who I want to be.

Appendix H

107

Appendix H

Measures of Classroom Environment

Order

4. This is a well organized class.*

11. Students are almost always quiet in this class.*
19. Students fool around a lot in this class.

27. This class is often in an uproar.

Rule Clarity

5. There is a clear set of rules for students to follow in this
class.*
13. Rules in this class seem to change a lot.

21. The teacher explains what will happen if a student breaks a rule.*
29. The teacher explains what the rules are.*

Teacher Control

7. There are very few rules to follow in this class

15. If a student breaks a rule in this class, she or he's sure to get
in trouble.*

23. The teacher is not very strict.

30. Students can get into trouble with the teacher for talking when
they're not supposed to.*

Innovation

9 New ideas are always being tried out here in class.*

17. What students do in class is very different on different days.*

25. New and different ways of teaching are not tried very often in
this class.

31. The teacher likes students to try unusual projects.*

*Items have been reflected

Appendix I

108

 

Appendix I
Measures of Family Environment
Order & Organization
32. Activities in our family are pretty carefully planned.*
38. We are generally very neat and orderly at home.*
42. It's often hard to find things when you need them in our
household.
47. Being on time is very important in our family.*
Control
35. Family members are rarely ordered around.
40. There are very few rules to follow in our family.

45. There is one family member at home who makes most of the
decisions.*
50. There are set ways of doing things at home.*

*Items have been reflected

Appendix J

109

Appendix J

Measures of Involvement

School Activities

61.
a.
b.

C.

9'

P'D'O ram

Which of the following activities do you enjoy at school?
Academic activities (such as debate, math, science club).
Volunteer helpers (such as school monitor, patrol, tutoring, per
counselors, office aid).

Helping with a fund—raising event (such as selling candy,
magazines, and other things to help raise money for the school).
.Athletic teams (such as volleyball, track, football, basketball,
cheerleading, etc.).

Musical activities (like band or choir).

Debate team, drama, or theater.

School clubs (like chess, computer, vocational, mathematics).
School newspaper or yearbook.

Student government.

Family Activities

62.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.

9.

Which of the following activities do you enjoy with your family?
Taking vacations.

Playing sports or games.

Going to athletic events.

Watching T.V. or videos.

Going to cultural events (such as museums, plays, etc.).

Being at family get-togethers (such as holiday celebrations,
family reunions, parties, etc.).

Going to social events (such as a picnic, party, club, festival,
etc.)

List of References

List of References

Albas, D., Albas, C., & McCluskey, K. (1978). Anomie, social class
and drinking behavior of high school students. Journal of Studies on
Alcohol, 39(5), 910-913.

 

 

Alessandri, S. M., & Wozniak, R. H. (1989). Perception of the
family environment and intrafamily agreement in belief concerning the
adolescent. Journal of Early Adolescence, 9(1-2), 67-81.

 

Avi-Itzhak, T. E. (1987). Organizational characteristics of
Israeli Arab secondary schools: Factors affecting student alienation
from school. The High School Journal, 70, 141-144.

Baumrind, D. (1987). A.developmental perspective on adolescent
risk taking in contemporary America. New Directions for Child
Development, 37, 93—125.

 

 

Boggiano, A. K., & Katz, P. (1991). Maladaptive achievement
patterns in students: The role of teachers' controlling strategies.
Journal of Social Issues, 47(4), 35-51.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1974). The origins of alienation. Scientific
American, 231 (2), 53-61.

 

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecology of human
development. American Psychologist, 32, 513-531.

Burbach, H. J. (1972, April). An empirical study of powerlessness
among high school students. The High School Journal, 343-354.

Calabrese, R. L. (1987a). Adolescence: A.growth period conducive
to alienation. Adolescence, 22, 929-938.

 

Calabrese, R. L. (1987b). A Comparative analysis of the effects of
alienation on public and private school females. The Journal of
Psychology, 121(3), 237-242.

 

 

Calabrese, R. L. (1988). The effects of family factors on levels
of adolescent alienation. The High School Journal, 71(4), 187-191.

Calabrese, R. L., & Schumer, H. (1986). The effects of service
activities on adolescent alienation. Adolescence, 21(83), 675-687.

 

Calabrese, R. L., & Seldin, C. (1986). Adolescent alienation: An
analysis of the female response to the secondary school environment. The
High School Journal, 69, 120-125.

 

Caplan, N., & Nelson, S. D. (1973). On being useful: The nature
and consequences of psychological research on social problems. American
Psychologist, 28(3), 199-211.

Coleman, J.S. (1961). The Adolescent Society. New York: Free
Press.

 

Dean, D. G. (1961). Alienation: Its meaning and measurement.
American Sociological Review, 26, 753- 758.

 

110

111

DeMan, A. F. (1982). Autonomy-control variation in child rearing
and level of alienation in young adults. The Journal of Psychology,
112, 71-78.

 

Dinning, W. D., & Berk, L. A. (1989). The children of alcoholics
screening test: Relationship to sex, family environments, and social
adjustment in adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(2), 335—
339.

 

Downs, A. C. (1990). Perceptions of physical appearance and
adolescents' social alienation. Psychological Reports, 67(3 Part 2),
1305-1306.

 

Eccles, J. S., Miller Buchanan, C., Flanagan, C., Fuligni, C. M., & Yee,
D. (1991). Control versus autonomy during early adolescence. Journal of
Social Issues, 47(4), 53-68.

 

 

Erikson, E. H. (1950). Childhood and Society. New York: Norton.

 

Farber, S. 5., Felner, R. D., & Primavera, J. (1985). Parental
separation/divorce and adolescents: An examination of factors mediating
adaptation. American Journal of Community Psycholggy, 13(2), 171-185.

Felner, R. D., Aber, M. S., Primavera, J., a Cauce, A. M. (1985).
Adaptation and vulnerability in high risk adolescents: An examination of
environmental mediators. American Journal of Community Psychology,
55(4), 365-379.

Fox, R., Rotatori, A. F., Macklin, F., Green, H., & Fox, T.
(1983). Socially maladjusted adolescents perceptions of their families.
Psychological Reports, 52, 831-834.

Friedrich, W. N., Reams, R., & Jacobs, J. H. (1988). Sex
differences in depression in early adolescents. Psychological Reports,
62, 475-481.

 

Fromm, E. (1964). Sane Society. In Sykes (Ed.). Alienation. (Vol.
1). New York: Braziller.

 

Galbo, J. J. (1983). Adolescents' perceptions of significant
adults. Adolescence, 18(70), 417-427.

 

Gladding, S. T. (1977). Psychological anomie and religious
identity in two adolescent populations. Psychological Reports, 41(2),
419-424.

 

Gleser, G., Winget, C., & Seligman, R. (1979). Content scaling of
affect in adolescent speech samples. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
2(3), 283-297.

Hartley, M. C., & Hoy, W. K. (1972). ”Openness" of school climate
and alienation of high school students. California Journal of
Educational Research, 23(1), 17-24.

Hendrix, V. L., Sederberg, C. H., Miller, V. L. (1990). Correlates
of commitment/alienation among high school seniors. Journal of Research
and Development in Education, 23(3), 129-135.

 

Holmgren, C., Fitzgerald, B. J., & Carman, R. s. (1983).
.Alienation and alcohol use by American Indian and Caucasian high school
students. The Journal of Social Psychology, 120(1), 139-140.

112

Hoy, W. K. (1972). Dimensions of alienation and characteristics of
public high schools. Interchange, 3, 38-50.

 

Hunter, J. E., & Cohen, S. H. (1969). PACKAGE: A.system of
computer routines for the analysis of correlational data. Educational
and Psycholggical Measurement, 29, 697-700.

 

 

Jackson, D. W. (1973). Alienation and identity-role diffusion in
late adolescence. The Journal of Psychology, 83, 251-255.

 

Jackson, D. W. (1974). Stage factors relating alienation and self-
role diffusion. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 5(2), 269-274.

 

Jones, W. Jr., (1977-78). Interaction effects of students, drugs
and alienation. Journal of Drug Education,,7(3), 271-278.

 

Kids count data book: Stategprofiles of child well-being. (1993).
Washington, D. C.: The Annie E. Casey Foundation a Center for the Study
of Social Policy.

 

Kids count in michigan 1993 data book: County profiles of child
and family well-being. (1993). Lansing, Michigan: Michigan League for
Human Services.

Kieffer, C.H. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A.developmental
perspective. Prevention in Human Services, 3, 9-36.

Kinkel R. J., Bailey, C. W., & Josef, N. C. (1989). Correlates of
adolescent suicide attempts: Alienation, drugs and social background.
Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 34(3), 85-96.

Kleinman, S. L., Handal, P. J., Enos, D., Searight, H. R., 5 Ross,
M. J. (1989). Relationship between perceived family climate and
adolescent adjustment. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 18(4), 351-
359.

Kulka, R. A., Kahle, L. R., & Klingel, D. M. (1982). Aggression,
deviance, and personality adaptation as antecedents and consequences of
alienation and involvement in high school. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 11(3), 261-279.

 

 

LaTorre, R. A., Yu, L., Fortin, L. & Marrache, M. (1983). Gender-
role adoption and sex as academic psychological risk factors. Sex Roles,
2(11), 1127-1136.

 

Lewin, K. (1935). A Dynamic Theory of Personality. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (1993). The efficacy of
psychological, educational, and behavioral treatment: Confirmation from
meta-analysis. American Psychologist, 48(12), 1181-1209.

Mackey, J., & Ahlgren, A. (1977). Dimensions of adolescent
alienation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1(2), 219-232.

Maddi, S. R. (1972). Personality Theories. rev. ed. Homewood, Ill:
Dorsey Press.

Madonna, 8., Bailey, G. K., & Wesley, A. L. (1990). Classroom
environment and locus of control in identifying high and low self-
concept in fourth- and fifth-graders. Psychological Reports, 66, 1152-
1154.

113

Margalit, M., & Eysenck, S. (1990). Prediction of coherence in
adolescence: Gender differences in social skills, personality, and
family climate. Journal of Research in Personality, 24, 510-521.

 

Miller, P. Y., & Simon, W. (1974). Adolescent sexual behavior:
Context and change. Social Problems, 22(1), 58-76.

 

Merton, R. (1968). Social structure and anomie. In M. Lefton
(Ed.), Approaches to deviance. New York: Appleton-Century Crofts.

Mohanty, N. (1984). Social and psychological correlates of
alienation among adolescents. Psychological Studies, 29(2), 147-151.

 

Moos, R. H., & Moos, B. S. (1981). Family Environment Scale
Manual. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

 

Nelson, G. (1984). The relationship between dnmensions of
classroom and family environments and the self-concept, satisfaction,
and achievement of grade 7 and 8 students. Journal of Community
Psychology, 12, 276-287.

Newmann, F. M. (1981). Reducing student alienation in high
schools: Implications of theory. Harvard Educational Review, 51(4), 546-
564.

 

Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. (2nd Ed.). New York:
McGraw—Hill.

 

Owie, I. (1988). Alienation and the use of psychogenic drugs among
adolescents in Nigeria: A report. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education,
55(2), 37-40.

Rafalides, M., & Hoy, W. (1971). Student Sense of alienation and
pupil control orientation of high schools. The High School Journal, 55,
101-111.

 

Rafky, D. (1979). School rebellion: A research note. Adolescence,
55(55), 451-464.

 

Rappaport, J. (1981). In praise of paradox: A.social policy of
empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psycholggy,
5, 1-25.

Reimanis, G. (1974). Anomie, crime, childhood memories, and
development of social interest. Journal of Individual Psychology,
55(1), 53-58.

Rode, A. (1971). Perceptions of parental behavior among alienated
adolescents. Adolescence, 6(21), 19-38.

Rogers, A. & Gilligan, C. (1988) Translating girls voices': Two
lan uages of development. Harvard University Graduate School of
Education, Harvard Project on the psychology of women and the
development of girls. 42-43

Schimek, J. G., & Milstein Meyer, R. (1975). Dimensions of
alienation and pathology. Psychological Reports, 37, 727-732.

Seeman, M. (1959). On the meaning of alienation. American
Sociological Review, 24, 783-791.

 

Shearin, W. (1982). The relationship between student alienation
and extent of faculty agreement on pupil control ideology. The High
School Journal, 66, 32-35.

 

114

Sinha, A. K., Singh, A. P., & Kumari, A. (1988). Parent evaluation
as a function of sex and alienation. Indian Journal of Current
Psychological Research, 3(1), 29-33.

 

Stanley, J. C. (1975). Intellectual precocity. The Journal of
Special Education, 9(1), 29-44.

 

 

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the
family relationship. In S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.). At the
Threshold: The Developing Adolescent. (pp. 255-276). Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

 

Trickett, E. J., & Moos, R. H. (1974). Classroom Environment
Scale. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychologists Press.

 

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics. (1992). Eggcher survey on safe, disciplined, and drgg-free
schools. In Digest of Education Statistics. In L. Schmittroth, Ed.
(1994). Statistical record of children. Detroit: Gale Research, p. 197.

 

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1993). Use of
selected substances in the past month by youths 12-17 years of age and
young adults 18-25 years of age according to age, sex, race, and
Hispanic origin: United States selected years 1974-1991. Healthy United
States 1992 and Healthy People 2000 Review. In L. Schmittroth, Ed.
(1994). Statistical record of children. Detroit: Gale Research, p. 310.

 

 

 

U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
(1992, August 30). Percent changes in juvenile arrest rates for crimes
related to violence, United States, 1990 over 1980. Crime in the United
§tates 1991: Uniform Crime Reports, Table 5.1,,p.289. In L. Schmittroth,
Ed. (1994). Statistical record of children. Detroit: Gale Research, p.
793.

 

 

 

Verma, B. P. (1990). Alienation in relation to academic
achievement of adolescents. Indiana Journal of Psychometry and
Education, 21(1), 29-35.

 

 

Warner, R., & Hansen, J. (1970). The relationship between
alienation and other demographic variables among high school students.
The High School Journal, 54, 202-210.

 

Wilkerson, J., Protinsky, H. D. Jr., Maxwell, J. W., & Lentner, M.
(1982). Alienation and ego identity in adolescents. Adolescence, 17(65),
133-139.

 

Wright, S., & Cowen, E. L. (1982). Student perception of school
environment and its relationship to mood, achievement, popularity, and
adjustment. American Journal of Community Psychology, 10(6), 1982.

Wynne, E. (1978). Behind the discipline problem: Youth suicide as
a measure of alienation. Phi Delta Kappan, 59, 307-315.

Young, T. J. (1985). Adolescent suicide: The clinical
manifestation of alienation. The High School Journal, 69, 55-60.

 

Zimmerman, M. A. (1990). Toward a theory of learned hopefulness: A
structural model analysis of participation and empowerment. Journal of
Research in Personality, 24, 71-86.

 

 

Zimmerman, M..A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation,
perceived control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 16(5), 725-750.

115

Zimmerman, M. A., Israel, B. A. Schulz, A., & Checkoway, B.
(1992). Further explorations in empowerment theory: An empirical
analysis of psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 20(6), 707-728.

 

 

"Iiitttlttitttttilttt“